[Senate Hearing 115-4]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-4
NOMINATION OF REX TILLERSON
TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JANUARY 11, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
24-573 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected]
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
BOB CORKER, Tennessee, Chairman
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MARCO RUBIO, Florida ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
CORY GARDNER, Colorado TOM UDALL, New Mexico
TODD YOUNG, Indiana CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming TIM KAINE, Virginia
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
RAND PAUL, Kentucky CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
Todd Womack, Staff Director
Jessica Lewis, Democratic Staff Director
Rob Strayer, Majority Chief Counsel
Margaret Taylor, Minority Chief Counsel
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from Tennessee.................... 1
Cornyn, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Texas....................... 3
Cruz, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Texas.......................... 4
Nunn, Hon. Sam, former U.S. Senator from Georgia................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Gates, Hon. Robert M., former U.S. Secretary of Defense......... 8
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from Maryland............. 13
Tillerson, Rex Wayne, of Texas, To Be Secretary of State......... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Answers to Additional Questions Submitted
by Members of the Committee
Secretary-Designate Tillerson's Answers to Questions:
From Senator Corker.......................................... 159
From Senator Cardin.......................................... 161
From Senator Risch........................................... 208
From Senators Cardin and Gardner............................. 210
From Senator Rubio........................................... 211
From Senator Menendez........................................ 230
From Senator Flake........................................... 244
From Senator Shaheen......................................... 246
From Senator Young........................................... 251
From Senator Coons........................................... 254
From Senator Udall........................................... 261
From Senator Barrasso........................................ 272
From Senator Murphy.......................................... 273
From Senator Kaine........................................... 276
From Senator Markey.......................................... 284
From Senator Booker.......................................... 305
(iii)
Additional Material
Submitted for the Record
Annex I.--Correspondence Between the Securities and Exchange
Commission and ExxonMobil, January 2006
1. Securities and Exchange Commission's Letter to ExxonMobil
Regarding Disclosures Relating to Contact With Countries
Identified as State Sponsors of Terrorism, January 6, 2006..... 315
2. ExxonMobil's Response to the Securities and Exchange
Commission..................................................... 319
Annex II.--Material Submitted by Senator Rubio
1. Syrian and Russian Forces Targeting Hospitals as a Strategy of
War, Amnesty International..................................... 329
2. U.S. Blames Russia After U.N. Aid Convoy in Syria Targeted by
Air Attack, The Guardian....................................... 335
3. Attack, Deceive, Destroy Putin at War in Syria, The Atlantic
Council........................................................ 339
4. Letters and Other Material Submitted by Various Human Rights
Advocacy Groups................................................ 367
5. Partial List of Political Dissidents, Journalists, and Critics
of Vladimir Putin Who Were Suspiciously Murdered or Died Under
Highly Suspicious Circumstances................................ 407
6. International Leaders on Russian War Crimes in Syria.......... 409
7. Letter to President-Elect Donald J. Trump from Several
European Leaders............................................... 411
8. Letter to Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Cardin from
Vladimir V. Kara-Mursa......................................... 413
9. Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Saudi Arabia.--
U.S. Department of State, 2015................................. 415
Annex III.--Material Submitted by Senator Young
1. U.S. and European Union Sanctions on Russia for Activities
Related to Ukraine; A Comparison, Congressional Research
Service........................................................ 469
Annex IV.--Material Submitted by Senator Cardin
1. Communication From Publish What You Pay, A British Charity,
Advocating for Transparency in the Financial Activities of the
Fossil Fuel Industry........................................... 477
Annex V.--Material Submitted by Senator Shaheen
1. More of the Kremlin's Opponents Are Ending Up Dead, New York
Times, September 20, 2016...................................... 485
Annex VI.--Material Submitted by Senator Kaine
1. Global Climate Change, The Op-Ed Series, Published by
ExxonMobil, 2000............................................... 493
2. In-House Communication from Roger W. Cohen to A.M. Natkin,
Office of Science and Technology, Exxon Corporation, 1982...... 499
3. The Petroleum and Poverty Paradox: Assessing U.S. and
International Community Efforts to Fight the Resource Curse, a
report submitted to the members of the committee by Senator
Richard G. Lugar, ranking member............................... 503
Annex VII.--Material Submitted by Senator Merkley
1. Under Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil Forged Its Own Path Abroad,
New York Times, December 13, 2016.............................. 507
2. Ukraine Crisis Drives a Quiet Lobbying Boom in U.S., Bloomberg
News, May 23, 2014............................................. 515
3. Tillerson Visited White House Often Over Russia Sanctions,
Bloomberg News, December 12 and 13, 2016....................... 519
4. Rex Tillerson's Company, Exxon, Has Billions at Stake Over
Sanctions on Russia, New York Times, December 12, 2016......... 523
5. Rex Tillerson is No Fan of Russia Sanctions Bill, CBS News,
December 15, 2016.............................................. 529
6. ExxonMobil Helped Defeat Russia Sanctions Bill, Politico,
December 18, 2016.............................................. 533
7. ExxonMobil and Iran Did Business Under Secretary of State
Nominee Tillerson, USA Today, January 6, 2006.................. 537
Annex VIII.--Material Submitted by Senators Cardin and Menendez
1. Lobbying Disclosure Forms Filed by ExxonMobil, Selected
Quarters, 2010-2016............................................ 541
2. Document Submitted by The Tri-State Coalition for Responsible
Investment Expressing Concern Over the Nomination of Rex W.
Tillerson to be U.S. Secretary of State........................ 643
NOMINATION OF REX TILLERSON TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE
----------
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:02 a.m., in
Room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker,
chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio,
Johnson, Flake, Gardner, Young, Barrasso, Isakson, Portman,
Paul, Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine,
Markey, Merkley, and Booker.
Also Present: Senators Cornyn, King, and Cruz.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Corker. The Foreign Relations Committee will come
to order.
We appreciate everybody being here as the Senate carries
out one of its most important responsibilities, which is to
give advice and consent to nominees that are put forth by a
President.
We thank all of you for being here. Obviously, there is a
lot of interest in this hearing. We would ask those who, like
us, have the privilege of being in this room, we would ask you
to respect democracy, respect the right for us to have a
hearing, to control yourselves in an appropriate manner. And I
am sure that is going to be the case.
This is the best of America here, serving with outstanding
members on this committee. As a matter of fact, because of so
much happening in the world today and because of the role that
this committee has played over the last several years, demand
on this committee has grown. And with that, I want to welcome
new members, who I know will play a big role in the future of
our country.
Mr. Todd Young, newly elected to the Senate. We welcome you
here. This is your first public appearance on this Committee.
We thank you for your interest in our country's future and for
being here.
Mr. Rob Portman, who also joins the committee. I think he
serves on more committees here than anybody in the Senate. But
we thank you for your responsible thinking and leadership.
I want to thank Jeff Merkley, who I know cares very, very
deeply about these issues, for joining this committee, for your
principled efforts in so many regards. And I know they will
continue here.
And Cory Booker, new star to the Senate, who I know will
play a very vigorous role here, and we thank you so much for
being here today.
Just to give you a little bit of a sense of what is going
to happen today, we have four very distinguished people, two of
whom are colleagues, who will introduce the nominee and then we
will move to opening statements. I will give an opening
statement. Our distinguished ranking member will give an
opening statement. And then our nominee, Mr. Rex Tillerson,
will give his. Each person here will have ten minutes to ask
questions, a little bit more than the norm.
We have coordinated the schedule with the ranking member,
but also with Senator Schumer and others, just to ensure that
the American people and certainly all of us have the
opportunity to ask the kind of questions that people would like
to ask.
I would say to members--I know some of us have an art form
of being able to ask about nine questions and then the time
ending about five seconds before the witness responds. The ten
minutes includes the response, and in order to be respectful of
everybody's time, which is a little bit unusual here, we are
going to hold to that in a very rigid way.
Our plan is that we will go until about 1:00 p.m. today, if
everybody uses their time. We will take a break, out of showing
mercy to our nominee and to many of us up here, for about 45
minutes. And then we will come back and resume until the
``vote-a-rama,'' which I think begins around 6:00 this evening.
Again, in order to make sure that all questions are
answered, the ranking member and I have agreed that should
there be another day necessary, we will begin in the morning at
10:00. Hopefully, with all that will happen today, that will be
unnecessary, but our nominee is very aware that that may well
occur.
I think all of you know that our business meeting, again in
order to show respect for all who are here, is moved until
tonight when we have the vote-a-rama, at which time we will
take up the Montenegro accession to NATO, and we will take up
the resolution relative to Israel. We will do that off the
floor this evening.
So, with that--
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, could I just thank you for
the accommodations for this hearing? I know you started it at
9:00 a.m. as an accommodation so that we could all have a
little bit more time in the morning for asking questions, and I
thank you very much for that, accommodating a 10-minute round.
The chairman and I have worked closely together to make
sure that this hearing was the type of hearing that we would be
proud of in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and I want
to personally thank you for that and welcome our four new
members to our committee.
And with that, I will withhold until after the
introductions.
Senator Corker. Thank you.
This committee has certainly been a beacon of
bipartisanship, as was mentioned, sometimes an island of
bipartisanship. But I think all of us understand the importance
of us being united, especially when we leave the shore's edge.
And I know that we will continue. We will conduct the hearing
today in that manner.
With that, we have four very distinguished individuals who
would like to introduce the nominee. We thank each of them for
being here. I know that they plan to spend about 2 1/2 minutes
each to do so. We welcome you here.
We have the distinguished Senator Cornyn from Texas; the
distinguished Senator Cruz from Texas; the distinguished Sam
Nunn from Georgia, who we miss, but thank him for his service;
and the distinguished Secretary Gates, who has served eight
Presidents. I am actually surprised he is not serving a ninth,
but we thank you for being here.
Each of you, if you would, please give your comments, and
then we will move to openings statements. Thank you for being
here.
Senator Cornyn.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Cornyn. Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Cardin,
members of the committee, I am proud to be here today with my
colleague Senator Cruz to introduce a fellow Texan, Rex
Tillerson, as the nominee to be the next Secretary of State.
Without a doubt, Rex Tillerson is an inspired choice by
President-elect Trump for this critical position. The depth and
breadth of his experience as an accomplished and successful
business leader and skilled negotiator, given the solid
understanding of our current geopolitical and economic
challenges, making him uniquely qualified to serve in this
important office.
After graduating from the University of Texas with a degree
in engineering, Mr. Tillerson joined the Exxon Corporation,
eventually moving up the ranks and into overseas assignments in
Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. In 2006, he assumed command
of ExxonMobil, a tenure during which he displayed exceptional
acumen, helping Exxon weather complex geopolitical obstacles to
make the company into one of the world's most profitable
corporations.
As a lifelong Texan, Rex has been recognized for something
you do not ordinarily associate with being a powerful business
leader and head of one of the largest corporations in the
world. He has been recognized for his humility and his
altruism.
One of my constituents recently wrote a piece in the Dallas
Morning News talking about serving on a jury with Mr. Tillerson
recently. She noted that on that jury, his natural leadership
ability and charisma helped them deliver justice in a delicate
and difficult case of sexual assault. Following the trial, Mr.
Tillerson then donated to the local nonprofit that helped
support and counsel the victim after the trial.
Mr. Tillerson understands how to separate friendships and
business. He knows who he works for. My first encounter with
Rex was when I was attorney general. I do not know if he
remembers this, but we were on opposite sides of a lawsuit. I
was representing, in my capacity as attorney general, the State
of Texas, and we had the temerity to sue ExxonMobil.
And let us say our first encounter was a little awkward, to
say the least. But over the years, I have grown to admire and
respect Rex, and he did not let our differences get in the way
of what we could agree on.
Since then I have seen him demonstrate an uncanny ability
that will serve him and our country well as its chief diplomat,
and that is an ability to deftly handle business matters while
maintaining and building relationships, a further testament to
his integrity and strength of character.
Once he is confirmed, I am confident that he will be
instrumental in shaping American foreign policy as we face a
broad array of diplomatic challenges that will define the
security and success of our Nation for generations.
So thank you, Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Cardin,
members of the committee, for letting me introduce Rex
Tillerson.
Senator Corker. Thank you for being maybe the first prompt
Senator I have witnessed here. Thank you so much.
Senator Cornyn. I am trying to set the standard, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Corker. Senator Cruz. Thank you, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cardin, members
of the committee, good morning.
It is a privilege to join you this morning and have the
opportunity to help introduce my fellow Texan and the Secretary
of State designee, Rex Tillerson.
As many of you know, Rex is a Texan, born and raised in
Wichita Falls, and he is a proud Texas Longhorn, which John and
I might think is plenty enough alone to qualify him for
Secretary of State, but I recognize you all might set a higher
bar than that.
The good news is that is only the beginning of a long,
substantive list of qualifications, achievements, and
international relationships that Rex brings to the table, a
list that I believe has prepared him to be a strong candidate
to lead our State Department as we face the monumental task of
restoring America's influence across the world.
As all of us know, this is no easy task. We live in a
dangerous year and a dangerous world. And after the last 8
years, we face a circumstance where many of our friends no
longer trust us and many of our enemies no longer fear us.
Rex Tillerson is a serious man who understands the value of
perseverance, and he knows what it takes to accomplish
difficult tasks. From an early age, he worked to climb the
ranks in Boy Scouts to become an Eagle Scout, and he started as
a production engineer at Exxon in 1975, eventually climbing his
way to the top as CEO of the Fortune 10 company.
At Exxon, he led one of the world's most respected
companies with over 75,000 employees and over $250 billion in
revenue. Exxon, a proud Texas company, does business in 52
countries, and Rex has traveled the globe negotiating business
deals with world leaders, effectively advocating for the
interests of his company, shareholders, and employees.
The numerous achievements that Rex has earned, they do not
come without hard work, dedication, and passion for one's
mission. This is the work ethic and spirit that America needs
in its Secretary of State. That is the attitude that gives me
confidence in the opportunity that Rex has to chart a
different, better, and stronger course for our national
security and diplomacy.
We need a Secretary of State who understands that America
is exceptional, who will establish policies upon that
foundation of exceptionalism, and who will put America's
interests first. Repeatedly, the current administration has
used the United Nations to try to circumvent the will of
Congress and the American people. I look forward to a President
and Secretary of State who will instead vigorously defend U.S.
sovereignty.
I believe that Rex has an incredible opportunity to defend
the foreign policy principles upon which President-elect Trump
campaigned, to strengthen our friendship and alliances and to
defeat our enemies. And I look forward to all of us working
with him in the years ahead as we restore American leadership
across the globe.
Thank you.
Senator Corker. Thank you also for those concise comments.
Much appreciated.
Thank you both for being here, and should you need to leave
to go to other hearings, please feel free to do so.
Senator Nunn, sir?
STATEMENT OF HON. SAM NUNN,
FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA
Senator Nunn. Thank you, Chairman Corker--
Senator Corker. You need to turn your mic on, sir. You have
been out of practice leaving here for a few years.
Senator Nunn. Well, I thank you, Chairman Corker and
Senator Cardin and my friend for a long time Johnny Isakson,
Senator Isakson, members of the committee.
I just wish I had thought of this clock a long time ago. It
would have saved an awful lot of agony for our committee. So I
am going to try to cut my statement as short as possible and
ask the whole statement be put into the record.
Senator Corker. Without objection, thank you.
Senator Nunn. Mr. Chairman, Rex Tillerson's resume is well
known. So let me just tackle two points that I know have been
raised with the committee as well as with the Senate. First,
Rex Tillerson's knowledge of and experience in Russia and,
second, how his work in the private sector prepares him to be
our top diplomat and run one of the most important departments
in our Government.
With respect to Russia, certain facts are clear. Russia's
recent flagrant actions indicate that its national interests
sharply differ from America's national interests in important
places, most acutely in Ukraine, in Europe, and in Syria.
Russia's values differ from America's values, in particular, in
our form of government, and our commitment to personal freedom,
human rights, and the rule of law.
These fundamental differences are very important, and the
fact that our interests and values differ should always inform
our policy toward Russia. But Mr. Chairman, the important facts
do not end here. It is also a fact that Russia today deploys
hundreds of nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles that could
be fired and hit their targets around the globe in less time
than it will take to have opening statements at the hearing
today.
It is also a fact that for both the United States and
Russia, the risk of an accidental, unauthorized, or mistaken
launch of a nuclear ballistic missile is unnecessarily high,
particularly in our world of increasing cyber vulnerability. It
is also a fact that the United States and Russia, like it or
not, are bound together in areas of unavoidable common
interests, including the prevention of nuclear and biological
terrorism, the prevention of nuclear proliferation, false
warnings of nuclear attacks, and the hacking of command and
control systems or nuclear facilities.
These facts lead me to an inescapable conclusion. It is
dangerous for the United States and Russia and for the world to
have virtually no dialogue on reducing nuclear risk and very
little military-to-military communication. If this continues
and we are guided by zero sum logic on both sides, we and
Russia may be rewarded at some point with catastrophe.
This is my judgment even when we have stark disputes,
including strong evidence from our intelligence community that
Russia has interfered in U.S. elections, a finding that
Congress must fully examine, including its ominous implications
for our political process and our security.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, there have been
other moments in history when voices in both Washington and
Moscow argued that our areas of disagreement were so great that
we should not work on issues even of common interest between
our two countries. For those who are considering this point, I
would suggest re-reading President Kennedy's commencement
address at American University delivered just months after the
Cuban missile crisis.
President Kennedy spoke of the pursuit of peace as
necessary and rational, quoting him, ``in an age where a single
nuclear weapon contains almost 10 times the explosive power
delivered by all the allied forces in the Second World War.''
President Kennedy rejected voices saying it is useless to
speak of peace until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a
more enlightened attitude.
Kennedy warned, ``Let us not be blind to our differences,
but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to
the means by which these differences can be resolved.''
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, these words
remain true today. I know Rex Tillerson pretty well, and I am
confident that he is well prepared to do what is essential for
the security of our Nation, to hold firm and tough where our
national interests and values demand it and to build on our
common interests in working with other nations, including
Russia, on practical, concrete steps that will make the
American people safer and more secure.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Cardin, and other members of the
committee, I also consider Rex Tillerson's experience and
knowledge in business as an asset, as well as his knowledge of
Russia. I think both are assets, not liabilities. I also
consider his business experience very relevant to the world
today. It is an asset.
As I look at the world today, every significant
international challenge we face has a very important business
component. It is true in Ukraine. It is true in the Middle
East. It is true in most places.
Rex Tillerson knows these crucial regions. He knows the
leaders, and he understands the challenges and the risks. He is
also keenly aware of the power of the private sector and the
important role it can play in addressing these fundamental
issues.
Mr. Chairman, in wrapping up, I am confident that, if
confirmed to be Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson will take off
his corporate hat, but he will use his vast experience to
devote 100 percent of his considerable intellect, energy, and
experience to protecting America's interests in the troubled
world we are in.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I urge his confirmation.
[The prepared statement of Senator Nunn follows:]
Statement of Former Senator Sam Nunn
Chairman Corker, Senator Cardin, Senator Isakson, and members of
the Committee:
Rex Tillerson doesn't have the typical background of a nominee for
Secretary of State, but in today's world, I believe that this will
prove to be an advantage for our nation. He is a civil engineer--who
started as a production engineer at Exxon and worked his way up to
become its Chairman and CEO. Rex has an exemplary record of civic
leadership and engagement, including as past national President of the
Boy Scouts of America--a group that helps shape the skills and values
of millions of young men--including my own.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, Rex's resume is well
known, so let me briefly tackle just two points that I know have been
raised within this Committee and the Senate. First, Rex Tillerson's
knowledge of, and experience in, Russia--and, second, how his work in
the private sector prepares him to be our nation's top diplomat and run
one of the most important departments in our government.
