Transcripts For CNNW Wolf 20180412

Your president says the iraq war was the single most difficult. Hes plud in a way that i think his inclinations are at least. So i think he does have good instincts and my main concern is will you be one to listen to what the president actually wants instead of being sun who advocat advocates. I dont think it reflects the million or so people who voted for President Trump because it would be different. So thats my main concern, and i just want to make sure thats loud and clear to everyone. That is my concern. Thank you, senator paul. Thank you, senator murphy. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, director. Good to see you. This is an extraordinary article, i believe, from late last year in the new yorker that speaks to chinas rise coinciding with an american retreat from the globe. And i think weve all seen that as we traveled the world the presence the United States used to have simply isnt there and other countries are taking advantage. This article in part describes a regular meeting with the wto, and it quotes someone in attendance as saying, for two days of meetings there were no americans and the chinese were going into every session and chortling about how they were now the guarantors of the trading system. The article makes the case that trump is chinas biggest strategic opportunity. Ive seen this, weve all seen this at multilateral meetings that we used to see major u. S. Military presence. There is virtually no presence and other countries are taking advantage of that. What do you think about the scope of our presence at some of these rulesetting meetings and what are your plans for the future . Senator, we need to be there. We need to be active. We need to come prepared to engage and work for americas interests in these multilateral discussions you describe i think this was for wto that was in this article. It sounds like we share that sentiment. I couldnt tell you why we dont work there. I dont know if it was the accident of people or the ak. In th in. You give the outset of this president at the meeting march 22nd. The senator asked you about whether there was a discussion about steps you could take to try to frustrate the investigation. And you said that, i dont recall what the president asked me that day. Is that your testimony, that you dont recall what he asked . Yes, and i want to expressment i dont recaexpress. I dont recall if he asked anything that particular date. I know the meeting to which youre referring. I dont recall the specifics, and i have answered every question about that meeting and others. I ask the question because you answered two different ways. You said, i dont recall what he asked me that day, but then you also said, he has never asked me to do anything that i consider inappropriate or not consistent. Because those are entirely consistent, senator. If he asked me. Senator coons asked you in an earlier round whether you agreed with the president s characterization of the Mueller Investigation as an attack on america, an attack for all we stand for. I dont understand why your precipitation of some of the elements of that investigation would render you unable to tell us you dont believe the investigation is an attack on america or an attack on all we stand for. I dont think it compromises any of the work the cia did or does in that veflgs. I think its really i think it would be really troubling if you couldnt say here today that the Mueller Investigation is an attack on america. These are complex legal issues that special counsel is involved in. I have done my best as cia director to separate each and every element of that. It is ail mine. I want to be on the far side of the line to make sure i with all due respect, this is about anyway by refusing to condemn attacks on the special counsel, really overtheline attacks that arent shared by republicans in congress, you e are. Nor, i have worked diligently myself, and i have put demands on the team that works for me to go out of our way to make sure we were delivering for each of those three investigations. We have and weve done so with aim to ensure that the special counsel and the House Intelligence Committee have the information they need to conduct their investigations. You should know well do that today, tomorrow, and if im confirmed with the state department, there as well. I want to come back to the authorization question in syria. You said you believe that the president has the authority to strike syrian forz. What statutory authorization. He certainly sdplz. Senator, there are rings of law review articles written in response to that very question. Its a highly factbased analysis. There are scores of paternities throughout the cia, the fbi give me one learning factor. If you make a commitment that would be viewed as a classic commitment of war, then the classic agreement expires. You know my views. I think it was senator kaine who said that coming from the place that you do on the congressional side, i have deep respect for what it is you all are looking for. So normally an imminent factor would be a threat or attack on the United States . There is a definite definiti definition. The war power refers to an attack on the United States. Theres been no attack on the United States from the syria regime, correct . Senator, thats correct. And theres no imminent threat of attack on the United States from the syria regime . Im just trying to be very careful. Yes, i think thats correct. Im at the end of my time but i might want to follow