aleppo on hospitals, for example, violate this international order? >> yes, that is not acceptable behavior. >> do you believe these access constitute war crimes? >> again, senator, i'm not -- i don't have sufficient information to make that type of a serious conclusion. coming to that conclusion is going to require me to have additional -- >> do you understand what the standard is for war crime? >> i do. >> and knowing that standard and knowing what is all within the realm of public information, you cannot say whether those actions constitute a war crime or not? >> i would not want to rely solely upon what is in the public realm. i want confirmation from agencies who would present me with indisputable facts. >> senator, menendez -- >> if you won't take my time. >> no, it will be added back. >> that testimony from earlier today. now live to the dirksen office

on capitol hill to continue with testimony from mr. tillerson. this hearing expected to begin and actually to continue in just a couple of moments.

call to order the relation he hearing. we begin with senator booker. we might reserve time for senator when he is able to make it back. and with that, turn to one our newest members, senator booker. mr. tillerson, thank you for being here. i think you should mark for the record it is testimony.

sir, i want to follow up on testimony that i heard and i had to leave for two other meetings that were happening at the same time. i just want to note, that do you know what usa engage is? >> usa engage? >> yes. >> no, sir, it's not ringing a bell with me. >> my notes here say is that usa engage is an industry lobbying for the fact they worked very hard on lobbying against a lot of uts sanctio.s. sanctions tha place. you don't know if exxonmobil is a member and pays into that for lobbyi

lobbying purposes? >> i do not know. >> would you be able to find that out for me for the record? >> you might want to put the question to exxonmobil. or if it's not on the lobbying report. >> thank you very much. >> another issue before i get into my question, i just want to follow up on. you characterize some of the obama administration in foreign policy as characterizing weakness that we didn't show strength around the globe, is that correct? >> i think that an absence of asserting our leadership, yes, sir. >> you indicated that our response to russian aggression in eastern ukraine was one of those indicators of that weakness, is that correct? >> that is my opinion, yes. >> right. and it is seen in testimony that you were saying that such an aggression should be met with a proportional response that we did not show. >> i don't think that's exactly the way i stated it.

i think what i indicated in terms of the next step was my view of predictability comment that when the response to the taking of crimea was met with, in my estimation, a response less than i suspect, the leadership of russia thought they would encounter, then the next move was logical to come across the eastern border of ukraine because it was pretty well known that there were elements in eastern ukraine that are already sympathetic to russian interest. >> that might be a case then when an ex crimea entered into eastern ukraine, this is a sign of weakness because we didn't respond in a way that would defer he further actiones. >> working with allies in the region and working with the government in kiev, both.

>> so what we did do in those cases is to put together with the europeans a way of sank is them he ek he nomically. but that was not sufficient in your mind to stop them from their aggressions. >> well, i think, and i think you are on to a really important point around sanctions. obviously there's been a lot of questions about sanctions, so it is good to try to clarify my view on those. as i've said, sanctions are a very powerful tool. they can be used in two circumstances. one is to punish someone or a country for what they have already done. the other is to intervene and cause them not to do certain things. and in this case, clearly the sanks that were put in place in response to crimea did not deter them --

>> is it your opinion our sanks shou sanction /* sanks should have been much more severe or in other word, military action? >> the latter is my response. and in that situation, given the dramatic, the dramatic taking of crimea, that was a dramatic action, sanctions were going to be insufficient to deter the russian leadership from taking the next step. >> in your opinion, it should have been military force then? >> sorry? >> your opinion is it should have been military force? >> my opinion is there should have been a show of force. in defensive posture. not offensive posture. but in defensive posture to send the message that it stops here. it stops here. and sanctions, in my view, taken after the fact, were not going to be adequate to deter that. now that's my opinion. we will never know. >> right. >> how o that would have played out. >> you understand if you put

yourself in a defensive posture, the old saying, if you pull a gun you should be ready to use it, that could escalate into a conflict. and you make decisions whether we should commit american troops, commit european troops. if there is a military response, they weren't putting forth in crimea, they would have to be some place else. it seems to be you're advocating for greater use of u.s. military power. u.s. military engagement in conflicts like we saw in ukraine. >> senator, i'm advocating for responses that will deter and prevent a further expansion of a bad actor's behavior. i would not, in any way, wanted anyone to take way the thought that i would recommend that as the first action. and again, in any decision to respond with a show of force, that will be taken within the national security council and be fully informed by others, including the department of

defense and intelligence agencies as to whether that would in fact, first, can it be execut executed upon. can it be effective. and i'm not dismissive of sanctions. >> but you did characterize the obama administration's weakness even though you say you wouldn't necessarily do something different. >> in that instance, i would have done something different. >> military force. >> a show of force at the border of the country that had already had territory taken from them. >> american military? >> no, i indicated ukrainian military force, supported by the u.s. providing them with capable defensive weapons. if that's not seen across the border, then it is not a show of force. >> switching gears now, is an american value, this value of transparency in government correct? >> yes. >> and accountability in government? >> yes.

>> i have a concern, an great one, you can lay it right now, that as a heard of a private company, you made it clear in many ways that you were first and foremost accountable it shareholders, employees and customers. as secretary of state, you are accountable to the american public. and would be expected to keep the media, the public, constantly informed of general activities. and i just know that when my staff did a rough calculation of past secretaries interactions with the press, clinton had over 3,200 in her four years and kerry had about 3,000. when you were at exxonmobil it was a far, far smaller number. but i imagine as secretary state you believe in the importance of transparency of engaging with the public of answering to the questions that often come from the media. >> yes. and i indicated in my opening statement that's part of opening a public trust is also to engage

with this committee. that's the way to communicate with the public as well. >> so as you travel overseas and you commit to having regular interactions with the press? >> if confirmed, i will look into what would be appropriate to take. i've not gotten that far in my thinking. >> okay. >> and so you haven't thought through issues of accountability and transparency. >> i have thought about accountability and transparency. your question was about the size of my press corps, i think. >> no, it wasn't. my question is the media and to the public of secretary of state. >> we want to insure at all times to confirm the secretary of state and state department is fully transparent with the public. that part of my comment of being truthful and being and holding ourselves accountable as well as others accountable. >> okay. switching dwaers a

switching gears and i'll get back to this -- in fact, i will yield back because this a new line of questioning that i have. >> okay. >> just as a matter of sharing some information, the supply an defense lethal defense of support to ukraine. at a time when we were only sending use of nice vision goggles and res, something that was strongly supported and in a bipartisan way, on this committee, under chairman menendez's leadership, i just want to say that for the record, so i didn't view the response to be necessarily in any way outside the norms of what this committee overwhelmingly supported at that time, i'm just saying that for information. and i'm more than glad it talk more fully on that.

and if senator risk comes in, i would like to give him time since he was around earlier and has a conflict. with that, i will turn to senator carden again. >> once again, thank you, mr. chairman. in response to senator menendez's questions in regards to lobbying the iran sanctions act just to make the record complete, i would ask consent to put into the record the lobbying disclosure form from exxonmobil corporation that indicate that the approximately $3.4 million in lobbying in the iran sanctions act. i will put that into the record, mr. chairman. >> without objection. >> i wanted to be chairman.

>> i understand you became chairman while i was talking. >> second thing, mr. tillerson. i want to underscore a point, we talk about the offices, coming up several times, that is you keep referring to the fact of your concern in regards to the ukrainian sanctions that were posed against russia. for their actions in ukraine. that you were concerned that american companies could be at a disadvantage because of you'ron being treated differently. grandfather's clause, et cetera. then we talk about leadership and it was very true on iran and senator menendez took the leadership on this, that but for the u.s. leadership, we wouldn't have gotten other countries to act. so if we take the position we are going to the lowest common denominator we're not going to get anything really done. you talk about being tough and

tough positions and leadership and requires us to be willing to go the extra amount. and one last point on this and i agree with senator corker, we've never had any administration believe that congress takeware their discretion. that is absolutely backed. they just assume do away with congress. we understand that. we get it. but you, i assume, understand the advantage we have in america with the separation of brafrmgr branches of government. and it can be helpful for you, if you are confirmed as our principal negotiator, that you must impose sanctions, must impose sanctions, unless you get real progress toward the issues in which those sanctions will be imposed. take advantage of the independent branch of government. work with us so you can have those strong tools.

i will take most of my time on this round to go over the issue senator corker and i have been working through. i won't go over time with the issues on tax returns. and we will save that for a different time for our committee because it involves an internal debate here more so than our nominee. as a result, i sent to you 20 questions to answer that are related to the tax issues because we didn't have the tax returns. and before the close of business for asking questions, i will be proposing questions to you related to your tax issues in order to better understand areas that i think we need to have information on. we are concerned about the fact that, i'm concerned, i think members of the committee are concerned, that you will have

private interest, continuing to operate a farm. have a charitable foundation. a real estate firm. a real estate partnership. we need to know a little bit more how that operates from the person who is secretary of state. you have trusts set up. we need to have a better understanding of how that operates during the term if you're confirmed as secretary of state. so that type of information is useful to us. i'm still trying to figure out exactly how this trust that you're taking, restricted stock, and if confirmed, selling it to become, or putting cash in rather than restricted stock, but then you are able to withdraw the fund from the trust in the same schedule as i believe as the restricted stock would have become actionable but

as a result of that, you're also putting con ttingencies on your receipt and as i understand deferring taxes for a significant amount of time. these are issues i think we need more transparency on. they are big dollars. $180 million, if i understand, in restricted stock. tax consequences about $70 million. these are not types of tools that can be used by average americans. i think we need to know more about those types of issues. we also have concern about making sure that all of your employees have been properly documented and taxes paid. that's a standard issue that been raised now in confirmation hearings. and senator corker and i may not think it is relevant it final confirmations -- i shouldn't say relevant. determinative of a final confirmation but certainly relevant for us to have that information before we make those

answers. so mr. tillerson, i'm going to ask you to answer these questions for the record. i hope we can get the information in a timely way so the committee can have the information before we are called it act on your nomination. you can response. >> i'm happy to try to answer the areas of concern you have. i indicated that in the original questionnaire, that it is my objective to address concerns you have. i am -- i'm also though mindful of privacy issues that are afforded to every american and private issues under individual tax returns. i will do my best to answer the questions that you have. but i hope you will also respect the privacy of myself and my family and the long standing tradition of the privacy of individual's tax returns. >> and i can assure you that that will absolutely be observed

as i had explained to senator corker much of this information is not even reviewed by members. strictly by people who can tell us whether we have a problem or not. i absolutely respect what you're saying. and my full intentions are to fully maintain your legitimate right of privacy. i look forward to following up on that and thank you for your reply. >> thank you. just for the edification of the committee, i think that it's true that over the last fewour years, i have worked to insure we move candidates out as quickly as possible, nominees. i think at every nomination meeting we've had, that's been stated. and what i've chaired with ranking member is we have tradition here that we are following. this has not been a committee that asked for a tax returns,

asked for disclosure form. and just because we were so overwhelmingly helpful with a democratic president's nominees, doesn't mean that we want to be changing the standards or unhelpful, if you will, mr. a republican nominee. so i just have tried to keep things exactly the same. exactly the same. disclosures are exactly the same. and you know, as far as getting into, i've told senator cardin, that if there is a substantial issue that we need to look that would affect senator tillerson -- excuse me. you don't want to be demoted to that. nominee tillerson's role and if we need to t.o. hago to outside so, but to get to silly questions have you done that,

that's not what we've done in this committee. i hope we will not turn this process into a process that deteres people from wanting to proceed. so if we need an accounting firm as it matters to his awibility not have conflict as secretary of state, i'm willing to look at it as i know he is. asking questions that, you know, are not in any way determinative in that manner to me is belittlinging the committee and certainly a huge change in the protocol and the respect with which we have dealt with nominee answers their privacy in past. but thank you for working for me. >> if you will just yield for one moment and i thank you for are that, and the disagreement on supplying tax returns has nothing to do with mr. tillerson. it is a discussion we are having

and has not at all deplayed any of our operations and i fully expect that i will continue to use whatever means i can to change our committee practices so that with you do have our nominees, as many other committees in the senate require, to file tax returns. that's not unique. small business i'm told by senator shaheen. but a second one, i will make very quickly, is that the second point, the ability of members to ask questions for the record, and ask questions of the nominee is pretty well been respected. and i would hope that right not be diminished, in asking questions in the areas in regards to what we feel is important. >> no one is trying to dimin thash. i know you and i have agreed on a series of questions that will come from kmt athe committee it and mr. tillerson, as i

understand it, will answer those. i understand absolutely the arrangement he has with exxon is something that should be fully vetted and ecveryone here understands that that is going to happen and he will make that forth and has actually. i would just say, again, we may wish to change our standards for four years from now. our most recent secretary of state, as i understand it, as a couple is worth over $1 billion. and all kind of far ranging investments. and as a committee, we never tried to force a tax rueturn issue. they filled out disclosures. we as a committee ask them questiones. same thing happened with secretary clinton. all i'm trying to do is not in any way change the way we

operate because of the outcome of an election. and continue to be again that island of bipartisan ship where we continue to operate regardless of who wins an election in the same manner. i'm in no way trying to infer that you're attempting to do that. i'm just telling you what i'm attempt doing. with that, if we can close this matter out, i will turn to senator rubio. >> thank you. mr. tillerson, when we met monday night, and thank you for coming by, i provided with you a bill provided in last congress, which i be a tanticipate will bd in this congress, which would ban the travel ban to america by cubans. if you were confirmed and that bill passed congress, can you commit you would advise the president to veto that bill? >> senator, as to the current status of travel to cuba, that is going to be under discussion

with president-elect. i think he has been clear on his intent he will ask all agencies on day one to do a complete review of recent executive orders in the change of status of travel to cuba as well as business activities in cuba. that would be my expect tag that the president would not immediately approve that bill until of that review had occurred. because that would be part afof broader view of our posture towards cuba. >> again, if he doesn't act on t the bill, it would become law without signature. at this time you can't commit to supporting a vietnama of th vet that law should it pass. >> i would approve a veto because i don't think that is -- >> that would remove the u.s. embargo against cubo and there aren't democratic changes on the eye labd of cuba. would you advise the president

to veto the bill lifting embargo on cuba? >> if confirmed, yes, i would. >> can you also commit that would you advise the president to reverse many, if not all, of the obama administrations cuba regulation answers executive orders regarding cuba that were recently submitted in 2014? >> as indicated, i expect a comprehensive review of the executive order and from the state department perspective would want to examine the criteria for which cuba was delisted for nations that support terrorism. and whether or not that delisting was appropriate and whether or not the circumstances which led to that delisting still exist. >> you do not currently have an opinion as to whether cuba is on the list of terrorism.

>> again, informed by the inner agency process that would look at putting cuba back on that list. >> as you're aware there is a dispute between china and japan over the sinkaku island. would you support the united states responding with military force to pro vent that from happening? >> we have long standing ally commitments with japan and south ka rea in t korea in the area. we would respond with those accords that are not a nato type agreement but behaut behalf ive accordance with the alliance we have with japan. >> in the data base by the executive commission on china

containing more than 1400 active records of individuals known to be in detention. do you believe china is one of the world's worst human rights violators? >> china has serious human rights violation he. relative to categorizing against other nations, i would have to have more information but they have serious human rights violationes. >> since president duetterte to office last june, roughly 6200 have been killed in the philippines by police and vigilantes and alleged trug raid. in your view is this the right way to conduct an anti-drug campaign? >> senator, the u.s. america and people of the philippines he have a long standing friendship. i think it is important that we keep that in perspective, that long standing friendship. we need to be sure they stay an ally.

