i would like to talk about a secretary of state where we have a development portfolio that tries to help nations raise sustainable economies how would you work with the nations that have suffered under this resource curse and how will you work with them to make sure that they affect the human rights. >> there is a lot of opportunity through our usa programs. >> we are focusing on some very big develop mints welcome everybody. and you are watching coast to coast. we are monitoring to developments that are having market moving impacts. he is the pick to be the next secretary of state he has got some bristling comments even from republicans. his closeness the former exxon

mobil chief closer is not good and something that can only lead to problems down the road. we are following donald trump who is in the middle of a press conference right now formally severing ties with his entire organization. he passes it along to his two oldest sons everything was just going hunky door in the market until he stopped going after the drug companies. the way it goes about bidding for u.s. business and bringing the have very little bidding. we will start bidding. within nanoseconds of that if you can see that. they have nothing to do with mister tillerson and everything to do with donald trump within that very moment stocks take about a hundred

plus points and it suddenly turned south and we were underwater. now we are back up. the technology index has lost about 3% and it has since largely recovered. it has also come back. a 2% drop. the doubt itself has merck and pfiz within it. they have since come back. what was sort of a rocky reaction to donald trump's comment on industry, the drug industry has since stablized. this is sort of the risk you take when you hook your wagon here to donald trump and what he wants to do. sometimes it is very favorable business developments. this when it comes toç the pharmaceutical industry, there is growing suspicion that they might be rigging prices.

about tillerson prospects about secretary of state still look good but not getting a pass from committee members about, including republicans. tillerson now how he would deal with things as secretary of state. >> i spoke to the treasury secretary, i spoke to secretary lew to point out there was this gap, and it could lead to problems for u.s. interests from two perspectives. one was the operational effect that i just described a moment ago in response to the chairman's question, that an immediate effect would put operations on going at risk. so there was that issue. but the second was that, to the extent european activities in the same sanctioned areas could continue because they were grandfathered would put u.s. interests in this particular part of the sector at a disadvantage because u.s. could not continue to demonstrate its capabilities. our european partners could. it would put at risk the

possibility that agreements that had been entered into might be terminated. >> so it is grandfathering component. we'll look for into that. mr. chairman, submit this for the record please. >> without objection. >> let me pose a hypothetical, perhaps a bit, gets to the heart of the matter to try to separate one's responsiblities, one's incentives as ceo of a major multinational corporation although u.s. based, from perhaps coming role as chief diplomat of the united states. assume that, something that's not particularly lacking in plausibility, that russia were to send troops and weapons into, into the kiev area, into ukraine. assumed further that a well-formed sanctions regime is presented to you as secretary of state. finally, assume that that sanctions assume that sanctions

regime would hurt the bottom line of american multinationals, would you still propose, would you still advocate that the united states of america advance its national interests by adopting the sanctions regime? >> senator, as i think i have indicated now several times, use of sanctions is an important and can be powerful tool as long as they are constructed to be effectiv in an instance like the example you give, there will be, i'm sure, discussion at the national security council of all of the options but the sanctions will be certainly an important option to have on the table for consideration and if that isç e option selected, i will vigorously support those. >> very good. with respect to the u.s. and e.u. sanctions, it has been already presented to you possibility of removing those. you indicated that now the status quo should reign in part, understandably, i'm sympathetic to this, you indicated you lack

sufficient information. you haven't been read in with respect to classify material, correct. >> that is correct. >> your nomination was announced on december 13th. you've never served in government before. it is understandable you wouldn't have a security clearance until now, until last evening, you had a security clearance. would you be willing to receive a classified security brief from our intelligence community this evening, assuming we may go into tomorrow with respect to this hearing, focused intently on russia? >> if all of the papers is in place and i have been cleared, i understand it is on file. i haven't received any notice yet. i look forward to having access to the additional information? >> so you would be willing? >> yes. >> furthers as a nation's chief diplomat, it is really important as we've seen with this previous administration that the chief diplomat of the united states speak with a voice that is

perceived to be the voice of the president of the united states. there can not be space between what you are saying, the policies you're putting forward and those that are embraced by our now president-elect. he has a history of utilizing to very, well-known effect social media, twitter in particular, and some of the president-elect's tweets appear to be quickly drafted, not vetted by staff or coordinated with the transition teams, senior officials. so, this, this gives pause to me, this gives some concern that in coming months, in coming years you might not be empowered to actually serve as the chief diplomat. you would lack credibility. how do you finesse this? how would, how would you insure that the legs are not cut out

fromneath you as a -- underneath you as the nation's chief diplomat? perhaps you have some ideas on this? >> well, if confirmed, and i am able to serve this president-elect, i don't think i'm going to be telling the boss how he ought to communicate with the american people. that is going to be his choice, but in carrying out, in executing and implementing foreign policy, including traveling abroad, i understand overseas, and that, it would be my expectation that, anyway the president might choose to communicate through whatever method would be supportive of that policy we both agreed on. >> so, do you have in mind any to. >> yes, yes, i have his cell phone number. >> okay. >> okay. >> he promised me el answer. >> and he does.

we'll hope for the best there unless you have anything to add. article v of the north atlantic treaty states an armed attack against one or more member-states in europe and north america shall be considered an attack against them all. mr. tillerson, if putin were to instigate a crimea-style invasion of a nato member, let's say estonia or latvia or lithuania, do you believe the u.s. should and would honor its treaty obligation, join our allies and defending our fellow nato member against external invasion? >> article v commitment is inviable, and the u.s. will stand behind that commitment. >> so, yes? >> if that is the consensus of nato members that is the appropriate use of article v, then yes. >> okay. i yield pack -- back.

>> thank you so much. senator murphy. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. tillerson for your willingness to serve. around as a cub scout leader who is wearing the uniform last night, as i led my wolf den, i thank you for your service to the boy scouts and your leadership there as well. comment and a few questions. in your testimony you said that you had not lobbied congress on the issue of sanctions, and i guess we fleshed out that in your mind, calling the united states senator to express your belief that sanctions would be ineffective is not lobbying. i would argue that is a distinction without a difference, if you are calling a united states senator on the phone, to express your belief that sanctions that would affect your company would be ineffective, that likely constitutes lobbying and in 14 different lobbying reports

between 2006 and 2014 exxon diddlies lobbying on sanctions as part of its political activity. i have a question though on another potential inconsistency. in your testimony and in your private meetings withç us you spent a lot of time, i think very smartly, talking about the importance of consistency and clarity in american policy and your belief that you need to rebuild that. in your response to senator rubio whether you would support mandatory sanctions against specific individuals involved in confirmed, verifiable cyber attacks against the united states is fairly extraordinary. the u.s. is under attack today. we are under attack by russia, by north korea, by china, through these cyber attacks. and so i guess i'm going to ask you to square how you can have a

clear, consistent policy on preventing cyber attacks against the united states when you said before this committee that you don't support mandatory sanctions against verified individuals who have committed attacks against the night because there might be complicated, multifaceted relationships with certain countries in which you might want to weigh the attack against the united states with another consideration? how do you deter cyber attacks against the united states if you send a message that you can get away with it with no sanctions against those individuals as long as there are other equities at stake with the united states? put those two together for me. >> senator, what i was intending to convey is that i need to be fully informed as to what all the options are and i'm not fully informed as of yet. it will involve, if confirmed,

it will involve inneragency discussions including that with the national security council. i think i said this, what are all the options to respond. and again this is a symptom of the, in the absence of a clear policy and a clear strategy, i fully appreciate this body and in particular this committee that has these important responsiblities wanting to take action. what i don't know, because i've not been allowed or not had the sufficient briefings yet, what are the other potential ways to respond to these types of attacks. an if sanctions are the most effective that is certainly what i would support but i do not know because i've not been briefed what are our proportional capabilities in responding. are there other options available to us that could prove to be more effective around get a more immediate change in the behavior of whoever is attacking us? so it's, i hope i didn't convey, or didn't intend to convey that

kind of a narrow response. what i was trying to say this iç an exextraordinarily complicated threat that exists today and we are being attacked. i don't dispute that statement in any way. but i also believe we have to look at all of the options and all of the tools available to us, and sanctions is one of them. it is a powerful tool, i think if i said an inner agency, a national security type environment that conversation is existing and conclusion is made that these sanctions are going to be the best and most appropriate way to act, then, i think the executive would like to have the optionality to make that decision, not to the exclusion that there could be better options available, and yet we have to do, we have to do this as well. >> mr. tillerson, as you know, "new york times," "washington post," cnn, amongst others are reporting that russia has a dossier of very damaging and embarrassing information on

