Lawmakers grill Pompeo on Trump-Putin summit

I can't say it more for forcefully we really 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 has interfere with elections including our own have supported the brutal Assad regime in Syria has used chemical weapons to poison a Russian agent and his daughter in the United Kingdom as occupied portions of Georgia continues to violate the INF treaty has reportedly hacked US utilities the list 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 who appeared submissive in deferential we've heard that some agreements were reached but as of yet have little idea what those might be even though the president has already extended an invitation to Putin to come to Washington to discuss the implementation quote quote of these undefined agreements president also recently 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 Malaysia and reportedly killed his uncle back home has essentially murdered an American college student and has enslaved millions of his own people one in ten North Koreans are living in slavery 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 seventh summit the president not only pushed NATO members member countries to dedicate more of their budgets to defense a goal we all share he went on to break them questioned the very premise of in my opinion used false information to turn public opinion in 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 authorities 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 endgame 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 who 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 has left those 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 from where we sit it appears that in a ready fire aim fashion the White House is waking up every morning and making it up as they go this is the first in a series of hearings we will hold in coming weeks dealing with the troubling dynamic I've described one in which we are antagonizing our friends and placating those who 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 will do all in your power to provide us with the answers we need today and as we move forward in our future hearings 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 mr. chairman let me start by saying I applaud you for making this the first of a series of rigorous oversight hearings on Russia the committee's gone for about a year without a full committee hearing on either Russia or North Korea so I appreciate your leadership in this regard and 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 the suggestion that it might be even okay for a US diplomat to be interrogated by Russian intelligence and a reality TV summit that was little more than a photo-op with a brutal dictator to merit one hearing with the Secretary of State having said that mr. secretary welcome and thank you for your service to our country the members of this committee are strongly supported of strategic well crafted diplomacy to advance America's foreign policy interests unfortunately all we've come to expect is a sabre-rattling president who embraces and provides legitimacy to some of the world's most notorious bad actors and who denigrates our closest allies whose sons and daughters have gone to war alongside Americans we've not seen any substantive deals or strategies that put Americans or American national security first we've seen our president look weak as he stands besides our adversaries and intends to roll out the red carpet at the White House I hear that's postponed till January but nonetheless to invite Putin to the White House a thug who is actively trying to undermine our elections well mr. secretary we in this body are taking heat of our intelligence and law enforcement officials and working to protect our country from the flashing red lights of ongoing Russian aggression senator Graham and I and others plan to introduce legislation in the coming days 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 and members of the president's own cabinet have heard more about the meeting Helsinki from Putin and his associates than from our president we know that the Kremlin state-run media operations have a dubious commitment to the truth but we don't know what the truth because 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 quote 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 but if weaker commitments that North Korea has previously made the United States and North Korea seem to remain far apart on even basic issues such as the definition of denuclearization in fact over the past 18 months under this administration's watch North Korea has perfected its intercontinental ballistic missiles and tested its largest nuclear detonation rather than every vote any verifiable steps to dismantle their program it seems kim jeong-hoon got everything he wanted in singapore including international recognition and the suspension of US military exercises now this week's reports of dismantlement at a launching station may be good news but it may simply be a signal that North Korea has completed all the testing it needs to frankly the Singapore agreements seems more of the art of concessions than the art of the deal and we are 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 along with Senator Gardner to provide the sort of support and guidance and discipline that this diplomatic effort needs and exercise the oversight responsibilities 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 that despite its ability to stop this ridiculous notion the State Department is about to allow internet posting of do-it-yourself 3d printable firearm blueprints why on earth would the Trump administration make it easier for terrorists and gunmen to produce undetectable plastic guns I remain deeply concerned by the administration's incoherent and contradictory views we need comprehensive strategies across the world because the result of the lack thereof is chaos and confusion or even worse I recognize the president considers himself to be a masterful deal maker and a very stable genius but we need to call the president's statements out for what they are at this point I find them to be misleading and untruthful so I look forward to your testimony to find out what the truth really is Thank You mr. chairman thank you thank you very much mr. secretary we welcome you again and you can summarize your comments if you have any written materials you'd like in or the record that we will do so and with that we look forward to your testimony good afternoon chairman corker ranking member Menendez and distinguished members 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 and your 12 weeks I've been doing just that I hope we'll get a chance to talk about each of those today the last few weeks I've been gauged in three areas of particular interest to this committee North Korea NATO and Russia on the subject of Russia I want to bring something to your attention right off the bat today today the Trump administration is releasing what we're calling the Crimea declaration I won't read the whole thing I will submit it for the record it's been publicly released as well but one part reads as false quote the United States calls on Russia to respect the principles to which it has long claimed to adhere and to end its occupation of Crimea end of quote I want to sure this committee that the United States does not will not recognize the Kremlin's purported annexation of Crimea we stand together with allies partners and the international community in our commitment to Ukraine and its territorial integrity there will be no relief of Crimea related sanctions until Russia returns control of the Crimean Peninsula to Ukraine this Crimea declaration formalizes united states policy of non recognition there's another indicator of diplomatic progress I want to mention this morning pastor Andrew Brunson who was in prison in Turkey for nearly two years has been allowed out of jail at Buca he's still under house arrest so our work is not done but it's welcome progress one that many of you haven't been engaged in something the State Department is spending been working on diligently as well we will continue to work for the speedy return of all Americans unjustly held captive abroad president Trump will never forget about our own our diplomacy on these issues is advancing the goals of President Trump's national security strategy which laid down guiding principles for American foreign policy in December in late April I started executing on the strategy of Secretary of State today on July 1st excuse me today here we are and I want to present you some progress the Nash security strategy established protecting the American people the homeland and the American Way of life as the pillars of our national security on July 17th president Trump stated his firm conviction that diplomacy and engagement are preferable to conflict and hostility these principles have guided our actions on North Korea president Trump's diplomacy de-escalated a situation which the prospect for conflict was rising daily Americans are safer because of his actions as far as the Trump administration's goals on North Korea concern nothing's changed our objective remains the final fully verified denuclearization North Korea has agreed to by Chairman Kim jong-un so follow-up to president successful summit with chairman Kim on July 5th 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 vice chairman kim yeongcheol president Trump remains upbeat about the prospects for North Korean denuclearization progress is happening we need Chairman Kim jong-un to follow through on his commitments that he made in Singapore until North Korea eliminates its weapons of mass destruction our sanctions and those that the United States will remain indebted nations will remain in effect multiple UN Security Council resolutions require North Korea to eliminate all it's weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs those resolutions were passed unanimously and they remain binding we absolutely need every single nation to maintain the enforcement of those sanctions to which every nation is committed the hep path ahead is not easy but our hopes for a safer world and a brighter future for North Korea endure the national security strategy also calls for peace through strength president Trump's engagement on NATO has resulted in greater burns burden-sharing that will strengthen the entire alliance against myriad conventional and unconventional threats allies has spent more than forty billion dollars in increased defense spending since 2016 and there will be hundreds of millions of billions of dollars more in the years ahead last year's fourteen point four billion dollars in new spending was a five point one percent increase was the largest in a generation eight allies will meet the two percent this year 18 are 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 we know weakness provokes our enemies but strength and cohesion protect us the more every NATO member contributes the better the Alliance can fulfill its mission of deterring threats to each of our nations this is the increased commitment that the president wants from the outset of this administration the national defense strategy and the Russia integrated strategy our approach has been the same to steadily raise the cost of aggression as aggression until Vladimir Putin chooses a less confrontational foreign policy while keeping the door open for dialogue in our national interest between our two nations the United States and Russia possess over 90% of the world's and nuclear weapons president Trump believes that two great nuclear powers should not have a contentious relationship this is not just in our interest but in the interest of the whole world he strongly believes that now is the time for direct communication our relationship 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 malign activities we can't make progress on issues of mutual concern unless we're talking 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 peace in Ukraine stopping the civil war in Syria delivering humanitarian assistance ensuring security for Israel and shutting down all of Iran's malign activity and on the subject of Iran president Trump has said that Iran is not the same country it was five months ago that's because our campaign of financial pressure our withdrawal from the nuclear deal and our full-throated support for the Iranian people which articulated in a speech this past Sunday are having an impact and Helsinki we sought to explore whether Russia was interesting and reproving our relationship but made clear that the ball is in Russia's court we defended America's fundamental strategic interest in Syria and Ukraine and I personally made clear to the Russians that will be severe consequences for interference in our democratic processes I would also add that President Trump is well aware of the challenges that Russia poses to the United States and our partners and allies he's taken a staggering number of actions to protect our interests as just a few pieces of proof I'd like to cite the following 213 sanctions on Russian entities and individuals in the Trump administration 60 Russian spies expelled from the United States of America in the closure of Russia's consulate in Seattle in response to Russia's chemical weapons juice in the United Kingdom the closure of Russia's consulate in San Francisco cutting US diplomatic staffing by Russia by almost 70 percent a hundred and fifty military exercises have been letter participated in Europe this year alone more than 11 billion had been put forward for the European defense initiative we made defensive weapons available to Ukraine and to Georgia and just last week the Department of fence this is after Helsinki and an additional 200 million dollars in security cooperation funds to Ukraine none of this happened 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 that I'm guessing sometime today I'll get that opportunity I look forward to it finally I want you to know President Trump has stated that he accepts our intelligence community's 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 am also certain he deeply respects the difficult and dangerous work that our Patriots in the intelligence community do every single day and I know that he feels the same way about the amazing people that work at the United States Department of State thank you chairman corker thank you thank you very much secretary staff has asked that we absolute absolutely stay to the seven-minute deal so if we could not ask five part questions and in at 6:50 a if you could give the respondent time to answer within the seven minutes - I'd appreciate it with that I'll defer to Senator Menendez I'll withhold my time for interjections along the way senator Menendez Thank You mr. chairman secretary when the president meets alone with President Putin it allows the Kremlin sponsored state media in the Russian Ministry of Defense to provide more information at least from their perspective not only to the American people but sometimes it seems to the members of the president's own cabinet so I'd like to ask you some questions to get to understand what actually happened has the president told you what he and President Putin discuss and their two-hour closed-door meeting and Helsinki your microphone excuse me I'm sorry the presidents have a Praga to choose who's in meetings or not I'm confident you've had private one-on-one meetings in your life as well you've chosen that setting is the most efficient way that's a simple question I can't eat my secretary did did you did he tell you what whether or not what happened in those two hours yes and if the predicate of your question implied some notion that there was something improper about having a one-on-one meeting I completely disagree with just I didn't ask you a predicate I asked a simple question I hope we're gonna get through it did he tell you what transpired in the number of conversations with President Trump about what transpired in the meeting I was also president when President when he and President Putin both gave us a sense of what they discussed in the meeting that followed immediately after did you have also had the chance to speak with Sergey Lavrov twice about the Russian view on what takes place I think I have a pretty complete understanding good would you speak to the translator who was at that meeting no I haven't have you seen any of her notes senator I have never been in lots of meetings I've had lots of note takers and lots of translators I've never relied on the work that they did understand a place in that meeting and it does not need to be the president discussed did the president discuss relax relaxing US sanctions on Russia including cats the sanctions senator the u.s. policy with respect to sanctions remains completely unchanged so the president did not that is what you're telling me that I asked a very specific question yes I tell you that he discussed we relaxing Russian sanctions or not yes or no then oppressors are entitled to have private meetings I'm telling you what US policy is I came here today no but you you told me that you had a conversation in which he told you what transpired I think the nation and soul of all of us who are policymakers deserve to know so that we can fashion policy accordingly did he tell the Putin that our release or ultimately relaxed sanctions senator what you need to conduct your role your appropriate wall I will provide you today that is United States policy with respect to the issues you request you asked me about US policy with respects to sanctions and I can confirm to you that no commitment has been made to change those policies in any way did the president at this meeting call upon President Putin to withdraw from Crimea and eastern Ukraine senator I began my statement today with the United States government's polymer stand the declaration I welcome it I'm glad that seems like we had to do a lot of effort to get there but 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 recognize your continuing hostilities in eastern Ukraine and there's consequences for that so the president was very clear with Vladimir Putin about us positions or the u.s. positions that are the Trump administration's positions and he spoke about them very firmly and clearly when he met with Vladimir Putin and he told you that senator I'm telling you what he had a conversation with Vladimir Putin about and I'm telling you what US policy is today I understand senator I understand the game that you're playing no no you know mr. secretary with all due respect I don't appreciate you characterizing my questions my questions is to get to the truth we don't know what the truth is and the only way that we will know what the truth is what transpired in those two hours in an 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 to understand what policies let me ask you this where did the president say they were going to change our force structure in Syria senator presidents are permitted to have conversations with their cabinet members that aren't repeated in public aiyyo aiyyo the president the capacity for him to have conversations with him probably write him the best foreign policy advice that I can it's what I was let me ask you this here's something here's something you can answer from break because you're not going to answer any of the questions that would get us to the truth as CIA director you stated in an interview with the BBC that you fully expect Russia to continue its attacks on our democracy by attempting to interfere in our midterm elections as we speak in his conversation with Putin I hope the president laid out the consequences of interference in the 2018 election but I know you can't tell me that so actually I can't oh you want to share that one with no I get that way you want to share with me no senator I can tell you that because the president has disclosed that okay the the president disclosed what he said to Vladimir Putin about Russian interference in our elections and he said that he is confident that as a result of that conversation Vladimir understands that it won't be tolerated I wish he had said that in public in Helsinki let me ask you this senator Graham and I and others are working on a new bill to hold Russia accountable given that you assert the administration is tough on Russia will you commit to working with us on a new Russia sanctions bill yes sir thank you North Korea when you last appeared I asked