>> that's correct. but my question is about the 6200 people that are killed under the alleged drug raids. do you believe that's an appropriate way to conduct that operation or do you believe that it is something that's conducive to human rights violations that we should be concerned about and condemning? >> senator, could be firmed again, it is an area i want to understand in greater detail because of the fact on the ground. i'm not disputing anything you are saying, i know you have access to information that i do not have. >> this is the los angeles times. >> i'm not going to go through the newspapers. i will rely on our government agencies. >> president duterte himself openly brags about the open shot and killed on the streets who he has determined are drug dealers without any trial. so if in fact he continues to brag about it, is that reliable information you would look at and say okay, it's happening.

what is happening in the philippines he is not an intelligence issue. president-elect has spoken about it and quite frankly the president of the philippines admitted to it and in fact brags about it. my question is that in your opinion an appropriate way for him to act and should it inflew eps our relationship with the philippines. >> if the fact are supportive of those numbers and actions then i don't think any of us would accept that as a proper way to deal with offenders, no matter how egregious the offenders may be. >> i'm sure you're aware of the lack of religious freedoms and lack of rights of women in saudi arabia. in your opinion is saudi arabia a human rights violator? >> saudi arabia does not share the same right of america. however, american interests have been advocating in saudi arabia for some time.

i think the question is what the pace of progress to be expected for the king of saudi arabia to advance rights to women and others in the country. >> as it currently stand, do you consider what they do to be human rights violations? >> i would need to have greater information senator in order to make a true determination of that. >> you're not familiar with the state of affairs for people in saudi arabia, what life is like for women? they can't drive. people jailed and lashed. you are familiar with all of that? >> yes, senator, i'm familiar with all of that. >> so what more information would you need? >> in terms of, when you designate someone or label someone, the question is, is that the most effective way to have progress continue to be made in saudi arabia? or any other country. so my interest is the same as yours. our interests are not different, senator. there seems to be some misunderstanding that somehow i see the world through a different lens. and i do not. i share all of the same values

that you share and want the same things for people the world over in terms of freedoms. but i'm also clear-eyed and realistic about dealing in cultures. these are centuries-long cultures, of cultural differents. it doesn't mean we can't affect them and affect them to change. over many years we've been trafing to the kingdom, while the pace is slow, slower than any of us wish, there is a change under way in the kingdom of saudi arabia. how and if they ever arrive to the same by we do, i can't predict that. however it is moving in the direction we want it to move. what i wouldn't want it to do is take some kind of action that suddenly causes he leadership in the king of saudi arabia to have to interrupt that. i would like for them to continue to make that progress. >> thank you. >> senator menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. tillerson, i know you are new to this and i know the chairmen are trying to help you

out on the question of lobbying on sanctions. you stated on the record that to your knowledge neither you nor exxon ever lobbied against sanctions that you were merely seeking information. i have four different reports totaling millions of dollars as required by the lobbying disclosure act that lists exxonmobil lobbying activity on four specific pieces of legislation authorizing sanctions including comprehensive iran sanks accountability and investment act of 2010, prevention act of 2014, ukraine prfreedom act and stand for ukraine act. i know you are new to this but it is clear, my understanding is when you employ lobbyists who submit lobby under the law, you are taking a a position is that not correct? >> if the form clearly indicates whether we were -- i don't know,

i haven't seen the form have you in your hand, were you lobbying for or against sanctions? >> i know you were lobbying for sanctions. ? fz t . >> well if the form -- >> if says specifically here, sefk sefk specific lobbying, provisions related energy. you weren't lobbying for sanctions on energy, were you? >> i think that's a description of the subject discussed. i haven't seen the fom, senator, so i don't -- >> let me just et fie yed fie y the future. you don't need a form to simply seek information and clarification about a bill. that's not lobbying. lobbying specifically is to promote a view, position and what not. i have asked to have these included in the record. >> without objection. >> there is lobbying here. i know senator booker asked you

and you said you don't know. but this whole purpose and i'm sure while exxon is a huge corporation like the state department is a very big entity that you may not know every minew hampshira what is going on. but you have to understand you are giving direction on whether or not you want to lobby on certain issues or take positions on certain issues or not. just like you told me earlier in your world conversation with the president-elect you didn't discuss russia. it is difficult to think you actually don't know that exxon was lobbying on the issues of sanctions. >> my understanding is those reports are required whether you are lobbying for or against something. you are still required to report you are lobbying. >> you believe you paid moneys to lobby for sanctions? >> i don't know. all i know senator is i don't -- >> can you imagine being in a position in which you had your company paying more for lobby shareholders that would effect your bottom line? >> i don't know, depend on the

circumstance. >> all right, let's talk about mexico. some of us care about the western hemisphere. any money spent on the great wall will be paid by mexico. mr. tillerson, building a wall on the southern border and having mexico pay for it has been a hall smark chant at trum rallies. now saying the american people will pay for it and mexicans will reimburse us. i want to point out the last time a country tried to wall itself completely fromi its neighbor was in germany in 1961 and communist east germany. it was tweeted and it seems that's how we conduct foreign policy, by tweets these days, that trump may ask whoever he

wants but still neither myself mo nor mexico will pay for it. he can't keep his promises, closed quotes. referring to mexican citizens coming to the united states as saying they are sending quote people that have lots of problems and they are bringing those problems with us. bringing drugs, crime, rapists and in some, some i assume are good people. so mr. tillerson, do you think mexicans are criminals, drug dealers, rapists. >> i would never crass fie lass entire race as anything at all. >> do you think the trading in $583 billion in tratd and services including second goods export market. >> mexico is a long standing friend and neighbor of this country. >> so that doesn't help your job as a secretary of state, does it? if you are to achieve nomination? >> well we are going to engage

with mexico because of their importance to us in this hemisphere and we have many, many common issues, common areas of concern. >> let me turn to another part of the western hemisphere. senator rubio mentioned it so he took care of some things i wanted to talk about. you needed more time on cuba which is fair. and the u.s.-cubbian policy with the obama changes. the latest report by, not me, but by amnesty international, quote, despite increasingly open diplomatic information, severe freedom of expression and movement continuing, thousands of cases of harassment of government critics and arbitrary arrest answers detention reported. thousands. that's their quote. the human rights and national reconciliation which works within cuba, documented more than 8,600 politically motivated detention of government opponents and activists during

the year. there's a group of women who march every sunday to church. the women in white. they get beaten savagely. simply because of their peaceful protests. i would hope would you agree with me that if our engagement is still going to allow that to take place, then something is wrong with our engagement. something fell short. i have a specific question on cuba. do you think that as a condition of establishing diplomatic relations with cuba we should have insisted on the return of fugitives, cop killers, like new jersey cop killer joanne chesimar and others harbored by the castro regime. >> i do, senator. >> thank you, very much. now would you finally commit yourself, if you are confirmed as secretary of state, to work with us and others, mexico and others, have cop-killers and other fugitives in cuba to make

that conditioning of any future transactions as it relates it cuba? >> senator if confirmed i look forward to working with you most specifically as well as senator rubio and others that i know have a great depth of knowledge on cuba. to ensure we are not relaxing the pressure on cuba to reform its oppressive regime and certainly as i indicated and the response earlier and in my opening remarks, cuban leadership got a lot out of most recent deal. we need to make no mistake about where the flow of funds are going inside cuba. and cuban people got almost nothing. president-elect i think has been very clear on his intent to direct a bottoms up review of the entire relationship with cuba. >> thank you. >> i appreciate the great senator from new jersey acknowledging that when our nominee left an impression that i don't think he is wishing to leave that i need to change that. thank you.

and he with that, senator rish -- >> thank you. >> senator rish has a 10-minute segment because he missed first round. thank you for being here. >> thank you. i won't take that full 10 minutes. mr. tillerson, thank you for your willingness to do this. you will be hitting the ground at a very difficult time as far as u.s. relationships around the world. they have spiraled out of control from time to time and we are not in a good place in many parts of the world, primarily because of u.s. policy. and it is going to be rethought and redeveloped and i thank you for willing to take -- for willingness to take that on. i was struck when you were named that this is something that has been a bit off of the radar screen of most americans and that is the importance of the work that the state department does in dealing with our

companies and with commerce in foreign countries. most americans don't realize how difficult it is to do business overseas. and the state department really needs to focus on that more than what they have, and be helpful to countries that do want to do business overseas because it is a lot of times it has to go through a government sources to get into business over there. so i was impressed with that. and having your business background that you do, i think you are very helpful in that regard and helping the state department further understand its responsibilities in that regard. and state department does a good job. every one of us have traveled overseas. and sometimes in bipartisan fashion, isn't that right, senator shaheen? and we are always treated, regardless of the political party, so well by our people in

the state department people working here. we have talked a lot, russia's got a lot of play in this meeting but we haven't talked much about iran and north korea. those are a couple of real challenges for us. and those -- those policies, as far as those two countries are concerned, really need to be rethought and recalibrated and then reannounced in a way that they understand what america will do. where we are coming from and what we do. i think that -- in talking with people, our allies, they are confused with where we want to go with this and what we will do. same is try with isis. how we handle that situation. where we are operating with iraq and syria. i won't press you on those because you are just getting your feet on the ground and i hope the president-elect will be

after you're able to get your arms around these things, he will listen to you carefully as to the policies we're going to develop for that. policies need to be entirely different than what they are. that part of the world, the sipping tea and singing kumbaya is not a way you will be successful in a lot of those countries. they understand strength. not necessarily the use of strength. but they understand people who possess strength. and people who they are convinced will use that strength if necessary. they need to be convinced of that. i know there is a lot of people complaining about the relationship between mr. putin and the president-elect and for that the matter yourself and mr. putin. i hope mr. putin gets to know both of you guys really, really well. because i think he will be convinced that you do project american strength and that

america still has the mussel that it's had and we still stand for what we stand for and we're going to project that around the world. so in that regard i really hope that mr. putin does have a relationship to where he gets to know both of you guys and especially the president-elect because i think that that will impress him that he is not going to be able to get away with the kind of stuff he has gotten away with in the crimea or in syria or in other places where thief been meddling in the world where they shouldn't be. finally, let me say, again, thank you for your willingness to do this. i've been impressed as we've been sitting here. the meeting in my office is very good. we are able to develop these thought more deeply than we can here. and i want to say that i've been really impressed having come from a private sector background myself, it's difficult for people to understand that the transition from the private sector and business into the

world of the diplomacy is very different. it's a transition that need to be made. and just sitting here listening to you over the hours that you have been here, i've been very impressed you make that decision. you are speaking in terms that diplomat understand. i appreciate that. it will serve you well as you go forward. thank you for your willingness to do that. with that, i yield back the time. >> thank you. this is the last person of the first round. so well get back into the sync we were in before. senator johnson. >> hey, mr. chairman. mr. tillerson, i want to go back before the responsibilities that secretary gates laid out for secretary of state. advise the president, negotiate agreements, represent us abroad and lead the state department. i met you the morning i returned from my trip to israel which is a couple days before, the way i would term in, the u.s. shameful

abstention on the vote onset elments. i've never understood why any administration, we have done this on a bipartisan fashion, would force a friend he, an ally, to sit down and negotiate with, i guess negotiating partners, that refuse to acknowledge the right to exist. that is table stakes. you know, in business, it is sitting down and forcing negotiation to buy a company somebody doesn't want to sell it. do you have a similar type of view on that in and agree with you that that complices the future negotiation on that. >> i do have a view on it, senator. thank you. it would be akin, in many respects, negotiating with someone who denies your right to exist, why would they ever live up to any agreement if they don't expect you to be around. then to force one party to the table through coercion or

however you want it describe, the most recent resolution, is not useful. there have been many opportunity since for parties to sit down and work things out. leadership certainly has not seized those opportunity. i would say in the case of the palestinian leadership while they have renounced violence, it is one thing to renounce it and another to take concrete action to prevent it. i think until there is a serious demonstration on their part, they are willing to do more than just renounce violence. they are willing to do something to at least interrupt it or interfere with it. it is very difficult to create conditions at the table for parties to have any productive discussion around settlement. >> do you agree that israel conceded just about every point and at this point in time palestinians refuse it say yes? >> i think that there have been many, many opportunity again for progress to be made and those

have never been seized upon. so i do think it is a matter to be discussed and decided between the two parties to the extent america's foreign policy engagement can create a more fruitful environment for those discussions than i think that's the role we can play. with the end of it, this has to be settled between these two parties. >> policies should help strengthen our friend. in terms of negotiating the agreements, advising the president, i think congress has willingly given away its advice consent power. moist famously recently is the iranian agreement. you look at federal or fosh affairs manual, i think clearly, that iranian agreement was a treaty. i think had we honestly upheld our oath office, that vote on my amendment, the trooet should ha have been 100-1. first starting with jealously

guarding our power and advice and consent, first of all, do you believe that's a treaty? >> it would have the appear uns of a treaty and look likes a treaty. >> what about the paris climate accord which commit us to a fair amount of -- do you believe that's an executive order that can enter onity own? >> it looks like a treaty. >> will you work with us and advise the president as you negotiate for this nation to respect the constitution and come to senate for advice consent on treaties? >> senator, i respect the proper roles of both branches of government and in my could be v conversation with the president-elect, he does as well and he expressed the same views. under the past administration the executive branch has gone pret pretty far out there in terms of recognizing the proper role of cop gres ngress as a bo

express its own view on some of these agreements. >> leading the state department, you have successfully managed employees, with the employees of the same mission statement and roles to achieve the goals, they are supportive of the goals of the organization. you will assume the leadership after department that, lets face it, you have entrenched bureaucrats that are not only don't necessarily agree with your foreign policy or the next administration's foreign policy might be hostile to it. as an skpeerenexperienced manag you deal with that? >> you're right. the state department about 70,000 employees, interestingly about the same size as the organization i led when ways a the exxonmobil. about 40,000 of those state department employees are deployed overseas. about 60% of exxonmobil

employees are not americans. in terms of understanding and dealing with people who are representing you around the world, and they are half way around the world, in various embassies and missions, how do you get all of these people aligned with one objective. and the objective is america's interest and america's national security. so i think that part of leadership is expressing very clear views and part of leadership is having an organization that has a clear line of sight on issues as to who owns these and whole be held accountable for them and having an organization that is all working in concert towards that objective. my experience has been that people look for leadership. when they are acting in ways contrary to the overall mission, it is generally because there is an absence of strong leadership to clearly define to them what that expectation is and what

their role in it is. then reward people who are behaving in a way that support the overall mission and not support their joan agenda. i have used the term many times in large organizations of working in the general interest. the general interest of the state department is the american people's interest. if anyone is working on it to only advance their own interest, they aren't working in the general interest. i think it's important that people understand that is the responsibility of all of us who will serve the country and the state department. is the general interest pl which is the american people's interest. >> thank you, mr. tillerson. good luck on your next stiemt. >> thank you, senator shaheen. >> thank you, i'm glad you came back after lunch, mr. tillerson. i appreciated very much your response to that question. i have to say that my experience with state department employees is that overwhelming majority of them are dedicated, dedicated to

this country. they do their work often at great personal sacrifice and i think we should appreciate the work that they do. it sound to me like you share that appreciation for the sacrifices that when they make. >> i certainly do. i have a great affection for those willing to take the overseas assignments. many are in very difficult locations. particularly when their families go with them they are truly sacrificing on behalf of this country. they deserve recognition for that and appreciation for it. >> thank you. there's been discussion today about kerps the committee expressed about, which i think are legitimate, about potential conflicts of interest that you might face if confirmed as secretary of state because of your long career at exxon. and while i understand there are concerns about the precise approach you have taken to divest your financial interests in exxon, i do appreciate that

you have taken these concrete actions and that you plan it take more if you are confirmed. i wonder if you could talk about why you think that's important. >> senator, and again, as i have commented in response to your question earlier, i had a good 41 1/2-year career. truly blessed. enjoyed every minute of it. that part of my life is over. i have within humbled and honored with the opportunity to serve my country. i never thought i would have an opportunity to serve in this way. so when i made the decision to say yes to president-elect trump when he asked know do this, the first step i took was to retain my own outside council, to begin the process, and only guidance i gave them is i must have a complete and clear clean break from all of my connections to exxonmobil. not even the appearance. whatever is required for us to achieve that, get that in place.

i am appreciative that exxonmobil corporation, represented by their own council, and exxonmobil board were willing to work with me to achieve that as well. it was their objective too. in the end if that required know walk way for some things, that fine. whatever was necessary to achieve that. and again, told people, i dent even want the appearance there is any connection to myself, and the future fortunes, up or down, of the exxonmobil corporation. >> well, again, thank you very much for that. i'm sad to say that i think it stand in stark contrast to what we heard from president-elect trump today who announced he is not going to divest himself of his vast business interests intndests around the world. i do appreciate your recognition that this is important for maintaining the integrity of the position with the american public and the world. you talked about eliminating isis as one of your top

priorities. if you're confirmed. and a your opening statement connects radical islam to isis. and you also make the point of saying that you think it's important to support muslims around the world who reject radical islam. during the last congress, this committee heard about the importance of working with the muslim community in the united states to combat isis and the domestic terrorists that have been produced as a result of isis ideology. in your view, is it helpful to suggest that as americans we should be afraid of muslims? >> no, senator. in my travels and because of my past work, i've traveled extensively in muslim countries. not just the middle east but throughout southeast asia and have gained an appreciation and recognition of this great faith.

that's why i made a distinction that we should support those muslim voices that reject this same radical islam that we reject. this is part of winning the war other than on the battlefield. i mentioned we have to win it not just on the battlefield. we have to win the war of ideas and one of our greatest allies in this war is going to be the moderate voices of muslim, of people in the muslim faith who speak from their perspective and rejection of that representation of what is otherwise a great faith. >> and could you support restricting travel to the united states by muslims? >> i think what is important is that we are able to make a judgment about the people coming into the country. and so, no, i do not support a blanket type rejection of any particular group of people. but clearly we have serious challenges to be able to vet people coming into the country. and particularly under the

current circumstances because of the instability in the part of the world it is occurring. and the massive migration that's occurred out of the region. and a lack of any documentation following people as they have moved through various other countries. it is a huge clael. i don't thi challenge. i don't think we can just close our eyes. we need to be very clear-eyed in deal heing wi it a means to deal with it. >> do you support creating a national registry for american muslims? >> i would need to have a lot more information around how such an approach would even be constructed. and if it were a tool for vetting then it probably extend to other people as well. other groups that are threats. to the u.s.