I strongly support a vigorous analysis and debate over the U.S.
strategic relationship with Russia. A hard-headed assessment of our
national interests and policy options is overdue. To protect the full
range of America's interest and keeps our people safe--our country, and
our country's leaders, must deal in facts. With respect to Russia,
certain facts are clear:
Russia's recent flagrant actions indicate that its national
interests sharply differ from America's national interests in important
places, most acutely in Ukraine, in Europe, and in Syria. Russia's
values differ from America's values, in particular, in our form of
government and our commitment to personal freedom, human rights and the
rule of law.
These fundamental differences are important, and the fact that our
interests and values differ should always inform our policy towards
Russia. But the important facts don't end there.
In particular:
It is also a fact that Russia today deploys hundreds of
nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles that could be fired and
hit their targets around the globe in less time than it will
take to hear opening statements at today's hearing.
It is also a fact that, for both the United States and
Russia, the risk of an accidental, unauthorized, or mistaken
launch of a nuclear ballistic missile is unnecessarily high--
particularly in our world of increasing cyber vulnerability.
It is also a fact that the United States and Russia are
bound together in areas of unavoidable common interest,
including the prevention of nuclear and biological terrorism,
the prevention of nuclear proliferation, false warnings of
nuclear attacks, and hacking of command and control systems or
nuclear facilities.
These facts lead me to an inescapable conclusion--it is dangerous
for the United States, for Russia and for the world when we have
virtually no dialogue on reducing nuclear risks and very little
military-to-military communication. If this continues and we are guided
by zero sum logic--we and Russia may be rewarded at some point with
catastrophe. This is my judgment even when we have stark disputes--
including strong evidence from our intelligence community that Russia
has interfered in U.S. elections--a finding that Congress must fully
examine--including its implications for our security.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee--there have been other
moments in history when voices in both Washington and Moscow argued
that our areas of disagreement were so great that we should not work
even on issues of common interest between our two nations.
For those who are considering whether to oppose Rex Tillerson's
nomination for Secretary of State because he knows and has worked with
leaders in Moscow, I would suggest re-reading President Kennedy's
commencement address at American University, delivered just months
after the Cuban Missile Crisis.
President Kennedy spoke of the pursuit of peace as necessary and
rational ``in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten
times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the
Second World War.''
President Kennedy rejected voices saying it is useless to speak of
peace until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened
attitude. I would note that many say the same today with respect to
Russia.
Kennedy warned the American people not to fall into the trap of
seeing only a distorted and desperate view of the other side.
He concluded, ``Let us not be blind to our differences--but let us
also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which
those differences can be resolved . . . For in the final analysis, our
most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all
breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are
all mortal.''
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee--those words remain true
today.
I know Rex Tillerson pretty well, and I am confident that he is
well prepared to do what is essential for the security of our nation:
to hold firm and tough where our national interests and our values
demand it and to build on our common interests in working with other
nations--including Russia--on practical, concrete steps that will make
the American people safer and more secure.
My bottom line--Mr. Chairman, Senator Cardin and other members of
the Committee--in this period of profound distrust--I consider Rex
Tillerson's experience and knowledge of Russia an asset--not a
liability.
I also consider Rex's global business experience to be an asset as
well. If we look at the world today, almost every significant
international challenge--or crisis--that we face has an economic
component that is inseparable from its diplomatic and security aspects.
For example:
There is no durable resolution to the crisis in Ukraine that
does not involve stabilizing and improving the Ukrainian
economy.
There is no solving the Middle East challenges today--
including the unprecedented flows of migrants and refugees--
that does not involve stabilizing and improving multiple
economies across the region.
And there is no solution to the issue of global warming that
does not involve vigorously addressing global environmental
challenges at the same time that we meet the growing energy
needs of the global population.
Rex Tillerson knows these crucial regions--he knows the leaders--
and he understands these challenges and the risks. He is also keenly
aware of the power of the private sector and the important role it can
play in addressing these fundamental issues.
Mr. Chairman and Senator Cardin, I am confident that if confirmed
to be Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson will take off his corporate
hat--but use his vast experience to devote 100 percent of his
considerable intellect, energy and experience to protecting America's
interests in this troubled world. If I had any doubt on this point, I
would not be here today. Mr. Chairman and Senator Cardin, I urge this
Committee and the Senate to support his nomination.
Senator Corker. Thank you so much for being here and
participating and your many, many contributions relative to
nuclear safety around the world.
Secretary Gates?
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT M. GATES,
FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
Secretary Gates. Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Cardin,
distinguished members of the Foreign Relations Committee, it
gives me great pleasure to introduce my friend and fellow Eagle
Scout, Rex Tillerson, as the President-elect's nominee to be
the next Secretary of State.
I have known Mr. Tillerson for a number of years through
our shared experience in leading the Boy Scouts of America. On
many occasions, after a day of meetings, Rex and I would talk,
often for hours, about international affairs, including Russia
and Vladimir Putin. I believe I have a pretty good idea about
how he thinks about the world and the challenges we face.
The Secretary of State has four important roles--advising
the President, negotiating with foreign governments and
international organizations, representing the United States
abroad, and leading the Department of State. Against a backdrop
of having known or worked with 12 Secretaries of State, I
believe Mr. Tillerson is superbly qualified to carry out each
of these roles.
He is deeply knowledgeable about the international scene
and geopolitics and, importantly, would be an informed and
independent adviser to the President. He would be candid and
honest, willing to tell the President straight from the
shoulder what he needs to hear. He would bring decades of
experience as a tough and successful negotiator with foreign
governments to the position.
I have heard him speak often to Scout groups about American
values, and I know he would be an eloquent and passionate
representative of the United States to the world. And finally,
based on his long experience in leading a major corporation as
well as the Boy Scouts, I know he will lead the Department of
State with skill and respect for the professionals.
Much has been said and written about Mr. Tillerson and
Russia. I have spent my entire adult life dealing with the
Soviet Union and Russia. I joined CIA over 50 years ago to do
my bit in the epic struggle with the Soviet Union.
During that time, I acquired a reputation as something as a
hardliner. Just ask a couple of previous Secretaries of State.
Yet I knew that we not only had to resist and contain the USSR,
we also had to contain the risk of conflict with it, and that
meant engaging in dialogue, negotiations, and even reaching
agreements limiting strategic nuclear weapons and establishing
agreed procedures to prevent confrontations from escalating.
This new administration must thread the needle between
pushing back against Vladimir Putin's aggressions, meddling,
interventionism, ambitions, and bullying and, at the same time,
find a way to stop a dangerous downward spiral in our
relationship with Russia. I believe Mr. Tillerson is the right
person at the right time to help accomplish both of those
goals. And so it is with pride and confidence that I introduce
him to you today and encourage his confirmation.
Senator Corker. We thank you all for being here. You honor
us with your presence. We thank you for your contribution.
You do not have to leave, but you cannot stay there.
[Laughter.]
Senator Corker. So we actually hope you will stay somewhere
on the premises and participate if you would like.
[Pause.]
Senator Corker. We have some new members to the committee
today, and I was thinking prior to this hearing that ten years
ago, I came on this committee as a new Senator in many ways to
broaden my ability to serve our Nation and to serve our State,
having been mostly a business person.
When I came here, the first order of business was to deal
with the surge in Iraq, a pretty monumental time. We had an
under-resourced effort that was taking place in Iraq and at a
time when really in many ways the United States had unleashed
forces in the region that had not been seen, not unlike taking,
in some ways, a big stick and hitting a hornets' nest and
changing dramatically the dynamic in the region. And so we had
the choice of whether we surge and try to be successful at what
we began or take another course.
Afghanistan also had been under-resourced, and all of a
sudden, we began discussing things like nation building, things
that had not been part of our vocabulary for many years.
We had the Arab Spring that took place in 2011, again some
of which was built off of some of the activities that I
mentioned earlier. And we had all kinds of incoherent things
that took place, the quick throwing aside of a leader in Egypt
that we had known for years, an undertaking in Libya that I
still have never understood what the goal was but left a large
vacuum in the region with arms spreading throughout Northern
Africa and other places.
We had the conflict in Syria that began, if you remember,
with us cheering on the people who wanted basic human rights
and more of a democracy. And then we had the red line that our
country did not follow up on.
After that, we had the taking of Crimea and the
destabilizing of eastern Ukraine, some of which I think was
driven by observing U.S. leadership in the world. We had China
redrawing a map that had been around for thousands of years in
the South China Sea and claiming islands and properties and
building runways and doing things that, again, until up to that
time had not occurred.
We have had the whole destabilization of Europe, where I
think confidence levels in Europe are probably the lowest they
have been in our lifetimes, driven by concerns in many cases
about what our role is, but also the role of Russia and what it
has been doing in the region, the role of immigrants that are
flowing in, the whole challenging of the European model.
And then we have had a campaign that has been somewhat
unorthodox, one that has also given concern to our allies in
the world and to many around the world as to just where America
is going to be. With all of this chaos that has exhibited
through multiple administrations and will continue under this
administration for a period of time, we have had chaos where
the United States has been withdrawing in its leadership role.
And to me, that is a recipe for further chaos.
So this is a very important hearing. I had the ability the
other day to sit down with General Flynn, who is going to be
the National Security Adviser, and I spent time with people
around him for some time. And I know that, rightly so, his
focus is also on our country doing well economically.
Every military leader we have had before us and certainly
Secretary Gates, have told us that if our Nation is not strong
economically, if we are not doing things fiscally to keep
ourselves strong, then our Nation will be weak, and our
leadership around the world will be diminished.
And so I am thankful that that is the case. A lot of people
here realize it is not only important for us to be economically
successful, but we understand that autocrats in other places
when they, themselves, are not successful end up creating havoc
around the world for nationalistic reasons, to build support
within their countries.
And therefore, we do not wish the other major countries in
the world harm as it relates to economic growth. We want them
to do well, countries like China and even Russia, who no doubt
has conducted very nefarious activities here in our country.
Many of us have seen in the Middle East the fact that
poverty, not unlike what happens in our own country, where
people who live in cities and neighborhoods have no hope, crime
permeates, things occur. We have seen the same thing happen in
the Middle East, where young people who have no hope are
attracted to ideologies that end up threatening our own nation.
So I appreciate the fact that at the National Security
Office they are not only connected to those who will be dealing
with our issues of foreign policy and our role in the world,
but also focus on those economic issues, which brings me to
trade.
Our country has shown great leadership around the world.
Rob Portman served as our Trade Representative in previous
administrations, and there has been a great deal of talk about
what our role will be in that regard.
I think most of us believe that a world that continues to
focus on free enterprise, a world that continues to have
democratic principles more and more permeated is a world that
is a better place for us. [Disturbance in hearing room.]
Senator Corker. And while we should also always focus on
trade as it relates to improving the standard of living of
Americans, an ancillary benefit is that people within those
countries begin to adopt the values that we hold so dear here
in our country.
One of the things that many of us on the committee and so
many in the audience have been able to do is also to see the
importance of American values around the world. It is an
amazing thing to be in Afghanistan, for instance, and to see
women at 4:30 in the morning--who, by the way, do all of the
hard work in Afghanistan--up and ready to vote in the first
election that they have voted in or to see young girls going to
schools that they never had the opportunity to go.
To be in refugee camps, where truly every eye is on America
with hope. To be in Venezuela and to see families whose loved
ones are in prison for political reasons and looking to us to
change that. To be in villages in Africa, where, for the first
time because of American ingenuity, 600 million people without
power now have hope, with very little in the way of U.S.
resources but our leadership in setting a vision and working
with others. The elimination almost of HIV, the dealing with
malaria, dealing with other diseases like Ebola.
Many of us, all of us, I think, have been in situations
where young people just want to touch us. They just want to see
us. They want to hug Americans because they, like the people
who founded our country, believe in the American ideal. It is
not just a country, but it is their hope. It is their vision of
what their life might be with American leadership.
I believe the world is at its best when America leads, and
I think most people at this dais believe the same thing. We
understand the importance of diplomacy and all of us know the
one percent of the U.S. budget that we spend on efforts like
Mr. Tillerson may lead, with that one percent, if we are
successful, the likelihood of the men and women that we cherish
so much in our military are much less likely to be in harm's
way.
Which brings me to you. This is a person, Mr. Tillerson,
who, by the way, had never met Mr. Trump, as I understand,
until a few weeks ago or a month ago. I believe, like Senator
Cornyn said, that it is very, very possible that you are, in
fact, an inspired choice.
We look at the President-elect who, if you think about it,
approaches everything almost from an economic standpoint. That
has been the world that he has lived in. And the fact that you
have led a global enterprise with 70,000 employees around the
world, have been there for 41 1/2 years, have met world
leaders, know them up close and personally, to me, that is
going to give our new President much greater confidence in your
ability to offer advice. And I think it is going to give the
State Department possibly the ability to have the appropriate
balance with other forces, as it relates within the White House
and other places to developing a vision for our country.
If you think about it, not only does the world not really
understand where America is today, and all of us have had
leaders in our offices wondering what is next, all of us. But
if you think about the body politic here our own country does
not understand.
You look at the election. We had the Bush presidency, and
then we had the Obama presidency, which was not the Bush
presidency. And then we have had this election, where many
things have been said and sometimes in unorthodox ways. And so
not only do just the world leaders not know where we are, not
just citizens who watch us on television and other places, but
our body politic here does not know.
So, Mr. Tillerson, this is a momentous time. This, to me,
is the most important nomination that the President has made.
The world paying attention to this hearing I think denotes
that. You have the ability, no doubt, to draw a crowd.
But it is going to be your responsibility to define clearly
what America's role in the world is going to be. I know
Secretary Gates has spoken to this many times as he talks about
the way the world was when it was us and the Soviet Union, but
now it is very different. And the American people even do not
fully understand what the future holds.
You have got to restore our credibility, secondly. The NATO
alliance is shaken. Europe is shaken. Our Arab friends, because
of negotiations that have taken place, are concerned about the
future. And I could go on and on, but I want to be respectful
to other people's time.
But one of your first goals is going to be to restore U.S.
credibility around the world. You are going to need to
prioritize. One of the things I have witnessed over the last
several--for the entire 10 years I have been here, actually--is
there is a lot of activity that takes place, but it is hard to
discern where it is taking us.
And so I think as a person who has led an organization, who
has risen from the bottom, who has been the CEO of a global
enterprise may, in fact, be an inspired choice to prioritize,
to restore credibility, which is what a company like yours has
had to do to have those relationships based on trust, based on
people knowing that we are going to do what we say.
And then, lastly, you are the person that is charged with
being the principal adviser to the President on foreign policy.
And I think that is the question that people on both sides of
the aisle will raise most here today is we know that the
President-elect's foreign policy is evolving as he takes
office, as he talks to people, and there is no way that you
could speak on his behalf today. That cannot happen.
So what people here today are going to want to know is how
are you going to advise him? You are going to be one of the
last people to talk to him. You are going to be up under the
hood, sharing with him what you think ought to happen.
We know that at the end of the day, you are going to carry
out his policy. And all of us have watched as other Secretaries
of State have tried to carry out their own policy and not the
President's, and we know that that does not work.
So we thank you for being here. My sense is that you are
going to rise to the occasion, that you are going to
demonstrate that you are, in fact, an inspired choice, that you
are going to be able to take the years of accomplishment and
relationships and transfer that and translate it into a foreign
policy that benefits U.S. national interests.
Thank you again for being willing to put yourself before
our country and the world in this manner. And with that, let me
turn to our distinguished ranking member and my friend, Ben
Cardin.
STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Well, again, Senator Corker, thank you very
much for the accommodations in this hearing.
And I agree with your final comment. This hearing is about
Mr. Tillerson and Mr. Tillerson's views, though I think we are
going to have some specific questions because of statements
made by Mr. Trump. But we do want to hear your views,
particularly as it relates to many of the challenges that
Chairman Corker went through in his opening statement.
To Senator Nunn, it is a pleasure to have you in our
committee, and we thank you very much for your years of public
service.
Secretary Gates, thank you for all of your service, and you
honor our committee, both of you, by being here today.
And I also want to once again welcome our new colleagues--
Senator Booker, Senator Merkley, Senator Portman, Senator
Young. I have worked with all four of you before in different
capacities, and I know your commitment to our national security
and to foreign policy, and I know you all will be great
additions to our committee.
I want to acknowledge Senator King, who is here. This is
not the first time that Senator King has been in our committee
room to observe a hearing. We have got to get you on the
committee. But we thank you again for your interest in this
hearing.
And Mr. Tillerson, as I told you in our private meeting,
thank you. Thank you for being willing to serve the public. It
is not easy to put yourself forward. As you have found since
your nomination has been brought forward, your life has changed
pretty dramatically. Not just for you, but for your entire
family. And we thank you for your willingness to serve our
country.
Providing advice and consent on the nominees of the
President is one of the most important constitutional powers of
the Senate. It is an awesome responsibility, and one that I
know that all of us on this committee take with the utmost
seriousness.
Mr. Tillerson, there is no question about your impressive
record in the business world, rising through the ranks and then
running Exxon, one of the largest multinational operations in
the world. Yet, I would offer, having a view from the C-suite
at Exxon is not at all the same as a view from the seventh
floor of the Department of State. And those who suggest that
anyone who can run a successful business can, of course, run a
Government agency do a profound disservice to both.
Serving the narrow, market-driven interest of Exxon
shareholders is not the same as serving the national interest
of all the American people. Effective corporate governance and
management does not always lend itself to Government decision-
making, where bureaucracies and representative institutions
such as Congress serve different political and social purposes
than maximizing profits.
I, therefore, want to get a sense of how you envision
pivoting from the mindset of an oilman focused on profits to
that of a statesman focused on promoting American interests and
values around the world. And as you know, Congress, as a
separate and coequal branch of Government, has an important
role to play in assuring that the values that have animated our
Nation since its founding continue to flourish.
So, first, I want to share with you, as I did in our
private meeting, my vision of the United States foreign policy
and the role of the Secretary of State in carrying out that
policy.
I approach this hearing and discussion today with a clear
set of expectations of the next administration. I believe
strongly in a world where America works with its allies and
partners, a world that is governed by laws and institutions
consistent with the liberal international order and one where
we champion our values both at home and abroad.
Indeed, I think it is worth spending a few minutes this
morning on the questions of human rights, democracy, good
governance, anti-corruption, and civil society support. It is
worth doing so both because of the critical importance of these
issues for America's role in the world--and our values are our
interests, not a separate set of considerations--but also
because the nature of Exxon and your work there, Mr. Tillerson,
leaves some troubling questions about how you view these issues
and how you, as Secretary of State, intend to approach them.
As you may know, over the course of my tenure in the House
and Senate, I have championed the cause of human rights and the
importance of democratic process and good governance. So when I
see violations of sovereignty by China in the South China Sea,
I speak out. When I see gross human rights violations in
Ethiopia, I speak out.
When I see massive corruption in countries with extreme
poverty like Equatorial New Guinea, I speak out. And when I see
severe erosion of democratic institutions in Venezuela, I speak
out.
Indeed, events over the past year serve as a stark reminder
that democracy will not defend itself. It requires those of us
who believe in the enduring values of the democratic experiment
to nurture and support it and to defend it from authoritarian
opponents who do not share our values.
Perhaps the most egregious events we have seen recently has
been where President Putin of Russia, having effectively killed
his nation's nascent democracy, has led efforts across Europe
and the former Soviet Union to erode support for democratic
institutions and call into question well-established rules of
the road.
Moscow directs efforts to undermine democracy through
propaganda, false news, cyber attacks, and funding for populist
political parties abroad. So perhaps it should come as no
surprise that these nefarious activities have reached our
shores, but it is stunning nonetheless.
Last week, the intelligence community found that Mr. Putin
did, indeed, direct efforts to interfere in our elections. That
is their conclusion. They found that the Kremlin attacked
Hillary Clinton and directed resources to that end.
