other officials and decided that intervening with comey as trump suggested would be inappropriate according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss since tiensitive and in matters. this strongly su lly suggests t president asked you and coats to interfere with director comey's investigations into the trump campaign's contacts with russia. did president trump -- what did president trump say to you and director coats in that meeting? >> senator, i am not going to talk about the conversations with the president i had. i think it is in this setting appropriate for a president to have an opportunity to talk with his senior leaders. i'll do that throughout the day. the article 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? >> i don't recall. don't recall what he asked me that day precisely.

but i have to tell you, i'm with the president a lot, he's never asked me to do anything that i considered remotely improper. >> when you say you're not going to talk about that conversation, you're not asserting executive privilege, are you? >> no, senator. i believe -- i think you will agree, we'll talk about foreign policy issues -- >> this has a connotation of foreign policy because this is about russia. and so at 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 here and at home and across the world, those are substantive questions. so it is not for me just simply a question of, you know, interest. it is a question of understanding what you're asked, how you responded, and what you did. >> so 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 -- >> let me ask you this. 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 had with the president. >> so whenever you come if you were to be confirmed in the future and want to try to talk about foreign policy and we ask you where is the president this or that, you're not going to -- >> senator, i'm happy to answer questions about our administration's policies, the work 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 permanent select committee on intelligence. i think the leaders of those two organizations in a bipartisan way would say i've been cooperative. >> you have spoken to special

counsel mueller. >> correct. >> what was the subject of the conversation? >> i'm not going to speak to that. >> did the special counsel tell you not to speak about these things? >> senator, i cooperated with multiple investigations while the investigation continues. i think that's the appropriate way to approach it. you should know and no one here today should take away any because of the fact i don't want to speak, there should be no negative inferences with respect to anything -- or positive inferences -- about the fact i think it is most appropriate that while the investigations continue, i not speak to the conversations i've had with the various investigative bodies. >> i'm sure 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 is your choice that you're not seeking to do so. and for me, these questions being answered truthfully in a forth coming way are critically important. it goes to the 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.

president trump has repeatedly said that, quote, getting along with russia is a good thing. yesterday he tweeted a quote, our relationship with russia is worse now than it has ever been, no reason for this. and he indicated he would like to help russia with its economy. what behavior if any has the kremlin shown it wants to get along with the united states or our allys? >> this administration has taken a series of actions to push back -- >> that's not my question. let's start with my question. the question is 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. >> senator, i take a back seat to no one with my views of the threat that is presented to america from russia. and if i am 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 deterrence relationship with respect to russia. >> let's talk about that.

i see that's in your written statement. you suggested that there is a robust response to russia. on february 27th, admiral mike rogers, the head of the national security administration, and u.s. cybercommand, warned the senate armed services committee that the trump administration has not done enough to stop the russians, quote, i believe president putin has clearly come to the conclusion that there is 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 eadversaries act whic have not been implemented by the administration. mandatory sanctions related to special russian crude oil

projects. section 228, mandatory sanctions with respect to certain transactions with foreign sanctions evaders, serious human rights abuses. section 231, mandatory sanctions 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. >> thank you. before i turn to senator risch, i want to welcome senator king to the -- i would like for the people of maine to know he does this often when things are serious. he comes and actually list tons 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 who have the cross pollenization, i guess, 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, ten years i've been on it, we have had numerous red head heads of age in and sometimes we feel like we're being stiff armed. mike pompeo has been candid when he came in before the intel committee, he's been helpful and he has always been straightforward with us. thank you for your service there. you've errand my arned my respet regard and you'll get my vote for confirmation on this job. i think that service as head of the cia will serve you very well as you know. it served me very well on this committee, having some of that in depth knowledge you don't necessarily get in the public