the president-elect to influence his views on rushion-american policy. this report is as earth shattering a it is thinly sourced but deemed credible enough for our intelligence agencies to raid in both the president and president-elect. i think we all pray that it isn't true and i certainly understand that you're not in a position to testify to the contents of that report but let me ask you some very simple questions. have you been briefed yet on these allegations on this report? >> i have not. >> there is some confusion whether the president-elect has been briefed. can you confirm whether he has been briefed or not? >> i don't know. >> in this report there are allegations that there were specific agents of the trump campaign that communicated between it and russia. have you or exxon had any business dealings with, any business relationships with either paul manafort or with

carter page? >> not that i'm aware of. >> could you take that question for the record and get a response to -- >> be happy to do that. >> finally, do you believe that u.s. law enforcement, most notably the fbi, should seek to determine the accuracy of these allegations? >> i think that i would leave that to those agencies to determine. >> if they chose to conduct an inestigation, wld the state department under your leadership coope with the investigation? >> to the extent there is a role for state department in such an investigation. >> thank you, mr. tillerson. you talked a lot in your testimony about the importance of setting red lines and then standing by them when you set them. and i want to ask you some questions about it. the president made his red line stqáement in the context of a press conference and so, i just

want to get your position right here. you believe that statements by american presidents even those made off-the-cuff are taken by world leaders as statements of u.s. policy, is that correct? >> in that case i think the statement was pretty unequivocal. >> and so, let me give you another unequivocal statement and ask for your thoughts on it. on twitter, president-elect trump -- neil: we're following multiple developments here. want to let you know president-elect donald trump has wrapped up his press conference which he announced he was passing along his businesses to his children and that he is going to have a very hands-off relationship with his company now. he also made some news saying that he is going to be looking at the drug industry, big pharma. doesn't like the way they go about pricing drugs and the rest, and that led to stocks in that whole sphere tanking and for a while tanked the dow. most of those stocks are coming back off their worst levels of the day. he went on to say he is still

looking a mexico and that it will pay in the wall in form of reimbursements even though some have been surprised to say they wouldn't pay for the wall right off the bat. he said that he, has been looking at the various confirmation hearings going on and has been impressed particularly with his choice to be the next attorney general, jeff sessions. he is very complimentary of mr. tillerson whose hearing you're watching live on this network as well. he said he would not be releasing his tax returns anytime soon as well. that is something that leaves open out there but he is in the middle of an audit. says reporters are only ones seem to care about it and american people did not by electing him president of the united states. he did acknowledge that russia is playing a role in hacking or in just hacking our election. he doesn't think they will be so predisposed now when he becomes president, that they will have more respect for us, so that they will presumably behave. he also pointed out that he wouldn't be surprised we're getting hacked by other countries. he said that has been something

has widened certainly over the last year and he as president would be dealing with it. this is something, by the way that mr. tillerson has pointed out without getting into the details what they would do. but donald trump did call out this so-called russian intelligence him, that seems to purport some outlandish behavior on his part years ago. he didn't get into the details, that he is annoyed it has been chased as fake news. take a look. >> the fact that buzzfeed and cnn made the decision to run with this unsubstantiated claim is a sad and pathetic attempt to get clicks. >> it is all fake news. it is phony you stuff. it didn'tç happen. it was a group of opponents that got together, sick people, and they put that crap together. somebody released it. it should, number one should have not even entered paper but should never been released but i

read what was released and i think it is a disgrace. neil: all right. the takeaway from his first press conference is this, donald trump believes that russia was behind a lot of the hacking, that went on in the election. that it didn't eninfluence the results. that he would have won anyway and that this will stop once he becomes president. he didn't detail exactly how that would happen but there will be much more respect for the occupant in the white house. now back to the rex tillerson hearings, slated to be secretary of state if he survives these things. so far he is doing okay. >> mr. tillerson thank you for accepting this challenge and thank you for accepting the challenge sitting before us for a couple hours and answering a lot of tough questions in a great way. thank you for having united states senator sam nunn introduce you. sam served for 24 years in the united states senate. he chaired the armed services committee. and he and dick lugar did the

nunn-lugar initiative which reduced exposure of the world to be used by terrorists around the world and chief visor to me and number of other members of the committee on the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty helping us to understand what russian capabilities were and what a strong -- i appreciate you having sam here. he is a great testimony to you as an individual. you mentioned a number of things. i'm going to take them in order real quickly and try to ask specific questions. with regard to american leadership being renewed an reasserted because you to lead in the world we have to renew our leadership, have to reassert our leadership, you said that. probably one of the most interesting places in theorld ere we basically are out of theicture is the middle east aleppo, with regard to syria, turkey and iran and russia, are sitting at table as they divide up what is left of syria and its assets and what will happen in the future. we're sitting outside. if, as nominee for being the

chief negotiating diplomat of the united states of america, what would you recommend we do to get a seat at that table? and what form of renewed leadership should we exercise to have that leadership respected? >> well, if confirmed, senator, i think the first step we have to take is re-engage with our traditional allies and friends in the area and reafter firm that we are back, we are back with our leadership and we're back with a plan of how to affect where events in syria go from here. we can't do anything about where we are today. i think you described the situationç accurately. russia, syria, turkey, and iran are dictating the materials of how things are going to play out in syria today, absent our participation. so i think it is a re-engagement with our traditional allies, sharing with them where we believe we have to now go in syria. we have to re-engage with president erdogan in turkey. this is a long-standing nato

ally, in in the the absence of american leadership he got pretty nervous about his situation and turned to who was next available. he turned to an ally in russia that is not a sustainable ally. it is making clear to him, that is not a sustainable alliance. you're sustainable alliance is with the united states of america. so it is just, first step, is that re-engagement and reinforce what had been longstanding commitments by the united states to stability and security in this part of the world. that includes re-establishing a clear statement of how important israel is to us and our national security and the role they play in this region of the world for our benefit as well. after that, then we will have a plan that will be developed in concert with the national security council as to how we accomplish two things. one, we've got to protect the innocent people on the ground in syria. people are fleeing areas. how do we secure their protection. so they are no longer

indiscrimminantly bombed, put under threat. if that can happen, then perhaps there can be stabilization of the outflow of people who are leaving because there is not a safe place to go. second step then as i indicated is defeat isis. we had two competing priorities in syria under this administration. bashar al-assad must go and defeat of isis. truth of matter carrying out those simultaneously is extremely difficult because at times they conflict with one another. but clear priorities we defeat isis. we defeat isis, we a least create some level of stability in syria which then lets us deal with the next priority of what is going to be the exit of bashar assad but importantly before we decide that is in fact what needs to happen, we have to answer the question, what comes next? what is going to be the government structure in syria? can we have any influence over that or not? so there are a number of steps

in a long road of regaining stability in syria, defeating one of the greatest threats to us, which is isis. then determining what is the fate and future of the syrian people in syria as a nation. it is going to take many steps you but it isn't going to start until we get reengaged in that region. >> i will make a statement. you don't have to concur with it or not but i think itç is implicit we wouldn't be where we are today, had two things, we not failed to do two things. we failed to enforce the red line when we drew it number one with syria. that is important thing to understand because we didn't renew and reassert our leadership in that position. second we never changed our isil policy from containment to destruction. containment al lloyd them to operate in that area today. would you have any comment on that? >> i would agree with both of those reflexes. >> are you familiar with the term the dutch disease? >> i am. >> i think that is what tim,

senator kaine was referring to. my son wrote masters thesis in tool lan early 1990s on the dutch disease. that is the only reason i know anything about it. the points out second disease about the state department, the dutch disease is what middle east suffers from. they have infinite, not infinite for all practical purposes wealth in oil and petroleum. they decided not to invest in people and infrastructure and bought their people off and kingdoms and palaces with they live. they're suffering because they have no medicine, educational system, have no infrastructure. usaid, millennium challenge corporation, those entities within the state department which would be under your responsibility are where we take our soft power to develop countries and friends at the same time. the peace corps being another example. i am a huge supporter of those institutions and have seen those dollars, those soft dollars invested in helping build the infrastructure of human life

within these countries that don't have it, a tremendous asset for usn the future. do you share that belief? >> i do, senator, and as i think i commented earlier, usaid has one set of criteria by which the aid is provided. [shouting] >> the use of usaid is multifaceted in materials of disaster relief and development. one of the most successful programs i have seen is the millenial challenge corporation because it has it has ownership on the part of the country. they have to request the grant. they have to take ownership of the implementation. and it is, many ways an advancement of their institutional capacity to actually get something done. that is where you would hope we can put all of these countries on a pathway, where they can

begin to take responsibility and develop the infrastructure and the educational systems and the need to meet the needs of their people. it is, it is a different journey for each of these countries and use of the foreign assistance to the extent weç can make usaid development programs more aligned with millenial challenge recognize different criteria was, but goes to the responsibility of the recipient government in putting some level of criteria where we are promoting the development of their institutional capacity to begin to address, look back to their people and address their needs. they're powerful tools and they're powerful because as i said earlier, they really project the best of american compassion. >> appreciate your answer because a lot of people have questioned whether or not we ought to have a corporate executive from the private sector be secretary of state. soft power, which all of us prefer to hard power if we can it depen on the concept of

joint venture and investment of capital and natural resources to bring about the best for people where those resources are. your knowledge of that joint venture process will be invaluable with the state department as we to to africa and other developing countries to use millennium challenge, reduction in corruption increase in friends and votes in the u.n. when we need them the most. >> i think we certainly should use that as a way to build those connections with developing countries around the world and countries that are hopefully will be on the rise, and can be important models to others, to demonstrate it is possible to lift yourself out of this condition. >> one last quick, question, and it is not a catch 22 but i'm a big supporter of trade. i think trade is important. it's a weapon we have to use, a soft power weapon to have friends and help the united states of america. china is the whole issue of tpp has been an issue. i know the president was questionable on tpp but not on trade itself.