up on this. I dont think were to the bottom of this question yet. Senator, im trying to youre asking me today to conduct complex legal analysis with legal conclusions, and so i know its important, so im trying to do my vest. At the same time, i want to make sure i dont have some statement i made was there not an identifiable power, then we are in the allout business of declaring war. If i could, ill use another 30 seconds of my time. I think that even on this committee there is wide agreement over that. Senator shaheen and myself, i saw public statements over the last few days. Both of us agree that the president has the ability to make certain strikes. President obama carried on for months activities against libya that i disagreed with on a policy basis, but he had that authority to do so. At least, he claimed he did. So look, i think this is a subject of debate, and i think its creative of our wrns to not try to an loois the very details of this. I thank you for your conversation. Thank you for your service to the nation. Thanks for coming by and visiting with me, taking the time to discuss the Critical Issues of National Security. Were going to take another very, very twominute break. Well be right back with our special coverage. It may be time for a change. Ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohns. Entyvio works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. Infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. Entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. Pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. This condition has not been reported with entyvio. Tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flulike symptoms or sores. Liver problems can occur with entyvio. If your uc or crohns treatment isnt working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. Entyvio. Relief and remission within reach. Natural gas pipe lines create risk to our allies and friends around the world, we will have reduced the risk to the United States of america and to those countries greatly, and so i look forward to being part of the discussion about nordstrom 2 in particular to make sure that there are alternatives there that are in the wests best interests and not in Vladimir Putins best interests. Turning to iran, they continue to be a threat to the United States, to israel, to the international community. Iran is the Worlds Largest state sponsor of terrorism. Theyre financing terrorist groups around the world and a lot of it has to do with the influx of cash iran received from the iran nuclear deal. Theyre continuing to support destabilizing groups in the region. There are incredible amounts of evidence for that. I think the United States has to impose sanctions on iran for what theyre doing, terrorism, creation of ballistics missiles. Can you tell us what you plan to respond to irans activities and Missile Development . Senator, the president has laid out a strategy to fight back to those elements that youve described. Maybe focus just on sanctions for a moment. There are still more arrows in the quiver. There is still more work to do there. The director is part of writing the intelligence so we can target it the right way. We know who it is and who is moving weapons around the world and who is engaged in maligning activity. We had a big teamworki iworking. We will continue to, and if im confirmed ilbe pa will be part. 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 cant trade in those places, and when we can share in that burden and clearly create global prohibitions on the entities we designate, we have the greatest likelihood of achieving the outcome were looking for. Can i turn briefly to north korea and the Nuclear Program there. Last month President Trump agreed to meet with the north korean leader, kim jongun. The United States, i believe, should be engaged in talks if theyre not just for the purpose of talking. I think we should only be engaged in credible opportunities to discuss the denuclearization of north korea. Its also important that you guys continue to pressure this regime, imposing sanctions, conducting joint military exercises, keeping the regime fully aware of the consequences of their actions. Can you talk about if you believe there is a scenario in which north korea would actually remove their nuclearization program . It is not optimistic. There is almost a talisman, not enough capacity for kim jongun to make the decision to give up his Nuclear Weapons arsenal. I hope that talisman is wrong, and thats the effort we have been engaged in. Your report about the sanctions, i think, is relevant, a chance to talk to a handful of the people involved in the framework, the leap day deal, the sixparty talks. In each case, america and the world released their sanctions too quickly. That is, we didnt have the verifiable, irreversible deal that we hoped we had had, and in each case the north koreans walked away from that deal. It is the intention of the president and the administration to not do that this time, to make sure that before its the case, as we did with the jcpoa, that before we get the rewards, we get the outcome we hope to achieve. It is a tall order, but im hopeful President Trump can achieve that through sound diplomacy both personally and through the offices of the United States state department. I appreciate your Opening Statement and your comments about your commitment to human rights around the world, because if we dont, who will. Secretary of state, again, your commitment to promoting