tv Secretary of State Nominee Mike Pompeo Part 1 CSPAN April 12, 2018 9:00pm-12:20am EDT
trade representative's to take another look at the tpp, a deal he once called republicans stupid for endorsing. we will bring you mike pompeo's confirmation hearing next. >> "washington journal," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. up, talking about the potential u.s. military action against syria. carteronnie cardinal -- will talk about the will of congress in stemming the opioid crisis. .atch "washington journal oh join the discussion. announcer: president trump's nominee for secretary of state, mike pompeo, testified at his
confirmation hearing. he was asked about a range of issues from members of the foreign relations committee, including on a syria, iran, special counsel robert mueller, upcoming talks with north korea and the employee morale at the state department. chaired theer committee. mr. pompeo previously served as cia director.
sen. corker: the senate foreign relations committee will come to order. i want to think the senators for being here. i would like to say two things. number ofhave a people we love here, who sometimes like to protest. good to see you, thank you for waiting. i in the past have been able to call the people who are -- please don't do
anything that causes us to have to call you out of order. once the starts, this cannot be stopped anymore. we thank you for being considerate and respectful of people who are here today. we plan to have a markup on thursday. the minority asked we delay that so theyor a few days consider this a little bit more frilly. it will be likely they do this markup early in the next week. there will be documents relative to that on friday. we thank you all for your continued work on this issue. chairman, i appreciate you taking a little more time. as we speak, we do not have a final version. time,er to give members
the authorization for the use of military force, i think members want a considered approach. the chair to consider, once he has a final with us andshare it consider the possibility of a singular hearing on that which would give members and informed opportunity amendmentswhatever they might offer. i appreciate in the first instance, giving time for the purpose. >> will probably wait until tomorrow. we do with consultation with you is considering having a hearing next thursday instead and then having a markup. all is something we of discussed for many years. we have three distinguished senators here. we typically would give our opening comments first, but out
of respect for their time and who they are, i would like with them to go ahead and give their comments, and then we will move back to regular order. we thank you all for being here and i don't know what order you would like to start in, but him. start with rts: thank you, chairman corker, and establish members of the committee. todayan honor to be here in support of my friend and colleague, mike pompeo. as the presidential nominee for secretary of state. decade, i have known mike as a friend first and as a business leader. recently, as the leader .f our intelligence community
at home, kansas knows mike as a family man, a devoted husband and citizen and father to nick. i know how proud you are. ofy know him as a man integrity and honesty, and hard work and perseverance. he built a successful business and understood the responsibility of maintaining a of job growthng and prosperity to wichita, kansas. they no had to be plainspoken, to tell it like it is. him as a statesman, a man who listens to others, who whos well with people, and can negotiate solutions in an effective manner. these qualities, i believe that mike pompeo's next challenge and this tumultuous perhaps the challenge
for which he his best suited, as our nation's most senior diplomat. he will be forthright, forceful, thoughtful. give the president and those of us in congress candid counsel. man of his word. it is in his dna. look at his bible. army strong. he graduated at the top of his class at west point and served as a calgary officer, patrolling the iron curtain before the fall. he later joined the second squadron in the fourth infantry division. after completing his military service, michael attended harvard law school, where he was editor of the harvard libra field. the law.tands after practicing law, he returned to his mother's roots in south-central, kansas, running their successful
businesses in wichita before running for congress in 2010. he came to washington with a very strong desire to serve people in the fourth district and the rest of our state and to make a difference. he sought a seat on the house intelligence committee, at a time when intelligence gathering methods were under fire, before he went on to lead the central intelligence agency. my good friend and chairman, richard burr, and my colleagues on the intelligence committee last year, mike pompeo understands the role of congress and the need for vigorous oversight. washington, toin those who serve our country, and and o-matic posts around the world, mike pompeo will work hard to earn your trust. bridges,eek to build to rely upon expertise, but
always with respect, whether it ormanaging crises in syria in north korea, complex relationships with russia or china, or humanitarian disasters, mike will represent american ideals and values backed by the strength and leadership of the free world. us time andshown again that we cannot sit back and wait, given the most serious challenges we face in the world and in the role our nation place. wherever there is a void, the world pays a price. [[rptestprs --
[protests] >> i was in the u.s. army for 29 years and i was a you a supplement for 16 years. i am sure that happens regarding soybeans in the agricultural committee office. [laughter] >> it may happen with the president when i talk to him about all of the tariffs. sen. roberts: i was right in the middle of the best part. void, thehere is a world pays a price. we need mike pompeo at the state department, and we need him now. it is my permanent hope that this committee will receive a swift confirmation for the presidential nominee.
it is now a privilege and honor to turn to my mentor, friend, and recent presidential gold medal recipient, senator bob dole. senator dole: i can't see very well. you look good. >> thank you. you look very good and we are glad to have you. senator dole: one thing about mike pompeo, he will hit the ground running. he knows the people. i got appointed with him as a cia director. he is ready to go, and he will be our top diplomat. quickld like confirmation.
he is supported by the president and the rest of us who live in this wonderful country. guy.pompeo is a brilliant at the top of his class at west point. and a businessman, congressman, , and all ofand those things added up, with the experience he has, he is ready to go. we thank you for holding this hearing. thank you so much. all of us are thrilled to have your invite them so glad you are honored the way you were recently in the capital. thank you for sharing your time with us. senator?
senator: one has to ask, what makes a great leader. what you have heard it was be personal story about mike pompeo, medicine anyone's checklist, if you saw those things, you would say, here is a great candidate. first in his class at west point. a lawyer fromr, harvard, editor for the "review ." represented people from kansas. it responded and took the toughest job in the toughest cia. the director of the i asked mike to lead the cia in an ethical, moral, and legal manner, and he did exactly that.
mike has honorably represented and aggressively supported the employees of the cia. nowink what we need right is an individual who can bond with those great formats in the state department, while -- dip lomats in the state department, policiesrying out abroad. he has been responsive and transparent within the intelligence committee, and has always spoke the truth. rigor,ellectual honorable service, and outstanding judgment, make him a natural fit. i want you to take away from this, is mike pompeo is a good man. i want to ask you and i want to ask all are colleagues in the ever is a place
where you politics aside, here it is. mike exemplifies talent. when you look at nominees who we sanctify in this administration, they look for somebody that we are proud of. look for somebody that has the talent to do the job correctly. you that miket to everything wents play in a nominee that they would have. as we go forward, we have an opportunity to say to those in people around this country, that one day want to give back to their country, your background does matter. the want the best, brightest, those that are most
committed to doing. and he have an opportunity in mike pompeo, to select and confirm an individual i think speaks for generations to come. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we thank you, all three of you. we know you have other business to take care of. you are welcome to stay. bring the witness forward. while we're reorganizing and senator dole thank you for being here, i want to recognize the fact that ambassador haley is joining us. i haven't seen her yet in the audience. thank you for being here. director mike pompeo, we welcome
you today and thank you for your willingness to serve our country yet again, this time in the role of secretary of state. we are glad your family is here with you and we extend to them are thanks for your sacrifices your service requires of them -- but your sacrifices your service requires of them. you have been nominated by the president at a very important time in our nation's history. our country's standing in the world has been on the decline over the past decade or more and that certainly continues. throughout the 20th century, our allies viewed the united states as a reliable partner and a source of stability. a friend whose ideals and leadership made our world a better place. and fortunately today we are not counted on as we once were. the chasm between what our leaders say and the actions that they take can have a devastating
impact. i think about where syria would be today had we done what we said in 2013 when the opposition posed a significant threat to the regime. assad crossed the redline, used chemical weapons and we did nothing. the loss of momentum was palpable. our inconsistencies have created vacuums that are being eagerly filled by those who do not share our values. when the leader of our country speaks with the full might of the most powerful military in the world, the world has ever known behind him, he must choose his words carefully. his words and actions have global ramifications and send a signal to both our foes and allies regarding our level of commitment to long standing alliances, our desire for trade relationships and our belief in
the ideals we claim to embody. but while at times the president may act or speak impulsively, we have also seen that good counsel has led the president to evolve , from my perspective, to a much better place on a number of important issues. i believe the next secretary of state must continue to provide such counsel even when it's difficult. if confirmed, you must continue to provide advice to the president that allows them to view a given situation holistically and not make decisions that focus on the impact to one domestic group or foreign government. any president has numerous voices from both inside and outside the white house vying for his attention. an effective secretary of state must be able to prioritize the issues for the president and attempt to drown out the noise and chaos that can so often
distract and bog down the leader of the free world from making sound and informed decisions. i know that you have developed a close relationship with the president and i believe that relationship could well serve you if you're confirmed as secretary of state. however many strong voices have been terminated or resigned -- that's why i think it's fair for members to ask whether your relationship is rooted in a candid, healthy give-and-take dynamic or whether it's based on deferential willingness to go along to get along. americans often think of the secretary of state solely in his or her capacity as our chief diplomat racing around the world , to broker compromise, prevent war or negotiate treaties, and no doubt your success as a diplomat, as you well know, is key to keeping our men and women in uniform that we fresh injury
-- treasure so much out of harms way. while all of that is true, this position also requires the person occupying the office to be every bit a manager as a diplomatic envoy. the secretary must effectively manage multibillion dollar budgets and a work force of tens of thousands. this is the part of the job that isn't flashy and doesn't usually attention, but is just as important as any aspect of the secretary's duties. in order to execute foreign policy effectively the secretary , must have a fully functional department behind him. during your tenure at the cia, you demonstrated that you understand the need for having a functioning workforce. i am hopeful that if confirmed you will make it a priority to fill those key positions and to work to earn the trust of the career public servants in both , the departments' foreign and civil service. not only will the next secretary
of state have to adapt to a unique decision-making process , and have significant management issues to tackle but there are numerous crucial policy issues around the world that must be addressed. while the obstacles we face are daunting, they are by no means insurmountable. the history of american foreign policy is filled with secretaries of state who have changed the world for the better in the face of adversity. in fact, those who have gone down in history as great are those who dealt with the when facedallenges, with what seemed like impossible odds, they roast -- they rose to the occasion. that is what when we are add our best we do as americans and it's -- are at our best we do as , americans and it's my hope that you will do the same if confirmed. examining the nom
state ise secretary of one of the most solemn duties of this committee. you will be asked about your vision for the department of state. thank you for your willingness to serve and i look forward to your testimony and answers and with that i'll turn to our distinguished ranking member and my friend, bob menendez. endez: congratulations on her nomination, and welcome to you and your family on your second confirmation hearing. this committee considers her nomination after nearly a year and a half of reckoning with president trump's a radical approach to foreign policy, which has left our allies confused, and our adversaries emboldened. this is an approach driven by impulse, not strategy. president trump's america's first policies have left america isolated and alone in the midst of unprecedented challenges, russia seeks to enter --
undermined the international order we've helped to create after world war ii, and the peace and stability we have made for three quarters of a century, and emboldened china, asserting itself in the south china sea initarily into right here the western hemisphere. assad has used chemical weapons against innocent civilians, and venezuelans are starving in one of the most oil-rich countries in the world. abandonedtrump has the democratic values and ideals that have shaped america's roles as a beacon to our friend -- friends and as a bulwark in the midst of crisis. i was cap to hear you say you plan to support the korean public servants at the state parliament -- department. committeebers of this expect every secretary of state to champion the department and
its mission. we expect you to advocate for bus diplomacy is the first line of defense in defending our sons and daughters into war. to do that we need a strong diplomatic corps and what enhances our foreign policy. as cia director, your job was to conduct covert operations and provide intelligence to policymakers including presidents. you will be the person executing the foreign policy of the united states of america. many countries of the world already think the state extension of an the cia, so how you conductors of going forward will be critical. nomination to be the president's top currency c -- top foreign-policy adviser -- we have to ask, will you give in to president trump's worst
protect our best interest, or will you be looking -- lurching from crisis to crisis? will you take america into costly wars? would you stand up to president trump? americans are scared this commander in chaos will lead them into war. this is not a time for taunting and tweets. the russian intelligence community and our military leaders have repeatedly said that russia poses ongoing threats to the united dates national security and our office. if president trump cannot bring himself to his knowledge the search threat -- he says warrant's are a threat to our democracy, but cannot call out russia.
