inappropriate with officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. this account suggests that president asked you and director coates to interfere with then f.b.i. director comey's investigations into the trump campaign's contacts with russia. did president -- what did president trump say to you and director coates in that meeting? >> senator, i'm not going the talk about the conversations the president and i had. i think it's in this setting 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 suggestions 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? >> 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 aren't going to talk about that conversation you aren't exerting executive privilege, are you? >> i think you will agree we'll talk about foreign policy issues, we'll talk about advice. >> 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 are going to deal with a russia that not only sought to affect our last elections but is doing so even as we speak both here at home and across the world. those are substantive questions so it's not for me just 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 and happy to talk about our work on sanctions if that's

what your question is. >> did president trump ever discuss the f.b.i. or special counsel russia investigation with you. >> i'm not going the talk about private conversations i've had with the president. >> if you were to be confirmed in the future trying to talk about foreign policy and we asked you where is the president at or this or that -- >> senator, i'm happy to answer questions about our administrations policies and the work we're doing. you're asking about conversations. you should know as well i have provided -- i spoke with special counsel mueller, who interviewed me and requested an interviewed. i cooperated. your colleagues on the senate intelligence committee have asked information from me and central intelligence agency as has the house permanent select committee on intelligence. the leaders of those two organizations in a bipartisan way that would say i have been cooperative. >> you've spoken to special counsel mueller. >> that's correct. >> what was the subject of the conversation. >> i'm not going to speak to that. >> did special counsel tell you

not to speak about these things. >> i have cooperated with multiple investigations while the investigation continues i think that's the appropriate way to approach it. no one here should take away because of the fact i don't want to speak no negative inferences with respect to anything or positive inferences about the fact that i think it's most appropriate while these investigations continue i not speak to the conversations i've had with the various investigative bodies. >> if i'm sure if i asked special counsel mueller a simple question whether you were told you couldn't i don't think he would say you couldn't. it is your choice you are not seeking to do so. for me these questions being answered are critically important and the essence of how you approach one of the most critical issues we have. and your unwillingness to speak to it is trouble to me. mr. trump has said getting along with russia is a good

thing. yesterday he tweeted our relationship with russia is worse than it's ever been. there is no reason for this. he indicated he would like to help russia about its economy. what behavior, if any, has the kremlin shown that indicates it wants to get along with the united states or our allies. >> this administration has taken a series of actions to push back on vladimir putin. senator. >> what behavior has the kremlin shown that it indicates it wants to get along with the united states? is there any? share it with me. >> i take a back seat to no one with my views of the threat that is presented to america from russia. and if i'm confirmed as the 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 back, to reset the deterrent relationship with respect to russia. >> let's talk about that. i see it's in your written statement and you suggest that there is a robust response to russia.

on february 27th admiral mike rogers head of the national security administration and u.s. cyber command warned the senate armedselves efs committee the trump administration has not done enough to stop the russians. i believe that president putin has clearly come to the conclusion there is little price to pay here and he can continue his activity. on april 3 the outgoing national security advisor general mcmaster said 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 through the sanctions act part of which i helped right not implemented by the administration. mandatory sanctions related to special russian crude oil product, mandatory sanctions with russia and other foreign financial institutions. section 228. mandatory sanctions with

respect to certain transactions and serious human rights abuses. section 231. mandatory sections with respect to persons engaging in transactions with the intelligence and defense sectors of the government of the russian federation. there are more. that's not a robust response to russia. >> i want to welcome senator kaine and like for the people of 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. >> thank you for your service at intel at the cia. that has been great for those of you on the committee, senator rubio and i are the only two that have the cross pollinization. we have a 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 10 years i've been on it we've 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 straight forward with us. so thank you for your service there. 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 will serve you very well as you know. it served me very well on this committee having had some of that in-depth knowledge you don't necessarily get in the public medium. head of the -- 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 referenced here it's a very high profile job in that you go around the world being the face of america and doing the kind 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 of other facets to it that you have to do at the same time. it is 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. and thirdly and i think very importantly is the actual management of the bureaucracy. i don't use bureaucracy in a pejorative way. the thousands of men and women who are in foreign service and who are working with the state department make us proud every day.