you a series of critical questions about what's our policy in North Korea and I'm and to your credit I must say I largely agreed with what our goals are now I want to ask you since we haven't heard anything not a classified briefing not anything as it relates to North Korea did North Korea agree with our definition of denuclearization me the dismantlement removal of all nuclear weapons facilities technology and material from North Korea I think I can answer your question but let me begin by saying I'm engaged in a complex negotiation with the North Koreans and so I don't intend in this public setting to share the details of every conversation took place in those but I will I will attempt to answer your questions without disclosing the contents of the negotiation I am very confident that the North Koreans understand our definition of denuclearization a very broad one that it goes from infrastructure nuclear warheads through chemical biological weapons we understand it cuz you related for the record did they to have they agreed with you that that is I believe they thoroughly understand that and they understand it but they didn't agree did they agree to end the production and enrichment of uranium and plutonium for military programs I would welcome the chance to respond to your questions if you'd let me finish it would it would be most simple I think you'd be most illuminating for the simple yes or no could you repeat the question please said it was the previous question I didn't have the chance to have surely did you did North Korea agree to end the production and enrichment of uranium and plutonium for military programs they've agreed to denuclearize fully yes okay well we don't have certainly includes it certainly includes the world I would I would love for you to come to a classified setting and tell all members what exactly transpired because we don't know Thank You senator Risch right mr. secretary thank you for doing this job the president made a wise decision appointing you as Secretary of State and you're quoting yourself very well here today and we appreciate that you've always been straightforward with us and I appreciate that I know many of my colleagues not all but many of my colleagues fully appreciate that I want to talk merde to say most senator just gonna go many I'm gonna 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 the about funding now I know the President believes I know you believe and I believe and I think most everyone believes that NATO is the most successful military alliance in the history of the world and as you pointed out it's certainly one of the pillars of our national security and one that we need to support and one that we need to work well there there are very few downsides of NATO but there is one blemish and the president has underscored that publicly and well his predecessor attempted to do it all their predecessors attempted to do it all those of us that meet with a European some time to time underscore it and that is the funding or the lack thereof that that the Europeans have done only eight of the NATO nations are actually meeting the commitment of two percent the first of all the president's to be commended for underscoring this as only he can do in his unique way and actually getting them to start talking about it and now finally starting to agree to that but there were other things that were lost as far as that meeting is concerned and I'd like you to talk about those things for a few minutes number one is on the deterrence side the 430's commitment to increase NATO readiness and speed up the time it takes allies to assemble and deploy forces and that's a huge step forward the efforts to improve mobility and establish a process to enhance the speed at which NATO can make decisions the fight against terrorism and increase in Allied resilience against terrorist threats through a new framework to share biometric data is a major accomplishment and find the opportunity for Macedonia to receive an invitation to join NATO and fulfill the promise from the Bucharest summit that was a positive step for the Alliance and for the Balkans could you comment on those very important steps forward that happened at the at this NATO summit it was an incredibly productive NATO summit by from my conversations with Secretary General Stoltenberg he said among the most productive that he had ever been part of and he's been doing this a little while you talked about the 430 s 30 squadron 30 battalions and thirty naval combatants ready to go in 30 days something NATO has not been able to do for quite some time there's now a real commitment we have to follow through to make sure that the implementation that occurs it would be it would be a great thing to deter Russia if we can get those countries and our allies to get to that level you talked about the increase in burden sharing it seemed to get all the focus it's certainly important that the Europeans are as committed to deterring Russia as the United States of America and need to demonstrate that through their defense not only dollars but readiness as well we've seen reports about the absence of German readiness they need to truly be ready the president also raised another issue about energy and energy security at the NATO summit he talked about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and the risk that that creates to the alliance in the event that Russia should decide to use energy as a weapon to coerce either formally or informally Germany or other European countries he raised it to the forefront and frankly there are European countries that understand that risk and support America and our position on that as well and have finally talked a little bit about the NATO mission it's its new role in fighting terrorism I want to I want to say thanks to so many of the European countries that have stepped forward even just this past few I guess it's now two weeks since the NATO summit over a thousand additional commitments from allied NATO partners headed to assist us in operation resolute support in Afghanistan that's a great commitment something that President Trump worked hard on at the summit and really good outcomes for America well thank you so much you're to be personally commended for those great successes as is the president for leading in that regard it's unfortunate that our friends and allies feathers were ruffled a little bit just because we said they weren't paying their bills but that's been going on for some time and I think we're going to tolerate that but they've got to step up and I know you underscored that and the president has certainly underscored that with them I want to talk about Rahn for just a moment there 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 under and otherwise and I know we're not in a classified setting but there there is some open reporting on these sources and the regime that's there is struggling with this indeed I think that's probably why they tried to poke the president the other day to try to take their to try to take the the heat off of the heat they're getting at home could you talk a little bit about what's going on internally again knowing that we're in an open setting there is enormous economic challenge inside of Iran today it's a it's an economic structure that simply doesn't work when you foment that when you're a country of that scale that foment stare through Lebanese Hezbollah through Shia militias in Iraq into Yemen conducts assassination attempts in European countries provides enormous support for Hafez Assad outside of Lebanese Hezbollah in Syria that's expensive and I think the Iranian people are beginning to see that that's not the model that they want that the Iranian expansionism that the supreme leader in Qasem Soleimani so favor is not what they're looking for and I think you're beginning to see the economic impact combined with understandings inside of Iran of the kleptocracy that it is leading to fundamental decisions that the Iranian people will ultimately 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 it's I think it's I think it's been going on longer than that but yes it's going been going on longer but I'm talking about the acceleration yes senator I think that's a fair statement thank you thank you mister if I could just one interjection I know the the phrase paying their bills has been used and we need them every NATO country needs to be contributing 2% to defense and I've noticed those near the Russian border always do but there's that's a misnomer is it not what we want them to do is contribute at least 2% there's not these NATO countries are not not paying bills to the United States as sometimes this projected is that it is that correct the shortfalls that the President had enta fide really are in two buckets there is a NATO Common Fund that has contributed to by every nation and the United States is by far the largest contributor that fund and then there are monies that are paid for nations to raise their own militaries and to defend themselves that's the that's the 2% number right to which we've been but it's not it would be a mischaracterization to say to make it appear that they're not paying bills to the United States that's correct that's card thank you for being here it's my understanding that the president's going to invite mr. Putin to the United States to follow up on the understandings reached in Helsinki can you just briefly tell me what those understandings or agreements reached in Helsinki at the meeting sure I can certainly share with you the things that we've been tasked to follow up on by President Trump following that meeting there's a handful so there there is an agreement to establish a business to business leadership exchanges that's historically had been undertaken but had fallen away these would be business leaders that would participate in this I understand that this went on for years and years and and with CST's and Philippe you could we could do it briefly I understand you want to give a complete thing and I appreciate that I understand the business-to-business next issue the president is asked us to look at reestablishing a counterterrorism Council that was held the level of the Deputy Secretary of State for many years but had also ceased to happen I think at this point I think that makes sense counterterrorism operator terrorism we are working to see in Syria what are the possibilities that can be achieved so that the now between 6 & 7 displaced person externally displaced persons have the opportunity to return we made clear this should happen through the political process in Geneva but we are working to see if we can't get Russian Russia to be more cooperative in towards terms of driving towards a political resolution there 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 or you said there was no easing of the sanctions was there any discussion about Magnitsky because certain names associated with Nic Natsuki came out in Helsinki was there any discussion with the president on the Magnitsky sanction there's been no change in US policy with respect to menisci I think I know what you're referring to let me let me make clear the United States will defend our team in the field and the team that's been in the field when it retires and leaves the field we understand that Americans deserve the protection of the United States of America both during their time and service and thereafter was there any agreements reached in regards to Ukraine no sir that's it agree to disagree that is the US policy hasn't changed and you can see that right hundred million dollars since the hell sinky summit provided to the Ukrainians I think there was lots of concern that and I saw it I could find you all's quotes if you'd like me to go drag them out concerns that president Trump would make a change in position with respect and you made that clear and there is none and it is it is a policy that the previous administration refused to undertake and so I hear comparative it's it's important senator in comparison matters here because there's a narrative that has developed that somehow president Trump is weak on Russia and it went in fact the coldest room I heard you talk and bragged about the number of sanctions that are these were just facts they're facts is that the Congress passed the qotsa statute that required sanctions to be imposed and there are sanctions that are to be imposed under CATSA that have not been imposed and the facts are the administration has sought a waiver regards to cats in regards to the National Defense Authorization Act so I just really want to point out and we've had this from previous administrations but not as much as some we're hearing today that what Congress is requiring you to do all of a sudden you found religion and taking credit for it but in reality you haven't implemented one time the sanctions that have been passed but by Congress senator first of all that's that's not true we've passed a number of sanctions under the cats of provisions and it is also true at least my best recollection of the Constitution is the President signed that law as well so thank you I thank you for presenting that law we appreciate it we think it makes good sense the president signed it as well we have passed sanctions under that very law and we have passed sanctions that you know I just have to know previous administration's it didn't do please please read the residents comment when he signed the law because it's very interesting his comments let me move on to our policy in regards to nuclear proliferation in Iran and in North Korea because 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 president 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 of their nuclear program we were able to isolate Iran getting the support of China Russia and Europe and we were able to keep the temperature down in regards to their nuclear program now by pulling out we are now seeing we don't have any commitments on the short term if Iran walks away from the agreement because they're already sanctions now under the United States we've been isolated not Iran and of course Iran today was not pursuing a nuclear program I agree with you there may be long-term issues so I'm having a hard time understanding our strategy in regards to preventing nuclear proliferation last point I would make we had a hearing in this committee as to what is necessary to move forward with North Korea on giving up nuclear weapons and the first thing they talked about you had to have a full declaration of its nuclear arsenal and a timeline for dismantling and I'm taking my information now from the South Koreans not from the Americans South Koreans have been reported to say that you 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 let me try that was a long question let me try and unpack it a little bit so let me give you the common theme we want neither Iran North nor North Korea to have the capacity of proliferate nuclear weapons to enrich uranium or build their own weapons program that's the mission set it draws them together that sets the conditions for present forms understanding of how one achieves non-proliferation in the world and that's the mission state we're undertaking in each of those two countries there in different places and we are working on an approach in each place that we think increases the likelihood that were able to successfully achieve that a mission I know you share for turning senator Rubio is second and interjection and I mentioned was made of a waiver in the NDAA by Senator mattis I mean secretary mattis actually he wouldn't want to be demoted to that level I know but but I support that and that the purpose of that waiver was it not was to allow countries that were dealing with that we wish to buy American military equipment to be weaned off Russian equipment they still had to buy parts to do so so that we can more fully implement strategies with them working with them to really push back against other countries is that correct you capture every well it's it's extra medicine I both put forward this proposal request to the Senate for these waivers these are countries that have historic Russian weapon systems if we deny them the capacity of spare parts or to round out that process then we're likely to drive them into the hands of the Russians I don't think that was the aim of the sanctions themselves and so we're working to effectuate the intent of the statute by seeking this waiver it's a pretty narrow determine yield so I could Rubio may yield but my point is that this is an issue we talked about in the development that CATSA bill it there was absolutely no debate in this committee on the waiver requests by the administration I I take I disagree with distinguished chairman as to whether it was handled right that the countries had over a year resolved that it it had become an acute issue and it is a defense related issue and I'm glad that we've been able to resolve it in a manner that will allow these countries to wean off Russian equipment and begin buying our senator Rubio thank you just watching to see if they reset my clock that's all right we'll figure it out I'll tell you on the on the when Vladimir Putin decided to interfere in our elections you would agree he undertook a cost-benefit analysis this is what the price would be for doing this this is the benefit I think I would gain from it and so where it leaves us is we have to do two things we have to defend against potential interference election systems and the like but I think the other is we have to make sure that the price is higher than the benefit and and that actually points to one of the things you've already mentioned and that is what we've 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 a pretty extensive list of including things we've been asking for for four years that have finally happened the javelin anti-tank missiles for Ukraine and Georgia the support of NATO's new posture in Central and Eastern Europe the variety of designations under both Ukraine and cyber-related executive orders that were from the Obama administration sanction under CATSA and I know there's more to come for cybersecurity several rounds of designation of individuals for weapons pleura for Asian terror and transnational crime export restrictions on entities that violated the INF treaty would close consulates in San Francisco and in Seattle would close an annex in DC we closed the trade office in New York after they poison nerve gas attack in the UK we expelled sixty other diplomats all of those things happen under this administration and these are pretty substantial including the sanctions but obviously even that price is not high enough because the intelligence community continues to tell us that they are postured and are actively engaged in both attacking our democracy and posturing deduce more of that in the future so my question is along the lines of a piece of legislation that Senator Van Hollen and I and a group of other senators have jumped on board on and it aims to do three things one is sort of define interference okay it's not just five Russian guys on Twitter I mean it's define it in terms of its meaning to our republic require the Director of National Intelligence to issue a report within 30 days of the election about whether or not interference occurred and then put in statute a menu of very crippling sanctions and the purpose of that would be so that Vladimir Putin knows before he makes this decision going to 18 or in the future this is the price I will pay if I do this again that's why it's called the deter Act to get on the front end of it I don't ask you to a pine on the bill because I know you don't have it before you but on the concept of building in deterrence on the front end is that not a approach that we can take to hopefully deter him from doing this in the future by making clearly understand how high the price would be in comparison to the benefit senator I completely agree with you that there is a cost-benefit calculation that's undertaken before the Russians Act so it follows necessarily that putting on notice with essentially failsafe if you will about things that will follow has the likelihood of being successful in raising the costs in terms of how he calculates risk associated with a very wide range of actions let me you'll be asked plenty about Russia so I don't want to undermine that but I think the single biggest national security threat in the long term is China I mean for the first time since the end of