these important principles around the globe, i think, are key, so i appreciate your comments. Thank you, sir. Senator markley. Thank you very much. Earlier it was noted that the office was involved and youve taken the oath of office several times to defend the constitution. Recently President Trump has talked about a domestic enemy, saying that the execution of a search warrant by the u. S. Law enforcement authorities on Michael Cohens office constitutes an attack, and i quote, an attack on our country in a true sense. Do you agree with the president s evaluation that that is an attack on our country . Senator, i have always believed that the rule of law matters. I continue to believe that. Multiple times individuals have asked me to comment on statements that others have made, friends of mine have made, adversaries of mine have is made, those that are coming after me. Today i want to talk about things that i believe deeply in the rule of law and will continue to do so. Do you think that the rule of law does enable appropriate warrants to be executed in an orderly fashion to this . Absolutely. Thank you. Turning to north korea, john bolton says its perfectly legitimate for the u. S. To respond to the current necessity posed by north koreas Nuclear Weapons by striking first. Secretary of defense mattis had a different view saying war with north korea would be catastrophic. Do you lean more toward john boltons view or secretary of defense mattis view . Can i lean more closely to the president s view, which is to continue to pressure the campaign, to build a Diplomatic Coalition around the world to put pressure on kim jongun such that we can achieve the United States goals without ever having to put one of our young men or women in harms way. Does the president have the Constitutional Authority to conduct a first strike on north korea without authorization from congress . Senator, again, im not going to comment on hypothetical situations or complex legal matters. Well, youve done so before bark a while when the question was in regard to committing resources in libya. You put out a statement regarding a letter to barack obama informing him the administration would be in violation of the war powers resolution unless either the authorization for congress is obtained or the military withdraws operations from libya by sunday, june 19. Then you commented and you said specifically, the country that country libya, does not pose a threat to the United States nor do we have vital interests there. Did you believe, as you said then, that there is a constitutional limitation on the ability of the president to conduct war without an authorization from congress . Yes. Thank you. In that context. Not so long ago, there was a lot of discussion that in regard to syria, if president obama put troops on the ground in syria without congressional authorization, it would constitute a foundation for impeachment. We had members of the senate, including members of our Armed Service committee, members of the house, and i just quote one of them representing walter jones said no president or democratic republican should have the authority to bypass the constitution or the will of the American People. And he said, if one of our troops goes to syria and is killed, i will introduce articles of impeachment. So at the time of that discussion, did you share the view that for president obama to put troops on the ground in syria would be a violation of the constitution . Senator, i dont recall if i did or if i made a statement with respect to that at that time. I simply dont recall. But just to clarify, in the case of libya, you did see there was a line being crossed . Yes, senator, i believed that. The argument at that point was that under our nato mutual defense and the nato action, but you still thought that didnt give the foundation further action in libya . Yes, senator, i believe what i think you described as a letter, not a statement. I believe what i said in that statement. It is an issue of great concern here on the boundaries, and certainly i think some of your earlier caution about president s exceeding their Constitutional Authority is caution that wed like to hear in your role as secretary of state. Its often the case when people make the journey down pennsylvania avenue, the war powers in the constitution granted to congress seem to be forgotten. Will you not forget those constitutional dlelynn yagdelin responsibilities . I promise you i will take consideration the same way i did that day in 2011, and if i am confirmed as secretary of state, i will continue to do that. John bolton noted that it is legitimate for the u. S. To respond to the current necessity of the u. S. Program to strike first. Do you agree with that . Im sorry, might you repeat it . John bolton argued that its legitimate for the u. S. To respond to north koreas Nuclear Weapons program by striking first. Do you agree with that . Again, i dont want to weigh into a hypothetical about what conditions it might be appropriate or not appropriate. Were a long ways from that. Were working diplomatically to get the right outcome in north korea. John bolton argued that cuba was developing biological weapons and it was appropriate for the United States to go to war against cuba. Did you agree with him on that . Senator, im not going to his words speak for themselves. They speak for him but hes not here. I want to understand your opinion. Im deeply aware of that. Im sorry, might you ask is there a factual predicate there about cubans and