it would require me much more information to how that would even be approached. >> one of the things you and i discussed when we met was the special immigrant visa program for those help willing our men and women in military on the ground. will you support continuing that program to insure those people who have been properly vetted and helped our men and women are able to come to this country when their lives are threatened in afghanistan? >> special visa waiver program, it's important that we protect those who are willing to assist, our american military forces or other forces in afghanistan. i think is also important to make the distinction, otherwise we undermine this program and risk losing it, and not expand it to allow other people to come through the program that are not truly at risk.

and so it is, i think the execution and this gets back to following through on what the intent of these programs were, and let's be very specific and execute well, and not get sloppy in the execution and start having a lot of other folks coming through the program that really don't meet that criteria. >> thank you. i think congress has pretty mario narrowly focused the program. thank you. >> i do want to say that i appreciate the fact that you were able to highlight the secretary of state shares his view he, ultimately has to carry out the policies of the president or is not successful, but i think is good to distinguish that sometimes people have very different views and they lobby strongly for those views and that what we are wanting to hear from is what mr. tillerson's views are on these issues.

and how he will attempt to persuade the administration. he may not be successful. but thank you for highlighting that just now, senator gardner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. tillerson, thank you again for your continued patience and participation in this very important discussion. i would follow up with many of the discussions on human rights issues. i was notified the united states sanctioned two individuals in north korea under the legislation we passed this past year, north korea sanctions act. the younger sister of kim jong-un sanctioned for human rights violationes as well as minister of state security in north korea. i think is important to continue and i appreciate the commitment you gave in my prior round of questioning about your mandatory of sanks for people who carry out human right violations. something we should do together and we should work to together to protect people from tyrants around the globe who would murder their own people. mr. tillerson, you mentioned

southeast asia in your last answer to shen tore shaheen. china has been reactively reclaiming building island in the south china sea, 3,000 acres of land since recla nation activity began in 2013. they have militarized some reclamation areas. calling for the obama administration to take a much stronger approach, including freedom of navigation operations job overnights of south china sea. ? july, the hague, international tribunal ruled against china held they violated philippines sovereignty. what do you believe the position of the united states aught to be in the south china sea and what more could we be doing to stop china from violating international law. >> i think when you meng china and you mentioned north korea pineirous to this, we have to take a whole of china approach.

part of where we struggle with china, and i mentioned in opening remarks, we do have important economic relationships. our economies are intertwined. but we have to step back and look at all of china's activities. the the one you mention now, island building in the south china sea, the declaration of control of airspace in waters over the sekaku island with japan. both of those are illegal actions. they are taking territory or control or declaring control of territories that are not rightfully chinas. the island building in the south china sea itself in many respects in my view, a building island and putting military assets on those island is akin to russia's taking of crimea. taking offer istory that others lay claim to. the u.s. has never taken a side in the issues but what we have

advocated for. international processes dealing with that and china should respect those international processes. p. >> as you hengsed, some of the access have been challenged at the koubt in t the courts in the hague and they were found to be in violation. i think again the failure after response has allowed them to keep pushing the envelope on this. so kben, we find, we are where we are and we have to deal with it. the way we've got to deal with it is show back up in the region with traditional allies and southeast asia. and i think using existing structures to begin in the engagement, use asean which most members of asean are affected by this. you have $5 trillion of economic tried going through those waters everyday. this is a threat to the total economy if china is able to

dictate passage through those at waters. this is an issue of great importance for many. >> and you would support a more aggressive posture in the south china sea? >> we have to send china a clear signal that the island building stops and second your access to those island is also not allowed. >> thank you. last year i passed legislation that would encourage taiwan's entry into the international police organization, interpol, signed into law and president made it clear that thailand is our friend and trump's actions and the state-run newspaper and times said quote if trump reneges after taking office they will take revenge and there is no room for bargaining. editorial also said, should they

impose and take over by force. combined with the rehe september show of forces, it appears beijing increased considerably on taiwan. can you share with this administration the trump's position on taiwan and china's policy. >> with respect to taiwan we made through the taiwan act and six issues accord, and we should have reaffirmation. this is part of the approach trying to lay out over and over, we need to reaffirm the commitments and live up to them. i think it is important that taiwan know we will live up to the commitment under the relations act and six issues accord. that it itself is a message. i think the importance of that action to again this whole of china approach that i'm speaking about, is we've got to deal with the whole of china's actions and recognize that we have these

balancing forces in ourry lagsshilag relationship that need to be dealt with. i don't know if any plans to alter the one china position. >> an issue in colorado that i think is important and coming to attention around the country is they hear from ngos compassionate international faith-based group in colorado serving nearly 2 million children living in poverty around the world. compassions operated in india since 1968. contributed nearly $50 million in aid to india. provided one to one scholarships to $145,000 indian children. since 2014 compassion is the target of many governmental attacks because ofity unapologetically christian belief but delivering humanitarian services to hundreds of thousands of indian children. but due to restrictions by the

indian government they have been unable it fundity operation since february of 2016 despite havi having broken no laws. i think the state department should take in the this this should stop and it is part after broader pattern bit government of india where other nbos have seen similar problems. the state department should insist they release compassion fund and restore licenses and commit compassion to immediately resumity humanitarian operations. we appreciate your assistance on that. this is a something very disturbing. they do nothing more than try to help children in poverty. >> i appreciate you bringing it to my attention. i look forward, if i'm confirmed, to discussing it further with you. >> i appreciate you bringing it up. chairman royce is very concerned about this issue and i know he is thankful you brought it to everyone's attention here today. thank you. senator senator? >> thank one mr. chairman.

mr. tillerson in your capacity as ceo of exxonmobil, you praised the paris agreement last year noting that addressing climate change and i quote requires broad-based practical solutions around the world. do you personally believe the overall interest of the united states are better served by staying in the paris agreement? if so, why? and if not, why not? >> i think having a seat at table to address in on a global basis and it is important that, i think 190 cup trountries or thereabouts have signed on to begin to take action, i think we are better served by being that table than leaving that table. >> and i think you understand that it's been general -- it's been a generation or more, that it's taken to get all of the countries at the table to sign

an agreement evand move forward with targets and it would be very unfortunate i think to move away from the table. thank you for your answer there. i just wanted to follow up on a discussion senator flake had with you in the first round urgi urging you to look at successes of our policy change in cuba. and this is mainly because you as a a ceo at exxon, i suspect that you had a tolerance for old ideas that failed to produce positive result. regardless of what one thinks about the cuban government, no one can argue that embargo and isolation achieved any progress. the proof is right in front of us. the castro regime endures. i'm a strong supporters of the policy of reengagement which has already produced result and you know, you mentioned you will do a bottoms up review. ? thinking that bottom's up

review, it is important to point out that these things happened and are very positive. first of all we worked with the cubans to combat diseases such as zika, diabetes, and a multinational effort to combat ebola in africa. effort to increase access to the internet have paid off with new wifi hot spots in havana and increased efforts to bring improved cellular access to the island. including roaming deals with u.s. carriers. increase bilateral business activity supported by the u.s. chamber of commerce and hispano chamber of commerce. last week united states and cuba signed a bilateral agreement to prepare for and respond to oil spills and hazardous substance pollution in the gulf of mexico and straits of florida. our new policy according to a 2015 pew research poll shows that 72% of americans support

the renewed diplomatic relation and 73% support ending the embargo. i doubt that there are many issues where such a vast majority of the american people agree and i hope we will not be letting those americans down by returning to a period where such efforts are made impossible by a failed policy that showed no results. instead i hope you will continue to work to support the cuban small business owner. almost 500,000 licensed businesses and growing. and to continue the engagement which is led to increased opportunities for both cuban and american businesses in cuba. will you recommend to select trump a policy of engagement in cuba in order to foster the change needed on the island or do you prefer to go back to the old policy of the past 50 years that fail to bring rail real change or undermine the castro regime?eal change

or undermine the castro regime? >> senator, if confirmed, the job of the diplomat is to engage. engagement is always preferred. our door is always waopen to h effect change. we have to be honest with ourselves about the engagement with cuba. there are long-standing statutes in place that govern that relationship. the designated list of state sponsors of terrorism. and there are specific criteria about whether we and organizationes a enthose conducting affairs in cuba are in compliance with those statutory requirements. so if we are unable to engage in positive way and meet the compliance of those statutes, that's good thing. i don't know. because i've not had the opportunity to have a full examination, as i said earlier,

what changed? because there is a lot of activity that's been enabled and someone had to make a determination that something changed. that did it in fact change? i would like to see all of the documentation and information around that. and otherwise, if we're he going to change the relationship we will change the statute as well. so i'm, you know, again kind of this common thing as i hear from you, we live up to agreements and laws and fully enforce them. they are put there for a reason. if cirques change and we need to change your posture on those as well. i think that's why it demand a bottom's up review because a lot things have been changed in recent past here. much of it by executive order. i think the president-elect has indicated he would like to understand all of that. what is the criteria that state department used to makity determinations? that's what he will be asking me. >> the reason i cited those polls is i think the american people are at the point of

wanting those statutes to be set aside. and i quoted one and so i don't want to argue with you, but i very much appreciate your answers in terms of consulting state department people and i can't think of better professionals than the state department professionals that spend decade learning about the regions that they serve in, specific countries they work on. and i appreciate your thoughtfulness in terms of doing that. and just a final question here is, senator menendez mentioned the whole issue of fugitives. we also have a fugitive by the name of charlie hill, who is i believe should be brought to justice. and i really believe that we have a better chance at getting him out or already having discussions if we engage with them rather than kbing bagoing a policy ofit isolation.

thank you. >> senator flake? >> thank you. we will continue on the same theme for a bit. we will talk about, we hear the word concession a lot, and we shouldn't make concessions to dictators or death spots. part of the, some of the executive order taken over the past couple of years, that one of the first of which is in 2009, we found that cuban-americans who had families still in cuba, would have to choose between going to their mother's funeral or father's funeral if their parent died within the same three years. what a horrible thing to ask of an american. do you believe that it is a concession to the regime to allow a cuban-american to visit or to go to his father or mother's funeral in cuba? >> no, senator with, these are heart-breaking questions.with, heart-breaking questions.ith, t heart-breaking questions.th, th heart-breaking questions.h, the heart-breaking questions., thes heart-breaking questions. i have to take us back to, what

are our statutes, what are the provisions that govern that. these are where exceptions become really difficult. so i want to be honest with you, when i say my expectation is if confirmed is to do a complete bottom's up review of all these issues. under what provisions are we making exceptions. what provisions allow for a waive. under what klgs conditions can we grant perhaps an exception for one tho involve these difficult personal issues for people.grant perhaps an excepti one tho involve these difficult personal issues for people. but not undermine our american values, which is leadership of cuba must change the way it treats its people. >> i don't think it is the executive authority to make that change. i don't think it was question. there were no lawsuits filed or any real resistance. as soon as cuban-americans travel back to cuba.

it was assumed, this is a great thing and hundreds of thousands of people have and have remitted more money. it was illegal for them to send fish hooks to family members on the island before. those are some restrictions removed. i would submit those are not concessions to a regime. it is not a con sepg to a regime to allow americans to travel. those sanks are on americans, not cubans. >> in the same vein, we have diplomatic relations with pretty unsavory countries or leadership of some countries is pretty unsavory. we have diplomatic relations with saudi arabia. we don't agree with how they treat women and political opponent in that country. is it a concession to the regime to have diplomater relations with the country. >> this is a question, again, grounded in long standing historic policy of the united

states. >> right. >> and that policy and the statutes that govern that policy, if the time has come for statutes to be altered, that be the role of congress to alter those statute. in the meantime, the state department, if i'm there, and confirmed to be there, it is our role to enforce what congress has expressed its desire. and so if the judgment of the congress and judgment of the state department, president-elect through consultation, viewis that we have moved to a different place, then we should address that.s te moved to a different place, then we should address that. but not just ignore what the law of the land is. >> i understand that completely. i'm saying the diplomat of countries, it is in our national best interest.

i would suggest that that the same with cuba. as mentioned. there are fugitives from justice and cuba that we would like back. they are fugitives from justice in a number of countries we would like back as well. we use diplomatic relations. state craft and diplomacy to arrange those things. if we told everyone where would we be? i'm dwlad the administration is undertaking review. i believe a review will conclude measures taken allowing americans to travel to cuba who we still havery striks. i would suggest the restrictions that are still in place simply forcing americans to place more money in the american's hands when they do travel it cuba. other citizens of this country that if we just lifted the

travel ban kplicompletely and t could ensure that more money goes to family members and entrepreneurs on that island. so i'm glad the review is taking place and i'm glad that you've go be to a part of that review. just in a minute and a half left, you have talked a lot about sanctions. as i mentioned in the beginning, i share your aversion to have sanctions, particularly when practiced unilaterally. sanctions are simply a method we have or tool to change behavior or to induce or punish countries. what other tools to we have, without resorting to sanctions? >> depending on exactly what issue is, and what the target country is, certainly we have other tools related to our trade policies in general.

we have too in terms of the soft power side of this, obviously we always have the hard power tool to use. and so i think does depend on the specific countries, specific issue, what our relationship has been, what are the pressure point that are going to, if they are going to feel it, because that the issue i have around insuring the sanctions are properly structured so we hit the proper pressure point that causes the change in the way that party's thinking or change in the direction they're going. so it is very much case by case in terms of what we can use it apply pressure to whatever government we are wanting to alter their course. >> right. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. i appreciate your comment on cuba and the multilateral sanctions issue. and i will say that you will

find on both side of the aisle strong divisions on the issue of cuba. people sitting next to each either and very different views. and seeking input as you move ahead and do this top to bottom review and having sat here the whole hearing i want it clarify i don't think that necessarily you have expressed an aversion to sanctions. i think what you may have expressed, if i heard correctly, is just insuring that when they are implemented, they are implemented in a way that's appropriate is that correct. >> correct. if we have sanctions, we need to be carefully crafted so they are effective. >> senator cane? >> thanks again, mr. tiller sop?

>> thanks again, mr. tiller sop? >> thanks again, mr. tiller sop. i want it stay in the americas. we add meetihad a meeting in my. we've been grappling on this committee and unaccompanied minors coming from the northern triangle and migration from mexico is now almost at an even zero point. but the instability in the northern triangle of violence drug trade weak civil institutions has created challenges. we have supported in a bipartisan investments in the northern triangle but make sure the investment are target had the rye way ight way to accompl objective and in creating tupt there so people don't have the need to flee. talking about that part of our foreign affairs portfolio and how would you approach those issues? >> senator, i appreciate you bringing us back because we have just talked about the hot spots but and i say that in all

seriousness because i don't think we should in any way downgrade the importance of western hemisphere and what is going on. not just in central america but south america as well. there are important relationships. there are not unimportant national security issues in this hemisphere also. but as to the immigration challenge, and i think you described it pretty well that what's happened over the last most recent times is a real shift in where these people coming across the border in an illegal fashion, where are they coming from? largely from mexico, south of mexico's border. i'm affair of the northern triangle project which is trying to strengthen law enforcement because a lot of people are motivated to run from high crime ridden areas and anti-narcotics

trafficking and helping strengthen the government institution answers providing safer environment for people down there and to the extent we can direct assistance programs and some economic development as well. some is simple infrastructure projects and some get back it how to use not just this special targeted effort and the funds that have been made available there, but also how we use other programs like the challenge cooperation to develop the capabilities of those to perform better. i do think, and i know you and i spoke about this in your office, that out of our true compassion for the people that are coming across the border, many of which are unaccompanied, minors, how to deal with that. and i know in response to that challenge, there's been well-intended action taken programs like daca, deferred

treatment of adjudication of these cases, all well intended. when those were translated back to the host country, the place the pept are leaving from, we know it gets misinterpreted. and even the leaders of those countries have spoken in public and indicated, that look, the wrong signals are sent down here as a result of this effort to be compass yalt and in fact incentivizing some because it is misunderstand to take eeb yaet greater risk to themselves, to their children, to try it make this journey across mexico. using illegal smugglers to get them to this country. so i think we just have to be very thoughtful about the signals we're sending. the messages we're sending -- signalling. and go back, as you say, go back and try to address some of the issues in the host country. also work with mexico, our

partner right next door. this is not -- this is a challenge for them. how to secure their southern porous border and deal with the transiting of their country to get to the land of the free and the home of the brave where everybody wants to be. i acknowledge the challenge we have before us. we're going to have to deal with the situation a that we have today. the reality of it. i think this is where the intent of the president-elect and while he does express it in a view of the wall, but what he is really expressing is we've got to get control of this border. we've got prevent and stop the flow with people coming across. and how do we do that? what policy answers how ies anxe those and the and once they come across the border they are part

of the homeland security responsibility p.m. wh what actions can we take to prevent the movement of the people in an illegal fashion? we want people to come legally. the history of the country is that people came here legally. >> mr. tillerson, thank you. i always encourage secretary of state it fly north/south and not just east/west. i think there are huge opportunity in the americas that we open to the take advantages of. there is some real opportunity. i assume you support the u.s. position that has been in place since the 1940s to do what we can, even if it heard, to promote two-state solution in israel and palestinian with the jewish state of israel and independent state of palestine living peacefully side by side. that's the dream we hope for that region, and i assume you support that. >> i don't think anyone would take a position that they don't hope for peace in that area.