and do you think trade is an important component in intergovernmental relationships between countries and has a role in the state department? >> having strong economic alliances where there is a certain, i hate to use the word interdependency because some people find at that a threatening term but having those important connections allows us to have these economic ties where we want to maintain good relations with one another. they also provide an enormous opportunity for us to know one another as people. this is just people doing, going about their daily lives doing their jobs and having connections with others in other countries that are doing the same. it allows us to project american values into those countries we're trading with. we have a presence in those countries bringing american standards of conduct, honest dealings, ethical behavior, a structure around honoring our deals, a deal is a deal, we honor it. economic trade is critical to the success of our foreign policy. >> thank you very much for your willingness to serve.

thanks to your wife and family for their willingness to help and support you in that service. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, sir. senator markey. >> thank you, mb.d!%i59. very much. mr. tillerson, during your 10 your as ceo of exxonmobil the company massively expanded its involvement in russia, going from virtually no holdings in that country to holding the drilling right to 63 million-acres. that is an area inside of russia that is the size of wyoming, and almost five times the amount of holdings exxon has here in the united states. as ceo of exxon, you vocally opposed the russian sanctions that have been put in place with hamper exxon's ability to drill there. in recent weeks we have learned about the incredibly disturbing extent to which russia has

sought to weaken our nation from its effort to undermined the election, to yesterday's news that it has compromising personal and financial information about the president-elect. now, i am sure that i am not alone in saying that i believe that these allegations, if true, demand more and stronger sanctions against russia. now just this morning donald trump said that he thinks that the russians did hack our american election. so, mr. tillerson, in light of what you now know about the extent of russia's hostile acts against our country, do you support increasing sanctions against russia, even if doing so hurts exxonmobil? >> well, senator, if confirmed in consultation with the

president and i'm sure what will be an inneragency decision around imposing additional sanctions on russia, there will be no space between me and the president or the administration in those decisions. i serve, if confirmed i serve only the interests of the american people. >> well, again, the question that the american people are going to have is that you have spent 41 years at exxonmobil and they, exxonmobil controls for leasing purposes, drilling purposes, oil purposes, an area the size of wyoming inside of russia, and you spent your entire adult life working there. so, there's question that people have in their minds about your ability to be able to separate. if, the head of the sierra club was named tomorrow to be the new ceo ofç exxonmobil, some of the

shareholders at exxonmobil might wonder whether or not the head of the sierra club could put aside their whole past history in order to be able to advance that shareholder interest. well the shareholders of the united states, the people who are watching this hearing, are wondering the same thing about this issue with regard to your past history and not just the vast interests which exxonmobil has in russia but in dozens of other countries across the world. now earlier you said that you would recuse yourself from issues involving exxonmobil as required by statute, but that statute, that statutory recusal period is only for one year. you could be secretary of state for four years, or for eight

years. you, in my opinion, are going to have many, many issues after that one year period is up that relates to the economic interests of exxonmobil. i asked you if you would be willing to recuse yourself during the duration of time as secretary of state from any manner dealing with exxonmobil's economic interests so that the american people are sure that the only interests that you are serving is the interests of the american people? >> senator, as i indicated earlier, i will honor obviously the statutory recusal period and then after that, any matter that might involve exxonmobil or, has the appearance that it could lead to some type of conflict i will seek the guidance of the

ethics council, review by them, if i it would be proper for me to recuse i will honor that > well, again, one year is a very bri perioof time, given the vast economic interests of exxonmobil in nigeria, in iraq, in russia, in country after country around the world. i think, mr. tillerson, it would be far better for you to say for the duration of your time as secretary, that you will not allow for, for your own personal involvement to be a part of any decision aboutanything that affects exxonmobil anywhere in the world. i think the american people would feel much more comforted if you would inç fact make that commitment to them. during your tenure as ceo,

public policy groups that spread denial. senator kaine dealt with the issue and opposed clean energy, including, for example, financial support in fifth -- 2015 for the american legislative exchange council and the manhattan institute, two groups which are climate deniers. in 2016, when the attorney general of massachusetts asked exxon for information on the company's climate activities under massachusetts consumer and financial protection laws, exxon sued the state of massachusetts, the attorney general of massachusetts and other public policy groups, that had been critical of exxon. so, we have evidence in the past of exxon during the time you have been there, supporting groups opposing climate action, and also trying to silence

groups that have been critical of exxon. so, give the american people, given your personal history at exxonmobil and actions of that company, some reason to have confidence that the climate agreement negotiated by secretary kerry and president obama will be something that the trump administration state department will honor, and that u.s. leadership will continue on the issue of climate change around the planet. we are not just any couny. we can not be a laggard. we must be the leader of the world expects us to be leader on climate change. please give us those assurances that you will guarranty that the state department will be the leader as it has been in advancing a climate agenda for our country.

>> well if confirmed, senator, i'm sure that there will be opportunity, and i know the president-elect will want the opportunity to do a fulsome review of our policies around engagement on climate issues through global accords, global agreements, and as i indicated i feel free to express my views to him around those. i also know that the president as part of his priority in campaigning was america first. so there is important considerations as to, as we commit to such accords, and as those accords areç executed ovr time, are there any element of that that put america at a disadvantage. >> do you believe it should be a priority of the united states to work with other countries in the world to find climate change solutions to that problem? >> i think it is important for america to remain engaged in those discussions so we a the table, expressing a view and

understanding what the impacts may be on the american people and american competitiveness. >> do you commit to insure that no employee of the state department is influenced to take action because it would be favorable to business interests associated with the president-elect or his family? >> if i understood the question, yes. >> all right. the, the president-elect said famously in a tweetwouldn't you rather have in a certain sense, hve japan with nuclear weapons when north korea has nuclear weapons? and the president-elect also said that he would be open to south korea and saudi arabia acquiring nuclear weapons. senator nunn who introduced you has previously described these comment as dangerously off base and stated that mr. trump's suggestion would make american

families less safe. do you, do you disagree with the president-elect that if, that it wouldn't be a bad thing for us, if japan and south korea and saudi arabia acquired nuclear weapons? >> succinctly, if you will. >> i think the priority has to be to deny north korea the ability to deploy its nuclear weapons. >> what about saudi arabia and -- >> that, senator paul, please. >> mr. tillerson, congratulations on your nomination. they say that those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. the president-elect has said that the iraq war was a big fat mistake. he said this many, many, many times. i was wondering if you agree with the statement and if you do agree with the statement, how it will inform your judgment as to, the future of the middle east and the other conflicts that we

are engaged or possibly engaged in the middle east? >> senator, i alluded to the iraq war in my opening comments when i indicated actions over the past decades while well-intended, had unintended consequences that in the end did not achieve the stability we sought or the national security. and i think in that regard the decision to could into iraq and change leadershipç in iraq, upn reflection, was perhaps, did not achieve those objectives. we do not have a more stable region in the world and our national security has not been enhanced or still certainly under threat today. >> i think that is an important point we talk about whether our national security was enhanced. i think sometimes it gets lost in the emotions of these are terrible, evil people, x, whichever country we're talking about, and we have to do something about it. in reality, maybe we forget what

we're trying to be is protecting our vital national interests. another statement that president-elect trump has made is that the u.s. should stop racing to topple foreign regimes we know nothing about, that we shouldn't be involved with. this is kind of enter related to the last question but i think it is also important in the sense that there are some within the foreign policy community who say, oh, we must could in and koppel the regime in iran. it will be a cakewalk. they will welcome us with open arms. but one of the interesting things you find is as you meet iranian americans, many of whom lost all of their land, all of their wealth and you ask them about iran and you say, would it be a good idea to militarily invade iran and they say completely the opposite, that much of iran is younger. much of iran is pro-western and that the, with the first bomb that is dropped, you'll reverse, you know, a lot of goodwill that is potentially there when iran does finally change its regime on its own.