weapons . Did you agree with boltons viewpoint that we should go to war with cuba . No, senator. I havent at any time said i believe we should go to war with cuba. How about with regard his belief that hussain had hidden weapons of mass destruction and we should go to war with iraq . Senator, i think i may not have expounded sufficiently. Ive read the history. The Intelligence Community had that assessment and was incorrect about its assessment at that time. Ill just note the reason im asking you these questions is there is a lot of concern in america and a lot of people were paying attention to syria, and theyre asking the fundamental question of are we making a war cabinet of mike pompeo and john bolton in regards to military force and perhaps engaging in another poorlythoughtthrough mistake like our war on iraq that has resulted in a huge loss of american lives, a huge loss of american resources, enormous instability including iran developing an enormous track of influence from iran, through iraq, through syria, to lebanon and yemen. And people want to know whether or not your views are close enough to boltons in his advocacy of force in virtually every situation that we are going to have a very dangerous arrangement on the key two advisers to the president of the United States. If the chair will indulge youve gone over your time. With all due respect, many people have gone significantly over their time and im just asking for one minute. Since youre begging not begging. May i have you ask the question again. I apologize. You heard the question. Just answer it. Are you forming a war cabinet . Senator, ive been part of this cabinet. Ive watched it thoughtfully, deliberated about a lot of these things, and i can tell you every day at the forefront of our mind is how can we find solutions that avoid us that achieve the american objective but avoid us putting a single american in harms way. You have my word that as secretary of state or if i continue as director that i have that in the forefront of my mind. Director pompeo, thank you for your willingness to step up and serve again. I imagine its hard to leave the cia after only 15 months gifrve your tenure there which was successful and youve developed a lot of close relationships. But youre taking on a new task, and its a different task. We have to take another twominute break. Well resume our coverage right after this. Senator rob portman of ohio questioning secretadirector mik pompeo. I think he was confirmed and that was one of the problems, but for whatever reason, tlhere is a moral problem. Im not going to ask you to repeat what you said to me in private, but im encouraged. Ive been listening as well today, but you did, in our meeting, talk about the respect you have for the Foreign Service and your belief that you can not just improve that morale but keep people motivated, make them feel important. There is a lot of talk about libya today and your views, there is talk about syria today and whats going on in terms of the decision making. Let me broaden this a little bit and ask about something our committee is struggling with now, which is this notion that we have the authorization for the use of military force that dates back to 2001 and 2002. It has not been updated. How do you feel about that . Do you think we should update the amf . I do, senator. If i may elaborate, i actually was part of a team on the house side some years ago that worked with that on the white house. We were able to be somewhat successful. I do believe it is important that we achieve that, that we have a new set of leaders in the United States congress who also provide that authorization. I think the one that we have works, i think it provides the authorities that the president needs today, but i would welcome working alongside you to achieve i think you used the term a refreshed amf. I think its very important. Honestly, i dont think its inappropriate to say people have not been forthcoming to come to a decision here, because a number of us believe it ought to be flexible as to region, as to groups. We do believe the president has inherent authorities within the constitution as commander in chief that need to be respected, but that its just not tenable to say were relying on an amf that goes back to 2001. That was 17 years ago. So we would like to work with you on that. In our meeting we talked about how russia and other countries, china included, have pursued extensive distribution and propaganda campaigns. I think were kind of missing out on that, both on the diplomatic front with the state department and on the military front. People call it the new hybrid threat. Its connecticuts military but also disinformation. Other countries have is figurfi that out, and most of them like iran and russia and china and others are using north korea, using disinformation in a very sophisticated way. It wasnt just about our election, which i believe the russians did meddle in our election, and i think its well beyond that. By the way, it happened before, its going to happen after unless we do something about it. These operations use a range of tools, cyber attacks, hacking, troll farms, going on social media. They fund useful think tanks, political organizations. Senator murphy and i have done a lot of work on this and we have legislation that set up this Global Engagement center to really give the personnel the funding it needs to be able to push back. Id like to know your views on that, and specifically do you agree with me on the severity of the threat