I am not saying that Russia's efforts were decisive in our
election outcome. That is not the point. The point is that we,
the United States, were victims of cyber attack of our
democratic process. Recent news accounts indicate Russia may
well have information about Mr. Trump, and they could use that
to compromise our presidency.
It cannot be business as usual. That is why I was proud to
introduce a bipartisan bill yesterday with Senator McCain and
several members of this committee, including Senators Menendez,
Shaheen, Rubio, and Portman, along with Senators Graham,
Klobuchar, Sasse, and Durbin, which will impose enhanced
sanctions on Russia for its interference in our election and
its ongoing aggression in Ukraine and Syria.
We need to stand up to this bully in Moscow and increase
the cost for his behavior. So I was disappointed that in your
prepared opening remarks submitted to the committee yesterday,
there was no mention about the direct confirmed cyber attack by
Russia on America. But you did find time to say it was the
absence of American leadership that this door was left open,
and unintended signals were sent.
So I want to know exactly what additional actions the
United States should have taken against Russia, in your view?
Do you, for example, support additional sanctions against
Russia, demonstrating America's leadership, like what my
colleagues and I introduced yesterday?
Mr. Tillerson, I am sure you can understand why I and many
of my colleagues have deep concerns about your relationship
with Mr. Putin. And this is not simply a question of what you
saw when you gazed into his eyes--you do not strike me as
someone likely to be naive--but also about how Exxon conducted
itself in supporting, directly and indirectly, funding for the
tools that Putin has used to crush democracy and dissent at
home and to sow division abroad.
While I do not suggest it was your intent, it is, frankly,
not too great of a distance from Exxon's business partnerships
to Putin's Kremlin-controlled slush funds essential for his
disinformation campaign around the world.
You will be representing a President who may blatantly
ignore the consensus of 17 independent intelligence agencies
who have said that the Russians interfered with our election in
an unprecedented way. The same President to whom you will
report has also made it clear that he may ignore Putin's
invasion of Ukraine, his illegal annexation of Crimea, his
interference in Syria, where Russian forces partnered with
Iran, Hezbollah, and Shia militia to shift battlefield momentum
toward a dictator guilty of war crimes.
Russia itself is culpable of war crimes for its backing of
Bashar al-Assad, who has starved, barrel bombed, and tortured
the Syrian people into submission. And yet President-elect
Trump may take quick steps to make Putin a close ally of the
United States of America.
So there is a serious discussion to be had here today about
Russia and the President-elect's plans for Putin, and we need
to know and understand your views, as the chairman has said, on
these critical issues of national security.
In addition, if we take seriously that your tenure and
experience at Exxon serves as qualifications for Secretary of
State, then there is likewise a serious discussion this
committee needs to have about the potential for conflicts of
interest that arise from your long corporate tenure.
For far too long, in my estimation, U.S. foreign policy has
treated core governance issues as secondary considerations. If
you become our Nation's top diplomat, I want to know if
governance issues will become a primary consideration.
I have always worked to treat governance issues as one of
the most important aspects of our foreign policy. I have been
centrally involved in several legislative efforts over the
years to bring transparency to extractive industries, to foster
high standards of uncorrupt practices, and to use all the tools
at our disposal when it comes to supporting human rights and
civil societies. So I am troubled that, on many of these
issues, Exxon, under your leadership, appears to have been
pushing in the opposite direction.
Mr. Tillerson, we have much to discuss. If confirmed, you
will be assuming your new job at a consequential time. Indeed,
I believe the United States today stands at a turning point in
history. National power, along with economic, military,
diplomatic power, is being redefined and redistributed across
the globe.
International institutions, international financial and
economic orders are under distress. Climate change is causing
irreparable harm and creating and leading to greater
instability. In many parts of the world, there is a view that
American power, determination, and maybe more importantly, our
support for American values is uncertain, and clearly,
candidate Trump added to that uncertainty.
We have global challenges. The Middle East is undergoing a
period of unprecedented violence and instability. Iran is
committed to confrontations with the United States and its
allies, and is fomenting terrorism to challenge regional order.
There are no less than three civil wars in this part of the
world.
U.S. leadership is required to support movement toward
negotiated political settlements. Six years after the hope of
Arab Spring, the region has entered into a long winter in which
many governments are backsliding on inclusive politics, space
for civil society and open economies. The fractured Middle East
underscores my fundamental belief that the United States cannot
pursue a hard-nosed security agenda or economic ties without
prioritizing values such as political inclusion, human rights,
and a free, active media and civil society.
Without these elements, instability will persist, with
serious implications for countering violent extremism and
stemming the flow of refugees heading for Europe's shore.
I also need to stress that our important partner in this
part of the world, Israel, needs more than tweets about how
great our relationship is going to be. I hope we will hear from
you today concrete plans with specific proposals for the way
forward and strengthening that strategic partnership.
And despite the challenges, encouraging opportunities exist
for our country. President Obama leaves the next administration
as an inheritance strengthened relationships with historic
allies in Europe and Asia, a reenergized partnership with
India, and growing economic relations with countries across
Sub-Sahara Africa that provide promising platforms to advance
U.S. security and economic interests.
I recognize that what I outlined here may not be in line
with President-elect Trump's vision of the world. But I believe
that core values like standing up against violations of
international law, against war crimes, against human rights
violations, against corruption, and speaking up for democracy
and freedom of speech must be at the forefront of America's
foreign policy agenda.
Finally, I want to note that, if confirmed, you will be
taking over as leader of one of the most skilled and able
workforces of any organization on the planet. Our foreign
affairs and development professionals are truly among the most
able and dedicated of our public servants on the front line
safeguarding our national security, and as ranking member of
this committee, I have benefited greatly from their insight and
counsel over the years.
I hope and trust and encourage you to take full advantage
of the dedicated public servants of the Department of State and
USAID, should you be confirmed. They are deeply committed to
protecting and extending our Nation's values and interests. I
am certain that you and our Nation will benefit greatly from a
full and robust partnership between your office and the
department you have been nominated to lead.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our witness
and I look forward to questions.
Senator Corker. Mr. Tillerson, thank you for being here. I
think you have been adequately introduced, and I think the
world knows more about you than they ever thought they would.
So without using any more time, we thank you for being here
today.
I know you may have some family members to introduce, which
is always helpful. And if you wish to do so, begin with that
and then with your comments.
STATEMENT OF REX WAYNE TILLERSON, OF TEXAS,
NOMINATED TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr. Tillerson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I do have
members of my family with me today: my wife, Renda, for more
than 30 years, who has kept a welcoming home when I would come
back from my many travels, and also for our sons and our five
grandchildren. My sister Jo Peters--Jo Lynn Peters, a lifelong
educator, high school mathematics teacher, math teacher coach,
and teaching many, many years in the Texas Public School
Systems. My sister, Dr. Rae Ann Hamilton, a family practice
physician in Abilene, Texas for more than 30 years. And my
brother-in-law, Judge Lee Hamilton, who is now finishing or has
just begun to serve his fifth term on the bench at the 104th
District of State District Courts of Texas in Abilene, Texas.
I appreciate so much the love and support they have given
me in my past endeavors, but, most particularly, that they
would come all the way up from Texas to be with me today.
Good morning, Chairman Corker and others. I am honored to
have the backing of Senator Cornyn and Senator Cruz from my
home State of Texas. I do want to thank Senator Nunn for his
commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, something he remains as
steadfast today as ever, and to Secretary Gates for his service
to eight U.S. Presidents and his own leadership as president of
the Boy Scouts of America.
Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Cardin, and members of the
committee, it is an honor to appear before you today as
President-elect Trump's nominee for Secretary of State, and
seek the approval of this committee and the full Senate for my
confirmation.
I come before you at a pivotal time in both the history of
our Nation and our world. Nearly everywhere we look, people and
nations are deeply unsettled. Old ideas and international
norms, which were well understood, and government behaviors in
the past may no longer be effective in our time.
We face considerable threats in this evolving new
environment. China has emerged as an economic power in global
trade, and our interactions have been both friendly and
adversarial. While Russia seeks respect and relevance on the
global stage, its recent activities have disregarded America's
interests. Radical Islam is not a new ideology, but it is
hateful, deadly, and an illegitimate expression of the Islamic
faith. Adversaries, like Iran and North Korea, pose grave
threats to the world because of their refusal to conform to
international norms.
As we confront these realities, how should America respond?
My answer is simple. To achieve the stability that is
foundational to peace and security in the 21st century,
American leadership must not only be renewed, it must be
asserted.
We have many advantages on which to build. Our alliances
are durable, and our allies are looking for a return of our
leadership. Our men and women in uniform are the world's finest
fighting force, and we possess--[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Mr. Tillerson. Our men and women in uniform are the world's
finest fighting force, and we possess the world's largest
economy. America is still the destination of choice for people
the world over because of our track record of benevolence and
hope for our fellow man. America has been indispensable in
providing the stability to prevent another world war, increased
global prosperity, and encourage the expansion of liberty.
Our role in the world has also historically entailed a
place of moral leadership. In the scope of international
affairs, America's level of goodwill toward the world is
unique, and we must continue to display a commitment to
personal liberty, human dignity, and principled action in our
foreign policy. Quite simply, we are the only global superpower
with the means and the moral compass capable of shaping the
world for good. If we do not lead, we risk plunging the world
deeper into confusion and danger.
But we have stumbled. In recent decades, we have cast
American leadership into doubt. In some instances, we have
withdrawn from the world. In others, we have intervened with
good intentions, but did not achieve the stability and global
security we sought. Instead our actions and our non-actions
have triggered a host of unintended consequences and created a
void of uncertainty. Today our friends still want to help us,
but they do not know how. And meanwhile, our adversaries have
been emboldened to take advantage of this absence of American
leadership.
In this campaign, President-elect Trump proposed a bold,
new commitment to advancing American interests in our foreign
policy. I hope to explain what this approach means and how I
would implement it if confirmed as Secretary of State.
Americans welcome this re-dedication to American security,
liberty, and prosperity, but new leadership is incomplete
without accountability. If accountability does not start with
ourselves, we cannot credibly extend it to our friends and our
adversaries. We must hold ourselves accountable to upholding
the promises we make to others. An America that can be trusted
in good faith is essential to supporting our partners,
achieving our goals, and assuring our security.
We must hold our allies accountable to commitments they
make. We cannot look the other way at allies who do not meet
their obligations. This is an injustice not only to us, but to
longstanding friends who honor their promises and bolster our
own national security, such as Israel. And we must hold those
who are not our friends accountable to the agreements they
make.
Our failure to do this over the recent decades has
diminished our standing and encouraged bad actors around the
world to break their word. We cannot afford to ignore
violations of international accords as we have done with Iran.
We cannot continue to accept empty promises, like the ones
China has made to pressure North Korea to reform, only to shy
away from enforcement. Looking the other way when trust is
broken only encourages more bad behavior, and it must end.
We cannot be accountable, though, if we are not truthful
and honest in our dealings. As you are aware, in my
longstanding involvement with the Boy Scouts of America, one of
our bedrock ideals is honesty. Indeed, the phrase, ``On my
honor,'' begins the Boy Scout Oath, and it must undergird our
foreign policy.
In particular, we need to be honest about radical Islam. It
is with good reason that our fellow citizens have a growing
concern about radical Islam and the murderous acts committed in
its name against Americans and our friends. Radical Islam poses
a grave risk to the stability of nations and the well-being of
their citizens.
Powerful digital media platforms now allow ISIS, al Qaeda,
and other terror groups to spread a poisonous ideology that
runs completely counter to the values of the American people
and all people around the world who value human life. These
groups are often enabled and emboldened by nations,
organizations, and individuals sympathetic to their cause.
These actors must face consequences for aiding and abetting
what can only be called evil.
The most urgent step in thwarting radical Islam is
defeating ISIS. The Middle East and its surrounding region pose
many challenges which require our attention, including Syria,
Iraq, and Afghanistan. There are competing priorities in this
region which must be and will be addressed, but they must not
distract from our utmost mission of defeating ISIS, because
when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. Defeating
ISIS must be our foremost priority in the Middle East.
Eliminating ISIS will be the first step in disrupting the
capabilities of other groups and individuals committed to
striking our homeland and our allies. The demise of ISIS will
allow us to increase our attention on other agents of radical
Islam like, al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and certain
elements within Iran. But defeat will not occur on the
battlefield alone. We must win the war of ideas. If confirmed,
I will ensure the State Department does it its part in
supporting Muslims around the world who reject radical Islam in
all its forms.
We should also acknowledge the realities about China.
China's island building in the South China Sea is an illegal
taking of disputed areas without regard for international
norms. China's economic and trade practices have not always
followed its commitments to global agreements. It steals our
intellectual property and is aggressive and expansionist in the
digital realm. It has not been a reliable partner in using its
full influence to curb North Korea. China has proven a
willingness to act with abandonment in the pursuit of its own
goals, which at times has put it in conflict with American
interests. We have to deal with what we see, not what we hope.
But we need to see the positive dimensions in our
relationship with China as well. The economic well-being of our
two nations is deeply intertwined. China has been a valuable
ally in curtailing certain elements of radical Islam. We should
not let disagreements over other issues exclude areas for
productive partnership.
We must also be clear eyed about our relationship with
Russia. Russia today poses a danger, but it is not
unpredictable in advancing its own interests. It has invaded
the Ukraine, including the taking of Crimea, and supported
Syrian forces that brutally violates the laws of war. Our NATO
allies are right to be alarmed at a resurgent Russia.
But it was in the absence of American leadership that this
door was left open and unintended signals were sent. We
backtracked on commitments we made to allies. We sent weak or
mixed signals with red lines that turned into green lights. We
did not recognize that Russia did not--does not think like we
do.
Words alone do not sweep away an uneven and, at times,
contentious history between our two nations, but we need an
open and frank dialogue with Russia regarding its ambitions so
we know how to chart our own course. Where cooperation with
Russia based on common interests is possible, such as reducing
the global threat of terrorism, we ought to explore these
options. Where important differences remain, we should be
steadfast in defending the interests of America and her allies.
Russia must know that we will be accountable to our commitments
and those of our allies, and that Russia must be held to
account for its actions.
Our approach to human rights begins by acknowledging that
American leadership requires moral clarity. We do not face an
either/or choice on defending global human rights. Our values
are our interests when it comes to human rights and
humanitarian assistance. It is unreasonable to expect that
every foreign policy endeavor will be driven by human rights
considerations alone, especially when the security of the
American people is at stake. But our leadership demands actions
specifically focused on improving the conditions of people the
world over, utilizing both aid and, where appropriate, economic
sanctions as instruments of foreign policy.
And we must adhere to standards of accountability. Our
recent engagements with the government of Cuba was not
accompanied by any significant concessions on human rights. We
have not held them accountable for their conduct. Their leaders
receive much while their people received little. That serves
neither the interest of Cubans or Americans.
Abraham Lincoln declared that America is the last best hope
of earth. Our moral light must not go out if we are to remain
an agent of freedom for mankind. Supporting human rights in our
foreign policy is a key component of clarifying to a watching
world what America stands for.
In closing, let us also be proud about the ideals that
define us and the liberties we have secured at great cost. The
ingenuity, ideas, and culture of Americans who came before us
made the United States the greatest Nation in history; so have
their sacrifices. We should never forget that we stand on the
shoulders of those who have sacrificed much and, in some cases,
everything. They include our fallen heroes in uniform, our
foreign service officers, and other Americans in the field who
likewise gave all for their country.
If confirmed, in my work for the President and the American
people, I will seek to engender trust with foreign leaders and
governments and put in place agreements that will serve the
purposes and interest of American foreign policy. The Secretary
of State works for the President and seeks to implement his
foreign policy objectives. To do that, I must work closely with
my Cabinet colleagues and all relevant departments and agencies
of the Administration to build consensus.
But let me also stress that keeping the President's trust
means keeping the public trust, and keeping the public trust
means keeping faith with their elected representatives. I want
all the members of this committee to know that should I be
confirmed, I will listen to your concerns and those of your
staff and partner together to achieve great things for the
country we all love.
I am an engineer by training. I seek to understand the
facts, follow where they lead, and apply logic to all
international affairs. We must see the world for what it is,
have clear priorities, and understand that our power is
considerable, but it is not infinite. We must, where possible,
build pathways to new partnerships and strengthen old bonds
which have frayed. If confirmed, I intend to conduct a foreign
policy consistent with these ideals.
We will never apologize for who we are or what we hold
dear. We will see the world for what it is, be honest with
ourselves and the American people, follow facts where they lead
us, and hold ourselves and others accountable.
I thank you for your time and look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tillerson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Secretary of State Designate Rex Tillerson
Good morning.
I am honored to have the backing of Senator Cornyn and Senator Cruz
from my home state of Texas. I also want to thank Senator Nunn for his
commitment to nuclear non-proliferation, and Secretary Gates for his
service to eight presidents and his own leadership as President of the
Boy Scouts of America.
Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Cardin, and Members of the
Committee, it is an honor to appear before you today as President-elect
Trump's nominee for Secretary of State and to seek the approval of this
Committee and the full Senate for my confirmation.
I would like to first introduce members of my family who are here
today. These are the most important people in my life, and I want to
express my gratitude to them for all their love and support over the
years. First, my wife of over 30 years, Renda, who has always kept the
home fires burning during my many trips abroad. My sisters Jo Lynn
Peters and Rae Ann Hamilton and my brother-in-law Lee Hamilton. I am
grateful and proud they are with me today.
I come before you at a pivotal time in both the history of our
nation and our world.
Nearly everywhere we look, people and nations are deeply unsettled.
Old ideas and international norms which were well-understood and
governed behaviors in the past may no longer be effective in our time.
We face considerable threats in this evolving new environment.
China has emerged as an economic power in global trade, and our
interactions have been both friendly and adversarial. While Russia
seeks respect and relevance on the global stage, its recent activities
have disregarded American interests. Radical Islam is not a new
ideology, but it is hateful, deadly, and an illegitimate expression of
the Islamic faith. Adversaries like Iran and North Korea pose grave
threats to the world because of their refusal to conform to
international norms.
As we confront these realities, how should America respond?
My answer is simple. To achieve the stability that is foundational
to peace and security in the 21st century, American leadership must not
only be renewed, it must be asserted.
We have many advantages on which to build. Our alliances are
durable and our allies are looking for a return of our leadership. Our
men and women in uniform are the world's finest fighting force, and we
possess the world's largest economy. America is still the destination
of choice for people the world over because of our track record of
benevolence and hope for our fellow man. America has been indispensable
in providing the stability to prevent another world war, increase
global prosperity, and encourage the expansion of liberty.
Our role in the world has also historically entailed a place of
moral leadership. In the scope of international affairs, America's
level of goodwill toward the world is unique, and we must continue to
display a commitment to personal liberty, human dignity, and principled
action in our foreign policy.
Quite simply, we are the only global superpower with the means and
the moral compass capable of shaping the world for good.
If we do not lead, we risk plunging the world deeper into confusion
and danger.
But we've stumbled.
In recent decades, we have cast American leadership into doubt. In
some instances, we have withdrawn from the world. In others, we have
intervened with good intentions but did not achieve the stability and
global security we sought. Instead, we triggered a host of unintended
consequences and created a void of uncertainty. Today, our friends
still want to help us, but they don't know how. Meanwhile, our
adversaries have been emboldened to take advantage of this absence of
American leadership.
In this campaign, President-elect Trump proposed a bold new
commitment to advancing American interests in our foreign policy. I
hope to explain what this approach means and how I would implement that
policy if confirmed as Secretary of State.
Americans welcome this rededication to American security, liberty,
and prosperity. But new leadership is incomplete without
accountability. If accountability does not start with ourselves, we
cannot credibly extend it to our friends or our adversaries.