but i think it is important because we do. everybody, nobody want iran to have nuclear weapons. nobody wants iran to be an aggressor in the region. at the same time it is important we look at lessons of the iraq war. the iraq war emboldened iran and made iran stronger. same thing with libya. we toppled the regime in libya. i i guess the question with regard to iran, those who are advocating it will be a cakewalk we should have military regime change, what do you think of the advocacy and think of donald trump statements with regard to regime change? >> well, i think, and i think you have described it in many ways same way i would see it, that what is in the best interests of our national security? , i think this is where these priorities sometimes come into conflict of our values, and projection of our american values, and our desire and out of our compassion for the best

treatment of people, the violation of human rights, oppressive regimes. we want those people to have what we have. balancing that against our national security interests and what is most important that we protect the american people first. this is where sometimes i think our priorities, we have tooç my priorities we lose sight of what is the most important, any decision, any decision, to affect a change of leadership in a country by force, can not be taken lightly and i think the question that one has to answer is, is that i posed a couple of times, what comes next? and in the case of libya, i think that was the failing in decision to change. regime there. no one had a clear plan or view of what would come next. that is what we're experiencing, and have experienced somewhat in iraq. it is the question in syria, when people talk about changing the leadership there, what comes next? certainly, you know, making a

decision to use force is a serious, serious decision because we know it will come at a cost of pressures american lives. so i think -- precious. i think it is important, and if confirmed as secretary of state my job is to make sure we never get there. my job is to chart out other pathways by which we can have a steady progress towards causing regimes who open press their people, to change their behavior and use all other tools available to us. having said that, i do think that we have to be clear-eyed about the threat that iran poses today and insure we have taken all steps appropriate through all mechanisms available to contain that threat, and to limit their abilityto grow that threat, and in particular not just on the nuclear, acquiring a nuclear weapon, but more importantly, their widespread support of terrorism around the world. we have to disrupt that.

>> thank you. with regard to foreign aid there has been a lot of love for foreign aid going around today but i think there is another side we ought to think about. there are many, many, many, reports talking about corruption within foreign aid, that we give it to developing countries and 70% of it is stolen off the top. mubarak family in egypt, everybody loved the mubaraks. they were pro-western, pro-american, and yet they're said to be worth about $15 billion. i don't think they have ever created anything that they skim a little bit off the top of everything that comes into the country. we have given them 60 billion and they're worth 10 or 15 billion. equatorial guinea hat one of their sons stopped in paris two years ago, loading 10 different cars on to an airplane all worth 200,000, 300,000-dollar cars. there is a lot of corruption. a lot of things are directed

toward 30 party charities or private entities i would argue these are a lot less bad but i would argue we can't blythely look at foreign aid and all ofç it is great and going to a good cause. sometimes it works in the opposite way. give you an example in egypt and we gave so much and mubaraks took the money, some they actually spent, we have provisions they have to buy stuff from us with the money. sort of this creation of economic business kind of game that we do. but one of the things that they were, they bought from us was tear gas, and so when they had these big democratic protests in cairo, they were being doused with tear gas from the u.s. and they would pick the canisters up on the street. i would argue that soft power is maybe not giving a warm, soft fuzzy feeling for america. that in supporting many people who really are not, you know, pro-human rights or pro-american interests, that actually sometimes the foreign aid backfires on us because they resist those leaders who are using undemocrattic and forceful

authoritarian means on their own people that it backfires. i would, appreciate your comments on whether or not you see any kind of, you know, difficulty or problems with corruption within foreign aid or things that need to be reformed? >> senator, i'm very aware of, and even in my prior work i have seen the examples of what you just described where even in disaster relief cases where foreign assistance is, is flown in, food supplies, and while they're literally being unloaded at the airport, military forces are picking them up taking them away to be sold. so, it is all, the challenge, the challenge is never in the intent, in our compassion and need we're trying to address. the challenge is always in the execution. i do think it is important that we have as well-developed execution plans if we're going to deliver aid into a country

where we know this is a risk, what can we do in the execution of that delivery of that aid? if it is disaster relief, are there other agencies we can partner with to limit that type of theft going on? in terms of development assistance, to the extent we do not give grants directly to government, whether we give them to particular projects or perhaps partnering agencies or public/private sector initiatives, which are executed by credible ngos, so that the money is just never passes through the hands, that is the preferred mechanisms i think. >> one final point i would make, and you don't necessarily need to comment on this, that it is not only corruption but unintended consequences as a business person, you immediately recognize this, and i think right and left actually agree some of this if you dump haiti with rice for 10 years, ruin the ability of them to have theirç own rice market and grow their

own ri. you want to give them rice in the middle of a famine, that is one thing but you have to be very careful about having a big heart-small brain syndrome that we ruin their local economy with aid as well. i appreciate you thinking about corruption and unintended quon sequences of our aid. thank you. >> thank you. before turning to senator merkley, i want, i think you have made great contributions as it relates to foreign aid and i think that there is support for the 1% that we spend to try to use it in appropriate ways for soft power. i think, and i've shared this with the trump incoming transition group, we're still much of our aid is the cold war model where we're buying influence and so much of it is, all of it actually needs to be transformed into something that has appropriate efficacy. what we're doing right now with food aid is beyond belief, and i could rant on about this for another 20 minutes.

it is bee beyond belief. efforts like we have to end modern slavery where partnerships are created where you build on best practice, some of the things we're doing with water, some of the things we're doing with electricity, i think they're set up on the right principles but i appreciate the comment. i appreciate hopefully, all of you looking at foreign aid because there is much waste. there is corruption. we could deliver it in much better way. senator merkley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is a pleasure to join the mmittee. mr. tillerson, during his campaign the president-elect talked a lot about what he saw as major mistakes with nafta and with giving mine full access to our market in terms of its impact on american manufacturing, he was very critical of the tpp. do you share his vision that nafta, wto, china access, that tpp are big mistakes in terms of creating living wage american jobs?

>> senator, my understanding of the issue that the president-elect has with those trade agreements is in the case of nafta, it is an agreement that has been in place for decades now. i think even president pena nieto that it needs a different look. we're in different in terms of type of trade and technology and global trading environment has changed since that agreement -- >> do you share his opposition to it. pp? >> i do not oppose tpp. i share some of his views regarding whether the agreement that was negotiated serves all of america's interests best. >> thank you. exxon has a partnership with shell, a company known asç infineum, that did a fair number transactions with iran bypassing u.n. sanctions. are you familiar with the use of this subsidiary to bypass u.s.

sanctions and do you think it is the right thing to do. >> i don't recall the incident, i read about it, but i don't recall specifically. >> so the sec directly contacted exxon while you were in the senior leadership saying, that seems fairly material for investors in an effort to bypass u.s. sanctions and asked why exxon didn't disclose it. do you have any memory of that or discussions of whether exxon should have disclosed these transactions? >> short, i think the question would be best placed to exxonmobil where the information would reside. >> no, sir. you were there. i'm asking if you had discussions about this or have a memory of it? >> i do not. >> if you were secretary of state and you were working to enforce u.s. sanctions and another ceo had a subsidiary set up and utilized to bypass american sanctions, would you call up that ceo or weigh in and say this is not a good idea that this undermines u.s. efforts to take on a serious terrorist

threat or other malfeasance by some country of the world? >> i think if the actions that are being taken violate the sanctions, then there are proper authorities that would examine that and deal with it. >> that is not an issue of the technicality of violating this, the operation. subsidiary was set up in europe, exxon set up so it could legally bypass u.s. sanctions. it was certainly inconsistent with the bowl of u.s. policy to pressure iran. if you were leader, and secretary of state, would you try to make sure that u.s. leadership and effectiveness using sanctions was not undermined through the set up of foreign subsidiaries? >> i would certainly be open to having the, having folks in the state department contact companies and inquire as to whether they're aware of the actions they're taking and the state department's view of that. >> to be aware of something is

different than to be concerned or be upset by it. would you consider, would you uphold the integrity of the u.s. goal of diminishing the ability of nations like iran to do a whole host of things destructive to u.s. interests? >> i understand, senator, but i also think it is important that the state department as with any agency also respects the laws that have been put in place. and there is a difference between expressing a concern and suggesting someone is breaking the law. >> yes. so, as you look back on the subsidiary, it doesn't upset you that exxon took the roleç to undermined u.s. sanctions and you would not express concern if another company legally set up a foreign subsidiary to undermine u.s. sanctions. >> i don't recall the circumstance. >> i'm not asking if you recall. your answer you don't consider that a problem? sound like you're not considering that to be an issue? >> i don't know the example so i don't know how the answer the

question. >> okay. that is, we'll, thank you. let's turn to lobbying in the ukraine. you said earlier in this hearing, i have never personally lobbied against sanctions. to my knowledge exxon never lobbied against sanctions. and yet there is a whole host of material in the public sector about exxon lobe sanctions. there is a whole ho of these lobbying reports in wich exxon reports under the law that they lobbieded on these bills, that imposed sanctions. there is your report at the 2014 meeting, and i quote, we do not support sanctions generally, and you continued so we always encourage people in those decisions to consider very broad collateral damage who are they really harming and like to enter these articles into the record if i could. >> without objection. >> this article is entitled from "the new york times," rex tillerson's company, exxon has billions at stake over sanctions sanctions on russia.

