we have been snowing the senate relations committee here on c-span 3. mike pompeo facing questions on his nomination to be secretary of state. you can watch the hearing again tonight in primetime, 9:00 p.m. eastern. we will have that over on our companion network, c-span. president trump tweeting good luck to the nominee earlier today saying he will be a great secretary of state. going to show the hearing now starting from this morning when the committee heard from supporters of the nominee. the nominee also served in congress representing kansas, and we begin with former kansas senator bob dole. for more than a decade i have known mike first as a friend and a business leader than a congressional colleague

and most recently as the leader of our intelligence community. at home kansas knows mike as a family man, a devoted husband to susan and father to nick, both of whom are here, and i know how proud you are. they know him as a man of integrity and honesty of hard work and perseverance. he built a successful business, understood the responsibility of maintaining a payroll and helped to bring job growth and prosperity to wichita kansas. they know him to have kansas common sense and to be plane and spoken to tell it like it is. senator dole and i might share a little bit of that, too. they know him as a statesman, a man who listens to others, who works well with people and who can negotiation solutions in a very effective manner. given these qualities, i believe mike pompeo's next challenge in

the troubled and tumultuous world is a challenge for which he is best suited. mike will be forthright, he will be forceful, and he will be thoughtful, and it will give the president and those in congress candid counsel. mike is army strong. he graduated at the top of his class at west point and then served as a calvary officer patrolling the iron curtain before the fall of the berlin wall. after completing his military service, he attended harvard law school where he was an editor of the harvard law review. mike understands the law. after practicing law, mike returned to his mother's roots in south central kansas running successful businesses in wichita

before running for congress in 2010. he came to washington with a very strong desire to serve the people of the fourth district and the rest of our state and. he sought a seat on the house intelligence committee at a time when intelligence-gathering methods were under fire before he went on to lead the central intelligence agency as i told my good friend and chairman richard burr and my colleagues on the intelligence committee last year, mike pompeo understands and respects the role of congress and the need for vigorous oversight. i say to those who serve our country here and in washington and at diplomatic posts around the world mike pompeo will work hard to earn your trust. he will seek to build bridges, to rely upon expertise, to

debate and to discuss but always, always with respect. whether it's managing crises in syria or north korea, complex relationships with russia or china or humanitarian disasters in myanmar or yemen, mike will represent american ideals and values back by the strength of leadership of the free world. history has shown us time and again that we cannot sit back and wait given the most serious challenges we face in the world in the role our nation plays. wherever there is a void the world pays a price. >> this man is no diplomat! this man is no diplomat! warmonger! >> please remove --

[ inaudible ] >> he's with the wars in the cia. the war we want to prevent, we want to have gentleness, people that discuss and don't kill other people. i was in the u.s. army for 29 years, i was a u.s. diplomat for 16 years. no war diplomats. >> senator roberts, i'm sure that happens regarding soybeans in the ag committee often. >> it may happen with me and the president when i talk to him about all of the tariffs that we're going to talk about this morning. [ laughter ] i was right in the middle of the best part, too, i said wherever there's a void the world pays a price, i guess we just did. wherever there is a void the world pays a price. we need mike pompeo at the state department and we need him now. it's my hope this committee and the senate will proceed with a swift confirmation for the president's nominee.

i know mike pompeo will serve us proudly. it's now a privilege and honor to turn to my mentor, my friend and recent congressional gold medal recipient, senator bob dole. >> well, nice to see all you people up there. i can't see very well, so you look good. [ laughter ] >> you look very good and we're glad to have you here. >> well, one thing about mike pompeo, and i want to welcome susan and nick, he'll hit the ground running. he knows the territory, he knows the people. i got acquainted with them as cia director so he's ready to go and he will be our top diplomat and what we would like to urge is quick confirmation because he

is needed by the president and the rest of us who live in this wonderful country. mike pompeo, i don't know, he's just a brilliant guy top of his class at west point, businessman, congressman, father, husband and all those things added up with the experience he has he's ready to go and we thank you for holding this hearing. >> thank you so much and all of us are thrilled to have you here and i'm so glad you were honored the way you were recently in the capital, thank you for sharing your time with us, senator burr who chairs the intelligence

committee. >> mr. chairman, ranking member and to my colleagues. the advantage to going last for any nominee is you have heard everything about that nominee. and then there's mike pompeo. because the story goes on past that one has to ask what makes a great leader and you've heard a personal story about mike pompeo that if you saw those things you would say here's a great candidate, here's a great nominee. west point as a teenager, first in his class, a military leader, a lawyer from harvard, picked for the harvard law review, successful business, served three terms, representing people from kansas and when asked responded and took i think the toughest job at the toughest time and that was director of the cia. now during his confirmation hearing i asked mike to lead the cia in an ethical, moral and legal manner. and i'm here to tell you he did exactly that. mike's hon honorably and

represented the employees of the cia and i think what we need right now is an individual that can bond those great diplomats within the state department while carrying out the message of this administration's policies abroad mike's been responsive and transparent with the intelligence committee and more it importantly has always spoken the truth. mike's intellectual rigor, his honorable service and his outstanding judgment make him a natural fit for the department of state. now, what i want you to take away from this is mike pompeo is a good man. and i want to ask you and i want

to ask all our colleagues in the senate if there's ever one where you put politics aside, here it is. mike exemplifies talent and when we look at nominees sent by an administration, we look for somebody that we're proud of. we look for somebody that has the talent to do the job correctly. i would suggest to you that mike pompeo represents everything that we pray in a nominee that they would have. and that is we go forward, we've got an opportunity to say to those young people around this country that one day we they want to give back to their country that, yeah, your background does matter. we want the best, we want the brightest, we want the ones that

are most committed to do it and we have an opportunity in mike pompeo to select and confirm an individual that i thinks speaks for generations to come. i thank the committee for their indulgence, thank you, mr. chairman. >> we thank you all three of you having people that we respect so much here before us. we appreciate. we know you have other business to take care of. you're welcome to stay but you cannot stay there. so we bring the witness forward. while we're reorganizing and senator dole thank you for being here, i want to recognize the fact that ambassador haley is joining us. i haven't seen her yet in the audience. thank you for being here. director mike pompeo, we welcome you today and thank you for your willingness to serve our country yet again, this time in the role of secretary of state we are glad your family is here with you and we extend to them our

thanks that your service requires of them. you have been nominated by the president at a very important time in our nation's history. our country's standing in the world has been on the decline over the past decade or more and that certainly continues. throughout the 20th century, our allies viewed the united states as a reliable partner and a source of stability. a friend whose ideals and leadership made our world a better place. and fortunately today we are not counted on as we once were. the chasm between what our leaders say and the actions that they take can have a devastating impact. i think about where syria would be today had we done what we said in 2013 when the opposition posed a significant threat to the regime. assad crossed the redline, used chemical weapons and we did nothing. the loss of momentum was palpable. our inconsistencies have created vacuums that are being eagerly filled by those who do not share our values. when the leader of our country speaks with the full might of the most powerful military in

the world, the world has ever known behind him, he must choose his words carefully his words and actions have global ramifications and send a signal to both our foes and allies regarding our level of commitment to long standing alliances, our desire for trade relationships and our belief in the ideals we claim to embody. but while at times the president may act or speak impulsively, we have also seen that good counsel has led the president to evolve from my perspective to a much better place on a number of important issues. i believe the next secretary of state must continue to provide such counsel even when it's difficult. if confirmed, you must continue to provide advice to the president that allows them to view a given situation wholistically and not make decisions that focus on the impact to one domestic group or foreign government. any president has numerous voices from both inside and outside the white house vying for his attention. an effective secretary of state must be able to prioritize the

issues for the president and attempt to drown out the noise and chaos that can so often distract and bog down the leader of the free world from making sound and informed decisions. i know that you have developed a close relationship with the president and i believe that relationship could well serve you if you're confirmed as secretary of state. however many strong voices have been terminated or resigned that's why i think it's fair for members to ask whether your relationship is rooted in a candid, healthy give-and-take dynamic or whether it's based on deferential willingness to go along to get along. americans often think of the secretary of state solely in his

or her capacity as our chief diplomat racing around the world to broker compromise, prevent war or negotiate treaties, and no doubt your success as a diplomat, as you well know, is key to keeping our men and women in uniform that we fresh injury much out of harm's way. while all of that is true, this position also requires the person occupying the office to be every bit a manager as a diplomatic envoy. the secretary must effectively manage multibillion dollar budgets and a work force of tens of thousands. this is the part of the job that isn't flashy and doesn't usually get much media attention but is just as important as any aspect of the secretary's duties. in order to execute foreign policy effectively the secretary must have a fully functional department behind him. during your tenure at the cia, you demonstrated that you understand the need for having a

functioning work force. i am hopeful that if confirmed you will make it a priority to fill those key positions and to work to earn the trust of the career public servants in both the departments' foreign and civil service. not only will the next secretary of state have to adapt to a unique decision-making process and have significant management issues to tackle but there are numerous crucial policy issues around the world that must be addressed. while the obstacles we face are daunting, they are by no means insurmountable. the history of american foreign policy is filled with secretaries of state who have changed the world for the better in the face of adversity. in fact, those who have gone

down in history as great are those who dealt with the greatest challenges. when faced with what seemed like impossible odds they rose to the occasion. that is what when we are add our best we do as americans and it's my hope that you will do the same if confirmed. examining the nom their to be secretary of state is one of the most solemn duties of this committee. you will be asked about your vision for the department of state. thank you for your willingness to serve and i look forward to your testimony and answers and with that i'll turn to our distinguished ranking member and my friend, bob menendez. >> welcome, mr. pompeo. this comes after a year and a half of reckoning with president trump's approach to foreign policy which left our allies confused and our adversaries

emboldened. it's an approach driven by impulse not strategy. president trump's america first policies have left america isolated and alone in the midst of unprecedented challenges, challenges from an aggressive russia who seeks to undermine the international order we helped to create after world war ii that brought peace and stability to the world for three quarters of a century. a destabilized middle east, the ongoing threat of terrorism, an emboldened china asserting itself in the south china sea militarily and economically here in the western hemisphere. assad, a butcher who has used chemical weapons against innocent civilians marx duro tightening his grip on his regime, starving venezuelans in one of the most oil-rich countries in the world. meanwhile, president trump has abandoned the very democratic

values and ideals that have shaped america's role as a beacon to our friends and as a bulwark against a world in crisis. i was pleased to hear you say earlier this week that you planned to support the career public servants at the state department. the problem is, we have an emaciated state department under this administration. let me be clear. members of this committee expect every secretary of state to champion the department and its mission, we expect you to advocate for robust diplomacy as the first line of defense against sending our sons and daughters into war and to do that we need a strong diplomatic corps an an a.i. d. that enhances our foreign policy. as cia director your job was to conduct covert operations and collect, evaluate and provide intelligence to policymakers,

including the president. as the secretary of state you will not be provided intelligence for other people to use to make policy, you will be the person executing the foreign policy of the united states of america. many countries in the world already think the state department is an extension of the cia so how you conduct yourself moving forward will be critical to our diplomacy. as the senate considers your nomination to be the president's top foreign policy adviser, we must ask will you enable president trump's worst instincts? will you advocate for long-term strategies to protect u.s. national security and interest or will you be lurching from crisis to crisis as we've seen under this administration? will you advocate for robust diplomacy or will you take america into unnecessary and will you stand up to president trump and say no you're wrong in

that view, mr. president, or will you be a yes man? americans are scared that this president, the commander in chaos, will lead them into war. this is not a time for taunts and tweets. on russia, the intelligence community and our military leaders have repeatedly stated that russia poses ongoing threats to the united states national security and our allies, yet president trump cannot bring himself to even acknowledge the russian threat. he says a court-granted search warrant is an attack on our country but cannot call out russian cyber attacks on our democracy. we're pushed the president to put together a real strategy to counter russian aggression. we urge the president to implement the mandatory sanctions that congress overwhelmingly passed and he has failed to implement. north korea poses a real and nuclear threat to the united states, our citizens and our allies. the american people are deeply worried by an erratic president who uses schoolboy taunts when talking about nuclear war. a meeting is not a strategy. preventing nuclear war requires thoughtful diplomacy, preparation, clear objectives. will you enable the voices

around the president seeking to go to war or will you press for an empowered diplomatic path to protect the safety of all americans. turning to iran, everyone knows i voted against the iran nuclear deal and was vociferous about it but i share the assessment of your counterparts across national security agencies that it does not serve the united states national security interest to unilaterally withdraw from the deal absent a strategy for what will replace it and how to get our allies to join us in countering iran's malign activity outside of the nuclear program and deal with the nuclear portfolio. once again this president is hurling towards a crisis he's creating unnecessary risk with the allies we need to confront iran so i ask again, mr. director, what's your plan? will you be a voice of reason or will you support the president's worst instincts? if confirmed as the secretary of state, you will no longer be operating in the shadows of

american foreign policy, you will be the face and voice of the united states, the representers not just of a bombastic president but the american people. will you champion our values when the president embraces dictators who quash the free press or suggest doing away with elections, will you stay silent? when the president and those closest to him balk at the idea of diplomacy and instead advocate unnecessary wars that will cost the blood of our children and the treasure of our coffers, will you go along with them? or, as our nation's top diplomat, will you champion diplomacy and offer actual plans? will you stand up to president trump and advice him differently when he's wrong or will you be a yes man? so mr. director, i look forward to hearing your testimony, the answer to these questions and others as we move along. thanks for the opportunity to appear here today as the nominee to be the united states secretary of state. i am grateful to each of you for the attention you have given us for the past weeks, so many of you have given so much time and

there are so many global matters before us i'm deeply appreciative of it. should i be confirmed, this regular contact will be continues. you can talk to senator burr, i worked at that diligently. as a former member of congress, i understand the importance of that continued relationship and advice that comes from outside of the executive branch. i'd like to take a moment to thank secretary tillerson for his service to the united states and his commitment to the smooth transition and i'd like to thank secretary sullivan for him serving in the gap. a personal thank you also to every living former secretary of state. they each took my call. they found time to spend. i've talked to many of them multiple times, democrats and republicans from secretary kissinger to secretary kerry were kind enough to visit me and share with me their thoughts on how if i'm confirmed i would but most likely to be a successful secretary of state and if you know me at all, the two people sitting to my right rear provide my ballast. susan keeps reminding me of

family issues that not only affect the pompeos but the family agency as well. keeps me humble, keeps my sense of humor alive. since i left the private sector and entered public service, they've had lots of opportunities to tell me to step back but they haven't. they are incredibly supportive of my efforts to serve america. to the men and women of the cia to say it's been an honor, privilege and joy doesn't do justice to the past 15 months. i've demanded a lot of you, i've pushed responsibility and authority down to each and every one of you and along with that required accountability and you, the warriors of the cia have delivered for america, for president trump and for me. perhaps the highest compliments of our work come from our adversaries who fear and are in awe of the institution and from our partner services around the world asking for more training, more intelligence, more joint operations than ever.

if i'm confirmed, that won't be good-bye because no matter how this nomination process ends i will be with you, i will support you and i will admire you. finally i want to thank the president for his confidence and trust in me. my job at the cia has been to deliver data and facts to help inform he and other senior policymakers in america. i'm honored he selected me to help carry out those decisions as his chief diplomat. senators, if i'm confirmedly raise my hand and swear an oath to defend our constitution for the seventh time in my life. the first time i was 18 years old, a west point cadet. with this oath i'll swear to defended the exceptionals from destroying our constitution which provides for obligation to engage in diplomacy and model the very best of america to the world. make no mistake, america is uniquely blessed and with those blessings comes a duty to lead.

as i have argued throughout my time in public service if we do not lead for democracy, prosperity and human rights around the world who will. no other nation is equipped with the same blend of power and principle. two things i want to try to answer for you in the time i have remaining, who is mike pompeo and who are his thoughts and plans to lead the state department. i'm sure we will get to talk about that some more as well. i was born in orange, california, we didn't have a whole lot of money in my family, but i enjoyed school and my brother and sister i had all had fun learning. when i was a teenager i was employee of the month at baskin robbins not once, but twice. i am a movie buff, i have a soft spot for my golden retrievers, i love meatballs that i make with my dad's recipe and i enjoyed being a fifth grade sunday schoolteachers for kids that just didn't want to sit still. although he will dispute this, i can beat my son in corn hole every day. i love revolutionary war history, country music, show tunes and college basketball.

but it was my appointment at the united states military academy that changed my life. it was when i traveled it was the first time i had ever been east of the mississippi river. i have seen some describe my leadership style as blue collar. fair enough. i am not afraid to get my hands dirty and you will seldom find my ensconced on the senior level of a building. i are prefer face-to-face as opposed to e-mail. i don't hold grudges, i work towards a mission and i will always make room for student programs and youth groups. they are what will set our nation on its correct course for our future. just this past monday i got a swear in a big group of officers, it was always a very special moment, this one was very unique. let me turn to how i intend to work as the secretary of state if i'm confirmed.

throughout my time in congress and cia i have met hundreds of state department employees, i know them and in the past few weeks i have had a chance to meet dozens and dozens more in briefings to a person they expressed to me their hope to be empowered in their roles and to have a clear understanding of the president's mission. that will be my first priority. they've also shared how demoralizing it is to have some vacancies and frankly many of them said not to feel relevant. i will do my part to end those vacancies, i will need your help, and i will work every day to provide dedicated leadership and convey my faith in their work. their professionalism. just as i've done with the workforce at the central intelligence agency. when i took over as a director of cia i just completed a massive restructuring. immediately after my arrival i began speaking at every meeting, every conversation about the agency's mission. we have these -- i talked about commanders in ten. we do these small i think so this, called meet with mike, not an original name, but we gather up the first 50 to come talk to me so that i have a chance to listen to them. i wanted to know -- them to know what the president america's desire was for them and i wanted them to understand that i was depending on them.

and you should know when the team needed additional resources i defended them. i asked for them. i demanded them and the president so long as he found value never hesitated to provide them. i was able to persuade him. with your help i will do the same thing at the department of state. you have my commitment, too, with respect to this, i will work with each of you to fill the vacancies that are at the state department. this is critical to strengthening the finest diplomatic core in the world and america and the world needs us to be that. second thing i'd like to highlight is workforces and their culture, i will spend a lot of time on this. it's important, i will proceed on but without getting that part right if the team doesn't understand the mission and isn't working towards the same goal it's incredibly difficult to think you would achieve it. i've always done that. when i've traveled as part of the agency i've met with state department officials and my own team and spoke with them about the things i would demand of them, what i would permit them do and hold them accountable to that desk.

