syndrome and bringing awareness to an important issue. thanks for joining us. i'm dana perino. shep is next. >> shepard: about to begin on fox news channel, what may well will the most pivotal discussion to date about what went down last week overseas at the nato meeting between president trump and vladimir putin. any moment, mike pompeo is to testify in front of the senators on the foreign relations committee. secretary pompeo is expected to face tough questions on what he knows about the putin meeting and ongoing nuclear talks with north korea and escalating tensions with iran. we'll take you live there for coverage once it starts. first, the focus is on the president's former fixer and whether he's about to flip. president trump's former

personal attorney and fixer michael cohen has released a recording about hush money involving a former playboy model. cohen's attorney, lanny davis says cohen has turned the corner and dedicated to telling the truth. lanny davis gave the recording to cnn. it aired on their airwaves last night. the recording made in secret and some words are difficult to make out. in it, the president does utter the word "cash" regarding a payout involving karen mcdougal. she's a former play made that claims she had a relationship with president trump before he took office. president trump denies the affair. here's the recording.

>> funding? >> yes. all the stuff. you never know where that company or what -- >> [inaudible]. >> so i spoke with alan -- >> what finance something. >> paid -- >> pay with cash? >> no, no, no. >> check? >> shepard: just a couple weeks before that taped conversation, executives with the national inquirer's parent company ami reached a $150,000 deal to pay the former model for her story about the affair with president trump that she alleges. the tabloid never published the story. they bought the story and then hid it from the public. it's a move known as catch and kill. trump's lawyers are now fighting back. we'll have their response ahead. meantime, here's how the president reacted publicly on

twitter today. what kind of lawyer would tape a client. so sad. is this a first? never heard of it before. why was the tape so abruptly terminated? cut? while i was presumably saying positive things. i hear there's other clients and many reporters that are taped. can this be so? too bad. fbi agents seized the recording and reported 12 others and troves of documents when they searched cohen's office and home in april. the feds are looking into coh cohen's dealings. cohen admits he paid stormy daniels $130,000 in exchange for her silence. she claims she had sex with the president a decade before he took office. president trump has denied so. so the headline today, the man

that once said he would take a bullet for president trump is now exposing secretly taped conversations and firing a shot in what could be a long war with the president's legal team. rick leventhal has more in the new york city newsroom. shep? >> it's tough to hear the president in spots on tape. what is clear is the president did have knowledge of the planned pay-off of the model, even though his campaign claimed that he didn't. it's also clear that his trusted confidant has new priorities. cohen's lawyer, lanny davis, says his client has now done the right thing in this case. >> i say to everybody that voted for donald trump, don't believe me. i'm a democrat. listen to the tape. the words "don't pay" are not heard. the word "cash." it's about truth and the power of the truth is what michael cohen has. >> attorney rudy guliani working for the president tweeted this

afternoon in cohen is telling the truth, why are he and lanny davis misrepresenting the language by the president? why are they leaking falsely privileged information? so much for ethics. davis said he released the tape because he was getting smeared in the press and he wanted to set the record tape. >> shepard: we just got word, had no idea this was coming from the white house, as many of you know, there's a white house pool that involving five major networks. the pool covers anything that happened at the white house. moments we got notification that there's a surprised event about to happen. the pool has been summoned to the roosevelt room. we're expecting to get something soon. will it be the president? honestly we don't know. we just been told of an unannounced event. is this unprecedented? certainly not. is it unusual?

certainly not. there's some debate about whether this cohen recording is evidence of a crime, civilly, criminally, inappropriately, the debate exists. >> it could be evidence of an agreement to commit civil fraud according to judge andrew napolitano who says that the men were discussing a payment to the national inquirer which would pay karen mcdougal $150,000. i know we have a lot doing on. more in a bit. >> shepard: thanks, rick. i promised our viewers we would have uninterrupted coverage of this hearing. we'll do that. i must now add when i said uninterrupted there was about to be an event at the white house. i'm told there would be. it's our tradition, no matter who is in the white house, should they show up something unannounced, we'll take you there. >> you come before a group of

senators today filled with serious doubts about this white house and its conduct of american foreign policy. there's reasons to be concerned. among them, the lack of information the administration has provided to members of this committee. it's our hope you'll reduce our level of concern by providing us with clear answers that might help convince us that those at the white house know what they're doing and that to be candid, you know what they're doing. i can't say it more forcefully, we need a clear understanding as to what is going on, what our president is agreeing to and what our strategy is on a number of issues. last week president trump held a summit with vladimir putin. someone who has violated the most fundamental international norms through his efforts to annex crimea, interfered with elections, supported the brutal