exxonmobil helped defeat russia sanctions bill and exxonmobil successfully lobbied against a bill that would make it harder for the next president to lift sanctions against russia. article, lays out tillerson visited white house often over the russian sanctions. there is host of material showing widespread pattern of weighing in on sanctions that were harming exxon activities in russia. that is major area of your effort. do you still maintain that exxon did not lobby against these sanctions? >> exxonmobil did not lobby against the sanctions but were engaged how the sanctions would be constructed. as reports of my visits to the white house, my visits were to work through the process of exxonmobil's compliance with the sanctions. i described earlier the situation where when the sanctions were enacted, there were drilling activities that involved considerable risk that were underway, for which

exxonmobil sought a special license from ofec in order to complete those, in full compliance with the sanctions. had we been denied the license we would have had to pull people out or exxonmobil would have had to pull people out at that time. >> is that the only instance you weighed in -- >> in all, i'm sorry. >> 20 meetings going to the white house. that is only issue weighed in on exxon sanctio. >> i don't recall 20 meetings but, t visits to the white house, because under the terms of theç compliance with e sanctions, first, the first action was to seek the license to allow us to deal with the imminent risk of the drilling situation. following that, ofec required us, required exxonmobil to file reports on a periodic basis around our on going compliance activities. exxonmobil has holdings in russia, offshore salkland island, not subject to the

sanctions. in partnership with rosneft which does contain individuals who are subject to the sanctions. >> i'm going to take, summarize that these reports, you consider to be incorrect? >> they are inaccurate. >> okay. thank you. i will continue. there are three individuals who were involved in the trump campaign, paul manafort, michael cohen, carter page who public reports have been involved in dialogue with russia, with the goal of finding common strategy with russia believing that trump would be better on syria and ukraine policy and, trump believing that russia could help defeat hillary clinton. now these reports have been not been substantiated, i'm sure much more will come on then, but in theory how do you feel about a u.s. candidate turning to a foreign country to essentially find another partner in defeating another opponent in a u.s. presidential election. >> that would not comport with our democratic process.

>> thank you. i'm sure we're going to have a lot of discussion of this because the extent of the false news stories, the hacking, the cyber warfare, the use of botnets to amplify false news stories, hiring of trolls all which attack the fundamentals of our democracy and reports have it that russia not only wanted to weigh in in the election but also wanted to undermine u.s. confidence, citizens confidence our electoral process and our democratic values. that is real coern to the future of our state and i'm sure it's a concern you might share as well. >> yes, sir. it's a concern i share. i also noted in the publicly available report that i read, that the inneragency report acknowledged these types of activities were carried out during you the cold war as well. the tools of sophistication only advanced with the advent of cyber. >> many of these tools were

internet-based, electronic cyber warfare that, was much different in that setting when when he come back in the next round, i have a few seconds left, exxon's involvement in equatorialç guinea. my colleague mentioned that. that would be of interest. >> senator barosso. >> thank you, congratulations on your nomination. one. statements that you made had to do with defeating isis. you said, defeating isis must be our foremost priority in the middle east. you go on to say, but defeat will not occur on the battlefield alone. we must win the war of ideas. if i could just engage you a little bit to talk to you about how we can use diplomatic efforts and other ways to target and actually undermined the isis ideology and its legitimacy.

they remove the territory which then undermines the legitimacy. it will not defeat isis once and for all. we see that already.

the terrorist organizations and other parts of the world they had identified themselves with isis. i think it is going to require interagency effort informed by the defense department and other agencies as to how can we disrupt that this -- of the delivery the delivery of this ideology. white takes hold in a particular location again this is not a country that identifies itself as isis. >> it looks like they're trying to extend in afghanistan. the cancer has spread. even those introduced you.

we need a foreign policy into securing our national interest. from a standpoint of credibility you and i talked about having the capacity to do something in communicating that commitment about the capacity could you share about what you intend to do in terms of restoring the position in the world? >> we are dealing from a purse -- position of strength. we're not asserting that strength. does begin if there are existing commitments and agreements in place and then developing a strategy in the region to deal with the most eminent threat.

i means projecting the strength of our u.s. military might but having -- but not having to use it in terms of trying to persuade countries to change their course of action. but in the case of the most immediate threat of isis involves can we construct a renewed coalition that using the forces that are already there including the syrian current that we would re- commit and continue to support you with the capability to continue to advance and then, build the coalition forces that can contain isis if it attempts to move into the other parts of the country and eliminate them from syria to begin. i think the effort in iraq is progressing hopefully it will progress to a successful conclusion as well see mac in

terms of the relationship between israel and the palestinians the direct negotiation between the parties without interference they recently andon israel. at the security council of the united nations and abstaining from a vote. about the refusal to veto the resolution and subsequent speech by secretary carey. >> it has always remained its important ally in the region. they are important to our national security. the un position that was passed is not helpful. i think it actually undermines a good set of conditions for talks to continue.

the secretary's speech which followed that resolution was quite troubling. because of the attacks on israel and in many ways undermining the government of israel itself in terms of its own legitimacy and the talks. i think the trumpet administration president-elect is already making it clear i agree and will support with to recommit. this is a statements i keep making with the most important partner in the region. he talked about t international agreement specifically either you ask about the claimant agreements into funding as a part of that. the obama administration has pledged $3 billion to the

green climate fund. they had requested a $1.3 million for global climate change initiatives on the budget for fiscal year 2017. you mentioned donald trump campaigning on america first. will you commit to ensuring that no funding will go to the u.s. green climate fund? >> in consultation with the president my expectation is that we will look at all of these things from the bottom up. in terms of funds that we've committed. >> they talked about the value of using soft power. there sony opportunities that are necessary in countering global terrorist threats where money could be better spent than on these efforts. earlier they talked about some of the wonderful things that have been done around the world because of u.s. involvement part of it is power helping to power energy

in the number of communities around the world many of us had been to africa to see what happens in a community where there is energy available that have not been previously in terms of helping as a tool so they could get the education opportunities. we've have a situation where some of the programs in place have not really supported all of the above energy. and we've seen where the world bank has a blocked funding it would help bring light and other opportunities to a number of operant tune it is in africa. can you comment on the need to use all of the sources. nothing illicit out of pod pretty quicker than electricity. you give them the ability to refrigerate. it changes their entire quality of life.

they no longer cook on it. and the one cooking in their homes. so health issues. the health improves. i think it's very important that we use wisely the american people's dollars as we support these programs and whatever is the most efficient and effective way to the liver electricity to these areas that don't have it that should be the choice. in the is the that is the wisest use of american dollars. >> with the state of play. we are running slightly behind we will finish up. we will take a 45 minute recess when these two gentlemen finish their time. each of them will have ten minutes when they get back to start and then we will resume again in the same order. looks like we will recess about 130 and come back at

2:15. >> good afternoon. welcome and thank you for your willingness to serve this country in this important post. i appreciate the frank conversation we have. i just want the american people to hear some of the answers that you gave me. with your view on the world. many of my colleagues had already ask about how we will handle the transition from ceo of the world's leading energy company to secretary of state advocating for human rights and open press in democracy i had been encouraged to hear you say that we will stand by our nato allies you would not support that by russia in the easy russia as an adversary

and possibly an enemy. and i want to focus in on how you see the leadership and russia's role. they are strategic thinkers and have a plan. and they have a plan to restore the role in the world order. my concern is their plan is to change the world order and that they had used a wide range of tools and we have not successfully pushed back on their campaign. i let a bipartisan delegation to eastern europe in august and was struck at the number of times in several countries where we were briefed on a continuous campaign to divide europe in the united states to undermine our alliance and provide europe from within. russia has used all of the tools of state power both overt and covert to wage an aggressive campaign. back in the '90s after the fall of the soviet union we used the greater free europe. we were engaged in a full on

fight for democracy. in the former soviet republic. i think we should be using all of our tools to push back on this. do you see rt as a get that outlet and how would you use and lead the resources to counter russian propaganda and to push back on this effort to change the rules of the world order? >> as you point out utilizing the opportunity to communicate to the people of russia that they were successful in the past and utilizing those type of sources as well as providing information on the internet to the extent that they can access it. they have availability to the facts as they exist. into the alternative. the reporting of events that are presented through the largely controlled media outlets inside.

that is an important way in which to at least inform of the russian people as to what the realities are. >> it is the intelligence community's assessment that they have a long-standing plan to undermine the global of aquatic order that we spend so much time and effort building in the decades since the second world war. would you rely on and what you encourage the president-elect to rely on the career professionals in the intelligence community's if confirmed. >> i have enormous respect for them. i will certainly be informed by their findings and i think in terms of them understanding that as they apply to the facts of the ground it's important to guide the future policies and options for how to respond.