the Cold War we are in competition with a near pure adversary and it's not just military its economic its technological its geopolitical and the like we've seen their impressive and massive military buildup the quantum leaps they're making and technology we see that the work they're undertaking to sort of destroy the u.s. World Order and rebuild it to one more of their liking we've seen the gains they've made and just on in 5g alone I mean one China Mobile will be the only company in the world that can build standalone 5g networks by 2020 and and it's really outrageous as many of these advances are not the result of hard work and ingenuity they're also the result of intellectual property theft force transfers and the like this is part of a tactic that they've been using for a while the Chinese and I think the Charles South China Sea is a great example of it they don't make these big sweeping changes it's sort of a sustained sort of slow and incremental but more assertive demands each time creating new normals along the way and what they've done in the South China Sea is evidence of that and the only ways that that seemed to work in response to their aggression are two things the first is committed and sustained escalation across the relationship meaning you don't carve out pieces of it they do it that way we have to do it that way our whole relationship sustained and committed pressure and the other is invoking the help of our foreign partners and what I'm troubled by in regards to the administration posture on this is on the working with you know invoking the help of our foreign partners has become complicated because we're in currently engaged with trade disputes with the EU in Japan Mexico and Canada which we should have teamed up with to confront them and I and I understand trade is an issue that needs to be addressed but my I don't know why we didn't address China first together and then dealt with our allies second and the other is the sustained and committed escalation across the entire relationship and on that front I'm puzzled by the decision the administration made on ZTE and I know that was not a state Department decision it was a commerce one because I agree that if the ZTE issue was simply a sanctions violation the penalties imposed have been devastating but ZTE is more than a sanctions threat to the United States it is part of a broader telecommunication threat that the Chinese industry's PO to the United States and to threaten to shut them down and then pull back from it is not the sort of committed and sustained escalation across the entire relationship the carving out of one company sends them the message that they can pick away at different parts of that relationship and undermine our willingness to sustain pressure on them to get a better equilibrium so I don't know what the State Department's role was in that decision but moving forward what is our broader strategic approach to the threat that China poses because they don't seek parity they seek to overtake us so you have laid out what I think is the principle challenge for the United States over over the coming years maybe decade the issue of China they are you talk about they they've got a lot of folks in a big economy that puts them in the position to be a competitor to the United States in the way a country like Russia with an economy smaller than Italy's can't can't maintain over some period of time and so we do need a broad comprehensive response and I think all of the West's not just the United States was too slow in seeing this your point about how they turned up the heat slowly over time I think that recognition is there but I don't believe that the structures are in place today to respond to that in a way comprehensively I was with it was whether Australian partners yesterday at a meeting of with secretary Madison myself and our Australian counterparts they - they just passed an on in turn on interference rules on China they are getting up to speed in the same way that as you all took a look at Sofia and Firma we're getting up to speed we are we are beginning to strike that comprehensive response versus China that I think will ultimately do what has historically happened allow America to prevail thank you thank you very much senator Schoen Thank You mr. chairman mr. secretary I want to thank you assistant secretary Mitchell and our chargee in Turkey Phil cosmyk for your hard work and coordination on the efforts to release pastor Brunson as you pointed out his move from prison to house arrest is a positive development obviously we have a lot more work to do in terms of getting him back to the United States and also pressing the Turkish government to release the other Americans that they're holding but it is a positive step and thank you for that I am 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 and yet 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 who were present and last week's committee meeting on Iran indicate that they still don't have a full understanding of what was discussed in that meeting and we're seeing almost daily attempts by the Kremlin to take advantage of this opportunity as they released their own readouts of the conversation and broadcast news of various agreements that they say were reached in that meeting so for me that's why I'm so 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 that the two leaders discussed Syria at length the Russian Ministry of Defense has indicated that the two leaders agreed to military cooperation in Syria did they do that United States policy with respect to deconfliction with Russia has not changed I will defer to the Department of Defense for details around that but that but I can tell you that the policy that was in place with respect to their efforts to keep American pilots safe and keep American forces safe in Syria that policy has not changed do you know if they discussed that policy they discussed right I do know that they discussed Syria they absolutely discuss Syria they the focus of that discussion I think President Trump assured this was an effort to find a political resolution there and to get the displaced persons the opportunity to return to Syria and I think the president talked about one more one more item so I as the president shared it I feel like I can as well I think he also talked about America's continued commitment to ensure that Israel was secure from threats in Syria as well and that topic was discussed by them as well they the president has previously shared that do you know if there was any sort of downgrading of our US presence in Israel I mean in Syrian that was discussed there's been no change in US policy with respect to our activities in Syria I am but that's not exactly the question it's what it's what it's what matters it's what it's what matters what what matters is what President Trump has directed us to do following his meeting with Vladimir Putin it's what he has told his senior leadership team to do and how he wants us to deploy his foreign policy strategy and do you know if the frozen stabilization funds for Syria the two hundred million dollars was that ever discussed so there's been we are we are still working to review that policy that's a State Department policy we are still working to review it the policy was the same the day before as it was the day after the president's meeting with Vladimir Putin and do you know if Iran was referenced in the context of Syria in their discussions so again it's not it's not for me to disclose the contents of those conversations I can tell you that each time I've spoken with President Trump both before Helsinki summit and after Iran has been at a central point that we have focused on with respect to US policy in Syria I'm confident will remain so so in an interview general Votel was asked about whether a deal had been made on Syria between President Trump and Vladimir Putin and he said as you indicated that he had received no instructions to change what he's doing and he went further on to say and I quote I would want to make sure that this isn't something that we stepped into lightly I'm not recommending that and that would be a pretty big step at this point in response to his comments the Russian Ministry of Defense put out a statement and also posted on on social media and again I'm quoting the Russian media they say ministry I mean with his statements general Votel not only discredited the ax fish position of his Supreme commander-in-chief but also exacerbated the illegalities under international law and US law of the military presence of American servicemen in Syria can you tell me what our response has been to the Russian Ministry of Defense with respect to this statement under my guess the response would be most appropriately from the Department of Defense and not from the Department of State but I I will humbly suggest to you that you ought to have more confidence in statements from general Votel than the Russian Ministry of Defence I do have more confidence in general Votel statement that's why I'm raising this question because it seems to me that our response to the Russian Ministry of Defence ought to be very strong to say they have nothing to say about what our generals are doing in Syria that's not their business that's our business and I would hope that that's a point that we make very strongly I had the opportunity to visit Syria a little over two weeks ago and I was very impressed with the work that our military has been doing in northern Northeast Syria along the Turkish border I was very impressed with the work of the Syrian defense democratic forces and what I heard over and over again both from the men and women who were serving and from the civilians Syrian civilians on the ground was please don't leave us here to the fate of either Assad or the Russians or other forces that may come into that part of Syria and please just a little bit in help for reconstruction efforts would go a very long way that part of Syria has stabilized they are in to reconstruction they are sending back people who have been displaced to their homes and it would be I believe a real terrible reversal of policy for us to leave those folks after what we've done and to turn them over to the Russians or to Assad's forces senator if I might just just so the facts are clear the previous administration is the one that enabled Russia to have the capacity that they have in Syria today I'm not defending the previous administration secretary I want this administration to continue doing what's working it's policy this administration's policy you're advocating for the continuation of this administration's applause I think that's important for everyone to understand Centerplate Thank You mr. chairman Thank You secretary for your testimony I wanted to commend the State Department you in particular for a quick statements with regard to the nature of the conversation as it was between President Putin and President Trump regarding certain individuals like mr. McFaul and McFaul and others traveling to Russia to be interrogated by the Russians State Department came out and said that was inappropriate despite the the president's statement that there was an incredible offer it took the White House a full two days or three days to to you know to contradict that statement that President Putin had made but the State Department quickly said that that was inappropriate and so thank you for doing that like you gave me a little bit too much credit I'm I'm doing my level best every day to implement the president's policies although that statement was from the United States president's State Department okay but the United States president said that it was an incredible offer and so that's why I'm pointing out the difference in commending you please take it with regard to what else was said during that meeting I know you've given some indication of what was discussed let me just give a sense of how Russia is characterizing that meeting and this is the the problem with a private meeting like this many of us voiced strong concerns about having a private meeting like this with no readout officially for what happened and here's what happens when a private meeting like that is held Damir Putin's meeting with Donald Trump was quote better than super Russia's top diplomat has said the leader summit in Helsinki was fabulous I think that was Lavrov who also said that the remarks reported by Russian news agencies summed up the mood that mr. Trump sided with the Kremlin over his own Intelligence Agency so they're reporting that as well here's how one paper in Russia characterized that Trump has failed to dominate Putin another tabloid said a quiet modest Trump has paled in comparison with Vladimir Putin it's clear that Putin has outmaneuvered the US president that's the Russian media characterizing a meeting and we have no readout to dispute any of it all we have are the statements made by the president that they've made a credible offer for example to have former US diplomats shipped off to Russia to be interrogated I am glad to hear that that one there a little more time will be had before a new meeting takes place between the two principals by the way I think that it's good that our president and the Russian president speak and meet together that's a good thing I don't think it's a good thing to meet in private with only an interpreter present with no readout so that whatever is characterized is only characterized by the Russian side so we have any response or thoughts on that so I have a personal experience I had a private conversation with North Koreans we didn't issue a readout on the conversations quite intentionally and the North Korean press chose to characterize it we Cho we thought it was in America's best interest not to respond tit for tat about the nature of that conversation we knew the truth we knew what had taken place there and you know it's the North Korean press and so I assume that most reasonable people will discount it fairly significant in the same way that one might the Russian press these are important decisions about how much disclosed about private conversations were a tad because everyone knows that you may have an expectation that you'll have another private conversation one day and the absence of their belief that that private conversation has the capacity to remain in that space reduces the freedom to have those conversations and I know you've had this in your life too senator I know you've had private conversations and you valued them it was just you and someone else in that room and it was important and you didn't give anyone a readout from it because you wanted to have the chance to do that again because you thought you could make real progress with that person let's talk about North Korea you brought it up you mentioned that you traveled the court in North Korea to continue on as you put it I guess to follow up on commitments made in Singapore let's talk about those commitments for a minute you mentioned that they have committed to denuclearization they may have a different readout than we do on what that entails but but so far they seem to be walking back any commitment a real commitment that was made there what commitment firm commitment other than discussion of returning remains I'm not discounting that but but in terms of denuclearization what real commitments were made I'm not gonna get into the private commitments that have been shared I don't think it's fair to characterize them walking back from commitments remember where we were right so it all depends what you draw as the projected line to say are we in a better place or a worse place than we would have been absent the Singapore summit one can draw a counterfactual reference we'll never know where we might have been but I will concede there is an awful long way to go I'm not trying to oversell the accomplishments that we've had towards the path of denuclearization to date there remains a great deal of work to do there will be highly contested that is the modalities the means the timing of this will be things that I'm confident we'll be discussing for a period of time there there have been public reports and I know the United States is tracking the disassembly of a missile engine test site something that chairman Kim committed orally it wasn't in the written agreement itself but chairman chairman Kim committed in his conversation with President Trump to do beginning to dismantle that it has to do with their missile program it's a good thing steps forward okay thank you quickly for the time is out something completely different the country of Rwanda right now and you may be familiar with this because of this week's focus on religious freedom yes as indicated a move toward severe restrictions on religious freedom particularly from outside groups what the plans of the State Department to to let them know that that is not that is not in their own interests nor ours center I share your concerns I'll need to get back to in terms of what actions we think weekly I know we'll call it out I know we'll we'll label it for what it is we do need to see what we it it is tragic and anyway I share your concern said it's a it's a huge challenge for us thank you thank you senator Kaine Thank You mr. chair Thank You mr. secretary mr. secretary just a couple of thoughts I was very discouraged at the Helsinki summit when the president basically was offered a choice in some of the questions that he believed us Intel or did you believe led Amir Putin's prata stations that he had engaged in hacking of the election and he basically said my own people have made a great case to me the Vladimir Putin has made a great case to me I don't see why Russia would have done this he came back and corrected at the next day in the United States but at the end he said I believe my Intel community but there's a lot of people out there could have been someone else and then this dragged on for a couple of days you know where I live you know I have a lot of constituents who used to be your employees at the CIA people come up to me all the time in Virginia and say I'm with the IC and they are very demoralized by this they're very demoralized that when standing next to Vladimir Putin the president's words were to suggest that he trusted Vladimir Putin over them there was the suggestion when President Trump said it was an incredible offer about ambassador McFaul that he was also potentially willing to throw not just Intel folks under the bus but State Department diplomats under the bus they live in Virginia too they feel the demoralization event your comments today that we're gonna go too bad for current or former that's very very helpful but what I want to ask you about is is our military and our military leadership there was an article yesterday in the Washington Post General Joseph Dunford chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as of Monday Dunford still hadn't been briefed on Helsinki even though it directly affects more than 1 million troops done for overseas do you know why there would bid have been no briefing of general Dunford about the discussions that took place at Helsinki general you have to ask the Department of Defense or chairman Dunford but you don't dispute that that was you have no knowledge that there was a briefing of general Dunford today about the Helsinki discussion team I know you just read me a piece from The Washington Post but I'm asking your knowledge do you have any knowledge that the administration has shared discussions about US Russia military issues with the head of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff I've actually spoken with chairman Dunford about it I was with him yesterday in a series of meetings and we had a chance to have a conversation about it yes okay so about our play okay so yesterday may have been the first time he was briefed about it I want to ask about possible yes I was gonna ask about general Otel the kind of information that jeanne shaheen senator shaheen mentioned earlier he expressed weariness about working with Russia and the Russian defence ministry this is an interesting statement they went after general Votel the head of CENTCOM who oversees as you know US military operations in the Middle East including Syria quote with his statements general Votel not only discredited the official position of his supreme commander-in-chief are you aware what the official position is that is being referenced in that statement you'd have to speak with a Russian Ministry of