assad regime in syria, used chemical weapons to poison a russian agent and his daughter in the united kingdom, has occupied portions of georgia, continues to violate the inf treaty, has reportedly hacked u.s. utilities. the last goes on and on and you know the list. in the face of these hostilities in the summit's aftermath, we saw an american president that was submissive and deferential. the president has already extended an invitation to putin to come to washington to talk about the undefined agreements. the president also met with north korean leader kim jong-un, one of the most ruthless leaders on the planet who has continued to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles that could hit the united states, has executed his half brother with

poison and reportedly killed his uncle back home and has murdered an american college student and has enslaved millions of his own people. one in ten north koreans are living in slave accessory today and one in five children are stunted due to malnutrition. in the face of these realities, the president has called him very talented and that he loves his people. really? at the recent nato summit, the president not only pushed nato members, member countries to dedicate more of their budgets to defend a goal we all share, he went on to berate them questioning nato. in my opinion, used false information to turn public opinion of the united states against the alliance. even went so far as to cast doubt on the united states willingness to enforce article 5 of the nato treaty. we want to know if this is real

or just another off-the-cuff statement. and the confronting of our partners goes beyond traditional security and extends to the economic space as well. i know you're aware of my strong feelings about the administration's abuse of its 30s and using section 232 to implement tariffs in the name of national security. so far we have zero clarity from the administration as to what the end game is on the trump-pence tariffs, which in reality are a massive tax increase on american consumers and businesses, and now the administration appears ready to offer welfare to farmers that would rather have trade than aid. as you know, senators have gone to the white house in groups to discuss these actions and not a single person that i'm aware of have left the meetings with the sense that there's a coherent strategy driving these policies. the administration tells us don't worry, be patient, there's a strategy here.

but in a ready, fire, aim fashion, the white house is waking up every morning and making it up as they go. this is a first of a series of hearings dealing with the troubling dynamic that we described. we're antagonizing our friends and placating those that clearly wish us ill. this series will deal specifically with russia as perhaps the most troubling example of this emerging reality. i hope that in your position you'll do all in your power to provide us with the answers we need today and as we move forward. i look forward to your testimony and i want to thank you again for being with us and for the many outstanding people you're bringing on to the state department to work with you. with that, i'll turn to senator menendez. >> thank you. let me start by saying i applaud you by saying this is the first of a series of oversight

hearings on russia. we've gone about a year without a hearing. so i appreciate your leadership in this regard. now it seems to have taken a three-ring circus of a debacle of a meeting with president putin, a walk back of whether the president trusts his own intelligence officials, suggesting that it might be okay for a u.s. diplomat to be interrogated by russian intelligence and a reality tv summit that was a little more than photo op with a brutal dictator. having said that, welcome and thank you for your service to our country. the members of this committee are strongly supportive of strategic, well-crafted diplomacy to advance america's foreign policy interests. unfortunately all we have come to expect is a saber rattling president that embraces and provides legitimacies to some of the world's worst bad actors and

denigrates the closest allies whose sons and daughters have gone to war with americans. we have not seen deals that put national security first. our president leaks weak as he stands beside our adversaries and intends to roll out the red carpet at the white house, i hear that's postponed putin to the white house until january, but nevertheless, invite a thug to our white house. we are taking heat for intelligence and law enforcement, working to protect the country from the flashing red lights of ongoing aggression. senator graham and i and others plan to introduce legislation to ensure we have the toughest tools to go after russian bad actors. as of this moment, we find ourselves in an unimaginable situation. the american people, elected officials in this body, members of the president's own cabinet have heard more about the meeting in helsinki from putin

and his associates than from our president. we know that the kremlin's state-run media operations have a dubious commitment to the truth but we don't know what the truth is. nobody else was in the room where it happened. the american people expect and i believe they deserve to know what happened. i also have serious questions about the summit in singapore that took place nearly two months ago. in that time, we have yet to hear or see anything that provides us with real confidence that north korea as the president gloated no longer poses a threat to the united states or that we have a coherent strategy to achieve a verifiable denuclearization agreement. we've only seen a vague agreement of promises to make more promises. if weaker commitments than north korea has previously made. the united states and north korea seem to remain far apart on basic issues like the definition of denuclearization.