i went to a location the housing for officers was simply inadequate, none of you have allowed your families to be there. i went and spoke with the ambassador and told him it needed to be fixed. i wanted the state department families and ours to know that we cared about them enough to provide living quarters that were sufficient for americans. and you should know i believe deeply the state department's workforce must be diverse in the same work i worked for the cia, diverse in race, religion, background and work, i will work to achieve that diversity just as i have done in my current role, by focusing on the motion and demanding that every team member be treated equally with dignity and respect. and i will listen. i had an old crusty sergeant first class when i was a brand-new second lieutenant said if you will just shut up and listen for a bit your life will

be a whole hell of a lot better. he was right about that. he taught me a heck of a lot how to be a good platoon leader. i intend to do that with the talented people that reside at the state department. let me talk a little bit about the work itself. by definition the job description of secretary of state is to serve as the president's chief foreign affairs adviser. this was driven home to me in those conversations with every former secretary of state to a person they were remarkably consistent by saying the job number one is to represent the president. for me this means building substantial relationships with our allies, relationships that president trump and i can utilize for tough conversations and productive cooperation. it also means working with our adversaries where needed to make clear objectives and let them know the means by which we intend to achieve them. i'm fortunate to have a sizable head start. as many as a third of the days with the agency i was engaged

with foreign counterparts. i have led the agency to forge stronger relationships with those partners in the middle east, europe, africa and latin america. i have traveled to these regions to demonstrate the commitment that america has to working as their partners. i have also met some folks who didn't share many of our objectives, i have tried to find and asked my team to find narrow slivers of common ground where we can work together to deliver the results that america needs us to. representing america also calls promoting america's ideals, values and priorities because they ultimately determine the trajectory of geopolitics and we need to do that well. you know, i will close here as i'm approaching the five minutes. you should know that i have been an enormous beneficiary in my life of some of the most remarkable diplomatic achievements in american history. i served as senator robert spoke about, i served on the border between east and west germany and i watched diplomats from both parties achieve an outcome against the soviet union and the

communist east that prevented my team from having ever to conduct the battle which we prepared for every day. it was remarkable work from foreign service officers over these many years. i thank them for that. it was the right approach, it was an approach that worked for america. i know some of you have read the story is i'm a hawk, i'm a hard liner or, you know, i read that and there's no one as you just heard in what i described there's no one like someone who served in uniform who understands the value of diplomacy and the terror and tragedy that is war like someone who has served in uniform. it's the last resort, it must always be so. i intend to work to achieve the president's policies with diplomacy rather by sending our young men and women to war. know that i'm serving a president who feels the same way and that while the military balance of power you all did good work to assist us in

standing to build our military to be the finest in the world. it can set the stage and create leverage but the best outcomes are always won at the diplomatic table. you know, america's diplomatic engagement, political engagement, foreign policy engagement has always been a big topic of debate, i'm sure we will debate vigorously today. i've been reminded the carrying out of foreign policy, the actions that america does make it real. it is a matter of duty to get it right. while we might agree to disagree today on what or the how of global involvement, we rarely disagree on why. it's to defend the safety of our families, the prosperity of our nation and the survival of freedom in the world. diplomacy gives us the chance to achieve these goals peacefully and i thank you for the time, senator corker. the director of the washington post reported last year, you and the director of

national intelligence attended a briefing at the white house with officials from several government agencies. the article says, quote, as the briefing was wrapping up, trump asked everyone to leave the room except for coates and cia director pompeo. the president then started complaining about the fbi investigation and comey's handling of it, saying officials familiar with the accounts coates gave to associates. two days earlier comey had confirmed in a congressional hearing that the bureau of probing whether trump's campaign coordinated with russia during the 2016 race. after the encounter coates discussed the conversation with other officials and decided that intervening with comey as trump had suggested would be inappropriate according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal matters. that's the end of the quote. so, director, this account strongly suggests that the president asked you and director coates to interfere with then

fbi director comey's investigations into the trump campaign's contacts with russia. did -- what did president trump say to you and director coates in that meeting? >> senator, i'm not going to talk about the conversations the president and i had. i think -- i think in this setting it's appropriate for a president to have an opportunity to talk with his senior leaders, i will do that throughout the day, but i will tell you this, the article's suggestion that he asked me to do anything that was improper is false. >> did he ask you to do anything as it relates to that investigation? >> senator, i don't recall. i don't recall what he asked me that day precisely, but i have to tell you i'm with the president an awful lot. he has never asked me to do anything that i considered remotely improper. >> when you say you are not going to talk about that conversation, you're not asserting executive privilege, are you? >> no, senator. i believe and i think you will agree we will talk about foreign policy issues, we will talk

about -- >> this has a connotation of foreign policy because this is about russia and so at the end of the day understanding how you responded, what you will do as we're looking at mandatory sanctions that the administration has yet to impose, looking at how we're going to deal with a russia that not only sought to affect our last elections but is doing so even as we speak both at here, home and across the world. those are substantive questions. >> yes, senator. >> it's not for me simply a question of interest, it's a question of understanding what you were asked, how you responded and what you did. >> you talked about the important policy issues. i'm happy to talk about this administration's work on russia, i'm happy to talk about our work on sanctions if that's what you -- if that was your question. >> did president trump ever discuss the fbi or special counsel russia's investigation with you? >> senator, again, i'm not going to talk about private conversations i have had with the president. >> so whenever you come if you were to be confirmed in the

future and we're going to try to talk about foreign policy and we ask you where is the president at or this or that -- >> senator, i'm happy to answer questions about our administration's policies, the two, that we're doing. you're asking about conversations you should know, senator, as well, i have provided -- i spoke with special counsel mueller who interviewed me, requested an interview, i cooperated. your colleagues on the senate intelligence committee have asked for information from me and from the central intelligence agency as the house select committee on intelligence, i think the leaders of those two organizations in a bipartisan way would say i've been cooperative and -- >> so you have spoken to special counsel mueller. >> yes, that's correct. >> and what was the subject of the conversation? >> senator, i'm not going to speak to that. >> did the special counsel tell you not to speak about these things? >> senator, i have cooperated with multiple investigations while the investigation continues i think that's the appropriate way to approach it and you should know and no one here today should take away any -- because of the fact that i don't want to speak out, there should be no negative inferences with respect to anything or for that matter positive inferences about the fact that i think it's most important that while these investigations continue i not speak to the conversations i

have had with the various investigative bodies. >> i'm sure that if i asked director mueller -- i mean, special counsel mueller a simple question whether you were told you couldn't, i don't think he would say you couldn't so it's your choice that you are not seeking to do so and for me these questions being answered truthfully in a forthcoming way are critically important because it goes to the very essence of how you approach one of the most critical issues that we have and your unwillingness to speak to it is troubling to me. let me ask you this: president trump was repeatedly said that, quote, getting along with russia is a good thing, unquote. yesterday he tweeted a, quote, our relationship with russia is worse now than it has ever been. there is no reason for that. he indicated he would like to help russia with its economy. what behavior, if any, has the kremlin shown that indicates it wants to get along with the united states or our allies? >> senator, this administration has taken a series of actions to push back -- >> that's not my question. let's start with my question. >> senator -- >> my question is what behavior

has the kremlin shown that it indicates it wants to get along with the united states? is there any? please share it with me? >> i take a back seat to no one with my threat that is presented from america to russia. if i am confirmed as a secretary of state i can assure you this administration will continue as it has for the past 15 months to take real actions to push pack, to reset the deterrent's relationship with respect to russia. >> let's talk about that because i see that's in your written statement and you suggested there is a robust response to russia. on february 27th admiral mike rogers the head of the national security administration and u.s. cyber command warned the senate armed services committee that the trump administration has not done enough to stop the russians. quote, i believe that president putin has clearly come to the conclusion that there's little price to pay here and that, therefore, he can continue his activity. on april 3rd the outgoing national security adviser general h.r. mcmaster said and i quote we have failed to impose sufficient costs on russia and that the kremlin's confidence is

growing. and then for your reference here are a series of mandatory provisions under the countering america's adversaries through sanctions act part which i helped right which have not been implemented by the administration, section 225 mandatory sanctions related to special russian crude oil products, 226 mandatory sanctions with respect to russia and other foreign financial institutions, section 228 mandatory sanctions with respect to certain transactions with foreign sanctions evaders and serious human rights abusers in the russian federation, section 231 mandatory sanctions with respect to persons engaging in transactions with the intelligence and defense sectors of the government and russian federation. there are more. that's not a robust response to russia. >> thank you. before i turn to senator risch i

want to welcome senator king. i would like for the people to maine to know he does this often when things are serious, he comes and actually listens to the testimony. we thank you for doing so, senator risch. >> thank you very much. mike, thank you for your service at intel at the cia. that's been great for those of you on the committee, senator rubio and i are the only two that have the cross-pollination, we have the great privilege of serving on the intel committee and we hear from the heads of all of the 17 agencies that we have that engage in intelligence matters and over the years, over the ten years i've been on it, we have had numerous heads of agencies come in and sometimes frankly we feel we're getting stiff armed. i can tell all of you on this committee that mike pompeo has been candid when he came in before the intel committee, he has been helpful and he has

always been straightforward with us. so thank you for your service. you have earned my respect in that regard and you will certainly get my vote for confirmation on this job. i think that that service as head of the cia is going to serve you very well as you know. it served me very well on this committee. having some of that in depth knowledge that you don't necessarily get in the public media. being secretary of state is unique i think as far as the agency heads are concerned, you first of all have the public duties and it's been referenced here, it's a very high profile job in that you go around the world being the face of america and doing the kinds of things that you do. and your predecessor was very good at that. i thought he carried the flag as well as anyone could carry it.

the job -- this job, however, as secretary of state has a couple other facets to it that you have to do at the same time and it's hard to keep all the balls in the air. one of them of course is being part of the management team with the president as far as managing really the united states. thirdly, and i think very importantly, is the actual management of the bureaucracy. and i don't use bureaucracy here in a pejorative way. the thousands of men and women who are in foreign service who are working with the state department make us proud every day, they are bipartisan, they do a great job. i think that there has been a fair amount of criticism, everyone knows, that your predecessor did have -- was hampered a bit because he didn't have some of those jobs filled that are so important there and we all know that in order to manage an agency like that you have got to have really good solid people around you to be able to make the bureaucracy work in the things that aren't the high profile meetings, what have you around the world. could you give us your thoughts,

give us -- all of us your thoughts on how you're going to go about that, because it needs some work. there is no question about it and it's going to make your job better, it's going to make the state department work better. could you give us your thoughts on that. >> senator, first, thank you for your kind words. i did as a cia director tried to work closely with you and provide you everything you have asked for in a timely fashion. we've worked diligently at that. i promise to do that with this committee as well. with respect to building a team out of the state department, this is something i've done multiple times in my life, i did it as a tank platoon leader, i did it as a calvary troop, did it for two small businesses in kansas and then i worked hard at it at cia. i will leave to others to judge the success, but i did it because i knew it was an imperative.

at state department there are too many holes, too many vacancies, too many unfilled positions, when that happens everyone is stretched thin in the subject matter expertise that is needed to deliver america's diplomacy around the world, to conduct its mission, it's humanitarian and development missions each of the missions entrusted to the state department require talented people on station doing their part working alongside it. the way i will think about it is the same way i did at the cia, i will start with those things that i think are the biggest naps and present the biggest risk to america's capacity to execute its diplomacy. we don't yet have an ambassador to south korea. we need one. a handful of other places that have a requirement for immediate attention. with respect to each of those positions, i am a talent hawk. i will find what i believe to be the best fit to execute america's diplomatic mission around the world and i will encourage, demand, cajole them to join the team and be part of our organization in a way that can successfully deliver.

some of them be fantastic civil certain ants, other from the outside, but in each case to identify the right person to occupy the position at this challenging time in america's history. >> thank you very much. you've made reference to the fact that there are ambassadorships that are empty, i think there's 37 of them and the good news is that you have a really deep bench at the state department and the good example is in south korea. i had the good fortune of being there as you know recently doing some things and the person in charge there has done a fabulous job as you know and we do have that deep bench at the state department, but, again, we do need the ambassadorships filled and we do need those particularly i think the top positions in the department filled and people with the authority to act and do the things that need to be done. thank you for that.

i have every confidence you will be able to do that. your candor with the intelligence committee i can tell you that if you can come in i have every confidence you're going to be able to do that here. thank you again for your service. >> thank you for your career of public service. i want to thank you family, because this clearly is going to be a family sacrifice. already has been. i very much appreciate all that. i want to follow up on the chairman's opening comments about the need for the secretary of state to be a strong voice in the white house and particularly in this white house. and the policy of america first, which is your first if you're confirmed to use diplomacy to engage the international community.

i want to ask you a couple questions. i would ask that you give your views, not the president's. secondly, i would hope that you would briefly answer the questions. please respect the time restrictions that we're operating under. let me start first with the iran nuclear agreement. there's no question iran's the bad actor here. this congress, with your help, we pass very strong legislation to provide additional sanctions against iran for its non-nuclear violations, including ballistic missiles. and we want strict enforcement of the nuclear agreement. but it is clear from what the president has announced that he wants to see changes in the nuclear agreement. we cannot modify the agreement and that iran's in compliance with the agreement.

general domford has said unless there is a material breach, we have an impact to sign other agreements if we pull out of this agreement, with reference to north korea, the challenges of entering into diplomacy. my direct question, if the president determines that you cannot modify this agreement and iran is in compliance, what is your view as to whether america should withdraw unilaterally with the iran nuclear agreement? >> senator, i know clearly what my mission is going to be. the president has made very clear. >> i asked what your views -- i understand that. we've had nominees come before this committee and express their views and are doing very well in this administration and disagree with the president. the president gets the last

word, i understand that. >> i can't answer that question. here's why. if you'll let me tell you how i think about it, i want to fix this deal. that's the objective. i think that's in the best interest -- >> but if the agreement cannot be changed, my question is pretty simple. we're running very close to a deadline on certification. what is your view? is it better to pull out if we can't fix it or is it better to stay in the agreement? yes or no? >> senator, it's not a yes or no question. it's a hypothetical. we're not at that point. >> the president has to certify on may 12th. >> that's almost a month away. if we're close, just as a hypothetical, imagine we're close to achieving the fix the president has asked the state department to president that we do our bet to work with our allies to

done. >> you've been pretty clear about the outcome you would like to see in north korea. if i'm misstating please let me know, which is regime change. >> you have misstated that. >> are you in favor of regime change in north korea? >> my mission is -- and i've articulated my own personal views on this. we have a responsibility to achieve a condition where kim jong-un is unable to threaten the united states of america with a nuclear weapon. >> i understand that. are you saying you don't favor regime change? >> i have never advocated for regime change. >> it's a simple question. >> i'm not advocating for regime change. >> thank you. >> just to be clear, my role as a diplomat is to make sure that we never get to a place where we have to confront the difficult

situation in korea that this country has been headed for now for a couple of decades. >> let me get to the international climate talks and agreements entered into in paris. the fact that every nation in the world has now joined in that -- you understand these are self-imposed goals, enforced only by ourselves. the president has indicated his intentions to withdraw from the international agreement. it takes a period of time before it becomes effective, but he'd already initiated the process. if it takes place, we'd be the only country that is not part of the agreement. do you support the united states withdrawing from the climate agreements? >> i share the president's position precisely, which is that the paris agreements put an undue burden on the united states of america and that we should work to find a place where that is not the case.

and when that moment arrives, we will be part of that discussion and reenter that agreement. that is both my view and i believe i'm speaking for the administration. >> you believe self-imposed requirements working with the international community is dangerously wrong, bows down to radical environmentalists and the science is inconclusive. do you stand by those views? >> we need to work to create a situation so there is a shared burden to attack this challenge. >> do you see the challenge that's going to make your job, if confirmed, more challenging. your job is to work with the international community, our friends and foes alike to try to get diplomacy to work. and yet the united states would be the only country saying we don't want to talk to you about climate under the arrangements that every other country is dealing with? you don't see a conflict with that position and trying to be

the top diplomat of america, the leader of the world? >> nthere are many times we wor with our allies and there are many times we don't see it the same way. the work that we did against russia in response to the attack in britain. we worked with our european allies very closely. this would be after the president's announcement that he intended to withdraw from paris. i'll give you another example. the coalition this administration has built to put pressure on kim jong-un is unique and historic and important. there will be places that our allies will come alongside us and others that they don't. my task will be to rally the world to the causes that benefit america. >> just on the iran issue, it's my sense in personal conversation with the president

that if the europeans do not come along with a framework agreement by may 12th, it's likely that he will withdraw. >> the president's made that very clear. >> and so i don't think senator carden fully -- i don't think he heard the same thing i heard. your sense is that should that happen, then you would continue after that time to try to create a better agreement, if that's what your answer was. >> senator, the plt hresident h stated his objective. i've heard him say it. his goal is to take the three shortcomings that he identified and fix them. >> i need to correct the record. i understand the president's position. i was asking the nominee's position. i wasn't asking the president's position. i want to know your view on it, not the president's. i understand the president's view. >> again, i know this is going to be highly discussed publicly. i think what director pompeo is saying is that's also his

opinion and that should the agreement then be negated, he would work for a better agreement after that should the framework for agreement not come in place by may 12th, is that correct? >> senator, that is correct. >> senator rubio. >> thank you. first an editorial statement at the front end. one of the reasons i've been apart from how well i know the nominee and the work he's done in intelligence is i think one of the critical components to be a successful secretary of state is that when the secretary of state comes to town, leaders and didn'ts need to know this is someone who's in the inner circle of the president. i can just tell you from experience from the work that we've done with director pompeo that, if confirmed, when he comes to town leaders around the world will know that someone who is part of the president's trusted inner circle and speaks for the president and his policies is critical for the

success of secretary of state. anything that would undermine that is something that would undermine the ability to do the job in that way. i have a series of quick questions. they're important because it gives people some context about your views on america's foreign policy and its role in the world, which includes your time in the house of representatives and perhaps even before that. you still agree, do you not, on the matter of the russian invasion of ukraine that the united states has an obligation to help ukraine defend its sovereignty? >> yes. >> and you believe that wikileaks is hostile to the national interest and security of the united states? >> i do believe that. >> i think you still agree that vladimir putin's government actively interfered in our presidential elections and

elections at large in 2016 and did so because it's part of a longstanding theory or belief that through disinformation and propaganda they would win, quote, unquote, bloodless wars against democracies in the west, including the united states. >> yes, senator. that is correct. >> china, russia, iran, north korea and radical jihadists all have one common thread, authoritarianism. would you agree there is really a global competition between autocratic systems of governance and the democratic system, that that is played out over and over again in the foreign affairs of this country and global issues? >> with striking consistency the case that countries that share our vision of the world and share our democratic values are not authoritarian and those that don't are not. >> in that vein, you would again

agree that promoting democracy isn't just a nice thing to do or a good thing to do or promoting democracy is not us butting into other people's business, it's more than a moral imperative. promoting democracy in the context of that competition is in the vital national interests of the united states. >> yes, indeed, senator. our effectiveness at doing that is an important tool of american foreign policy. >> there's this ridiculous argument out there when people talk about russian interference that that's no different than what america does when it promotes democracy. when they interfere in an election, they're trying to influence the outcome. we're trying to improve the process.

when we promote democracy, we do it at the invitation of someone in those countries. often times the government itself, when they undermine democracy they do so against the people of the nation. there is no equivalence between the promotion of democracy and russian and other attempts to interfere in democracy. >> senator, there is neither an operational equivalence. the methodologies used are very different, nor is there a moral equivalence between the two efforts. they are fundamentally different in every way.