Defence to know what it was he was referring to but you can understand why we're concerned if it's being reported in Russian presses secretary flake and Senator flake and senator Shaheen said that they're talking about official positions that the president has outlined as for as far as you know general Votel statements did not violate any official position the United States did they seem to be giving a great deal of credit the Russian Ministry of Defense with fulness let me ask you about Gemini I might not share that same let me ask you about general Votel as far as great credit i have great belief in this truthfulness so you do not believe that any of the statements that he's made including those that I read violate any official position the United States do you would that's best approach to general tell the Department of Defense I mean I'm not when out third three orders removed if I could introduce for the record there's an interesting article in BuzzFeed news just recently today that just lists a whole series of headlines and I think these are instructive mr. chair Trump's announcement that he will end us-korea drills catches Pentagon off-guard Pentagon and Seoul's surprised by Trump pledged to halt military exercises Pentagon caught off guard by space force announcement Trump signals withdrawal very soon of US troops from Assyria surprising Pentagon and State Department Pentagon caught by surprised by Trump's travel ban pushes for some Iraqis to get special consideration US Joint Chiefs blindsided by Trump's transgender ban NORTHCOM caught off guard as Trump orders troops to us-mexico border if I could introduce this for the record mr. chair I worry about an administration that would take the Putin position over our Intel community I worry about the administration that would suggest it might be a great deal to consider handing over a former diplomat for questioning I worry about an administration that is catching the Pentagon off guard that is not consulting with general Dunford or briefing him for a week after a summit of this importance to our military mr. secretary you're aware of the NDAA prohibition the current prohibition on Russian and military Russian and US joint military operations are you not I'm aware of the existence of that provision yes the provision prohibits any use of funds it's in the NDAA any use of funds to support joint Russia and US military operations and it also gives the Secretary of Defense the ability to undertake a national security waiver if he thinks that that's the right idea does the administration accept the legality and binding nature of that provision of law I think the DoD general counsel will be the right person to ask about the intricacies of an NDA provision that had to do with complex issues that span the gap between I think what you're getting between D completion and coordination it's a it's a complex undertaking maybe not only not a waiver that the State Department has the authority but broadly yes the this administration follows the law that's the sitting here today you're not aware of a legal concern that the administration has about this NDA provision are you I'm not aware of what and you're not aware that the that the secretary defense has issued any kind of a waiver to allow us Russian military joint operations are you no senator with respect to North Korea we were told by our expert witnesses and I echo a little bit what senator Cardin said that a first test of their seriousness is will they disclose what they have in your discussions with North Korea have they reached a point yet where there has been any agreement made about them disclosing the extent of their nuclear infrastructure I not to answer questions about the nature of our negotiations other than to say that your your proposition that a good first step is the disclosure of the range of their nuclear infrastructure capabilities a an initial declaration so to speak is something that's at the very forefront of what it is we think makes sense to get them to a point where we can verify their full denuclearization thank you and mr. chair I'd like to put one other additional item in for the record which is an article just recently written by the Saudi ambassador the United States Prince Khalid bin Salman why Iran's malign behavior must be confronted not appeased and the thing that I think's interesting for us is he basically makes this argument and says that Saudi Arabia stands very willing to help the United States undertake all the actions that he suggests should be taken I'm very concerned about this too but my time would not allow further questions and I would like to put it on rationale be entered senator Barrasso thank you very much mr. Truman Thank You mr. secretary good to see you again seems every time we have a chance to visit I bring up the issue of energy security and I was very happy to see President Trump talking with our NATO and specifically with Germany about their ongoing dependence with one on Russia for energy and specifically the upcoming concern with the Nord Stream 2 and increasing that dependence by Germany of Russian energy I know the president met today with the European Commission President to talk about energy security issues I just asked your assessment of our NATO allies and if they understand the security threat and the leverage that they're giving Russia by this over reliance on Russian energy resources because it doesn't seem to be acting in their own security best interest senator it's a fair question I think their willingness to acknowledge that risk varies I think some European countries accept that risk or prepared to talk to to act in a way that might cost them a little bit more money to prevent that risk I think there's there's probably a continuum of European countries we've this issue has been raised by this administration consistently in every forum directly with the Germans as well the Germans just don't see it that way our NATO allies in the European Union doing anything in their discussions with a with Germany in terms of ending this Nord Stream 2 pipeline project again mixed within the European Union there are some countries that they share our position there are something to do so publicly there are others that do so privately that is there they have concerns about speaking out against other European countries so their conversations have been or their sharing of their view on nordstrom to with us has been private I suspect private with the other parties that they're opposing as well well I'd appreciate everything you continue to do and grateful for what the president is doing in terms of trying to lessen this influence with Russian energy on on the on the European Union in order minee you know Russian officials after the meeting with President Trump and I know you made the point about not kind of the president not making additional statements on on specific agreements the Russian ambassador has talked about important verbal agreements on new start in INF at the Helsinki summits I just want to ask a little bit about that if there are any were where you are have specific agreements been made between President Putin and President Trump on arms control treaties no we're still to work on our way through these issues were raised I think president said that we are trying to get the Russians back inside the INF trying to use every tool possible to get them to acknowledge that they are in non-compliance and get them moved back in the back inside the box and then we are the administration presence Trump's administration is considering how best to respond to that both on the INF treaty and the new start and what are the one of the best modalities to achieve what we're looking for is to decrease the risk of proliferation or potential nuclear conflict between our two countries yeah it did seem well I appreciate your efforts there I did see the president Trump striking the right decisions in terms of with these intermediate nuclear weapons in terms of providing for Poland the missile capacity there to defend the previous administration pulled out of that capacity and so I'm happy to see that with New START I always thought that that was a treaty that had significant concessions on our side and very little if anything Russia in terms of the number of the missiles because they didn't have to give up much if anything and we had to give up quite a bit so it be very concerned about what that next treaty may look like the NF tree similarly right restricts just a couple countries yeah and the world has changed dramatically since that treaty began so we are we're conducting a full-on review so that we can respond and then work with Russia to get an outcome that's in America's interest with respect to the full scope of the proliferation agreements between the two countries the nuclear proliferation group in two countries the president yesterday was at the VFW convention in national convention of veterans of foreign war I wanted to talk a little bit about after the discussion in Singapore with the North Korean leader in the signing of a declaration committing to the return of remains of American soldiers to the United States you know there were many US troops who have lost in North Korea I understand that we have our military's move coughs coffins to the demilitarized zone to prepare for North Korea's return of the remains this is an issue that comes up when I talk to veterans in Wyoming and I wouldn't be surprised if it came up with the president was there with a VFW could you give us any update on I had North Korea's compliance with what they had agreed to do relating with the remains of our veterans so they reaffirm their commitment to return remains that they have in their possession as well as to begin to work on there's a an agreement that had been in place previously about how we would conduct recovery operations inside of North Korea and we will in relatively short order if the North fulfills its commitment begin to put teams back in place such that we can begin not only the return the repatriation of existing remains but the recovery of remains that have not yet been recovered it's a I understand that it's not directly on point with the nuclearization I get that but boy for the families that are missing loved ones are it's a big deal and I'm very hopeful that the North Koreans will continue to move towards honoring the commitment the chairman Kim made well thank you very much mr. secretary I'm very grateful for your continued commitment to all these efforts thank you thank you mr. chairman thank you thank you sir senator Markey thank you thank you mr. chairman mr. secretary President Trump is claiming that North Korea is quote no longer a nuclear threat and we do know that is absolutely not true we have yet to see any tangible progress towards denuclearization and I know that it's clear to everyone that North Korea's dismantling of an outdated missile test facility as well as a previously dismantled ICBM assembly building which can be rebuilt within three days our empty gestures and not indicative that North Korea has changed its tune is continuing to use the Kim family playbook going back to his grandfather where they front-load rewards to themselves while exploiting ambiguity and delaying real concessions to the United States and to the West we do not have nuclear inspectors yet on the ground in North Korea is that correct mr. secretary that is correct North Korea continues to produce fissile material nuclear bomb material is that correct I'm trying to make sure I I stay on the correct yes that's correct yeah just trying to make sure I don't cross into classified information I am NOT trying to hesitate yes they continue to produce vessel material yep so North Korea is continuing on both of those fronts is North Korea continuing to pursue submarine-launched ballistic missiles I can't answer that for you here and they do not answer that no senator well I look forward to your providing that in a classified setting so that the members of this committee and ultimately the American people can know what is happening I think it's pretty clear they are but we'll move on has North Korea committed to you that it will destroy its chemical weapons stockpiles the North Koreans understand precisely our definition of denuclearization and have agreed to denuclearize have they committed to destroying chemical weapons stockpiles we've talked about cbw they're cbw programs as being part of that denuclearization and as I said they have indicated that they fully understand the scope of what denuclearization entails okay have they committed to destroying their viola by a biological weapons in the same way I just described Center they have committed senator what I said is as follows we have made very clear that the entirety of the North Korean cbw program is contained in the u.s. understanding of denuclearization and I am confident that the North Koreans understand clearly America's definition and they have D they have agreed to denuclearize okay does the United States have an inventory of North Korea's warheads materials facilities and other programs center I can't answer that here has North Korea committed to halting its human rights abuses Center their human rights abuses continue today if I may if I might say with respect to each of these questions each of the activities that you have described was taking place on January 19th 2017 and we are working to stop them in ways that were not being undertaken prior to the time the Trump administration took office there were full-on trade with North Korea and I guess what I'm saying I think it's important to understand the progress that we've made and the efforts and the modalities we're using to stop the activity that had gone on for decades I'm just going back to the statement made by President Trump that North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat and I'm just trying to determine what that means and is there is there any verifiable evidence of progress towards denuclearization oh yes absolutely what is verifiable we are sitting at the table having conversations we have had lots of discussions that I'm not going to get in here to today but I would tell you that I would tell you you discounted the destruction of the missile engine test facility that missile engine test facility was functional viable and operational and in use in January of 2017 before this administration took office well that I guess yeah just you and I you and I interpret that gesture differently I've made no Seraph in terms of verifiable progress I'm talking about not trusting Kim jong-un without verifying terrifying North Korea's actions so that's really what the discussions about what has been verified I understand that you're talking but here's what I also understand that the United States has unexpectedly suspended military exercises with South Korea that North Korea hasn't started returning American war dead despite the president's announcement that the returns had already taken place China and Russia continue to export oil to North Korea in violation of the UN resolutions and you actions that didn't exist before this regime took office and North Korea still has chemical and biological weapons and brutalizes its own people and again there's no verifiable evidence that North Korea is deep nuclearization I'm sorry so I am afraid that at this point the United States the Trump administration is being taken for a ride fear not senator fear not there's no evidence to there under not Senator there's no evidence senator fear not ma ma please I guess you didn't ask a questions all no that's all right please fear not this administration has taken enormous ly constructive actions that have put us in a place that is far better than in either of the two previous administrations one Republican one Democrat we have put sanctions regime in place that is unequaled we are continuing to enforce that sanctions regime we've made incredibly clear that we will continue to enforce that sanctions regime until such time as denuclearization as we've defined it is complete pressure on the regime is clearly being felt we have lots of work to do but unlike previous administration senator we have no intention of allowing the UN sanctions the world's sanctions that we led the charge have put in place to allowing those sanctions to either be lifted or not enforced and until such time as chairman Kim fulfills the commitment he made which I am incredibly hopeful that he will those sanctions will really have we have not been taken for a right center we're going to just I hope you a little bit better tonight one quick issue which is something I'm know you're familiar with is the State Department export controls that are designed to help ensure that weapons don't get into the wrong hands abroad so I want to bring to your attention a special exemption from those export control rules that the State Department plans to use to issue this Friday it will allow blueprints for downloadable guns to be published online an acceptable world wide I don't think that we really want to be in a world where Hamas in the Gaza has an ability to download a capacity for an ar-15 that could endanger security in that region and the same thing could happen around the world I asked the State Department to please reconsider this decision I think it has long-term national security and domestic security considerations for our country you have my commitment I'll take a look at it okay Center palm thank you for your testimony um there's been a great deal of gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands and you know dozens and dozens of senators saying that the president shouldn't have met with President Putin and I guess I wonder because if somehow we've become a little bit sidetracked by partisanship because in the past President Obama met with President Putin President George Bush met with Putin and I guess the question I have is whether or not we're entering into sort of a naive time where we think unless someone is a perfect Jeffersonian Democrat were not going to meet with them we also have people saying well he should have shook his fist at him and he should have called him a murderer and a thug do you think that there's a possibility that we can have a relationship where we criticize the human rights records of other countries but still also sit down and attempt to have diplomacy in at least channels so we don't escalate things do you think that it was a right idea for president Trump to meet with President Putin I think you asked two questions and it's yes to each of them I think we can accomplish that I think we can meet with less than perfect citizens of the world and hopefully move the ball in the right direction second I think it was more than appropriate the president Trump meet with Vladimir Putin and my own personal opinion is I think we need to de-escalate some of the partisan tensions in our country and try to look towards ways that we can have discussions with foreign leaders and not be so simplistic that somehow they have to have a perfect record or that we have to shout and scream I mean I think back to Reagan talking to Gorbachev he said tear down that wall he called him an evil empire but I just don't imagine Reagan sitting down with Gorbachev and yelling and screaming and shaking his finger fist and saying murderer thug and reciting the Stalin's human rights abuses so I think there is a difference for anybody who's ever thought about this between sitting down and how diplomacy would occur between individuals and reciting a litany of human rights abuses in that vein I think there is there seems to be sort of a limitless appetite for more sanctions but maybe in sufficient interest in describing what actions are needed to remove sanctions and so senator Rubio mentioned this deter Act I guess my concern with some of this is is that the definition of who might be meddling in an effect in an election in our country is not limited just to Russia it could include even allies who spend money on social media somehow in our country it doesn't seem to differentiate between social media and actually hacking into our electoral system and changing thousands of votes it also takes the power away from the President and gives it to the Director of National Intelligence this is the deter Act we were talking about and I know you indicated that well sanctions are probably a good idea to deter them but do you think it's a good idea to take the sanction power give it to