over the past 18 months, north korea has perfected their intercontinental ballistic missiles and tested its largest nuclear detonation rather than any verifiable steps to dismantle their program. it seems kim jong-un got everything he wanted in singapore, including international recognition and the suspension of u.s. military exercises. this dismantlement of a launching station may be good news but could be a sign that they have done all the tests they need to. it's more the art of the concessions than the art of the deal. we're weaker for it. last week russia and china blocked a u.s. request to impose penalties on sanctions violations calling our maximum pressure posture into question. as you know, i've introduced bipartisan oversight legislation with senator gardner to provide the sort of support and guidance

this diplomatic effort needs and exercise the oversight responsibility congress owns to the american people. goals that you previously laid out before this committee are incorporated. finally, let me raise one more deeply alarming issue that broke this week. i understand despite its ability to stop this ridiculous notion, the state department is about to be allow internet posting of do it yourself 3-d firearm blueprints. why on earth would the trump administration make it easier for terrorists an gunman to introduce un detedetectable pla guns? we need comprehensive strategies across the world because the result of a lack thereof is chaos and confusion or even worse. i recognize the president considers himself to be a masterful deal maker and a stable genius, but we need to call his statements out for what

they are. at this point they're misleading and untruthful. i look forward to your testimony to find out what the truth is. thank you. >> thank you. thank you very much. mr. secretary, we welcome you again. you can summarize your comments, if you have any written materials to enter, we'll do so. with that we look forward to your testimony. >> good afternoon. i thank you for the opportunity to be with you today. during my confirmation hearing, you asked me to work on a host of world problems. after 12 weeks, i've been doing that. i hope we get a chance to talk about each of them today. the last few weeks, i've engaged in three areas of particular interests to this committee. north korea, nato and russia. on the subject of russia, i want to bring something to your attention off the bat today. the trump is releasing what we're calling the crimea declaration. i'll submit it to the record. it's been publicly released as

well. one part reads as follows. "the united states calls on russia to end their occupation of crimea." i want to assure this committee does not, will not recognize the kremlin's annexation of crimea. we together with allies and the international commitment to the ukraine and the territorial integrity. there will be no relief of crimea sanctions until russia returns them. there's another indicator of diplomatic progress i want to mention. this morning, pastor andrew brunson who was in turkey in prison has been let out of jail. he's still under house arrest. our work is not done. it's welcome progress. one that many of you have engaged in something and working on diligently as well. we will continue to work for the

speedy return of all americans unjustly held captive abroad president president trump will never forget about our own. our diplomacy is advancing the goals of the president's national security strategy which laid down guiding principles for foreign policy? december. in late april, i started executing on the strategy and july 1, today, here we are and i want to present you some progress. the national security strategy established protecting the american people, the homeland and the american way of life as a national security. president trump stated his conviction diplomacy. the president's diplomacy deescalated a situation for which the prospect of conflict was rising daily. americans are safer because of his actions. as far as the trump administration's goals on north korea, notice has changed.

our objective remains the final denuclearization as agreed toy by kim jong-un. the follow up to the president's summit with chairman kim on july 5, i traveled to north korea to make progress on the commitments that were made in singapore. we're engaged in patient diplomacy, but we will not let this drag out to no end. i emphasize this position in the productive discussions i had with the vice president chairman. the president is upbeat that denuclearization is happening. we need chairman kim jong-un to follow-through on his commitments. until north korea eliminates the weapons, the sanctions will remain in effect. north korea have to eliminate all of the weapons of mass

destruction. we absolutely need every single nation to maintain the enforcement of those sanctions to which every nation is committed. the path is not easy but the hopes for a safer north korea endure. the national security strategy calls for peace through strength. president trump's engagement on nato has resulted in greater burden sharing that will strengthen the alliance against threats. allies have spent more than $40 billion in increased defense spending since 2016. there will be hundreds of billions more in the years ahead. last year's 14.4 billion in new spending was a 5.1% increase with the largest in a generation. eight allies will meet the 2% this year, 18 on track to do so by 24. the trump administration is demanding that every country make its own commitment. nato will remain an

indispensable pillar of american national security. weakness provokes enemies but strength and cohesion protect us. the more every nato member contributes, the better we can deter our threats, this is the increased commitment that the president wants. from the outset of this administration, the national defense strategy and the russia integrated strategy, the approach has been the same. the raise the cost of aggression until vladimir putin chooses a less confrontational foreign policy and keeping the door open for dialogue. between the united states and russia, we have over 90% of the world's nuclear powers. the president believes we shouldn't have a contentious relationship. he believes that now is the time for direct communication in order to make clear to president putin that there is the possibility, however remote it might be, to reverse the negative course of our relationship.