medi medium. being secretary of state is unique, i think, as far as the agency heads are concerned. you have the public duties and has been referenced here, it is a very high profile job and that you go around the world, being the face of america, and doing the kinds of things you do. 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, being part of the management team with the president as far as managing really the united states. and thirdly, i think very importantly, the actual management of the bureaucracy and i don't use bureaucracy here in a pejorative way, with the thousands of men and women in

foreign service, working with the state department, make us proud every day, bipartisan, they do a great job. i think there has been a fair amount of criticism, everyone knows that -- 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. could you tell -- could you give us your thoughts on how you're going to go about that, because it needs some work, no question about it, it is going to make your job better, 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, i have consistently tried

to work closely and provide you with everything you asked for in a timely fashion. i think we succeeded often if not always and we worked diligently. 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, did it for two small businesses in kansas and then i worked hard at cia, i'll leave others to judge the success. but i did it because i knew it was imperative. at the state department, there are too many holes, too many vacancie vacancies. each of the missions to which are entrusted to 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 the cia. i'll start with the things that

are the biggest gaps and present the biggest risk to america's capacity to execute its diplomacy. we don't yet have an ambassador, south korea. we need one. handful of other places that have a requirement for immediate attention. with respect to each of the 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 come join the team and be part of our organization in a way that can successfully deliver. some of them will be fantastic civil servants, others from the outside, but in each case, to identify the right person doctored by the position at this challenging time in america's history. >> thank you very much. you made reference to the fact that there are ambassadorships that are -- 37 of them. and the good news is that you have a really deep bench at the

sta state department. i had the good fortune of being there and doing some things, they have been a fabulous job, and we do have that deep bench at the state department. but again, we need the ambassadorships filled and we need those -- particularly 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'll 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 candid fashion, i have every confidence you're going to be able to do that here. thank you, again, for your service. >> thank you, senator cardin? >> thank you for your career public service. i want to thank your family because this clearly is going to be a family sacrifice. already has been. but even being more deeply felt

by your family. so 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 confirmed to use diplomacy to engage the international community. so 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. please respect the time restrictions that we're operating under. let me start, first, if i might, with the iran nuclear agreement that has been referred to. no question that iran is the bad actor here. this congress with your help, we passed very strong legislation to provide additional sanctions

against iran for its nonnuclear 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 is also been very clear that europe said pretty directly we cannot unilaterally, the west, modify the agreement and that iran's in compliance with the agreement. general dunford said unless there is a material breach, we have an impact in others' willingness to sign the agreement, 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 you cannot modify this agreement and iran is in compliance, what is your view as to whether america

should withdraw unilaterally from the iran nuclear agreement. >> i know clearly what my mission is going to be. the president made very clear what the secretary of state's mission has been and i expect no change to that. >> i asked what is your view -- i understand that. we had nominees come before the committee, and express the views and are doing very well in this administration, disagreed with the president, and the president gets the last word. i understand that. i want to know your views? >> i've done it many times. i can't answer that question. here's why. let me tell you how i approach it, how i think about it. if you will, i'll tell you how i think about it. i want to fix this deal. that's the objective. >> if the agreement cannot be changed, my question is pretty simple, we're running very close to a deadline on that certification. what is your view, better to pull out of an agreement that iran is in compliance with if we can't fix it or better to stay

in the agreement as the -- >> senator -- >> yes or no. >> it is not a yes or no question. it is a hypothetical. we're into the not at that poin >> the president needs to certify on may 12th. >> that's almost a month away. it depends, clearly if we're close, imagine just from a hypothetical mattematter, imagi we're close to achieving a fix. if we're close. if there is some opportunity -- >> you pull out if you're close? >> in the event that we conclude that we can't fix this deal, that these serious shortcomings that you yourself have identified, then the president will be given best advice including by me. if there no chance to fix it, i'll recommend to the president we do our level best to work with our allies to achieve a better outcome and better deal. even after may 12th, even after may 12th, still much diplomatic work to be done. >> i think you answered the