the DNI and then the sanctions have to remain in place for eight hours with the president not having any ability to decide whether there's been some kind of change in behavior by the malefactors the center without having seen the legislation I do not think that's a good idea the I liked in your statement where I where you said the president Trump believes that now is the time for direct communication in our relationship in order to make clear to President Putin that there is the possibility to reverse a negative course of our relationship and I think that gets at the heart of why we have these discussions so if you heap sanctions on and Congress put some order they have to stay on for eight years and they could never come all if there is no off ramp if there is no discussion that's sort of what diplomacy is supposed to be about so I do commend you for talking to Kim are we here to extol Kim's record on human rights obviously not but at the same time for sanctions to have an effect you have to have negotiation so what I would say to my colleagues who've been all over TV saying there should not have been a meeting think again just keep heaping these sanctions on and you don't want any ability to talk to the adversary about how we would actually remove the sanctions if behavior changed you've got to have communications not to mention the fact that we have planes flying within a mile or within a hundred yards of each other in Syria we have to have open lines of communication so what I would ask is that we try to deescalate the partisanship in our country so we can once again be open to some kind of diplomacy i one question with regard to Iran and you and I differ on the Iranian the possibility of Iranian further Iranian agreement I think it's actually much more difficult and I had my own criticisms of the nuclear agreement I didn't think it was perfect and yet I would have tried to built upon it rather than destroy it we had a lot of money at the time that was a carrot to try to bring Iran to the table but now we have instead of one issue f2o instead of a smaller group of issues we have a bigger group of issues the nuclear issues are back on the table if we have to renegotiate the nuclear agreement and the ballistic missile issue and the point that I think that we need to think through in discussions with Iran is that I think Iran from their perspective would see getting rid of their ballistic missile program as basically unilateral surrender it's not my viewpoint I think it's what I believe to be their viewpoint I think they also see Saudi Arabia is a great adversary and I think they see Israel as a potential adversary and so I don't think unless you know be great if you got all three to come together and have a multilateral agreement on not developing nuclear weapons and not having ballistic missiles I don't see the other two coming to the table frankly to do that and so I think in moving forward I think it's just important you understand this isn't going to be easy the first Iran agreement also was a multilateral agreement you had multilateral sanctions you now have more unilateral sanctions and you're gonna have a unilateral agreement that's sort of your own agreement so I just think we shouldn't be so optimistic and I guess I'd like to hear from you how do you what makes you believe that Iran will come to the table to discuss ballistic missiles Sennett right I'm under no illusions about how important Iran views its ballistic missile program I agree with you there the question for president president Trump faced was was the Jacek made a good-enough he concluded it wasn't remotely good enough and he said it was the one of the worst deals in history I don't want to get the language wrong and so he concluded we would find ourselves in a better place with an opportunity to revisit all of these issues the broad spectrum of issues not just the nuclear portfolio but the missile program there malign activity around the world all of them in a package it did accept the understanding that there would be those that wouldn't come alongside of us but you should know there is a coalition it's not it's not American America alone we have others who believe that this was the right decision to the Israelis the Saudis the Emiratis the Bahrain ease other smaller European governments not to e3 themselves but there are number of folks who are beginning to coalesce around an understanding of how we can appropriately respond to around to take down their the nuclear risk to the United States as well as the risk from these other malign activities Thank You senator you don't Thank You mr. chairman and thank you secretary Pompeo for your service secretary and Pompeyo we have quite the record of president Trump's business relations with Russia extensive reporting and public records show a large amount of money from former Soviet states and russia into trump projects trump international tower and hotel in toronto the Trump Hotel in Panama the Trump project in Soho in New York City or a few of the the big examples here and here's another one a Russian oligarch bought a property from President Trump for 95 candidate Trump at the time or maybe a little before for 95 million in 2008 less than four years after President Trump paid 41 million so he more than doubled his money Donald Trump jr. in 2008 stated at a real-estate conference in New York and I quote here Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets end quote Donald Trump tried to build a Trump Tower in Moscow for 30 years he even tweeted in 2013 Trump Tower Moscow is next that's end quotes in 2015 answering a question from indicted Russian operative and alleged spy Maria boo tina candidate Trump made clear as desires with Russia stating I would get along well with Putin and that I don't think we need the sanctions now the Russian ambassador to the United States has said the president made and this is his quote important verbal agreements with President Putin and he seems to know more about more about Helsinki and what happened there than the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as we saw in Helsinki and throughout his presidency in the campaign this president is extremely sympathetic to the very Russian government that attacked and continues to attack our democracy and those of our allies it's a fact of political life today that many Americans are concerned about the unthinkable that a US president could have compromised a compromising relationship with a foreign power president could clear this all up in three simple ways releasing his tax returns and those of the Trump Organization and the taxes from the various family businesses some of which we don't even know about after Helsinki do you think that the American people deserve to know what's in president Trump's tax returns and business interests that that are intertwined with Russia I'm going to try to stay out of the same political circus that you and I ended up and last time I was sitting there and simply respond by saying this same president with which you seem to express such deep concern is engaged in a massive defense build-up which threatens Vladimir Putin's regime he instructed us to put together a Nuclear Posture review that has said Vladimir Putin on his ear because of its robustness and the recapitalization of our nuclear program he's kicked out 60 spies we've been Kaspersky young but 11 billion dollars in the secretary you've already haven't even begun describe no no but you've already you haven't answered my question so let me try it a little different way wouldn't you want to know as Secretary of State I mean I I'm taking you in your sincerity here as Secretary of State whether all these Russian financial interests oligarchs and others are part of the decision-making of the president I mean wouldn't you want that out in the open and to understand what went on it's Helsinki it's it's an easy kind of yes or no question I don't need second hand understandings of what President Trump is instructing his administration to do to push back against trust I have first-hand understanding well and and directed let me ask the question a little bit Nordstrom - we've got a four by 30 out of NATO that also is a big setback for Russia I mean I'm happy to continue the list I'm I'm happy there but I will I will submit the entirety of this administration's actions against Russia for the record if I might please do back a truck up and get it on in here candidate Trump has failed to keep his promise to disclose his tax returns every presidential candidate since Richard Nixon has disclosed Jimmy Carter even sold his peanut farm to avoid a conflict of interest the situation with president Trump's potential foreign policy conflicts of interest is unprecedented and unacceptable and under the emoluments clause I think it's unconstitutional as well but let me just ask a couple of questions about Helsinki you talked about what you were tasked with the Director of National Intelligence Cote stated that at the Aspen Security Forum that he did not know what happened during the one-on-one meeting in Helsinki did the president personally debrief you on this conversation are you 100% confident that you know everything that President Trump discussed with President Putin that's a very easy yes or no if you don't want an answer it all move on to the next one yes or no I'm very confident that I received a comprehensive debriefing from President Drum good okay now do you know for a fact whether President Trump or President Putin discussed any investments in Trump properties or any Trump projects such as the previous attempt to build a Trump real estate project in Moscow senator again I'm gonna try and stay out of the political circus no but were you were you tasked with that you gave a solicit what you attend here to talk about American foreign policy today I've attempted to articulate president role all of these business interests are entwined sir with our foreign policy yes the foreign policy has led to a massive defense build-up a Nuclear Posture review that has frightened Vladimir Putin all 60 spies I mean 219 turn thirteen sanctions let me also ask you about an additional question on Helsinki when I was a member of Congress I tried desperately get President Obama to do one of those things wins on an ex-president Trump hosted top Russian officials at the White House last year he bragged about how he had fired James Comey at his press conference with Putin President Trump calls special councilor Muller's investigation a disaster for the country can you tell us what President Trump discussed about the investigation during his private meeting with President Tomba I not gonna talk about were you tasked with anything in that respect senator when I'm tasked about something for American foreign policy I promise you this committee will know okay and you weren't tasked with anything there senator when I am tasked with something by the president relates to foreign policy I assure you that this committee will be made aware of it thank you very much Thank You senator Gardner Thank You mr. chairman Thank You mr. secretary for your service to the country and your time with us today when you were last here I asked you a question about whether or not you agreed with secretary mattis that North Korea's the most urgent security threat the United States faces in light of recent developments do you still agree with that at the time you said that you did yeah it's still it's still a real priority we also talked about what do you believe it's the most urgent national security threat I do but but but having said that I don't recall the precise timing when I was here I think it was an April breath yeah so so it is the fact that we're having conversations and we haven't had additional missile tests and nuclear testing maybe it's still a priority I don't know how to think about it but I'm I'm optimistic that we're headed in a path that is the right direction and we just got to get the rate of change the testimony you used the term final fully verified denuclearization and previous testimony you've used the word permanent verifiable irreversible denuclearization US law says complete verifiable irreversible Nino causation UN resolutions call for a complete verifiable irreversible d'emic rotation are these the same terms do they mean the same thing precisely the same thing exactly full complete total diene organization according to a US law and UN Security resolution yes yes and why the different words sometimes one needs to just break away it's different I'm happy to use the term verifiable irreversibility nucleation yeah they mean the same thing okay the the C vid declaration or determination was that directly addressed at the Singapore summit with President Trump and president Chairman Kim it was and it was brought up those the complete verifiable reversible denuclearization why was it not in the communique following the Singapore I'd rather not talk about the course of the negotiations and how we arrived at the language that we did okay is North Korea still moving or making advancements undertaking a nuclear program Matt may answer that question in a different setting you can't answer that question here yeah I'd prefer not to we'd love to provide that setting for you soon happy happy to do it if we if we need to I'm happy to do that here senator I'm not I'm not trying to be cute we're engaged in a complex negotiation with a difficult adversary and each of the activities that we undertake is not going to be fully apparent to the world at the moment it is undertaken and there will be processes and discussions that will be had that are important that they not be realtime disclosed and as I answer one question and then choose not to answer another it becomes patently obvious why I chose not to answer one or the other and therefore it seems to me that a blanket prohibition on heading down that path is the only way to ensure that I have the opportunity to negotiate this thing in a way that isn't being done in The Washington Post in the New York Times I understand I think it's a very important point of information that we get though to know whether or not North Korea is either overtly covertly however they are doing at making advancements in their nuclear program we're still continuing a measure of their nuclear program I think it's very important for us so I did answer one question that that touches on that at least I answered a question I think it was from Senator Markey about whether they're continuing to create fissile material and answered that indeed that they are the goal originally I think was a complete verifiable irreversible denuclearization by the end of the presidents first term is that correct yes does that remain the goal yes more quickly if possible when will we know if North Korea is moving toward denuclearization concrete verifiable steps I don't know I don't know the answer to that I couldn't tell you what day and by the way I'm guessing this group would disagree about when that moment took place that it is a process for sure and some will find the first step along the way demonstration of I think he said substantial progress others may want to wait until we're almost done to declare substantial progress so I can't answer that it's it's it's definitely a process and we'll definitely take time we've had a lot of discussions in this committee on strategic patience the statement you use uses patient diplomacy is the u.s. doctrine toward North Korea still one of maximum pressure it is that difference it's a little bit subtle and perhaps I don't want to overstate the difference in the language here's what's different strategic patience was in our judgment standing around hoping that something worked right here we have a strategic objective backed up with a diplomatic and economic pressure which we believes gives us a pathway to achieve the objective and also an off-ramp in the event that we conclude that it doesn't work to head another direction to achieve the denuclearization of North Korea maximum pressure utilizes a section 102 of the North Korea sanctions policy Enhancement Act which requires the president to initiate investigations into possible designations investigation is the possible designations of persons upon evidence that they're violating you know proliferating activities etc so that we can apply additional sections how many investigations into new designations are taking place right now I don't know how many senator but but let me try and answer your question in another way and say if this is if this meets the bill it is the case that this administration is continuing to work on enforcement actions for existing sanctions for the existing sanctions regime that is we're not going to let it wander off we're not gonna let it weak and you can't rename a ship and get out from underneath the sanctions regime there are active enforcement work being done at the State Department and the Department of Treasury related to North Korea so it's your view that there are additional North Korean or Chinese entities that could be identified under for additional sanctions is that correct oh yes sir and those designations are not being upheld or laid off they will continue we're going to use them in a way that we thinks increases the likelihood the Chairman Kim fulfills the commitment that he made to president truck and and why haven't we seen any designations recently I can't answer that question I'd like to get an answer for that if we could has as has South Korea made additional requests to the United States for sanctions relief as it relates to additional activities with North Korea so I think the requests that South Korea has made are public and have occurred through the committee up at the United Nations so I think I think the list of things that the South Koreans are requesting in terms of either making sure that their activity is consistent with the sanctions regime there are exceptions as humanitarian exceptions that so there are it is the u.s. considering any of those sanctions granting English sanctions we're reviewing each of the requests that the North Koreans may we approved one to the south and South Korea I'm sorry to the South Korea yes I'm sorry thank you for the correction we approved one that had to do with a military military to military communications channel the others are currently under review perhaps to get an understanding of what some of those measures are that would be great you gave a speech a very very good speech Sunday July 22nd on Iran policy at the Reagan Library as you mentioned if you were to substitute to the word out Iran out and substitute in the word North Korea would your speech still accurately describe the state of affairs in North Korea speech and basically yeah I think in I think in large part it would be consistent there is a difference in terms of their operational capacity for their nuclear program but the nature of the two regimes is similar I'm out of time mr. chairman thank you thank you for saying before turning to Senator Merkley I'm all used a little bit of my time I you obviously acquit yourself very well and those of us who know you and work with you have mostly I know many of us I include me and I'll say most of us actually we have tremendous faith and your ability to make things happen and we thank you for all the issues you're taking on you're building a great culture in the State Department bringing on people that are truly exemplary we feel the same way about secretary mattis the way he conducts himself and what he does I think there's tremendous faith on both sides of the aisle and his abilities and what he does Joe much of what you're hearing today has nothing whatsoever to do with you and I would agree with you that the policies that we're putting place in many cases are stronger than have ever been put in place I agree with you it's the president that causes people to have concerns and I just I'd love to have some insights into you as to for instance at the Helsinki conference to create an equivalence between our intelligence agency and what Putin is saying that shocks people I mean you can imagine you saw dan coates response afterwards and you're today I think candidly was related but to what he said at Helsinki and then the notion of even thinking about exchanging diplomats sending diplomats over to be interrogated by Putin to even think about that let that be set as an official statement coming out of the White House to this is my opinion and I