for a realing strategy to counteract russian aggression. we urge the president to implement mandatory sanctions that congress overwhelmingly passed, and he has failed. the american people are deeply worried by an erratic president uses school board policy when talking about nuclear war. a meeting is not a strategy. preventing nuclear war requires thoughtful diplomacy, preparation, and clear objectives. would you enable the votes around the president seeking to go to war, or would you ask for a path to protect the safety of all americans? pompeo: i voted against the iran nuclear deal. menendez: i voted
against the around the clear deal, but it does not serve our to withdraw from the deal. again, this is turning toward a crisis. president trump's grading unnecessary risk with the very allies we need to confront iran. the ask you, what is your plan? reason, be a voice of or will you support the president's worst instincts? if confirmed as secretary of state, you will no longer be operating in the shadows of american foreign-policy. you will be the united states. you will be the representative bombastic president, but the american people. when the president suggests doing away with elections, we stay silent.
president and those closest to him by pepe very idea of diplomacy and advocate unnecessary wars that will cost a lot of our children, will you go along with them? or as our nation's top diplomat, will you champion diplomacy, and offer actual plans? will used in the two trump when he is wrong, or will you be a yes-man? esther director, i look forward to -- i look forward to hearing your testimony as you move forward. mr. chairman: if you couldn't summarize your testimony about five minutes or so, any written documents -- inld sumamrize testimony about five minutes or so, any written documents you can submit to the record. >> i am not sure if i can do it in five minutes.
opportunity tohe appear here today, as the nominee to the united states secretary of state. i am grateful to each of you for the attention you have given us over the past weeks. so many of you have given so much time when there are so many global challenges before us. as regular confirmed contact? you can talk to senator burden. i understand the importance of and continued relationship, advice coming from outside the executive branch. i would like to think a moment to think secretary tillerson for his service to the united states and his commitment to this transition. think to theto intro secretary for serving in the gap. i would also like to thank all of the former secretary of state's that each took my call. and republicans, from secretaries kissinger to
secretary kerry, were kind enough to visit me and share on who their thoughts would be most like me to be a successful secretary of state. the two people sitting to my right rear provide my ballast. susan is always there to remind me that family issues affect every officer at the cia. nick heaps me humble, keeps my sense of humor alive -- keeps me humble, keeps my sense of humor alive. other officers have encouraged it, promoted it, and are incredibly supportive of my efforts to serve america. cia,e men and women of the it has been an honor and privilege and a joy. to say that does not do justice. ofave demanded an awful lot you and set the expectation bar high.
i have pushed response ability and authority down to each and everyone of you, and along with that, the required accountability. delivered for america, for president trump and for me. perhaps the highest components of our work come from our adversaries, who are in on of institutions. we ask for more services, training, more joint operations than ever. no matter how this nomination process ends, i will be with you and support you and i will admire you. i want to thank the president for his confidence and trust. deliver world-class intelligence to help inform him and -- he and the other senior policymakers in america. i would be honored to help him carry out those decisions as the chief diplomat. i will raise my hand to swear for the -- an oath
constitution for the seventh time in my life. the first time, i was 17 years old. forconstitution provides our obligation to engage in diplomacy, and display the very best of america to the world. america is uniquely blessed and what those blessings, a duty to lead. not stand up for rights and democracy around the world, who will? new other nation has such a unique blend of duty and power. -- no other nation has such a unique blend of duty iand power. i was born in california. my family did not have a whole lot of money, but we had a lot of fun learning. i was an employee at baskin robbins.
i am a movie buff and have a soft spot for my golden retrievers. i enjoyed being a fifth grade sunday school teacher for kids that did not want to sit still. this, i he will dispute can beat my son at sports every day. when i traveled to the united states military economy, it was the first time i had ever been east of the mississippi. i am not afraid to get my hands dirty. i have no discomfort with directness, competition. i prefer face to face. i don't hold grudges, i work towards the mission, and i will always make room for student programs and youth groups. they are the future.
let me turn to how i intend to work as the secretary of state if i am confirmed. i have met hundreds of state department of police throughout my time the cia. i had the chance to meet dozens and dozens more in briefings. they expressed to me there hope to be empowered in their roles and have a clear understanding of the president's mission. that would be my first priority. it is also demoralizing to have so many vacancies. end thosemy part to vacancies. i will work every day to provide dedicated leadership and convey my face in their work, their professionalism, just as i have done with the workforces at the central intelligence agency. i just completed a massive restructuring. arrival, i after my talked about commander's intent.
i wanted employees to know what the president's desires work and them to understand i was depending on them. i asked for additional resources. i was able to persuade the president to provide them and with your help, i will do the same thing at the department of state. my commitment. i will work with each of you to fill the vacancies around the state department. this is critical to strengthening the finest diplomatic corps in the world. i would also like to highlight the workforces and the culture. i will spend a lot of time on this. it is important.
team does not understand the mission and is not working toward the same goal, it is incredibly difficult to achieve it. met with state department officials into my own team and i spoke with them about the things i was going to demand of them. the location for housing officers was simply inadequate. none of you would have allowed for families to be there. i said it needed to be fixed. i wanted state department families and ours to know because about them. you should know what i believe deeply the state department workforce must be diverse. diverse, in every sense of the word. achieve thato diversity, just as i have done in my current role. -- i demand every
team member be treated equally with dignity and respect, and i will listen. a senior in the army said, lieutenant, if you shut up and listen, you likely will be a lot better. he taught me a lot about how to be a good leader. i intend to do that with the talented people that reside at the state department. secretaryscription as is to serve the president must chief foreign affairs adviser. that was driven home to me in those conversations. number one job is to represent the president, people said. is building substantial relationships with our allies, and productive cooperation. it also means working with our adversaries, making clear
objectives and letting them know the means by which we intend to achieve them. i am fortunate to have a sizable headstart in this regard. i was engaged with foreign counterparts at the agency. i forged stronger relationships with those partners all across the world. i traveled to these regions to demonstrate the commitment that america has to working with their partners. i also met folks who didn't share many of our objectives and tried to find slivers of common ground where we can work together to deliver with the results america needs. i will promote america's ideals, values, and priorities, because they determine the trajectory of geopolitics, and we need to do that, well. i will close here, because i am approaching the five minutes. have been know that i
in a norm in my life of some of the most multiple medical achievements in american history. i served on the border between east and west germany. i watched diplomats over an extended time from both parties achieve an outcome against the soviet union and the communist fromthat prevented my team having to conduct the battle we prepared for every day. it was remarkable work from officers over many years. it was the right approach and it worked for america. i know that some of you have read, i am a hawk, i am a hardliner. there is no one like someone who served in uniform who understands the value of terror andand the tragedy that is war like someone who served in uniform. to achieve thek
president's policies in his diplomacy, rather than by sending our young men and women to war. i know the president feels the same way. work to build the finest military in the world, but the best outcomes are always one with a diplomatic cable. america's diplomatic, political, foreign policy engagement around the world has always been a big topic of debate. i have been reminded that once the debates conclude, the actions that america does make it real. it is a matter of duty to get it right. while we might agree to disagree, we rarely disagree on why. the safety of our
families, the prosperity of our nation, and the survival of freedom in the world. diplomacy gives us the chance to achieve these goals peacefully. i think you for your time. to chairman: i am going withhold my time and use it for interjections along the way. i will turn it to braking member senator menendez. -- ranking member senator menendez. menendez: you and the director of national intelligence attended a briefing at the white house with several government agents. up,he briefing was wrapping everyone was asked to leave the room except for you and coates. the president started complaining about the fbi investigation and comey's handling of it. two days earlier, comey had confirmed the fbi whether
trump was coordinating with russia during the 2016 race. thees discussed investigation with other officials and decided that interfering with comey would be inappropriate. director, this account strongly suggests the president asked you and director coates to interfere with comey's investigations into contacts campaign's with russia. what did president trump say to you in that meeting? mike pompeo: i am not going to talk about that. setting, it is appropriate for the president to have an opportunity to talk with his senior leaders. the article's suggestion he asked me to do anything improper is false. z: did he ask you
to do anything as it relates to that investigation? recallmpeo: i do not that day. he has never asked me to do anything remotely improper. endez: you're not asserting executive privilege? mike pompeo: no. menendez: this has a connotation of foreign policy. this is about russia. respond,ding how you what she would do if you were looking at mandatory sanctions the administration has yet to impose, looking at how we are going to kill us a russia -- russia that such to interfere with our elections and across the world -- it is not fo r me simply a question of interest, a question of understanding, what you were asked, how you responded, and
what you did. i am happy to talk about the administration's work on russia and our work on sa nctions. the president has discussed the russian investigation with you? pompeo: i will not discuss my private investigations with the president. i am happy to answer questions about our administrations politics, the work we are doing. i have provided and spoken with special counsel robert mueller, who requested an interview and i cooperated. your colleagues on the senate intelligence committee have asked for information from me. the leaders o thow -- of those two organizations in a bipartisan way would say i have
been cooperated. endez: what was the subject of your conversations with special counsel robert mueller? did he tell you not to speak about these things? ike pompeo: i have cooperated with the investigation. just because i do not want to noak, there should be negative or positive inferences about the fact i think it is most appropriate that while these investigations continue, i not speak to conversations i have with various investigative bodies. mendendez: if i asked special counsel robert mueller that you couldn't, i don't think he would say you couldn't. it is were choice you are not seeking to do so. these questions being answer truthfully and in a forthcoming way are critically important because it refers to how you approach one of the most
critical issues that we have. your unwillingness to speak to it is troubling. president trump has repeatedly said getting along with russia is a good thing. asterday he tweeted, relationship with russia is worse than it has ever been, and there is no reason for this. what behavior, if any, has the kremlin jones that indicate a want to get along with the united states or our allies? pompeo: the administration has taken a series of actions to push back against vladimir putin -- enendez: what indication has become one shown that it wants to get a lot of united states? states? with the united pompeo: this administration will take real actions to push
back against the deterrence with russia. endez: you suggest there is a robust response to russia. michael rogers warned the senate armed services committee that the company ministration has not done enough to stop the russians. "i believe president putin has come -- come to the conclusion there is little price to pay, and he can continue his activity. the outgoing national security adviser said "we have failed to sufficient costs on russia and the kremlin confidence is growing. there are a series of mandatory provisions that have not been implemented by the administration. section 225, mandatory sanctions respect to26, with
russia and other foreign financial institutions. section 228, with respect to and an transactions, serious human rights abuses. section 231, mandatory sanctions with respect to engaging in transactions for intelligence and defense sectors of the government and russian federation. that is not a robust response to russia. mr. chairman: thank you. i want to welcome senator king. i would like the people to know he does this when things are serious. he comes and listens to the testimony. i go to senator wretch. -- senator rich. sen. rich: thank you for your testimony. and i are the only ones that have crossed
colonization ideas. sen. risch: the here from the heads of all the 17 agencies we have, engaging in intelligence matters. , we have hadears numerous heads of agencies come and. -- come in. pompeo has been candid. he came in before the intel committee. he has been helpful, and he has always been straightforward with us. you will certainly get my vote for confirmation on this job. i think the cia is going to serve you very well. it has served me very well on this committee. having some of the in-depth
knowledge you don't necessarily get in the public media. state is unique . very high profile job. you go around america, doing the kinds of things you do, and your predecessor was very good at that. however, as secretary has a couple of jobs you have to do at the same time. is managing the united states for the president. portantly isvery im the actual management of the bureaucracy. i don't use it in a pejorative way.