otherwise, the administration will continue imposing tough actions against russia in response to its maligned activities. we can't make progress unless we talk about them. i've heard many of you on this panel say that for years and years. i'm referring to key issues like stopping terrorism, obtaining mace in ukraine, delivering humanitarian assistance in syria. for iran, the president has said iran is not the same country it was five months ago. that's because our campaign of financial pressure, the withdrawal from the nuclear deal and the support for the iranian people are having an impact. in helsinki, we sought to explore peace. we defended the strategic interest in syria and ukraine. i made clear to the russians there will be severe consequences for interference in our democratic processes.

i would add that president trump is well aware of the challenges that russia poses to the united states and our allies. he's taken a staggering number of actions. 213 sanctions on russian individuals. 60 russian spies expelled from the united states of america and the closure of russia's consulate in seattle in response to their chemical weapons use in the u.k. the closure of the consulate in san francisco. cutting u.s. diplomatic staffing of russia by almost 70%. 150 military exercises have been led or participated in europe this year alone. more than 11 billion has been put forward for the european defense initiative. we made defensive weapons available to the ukraine and to georgia. just last week, the department of defense, after helsinki, added an additional $200 million

in security cooperation funds to ukraine. none of this happens for the eight years that preceded president trump. it's not enough for you, there's a long list. i'm happy to go through them. i'm guessing sometime today i'll have that opportunity. i look forward to it. finally, president trump stated that he accepts the conclusion that russia meddled in the 2016 election. he has a complete and proper understanding of what happened. i know. i briefed him on it for over a year. this is perfectly clear to me personally. i'm also certain he deeply respects difficult and dangerous work that our patriots in the intelligence community do every day and i know he feels same way about the amazing people that work at the united states department of state. thank you. >> thank you very much. secretary, staff has schedule that we absolutely stated a seven-minute deal. if we could not ask five-part questions.

if you could give the respondent time to answer in the seven minutes, i appreciate it. with that, i'll defer to senator menendez. >> thank you. when the president meets alone with president putin, it allowed the kremlin sponsored state media and the russian defense to provide for information from their perspective not only to the american people but sometimes it seems to the members of the president's own cabinet. i want to understand what actually happened. has the president told you what he and president putin discussed in their two-hour closed-door melling in helsinki? you can put your microphone on. >> yes. i'm confident you had private meetings in your life as well. you chose that setting -- >> i asked a simple question. did he tell you what happened in

those two hours? >> yes. the predicate of your question said there was something improper -- >> i didn't can you a predicate. i asked a simple question. did he tell you -- >> i had a number of conversations with the president. i was present when he president putin gave us a sense of what they discussed in the meading that followed after and i also had a chance to speak with sergey lavrov. i think i have a complete understanding of what took place. >> did you speak to the translator that was at that meet something. >> no, i haven't. >> have you seen her notes? >> senator, i have never -- i've been in lots of meetings and had lots of note takers and translators. i never relied on the work that they did -- >> did the president -- >> and it does -- >> did the president discuss relaxing u.s. sanctions on russia, including -- >> senator, the u.s. policy with

respect to sanctions is completely unchanged. >> so the president did not -- i asked a specific question. did the president tell you that he discussed relaxing russia sanctions or not? yes or no. >> i'm telling you what u.s. policy is -- >> you told me that you had a conversation in which he told you what transpired. the nation and all of us policy makers deserve to know so that we can fashion policy accordingly. did he tell putin that our release or ultimately relax sanctioned? >> senator, what you need to conduct, your role, your appropriate role,ly provide you today. that is united states policy with respect to the issues you requestioned -- you asked me about policy with concern to sanctions. no commit has been made to change policies.

>> did the president ask to withdraw from crimea? >> i began with the -- >> i understand the declaration. i welcome in. seems like we had to do a lot of effort to get there. the question is, when he had a chance, did he confront putin and say we don't recognize your annexation of crimea? we don't exercise your continuing hostilities in the ukraine and there's consequences for that. >> the president was very clear with putin. the u.s. positions are the trump administrations positions and he spoke about them clearly. >> and he told you that? >> senator, i'm telling you what he had a conversation with vladimir putin about and i'm telling you u.s. policy today. i understand the game you're playing. >> no, mr. secretary -- with all due respect, i don't appreciate you characterizing my questions. my questions are to get to the truth. we don't know what the truth is. the only way we will know what the truth is, what transpired in the two hours in highly amazing