>> and peace within the context of the two-state solution as was determined by the u.n. and the bipartisan poll sift out since the late 1940s. >> i think that is the dream that everyone is in pursuit of. whether it could ever be a reality remains to be seen. >> what do you think the right -- i think this is something that has frustrated all of us that there's been so little progress toward it in the last few years. what do you think from the secretary of state's position that you could do to try to hasten the day when we could find a path forward. people didn't think you could find a peace deal, but yet youngsters in ireland don't remember there was a problem. what might you bring to the table on that. >> i'm glad you put it in the context of hundreds of years. i think it is indicative of how conflicts like this take a long time and sometimes it takes another generation to have a change of view.

oftentimes we just have to try and make the situation as stable as possible and limit the impacts on people that are living there now. the palestinian people have suffered a lot under their own leadership in many cases as a result of there not be being more progress made. so i think it has to be a shared aspiration of all of us that that ultimately is resolved. the issues are long standing and i think it's the state department's role to try to create an environment that brings parties together to want to find a way forward. i can tell you under the conditions today, it's extremely challenging to do that, but that has to be the aspirational goal and to your example times it takes a different generation that's not carrying all that baggage of the past with them. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chair. >> absolutely. thank you.

>> mr. tillerson from the outset i want to thank you for the level of candor you've shown throughout this hearing. you've engaged on issues and answered questions. you've been adept at times and i want that from our nation's chief diplomat. the only request i would make is that they don't coach that out of you should your nomination move forward and you become our next secretary of state, which i suspect you will. so thank you for that. in your prepared statement you wrote, quote, defeating isis must be our foremost priority in the middle east, unquote. you also note later that defeat will not occur in the battlefield alone, we must win the war of ideas. i couldn't agree more. we have to war of ideas. we can kill every single ir

reconcilable who subscribes to this poisonous ideology of those who join isis do and yet we're still going to have a problem. the organization will reconstitute itself. so we really -- there's something deeper we need to tap into, a deeper tap root. in your prepared statement you indicate that if confirmed you will ensure the state department does its part here in this war of ideas. based on your presentation for this hearing, what is your assessment of the state department's current performance in the war of ideas and why don't you make your comments specific to our effort against the islamic state. >> senator, i'm not sure i could articulate what the current state department is doing on the war on ideas, other than the add va ka see condemning this type of brutality. i think -- i think your

observation that even if we defeat isis and it's caliphate in syria and iraq they will morph to something else and this is where we have to be truthful and realistic in our conversations with the american people. terrorism has been a part of the world for centuries. it is -- it is the nature of man, the unforcive nature of man, but what we have to do is limit it and suppress it to a level that it is no longer a threat to our national security or an eminent threat to americans or all other people in the world who value human life. >> so in a recent hearing before the senate armed services committee dni clapper indicated he believes the u.s. might establish the information association to fight this

information war and to advance our efforts to defeat radical extremists or terrorists, however one chooses to brand them. do you idea this would be a good idea? >> i think as i indicated in exchange with senator portman, we have to up our game in terms of how we engage in both the digital communication world, because that's where isis has been very effective, and other radical groups, al qaeda and others have been effective in using the digital communication space to spread their message. we've got to become more effective at encountering that message and countering that message, but i also take senator portman's observation that it's not all digital. there are other communication mechanisms that are effective broad base in terms of how do we communicate, particularly in those parts of the world that could be susceptible to these

messages. >> for the record, for the benefit of my colleagues and also for your benefit, i'll note that i'm just coming from the house of representatives and in my final two-year term i introduced legislation so that congress could assess whether or not the countering violent extremism initiative within the obama strafadministration is wo or not. i was prepared to be briefed in a classified setting, yet the administration came out fairly strongly against our efforts to exercise oversight. so my hope would be that i can work together in a bipartisan way in the next administration we will have the tools to assess whether or not we are improving and work with the administration to ensure that we are, in fact, killing the terrorists, countering violent extremism and making sure this effort doesn't

reconstitute itself moving forward. back to the prepared statement. you write that china has not been a reliable partner in using its influence to curb north korea. we've discussed this before, slightly different attack here. just an open ended question. why do you believe china has not done more? >> i'm aware under the most reseptembr recent version of the u.n. sanctions that have been ratcheted up with north korea whether it's a nuclear test or the test firing of a missile and i indicated earlier that china is 90% of north korea's trading, export and import trading. they really do have complete control over what sustains the government of north korea. a big part of that is the sale of coal across the boarder and the sanctions did speak to that sale and i think that's an area where we have to hold china accountable to comporting with the sanctions that were put in

place by the u.n. and just we have to call people out on it when we view they're not complying. >> so there might be -- there might be an opportunity to exploit there with respect to the reliance on an that site coal to ensure that the missile and nuclear programs comply with international law and our security interests? >> under the u.n. resolutions, north korea's already violated those on multiple occasions with both the nuclear tests, including the one most recently in september, as well as they're firing of tests. >> i'm going to interject. what would you suggest to the president of the united states that you suggest he do to wield more influence over north korea. >> in does involve a concerted response from our allies as well, japan, north korea to

strengthen our relationship or they can do to weaken our relationship with them. >> thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. tillerson, it's a long day. i want to come back to the issue of human rights because i do worry there are going to be a lot of human rights add volume cats, a lot of people who are hoping that the united states maintains its leadership role in maintaining and promoting human rights around the world who are going to be very worried about some of your testimony here today. asked about the 3,500 judicial killings in the philippines. you weren't ready to say you had enough evidence to call that a violation of human rights and

similar on saudi arabia and a similar answer with the war crimes per pet waited by the russians inside syria. i guess the simple question is this. if you're not ready to say today what's happening in the pi philippines is a human rights violation or the human rights in saudi arabia, or syria, can you give us a sense of what countries today you would consider to be violators haof human rights or how you make judgments about where the u.s. pursues vialers or don't because i think it will be a surprise to a lot of people in this hearing that you aren't ready today to call president duterte a violator of human rights or to call what's happening in saudi arabia a named violation of

human rights under international law. >> i think somewhere in your question was in fact the answer. i'm going to act on factual information. i'm not going to act on what people write about in the newspapers or even what people may brag they've done because people brag about things that they may or may not have done. i'm going to act on the facts and if confirmed i'm going to have access to a lot of information that i don't have access today. it's just my nature to not pre-judge events or pre-judge and make conclusions or conclude that someone has in fact violated this norm or in fact now meets the standard to be labeled this until i have seen those facts myself. that should in no way suggest that if those acts that you've described are backed up by the facts i would agree with your labeling and characterization. i'm just not willing to do that

on the record today because i've not seen that information. so please don't confuse that with my standards are no different than yours. >> but just -- let's take the pill peehilippines for example. i don't know that anyone would deny there are killings in the philippines. the president talks about it. what more information do you need before deeming the philippines to be a human rights vi violator. >> i'm sure the committee has seen a lot of evidence that i've not seen. i'm not disputing your conclusion. you're asking me to make a judgment on only what i'm being told. that's not how i make judgments. >> what information in that case would you need? who would you need to hear from? >> i would want to see the factual basis behind the statistics and the factual

connection as to who is committing those acts. >> we don't have -- a lot of times the factual evidence is reporting by objective ovbserve on the ground. i'm not sure you're going to get a videotape of a judicial killing so a lot of times the evidence is the objective reporting we get from sources on the ground inside a place like the philippines. >> i will rely on multiple sources to confirm what i am being told. that is -- you can blame it on me being an engineer. it's the engineer in me that i deal with facts and then i analyze and then i conclude. i'm sure there's a lot of creditable information out there that i simply haven't seen. >> this is a question that often gets asked of members of congress to judge their view of politics and conflict in the middle east. it's a pretty simple one. do you believe that the iraq

war, not the conduct of the war, but the war itself was a mistake? >> i think i indicated in response i believe it was to senator paul's question that i think our motives were commendable, but we did not achieve the objectives there. we did not achieve greater stability. we did not achieve improved national security for the united states of america. and those -- that's just the events have borne that out. at the time i held the same view, that i was concerned, just as i was concerned before the decisions were made to go into libya and change the leadership there. it's not that i endorse that leadership, but that leadership had the place somewhat stable with a lot of bad actors locked up in prison. now those bad actors are running around the world. so it's the question of -- it

isn't a question that our ultimate goal has to be to change that type of oppressive leadership. it has to be though that we know what is coming after or we have a high confidence that we can control what comes after or influence it and it will be better than what we just took out. >> in this case which motives are you referring to that were commendable? >> i think the concerns were that saddam hussein represented a significant threat to the stability in that part of the world and to the united states directly. so i understand that people had -- were looking at information that was available to them, information that's not available to me, at least at this point. so i'm making this -- i'm making this comment as a casual observer. >> one last question going back to russia. you've said in earlier answers that you wouldn't continue today to the continuation of sanctions

for the russians in the involvement of the u.s. presidential election, but could you commit to if you deem sanctions to be the appropriate policy that you would recommend and argue for a substitute response for the interference in u.s. elections? will you argue for a u.s. response if you don't believe that sanctions is appropriate. >> yes. it is troubling. if there's additional information that indicates the level of interference, it deserves a response. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. just to follow up, our embassies in countries have pretty massive capabilities that are well known. if in the philippines for instance our embassy assessed to

you with high confidence since you're not able to be on the ground and check things out yourself in a 75,000 person organization, and you're going to have to rely on people that as you did as an engineer and certainly as ceo of a company, if they assess that killings were taking place, that would probably be enough evidence for you that he was a human rights violator, would it not be? >> it probably would. >> i know this committee passed very strongly in a bipartisan way and appropriations a bill to end modern slavery to work in approximate ip wi partnership around the world because i've been in a place around the philippines where much of that is occurring, but do you plan to continue to support the effort that's been

authorized here and has been aproper rat aproper rated to end 27 million people in the world being enslaved at more than any time in the world's history? >> i think it is part of america's values that we must speak out sand not just speak out, but to take action to cause countries that are allowing this to go or facilitating it. i know this is a particularly passionate itself to you and human trafficking at large as well, be slavery and human trafficking has to be addressed and america has to lead in this particular area. >> thank you. thank you very much for your candor and your respect you've exhibited for the committee and your process. we're proud of your nomination and commend you to the senate.

i'm going to ask you one question. one of the important roles of the state department, i went back to the state department for some of the soft power and some of our soft power is the ability to solve problems that nobody else can solve. most recently ebola when the outbreak took place in west africa, the cdc created the mechanism to stop ebola. the money that was done to treat the initial patients from west africa was a special appropriations from the senate and house to create an emergency fund to deal with ebola. the state department referred a patient to the cdc to take care of and which they did. there were no funds available for that and to this date emery has not been reimbursed for that treatment. it seems to be a good time for us to look at the cdc which is

the heart of the solution and create an emergency fund reserve where we have an amount of money available to the cdc secretary that they can immediately go to to use for an emergency like ebola. i am going to work to try and establish that this year and hope as the secretary of state when you're confirmed you'll work with me to do that. >> i look forward to engaging with you on it. i think you're right, the cdc's response in the ebola outbreak was remarkably well managed. i would make an observation because at some point somebody has to pay for this and in examining how the world health organization did in these outbreaks, i think what it exposed was some deficiencies within the world health organization as well that they were not able to respond and that's where normally this was an outbreak that occurred in another part of the world, they should have been the first

responders to the scene, but as you pointed out the cdc and other u.s. assets had to be put in to address that. it's worth an examination of how that interfaces in these types of outbreaks, whether it's ebola or the zika virus how is that world health organization working with others as well. >> thank you very much for your time and congratulations your nomination. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. tillerson, do you agree with president elect trump when he said, quote, it wouldn't be a bad thing for us if japan, south korea, saudi arabia acquired nuclear weapons? >> senator, i don't think anyone advocates for more nuclear weapons on the planet. >> donald trump said it would

not be a bad thing. do you agree with that or disagree with that? >> i do not agree. >> you do not agree. would you commit to working vigorously to ensure that no additional country on the planet obtains a nuclear weapons capacity? >> senator, i think if confirmed, it a vital -- one of the vital roles of the state department working in the national security council has to be the pursuit of the nuclear nonproliferation. we cannot back away from our commitment to see a reduction in the number of these weapons on the planet. >> president elect trump recently said on twitter that in his view the united states must, quote, expand its nuclear capability when warned this could trigger an arms race, he replied let it be an arms race. do you agree with president elect trump that the united

states should welcome a nuclear arms race with russia or with china? would that be a good thing for the united states? >> senator, i think as we're pursuing nonproliferation and the enforcement of important agreements like new start, that we have to also approach those from a position of strength. i think in the context of some of the quotes that you're running through here, the president elect has also indicated a commitment to ensuring that the level of nuclear arms and capability that we are going to maintain under agreed treaties that those capabilities must be maintained and from time to time that means we have to renew them and bring them up to date and ensure they are capable, otherwise we now have an asymmetric arrangement with the people we're negotiating with. >> that's at odds with what he has been quoted publicly as saying so i think it's important for us to hear you take a

position that, in fact, negotiations towards reducing the nuclear threat rather than having a nuclear arms race is much better for our country and the global security. if you are confirmed, will you commit to protect the rights of all korea employees of the state department so that they retain their right to speak with congress? >> as pursuant to an open and effective dialogue with congress would encourage that issues are put on the table for discussion with the congress, yes. >> you just had i think a great conversation with senator isaacson about global health issues and one of our great achievements over the last couple of decades has been the establishment and investment in pepfar and u.s. leadership in

the global funds to fight aids, tb and ma lar rhea. millions of lives have been saved and infrastructure has been built in the developing worlds. could you discuss your view of those programs and your commitment to strengthening them in the years ahead? >> pepfar is one of the remarkable successes of the past decade or more, obviously begun under president bush. i think there are measurable results, very well managed and targeted at getting at those three diseases. i think it serves as a model to look at other ways in which to project america's values, project our compassion to want to solve these threats that are in other parts of the world that by and large were not threatened by a lot of this here in this

country. tb is well under control. aids, great treatment programs available to people. projecting that into other parts of the world is a marvelous way to send a message of the compassion of the american people that we care about people's lives all over the world. pepfar is a terrific model for the future as we think about other areas that may be useful for us to put additional programs in place. >> now, i'd like to move on to another global health issue as it impacts the united states. again, this is the opioid epidem epidemic. it's now been transformed into a fentanyl issue. in massachusetts this year, in new hampshire, 3/4 of the people who died in 2015 of opioid overdose died from fentanyl. if it was occurring at the same rate across the country as it

did in massachusetts in 2016, that would be 75,000 people a year dying from fentanyl overdoses. now, the way this is coming into america is pretty much the km chemicals come in from china. they go down to mexico and then they're trafficked into regions of the country. senator rubio has a similar problem in florida. we need to elevate this issue, mr. secretary, to a much higher level of importance in our country. the terrorists that's going to kill americans on the streets of our country are the terrorists who are selling fentanyl. it's the mexican and chinese operatives who are funneling this into our country. that is the terrorist fear in the hearts of americans. can you talk about how strong you intend on ensuring that the

state department takes in terms of actions to tell the chinese and the mexicans how serious we are about this threat, this exstenle threat to families across the country. >> if confirmed, this will require an interagency approach, both in terms of applying many of the tools that have been used in terror financing elsewhere to track the flow of money, attempt to disrupt on both ends of that because i think it's one thing we can send the chinese a message, but it's another to put in place the mechanisms, whether it's working with treasury and other parts of the process to disrupt the flow of these materials and these drugs as well. clearly we have a message to project to china, but i'm also clear eyed about china just suddenly saying okay, never

mind. >> a wall across our southern boarder will not keep the fentanyl out. it's going to take much tougherer action tougher action if we're going to save two vietnams a year from deaths. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your patience in staying with us. i had a couple of questions to follow up on things you've been asked already. a little earlier you were talking about the efficiency of pepfar and government can at times do things well and the american people know the government is full of fraud and waste and abuse. it went with the kind of debt we have as a nation to know that you're committed also to when you see it, to eliminating duplication and eliminating redundantsies and to try to reduce this incredible debt we have. >> it's in my nature to look for

inefi inefficien inefficiencies. it will state within the state department in terms of assessing the organization structure. i've looked at organization charts from a few years ago to charts today and i've noticed there are a few more boxes. some may be for good and valid reasons, but i also it appears to me that new issues which have been added may rightfully need to be placed back into the mission and integrated into the mission itself because it appears to me we've got some duplication, but it's not only about saving the american taxpayers' dollars and spending them wisely, it's also about the delivery on the issue. if we've got it disbursed in several places, we're probably not dealing with the issue very effectively either because there's lack of clarity as to how does this issue integrate into the missions obligations and what we're trying to achieve in the various missions of the

state department. i give you that as a simple example because it was so obvious to me when i began to look at the charts. i know there will be opportunities to streamline things with the objective primarily of being more effective in terms of how we carry out the state department's mission making sure people understand what they own, having clarity and line of sight to who is accountable and then out of that i think we're natural going to capture some efficiencies and cost savings. >> another topic was human rights and as we travel around the world we talk to leaders around the world who are concerned about security and economic growth in their nations and somewhat human rights, but perhaps not to the degree we would like to see that commitment. these are people that we have interests with in terms of our own global security. so as secretary of state, how do you balance engaging in these countries in terms of trying to

protect their security as well as the economic aspect as well as protecting and focusing on human rights. >> i take the view it's never an either/or choice we make. i think it's been said, our values are our interests and our interests are our values. so regardless of what we may be dealing with, our values are never not right sitting on our shoulder in full display on the table. i think the real question you're trying to get to is how do we advance those values, though, against other priorities at the time. i did -- again, just speaking in an honest assessment in my opening remarks acknowledge from time to time our national security may have to take the priority. it doesn't mean our values were deprioritized. it doesn't mean they're not right here on our shoulder with us. it's really i think what you're asking is how do we project those values to another country

in a negotiation in a way that they begin to move closer to our values. that is always there. it is never an either/or choice. >> then the last thing i wanted to get to was the issue of energy as a master resource in the way that putin uses it as a political weapon. one of the things we're seeing now is this nordstream two pipeline, the pipeline between germany and russia and the united states has been working with our european partners with respect to that. this is something we've had bipartisan support on looking across the aisle. several senators have signed a letter because of our concern with the ability of this pipeline to deliver more energy and make europe more dependant upon russia for energy. it also bipasses ukraine.