they're bipartisan and 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 all of us your thoughts on how you are going to go about that? because it needs some work, there is no question about it and it will make your job better, it will 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 the c.i.a. director have tried to work closely and provide you everything you've asked for in a timely fashion. i think we've succeeded often if not always and worked

diligently and 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 any life. i did it as a tank platoon leader and a carve allry troop and did it for two small businesses in kansas and then i worked hard at it in cia. i will leave it to others to judge the success. at state department there are too many unfilled positions. everyone is stretched thin in subject matter expertise needed to deliver america's diplomacy around the world and conduct its mission, humanitarian and development missions. each missions entrusted to the state department require talented people on station doing their part working alongside it. the way i'll think about it is the same way i did at c.i.a. i'll start with the things with the biggest gaps and present the biggest risks. we don't have an ambassador to

south korea, a handful of other places with 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, ka joel them to join the team and be part of our organization in a way that can successfully deliver. some of them will be fantastic civil servants and foreign service officers. others from the outside. in each case to identify the right person to occupy the position at this challenging time in america's history. >> bill: thank you very much. you made reference to the fact that there are ambassadorships that are empty. i think there are 37 of them. the good news is you have a deep bench at the state department. an example is the good fortune of being there in south korea. i was doing some things

recently there. the person in charge there has done a fabulous job, as you know. we do have that deep talent at the state department. we do need the ambassadorships filled and need those the top positions in the department filled and people with the authority to act and people with the authority to do the things that need to be done. so 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 front of that committee and disgorge in a fashion i have every confident you'll do it here. >> thank you for your career of public service and thank your family. this is clearly going to be a family sacrifice. already has been and even more deeply felt by your family. we 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 independent voice in the white house particularly in this white house. and with the president's announced policy of america first, which has been interpreted globally as america alone, which is your mission if you're confirmed to use diplomacy to engage the international community. i want to ask you a couple of questions and i would ask that you give your views, not the president's. i want to know your views. secondly i would hope that you would briefly answer the questions. i have a lot of questions i want to ask. please respect the time restrictions that we're operating under. and let me start first if i might with the iran nuclear agreement that has been referred to. there is no question iran is the bad actor here and continue to be a bad actor. this congress with your help that 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. it's also been very clear that europe has said pretty directly we cannot unilaterally, the west, modify the agreement and that iran's in compliance with the agreement. general has said we have an impact in other's willingness 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 from the iran nuclear agreement. >> i know clearly what my

mission will be. the president has made it very clear and i expect no change to that. >> i asked what your views. i understand that and we've had nominees come before this committee and express their views and are doing very well in this administration and have disagreed with the president. the president gets the last word. i understand that. i want your views. >> i've done it many times. i can't answer that question. here is why. let me tell you how i think about it. here -- if you let me tell you how i think about it then you can -- i want to fix this deal. that's the objective. i think that's in the best interest of the united states. >> if the agreement cannot be changed my question is simple, we're running close to a deadline on certification. what is your view, is it better to pull out of an agreement that iran is in compliance with if we can't fix it or is it better to stay in the agreement? yes or no. >> it's not a yes or no question. it's a hypothetical.

we aren't at that point. >> the president has to certify may 12th. >> that's almost a month away. it depends clearly if we're close, imagine just as a hypothetical imagine we're close to akhaoefg the fix the president has asked the state department to achieve. if we're close and if there is some opportunity in the event that we conclude that we can't fix this deal, that there are serious shortcomings. that you yourself have identified. then the president is going to be given best advice by me. if there is no chance to fix it i will recommend to the president we do our best to work with our allies to achieve a better deal even after may 12th. there is still much diplomatic work to be done. >> you've answered the question. let me -- you've been -- >> more than just europe. >> you've been pretty clear