period of time to spend alone one-on-one is by understanding at least that if you were briefed by the president what he told you. i don't think that's unfair to know what policy is. let me ask you this. did the president say they were going to change our structure in syria? >> senator, presidents are permitted to have conversations with cabinet members that are not repeated in public. i owe the president the capacity for him to have conversations with him, provide him the best foreign policy advice that i can. it's what i was -- >> let me ask you this, mr. secretary. here's something that you can answer for me. >> great. >> because you're not going to answer the questions that will get us to the truth. as cia director, you stated in an interview that you fully expect russia to continue their attacks on our democracy by attempting to interfere in the mid-term elections. in his conversation with putin, i hope the. laid out the consequences of

interference of the 2018 election. i know -- >> i can tell you that. >> you want to share -- >> no, i can tell you that because the president has disclosed that. the president disclosed what he said to vladimir putin about russian interference in our election. he said he's confident as a result of that conversation, vladimir understands it won't be tolerated. >> i wish he said that in pull in helsinki. senator graham and i and others are working on a new bill to hold russia accountable. will you commit to working with us on a new russia bill? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. north korea. when you last appeared, i asked you a series of critical questions about what is our policy in north korea. to your credit, i must say i agreed with our goals. now i want to ask you since we haven't heard anything, not a classified briefing or anything, did north korea agree with our definition of denuclearization, meaning the dismantlement,

removal of all nuclear weapons, technology and material from north korea? >> i think i can answer your question. let me begin by saying i'm engaged in a complex negotiation with the north koreans. i don't intend to share the details of every conversation that took place in those. i'll attempt to answer your questions without disclosing the contents of the negotiation. i'm very confident that the north koreans understand our definition of denuclearization. >> have they agreed with you -- >> i believe they thoroughly understand that and -- >> they understand but they didn't agree. did they agree to end the enrichment for plutonium -- >> i would welcome a chance to respond to your questions. if you let me finish -- >> yes or no. >> it would be -- >> can you repeat the question? the previous question. >> surely. did north korea agree to end the

production and enrichment of uranium -- >> they agreed to denuclearized fully. yes. it certainly includes -- >> i would love for you to come to a classified setting and tell all members what transpired. we don't know. >> thank you. >> mr. secretary, thank you for doing this job. the president made a wise decision appointing you as secretary of state. you're a quitting yourself very well here today and we appreciate that. you've always been straightforward with us and i appreciate that. many of my colleagues fully appreciate that. i want -- >> are you prepared to say more or going with many? >> i'm going to stay with many. let me say that as far as what happened at the nato summit very few americans heard anything

except the argument that went on about funding. i know that the president believes and i know you believe and i believe and most everyone believes that nato is the most successful military alliance in the whole world. as you pointed out, it's a pillar of our national security and one that we need to support and one that we need to work well. there's very few down sides of nato, but there's one blemish. the president has underscored that publicly and well. his predecessor attempted to do it. all of us that meet with the europeans underscore it. that is the funding or lack thereof that the europeans have done. only eight of the nato nations are actually meeting the commitment of 2%. first of all, the president is to be commended for underscoring this as on he can do in his

unique way and actually getting them to start talking about it and now finally agreeing about it. there were other things that were lost. i'd like you to talk about those things for a few minutes. first, speeding of the time it take allies to assembly and deploy forces. that's a huge step forward. the efforts to improve mobility and establish a process to enhance the speed in which nato can make decisions. they fight against terrorism and increase in allied resilient against terrorist threats through a new frame work to share. finally, an opportunity for macedonia to join nato and fulfill a promise from the bucharest summit. could you comment on those very important steps forward that happened at the nato summit? >> it was an incredibly

productive nato summit. from my conversations with the secretary general stolenberg, he said the pro productive that he's been a part of. you talked about the 30 naval combatants ready to go in 30 days. something that nato has not been ready to do in quite some time. we have to make sure that occurs. it would be a great thing to do to deter russia if we can get to that level. you talked about burden sharing. it's important that the europeans are as committed to deterring russia as the united states of america and need to demonstrate that through defense. not only dollars but readiness as well. we've seen the reports of german readiness. they need to be ready. the president raised another

issue about energy and energy security at the nato summit. he talked about the nordstream 2 people line. russia could use energy as a weapon to cooers formally or informally germany or other european countries. they raised it. the european countries raised that risk and support america. i finally talked about the nato mission. its new role in fighting terrorism. i want to say thanks to so many of the european countries that have stepped forward. just this past few two weeks since the nato summit over 1,000 additional commitments from allied nato partners headed to assist us in afghanistan. its a great commitment. something that the president worked hard at the summit and good outcomes for america. >> thank you.