i believe you would agree that defending human rights isn't just a good thing to do or just the right moral thing to do, which it most certainly is. defending human rights is also in the national interest of the united states of america? >> i do believe that, senator. >> it would be a priority. >> it would. i think history would reflect that to be the case. >> now, at the end of the cold war we had this belief that history had ended and everyone was going to be a democracy and everyone was going to embrace capitalism as we understand it with free economics and the like. that hasn't really worked out in the case of a lot of places, particularly china. they have not embraced democracy. they've actually gotten more autocratic and they have

embraced a definition of the world economic order which means we will take all the benefits of global trade and economics, but we do not intend to live by any of its obligations. i personally believe it was a terrible mistake that leaders in both parties have made. now you see china doing things like trying to create strategic depth in euro asia. they're not just efforts to create new overland trade corridors. they're efforts to make these nations dependent on and vulnerable to china. their maritime borders in the south and east china sea you see they feel vulnerable. you see american allies in japan, south korea, taiwan. they're working on fracturing our economic and defense alliances in the indo-pacific region. they're building up their air

force to ultimately make the argument don't count on america's defense. it's just paper. they can't live up to it anymore. what are your recommendations for the president as far as how important that challenge is? otherwise, we're going to wake up one day and figure out we've been driven from the asia-pacific region. >> i've been asked what's the greatest threat to the united states. we have a handful. china certainly presents a strategic challenge to the united states of america. you laid out the various tools and mechanisms they're using, mostly economic. the united states need to be prepared to respond across each of those fronts so we can find the right ground. the right place to cooperate with the chinese where it makes sense for america. and confront them where it does not.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. director pompeo, thank you for being willing to consider taking on this responsibility at such a challenging time for the united states and the world. this morning president trump tweeted out that much of the bad blood with russia is caused by the fake and corrupt russia investigation. do you agree with that? >> the historic conflict between the united states and the soviet union and now russia is caused by russian bad behavior. >> thank you. when you were installed as director at the cia as you said in your testimony, you swore an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. you've taken that oath six times. you've graduated from harvard law school, magna cum laude.

you're an attorney. do you think special counsel mueller's investigation is a witch hunt. >> ma'am, i'm going to not speak about any of the three investigations that i have been a participant in today. >> do you think the president has the authority, recognizing your legal background, does the president have the authority to final special counsellor mueller on his own? >> i'm in no position to make a comment on that legal question. >> would you consider the president firing rod rosenstein over his role in the special counsel investigation to be an abuse of power? >> ma'am, i came here today to talk about my qualifications to be the secretary of state. i'm not going to weigh into the active investigations that are going on in the house, the senate and the special counsel's investigation. >> i appreciate that. that's what we're all here to talk about. but the fact is in your testimony you talk about the actions of the administration

making clear and rightfully identifying russia as a danger to our country. and yet the president tweets out his opinion that the problem with russia is bob mueller and the investigation. i think those two are in conflict and it's hard for me to understand how we can have a secretary of state who is able to go to russia and come to congress and talk about the challenges and the threats that russia faces to our democracy when we have this conflicting position from the president of the united states, who you would work for. and let me just say you talked about the actions that have been taken by this administration. but the fact is the sanctions that were passed overwhelmingly in the house and senate that had

bipartisan support have not been fully implemented by this administration. so we have mandatory sanctions related to russian crude oil products that hasn't been implemented. we have sanctions with respect to russia and other foreign financial institutions, not implemented. sanctions with respect to transactions with foreign sanction evaders and serious human rights abusers in the russian federation, not implemented yet. i could go on. as secretary of state, will you argue that we need to go ahead and implement the rest of these sanctions in a way that holds russia accountable for its interference. >> yes, ma'am, every day. if i may take just a moment, there's still work to be done on sanctions. i readily concede that. vladimir putin has not yet received the message sufficiently and we need to continue to work at that. but it hasn't just been sanctioned. the largest expulsion of 60

folks was from this administration. this administration announced a nuclear posture review that has put russia on notice that we're going to recapitalize our deterrent force. in syria the russians met their match and a couple hundred russians for killed. the last of actions that the administration has taken -- i'm happy to walk through each of them. >> i agree with that and i think those actions are important. but they get undermined by a president who consistently refuses to hold vice president accountable for what russia has done in the united states. and that presents a challenge as we go into the 2018 elections and it presents a challenge as we work with other democracies around the world where russia has done everything possible to undermine americans and other countries' citizen's belief in the workings of democracy. in response to senator rubio,

you talked about the importance of defending human rights as secretary of state. and certainly as secretary of state, you would be this country's top diplomat, representing america's values in support of diversity and inclusion. and yet during your tenure in congress, you've made statements that have been described as anti-muslim and anti-lgbt rights. so how would you as secretary of state reconcile those positions and statements that you've taken in congress with the need to represent america's values and defend human rights? >> senator, i freesappreciate t question. look at my record. not just these past 15 months, there were the same questions when i was to be confirmed as a c.a. director. i have honored and valued every

single c.a. office regardless of race, color, you pick it, gender, sexual orientation. i've treated every one of our officers with dignity and respect. i've promoted them when they deserve it. i've held them accountable when they deserved as well. >> i appreciate those sentiments and i appreciate your comments in your testimony saying you would support the state department's work force that it be diverse in every sense of the world. yet you were criticized at the cia for undermining policies of the previous administration to improve diversity at the cia. >> ma'am, i don't know the criticism that you're referring to. i have to tell you, i didn't undermine a single policy. we have talked about it, we've worked on it. i think -- i'm proud of the work that i did to continue to develop and increase the

capacity for the cia to deliver a diverse work force to meet the intelligence challenges around the world. >> michael weinstein who is a former air force officer who founded the military religious freedom foundation says he has been seeing increasing complaints from those inside the intelligence community under your leadership. so i think there have been a number of concerns raised. >> ma'am, if i might -- >> please. >> the number of no fear complaints, the statutory requirement decreased from 2016 to 2017 by 40%. >> good. >> and i'm proud of that. it's not enough. i'm proud of the record. i don't want to take full credit for that. the work that my team has done on this, i'm incredibly proud of. i supported their efforts and i will behave the same way if i'm confirmed as a secretary of state. >> thank you. i'm out of time. >> i just wanted to highlight

that i don't think enough has been said or made of the fact that russia crossed the euphrates with their own troops and were annihilated. it was really a strong statement that i don't think many are paying as much attention to as should. and i appreciate you highlighting that. incredible steps by our pentagon. senator johnson. >> thank you for your past service. i also want to thank you and your family for your willingness to serve in this capacity. it is a sacrifice. as you were walking by me, i mentioned that i've read a lot of testimony for nominees. this written testimony is probably as good as i've seen. one of the reasons i liked it is i could see the concepts required for effective management in it. you're going to be in charge of managing relationships.

but your conclusion in areas of agreement. that's how you accomplish things, concentrate on the shared goals. obviously in your handling of the cia you had a strategy of how you were going to manage that, prioritization of tasks. in managing your relationship with almost all nations, there's an economic relationship and there's a security relationship. obviously you're not secretary of commerce. you're not the u.s. trade representative. you're the secretary of state. you're concerned obviously about security. our negotiations in terms of trade are going to have a great effect. on the delegation to china i was struck with what they were primarily concerned about was the taiwan travel act. we thought we were going to hear all kind of things about tariffs and they were most concerned

about that core area of their interest and don't meddle with that. i just want you to comment on how are you going to deal with that conflict between the trade relationship and the security relationship? we were in china. we also crossed into the dmz. we were in the blue house, walked into north korea. and from my standpoint, our number one priority with china is to get them to continue -- and they are effectively enforcing those sanctions so that we can bring to a conclusion the dismantlement of north korean threat. can you speak to that conflict between trade democratic relationship and security relationship. >> it's complex. at times they are conflicting. at times they work together. if you can achieve a good economic outcome with a partner country, you can get assistance in other places, on a didn'tic

m -- diplomatic matter or a military places. there's places that good diplomacy can lead to making those not in conflict, not zero sum alternatives where you have to sacrifice an economic relationship for a security relationship. the state department has enormous economic team that in my judgment from what i can see over an extended period of time has not been able to deliver as much value as some of the other parts of the economic apparatus of the united states government. i am intent on finding the right people to make sure we have the tool so we can make a broad effort across all elements of the diplomatic spectrum. where it comes into conflict with security issues, i suppose it's factual and contextual.

we engaged in diplomatic activities such that challenges that have been presented to china through the actions taken by this administration over the past weeks didn't upset the apple cart with the good work that the chinese have done helping us on the north korea challenge. >> would you agree our top priority is their cooperation on north korea currently? >> it is. to date, that is the number one priority for this administration. >> would you agree that the best way to bring china into full compliance with all the trade agreements that working with our other trading partners, having a good relationship with them and having us as an alliance working with china and making sure they follow the rules, would that probably be the best way of achieving that? >> i do believe that. >> i really want to hear their perspective. what do you think their primary goal is? what are they trying to achieve?

the three things they listed to us, bring a billion people out of poverty, improve their environment and avoid a financial crisis. >> i've heard similar things. i have heard the economic crisis listed first. they have this challenge of leverage inside of china today they're got to wind their way out of through economic growth. that has the second benefit of bringing the next several hundred people into middle class china. when i spoke with them, those were their two fundamental priorities. >> they have enormous challenges. rather than look at our relationship with china as a win/lose situation, it makes sense to me to try and redefine that and try and obtain a win-win situation? >> i would agree that in most situations in the world, with a handful of exceptions, there are opportunities to not make the

diplomacy a zero sum game. with respect to china in particular, i know that's true. >> to quickly switch to russia, i think it's a historic tragedy that putin has taken this path. can you describe in your words what path has he taken? what is russia's aim? >> i'll take vladimir putin at his word, that the greatest value of the 20th century was the dissolution of the soviet union. i think he believes that in his heart. you see his attempts to regain power and to maintain his power and popularity through activity taking place outside, by poking america, to maintain his not only capability and enormous nuclear arsenal, but also his desire to be perceived as such, as being perceived as a super power. all the actions he takes are to undermine democracy in the west

so that the russian model is painted as the one that will lead the world to greatness. >> to prevent that from happening, we need to be fully engaged particularly in europe or anywhere russia is being aggressive. for example, get in the balkans. i've been over to serbia kosovo a number of times. i think they're at a hinge point. i think secretary mitchell has done a great job of encouraging all of us to pay attention so they decide to continue to look to the west because russia offers them nothing. >> i agree. when you say everywhere, i would add to locations we see them being adventuresome is latin america as well. i agree that we confront them by every vector, cyber, economic. each of those tools that vladimir putin is using, we need to make sure he doesn't succeed in what we believe his ultimate goal is.

>> senator coons. >> thank you for your willingness to step forward and once again serve our country. to your family and to you for what has been a long career of public service in the united states military as an elected official, as the director of the cia and now for this position. i appreciated the conversation we had yesterday and the opportunity to full low up on some of the issues we discussed. i am optimistic you would follow through on your commitment to fight for the state department and resources and personnel. i think many of us on this committee have heard real concerns about management, morale, budget cuts and the state department usaid. i'm also well aware you have a strong and close relationship with the president. as we discussed, i think a key role for america's chief diplomat is not to just advance our narrow interests, but to

also see our values as being a key part of those interests. i hope you will both advise the president and on occasion stand up to him if he is doing things with which you disagree and ensure he considers the vital role of diplomacy. let me follow up on a line of questioning. you are a magna cum laude graduate of harvard law school. i couldn't get into harvard. i went to yale law school. i'm sure you would agree that rule of law is essential to the laws that define our democracy? >> i only spoke publicly six times as a cia director. each time i spoke at some length about the importance of the rule of law at the cia, how we were a creature of law and if we didn't do that, the fundamental failure that would lead to.

i believed it all my life and i'll believe it as the secretary of state if i'm confirmed as well. >> if confirmed, it would be the seventh time you'd swear an oath to the constitution. president trump described special counsel mumueller's investigation as an attack on what we all stand for and he has repeatedly threatened to fire robert mueller. he's threatened the investigation. he's threatened the attorney general in his tweets in ways i find troubling. do you believe special counsel mueller's investigation is an attack on our country and all we stand for? >> i hope you'll take this the right way. as the director of the cia, i've been involved in this investigation. i've worked with senators bur and warner and i have been a participant in special counsel mueller's activity. i think anything i say with respect -- i just -- i want to

avoid that today. i apologize that i can't speak more fully to that . but i hope you respect that anything i was asked to do in his romy role i've done it with as much depth as we could achieve. >> i'm convinced if the president were to fire the special counsel or interfere with his investigation that it would put the rule of law genuinely at risk. if that were the case and if that happened, would you resign your post as secretary of state in order to demonstrate that we are a nation of laws, not of men? >> i haven't given that question any thought. my sinstincts tell me no. my instincts tell me that my obligation to continue to serve as america's senior diplomat will be more important at increased times of increased political turmoil. this wouldn't be the first time

there's been enormous political turmoil. my recollection of the history is that previous secretaries of state stayed the course, continued to do their work. having not given it a great deal of thought, i'm confident that's the path i would take. >> i'd urge you to give it some thought. many of us are giving it real thought and have had to do so for months. it's regrettable that we're in a place where we're seriously discussing this rather than diving into the policy questions that face us around the world. i think there are moments where our values and what we do teaches to the world and rather the right course is to redesign and speak out against it or work to restore the rule of law we could debate. i think it's vital we have as our chief diplomat someone who understands our values and is willing to fight for them even taking dramatic steps including

residengnation to signal disapproval. let me move on. when discussing saddam hussein president trump said he was a bad guy, a really bad guy. but you know what he did well, he killed terrorists. he did that so good. they didn't read them their rights, they didn't talk. it was over. while we could debate whether saddam hussein is a good guy or a bad guy, this is another example much like the president of the philippines and his conduct where challenging an ally or challenging the historical record on behalf of our rights is important and our values. to what extent do you think that actions that curtail human rights and erode due process and the rule of law by foreign governments actually fuels instability, strengthens terrorist threats, that when we are perceived as being on the side of a quick and violent result rather than the rule of law and a just result, it

actually makes us less safe? >> i think i agree -- if i understood the premise of your question correctly, i think i agree with it. i'll try and repeat it for you and see if i got it right. i agree. american behavior matters, the way we behave around the world. one of the best memories i've had so far as cia director was i was with a partner intelligence service leader who had been at this a lot longer than i had. he turned to me and said you know the most important thing that america has done for my team? it's great that you give us some help, teach us some technology and tools. the most important thing you've done for us is set an example,

cia officers behaving professionally has been the most important thing you've done for our organization. you've made us better. to your point, i think that's an example where put aside the policy or the work that we did. it was america's norms that had proven truly valuable to this foreign partner. i was incredibly proud to be the director. >> i'm glad to hear you repeat our shared commitment to the rule of law. but i do think we are in a time where we are going to have to confront questions about what we are willing to do in order to demonstrate our fealty. >> it's my understanding we may have a vote at 2:00. it's my plan just to keep going until that time. if our witness needs to take a break for other reasons, mwe'll

make that happen. >> any good diplomat can out last the folks he's talking to, senator. >> i notice you haven't been drinking any water. >> thank you for the testimony so far. i had to pop out for other hearings, so i apologize if i l plow old ground. iran has already realized much of the benefit from this agreement in terms of money being released, is that correct? >> they have received great benefit from the jcpoa, yes, that is correct. economic benefit. >> if we were to somehow get out of the agreement, would there be an attempt to claw some of that money back? >> i haven't considered that. i would think that unlikely.

there's not a tool inside the agreement to achieve that. >> that's my understanding as well. in effect, iran has already realized much of the benefit from the agreement. but if we were to exit the agreement now, we would give them reason to renege on the agreements they have made on the nuclear side, is that right? >> senator, they're still receiving enormous economic benefits even as we sit here this morning. so there is continue d interest on the part of iran to stay in this deal. it's in their own economic self-interest to do so. i guess i'd add iran wasn't racing to a weapon before the deal. there is no indication that i'm aware of that if the deal no longer existed that they would immediately turn to racing to create a nuclear weapon today. >> my concern is certainly that

they have realized the benefits of the agreement. in the end i voted against the agreement. ty -- i thought it should have been presented as a treaty before from body. i think it would have been a better agreement and something that i could have supported. but now that it is in effect and iran has realized the benefits of it economically, i think that we ought to think long and hard about giving iran now the ability if we exit the agreement to continue on on the nuclear side and not uphold the obligations that they agreed to under the treaty. i know that's being considered. with regard to north korea, i am happy that the president is talk talki talking. discussions at the highest level are had.

i've always agreed presidents and secretaries of state and others ought to talk to rogue leaders. but i am concerned and i think a lot of americans are that these discussions that usually take place in that regard at the head of state level are preceded by a lot of negotiations, meetings and deliberation by people like yourself and your able diplomats, who you will have at the state department. do you have some of those concerns as well that this first meeting that's being discussed will take place perhaps prematurely before the hard negotiations that must be done by skilled diplomats that simply will not have been done? >> senator, there is work being done today in preparation for the president's proposed meeting with kim jong-un. so american people and you should know there's work being done in preparation for that.

the president's view has been -- and i agree with him -- the model that we have used previously, long negotiations to get the two leaders to the table hasn't happened. we haven't had that opportunity to have these two leaders sit together to try to resolve this incredibly vexing, difficult challenge. so the president has judged -- there will be lots of work to do. no one is under any illusions that we will reach a comprehensive agreement through the president's meeting. but to set out the conditions that would be acceptable to each side for the two leaders who will ultimately make the decision about whether such an agreement can be achieved and set in place, i'm opt misthat i can -- optimistic that the government can set the conditions for that outcome that america and the world so desperately need. >> is there some concern that exiting the iran agreement might

play poorly with regard to a possible agreement with the north koreans? it would seem if you're the north korean leader or negotiators on that side, they might be concerned that our reliability in terms of signing an agreement if the next president could simply exit it. >> while i concede we don't know precisely what kim jong-un is contemplating, how he's thinking about his option set today, i've read lots of analysis with his concerns and how he's thinking about the challenges he faces today with the enormous economic pressure, and the list of things he's thinking about don't involve other deals throughout history. it's not the case. he's thinking about how it is he can set conditions so that while we talk about complete, verifiable reversal of his

nuclear program, he's thinking at the sustainment of his regime. what are the tools, what are the assurances that can be put in place that aren't reversible. he's going to be looking for something more than a piece of paper. he's going to be looking for a set of conditions to be set in place so he can undertake a task denuclear risie inine inine ini that nobody believed could occur. >> zimbabwe is going through a transition. elections are scheduled for july and august. and we don't have an ambassador there. will you commit to ensure that we have an ambassador on the ground? a lot of that depends on us. we tend to move it through as quickly as we can in this committ committee. an ambassador on the ground when those elections are held? >> it will depend on me and the president to get a nomination to

you. i commit to doing that post haste if i'm confirmed. >> on cuba, i'm concerned in a similar vein that we have just a skeletal staff there in the embassy given the issues that occurred there. i think it's an important time this. we're going to have a non-castro head of state for the first time later this month. if we could beef that staff up, it would be great as well. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you for your service, director pompeo. we really appreciate having your family here and look forward to you answering our questions. i want to follow up. i've worked with senator flake quite a bit on cuba and following the cuba issue. cuba is about to choose its first leader who is not a

castro. yet the u.s. presence in the country has been reduced significantly. as a result, other countries are filling this vacuum. will you work to help improve ties with cuba, a relationship that benefits many states hoping to increase trade with the island. when i visited with you in my office, i talked at h ed about governors have gone to cube ba h their agricultural folks and say we want to sell food products to them. will you work to improve ties with cuba? >> senator, i recall joking with you about kansas. the answer to your question is yes. senator flake asked about the diplomatic presence there. i think everyone's aware of some of the concerns. i assure you and i'll assure senator flake as well.

we will -- consistent with keeping these folks safe, we will build out a team there that represents the finest of america. >> as you know, u.s. internet companies -- cuba has very very little internet capacity. this is one of the things i think really could open cuba up to the world. do you believe the united states companies should lead the effort to help bring the internet to cuba? >> that question sound like there may be something buried there that i'm not aware of. >> there is. >> if i might -- >> now, come on. >> at the risk of demonstrating ignorance, i'd prefer the chance to talk to my experts at the state department and work my way through it. >> there's nothing really a trick there. i've worked with a number of

members of this committee and others outside the committee to try to push the effort to have the internet be a big part of our first push in cuba. as you know very well and we talked about this in my office too, the state department and defense department work hand in glove on these crucial issues. the job of the state department is to try to make sure we don't get into unnecessary wars. your work, i think, is to work hard at diplomacy, search for peace and make sure that we don't get into another war. are you committed to robust diplomacy as our ranking member senator menendez talked about and committed to doing everything you can to prevent future wars? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. i'm going to follow up several

members on the iran deal. the iran deal has effectively cut off all pathways to an iranian nuclear weapons program. compliance has been certified repeatedly by the international atomic energy agency and both israeli intelligence agency and u.s. even when the joint comprehensive plan of action sunsets under the current deal, iran will still remain a signatory of the nonproliferation treaty and a party to the i.a.e.a.'s additional protocol. i.a.e.a. inspectors are not going anywhere. and if they did, the united states and the global community would have ample time to react to any breakout. in fact, the international community through the secretary general spoke out as to the

importance of the jcpoa very recently. this position in light of your apparent support for u.s. policy of regime change in iran, really the contrast there really upsets me. in 2014 you said you would have preferred military strikes to the jcpoa. and i quote here, this is your quote, it is under 2,000 sorties to destroy the iranian nuclear capacity. this is not an insurmountable ta task. is this your current position? are you for a first military strike? >> i'm not. yoo i don't think that's what i said that day. with respect to the quote that you provided, i know a little bit more about what it would take today. in terms of what i described as the capacity to rachooieve what

was speaking to, i think i'm still pretty close. this is no doubt in my view that the solution to preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon, to finding ourselves in the same place we are with north korea in iran is through diplomacy. >> do you have any evidence to dispute the i.a.e.a. assessment that iran is in full compliance with the jcpoa? >> with the information i've been provided, i've seen no evidence that they are not in compliance today. >> i would just hope -- i'm very near to the end of my time here. i would just hope that you understand that the international community and the united states working together is what got us to the point where we are. i think it would be very unfortunate if we're the one that pulls back and sets the stage for a very chaotic future.