with the thousands of men and women in foreign service, working with the state department, they are bipartisan and do a great job. i think there has been a fair amount of criticism. your predecessor was hampered a bit because he didn't have those jobs filled that were so important. to have good, solid people around you to be able to work, in thecracy things that aren't high profile. could you give us your thoughts go aboutu're going to that? it needs some work. it is going to make your job better and the state department better. could you give us your thoughts on that? mr. pompeo: thank you for your
kind words. i have consistently tried to work closely and provide you with everything that you have asked for in a timely fashion. with respect to building a team, i have done it as part of a calgary troop, with two small businesses in kansas. -- calvary troop, with two small businesses in kansas. there are two many wholes, unfilled -- holes, unfilled positions. when that happens, experts are stretched thin to conduct the humanitarian and development missions of the united states, and each of the missions entrusted to the state department rely on talent to do their part. i will think about it the same
way i did at the cia. i will start with what i think to executegest risks american policy. we don't yet have an ambassador to south korea. i am a talent talk. i will find what i believe to be the best fit to execute america's diplomatic mission around the world. i will help to identify the right person documented for every position during this challenging time in american history. risch: there are 37 ambassador ships that need to be filled. you have a really deep bench at and thee department,
person in charge has done a fabulous job. we do need to be ambassador ships failed. -- filled. we do need the top positions in the state department filled, and people with the authority to act and do the things that need to be done. thank you for that. i have every confidence you will be able to do that. your candor but the intelligence committee, if you can, in front of that committee, in a candid fashion, i have every confidence you were going to be able to do that here. thank you for your service.
sen. cardin: thank you for your career in public service and for the sacrifices were family has made. -- your family has made. with the policy of america first, it has been interpreted globally as america alone. and you want to use diplomacy to engage the international committee -- community. i would hope you would briefly answer the questions, so please respect the time restrictions we are operating under, because i have a lot of questions i want to ask. the iran nuclear agreement -- iran is a bad actor and continues to be. with congress's help, we pass
strong legislation to provide additional sanctions against iran, not nuclear violations. we want strict enforcement of the nuclear agreement. the president has announced he wants to see changes in the nuclear agreement. has also been clear that we cannot unilaterally modify the agreement and iran is in complicance with the agreement. unless there is a material breach, and we have others willing to sign other a greements, with reference to north korea -- we have challenges into entering plum -- diplomacy. thisu cannot modify agreement and iran is in compliance, what is your view as
whether -- as to whether america should withdraw unilaterally from this nuclear agreement? mr. pompeo: i know clear what my mission is going to be. the president has made very clear what this mission is going to be and i expect no changes. : nominees have come before this committee and expressed their views and they are doing very well in this administration. the president gets the last word even if they disagree. i understand. mr. pompeo: i can't answer that question. i will tell you how i think about it. i want to fix this deal. that is the objective. cardin: the agreement cannot be changed. my question is very simple. your view to pull out of
an agreement iran is in compliance with if we can't fix it? yes or is almost the way. we are close, as a hypothetical matter -- imagine we are close to achieving a fix. if we are close -- >> you pull out? dir. pompeo: in the event we conclude that we can't fix this deal, there are serious short -- shortcomings that you yourself have identified, the president will be given best advice, including by me. if there is no chance to fix it, i recommend to the president we do our best with allies to achieve a better outcome than the better deal. even after not -- may 12. there is still much diplomatic work to be done. sen. cardin: i think you have answered the question.
about been pretty clear the outcome you would like to see in north korea, which is regime change, is that correct? dir. pompeo: you have misstated that. sen. cardin: are you in favor of regime change in north korea? dir. pompeo: my own personal views, 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. sen. cardin: i understand, but you are saying now you don't favor regime change? dir. pompeo: i have never advocated for regime change. sen. cardin: it is a simple question -- >> i'm happy to answer that i am not advocating for regime change. sen. cardin: i appreciate that. dir. pompeo: 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 a difficult situation in korea
this country has been headed for now for a couple of decades. sen. cardin: let me get to the international climate talks and agreements that were entered into in paris. fact every nation in the world has now joined in that -- this, as you understand, these are self-imposed goals enforced only by ourselves. president has indicated his intentions to withdraw from the international agreement -- it takes a period of time before it is effect of, but he has initiated the progress. -- process. we would be the only country that is not a part of the agreement. do you support the united states withdrawing from the climate agreements? dir. pompeo: i share the president's position precisely, which is that the paris agreement has 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. it is my view and i believe i speak for the administration. sen. cardin: you believe self-imposed requirements working within the international is "dangerously wrong, bows down to radical environmentalist and the science is an conclusive -- inconclusive," you stand by that? dir. pompeo: we need to treat american citizens in the same way others around the world as a shared burden to attack this. sen. cardin: do you see the challenge that is going to make your job more challenging, if confirmed? is to work with the international community, our friends and foes alike to try and 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? conflict witha
that position and trying to be the top diplomat of america, the leader of the world? manypompeo: there are times we work with our allies and there are many times we don't see it the same way. many examples of where this administration has worked with those same allies. recently, the work we did against russia in response to the attacks in britain. european allies very closely. this would be after the president's announcement he intended to withdraw from paris. another example, the coalition this administration has built to put pressure on kim jong-un is unique and historic and important. there will be places our allies come alongside us and other places they don't. be to get america's position well known and rally the nation's to the cause of america. >> on the iran issue, it is my europeans do the
not come along with a framework by may 12, it is likely he will withdraw. dir. pompeo: the president has made that clear. cardinn't think senator heard the same thing i heard. your sense is should that happen, then you would continue after that time to create a better agreement -- is that what your answer was? dir. pompeo: yes, the president objective.his i have heard him say it to secretary tillerson that his goal is to take the three shortcomings he has identified and fixed them. need todin: but i correct the record. i understand the president's position. i was asking the nominees position. view on to know your it. i understand the president's position. sen. corker: again, i know this will be highly discussed publicly. i think what director pompeo is saying that is also his opinion
and should the agreement then be for ad, he would work better agreement after that should the framework agreement not come in place by may 12, is that correct? dir. pompeo: that is correct. senator rubio: an editorial statement, one of the reasons apart from how well i know the nominee and the work he has done in intelligence is one of the critical components of being a successful secretary of state kerry when the secretary comes to town, leaders and diplomats need to know this is someone who 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 that 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 inner circle and speaks with the president and to his policies,
is critical to success as a secretary of state and i imagine you have spoken to other secretary of state's and they would say that component is important. i would say 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 polity -- policy and america's role in the world. it includes your time in the house of representatives and perhaps even before that. do you still agree on the matter of the russian invasion of ukraine that the united states has an obligation to help ukraine defended sovereignty? dir. pompeo: yes, senator. far rubio: and you agree from being a great public service, maitland -- wikileaks is like a nonstate actor dangerous to the interest of the united states. dir. pompeo: i do believe that. sen. rubio: and you still believe vladimir putin's
government actively interfere with our presidential elections and elections at large and 2016 and because of a long-standing theory or belief that through this information and propaganda, a "bloodless war" against democracy and the west, including the united states? dir. pompeo: that's correct. sen. rubio: of the five main threats facing the united states , they all have one common thread. and you agree the major fault line in global affairs is the competition globally between autocratic systems of government and the democratic system? that has played out over and of theain in many ways foreign affairs of countries and global issues? strikingeo: with consistency, it is 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. sen. rubio: in that vein, you
would agree that promoting democracy isn't just a nice thing to do or a good thing to democracy is not as butting into other peoples's business or invading their sovereignty, but a moral imperative? democracy is, in the context of the competition is in the united states interest? dir. pompeo: our effectiveness of doing that is an important tool -- that is no different than what america does when it promotes democracy. differences.e when they interfere in an election, they are trying to a -- fixed the outcome. sometimes democracy select leaders that aren't has friendly to the united states. when they interfere in elections, the use government.
democracy, it is largely through the work of nongovernmental organizations. they 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 are talking about it here today. when we promote democracy, we do it at the invitation of someone in those countries, whether a political party, organization -- oftentimes, the government itself. when they undermine democracy, they do so against the will of the people of the nation. there is no equivalence between the promotion of democracy and russian and other attempts to if -- interfere with democracy? dir. pompeo: there is neither an operational equivalent, as you have described it, the methodologies used are different , nor is there a moral equivalence between the two efforts. they are fundamentally different. sen. rubio: one of the first things autocratic rulers do by definition is violate the human
rights of their people and have violating no problem the human rights of others and we have seen the war crimes committed by a not a credit government in syria with the help of autocratic governments in iran and russia. therefore, you would believe defending human rights isn't just a good thing or the right moral thing to do, which is? defending human rights is also in the national interest of the united states of america? dir. pompeo: i do believe that. sen. rubio: and it would be a priority? dir. pompeo: i think history would reflect that to be the case. of thebio: at the end cold war, we had a belief that history had ended and everyone would be a democracy and everyone would embrace capitalism as we understand it, free economics and the like. that hasn't really worked out in the case of a lot of places, particularly china. they have certainly not embraced democracy. they have gotten more autocratic and have embraced a definition economic order
that says we will take all the benefits of global trade, but do live by itso obligations. i believe it was a terrible mistake that leaders in both parties have made. now, as part of the strategy, you see china doing things like creating strategic depth in eurasia in efforts to establish different programs, the belt handwrote initiative, silk road and maritime silk road. efforts to create overland trade corridor's, but to make nations economically, politically, and military elite dependent on them vulnerable to china. they see american allies in japan, south korea, australia, taiwan. what they are working on is fracturing our economic and defense alliances in the indo pacific region. that is why they are investing billions of dollars in building up their military forces to
provide air and sea denial to america. what are your recommendations to the president as far as how important that challenges, otherwise we will wake up one time -- one day and find we have been driven from the asia-pacific region? dir. pompeo: i have often been asked what the greatest threat to the united states. of opportunities, as well as the china presents a strategic challenge to the united states of america. you laid out the mechanisms they are using, mostly economic. toneed to be prepared respond across each of those fronts, so we can find the right place to cooperate with the chinese and the places where it does not, we can confront them and make sure it is america's democratic vision that continues to provide strength and resources to the world.