you're to be personally to be commended for the great successes and the president in that regard. it's unfortunate that our friends and allies feathers were ruffled a little bit because we said they weren't paying their bills. that's been going on for some time and we'll tolerate that, but they have to step up. i know you underscored that and the president has certainly underscored that with them. i want to talk about iran for just a moment. one of the big unreported stories as far as foreign relations is concerned is the issues and the difficulties that the iranian people are having internally, financially and otherwise. i know we're not in a classified setting, but there is some open reporting on these sources. the regime that is there is struggling with this. i think that's probably why they tried to poke the president the other day, to try to take the

heat off of the -- the heat they're getting at home. can you talk about what's going on internally knowing that we're in an open setting. >> senator there's enormous economic challenge inside iran today. it's an economic structure that doesn't work. when you -- when your a country of that scale that has terror through lebanese hezbollah, conducts assassinations, it's expensive. the iranian people see that's not the model they want. the leadership is not what they're looking for. you're beginning to see the economic impact combined with

understandings of side of iran leading to the decisions that the people will have to make. >> you agree with me that that acceleration of that understanding by the iranian people has been very rapid over the last six months? >> yes. i think it's been going on longer than that. >> it's been going on longer. i'm talking about the acceleration. >> yes, that's a fair statement. >> thank you. >> if i could. one entinterjection. i know the phrase "paying their bills" needs to be used. every nato country has to contribute 2%. those near the russian border always does. that's a misnomer, is it not? what we want them to do is contribute 2%? these nato countries are not not paying bills for the united states as sometimes projected. is that correct? >> the shortfalls that the

president identifies are in two buckets. there's a nato comment fund contributed to by every nation and the united states is by far the largest contributor of that fund. then there's monies paid for nations to raise their own militaries and defend themselves. that's the 2% number to which -- >> it would be a mi mischaracterization to say they're not paying their bills. >> that's correct. >> senator cardin. >> thank you for being here. it's my understanding that the president will invite mr. putin to the united states to follow up on the understandings reached in helsinki. can you tell me what those understandings were reached in helsinki at the meeting? >> i can share with you the things that we've been tasked to follow up on by president trump following that meeting. there's a handful.

there's an agreement to establish business leaders. i understand this went on for years and years and was creased -- >> if we could do it briefly. i understand you want to give a -- >> it's what you asked for. >> i understand. business to business. next issue. >> the president is -- asked us to look at re-establishing a counter terrorism council that was held at the department of state for many years. >> counter terrorism cooperation. >> we're working to see in syria what are the possibilities can be approved so now between the ex-placed persons have the opportunity to return. we made sure this happens through geneva.

we want a political resolution that would take down the violence levels and create some opportunity to begin a political resolution of the process in syria. >> any discussions on sanctions? you said there was no easing of the sanctions. >> no, senator, no easing of the sanctions. >> was there any discussion about magnitsky? some of those discussions were brought up. was there any -- >> there's no change in u.s. policy with respect to magnitsky. i think i know what you're referring to. the united states will defend our team in the field. the team in the field when they retire and leaves the field. we understand that americans deserve the protection of the united states of america both during their time in service and thereafter. >> was there any agreements reached in regards to ukraine?

>> no, senator. i agree to disagree. the u.s. policy has not changed. you can see that. $200 million since the helsinki summit provided to the ukrainians. i think -- there was lots of concern -- i saw it. i could find you all's quotes if you want me to drag them out. concerns that president trump would make a change in position with respect -- >> you made that clear. >> there is none. it's a policy that the previous administration refused to undertake. so i hear comparative -- it's important, senator. comparison matters here. there's a narrative that develops that somehow president trump is weak on russia. when in fact it's not true. >> i heard you talk about brag about -- >> these are just facts. >> the facts are that congress passed the statute that required sanctions to be imposed and sanctions to be imposed that have not been imposed.