>> thank you. >> on that note, do you have any sense that chancellor merkel and macron's visits here -- that subject matter will be discussed? they will be here before may 12th. >> i've not seen the agenda, but i'd be shocked if it didn't come up. >> as we get closer to that time, maybe people will be a little more focused on that occurring. >> having had some interactions with my european counterparts, i am confident that issue will be discussed at some length. it's important to them. i know they'll raise their hopes and concerns when they travel here to the united states in the coming days. >> senator gardener. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director paompeo, congratulatios on your nominee. this is no easy task.

i appreciate your willing to serve your country once again. director pompeo and i served together for several years. we had the opportunity to sit next to each other, to work together. i can tell my colleagues on the committee that there is no one who came better prepared and always looking for a creative answer, i think, is something that i always admired about his work in the house. that continued as director of the cia and will continue at the state department. i have one request that is very important to me. as secretary of state, kansas will have no greater authority over water than they do right now. anyway -- we doni would like to for the record a letter written by former senior government officials with national security experience in administrations of different parties or on capitol

hill, people including general alexander, jeremy bash. >> without objection. >> you and i have had a number of opportunities to talk about asia. if you look at asia, it was written once that this is the most consequential region for america's future. over one-half of the world's commerce will take place. two third of the world will travel. five of america's seven defense treaties located in asia. it's the region where two super powers will compete to determine which world order will prevail. several of it on the committee are working on legislation that would help speak with one voice, the administration, congress, when it comes to asia, creating a reassurance initiative that will allow us to focus on three areas, economic, security, rule of law, democracy matters.

we held a number of hearings focusing on those three areas in addition to a fourth hearing that focused on this reassurance initiative and our effort to understand the future of the u.s./china relationship. do you believe it is important that congress and the administration speak with one voice as it relates asia and our asia policy? >> i do. you shared the outlines of that legislation to me. i look forward to working with you to see if we can get it right. >> could you share with me some of the priorities you think should be in a comprehensive asia policy? >> step one obviously is diplomacy, making sure there aren't mistakes, that we don't talk past each other. the ability to avoid the trap depends on the ability to speak

to their central interests and core interests and those of second order experience where cooperation will be the mark of the day. i think diplomacy leads that effort. absent a strong america, the rest of the things pale in comparison. the under pinnings of our capacity to have the live raeveo affect good diplomatic outcomes depend on that. we want a long term horizon of economic prosperity. >> the creation of a long-term policy on asia, indo pacific ie need. >> what you describe is importa important. when questions asked about china, we cannot forget of the

complicated regions. the chine we need a thoughtful, long-term strategy that prevents it from taking place. >> we'll get into china more on the next round of question but it is important to note even today, china have announced exercises in taiwan and we have seen the clear militarization and these are a few challenges that we have that's been lingering for a number of years but increasing in their importance today. i want to shift right now to north korea. do you agree with secretary mattis that north korea is the most urgent security threat that the united states are facing? >> i do. >> this community have led the effort to increase maximum pressure oconee n north korea a kim jong-un regime and enhancement act and working together to assure maximum

pressure applied. the leverage to enhance effective diplomacy which impose a trading embargo on pyongyang. >> yes. >> will you commit to advance this lead act and others of sanctions and entities. >> i am not familiar with the details. >> it is a great bill. >> the president has made clear of the continuation of the pressure campaign is the tool that enables the opportunity to achieve successful diplomatic outcome in north korea. >> we have about a minute left here. can you share with me the exact goals of the presidential summit between the wrieunited states a

kn y north korea? >> yes, i can. to develop from the north korea leadership so that they'll step away from nuclear weapons. >> the only goal that the united states has is complete verifiable and irreversible of the nuclear weapons >> we need to ensure that we provide a strategic framework for our allies in the region of the south koreans and japanese and others as well. the purpose of the meeting is to address this nuclear threat to the united states. >> our goal remains of the verifiable and irreversible nuclearization. >> yes, sir, that's correct. >> senator cain. >> during the negotiation over the iran nuclear deal of 2014, you opposed the deal and you

stated, it is under 2000s to destroy the neuuclear capacity. you venture the thought that military action may be preferable to a deal or easier than some folks were suggesting. where did you get the notion that destroying iran's nuclear capacity can be accomplished with 2000 based source? >> your military house is the house intel of committee. >> yes, i am trying to remember the timing of the statement at the that point in time. >> did you have reluctant to share that assessment publicly? that seems to be a specific assessment to say i am confident in our capacity is one thing but to publicly discuss that would

be 2000s sort as to wipe out? did you have any reluctant to share that at the time? >> there was no classified information contained in that simple statement. >> would that specificity rely on a lot? >> senator, 2000s is a big round of number. there was no effort here to make any specificity. it may have been a thousand or 2,000. >> i actually to your point -- >> you were not trying to be inaccurate? >> no, sir, absolutely not. >> if i may and we merceday dis with this. i think it is important to provide diplomats with opportunity to be successful. countries that are adverse to us don't often succeed to our desires, absentee of rational to do so. >> diplomats without any strengths and capacity are just

sitting there talking. >> well, and i agree. i think stating, we have a lot of capacity by one thing, i was struck by specificity, would it be your norms to share that in such specific details. >> i am confident if i have done it multiple times you would raise it here today. >> i wonder of your assessment, did you assume that iran may respond to an attack to the united states or you assume that they would do nothing. >> senator, i don't know in the context of that statement i was thinking about. >> but you would agree with me of the extent that the u.s. would need to use to destroy iran's capacity would depend on whether iran would fight to attack on our soil. >> absolutely. >> i am curious about that, too. most of our coalition forces in 2014 were sitting around the table with us trying to do a peaceful negotiation to end iran's nuclear xmcapacity.

it sounds that you had confidence that the u.s. would not do a deal. i am convince what coalition partners you were thinking about as you were making that comment? >> i was not thinking of nicole critical condition partners. >> those comments when i heard of the relative ease, reminded me of the run up of the iraq war. the president said there were definitely weapons of mass destruction and invasion would largely be self-financing and would last, quote, "five weeks or five months." we know that the cost of the united states was 4400 soldiers dead. 500,000 iraqis dead and price tag is topping $3 trillion and unprecedented turmoil in the region and most of those facts were known at the time you made the statement in 2014. let me say this, i am one of two senators who serve in foreign

relations and arm service committee. i represent a state that's deeply committed in the military. i honor your military service and entire public service. i think my mission on these two committees are two things, dramatically reduce on the risk of unnecessary war and raise the possibility of any war we need to be in. your action as a house member that you and i should see some what the same way. in 2011, i criticized president obama for putting us into military action without a vote and you voted twice to oppose military action unless it was authorized by congress. in 2014, president obama came to the committee to ask for the military authority to strike syria, you supported that in the house and i supported it here in the senate and the committee supported it. now, president trump ordered

missile strikes to fire at syria last year. the u.s. conducted air strikes without congressional approval and the president is tweeting he may do additional military strikes in syria now. syria has not declared war in the united states, has congress given the president specific authority to raise war against syria. >> i think you and i actually do share similar bias for the executive and the legislative branch both to be involved when momentum decisions of war. now, my views on that have not changed. >> you would agree with me th that -- >> yes, senator, i would. with respect, you asked about this and i don't want to dodge your question, you asked about

syria, for a long time, multiple administrations have found that the president has authority to act and take certain actions without first come into congress to seek approval, the list from democrats and republicans are long. >> let me ask -- >> i share your view and in this each case where we can and america and our soldiers and marines are better off if we have the entirety of the united states government working together and having authorized -- >> the administration has not provided it. there is a memo that is laying out in description of what the president or the administration feels of the appropriate executive powers. would you support the release of the non classified portion of that memo to congress so that we

can see what the president thinks his powers are and engage in a productive dialogue about that? >> sir, i learn about this memo and i think you shared it with me and i was unaware with that. i promise to work alongside to get that information. if it is a classified version of it that you have a right as a member of the legislative branch, i will get you that. if it is unclassified version, we'll work to achieve that as well. >> thank you. >> before turning to senator young. specifically, a surgical strike against let's just use the last one that occurred with 59 missiles. do you believe that requires an authorization from congress? >> senator, multiple administrations have taken that activity under the president's authority. >> yes, so i was ranking member when our chairman and the committee wrote an authorization for the use of force against

syria unfortunately was not used and change the course of history unfortunately and displaced millions of people and hundreds of thousands of people are dead and not to say that would not necessarily prevent all of that but would change the trajectory significantly. i agree with you and i share that with the president for a short period of time that i do not believe that should he choose to take a surgical strike against syria that an authorization from us is necessary just based on a body of evidence that we have and the things that have occurred in the past and i am like you opposed strongly of what we did in libya. that's complicating our efforts in north korea because of obvious reasons. with that senator young. >> welcome mr. director and congratulations on your nomination. i start here won't trying to

identify some areas of d disagreemen disagreements. i suspect that if we work hard enough we'll be able to find those. i want to emphasize on having a smart and experienced individual as our next secretary of state based on my time serving with you, you certainly check those boxes. we also need a leader who's credible and not just with our own president but with leaders around the world and you also checked that box. so, i want to encourage you and i anticipate supporting you. in our march visit in our office, we spent much of our time talking about crisis around the world and you will certainly are emersed in these. should you be confirmed? >> we also talked about commune ka kcommunications and responsiveness the level of

responsiveness over the last year or so. i has significantly improved and there is an uptake in dialogue between the department in my office and i think this community more generally in recent months. we have an article one responsibility that you understand very well. this is the committee of jurisdiction that overseas the state department. i want to get you on record and you indicated in our prepared statement that you are prepared the pick up our call on the first ring, that's exactly this message that you ought to be sending. so to be clear, do you commit to and ensure that the department of state provides timely and responsive answers to me and my office? >> senator, as a cia director, i don't adopted the model which was more time. whether to agree or disagree with members to do that and providing documents, i promise

to do that to you to provide it. >> refreshing. >> do you agree that the u.s. national security depends in large measure on a vibrant and growing economy? >> i do. >> you mentioned china's systematic policies, stealing our intellectual property and forced technology transfer and associated activities and you also mentioned moments ago that china is using mostly economic tools against us to achieve broader geo political and do you believe these policies in beijing have undermine our ability as a country to realize our potential for economic growth to incentivize investment and sustain the financial

withstand and to defend our country worldwide? >> yes, i do. i think those risks are real and honest, we are in the midst of that. it is not future-esque, we have to confront it today. sometimes taken and sometimes cohorse at the hands. the american work force delivered it and the chinese have taken it away from us. we have to develop a robust set of tools and a bunch of tools we need and to do that well so we can prevent it from continuing to happen in the future. >> earlier you spoke of the need for my words of a china strategy. so my sense is you believe we need a whole of government, well coordinated and informed and strategic response to china ease

illicit and deceptive economic trades and practices, is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> well, i do, too. that's why i intend to introduce some legislation on this very topic. i am going to require through this legislation working with my colleagues in the administration that periodic production of a national economic security strategy. i welcome the opportunity to work with the administration u.n. particular and any colleague who shares these goals and i think we'll get this across the line. it is needed now more than ever. do you believe that the u.s. respon response, mr. director, to china is effective if we assemble a multi-lateral decision, who also suffering due to beijing to create a unifying international front to apply pressure on beijing to achieve objectives as

oppose to a bilateral dynamic which i perceive we have now? >> i agree with that conceptually if we can get the country to southeast asia and others set up a framework and achieve what it is as you describe as our objective. we a formally to achieve most or all of it. >> mr. director, given the challenges that we confront with russia, iran, china and north korea and beyond, do you believe our nation need for effective diplomacy will decrease in the coming year or two? >> senator, things are unimaginable but if i am good enough -- all right? i am hopeful that we can begin to take some of these challenges away. i was mindful and i had all the cia directors and nearly all of them attended and to a person they have been there 20 or 25 years ago, they said the stack

only gotten longer and we have not pulled some of these problems from the pile. we need to do and start to solve this. >> your response humorous is something that i would like to shine a light on. the previous occupant of this secretary of state position once indicated that part of the rational behind his funding request for the department of state is that there is a less of a need on account of highly effective near term diplomacy, any organization in washington or beyond can be made more efficient and we can identify funding decreases that may be made. i would regard it as a risky strategy to assume that your highly effective diplomacy is

going to be a strong rational for funding cuts. are you operating under the premise that highly effective diplomacy will lead to lower funding requests in the international account? >> no. when i said that, i am optimistic and hopeful this is the task that will engage but i cannot see anything of the time that would permit us to have any less demands for diplomatic resources. >> strike me as responsible. >> thank you, former house and energy and committee to the witness to senator menarcor mar. >> welcome sir. >> thank you, sir. >> i am glad to hear that we should resort to all option.

i do not believe that we have yet exhausted all options. i am right now very concerned of the lack of a coherent policy in north korea could lead to a poor meeting. that meet goes poorly some could lead to economic pressure and economic engagement have failed. john bolton has recently outlined the case for preventive military strikes on north korea. are there any conditions under which you would support preventives and military strikes against north korea as secretary of state? >> senator, thank you. the phrase preventive military strike, there is a lot of history.

there is a legal view, i want to stay away from the legal. let me give you my judgment and diplomatic and national security judgment on that. i want to start with your question, while i don't want to speculate speculate, however the meeting goes, there will be enormous diplomatic work remaining. we have not yet exhausted capacity, i think there is an awfully a long way to go. the president has made clear and i agree with him that there may come the day when we see arsenal of nuclear capable of striking the united states of america and the president may clear his intention to prevent it from happening and to extent that diplomatic tools and other tool that is america has, our power is unsuccessful and i know that secretary mattis has been directed and present to the president a set of options that'll achieve the president's

objectives. >> secretary mattis says we are never out of diplomatic options. let me get your response to this. kim was absolutely irresponsive in this meeting. the pentagon stated in order to destroy all components would be through a ground invasion and as you know projections for a conventional on the peninsula estimates between 30,300,000 u.s. personnel could die in the first day of a conflict. you're a military man and you understand this. is there any circumstance in which you concur with john bolton of the exhaustion of his

perspective of a ground invasion of north korea would be necessary in order to rid that country of its nuclear weapon program. >> i suppose i can hypothisize it. >> we had information about his activities and yes, i can imagine times when america need to take a response to move past diplomacy. >> well, i would say to you that the consequences of the united states initiating an attack against north korea is catastrophic. >> i agree with that. >> if we had not been attack, that's what concerns me of john bolton and i think the american people will want reassurances

from you. you would not consider such an action because ultimately he already has nuclear weapons and it would be catastrophic almost immediately if we decide to make a first strike against him. i don't feel comfortable with you not taking that off the table but i would like to move onto saudi arabia and to one, two, three agreement that's being negotiated with them. again, i am going to quote mr. bolton that civil nuclear cooperation on one, two, three agreement between the u.s. and the country must include the gold standard of any enrichment or spent fuel reprocessing to the development of nuclear weapons. do you believe that any agreement that we negotiate with saudi arabia should in fact have a goal standard?