We must hold ourselves accountable to upholding the promises we
make to others. An America that can be trusted in good faith is
essential to supporting our partners, achieving our goals, and assuring
our security.
We must hold our allies accountable to commitments they make. We
cannot look the other way at allies who do not meet their obligations;
this is an injustice not only to us, but to longstanding friends who
honor their promises and bolster our own national security.
And we must hold those who are not our friends accountable to the
agreements they make. Our failure to do this over recent decades has
diminished our standing and encouraged bad actors around the world to
break their word. We cannot afford to ignore violations of
international accords, as we have done with Iran. We cannot continue to
accept empty promises like the ones China has made to pressure North
Korea to reform, only to shy away from enforcement. Looking the other
way when trust is broken only encourages more bad behavior. And it must
end.
We cannot be accountable if we are not truthful and honest in our
dealings. Some of you are aware of my longstanding involvement with the
Boy Scouts of America. One of our bedrock ideals is honesty. Indeed,
the phrase ``on my honor'' begins the Boy Scout Oath, and it must
undergird our foreign policy.
In particular, we need to be honest about radical Islam. It is with
good reason that our fellow citizens have a growing concern about
radical Islam and murderous acts committed in its name against
Americans and our friends.
Radical Islam poses a grave risk to the stability of nations and
the well- being of their citizens. Powerful digital media platforms now
allow ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other terror groups to spread a poisonous
ideology that runs completely counter to the values of the American
people and all people around the world who value human life. These
groups are often enabled and emboldened by nations, organizations, and
individuals sympathetic to their cause. These actors must face
consequences for aiding and abetting what can only be called evil.
The most urgent step in thwarting radical Islam is defeating ISIS.
The Middle East and its surrounding regions pose many challenges which
require our attention, including Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. There
are competing priorities in this region which must be and will be
addressed, but they must not distract from our utmost mission of
defeating ISIS. Because when everything is a priority, nothing is a
priority. Defeating ISIS must be our foremost priority in the Middle
East.
Eliminating ISIS would be the first step in disrupting the
capabilities of other groups and individuals committed to striking our
Homeland and our allies. The demise of ISIS would also allow us to
increase our attention on other agents of radical Islam like al-Qaeda,
the Muslim Brotherhood, and certain elements within Iran. But defeat
will not occur on the battlefield alone; we must win the war of ideas.
If confirmed, I will ensure the State Department does its part in
supporting Muslims around the world who reject radical Islam in all its
forms.
We should also acknowledge the realities about China. China's
island- building in the South China Sea is an illegal taking of
disputed areas without regard for international norms. China's economic
and trade practices have not always followed its commitments to global
agreements. It steals our intellectual property, and is aggressive and
expansionist in the digital realm. It has not been a reliable partner
in using its full influence to curb North Korea. China has proven a
willingness to act with abandon in pursuit of its own goals, which at
times has put it in conflict with America's interests. We have to deal
with what we see, not with what we hope.
But we need to see the positive dimensions in our relationship with
China as well. The economic well-being of our two nations is deeply
intertwined. China has been a valuable ally in curtailing elements of
radical Islam. We should not let disagreements over other issues
exclude areas for productive partnership.
We must also be clear-eyed about our relationship with Russia.
Russia today poses a danger, but it is not unpredictable in advancing
its own interests. It has invaded Ukraine, including the taking of
Crimea, and supported Syrian forces that brutally violate the laws of
war. Our NATO allies are right to be alarmed at a resurgent Russia.
But it was in the absence of American leadership that this door was
left open and unintended signals were sent. We backtracked on
commitments we made to allies. We sent weak or mixed signals with ``red
lines'' that turned into green lights. We did not recognize that Russia
does not think like we do.
Words alone do not sweep away an uneven and at times contentious
history between our two nations. But we need an open and frank dialogue
with Russia regarding its ambitions, so that we know how to chart our
own course.
Where cooperation with Russia based on common interests is
possible, such as reducing the global threat of terrorism, we ought to
explore these options. Where important differences remain, we should be
steadfast in defending the interests of America and her allies. Russia
must know that we will be accountable to our commitments and those of
our allies, and that Russia must be held to account for its actions.
Our approach to human rights begins by acknowledging that American
leadership requires moral clarity. We do not face an ``either or''
choice on defending global human rights. Our values are our interests
when it comes to human rights and humanitarian assistance.
It is unreasonable to expect that every foreign policy endeavor
will be driven by human rights considerations alone, especially when
the security of the American people is at stake.
But our leadership demands action specifically focused on improving
the conditions of people the world over, utilizing both aid and
economic sanctions as instruments of foreign policy when appropriate.
And we must adhere to standards of accountability. Our recent
engagement with the government of Cuba was not accompanied by any
significant concessions on human rights. We have not held them
accountable for their conduct. Their leaders received much, while their
people received little. That serves neither the interest of Cubans or
Americans.
Abraham Lincoln declared that America is ``the last best hope of
Earth.'' Our moral light must not go out if we are to remain an agent
of freedom for mankind. Supporting human rights in our foreign policy
is a key component of clarifying to a watching world what America
stands for.
In closing, let us also be proud about the ideals that define us
and the liberties we have secured at great cost. The ingenuity, ideas,
and culture of Americans who came before us made the United States the
greatest nation in history. So have their sacrifices. We should never
forget that we stand on the shoulders of those who have sacrificed
much, and in some cases, everything. They include our fallen heroes in
uniform, our Foreign Service Officers, and other government agents in
the field who likewise gave all for their country.
If confirmed, in my work for the President and the American people
I will seek to engender trust with foreign leaders and governments, and
put in place agreements that will serve the purposes and interests of
American foreign policy. The Secretary of State works for the President
and seeks to implement his foreign policy objectives. To do that I must
work closely with my Cabinet colleagues and all relevant departments
and agencies of the administration to build consensus. Let me also
stress that keeping the President's trust means keeping the public
trust. And keeping the public's trust means keeping faith with their
elected representatives. I want all the members of this committee to
know that, should I be confirmed, I will seek to be responsive to your
concerns.
I am an engineer by training. I seek to understand the facts,
follow where they lead, and apply logic to our international affairs.
We must see the world for what it is, have clear priorities, and
understand that our power is considerable, but it is not infinite. We
must, where possible, build pathways to new partnerships, and
strengthen old bonds which have frayed.
If confirmed, I intend to conduct a foreign policy consistent with
these ideals. We will never apologize for who we are or what we hold
dear. We will see the world for what it is, be honest with ourselves
and the American people, follow facts where they lead us, and hold
ourselves and others accountable.
I thank you for your time and look forward to your questions.
Senator Corker. Thank you very much for your testimony. Do
you commit to appear and testify upon request from this
committee?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, sir.
Senator Corker. With that, I know the committee members
know I rarely give opening statements, certainly not expansive
ones like I gave. In order to move this along, I am going to
reserve my time for interjections and move to the ranking
member, Senator Cardin. And then we will move to Senator Rubio.
Senator Cardin. Once again, Mr. Tillerson, thank you very
much. Do you agree with me that creating stable, democratic,
and free societies around the world that support the
aspirations of their people, including basic human rights, is
in our long-term national security interests?
Mr. Tillerson. Without question, Senator.
Senator Cardin. And do you also agree that Russia under Mr.
Putin's leadership fails in that category?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, sir.
Senator Cardin. So, what we try to do in order to provide
international leadership is to put a face on an issue.
Thousands of people in Russia have been harmed or killed as a
result of Mr. Putin's leadership, and millions have been
impacted by that. There is one person who lost his life in a
courageous way. Sergei Magnitsky, a young attorney representing
a client with U.S. interests, found corruption, did what any
lawyer is supposed to do, reported it to the authorities. As a
result, he was arrested, tortured, and killed, and those who
benefited from the corruption were held to no accountability
whatsoever.
Through U.S. leadership, we brought that case to the
international forum. Congress has passed a law, the Magnitsky
Law--other countries have now passed similar laws--to deny our
banking system and the right to visit our country to those who
perpetrated those gross violations of human rights that were
not held accountable by Russia.
Do you support that law?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, sir, I do.
Senator Cardin. I thank you for that, because under the
Obama Administration there have been 39 individuals who have
been individually sanctioned under the Magnitsky Law, and five
more were just recently added on Monday.
That law provides for Congress to be able to submit through
appropriate channels additional names to be reviewed by the
Administration for inclusion for sanctions. Do you commit that
you will follow that provision on names that we submit to you
for potential sanctions for human rights violations under the
Magnitsky Law?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, I will ensure that the--that if
confirmed, myself and the State Department does comply with
that law.
Senator Cardin. And this year under the National Defense
Authorization Act, that was extended globally and now applies
to human rights violations throughout the world. Do you also
commit to support the global Magnitsky Law using the tools of
our visa restrictions to prevent human rights violators from
coming to America?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, again, consistent with all
applicable laws that might impact immigration, we will endeavor
to comply with that, yes.
Senator Cardin. Well, the law allows the Secretary of State
to--visas are privileges to come to America. There is no due
process issue when issuing the visas. This is a privilege to be
able to come to a country. So, I am not aware of any
restrictions on your ability to withdraw the right of someone
to come to America. There may be--other than through treaties
that we have diplomats that have to come in, which is exempted
from that provision.
Mr. Tillerson. I understand, Senator, and that was what I
intended is that I think I would have ensure that a full
examination was made of any and all applicable laws or other
policies. But then we would follow those and implement.
Senator Cardin. You mentioned in your statement about the
invasion by Russia of Crimea. Does Russia have, in your view, a
legal claim to Crimea?
Mr. Tillerson. No, sir. That was the taking of territory
that was not theirs.
Senator Cardin. And do you agree that Russia has not
complied with the Minsk Agreement in regards to the resolution
of Ukraine?
Mr. Tillerson. The process for implementing the Minsk
Agreement, as I understand it, continues. And no, full--a full
completion of all the Minsk Accords has not yet been achieved.
Senator Cardin. So, I want to get your view on the
sanctions that the United States applied, and maybe I will
drill down, if I might, by asking you this first question. You
stated in your statement that part of the reasons why we were
ineffective in preventing Russia is that we did not exercise
strong enough international leadership. What would you have
done or recommended to have been done to prevent Russia from
doing what it did?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, Senator, in terms of the taking of
Crimea, I think my understanding is that caught a lot of people
by surprise. It certainly caught me by surprise just as a
private citizen. So, I think the real question was the response
to the taking of Crimea that then led to subsequent actions by
Russia, which I mentioned, the next action being coming across
the border of Eastern Ukraine with both military assets and
men. That was the next illegal action.
I think the absence of a very firm and forceful response to
the taking of Crimea was judged by the leadership in Russia as
a weak response, and, therefore----
Senator Cardin. So, what would you have done? After we were
surprised by what they did in taking over Crimea, what should
the U.S. leadership have done in response to that that we did
not do?
Mr. Tillerson. I would have recommended that the Ukraine
take all of its military assets it had available, put them on
that eastern border, provide those assets with defensive
weapons that are necessary just to defend themselves, announce
that the U.S. is going to provide them intelligence, and that
there will--either NATO or U.S. will provide air surveillance
over that border to monitor any movements.
Senator Cardin. So, your recommendation would have been to
do a more robust supply of military?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, sir. I think what Russian leadership
would have understand--would have understood is a powerful
response that indicated----
Senator Cardin. So----
Mr. Tillerson.--yes, you took the Crimea, but you are--this
stops right here.
Senator Cardin. So, to understand, our NATO partners,
particularly in the Baltics and Poland, are very concerned
about Russian aggression. NATO has deployed troops in this
region in order to show Russia that Article 5 means something.
I take it you support that type of action.
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, I do. That is the type of response that
Russia expects. If Russia acts with force--taking of Crimea was
an act of force. They did not--they did not just volunteer
themselves. So, it required a proportional act--proportional
show of force to indicate to Russia that there will be no more
taking of territory.
Senator Cardin. That is encouraging to me to hear you say
that because it is not exactly consistent with what Mr. Trump
has been saying in regards to Article 5 commitments under NATO
by the United States. So, I appreciate your commitment and your
views on that issue. So, let me get to the response that was
done.
We imposed U.S.-led sanctions against Russia as a result of
its conduct in Ukraine. We went to Europe and were able to get
Europe to act. The United States, in my view, wanted to go even
further, but we could not get Europe to go beyond what they
were willing to do. Do you agree or disagree with that strategy
for the United States to lead by showing sanctions as we did?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, sanctions are a powerful tool, and
they are an important tool, in terms of deterring additional
action. Once actors have acted up, then we want to deter any
further action on their part. So, yes, American leadership is
oftentimes, if not almost always, required to demonstrate that
first step.
Senator Cardin. And, as you understand, unless we move, and
we have to move in a strong position, we are going to be the
best. We are going to get the strongest reaction on sanctions
from the United States. We saw that in Iran. And I know that
some of us have mentioned to you the legislation which was
filed yesterday. I do not know if you have had a chance yet to
respond to it or not. I might do that for questions for the
record.
But we have legislation I would urge you to take a look at.
It seems consistent with what you are saying here that would
provide the Administration with the tools to show Russia that
if you attack us by cyber, or you continue to do what you are
doing in Ukraine, or what you are doing in Georgia, that there
is going to be an economic price you are going to pay. I take
it you believe that is a powerful tool and one that you would
consider applying?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, I have not had the opportunity to
review the legislation. I am aware that it has been introduced.
And, yes, I think in carrying out--the State Department
carrying out its diplomacy or carrying out its important role
in trying to negotiate to a different course of action, to a
different pathway, we need a strong deterrent in our hand. It
is the old tenet of Teddy Roosevelt: ``Walk softly; carry a big
stick.'' Well, even in diplomacy, it is useful to have a stick
that is in your hand so that whether you use it or not becomes
part of that conversation.
Senator Cardin. I appreciate that. Let me ask one final
question. I was meeting with Mr. Pruitt yesterday, and I asked
him about his view of global leadership on climate issues, and
he said you should ask that question to the Secretary of State
nominee. So, I am going to ask it to you, and that is we were
part of COP21. Do you agree that the United States should
continue in international leadership on climate change issues
with the international community?
Mr. Tillerson. I think it is important that the United
States maintain its seat at the table in the conversations
around how to address the threats of climate change which do
require a global response. No one country is going to solve
this alone.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Senator Corker. Thank you. Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio. Welcome, Mr. Tillerson. Do you believe
during the 2016 presidential campaign, Russian intelligence
services directed a campaign of active measures involving the
hacking of emails, the strategic leak of these emails, the use
of internet trolls, and the dissemination of fake news with the
goal of denigrating a presidential candidate and also
undermining faith in our election process?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, I have--I have had no unclassified
briefings because I have not received my clearance yet.
However, I did read the interagency report that was released on
January the 6th. That report clearly is troubling, and
indicates that all of the actions you just described were
undertaken.
Senator Rubio. Based on your knowledge of Russian leaders
and Russian politics, do you believe these activities could
have happened without the knowledge and the consent of Vladimir
Putin?
Mr. Tillerson. I am not in a position to be able to make
that determination. Again, that is indicated in the report, but
I know there is additional classified information that might
inform my views.
Senator Rubio. Mr. Tillerson, you have engaged in
significant business activities in Russia, so I am sure you are
aware that very few things of a major proportion happen in that
country without Vladimir Putin's permission. So, I ask, based
on your views of Russian politics and your experience, is it
possible for something like this involving the United States
elections to have happened without Vladimir Putin knowing about
it and authorizing it?
Mr. Tillerson. I think that is a fair assumption.
Senator Rubio. That he would have needed to.
Mr. Tillerson. Yes.
Senator Rubio. If Congress passed a bill imposing mandatory
visa bans and asset freeze sanctions on persons who engage in
significant activities undermining the cybersecurity of public
or private infrastructure and democratic institutions in the
United States, would you advise the President to sign it?
Mr. Tillerson. I would certainly want to examine it, all
the corners--all four corners of that.
Senator Rubio. Well, those are the four corners. We would
sanction people who are involved in cyberattacks against the
United States and interfering in our elections.
Mr. Tillerson. The threat of cyberattacks is a broad issue,
and those are coming from many, many corners of the world.
Certainly, this most recent manifestation, and I think the new
threat posed in terms of how Russia has used this as a tool,
that introduces even another element of threat. But
cyberattacks are occurring from many nations.
Senator Rubio. So, no matter where they come from. If they
come from Belgium, if they come from France, I do not--if
someone is conducting cyberattacks against the United States
and we pass a law that authorizes the President to sanction
them or actually imposes these sanctions as mandatory, would
you advise the President to sign it?
Mr. Tillerson. I think it is that second element, Senator,
that you described that leaves the executive branch no
latitudes or flexibility in dealing with the broad array of
cyberthreats. I think it is important that those be dealt with
on a country-by-county basis, taking all other elements into
consideration in the relationship. So, giving the executive the
tool is one thing. Requiring the executive to use it without
any other considerations, I would have concerns about.
Senator Rubio. So, Mr. Tillerson, if I understand your
testimony, you are saying if it was mandatory, you would not be
able to advise the President to sign it because you want to
have the President--to have the flexibility to decide which
countries to sanction and which ones to not sanction.
Mr. Tillerson. Under which circumstances do you sanction.
Senator Rubio. In essence, because you want to be able, for
example, to take other things into account, like, for example,
the desire to perhaps improve relations with that country. And,
therefore, the President maybe does not want to sanction even
though they are attacking us.
Mr. Tillerson. There could be a whole array of important
issues that require consideration, including trading issues,
trade relation issues, mutual agreements around our national
security. So, I do not think it is--I do not think it is
appropriate, and certainly for me at this time, to indicate
that I would just say that it is a blanket--a blanket
application. I think that is the role of the--of the executive
branch. It is the role of the Secretary of State and State
Department to assist and inform the President in judgments
about how to use what is a clearly powerful tool.
Senator Rubio. Well, again, I mean, what is troubling about
your answer is the implication that somehow if there is some
country that we are trying to improve relations with or have
significant economic ties with, the President--you may advise
the President not to impose sanctions on that country, on
individuals in that country, out of concern that it could
damage our--the rest of our relationship with them on a
cyberattack, which is a direct attack on our national security
and our electoral process.
So, let me ask you: would you advise the President-elect to
repeal the Obama Administration's recent executive orders
regarding cybersecurity and Russian interference in the 2016
elections?
Mr. Tillerson. I think the President-elect has indicated
and, if confirmed, I would support, that what is really
required is a comprehensive assessment of our cyberthreat and
cybersecurity policies. In my view, based on what I have been
able to read and have been briefed, we do not have a
cybersecurity policy. We do not have a comprehensive strategy
around how to deal with what has been a rapidly-emerging
threat.
Senator Rubio. But, Mr. Tillerson----
Mr. Tillerson. And as I said, we are seeing it manifest
itself in ways that we never envisioned.
Senator Rubio. But, Mr. Tillerson, I understand the
cybersecurity plan. We have to have one to protect ourselves
and handle cyberattacks against our country. That is separate
from the question of whether people that have already conducted
attacks should be sanctioned and singled out.
There is an executive order that is now active that has
sanctioned those individuals. And my question is, do you
believe that executive order should be repealed by the incoming
President?
Mr. Tillerson. If confirmed, Senator, I would want to
examine it and all aspects of it in consultation not only with
the President, but with other inter-agencies who are going to
have input on this as to their views.
Senator Rubio. Well, again, Mr. Tillerson, all the
executive order says is that certain individuals responsible
for cyber actions against the United States will be sanctioned.
And you still need to examine whether that is a good idea or
not. Is that correct?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, sir.
Senator Rubio. Let me ask you this question. Is Vladimir
Putin a war criminal?
Mr. Tillerson. I would not use that term.