about the outcome you would like to see in north korea. regime change. is that -- >> you have misstated that. >> are you in favor of regime change in north korea? >> my mission -- i've articulated my 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. >> are you saying now you don't favor regime change? >> i have never advocated for regime change. i have all along -- >> you don't believe -- >> i'm not advocating for regime change. >> i want to get that clear. let me go on -- >> just to be clear my role as a diplomat is to make sure we never get to a place where we have to confront the difficult situation in korea that this country thab headed for now for a couple of decades. >> let me get to the international climate talks and

agreements that were entered into in paris. every nation in the world has joined to this and these are self-imposed goals and 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 has 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 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. i'm quoting you accurately is dangerously wrong, bows down to radical environmentalists and the science is inconclusive. you stand by those statements? >> we need to work to arrange a situation that treats american sit seps in the same way others around the world with a shared burden to attack this challenge. >> do you see the challenge that is going to make your job, if confirmed, more challenging? your job is to work with the international community. 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? >> senator, there are many times we work with our allies and many other times when we don't see it the same way.

i gave you many examples where this add min traition has worked with the allies. we worked with our european allies before. after the president's announcement he intended to withdraw from paris. it can still work. another example. the coalition that this administration has built to put pressure on kim jong-un is unique and historic and important. so there will be places our allies come alongside us and others they don't. my task will be to get america's position well-known and to rally the world to the causes that benefit america. i look forward to doing that if i'm confirmed as well. >> i'll use 30 seconds of my time. just on the iran issue it is my sense in personal conversation with the president that if we -- if the europeans do not come along with the framework agreement by may 12 it is likely he will withdraw.

>> the president has made that very clear. >> and so i don't think senator cardin fully 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. is that what your answer was? >> yes, senator. the president has stated his objective and heard him say it to secretary tillerson. his goal is to take the three shortcomings and fix them. >> i need to correct the record. i understand the president's position. i was asking the nominee's position, not the president's position. i want to know your view on it, not the president's. >> but i think again i know this is going to be highly discussed publicly. i think what director pompeo is saying 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 agreement not come in place by may 12th. is that correct? >> senator, that is correct. >> senator rubio. >> an editorial statement. one of the reasons why i've been apart from how well i know the nominee and the work he has done in intelligence is i think one of the critical components to be a successful secretary of state is when the secretary of state comes to town leaders and diplomats need to know it's someone in the inner circle of the president that has the president's trust and speaks for the administration. i can tell you from experience from the work we've done with director pompeo that if confirmed when he comes to town, leaders around the world will know someone who has not just access to the president but part of the trusted inner circle is critical for the success of the secretary of state and i would imagine as you've spoken as you have to all the living secretary of states they would have told you that's very important.

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 and they are important because it gives people context about your views on foreign policy and america's role in the world that predate your time at the central intelligence agency. 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, senator. >> you still agree far from being a great public service wikileaks is more of like a non-state actor hostile to the interests -- the national interest and security of the united states. >> i do believe that. >> and 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 they could win bloodless wars against democracies in the west including the united states. >> that's correct. >> of the five main threats facing the united states, china, russia, iran, north korea and radical jihadist they have a common thread, thor torianism. it's the global competition between autocratic systems of government and the democratic system. that in many ways is played out over and over again in the foreign affairs of this country and global issues. >> senator, with striking consistency that's 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 agree promoting democracy isn't just a nice or good thing to do or promoting democracy is not us

butting into other people's business or invading their sovereignty. promoting democracy is in the context of that competition as we just discussed is in the vital national interest of the united states. >> yes, indeed. senator. effectiveness at doing that is an important tool of american foreign policy. >> and a ridiculous argument out there when people talk about russian interference and their efforts, it's no different than what america does when it promotes democracy. there are huge differences, are there not? when they interfere for an election they try to influence the outcome. we're trying to improve the process, not necessarily who they elect. sometimes democracy elect leaders when they aren't friendly to the united states. they use government and intelligence agencies at the like. when we promote democracy it's through the work of non-governmental organizations who may receive assistance from our government when they