>> yes. one of my critiques of the arrange. we reach with iran was that insufficient close to such a standard. >> so you support the goal standard? >> yes, i do. well, i have not been apart of the negotiation, i know the state department and department of energy is working to achieve buona. >> would you oppose any agreement that was less than the gold standard, that ultimately promoted for uranium and -- >> i cannot answer that. i can imagine that we got close but not quite to the full definition of the gold standard. i don't want to hypothisize. >> how do you think iran would respond if we pull out the agreement while simultaneously while agreeing to a deal where

saudi arabia could not receive plutonium processing, how do you think they would respond? >> this is my concern with the iran agreement. >> right. that's the question i am asking you, what would be the response if we. >> reporter: providing nuclear weapons to saudi arabia. >> yeah, i think they would take into account. when we are talking about nuclear weapons, we are talking about multiple components, capacity to weaponize and a delivery system and today iran has the capacity to do. i am speaking of the challenges that tsaudi arabia also see. >> this is going to be a dangerous concoction if . if we pull out of the iran deal and give nuclear weapons, permit

them to obtain nuclear weapons, the juxtoposition is going to give a highly combustible deal in the middle east. otherwise, with the saudi arabia what they want is put on third base with the lead of nuclear weapon construction materials. i think this administration would be making a terrible mistake if it negotiates a deal that allows tsaudi arabia to do this. >> thank you. >> we have talked to secretary perry and i could not agree more that we have to stress a gold standard and understand that when you have given iran the

right to enrich everyone in the region is going to want the right to enrich. you got your words cut out for you. it is quite a very difficult to tell an era of nation when they cannot. senator isaac. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> congratulations on your nomination and best of luck for you and we'll be here to support you, i certainly will. >> let me start off by saying thank you to the state of department. you may or may not familiar with, this administration and the bureau of development and state department have done a great job. i hope you will commit and continue that and enforcement. >> i will, senator isakson.

i think ambassador haley is gone. i am a big fan of africans. i travel there extensively. many respects for our country and everybody else. china's demonstrating because they think it is important and spending a lot of money and building a lot things of that nature. particularly of many of the locations that's been going on in the persian gulf. there are million and a half people there and 150 million alone in nigeria and a lot of opportunities. it is important that we focus and help them build and develop and grow. are you familiar of the challenge of the corporation? >> yes, i am familiar with it at some level. >> well, i am a big fan, president bush did a fine job in

helping to develop in those countrie countries, and responsible for any corruptions and having better worker laws in the country. i hope as secretary of state when you have a chance, you will focus on more challenge corporations and what they are doing. it is part of the soft power that we have the capability to use to influence a lot of our enemies. the reason i use ambassador haley as an example, we from time to time need a lot of vote in the u.n. the more friends we can make in countries like africa, the more votes we can influence to help us on big issues that we need the the united nation. i hope you will focus on that and realize what the state of government have done. lastly, i want to -- this is an

editorial statement. my experience of the state department has been a blue funk for about a year and a half. one of the things i told you this when you came to my office, i thought there was a real need for a perk, for adjustment and for an attitude improvement. i think you are for the opportunity to be the catalyst o f the department. to your credit, your critics and yo and -- giving you high marks and enthusiasm. i think your meetings with mike that you referred to in your opening statement where exactly to see because they all of a sudden, employees had a chance to speak out to you and tell you what they thought needed to be done and you had a chance in that environment tell them what they can be as a partner to help

you when that happens. the attitude of the department is the best. the unity there is strong and the understanding of the mission of ranking an employee is great. i want to challenge you to replicate where it is possible in the state department of the same energy and fire that you have at the cia. the state department needs it december separa desperately. t if you can do that and tell us what you did at the cia and the state department, you would be a great secretary. can you tell us what you have done and feel free to brag about yourself. >> senator, i will. i will do the opposite of that. what you describe took place because of the talented officers and the professionals at the intelligence center that i had enormous human capital to build

the team and i know the state department is the same way. i know local employees and civil service and foreign service officers had the same desire to be relevant and important. you sign to devote your life. my mask is of the great work they signed up to do when they came aboard at the state department >> you just demonstrated by giving the credit to the people at the state department. >> senator booker. >> thank you senator and thank you mr. pompeo. i appreciate you coming by and giving me sometime to talk in private. i want to pick up on one of the things we talked about in lengths and that involves many

of your past statements concerning muslim americans. i want to start with some of your language, a speech you talked about folks who worship other gods and called them multi culturalism. you warned that we live in a country where that happens. do you have any views of muslim faiths or people believing in worshipping other god's, is that something negative in our country? >> no, senator. you can look at my record and take my word here today. my record is exquisite with respect of treating people of the dignity to concern and protect their rights to practice of their religion or no religion. >> my time is limited. >> it is important because i heard these critiques and you raised it yesterday, i work closely with muslim leaders and

countries, the cia have count less muslims during my 15 months. this is the core of who i am senator booker. i promise you that i will trust each person with the dignity and respect that they deserve. >> your words are encouraging. words do matter. it is not just actions. in a nation of bigotry when you see too much bigotry and hatred, you know that words matter. i do understand your action and i will stipulate to the action that you just said. i want to get to the bottom of people who are going to be reading your past statements and give you a chance to further explain them. i would like to talk about this idea and i am quoting you, there is special obligation that falls on muslims in regards to terrorist attack in our country and you said something dramatic and you know this.

you said "people who are silent have complicit in those attacks." >> senator each and every human have an obligation to push back against this extremist use of violence from whatever phase. >> so you don't create a special class of people based on their religion that have a special obligation that you said to condemn a terrorist attack. >> no, sir. >> i also do believe this firmly that for certain places and certain forms of violence of folks who are credible and trust worthy and have a shared experience, when it comes to

making sure we don't have terrorists brewing, there is a special place, right? there is more than a duty and it is an opportunity right to be treated when someone from another phase says that it can get characterize. >> if i can go on, i have more questions. so you think muslims in america who are in positions of leadership have a different category of obligation because of their religion, that's what i am hearing. >> it is not an bob gas statiob is an opportunity. >> i would agree with you. we have seen in in the holocaust and the civil rights movement. that's silence in the face of injustice lends strength to that injustice. i do have a problem when we dice up certain americans, i don't care if they kareem abdul jamal.

so i am wondering sir, do you know frank gaffney? >> yes, i do. >> you have been on his show dozens of times. >> yes, i was on his show. >> he talked about muslims should be abided to their faiths should be tried for their acts or tried for executions. did you remain silent? you we in my note, you are a friend of his. were you silent with him? >> senator, my record on this is unambiguous. >> that's a response. >> you did not say anything to

call out his remarks. >> what about bridget gabriel, do you know her? >> yes, i do. >> someone running an organization that's considered a hate group. were you silent, did you call her out on her remarks that are bigoted? >> i spoke to a number of groups, i believe my record is respect to tolerance. >> yes, or no? >> did you ever call her out? >> senator, i could not tell you. i don't recall these statements i made over 54 years. >> i believe the special obligations that you talked about -- >> i have recalled that. senator, -- >> sir, i have a minute left. i want to give you the opportunity on your comment on gays and lesbians.

>> you said in a speech that mourning in america, is being gay a proversion? >> when i was a politician, i had a clear view on whether it was appropriate for two same-sex person to marry so i standby that. >> you don't think it is appropriate. >> people in the state department and i met some in africa that are married under your leadership. you do not believe that should be allowed? >> i believe it is the case that we have married gay couples at the cia as you should know. i treated them with the exact same rights. >> do you believe if gay sex is a proversion because it is what you said here, yes or no? >> senator, i am going to give you the same answer. my respect for every individual

regardless of sexual orientation is the same. >> i will conclude by saying, sir, you are going to be secretary of the state of the united states at the time where we have an increase in hate speech and against muslim americans and indian americans and hate acts are increasing, you are representing our country in a nation -- untold violence, your views do matter. you will be dealing with muslim states and on muslim issues. i do not necessarily concur that you are performing the values of our nation when you believe there are people in our country that are proversed and you think you create different categories of americans and their obligations when it comes to condemning a violence so i have another round but thank you. >> senator paul, thank you, sir.

>> thank you for your testimony and thank you for going through this enterprise and your willingness to serve the country. you discussed with senator kaine and you mentioned we have done it in the past. i don't think it is a complete answer. my question is do you think it is constitutional. does the president have the constitutional authority to bomb assad forces or installations? >> senator, i think i said to senator kaine that i am happy to repeat my view on this. those decisions are weighed in every place we can. yes, i believe the president has the domestic authority to do that. i don't think that has been disputed by republicans or democrats throughout an extended period of time. >> it is disputed by our founding fathers who believe they give the authority to congress and uniformly to the executive branch.

the executive branch is the branch most prone to war there and therefore we have with studied care invested of authorities and legislature. the fact that we have in the past does not make a constitutional and i would say that i take objection to the idea that the president can go to war where he want as or whene wants. with the war of afghanistan, what do you think? >> the course of action that president trump is taken there is the right one. it is humble in its mission and understand that we have been there for awfully a long time and have an objective of leaving. with an effort alongside that would be acquire to achieve the first objective to create and i want to be humble and more

stability than afghanistan. the president is specific on this and we are building roads and bridges for schools for the people that hate us and it is not in our national interest. that's a direct quote. the president says it is time to get out and it sounds like you said it is time to stay. is that a difference in opinion. some here are worried that you are going to be too much in agreement with the president or disagreement with the president, one of the things i have liked of the president is that he says it is time to come home and let's declare a victory and come home but it sounds to me like you are saying you need to stay. >> it sounds like i have a goldielock's problem, too close or too far. >> that's consistent secretary of state have been trying to do diplomatically and what secretary mattis have been trying to do by supporting

afghan forces in the country. i share the president view that we have a continued role there. while i want to get out in the same way that you do. i have friends who are serving that and we are not in the place where it is appropriate. >> here is the problem. are we ever going to be at that place and you got people in the administration yourself and your written questions back to me that there is not a military solution. we are sending our g.i. out there and hoping that we sound a little bit like vietnam and let's bomb the crap out of them and let get them to negotiation and in the end, it was no better in vietnam and it was a disaster and a lot of people wasted their lives in the end for that. i think the reason of military mission and when you admit there is no military mission is hard to me to square with your desires still to stay, and we want to leave but when? we have been there 18 years.

i think we should declare victory and come home. we won the battle. we did. there is nobody left alive who plotted to attack us on 9/11. i asked people repeatedly, tell us the names of those alive in pakistan or afghanistan. we sent people to war who was not born where 9/11 was. oh you know, it is fine, we'll keep fighting these wars and it had nothing to do with 9/11. we said oh, we got permission to go at 9/11 but when you were in congress, you had a different position, you know? your position with libya that we should get authorization and your position in 2013 was also you wrote the op-ed that we

should give the president authority. you want to give the president permission, please president trump let's go to war in syria. we need to think these things through and we need to -- the constitution does give permission for the president to do whatever he wants. did you think the iraq war was a mistake? >> i was in kansas at the time so i don't have a contemporaneous view. >> no opinions back then? how about now? >> i may well have an opinion. we have bad intelligence. we did have bad intelligence. >> we got rid of the enemy of iran and we made it worst and we brought chaos to the middle east and we are suffering the ramifications and repercussions of the iraq war. it was the single worst decision

that it was made. i am concerned that you will be influencing him in a way that his in clclination is better. he was involved against syria in many times of his career. i think he does have good instincts. will you be the one who will listen to what the president wants or instead of someone advocating for us staying forever in afghanistan and bomb syria without permission. that's my biggest concern of your nomination is i don't think it reflects for the millions of people that voted for trump would be different that it would not be the traditional bipartisan consensus to bomb everywhere and be everywhere around the world. that's my concern and i want to make sure that's loud and clear. >> thank you senate errand paor.

>> this is an extraordinary article that i believe from late last year and new york that speaks to china ease ri's rise. we see the president of the united states used to have simply is not there and other countries are taking advantage. this article in part describes routine meeting of the wto in which they have negotiating trade rules for agriculture and something that the united states used to have a big role at. for two days of meetings, there were no americans and the chinese were going through every session about how they were now the -- the article makes the case that trump is china's biggest strategic opportunity. i have seen and we have all seen this at multi lateral meetings that we used to see major u.s.

administration presence and there is virtually no presence and other countries are taking advantage of that. what do you think the scope of our president of some of these rules setting meetings and what are your plans for the future? >> senator, we need to be there and active and evaluated at it and prepare to engage and work for america's interests in thoo inthese multi laterals -- i don't know why we were not there. i view those as an important place for us to get the international rule of law in cording to our view and not the chinese views. you have concerns and i will do my best to make sure we are there and capable. >> appreciate that answer. i want to get a little bit of a clarification with respect to the answer that you gave senator mendez coming back to the meeting with the president on

march 27th. senator mendez asked you whether there was a discussion about steps that you can take to try to frustrate the investigation, and you said i don't recall what the president asked me that day. is that your testimony that you don't recall what he asked. >> i don't recall if he asked any on the particular day. i know the meeting which you are referring and i don't recall the specifics and i have answered every questions of that meeting and others. >> i asked the question because you answered two different ways. you said "i don't recall what he asked me" but you also said -- >> those are entirely consistent. >> if he asked know do something inappropriate, i would remember.

>> let me give you another chance at another question. senator, kuehns asked you if you agree with the president character aigs characterization as an attack on america. i don't understand -- that you don't believe in the investigation is an attack on america or an america on all we stand for. i don't think it compromises any of the work that the cia did or does in that investigation. so i think it is really troubling if you cannot say today that you don't believe the mueller investigation is an attack on america. i want to give you a second chance. >> give me a third chance.

these are complex issues that special counsels are involved in. i have done my best to separate each and every element of that. there is just -- it is mind field senatoor murphy, i want t be on the far side of the line making sure that i don't create challenges for the special counsel's office or the legislative committees who are engaged in this. with all due respect, things relating to the special counsel and where is this about anyway? >> i refuse to condemn attacks of special counsels that are not shared by republicans. you are frustrated because you are associating yourself with poisonous political attacks. >> i have worked diligently myself and i have put the man on the team that works for me to go out of our way to make sure we are delivering each of those three investigations.

it is difficult. they asked for classified and complex information and we shared information that goes well beyond what have been shared and we have done so with the aim of ensuring special counsel and the senate intelligence and house of intelligence committee have the information they need to conduct their investigation. you should know that we should do it today and tomorrow. >> in the time remaining, i want to come back to the authorization question, you said you believe the president has the authority to strike syrian forces, what statutory -- on the conclusion? >> i believe the president has the authority. he has it under article two of the constitution? >> what's the limiting factor with respect to article two power? >> senator, there are law review articles written and answer to that very question. again, it is a highly fact based

analysis and throughout the cia and the white house and the state department. >> give me one limiting factor. >> senator, if you go and make a commitment, right? if you make a commitment that would be judicially view then the constitution requires. this has been a tbetween the executive and the legislative branch for a long time. i think it is senator kaine that said i have come to the place that you do on the congressional side and have deep respect on what you are looking for. >> normally it would be an imminent threat. >> there is a definition in the war powers act, right? i cannot reside it. >> there is been no attack from the syrian regime, correct?

>> senator, that's correct. >> there is no eminent threat on the united states from the syrian regime. >> i am just trying to be careful, yes, i think that's correct. >> at the end of my time but i want to follow up because i don't think we are at the bottom of these questions. >> you are asking me today to conduct complex legal analysis with legal conclusions. i know it is important so i am trying to do my best and at the same time i am trying to make sure that i don't have some statements that i made -- >> to the extent that there is not an identifiable constraint of article two power -- >> there is a wide disagreement on that. >> president obama carried on

for months, activities against libya that i disagreed on a policy bases but he had the authority to do so. at least he claims he did. the subject of the debate and i think it is prudent of our witness to not try to analyze the detail of that on our own committee, we'll debate that on both sides of the isle at length. i thank you for having this conversation, i will look forward to the follow up. senatoor brasso. >> congratulations on your nomination and thank you for coming by and discussing the issues of national security. i am completely with you of the presidential authority to use military force in syria. i want to stay with syria for r a few moments if i could. what we have seen is assad have

continued to use chemical weapons and another attack a few days ago emerged from the regime killing men or children outside of the damascus and another terrible chemical weapon attack. how do you suggest the u.s. hold assad in the accountable of chemical weapons. >> if i may, i prefer not to answer cht this -- this is a li discussion. i prefer not to talk about plans and intentions with respect to how it is or how the united states respond to the most recent use of the chemical weapon by the assad regime. >> putin continues to use russia's natural gas to threaten our partners and allies overseas. we have been working to help our allies with energy and russia continues to attempt to expand

its monopoly over european supply ws tith the construction the north stream pipeline. 39 senators sending a letter to secretary mnuchin and the department secretary of state sullivan opposing the pipelines and all the tools of or dough as a w our disposal and reenforce russia influence on that region. secretary of state, could you utilize all the tools at your disposal including that the countering america's adversary through sanctions act.

about nordstrom two in particular, to make sure that there are alternatives there, that are in the west best interest and not vladimir putin's best interest. back turning to iran, they continue to be a threat to the united states, to israel, to the united states community, iran is the largest state- sponsored terrorism, they are financing terrorist groups around the world and a lot of it has to do with the massive influx of cash they received from the iran nuclear deal. they are continuing to support destabilizing activities in the region. there are incredible amounts of evidence of that.

i think the united states has to force and impose sanctions for what they are doing with arms trafficking, the development of ballistic missiles, just a little bit about how you plan to respond to iran's illicit activities? including what they are doing to support terrorism and missile development? >> the president has laid out a strategy to push back against each of those elements of threat to america that you have described. maybe focus on sanctions for a moment, there are still arrows in the quiver, more work to do there. we have been part of intelligence to target those sanctions in the right way, so we can understand who is moving weapons around the world and who is engaged in the malign activity we are trying to stop. we just had a big rollup and part of it, we got a big team working on it and we will continue to. if i am confirmed i will be part of that. i will tell you that the other element of that is also a diplomatic path.

it is important when america places sanctions, it is really powerful when we get our partners to do it as well. when we can share the burden, it comes with placing sections because americans can't trade in those places that we can share that burden and truly create global prohibitions with the enemies we designate. we have the greatest likelihood of achieving the outcome we are looking for. >> i turn briefly to north korea and the nuclear program there? last month -- united states i believe should be engaged in talks if they are not just for the purpose of talking, so we should only be engaged incredible opportunities to discuss the denuclearization of north korea. it is also important that you guys continue to pressure this regime. keep the regime fully aware of the consequences of their actions. could you talk about a scenario in which north korea would actually dismantle its nuclear weapons program?

how maximum pressure might work there? >> the historic analysis there is not optimistic. that is, it is almost a talisman that there is not enough coercion, there is not enough capacity for him to make the decision to give up his nuclear weapons arsenal. i hope the talisman is wrong. that is the effort that we have been engaged in. the point about the sanctions i think is relevant. i've had a chance to talk to a whole handful of people who were involved in the framework, the leap day deal, the six party talks. in each case america and the world released their sanctions too quickly. that is, we didn't have the verifiable, irreversible deal that we hoped we had had, and in each case the north koreans walked away from that deal. it was the intention of the president and administration to not do that this time. to make sure that before it is the case, as we did -- before

we provide rewards we get the outcome permanently, irreversibly that it is we hope to achieve. it is a tall order i am hopeful that president trump can achieve that through sound diplomacy, both personally and through the offices of the united states state department. >> the final question with regard to human rights, the rule of law, i appreciate your opening statement in the comments about your commitment to human rights around the world because if we don't who will. secretary of state, your commitment to promoting and protecting these important principles across the globe are key so i appreciate your comments. >> senator markley? >> earlier it was noted that -- you've taken the oath of office several times, to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. recently president trump has talked about a domestic enemy,

saying that the execution of a search warrant by the us law enforcement authorities on michael cohen's office constitutes an attack on our country in a true sense. do you agree with the president's evaluation that that is an attack on our country? >> senator i have always believed that the rule of law matters. i continue to believe that. multiple times individuals have asked me to comment on statements that others have made. friends of mine, adversaries of mine. today, what i want to talk about is the things that i believe. i believe deeply in the rule of law and will continue to do saw. >> do you think the rule of law does enable appropriate warrants to be executed? >> absolutely. >> thank you. turning to north korea. john bolton said it is perfectly legitimate when asked to respond to -- by striking

first, secretary of defense matus had a different view saying that war with north korea would be catastrophic. you lean more toward john bolton's view or secretary of defense medicines view? >> eileen more closely to the presidency which is to continue the pressure campaign, to build a coalition, a diplomatic coalition around the world, to put pressure on kim jong-il -- kim jong un so we can achieve our goals without putting young men and women in harm's way. >> does the president have the constitutional authority to conduct a first truck on north korea without authorization from congress? >> again i want comment on hypothetical situations or complex legal matters. >> you have done so before. back a while, when the question was in regard to committing resources in libya.