questi question. you've been -- >> more than just europe. >> you've been pretty clear about the outcome you would like to see in north korea, which is regime change. is that accurate. >> you misstated that. >> are you in favor of regime change in north korea? >> my mission is -- 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 now you don't favor regime change? >> senator, i have never advocated for regime change. i have all along -- >> a simple question. you're not -- you don't believe -- >> i'm not advocating for regime change. >> i want to get that clear. let me go -- >> 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. >> so let me get to the international climate talks and agreements that were entered into in paris. the fact that every nation in the world has now joined in that. this is, as i explained to you, as we talked in our office, as you understand, these are self-imposed goals, and enforced only by ourselves. the president indicated his intentions to withdraw from the international agreement. it takes a period of time before it becomes effective. he's already initiated the process. if it takes place, we would be the only country 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 agreement puts 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 re-enter that agreement. >> you stand by -- >> my view and i believe i'm speaking for the administration. >> you believe self-imposed requirements work, international community. i think i'm quoting you accurately as dangerously wrong, bows down to radical environmentalists and science is inconclusive. you stand by those statements. >> we need to work to arrange a situation that treats american citizens in the same way that others around the world, a shared burden to attack this challenge. >> do you see the challenge that that he'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? >> senator, there are many times that we work with our allies and many other times we don't see it the same way. i give you many indications, many examples of where this administration worked with those same allies. just recently, the work we did with russia in response to the attack we worked with in britain. this would be after the president's announcement that he intended to withdraw from paris. so it can still work. i'll give you 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 that 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. >> thank you. senator rubio may use 30 seconds of my time. on the iran issue, it is my sense in personal conversation with the president that if we -- if the international -- if the

europeans do not come along with the framework agreement by may 12th, it is likely he will withdraw. >> made that very clear. >> and so i don't think senator cardin fully -- i don't think he heard the same thing i heard, and your sense is that should that happen, then you would continue after that time to try to create a better agreement. >> yes. senator, the president has stated his objective, i've heard him say it to my predecessor or to secretary tillerson, i heard him say his goal is to take the three shortcomings that he identified and fix them. >> mr. chairman, i need to correct the record. i understand the president's position, i was asking the nominee's position. i want asking the president's position. i want to know your view on it, not the president's. i understand the president's view. >> i think -- 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 thbe negated, he would work for a different agreement after that. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> senator rubio. >> thank you. first an editorial statement, one reason 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, when the secretary state comes to town, leaders and diplomats need to know this is someone who is 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 have done with director pompeo, when if confirmed when he comes to town, leaders around the world will know that someone who has not just access to the president, but is part of the president's trusted inner circle and speaks for the president and for his policies is just critical for the success of the secretary of state and i would imagine you've

spoken as you have to all the living secretary of states they would have told you that that component, that relationship is so important. and i would just say anything that would undermine that obviously is something that would undermine the ability to do the job in that way. i have a series of quick questions and they're important because it gives people some context about your views on foreign policy and america's role in the world, which predate your time at the central intelligence agency, your time in the house of representatives and perhaps even before that. you still agree to unite on the matter of the russian invasion of ukraine, that the united states has an obligation to help ukraine defend its sovereignty. >> yes, senator. >> and you still agree that far from being a great public service, wikileaks is more like a nonstate actor, hostile to the interests and -- national interests and security of the united states. >> senator rubio, 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 is part of a long-standing theory or belief that through disinformation and propaganda they can win bloodless wars against democracies in the west including the united states. >> yes, senator, that's correct. of china, russia, iran, north kl korea, they all have one threat. would you agree the fault line is the competition really, global competition between autocratic systems of government and democratic system that that in many ways played out over and over again in the foreign aff r affairs of this country? >> it is with striking consistency the case that the countries that share our vision of the world and share our democratic values are not authoritarian and those that don't are not. >> so in that vain, you would again agree that promoting democracy isn't just a nice