the facts are the administration saw a waiver. so i want to point out and we've had this from previous administrations but not as much as we're hearing today, when congress is requiring you to do, all of a sudden you found religion and taking credit for it. in reality you have not implemented on time the sanctions passed by congress. >> senator, that's not true. we passed a number of sanctions and it's also true, my best recollection, the president signed that law. >> and he complained -- >> and i thank you for presenting that law. we appreciate it. we think it makes good sense. the president signed it. we have passed sanctions under that very law. we've passed sanctions -- previous administrations didn't do it. >> please read the president's comment when he signed the law. it's very interesting. let me move on to our policy in

regards to nuclear proliferation in iran and in north korea. i'm having a hard time understanding the comparison between these two countries. in north korea we have a country that has a nuclear weapon. the president has met with the leader of that country and has at least given a signal to some countries that in fact there may be relaxation of those. we're having problems with china today as i understand. in iran, we had a commitment for a short term ending their nuke program. we isolated iran getting the support of china, russia and europe. we were able to keep the temperature down in regards to their nuclear program. now by pulling out, we're now seeing we don't have any commitments on the short term if iran walks away.

there's sanctions now under the united states. we've been isolated, not iran. of course, iran today was not pursuing a nuclear program. i agree. there may be long-term issues. i'm having a hard time understanding our strategy in regards to preventing nuclear proliferation. last point i would make, we had a hearing on this committee as to what is necessary to move forward with north korea on giving up nuclear weapons. the first thing they talked about, you have to have a full declaration of the nuclear arsenal and a timeline for dismantling. i'm getting my information now from the south koreans, not from the americans. south koreans have been reported to say that we asked for that information and you have not been able to get that information from kim jong-un or his representatives. so what have we gotten in north korea and why are we allowing north korea to continue to have a nuclear weapon when the strategy is that as long as iran

is doing any types of enrichment, we're going to impose sanctions against them? >> senator, let me try. that was a long question. let me try to unpack it a little bit. let me give you the common theme. we want neither iran nor north korea to have the capacity to proliferate nuclear weapons, enrich uranium or build a program. that sets the understanding of how one achieves nonproliferation in the world and that's what we're doing with those two countries. they're in different places and we're working on the approach that increases the likelihood that we can achieve that. a mission i know you share. >> i know mention was made of a waiver in the ndaa by secretary mattis. he wouldn't want to be demoted to that level, i know.

but i support that. the purpose of that waiver, was it not, was to allow countries that we're dealing with that we wish to buy american military equipment to be weaned off of russia equipment. they still had to buy parts to do so so we can more fully implement strategies with them, working with them to really push back against other countries. is that correct? >> senator corker, you captured it well. senator mattis and i put forward this proposal. these are countries that have historic russian weapons systems. if we deny them the capacity to have spare parts, then we're likely to drive them into the hands of the russians. i don't think that was the aim of the sanctions. so we're -- >> would the chairman yield? >> rubio may yield. >> my point is that this is an issue we talked about in

development of the catsa bill. there's no debate on the waiver request by the administration. i disagree with the distinguished chairman as to whether it was handled right. the countries had over a year to solve that. >> had it become an acute issue and it is a defense-related issue. i'm glad that we've resolved it in a manner that will allow these countries to wean off of russian equipment. senator rubio? >> thank you. watching to see if they reset any clock. like an nba game. it's all right. i'll tell you when the time is up. when vladimir putin decided to interfere in our elections, you agree a cost benefit analysis. so where it leaves us we have to

defend against election systems and the like and the other we have to make sure the price is higher than the benefit. that points to one of the things you mentioned. that is what we have already done. if you start to line up some of the things that we've done in response to that and other things, it's an extensive list, including things that we've asked for four years. the javelin anti-tank missiles. the support of nato's posture in europe. the variety of designations under cyber orders from the obama administration. sanctions under catsa and more to come. several round of designations for visions for terror and trans national crime. export restrictions on entities that violated the inf treaty. we closed annexes and consulates in california. we expelled 60 diplomats.

all of those things happened under this administration. these are pretty substantial, including sanctions. obviously even that price is not high enough because the intelligence community continues to tell us they're postured and are actively engaged in both attacking our democracy and posturing to do more of that in the future. so my question is, along the lines of a piece of legislation that senator van holland and i and a group 0 others have jumped on, ames to do three things. one is define interference. it's not just five russian guys on twitter. it's define it in terms of meaning to the republic, require the director of national intelligence to issue a record within 30 days of the election about whether or not an interference occurred and put in a statute. the purpose would be know that before putin makes this decision before going into 18, this is the price i will pay if it do