you put out a statement regarding a letter to barack obama informing him that the administration would be in violation of the war powers resolution unless either authorization from congress is obtained or the military withdraws operations from libya by sunday june 19. and then you commented and you said specifically that country, libya does not pose a threat to the united states, nor do we have vital interest there. did you believe as you said then, that there is a constitutional limitation on the ability of the president to conduct war without an authorization from congress? >> yes. >> thank you. in that context, not so long ago, there is a lot of discussion that in regard to syria, if

president obama put troops on the ground in syria, without congressional authorization, it would constitute a foundation for impeachment. we had members of the senate including members of our armed service committee, members of the house, and i will quote one of them, representative walter jones said no presidents, democrat or republican should have the authority to bypass the will of lexus the constitution or the will of the american people. and he said if -- i will introduce articles of impeachment. at the time of that discussion did you share the view that for president obama to put troops on the ground would be a violation of the constitution? >> i don't recall if i did or if i made a statement to respect to that at that time. i said we don't recall. >> just to clarify, in the case of libya you did see that there was a line being crossed. >> yes, i believe that. >> the argument was that -- you

still felt that didn't give a foundation for action in libya. >> yes senator i believed what, i think you described it as a letter, not a statement, i believe what i said in that statement. >> it is an issue of great concern here on the boundaries and certainly i think some of your earlier caution about the president exceeding their constitutional authority is caution that we would like to hear in your role as secretary of state. it is often the case when people make the journey down pennsylvania avenue, the war powers in the constitution granted congress seem to be forgotten. will you not forget those constitutional delineation of us want ability's? >> senator i promise you that i will take equal consideration the same way i did that day in 2011. as i have done as the cia

director and if i am confirmed as secretary of state i will continue to do that. >> john bolton noted that it was legitimate for the ust respond to the current necessity posed by north korea's nuclear program by striking first. >> i'm sorry, could you repeat that? >> john bolton argued it is legitimate for the ust respond to the weapons program by striking first, do you agree with that? >> i don't want to go into a hypothetical under what conditions it might be appropriate or not appropriate. we are a long way from that, we are working diplomatically to get the right outcome. >> john bolton argued that cuba was developing biological weapons and it was appropriate for the united states to go to war against you. did you agree with him on that? >> senator, his words speak for himself. >> it speaks for him. >> he's not here. >> tell me your opinion. >> i'm sorry sir, is there a

factual predicate there? >> do you agree with his viewpoint that we should go to war with cuba? >> no senator. i haven't at any time stated that we should go to war with cuba. >> how about in regard to his belief that hussein had weapons of mass destruction and we should go to war with iraq. >> i may not have expounded, i have read the history, the intelligence committee was incorrect about its assessment at that time. >> i just note, the reason i'm asking these questions is there is a lot of concern in america, a lot of people are paying attention to this hearing and they are asking the fundamental question, are we assembling a war cabinet of john bolton, and mike pompeo that are going to result in devastating consequences, bypassing congress's authority in regard to the use of military force, and perhaps engaging in another

poorly thought through mistake like our war on iraq that has resulted in a huge loss of american lives, a huge loss of american resources, enormous instability including iran developing an enormous track of influence from iran, through syria, through yemen, and people want to know whether or not your views are close enough to bolton's in his advocacy of force in virtually every situation that we are going to have a very dangerous arrangement on the key to advisers to the united states. if the chair will indulge, >> -- mr. chairman many people have gone over time and i am still just within one minute. >> i'm sorry, might i get you to reframe the question or

ask it one more time? i apologize. >> he heard the question. just answer. are you forming a war cabinet? >> i've been part of this cabinet, i have watched it thoughtfully deliberate about all of these things and i can tell you every day at the forefront of our mind is how can we find solutions that avoid , that achieve the american objective but avoid us having to put a single american in harms way. you have my commitment that a secretary of state or if i continue as the cia director, that i will hold that in the forefront of my mind. >> thank you. >> thank you very much senator portman. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. pompeo, thank you for your willingness to step up and serve again. i imagine it is hard to leave the cia after only 15 months given your tenure there which was successful and where you developed a lot of close relationships. but you are taking on a new task and it is a different task. the cia is primarily an organization that informs

policymakers. now you're going to be a policymaker. i think you got a good background to do so, i enjoyed our meeting and i've enjoyed getting to know you over the years. we talked about some tough issues and we talked about soft power. kind of to the suggestions made here today, that a guy with your background, your military background, do you really believe in diplomacy and soft power grid you've got a pretty impressive background, you run the house intelligence committee. you were number one in your class at west point, you also went to harvard law school and i won't hold that against you. you are magna [null] laude. but you did serve in the military, as a cavalry officer, patrolling as i recall the iron curtain -- curtain at the time. so i guess my question for you is because there have been suggestions that you would be

too quick to turn to military options, how would you respond to that? >> senator i can't recall if i read this morning but it was in my opening statement, there are a few people like soldiers who appreciate diplomats and good diplomatic work. you train, you prepare, you want very much to be prepared if america calls upon you. you are counting on the fact that there will be diplomats around the world resolving these challenges, pushing back on these conflicts and preventing the very activity for which it is your training and for peroration -- you have my commitment to do that. >> you sound like: pal. >> i take that is high praise. >> for those of you who wonder if you can be a military officer and also diplomats, i think he is someone who proves the point. highly regarded at the state department. combat officer. like yourself. someone who had a strong military background and he was very effective with diplomacy

and managing foreign service as well. something you and i talked about a lot in our meeting was your management approach. i told you i thought that the state department was real and we needed a fresh start there. i enjoyed working with -- i think his lack of appointees being confirmed by this -- was one of the problems but for whatever the reasons there is a morale problem. i am not going to ask you to repeat what you said to me in private but i was encouraged because you talked about, you didn't talk about the drill sergeant, i've been listening as well today, but you did in our meeting talk about the respect you have for the foreign service and your belief that you cannot just improve the morale but get people motivated to feel that they are important and make a difference. there is a lot of talk about libya today and there is talk about syria today and what is going on in terms of the

decision-making. let me broaden this a little bit and ask about something that our committee is struggling with right now which is the notion that we have an au mf, the authorization for the use of military force that dates back to 2001. and 2002. and it has not been updated. how do you feel about that? do you think we should update it? >> i do senator. and if i may elaborate, i actually was part of a team on the house side from years ago that worked on that, we weren't ultimately able to be successful. i do believe that it is important that we achieve that. that we have a new set of leaders in the united states congress who also provide that authorization. i think the one that we have works, it provides the authority that the president needs today. i would welcome working alongside you to achieve, i think you used the term refresh, au mf. >> lessig it is important, obviously it is not appropriate to say that someone in the administration is not

forthcoming and trying to get to a decision here because a number of us believe that it ought to be flexible as to reach into groups. we do believe the president has inherent authorities within the constitution and as commander in chief that need to be respected but it's just not tenable to say we are relying on -- it goes back to 2001, that was 17 years ago. so we would like to work with you on that. in the meeting we talked about how russia and other countries, mine included, have pursued extensive disinformation and propaganda campaigns. i think we are missing out, on the military front. what people call the new hybrid threats. it is connecticut's military but it is also disinformation. other countries have figured that out and most of them like iran and russia and china and others are using north -- using disinformation in a sophisticated way. it wasn't just about our election which i believe the russians did metal

in our election, and i think it is well beyond that. and it happened before and it's going to happen after and unless we do something about it. these operations use a range of tools, cyber attacks, hacking, tool farms, they go on social media, they find useful think tanks, political organizations. we have legislation to set up a global engagement center to give it personnel and the funding it needs to be able to push back. i would like to know your views on that and specifically do you agree with me on the severity of the threat. the threat posed by foreign government propaganda disinformation to us interests and our allies. >> yes i do. i think it is a real threat, one that has been underappreciated for years now. it has become cheaper, faster, less attributable. so it's power has increased the capacity for line actors to use

these information tools in ways that they didn't have available to them 20 or 40 years ago. it also makes stopping it more difficult. it requires a more competence of effort. we've had a small role at the cia in pushing back against it. and i know that there have been lots of talk about the global engagement center and in the event i'm confirmed i promise you i will put excellent foreign service officers, excellent civil service officers on the task of developing our capabilities and using it in a robust way. >> i'm encouraged to hear that. as you know we've made progress recently getting funds and starting it up. will you commit to helping implement this in an aggressive way including ensuring we have the right staff there to be able to pursue this critical mission? >> i will senator porter. >> i just got back from ukraine and i have a minute and a half left, i just got back from ukraine and as you and i talked about ukraine unfortunately is

ground zero for what is going on in regard to disinformation but it is beyond that. i was out of the context line and saw military activities as well. do you support the continuation of providing defensive lethal weapons to the ukrainians so they can defend themselves? >> senator, i do. >> do you pledge the united states while your secretary of state would never recognize the annexation of prime you? >> yes senator i will fight to make sure that that does not happen obviously. it would be the president's decision but i think it would be completely inappropriate to do that. >> and do you think russian sanctions should remain until there is a cease-fire agreement? >> yes i do. >> thank you. >> we are beginning the second round again, there will be five minutes and i haven't heard from mary alice. >> might we take just five minutes?

>> yes we will take a five minute recess and convene again at 140. we will begin our second round. >> before i begin my time, i have received a number of letters from members of congress expressing their views about director pompeo's -- i would like to introduce these letters. >> without objection. >> i want to go back to my first line of questioning and for me all of these hearings whether it be about a witness on the subject or nomination is certainly for nomination, the secretary of state which is the fourth in line in succession to the presidency, is super important. when i asked you about the march 22, 2017 meeting your first answer to me was i'm --

i'm reading directly from the transcript, i'm not going to talk about the conversation that the president and i had. then, when i pressed you further, you said you didn't recall. i don't recall what he asked to me that day cicely. -- precisely. i know what the conversation is about but i'm not going to talk about it, to i don't recall it, and then you gave a blanket conversation that you've never been asked to do anything wrong. or improper. well if you don't want to talk about it then you can't remember it, i don't know how you jump to that conclusion. so it is concerning to me because we need a secretary of state who will be forthright with us. and who will be forthcoming as well. let me ask you this. let me turn this picture up for you. on april 4 this picture was

taken, can you tell me what is wrong with the photo. you'll have to help me. >> i've seen this picture before. or similar picture. >> i will give this to you in the interest of time. what's wrong is that the united states of america, what's wrong is that i ron, russia and turkey supposedly a nato ally was purchasing an s 400 missile system from russia country virgin -- fighting the same kurds that we had depended upon to defeat isis. d3 leaders are engaged with the question of what to do about syria and the united states isn't even present. so what are the implications for example for our ally the state of israel if a russian, turkey, iran alliance is

unchallenged in shaping the outcome of syria? >> i largely agree, we need to have a robust diplomatic effort related to the very situation you were describing, they were there for the purpose of discussing how they were going to carve up syria, that is a rough statement of their mission. but that is what they were there for. the american people need to be represented. we need to be part of that. >> so what is our strategy? >> i will walk you through what we were trying to accomplish in theory. it is difficult but i will concede it is incredibly complex and turkey's entry took and all ready incredibly complex situation and put another twist in it. so if you will bear with me. we have the primary mission that we've been engaged in to defeat isis. we did so using a group of men who did great work. we took the caliphate down and we ought to be proud of it. there is still work to do. that mission is not yet complete. >> the next element of it, i

need you to be precise because even though i asked for longer periods of time with this question, it were going to be wrapping that gavel. >> to talk about the strategy in two minutes is enormously challenging. so the other objective is to achieve a diplomatic outcome such that there is more civility and we can take down the violence. we want to get to a place for the syrian people can ultimately govern themselves and our goal is to make that opposed a sod syria one day. >> let me move move to another part of the world, iran. is it the united states security interest to unilaterally withdraw from the ironic creamy without a strategy for what comes next? >> i'm confident that whatever course comes next we will have a strategy. >> so you are answering yes, it is in the national security interest to withdraw because 11 strategy, is that your answer? >> it is in the national security interest that no

matter what course would take on, we should develop a strategy to achieve the objectives that i think we all share to prevent iran >> if the president unilaterally withdraws in may, what does the administration intend to do? what will you be recommending in terms of reinstituting the pre-sanctions on iran and on those countries who engage with iran? >> there is an active policy discussion around all of these issues and how it will proceed in the next 30 days and the days thereafter. the objective is very clear. the objective is to fix the shortcomings of the iran government. >> -- >> i don't want to speculate >> >> i will tell you the problem with the nominee director. you want me to put my faith in you but i can't do that blindly. i have to have some sense that what you will be advocating, even if it is not what the president decides, is it to put

back sanctions, do they depend on whether or not the europeans are going to be in sync with us? if they are not and we put backs language, are they going to come along with us, or are they going to reciprocate and tell our companies not to do it. if we don't snap sanctions back are we nothing but eight two foot tiger. this is the critical question that i am looking to understand, what you will advocate for and it is not that you come as a candidate here, who hasn't had dealings with this issue, because in a different context with the cia director, you have had dealings with this issue. that is what i am trying to glean here and i am not getting it. >> i have had dealings with them senator and at the deep urging of -- have avoided being part of the policy discussions. with your permission, it is hard to hypothesize about what the conditions will be in may and how close we may be to

achieving the president subjective through diplomacy to speculate on how we might respond, it's difficult. i know that is what you're asking me to do and i simply cannot, it's a hypothetical situation about which we still have a number of facts that are unavailable. >> i was asking you for a strategy, not goals. and i don't think that a strategy is one that invades the space that you presently occupy or the space you hope to occupy. so it would make it a lot easier for me when i have to vote on you to understand what you will be epic -- advocating for. >> senator garner? >> thank you mr. chairman. you're doing an incredible job challenging us today mr. pompeo and being very forward in your answers and i appreciate that today and it will serve you well as secretary of state. i look forward to supporting you. there has been some news that was made while you were in the

testimony earlier today by president trump, i think he is -- has directed according to news reports, ambassador light heiser along with larry kudlow to open up the possibility of re-engaging in the transpacific partnership. leading into this question on china, the national security strategy released in 2017 says china and russia challenge american power influence and interest attempting to erode american interest and security, -- expand its reach is -- reorder the region in its favor and using economic inducements to influence operations and the implied military threats to persuade other states to heat its agenda. i talked to you about the clear militarization of the china season, about how they are conducting plans to conduct live fire exercises in the taiwan straits. can you talk about this including tpp and how that can counter china's influence and what we need to do to make sure

that we have a policy toward china? >> that news was news to me. but i have watched the administration, i supported tpp when i was a member of congress. there is an economic, there is an economic component to what china is trying to do. we need to be engaged as a diplomatic component to the economic activity as well. we need to be deeply engaged there. i'm confident this administration will do that. >> thank you george pompeo, talking a little bit about southeast asia, and our challenge right now, how many fighters right now from southeast asia do you think are in syria today? >> how many? >> how many islamic fighters are in syria? >> i don't recall the numbers, there are many. >> and have we seen these return to southeast asia as well >> we have. >> and houser coronation with those places in terms of

addressing and monitoring and combating as they move back? >> without giving too much detail, it is better in some places and others. but as much as we deal with our european partners and the partners in the middle east we do our best to track these terrorists as they move around the world so that we can together identify ways to prevent them from conducting their terror. >> the fighters in southeast asia went to syria and then returned, -- >> i don't recall sitting here today. >> thank you. in regard to taiwan, the taiwan travel act signed into law march 18, 2018 supported that and i commend the president for signing that. i do agree with the policy provisions just at what level would you authorize state department personnel to -- >> i don't know the answer to that, i'm familiar with the act, the three -- the free communication, i know american policy, i know what's there, with respect to the level of

appropriate authorities. i just need to look at that and frankly turned to the professional in the state department to give me guidance before i opine on that issue. >> would you support regularized arms sales to taiwan? i think it is important, under every administration, republican and democrat alike, we have provided the arm sales necessary to fit them with -- >> should be invite taiwan to us-led military -- multilateral exercises -- >> i don't know the answer to that. >> obviously i want to turn a little bit back again to north korea. if you don't mind, north korea presents a nuclear proliferation threat, they are one of the things we talked about, we talk about the missile systems and delivery, we talk about risks to the homeland. to the extent the capacity, the nuclear capability, the technology and the capacity that north korea has or

continues to have, they present an enormous proliferation threat throughout the world, they have demonstrated that throughout history and there is no -- >> does that currently include syria? >> i can't speak to that. >> do you know if north korea provided any of the elements, tools, supplies to syria? that could have been a part of the recent gas attack in syria? >> i can't speak to that. >> quickly, what are your plans in the state department for the cyber position, the cyber security position? >> senator i haven't, i've had charts shown to me, but beyond that i haven't given a great deal of consideration to people filling particular positions. >> i can only say that every element of government has a piece of its cyber duty, is one of the challenges, so deeply divided that we don't have a central place to do cyber work.

at the cia we've been, we spent a great deal of resources and i hope we have delivered value on the cyber efforts, and i hope i would do the same at the state department. the mac i look forward to working with you. thank you mr. chairman. >> i will note he has an outstanding jell-o named rob strayer who is there who has not only dealt with homeland security issues and foreign policy issues but i know he is working in essence right below that position now, he's done an outstanding job on your behalf. you should know that. senator cardin? >> thank you mr. chairman. tomorrow vice president has will head to peru for the summit of the americas. to meet with them and other members of our committee. the theme of the conference is on how democratic governments deal with corruption. i mention that because you have been very strong at this

hearing on protecting american values, democratic principles etc. corruption corrodes democratic institutions. this committee has passed down legislation that would pass this state department to establish rankings for countries regarding corruption, but there is always resistance within the state department for more work being given to them. do we have your commitment that anticorruption is so important, that we need to have an effective means of using our influence in other countries through our development assistance, to develop the anticorruption tools to fight corruption? >> yes and i promise not to complain about workload. >> i appreciate that, i really do. >> at least publicly senator. >> thank you senator. -- tools to deal with human rights violators.

we've got really got -- good cooperation from the state department and treasury on implementing the statutes. do we have your assurance that you will work with us? it is a cooperative effort between the congress and the administration to identify human rights violators that are not being held accountable in their own country so they can take advantage of our banking system or visiting our country, do we have your assurance that you will work closely with us and implement in a statute? >> those are both powerful tools, you have my commitment that we will work to use those tools to the full capacity of the state department. >> i think you that. on the budget of your department, we seen the administration primarily come in with dramatic cuts to the state department's budget. we need a champion in the state department and i heard you say you would ask for the resources you need. i heard you say that. one of the other problems we've had is it's been appropriated

funds that haven't been spent. do we have your assurances that you will follow the direction of congress on how we establish priorities and when we establish a priority through the budget to carry out those priorities? >> i have a lawful requirement to do so. >> thank you for that. >> i've seen this from both sides as a member of congress and now i've seen it in the executive branch. i know the rules. i'll try to make sure that i am doing so in a way that delivers value. but yes, you have my commitment that i will work towards doing that. >> that happened in regards to russia, in regards to us providing a way to defend against their propaganda and the state department didn't take the money we provided. it was authorized by us and the appropriators put the money in the budget and they have a hard time getting it spent. you obviously know a lot more information than any of us do in regard to russia as far as intelligence information. but can you acknowledge

publicly that russia was involved in our 2016 elections? >> yes sir. >> i appreciate that. and i want to get to a topic that you and i talked about in our -- in my office and that is torture. i am going back to your prior hearing, but i want to take it from a different point of view. if confirmed as a top diplomat, torture is one of the major issues that we talk about in global human rights. if you give a dictator any room on torture, on the definition of torture, they will use it with impunity. and yes, i have confidence in our professionals. and how they go about getting information. but if there is any ambiguity on waterboarding or issues that are clearly within the purview of being abused for interrogation, it leads to the erosion of global human rights

in regard to people who are under custody. so can you just clarify for me how you would as secretary of state be clear as to america's commitment against torture? >> senator i will, i have 15 months of data that you can take a look at in terms of that, a very similar question asked to me when i was being confirmed as cia director. torture is illegal, never permitted. and today the techniques, one of which you mentioned, the limits imposed on that, legal limits that came from congress and were signed by a president. the cia at the national security council table, i have not heard anyone seek to undermine that particular piece of legislation. we are all committed to that. >> mr. chairman if i could i would like to complement the nominee for giving precise answers. it is refreshing to have a person who answers our questions.