Senator Rubio. Well, let me describe the situation in
Aleppo, and perhaps that will help you reach that conclusion.
In Aleppo, Mr. Putin has directed his military to conduct a
devastating campaign. He has targeted schools, markets. Not
just assisted the Syrians in doing it. His military has
targeted schools, and markets, and other civilian
infrastructure. It has resulted in the deaths of thousands of
civilians.
This is not the first time Mr. Putin is involved in
campaigns of this kind. Back when he was just appointed prime
minister before he was elected [to the presidency], and I am
sure you are aware of that period of time, there was a series
of bombings, and they blamed it on the Chechens. And Mr. Putin
personally said that he would punish them, and so he ordered
the air force to bomb the Chechen capital of Grozny.
They used Scud missiles to hit hospitals, the city's main
outdoor markets packed with shoppers. A hundred and thirty-
seven people died instantly. They used thermobaric and fuel air
explosive bombs. These are the bombs that ignite, and they burn
the air breathed in by people who are hiding in basements. They
used cluster munitions. He used battlefield weapons against
civilians. And when it was all said and done, an estimated
300,000 civilians were killed, and the city was completely
destroyed.
By the way, there was a credible body of reporting, open
source and others, that this was all--all those bombings were
part of a black flag operation on the part of the FSB. And if
you want to know the motivation, here is what it is: Putin's
approval ratings before the attacks against the Chechens were
at 31 percent. By mid-August of that year, it was at 78 percent
in just three months.
So, based on all this information and what is publicly in
the record about what has happened in Aleppo and the Russian
military, you are still not prepared to say that Vladimir Putin
and his military have violated the rules of war and have
conducted war crimes in Aleppo.
Mr. Tillerson. Those are very, very serious charges to
make, and I would want to have much more information before
reaching a conclusion. I understand there is a body of record
in the public domain. I am sure there is a body of record in
the classified domain. And I think in order to--in order to
deal with a serious question like this----
Senator Rubio. Mr. Tillerson, what has happened in Aleppo
is in the public domain.
Mr. Tillerson. And I would want to be fully informed----
Senator Rubio. The videos and the pictures of----
Mr. Tillerson.--before advising the President.
Senator Rubio. Well, I encourage you--there is so much
information out there about what has happened in Aleppo,
leaving the Chechen issue aside. What happened there is clearly
documented as well. There is so much information out there.
It should not be hard to say that Vladimir Putin's military
has conducted war crimes in Aleppo because it is never
acceptable, you would agree, for a military to specifically
target civilians, which is what has happened there through the
Russian military. And, you know, I find it discouraging your
inability to cite that, which I think is globally accepted.
I want to in my last minute and a half here move really
quickly to an additional question. In fact, I want to enter two
things into the record. Mr. Chairman, without objection?
Senator Corker. Without objection.
Senator Rubio. The first is a partial list of political
dissidents, journalists, and critics of Vladimir Putin who were
suspiciously murdered or died under highly suspicious
circumstances.
[The information referred to is located in Annex II, page
407]
Senator Rubio. The second thing I want to enter into the
record is a letter addressed to this committee by Vladimir
Kara-Murza, who himself was mysteriously poisoned and is an
opponent of the Putin regime. I would like to enter that into
the record.
Senator Corker. Without objection.
[The information referred to is located in Annex II, page
413.]
Senator Rubio. Mr. Tillerson, do you believe that Vladimir
Putin and his cronies are responsible for ordering the murder
of countless dissidents, journalists, and political opponents?
Mr. Tillerson. I do not have sufficient information to make
that claim.
Senator Rubio. Are you aware that people who oppose
Vladimir Putin wind up dead all over the world, poisoned, shot
in the back of the head? And do you think that was
coincidental, or do you think that it is quite possible or
likely, as I believe, that they were part of an effort to
murder his political opponents?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, people who speak up for freedom in
regimes that are oppressive are often at threat, and this--and
these things happen to them. In terms of assigning specific
responsibilities, I would have to have more information. As I
indicated, I feel it is important that in advising the
President, if confirmed, that I deal with facts, that I deal
with sufficient information, which means having access to all
information. And I am sure there is a large body of information
that I have never seen that is in the classified realm.
I look forward, if confirmed, to becoming fully informed.
But I am not willing to make conclusions on what is only
publicly available or have been publicly reported.
Senator Rubio. None of this is classified, Mr. Tillerson.
These people are dead. Political opponents are dead----
Mr. Tillerson. Your question was--your question was people
who are directly responsible for that. I am not disputing these
people are dead.
Senator Corker. Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you. Mr. Tillerson, congratulations
on your nomination. Thank you for coming by to meet with me.
And I would like to take this opportunity to expand upon the
conversation we had last week.
Since you have worked in one sector for one company
throughout your entire career, getting a sense of your world
view is incredibly important since you will be the chief
advocate and advisor to the President-elect on those issues.
So, I would like to go through a series of questions. I think
many of them can be and answered by a simple ``yes'' or ``no.''
Others will probably take a greater, more extensive answer, so.
And you have alluded to some of this in your opening statement,
so let me go through several of them.
Do you believe it is in the national interest of the United
States to continue to support international laws and norms that
were established after World War II?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, sir.
Senator Menendez. Do you believe that the international
order includes respecting the territorial integrity of
sovereign countries and the inviolability of their borders?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, sir.
Senator Menendez. Did Russia violate this international
order when it forcefully annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, it did.
Senator Menendez. Did Russia's continuing occupation of
foreign countries violate international laws and norms?
Mr. Tillerson. I am not sure which specific countries you
are referring to.
Senator Menendez. Well, the annexation of Crimea, the----
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, sir.
Senator Menendez.--Eastern Ukraine, Georgia, just to
mention a few.
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, sir.
Senator Menendez. Does Russia and Syria's targeted bombing
campaign in Aleppo, on hospitals, for example, violate this
international order?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, that is not acceptable behavior.
Senator Menendez. Do you believe these actions constitute
war crimes?
Mr. Tillerson. Again, Senator, I am not--I do not have
sufficient information to make that type of a serious
conclusion. Coming to that conclusion is going to require me to
have additional specific facts.
Senator Menendez. Do you understand what the standard is
for a war crime?
Mr. Tillerson. I do.
Senator Menendez. And knowing that standard and knowing
what is all within the realm of public information, you cannot
say whether those actions constitute a war crime or not.
Mr. Tillerson. I would not want to rely solely upon what
has been reported in the public realm. I would want
confirmation from agencies who would be able to present me with
indisputable facts.
Senator Menendez. Well, all the----
Senator Corker. Senator Menendez, if I could, let me ask a
little----
Senator Menendez. If you will not take my time, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Corker. No, I am not taking your time. It will be
added back. If you had sufficient evidence, though, in looking
at classified information that had taken place, would that not
be a war crime?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, sir.
Senator Corker. Thank you.
Senator Menendez. For all of these answers that you have
given me, does the President-elect agree with you?
Mr. Tillerson. The President-elect and I have not had the
opportunity to discuss this specific issue or the specific
area.
Senator Menendez. Well, in your statement on page 3, you
say, ``In his campaign, President-elect Trump proposed a bold,
new commitment to advancing American interests in our foreign
policy. I hope to explain what this approach means and how I
would implement that policy if I am confirmed as Secretary of
State.'' So, I assume to some degree that you have had some
discussion about what it is that that world view is going to be
in order to understand whether you are willing to execute that
on behalf of the person you are going to work for.
Mr. Tillerson. In a broad construct and in terms of the
principles that are going to guide that, yes, sir.
Senator Menendez. And I would have thought that Russia
would be at the very top of that considering all the actions
that are taking place. Did that not happen?
Mr. Tillerson. That has not occurred yet, Senator.
Senator Menendez. That's pretty amazing. You have built a
career on ExxonMobil that you said afforded you the opportunity
to engage regularly with world leaders, including Vladimir
Putin in Russia. In 2013, he awarded you with the Order of
Friendship Award, and in our conversations you told me you had
direct and personal access to the Russian president over the
course of your tenure there.
Then in 2014, ExxonMobil lobbied aggressively against
sanctions on Russia after their invasion of Ukraine. Exxon
lobbied against the Stability and Democracy for Ukraine Act,
which I introduced in the Senate last year. You employed well-
known Washington-based lobbyists to support these efforts. You
personally visited the White House and reported that you were
engaged ``at the highest levels of government.''
In essence, Exxon became the in-house lobbyist for Russia
against these sanctions. Sanctions are one of the most
effective diplomatic tools in our arsenal, one we rely on to
avoid putting American lives at risk by engaging in traditional
kinetic warfare. Now, today in response to a previous question
by Senator Cardin, you said sanctions are a powerful tool. But
you have made statements and given speeches where you have said
you do not believe sanctions are a useful tool.
So, if sanctions are not a useful tool, have you changed
your view? What are the tools of peaceful diplomacy you will
use to get countries to return and act within the international
order? What are you going to say to Vladimir Putin when he says
to you, but, Rex, you said sanctions were bad?
Mr. Tillerson. Now, Senator, I think it is important to
acknowledge that when sanctions are imposed, they by their
design are going to harm American business. That is, the idea
is to disrupt America's business engagement in whatever country
is being targeted for sanctions. And so, broadly----
Senator Menendez. I do not think it is to disrupt American
business. I think it is to disrupt the economies of those
countries. Now, American business may or may not be affected to
some degree.
Mr. Tillerson. American business--if America is going to
have an influence on disrupting those economies, and the intent
behind the sanctions is to disrupt that country's access to
American business, investment, money flows, technology----
Senator Menendez. A lot of the financial sectors.
Mr. Tillerson. Correct.
Senator Menendez. Our financial sectors.
Mr. Tillerson. So, by its very--and I am only stating a
fact. I am not debating it. But the fact is sanctions, in order
to be implemented, do impact American business interests.
In protecting America's interest, and I think this is where
the President-elect would see the argument as well, is
sanctions are a powerful tool. Let us design them well, let us
target them well, and then let us enforce them fully. And to
the extent we can, if we can have other countries join us or if
we are designing sanctions in concert, let us ensure those
sanctions apply equally everywhere so that U.S. interests is
not----
Senator Menendez. Well, when you made your remarks, and I
have a long list here, which I will introduce for the record--
[The information referred to is located in Annex VIII, page
541]
Senator Menendez.--you did not differentiate that way. You
basically made the broad case that sanctions are not an
effective tool.
Now, I heard your response now, but in your opening
statement you said that, ``America must continue to display a
commitment to personal liberty, human dignity, principles of
action in our foreign policy,'' and that we are the only global
superpower with the means and moral compass capable of shaping
the world for good. I totally agree with you in that respect.
But, Mr. Tillerson, our efforts in leading the
international community, for example, on sanctions against our
adversaries, like Iran and North Korea, represent exactly that,
leadership and a moral compass. It is not about disadvantaging
American businesses. It is about putting patriotism over
profit.
Diplomacy is not the same as deal making. Diplomacy
requires getting other countries often to do things they may
not always want to do, and there is not necessarily something
to trade for it for. This is how we were able to build an
extensive and effective sanctions network against Iran through
legislation from Congress and diplomatic pressure from
secretaries of state across different Administrations. We were
able to build a framework of primary and secondary actions that
ultimately crippled Iran's economy.
Now, you lobbied against the comprehensive Iran Sanctions
Accountability and Divestment Act, which I was the author of.
You reportedly under ExxonMobil--and I say ``you,'' ExxonMobil,
but you were the head of ExxonMobil--wanted to eliminate
secondary sanctions that would prevent joint ventures. This
makes sense as in 2003 and 2004 and 2005 you were engaged
through a subsidiary company in businesses with countries who
the United States listed as state sponsors of terrorism,
including Iran, Syria, and the Sudan. Countries that, except
for the maneuver of your subsidiary, ExxonMobil could not have
been dealing with.
ExxonMobil is listed as a coalition member of USA Engage,
an advocacy group that lobbies against sanctions. This group
also lobbied against sanctions, including against Iran, and
applauded passage of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
So, my question is with that as a history, with the work
that you did in the spring of 2011, where you oversaw an
ExxonMobil deal with the Kurdish regional government in Iraq,
after the United States government expressly did not want to
see that happen fearing that a deal would undermine the U.S.
policy of one Iraq, and leave the country closer to civil war,
what message are you now going to be able to send to American
businesses who are intent on pursuing their own interests at
the expense of U.S. policies and potential political stability
in foreign countries? How are you going to recalibrate your
priorities as Secretary of State? Your shareholders are the
American people and their security and their interests.
Mr. Tillerson. Well, there was a lot in that question,
Senator----
Senator Menendez. I will give you the rest of my time.
Mr. Tillerson.--around which I could respond. First, I have
never lobbied against sanctions personally. I continue to
believe----
Senator Menendez. But the company you directed did.
Mr. Tillerson. To my knowledge, Exxon never directly
lobbied against sanctions. Not to my knowledge. In terms of all
the other actions that were--that were mentioned there, they
have been with--they were all undertaken with a great deal of
transparency, and openness, and engagement, and input to the
process. That is--that is the beauty of American process is
that others are invited to express their view and inform the
process.
But that--my pivot now, if confirmed to be Secretary of
State, will have one mission only, and that is to represent the
interests of the American people. And as I have stated multiple
times, sanctions are an important and powerful tool, but
designing poor sanctions and having poor and ineffective
sanctions can have a worse effect than having no sanctions at
all if they convey a weak response.
So, it is important in designing sanctions that, as I have
said, if they are carefully crafted, they are carefully
targeted with a--with an intended effect, and then enforced.
And to the extent American leadership then can broaden
participation in those sanctions, and you are exactly right,
the Iran sanctions were extraordinarily effective because
others joined in.
Senator Corker. Thank you. Senator Menendez has played an
incredible role for our Nation, making sure that sanctions are
in place, and has led us all, if you will, relative to Iran.
And let the record say your time ran over to accommodate the
interjection I made earlier.
It is my understanding, and I think you have called me
during this time, that your concern with the sanctions that
were in place relative to Iran were not that they were put in
place, but that the Europeans had put them in place in a way
that was different and it caused adverse situation for U.S.
business relative to European businesses. Is that correct?
Mr. Tillerson. That was with respect to the sanctions for
Russia. That is correct.
Senator Corker. With that, and let me just on Senator
Rubio's questions, I understand how a nominee would wish to be
careful how they answer, especially one that plans to do what
they say. In the event with many of those where he was asking
about war crimes, if you are able through your own independent
knowledge and working with classified agencies here within the
government to determine that the types of activities that he so
well articulated took place, you would agree that those, in
fact, would be war crimes.
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, sir.
Senator Corker. Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, welcome,
Mr. Tillerson. I imagine you are having a pretty good time
already.
I want to pick up a little bit on sanctions because I have
had my own legitimate concerns about the effectiveness of
sanctions and their double-edged sword nature. For example, you
are pretty well aware of events and the public opinion inside
Russia. I am concerned that some not well-designed sanctions
can actually solidify Vladimir Putin's standing within Russia.
Is that a legitimate concern?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, sir, I think it is.
Senator Johnson. In your testimony, you said ``Russia is
not unpredictable,'' which is another way of saying that Russia
is pretty predictable. You also said, ``Russia does not think
like we do.'' Can you further expand on both those comments?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, in terms of their--[Disturbance in
hearing room.]
Senator Corker. Bertie, if you would, I can easily add time
myself, but if you would stop the clock when these kind of
interferences take place, it would be appreciated. With that,
Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. If you forgot the question, it was to
explain your comments that Russia is predictable basically, and
that Russia does not think like we do. Expand on that.
Mr. Tillerson. Well, in my experience of both dealing with
Russia and representatives of Russian government and Russian
entities, and then as my--the length of time I have spent in
Russia as an observer, my experience with the Russians are that
they are very calculating. They are very strategic in their
thinking, and they develop a plan. [Disturbance in hearing
room.]
Senator Johnson. I apologize for that, Mr. Tillerson. Now,
you can maybe answer the question unimpeded.
Mr. Tillerson. Yeah. I have found the Russians to be very
strategic in their thinking, very tactical, and they generally
have a very clear plan that they have laid before them. And so,
in terms of--when I make the statement they are not
unpredictable, if one is able to step back and understand what
their long-term motivation is and you see that they are going
to chart a course, then it is an understanding of how are they
likely to carry that plan out, and where are all of the
elements of that plan that are on the table.
And in my view, the leadership of Russia has a plan. It is
a--it is a--it is a geographic plan that is in front of them,
and they are taking actions to implement that plan. They are
judging responses, and then they are making the next step in
the plan based upon the response. And in that regard, they are
not unpredictable. If you--if Russia does not receive an
adequate response to an action, they will execute the next step
of the plan.
Senator Johnson. So, be a little more specific. Summarize
that plan that you see that they have.
Mr. Tillerson. Well, Russia, more than anything, wants to
reestablish its role in the global world order. They have a
view that following the breakup of the Soviet Union they were
mistreated in some respects in the transition period. They
believe they deserve a rightful role in the global world order
because they are a nuclear power, and they are--they are
searching as to how to establish that.
And for most of the past 20-plus years since the demise of
the Soviet Union, they were not in a position to assert that.
They have spent all of these years developing the capability to
do that, and I think that is now what we are witnessing is an
assertion on their part in order to force a conversation about
what is Russia's role in the global world order. And so, the
steps being taken are simply to make that point, that Russia is
here, Russia matters, and we are a force to be dealt with. And
that is a fairly predictable course of action they are taking.
I think the important conversation that we have to have
with them is does Russia want to now and forever be an
adversary of the United States. Do you want this to get worse,
or does Russia desire a different relationship? We are not
likely to ever be friends. I think as others have noted, our
value systems are starkly different. We do not hold the same
values.
But I also know the Russian people because of having spent
so many years in Russia. There is scope to define a different
relationship that can bring down the temperature around the
conflicts we have today, and these--and I think as Secretary
Gates alluded to and as Secretary Nunn alluded to, both in
their opening remarks, dialogue is critical so that these
things do not spin out of control.
We need to move Russia from being an adversary always to a
partner at times, and on other issues we are going to be
adversaries. It is not unlike my comments I made on China. At
times China is friendly, and at times China is an adversary.
But with Russia, engagement is necessary in order to define
what is that relationship going to be, and then we will know
how to chart our own plan of action to respond to that.
Senator Johnson. In my mind, if I take the spectrum of
America's relationships with different nations, you have
friends and allies. You have friendly rivals. You have
unfriendly adversaries. You have enemies. And right now, you
are basically putting Russia in the unfriendly adversary
category?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, unfriendly to enemies. I think at this
point, they clearly are in the--in the unfriendly adversary
category. I hope they do not move to enemy because that would
imply even more direct conflict with one another.
Senator Johnson. But do you hold out much hope that we can
move them into the friendly rival category? Maybe partners
where we have mutual interests.
Mr. Tillerson. Yeah, I--Senator, I tend to think of--that
in three categories. There are our friends, there are our
partners, and there are our adversaries. And at times,
certainly our friends are partners from time to time on
specific actions. Our adversaries from time to time can be
partners, but on other issues we are just not going to agree,
and so we remain adversaries. An adversary at the--at the
ideological level is one thing. An adversary at the conflict
level--direct conflict level--that is very different.
Senator Johnson. Now, I want to switch subjects a little
bit. I agree with former Senator Nunn when he said that your
business experience, your private sector background, your
relationship with Putin is actually an asset coming to this
position. I come from the private sector. I think that kind of
perspective is sorely needed. I do not think we have enough
people from private sector.
I think economic strength is inextricably linked to
national strength. Your background traveling the world is
extensive. I know I asked you when we met--I do not know if you
ever did the calculation. How many different countries have you
traveled to?
Mr. Tillerson. I have never actually counted them up. I
would say over 40--somewhere between 40 and 50. I have never
actually counted them.