thing to do or good thing to do or promoting democracy is not us butting in to other people's business or invading sovereignty, it is more than just a moral imperative, promoting democracy is in the context of that competition as we just discussed, it is in the vital national interests of the united states. >> yes, our effectiveness at doing that is an important tool of american foreign policy. >> there is the ridiculous argument out there, when people talk about russian interference and efforts and so forth that that's no different than what america does when it promotes democracy. huge differences. when they interfere in an election, they're trying to influence the outcome. when we promote democracy, we're trying to improve the process, not necessarily who they elect, sometimes democracies elect leaders that are not as friendly toward the united states. when they interfere in elections, they use government. and there is intelligence agencies and the like. when we promote democracy, it is

through the work of nongovernmental organizations who may receive assistance from our government, when they undermine democracy, they do it in secret. they hide it. and they deny it. we do it openly. we brag about it. we're talking about it here today. when we promote democracy, we do it at the invitation of someone in those countries, whether 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 equivalence between the promotion of democracy and russia and other attempts to interfere in democracy. >> senator, there is neither an operational equivalence, as you described it, the methodologies used are very different, they are fundamentally different in every way, and america's democracy promotion around the world is conducted in a way that america should be incredibly proud of. >> one of the first things autocratic rulers do by definition, they violate the human rights of their people

and, of course have no problem violating the human rights of others as we have recently seen through war crimes and atroci atrocities with the support of autocratic governments in iran and russia. therefore i believe you would agree that the defending human rights isn't just a good thing to do, just the right moral thing to do, which most certainly is, defending human rights is also in the national interests of the united states of america. >> i do believe that, senator. >> it would be a priority. >> it would. not only do i believe it, i think history would reflect that to be the case. >> now, after the end of the cold war we had this belief that had history had ended and everyone was going to be a democracy and 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 most certainly not embraced democracy, they have actually gotten more autocratic and they have embraced a definition of the world economic

order that basically means we will take all the benefits of the trade and global economics, but we do not intend to live by its obligations. and so i personally believe that it was a terrible mistake that leaders from both parties made. and now as part of their strategy, you see china doing things like trying to create strategic depth in eurasia, efforts to establish all the different programs, develop road initiative, they're efforts, not just effort to create new trade corps doer corridors. the maritime borders, you see they feel vulnerable and insecure, they seed american allies in japan, south korea, australia, taiwan. so what they're working on now is fracturing our economic and defense alliances in the indo pacific region. that's why they're investing billions of dollars and building up their navy and air force to be able to establish air and sea denial to the u.s. military and

make the argument that don't count on america's defense and/or economic partnership because it is just paper. they can't live up to it anymore. what is -- 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 find out we have been driven from the asia pacific region. >> the -- as the cia director, i've been asked what is the great est threat to the united states. 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 needs to be prepared to respond across each of those fronts so we can find the right ground, the right place where we can cooperate with the chinese, makes sense for america, and those places where it does not, we can confront them and make sure it is america's vision, a 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. >> thank you. when you were installed as director of 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. as you pointed out, 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 fire special counselor mueller on his own? >> senator, 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 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. >> and 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 is hard for know 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 the 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 impleme 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 russia -- i could go on , but as the secretary of state will you argue that we need to go ahead and implement the rest of these sanctions in a way that who holds russia accountable for its its feer i interference? >> yes, every day. vladimir putin has not yet received the message sufficiently and we need to continue to work at that. but it hasn't just been sanctions. the largest expulsion, 60 folks, was from this administration.