several european countries have raised the concerns that this pipeline would undermine sanctions on russia, increase russia's political leverage over eastern europe. could you give us your assessment of something of which there's actually a lot of bipartisan agreement on this panel. >> energy is vital to every economy the world over so it can be used as a powerful tool to influence, kind of tip the balance of the table in one party's direction or the other. so it is important that we are watching and paying attention to when this balance is upset. the greatest response to the united states can give to that threat and is the development of our own natural resources. the country's blessed with enormous natural resources of both oil and natural gas and i

know the congress took action here in the recent past to approve the export of crude oil and we now have exports of lickfied natural gas. we can provide optionality to countries so they cannot be held captive to a single source or to a dominant source. that's a physical response to that issue. i think from a policy standpoint, it's engaging with countries to make sure they understand they have choices and what those choices are. what can we do in foreign policy to help them gain access to multiple choices so they're not captive to one or a dominant source. >> thank you for your willingness to serve. >> senator booker. >> thank you.

this has been a very long process and you've showed a remarkable amount of poise and compose and endurance so thank you very much. i'd like to pick up on something that the senator was asking you about which is issues with our muslim allies around the globe and muslim countries. you've been resonating with my spirit. i'm pretty strong in talking about the muslim faith. when you said it, the great faith. it shows a level of respect and defer ens that i'm sure will serve you well as secretary of state if you should be confirmed. what i worry about is the rhetoric coming from the president elect and others. it really does undermine often our relationships with a lot of our allies. when i was traveling to the middle east and countries like jordan for example i was surprised that people at the highest levels of government were directly concerned about

the rhetoric coming from individual leaders in this country. the president elect has said that he would consider muslim-americans being required to register in a government database. you don't support a muslim registry do you for people coming into this country based on religion? >> senator, i think in response to that question i do not support targeting any particular group. if a registry of some sort that's broadly applied to any person entering the country that could pose a threat -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt you. let's use the national security entry/exit registration. i introduced legislation last week to eliminate that potentially and under the bush administration there were about 25 countries registered, all of them were muslim countries that were in that program except for

one, which was north korea. that was then the policy of the obama administration was to zero out that registry. is that something you would support? the mechanism is still there and how would that effect our ability to deal with countries that we're working so closely with such as jordan, which was my example? >> senator, i appreciate the question. i'm not familiar enough to be able to address it specifically. i'm happy to get back to you with an answer though. >> i appreciate that. how does it effect in your opinion our ability to work with muslim countries for example when people like general michael flynn has called islam a political ideology, not a religion, saying it's like cancer and writing that fear of muslims is rational, that can't be constructive to our foreign policy, to our diplomacy with key countries in southeast asia

and the middle east. >> my experience has been the best relationships in which you can make progress on tough issues is built on mutual respect of one another which then leads to hopefully mutual trust. just as we want to be trusted as whether we're christians or we practice the faith of judism or whatever our religious faith may be and in this country we have the freedom to practice that any way we want, we want to be respected for that as well, but that relationship has to be built on a mutual -- a mutual respect for each other and not a judgment about one's faith. >> sir, i'm really grateful, not that i'm surprised at all, but i'm grateful for you putting forth those very values. could you answer me this. what do you think it does to our enemy's ability to push forth more propaganda about the west

or insight more radicalism when you hear these evidently terrorist organizations, what do you think it does to their recruiting efforts when rhetoric like that comes from the highest levels of leadership in our country. >> i think that's radical islamic factions that we've been talking about whether it's isis or al qaeda, they have broad networks that they're putting in place and that's what we've got to disrupt. we've got to disrupt their ability to reach large numbers of people who could be persuaded and that's what i had spoken to earlier with new tools to advance that. >> clearly, sharing intelligence with another muslim majority nations, krcooperating with the and creating important relationships is important to encount encounter isil, but if you're insulting their faith probably does it make it more difficult to deal with your allies, but it

might insight more radicalism, correct? >> my expectation is we're going to be able to reengage with our traditional friends in the region, not just the middle east, but as you pointed out there are large muslim populations in the southeast, indonesia, malaysia, other important countries in that part of the world where we have serious issues of common interests as well. >> again, there's much about our conversation privately that i appreciate and your testimony that i appreciate as well. one thing we discussed was how important usaid is. i have real concerns having been around the globe seeing the powerful impact the usaid is making for a certain human dignity. i really worry that its bucket has been cut, the base international affairs budget, which includes funding to the state has been cut about 30% adjusted for inflation since

fiscal year 2010 despite the fact that across bipartisan administrations there has been an agreement to supporting usaid and the state department is a strategic perspective. i want to hope that you will be, especially i've read a lot about the way you ran your private business, but i hope a priority for yours is a more robust usaid program. is that something that i have -- could you give me a reason to hope? >> i hope what you're after is more effective programs with better use of the taxpayers dollars and to the extent we are good at that and we have even greater opportunity, then we should seek additional funding, but there will be a complete and comprehensive review of how effective we are with the dollars over there. usaid as i said is an important part of the projection of america's values around the world. we're going to have -- i think

there is a joint strategic plan that is required by the state department and usaid in fiscal year 2017. that's going to be a perfect opportunity for me and those who will be working with me, if i'm confirmed over at the state department, to take a comprehensive look at the effectiveness and what are our ranges of opportunities out there that might argue for greater funding. so i want to be effective with the program and make sure that as we are using the taxpayers dollars they're delivering a result that we're proud of. >> that's something i respect. i was a mayor. we know that spending more money on a problem doesn't necessarily mean you're dealing with it more effective, but if you do have effective based programs investing more resources is a human resource advantage.

sir, i'm going to use my last few second, i'm not sure if we'll have another round. we're not. >> if by agreement with others if i could, there's been i think a request to all members asking, i know there are some members that want to go another round and we're going to make that available. >> i've expressed my thoughts to my ranking member and i'll wait for his instruction, but i want you to know this is probably one of the more important positions on the planet earth, the one to which you're nominated for. it's not just about always -- it is obviously always looking for america's interests and strategic advantage, but also it's about american values, values of human rights and taking care of marginalized people and i expect you at some point you will be confirmed and i look forward to working with you to assert those values of human dignity and american interests abroad. thank you sir. >> if i might, before you call

on the next witness, there are some additional questions that have members have asked in second rounds and we're going to try to be able to give you the time, but it's possible if we cooperate we might be able to complete this hearing this evening and not go into tomorrow. that's what we're trying to do. obviously we have to complete it by 6:00 because we have business on the floor at 6:00. >> i saw the look of disappointment on mr. tillerson's face. as i understand it senator rubio will have additional questions. senator mendez has some. we may be here tomorrow, but we're going to try to finish this evening if everybody can cooperate, but again if that's not the case we're willing to come back tomorrow. >> i appreciate the chairman. he's been very open about that. we have some members that have not had their second rounds yet.

>> and now to senator portman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again, mr. tillerson, thanks for your willingness to be patient and answer the questions as you have with candor and appreciate your willingness to serve. one thing we didn't talk this morning in my questions is the middle east and i know you've had a lot of experience in the middle east, particularly you've done business in many of the arab countries. we talked about this in our meeting, but this relationship we have with israel is a special one. it's a corner stone of our strategy in the middle east and our greatest ally in the middle east and one true democracy. i want to talk about your views on the u.s./israel relationship. one important issue for me is this issue of boycott divestment and sanction movement, which is a global movement targeting

israel. i've been concerned about this for a while. i introduced some legislation on it. ben cardon and i have introduced and passed legislation in this regard to try to push back against the bds forces. recently of course with the consent of the obama administration the u.n. security council demand israel cease all activities in the occupied palestinian territories. i think this will galvanize additional bds activity. here is my question to you. would you make it a priority to counter boycott efforts and sanctions and make sure israel is not held to a double standard, but instead treated as a normal member of the international community? >> yes, i would. >> any preliminary thoughts as to how you would do that? >> well, i think by raising it in our interactions with

countries that do put in place provisions of boycott, whatever elements of activity or business with israel in their country that we begin by highlighting that we oppose that and just expressing that view and that those countries need to understand that it does shade our view of them as well as then. one of the things that would i think help change the dynamic obviously would be if there were a change in the dynamic regionally. today because of iran and the threat that iran poses, we know find that israel, the u.s. and the arab neighbors in the region all share the same enemy and this gives us an opportunity to find -- to discuss things that previously i think could not have been discussed. >> do you find more support among the sunni countries in the

region? >> i don't want to speak for them, but i think there's much more sharing going on between the leaders of those countries as they confront this singular threat to the region. >> we have trade negotiations to dismantling bds. do you support that legislation as we conduct trade support would you support those efforts in those countries? >> from the standpoint of the state department's view if i'm con fifrfirmed i would advocate that position. >> what attitude do you take toward the u.n. initiatives relating to the palestinian conflict? is it your intention to press the palestinians to resume negotiations with israel rather than seeking to negotiate through an international body

such as the u.n.? >> i think as i express in had in answers to a couple of other questions and i want to be brief, this issue has to be settled between the israelis and the palestinians. no one can be coerced into coming to the negotiating table. that will not lead to a solution so i support the parties being allowed to deal with this speaking for themselves. >> with regard to syria complicated obviously in my view it's been made worse by our inaction and specifically drawing red lines and not honoring them, but also not establishing safe zones and no fly zones and as you know russia's entry into syria's civil war has helped turn the tide decisively. as and occasion of how complicated it is over there an enemy of that would be isis. one of my questions for you is would you under any

circumstances advise any sort of cooperation withr iran where we might have a conflict of interest namely isis. >> that's an area that requires exploration. that's where we have to find a way to engage in the overall process or cease fire process that's been agreed by russia, turkey and syria and with iran's involvement as well. can we get engaged in that and stabilize the situation regarding rebel activity with the syrian government and turn our attention on isis. that remains to be seen and that will involve the engagement of others and input from others as well. >> do you think russia has an interest or desire to push back against isis. >> i think it has provided a convenient open door for russia to now establish a presence in had the middle east, a region it

has long been absent from. having said that, though, there are common threats that russia faces because of terrorists organizations, radical islam themselves. i've seen statistics that are significant -- significant fighters in isis are all speaking russian as a language. that indicates russia's got a problem as well in terms of where those people came from and where they may go back home to. so i think there's scope for discussion. this is what i alluded to earlier. we will have to see what russia's posture is. are they looking for a partnership with us where we can try to reestablish some type of a positive working work or are they uninterested in that. >> again an incredibly complex situation, but my sense is that russia has not followed through on its statements with regard to pushing back on isis in raur and in fact have focused on simply protecting assad's regime.

again, thank you for your willingness to step forward into some of these complicated situations. we are looking forward to the opportunity to working together with you going forward and i wish you the best of luck. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. i have ten articles i mentioned one or two earlier that i'd like to submit for the record related to exxon's involvement regarding sanctions and russia's activity in ukraine. >> without objection. >> thank you. i wanted to turn to climate, the environment and of course you've received many questions today and we talked about this some and i think it's a reflection of how important it is as we look down a few generations from now, people will say here was a major threat to the planet, what did you all do. and you noted earlier in your conversation with the chairman that our ability to correct the impacts of climate change are very limited, but i believe when

i met with you you indicated that but you also indicated that while we can't model with certainty that shouldn't bother people too much, the fact we have a risk and challenge we shouldn't let that go and my view has been it's a serious risk and we need to take steps to address it. is that a fair recounting of how you view it? >> yes, sir. i think what i said is the fact that we cannot predict with precision and certainly all the models that we discussed that day, none of them agree, doesn't mean we should do nothing. >> one of the things i've seen in my time here at the senate as we've gone to talking about models in the if you were to talking about what's happening on the ground right now, in my state the forests are burning to a faster rate and the oysters are having trouble reproducing because the ocean is 30% more asidic. the moose are dying because the

tics aren't killed off during the winter and they're transmitting disease and along the coast i think the accurately the lowest average land level in the country and very concerned about the advancing sea level and storms and experience that in hurricane sandy. we're seeing facts on the ground in our states. as we see that we're no one at the beginning of these impacts that they're getting worse each year, but we are also viewing climate change as a national security issue. since you believe -- so i wanted to ask do you see it as a national security issue? >> i don't see it as the eminent national security threat that perhaps others do. >> one of the things that's noted is how the changes climate in the middle east concentrated syrian villages into the towns and sparked the civil war that is now produced something like 4

million and counting refugees having profound impacts on european security and that would be an example. is that -- is that something you've looked at or considered to be real or perhaps misleading or any thoughts in that regard? >> the facts on the ground are indisputable in terms of what's happening with drought, disease, insect populations, all the things you cite. the science behind the clear connection is not con clusive and there are many reports out there that we are unable yet to connect specific events to climate change alone. >> what we're seeing are a lot of scientific reports that will say we can tell you the odds increa increased. we can't tell you any specific event was the direct consequence. for example hurricane sandy might have occurred, but the odds of it happening are higher

with the higher sea level and higher energy in the storms. do you agree with that viewpoint that the -- that essentially that the odds of dramatic events occurring, whether it's more forest fires or more hurricanes with more power is a rational observation from the scientific literature. >> there's some literature out there that suggests that. there's other literature that says it's inconclusive. >> one of the things -- i'm sorry to hear that viewpoint because it's overwhelmingly the scales are on one side of this argument and i hope you'll continue to look at the scientific literature and take it seriously. one of the things that you mentioned was it was impressive that so many countries came together in paris as a part of a global effort to take this on. that that was an important outcome, that there's a global conversation. i want to make sure i'm

capturing correctly your impression of paris. >> as i've stated before in my statements around climate change and responses to it, that it will require a global response in the countries that attempt to influence this by acting alone are probably only harming themselves. so the global approach was an important step and i think also as i indicated in response to a question earlier, i think it's important that the u.s. maintain a seat at the table so we can judge the level of commitment of the other 189 or so countries around the table and again adjust our own course accordingly. >> is this a case where really the american leadership and the world matters, we rarely see big efforts to take on big global problems unless america is driving the conversation. do you think it's important for america to drive this conversation? >> i think it's important to have a seat at the table, but i also think it's important that others need to step forward and

decide whether this is important to them or not. if america is the only one willing to lead, then my conclusion is the rest of the world doesn't think it's important. >> we saw the sanctions on iran it was america that led and we brought the rest of the world to the table and china is committed to producing as much electrical power as our production in the united states and we've seen india how to shift providing electricity to 300 million people that don't have or shifting from primarily a coal strategy to a renewable energy strategy. so we're seeing big countries with big populations that have smaller carbon footprints than the united states stepping up and shouldn't we step up as well. >> i think the united states has stepped up. as i indicated earlier i think the united states has a record over the last 20 years of which it can be quite proud. >> thank you. it sounds like that means you think we should keep being at a table, to be at a table you can

be silent, but an active participant in taking on this challenge. >> i think it's important we're engaged in that conversation so we have a clearer view of what others are doing and actions they'retaking. >> i thank you. i'm out of time. >> you are. if you would like to take 30 seconds. >> earlier -- thank you, i'll take those 30 seconds. earlier we talked about the exxon working with a subsidiary to bypass american sanctions and do business with iran. and you said you didn't have knowledge of it, hadn't heard about it. have you participated in any exxon meetings in which you strategize or the individual strategized to find a legal path to do business with nations on which we had sanctions. >> no. >> thank you. >> thank you. senator rich? >> mr. tillerson, in an answer you stated, and i was delighted to hear that, that you had

reservations occasionally when the united states acts about what was going to happen afterwards if a regime changed. let me tell you that that's a refreshing view up here. i sit on this committee, of course, i sit on the intelligence committee and we hear proposals all the time, and we hear of actions people want to take all the time. but they can't answer the question of, okay, what's going to happen next. and that is something i hope you will remain committed to while you're at this job, and when you're sitting at that table and those decisions are being made. i hope you'll insit that people tell you what's going to happen next. because we have been very, very short on strategy after being able to topple a regime. if we want to do it, with ecan do it. we've got the power to do it. but then what comes next. and everyone for a long time around here i heard, well, we're

going to donation building anding's going to be wonderful. it's going to be a new america when we're done with them. you know, the nation building was a great strategy in the world war ii era. and it worked. that strategy isn't working anymore. we've been notoriously unsuccessful in attempt iing to donation building. part of it is because there's a lot of reasons for it. obviously one of them is we're operating in countries where the culture is so much different than ours. very different from the landscape in world war ii and after world war ii. again, i want to encourage you to take that question to the table every time and say, okay, guys, i see what you've got planned. i think it's going to work. what happens next. because that is an incredibly important decision. when we decide what we're going to do.