Senator Johnson. How many countries have you actually done
deals with--where you dealt with top leadership?
Mr. Tillerson. I have never counted those, but it is
certainly, you know, probably in the--between 10 and 20 where I
have--was directly engaged in a significant way.
Senator Johnson. Let me ask you, as somebody from the
private sector being asked to serve your Nation, understanding
you will be going through a process like this, understanding
all the disclosure, leaving a life behind that I am sure you
valued, what was your greatest reservation with saying yes?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, when I went through all of the
analysis, all the reasons I had for saying no, which is your
question, were all selfish reasons. So, I had no reason to say
no.
Senator Johnson. You obviously had a responsibility as the
CEO of ExxonMobil--a fiduciary responsibility. Your role is
going to change. Do you have any reservation, and can you
describe exactly what your mindset is from making that
transition?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, I have no reservations about my
clean break with my private sector life. It was a wonderful 41-
and-a-half-year career. I am extraordinarily proud of it. I
learned an awful lot. But now, I am moving to a completely
different responsibility. My love of country and my patriotism
is going to dictate that I serve no one's interest but that of
the American people and advancing our own national security.
Senator Johnson. As you have traveled the world with a
business mindset working at developing projects around the
world, obviously you hear from people around the world. Former
President Carter in June of 2015 was commenting on President
Obama's foreign policy, and here are some excerpts. He said he
cannot think of many nations in the world where we have a
better relationship now than when he took over--President
Obama. ``United States' influence and prestige and respect in
the world is probably lower now than it was six or seven years
ago.''
Is that your general sense as you have traveled around the
world during the last eight years of this Administration, that
our power, influence, prestige, respect is lower, that we have
not developed better relationships around the world?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, I think--I do not remember if I
shared it with you in the meeting we had been, but I know I
shared it with others in meetings, that in many respects I have
spent the last 10 years on an unintended listening tour as I
have traveled about the world conducting affairs, engaging with
the top leadership, heads of state in many of these countries.
And I have had the opportunity to listen to them express their
frustrations, their fears, their concerns as to the withdrawal
and the stepping back of America's leadership, the lack of that
engagement. And they are yearning and they want American
leadership reasserted.
And when I met with President-elect and we were meeting
about his ultimately asking me to do this, I indicated to him,
I said, Mr. President, we have got a tough hand of cards that
you have been dealt, but I said, you know, there is no use in
whining about. There is no use in complaining or pointing
fingers at anyone. We are going to just play that hand out,
because what I know is America still holds all the aces. We
just need to draw them out of that deck, and that leaders
around the world want our engagement. I said, you are going to
be pushing on an open door because people want America to come
back.
Senator Johnson. One of the reasons I really value the
private sector experience is in your opening statement. The
number of times you used ``reality,'' ``clarity,'' ``moral
leadership,'' ``moral clarity,'' ``moral lights,'' ``facts.''
You used ``logic,'' ``clear priorities.'' Those are the words
of a business person. That is why I think your perspective will
be very welcome in the State Department.
Thank you, Mr. Tillerson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Corker. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Tillerson, for being willing to consider
the nomination, which has been put forward, to be Secretary of
State.
I agree with your opening statement that the United States
has an important role to play in the world, not just standing
up for our interests and values but also for democracy, for
press freedom, for human rights, for rule of law.
You were unwilling to agree with Senator Rubio's
characterization of Vladimir Putin as a war criminal, and you
point out in your statement that Russia has disregarded
American interests. I would suggest, as I think has been
brought out in later testimony, that not only has it
disregarded American interests but international norms and
humanitarian interests.
The State Department has described Russia as having an
authoritarian political system dominated by President Vladimir
Putin. Meanwhile, Freedom House currently puts Russia in a
category of countries like Iran with very restricted political
rights ruled by one part, or military dictatorships, religious
hierarchies, or autocrats.
Do you agree with that characterization of Russia and
Vladimir Putin?
Mr. Tillerson. I would have no reason to take exception.
Senator Shaheen. Senator Rubio and Senator Cardin both
talked about some of those people who have been victims of the
Putin authoritarian regime in Russia. And behind me is a poster
with a recent New York Times story. I quote, ``More of
Kremlin's Opponents Are Ending Up Dead.''
I would like to ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to
enter the article into the record.
Senator Corker. Without objection.
[The information referred to is located in Annex V, page
485.]
Senator Shaheen. I think a picture is always worth a
thousand words, and when you put a face to Sergei Magnitsky, as
this poster does, and see two other victims of the
authoritarian regime in Russia, I think it speaks to what is
happening there and how we should think about the country and
dealing with President Putin.
So I understand what Senator Nunn said, I mean former
Senator Nunn, and Secretary Gates said when they talked about
the need to have dialogue with Russia and to continue a mil-to-
mil relationship, but I also think it is important for us to
understand who we are dealing with.
In 2008, you notably said that there is no respect for the
rule of law in Russia today. Do you think that continues to be
true?
Mr. Tillerson. That is still the case, yes.
Senator Shaheen. So I think you can probably understand,
Mr. Tillerson, why some of us are very concerned about the
President-elect's statements praising Vladimir Putin's
leadership, his intelligence, including after being reminded of
his ruthless persecution of political enemies and after
receiving compelling information that Russia has interfered
with our elections.
So do you think now is the right time to lift sanctions
against Russia?
Mr. Tillerson. I think it is important that we keep the
status quo until we are able to develop what our approach is
going to be, that it will be all part of the approach. That is,
part of the incentives on the one hand, or part of the greater
pressure on the other, that will be an important element of
developing that approach of that first conversation with
Russia.
If confirmed, that is the foreign policy step that I will
be working through other inter-agencies, again, informed in the
National Security Council with classified information as well
as being informed by the views of others to develop that
strategic approach to engagement with Russia.
So I would leave things in the status quo so that we are
able to convey this can go either way.
Senator Shaheen. Under your leadership, ExxonMobil has
invested more than $100 million in its global Women's Economic
Opportunity Initiative, partnering with the U.S. Government and
foreign governments. As you know, the State Department also
places a high priority on global women's empowerment, on gender
equity, on combating violence against women.
I was very disturbed when there was a request from the
Trump transition team to find out who the employees within the
State Department have been who have worked on gender equity
programs. And while I know that has been walked back by that
transition team, I still think it sends a chilling message to
people in the State Department and to people concerned about
efforts to empower women around the globe.
So can I ask whether you agree that we should continue that
initiative to empower women and what steps you would take to
ensure that the State Department and USAID continue to fund
necessary programs to address global women's issues?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, this is an issue that has long been
important to me personally as well. I have seen firsthand the
impact of empowering women, particularly empowering women's
participation in economic activities in the lesser developed
part of the world.
I know this is a really important area to you, and we
talked about it in your office. And there are study after study
to confirm that when you empower women in these developing
parts of the world, you change the future of the country
because you change the cycle within that family. Whether that
woman has daughters or sons, when you empower the woman, and
they see them participating at an economic level, it changes
the way they will view things as they grow.
I have seen specific examples and visited projects in Papua
New Guinea, which allowed women to participate by forming a
coalition of bread bakers. It takes very little money. These
are women that want the opportunity. What they need is the
wherewithal and some structure to guide them around how to
conduct a small business.
Interesting in that example, when the women began to be
successful selling their bread in villages all up and down the
trails in the jungle, their next concern when they came to our
folks was, ``We have all this money, and we are having to hide
it all over the place, and we are worried somebody is going to
steal it. What do we do?'' They were introduced to banking and
were assisted with opening a bank account in the capital.
This is just an example, though. Think about someone who
starts with nothing, does not even know what a bank is, and,
all of a sudden, now they have a bank account. That will change
their children, and it will change the cycle within that area.
So these are extraordinarily powerful programs.
Senator Shaheen. I certainly agree with that. And does that
mean that you will commit to continuing those programs, if you
are confirmed as Secretary of State?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes. I think it is an important part of all
of our foreign aid assistance efforts, whether it is the USAID
or whether it is through other opportunities we have in more
structured ways.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Under your leadership in 2012, ExxonMobil's foundation also
helped develop a roadmap for promoting women's economic
empowerment that specifically cited access to family planning
and reproductive health services as a means to improve
productivity and earning potential for women. You and I also
served, as we discussed, in 2010 on the Center for Strategic
and International Studies' Commission on Smart Global Health
Policy, which also advocated for expanded access to family
planning services.
Will you pledge to continue to prioritize quality family
planning and reproductive health services for women worldwide,
and ensure that resources and access to these programs are not
conflated with support for abortion?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, there are statutory requirements in
place around the foreign aid. They are well-known I know to
yourself and to myself as well. As I understand it, we
currently invest a little bit or something around a half
billion dollars a year in programs directed at family planning
through foreign assistance, and I think that is an important
level of support.
Senator Shaheen. So do I take that as a yes?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I would want to, if confirmed, and I
have the opportunity to examine all of the aspects of that
program. I just am just aware that we do spend about a half
billion dollars now.
Senator Shaheen. Well, as you know, if the approximately
225 million women worldwide with unmet family planning needs
had access to modern methods of contraception, we would see 52
million fewer unintended pregnancies, resulting in 600,000
fewer stillbirths, 6 million fewer miscarriages, and 15 million
fewer unsafe abortions.
So I would attest that this is not only a humanitarian
value that we should support but also an economic one.
And I am almost out of time, but I just want to go back to
Russia for a brief moment, because as you talk about the
potential to work with them, one of those areas that we have
been successful on is the new START treaty back in 2010, which
this committee supported and the Senate supported, which
ensures that Russians have to reduce their nuclear warheads and
delivery vehicles. And it has given us more access to onsite
inspections.
Do you believe that continuing to support those efforts is
important for us?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, Senator. I think, again, this is an
area where we have to stay engaged with Russia, hold them
accountable to commitments made under the new START, and also
ensure that we are in a position to meet our accountability as
well.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Senator Corker. Thank you.
Senator Flake.
Senator Flake. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony, and thank you for your
willingness to serve. It is a difficult thing to put your
family through and everything else, so I want you to know how
much we appreciate that.
In your opening testimony, you talked about this war on
ISIS, that it will take a while. That is the implication I get
from what you wrote, and I think that is certainly true.
In Congress here, we rarely declare war these days, but we
do authorize the use of military force or pass so-called AUMF.
We have not passed one yet with regard to ISIS. We are still
working under an ill-fitting 2001 AUMF with regard to Al Qaeda
and Afghanistan.
Senator Kaine and I have offered a bipartisan AUMF to deal
with Al Qaeda--I am sorry, with ISIS. And we think that it
certainly helps to have congressional buy-in, that our allies
certainly deserve to know where we are, and our adversaries
need to know.
What are your thoughts with regard to an AUMF specifically
regarding ISIS?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I think the President-elect in broad
terms indicated during his campaign and in comments made in
other instances that he believes it is important that we not
just lightly go into these conflicts, that he would seek the
engagement of Congress and the support of Congress in some
means, whether it is through a sense of the Congress or
specific legislation.
And I would not disagree with your characterization that it
is much more powerful when the U.S. shows up with everyone
aligned, and I think having the support of the Congress
standing behind those decisions to commit U.S. men and women,
U.S. military resources, does give us a much stronger position
to engage with allies in building those alliances that are
important.
And in the case of defeating ISIS, that is one of the first
actions that is going to be necessary, to reengage with our
allies in the area and ensure that we know what they are
willing to commit as well.
So, yes, I would strongly support engaging, certainly at
the minimum with this committee, and ultimately if legislative
action would support our efforts to defeat ISIS, I would be
certainly talking to the President about that.
Senator Flake. That certainly would be welcomed here. What
we do not want to see--I do not want to speak for my colleagues
certainly, but what I would not like to see is what we saw
after the promise and the drawing of the red line, which you
mentioned in your testimony. When you draw a red line, you said
we sent weak or mixed signals with red lines that turned into
green lights. I think that is certainly the case.
But what happened with the last administration is that red
line was drawn, but rather than enforce that red line when it
was crossed, the administration came to Congress to ask
permission. And we always enjoy the administration coming to
us, but when you draw a red line, enforce it. The War Powers
Act allows 60 days, and that is what I think we--that kind of
collaboration with Congress is using us as a crutch rather than
an ally in this battle.
Mr. Tillerson. I take the point.
Senator Flake. With regard to Cuba, you mentioned that
their leaders under the new arrangement we have for diplomatic
relations and loosened travel restrictions, I believe you are
referring to, ``Their leaders received much while their people
have received little. This serves neither the interests of
Cubans or Americans.''
I would encourage you in the coming weeks and months to
look at what has happened in Cuba. Certainly, I think the
government is no less repressive with regard to dissidents that
is still going on. But when President Obama allowed American--
Cuban-Americans, in particular--to travel unfettered to Cuba
and lifted caps on remittances, it allowed Cubans who had
previously worked for the government in Cuba to engage in
private sector activity.
And from virtually no private sector employment in Cuba, we
have gone to about 25 percent of the Cuban work force in the
private sector. And I would submit that they enjoy now a
measure of economic freedom and political freedom that they did
not before.
So I think that has benefited the Cuban people and will
continue to, if we continue the approach that we have now
taken.
And I do share your aversion to sanctions, particularly
those that are not multilateral. I think we have seen that in
spades in Cuba over the years, where it was only the U.S. who
employed sanctions, and then sanctions that were not
comprehensive and did not mean that much other than giving the
regime there a convenient excuse for the failure of socialism.
So I would encourage you in the next couple weeks to look
at what has happened in Cuba with regard to our new policy.
With regard to Africa, we had a good discussion in my
office. You at ExxonMobil had dealt with Africa a lot.
Let us talk about soft diplomacy for a while. We have a lot
of programs through USAID all over the continent. As you have
viewed those programs, in addition to what ExxonMobil has done
in the corporate governance area, what works and what does not?
How can we refashion some of our policies to nudge countries
toward democracy that need nudging, or that punish countries
where it deems fit, or encourage cooperation with us on
security measures or humanitarian measures?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, certainly, the use of important USAID
assistance really falls in kind of two broad areas, disaster
relief, addressing imminent situations on the ground where
there is starvation, or the result of storms or the result of
conflict, providing assistance to relieve immediate suffering.
That is an important part of USAID.
Over the past few years, in looking at the balance of that
against what I would call development assistance, which is
designed to create change, which hopefully becomes a
sustainable change, regrettably, the disaster assistance part
of that budget has grown, and that means there is less
available for development.
Other important ways in which we can provide assistance
though are through other mechanisms such as Millennium
Challenge Corporation for those countries that qualify. That is
a different model.
So I think, in terms of what is the issue we are trying to
address, that then conditions how do we put obligations on the
country then to modify behaviors, whether it is to take steps
to reduce corruption, improve the strength of governments and
their own institutional capacity to manage their affairs.
Where I have seen good progress is when assistance was put
into the country with some requirement that, for instance, they
modify or streamline their permitting process. One of the ways
to begin to reduce corruption is to remove the complexities of
how people are able to carry out their activities. The more
steps you have in the process, the more opportunities there are
for people to be taking something out of it or adding a cost to
it.
So I know there are examples where governments have been
required to simplify the simple thing of a citizen going down
and getting a driver's license or the citizen getting a permit
to buy an automobile or piece of equipment. It only goes to one
place. You can shine a bright light on that, and it is easy to
follow the money, as they say. And that in and of itself can be
very effective in beginning to change the behaviors within some
of these developing countries.
So I think where we can tie our assistance to obligations,
it is important that we do so, and then able to follow up. And
again, we have I think it is--every country's issues need to be
examined on a case-by-case basis and then try to target and
design assistance to advance America's values and help that
country continue its journey along better governance.
But in some cases, if it is disaster relief, that is hard
to do, because it is hard to start feeding starving people and
then, when the host government is not meeting its obligations,
we suddenly are going to stop feeding starving people. Those
are very difficult choices to make, and I understand and
appreciate that.
Senator Flake. We had talked in our office about some of
the programs like PEPFAR. Can you talk about how that has
helped our situation and what you have observed in Africa in
terms of goodwill?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, PEPFAR I think clearly has been one of
the most extraordinarily successful programs in Africa. I saw
it up close and personal because ExxonMobil had taken on the
challenge of eradicating malaria because of business activities
in Central Africa where malaria is quite prevalent, and worked
with competent NGOs, some of which were receiving funding
through PEPFAR, some through other agencies, along with other
public-private partnerships.
So eradicating malaria, there has been a great deal of
progress made. That is where I saw it up close and personal.
But I know that PEPFAR broadly has brought so much goodwill
from Africa, recognition of the goodwill and the compassionate
nature of the American people. It is probably one of the best
projections of the American goodwill and compassion into the
continent that I think you will find anywhere, broadly
recognized by leaders, but more importantly, broadly recognized
by those it touches.
Senator Flake. Thank you.
Senator Corker. Thank you so much.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and you and
the ranking member, for working so carefully with us to get
this organized in such a good fashion.
Mr. Tillerson, let me, first of all, just thank you very
much for your visit to my office and us being able to exchange
ideas and discuss how you want to approach things as the
incoming Secretary of State, if you are approved.
And I want to thank so much your family for being here. It
is always wonderful to see family, Brenda and brothers and
sisters, and so that is a very good start, I believe.
You know, Exxon has done and continues to do business in
various countries in the world that are very problematic to the
U.S., and you have mentioned that a little bit here. And in
some cases, some of those countries are just outright hostile.
We now know Exxon did business in Iran, and Iran's regime
has supported terrorist attacks against Americans. Exxon has a
massive oil interest in Russia, which has recently acted to
undermine our elections and civil society. And, of course,
Exxon also has a history of major political contributions and a
large Washington lobbyist presence.
Would you permit Exxon to lobby the State Department under
your leadership?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, Senator, as to any issues involving
ExxonMobil that might come before me, if confirmed as Secretary
of State, I would recuse myself from those issues.
Senator Udall. And would you take phone calls from the new
CEO about foreign matters or any interests they had around the
world that were within the jurisdiction of the State
Department?
Mr. Tillerson. I would not extend to the new chairman and
CEO of ExxonMobil any courtesies beyond that which I would
extend to anyone.
Senator Udall. So are you saying you would take calls and
visit with the CEO? I mean, I am trying to understand----
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, it would be----
Senator Udall.--what kind of limits you are going to put on
yourself in terms of dealing with your company and employees.
I know that you have made a clean break in terms of the
ethics agreements and things like that, but give us an
understanding of the policy that you are going to follow, if
you are approved, as to how you are going to deal with these
situations.
I mean, there are many countries, as you know, in the world
where--to give you an example, Australia, Equatorial Guinea,
Malaysia, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, and the United Kingdom, Exxon
right now is asking for tax dollars back from those. And if you
are carrying out foreign policy in those countries, how are you
going to deal with that situation, in terms of contact with
Exxon, with your former colleagues, in that kind of situation?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, let me start with where you began, in
terms of taking phone calls. I would not expect that I will be
taking phone calls from any business leaders. In my prior role,
I never called on the Secretary of State directly. I called on
the Deputy often, or the Missions, primarily the Ambassadors.
So whether I will take phone calls from anyone is subject
to the question itself.
As to how I would deal with the past history I have in my
prior position with ExxonMobil, I have made clear in my
disclosures, and I think in answers to questions that have been
posed, that obviously there is a statutory recusal period,
which I will adhere to on any matters that might come before
the State Department that deal directly and specifically with
ExxonMobil.
Beyond that, though, in terms of broader issues dealing
with the fact that it might involve the oil and natural gas
industry itself, the scope of that is such that I would not
expect to have to recuse myself.
In any instance where there is any question or even the
appearance, I would expect to seek the guidance of counsel from
the Office of Ethics in the State Department and will follow
their guidance as to whether it is an issue that I should
recuse myself from.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much for that answer.