>> i know of the at the press conference has happened while you been here but just an hour or so ago the president-elect finally publicly said that he thinks his most likely true that russia was behind the hacking effort and he gave no more specific response to the question about what we should do about it except what we should work something out. many of us are concerned. >> we are continuing to monitor this. on the right of your seeis the senate judiciary committee. this is a day the day that cory booker was going to be taking the step of testifying against jeff sessions to be the next attorney general. this has never happened before. he is already taken an oath that he is obligated to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. >> on matters related to

criminal justice reform and you know just how deeply motivated i am by the many issues our next attorney general well had. especially the crisis of the mass incarceration. i know that some of my many colleagues aren't happy that i'm breaking within senate tradition. i believe by perhaps all of my colleagues in the choice between standing with the senate norms were standing up for what conscious tells me is best for our country i will always choose conscience and country. we have a consistently disagreed on issues he and i have always exercised the quiz as ability and mutual respect between us. the best example of this is the legislation we cosponsored to road the gold-medal to

those that marked at soma. one of the foot soldiers the city next to me now. this was about busing and an honor to me. in 2015 a retired judge who was white told me that it was those brave mergers who inspired him as a young lawyer in the 1960s to seek justice for all in new jersey. and represent black families liking to integrate those neighborhoods. one of the families was mine. i am literally sitting here because of people marchers in alabama and volunteer lawyers in new jersey who sought as their duty to pursue justice to fight discrimination to stand up for those who are marginalized. but the march for justice still continues it's still urgent i know also of the urgency for law and order. i imagine that no sitting senator has lived in the last

20 years in higher crime neighborhoods than i have. i have seen unimaginable violence on american streets i know the tremendous courage of law-enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every single day to fight crime in america. i want an attorney general who is committed for law and order but that's not enough. america was founded heralding not lawn order but justice for all and critical to that is equal justice under the law. law and order without justice is unobtainable. they are tied together if there is no justice there is no peace. the alabama state troopers were seeking law and order the marchers were seeking justice. and ultimately a greater

piece. one of the victories of the model civil rights movement was a civil rights act which the attorney general not only the chief line first officer of the night states units it's also vested in that office responsibility to pursue civil rights and equal protection for all of america. senator sessions has not demonstrated a commitment to a central requisite of the job to aggressively pursue the congressional mandate of civil rights equal rights and justice for all of our citizens. in fact and numerous times in his career he has demonstrated a hostility towards the convictions. it has worked to frustrate attempt to advance these ideals. if confirmed senator sessions will be retired --dash mac required to pursue justice for women but has record indicates that he won't.

his record indicates that he won't. he will be expected to defend voting rights by his record indicates that he won't. he will be expected to defend the rights of immigrants in the firm their human dignity but the record indicates that he won't. his record indicates that as attorney general he would object to the nor north growing bipartisan movement towards critical justice reform. we cannot count on him to support state and national efforts towards bringing justice to the justice system and people on both sides of the aisle who admit that the justice system as it stands now is bias against the poor against drug addiction against mentally ill and against people of color. his record indicates that a time when even the fbi director is speaking out against explicit bias in the

need to address it at a time when the last two attorney generals have taken steps to fix our broken criminal justice system at a time when the justice department he would lead and they have uncovered abuses in police departments all over the united states including ferguson including newark senator sessions would not continue to lead this urgently needed change. the next attorney general must bring hope and healing to the country and this demands a more creators apathy than they demonstrate. it demands that the patriotism is love of country demands that we love all of our citizens even the most marginalized. in the most disadvantaged the most degraded, and the most unfortunate.

challenges of race in america cannot be addressed if we refute to confront them. unless you combat them. the art of the moral universe does not just naturally curve towards justice we must bend it. if one is to be attorney general they must be willing to continue the hollow tradition of fighting for justice for all. for civil rights. america needs an attorney general who is resolute in determent to bend the arc. senator sessions record does not speak to that desire and tension or dwell. with well. with all that has taken our nation now with the urgent need for healing and for love i pray that my colleagues will join me in opposing his nomination. mister chairman my time is over i would like to submit the rest to my record.

sitting behind me are proud members of the united states congress and the congressional black caucus. thank you sir. >> you haven't had to recognize them. i'm sorry. i knew they were here. mister huntley. >> good afternoon. you might pull the mic as close as you can. >> good afternoon. that's much better. my name is william huntley. i am a solar practitioner and i had been practicing for over 30 years. i am a graduate of auburn university where i attended college on a football scholarship. i graduated in 1980 and i attended cumberland law school after that.

i attended in 1984 after he finished i started a federal judge in montgomery alabama. after i completed that process i began to her as an assistant district attorney in making county alabama. i was there from 1985 to 1987. that may like to change. i got a phone call one day and my secretary comes in the office and says jeff sessions is on the phone i've been sitting there wondering why is he calling me. i was well aware of the allegations that have happened in his bid to become a federal judge which made me wonder why he was calling me. i answer the phone and i find out that he wants me to become an assistant united states attorney in the southern district of alabama. this presented an ideal situation so i decided to take

advantage of that the first time actually met him was at a dinner in montgomery. that dinner was supposed to last an hour to an hour and half. we ended up meeting for about three hours. during that time we discussed a number of topics we talked about all of those things. and during the course of that meeting with him i got the feeling more and more that the allegations that have been spread through the press weren't true. i was also contemplating whether i should make this move because if i go to mobile alabama i don't know anybody there i have no family there. what if this man turns out to be exactly how he has been portrayed. fortunately it didn't turn out like that. i was at the u.s. attorney office from 1987 to 1981.

he assigned me the general criminal trial cases. he also assigned to beat to the civil rights cases and i would super recognize all of those cases that came through the office. i can recall where we prosecuted a police officer that was charged with excessive use of force. unfortunately, i made a decision to leave in 1991. that decision was not based on anything that have happened to me during the time i was in the u.s. attorney's office. jeff give me advice, counsel he provided a great deal of support and everything that i did. one thing in particular that he did was my second child was born and there was a knock on the door that morning and through the door walk's jeff sessions. after i left the u.s.

attorney's office jeff became the attorney general of alabama. he asked me to join his staff at that time but i declined he made me a special assistant and he put me in charge of handling defense cases for the state of alabama. also during this time jeff became charged with violating the state of alabama ethics act. jeff could have hired any lawyer he wanted to to represent him in that matter. jeff decided to hire me in that particular case. we have that case in during the course of it it was probably the longest hearing that have ever been held before the state ethics commission. at that point jeff was fully exonerated of all of the charges involving the state exit -- ethics act. one of the things that i can say about jeff is that he has

always been the same person that i had known. he has always been available for me and always been there when i needed him. at no point in the time that i had known him as he demonstrated any racial insensitivities. i see my time is rapidly winding down and would just like to say in my opinion jeff sessions will enforce and follow the laws of the united states equally and with justice for all. jeff sessions will adhere to the motto for the lady justice jeff will protect and defend the rights of all people. thank you so much for this opportunity. >> we will hear from congress --dash my congressman john lewis.

members of the committee. thank you for inviting me to testify today. millions of americans are encouraged by the country's efforts to create a more inclusive democracy than the last 50 years. what some of us call the beloved community. a community at peace with itself. there is not a minority a clear majority of americans in the month is to be a fair, just an open nation. they are afraid of this this country is headed in the wrong direction. they are concerned that some leaders reject decades of progress and want to return to the dark past.