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? dir. pompeo: 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 involved as youctor of the cei -- cia, sworesupport and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic. as you pointed out, you have taken that oats six times. you have graduated from harvard law school, magnum come laud,
you are an attorney, do you think mr. mueller's investigation is witchhunt -- a witchhunt? dir. pompeo: i will not speak about any of the three investigations i have been a participant to today. sen. shaheen: d think the president has the authority to fire special counselor mueller on his own? dir. pompeo: i am in no position to make a comment on that legal question. sen. shaheen: would you consider firing rodnt rosenstein over his role in the special investigation to be an abuse of power? dir. pompeo: i came here today to talk about my qualification to be the secretary of state. i am not going to way into the active investigations going on in the house, the senate, and the special counsel's investigation. sen. shaheen: and i appreciate that, that is what we are all here to talk about but the fact is, in your testimony, you talked 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 bob mueller and the investigation. 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 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. let me just say, you have 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 have not been implemented. other foreign financial institutions not implemented. sanctions with respect to a zenn sanction even human rights abusers in the russian federation not implemented yet. as the go on, but secretary of state, will you argue that we need to go ahead and implement the rest of these sanctions in a way that holds russia accountable for its interference? dir. pompeo: yes, ma'am. every day. is stillsay, there more work to be done on sanctions provisions. readily concede that. vladimir putin has not yet received the message sufficiently and we need to continue to work at that, but it hasn't just been sanctions. the largest expulsion, 60, was
from this administration. administration that has put russia on notice that we will recapitalize our deterrent force. syria, a handful of weeks ago, the russians met their match -- a couple of hundreds of russians were killed. the list of actions this administration has taken -- i'm happy to walk through them but the list is pretty long. sen. shaheen: i agree and those actions are important, but they are undermined by a president who consistently refuses to hold vladimir putin accountable for what russia has done in the united states and that purpose -- presents a challenge as we going to the 2018 elections and it presents a challenge as we work with other democracies around the world where russia has done every thing possible to s and othermerican countries citizens believe in the working of democracy. response to senator rubio,
you talked about the importance of defending human rights has 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 have made statements that have been described as anti-muslim and rights.t write -- how would you reconcile those positions and statements that you have taken in congress with the need to represent america's values and defend human rights? senator, in: 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 the cia director. as the cia director, i have
valued and honored every cia officer regardless of race, color, you pick it, gender, sexual orientation -- i have withed every officer respect. i promoted them when they deserved it, i held them accountable when they deserved it as well. i promise to do that as equity area of state. sen. shaheen: i appreciate those sentiments and your comment in your testimony saying that you would support the state department's workforce, that it be as diverse in every sense of the word, and yet you were criticized at the cia for undermining policies of the previous administration to improve diversity at the cia. dir. pompeo: ma'am, i don't know the criticism you are referring to. i have to tell you, i didn't undermined a single policy. we talked about it, we worked on it -- i am proud of the work i did to continue to develop and
increase the capacity for the cia to deliver a diverse worse -- workforce to meet the intelligence challenges around the world. sen. shaheen: i would just say michael weinstein, who is a former air force officer who founded the military freedom foundation says he has seen increasing complaints from those inside the intelligence community under your leadership, so i think there have been a number of concerns raised. dir. pompeo: if i might, the number of -- we call them no fear complaints, the statutory requirement, decreased from 2016 2017 by 40%. and i'm proud of that. whatever the final tally was was too many, but i am proud of the record. i don't want to take full credit for that, the work that my team has done on this, i am incredibly proud of. i supported their efforts and will be the same way if i am confirmed as secretary of state. sen. shaheen: i am out of time, thank you. before turning to
senator johnson, i want to highlight that i don't think enough has been said or made of the fact that russia crossed the euphrates with their own troops and were annihilated. it was really a strong statement that i don't think many are paying as much attention to as should and i appreciate your highlighting that incredible step by our pennant -- pentagon, senator johnson? johnson: mr. pompeo, thank you for your past service and your willingness to serve in this capacity. it is a sacrifice. as you were walking by me, i read a lot of testimony. written and this testimony is as good as i have seen, so anyone interested in this nomination should really read it. one of the reasons i liked it is a concepts required for effective management in it. of course, you are going to be in charge of managing relationships but the concepts i
am talking about our the areas of agreement. concentrating on shared purposes and goals. ofiously in your handling the cia, you had a strategy on how to manage that prioritization of tasks. as i asked these questions, i want you to keep those concepts in mind. in managing your relationship with almost all nations, there is an economic relationship and a security relationship. obviously, you are not secretary of commerce, u.s. trade representative, you are the secretary of state. you are concerned about security, but our negotiations in terms of trade will have a great effect. i just joined steve daines delegation to china and was struck by their primary concern being the travel act. without we would hear all kinds of things about tariff and they were most concerned about that.
the mettle of that. i want you to comment on how will you deal with the conflict between the rich -- trade relationship and that security relationship. threes and i point out chinese we were there and crossed into the dmz, we were in the blue house, walked into north korea and from my standpoint -- talking about priorities, our number one priority with the relationship with china is to get them to continue, and they are effectively enforcing those sanctions so that we can bring to conclusion the dismantlement of north korean threat. can you speak to that conflict between trade, economic relationship and security relationship? dir. pompeo: senator, it is complex. at times they are conflicting and at times additive. you can achieve a good economic outcome with a partner country, you can get assistance in other
places on the diplomatic matter you care about deeply or military metal -- matter. good diplomacy can lead to ,aking those not in conflict nonzero sum alternatives were you have to sacrifice an economic relationship for a security relationship. you build the team, a state department -- department has an 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. finding the right people to make sure we have the tools so we can make a broad effort across all elements of the diplomatic spectrum. where it comes in with security issues, it is contextual, but the idea -- and we have seen this with the issues with china today. we thought through the risks, identified relative priorities
and attempted to level set them and engage in diplomatic activity such that the challenges presented to china through the actions that have been taken by this administration the past week didn't upset the apple cart with the good work the chinese have done helping us on the north korea challenge. sen. johnson: du greet our top priority is agreement with -- on north korea? dir. pompeo: i agree with that view. sen. johnson: would you agree that in terms of the best way to bring china into full compliance with the trade agreements, that other tradingur partners, having a good relationship with them and workings as an alliance with china and making sure they actually follow the rules, would that be a best way of achieving that? dir. pompeo: i do believe that, senator. sen. johnson: i want to hear their perspective. their primary goal is? what is their strategy?
what are they trying to achieve and let me say the three things they listed to us, bring a billion people out of poverty, improve their environment and avoid a crisis. dir. pompeo: i have heard similar things. , the economicions crisis is listed first, they ite to wind their way out of and through economic growth. that was their priority that has the secondary benefit you described as bringing the next several hundred million people into middle-class china. those were there two fundamental priorities when i spoke with them. sen. johnson: they have enormous challenges, so one of my points being rather than get our relationship as a win lose situation, it makes sense to me and trynd redefine that to obtain a win-win situation, would you agree? agree ineo: i would most situations in the world with a handful of exceptions, there are opportunities to not make the diplomacy a zero-sum
game and with respect to china, i know that is true. sen. johnson: to quickly switch to russia, i think it is a historic tragedy that putin has taken this path. can you describe in your words what is russia's aim? dir. pompeo: i'll take vladimir putin at his word that the greatest earlier of the 20th century was the dissolution of the soviet union. i think he believes that and his actions follow that, an attempt to regain power through and maintain his power and popularity through activity taking place outside, by poking america. to obtain not only his capability, and the norma's nuclear arsenal, but also his desire to be perceived as such, being perceived as a superpower. actions you of the 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 is not true and can't let that happen. sen. johnson: to prevent that, we need to be fully engaged, particularly in europe but anywhere where russia is pushing and being aggressive. for example, in the balkans. ahave been to serbia kosovo couple of times. i think derrida hinge point. -- they are at a hinge point. all of us need to pay attention so they looked to the west -- look to the west because russia cannot offer them anything? dir. pompeo: i would add to the locations, we see them being in latin america, as well. i agree. we need to push back in each place by every vector. ciber, economic. each of those tools vladimir putin senator: thank you for your
willingness to serve. thank you, director pompeo, for your willingness to step forward and serve our country. you forfamily and to what has been a long career in the u.s. military, as an elected official and director of the cia, and now this position. i appreciate the conversation we had yesterday and i'm optimistic he would follow through on your commitment to fight for the aid, idepartment, for u.s. think many of us on this committee have heard real concerns about management, morale and budget cuts in the to the u.s. state department, and i'm optimistic he would fight for those professionals and respect their service. i'm also aware you have a strong relationship with the president, and i think a key role for america's chief diplomat is to not only advanced our narrow
interests, our security interests, but also see our values as being a key part of those interests. and 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 he will consider the vital importance of diplomacy and responding to the threats we face around the world. you are a magna cum laude graduate of harvard law school. i couldn't get into harvard read i went to yale law school. and i assume you would agree that rule of law is essential to the values that define our democracy. is that correct? i only spoke publicly five times as cia director. anh time, and maybe there is exception, but each time i spoke at length about the importance of the rule of law, at the cia, how we were a creature of the rule of law, and it we didn't do
that, the fundamental failure and it would lead to, believe that if i'm confirmed as secretary of the state. senator: if confirmed it would be the seventh time you would raise your hand and swear an oath to the u.s. constitution. president trump described special counsel robert mueller's investigation as an attack on what we all stand for. and he has repeatedly threatened to fire robert mueller. he has threatened the investigation he has threatened the attorney general his tweets, in ways i find troubling. do believe special counsel mueller's investigation is an attack on our country and all we stand for? i hope you will take this the right way. as director of the cia, i have been involved in the investigation. i have worked with senators, i nt andeen a participa
special counsel mueller's activity. anything i want to say, i apologize i can speak more fully but i hope you respect the fact that everything i was asked to nt and special counsel mueller's do in my role as cia director, i have done with as much depth and as much alacrity as our organization can achieve. i'm convinced that if the president were to fire the special counsel or interfere with his investigation by firing rod rosenstein with the intention of shutting down the investigation, that it would put at rule of law genuinely 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? dir. pompeo: i have given that question much thought but my instinct tell me know. serving as a senior diplomat would be more important at times of domestic political turmoil.
we have seen this in america before. this would not be the first time there has been enormous political turmoil. isrecollection of history the previous secretaries of state continued to do their work, statutory and constitutional, that they had. i'm confident that that is the path i would take. urge you toould give it some thought. many of us are giving it real thought and have had to do so for months. are in aretful that we serious place where we are discussing this, rather than diving into policy questions that face us around the world. what i think there are moments when our values and what we do theh the world, and whether right course is to resign or engage and speak out against it and work to restore the rule of law, we could debate. but i think it is vital that we have is our chief diplomat someone who understands our values and is willing to fight for them, even by taking dramatic steps like a
resignation, in order to signal the grist disapproval of what the president has done or what my do. let me move on to another area. when discussing saddam hussein, president trump has said, he was a really bad guy but you know what he did well? he killed terrorists. he did that so good read he didn't read them their rights. he didn't talk. they were terrorists. it was over. while we could debate whether saddam hussein was a good guy or a bad guy, this is another important example, something like we discussed with the president of the philippines and a challenginghere of the historical record on behalf of our rights and values is important. to what extent do you think actions that curtail human rights and the road processes of the rule of law actually fuel instability and strengthen terrorist threats, that when we are perceived on being --
perceived as being on the side of a quick and violent result rather than the rule of law and a just result, it actually makes us less safe? if i understand your question correctly a think i agree with it. but i will try to repeated to see if i got it right. i agree american hater matters, the things which choose to do and not do matter. they are selective. one of the best memories i have at so far as -- have had so far with adirector, was partner and we were walking in a dusty place. the cia had been a great partner with them and they were great partner with us as well, and he turned to me and said, you know the most important thing america is done for my team -- has done for my team? it's great that you have given us technology and tools but the most important thing you have done is set an example, seeing officers behave professionally,
having boundaries, existing under the rule of law, communicating all the professionalism your officers have exhibited is the most important thing you have done for our organization. you have made us better. norms that hads proven truly valuable to this foreign partner. i was incredibly proud to be the director. senator: i'm glad to hear that example and here you repeat our shared commitment to the rule of a time whenare in we are going to have to confront questions about what we are willing to do in order to question -- in order to demonstrate our fealty to the rule of law is a principle of our country. thank you. it is my understanding when they have a vote at 2:00. it is my plan to just keep going until that time. if our witness needs to take a break, we will make that happen.