let me shift gears here for a minute. i want to talk about the iran situation. as you know, there are a lot of us up here that were very much opposed to the deal that was cut by the current administration with iran. there's a lot of us up here who believe we're not done yet. this has set iran on a path towards having a nuclear weapon. now, it's going to be some time, i couldn't agree more it will be further down the road as a result of the deal, but it gives them, in my judgment, a legal path forward if they continue to could all the things they're required to do in the agreement and take it step by step and year by year. then the agreement expires and they say, all right, we're done. we did everything we said we would do, and now we're going to build a bomb. if people object, they'll say, wait a second, we did everything we said we were going to do. so that's not over. but what's more concerning is the more instant question, and

that is, a lot of us at this table, particularly on this side of the table, urged the administration in very clear terms, both in open hearing, and in closed hearings, to push the iranians to behave themselves, to change their conduct. not just -- not quit fiddling with enrichment and what have you. these people are the primary sponsor of -- the greatest sponsor of terrorist activity in the world. when they were talking about giving them however many billion dollars it was on palettes, we said, look, these people have been financing terrorist activities when they were broke. what do you think's going to happen when we make them rich? and they said, well, we don't want to do that because it will interfere with what we're talking about on the nuclear deal. to me, it wasn't worth the deal at all when they limited it just to that.

when it comes to the u.n. sanctions, the u.n. resolutions that have been passed, that said you've got to behave yourself. for instance, you can't launch missiles anymore. i mean, one week after the thing went into effect they were launching missiles. there are a lot of us here who want to reimpose sanctions, in fact ratchet sanctions up on their activities on terrorism, for their failure to obey the u.n. sanctions on missile activity, and the iranians say, no, you can't put any more sanctions on us. in fact, some people up here are ar dpug that, that that's not the case. the administration themselves said it didn't cover -- the agreement didn't cover those activities that was climtd to nuclear. do you have a view on that? because i think you're going to be dealing with that sooner rather than later. there are a lot of us who feel strongly about that. if we're going to change these people's attitude about joining the world stage with the rest of the civilized society, we're going to have to curtail their

activities, not just in the nuclear area, but the other things that are the despicable acts that they're doing. do you have any views on that? >> i may have commented earlier that one of the unfortunate effects of all the attention placed on the iran nuclear agreement, at least i've heard this expressed by others, resulted in a bit of a downfocus on the real immediate threat today and that's iran's continued sponsorship of terrorism and terrorist organizations there in the region, most particularly. supporting hezbollah and hamas. so i think we do have to keep what's important in front of us and what's imminent in front of us. as to the nuclear agreement itself, i do look forward to confirm to taking a comprehensive look at that and the side agreements to see what all the elements available to us to enforce, stay informed on their activities, and are they

complying with all the inspection requirements, and confirming that they're meeting the agreement. but back to your point of what happens next, in the case of taking certain regimes out. the same thing is true here with this agreement. it's what happens at the end of this agreement that's really the important question we've got to be asking ourselves. because the objective has not changed. iran cannot have a nuclear agreement. what happens at the end, as you point out, if they go right back to where they were and we've not achieved our objective. so my intention is to use the elements of this agreement that may be helpful to us in addressing the what comes next, when this agreement is over, or what replaces it. which has to be we once and for all have blocked iran's path to a nuclear weapon. they agreed they're no longer going to pursue one because we have no reason to, because we have mechanisms in place that are going to prevent them from

pursuing that. that ask -- that will be a difficult negotiation because it is in the context of nuclear terrorism around the world. we can't just turn a blind eye to that. it is a complicated discussion. but i think we do have to take that approach with them that we're not going to do a one-off deal with you, that this stuff over here is not happening. it has to be looked at in full view, and we just have to be honest and acknowledge it. >> that's exactly what happened. i'm encouraged to hear you say that. let me warn you about one thing. i sit on this committee, and i silt on the intelligence committee. and i have not seen the side agreements. nor has any member of the united states congress seen the side agreements. i traveled to the u.n. operations in vienna and met with the iaea. they will not let you see those side agreements. so these people were voting for -- the people who voted for

that iran agreement did so on an agreement that part of which we weren't able to see. so i wish you well. we've had one witness who said she was in the room where they had the side agreements, and they were passing them around and she touched them as she went by but did not read them. so she wasn't able to tell us either what was in the side agreements. i wish you well. if you get your hands on the side agreements, give me a call. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. tillerson, for your fortitude and patience. it bodes well for what i think are the riggers and demand as the services of secretary of state. since senator rich has taken us on a guided tour, i thought i would start by going back to an important point that you referenced in passing. i believe earlier today you said one of the failings of the deal is it does not deny iran the ability to purchase a nuclear weapon. my diligent staff has reminded

me that the nonproliferation treaty does prohibit the use of a nuclear weapon, but the jcoa which i have in provision 3 of the general provisions of the very front said iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons. my general approach to this agreement has been distrust and verify. i couldn't agree with you more that iran's ongoing activities in their ballistic missile program, their human rights violations, their support for terrorism in the region, make them one of the most dangerous regimes in the world and one that deserves very close scrutiny. but i didn't want to move forward without some clarity that at least the paper, at least the words on the page do say that they committed to not acquiring a nuclear weapon. i think that was one of the positives about it. in addition to the inspection protocols. >> if i could correct for the record, i misspoke. during the break i went and checked my source for that. and confirmed that i misspoke.

and that in fact their commitment to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, the language that was in there about what some people quibble over, that it was clear, and i misspoke over that. >> i appreciate your comment in response to questions from senator merkley and others about keeping a seat at the table during the paris agreement and the general approach that that suggests. i believe climate change is a major concern for us in the long-term and short-term, and that it's human caused and that there are actions we could and should take as a response to it. as a trained chemist, i respect your training as an engineer and would urge you to be attentive to the science because i think it's fairly overwhelming on this point. i think the jcpoa structure, the p5 plus one is enforcing it. and the paris climate agreement are two examples of tables where we should have a seat at the

table and be advocates, and be driving it. i want to ask you about one other table that was literally designed with a seat for the united states that still sits empty. there's been a number of questions and discussion today about south china sea. and about china's aggressive actions in building islands. the u.n. convention on the law of the sea. decades ago it was advanced by republican administration, but has still never been ratified by this senate. and in june of 2012, you signed a letter indicating in your role as ceo of exxonmobil that you supported the senate's ratificati ratification. i was a member of the committee when then chairman john kerry convened seven hearings where panel after panel of four-star admirals and generals leaders and business leaders and republican leaders in the administration and senators, all testified in support of this, yet we fell short of ratification.

had we ratified it, we would have that seat at table to aggressively assert the international law of the sea and to push back on china's actions. which during that debate were hypothetical. today are real. would you work to support the law of the sea convention if confirmed as secretary? >> well, i will certainly work with the president. we've not discussed that particular treaty. certainly my position i've taken in the past was one from the perspective of the role i had at that time. i do take note of it. and i do acknowledge the concerns people have about subjecting any of our activities to international courts. and that's the principle objection that people have. but when given the opportunity, if given the opportunity to discuss this in the interagency or the national security council, i'm sure we'll have a robust discussion about it. i don't know what the president's view is on it and i

wouldn't want to get out ahead of him. >> let me ask about that, if i might. because i came to this hearing with a whole list of questions. and in response to others you've addressed many of them. wherein in my view you have a notable difference of view from at least some of the concerns based on some campaign statements by the president-elect. no ban on muslims, in nuclear arms race, no nukes for japan, south korea or saudi arabia, no abandoning our nato allies, no deal with russia to accept the annexation of crimea, stay engaged potentially in both iran agreement and the paris climate treaty. all of these to me are quite encouraging. but they suggest some tension with statements made by the president-elect. how will you work through those differences? and just reassure me you will stand up to the president when you disagree on what is the right path forward in terms of

policy. >> i think early in the day, someone asked me a similar question. i said that one of the reasons that i came to the conclusion, among many, to say yes to president-elect trump when he asked me to do this is, in my conversations with him on the subjects we have discussed, he's been very open and inviting of hearing my views, and respectful of those views. i don't think, and in materials of discussing -- or perhaps characterizing it as my willingness to push back on him, my sense is that we're going to have all the views presented on the table. and everyone will be given the opportunity to express those. and make their case. and then the president will decide. and i'm not trying to dodge a question in any way, but this is one that i don't know where the president may be. nor do i know where some of the other agencies and departments will have input on this will be,

under the new administration. so i respect their rights to express their views also. and again, as you point out, i'm on the record having signed the letter from my prior position, which i was representing different interests. when i hear all the arguments for myself, i don't want to commit to you that my views might not change if i hear different arguments. because i was looking on it from a particular perspective. >> and a number of senators, myself included, have pressed you on making the transition from ceo of exxonmobil and its interests and a 41-year career there to representing america's interests. i understand the concerns about sovereignty that some raised in the hearings. having sat through the hearings and heard the testimony, i'm convinced that the interests in the united states are best advanced by our seating to that treaty and ratifying it. i have more questions but i'll wait for the next round. >> and we're beginning that round now. senator carden has deferred to senator menendez. and only those who really have

questions i think are going to be acknowledged at this time. however, if anybody who wishes to come down can do so. so it will be menendez, rubio, shaheen, carden -- cummings, carden. pardon me. sounds like a pretty cool third round and i'm glad everybody's interested. >> thank you. mr. tillerson, i admire your stamina. you've been through several rounds here. i hope you understand that my questions while they may seem tough in some respects, i take my role in advise and concept of any nominee really important. in your case you have a very unique background coming to this job. so trying to understand as the person who's going to be the chief adviser to the president-elect in the meeting that you just described when everybody gets around the table, but on foreign policy it's going to be you. so i try to get from the past a gleaning of it so i understand where you're going in the future. let me take a quick moment on cuba. you've heard things on cuba

here. i think it is rewarding of a regime when the only way you can do business in cuba is with castro's son or son-in-law. they had two monopolies that controlled tourism and everything, hotel and tourism related. and everything agriculture related which are the two main areas that people want to do business with in cuba. who are they? not only are they the son and son-in-law, but they are high ranking officials in the cuban military. when we allow business to take place with them and you can only do business with them, i wish you could do business with the average cuban and empower them and make the economic decisions that would free them in some respects, then you strengthen, what? they are high ranking officials of the cuban military. so you basically thumb the oppressive regime you're trying to get them to change in the human rights and democracy. when you do your bottoms-up review, that's another element i would like you to take into consideration.

let me ask you this. as you know, following up on senator rich's comments on iran, iran was designated as state sponsor of terrorism in 1984. following its connection to the 1983 bombings of u.s. marine personnel in lebanon. a horrific event. it killed 141 u.s. service personnel. that view on iran has unfortunately not changed. the state department in its annual report on global terrorist activities listed iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. the report indicated that iran provided a range of support, including financial training, equipment to terrorist groups around the world, including hezbollah. it has been brought to my attention that between 2003 and 2005, exxonmobil sold $53 million worth of chemicals and fuel additives to union yan customers. alarmingly, exxon did not disclose this position in iran

in the report with the s.e.c. in 2006. exxonmobil only disclosed this information to the s.e.c. after receiving a letter from the s.e.c. asking for explanations. the securities and exchange commission asked exxon to explain these dealings because iran at the time was, quote, subject to export controls imposed on iran as a result of the actions and support of terrorism, and in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and missile programs. it went on to say, we know that your form 10k does not contain in i disclosure about your operations in iran, syria and sudan. close quote. exxon's response has been transactions were legal because infin yum, the chemicals joint venture where shell was based in europe, transactions did not involve any u.s. employees. in other words, this would clearly seem as a move designed to do business with iran to evade sanctions on iran. so i have a few questions for

you to the extent that you're familiar with this. the customer at the end of that deal, whether you can ascertain that exxon was either knowingly or unknowingly potentially funding terrorism. one of the customers in this sales to iran was the iranian national oil company, which is wholly-owned by the iranian government. the treasury department of the united states has determined that that entity is an agent or affiliate of iran's islamic revolutionary guard core. the irgc is iran's main connection to its terrorist activities around the world, pledging allegiance to the ayatollah. the irgc are the ayatollah's army. they're currently in syria right now helping assad remain in power. can you tell the committee whether these business dealings with iran did not fund any state sponsored terrorism activities by iran? >> senator, as i indicated

earlier, i do not recall the details of the circumstances around what you just described. the question would have to go to exxonmobil for them to be able to answer that. >> you have no recollection of this as the ceo? >> i don't recall the details around it, no, sir. >> this would be a pretty big undertaking to try to circumvent u.s. sanctions by using what may or may not, i'm not ready to make that determination, a legal loophole to do so. but it would be pretty significant. it wouldn't come to your level that the securities and exchange commission raised questions with your company about lack of disclosure? >> that would have -- i'm just saying, i don't recall 2006 would have been the first year that i would have been looking at those things. i just don't recall this is all i'm saying. >> do you recall whether exxonmobil was doing business with three different state sponsors of terrorism, including

iran in the first place? >> no, i don't recall. again, i'd have to look back, refresh myself. >> i would hope you would do so. and i would be willing to hear your response for the record. because i think it's important. regardless of moving to a different vein, because it's all sanctions, i'm trying to understand that. this is an expression. regardless of whether or not you have read the bill that senator carden and i and others have sponsored in a bipartisan basis, do you believe that additional sanctions on russia in view of everything that has been ascertained is in fact appropriate? you may view some may be more useful than others, but do you believe any additional actions of sanctions on russia is appropriate for their actions? >> i would like to reserve my final judgment on that until i have been fully briefed on the most recent cyber events. i've not had that briefing. as i indicated, i like to be fully informed on decisions.

>> i appreciate that. i would just say that in the public forum, that you could reiterate -- or any citizen could read, it's definitive by the intelligence agencies of what they did. it just seems to me that while i know you're cautious and you want to deal with the facts, that's the essence of you being an engineer and a scientist, i respect that. there are some things in the public realm that some could deduce and make a decision. i would love to hear your response for that at least for the record as well. >> when i know there is additional information, and there are additional facts in the classified area, i would wait until i've seen all the facts. if i knew that there's nothing else to be learned, and this is all the facts and there's nothing else out there, then i would say i could make a determination, because this is all we know. but as i've been told, at least i'm aware there is a classified portion of this report that, when i have the opportunity, i look forward to examining that. and then i'll have all the information in front of me.

>> i have one final question, mr. chairman, but i'll wait for my next term. >> in order for efficacy to prevail, please go on. >> in light of efficacy, here's characterizing in essence my big question for you. my question about you. an article appeared in "time" magazine, and i really want to hear your honest response to this. i'm going to quote from the article. it says what the russians want from tillerson is bigger than sanctions related. they want to see a whole new approach to american diplomacy. one that stops putting principles ahead of profits. focusing instead on getting the best political bargain available. and treats russia as an equal. quote, for the next four years, we can forget about america as the bearer of values, said a former russian energy minister who west to join the opposition. america's going to play the deal game under trump.

and for putin, that's a very comfortable environment, he told the radio host this week in moscow. it's an environment which statesmen sit before him over the world and haggle over pieces available to them, much like putin, this is the article, not me, like putin and tillerson did like in the oil fields in texas. through the eyes of the political dealmaker, many of washington's oldest commitments in europe and the middle east could be seen much the same way as a stack of bargaining chips to be traded rather than principles to be upheld. i'd like to hear your -- that's not you being quoted but that's a characterization that was in one article, but beyond that, a characterization i've heard many times. so to me, that comes down to the core of everything i've tried to deduce in my line of questioning. >> i haven't seen the article in its entirety, but i'll just deal with the quotes that you read.

if you conclude that's the characterization of me, then i have really done a poor job today. because what i've hoped to do in today's exchange on the questions is to demonstrate to you that i'm a very open and transparent person. i do have strong values that are grounded in my american ideals and beliefs, the values i was raised with, and they're underpinned. i've spoken to the boy scouts this morning, duty to others and duty to yourself. that has guided my life for all of my life. it will guide my values and it will guide the way in which i will represent the american people if given the chance to do so. i understand full well the responsibilities and seriousness of it. i don't view this as a game in any way, as that article seems to imply. so i hope if i've done nothing else today, you at least know me better.