thats posed by Foreign Government propaganda disinformation to u. S. Interests and to our allies . Yes, i do. I think its a pure threat, one thats been underappreciated for years now. It has become cheaper, faster, less attributable to its power has increased. The capacity for nonactors to use these tools in ways they just didnt have available to them 20 or 40 years ago. It also makes stopping it more difficult and require a more comprehensive effort. Weve had a small role at the Central Intelligence agency of pushing back against it, and i know that theres been lots of talk about the Global Engagement center. In the event i am confirmed, i promise you i will put excellent Foreign Service officers, excellent Civil Service officers on the task of developing that capability and using it in a robust way. Im encouraged to hear that, and as you know, we made some progress recently getting some funds there starting it up. Will you commit to helping implement this in an aggressive way, including ensuring we have the right staff there to be able to pursue this Critical Mission . I will, senator portman. I just got back from ukraine and i see i have a minute and a laugh left based on what everyone else had, so ill take it. I just came back from ukraine, and as you and i talked about, ukraine, unfortunately, is ground zero for whats going on in regard to disinformation. But its beyond that. I saw the military activities as well. Do you support the continuation of providing defensive lethal weapons to othe ukranians so thy can defend themselves . Yes, sir, i do. While your secretary of state would never recognize the decriminalization of crimea . Yes, i will fight to make sure that doesnt happen. Obviously it would be the president s decision, but yes, i think it would be completely inappropriate to do that. Do you believe sanctions on russia imposed because of its aggression, ukraine should remain until russia implements the terms of the ceasefire agreement, halts its aggression . I do. Thank you for your indulgence. Were beginning the second round now. That will be five minutes. May we take five minutes . Yes, sir, well reconvene at 1 40. Thank you. Three hours plus into this hearing. The first recess so far. Theyve got a lot more questions. All members of this committee, the Senate Foreign relations committee, so far 11 republicans, 10 democrats. Theyve asked their questions and now theyre going into a second round following this brief, brief recess. Lots to assess. Lots of news coming from the secretary of state nominee mike pompeo on the robert Mueller Investigation, a possible syria attack, u. S. Russian relations, the iran nuclear deal, north korea. Lets start with what he had to say on robert mueller. Jim sciutto, let me get your thoughts. He did confirm that he did appear before Robert Muellers special counsel team and answer questions presumably on that meeting he had with the president . Thats right. And then asked, though, in that meeting he had with the president in the oval office very early in the president s term, when its been reported the president asked if james comey can lay off, in effect, michael cohen, the investigation. His answer on that was he said, i dont recall, he said, and he said this a number of times, whether any request was made. But he also said the president never asked me to do anything remotely improper, i believe. Now, those two sentences by definition are inconsistent. He doesnt recall, but he can assure us he was not asked to do anything improper. He was pressed by that on senator chris murphy just a short time ago, and he said, well, listen, if he had asked me to do something inappropriate, i would have remembered it. Now, we know that senator dan coats, also a trump appointee, he has told colleagues that the president did ask him if comey would lay off Michael Flynn. This presents for pompeo two possibilities. Either he does not remember the president asking the director of the fbi to lay off a National Securities adviser who was under federal investigation, he doesnt recall that, which you would have to say whether that passed the smell test, or he does not believe that was an inappropriate request to make. Thats still a troubling answer to that question. And several of the Democratic Senators tried to get at him in various ways. You mentioned chris murphy. Chris coons of delaware tried to get at it with his world view. He was doing things by the book as the fbi did was not american. He danced around that but he did Say Something interesting as part of his answer there, which was if the president ends up firing robert mueller, would he resign . And effectively his answer was no. He wouldnt resign because hes got a very Important Mission as secretary of state to continue to achieve those goals. John, what did you think . To the point where he wouldnt even say it was an attack on america was an interesting answer. He did try to help himself, if you will, by saying, but the agency, the cia which he runs now, are getting constant requests to help with these investigations by the intelligence and to be as quick as you can and as cooperative as you can. People will look at this and the democrats will not be happy with those answers. Republicans, some of whom i think most republicans would like him to come out and say Robert Muellers investigation is not an attack on america. Most republicans in the senate some, not all is looking for him to push back against the president s instincts to fire people or keep attacking the people or the