this administration announced a nuclear posture review that put russia on notice that we're going to recapitalize our deterrent force. in syria, a handful of weeks ago, the russians met their match and a couple hundred russia russians were killed. i'm happy to walk through each of them, but -- the list is pretty long. >> i agree with that. i think those 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 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 citizens' believe 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 and support of diversity and inclusion. and yet during your tenure in congress, you 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, there were the same questions when i was to be confirmed as a cia director, as cia director i have honored and valued every

single cia officer regardless of race, color, you pick it, gender, sexual orientation, i treated every one of our officers with dignity and respect. i held them accountable when they deserved that as well. >> i appreciate those sentiments and your comments and 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. you were criticized at the cia for undermining policies of the previous administration to improve diversity at the cia. >> i don't know the criticism that you are referring to. i have to tell you, i didn't undermine a single policy. we talked about it, 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

diverse workforce, to meet the challenges -- the intelligence challenges in that case around the world. >> well, i would just say michael weinstein, who is a former air force officer, who founded the military religious freedom foundation, says that he's been seen increasing complaints from those inside the intelligence community under your leadership. so i think there have been a number of concerns raised. >> if i might, the number of -- we call them no fear complaints, the statutory requirement, decreased from 2016 to 2017 by 40%. >> good. >> and i'm proud of that, not enough, whatever the final tally was was too many, but i'm proud of the record, not just -- 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 will do -- the same way if i'm confirmed as the secretary of state. >> thank you. i'm out of time, thank you. >> thank you so much. before turning to senator johnson, i 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 and it would really was a strong statement, 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 i 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 innocenced mentioned i've read a lot of testimony. anybody interested in this nomination should read it. one of the reasons i liked it is i can see the concepts required for effective management in it. of course, you're going to be in charge of managing relationships. but concepts i'm talking about

are in your conclusion, the areas of agreement. that's how you accomplish things.shared purposes, shared goals. you had a strategy in how you manage that -- >> we're continuing to watch the confirmation hearing of mike pompeo, the cia director to become the next secretary of state. we'll take a quick break. we'll resume our special coverage in two minutes.

internet providers promise business owners a lot. let's see who delivers more. comcast business offers fast gig-speeds across our network. at&t doesn't. we offer more complete reliability with up to 8 hours of 4g wireless network backup. at&t, no way. we offer 35 voice features and solutions that grow with your business. at&t, not so much. we give you 75 mbps for $59.95. that's more speed than at&t's comparable bundle, for less. call today.

we're continuing our special coverage of mike pompeo, the president's nominee to become the next secretary of state. he's answering senator ron johnson's questions. >> where it comes into conflict with security issues as opposed to highly factual and contextual, we have seen this with the issues with china today, we thought through the risks, we identified relative priorities and attempted to level set them and then engaged

in diplomatic act sift suivity t the challenges through china through the acts taken by the 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. >> do you agree with me that our top priority is the cooperation? >> today that's the number one priority for the administration. >> would you agree in terms of the best way to bring china into full compliance with all the trade agreements, that working with the other -- our other trading partners, having a good relationship with them and having us as an alliance, working with china and making sure they actually follow the rules, would that also be the best way of achieving that? >> i do believe that, senator. >> what do you think -- i want to try -- i wanted to hear your perspective. what do you think their primary goal is? what is their strategy? what are they trying to achieve? let me say the three things they

listed to us, bring a billion people out of poverty, improve their environment, and avoid a financial crisis. those are their three top priorities they told us. >> senator, i've heard similar things. i've actually -- in my interactions have heard the economic crisis listed first, they have this challenge of leverage inside of china today, they have to wind their way out of and do it through economic growth. that's the priority. the secondary benefit you described bringing the next several hundred million people into middle class china. when i have spoken with them, those were there two fundamental priorities. >> they have enormous challenges, so, i guess, one of my points being is rather than look at our relationship with china, as a win/lose situation, sure makes a lot of sense to me try to redefine that in -- 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 negotiation, the diplomacy a zero sum game.