And I was very heartened by some of the exchange we had in
my office with regard to climate change. As you know, climate
change has been expressed as a serious national security
concern--sea levels rising, threatened Navy bases. We have crop
disruption and water shortages all over the world, and in my
State of New Mexico, and other natural disasters that I think
are going to threaten the stability of many developing
countries.
During the transition, some departments have been asked to
name individuals involved in climate policy who attended
international climate meetings, which made many Federal
employees concerned about a witch-hunt against civil servants
involved in climate policy.
Do you plan or would you support any efforts to persecute,
sideline, or otherwise retaliate against career State
Department employees who have worked on climate change in the
past?
Mr. Tillerson. No, sir. That would be a pretty unhelpful
way to get started. [Laughter.]
Senator Udall. Well, that is--I like that answer.
While you were CEO of Exxon, the company Web site stated,
and I quote here, ``The risk of climate change is clear, and
the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the
atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad
scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to
further quantify and assess the risk.'' And that is the end of
the quote on your Web site.
I understand that, if confirmed, you will be serving under
President-elect Trump, but do you still personally stand by
this statement today, yes or no?
Mr. Tillerson. I do not take exception to that statement. I
might articulate it a little differently as to my personal
views.
But the President-elect has invited my views on climate
change. He has asked for them. He knows that I am on the public
record with my views. And I look forward to providing those, if
confirmed, to him in discussions around how the U.S. should
conduct its policies in this area.
Ultimately, the President-elect, he was elected, and I will
carry out his policies in order to be as successful as
possible.
But I think it is important to note that he has asked, and
I feel free to express those views.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
During our meeting, you expressed support for a carbon tax
as one preferred measure to address issues of climate change.
Will you continue to work with the Congress on this complex
issue and to make this a priority in the State Department, if
you are confirmed?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, when it gets to tax policy, that is
going to be the responsibility of other agencies to conduct. My
role at State would be only to deal with those issues that are
relevant to treaties or international accords that we have
entered into, in terms of our continued compliance with those,
participation in those. And so that would be the area that I
will be most engaged in.
Senator Udall. And my understanding, in the discussion with
you in my office, and I think you said you were going to talk
about this publicly if you were asked questions, you came to
the carbon tax conclusion doing a very thorough analysis of
everything that was out there, whatever was trying to bring
down carbon emissions, you looked at everything and then you
concluded the best recommendation was to move forward with a
carbon tax. Is that correct?
Mr. Tillerson. The analysis that I went through, which was
largely informed by a number of studies, economic studies by
academic institutions and others, was during the time that the
Congress was debating the cap and trade approach, which in my
view had not produced the result that everyone wanted in
Europe. So we had a working model in Europe that we had been
watching, and ExxonMobil had been participating in that model.
The debate around a cap and trade as being the option
versus something else is what stimulated the question for me
of, ``Well, if this is not working, what might?'' So that began
the investigation of other alternatives.
One of the important elements of even considering something
like that as a solution, though, are two other aspects. And one
is that it replaces the hodgepodge of approaches we have today,
which are scattered and some of which are through mandates,
some of which are through well-intended but ineffective
incentives.
So let us simplify the system. This is the one and only
effort we are going to undertake to begin to try to influence
people's choices.
And then the second qualifier I have always placed on it
is, revenues from--if a carbon tax were put in place, it has to
be revenue neutral. All the revenues go back out into the
economy through either reduced employee payroll taxes, because
there will be impacts on jobs, so let us mitigate that by
reducing the impact by putting it back into the economy, so
none of the money is held in the Federal Treasury for other
purposes. This is simply a mechanism to incentivize choices
people are making. It is not a revenue raiser.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Mr. Tillerson.
Senator Corker. Mr. Tillerson, if I could, Senator Udall
did an outstanding job of teasing this out. The one thing that
was not stated, though, would you succinctly state your
position, your personal position, as it relates to climate
change?
Mr. Tillerson. I came to my personal position over about 20
years as an engineer and a scientist understanding the
evolution of the science. I came to the conclusion a few years
ago that the risk of climate change does exist and that the
consequences of it could be serious enough that action should
be taken.
The type of action seems to be where the largest areas of
debate exist in the public discourse. I think it is important
to recognize the U.S. has done a pretty good job----
Senator Corker. This is not quite as succinct as I was
hoping. [Laughter.]
Would you--it is my understanding that you believe----
Senator Udall. I think we should let him finish, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Corker. --you believe that human activity, based on
your belief in science, is contributing to climate change?
Mr. Tillerson. The increase in the greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere are having an effect. Our
ability to predict that effect is very limited.
Senator Corker. Senator Gardner?
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Tillerson, for your service, or hopeful
service to the country. And to your family, thank you as well
to your commitment, because if confirmed, this is a sacrifice
for you as well. So I thank you for your willingness to serve
our Nation, should that be the will of the Senate.
In your opening statement, you talk about what I believe is
the idea of America: liberty, prosperity, security, that we
live in a Nation founded on liberty, maintaining liberty
through security, and growing the prosperity of the American
people.
Periods of history, whether it is the Industrial Revolution
or whether it was the Civil War, World War I, Depression, World
War II, the time period afterward, was not just a year or 2 or
3 in time but a generational, if not more, definition and
changing lives, impacting our children. And the moment we are
in today, the changes we have seen around the globe, the
changes in technology, changes in stability, will greatly
impact the lives of our children, my children, your children.
So I believe that engagement with the world matters, and
that U.S. engagement matters greatly. And you would agree with
that assessment, correct?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, sir. I would.
Senator Gardner. This is not a time for the U.S. to shrink
from the world or to shrink from that engagement. Is that
correct?
Mr. Tillerson. That is correct, Senator. As I indicated in
my opening remarks, that is what has been absent, is U.S.
leadership.
Senator Gardner. And that U.S. values matter, Western
values matter, that we build and continue to build upon those
international norms that have made this country great, those
ideas of liberty, security, prosperity.
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, sir. We are the only country able to
project that with authority.
Senator Gardner. One of the things that I find so
interesting about this committee and the work that we do has
been the opportunity to lead around the globe with diplomacy
and the will of good people of this country, and not just
defense. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, sir.
Senator Gardner. And that we will use force when necessary,
and we should never back away from the obligation to use force
where necessary, correct?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes. I know that everyone understands that
is the least attractive option.
Senator Gardner. And that we must leave no doubt in the
minds of our alliances the willingness and the commitment of
the United States to both use the diplomacy and force where
necessary to achieve the goals of that alliance?
Mr. Tillerson. Diplomacy will be ineffective if it is not
backed up by the threat of force.
Senator Gardner. Mr. Tillerson, North Korea has developed a
series of nuclear capabilities that pose a significant threat
to the United States trying to develop those capabilities, the
United States, our allies, and to the region.
Last Congress, Senator Menendez and I helped lead--did lead
the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act, which
passed the Senate, signed into law by the President, a
unanimous vote, and it abandoned this administration's failed
policy of strategic patience.
The legislation is the first standalone sanction
legislation on North Korea, mandated sanctions on those who
assist Pyongyang's proliferation activities, human rights
violations, and its malicious cyber efforts.
Do you intend, if confirmed, to fulfill all mandatory
sanction requirements of this sanctions act?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes. Yes, I would, Senator. In fact, that is
the issue with North Korea, is we have failed to enforce
existing sanctions regimes, including that which is overseen by
the United Nations.
Senator Gardner. I want to get into that a little bit more.
And your plan obviously as it relates to North Korea. Our
actions toward North Korea depend greatly on South Korea,
Japan, our relationship with those two nations. How do we
bolster the relationship between the United States, South
Korea, and Japan?
Mr. Tillerson. It starts with our friends and allies, and
that is South Korea and Japan, ensuring that we are completely
aligned on our commitment to enforce these sanctions.
Senator Gardner. And the alliance that we have with South
Korea will be strengthened under President-elect Trump's
administration. Is that correct?
Mr. Tillerson. That would be my expectation, yes, sir.
Senator Gardner. And one of the keys, of course, to success
with North Korea's peaceful denuclearization is China. Are you
willing to exert additional pressure on North Korea through
China, including additional U.N. Security Council resolutions
and pushing China to do more to enforce these resolutions as it
relates to North Korea?
Mr. Tillerson. As indicated, I think a lot of our troubles
today are that we do not enforce--we make commitments, we say
we are going to do something, and then we do not enforce it.
And that is, again, a mixed message that I think has been sent
in the case of North Korea and our expectations of China.
I think we have to be clear-eyed as to how far China will
go and not get overly optimistic as to how far they will go.
And that is why, ultimately, it is going to require a new
approach with China in order for China to understand our
expectations of them going beyond certainly what they have in
the past, which has fallen short.
Senator Gardner. If you look at the North Korean economy, a
tremendous amount of it exists and relies upon China, and China
has not, as a result, enforced the sanctions allowing them to
continue proliferation activities through the dollars earned
with the transactions through activities that otherwise would
have been subject to sanctions.
Would you support secondary sanctions against Chinese
entities, if found and confirmed to have violated U.N.
resolution agreements they have entered into?
Mr. Tillerson. Ninety percent of North Korea's trade is
with China, so, to your point, they are solely dependent on
Chinese trade. To the extent that there are specific violations
of the sanctions, such as the purchase of coal, which is
specifically mentioned in the U.N. sanctions most recently, if
there are gaps of enforcement, they have to be enforced. If
China is not going to comply with those U.N. sanctions, then it
is appropriate for the United States to consider actions to
compel them to comply.
Senator Gardner. And how do you intend to lead U.S.
multilateral efforts, multinational efforts, multilateral
efforts, to peacefully disarm Pyongyang?
Mr. Tillerson. It is going to be I think a long-term plan
and it starts with, again, designing the sanctions and
enforcing the sanctions to close gaps that exist. And you have
already highlighted that there are gaps in those sanctions
today that are undermining their effectiveness. So it is a
question of closing those gaps where it is appropriate to seek
further steps against those who are not fully complying with
those sanctions and revisiting are there other ways and other
areas where we can close off access by North Korea to resources
that allow them to continue to develop their nuclear
capabilities.
It is looking at all of that approach as to what is still
there, what can we--how can we put additional pressure on them
to deny them the capability to continue to advance not just the
development but the delivery systems, which is where the
greatest threat exists today.
Senator Gardner. Mr. Tillerson, last Congress, for the
first time, this committee added cybersecurity to its
jurisdiction, and I chaired the Subcommittee on East Asia, the
Pacific and International Cybersecurity Policy.
As part of that effort, we held a number of hearings that
were exclusively devoted to international cybersecurity and
mandated that the State Department produce a long-overdue
policy on the outgoing administration's international
cybersecurity policies.
The North Korea bill that we passed also includes, as I
mentioned, mandatory cyber sanctions for the first time that
any legislation has done so. I have supported, as others have
on this committee, the idea of creating in Congress a
standalone, permanent committee on cybersecurity, so that we
have a whole-of-government view of how to address our cyber-
policy concerns and needs from the standpoint of the commercial
sector to the standpoint of national security needs. I believe
that is something that we should do.
How will you prioritize cybersecurity at the State
Department?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, if confirmed, as I indicated, the
imminent threat today is ISIS, and I highlighted that in my
remarks. But probably the greatest and most complex threat we
are facing today is in the area of cybersecurity.
Certainly, the U.S. has significant capabilities of its
own, but we also are extraordinarily vulnerable, partly because
we have not maintained our own IT infrastructure. We have not
built sufficient defensive mechanisms to protect not just
government sites and government information but important
infrastructure and, in some cases, important private sector
from attack as well.
It is important that we put in place once and for all a
comprehensive strategy for dealing with cybersecurity and cyber
threats that includes what are appropriate norms for behavior,
appropriate use of cyber information, and what is and what
would be an acceptable response when nations violate those
norms.
I think the U.S. has to lead in this area because no one is
doing it. So this is an area where it is going to require a lot
of interagency engagement from all of the--from Commerce to the
Defense Department to the Intelligence Community of how do we
construct a thoughtful approach to cybersecurity and a
thoughtful approach to what are going to be the norms.
And then I think we engage with our friends and allies
first, and we establish what those norms are going to be and
build out the international support for those, so that when
these attacks happen, we are not struggling with what is an
appropriate response, how far should we go? This will be the
accepted norms.
It is a complicated issue. It has a lot of aspects to it
that have to be carefully considered. But we cannot delay
beginning to develop this comprehensive approach.
Senator Gardner. And do you believe the issue of
cybersecurity, cyber policy, should be elevated within the
State Department, perhaps even toward an ambassadorial-level
position?
Mr. Tillerson. I think that could be part of the outcome of
a comprehensive assessment of what is the right way for the
U.S. to manage the threat and be prepared to respond when
others take action.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Corker. Thank you, Senator.
You have shown extreme stamina for a 64-year-old male. And
with that, we are going to have a 5-minute recess. If you wish
to exit the room, I would suggest you coming this way. And we
will resume with Senator Kaine in five minutes.
[Recess.]
Senator Corker. Bring the hearing back to order.
Mr. Tillerson, based on a previous conversation, before
moving to Senator Kaine, I know we had a little bit of a
conversation about this, but when it comes to lobbying for
sanctions, it is my understanding that there was not a lobbying
that took place against sanctions. It was more to go through
the details of what those sanctions would do to make sure that
they were applied appropriately across the board. Is that
correct?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, that is correct. I never lobbied
against the sanctions. To my knowledge, ExxonMobil never
lobbied against the sanctions. ExxonMobil participated in
understanding how the sanctions were going to be constructed
and was asked and provided information regarding how those
might impact American business interests. And the only
engagement I had really came after the sanctions were in place.
ExxonMobil was in the middle of drilling a well in the very
remote part of the Russian Arctic in the Kara Sea several
hundred miles away from any safe harbor.
When the sanctions went into place, because of the way the
sanctions were written, they took immediate effect. There was
no grace period; there was no grandfathering period. And I
engaged immediately with the State Department and with Treasury
and OFAC to explain to them there was significant risk to
people and the environment if in order--and we were going to
comply with the sanctions, fully comply, but that compliance
meant immediate evacuation of all these people, which was going
to put lives at risk and the environment at risk because this
was a wildcat exploration well that was at a very delicate
position at the time, provided a lot of technical information
to OFAC and the State Department, was thankful that it took
about five days for them to understand that.
And ExxonMobil stood still while they were evaluating that,
and in the end did grant a temporary license to allow that work
to be completed safely so we could get all the people then out
of the country, get all of the equipment that was subject to
sanctions out of the country, including the rig out of the
country.
That was my direct engagement was really in dealing with an
effect of the sanctions. So, again, the characterization that
ExxonMobil lobbied against the sanctions is just not accurate.
Senator Corker. Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, Mr. Tillerson,
thank you for your willingness to serve. Congratulations on
your nomination.
How much information do you have about financial
connections between President-elect Trump, the Trump family, or
Trump organizations and Russian individuals or organizations or
the Russian Government?
Mr. Tillerson. I have no knowledge.
Senator Kaine. And if I asked you the same question and I
substituted Turkey, China, Pakistan, or Japan for Russia in
that question, would your answer be the same?
Mr. Tillerson. I have no knowledge.
Senator Kaine. So I gather from your answer that you will
then have no way of knowing how actions proposed by a President
Trump regarding those countries or others would affect his
personal or family financial interests?
Mr. Tillerson. I have no knowledge.
Senator Kaine. How is a Congress and the American public
supposed to fully judge the actions, official actions proposed
by a President Trump if we lack basic information about how
those actions may benefit his personal finances?
Mr. Tillerson. That is a question that others will have to
address, Senator.
Senator Kaine. You are aware that government leaders of
many of the countries that you dealt with in your capacity as
CEO of ExxonMobil have used their positions of leadership to
greatly advance their personal wealth while they were in
office, correct?
Mr. Tillerson. I have no direct knowledge of that.
Senator Kaine. But you have read press accounts, for
example, about folks like Vladimir Putin or the leaders of
Equatorial Guinea and other nations suggesting that they have
amassed great personal wealth while in office, correct?
Mr. Tillerson. I am aware of the press reports.
Senator Kaine. Do you think that such behavior by a head of
government is in accord with values of the United States or
contrary to U.S. values?
Mr. Tillerson. If the reports are true and there has been
inappropriate taking of funds that belong rightfully to the
government and that that is not provided for under the
government's laws, then that would be contrary to our values,
which are to respect the laws.
Senator Kaine. Should Congress be diligent to make sure
that Federal officials, including the President, do not use
their public positions to amass personal wealth while in
office?
Mr. Tillerson. That is the standard in the United States,
yes, sir.
Senator Kaine. Without full disclosure of the President of
all his financial interests, is there not a chance that you
might be across the table in a negotiating setting, say, with
Russian officials who know more about the President's financial
interests and exposure than you do?
Mr. Tillerson. Not to my knowledge.
Senator Kaine. If that was the case, would that not put
America and our national interests at somewhat of a
disadvantage?
Mr. Tillerson. If it is not to my knowledge, it is not
going to change the way I am negotiating with them.
Senator Kaine. But if someone on the other side of a
negotiating table--you have been in negotiations--has more
knowledge than you do, is that not something that could put you
at a disadvantage?
Mr. Tillerson. I think as long as the objective of the
negotiation is clear, what are we trying to achieve, that is
all that matters. If you achieve the objective, the art of
negotiating is just how you achieve that objective.
Senator Kaine. I am going to switch and ask you some
questions about climate, following up on Senator Udall. We
talked about this in my office. There has been a great deal of
coverage about ExxonMobil's history with the issue of climate
change. There was a recent two-part article in the New York
Review of Books prepared by members of the Rockefeller Family
Foundation and investigated by an independent team for the
Columbia School of Journalism, in 2015 there was a three-part
series in the Los Angeles Times, and in the same year, Inside
Climate News did an 8-month investigation and produced a nine-
part series that was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize, all on
the question of ExxonMobil's knowledge of basic climate
science.
These articles conclude the following, and then I am going
to ask you some questions: 1) ExxonMobil concluded as early as
the 1970s that pollution from CO2 released by the burning of
fossil fuels was affecting the climate in potentially
destructive ways; 2) despite this knowledge, ExxonMobil took
public positions against the scientific consensus regarding
climate science; 3) ExxonMobil funded outside organizations
that publicly denied, downplayed, and obscured the scientific
consensus; and 4) ExxonMobil, despite claims to the contrary,
continues to provide funding, if at a lower level, to outside
groups that deny, downplay, or obscure this scientific
consensus. Are these conclusions about ExxonMobil's history of
promoting and funding climate science denial, despite its
internal awareness of the reality of climate change during your
tenure with the company, true or false?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, since I am no longer with
ExxonMobil, I am in no position to speak on their behalf. The
question would have to be put to them.
Senator Kaine. I am not asking you to speak on ExxonMobil's
behalf. You were with the company for nearly 42 years?
Mr. Tillerson. That is correct.
Senator Kaine. And for the majority of your time you were
with the company in an executive and management position?
Mr. Tillerson. Approximately half the time.
Senator Kaine. And you became CEO in 2006?
Mr. Tillerson. Correct.
Senator Kaine. So I am not asking you on behalf of
ExxonMobil. You have resigned from ExxonMobil. I am asking you
whether those allegations about ExxonMobil's knowledge of
climate science and decision to fund and promote a view
contrary to its awareness of the science, whether those
allegations are true or false.
Mr. Tillerson. The question would have to be put to
ExxonMobil.
Senator Kaine. And let me ask you, do you lack the
knowledge to answer my question or are you refusing to answer
my question?
Mr. Tillerson. A little of both. [Laughter.]
Senator Kaine. I have a hard time believing you lack the
knowledge to answer my question, but that is an editorial
comment just like your comment was an editorial comment.