undermine democracy they do it in secret. they hide it and deny it. we do it openly. we brag about it and talking about it here today. when we promote democracy we do it at the invitation of someone in those countries, whether it's a political party, organization, oftentimes the government itself when they undermine democracy they do so against the will of the people of that nation and of the governments in place. there is no equivalent between the promotion of democracy and russian and other attempts to interfere in democracy. >> senator, there is neither an operational equivalent as you have described it. that's the methodologies used are very different nor is this a moral he quif lens between the two efforts. they're different in every way and america's democracy promotion around the world is conducted that america should be proud of. >> one of the first things ought democratic rulers do is violate the human rights of their people and violate the human rights of others as we've seen through war crimes and

atrocities in syria with the support of ought democratic governments in iran and russia. i believe you would agree defending human rights isn't just a good thing to do or just the right moral thing to do which is most certainly is. defending human rights is also in the national interest of the united states of america. >> i believe that. >> it would be a priority. >> it would. not only do i believe it, i think history would reflect that to be the case. >> after the end of the cold war we had this belief that history had ended and everyone would be a democracy and everybody would 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 gotten more autocratic and embraced the world economic order that means we'll take all the benefits of global trade and global economics but we do not intend to live by any of

its obligations and so i personally believe it was a terrible mistake that leaders in both parties have made and now as part of their strategy you see china doing things like trying to create strategic programs in -- they are not just efforts to create new overland trade corridors but efforts to make these nations economically, politically and militarily dependent and dependent on china. they see american allies in japan, south korea, australia, taiwan and what they are working on now is fracturing our economic and defense alliances in that region and why they invest building up their navy and air force to establish air and sea denial to the u.s. military and make the argument that don't count on america's defense or economic partnership because it's paper. they can't live up to it

anymore. what are your recommendations to the as how important that challenge is or otherwise we'll wake up one day and find we've been driven from the asia pacific region. >> it's hard to prioritize and rank. china 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 needs to be prepared to respond across each of those fronts so that we can find the right ground, the right place where we can cooperate with the chinese where it makes sense for america and in those places where it does not we can confront them and make sure it's america's democratic vision that continues to provide strength and resources for the world. >> 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. >> bill: when you were installed as director at the cia as you said in your testimony you swore and oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic. you have taken that oath six times. you graduated from harvard law school, 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 fire special counsel mueller on his own? >> i'm in no position to make a comment on that legal question. >> would you consider the president firing rosenstein to be an abuse of power? >> ma'am, i came here today to talk about my qualifications to be a secretary of state. i am not going to weigh into the active investigations that are going on in the house, senate and 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 the 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 is 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've 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 haven't been implemented and other foreign financial institutions and sanctions with respect to transactions with foreign sanctions evaders not implemented yet. i could go on. would you argue we need to implement the rest of the sanctions in a way that holds russia accountable its interference. >> yes, every day. if i may take just a moment. so there is still more work to be done on other sanctions provisions as well. i readily concede that. vladimir putin has not yet received the message sufficiently and we need to continue to work at that. it hasn't just been sanctions. the largest expulsion of 60 folks was from this administration. they announced a nuclear posture review that put russia and notice we'll recapitalize

our deterrent force in syria a handful of weeks ago the russians met their match. a couple hundred russians were killed. the list of actions this administration has taken i'm happy to walk through each of them but i don't want to talk up more time and the list is long. >> i think the actions are important but they get undermined by a president who consistently refuses to hold vladimir putin accountable for what russia has done in the united states. and that presents a challenge as we go into the 201 elections and a challenge as we work with other democracies around the world where russia has done everything possible to undermine american's and other country's citizens 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 appreciate the question. look at my record. not just these past 15 months. the same questions when i was to be confirmed as c.i.a. director, as a c.i.a. director i have honored and valued every single c.i.a. officer regardless of race, color, you pick it.