in the power to deny the freedoms protected by the constitution. the bill of rights in this amendment these are the voices i represent today we can pretend if we are honest with ourselves we know that we are called upon daily but the people we represent to help them deal with unfairness and how the law is written in enforce. those who are committed to equal justice in our society they call for long in order. and today when i was coming up back then. the rule of law was used to violate the human and civil rights of the poor the

dispossessed. the people of color i was born in rural alabama not very far there was no way to escape or deny the chokehold of skis crime nation and racial -- discrimination and racial hate that surrounded us. i saw the signs, said white waiting, colored waiting. i saw the signs, colored men, white men. colored women, white women. i tasted bitter fruits of race segregation and racial discrimination. segregation was the law of the land in the deep south. any black person who did not cross the street when a white person walking down the same sidewalk, who did not move to the back of the bus, who drank from from a whitewater fountain,

who look the a white person directly in the eyes and could be arrested and taken to jail. the forces of law and order in alabama wre so strong, that the to take a stand against this injustice, we had to be willing to sacrifice our lives for our cause. often, only way we could demonstrate that a law on the books violated a higher law was by challenging that law. by putting our bodies on the line and showing the world the unholy price we hadç to pay for dignity and respect. it took massive, well-organized, non-violent dissent for the voting rights act to become law. it required criticism of this great nation and its laws to

move toward a greater sense of equality in america. we had to sit in, we had to stand in, we had to march, and that is why more than 50 years ago a group of unarmed citizens, black and white, gathered on march 7, 1965 in orderly and peace and non-violent fashion, to walk from selma, to montgomery, alabama, to dramatize to the nation the world, that we wanted to register to vote. we wanted to become participants in the democratic pros ses. we were beaten, tear gassed, left bloody. some of us unconscious. some of us had concussions. some of us almost died on that

bridge, but the congress responded. president lyndon johnson responded, and the congress passed the voting rights act and it was signed into law on august 6, 1965. we've come a distance. we have made progress but we're not there yet. there are forces that want to talk us back to another place. we don't want to go back. we want to go forward. and as the late randolph, the dean of the march on washington in 1963 often said, maybe our forefathers and our foremothers all came to this great land in different ships but we're all in the same boat now. it doesn't matter how senator sessions may smile, how he may be, how he may speak to you, but we need someone who is going to

stand up, speak up, and speak out for the people that need help. for people that have been discriminated against. doesn't matter whether they're black or white, latino, asian-american or native-american, whether they are straight or gay, muslim, christian, or jews. we all live in the same house, the american house. we need someone as attorney general who is going to look out nd not just forgoing to look out some of us. i ran out of time. thank you for giving me a chance to testify. >> thank you, congressman lewis. now i go to mr. sawyer. >> chairman, senators on committee, it is an honor for me to be here. thank you for your time. my name is jeff sawyer, jr. i've been in law enforcement since

1976 to 2016. i served in local police departments for 11 years. served in the united states marshall service for eight 1/2 years. served in the attorney general's office for 20 and 1 1/2 years. i first met jeff sessions when he was u.s. attorney in the middle district of alabama, in the southern district, i'm sorry. jeff was prosecuted at that time a klansman named henry hays. jeff prosecuted that person for the abduction and murder of a black teenager. following jeff's election as attorney general i had the privilege to serve with him and his administration as his chief investigator. the beginning of jeff's tenure as attorney general presented senator sessions with challenges that included a budget crisis and 1/3 reduction of staff. things that jeff did, when we came, with the budget crisis and reintroduction of staff, there were several people in the

office that had to seek other jobs elsewhere. there was a black investigator in the office that came and had less than a year left before he was eligible to retire. jeff sessions allowed that to take place. he didn't have to do that. he did not have to do that the at all because of the situation we were in. jeff sessions retained me. he did not have to do that but he did. following the election, you know, we were charged with the responsibilities of a lot of crimes and expectations of the attorney general was charged with responsibilities of working various cases which included white-collar crimes, public corruption, voter fraud and criminal investigations. as i reflectn our work, there was never a time whe any of these cases was investigated with any political agenda or motive. the utmost respect and integrity

was exercised for all individuals involved. jeff sessions's service and decisions at attorney general earned him a reputation and respect among his colleagues in appreciation for his willingness to do what was right. when jeff sessions got to the u.s. senate, as attorneyç general, he had honor to uphold the conviction and sentence of klansman henry hayes for the murder of michael donald. when jeff sessions became u.s. senator, he helped me be appointed as united states marshall for middle district of alabama. he did not have to do that, but he did. i have known jeff sessions for 20 years. he is a good and decent man. he believes in law and order for all the people. all of the people in alabama, because of his colleagues and all surrounded him, the things

that he's done for the law enforcement community and citizens of alabama it is great. it is without any questions as to whether or not he would be fit to serve this country as a united states attorney general. now, i did not learn these things from a political press conference. any website where i read about him. i know jeff sessions as the man. the man i know, is a decent and honest and respectful man, that will put all of his life into public service. he has done that. when we talk about this criminal justice system, we enforced the laws. and we do it because we have a love for the laws. jeff sessions loves th people that dot enforcement side of it. he respects -- the citizens deserve a good and honest person that will give all he has to make sure that everyone is treated equally and fairly as, under the law.

but his decency as a man and his honesty as a man, speak for itself. he's the type of individual that i support for the united states attorney general's office, because of my reputation and his history with me as a person, and the things that i have seen over the years in jeff sessions. it is hard being a public servant. i was in, been in law enforcement for 40 years. it's a tough job. we don't violate the laws. we don't get out there and do things that would cause ourselves to be brought into the system. and i'm not saying everybody is the same but, i believe that he will take ahold of the justice system, justice department and he will be fair, he will be honest and he will do the same thing for every person with honesty and respect for all of us. my time is up. and thank you for listening. >> thank you, mr. seryre. now, congressman richmond.

congressman richmond. [shouting] >> wait just a minute, congressman. [shouting] >> let me thank the chairman and ranking member for allowing me to testify. [shouting in the background] >> i will ask you to hold. you won't lose anytime. >> it is not fair. >> okay. proceed, congressman. >> let me thank the chairman, me to testify. the senate's duty to provided a vice and consent to presidential nominees is a fundamental component of american democracy. i can know that you do not take this responsibility lightly.

before i jump into my address two timely issues. first i want to express my concerns about being made to testify at the very end of the witness panels. to have a senator, a house member, and a living civil rights legend testify at the end of all of this is equivalent of being made to go to the back of the bus. it is a petty strategy and the record should reflect my consternation at the unprecedented process that brought us here. my record on equality speaks for itself and i don't mind being last. but to have a living legend like john lewis in such a fashion is beyond the pale and message sent by this process is duly noted by me and 49 members of the congressional black caucus and 78 million americans we represent and over 11 african-americans that we

represent. further on issue of senator session's record of precuting the marion three, stemming from a complaint filed by afric-americans, i say the following. history is replete with efforts by those in power to legitimatize their acts of suppression and intimidation of black voters by recruiting other blacks to assist in bringing trumped up charges against law-abiding citizens who are engaged in perfectly legitimate voter education. and empowerment activities. those tactics were effectively used against former congressman robert smalls and hundreds if not thousands of black officeholders an land holders in our post-reconstruction era. and they were used several years ago against mr. and mrs. alfred turner, who were discussed by this committee yesterday. the declaration of independence set forth the idea of universal equality, that rests at the

heart of our democracy but the 14th amendment to our constitution and its equal protection clause that helped bring us closer toç fulfilling that foundational principle and brings us closer to a more perfect union. all cabinet officials have the responsibility to protech the interests of all of the american people, but there is no office for which the duty to apply the law equally is greater than that of the attorney general. in my capacity as chairman of the congressional black caucus i urge you to reject senator sessions nomination. thrghout our nation's history, attorney generals have used resources of federal government to vindicate the right of the most vulnerable in society. after the civil war the first attorney general to lead the doj, aim most ackerman prosecuted the kkk for its widespread use of violence aimed at suppressing the black vote. this facilitated massive black voting turnout in 1872 for the first time in our nation's

history, former slaves were afforded the opportunity to participate in the democratic process. simply put, senator sessions has advanced an agenda that will do great harm to african-american citizens and communities. for this reason the cbc briefs senator sessions should be disqualified. he has demonstrated a total disregard for the equal application of justice and protection of the law as it applies to african-americans and falls short on some issues. jeff sessions supports a system of mass incarceration disproportionately targeted african-american citizens and devastated african-american]b2é% communities. he opposed common sense, bipartisan criminal justice reform. and jeff sessions can not be relied upon to enforce the voting rights act. in his decades-long career in public life senator sessions has proven himself unfit to serve in

the role as attorney general. and i would, i would not have the opportunity to testify today if it were not for men like john lewis, who was beaten within an inch of his life in his pursuit for the right to vote for african-americans. it's a shame that he must sit here and relitigate this 50 years later. we sit here as the prodigy of men and women who were bought, sold, enslaved, raped, tortured, beaten and lynched. black people were bought as chattel an considered 3/5 of a human being however we've been enable to endure and large i overcome the history thanks in part to brave men and women, both democrat and republican who sat where you sit and cast often difficult votes for freedom and equality. these senators fought public opinion and even their own party to do what was right. i come before you today, asking you to do the same. now you all must face a choice. be courageous or be complicit.