with that, senator flake. any good diplomat can outlast the folks he is talking to, senator. [laughter] senator: i noticed you haven't been drinking any water. : i apologize if i plow through any old ground, but can we talk about iran for a minute? cpoa, ran is-z the already written -- iran has realized the benefits of this money being released? dir. pompeo: yes, that is correct. : if we get out
of the agreement with there be an attempt to cloth some of that money back? ir. pompeo: i don't think so, don't think there is a provision in the agreement for that. flake: that is my understanding. but if we were to exit the agreement now, that would give iran a-- that would give reason to bernanke on the agreements they have made on the nuclear side. is that right -- iran a reason on the agreements they have made on the nuclear side. is that right? dir. pompeo: there is a continued interest for iran to stay in the steel. it is in their own economic interest to do so. iran guess i would add, wasn't racing to a weapon before the deal, and there is no indication i am aware of that if the deal no longer existed that they would immediately turn to racing to create a nuclear weapon today. flake: my concern is
that they have already realized the benefit of the agreement. i applauded the last president for the negotiations. i thought it should have been presented as a treaty before this body. 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 an economically, i think that we ought to think long and hard now, theing iran ability, if we exit the on, onnt, to continue the nuclear side and not uphold the obligations that they agreed to under the treaty. i know that is being considered. with regard to north korea, i'm happy the president is talking. discussions advise level,
or had. of always agreed that presidents and secretaries of states and others ought to talk to rogue leaders. but i am concerned and i think a lot of americans are, that these discussions that usually take place in that regard, at the head of state level, are preceded by a lot of negotiations, meetings, and deliberation by people like yourself and your able diplomat who, if you are confirmed, you will have at the state department. do you have some of those concerns as well, that this first meeting is 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. the american people should know
there's work being done in preparation for that. the president's view has been, and i agree, the model that we used deviously, long negotiations to get the two leaders to the table, hasn't happened. we haven't had the opportunity to have these two leaders sit together to solve this incredibly that thing i'm a difficult challenge -- incredibly vexing, difficult challenge. no one is under illusions that we will reach a comprehensive agreement with the president's meeting. at the setup conditions that are acceptable to both sides about whether a meeting can be achieved, and then be set in place, i'm optimistic the u.s. government can set the conditions for that appropriately, so the president and the north korean leader can have that conversation. and it will set us on the course of achieving a diplomatic outcome that america and the world so desperately need. senator: is there 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 are the north korean leader or negotiators on that side, they might be concerned about our reliability in terms of signing an agreement, if the next president could simply exit it? dir. pompeo: we don't know precisely what kim jong-un is contemplating, how he is thinking about his option set today. i have read lots of analysis about his concerns and how he is thinking about the challenges today with the enormous economic pressure placed upon him, and list of things he is thinking about don't involve other deals in history. it is not the case he is focused on, did we pull out of the start treaty? he is thinking how it is he and 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, what are the assurances that can be put in place? he is going to be looking for something more than a piece of paper. a is going to be looking for set of conditions to be put in place so he can undertake the task of the nuclear rising his country, which for decades no one believed could occur. flake: turning to africa, senator kunz and i just traveled through four countries in africa including zimbabwe. zimbabwe is going through transition and elections or suffer july and august, and we don't have an ambassador there. we you commit to having an ambassador on the ground, although that depends on us. we tend to move it as quickly as we can in this committee, but having an ambassador on the ground when the elections are held? will in the it
first instance depend on me in the president to get a nomination to you, and i commit to doing that post haste. flake: i have additional questions on cuba. some discussions on this and i'm concerned in the same vein that we have a skeletal staff at the embassy. important time there. we are going to have a non-castro head of state there later this month. if we could beef that staff up that would be great. thank you. udall.: senator senator: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your service, director pompeo. we really appreciate having your family here and look forward to you answering our questions. i worked with senator flake what a bit on cuba and want to follow up on the cuba issue. cubit is about to choose its first leader who is not a castro
, yet the u.s. presence in the country has been reduced significantly, and as a result other countries are filling this vacuum. we work to help improve ties with cuba, a the benefits many states hoping to increase trade with the island? when i visited with you in my office i talked about how many governors got to cuba and said, with their agricultural folks, cuba has 11 million people. we want to sell food products to them, agricultural products to them, so will you work to improve ties with cuba? dir. pompeo: i recall joking with you about kansas wheat. the answer to your question is yes. senator flake asked about the diplomatic presence there. i think everyone is aware of some of the concerns but i assure you and senator flake as come a consistent
with making sure we can keep these folks say, we will build out 18 there that will deliver american diplomacy to cuba in a way that represents the finest of america. u.s.or: as you know, hasrnet companies, cuba very, very little internet capacity and this is one of the things i think could really open up cuba to the world. do you believe the united states companies should lead the effort to help bring the internet to cuba? dir. pompeo: senator, that question sounds like there may be something buried there that i'm not aware of. now, come on. dir. pompeo: i would prefer the chance to talk to my experts at the state department and work my way through it. senator: there is nothing really
trick there. i have worked with that number of members of the committee and outside the committee to try to push the effort to have the ourrnet be a big part of first push in cuba. the state department and defense department work hand in glove on these crucial issues and the job of the state department is to make sure we don't get into unnecessary wars. your work, i think, is to work hard at diplomacy, search for peace, and make sure we don't get into another war. are you committed to robust is our ranking member, senator menendez, talked about, and committed to doing everything you can to prevent future? wars? dir. pompeo: -- prevent future wars? dir. pompeo: yes, sir.
senator: the iran deal has cut off all pathways to in iranian nuclear weapons program. compliance has been certified repeatedly by the international bothc energy agency and u.s. and israeli intelligence of which you oversee. but you have said, and i quote here, a run will have the freedom to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons at the end of the commitment. however, even when the joint plan of comprehensive action deal,s at the end of the iran will still remain a signatory of the nonproliferation treaty and accardi to the iaea -- and a party to the iaea protocols. states and the international community would have ample time to respond to any breakout.
the international community, through the secretary-general, spoke out about the importance of the jcpa. europe air support for regime your apparent, -- support for regime change in iran really disturbs me. it is your quote that said, it is under 2000 sorties to destroy a rainy capacity and this is not an insurmountable task for coalition forces. are you for a first military strike? i am absolutely not. i don't think that is what i said that they. i would have to go back and review. with respect to the quote you provided, i know a little more about what it would take today what i described as the capacity to achieve what i was thinking to that day, i
think i am still pretty close. but there is no doubt that this administration's policy, and my view, is that the solution to preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon is through diplomacy. senator: do you have any evidence to dispute the iaea assessment that iran is in full oa?pliance with the jcp no. pompeo: i have seen evidence that they are not in compliance. i would just hope that you understand that the international community and the united states working together is what got us to the point where we are. so i think it would be very unfortunate if we were the ones to pull back and set the stage
for a very chaotic future. thank you very much. senator: do you have any sense and chancellor merkel emmanuel macron's visit here, that that will be discussed? dir. pompeo: i have not seen the agenda but i would be shocked if it does not,. corker: so there is still a possibility of the three coming together with a framework. having had some interactions with my european counterparts, i'm confident that issue will be discussed at length. and iimportant to them know they will raise their hopes and concerns when they travel here to the united states in the coming days. senator: director pompeo, thank you for your commitment to service. this is no easy task and i
appreciate your willingness to serve our country once again. anector pompeo and i add opportunity to serve together for a number of years. there are several of us on this committee and we had the opportunity to work together and i can tell my colleagues that there is no one who came better prepared and more understanding and the diligence he pursued to find that creative solution is something i always admired about his work in the house. i know that will continue upon his confirmation at the state department. i have one request that his report and. as secretary of state, kansas will have no greater authority over water than they do right now. we won't get into water fight between kansas and colorado right now. i would like to ask your consent to submit a letter written by former senior government people including
general casey, jeremy --, i ask that the b submitted every thank you, mr. chairman. director pompeo, if you look at that it was written once this is the most consequential region for america's future area the most powerful navies in the world will gather. half of the world's commerce will take place. two thirds of the world will travel. five of america's seven defense treaties, located in asia. it is the region where two superpowers will compete for which world order will prevail. senator markey and senator rubio and i are working on legislation to speak with one voice, the administration and the congress, when it comes to asia, creating an initiative that will allow us to focus on three areas,
economic areas, security matters and rule of law democracy matters. we have held hearings on these issues and this reassurance initiative and our effort to understand the future of the u.s.-china relationship, something at times described as trap., lucidity's do you think is important that congress and the administration speak with one voice as a relates to our asia policy? dir. pompeo: i look forward to working with you to see if we can get that legislation right by joining together and encompassing that. could you share with me some of the policies you would want in a conference of policy? dir. pompeo: step one would be making sure there are not mistakes and that we don't talk past each other. you talked about lucidity's trap. the ability to do that depends on the two nations speaking at
their core interests. and the second order of importance is cooperation, and i think diplomacy leads that effort. thent a strong america, rest of the things pale in comparison. we have to make sure we have robust economic growth. the underpinnings of having the leverage to achieve good o-matic outcomes depend on that -- good diplomatic outcomes depend on that. so we have not just 2019, but a long-term horizon of economic prosperity. senator: the creation of a generational policy on asia, and in don't specific policies what we need, not just a four-year or any year strategy. that's why what you
describe is important, because when questions get asked about china we can't forget that they live in a complicated region with lots of countries with widely varying interest. the chinese government's intent on expanding its capacity to not only have economic influence on those countries but using it as a diplomatic tool to achieve political influence as well. china has announce live fire demonstrations in the south china sea. these have been a number of things that of been lingering fears but are increasing in their importance today. i want to shift to north korea. you agree north korea is the most urgent security threat the u.s. faces? dir. pompeo: i do. ledtor: this committee has maximum pressure on north korean dictator kim jong on, working un,m jong-- tim jon
working together on legislation. -- mandatoryit to sanctions against these entities? i'm not familiar with the details. the president has made clear, the continuation of the pressure campaign is the tool that enables the opportunity to achieve a successful diplomatic outcome in north korea. senator: can you share the exact goals of the presidential summit between the united states and north korea? dir. pompeo: yes. it is to develop an agreement
with the north korean leadership such that the north korean leadership will step away from its efforts to hold america at risk with nuclear weapons, completely and verifiably. goal is the only complete, verifiable, irreversible dealer colorization of north korea? dir. pompeo: i want to be careful about the word complete. significanthas a military arsenal and when of largest armies in the world. we need to continue to providing intelligence framework to our allies in the region, the south koreans and the japanese and others. senator: thank you. senator kaine. senator: thank you, mr. chairman. during negotiations during the
iran nuclear deal, you objected and you stated that it is under 2000 sorties to destroy the nuclear capacity and iran. a number of people opposed to the deal, but you were unique and thinking military action was preferable or easier than some folks were suggesting. where did you get the notion that destroying iran's nuclear capacity could be done with 2000 air sorties? your career as member of the house until committee? dir. pompeo: i believe that is right. i believe i was serving on the intelligence committee at that point in time. kaine: did you have any reluctance to share that assessment publicly? to publicly discuss it would be
2000 sorties to wipe out the iranian capacity struck me as odd. dir. pompeo: no classified information was contained in that simple statement. kaine: wouldn't that number implies the specific? dir. pompeo: 2000 is a pretty big number, might have been 1000 or 3000 and there was no aim to communicate. senator kaine: but you are not trying to the inaccurate. dir. pompeo: no, senator, i try to never be. i think it is important to provide diplomats with the opportunity to be successful. countries that are adverse to us desires.cede to our
diplomats without any strength or capacity are just sitting there talking. desires.aine: i believe stating we have the capacity is one thing, i was just struck by the specificity. to to shareyour norm information like that in specific details? it. pompeo: you have grazed multiple times. i am comfortable to share it today. senator kaine: -- dir. pompeo: i don't know in that it multiple times. i am context what i was thinking. senator kaine: you would agree the extent of force the u.s. needs to eliminate iran's nuclear capacity would premeditate and attack on its soil. you estimate the attack would not be insurmountable for our coalition forces. most of our coalition forces in 2014 were sitting around the
table trying to do a peaceful negotiation. it seems as though you had confidence that u.s. could not do a dealtable trying to do a pl and convince coalition partners to join us in bombing iran. i am wondering what coalition partners you were thinking about in making that comment. dir. pompeo: i was not thinking about any particular coalition partners. senator kaine: those comments, when i heard about the relative ease of war with iran reminded me of the iraq war. vice president cheney said we would be greeted as liberators. secretary rumsfeld said the invasion would be relatively self financing and last "five weeks or five months." we know the cost was 4400 soldiers dead, 500,000 iraqis., a price tag now -- iraqis dead, a price tag topping $3 trillion, d instability throughout the
region. i am one of two senators on the formulations and -- nd instabile region. on the foreign relations and armed services committee. i honor your entire public service. i think my mission on these two committees is two things -- dramatically reduce the risk of unnecessary war, raise the probability we decisively win any war we decide to be in. we should not be at war without a vote of congress. your actions as house members suggest we see this in the similar way. i criticized president obama for putting this into military action against libya without a vote. you opposed to military action authorized by congress. in 2014, obama asked for the military authority to strike syria. you authorized by congress. supported that in the house. the committee supported it. i supported it in the senate.