gender, sexual orientation i've treated every one of our officers with dignity and respect. i promise you that i'll do that as a secretary of state. >> i appreciate those sentiments and praoeshd your comments in your testimony saying that you would support the state department's workforce that it be as diverse in every sense of the word, race, religion, background and more and yet you were criticized at the c.i.a. for undermining policies of the previous administration to improve diversity at the c.i.a. >> ma'am, i don't know the criticism that you are referring to. i have to tell you i didn't undermine a single pollz. we talked about it and worked on it. i think -- i'm proud of the work that i did to continue to develop and increase the capacity for the c.i.a. to deliver a diverse workforce to meet the intelligence challenges in that case around the world. >> well, i would just say

michael weinstein, a former air force officer who founded the military religious freedom foundation says that 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. the number of we call them no-fear complaints, the statutory requirements decreased from 2016 to 2017 by 40%. >> good. >> i'm proud of that. it's not enough. whatever the final tally was was too much. i'm proud of the record. i don't want to take full credit for that. the work my team has done on this i'm proud of and supported their efforts and i will behave the same way if confirmed as secretary of state. >> bill: i'm out of time. >> before turning to senator johnson 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 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. >> mr. chairman, director pompeo, thank you for your past service and thank you and your family for your willingness to serve in this cap as -- capacity. as you were walking by me i've read a lot of testimony for nominees. this written testimony is as good as i've seen. anybody interested in the nomination should read it. one of the reasons i liked it is i could see the concepts required for effective management in it. of course, you'll be in charge of managing relationships. the concepts i'm talking about in your conclusion the areas of agreement. that's how you accomplish things.

concentrate on shared purposes and goals. in your handling. c.i.a. you had a strategy how to manage that prioritization of tasks. as i ask these questions i want you to keep the concepts in mind. in managing your relationship with almost all nations, there is an economic and security relationship. obviously you are not secretary of commerce or u.s. trade representative. you are the secretary of state concerned about security. negotiations in terms of trade will have a great effect. i was just on a delegation to china and i was struck by what they were primarily concerned about was the taiwan travel act. we thought we were going to hear all kinds of things about tariffs and they were most concerned about that core area of their interest and don't meddle with that. i want you to comment on how

are you going to deal with the conflict between the trade relationship and security relationship. we also crossed into the dmz. we were in the blue house, walked into north korea and from my standpoint talking about priorities, our priority with our relationship with china is get them to continue and they are 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, economic relationship and security relationship? >> senator, it's complex. at times they're conflicting and at times they work together. you can achieve a good economic outcome with a partner country, you can get assistance in other places on a diplomatic matter they care about deeply or a military matter where you want them to assist the united

states. places good diplomacy can make not zero sum alternatives. how do you do that? you build the team. the state department the under secretary 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 on other parts of the government. i'm intent on finding the right people to make sure we have the tools so we can make a full throated, broad effort across all elements of the diplomatic spectrum. where it comes into conflict with security issues, i suppose it's highly contextual. the idea. we've seen it with the issues with china today. we thought through the risks, identified a relative priorities and attempted to level set them and engaged in diplomatic activity such that challenges that have been presented to china through the

actions that have been taken by this administration didn't upset the apple cart. >> do you agree the top priority is our help on north korea >> i agree with that. >> would you agree in terms of the best way to bring china into full compliance with all the trade agreements working with our other trading partners, having a good relationship with them and having us as an alliance working with china and make sure they actually follow the rules, would that be the best way of achieving that? >> i do believe that, senator. >> i wanted 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. that's their three priorities. >> i've heard similar things. any interactions i've heard the economic crisis listed first. as this challenge of leverage. economic growth. it has bringing several hundred million people into middle class china. those were their two fundamental priorities. >> they have enormous challenges. one of my points being rather than look at our relationship with china as a win/lose it makes sense to try to redefine that and try to obtain a win/win situation. would you agree with that? >> i would agree 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 it's true. >> to switch to russia.