believe it's right to purposely cause the American people to misunderstand about the NATO contributions and to cause them to doubt NATO and to really Drive public opinion against NATO that to me was purposeful not unlike what happened right after Charlotte's four and then Article five to go on television and say why you know why would we honor I'm paraphrasing but why would we our Honor Article five in Montenegro you know we passed a law I think only two people dissented to send them into NATO he signed it I mean it would be a dereliction of duty if we if he did cause that to be the case so why does he do those things I mean is there some strategy behind creating doubt in US senators minds on both sides of the aisle doubt in the American people as to what his motivations are when we in fact have tremendous faith in you I think you're a patriot tremendous faith in mattis but it's the president's actions that create tremendous distrust in our nation among our allies it's palpable we meet and talk with them is there a strategy of this or is it what what is it that causes the president purposely purposely create distrust in these institutions and what we're doing disagree with most of what you just said there you somehow disconnect the administration's activities from the president's actions they're there they're the one and the same the every sanction that was put in place was signed off by the President of the United States every spy that was removed go to the point I just made there are the points I just talked to them talk to them I know what we're doing what the world needs to know with respect to Russia this administration's been tougher than previous administrations and I fully expect it will the president's own words were he's happy to get figure out if we can make make improvements with respect to the relationship between he and Vladimir Putin he changed the course but not he'll be there I'll get the words wrong he'll be their toughest enemy most difficult enemy I think I think I can prove that that's the case today I think I have yeah and so somehow there's this idea that this administration is free-floating this is president Trump's administration make no mistake who's fully in charge of this and who was directing each of these activities that has caused Vladimir Putin to be in a very difficult place today well look I you handle yourself in exactly the way you should in my opinion as it relates to comments I noticed that you are not responding to what I'm saying I think I think I responded no you didn't and the fact is that you just didn't okay in fact disagree so we don't disagree that the hell let's run the transcript you talk about it but the fact that the website it's the it's the president's public statements that create concern amongst senators on both sides of the aisle and III was asking you if in fact there was some you know some rhyme or reason that this type of distrust or discord will be created and and and I know you you're not gonna answer the question I'm trying to make a point as to why I know you are why the elements and then the questions and just the energy behind this hearing are what they're it's not about you and it's not about Madison and it's not what we're doing on the ground you know you went through a long litany of statements but but let me let me give you first of all I will tell you you I talked to the same allies you do I speak to their foreign ministers directly it is the case that they are behaving differently today there's no doubt about that they are now scrambling to figure out how to make sure that they are fully part of NATO some of that is a result of the statements that you referred to senator some some of that is some of that is identifying Norton right these so so these are the well there you go of the some of the many statements actually achieve important policy outcomes for the United States of America them do yeah in some of them very damaging senator Merkley well I thank you mr. chairman and thank you mr. secretary so in response to Senator Barrasso session on on new start I wanted to follow up a little bit both the United States and Russia came into compliance in February 2018 met the deadline on deployed nuclear warheads and but my impression from your dialogue was the u.s. does not yet have a position on whether to work to extend the new start agreement past 2021 that's correct but we're very hopeful that we can achieve the we view them these aren't they are individual agreements as a legal matter and and they can be worked on independently but the the deterrence model the underpinnings the framework of these nuclear agreements there there are connected whether they be things covered by New START things covered by the INF treaty other other provisions that they are of a part and it is the case that we are as we begin to evaluate how approach that we're trying to do in a holistic way thank thank you I I think I can anticipate that this will be something that you and your team will be working on in the in your head setting the groundwork for understanding the options there thank you so Russia oil tankers reportedly supplied fuel to North Korea via sea transport for several times in 2017 President Trump made a reference in which he talked about saying that what China is helping us with Russia is denting and then he has said specifically also Russia is not helping us at all with North Korea did this issue of Russia bypassing the the UN sanctions come up in the conversation between President Putin and and president Trump I think I can answer that question because I believe president Trump has talked about this I'm in fact Russia's commitment to help us achieve denuclearization of North Korea did come up the two of them did discuss it and the centrality of continuing to enforce the UN Security Council resolutions resolutions that the Russians voted for were raised between the two of them I heard in a subsequent meeting at which I was president I heard Vladimir Putin reiterate his commitment to doing each of those two things and to follow up on your conversation with Tim Kaine about the communication from the Singapore summit and the the details that need to be worked out in regard to having a survey to just the starting point if you will of a detailed nuclear agreement when you have an agreement regarding the detail of how such a survey of North Korean missiles nuclear materials and so forth when you have that agreement will you brief this Committee on that senator I'm sure we'll be able to share some elements of that with you I'm harkening back to the a round agreement the jcpoa in which they provided a declaration which was knowingly false that as the administration knew did not reflect accurately the history of the Iranian weapons program I promise you I won't do that I promise you I won't lie about the contents of their declaration if we disagree if we think they're wrong we will we will acknowledge that but I'll have to think through precisely how in the appropriate way we would share that information with you but you have my commitment not to allow a false declaration to form a fundamental pillar of a nuclear agreement well certainly in the way that it I'll tell you we all have not just to a briefing on it but to the actual document in in details and so we had that that standard in fact those were made public as well would you expect to meet those two standards the agreements complete yes I was thinking you were talking about sort of during the process I believe those documents were made public at the time that the legislation was being considered in us when the agreement was final we hope to bring this agreement to Congress and it is of course the case that you would need to see the underpinnings of that agreement and part of that would be that this would probably be a series of declarations associated well I'll tell you it did it did bother me some that because the dose details haven't been worked out yet that the the president already conceded to setting aside the joint exercises with South Korea what are the South Korean leaders briefed in advance of that announcement said I'm going to leave that to the Department of Defense to answer it would have been conducted between in military channels president Trump blamed poor relations with Russia on us foolishness and I'm surprised he blamed us foolishness rather than Russia annexation of Crimea of their occupation of eastern Ukraine of their taxes on individuals in Britain their support of the Syrian government when Syrian government is using barrel bombs and gas on its own people and and given that Russia's significant cyber attacked on our elections do you believe that the poor relations with Russia is a result of us foolishness the center I think there are countless reasons you identified you identified several I could go on about the reason that we find ourselves in this place with the flat amir Putin in his regime today not a good place to be sure a place that the president is working to develop relationship to try and retrain reconfigure at least at the level of making sure these two leaders understand each other and know how each other are thinking about the problem set I think that's important and appropriate and ok I hopefully he can be successful it's a nice essay it didn't answer my question but I'll go on the president's also said there's no longer nuclear threat from North Korea and that we could all sleep well given that we don't yet have an agreement on even surveying the the stockpile of what North Korea has or an agreement on eliminating their weapons or their missiles or an agreement on verification strategies who shouldn't we more accurately approach this from the viewpoint that there is still a nuclear threat from North Korea the president's team is working to eliminate it but is still a nuclear threat as of today yes I think the president would agree that the primary systems that have threatened America continue to exist I think what his comment was was that the tension had been greatly reduced we're at a point where I think that was a great miscalculate I've got 20 seconds so I want to ask you one last question on a completely different topic fortify rights a human rights group that traveled to Burma to document what happened through Inga came out with a report detailing devastating trosset ease which have also seen from from elsewhere and we also have the report that Senator Brownback our ambassador on religious freedom is is making is it time for the Senate to to act on the sanctions against the Burmese military that we passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee I'll leave to senators to decide if it's time for the Senate to act I can only say that you the underpinnings that you describe the atrocities you described are very real well I would say this is the type of thing where executive leadership makes a difference in giving direction to this body and so that's why I was seeking your and the president's opinion on whether it's time to really send a strong message against such ethnic cleansing and and genocide is it can we expect such a leadership from the president or yourself I remember what secretary Tolson did before me on this issue you can you can be sure that we will be serious and lean on this important issue thank you Thank You senator young mr. secretary thank you I appreciate your stamina you've been here for quite a while I want to let you know how much I appreciate your leadership as you've fit in to fill this role during this tumultuous period in international relations I have to say since you've taken this position the interaction our office has had with members of the Department of State and with you individually has really markedly improved and and so I'm appreciative of that one of the axioms of diplomatic or military strategy is that you want to unite your allies and divide your enemies and as I see it this is one of the things that Vladimir Putin has been succeeding in doing he seeks to divide and weaken NATO for example he wants to divide the American people and the more we make Russia's meddling in our own elections a partisan issue I think the more we play into Putin's hands the intelligence community has been clear and consistent Russia did indeed meddle in our election so I think we need to stand together as Americans not as Republicans or Democrats with respect to this issue what are your thoughts on this matter mr. secretary senator I think I think it is the case that the Soviet Union and now Russia's efforts to undermine Western democracy are long and continuous I think they occurred in 2016 I am confident that the Russians are endeavoring to divide to separate us from our allies to create space to find partners for themselves around the world in the same way that we will go out and work diligently with our allies I always think that having a United United States folks who come at these problems with seriousness and thoughtfulness towards a shared goal increases the likelihood of America prevailing in these challenges against these challenges well I happen to agree with you and and I just I hope that my colleagues and I will will adopt a tone and approach to this very serious issue which impacts all Americans and recognition of everything you just said so mr. secretary just about an hour ago president Trump convened a joint press conference with the President of the European Commission jean-claude Juncker and in the press conference the president and both the presidents announced they're gonna launch a bilateral us-eu set of negotiations with the goal of reducing terrorists increasing economic cooperation between the EU and the United States and working together to counter the predatory economic practices that we've seen from countries like China I can't tell you how encouraged I am by this I think with our collective leverage brought to bear perhaps even ultimately pulling in other g7 countries like the Japanese we have a real possibility of reducing the intellectual property theft reducing the incidence at a joint technology for technology transfer of state-owned enterprises dumping things into our own economy precisely the sorts of objectives I know the administration has so do you agree that the United States moving forward has to prioritize a trade dialogue with the EU in or to eliminate current retaliatory tariffs on farmers and manufacturers in places like Indiana as well as to effectively combat China's nefarious activities yes don't forget Kansas farmers - oh I didn't I don't have a benefit of having seen the press conference I was sitting here I didn't I didn't see the announcement or what they said I know this was one of the things that President Trump was trying to accomplish in his conversations with mr. Juncker sounds like they made at least some progress in that regard look the president has been clear with respect to trade policy Europeans won't accept our agriculture products there are other markets that are close to us he is endeavoring to get them opened he is trying to drive toward zero zero zero right zero tariffs zero non-tariff barriers zero subsidies that's the place he's trying to get the whole world and he is confident and when we get there Americans will all compete the rest of the world and whether it's manufacturers or innovators or farmers or all of the above they'll ultimately be very successful they'll be enormous wealth creation not only in the States but elsewhere as well well I I'll just add that I find this effort of working cooperatively with the EU and other major economies as coherent and workable if we're trying to really address the greatest challenges which is those seen by the state capitalist countries China and being the worst offender I don't have as much clarity with respect to our trade strategy as I'd like to that's one of the reasons that I keep emphasizing I think we need to actually have a written one just as we do a national security strategy but very appreciative of President Trump's announcement today lastly mr. secretary I'd like to call to your attention that my home state of Indiana is home to 23,000 Burmese Americans and as I travel the state and listen to so many of my constituents that are our Burmese Americans they they reiterate to me three things number one they express grave concern regarding the Burmese military's atrocities against the Rohan and they want to see those perpetrators brought to justice number two they reiterate a desire to expand people-to-people ties between Burma and the United States and thirdly they express concern regarding the treatment of Qin Christians in Burma now I note that you're hosting this week the ministerial to advance religious freedom focused on combatting religious persecution discrimination and as we appropriately address within that forum the Rohan NGO crisis I just asked the Department to continue to also make clear the Burmese government that all religious minorities including Christians should be respected so mr. secretary well the Department of State work at my office to not only continue to our joint efforts related to the ROA hinga which I support but also to encourage the Burmese government and any policies whatsoever that treat Christians as second-class citizens yes thank you senator Murphy thank you very much mr. chairman Thank You mr. secretary for being here I certainly associate myself with many of the comments by the Chairman I think we've got administration the president who's making up foreign policy on a day-by-day basis I think you've got a tiger by the tail you have a difficult and enviable job and I appreciate you spending so much time with us here this morning we focus on words from the president because our allies and our adversaries listen to those words and they calibrate their actions based upon those words and well you're right that the president about 20 to 30 hours later did correct himself after the Helsinki summit to say that he did indeed agree with US intelligence services and not with Putin five days later he went back on Twitter and said this so President Obama knew about Russia before the election why didn't he do something about it why didn't he tell her campaign because it is all a big hoax that's why so that's the most recent State and from the president saying that Russia's interference in the election is all a big hoax so I guess my question is why shouldn't we accept this most recent statement from the president as US policy rather than the statement that you referenced on July 17th I can't go through the litany of all the statements you just gave I have a list from January 17 June 17 July 17 July again July and 17 November 17 March SOT I'm happy to go through them each of which the president confirmed that he understood that Russia had meddled in the election and then I could could give you although I couldn't recount them I could tell you numbers of times when I was personally with him where he told me directly he understood that and indeed provided guidance to at this time it was the intelligence community but I think he gave similar guidance throughout the government that we needed to do all we could to push back on election interference and I have a catalogue of activities that this administration has undertaken to do just that so then what do you make of his most recent statement generally I'll leave you I'll leave you you can you can speculate you can draw whatever inferences you want for whatever purposes you so choose here's what I could tell you I can tell or there's no inference I mean it's a statement from the president in which he says that the Russian interference in the u.s. election is a hoax from July 22nd that's there's no inference that I need to draw from that that's the president's statement senator you are you are certainly trying to draw inferences about the American policy and I am laying out for you American policy and I'm happy let me talk to you about what we've done on election interference if I might I I understand I understand that you draw a distinction between the president's comments and US policy what I'm trying to suggest to you and is that what the president says is US policy because our allies and our adversaries make decisions based upon those comments and so let me try to drill down on a specific issue that Senator corker raised and that's the comments the president made regarding our potential defense or non defensive Montenegro Tucker Carlson asked him a question suggesting that Montenegro is too small to be defended and