institutions they work for. Is it enough to change any of the votes up there . I suspect not. Its interesting that the secretary of state nominee confirmed that, yes, he was asked to appear before muellers investigators and he went and he answered their questions. Yeah, and in some ways he was trying to use that conversation to essentially say, this is why i cant go into any details. He talked to mueller, he talked to people on the hill, too, but kept dancing around it essentially at every point. He said this is not something i can talk about, theres reinvestigations going on. Obviously the Mueller Investigation, several investigations going on in congress, but you did see people try to press almost every democrat. Menendez at first trying to tie it to, if you cant comment on how the president is framing this and framing russia, then how can you really be secretary of state and have a sort of global view on what the relationship with russia should be . Thats what jean trahin tried to do. The idea, again, if you believe james comey, the president had asked him, can you back off Michael Flynn . Comey says no. Then the president slooki ins l for help. Can you go to jim comey, can you go to jim comey, how do i make this go away . Is that the president trying to actively obstruct a federal investigation not only into Michael Flynns conduct but the president s conduct. With the comey book coming out, all of these questions will be he chose the words i dont recall before he chose prepping for information in the handbook. If he had asked me something improper, then i would have remembered that. Is it really so hard to say one word, no, in response to words as extreme as an attack on our country. Is that really such a stretch if youre then going to go back and say, i am helping with that investigation. Its a stretch when it puts you at lager heads with the president. There was a point where he was willing to compromise with the president. The president was United States was at least in part blaming the russia probe for the deterioration in u. S. Russia relations, and mike pompeo said flatly it was the russians bad behavior that was responsible for that deterioration in the relationship. This committee has finished up its recess. The chairman is there once again asking members to speak out. But i think bob menendez lets listen in. Without objection. Director, i want to go back to my first line of questioning, and you know, for me, all of these hearings, whether it be about a witness on the subject or a nomination and certainly for a nomination the secretary of state, which is fourth in line to ac cesc eraccess ion is. You said from the transcript, im not going to talk about conversations the president and i had. Uhhuh. Then when i pressed you further, you said you didnt recall. I dont recall what he asked me that day precisely. Now, that seemed to be going from, i had a conversation, i know what the conversation was about, but im not going to talk about it, to that, i dont recall it now what was asked. And then you gave a blanket conversation that youve never been asked to do anything wrong. Well or improper. Well, if you dont want to talk about it, then you cant remember it, i dont know how you jump to that conclusion. Its concerning to me because we need a secretary of state who will be forthright with us and who will be forthcoming as well. Let me ask you this. Let me turn this picture up for you. On april 4th, this picture was taken. Can you tell me whats wrong with the photo . Senator, youll have to help me. Okay. Ive seen this picture before. Or a similar picture. I would hope you can tell me whats wrong but ill give it to you in the interests of time. Whats wrong is the United States of america isnt there. Whats wrong is that iran, russia and turkey, supposedly a nato ally, who is purchasing a system from russia in controversy of the mandatory sanctions this constitution passed in 1992 as law, turkey is supposed to be fighting the same kurds we have depended upon to defeat isis. These three leaders are engaged in the question of what to do about syria and the United States isnt even present. So whats the implications, for example, for our ally of the state of israel if the russianturkeyiran alliance isnt challenged on syria . I agree with your question. We need to have a robust set of questions to what youre discussing. They were there to discuss how they were going to carve up syria thats a rough statement of their mission. The American People need to be represent represented at that table so we can be part of the mission. What were trying to accomplish in syria is difficult. Its incredibly complex, and turkeys entry took an already complex situation and put another twist in the cartwheel. So if youll bear with me, we have the primary mission weve been engaged in to defeat isis. We did so using a group of men who did great work and we took the caliphate down. We ought to be proud of it. There is still work to do. That mission is not yet complete. I need you to be precise, because the chairman, even though i asked for long periods of time for this questioning, secretary tillerson will be wrapping that gap. To talk about syria in two minutes is an enormous challenge. The other objective is to achieve a diplomatic outcome, so this is a diplomatic task so we get to a place where the Syrian People can ultimately govern themselves, and our goal is to make that a postassad syria one day. Let me move to another part nearby in the world, iran. Is it in the United States National