>> you can complement him, not me if you wish. while we are on the issue of human rights, the committee is has worked and all of congress and the president has signed legislation to end modern slavery around the world. we've got about 27 million people minimally that are in slavery today, more than at any time in the world history. there is an effort underway at the state department, 25 million funded by the us and the uk has done the same, to utilize best efforts around the world to end this scourge on mankind. i know you are aware of it, i hope you also, i know you committed numbers to a senator carbon. but i hope you will commit to work with us to improve this and make it even stronger than it is and to continue this effort. >> senator i will. i worked on some related issues related to human trafficking

when i was a member of the house of representatives. you have my commitment. >> thank you. senator shane? >> thank you mr. chairman. when you were in my office we discussed the role of the state department in empowering women around the world. since women make up half of the world's population, as we get more information about what empowering women does, we learn that women are more likely to give back to their families and their communities when they are able to go to work and benefit economically. countries that have empowered women generally do better on everything from how they deal with human rights to a democracy scale. and one of the things that we have also learned in the united states is the first country to,

in legislation, agree that we need to try to make sure that when there are conflict resolutions that women are included in those conversations. and are at the negotiating table. because that means that those negotiations are going to last better and longer. so we have an office of global women's issues. there has been an ambassador in that office and right now it is unfilled. it has in the past reported to the secretary. i appreciate your concerns about the organizational chart. but i hope that you will take a look at this position again and that you will commit to ensuring that not only do we have a qualified ambassador in that role but that this is a position that works directly with the secretary. >> you have my commitment to find that qualified person and get them there as quickly, get them into their position and confirmed as quickly as

possible. >> thank you. it's been reported that the state department officials have been asked to pare back language on women's rights. on sexual discrimination. on international family planning. in the annual human rights report, again, can i have your commitment that countries and groups that continue to discriminate against and abuse women are exposed in this report as they have been for many years prior to the upcoming report? >> yes senator, i am a little bit familiar, i had a briefing over the state department with respect to the issue of concern that you raised. you have my commitment that we will keep things that ought not be influential in making the determination about how that is put together to influence those decisions, just as i have done, we will try to do it straight up and get the facts so we can do that well and properly. >> good, i appreciate that.

we also discussed the issue of refugees when you were in my office, as of april 1 halfway through the fiscal year, only 10,548 refugees have been resettled. that is just 23% of the 45,000 that have been established. so can you talk about firstly, will you ensure that the state department makes a good state effort to meet the refugee -- fiscal year 2018 and how you will look at trying to make sure that happens? >> two questions, the answer to the first one is will i commit to go find out what has driven that and try and unpack it? you have my commitment to that. i don't know. you also have my commitment, i think america has an important role here with respect to refugees. we have an important role to provide humanitarian assistance for those that are seeking refuge as close to the place that they are to have a chance to meet with some of these

refugees in very difficult situations, you have my full commitment that we will work on these issues together. >> thank you i appreciate that and of course as the director of the cia you have a very good idea how expensive the vetting is for refugees who are invited into the united states. >> we play a small part in that but yes i am familiar with the process. >> i very much appreciate your statements with respect to addressing morale at the state department, to addressing staffing at the state department. i hope you will also look at promotions, that is another place that has been an issue at the state department. one of, it is my understanding that there is still a hiring freeze at the state department? that is the only department within the federal government that still has a hiring freeze in place? i hope you will commit to repealing that hiring freeze and move forward as quickly as possible. and fill vacancies that exist within the state department. >> i will.

i have heard different things about the exact data but i want to go one further. i spent a lot of time working on recruiting of human capital at the cia, making sure that we had the best americans in the world applying to become cia officers. we weren't resourced or structured properly to do that in my view. we devoted more resources to it , 15 months, i'm not sure i can point to success yet but we have a building block in place to do that. i want to do the same at the state department, i want the best of america in a way that is traditionally part of the state department, to say i want to be a professional officer of the state department. >> thank you i appreciate that. as senator murphy said what we are seeing in china is that they are placing up their diplomatic activities so it makes no sense for us to be undermining ours. so thank you very much, thank you. >> thank you chairman, thank you director pompeii, we had a

constructive conversation yesterday and i'm confident you would be a good advocate for the career professionals in the state department. so rather than focus on some of the management and budget and stuff i'm going to focus on areas where i still got some unresolved questions and would rather have a more pointed exchange. but i want to make sure that i recognized, i think you got clarity about the importance of the mission of the role. you said in your prepared statement that represented america also requires promoting america's ideals and values and priorities. to those who ultimately determine the trajectory of geopolitics, the voters and citizens of the world. i agree with you. mr. chairman i would like to introduce for the record an article from the cube research center which reflects floor trends that other surveys of the world and world leaders have also revealed. this 2017 survey looked at global levels of confidence.

and president trump, and russian president vladimir putin, in german chancellor -- their confidence that they would do the right thing for the world. it was striking that for the first time there has been real slippage. are you concerned to see polls such as this, that for the first time ever say more people around the world, more leaders around the world trust vladimir putin and -- to lead the world in the right direction than america to donald trump's leadership? >> i definitely want people to understand accurately, it is not an attempt to deceive but rather to accurately have the people of the world understand the beacon of democracy that the united states of america is. we talked a moment ago with senator portman about misinformation and the capacity to move that around the world. we need to make sure that doesn't have an impact. i couldn't tell you,

it is the case that there are actors in the world seeking to achieve exactly the perception that you have laid out and we need to make sure that we are doing all that we can to counter that perception of the united states. >> i'm sure you would agree the united states has and promotes quite different values than china. >> deeply. >> i would be interested in what your strategy would be for investing in the resources needed to push back on this difference. what role do you think our values should play, both in our bilateral relationship with china, and in how we engage in the world. i have had a concern that over the last 15 months our values weren't as front and center as our interest more newly understood. how do we change that? in a bilateral relationship with china and more broadly around the world? >> i believe that our values, sometimes you will see some people characterize our interest being in conflict with our values and that may be the case from time to time. i think most often senator that our values drive those interests.

we should be unashamed about that. we should speak to the reason we operate the way we do. we should defend american values every place we go. with respect to china, perhaps, but certainly with respect to other countries, hard some conversations. we do end up having to deal with unsavory characters from time to time to achieve an outcome that we deem important to american national security but we should never do that, we should never do that exclusively. that is we should never put away this american vision for the things that make society successful and people be able to achieve what it is that they seek. we should be proud of that and we should always have that a part of as part of the discussion. >> i think that is a vision that doesn't just tolerate but celebrate our differences. as the cochair of the senate human rights caucus, i am concerned about how we make sure that we make that celebration of difference a piece of our foreign policy. i'd be interested in whether

you think lgbt q rights are human rights, and whether you would advocate for them as a piece of a broader agenda of advocating for diversity? and what your strategy is for preventing partners like turkey and egypt and the philippines that have genuinely slid on their respect and recognition for rights broadly understood from moving further away from our core values? >> i deeply believe that lgbt q persons have every right that every other person in the world would have. we have many countries in the world without honor that or reflect that, that contact -- against those persons. we have a responsibility when we are dealing with those countries to do our best to have an impact, to make them recognize the fundamental dignity of every human being. >> last question if i might mr. chairman. there were some exchanges

previously about a statement you made as an elected official right after the boston marathon bombing in 2013. and whether that sends a message to america's muslims, and leaders around the world you will need to work with as a chief diplomat. just tell me about who the leaders are in the muslim world you will be willing to work closely with and what priority you would place on changing that perception? of your views given by a few statements that as we discussed yesterday you think were taken out of context. i think it is important to have a sense on the record of your view of the religion of islam and our partners in the muslim world. >> let me try and do that. let me try to give evidence. i have worked with our intelligence partners throughout a broad range of muslim majority countries, i've worked with him closely. we've done very difficult things together.

it might be difficult for you to chase some of them down but i think if you could speak to them, you'd find that the view that you suggested that some have seen from that remark, it would be very different to them. i think they have come to understand that i deeply honor their religion, i honor their commitment to that, some of the challenges that you asked in your previous question, we try to push back even if they are at low intelligence level, we have taken on some of these human rights issues in a crisp and square way. i assure you that i will continue to do that if i am confirmed. >> thank you for your answers. >> thank you mr. chairman. director pompeo, this question has been asked by i think several members but i'm going to ask it in just a little bit different way. we are living in kind of an extraordinary time in terms of our constitution and what is unfolding. my understanding is that deputy

attorney general rosenstein has been called over to the white house, as you know, director komi was fired. by the president. and i understand you went to the best law school in the country, you are a harvard trained lawyer and so i think you really understand the difference between right and wrong here. if we had this circumstance, and we look very close to it, i don't think it is, i don't think we can dismiss this as a hypothetical. if you either had the firing of the deputy attorney general rosenstein are you had the firing of this special prosecutor mueller, this would be an unbelievable extraordinary event in our history. i think it is clear it would be a violation of law, of the statutes allowing this kind of investigation. it would be obstruction of justice. it would violate rule of law as

known in this country and around the world. i think it would put us in a constitutional crisis. and so, i am wondering is your nominee to be secretary of state, would you refuse this position if this happened? >> senator i did answer this question was before. >> i don't think you quite answered it. >> i think the answer is no, again i haven't had a long time to think about it but when domestic turmoil arises, all the more important i think to have leaders representing america around the world. i've seen this and we have all lived this. there was a time when we had a president impeached. enormous domestic turmoil. as my recollection, most of the cabinet members chose to continue to do their best, to defend american democracy and to do their roles around the world. my thought here as i said

before today is that i would continue to endeavor to do that. >> i think if you remember you are speaking of the impeachment of nixon. many officials that were in the line decided as a moral matter to step aside. they weren't to have anything to do with it. and then everything happened very quickly. but we are in a situation now where i think, this is going to be one of the biggest moral issues of our time. you know the difference between right and wrong, to just dismiss this and say oh, i'm just going to continue to do my job, as the rest of the government and our constitution crumbles around us, would you resign as cia director if that is the position you're in? >> that is the same question, i was actually thinking of the more recent impeachment of the president when president clinton was impeached. that is what i had in my head.

the cabinet members decided that it was incumbent upon them in this time of domestic political turmoil to continue to perform their functions more ably. >> i think the closer parallel is nixon but would you take any action if this constitutional crisis that i described here, would you take any action to do anything about it? to press your opinion in terms of right and wrong? >> we are a long way down into a hypothetical. >> yes but it is a hypothetical that may happen in the course of you getting your nomination before the senate and having debate. i think you should answer the question. >> i'm going to give the same answer i gave previously. >> so your answer is you wouldn't do anything. >> i didn't say that. >> will tell me what you do? tell me what you would do. >> senator again, i have to tell you, you are down a hypothetical. even though it was to my

advantage not to speculate on hypotheticals today, i am going to continue to do that. >> mr. chairman i would just say i am very proud of many of the republicans in the unites the united states senate -- senate saying that they think this would be intolerable, and that they wouldn't accept it i think they're going to step forward. thank you very much i appreciate it. >> senator murphy? , senator kane? >> thank you mr. chair. thank you again director pompeo. in 2016 you wrote congress must act to change iranian behavior and ultimately the iranian regime. i think the topic of iran has been amply discussed today but you and i chatted about this in regime change in another nation is an acceptable foreign policy goal for the united states? if i could just follow up, and if you do, i'd like you to tell me whether our earlier efforts at regime change have shown any access, and also describe for me how we can embrace regime change

as a foreign policy goal without encouraging other nations, including our adversaries, to think it's an appropriate goal for them. >> senator, let me try to unpack i think three or four questions there. first, with respect to the specific comment, some have suggested this was by use of force. it wasn't intended as such. i expressly didn't say that in that piece. i talked about the fact that we have a theocratic regime that is the world's largest state sponsor of terror, and to the extent we can take -- engage in activities that free the iranian people, right, and i'm proud of what the administration did when there were protests earlier this year. perhaps it was in the fall of last. i was proud of the way this administration responded. did so forcefully. did so in support of the iranians that were demanding a change to the theocracy that was inside there, and, frankly, economic change as well. those are the dinkinds of thing was thinking about when speaking

about it. i think it is entirely appropriate for the united states government to be engaged in. >> democracy progressivmotion, % with you. if you say regime change should be an official policy. the regime change of iran or any nation as an official policy, why wouldn't russia be completely justified in saying regime change in the united states should be our official policy? do we really want to go down the route we're we take on the decision on our shoulders whether there should be regime change in another country. fining out we don't know so much about other countries as we think. >> i'm familiar with the list you're referring, senator, and i don't disagree with you about our success at achieving that in a way that benefitted america or the world. i don't disagree. >> you would agree with me, if we embraced the regime change in other nations, we can hardly say this is something that only the u.s. gets to do. if we say that's an acceptable foreign policy goal for us,

other nations conclude it's an acceptable foreign policy goal for them or may have already concluded. >> senator, i must say, i don't find the moral giequivalency the in each case you're describing. this is a unique, exceptional country. russia is unique but not exceptional. the words democracy promotion to vladimir putin are unlikely to be used in the same sentence, paragraph -- >> maybe the same zip code. >> maybe the same century. i'm sensitive to your concerns. i appreciate them. but i do want to be careful that we are all cognisant of the fact that, i mean, look at the election meddling, right? it's different in kind in terms of the way we engage with the peoples of the world and i think that's important, to your point, i think we should be proud of that and continue we stay on the right side of the line there. >> i think this came up earlier, but i want to make sure. the president announced he wasn't going to attend the summit of the americas.

and i think this action together with some other actions, the threat to pull out of nafta, the bellicose rhetoric back and forth between the president and mexico is suggesting that the administration doesn't put a high priority in the americas. what would you do as secretary, if confirmed, to show our caribbean and american neighbors that we value these relationships? >> senator, that's a great question. i've seen firsthand, i've travelled there a couple of times as the cia director. these are places of enormous opportunity and immense economic opportunity for america and a place that it's a risk if america walks away and isn't engaged. we see places in turmoil. in venezuela, the administration's been pretty focused on trying to achieve the outcome there, right? to try to get the venezuelan people to be successful at getting what they need in terms of leadership and government. we've seen the refugee crisis that's flown from that into colombia and other places. deeply important place. i assure you by will work to get

an undersecretary confirmed as soon as possible and all the right people in place so we can deliver good diplomatic solutions in latin america and south america. >> finally, as far as you know, is the administration's policy consistent with previous administrations that the u.s. wants to find a way to promote a peaceful two-state solution with israel and palestine with them living peacefully with each other? >> it is, senator. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> i enjoyed the line of questioning. i was talking a little bit with senator menendez. the regime change issue, i remember it seems like that everybody on this committee except maybe senator paul from kentucky agreed with the previous administration's policy that assad had to leave. assad must go. seems that that was unanimous. maybe that wasn't the case. but that, to me, is indicative of some feeling of a regime change. >> that is brutal and a dictator and subject to sanctions,

international criminal prosecution, even military action to punish him for civilians is one thing, but i don't think the united states has a right to decide who should be the leader of another country. >> well, it seems to me that a president stating that someone has to go is going down that road. it was the stated policy of the united states of america that assad had to go. >> it was the stated policy of a president, and that statement i thought was very, very unfortunate because it raised expectations that were then dashed. >> i remember. >> when the u.s. tries to do regime change, you know, it was going to be great with gadhafi gone. it was going to be great with saddam hussein gone. >> i do remember secretary kerry being here and being pummeled by committee members to ensure it was the policy of the administration that assad had to leave. i do remember that. maybe not every single person on this committee, but i'm sorry, i would say most every person on

this committee, senator. senator booker? >> thank you very much. mr. pompeo, thank you very much. my last line of questioning. i want to move on to something else but i do appreciate your religious freedom, my religious freedom and that being one of our core ideals. for you to hold your beliefs whatever you think about -- even if past statements might put a chill on people that might work for you. somebody to work with you, two folks sent me a letter today. i'd like to enter into the record this letter from andre carson. >> without objection. senator coons paperwork a minute ago without objection. >> andre carson and keith ellison, two of the muslim members of the united states congress. it's a very heartfelt letter about your nomination and their feelings. i want to move on a little bit into our bill of rights and talk about the freedom of the press, if you don't mind.

this administration's treatment of the press has been adversarial let's say at the least. maybe that's a generous way of putting it. i think it's been more towards vicious. the president in his first day in office attacked the media on their reporting about the inauguration and deemed the press the enemy of the people. and that's very dramatic. his fake news accusations have become something that's almost become a meme of sorts in our country, but very tragically around the planet, as you know, we're at a point now where we have the imprisonment, according to the committee to protect journalism, we have journalists being imprisoned around the world at a pretty significant rate that is at a historical high. there is actually about 24 journalists, excuse me, 21 journalists now in prison in places like turkey, in china, on

fake news charges. you recently -- you're currently the head of the central intelligence agency, which understandably should be a lot more opaque and doesn't engage -- i think i heard you say earlier in this hearing you had just a handful of public statements. to the more recent people you've talked to, a culture of much more openness towards the press. let me ask you for the record real quick, you do not believe the press is the enemy of the state, do you? >> i do not, senator. >> you're going to engage with the press. be open, be transparent, allow an robust engagement. >> it is my every intention, yes. >> great. when it comes to your posture towards the press as you travel internationally, you're going to become in many ways like the american you are, an apostle of the idea of the free press. >> yes. >> thank you very much. i want to move on to syria, if i may.

the president -- and you and i talked about some of the -- you and i both comment we believe we need to counter the threat of iran. and then i talked to you yesterday about the incongruncy about our policy is in syria. the president has announced that he would freeze $200 million in stabilization assistance and that the u.s. would pull out of isis as soon as -- as soon as isis is defeated, he wants to pull out of -- pull out as soon as possible. and i'm wondering what your view on that presidential intention is. >> that is an active discussion. i want to be a little bit careful. with respect to the longer term strategy in syria, i can speak to that as opposed to the near term events that are before us now. i don't want to prejudge what the administration's going to choose to do. with respect to the president's statement about departing from syria, which i think is at the core of your question, i think

the president made clear he wants to get out. that he does want to have fewer american men and women there. we have fewer there today than we had some period ago, right? we're trying -- secretary mattis is trying to get the footprint right there to achieve the american objective. it is also the case that we hope that we can find partner forces to help achieve some of the very same goals that you referenced in your question. but i think we'd all agree, to the extent we can achieve those objectives for america, do it with fewer american men and women on the ground and better diplomacy, that's the task that's before us. >> and i know this was explored before, but i just want to ask it very simply, does the president have the authority to launch strikes against the government of syria? >> senator, yes, i believe that he does. >> you believe he does? does -- so you do not believe there should be a new -- there is a need for a new

authorization for the use of military force to cover such an attack? >> senator, i believe that he has the authority he needs to do that today. i don't believe we need a new au aumf for the president to engage in the activity you described. i think i said earlier, if confirmed, i'm looking forward to working with you. i do believe it is important that we refresh the aumf. that we bring it forward. we have current members serving who have supported the policies of the united states with respect to the use of force. >> let me just say in closing, because i was very grateful for our conversation privately, but i just want to have it said out there in the public, myself and senator flake and especially i would consider a specialist on our committee senator coons, our focus on issues in africa from the sahil region to what i think senator flake asked you about directly, zimbabwe. the feeling i got from his trip

recently was the feeling of the neglect, not just from foreign countries, but a yearning for more engagement from the state department. clearly they're there essential u.s. interests there. clearly the chinese activities are something i know you find concerning. i just want to make sure and hear for the record what you told me privately that this will be a priority for you you will address your time and attention to in a significant way, not only in boosting morale, boosting positions, but putting forth a real strategy to deal with everything from the humanitarian crisis in sudan and congo. >> i think i confirmed that for you yesterday. i'm happy to confirm it also. full-scale. from humanitarian needs to all the other elements of u.s. diplomatic power. >> thank you, sir. >> before moving to senator markey, the refreshing of the aumf was the '01/'02. >> yes, sir. i was thinking at that point the particular 2001 aumf.