president trump fired miss at syria last year. at syria last year. she did not seek congressional approval. the president is tweeting he might do additional military strikes in syria now. he is also aiming words directly at russia. as far as i know, syria has not declared war against the united states. has congress given the president specific authority to wage war against syria? dir. pompeo: i think you and i share a similar bias for the legislative and executive branches, both to be involved nhen momentous decisions o o war are undertaken. senator kaine: you would agree waging war requires a legalistic and international justification. dir. pompeo: yes iw ould. i don't want to dodge your very specific question.
you asked about syria. multiple administrations have found the president has authority to take certain actions without first seeking congressional approval. among democrats and republicans is long. i share your view. in each case where we can, where and airmen and marines are better off when we have authorized activity. senator kaine: for the past year i have been trying to secure the administration's legal justification for the strikes on a military base in syria. the administration has not fully provided it. there is reportedly a memo laying out a description of what the administration feels are appropriate executive powers. would you support a release of a
nonclassified release of that memo to engage in a productive dialogue? dir. pompeo: i learned about this memo. i promise i will work alongside you to get that you that information. if there is classified information you have a right to see, i will give that to you, and if there is a unclassified version, i will give that to you as well. >> before turning to senator young, a surgical strike against -- let's use the last one that occurred, 59 tomahawk missiles -- do you believe that requires an authorization from congress? dir. pompeo: multiple administrations have taken that action under the president's authority. >> i was ranking member when the committee wrote an authorization for the use of force against
syria that unfortunately was not used and changed the course of history and displaced hundreds of millions. and not to say that would have necessarily prevented all of that, but would have changed the trajectory significantly. i agree with you, and i have shared with the president that i do not believe that should you choose to take a surgical strike against syria, that authorization from us is ofessary based on a body evidence we have. stronglyou, proposed what we did in libya. i think that is, getting our efforts into north korea -- our efforts in north korea our efforts in north korea for obvious reasons.
senator young: based on my time serving in the house of representatives, you certainly checked those boxes. we need a leader who is credible, not just with our own president, but with leaders around the world. you have also checked that box. i want to encourage you. i anticipate supporting you. in our march visit, we spent much of her time talking about crises around the world. you will be immersed in these should you be confirmed. we also spent a lot of time talking about communication, the level of responsiveness of the state department. i was quite candid with you about my unhappiness from time to time with the department of state and level of
responsiveness i have seen over the last year or so, although it significantly improved. there has been in uptick in dialogue between my office and this committee more generally sn recent months. we have an article one responsibility, but you understand very well. this is the committee of jurisdiction that oversees the state department. i want to get you on record -- i want to get you on record -- you indicated you are prepared to pick up our calls on the first ring. that is exactly the message you want to the sending. do you commit to ensuring the department of state provides responsive and timely answers to me and my office? dir. pompeo: i adopted the leon panetta model, which is more time, more cups of coffee. whether you have disagreements or not, you work
together as elected officials. i promise to do that for you. ourtor young: do you agree national security depends in large measure on a vibrant and growing economy ? dir. pompeo: i do. senator young: you mentioned china's systematic policies of stealing technological property and associated activities. you mentioned moments ago that china is using mostly economic tools against us to achieve broader geopolitical ends. these believe policies by beijing have undermined or will continue to ability as a country to realize our potential for economic growth, incentivize investment in key technologies, and sustain the financial wherewithal that is required to
defend our country and advanced our values worldwide? dir. pompeo: yes, i think those risks are real today. this is not a future risk presented to the country. confront it today. the enormous amount of intellectual property taken out of hands. the imagination and creative the of the u.s.the workforce has chinese haved the taken it away from us. there are a bunch of tools that we need such that we can prevent that from happening in the future. chinese have taken it away from us. senator young: relatedly earlier you spoke about the need for a china strategy. my sense is you believe we need a whole of government well coordinated, strategic response to china's course of -- china's:
coercive, deceptive trade practices. dir. pompeo: i do believe that. senator young: i do too. that is why i intend to introduce legislation on this topic. i will require my colleagues in the administration the periodic production of the national economic security strategy. i welcome the opportunity to work with the administration, you in particular with any colleague that shares these goals. it is needed now more than ever. do you believe a u.s. response to china will be more effective if we assemble a multilateral coalition of allies and key trading partners who also have suffered due to beijing's trade policies to create a unified international front to apply maximum pressure on beijing to achieve our objectives, as
opposed to a nearly bilateral dynamic, which i perceive we have now? dir. pompeo: i agree with that. we can getly, if countries in southeast asia and more broadly to jointly set up a framework that achieves what you described as our objective, we are more likely to achieve most of all of it. senator young: given the challenges we confront with korea, iran, north china, and the young, do you nation's need for effective diplomacy will decrease in the coming year or two? dir. pompeo: it seems unimaginable, but if i am good enough, nation's need for effective diplomacy will right? [laughter] i am hopeful we can begin to take some of these challenges away. former ciahe
directors attend. they said mike, the stock has only gotten former cia directors attend. longer. we need to start to solve some of these. senator young: your response, though humorous, is something i would like to shine a light on. the previous occupant of the secretary of state position once indicated part of the rationale behind his funding request for the department of state was that there would be less of a need on account of highly effective near-term diplomacy for as much funding. in large organization here washington or beyond can be made more efficient, and we can identify funding in decreases tt might be made. i would regard it as a risky highlyy to assume your effective diplomacy is going to
be a strong rationale for funding cuts. are you under the premise that highly effective diplomacy will lead to lower funding requests in the international account moving forward? dir. pompeo: no. [laughter] i am optimistic this is where we are engaged, but i can't see anything in the six, 12, 24 month time horizon that strikes that. >> thank you. many members. welcome, sir. i want to talk about the threat of nuclear war. hearrth korea, i'm glad to you believe we should exhaust all options before resorting to military conflict, i agree with
you. but i do not believe we have yet exhausted all options. you have spoken about setting conditions for success in advance of president trump's meeting with kim jong-un, and i thatght now very concerned the lack of a coherent policy could lead to a poor meeting. worry economic engagement has failed. john bolton has recently economic engagement has failed. john bolton has recently outlined the case for preventative military strikes on north korea. conditions under which you would support preventative military strikes against north korea as secretary of state? dir. pompeo: thanks for your question. that phrase, preventative military strikes, has a plot of history. i want to be careful.
my me give you my judgment, diplomatic and national security judgment. i want to start with the predicate of your question. while i don't want to speculate on the negotiation, it is my anticipation there will be enormous diplomatic work remaining. we have not yet exhausted our capacity. there is an awfully long way to go. the president has made clear, and i agree with him, that there may come the day when we see an arsenal of nuclear weapons capable of striking the u.s. t diplomaticd aols the u.s. has is a
foreign policy power are unsuccessful -- senator markey: let me get your to this. there will be some who make that recommendation. was absolutely unresponsive in this meeting with the president. let me remind you the pentagon stated "the only way to locate and destroy with complete tocertainty all components of north korea's nuclear weapons programs would be through a ground invasion." as you know, projections for a conventional war on the peninsula estimate between 30000 and 300,000 u.s. personnel could die in the first days of the conflict. you are a military man. you understand this. is there any circumstance under which you would concur with john bolton, that with the exhaustion of economic sanctions, from his
perspective, that a ground invasion of north korea would be necessary in order to rid that country of its nuclear weapons program? dir. pompeo: i could hypothesize such situations. could i imagine one? yes i could. it is possible we could get to the condition. i think there would be wide consensus on this panel where kim jong-un was directly threatening. i can imagine times where america would need to take a response that fast diplomacy. -- that moved past diplomacy. senator markey: i would say the consequences of the united states and initiating an attack against north korea would be catastrophic. dir. pompeo: senator, i agree with that. senator markey: if we had not been attacked, and that is what concerns me about john bolton. i think the american people will
want reassurances from you that he would not consider such -- a hat you would not consider such an action. he already has nuclear weapons. it would be catastrophic if we decided to make a first strike against him. i'm not comfortable with the amount taking that off the table, but i want to move to the saudi arabia agreement being negotiatedi'm not comfortable we withthem. i will quote john bolton that include themust gold standard commitment to forgo any uranium enrichment or spent fuel processing to include gold standard commitment to technologies critical to the development of nuclear weapons. do you believe in the agreement that we negotiate with saudi arabia should in fact have a
cold standard? -- gold standard? dir. pompeo: yes. one of the critics ofdo you the agreement we reached with iran is it was insufficiently close to such a standard. senator markey: certainly support a gold -- so you support a gold standard? dir. pompeo: i do. i know the department of energy is working to achieve that. senator markey: would you support anything that is less than the gold standard, that would allow uranium enrichment processing on the soil of saudi arabia? dir. pompeo: i cannot answer that. close but notot to the full definition of the gold standard. yes, i can imagine such a scenario. senator markey: how do you think iran would respond if we pulled
gold standard. yes, i can imagine such a scenario. out of the agreement with iran while simultaneously agreeing to a deal where saudi arabia could receive plutonium reprocessing and uranium enrichment equipment? dir. pompeo: this is my precise concern with the iran agreement. senator markey: right. that is the question i am asking you, what would be the response? if we are providing nuclear the sauditerial to arabians. dir. pompeo: i think they would take it into account. we are talking about multiple components, fissile material, the -- missile material, the capacity for clinton's assistance. for weapons systems. senator markey: this is going to be a very dangerous concoction if we pull out of the iran deal, permit them to obtain nuclear
weapons making materials in their country. the juxtaposition of abandoning the iran deal while simultaneously giving their archrival saudi arabia a sweetheart deal is going to lead to a highly combustible condition in the middle east that is is avoidable if we eal while the iran dlea also maintaining a gold standard, otherwise the saudi arabians will be want to be put on third base in the lead of nuclear weapons materials. administration will itmaking a mistake if negotiate a deal that allows the saudi arabians to do that. senator corker: we have talked with secretary perry, and could not agree more we it negotiate a deal that need to ss a gold standard. understandme time
when you have given iran the right to enrich, everyone in the want the going to right to enrich. you have your work cut out for you. an arabfficult to tell nation they cannot when we said the shi'a can. congratulations on your nomination. we will be here to support you as best we can. my thanks to the state department and this administration on the open skies agreement. they are essential for the aviation industry. economicnistration and bureau of development and state department did a great job seeing to open skies enforced. i hope you will continue that enforcement. dir. pompeo: i will.