the president responded by saying I understand what you're saying I've asked the same question Montenegro is a tiny country with very strong people now I know you are going to tell me today that the official policy of the United States is to defend Montenegro and to defend our NATO allies but can you understand why we would be concerned that the president would draw a question as to whether we would defend Montenegro because in the end that is a communication to Vladimir Putin about whether the president is going to come to NATO's defense as you know an attack on NATO won't be a Russian army moving across a border it'll be a hybrid attack a disguised attack there will be some question as to whether the United States should respond or not so can you at least understand why we are concerned about the president raising questions about the utility of the United States defending Montenegro I think the president's been unambiguously clear and I can go read you his policies and if I refer to his policy or the separate statements I'm asking you about this because explain it to us what do you mean senator the policies are themselves statements as well indeed they're the most important statements that the administration makes well policies are statements and statements are policies that's absolutely not true people make well I make lots of statements they're not they're not US policy the president says things right the president makes comments in certain places we have a National Security Council we meet we lay out strategies we develop policies right that's what Eisele knew the president that sets the course how do I know the difference between a presidential statement that is not a policy and a statement that is here's what you should look at compare compare the following Barack Obama speaking tough on Russia and doing nothing those are true it is I understand you want to rewrite the Obama policy on Russia but that's simply okay you organized to put a comprehensive unprecedented set of sanctions on Russia so the man on that he would have more flexibility after I'm not listening my question isn't about isn't about I know you want to turn we know I just want to look at facts resolutely senator I'm trying to get to US policy it's what I do I'm America's chief diplomat implementing US policy I think you I think I think you I think you you have been dealt a tough hand and you do a credible job with it let me let me turn I just let me ask a less adversarial question to end with I think I think one of the used two very important things on North Korea you said that they have agreed to denuclearize and that they understand our definition of denuclearization what is most important is that those two statements linked is that they have agreed to denuclearize according to our definition of denuclearization is that your testimony today the definition was set forward and denuclearization was agreed to I don't know what else does give you a hard time understand I'm trying I'm trying to I'm trying to articulate what what's been agreed to we made clear what we viewed as the scope of denuclearization it's not dissimilar to what the UN how the UN has characterized and now the South Koreans have characterized it and when we did that the South excuse me the North Koreans said yes we agreed to denuclearize so your understanding is their commitment is upon our definition it is Senator yeah okay thank you mr. Porter and Senator Isakson the so in essence the communique that we saw coming out of the Singapore meeting that that is the sum total of the agreement we have with them yes yes we've also had conversations after that it is also the case that that agreement incorporated the pan moon John declaration which in turn incorporated previous inter-korean inter-korean agreements as well so the Singapore summit is stacked on a series of agreements um each of which is encompassed within the agreement between President Trump and Chairman Kim so you can look to the the full breadth and scope of those agreements about things that North Koreans have committed to yeah and I look I I don't think any of us would expect that there would be a meeting and Singapore and all the issues will be worked out I think we all understand it's gonna take a long a long time to get this all worked out senator isakson I spent all week trying to come up with intuitive brilliant incisive questions to ask you recognising how intelligent and articulate you are and I ran at everything except one thing they had it written down here to be the first question I asked you and then by golly the president and the EU had an agreement while we're sitting in here listening to this they answered my question but I want to repeat it anyway are you seeing consequences of the trade proposals of the presidents particularly the two 32 and the tariffs being applied to having any impact diplomatically on the United States of America yes the I do too and our reason I brought it up is this actions have consequences and I hope the administration will look to the State Department for insight and advice on the effects of the tariffs on the diplomacy of the United States of America visa vie the rest of the world because it has a significant impact because AG is the number-one thing upon which we're going to get levied the punitive terrorists by the people we're trying to raise tariffs on now it's we feed the world we aware of the food world's breadbasket this committee has passed the feed the future legislation few years some time ago but we're going to be in deep trouble if we don't have a policy that recognizes both our responsibilities and the world's need and food's importance in peace and security so not to lecture you because I wouldn't do that to me you know morn I've you've forgotten more than I know but I do know that the president's proposals and the tariffs are serious business and he needs to consider the consequences on the diplomacy United States and hunger in the world so I'll let you respond to that there I think I think the president appreciates that I think he understands that the tariffs that have been imposed created have a diplomatic effect they're part of my broader effort to be sure some of those things create difficulties some of those things create real opportunities we've seen each from the sanctions have been levied to date and I know President Trump sounds like he made some progress today with the EU of watch secretary Newton Bob light Heiser and the team tried to use the effect of those tariffs to achieve good outcome so that farmers can have access to markets so that we get energy sold to countries that refuse to take our energy each of those things are important parts of the President's agenda trying to create wealth for ordinary Americans and I commend the administration's commitment to zero zero zero being the goal as far as the trade policy is concerned but getting to that goal is gonna require good communication between all facets of our government including yourself in the State Department sir on the impacts and that was the point I was trying to make yes sir I also am sorry Senator Paul Doug because I was going to begin my remarks by saying I were to agree with him on something and I don't always do that so I'm but y'all want to need to tell him that it's previs my remark but he's right about not being afraid of meeting with Vladimir Putin and the Russians and the northern meetings with these people in my judgment are not as bad as a lot of people who have pressed them to be I've seen some people who said we ought to back up for meeting one but I think the more open we can be in meeting with the leadership of countries we're having to deal with one way or another the more infosys forces them to be open so it's really and what the president has done when he went to North Korea all of a sudden Kim jong-un was sitting on the side of the table said I'm sitting across the table from the president United States the world media is here and they're looking to me for answers and all of a sudden after it's all over in the pomp and circumstance it's all over North Korea has got to be accountable or it's going to have pressure to be accountable so I think the president's engaging these leaders makes an awful lot of sense in terms of bringing them out to service in the dealings that we have with them and I just wanted to throw that in there because I think it's the important thing lastly on bipartisanship Cernik Owens is here who by the way had a significant role and you're getting confirmed as you know and you know I've talked about that so I'm proud of my friend Chris Kuhn and I'm proud of you and you're a great choice for Secretary of State but he and I have worked together on State Department issues and trade issues and tariff issues on behalf of pole in the United States of America in particular with the South Africans who we cracked down the door here two years ago and now we're getting 19 million metric tons of chickens from Delaware and Georgia sold of the South Americans who love them and are eating them and it pointed out to me once again to reinforce what I did in my first statement about AG we have such a powerful force with our cultural productivity and and the the level to which we've taken in our technology agriculture we need to use that as a tool for our relationships around the world and I know you want to do that and want to be a part of that and you can help us in doing that because every time we make a trade deal if it sells Georgia chickens - or Delaware chickens to the south every American Africans is good for Georgia and Delaware but it's good for America - amen thank you for your service to the country thank you thank you I'm not sure senator Cain's wanted you to advertise that again I'm sure a social media account will be have a lot of incoming and explaining but with that Senator case I'm thankful for the role you play Thank You mr. chairman and I was grateful for an opportunity to just show a little courtesy to a dear friend senator Isakson in that previous incident you're referring and I will at the risk of not being as gracious as I should be just share that when senator Isakson and I met with the South African Minister that meeting was to hear their concerns about the impact of the steel tariffs on a very important alliance a chairman corker and I recently were in Sweden and had a chance to hear from them about their concerns about the steel tariffs I am encouraged by the announcement that's just come out an hour ago about the meeting with EU leadership but remain very concerned that some of our closest allies around the world are getting the wrong message in a dinner last night with the Canadian ambassador a large bipartisan group of us were there to try and reassure them I do think that we should be corralling our allies and partners in confronting China's aggressive prolonged and inappropriate trade actions and avoiding some of the needless harm we've caused to close alliances at the point of the South African meeting was that they are preparing countervailing tariffs that might well shut down our access to their market but I'm not really here to talk chickens as much as I do love talking about chickens with my friend senator isakson mr. secretary I just wanted to say first thank you for this very long hearing I want to confirm a number of senators have asked you pointed questions about progress with North Korea with Russia issues around Syria and Iran and you've said not in this setting will you return soon to brief us in a classified setting because there's a number of important and pressing things we really haven't been able to address today will you come back and give us that classified ring of course thank you and a number of senators on both sides have recognized that you've got an important role in a very difficult time I want to upfront just say I was pleased to hear about the Crimea declaration I think it's important for the administration to be forceful and clear about our position with regards to Russia's the illegal annexation of Crimea I remember my whole childhood there was a little box in every American map that said we refused to recognize the illegal annexation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union in 1940 and for decades folks thought that was just aspirational would never happen today the Baltic states are free their NATO allies and the chairman and I recently visited Latvia as well and heard from them about their determination to remain free and to take strong steps against Russia's interference Finland and Latvia the Baltic States other allies of ours in that region are prepared to invest more in their own defense and to strengthen their defenses against Russian interference in their upcoming elections there's elections in Latvia and Moldova and Sweden that are happening soon I'm what best practices are you seeing among our European allies what tools do you think the State Department can and should be using and how should we be doing as you put it everything we can to push back on likely election interference by Russia to our vital allies as well as to our upcoming midterm elections yeah it's it's a it's a good question we the United States government my previous organization intelligence world did a great deal of work with our European partners we did it with the German election the French likes to try to help identify threats and vectors a good solid and and sharing I think that's a an underpinning so that these governments can understand the threats sometimes America is better positioned to see them and observe them than some of these other countries that are smaller with fewer resources and then I think it's also important and we've begun to do this the countries begin to share the actions that they observe that is not only the precursors the indications but what actually took place to download I'm so that we can begin to understand how to push back I think it was Senator Paul who said earlier there's lots of variations on the theme right there are over efforts there are called them covert the covert efforts there's influence operations there are there are lots of methods by which adversaries not just Russia can attempt to undermine elections and democracies we have an obligation to the Europeans and it benefits America as well if we try and help them ensure that their democracies are protected as well and I do think we would benefit from hearing more and more regularly and more clearly what we are doing with our close allies to convey that we get what is happening to them and that we are concerned about what's happening to us frankly I want diplomacy to succeed I prefer an environment of diplomacy to one of a perception of imminent conflict with either North Korea or Russia and you've been very forceful even aggressive today in advancing the administration's position as the chairman said earlier a lot of the tension here I think comes from the gaps between your forcefulness and clarity and what I perceive and many perceive to be the president's lack of forcefulness and clarity in your written statement you say that President Trump has stated quote I accept our intelligence community's conclusion that Russia's meddling in the 2016 election took place and then you go on to say he has a complete and proper understanding of what happened my concern if I could just directly is that our president has never made a clear and comprehensive speech outlining the threat posed by Russia our strategy to respond to it and criticizing directly President Putin for directing the attack on our election in 2016 just a few days ago now I guess more than a week ago Robert Muller delivered in against 12 Russian military intelligence officers GRU officers calls them out by name gives enormous detail of how Russia attacked our 2016 election and one of the ways in which our president then undermines the clarity and credibility of that action by our Department of Justice is by calling the Muller investigation a rigged witch hunt or by standing next to President Putin in Helsinki and suggesting he's uncertain whether our intelligence account of what happened in 2016 is the more credible or the Russian one could you please clarify for me if there are clear indicators that Russia continues to interfere in our election planning up to this November would you advise the President to rescind an invitation to Vladimir Putin to come and meet in the White House do you think it is unwise to extend the credibility and the prestige of a White House meeting without being clear about Putin's threat to our upcoming elections Senator Paul said and I agree with him we should meet with our adversaries but as President Reagan did we need to be clear-eyed about who they are and call them out for being adversaries before sitting down with them can you commit to being clear with the president and helping us understand whether or not the president clearly understands the attack on our election so I've tried to do that earlier today senator Coons I I think the president is very clear about that it is I I find it surprising that statements that are made especially a statement like a statement for the record I mean you you should all know the White House cleared that secret these are white out there I uh turned the words these are these are these are president Trump's statements in that sense as well right these are statements from the United States government of which President Trump is very clearly in charge and somehow there's this effort to suggest that that that they're not that the statements that I've made today are fully consistent with you unless I misspoke somewhere along the way which is possible after a couple hours these are these are indeed the administration president Trump's policies that were implementing my core point mr. secretary was that while your statements have been clear our president's statements have confused our allies encouraged our adversary and have failed to be comparably clear and I'm concerned that an invitation to President Putin to the White House without clarity about his threats to our election his threats to our allies puts at risk clarity I welcome the Crimea declaration today I think that is an important step forward but I urge you if President Putin attacks our next election advise President Trump to withdraw any invitation to President Putin Thank You mr. chairman senator Portman the secretary thank you for coming back to testify again you've had a long afternoon I think you do it more often I mean while you've been here we managed to negotiate a successful preliminary agreement with the European Union you managed to issue a declaration supporting we're gonna go to open to see with regard to Crimea and there was a third thing that happened I know it's good or bad but I my understanding as the White House has decided to postpone the visit of President Putin till after the first a year when I left my business it began to succeed as well so I think they wait until you're gone before they make release decisions no I want to comment briefly on what you responded to with senator Coons on what tools could we use with regard to pushing back on some of the interference and other countries elections I hope that you would say the global engagement center because it's a tool you have and frankly although senator Murphy and I wrote legislation to give you the authority to do it you have more aggressively used that tool both by providing funding for it and now hiring the right people then your predecessors and it's precisely this sort of situation I will give you the recent example it's very important which is what's going on with Macedonia you know as they go for their referendum to be part of Europe these European integration efforts tend to be a place where the Russians see an opportunity and and engaged in significant disinformation a great opportunity for us to push back in the appropriate way through the global engagement center and who would you confirm to me that you thought about that and you will think about that in the future yes of course mag add one thing that you I think you'll find interesting when I was with my Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov he's very aware of the global engagement center should be I mean he raised the issue with me yeah when I met with him I think it was when I met with him in person it may have been in a conversation by phone but in my last interaction with him he raised the issue as compared to the resources the Russians