it's a tragedy that putin has taken this path. can you describe in your words what path has he taken? what is russia's aims? >> i'll take vladimir putin at his word. the greatest val -- i think he believes in his heart and his attempts to regain power through -- maintain his power and popularity through activity taking place outside by poking america. to maintain his not only capability, enormous nuclear arsenal but also his desire to be perceived as such. being perceived as a super power. each of the actions you take are the undermine democracy in the west such that the soviet model, the russian model is the one painted to the world as the one that will lead the world to greatness. we know it is not true and can't let that happen. >> we need to be fully engaged

particularly in europe but anywhere russia is pushing and being aggressive. for example, in the balkans. i've been over to serbia, kosovo a number of times. they're at a hinge point. i want to encourage you, i think assistant secretary mitchell has done a great job of encouraging all of us to pay attention so that they decide to continue to look to the west because russia offers them nothing. quick comment. >> i agree. i would add to that when you say everywhere i would add to locations. we see them is latin america as well. i agree. we need to push back in each place and confront them and every vector, cyber, economic, each of the tools that vladimir putin is using we need to do our best to make sure he doesn't succeed in what we believe his ultimate goal is. >> thank you, director pompeo 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 officials, director of the c.i.a. and for this position i appreciated the conversation we had yesterday and the opportunity to follow up on some of the issues we discussed. i'm optimistic you would follow through on your commitment to fight for the state department, for usaid and resources and their personnel. many of us have heard real concerns over management, morale, budget cuts and the state department, usaid and i am optimistic you would fight for them. you have a strong and close relationship with the president and as we discussed a key role for america's chief diplomat is to advance not just our narrow interests, our security or economic interests but to also see our values as being a key part of those interests. i hope that you will both advise the president and on occasion stand up to him if he

is doing things with which you disagree. and that you will ensure that he considers the vital role of diplomacy in responding to the threats we face around the world. let me just follow up if i might for a moment on a line of questioning two of my colleagues pursued. you are a magna cum laude graduate of harvard law school. i couldn't get into harvard, i went to yale. i would assume you would agree rule of law is essential to the values that define our democracy, is that correct? >> i only spoke publicly five times as a c.i.a. director. each time i spoke publicly -- each time i spoke at some length about the importance of the rule of law at the c.i.a. how we were a creature of law and if we didn't do that the failure it would lead to. i believed as the c.i.a. director and i'll believe it as the secretary of state if i'm confirmed as well. >> you made a strong statement it would be the seventh time

you would raise your hand and swear and oath to the constitution. let me go back to a line of questioning. president described special counsel mueller's investigation as an attack we all stand for and repeatedly threatened to fire robert mueller. he has threatened the investigation and 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 c.i.a. i've been involved in that investigation. i've worked with senators burr and warner and congressmen on the committee on intelligence and i've been a participate in mueller's activity. anything i say with respect -- i want to avoid that today. i apologize i can't speak more fully to that but i hope you'll

respect the fact everything i was asked to do -- i've done as much thoroughness and depth as our organization could achieve. >> i'm convinced if the president were to fire the special counsel or to interfere with his investigation by firing rod rosenstein with an intention to interfere and shut down the investigation it would put the rule of law 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? >> senator, i haven't given that question thought. my instincts tell me know. my instincts they will me my obligation to continue to serve as america's senior diplomat will be more important as increased times of turmoil. this wouldn't be the first time there has been political turmoil. my recollection of the history is that previous secretary of

state stayed the course and continued to do their works and requirements that they had. having not given it a great deal of thought i'm confident that's the path i would take. >> director pompeo, i would urge you to give it some thought. >> take you back to the hearings live. first the president has made just this moment some comments about syria. we want to play those for you now. >> president trump: thank you very much. thank you. we're having a meeting today on syria. we'll see what happens. we're looking at that very closely and i will be leaving here. i was there and now going back as soon as this meeting is over. but we're looking very seriously and closely at that whole situation and we'll see what happens, folks. we'll see what happens. it is too bad that the world puts us in a position like that but as i said this morning,

we've done a great job with isis. we have absolutely decimated isis but now we have to make some further decisions. so they will be made fairly soon. thank you all very much. thank you. >> there is president trump in the cabinet room saying the decisions will be made very soon. we know that he is meeting with his national security advisors, national security council 2 1/2 hours from now. defense secretary jim mattis has said that's when he will present options to the president, military options to respond to the poison gas attack that bashar al-assad leveled on his own people. we'll take you back to the senate foreign relations committee hearing of mike pompeo currently the director of the c.i.a. and nominated of course to be secretary of state. >> just result. it makes us less safe. >> senator, i think i agree --