Security interests to unilaterally withdraw from the iran agreement without a strategy for what comes next . Senator, i am confident that whatever course the administration takes, we will have a strategy. So youre answering yes, it is in the National Security interest to withdraw because youll have a strategy . Is that your answer . It is in the National Security interest that no matter which course we take on, we should develop a strategy to achieve the objectives that i think we all share to prevent iran from having Nuclear Weapons. If iran unilaterally withdraws from the jcpao in may, what would you be recommending in terms of the jcpao on iran . There is a policy discussion around all of these issues as to how this will proceed in the next 30 days and the days thereafter. The objective is very clear. The objective is to fix the shortcomings of the iran deal. That will be true on may 11, may 12, may 13 does that mean smacking back sanctions . I dont want to speculate on b what to do. You want me to put my faith in you, but i cant do that blindly. I want to have some sense of what youll be advocating even if its not what the president decides. Is it to put back sanctions . Do the sanctions depend on whether the europeans will be in sync with us . If not and we put back sanctions, are they going to go along with us and say, were going to tell our companies not to do it . If we dont put sanctions back, are we nothing but a toothless tiger . These are the critical questions that im looking to understand what you will advocate for. And its not that you come as a candidate here who hasnt had dealings with this issue, because in a different context as the cia director, you have had dealings with this issue. Thats what im trying to glean here and im not getting it. I have had dealings with it, senator, and i have, at the deep urging of the sissy have avoided answering those questions too much. Its hard to hypothesize what the conditions will be in may and how close we may be in achieving the president s objective of diplomacy and speculating on how we might respond. Its difficult. I know thats what youre asking me to do and its a hypothetical situation about which we still have a number of facts that are unavailable. Well, i was asking you for a strategy, not goals, and i dont think that a strategy is one that invades the space that you presently occupy with the space you hope to occupy. And so its just it would make it a lot easier when i have to vote on you to understand what youll be advocating for. Senator gardner . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Joan pompeo, thank you for your testimony today. I think youve done a great job at challenging us and being very forward with your answers and i appreciate that today, and it will serve you well as secretary of state and i look forward to supporting you. Theres been some news that was made in the testimony earlier today by President Trump. I think he has directed, according to news reports, ambassador heuser along with larry kudlow in reengaging the national partnership. Leading to this question on china, the National Security strategy released in 2017 says chinas influence in attempting to rope American Security and prosperity, it has expanded its reaches of the state model, china suis using inducements an threats to get the states to uphold its agenda. We talked about the fact they are conducting or at least planning to conduct fire exercises in the straits of taiwan. Can you talk about this, perhaps even including ttp, can you talk about how that we can make sure we have a policy toward china . That news was news to me. I watched the administration. I supported tpp when i was a member of congress. There is an economic there is an economic component to what china is trying to do. We need to be engaged. It is a diplomatic component to the Economic Activity as well. We need to be deeply engaged there. And im confident this administration will do that. Thank you, director pompeo. How many fighters right now from Southeast Area do you think are in syria today . How many how many islamic fighters from Southeast Asia are in syria . I dont recall the number. There are many. Reporter do we see them return to Southeast Asia as well . We have. How is our coordination in terms of addressing, monitoring and combatting as they move back . Without giving too much detail, it is better in some places than in others but much as we do with our European Partners and partners in the middle east, we do our best to track these terrorists as they move around the world so we can together identify ways to prevent them from conducting their terror. Do we know if any of them were involved in the incidents in mawrawi . Do you agree with the policy provisions . At what level would you authorize the state department to visit taiwan . Im familiar with the act and americas one china policy. I know american policy, i know whats there. With respect to the level of appropriate authorities were going to quickly break away from this confirmation hearing to go to the rose garden at the white house. The president is speaking out. They were unable to do it, not as soon as Ronald Reagan and we topped that one. But they called it tax reform. We discussed that, right . We discussed it. I said we have to call it not tax reform, nobody know what is that means. We can call it tax increase. We call it tax cuts and jobs. And guess what, we got it passed. I also want to recognize a great friend of mine and a man doing a fantastic job, Vice President