put into their efforts it is minuscule as you know but it is significant and I think it'll be done professionally thanks to some of the work you've done and I applaud you for that we discussed at your confirmation hearing in April the need for us to focus more on central Eastern Europe specifically Ukraine I just come back from a trip to Ukraine I'd been out in that contact line in April where there's a hot comes up going on I mean where there are people dying and it is when you go there pretty moving because you see how the Ukrainians have had to defend themselves in their territory integrity really for the last four years against Russian aggression and I believes I think you do that a successful Pro Western Ukraine is not only critical to the region but I think it's the best antidote to Russian expansion in the region along those lines I want to commend you for last week releasing the 200 million dollars in military assistance this goes for equipment training other assistance and I think we have not taken enough credit for what happened which is we told the Ukrainians you need to make reforms and when I was here in April talked to President poroshenko has to talk to speaker pyro be then and and again last month about this in fact I talked in the day after they passed these reforms saying you know we need to see these reforms to your defense system I frankly getting away from the Russian influence system they had into one that's more consistent with European democracies having a civilian control of their military among other things they did that you then were able to release the 200 million dollars that's exactly how it should work right so I I commend you for that and I think it's going to make a huge difference the lethal weapons they now I have to defend themselves makes a huge difference and so the actions sometimes do speak louder than the words and in those cases I think it's very important on the resolution which you issued today with regard to Crimea I was really happy to read it I know that many in our community in Ohio who follow this closely are pleased with it they believe this puts the United States clearly in the position where we will not relieve sanctions until this issue is resolved and I would ask you today can you confirm that the Russians have a clear understanding that sanctions related to Crimea will will not be able to be reduced or certainly eliminated so long as Crimea remains an issue I think they did before this statement and I'm confident after the statement that the president released though that will reaffirm their understanding do you believe the Russians are up to understanding sanctions related to their actions and eastern Ukraine along the border cannot be altered without real implementation of the Minsk agreement and they end to that aggression there's a lot of talk about new sanctions as you know with regard to Russia and I do support us having a better bilateral relationship with Russia I think it's important we're two major nuclear powers have got a lot of weapons pointed at us I also support discussions that are prepared I think it's very important that our statements both in private and in public are clear and consistent and I think that needs to happen from the president all the way down to our diplomats such as yourself and again I think you have done that I think that was the issue with with Helsinki in addition to what's going on in the eastern border of Ukraine and Crimea I think there's a clear consensus in the national security community not just the IC but the national security committee more broadly about the severity of the short and midterm threat that Russia poses its espionage its cyber its information capabilities meddling in the 2016 elections and now in the 2018 elections our intelligence communities seem to have a consensus around that including you and your previous role and we have sanctions in place but they don't seem to be working I mean that long list that I just gave they don't seem to be working so let me ask you a question and this is not an easy one to answer but one why aren't they working second do you support new sanctions specifically related to the new information we have about 2016 and about 2018 interference in our democratic process and if so what kind of sanctions be more effective so your point is well-taken there continues in spite of the work that's been done by this administration that continues to be Russian Millian activity we have to use sanctions as a tool you talked about the global engagement Center I think there are many tools that we can use in my role as a diplomat we we have a handful and we are working to do what I think it was senator Rubio at the beginning this hearing described was raise the cost sufficiently and convince Vladimir Putin that it's not in his best interest to continue this behavior that's going to be difficult I know I know precisely who Vladimir Putin is I know his history but that's the task the Rask if the task is for us the US government that includes you and the executive branch to raise the costs on Russia sufficiently that they they cease the small an activity that adversely impacts the United do you believe new new sanctions are appropriate to raise the cost and I do new information we proceed I do senator if we can find the right places and the right leverage point the things that will actually make a difference to Russia I think it would be constructive to head down that path and can you tell us what you think might be more effective than the previous sanctions that have not been effective in accomplishing those means I don't know that I have a great answer if you think it's focusing more in individuals on oligarchs you think it's focusing more on some of the economic choke points what's what's it it is it is it would it would be my judgment that each of those is necessary that the things that impact the Russian economy are the things that I hear the Russians most concerned about secretary thank you and glad you're there and we appreciate testimony today thank you senator Booker thank you very much I guess I'm batting cleanup and appreciate the endurance of our secretary I know he has hard days long days and I'm grateful for this opportunity to question him I really want to pick up I want to malign of questions that Senator Portman asked it is important what presidents say and you and I come from that school I imagine where you have Ronald Reagan's clear unwavering commitment to standing strong against then the Soviet Union you saw it in the next George Bush you've seen it in press and so here's a clear statement of fact that the president tweeted out I'm concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming election which is consistent with intelligence communities that they're a continuing attack of course he said based on the fact that no president has been tougher on Russia than me they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats they definitely don't want Trump they don't want Trump now that obviously was surprising to see given that we just heard from Vladimir Putin that he prefers Trump but I'm concerned that the president doesn't understand that this ongoing threat is going is happening when he came out of his secret meeting with Putin that was routed in secrecy he said our relationship has never been worse until it is now because that's changed as of about four hours ago has anything changed then Russians attacks or ongoing threats to our 2018 elections I believe the president was referring to there and obviously he speaks for himself in that sense but what I what I understood him to say was that he'd had for the first time in his administration he that chance to have an extensive candid conversation with the leader of Russia lay out and articulate America's interests to him so that he understood unambiguously what those interests were and to in turn hear from Vladimir Putin about the things that he thought mattered most to Russia so when I when I heard him say things have changed I think that's what he was referring to there was the first time well they had met before in our first time secretary I've got limited time so I agree with Senator Bo there's got to be a cost to people when they attack the United States not just attacking the United States they've assassinated people on British soil they're threatening our allies you're intervening in Western democracies annexing Crimea ongoing hostilities in the dumb Basque region of Ukraine and we passed legislation here the casas legislation which you had an exchange with my colleague senator Cardin about and I think you said that this is the transcript that you said you said thank you for presenting the law we really appreciate it we think it makes good sense the President signed it as well we've passed sanctions under the law and we have passed it but we haven't used all the sanctions now I was excited to see nikki Haley come out and say that we were about to put on new sanctions in fact the RNC got talking points from the White House telling their pundits to say exactly what nikki Haley said before the United Nations that we were going to put on additional sanctions but we haven't used those tools in our toolbox they said that nikki Haley was confused she said I'm sorry I wasn't confused this was a step that the White House was gonna take and so I hope you understand that there's many of us in a bipartisan manner that feels like we put tools in the toolbox but the president has shrunk from taking them and using those tools to stand strong against people that are ongoing attacks on the United States of America nikki Haley said absolutely you will see that Russian sanctions will be coming down secretary moon will be announcing those it has it already said that they're gonna go directly to any sort of companies they're dealing with equipment related to a - in this case Assad and chemical weapons use so I'm having trouble and again I think I'm one of those people that Greece Lamar some of my Republican colleagues that president should be allowed to meet with folks one on one but this is as far as my staff can find the only meeting with anybody in the g20 there's been a one-on-one meeting without staff that hasn't been details of which haven't been disclosed and it's particularly troubling given as Senator Udall said we have a long history of this administration having ties to the Russians he led read a list further it's the Russian oligarch close to Putin who bought property for Trump in a significant profit where there was Trump tweeting about his deals whether it was Trump jr. talking about Russians make up a disproportionate cross-section of our assets whether it's rather Maria latina who stating asking a question with Trump responding I don't think we need more sanctions I don't think we need sanctions but this goes on as senator Coons just said we have a president that right now sees that we have an ongoing investigation into the very attacks that the Russians did to us that have resulted in over 80 charges over 30 people being charged people the administration people the campaign and this is a president that is having private meetings with the Russians out this is actually not the first private meeting that he had I'm sure you remember that this president pulled aside at a g20 meeting and had a one-on-one discussion unbeknownst to his staff and had a conversation that he then said when asked what they discussed and I quote he said we discussed adoptions now adoptions is a code word as we see for sanctions it's a same code word that wasn't used to describe pre-election meetings between kushnir Manafort Don jr. these ideas of adoptions now you haven't asked I'd listened very closely on the last person to ask questions but you've refused to even say if relaxing sanctions directly if relaxing sanctions was part of the meeting that the president had and so I find it hard to believe that that we our nation that is being under ongoing attack and you can't come forward and say I saw that this is a president that you say he represent that we're standing strong against the person but we're not the very president who actually invited some of this here what he said and I quote Russia if you're listening if you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing he invited the very attacks that we're talking about and so what I want and what I think my colleagues want on both sides of the aisle is to understand and believe that we're not having private discussions about relaxing sanctions that we're showing the same kind of strength that past presidents have shown when enemies attack the United States of America and and and and you just committed to senator portman that you believe more sanctions are needed and so are you are we to expect in the coming days that we will be applying the sanctions that the Senate has provided that this president in a bipartisan way to hold Russia accountable and show them that there'll be a cost for their attacks on this nation I think this administration's record over 200 sanctions 200 sanctions senator is reflective of this admission administration steadfastness with respect to our willingness to push back against Russia I think it's unquestioned you just spoke for coming on 7 minutes about a whole litany of things political let me give you America's foreign policy well 200 plus nation clearly there's been divisions in the administration if nikki Haley is talking about sanctions on one day and then you're not pulling them on on the next step under theirs vigorous debate this administration on lots of things there's no doubt about that the president didn't hire a single shrinking violet not one of us and we often disagree about things there's no doubt about that and sometimes we prevail and sometimes we don't president calls the ball and the president called the ball over 200 times to sanction Russian entities that's pretty strong the president is not using the tools that the United States Senate is using keys used we've used CATSA we've complied with cats that we will continue to apply with cancer I put this administration's work on sanctions against Russia let's just rack and stack then I'll come to the last station here mr. chairman I'm gonna mood with entering the record the president United States statements on cats tonight and I will read them and put the whole statement in the record this is what he said on the day CATSA was introduced since bill was first introduced I've expressed concerns to Congress about the many ways it improperly encroaches executive power disadvantages our company it hurts the interests of this nation still the bill is seriously flawed particularly because it encroaches on an executive branch's authority Congress should not even negotiate a health care bill after seven years by limiting the executive bilious authority this bill makes it harder for the United States to strike good deals I actually agree and the framers of the Constitution with the Foreign Affairs so well you didn't agree with it when you were talking to read your words back about how great this cat's ideal is I put this in the record I finished my common system plea by saying this is not a presidential this is not a president strong against Russia this is not a president that is standing up against people that are doing ongoing attacks on the United States of America that are continuing at this moment Thank You mr. mr. chairman senator Menendez well mr. chairman let me thank the secretary for being here but I must say that after nearly three hours here's my takeaways this administration is increasingly not transparent it's not transparent as to what takes place at these summits it's not transparent in terms of their I hear that there's an effort not to have readouts when the president has conversations with foreign leaders which has historically been the case there's creasing less number of briefings we haven't still had a briefing on North Korea in a classified setting nearly two months afterwards so what I took away is that as it relates to North Korea we have no agreements on anything the best I can glean is that they understand what we mean by denuclearization but they have not agreed to that definition I really don't believe as the secretary you know what happened during the president's two plus hour conversation with President Putin and I really don't know much more about the summit after sitting here for three hours than I did before I want to say to you I want you to think about the suggestion that what the president says is not the policy of the United States when the pleasanton speaks you want to clean it up when he speaks that is the policy I'd love to senator I'd love the chance to do that yeah go ahead yeah I misspoke it is the case that the president calls the ball his statements are in fact policy but it's the case that when all of us speak in informal settings in response to questions we're not being we're not covering the full gamut of things that impact the world that's that's what I intended to say I saw the Glee on your side walking away trying to make a political point from that that's silliness this president runs this government his statements yes so now we understand that when the president speaks it is the policy that are you see they saw they're for 200-plus sanctions when you've seen them Sunday night question senator I understand I've now been here three hours and you're making up you've got a political silic we know you know what I've listened to your political soliloquy as a Secretary of State sitting at that table demeaning some members here because you've said that senator Shaheen believes more in the Russian Defense Ministry she was quoting them only because we don't know what our own government is saying so please don't talk to me about politics I want to talk about politics if President Obama did what President Trump did in Helsinki I'd be peeling you off the Capitol ceiling please so here's the point when the president speaks it is the policy of the United States and so when he says in one respect I applaud this declaration about Crimea but then he goes and says that Russia should joined the g7 well the reason Russia is not in the g7 is because they invaded Ukraine so which is the policy because when the president speaks it is the policy and I must say sir when you speak around the world people believe that what you say is a reflection of the policy of the United States so I want to close by saying one thing I heard here today that I can agree with you is that we need more sanctions and I look forward to working with the Chairman senator Graham and others who are interested in this regard hopefully we can come together in common cause to push back on Russia on sanctions that we can pursue and secondly I want to reiterate I believe that it is rightful for the members of this committee even if it's in a classified setting to speak to the translator and to and/or to see her notes because that's the only way we will know what truly transpired would you like to give any response not a word you had earlier tried to lay out the things the administration was doing relative to the election and were cut off would you like to do that in a public setting I'm just fine senator I think I've had the opportunity to respond adequately I appreciate you having been so gracious to permitted me to do that and we we had some exchange relative to classified briefing it just let me say this I know you're busy and happy to try and find a time that works for everyone to do that to as long as I think I committed to to another senator well we'll keep the record open until the close of business tomorrow for written questions I know you've got a lot to do to the extent your staff could help answer those questions as briefly as as they could it would be most helpful I appreciate you will do it for us today and with that the meetings adjourned you

Channel: Fox News

Views: 6,314,844

Rating: 4.0887609 out of 5

Keywords: Fox News Channel, FNC, Fox News, News, Latest News, Top stories, fox news live, fox live stream, fox news live streaming, congress, bob corker, congress live, trump, president trump, putin, russia, trump putin summit, mike pompeo, politics, politics live, news live, pompeo hearing, pompeo hearing today, pompeo testimony, pompeo testimony live stream, trump putin news conference, trump russia, putin trump, helsinki, helsinki summit 2018, election hacking

Id: z6ZNrr_Qs7o

Length: 173min 57sec (10437 seconds)

Published: Wed Jul 25 2018