>> thank you. if there's no objection, there has been a response from exxonmobil that my staff gave me relative to the sudan-syria issue. with that, senator, rubio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. tillerson, for your patience. as you can see the finish line from here i think. we're almost there. i really just have four clarifications. i don't think they're going to take very long, just going back to some of the things. on the sanctions piece to build on what senator menendez just asked you, it was my recollection that your testimony earlier this morning about -- asked specifically about sanctions on those who conducted cyber attacks against the united states. not specifying russia in particular, just a bill saying anyone guilty of cyber attacks against our infrastructure would be subject to sanctions. and your answer, if i recall correctly, was that we would want to weigh other factors. that's why you wanted the flexibility and not the mandatory language because there may be other factors to take

into account because of our trade and economic relations with that country or actor before we chose whether or not to use a tool such as sanctions. in essence, even if you had information available to you, or will in the future, about specific actors, that alone may not be enough based on that testimony. there are other factors that you would want to take into account before making your recommendation to the president about whether or not to institute sanctions. is that a correct characterization? >> yes, it is. i think the way i would try to explain this, at least why i'm taking this position, sanctions are not a strategy. sanctions are a tactic. and if we are going to engage -- and i'll use russia in this case, but i could use any other country that these sanctions would apply to -- if we're going to engage in trying to address a broad array of serious issues, i'd like to have this as a tool, as a tactic. if it's already played, it's not available to me.

as a tactic in advancing those discussions, trying to come to some conclusion that best serves america's interests, and america's national security interests. it's a powerful tool. i'd like to be able to use it tactically. and if it's already been played, it's not available to me to use tactically. >> okay. the second is a clarification of the exchange you had with senator portman about an hour or so ago. he asked you whether there was any, basically any sort of cooperation with iran where we may have a confluence confronting isis to confront isis. you said that's an area requiring exploration. as i indicated that is a way to engage in the overall process. does that mean you would be open potentially to work with iran, such as defeating isis? >> defeating isis is the one that's right in front of us. we're already cooperating with them in iraq. >> sanctions against crimea

against senator portman's question, i believe your answer was, and i caught it on television, i had just stepped out at the tail end of the first round, i think your testimony was, along the lines of, we won't change anything right away, after we examine the situation, but embedded in that was the notion that potentially at some point there could be an arrangement in which the united states would recognize russia's annexation of crimea. is the government in kiev signed off on it or accepted it as part of a broader deal to ensure peace and stability. is that an accurate assessment of the testimony as i heard it? >> i think what i was trying to recognize is that since that was territory that belongs to ukraine, ukraine will have something to say about it in the context of a broader solution to some kind of a lasting agreement. i'm not saying that that's -- that that is on the table, i'm merely saying i don't think that's ours alone to decide. >> here's my last clarification. it's more about the hearing here

today in general. in the end of the last round, at the end of the questioning, you said there was some misunderstanding in alluding to human rights. you said we share the same values but that you are clear-eyed and realistic about it, end quote. i want to understand the purpose of the questions i've asked you today because they are in pursuit of clarity and realism. on the clarity front, i was pleased when your statement today used the term moral clarity. i think we've been missing that for the last eight years. that's why i asked you about whether vladimir putin was a war criminal, something you declined to label him as. i asked about china. whether they were one of the worst human rights violators in the world, which again, you didn't want to compare them to other countries. i asked about the killings in the philippines. i asked about saudi arabia being a human rights violator, which you also declined to label them. the reason was not because i was trying to get you involved in the international frame of name calling, but in order to have

moral clarity, we need clarity. we can't achieve moral clarity with rhetorical amambiguity. here's what's realistic. you said you didn't want to label them because it would somehow hurt our chances to influence them. but here's the reality, if confirmed by the senate and run the department of state, you'll have to label countries and individuals all the time. you expressed today support for labels and sanctions. you'll have to designate nations as sponsors of terrorism or nations as terror groups. again a label. one i think a lot of us care about is the trafficking of people. that one really concerns me. in that one, over the last year, there's evidence that the rankings and the tier system has been manipulated for political purposes. they upgraded cuba, upgraded malaysia, because we're working with them now to improve

relations and we didn't want to have a label out there that hurt the chances of doing that. that's why i think it's important. here's the last reason. you gave the need for a lot more information in order to comment on some of these. and believe me, i understand that it's a big world. these were not obscure areas. i can tell you that, number one, the questions i asked did not require access to any sort of special information that we have. all these sources were built on voluminous reporting, rights groups, leaders sometimes themselves when it comes to the philippines, state department, et cetera. and so we're not going off news reports alone. but the selling point for your nomination has been that while you don't have experience in government but in foreign policy you've traveled the world extensively. you have relationships all over the world. and you have a real understanding of these issues as a result of that. yet today i've been unable to get you to acknowledge that the attacks on aleppo were conducted

by russia, and in fact they are -- or would be considered under any standard human rights that somehow you're unaware of what's happening in the philippines, that you are not prepared to label what's happening in china and saudi arabia, a country that my understanding you're quite aware of. women have no rights in that country. that's well documented. anyone who has visited there would know. i want you to understand this, too. i said this to you when we met. i have no questions about your character. your patriotism. you don't need this job. you didn't campaign for this job. it sounds like a month and a half ago someone said you would be up here today, you would say, that's not true. there's only one reason for you to be sitting behind that table today is your love for this country and willingness to serve that. i do admire that. i do. i also told you when we met that the position you've been nominated to was, in my opinion, the second most important position in the u.s. government, with respect to the vice president. it is the face of this country. for billions of people. for hundreds of millions of

people as well. and particularly for people that are suffering and they're hurting. for those people, 1,400 people in jail in china, dissidents in cuba, the girls that want to drive and go to school, they look to the united states. they look to us. and often the secretary of state. and when they see the united states is not prepared to stand up and say, yes, vladimir putin is a war criminal, saudi arabia violates human rights, we deal with these countries because they have the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet. china is the second largest economy in the world because saudi arabia is a strategic partner what's happening in the middle east. it demoralizes these people all over the world, and it leads people to conclude this and it hurt us during the cold wear. america cares about democracy and freedom as long as it's not being violated by someone they can use for something else. we need a secretary of state that will fight for these principles. that's why i'm asking these questions.

because i believe it's that important for the future of the world that america lead now more than ever. so i thank you for your patience today. >> thank you, sir. senator shaheen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for giving us some additional time. i want to just comment on senator rubio's statement. and senator menendez's. because i think the concern that i have listening to your testimony today is that your eloquence about the values and principles of this country can't be denied, but many of those statements have been undercut by earlier statements by the president-elect. and so what i want to know is, which values are going to prevail. and are you deferring on answering some of these questions because of concerns about statements that the president-elect has made? so i won't make that as a rhetorical statement, i don't know that you need to respond to that. unless you would like to.

but i do think that's a concern that i have listening to the discussion today. i want to go back to nonproliferation. because it got short sh rirks, ft. the five most recent presidents have negotiated agreements with russia to ensure strategic stability to introduce nuclear stockpiles. i think you said this morning earlier that you do support the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty, which is the most recent of those agreements. but more broadly, do you support the long-standing bipartisan policy of engaging with russia, other nuclear arms states, to verifiably reduce nuclear stockpiles? >> yes, i do. >> thank you. and i want to go back to climate change, because i appreciate your recognition about the science, and your concern as an

engineer about wanting to have scientific evidence. i would argue that we have a lot of scientific evidence in new hampshire. we have a sustainability falt that produced a report in 2014 that reported the impact of climate change in new hampshire and in the new england region. i won't read all of those, but two i thought were most alarming is for the new england region as a whole, right now the majority of our winter precipitation is rain. it's not snow. that's having a huge economic impact in new hampshire and other parts of new england on our ski industry, on snowmobiling and sugar mapling industry. and by 2070 new hampshire will begin to look like north carolina. so there are tremendous economic implications of that as well as implications on everything from, you know, our wildlife, our moose, our trout, to our fauna

and lots of other things that affect the state. now, i do appreciate your comments about being at the table, as we continue to negotiate around climate change. in 2009, the government, along with other nations that are part of the group of 20, the g-20, agreed to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. i for one believe that the science shows that fossil fuels have contributed dramatically to climate change. and while much of the responsibility for this g-20 agreement falls on the treasury department, the state department also does have a role in overseeing the objective. so i really have a two-part question here with respect to subsidies for fossil fuels. the first is, at this time when many of our oil companies,

particularly large oil companies like exxon, are reaping very good profits, do we really need to continue these subsidies? and second, if confirmed, how would you as secretary of state help to fulfill our international commitment to phase out those fossil fuel subsidies? >> well, since it's a two-part question, obviously the first part, i'm happy to offer a personal view on, even though it's not within the state department's role to make that judgment. this comes from my understanding of how the various tax elements, the tax code treat certain investments, certain research credits, and whatnot. and i'm not aware of anything the fossil fuel industry gets that i would characterize as a subsidy. rather it's simply the application of the tax code broadly, tax code that broadly

applies to all industry. and it's just the way the tax code applies to this particular industry. so i'm not sure what subsidies we're speaking of, other than if you want to eliminate whole sections of the tax code that won't apply to any other industries as well. i just say that as kind of a broad observations. so as to the state department's role then, in participating in summits, or discussions around others taking similar action, it would be with that view. in terms of how we're going to apply things at home. because i think that the president-elect's made clear in his views, that his whole objective of his campaign in putting america first, that he is not going to support anything that would put u.s. industry in any particular sector, at a disadvantage to its competitors outside of the u.s., whether

it's automobile manufacturing, or steel making, or the only gas industry. so it would depend on how the domestic part of that, and how that decision's made by others, would then foam the positions that i would be carrying forward in the state department. >> well, so, then, i know you said earlier that you don't want to talk about tax reform, which i appreciate. but if we assume that the way the tax code is written, it provides additional subsidies, and i would argue that they are subsidies, to oil companies and the fossil fuel industry, should we, if we're going to comply with the 2009 agreement with the g-20, should we then think about as we're looking at tax reform and rewriting the tax code, that we change that aspect of the tax code in order to deal with our

commitment to phase out those subsidies? >> i would really have to defer to treasury and others who will undertake that exercise, as well as the other agencies that will inform the state department's view of how that compares to what others are doing to live up to their commitment to phase out, quote, subsidies as well. so it's hard for me to make a judgment on whether i think we should do this, until i know what other -- what's the parallel in the agreement that other countries are going to do as well. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator carden? >> first let me start off again by thanking senator corker for the time that's been allowed. i think senator kunz has a question or two, if we could yield perhaps -- >> absolutely. senator kunz? >> if i might, mr. tillerson, we spoke in my office about

counterbalance in extremism in fragile states. a number of other senators have asked questions about turkey, egypt and the philippines. but there are many others we could be focusing on, that have been partners of ours or allies of ours and they have turned away from the democratic norms and cracked down on civil society and human rights. you talked with me and you've also said here that in some instances, we have to set aside for the moment human rights, civil liberties, democracy as our number one goal, when our national security is at risk. and i just wanted to ask you about to what extent you think the actions to curtail human rights and impress freedoms by some governments actually fuel instability or strengthen terrorist threats. we talked in particular about nigeria. or places where human rights violations might increase the risk of instability. and what strategy you would follow to prevent partners like turkey, egypt, the philippines

and others from sliding further away from sharing some of our core values in terms of democracy and human rights. >> well, i certainly would take no exception to what you've posed, that to the extent human rights either deteriorate, oppression increases, or to the extent it exists, and it's not addressed, it foments within the population, there's no question about it. and that over time, you know, it's going to take its effect in terms of the stability of the country. so i think, as i've talked about these competing priorities, and i made it clear earlier that these most precious of human values that we advocate for are never absent. they're never absent. and they really are only going to be trumped, so to speak, when there are serious national security concerns. if we are engaged with a, quote,

partner today, that's what i talked about, sometimes people are partners, sometimes they're adversaries, sometimes they're friends, but if we're engaged in an area where this relationship, and what we are pursuing is in the national security interest, the values stay with us. but we may have to -- we may not be able to assert those values at this time. it doesn't mean they're gone. it doesn't mean we don't talk about them. it doesn't mean we dismiss them. it may not be in our interest to condition our national security pursuits on a country, making certain commitments around oppression and human rights. but these are the most difficult of choices. they're the most difficult choices. but we have to keep -- we need to be very clear about what the objective is. >> thank you. i have a few more questions i'll

try to move through them quickly. i believe the lgbtq rights are human rights. in a number of meetings with african heads of state, i've advocated for them to push back on actions where they have engaged in preventing people from meeting, from advocating, where they've been physically abused or tortured. i'll never forget a meeting in my office in delaware with a woman from zimbabwe who was given asylum in the united states after being tortured in zimbabwe because of who she loved. do you believe gay rights or human rights and is that a piece of our human rights advocacy agenda around the world? >> the american values don't accommodate violence or discrimination against anyone. that's part of that american values that we project. >> could i press you for more specific questions, sir? i was encouraged by your tough

leadership moment at the boy scots. i simply wanted to reassert that in my work around the world, although not always easy or comfortable, i think it's important that we include respect for the whole range of people's relations in our menu of how we define human rights. let me ask you about support for foreign assistance. others have asked about it before. both condoleezza rice and bob gates, former leaders who spoken in support of you, say diplomacy and development have to be equal to defense. our total budget, about 50% is dod and about 1% state department. are you going to press in partnership with those of us in congress who are committed to making foreign aid transparent, accountable and efficient, to sustain our investments in development and diplomacy? >> i think to quote general jim

mattis, i think he said that if the state department doesn't get the money it needs, then i have to buy more ammunition. so i think clearly, the recognition of the importance of ensuring the resources are available to advance our foreign policy and diplomacy goals are important and elevated to a level that even by the nominee of the secretary of defense is recognized. >> there are at least i think six noncareer ambassadors who have reached out to you for some consideration. in ally countries, not partner countries. all why i countries. and because some of their visa rules, they can't stay on as private citizens more than a few months. and they were hoping to be able to stay through the end of the school year, in accommodation for their family concerns. i hope you'll take that seriously. in previous transitions, even with a difference in party registration, noncareer

ambassadors have been considered on a case-by-case basis for some clemency for family reasons to stay through the end of the school year. i hope you'll seriously consider that. >> i'm aware certain people have petitioned for review. and i think there's a process that's under way while i've been preparing for these hearings, i've not been directly engaged in it. >> i appreciate your attention to these hearings but i would be grateful for any consideration. my last question. there's a whole string of presidential legacies around development and foreign assistance. the millennium challenge corporation which i think have been terrific initiatives of the bush administration feed the future power of africa and the global health initiatives in the obama administration. part of what has built a good agenda for us around the world, the developing world, is that the best ideas of previous administrations have been sustained. are you familiar with the young

african leadership initiative which brings some of the most promising young africans to the united states for a summer to meet with civil society leaders, business leaders, elected leaders around the country, are you familiar with power africa, i believe you are, it's been discussed before, and with the global health security initiative, and are these the sorts of things you'll seriously consider sustaining in the future? >> i think all of those have proven to be extremely valuable programs, successful programs. we can look at the successful programs, understand why they're successful and how can they be replicated in other areas, perhaps addressing either other geographic areas or addressing other issues that we want to advance. >> mr. tillerson, thank you for your testimony in front of the committee today. i appreciate the opportunity to hear your views. and look forward to the opportunity to continue our work together. >> thank you. if i could, since he has been very busy, and getting ready for this hearing, we spent some time

talking to the transition team about some of the ambassadors and others that have hardship. i know there's been something set up where they can in fact petition even before he comes into office. so hopefully some of that is being accommodated. i want to thank you and senator mccain and others for bringing this to my attention. senator markley? >> thank you, mr. chairman, very much. president-elect trump has argued that the united states should again waterboard suspected terrorists. yesterday senator sessions said that that would be illegal. and general mattis has said that it would be ineffective. will you advise, mr. tillerson, president-elect trump that torture in any form is illegal, immoral, and ineffective? >> well, i think others have opined on that sufficiently and i wouldn't disagree with what they said. >> you agree with what they said? >> i would agree with what they've said. >> i think that's important. thank you. now, last year, in the world,

one-half of all new electricity, which was installed, was renewables. one-half. all new electricity in the world. and china has announced that it is now going to invest $360 billion in renewable energy in its country. the global climate agreement that was reached in paris is driving much of this investment. but if the united states does not take advantage of this global market, which is going to open up, it's going to mean that we're going to lose jobs here in the united states. we now have 300,000 people in the wind and solar industry in the united states and only 65,000 coal miners who are left. so this sector is growing and growing. and the chinese clearly want to get the lion's share of it.

can you talk a little bit about how you see this renewable energy revolution as a job creating engine for the united states, and as a way of dealing with the commitments which the united states has made in paris to the reduction of its greenhouse gases? >> well, i think this is largely a trade issue, one of america's manufacturing investments and competitiveness. and i think to the extent we can let free market forces work, then i would expect american companies to be competitive in participating in this growing market. but this will be subject to trade agreements perhaps, or just subject to a continuation of free and open trade to be a supplier to these countries that are installing the significant capacity of -- there's

significant capacity already installed in the u.s. but as you point out, there's a growing market out there as a result of this agreement. so i think it's really a question for the u.s. private sector, working with the administration, and the commerce department, and others, as to ensuring there's no trade obstacles to their ability to participate should they choose to do so. >> you were quoted a few years ago as saying, quote, energy made in america is not as important as energy simply made, wherever it is most economic. in the world. from this committee's perspective, we look at the foreign policy of the united states, and we feel a great responsibility for the young men and women who we export over to the middle east to defend our country. and these ships of oil that keep coming back into the united states. and we're still importing 5

million barrels of oil a day. meaning that we don't have it here, but we continue to import it. could you talk about this view that you have, that an american-made barrel of oil is no different than a barrel of oil made overseas? because from our perspective, the issue of importation of oil ties us into policies and to regions, to countries, that we would otherwise would never really have to give weight of importance to that we now do, just because of the fact that they have oil. >> well, i think the context in which that statement was made, because i made it often at the time, was that anything that puts more supply into the global market means the global market is less dependent on any single source. a greater diversity of supply, and i think it was probably made

in the context of promoting america fully developing our own natural resources, and america being willing to put its supply into the global market as well. so it was just an observation to the extent you have more supply from more sources. you have a more stable market, less reliance on any particular part of the world. >> i understand that from an exxonmobil corporate perspective, that a barrel of oil is a barrel of oil wherever it is produced in the world, and it's flooding out onto the market. but on the other hand, we have this issue of the impact which importation of oil has on the united states. so would you agree that it is in america's best interests that we reduce consumption of foreign oil, so that we are not dependent upon that extra barrel of oil wherever it's being produced in the world? >> senator, my -- you're getting into areas that are the purview

of other agencies. but i'd just make the observation that anything we did to prohibit the availability of supplies to the united states would in all likelihood put the u.s. at a competitive disadvantage. >> well, i don't think it's outside of the pursue of the state department, because where we import oil from, the countries, saudi arabia, other countries in the middle east, northern africa, that we import oil from, that then implicates our foreign policy, your attitude, or whoever is the secretary of state's attitude to that country. so it goes to the question of, should we reduce the demand for oil so that it increases the leverage of a secretary of state when they're talking to the leaders of this country, because we're telling them we don't need their oil. in order to run our own country. >> i would not agree with that conclusion.