pence. Mike, stand up. Thank you. And members of my cabinet. They are working tirelessly. We have secretary mnuchin, secretary costa. Please, stand up. And all of the members of congress and senators, thank you and congressmen and women, thank you very much. Most especially i want to thank all of the American Workers in the audience, we have a lot of them who have traveled here from all over the country. They wanted to be with us. This event is dedicated to, the hard working americans who make our nation run. You love your country, you provide for your family, youre proud of everything youve done, youve got that great extra strength that other people dont have and you cherish a wonderful thing called our Great American flag. And now because of our tax cuts, you can keep more of your hardearned money. Larry kudlows very happy about that sitting in the front row. Right, larry . Sure. Good. He says yes. Married couples wont pay a dime of income tax on their first 24,000 of income. A typical family of four earning 75,000 a year will see their tax bill slashed in half. Nobody thought theyd ever see that. You lot more money to spend. And we didnt get one democratic vote. I have to say they want to increase your taxes. If they ever got into power, they said they want to increase your taxes and spend your money on things you dont want to know about. We doubled, more importantly, the child tax credit. They want so many other things and people have wanted other things and frankly we fought very hard. Weve taken care of our military for the first time in many, many years, 700 billion. Were going to have the Strongest Military that weve ever had. And can you think of a better time to have it, right . This is when we need it. Were going to have it. 700 billion and next year 716 billion. Also in that bill, 6 billion for opioid and helping us out with that horrible, horrible problem. The fact is we dont care about the donors and special interests. We only care about you and your family and really making America Great again. Thats what we care about. Thats why were here. From the day i took the oath of office, ive been fighting to drain the swamp and sometimes it may not look like it, but believe me, we are draining the swam many ap and there are a lo unhappy people. Every day, all you have to do is turn on the news. Every time you see me hit, you know that im draining the swamp. And people dont like it. But were also defending the american worker. Were making incredible trade deals, were taking nafta, one of the worst deals ever made in the history of trade and we are redoing it and it will be a fair deal for the americans. We lost thousands of factories and millions of jobs because of nafta. Thousands. Think of it. Thousands of factories. Millions of jobs. Were turning it around. Already chryslers coming back with auto plants, Many Companies are now in michigan, ohio, different places, pennsylvania. Theyre building beautiful brand new auto plants. Nobody thought theyd ever see that happen. Unemployment claims are at their lowest levels in nearly 50 years. Think of that. 50 years. Something im very proud about, unemployment rates for mihispans and africanamericans have reached the lowest levels ever recorded. Ever recorded. Think of that. Very proud. Remember i used to say at rallies what do you have to lose . Get what, what do you have to lose . You have the lowest levels ever recorded for africanamericans, hispanics. Im very, very happy about that. By the way, for women, the lowest levels in 19 years so we have really good numbers. And something a lot of people didnt think was going to happen, wages are rising at the fastest pace in over a decade. Were cutting record numbers of regulations. We cut more regulations in a year and a quarter than any administrati administration, whether its four years, eight years or in one case 16 years. Should we go back to 16 years . Congressman, can we have that extended . You know the last time i jokingly said that, the papers started saying hes got despotic tendencies. No, im not looking to do it. Unless you want to do it, thats okay. Were also unleashing American Energy and American Energy independen independence. Were now an exporter of energy. Were doing think of this 10 Million Barrels a day. Nobody thought theyd see this. 10 million. In fact, its going to now been 10 million. Were cracking down on unfair trade deals, securing our border, stop illegal immigration and restore the rule of law and weve passed the biggest tax cut and reform in american history. More than 5 million workers have already received a tax cut bonus, a pay raise or a new job thanks to these really massive tax cuts. Millions more millions more are getting higher takehome pay. No one has been more energized by our tax cuts than american manufacturers. With us today is the president of the National Association of manufacturers, jay timmons. Wheres jay . Stand up, jay. Thank you, jay. For 20 years their organization has surveyed american manufacturers all over the country they survey. And its a great organization. And they have never before seen the levels of optimism that our tax cuts have delivered. Is that a correct statement, jay . Its dangerous to ask you that because if you say no, i have a problem. Thank you, jay. Its true. So true. In fact, today there is even more good news and i wanted all of you to be the first to hear it. According to the latest survey by the National Association of manufacturers, projected job growth for American Manufacturing has just reached a new