>> thank you very much. i am a big fan of africa, and i have developed an affinity for africa since i have been on this video foreign relations. i think it is the sign of the 21st century -- china is demonstrating they think it is important because they are spending a lot of money and building buildings. with what has been going on in the persian gulf, africa is command is the powerful. there are a million and a half people there, 150 million over in nigeria. lots of opportunity economically. it is important we focus and help them develop and grow. are you familiar with the millennium challenge corporation? dir. pompeo: i am familiar with them at some level. i thinkisakson:
president bush did a great job establishing that program, building infrastructure in those countries and building governing boards that held the african countries that received -- that held the african countries that received the investment in reducing corruption and being a better partner with other countries. i hope you will focus on the millennium challenge corporation. power wet of that soft have the capability to use to influence our enemies. we from time to time need a lot of votes in the u.n. the more friends we can make in countries like africa, the more votes we can have to influence to help us on the deals in the united nations. i hope you will focus on africa when you have the chance and realize what the state department has done. lastly, this is kind of an mytorial statement --
experience at the state department has been it has been blue funk for a year and a half. i thought there was a real need for a perk, for an adjustment and attitude improvement. i think you afford the opportunity to be that catalyst at the department. tutor credit, your -- to blue fr credit, your critics and complementors give you high enthusiasm in your mission. of a sudden employees had a chance to speak out to you. you had a chance in the environment to tell them to be a partner to make that happen. i am not shilling for anyone,
but as i understand it, the attitudes toward our state department are the best they have ever been. the unity is strong. the understanding of the mission of the rank-and-file employees is great. i challenge you to replicate where possible in justice department that same energy and fire you have the cia. the state department needs it desperately. the state department is our hope for peaceful settlements with difficult problems, in putting our best foot forward early so we don't have to put our biggest foot late. if you do what you did at the cia department at the state u will bet, yo successful. please feel free to brag about yourself. dir. pompeo: i will do just the opposite of that. what you described took place because of the talented officers, the professionals at the cia. is, i had enormous human
capital with which to build a team. i know this department is the same way. is, i had enormous human local employees, civil servants have that same desire to be relevant and important. if you decide to devote your life to civil service, you have a special. -- special commitment. my task will be to free them up to do the best work they can do every day. credit isakson: you gave to the folks at the cia why you're such a popular director. senator corker: thank you very much. senator booker: i appreciate you coming by and giving me the respect and deference to talk and private. i want to pick up on one of the themes we talked at length about, and that involves your
past statements involving muslim americans. i want to start with some of your language. --a speech, he talked about you talked about folks who leadership of the guns and -- fo lks who worship other gods and c all it multiculturalism. you mourn that that happens. is worshiping other gods something negative in our country? dir. pompeo: no senator. you don't have to take my word for it, my record is exquisite in treated people of -- treating people of faith to practice whatever religion, or no religion, they believe. senator booker: if i could follow up-- dir. pompeo: it is important. i have worked closely with
muslim leaders, with muslim countries. saveda h s countless muslim lives . i promise you i will treat those of faith or no faith the way they deserve. senator booker: we see too much bigotry and hatred, we know words matter. i understand your actions, and i will stipulate to the actions you just sent. i want to get to the bottom of people reading your past statements. i would like to go back to what we talked about, this idea, and "the specialoquoting you, obligation falls on muslims" when it comes to terrorist attacks in our country.
you said people that are silent are complicit in those terrorist attacks. do you think muslim americans in in ouruntry who serveare military, their failure to speak up, are they complicit in our obligation to push back against this extremist use of violence, from whatever faith. in terrorist attacks? dir. pompeo: each and every senator booker: but you don't create a special class of people in this country based on religion with a special obligation to condemn terrorist attacks. dir. pompeo: no, senator. having said thatsenator booker'e up completely up completely agg -- i also believe this firlmrml, that for folks that are more more shared have
experience. sureit comes to making that we don't sure that we don't have a terrorist brewing in places where muslims congregate, it is more than a du ty, it is an opportunity. when someone of another faith -- senator booker: i have some more questions. so you think muslims in america who are in positions of leadership have a different category of obligation because of their religion? that is what i am hearing. dir. pompeo: it is not an obligation, it is an opportunity. senator booker: i would agree with you that silence in the face of injustice, i do agree with you that lends strength to that injustice. i do have a problem when you start dicing up american people and saying certain americans, i is kareem whether it
abdul-jabbar or muslims on my staff that someone has a special application. i do believe all of is kareem abdul-jabbar us when it comes to violent actions or even violent words have an obligation. frank?know dir. pompeo: yes i do. senator booker: you have been on his show dozens of times. dir. pompeo: i was on his show some, yes. senator booker: i have your over 20 times. -- here over 20 times. he talked about that muslims who abide for their faith should be tried for acts of sedition and should be prosecuted. did you ever question? i have a lot of misstatements here. on my notes at least, you are a friend of his. him? you silent iwith dir. pompeo: my record on this is unambiguous. senator booker: that is a
response. you did not say anything to call out his remarks. do you remember brigitte gabriel? dir. pompeo: i do. senator booker: someone who runs an organization that is considered a hate group by the anti-defamation league and southern poverty law center. did you call her out on her remarks? dir. pompeo: i have spoken to a number of groups. i believe my respect to tolerance -- senator booker: yes or no? did you ever call her out? dir. pompeo: i don't remember every statement i made over 54 years. senator booker: i believe the special obligation you believe of four americans to condemn things -- you believe for americans to condemn things would obligate you to speak out. dir. pompeo: we have someone called fred phelps. i called him out. senator booker: you said in a speech that mo
would obligaternin in americag that endorses perversion and calls it a lifestyle, in your words -- is being gay a perversion? dir. pompeo: when i was a senator, i had a specific view on two same-sex people to marry. senator booker: you do not believe it is acceptable for two gay people to marry? the state department in africa -- there are some that are married. you do not believe that should be allowed? dir. pompeo: i believe we have married gay couples at the cia. i treated them with the exact same set of rights -- senator booker: do you believe gay sex is a perversion? it is what you said here in your speeches. do you believe gay sex is a perversion? dir. pompeo: i will give you the answer i give you previously.
my respect for every individual regardless of sexual orientation is the same. senator booker: i will conclude by saying, you will be secretary of united states at a time when we have increased hate speech against jewish-american's, muslim americans. even be representing this country and -- you will be representing this country and values abroad. your views do matter. you will be dealing with muslim states on muslim issues. i do not necessarily concur you are reporting the nation's values when you believe there are people in our country that are perverse, and where you think you create different categories of americans and obligations when it comes to condemning violence. i will have another round, but thank you.
senator paul:senator paul: thanr testimony and going through this grueling enterprise. you discussed with senator kaine whether or not the president has bomb assad's to forces. you mentioned historically we have done this in the past. i don't think that is a complete enough answer. bombis it constitutional? does the president have the constitutional authority absent congressional action to bomb assad' forcess or installations? dir. pompeo: i am happy to repeat my view, those decisions are waiting. we should work alongside congress to get that. yes, i believe the president has the domestic authority to do that. i don't think that has been disputed by democrats or republicans over time. senator paul: it is mostly disputed by our founding fathers, who believe they gave authority to congress. they were uniformly opposed to
the executive branch having that power. madison said, the executive branch is the most prone to war, therefore we have vested that care with the legislature. i take objection to the idea that the president can go to war when he wants, where he wants. with regards to afghanistan, some argue it is time to get out of afghanistan. what do you think? dir. pompeo: i think the course of action president trump has taken is the right one. it is some argue it is time to get out of afghanistan. what do you think? humble in its mission. it understands that we have been there an awfully long time. not regards to leave until we can -- we are not prepared to leave until we can diminish the imminent threat there. the efforte humble,
to create more stability in afghanistan. senator paul:can -- we are not . he said it is time to get out of afghanistan. ads andbuilding ro for people schools who hate the president has been us, it's time to get out. you want to stay. some worry you may be too much in disagreement with the president. the president says, let's declare victory and come home, but it sounds like you want to stay. dir. pompeo: sounds like i have a goldilocks problem, too close, too far. the president also said in the summer at fort myers that he was committed to the mission i outlined.
by supporting afghan forces in the country, i share the president's view that we have a continued role there. while we want to get out in the same way you do. friends, as i know you have, who has been injured. senator paul: here is the problem, are we ever going to be at that place? you the administration yourself in your written questions back to me that there is not a military solution. riske sending g.i.'s to life and limb, like vietnam, hoping we won't get to a position to get them to negotiate. in the end, it was no better in vietnam. it was still a disaster at the very end. a lot of people wasted their lives for that. i think there is no military mission. when you admit there is no military mission, it is hard for me to square with your desire still to stay. you say we want to leave, but
when? i think we should declare victory and come home. we literally didn't win -- we literally did win. there is nobody left alive who plotted to attack us on 11. me the names of those in 9/11. we sending people to war who were not even born when 9/11 was. we say it's fine, we will keep fighting these wars. it has nothing to do with 9/11. everyone in the world that is a radical islamist we are at war with, we got permission to go at 911. in congress, your permission with libya is that we should get authorization. your physician in 2013, you wrote an op-ed with tom cotton, we should give the president the
authority to go into syria. he wanted to give him -- you wanted to give him permission. we need to think of these things through and not be so carte blanche to give the president the ability to do whatever he wants. do youblanche think the iraq waa mistake? dir. pompeo: i was running a machine shop at the time. senator paul: no opinions back then? what about opinions now? dir. pompeo: we have bad intelligence. i have been one of the few say i directors to say we get it wrong. senator paul: it is not just that. we did geopolitically the wrong thing. we got rid of the enemy of iran. we emboldened iran. we brought chaos to the middle east. we are suffering the ramifications of the iraq war. your president said the iraq war
was the single worst decision ever made. i am concerned you won't be supporting the president, influencing him in a way. i think his inclinations are better than many of his advisors. he was against being in syria many times in his career. will you be one to listen to what the president actually wants instead of someone advocating us to stay forever in afghanistan, bombing syria without permission? that is my biggest concern with your nomination, i don't think it reflects the millions who voted for president trump because they thought it would be different, that it wouldn't be the traditional consensus to bomb all over the world. that is loude sure and clear that is my concern. this is anphy:
extraordinary article from late last year in the new yorker that seeaks to china's ri coinciding with an american retreat from the globe. we have seen the presence the united states used to have simply isn't there. other countries are taking advantage. this article in part describes a relatively reaching meeting of the -- relatively routine meeting of the wto, discussing agriculture and seafood. it quotes someone in attendance, for two days of meetings the , there were no americans, and the chinese were chortling they were the guarantors of the trading system. trumpticle makes the case is china's biggest strategic opportunity.
we have seen major administration presents, there is virtually no presence. what do you think of the scope of our presence at the school setting meetings? dir. pompeo: senator, we need to be there. we need to be capable. dir. pompeo: prepared to engaged and work for america's interest in these multilateral discussions. sounds like we share that sentiment. i could not tell you why we weren't there. i view those are important places to get the prepared to engaged international rule of law in accordance with our view and not the chinese view. you have concerns, and will do my best to nature we are capable.