this again. i don't ask you to opine on the bill. on the concept of building in deterrence on the front end, is that not an approach that we can take to hopefully deter him from doing this in the future by making clearly understand how high the price is in comparison to the benefit. >> senator, i a greet with you. there's a cost benefit analysis. it follows necessarily that putting on notice with a failsafe, if you will, about things that will follow has the likelihood of being successful in raising the cost in terms of how he calculates risk associated with a wide range of actions. >> you'll be asked plenty about russia. i think the single biggest national security threat to the united states is china. for the first time since the end of the cold war, we're in competition with appear adversary. it's not just military, it's

economic, geo political and the like. we've seen their impressive and massive military build-up, the leaps in technology, the work they're undertaking to destroy the u.s. world order and rebuild it to one more of their liking. we've seen the gains they've made in 5g alone. china is the only one to build 5g by 2020. these are not the result of hard work and ingenuity. south china sea is a great example of it. they don't make big sweeping changes. it's a sustained sort of slow and incremental and assertive demands creating new normals along the way. what they have done in the south china sea is evidence of that. the only things that seem to work are two things. the first is committed and

sustained escalation across the relationship meaning you don't carve out pieces of it. that do it that way. we have to do it that way. our whole relationship is sustained and committed the pressure. the other is invoking the help of our foreign partners. what i'm troubled by on the administration's posture, working with -- invoking the help of our foreign partners is complicated because we're engaged with this trade disputes with the e.u. and japan and mexico and canada, which we should have teamed up to confront them. i understand trade is an issue that needs to be addressed but i don't know why we didn't address china first together and dealt with our allies second. the other is the sustained and committed escalation across the entire relationship. on that front, i'm puzzled by the decision the administration made on zte. i know that was not a state department decision. it was a commerce one. i agree if the zte issue was a sanctioned violation, the penalties imposed have been devastating. zte is more than a sanctions

threat. it's part of a broader telecommunication threat that the chinese industry posed to the united states. to shut them down and threat to pull them back is not the same thing across the entire relationship. the carving out of one company sends them the message that they can pick away the relationship and undermine our willingness to sustain pressure. i don't know what the state department's role, but moving forward, what is our broader strategic approach to the threat that china poses? they don't seek parody. they seek to overtake us. >> you have laid out what i think is the principle challenge for the united states over the coming years. maybe decade. the issue of china. they have a lot of folks and a big economy. that puts them in the position to be a competitor to the united states in a way a country like russia with a economy smaller than italy's can't maintain over some period of time.

so we do need a broad comprehensive response. all of the west, not just the united states, was too slow in seeing this. you pointed out how they turned up the heat slowly. that recognition is there. i don't believe the structures are in place to respond to that comprehensively. i was with our australian partners yesterday at a meeting with secretary mattis and myself and our australian counter parts. they too just passed a set of noninterference set of rules on china. they're getting up in the same way you are. we're getting up to speed. we're beginning to strike that comprehensive response versus china that i think will ultimately do what has historically happen. allow america to prevail. >> thanks, senator. >> thanks, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i want the thank you, assistant secretary mitchell and -- for your hard work to release pastor brunson.

his move to house arrest is a positive development. we have more work to do in terms of getting him back to the united states. also pressing the turkish government to release the other americans they're holding. it's a positive step. thank you for that. i'm concerned, mr. secretary, because it's been one week since -- a little over a week since the helsinki meeting between president trump and vladimir putin. other than the brief description you just gave us, we don't really know what was discussed in that meeting. we've heard dni coats, general votel and a number of state department officials including those present in last week's committee meeting on iran indicate that they still don't have a full understanding of what was discussed in that meeting. we're seeing almost daily attempts by the kremlin to take

advantage of this opportunity as they release their own read outs of the conversation and broadcast news of various agreements that they say were reached in that meeting. that's why i'm concerned and why i want to know exactly what was agreed to in that meeting. on syria, president trump said at his joint news conference the two leaders discussed syria at length. the russian ministry of defense has indicated that the two leader as greed to military cooperation in syria. did they do that? >> with respect to deconfliction with russia, i can tell you the policies that was in place with respect to their efforts to keep american pilots safe and keep american forces safe in syria, the policy has not changed. >> do you know if they discussed that policy? >> i do know that they discussed

syria. they discussed syria. president trump said it was an effort to find a political resolution there. i think the president has talked about one more item. >> neil: we're monitoring secretary of state mike pompeo getting a grilling actually on capitol hill with the senate foreign relations commit did. on the lower right-hand portion of the screen, the rose garden. two podiums are set up there. the european commission flag is there as well. you might also know that european commission president is in town visiting the president. we're talking about this because we're getting word there's some white house announcement. reporters were told to come to the white house for this. then we got word that stocks were jumping sharply. the dow