if i understood your question correctly i think i agree with it as laid out but i'll try to repeat it and see if i got it right. i have agree american behavior matters, the way we behave around the world. the things we choose to do and not do are reflective. one of the best memories i've had so far as c.i.a. director i was with a partner intelligence service leader who had been at this longer than i had and we were walking in a dusty place and done great work and great partner for us as well. he turned to me and said you know the most important thing that america has done for my team? it's great you give us help and teach us technology and tools, the most important thing you've done for us is set an example. see officers behaving professionally. having boundaries. existing under the rule of law. communicating. all the professional behavior your officers have exhibited has been the most important thing you've done for our organization and 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 proud to be the director. >> i'm glad to hear you repeat our shared commitment to the rule of law as a core american value. we're in a time when we'll have to confront questions about what we'll do for the rule of law as a foundation to our country. >> it's my understanding we may have a vote at 2:00 so we won't have one soon. it's my plan just to keep going so -- until that time. if our witness needs to take a break for other reasons we'll make that happen and senator flake. >> any good diplomat can out last the folks he is talking to, senator. >> i notice you haven't been

drinking any water. >> thank you. i had to pop out for other hearings so i apologize if i plow any old ground but can we talk about iran for a minute? with the jcpoa, 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 -- economic benefit from it, that's correct. >> if we were to somehow get out of the agreement would there be an attempt to claw some of that money back? >> senator, i haven't considered that. >> i don't think there is. >> i would think that unlikely. there is not a tool inside the agreement to achieve that. >> that's my understanding as well. so in effect iran has already

realized much of the benefit from the agreement. if we were to exit the agreement now, we would give them reason to renege on the agreements they've made on the nuclear side, is that right? >> senator, they are still receiving enormous economic benefits even as we sit here this morning. there is continued -- there is continued interest on the part of iran to stay in this deal. it's in their own economic self-interest to do so. and i guess i would 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. i applauded the last president for negotiations. i thought that it should have

been presented as a treaty before this 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 and the other with regard to north korea, i am happy that the president is talking and discussions at the highest level are had. i have always agreed that presidents and secretary of state of others ought to talk to rogue leaders. but i am concerned i think, a

lot of americans are, that these discussions that usually take place in that regard at the head of state level are proceeded by a lot of negotiations, meetings, and deliberation by people like yourself and your able diplomats who if you're confirmed 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 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, you should know there is 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. this will be lots of work to do. no one is under any illusions we'll reach a comprehensive agreement through the president's meeting but to set up the conditions, to the two leaders who will make the decision about whether such an agreement can be achieved and set in place. i'm optimistic that the united states government can set the conditions for that appropriately so that the president and the north korean leader can have that conversation and set us down the course of achieving a diplomatic outcome that america and the world so desperately need. >> is there some concern exiting the iran agreement might play poorly with a possible agreement with the north koreans? it would seem if you are 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. >> i concede we don't know precisely what kim jong-un and what he is thinking about his option set today. i've read lots of analysis with respect to his concerns and how he is thinking about the challenge he faces today with the enormous economic pressure placed upon him and the list of things he is thinking about don't involve other deals throughout history. it is not the case he is focused on did we pull out of the start treaty. he is thinking about how it is he can set conditions so that while we talk about complete verifiable reversal of his nuclear program he is thinking about the sustainment of his regime. what are the tools and assurances that can put in

place that aren't reversible. he will be looking for something more than a piece of paper. he will look for a set of conditions put in place to undertake a task. denuclearizing his country. >> turning to africa, zimbabwe is going through a transition. they have a new leader. 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 and a lot of that depends on us but we tend to move it through as quickly as we can in this committee but ambassador on the ground in zimbabwe when that transition occurs. the elections are held? >> yeah, senator, it will actually in the first instance depend on me and the president to get a nomination to you and i commit to doing if i'm confirmed. >> thank you. i'll