>> i assume, again, when you talk about the strikes in syria, the president having the authority, you're talking about surgical strikes, no prolonged efforts. >> that is correct. yes, senator corker. >> senator markey? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. pompeo, i'd like to look at your record on human rights a little closer. next monday is the fifth anniversary of the patriots day marathon bombing in boston, and it, of course, was a horrific day in our history. it was something that proved once again that we are boston strong. but following those attacks, you falsely alleged that american muslim leaders were, quote, potentially complicit in violent acts for failing to speak out, even though the american muslim community and its leaders had already condemned that attack. because words matter, mr.

pompeo, i have to ask you, do you believe that your statements falsely accusing american muslim leaders of being complicit in the boston marathon attacks exemplifies the kind of moral leadership that our country should have in the post of secretary of state? >> senator, i think i answered this for you yesterday. i'm happy to do it here again. i'll answer the same way. i felt then and feel now that everyone has a responsibility to speak out about these terror attacks, the threat from extremist terror around the world remains, in spite of all the good efforts and resources provided. that's what i was speaking to today in the aftermath of the attacks you referred, those horrific attacks. that's what i was speaking to. it is true that many leaders spoke out about it. i'm not sure that we ever get to a point where it's enough, and when i said to senator booker yesterday, i'm happy to share with you as well, we talked about it in a different context,

but it is the case that different people have greater and lesser credibility on particular issues, and that's what i was speaking to there. >> right. do you apologize to the boston muslim leadership for those comments in relationship to that incident? do you apologize to them? >> senator, it was not my intention in any respect to suggest that they were part of the chain of events that led to the attack. that wasn't my point at all. >> in your opinion, were they complicit? >> senator, my statement is clear, to the extent we are silent, don't respond to these, make sure our educational systems -- >> that's what i'm asking you. >> this is it. we all are, senator. >> the boston muslim community came out and condemned it. is there any way in your mind that they are complicit? >> senator, to the extent they condemned the attacks, they did what i think it was we all have

the responsibility to do. >> to the extent which they did. they did. >> senator then yes, i'm happy they did that. i think it's a good thing. i think it decreases the risk that an event like this is ever likely to happen again. >> well, you're being nominated for the position of secretary of state, and, of course, the rohingya are largely member. -- muslim. >> yes. >> and the burma military are engaged in a vicious destruction of this culture. this brutal campaign has already driven over 600,000 rohingya survivors to bangladesh. what's your message to the burma military with regard to how you view muslim leadership inside of burma, who are fighting to protect the very existence of

this muslim minority inside of burma? >> american diplomats have and must continue to do our level-best to stop this strategy activity, and that's the burmese military in particular who is responsible for that. >> right. well, i think it is important that there be a moral clarity that is uttered by the secretary of state, by the president of the united states, about the muslim population of the planet. you know, leaving an impression that somehow or other they are less entitled to full protection or respect for their commitment to human rights, i'm afraid says to those who wish to use the member population as an excuse for actions that would otherwise be condemned is something that the united states leadership, and you as secretary of state

potentially, have to be responsible for dispelling on an ongoing basis, and that's what i'm afraid of in terms of the message that is sent. unless you explicitly make clear that in your opinion there are isolated instances of abhorrent muslim activity, but in the whole that these are good people. they're religious people. and they have to be given all the full protections that every other religion and people are given. and that's your responsibility. >> senator, i agree with you. i'm happy to say that. i agree it is a tiny fraction. i think i've said that previously publicly as well. no one's brought that forward today. perhaps i should have done so myself, but i agree with almost everything you just said there. maybe everything but i'd need to go grab the record. with respect to treating them each with the individual dignity

they deserve, i'm with you, senator. >> i do wish the buddhist leadership in burma would conduct themselves a little better as it relates to the rohingya, i will say that. >> i agree with you 100%. there is a religious struggle there. i don't think any demonization of any american of muslims in general as not respective of human dignity, of human rights, is very important. >> i agree. >> i think we have to hear it consistently on a bipartisan basis at every level, especially when we reach this level. >> senator murphy? >> thank you, senator markey. >> i thought it was merkley but i'll go to murphy. >> merkley, murphy, it's hard. our ears are not -- >> i don't want to be standi to

be corrected. it's murphy. go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we are belaboring these questions of authorization, and i suspect you know why. many of us have had misgivings about how the executive has expanded the ability to act unilaterally without congressional authorization. both in this administration and in prior administrations. there are differences, though. president obama didn't think he had the authority to launch missile strikes against syria without congressional authorization. this administration believes it does. but the concern spans both. so i'll ask one last question on this subject. the rationale for u.s. military troops in syria has been to fight isis and many of us support that even if we don't believe the authorization exists, we believe in the mission. the administration has started to signal publicly that there is a follow-on mission for our existing presence, which is to

combat the influence of iran in the future settlement of accounts inside syria. do you believe that u.s. troop presence is necessary inside syria to try to stem iran's influence? and if so, what is the legal basis for that activity? >> so, i will concur with you, while it's complicated, the legal basis gets much more difficult. the clarity that i think we have today, it sounds like you may disagree about the clarity today. i think we're coloring inside the line there. it becomes much more difficult. >> and do you believe that a troop presence is needed there to try to combat iranian influence? >> senator, it depends on precisely how that mission is constructed. no, i think there are other places, lots of other tools in the american foreign policy tool

kit that will allow us to achieve that. it may be the case that the president concludes that we've got to do it that way, that in order to achieve his goal there, and i am confident that the administration will comply with the law if it chooses to do that. i think it's hard to -- we talked about the jcpoa singularly. we've talked about this element of countering iran singularly. we talked about sanctions on iran singularly. the truth of the matter is that the strategy that's been laid out by the administration comprises multiple parts, and to the extent one piece or another is succeeding the outcomes we're looking for. i guess this is yesterday. 58,000 to the dollar. that's a very weak iranian economy. .iranian people are about done with trying to figure out how it is that they're going to benefit from the place they find themselves today. they are frustrated with the economic failures of the administration in iran. there are lots of tools in the tool kit, senator murphy.

and i can't answer without considering each of them precisely how i think about the continued presence there. while i concede the legality is more complex. >> i think it's charitable to call what we're doing in syria today a strategy. i think as we watch a president move troops in then propose to pull them out, it's hard for us and our allies to figure out exactly what the strategy is there. finally, i just wanted to ask you a question that we talked about privately. and that's how you perceive the utility of the tool kit that is given to a secretary of state, and i'm of the belief that, you know, our foreign policy tool kit is badly misresourced today. i'm a big believer in peace through strength, but i'm not sure it makes sense to spend 20 times as much money on the military as it does on diplomacy. especially when countries like russia are standing up all sorts of nonkinetic capacities in order to win friends and influence adversaries.

one of the frustrations we had with secretary tillerson, he was fond of telling this committee if we gave him one more dollar, he would have no idea how to spend it. this was one of his favorite phrases when he met with it. it seemed to belie the reality of the world that there are lots of threats you can't meet with all the great military equipment we make in connecticut. you have to stand up capacities that the state department and u.s. aid has alone. i wanted to get you thoughts on that theory of the international case. >> if i can broaden out a little bit, i'll answer that one. i'll take the extra dollar. i'm convinced i can figure out ways to add value to create american national security value with resources. by the way, when i don't need the dollar, i'll send it back, too. that is if i conclude the program doesn't work, i'll let you know. we'll work our way through that. we've come through 15 years as a nation where the ct fight has been at the front of much of the

way we've thought about the world, and now these challenges, i think, do move on. i think we are out of balance with respect to how we're thinking about using these tools and these levers of power. so i think your sense of that is correct. >> great. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. senator murphy? >> thank you. will you work to have our president be a visible, vocal, forceful advocate against the genocide and ethnic cleansing in burma? >> i'm sorry. was that a question? >> that was a question. >> will i work? yes. >> thank you. we would love to hear president trump speak out on that topic. transparency in resource extraction payments is a principle designed to prevent scenarios like that in engine torial guinea where oil payments go directly to the family rather than the treasury of the country. it has vast wealth but most people live under $2.

do you believe we should work to increase transparency in resource extraction payments? >> senator, it sounds right but i don't know much about the situation there in that country in terms of where the resources are going. if i might take that question and get you an answers. yes, as a general matter, i think that's appropriate. >> it is an issue in many, many, many countries where the country is more or less robbed while the people live in abject poverty. the war powers act you referred to earlier, and we talked about it in the context of libya, it says that the president can send u.s. armed forces into action abroad only under statutory authorization by congress or in case of, quote, a national emergency created by an attack upon the united states, its territories or possessions. do you believe in a situation in syria where neither of those two qualifications are met that, in fact, the president has the power to send u.s. military pours into action? >> i do.

with the clarification that senator corker so gratefully provided to me in response to the previous time i answered that question. >> that's a longer conversation, but that does go against most of the international findings of law, that there has to be a threat, and it's our law as well. the 2018 cia assessment presented to congress said the impacts of long-term trends towards a warming climate are likely to fuel economic and social discontent and upheaval. secretary mattis and general dunford have said that climate change is a national security threat multiplier. do you believe that climate change is a threat multiplier? and will you undertake to help lead the world in reducing this threat by reducing carbon dioxide pollution that is heating the planet? >> senator, i'm familiar with the report that the agency i was leading issued.

i see no reason to take any fault with what it committed to. i also believe that the climate is changing, that there is a warming taking place. i'm happy to concede that there is likely a human component to that, and i'm equally prepared to tell you that as we find tools that are effective to prevent the risk to the united states, national security challenges, the state department ought to appropriately be involved in them. >> you're heading in the right direction. we don't have you quite -- >> wasn't even grudgingly, senator. >> on a major threat to the planet. it is interesting the epa this year said greenhouse gasses from human activities are the most significant factor in climate change since the mid-20th century. i see all of the impacts in oregon, but we also see it in national defense situations around the world, including syria, where it was a prolonged drought that drove people into the cities and was the spark that ignited the civil war that

became the complete fiasco and mess that we have now. that's the sort of thing the defense department is talking about when they talk about a threat multiplier. i just saw this in northern africa as well. that the president of somalia, who is also an american citizen, made a powerful case that that is a huge source of disruption of his ability to restore normal rule of law in the country. so i do hope the world is looking at this and saying, where is the u.s. leadership? i hope you will be a leader in taking on the carbon pollution because we don't have a lot of time on this. will you continue to investigate it and wrestle with it? >> i will, senator. i promise you. we had a good discussion about this yesterday. >> i also saw in africa the role the u.n. fpa.

and it is providing health care to women who are coming from extreme conflict and duress, a combination of corruption and climate change and civil conflict. and, in fact, 61% of the maternal deaths in the world take place in humanitarian crises in fragile settings where health care services are unavailable. the administration has not wanted to restore funding to the u.n. fpa under the concern that they might possibly be involved in supporting programs that provide abortions, but there has been absolutely no evidence. will you look into that issue? and if there is -- if that task of the administration is not met, fight to restore this funding for the health of women around the world? >> i will look into it. if the data sets you describe, we become convinced of that, you have my word we'll work on it. >> thank you. my time is out. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you. i know senator murphy had some

questions also about syria and the aumf. i know you did also. having been involved in that and working with senator menendez to write the aumf on syria, the administration's position was they had the authority without congress but numbers of seniors convinced the administration that our country would be stronger if they came to congress for an aumf. i think they fully felt they had 100% authority to make the kind of strikes they were going to make. it was going to be a ten-hour operation. there were going to be no ground troops and they felt they had that authority. senator menendez i know wants to have some closing questions and comments. i'm glad to offer the time for him to do so. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would just on your comment remind us that when we pass that authorization for the use of military force, which then president obama took to the g20 summit, it convinced putin at the end of the day to have assad

give up the chemical weapons that he had, at least at that time, which were internationally supervised and destroyed. so i think it is a powerful use of an authorization that got a goal at the time resolved without the firing of a single shot. director, the breath adth and s of your potential job is so large, even with the hours spent, i admire your tenacity there. we haven't even touched the surface. i'll submit a whole host for the record, but just a couple of things. mexico's the second largest export market for goods and services produced by united states companies with american jobs. second largest in the world. yet, our relations with them are the worst since the 1980s. the president using language and attacks reserved for our most ardent adversaries has personally insulted the mexican people, calling them murderers

and rapists. threatened to deport young dreamers. threatens to cut security cooperation and agreements. unilaterally suggests that the mexicans are going to bay $25 billion for a wall that is offensive to them, their people and their culture. how are you going to deal with this if you become secretary of state? do you think this is really the type of rhetoric that promotes the national interests and security of the united states with one of our most significant neighbors? >> i would agree with you, senator. my task if i'm confirmed would be to work to develop a set of relationships there that benefit both countries, specially ours, as the secretary of state for the united states. on the trade agreements, i've watched the team move forward trying to put america in a position that we have a trade deal that the president deems is fair and reciprocal. that's the objective. there are others. i've worked -- i and my team have worked in mexico extensively on the counter-narcotics challenges that come from that country.

i think i'm still committed to that. >> your job is a lot more difficult than promoting our interests with the mexicans if that continues to be the language of this administration. i don't think we can meet the challenge of the opioid, heroin and fentanyl crisis without mexican cooperation as part of your challenge. i'm glad to hear you say you're going to support a robust state department. that's important for the secretary of state. will you oppose recessions that are being contemplated on the state department's budget? >> senator, i haven't seen the recessions that have been talked about in the press. i'll look at each one. i'll determine whether they are resources that are needed. if they are, i will fight to -- i want to make sure i get this right. to oppose the recessions. i'll make the case in the administration to say the -- >> to oppose. is that what i heard you say? >> i will make the case to defend the resources that the state department needs. so if there are recessions to resources i believe we need,

i'll be there arguing for -- >> we talked about human rights. what do we do in a country hike egypt, which just had a sham election, you know, violates the rule of law with ngos, both of the united states and others. ultimately violates the rights of its own people. what's our value-driven mission there? >> senator, i spoke earlier -- perhaps generically and not about egypt in particular, about places we find complex challenges where different interests come into play. our obligation is to do our best. we have -- we have a population of 80 million egyptians with a weak economy that is subject to the threat of terror from its -- many of its neighbors. there are multiple tasks that are -- many of which are diplomatic that we have to do with egypt. as i've said before, when we come across a country that's engaged in human rights violations, things that are inconsistent with our values, we should call them out.

>> you know, as we close here, i'm trying to think about which of the mike pompeo i'm going to be asked to vote on? is it the one that today said the solution to preventing iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is through diplomacy, which i would agree? or is it the one who said the only way to do that in my judgement is regime change in a speech of 2015? is it the one that said i've never advocated for regime change here today? or is it the one that said, should mr. kim vanish, given the history of the cia, i'm just not going to talk about it. the most important thing we can do is separate those two, right? separate capacity and someone who might well have the intent to break those two. is it the one that says the historic fliconflict between th united states and the soviet union and now russia is caused by russian bad behavior? which i agree. or is it the one that stood alongside the president when he said much of the bad blood by russia is caused by the fake and

corrupt russia investigation headed by all-democratic loyalists or people that work to obama? is it the mike pompeo who said in his 2013 speech that the failure of muslim leaders to repudiate acts of terrorism done in the name of islam make them, quote, potentially complicit? or, unquote, in these attacks. that this alleged behavior, quote, casts doubt upon the commitment of peace by adherence to the member faith? is it the one in 2010 in the congressional campaign tweeted out to your supporters an article calling your opponent an american of south asian heritage a, quote, turban topper? stating that you thought it was, quote, a good read. an article that you tweeted that said your opponent, quote, could be a muslim, a hindu, a buddhist, who knows, or as a member of congress when you co-sponsored legislation that sought to slow the spread of marriage equality, when the supreme court endorsed marriage equality in 2015, the highest

court in the land, you said it's a shocking abuse of power. it flies in the face of centuries of understanding of our constitution. co-sponsored a bill to defund planned parenthood. voted against the reauthorization of the violence against women's act, a bill that funds programs designed to help victims of violence passed annually since '94 and on and on. so the pompeo i hear today, much more different than some of the pompeo of the past. and so i'm trying to figure out which is the one that is going to act if he gets confirmed as the secretary of state. because some of these things of the past i could never support. some of the things you've said here today could actually be supportive of. so i hope you can help me understand this as we move forward in your nomination. >> well, director pompeo, thank you for being here today. i think you've answered

questions suss sinktccinctly an when necessary. we're going to keep the record open until the close of business tomorrow. there will be a number of qfrs from members. i hope that you will answer them promptly. i know that you will. just from my perspective, unless there is something that glaringly occurs between now and the time that we vote, i have to say, i haven't known director pompeo, maybe we shook hands a couple of times in years past. i don't remember if we did. no defense. i have not had much contact with you as the cia director. but based on my personal meetings and the phone calls and certainly your jaoutstanding testimony today, i think you're a person of high intelect. i think your background could not be better to serve in this capacity. >> thank you. >> i think you have the personal

characteristics to lead the state department in a way that generates the kind of culture and leverage we need around the world for active diplomacy. and for that reason i plan to avidly support your nomination and confirmation. i thank you for being here. >> thank you, senator corker. thank you, senator menendez. >> thank you. >> thank yo

that was the confirmation hearing for secretary of state nominee mike pompeo. mr. pompeo, who currently serves as cia director, testified before the senate foreign relations committee. you can watch the entire hearing tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. this weekend on c-span, live saturday at 5:30 p.m. eastern, "road to the white house 2020" at the new hampshire democratic party dinner with former missouri secretary of state jason candor. and sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern, our road to the white house 2020

coverage continues. on book tv on c-span2, saturday at 7:30 p.m. eastern, a feature on black classic press in baltimore. and on sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, for his book "a benedikt option: a strategy for christians in a post-christian nation." on "american history tv" on c-span3, saturday at 4:55 eastern, prominent figures in american law, including supreme court justice elena