with respect to china in particular, i know that's true. >> to switch to russia, it is historic tragedy that putin has taken the path. can you describe what path has he taken? what is russia's aims? >> i'll take vladimir putin at his word, the greatest value was the dissolution of the soviet union. i think he believes that in his heart. you see his actions follow from that. attempts to regain power thro h through -- to maintain his power, to maintain his popularity through activity taking place outside, by poking america, to maintain his -- not only his capability, and enormous nuclear arsenal, but also his desire to be perceived as such, as being perceived as a super power. i think each of the actions you take are to undermine democracy in the west, such that the soviet model, now russian model is the one painted to the world as the one that will lead the

world to greatness. we know that's in the true and can't let that happen. >> so to prevent that from happening, 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 s serbia, kosovo, at a hinge point. i want to encourage you, i think the assistant secretary mitchell has done a great job of certainly 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 being adventuresome, as latin america as well. i agree. we need to push back in each place that we confront them and by every vector, cyber, economic, each of those tools that vladimir putin is using, we need to do our best to make sure he doesn't succeed in what we believe the ultimate goal is. >> thank you for your willingness to serve. >> thank you. >> we're continuing to watch the

confirmation hearings, but moments ago, the president was at the white house, meeting with lawmakers, meeting with governors. listen to what he just said about a decision on syria. >> i will be leaving here -- i'll be going back as soon as this meeting is over. but we're looking very, very seriously, very closely at that whole situation. and we'll see what happens, folks. we'll see what happens. too bad that the world puts us in a position like that, but as i said this morning, we have done a great job with isis. we have just absolutely decimated isis. but now we have to make some further decisions. they'll be made fairly soon. thank you, all, very much. thank you. >> so there you hear the president saying decision will be made, his words, fairly soon, on the u.s. response to suspected chemical attack against civilians in syria. moments before that, the defense secretary james mattis said i believe there was a chemical attack, we're looking for the

actual evidence. he said the u.s. was trying to get inspectors into syria to investigate probably within the week. jim sciutto, we're watching this closely, let's quickly go back to the confirmation hearing of mike pompeo. >> so let me just follow up, if i might, for a moment, on a line of questioning, two of my colleagues pursued. you're 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 that rule of law is essential to the values that define our democracy. is that correct? >> senator, i only spoke publicly, six, five times as a director. each time i spoke to -- maybe there is an exception, but 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 how if we didn't do that, the fundamental failure that that would lead to. i believe as a cia director, i believe that all my life an i'll

believe it as secretary of state if i'm confirmed as well. >> you made a strong statement if confirmed, the seventh time you would raise your hand and swear an oath to the constitution. so let me just go back to a line of questioning, president trump described special counselor mueller's investigation on 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, this 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 -- i hope you'll take this the right way. as the director of the cia, i've been involved in that investigation. i've worked with senators burr and warner and with congressmen on the house permanent select committee on intelligence, i've been a participant in special counsel mueller's activity. i think anything i say with respect -- i just want to avoid

that today. i apologize that i can't speak more fully to that, but i hope you'll respect the fact that everything that i was asked to do in my role as cia director related to any of these investigations i've done with as much thoroughness, as much depth and aalacrity as i could. >> 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? >> senator, i haven't give than question any thought. my instincts 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 political domestic turmoil. we have seen this in america before. this wouldn't be the first time that there has been enormous

political turmoil. my recollection of the history is that previous secretaries of state stayed the course. continued to do their work. continued to do the requirements, statutory and constitutional, that they had. having not given it -- having not given a great >> director pompeo, i urge you to give it some thought. many of us have given it thought and have had to for months. i hate that we're seriously discussing that rather than diving into the policy discussions that face us around the world. but i think there are moments that our values and what we do teaches to the world, and whether the right course is to resign or engage, speak out against it, counsel against it, work to restore the rule of law we could debate, but i think it's vital that we have as our chief diplomat someone who understands our values, as i believe you do, and is willing to fight for them by taking dramatic steps like a resignation in order to signal