>> well, how would you describe our need to import oil and allowing that country to have that as one of the discussion points as you're sitting there with them? >> it's back to where you started the of oil is loaded on the tanker, a barrel of oil is a barrel of oil. the end consumer doesn't really care where that barrel of oil came from because it's going to be priced in a global market. as long as they have free access to the barrels and they have the ability to shop around for barrels, that is what's most supportive of their economic activity. >> we're not just talking about economic activity any longer, mr. tillerson. we are now talking about the impact which that barrel of oil coming in from saudi arabia, coming in from another country, has upon the leverage they have over any discussion that the united states is having with that country about other issues and it's on the table even as

we're asking them to give us help in other issue areas. so i'm not just talking about what the global price of oil may be. i'm also talking about where that barrel of oil comes from and the less it comes from a country that we don't want to allow them to use oil as a leverage point is the more leverage the secretary of state or president will have in telling them we don't need you, we don't need your oil to run our country. we are energy independent. so do you think that energy independence again should be our goal and that the five million barrels of oil we are still importing should be something we trying to keep out of our country's economic system? >> no, i have never supported energy independence. i have supported energy security. i guess to go to your concerns, our largest supplier of imported oil is canada. >> i appreciate that. >> i don't know whether we feel hostage to them or not. >> well, i appreciate that, but

i also appreciate the fact that we are still importing from saudi arabia and other countries in the middle east and i do feel that that's unnecessary if we could develop our capacity within our own country to be able to develop oil. so canada is one thing. saudi arabia's another thing all together. i just don't think that a barrel of oil is a barrel of oil. i think it has real consequences when it's coming from a country that has itself a strategic vulnerability that can be bolstered by the fact that we need or other countries need their oil. thank you. >> thank you. in regard to north korea, we have had a lot of concerns about their long-term expansion of their missile program and missiles gaining more and more range. should america put down a line in terms of them testing very

long range missiles and if north korea violates that line, what should the u.s. do? >> well, i think the u.n. resolutions have already put down some pretty hard lines and north korea has continued to violate those, both in terms of conducting nuclear tests as well as conducting the launch of delivery systems as well. we really are already past that point. >> meaning -- well, my question was not in the context of the u.n. but in the context of whether the u.s. should lay down a line and respond if it's crossed, because our security is more and more endangered as the range gets longer. i take your answer to be one way of saying no, there's probably nothing we can do? >> no. you shouldn't take my answer in that regard at all. we need to work closely with our allies in the area, japan, south korea in particular, because anything we do will have -- will certainly have a profound impact

on them. anything that we might consider and what all of our alternatives might be will require careful conversation at the national security council in terms of our capabilities which we certainly have the capabilities to bring a missile test down but how and what might be the consequences of that would require careful thought. i'm not rejecting that as an option. i'm just not prepared to sign up for it today. >> fair enough. let me turn to saudi arabia. saudi arabia has been utilizing cluster munitions in yemen. much of the world has said these are terrible weapons to use because they have a range of fuses and they can often go off months or years after they have been laid down. these are the cluster bombs, you're familiar with them. they have also been targeting civilians. how should the u.s. respond to

those actions? >> well, i would hope we could work with saudi arabia perhaps by providing them better targeting intelligence, better targeting capability to avoid mistakenly identifying targets where civilians are impacted so that's an area where i would hope that cooperation with them could minimize this type of collateral damage. >> how about on the cluster munitions side? >> could you ask the question -- >> how about in regard to the use of cluster munitions? >> well, i would have to examine what our past policy has been. i don't want to get out ahead of -- we have made commitments in this area. i don't want to get out ahead of anyone on that. >> i do think this is a little bit of an example that my colleague from massachusetts was pointing to, because we have often been reluctant to put as much pressure on states that we are dependent upon for oil and in situations with states where

we're not dependent on oil so this is sometimes referred to as shadow cost. some of the studies have been done in think tanks place a shadow cost on gasoline of imported oil because of the type of national security apparatus we need to make sure we sustain access, secure supply, to quote your words, of $5 to $10 a gallon. i think that's where senator markey was driving that there is a distinction between an imported gallon and domesticadoy produced gallon. i don't need you to respond to that. i wanted to amplify his point that for many of us there is a significant difference between an imported and domestic gallon. i wanted to turn to equatorial guinea. senator brought this up earlier today about the corruption of the leadership of that particular country. the president for life has become exceedingly rich and part

of the way he's become exceedingly rich is the payments that exxon has made have gone to his family's accounts rather than going to the national treasury. what are your thoughts on why exxon participated in that, which continue in time that you were in the leadership of the company? >> senator, i'm familiar with the circumstance you're talking about. that was the subject of an investigation by the judiciary committee. there were no findings that exxon had committed any wrong or broken any laws. at the end of that investigation. in terms of the payments that exxonmobil would make in any arrangement, contract in any country, would be no different than they were made with domestic producers here in the u.s. that are operating on

federal lands. there's royalty and there's taxes paid to the treasury. what the government does with those moneys once the company pays those is up to the government. obviously the u.s. government distributes those funds responsibly. some countries i understand do not. in exxonmobil's engagement in countries like this, though, i do think that on the whole, there are positive benefits to the people in the country in terms of job creation that occurs because of the activity, employment that occurs because of the activity and i'm not in any way suggesting that that mitigates the corruption in the country, but that it is not without benefit and it is not without having american values on the ground in those countries as well. so this is true not just of the extractive industries portion or sector but it's true of any american business that may be

engaging in business activities in countries which have very poor governance structures at the top. >> you mentioned that royalties and taxes should go to the government but in this case, exxon made the payments to a private account controlled by the president. do you see anything wrong with that? >> i would have to -- i would have to review for my memory the circumstance you're talking about. my recollection is that that account was designated as the government's account and i think when it was discovered that the account either may or may not have been a valid account, it was closed. >> there are also a number of contracts that exxon did with companies controlled by the family members of the president. this included building leases and land leases and a number of series of other contracts. the net effect of which was transferring a lot of wealth to a president for life, someone who has no interest in

democratic principles. the state department has reported on this for many many years. each year doing this report on equatorial guinea. 2003 states there's little evidence the government yod the country's oil wealth for the public good. the oil wealth is concentrated in the hands of the top government officials while the majority of the population remained poor. the state department actually cut their foreign economic assistance to the country because much the massive corruption and control by this family, and it ties in earlier, one of my colleagues mentioned a situation where i believe a whole series of very expensive sports cars were being loaded on to a plane to be flown into equatorial guinea but those weren't being paid for by u.s. foreign assistance. those were being paid for by

diverted oil royalties and i think it does raise not just a legal question and you have noted that no legal violation was found, but it certainly raises a moral question about how one engages a country and increases the power of leaders who are doing nothing to elevate the quality of life of their citizens. do you share any of that perspective? >> senator, again, my recollection is in all the examples you mentioned, they were investigated. there were no violations of law. during my time at exxonmobil, exxonmobil took at that time and i expect still do, very seriously the foreign corrupt practices act and has in place processes to ensure that the corporation and all of its employees remained in full compliance, that any suspected violations were always fully investigated and if anything was found, the process would have

dictated a full investigation, a resolution and if required, a self-reporting process. so i think the corporation had very strong procedures in place to ensure compliance and i think the examples you're giving, while i understand the concern you're expressing, indicated that the process to ensure there was no violation of foreign corrupt practices act, did perform and did withstand that investigation. >> so i'm going to conclude with just a thought about this. in the course of this conversation, you have given -- you spent the whole day answering our questions and i appreciate that very much and with my colleagues, i appreciate your willingness to serve. the process of vetting in the senate is a challenging one and you have appeared with dignity. i do have remaining concerns on some of the conversation from

today. when senator shaheen raised the question of the national registry for muslims you noted that you needed more information. to me, i'm somewhat disturbed, because we are a nation founded on religious freedom and there is a clarity -- can i complete my sentence? my statement? >> i hope it's not paragraphs. >> it's not a paragraph, no. and when senator rubio asked about the president of the philippines slaughtering thousands of people, you said you needed more information. to me, there's a moral dimension to that. when i raised the issue of bypassing u.s. sanctions and helping iran, there's a moral dimension to that. on this issue of strengthening a dictator for life, there is moral dimension to that. and you came to my office and said the first thing you said was i want moral clarity to be a foundation for u.s. policy. i agree with that. i'm not sure we are hearing it in these particular instances.

>> thank you. >> senator cardin? >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, i would like to ask consent to put in the record statement from publish what you pay. >> without objection. >> if i could, just to follow up very quickly on a couple points. i'm not going to be asking any questions. in regards to the issues of transparency and anti-corruption, i want to comment on the conversations we had in the office. i really appreciate the conversations we had. we talked about, mr. chairman, the trafficking of persons report and the commitment to end modern day slavery and how effective it was to have directed goals so countries knew how they could make advancements so there was a clear path forward. i have suggested as you know legislation that would do that for fighting corruption and i look forward if you're confirmed, mr. tillerson, to working with you as to how we can advance a more effective way to judge how the international community can judge progress in fighting corruption because every country has the problem

but as you pointed out, many times during this hearing, there are countries that are very challenged and you look for certain standards as you did as a businessperson to do business in a country, and the united states should lead the world in developing those standards on corruption. so i look forward to working with you on that eesh. we also talked about transparency in the extractive industries. i appreciate your candor there as to the usefulness for that to make sure resources get to the people rather than the corrupt leaders. i thank you on both points. one quick comment about the role of congress. we talked about this many times. you are pretty strong about the role to confirm, ratify treaties, you talked very firmly about complying with our laws in regards to cuba and you then talked very firmly about having enforceable sanctions. i would just point out when we do mandatory sanctions or sanctions with tight waiver language it makes it much more likely we will have strong

enforcement. i just point that out and hope we can work together on that. i also want to just acknowledge another role that i play, i'm the ranking democrat on the hill, roger wicker, senator wicker is the chairman of a commission that deals not just with human rights but is known for human rights, it also deals with security and economic issues. we look forward to working with you if you are confirmed at the state department to advance the congressional role in dealing with the osce through the helsinki commission. we will be asking you some additional questions for the record. i have not had a chance to ask questions on refugees and there are some others i will ask. senator gardner and i will ask you questions in regards to burma. we have some serious issues about the human rights progress being made in burma. but we will ask those questions for the record. i want to thank you for being

responsive to our questions today and thank you for being willing to put up with such a long day. i was commenting to senator corker about an hour ago, we passed the new limits on the overtime rules that were adopted by the department of labor so i think we are all entitled to extra pay for tlehe length of t day's hearings. thank you for your attention. >> senator cardin, i want to thank you for working in a post-election environment to make sure that this hearing came off in the way that it did today. i want to thank all the committee members for the way that they conducted themselves, as they always do, and the fact that we stayed at a i believe a very high level. i want to thank the nominee for being here today and i would like to make an observation. i have been here ten years, i don't know how many hearings that i have been to, briefings, people in my office. we take in a tremendous amount

of information here. it's very hard to replicate that. back home when i'm talking to people, i discuss the fact that being a united states senator is much like getting a ph.d. almost on a daily basis, just because of the information flow that we have, the access to intelligence, the access to brilliant staffers who are constantly e-mailing us 24/7 with updates. i just would like to say that we have a man who has come in from the private sector, he spent i think he was notified he was selected less than a month ago for this job and i know there's been some comments about clarity. as i mentioned, i have been here ten years. i have seen secretaries of state who come before our committee who have been around for 30

years. when they take questions, they have booklets open and paragraphs written to answer those questions. i think if you look at what's happened today, i don't think there have been any notes referred to and so to some of my friends on both sides of the aisle that may talk about clarity, which i respect and i actually think almost every senator here did an outstanding job today, but hopefully we will take into account that we have a person who has been wafted in, if you will, from a totally different world, has arrived, has been through briefings, has been through murder boards, has done all of -- met with every single member of the committee, and sat here today excepting a 45 minute break for nine hours and answered questions without any notes. i'm going to leave the record

open until the close of business tomorrow for people that continue to ask questions. i know that mr. tillerson had planned to be here tomorrow in front of us, all day if necessary, and i would just urge those who may have had questions about clarity to remember something and then maybe do something. senators develop pretty strong opinions. sometimes we express those opinions in a very crisp, direct, strong manner just to break through the clutter that we have to deal with to make a point, and we have had years, again, years of input and so we develop really strong opinions about what's happening in china as it relates to human rights, what putin may be doing. many of us have been to refugee camps, we have seen photos of what's happened in prison camps

and when assad has done to his own people. so it evokes a clarity of how we feel about what has happened on the ground. a nominee coming in, on the other hand, wants to make sure that he's not getting out over his skis, he's working for a president that he donesn't know that well yet, he's trying to accommodate the fact that in fact, he's going to be working in an interagency situation to come to conclusions. so i just hope that those things will be taken into account if there are questions about clarity. mr. tillerson is an eagle scout, a person who has lived an exemplary life, been at the same company for 41 1/2 years and again, i think has handled himself in a very good manner. so the thing i would ask is if there are questions about that

clarity, contact us, contact the transition team, give him an opportunity to sit down in front of people and discuss these things, especially in person where the media is not there and every single question is going to be obviously written about in multiple ways and let's really think about this. this is a very important decision. we have a president-elect who is coming into office also without a great deal of background and for him to have some -- in foreign policy and for him to have someone who he has confidence in and who has demonstrated that he's very much in the mainstream of foreign policy thinking, but for him to have someone who he has confidence in who is sitting up under the hood, who is helping him shape his views, to me is something that is very very

important and my sense is that very quickly on these issues of clarity, the nominee when exposed to what is happening in the way that all of us have been will, in fact, develop that clarity. so i thank you for your time. and the meeting is adjourned.

so the first day of rex tillerson's confirmation hearing now in the books. more questioning expected tomorrow when character witnesses testify. you can watch live thursday on c-span.org. we have been getting your opinions on our facebook page all day. here are some of your reactions. adoro writes that she's been watching the tillerson hearings on c-span 3.

words i never thought i would say, you go, marco. richard has a different view. he writes i'm a huge rubio fan but these were stupid questions. how can tillerson call putin a war criminal and then negotiate with russia as secretary of state. you can go to our facebook page any time, c-span there, and weigh in with your opinion as well. lots of other news out of washington today. we will show you a live picture now from the senate, where senators are expected to start voting in just a couple of minutes, the so-called vote-a-rama tonight as senators vote on amendments as republicans continue efforts to repeal the affordable care act, also known as obamacare. these votes expected to last late into the night, include lots of amendments to the budget resolution which is the underlying legislation as republicans try to move things forward and democrats try to block them. you can watch live all night long on our companion network,

c-span 2. president-elect trump's cabinet choices continue their confirmation hearings this week. join us tomorrow when james "mad dog" mattis, who is up for defense secretary, has his confirmation hearing live at 9:30 eastern in the morning on c-span 3. rex tillerson completed his testimony before the senate foreign relations committee today as he seeks his confirmation to be the next secretary of state. here's a portion that includes questioning by florida republican marco rubio about russia and vladimir putin. it's about 50 minutes. >> good morning. chairman corker and others. i'm honored to have the backing of senator cornyn and senator cruz from my home state of texas. i do want to thank senator nunn for his commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, something he remains as steadfast today as ever and for secretary gates for his service to eight u.s. presidents and his own leadership as presid o