ut to confirm senator sessio, you take ownership of everything he may do or not do in office. he has no track record of fighting for justice for minorities, despite the characterizations that you have heard from others today. he and his supporters have told you that he is a champion for civil rights and equality. characterization and revisionist histories are not the same things as facts. he is on the record on numerous issues. i have provided just a few examples today. let's think about this logically. if he were in fact the champion of for civil rights, wouldn't the civil rights community support his nomination instead of speaking with one voice in near unanimous opposition? in closing, each and every senator who casts a vote to confirm senator sessions will permanent, will be permanently marked as a co-conspirator in an effort to move this country backwards towards a darker period in our shared history. so i ask you all, where do you

stand? it is clear from senator session's record where he stands. will you stand with him and allow history to judge you for doing so? i'm more you all to weigh hess questions properly as you prepare to cast what will be one of the most consequential votes in your time as united states senator. it's a legal term which means the thing speaks for itself. senator sessions's record speaks for itself and i would urge you not to confirm senator sessions as attorney general of the united states. thank you, mr. chairman, for allowing me to go over. >> thank you, congressman richmond. now i call on mr. smith. >> chairman grassley, members of the committee, i ask that my written statement be made a part of the record. >> it will be and that is true of senator booker and anybody else that didn't get their entire statement put in the record. it will be in the record, yes. >> it's an who are nor for me to be here today to support senator essentials to be the next attorney general of the united states of america.

he will do an outstanding job. the american people had an opportunity to witness yesterday through his testimony, a brilliant legal mind, a man of the highest character and great integrity. let me briefly address this legal mind. as a staffer, your job is always to be more prepared than the member. senator sessions made this difficult. i remember one hearing where i was passing senator sessions note after note after note to make sure he was prepared. when he didn't speak on the topic i handed him i would hand him another note on another topic. finally he decided to speak. he did as he did in his testimony yesterday, he crushed it. senator sessions was not ignoring my notes. he was systematically thinking about how to put all the notes together in one speech. a number of my colleagues were amazed by his speech. theyç asked me afterwards, what you did you say to him in those notes? i told him, i handed senator session as blank sheet of paper and told him to make me look

good, and that's what he did. senator sessions spent yesterday proving to the american people that he understands the law, will disperse it equally and made a bunch of staffers look good. a lot has been said about senator essentials's character. we've seen people who have never met senator sessions claim to know him and know his heart. we've seen members of this body and members of the house of representatives just now who have worked with senator sessions and praised him for his work and now turn to attack him. this should not be. the reason we did not see a lot of this yesterday during the hearing is because members of this committee know senator sessions. you know he is a strong conservative but you also know he is fair and honest. if you disagree with senator sessions, because of his political views, let's have a conversation about that but let's do it on the facts not on 30 years of old innuendos and allegations at that have been disproven. there is something very consistent for praising senator

sessions in aiding african-american communities and working on crack and powder cocaine legislation and criticizing him because he take as different political view on another matter like immigration. enforcing immigration laws is not out of the mainstream. on the panel to testify before this one, there were personal attack after personal attack, after personal attack. i doubt anyone one of those individuals attacking senator sessions outside of yesterday, has spent 30 minutes in the same room with him. that's 30 minutes in the same room, not 30 minutes talking to him. i doubt any of them have spent 30 minutes or ten minutes talking to senator sessions. this process should not be -- this process should be about facts not political aspirations. every allegation and witness from 30 years ago has been discredited. members and media should move on senator sessions testified yesterday he would enforce the laws whether he agreed with them or not. that's the role of the attorney

general. not toe embrace every point of view in the shifting political winds. if you come before jeff sessions you will get equal justice and you will respect the outcom even if you lose. w do i know this? i know it because i know jeff sessions. i'm not testifying as someone who just met him yesterday. i know his family. i have dined at his house. we have eaten johnny rockets burgers together. i traveled across the state of alabama with jeff sessions. i watched him order a heath blizzard at dairy queen, quote, heavy on the heath. i have watched him prepare for hearings. i debated him on legislative matters. i have written speeches for him. i have made speeches onç his behalf. i have been in every political situation with him. senator sessions is unquestionably qualified for the job. for which he has been nominated. he is a good christian man and a good family man. he is a man who has dedicated his life to public service and

in the course of that, he has actually fought for the disenfranchised. he fought for sentencing reform and not only did he fight for it, he accomplished it. he fought for civil rights. he prosecuted members of the ku klux klan and most importantly, he fought for the liberty of all americans regardless of color of their skin or their personal beliefs. this is the way it should be. after 20 years of knowing senator sessions, i have not seen the slightest evidence of racism because it does not exist. i know a racist when i see one and i've seen more than one, but jeff sessions is not one. senator sessions has served with distinction throughout his career as a united states attorney, as attorney general for alabama, and as a member of this body. the legal profession, is better for his service. this body is better for his service. and this country is, at the end of his term will be better for his service. and every season jeff sessions

has been measured, courteous and kind. he has treated me an everyone respectfully and fairly. not showing favoritism at any point. this is the kind of attorney general that our nation needs. i applaud his selection. i look forward to his swift confirmmation. thank you, and war eagle. >> the record will stay open until tuesday and i thank all of you for your testimony, and hearing is adjourned. neil: all right. that will do it here on this particular hearing for jeff sessions, for attorney general. this issue hos come up again and again about whether he is racist and tried between african-americans who supported the senator, the alabama senator and those who say his appointment as attorney general would be horrific. the scheduling i'm told had nothing to do putting them in the back of the bus or end of this discussion. it was coordinating all of them on the same day.

that is what we were told at least which was the case with cory booker, new jersey senator who becomes first sitting senator to testify against a sitting senator, in this case jeff sessions, saying that his record, without detailing what is in the record, is not what this attorney general should be about. or who should represent him. we were similarly following another confirmation hearing still going on in a break right now, for the next secretary of state or the guy who wants to become secretary of state, rex tillerson. in that a couple of revealing comment as wellç from him, sayg he would decline to pledge the trump administration would renew russian sanctions that are already in effect. mr. tillerson making it clear that certainly as head of exxonmobil he visited white house many, many times to protest those sanctions and how they would be implemented. he also dealt with criticism that he woulde less inclined

to support the iran nuclear deal. he says that it is open-ended. they really don't know what they're going to do, but it was his opinion of russia, more particularly of vladmir putin, that drew bipartisan questioning and criticism from no less than marco rubio. take a look. >> is vladmir putin a war criminal? >> i would not use that term. >> there is so much information out there. it should not be hard to say that put's military conducted war crimes in aleppo. >> i'm not willing to make conclusions on what is only publicly available or been publicly. >> none of this is classified, mr. tillerson. these people are dead. >> your question, your question was people directly responsible for that. i'm not disputing these people are dead. neil: all right it was a pretty testy exchange. does leave open the possibility that marco rubio on that committee could vote against mr. tillerson is anyone's guess

as whether that would be the case. two other republican senators not on that committee, john mccain and lindsey graham have also expressed reservations about the former exxonmobil ceo. again on the same issue of his ties to russia and more vladmir putin. mr. tillerson was talking about often times, his relationship with russia when it came to business deals, particularly in far fringes of russia, salk land islands kept coming up. that was part of a multibillion-dollar commitment for exxonmobil for a huge oil contract andis repeated visits, yo heard talking about two dozen visits to the white house. i believe it works out to eight visits. there is no way to know. one of the things that came up there whether he was trying to how exxonmobil would honor those sanctionses. . .

sessions' separately, donald trump had a press conference today. his first since becoming president-elect of the united states. in it, he announced he was handing over his businesses to his two oldest sons and having a handsoff relationship with the trump organization going forward, saying any business deals it makes with foreign players simply won't be done while he is president of the united states for the mere appearance of impropriety. critical of the latest leaks and another news organization, i believe, cnn. that will do it. trish regan taking you through the next hour. trish? trish: all right, neil, thank you so much. we've got a lot going on today, everyone. breaking in his first news conference as president-elect donald trump promising to distance himself from the business empire he built, but critics still insist it can't

be done. i'm trish regan, welcome everyone to "the intelligence report". president-elect donald trump taking aim at unverified, unproven, salacious and inflammatory media reports about him. >> i think it's a disgrace that information would be let out. i saw the information, i read the information oue of that meeting, it'all fake news, it's phony stuff, it didn't happen, it should never have -- number one never have entered paper, never have been released. but i read what was releasid and think it's a disgrace. it's an absolute disgrace. trish: all this as nominee for secretary of state rex tillerson faces protesters and questions from some of trump's former rivals. >> is vladimir putin a war criminal? >> i would not use that term. >> there's so much information out there, it should not be hard to say that vladimir putin's military conducted war crimes in aleppo.