vigorous disapproval of what the president has done or might do. let me move on to another area, if i might. when discussing saddam hussain, president trump has said, and i quote, he was a bad guy, a really bad guy. but you know what he did well? he killed terrorists. they didn't read them their rights, they didn't talk, they were terrorists, it was over. whether we could debate whether or not saddam husband taken was -- hussein was a good guy or bad guy, this is something we discussed with the president of philippines and his conduct, where we're challenging an ally, we're challenging the historical record on behalf of our rights is important and our values. what extent do you think actions that curtail human rights or due process by foreign governments actually strengthens stability, where we are seen as being on the side of a quick and violent

result rather than a rule of law and a just result, it actually makes us less safe? >> senator, i think i agree with -- if i understood the premise of your question correctly, i think i agree with it, but i'll try to repeat it for you and see if i got it right. i agree. american behavior matters. the way we behave around the world, our activities, the things we choose to do and not do matter, they're reflective. one of the best memories i've had so far as cia director is i was with a partner who had been with this a lot longer than i had, and we were walking in a dusty place. i had done great work alongside them. he turned to me and said, you know the most important thing america has done for my team? it's great that you give us some help, it's great that you teach us some technology and tools. the most important thing you've done for us is you've set an example. say 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, you've made us better. so to your point, i think that's an example of where we put aside the policy and the substance of work we did, it was america's norms that proved truly valuable to this foreign partner. i was proud to be that director. >> i'm glad to hear that example and hear you repeat our shared core value, but i do think we're at a time when we have to confront questions about what we're able to do in order to shield our country. >> just to give everyone a sheet of play, 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, may maymayo

mayor elizabeth said we'll make that happen. i noticed you haven't been drinking any water. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, director, for the testimony so far. i had to pop out for another hearing, so i apologize if i plow any old ground. can we talk about iran for a minute? with the jc poa, iran has alreay realized much of the benefit in terms of money being released, is that correct? >> they have received economic benefit from the jcpoa, that's correct. >> if we were to somehow get out of the agreement, would there be an attempt to collect that money back? >> senator, i haven't considered that. i would think that unlikely. there's not a tool inside the agreement to achieve that.

>> right. that's my understanding as well. >> iran has already received much of the benefit, but if we were withdraw from that agreement, we would give them reason to renege on the agreements on the nuclear side, is that right? >> they're continuing to receive benefits even this morning, so 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. >> well, 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, and before this body i think it would have been a better agreement and something 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 up hold ho obligations that they agreed to under the treaty. i know that's being considered. then the other, with regard to north korea, i am happy that the president is talking, that discussions at the highest level are had.

i've always agreed that presidents and secretaries of state and others ought to talk to rogue leaders. i am concerned, i think, and 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, if you're confirmed, we'll 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's work being done in preparation for that.

the president's view has been, and i agree with him, that the model 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's judged that 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 for each side for the two leaders who will ultimately make the decision about whether such an agreement can be achieved and then 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 it will set us on the course for achieving a diplomatic 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 that if you're the north korean leader or negotiators on that side, they might be concerned at our reliability in terms of signing an agreement if the next president could simply exit it. >> senator, while i concede we don't know precisely what kim jong-un is contemplating about his options set today, i've read a lot of analysis about how he feels about his challenges he faces today with the enormous economic pressure placed upon him and the other things he's thinking about do not include other deals in history. it's not what he's focused on, will we pull out of the treaty. he's thinking about how he can set conditions while we talk about complete, verifiable

reversal in his nuclear program, he's thinking about 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 at something more than a piece of paper. he's going to be looking for a set of conditions to be put in place so that he can undertake a task. denuclearizing his country that for decades nobody believed could occur. >> turning to africa for a minute, senator coons traveled to four countries in africa, including zimbabwe. zimbabwe is going through a transition. they have a new leader. elections are set 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, but we tend to move it through as quickly as we can in this committee, but an ambassador on the ground in zimbabwe when that transition occurs, the elections are held? >> yes. it will actually in the first instance d