senator murphy: senator menendez asked you whether there was discussion about steps you can take to frustrate the investigation. recall whatdon't the president asked me that day. is that your testimony, that you don't recall what he asked? dir. pompeo: yes. i don't recall if he asks anything that particular day. i know the date. i knew the meeting to which you refer. i don't recall the specifics. i havei have answered every quen about that meeting and others. senator murphy: i ask the question because you answered two different ways. you said, i don't recall what he hasd me that day, and he never asked me to do anything i considered inappropriate. those are not consistent. he asked me to
do something inappropriate, i would remember. senator murphy: let me give you a chance at another question. senator kunz asked you whether you agreed with the president's characterization of the mueller investigation as an attack on america, on all we stand for. i don't understand why your participation in elements of the investigation would render you unable to tell us that you don't believe that the investigation is an attack on america. i don't think it compromises any of the work the cia did or does in that investigation. really troubling if you could not say here today that you don't believe that the mueller investigation is an attack on america. i will give you another chance on that. dir. pompeo: these are complex
legal issues the special counsel is involved in. i have done my best as cia director to separate every element of that. it is a minefield, senator murphy. i want to be on the far side of the line with making sure i don't create challenges for the special counsel's office, for the two legislative committees involved in this. with all due respect, as it relates to the special counsel -- senator murphy: by refusing to condemn attacks on the special counsel, i mean really over the line attacks not shared by republicans in congress, you are frustrating to work of the special counsel, because you are associating yourself with poisonous political attacks. dir. pompeo: i have worked diligently myself and have put demands on the team that works for me to make sure we were delivering for each of those
investigations. they have asked for complex information that was classified that goes well beyond what was previously shared. we have done so with the aim that the house and senate intelligence committees have what they need to conduct their investigations. we will do that today tomorrow, and if investigations. they have asked for complex information confirmed, at the se department as well. senator murphy: you said you believe the president has the authority to strike syrian forces. what statutory authorization do you draw on to come to that conclusion? dir. pompeo: i believe the president has that authority. he certainly has it under article two of the constitution. senator murphy: what is the limit to article two hours if he can strike syrian forces with no authorization? dir. pompeo: there are leagues of articles written in answer to that very question. fact-baseda very
analysis. just give me one limiting factor. dir. pompeo: if you make a commitment that would be traditionally viewed as a classical case for war, so the constitution requires. this has been a total for -- been a tussle for a long time. coming from the deepessional side, s f you make a commitment that would berespec'g from. there is a statutory definition as well. senator murphy: the war powers refers to an attack on the united states. there has been no attack on the united states from the syrian
regime, correct? dir. pompeo: senator, that is correct. senator murphy: and there is no imminent threat of attack on the united states from the syrian regime. dir. pompeo: i am trying to be careful -- yes, i think that is correct. senator murphy: i am at the end of my time. i might want to follow up on this. i don't think we are at the bottom of this question. [laughter] dir. pompeo: you are asking me today to conduct complex legal analyses with legal conclusions. i know it is important, and so i'm trying to do my best. i have the same time trying to make sure not having a statement i made -- senator murphy: i understand that. to the extent there is no identifiable string on -- strain on executive power, we are out of business when it comes to waging war. senator corker: even on this committee i know there is wide disagreement on that. senator shaheen and i can
statements over the post a few reed thee ag president has the ability to carry out surgical strikes. president obama carried out strikes in libya that i disagreed with on a policy basis, but he had the authority to do so, at least he claimed he did. this is a subject of debate. i think it is prudent to our witness to not analyze the details of that. on our committee we would debate that at length. i look forward to the follow-up. peo,irector pom congratulations on your nomination. thanks for your service to the nation. thank you for meeting with me to discuss the issues of national security. ononcur with you
presidential authority to utilize military force in syria. i want to stay with you on syria. assad has continued to use chemical on presidential authority weapons,g thousands, and most recently it sounds like another attack a few days ago. reports emerged of killing men, women and children outside damascus, another democrat weapons attack. u.s.ould you suggest the hold assad accountable for its use of chemical weapons? dir. pompeo: i would prefer -- this is a live discussion, one as intelligence director i am part of. i would not like to talk to how it is or whether it is the united states plans to respond to use of chemical weapons by the assad regime. senator barrasso: you and i usesd about how russia energy uses energy as a geopolitical weapon. russia uses natural gas to extort and coerce our allies overseas, while we have been
working to help our allies with security diversification. russia tries to expand its monopoly over european energy supplies. on march 15, i led a bipartisan group sending a letter to secretary mnuchin and secretary secretary of state opposing the pipeline. we requested the administration use all the tools at their disposal to prevent the construction of that. pipeline i believe it will have a detriment to impact on european energy security, and further reinforce russian's influence on that region. as secretary of state, could you utilize all the tools at your disposal, including countering america adversaries through sanctions act to make sure that the north stream 2.0 pipeline is never built? dir. pompeo: senator, while there is definitelyutilize all r
risk, i view this as an enormous opportunity for the united states and others as well. if we can achieve a condition where russia has less capacity to turn off natural gas pipelines or pose threats to our allies around the world, we have reduced the risk to those countries greatly. i look forward to being part of thisiscussion about pipeline in particular to make sure there are discussions in the west's best interest and not vladimir putin's best interest. continuesrrasso: iran to be a threat to the international community. they are financing terrorist groups around the world. a lot of it has to do with a of cash iranx received from the iran nuclear deal. they continue to support ofdestabilizing activities in e
region. there is incredible amount of evidence of that. i think the u.s. has to impose fortions onira iran trafficking and terrorism. dir. pompeo: senator, the president senator, the president has laid out a strategy to push back against each of those elements that you described. focusing on sanctions for a moment -- there are more arrows in the quiver. focusingwe have been providing e intelligence so we can target those sanctions in the right way. weaponswho is moving around the world and who is engaged in low-lying activity. -- in malign activity. we have a big team working on ws around the world and who is engaged it. if confirmed, i will be part of that.
the other element is also a diplomatic task. it is important when america places sanctions. it is really powerful when we get our partners to do it as well. americans can't trade in those places. when we canplaces sanctions. share that burden and trulyand truly great global prohibitions on trading with entities we designate, we have the greatest likelihood of achieving the outcome we are looking for. senator barrasso: could i turn briefly to north korea's nuclear program -- president trump agreed to meet with kim jong-un. the united states i believe should be engaged with talks. i think we should only be engaged incredible opportunities to discuss the denuclearization of north korea. it is important that the u.s. continues to pressure the regime, conducting joint military actions. do you believe there is a
scenario in which north korea would dismantle its nuclear weapons program? dir. pompeo: the historic analysis there is not optimistic. that is, it is almost a talisman that there is not enough coercion, there is not enough capacity for kim jong-un to make a decision to give up his nuclear weapons arsenal. i hope that talisman is wrong. that is what we have been engaged in. i had a chance to talk to a whole handful of people involved in the agreed framework, the six party talks. in each case, america and the world released their sanctions too quickly. we did not have the irreversible deal we wanted, and the north koreans walked away from that deal. we need to make sure before it
is the case -- as we did with the jcp away, before we provide rewards we get the outcome permanently, irreversibly, that we hope to achieve. it is a tall order, but i am confident >> a final question, with regard to human rights, your commitment to human rights around the world. your commitment to promoting and protecting these important principles are key. i appreciate it. >> thank you much. that it iswas noted important to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
recently president trump has talked about a domestic enemy, saying that the execution of a search warrant by the u.s. lot enforcement-- law constitutes an attack on our country in a two cents. do you agree with the president's evaluation? i have always believed that the rule of law matters. i continue to believe that. multiple times individuals have asked me to comment on statements others have made. talk abouti want to are the things that i believe. >> do you think the rule of law does enable appropriate warrants to be executed? pompeo: absolutely. >> thank you.
to north korea. john bolton said it is legitimate for the u.s. to respond by striking first. secretary of defense mattis had a different view, saying that war with north korea would be catastrophic. secretary of defense mattis had a differentdo you learn more tos bolton's view or mattis's view? i more closely to the presidents view, which is to continue the pressure campaign. to put pressure on kim jong on so we can achieve the united states goals without ever having to put one person in harm's way. again, i'm not going to comment on hypothetical situations. >> you have done so before. when the question was in regard
to committing a resources in libya. -- in you commented and said that country does not pose a threat to the united states nor do we have a vital interest there. did you believe as you said then that there is a constitutional limitation on the ability of the president to conduct war without an authorization from congress? pompeo: yes. context, not so long ago there was a lot of in regards tot
syria, if president obama what troops on the ground in syria without congressional authorization it would constitute a foundation for impeachment. ,e had members of the senate including the armed service , thattee and the house said no president should have the authority to bypass the constitution. if one of our troops goes to syria and is killed i will introduce articles of impeachment. at the time of that discussion did you share the view of president obama? senator, i do not recall if i did or make a statement with respect to that. >> just to clarify, in the case of libya? pompeo: yes, senator.
you still felt that that did not give the foundation for action in libya? i believe what i said in that statement. it is a great issue of concern on the boundaries. of your earlier cautioned about presidents exceeding their constitutional authority is caution would like to hear from u.s. secretary of state. case that thee war powers seem to be forgotten. we do not forget those constitutional spots abilities? i promise you that i
will take equal consideration the same way i did that day in 2011, as i have done as cia director. >> john bolton noted that it was legitimate to respond to north korea by striking first. do you agree with that? pompeo: i do not want to weigh in to a hypothetical about under what conditions it might be appropriate or not appropriate. that andlong ways from are working diplomatically to get the right outcome. >> john bolton argued that it was appropriate to go to war against cuba. do you agree with that? pompeo: his words speak for himself.
is there a factual predicate there? >> did you agree with bolton's viewpoint? pompeo: no, senator. >> how about in regard to his belief that saddam hussein had hidden weapons of mass destruction and we should go to war with iraq? i have read the history. the intelligence committee had that assessment and was incorrect at that time. >> the reason i'm asking you these questions is that there's a lot of concern in america. they are asking the fundamental question, are we assembling a war cabinet that is going to result in devastating , bypassings
congress's authority in regards to the use of military force, and perhaps engaging in another poorly thought through mistake like the war on iraq but has resulted in a huge loss of american lives and resources, and enormous instability. people want to know whether or not your views are close enough to bolton's in his advocacy of force and virtually every situation. pompeo: can you ask the
question one more time? i apologize. you heard the question. just answer it. are you forming a war cabinet? you, at then tell forefront of our mind is how can we find solutions to achieve the american objective but avoid having to put a single american in harms way. that ie my commitment will continue to hold that in the forefront of my mind. >> thank you very much. pompeo, thank you for your willingness to step up and serve again. leaveh in his heart to the cia after only 15 months re there whichu was successful. you're taking on a new task, a
the cia isask, primarily an organization that informs policymakers. now you're going to be a policymaker. i think you have a good background to do so. i have enjoyed getting to know you over the years. we have talked about some tough issues. we talked about soft power. a guy with your background, particularly a military background, do you really believe in diplomacy and soft power? you are on the house intelligence committee. you were number one in your class at west point. you also went to harvard law school. you were mad to --magna cum laude. i guess my question for you is how would you respond to
that? it was certainly in my opening statement. there are a few people like soldiers appreciate diplomats and good diplomatic work. you want very much to be prepared if america calls upon you, but you're counting on the fact that there will be diplomats around the world resolving these challenges, preventing the very activity for which you are preparing and training. you have my commitment. >> you sound like colin powell. pompeo: i take that as high praise. i think ye is someone who proves a point. highly regarded the state department. a combat officer like yourself.
someone who had a strong military background and was very effective at the diplomacy part in managing foreign services as well. something you and i talked about a lot in our meeting was your management approach. our problem thought with the state department was real and we need a fresh start there. for whatever the reason, there is a more row problem. i'm not going to ask you to repeat what you said in private, but i was encouraged. you did talk about the respect you have for the foreign service, and you believe you cannot just improve morale could get people motivated and feel like they are important. there's a lot of talk about , and today and syria today
what is going on in terms of decision-making. askme broaden this and about something our committee is struggling with right now, this notion that we have an authorization for the use of military force that has not been updated. how do you feel about that? do you think we should update it? pompeo: i do. i was actually a part of a team of some years ago that worked on that at the white house. i do believe that it is important we achieve that, that we have a new set of leaders in the united states congress who also provide that authorization. i think the one that we have works, but i would welcome working alongside you to refresh. >> i think it is very important. it is not inappropriate to say
that someone in the administration is not as forthcoming. theirer of us believe oddity flexibility as to regions and groups. we believe the president has inherent authorities the need to be respected, but it is just not tenable to say we are relying on to 2001.hat goes back that was 17 years ago. we would like to work with you on that. we talked about how russia and other countries pursue disinformation about campaigns. i think we are missing out on that both on the diplomatic front and military front. people call it a new hybrid threat. it is connecticut, military, but also disinformation.
using disinformation information in a very sophisticated way. it was not just about our election, which i believe the russians did meddle in, i think it is well beyond that. it happened before and it will happen after him as we do something about it. these operations use a range of tools. senator murphy and i have done a lot of work on this. i would like to know your views specifically, do you agree with me on the severity of the threat that is posed by foreign government propaganda disinformation? yes, i do. i think it is a real threat that has been underappreciated for years now. it has become cheaper, faster,
and less attributable, so it's power has increased. these tools and ways they do not have available to them 20 years ago. it also makes stopping it more difficult and requires a more comprehensive effort. we have had a small role at the cia pushing back against it, and i know there has been lots of talk about it. i promise you i will put excellent civil service officers on the task. i am encouraged to hear that. we made some progress recently getting funds to starting it up. we'll commit to helping implement this in an aggressive way, including assuring we have the right staff to pursue this crucial mission? pompeo: i will senator.
>> as you and i talked about, the ukraine unfortunately is ground zero for what is going on with disinformation, but it is beyond that. do you support a continuation of providing defensive legal weapons to the ukrainians so they can defend themselves? pompeo: senator, i do. >> do you pledge to never recognized the annexation of crimea? yes, i think it would be completely inappropriate to do that. sanctionsbelieve in proposed on russia should remain? pompeo: i do senator. >> thank you. >> we are beginning the second round out.