With respect refusing to answer my question, we talked in
my office. You have severed your financial ties with
ExxonMobil, correct?
Mr. Tillerson. That is correct.
Senator Kaine. Are you subject to any confidentiality
agreement that continues to be in force that would limit your
ability to talk about the matter I am asking you about or any
other matters concerning ExxonMobil?
Mr. Tillerson. Let me clarify my first answer. All the ties
will be severed if I am confirmed.
Senator Kaine. Right. Absolutely.
Mr. Tillerson. I----
Senator Kaine. I got that.
Mr. Tillerson. I spoke too quickly.
Senator Kaine. Yes, I understood that.
Mr. Tillerson. To my knowledge, I have no such
confidentiality agreement in place, but I would have to consult
with counsel.
Senator Kaine. I will file that question for the record,
and I would be----
Mr. Tillerson. Yes.
Senator Kaine.--curious as to whether there is any existing
confidentiality agreement and when the agreement was entered
into.
Senator Kaine. Mr. Chairman, I want to enter a couple of
documents in the record: first, a letter dated September 2,
1982, from the Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Laboratory
director of Exxon Research Company, Roger Cohen. And I would
just quote from it and enter it into the record, September 2,
1982. ``Over the past several years, a clear scientific
consensus has emerged regarding the expected climatic effect of
increased atmospheric CO2. The consensus is that a doubling of
atmospheric CO2 from its preindustrial revolution value would
result in an average global temperature rise of between 1.5 and
3.0 degrees centigrade. There is unanimous agreement in the
scientific community that a temperature increase of this
magnitude would bring about significant changes in the Earth's
climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the
biosphere. The time required for doubling of atmospheric CO2
depends on future world consumption of fossil fuels.
``In summary, the results of our research are in accord
with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased
atmospheric CO2 on climate. We are now ready to present our
research to the scientific community through the usual
mechanisms of conference, presentations, and publications. As
we discussed in the August 24 meeting, there is the potential
for our research to attract the attention of the popular news
media because of the connection between Exxon's major business
and the role of fossil fuel combustion in contributing to the
increase of atmospheric CO2. Our ethical responsibility is to
permit the publication of our research in the scientific
literature. Indeed, to do otherwise would be a breach of
Exxon's public position and ethical credo on honesty and
integrity.''
And I would like to introduce that letter for the record.
Senator Corker. Without objection.
[The information referred to is located in Annex VI, page
499.]
Senator Kaine. I would like to also introduce an op-ed
series produced by ExxonMobil in 2000, and I will read the
following: ``Geological evidence indicates that climate and
greenhouse gas levels experience significant natural
variability for reasons having nothing to do with human
activity. Against this backdrop of large, poorly understood
natural variability, it is impossible for scientists to
attribute the recent small surface temperature increase to
human causes.''
And I would like to introduce that as well.
Senator Corker. Without objection.
[The information referred to is located in Annex VI. page
493.]
Senator Kaine. Mr. Tillerson, one last subject. I know you
are familiar with the use of the phrase ``resource curse'' to
describe the phenomenon whereby oil-rich countries often find
that their abundance of natural resources actually impedes
development of a diverse economy and promotes authoritarianism,
violence, environmental despoliation, poverty, and corruption.
That is not an iron law, but that has been a much-discussed
topic in economic literature since the early 1990s.
ExxonMobil does business in many countries--Chad,
Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, Indonesia, Angola--that have
suffered through this phenomenon. I would like you to talk
about, as Secretary of State, where we have a development
portfolio that tries to help nations raise sustainable
economies, how will you work with nations that have suffered
under this ``resource curse,'' and how will you work with them
to make sure they respect human rights, the rule of law, and
our longstanding commitment to transparency and anticorruption
interests?
Senator Corker. Good question. Succinct answer, please.
Mr. Tillerson. Well, there is a lot of opportunity through
our USA programs to strengthen institutional capacities and set
standards of expectation in the developing part of the world,
including those that have resource wealth.
Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair, if I could put one more document
in the record, and it is a document from this committee. It is
a report that was directed by Senator Lugar when he was the
ranking member of the committee in 2008 entitled ``The
Petroleum and Poverty Paradox: Assessing U.S. and International
Community Efforts to Fight the Resource Curse.'' And it has a
number of suggestions for both the President and Secretary of
State that I think still have some merit, and I would commend
it to the attention of the witness.
Senator Corker. Without objection. Thank you.
[The information referred to is located in Annex VI, page
503.]
Senator Corker. Senator Young.
Senator Young. New guy. [Laughter.]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks so much, Mr. Tillerson,
for your presence here today.
I would like to return to an issue which has received quite
a bit of discussion and dialogue here today, and it is the
sanctions that have been imposed on Russia in the wake of their
annexation of Crimea, their armed intervention in eastern
Ukraine. And you have indicated to me privately and again here
publicly that you had a couple of concerns. Aside from the
fiduciary concerns, that is, your duty to ensure you maximize
shareholder value as CEO of ExxonMobil, you had concerns with
respect to the ill-formation of these sanctions, the fact that
there is a disparity between the U.S. and EU's sanctions
regime, and therefore, you did not believe that sanctions
regime would work. Is that correct?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I think I expressed the view that it
was likely to be ineffective.
Senator Young. Okay. I am going to give you an opportunity
to explain that in greater detail. In the wake of our private
meeting, we contacted the Congressional Research Service and
they indicated--and I will submit this report for the record
here--but that in practice--and I am quoting--``It appears that
U.S. and EU sectoral sanctions are broadly similar.'' They did
say it appears, but kindly explain the distinction between
those two sanctions regimes that made you conclude they would
be ineffective.
Mr. Tillerson. And I was speaking in terms of the sector
that I was involved in at the time, oil and natural gas
development. The EU sanctions contained a grandfathering
provision, which allowed activity that was already underway in
the targeted sanction areas to continue. In the U.S. sanctions,
there was no grandfathering. And in this dialogue that was
going on during the development of the sanctions, that was part
of the input to the process, both to the Treasury Secretary--I
spoke to Secretary Lew myself to point out that there was this
gap and that it was going to--it could lead to problems for
U.S. interests from two perspectives. One was the operational
effect that I just described a moment ago in response to the
chairman's question that an immediate effect would put
operations that were ongoing at risk. So there was that issue.
But the second was that to the extent European activities
in the same sanctioned areas could continue because they were
grandfathered would put U.S. interests in this particular part
of the sector at a disadvantage because U.S. could not continue
to demonstrate its capabilities; our European partners could.
And it put at risk the possibility that agreements that had
been entered into might be terminated.
Senator Young. So it is the grandfathering component. We
will look more into that.
Mr. Chairman, submit this for the record, please.
Senator Corker. Without objection.
[The information referred to is located in Annex III, page
469.]
Senator Young. Let me pose a hypothetical, perhaps a bit--
it gets to the heart of the matter of trying to separate one's
responsibilities, one's incentives as the CEO of a major
multinational corporation, though U.S.-based, from perhaps your
coming role as the chief diplomat of the United States.
Assume that something that is not particularly lacking in
plausibility, that Russia were to send troops and weapons into
the Kiev area, into Ukraine. Assume further that a well-formed
sanctions regime is presented to you as Secretary of State.
Finally, assume that that sanctions regime would disadvantage
the bottom line of American-based multinationals. Would you
still propose, would you still advocate that the United States
of America advance its national interests by adopting this
sanctions regime?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, I think as I have indicated now
several times, the use of sanctions is an important and can be
powerful tool as long as they are constructed to be effective.
In an instance like the example you give, there will be, I am
sure, discussion at the National Security Council all of the
options, but the sanctions will be certainly an important
option to have on the table for consideration. And if that is
the option selected, I will vigorously support those.
Senator Young. Very good. With respect to the U.S. and EU
sanctions, it has already been presented to you that there is a
possibility of removing those. You indicated that for now you
believe the status quo should reign in part because--I think
understandably; I am sympathetic to this--you indicated you
lack sufficient information. You have not been ``read-in'' with
respect to classified material, correct?
Mr. Tillerson. That is correct.
Senator Young. All right. Your nomination was announced on
December 13. You have never served in government before. It is
understandable you would not have a security clearance until
now, until last evening. You had a security clearance. Would
you be willing to receive a classified security brief from our
intelligence community this evening, assuming we may go into
tomorrow with respect to this hearing, focused intently on
Russia?
Mr. Tillerson. If all of the paper is in place and I have
been cleared, I understand it is on file; I just have not
received any notice yet. But I look forward to having access to
the additional information.
Senator Young. So you would be willing?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes.
Senator Young. Further, as the nation's chief diplomat, it
is really important, as we have seen with this previous
administration, that the chief diplomat of the United States
speak with a voice that is perceived to be the voice of the
President of the United States. There cannot be space between
what you are saying, the policies you are putting forward, and
those that are embraced by our now President-elect. He has a
history of utilizing to very well-known effect social media,
Twitter in particular. And some of the President-elect's tweets
appear to be quickly drafted, not vetted by staff or
coordinated with the transition team's senior officials. So
this gives pause to me. This gives some concern that in coming
months, in coming years you might not be empowered to actually
serve as the chief diplomat. You would lack credibility.
So how do you finesse this? How would you ensure that the
legs are not cut out from underneath you as the nation's chief
diplomat? And perhaps you have some ideas on this.
Mr. Tillerson. Well, if confirmed and I am able to serve
this President-elect, I do not think I am going to be telling
the boss how he ought to communicate with the American people.
That is going to be his choice.
But in carrying out and executing and implementing the
foreign policy, including traveling abroad--and I understand
your point; I am overseas--that it would be my expectation that
any way the President might choose to communicate through
whatever method would be supportive of that policy we both
agreed on.
Senator Young. So do you have in mind any contingency plans
to----
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, I have his cell----
Senator Young.--address----
Mr. Tillerson. I have his cell phone number. [Laughter.]
Senator Young. Okay.
Mr. Tillerson. And he has promised me he will answer. And
he does.
Senator Young. We will hope for the best there, unless you
have anything else to add.
In your prepared statement, you write that ``Russia must
know that we will be accountable to our commitments and those
of our allies.'' Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states
that ``An armed attack against one or more member states in
Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against
them all.'' Mr. Tillerson, if Putin were to instigate a Crimea-
style invasion of a NATO member, let us say Estonia or Latvia
or Lithuania, do you believe the U.S. should and would honor
its treaty obligation, join our allies in defending our fellow
NATO member against external invasion?
Mr. Tillerson. Article 5 commitment is inviolable, and the
U.S. is going to stand behind that commitment.
Senator Young. So yes?
Mr. Tillerson. If that is the consensus of NATO members
that that is the appropriate use of article 5, then yes.
Senator Young. Okay. I yield back.
Senator Corker. All right. Thank you so much.
Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Tillerson, for your willingness to serve.
Mr. Tillerson. Thanks.
Senator Murphy. And as a Cub Scout leader who was wearing
the uniform last night as I led my Wolf den, I thank you for
your service to the Boy Scouts and your leadership there as
well.
A comment and then a few questions. In your testimony you
said that you had not lobbied Congress on the issue of
sanctions, and I guess we fleshed out that in your mind calling
a United States Senator to express your belief that sanctions
would be ineffective is not lobbying. I would argue that is a
distinction without a difference. If you are calling a United
States Senator on the phone to express your belief that
sanctions that would affect your company would be ineffective
likely constitutes lobbying. And in 14 different lobbying
reports between 2006 and 2014, Exxon did list lobbying on
sanctions as part of its political activity.
I have a question, though, on another potential
inconsistency. In your testimony and in your private meetings
with us, you spent a lot of time I think, you know, very
smartly talking about the importance of consistency and clarity
in American policy and your belief that you need to rebuild
that.
In this light, your response to Senator Rubio on whether
you would support mandatory sanctions against specific
individuals involved in confirmed, verifiable cyber attacks
against the United States is fairly extraordinary. The U.S. is
under attack today. We are under attack by Russia, by North
Korea, by China through these cyber attacks.
And so I guess I am going to ask you to square how you can
have a clear, consistent policy on preventing cyber attacks
against the United States when you have said before this
committee that you do not support mandatory sanctions against
verified individuals who have committed attacks against the
United States because there might be complicated multifaceted
relationships with certain countries in which you might want to
weigh the attack against the United States with another
consideration. How do you deter cyber attacks against the
United States if you send a message that you can get away with
it with no sanctions against those individuals as long as there
are other equities at stake with the United States? Put those
two together for me.
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, what I was intending to convey is
that I need to be fully informed as to what all the options
are. And I am not fully informed as of yet, and it will
involve--you know, if confirmed, it will involve interagency
discussions, including that within the National Security
Council of what are all--and I think I have said this--what are
all the options to respond? And again, this is a symptom of
the--in the absence of a clear policy and a clear strategy, I
fully appreciate this body and in particular this committee
that has these important responsibilities wanting to take
action. What I do not know because I have not been allowed or
not had the sufficient briefings yet, what are the other
potential ways to respond to these types of attacks? And if
sanctions are the most effective, then that is certainly what I
would support. But I do not know because I have not been
briefed as to what are our proportional capabilities in
responding. Are there other options available to us that could
prove to be even more effective and get a more immediate change
in the behavior of whoever is attacking us?
And so it is--I hope I did not convey or did not intend to
convey that kind of a narrow of a response. What I was trying
to convey is this is an extraordinarily complicated threat that
exists today, and we are being attacked. I do not dispute that
statement in any way. But I also believe we have to look at all
of the options and all of the tools available to us, and
sanctions is one of them. It is a powerful tool.
And I think, as I said, if in an interagency, a national-
security-type environment, that conversation is existing and
the conclusion is made that these sanctions are going to be the
best and most appropriate way to act, then I think the
executive would like to have the optionality to make that
decision, not to the exclusion that there could be better
options available, and yet we have to do this as well.
Senator Murphy. Mr. Tillerson, as you know, the New York
Times, Washington Post, CNN, amongst others, are reporting that
Russia has a dossier of very damaging and embarrassing
information about the President-elect that they have used to
influence his views on Russian-American policy. This report is
as earthshattering as it is thinly sourced, but it was deemed
credible enough for our intelligence agencies to reportedly
read in both the President and the President-elect. I think we
all pray that it is not true, and I certainly understand you
are not in a position to testify to the contents of that
report. But let me just ask you some very simple questions.
Have you been briefed yet on these allegations and on this
report?
Mr. Tillerson. I have not.
Senator Murphy. There is some confusion as to whether the
President-elect has been briefed. Can you confirm whether he
has been briefed or not?
Mr. Tillerson. I do not know.
Senator Murphy. In this report there are allegations that
there were specific agents of the Trump campaign that
communicated between it and Russia. Have you or Exxon had any
business dealings, any business relationships with either Paul
Manafort or with Carter Page?
Mr. Tillerson. Not that I am aware of.
Senator Murphy. Could you take that question for the record
and get a response to the committee?--
Mr. Tillerson. I would be happy to do that.
[The information referred to had not been received by the
committee in time to be included in this hearing print. ]
Senator Murphy. And finally, do you believe that U.S. law
enforcement, most notably the FBI, should seek to determine the
accuracy of these allegations?
Mr. Tillerson. I think that I would leave that to those
agencies to determine.
Senator Murphy. If they chose to conduct an investigation,
would the State Department under your leadership cooperate with
that investigation?
Mr. Tillerson. To the extent there is a role for the State
Department in such an investigation.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Tillerson.
You have talked a lot in your testimony about the
importance of setting red lines and then standing by them when
you set them, and I want to ask you some questions about it.
The President made his red-line statement in the context of a
press conference, and so I just want to get your position right
here. You believe it is statements by American Presidents, even
those that are made off-the-cuff, are taken by world leaders as
statements of U.S. policy, is that correct?
Mr. Tillerson. In that case I think the statement was
pretty unequivocal.
Senator Murphy. And so let me give you another unequivocal
statement and ask for your thoughts on it. On Twitter,
President-elect Trump said that a North Korean ICBM launch was
``not going to happen.'' That sounds about as clear as a red
line as I can figure one out. Do you interpret that to be a red
line?
Mr. Tillerson. I do not know that I would interpret that to
be a red line. I could interpret that to mean a lot of things.
Senator Murphy. Elaborate. Elaborate on that.
Mr. Tillerson. It is not going to happen because the
President views the North Koreans are not going to do one. It
could be interpreted that way.
Senator Murphy. You do not think that should be interpreted
by the global community as the United States promising to do
whatever is necessary not to allow the North Koreans to obtain
an ICBM?
Mr. Tillerson. I think that is a pretty far extension of
that statement to come to that conclusion.
Senator Murphy. I think many have interpreted it that way.
And I think to Senator Young's question, therein lies the
challenge when you conduct foreign policy by 140 characters, it
does become a little opaque as to what you mean. I do not think
there is as much confusion there, but that will certainly be a
challenge that you will have.
Finally, I want to drill down a little bit more on this
series of questions from Senator Menendez. He was getting at a
question about conduct at ExxonMobil that directly contradicted
American foreign policy in Iraq when you made a decision to do
a deal with the Kurdish Government even when the United States
Government had requested that you refrain from doing such a
deal.
In addition, there is testimony now that, through
subsidiaries or joint partnerships, Exxon did work in places
like Iran, Syria, and Sudan. This is a question that is going
to sound confrontational but I mean it sincerely. Was there any
country in the world whose record of civil rights was so
horrible or whose conduct so directly threatened global
security or U.S. national security interests that Exxon would
not do business with it? Was there any line while you were at
Exxon where you would not do business with a country, given
that Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Russia were on the list of those
that you would?
Mr. Tillerson. The standard that is applied is, first, is
it legal? Does it violate any of the laws of the United States
to conduct business in any particular country? Then beyond
that, it goes to the question of the country itself. Do they
honor contract sanctity? Do they have a rule of law? And if
they do or do not, are there mitigating actions that can be put
in place to protect whatever business activity might be
undertaken.
Senator Murphy. But on that list is not a question of their
record of human rights abuses or U.S. national security
interests?
Mr. Tillerson. That could go to contract sanctity, rule of
law, and stability of the country, which is always a judgment
as well.
Senator Murphy. Thank you.
Senator Corker. Thank you.
Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Senator Corker, and thank you
for your outstanding opening remarks. I think you cast the
hearing exactly in the place it should be.
Mr. Tillerson, thank you for accepting this challenge, and
thank you for accepting the challenge of sitting before us for
a couple of hours and answering a lot of tough questions in a
great way. Thank you also for bringing United States Senator
Sam Nunn to introduce you. That goes a long way with me and I
think a lot of people here. Sam served for 24 years in the
United States Senate. He chaired the Armed Services Committee,
and he and Dick Lugar did the Nunn-Lugar Initiative, which has
reduced the exposure of the world to nuclear fissile material
to be used by terrorists around the world and was a chief
advisor to me and a number of other members of the committee on
the New START Treaty and did a great job of helping us to
understand what Russian capabilities were and how important it
was for us to maintain a strong road on that. So I appreciate
you having Sam here. He is a great testimony to you as an
individual.
You mentioned a number of things, and I am going to take
them in order real quickly and try and ask specific questions.
With regard to American leadership being renewed and reasserted
because to lead in the world, we have to renew our leadership;
we have to reassert our leadership. You have said that.
Probably one of the most interesting places in the world
right now where we basically are out of the picture is the
Middle East with regard to Aleppo and in regard to Syria.
Turkey and Iran and Russia are sitting at the table as they
divide up what is left of Syria and its assets and what is
going to happen in the future, and we are sitting outside.
As the nominee for being the chief negotiating diplomat for
the United States of America, what would you recommend we do to
get a seat at that table? And what form of renewed leadership
should we exercise to have that leadership respected?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, if confirmed, Senator, I think the
first step we have to take is to reengage with our traditional
allies and friends in the area and reaffirm that we are back.
We are back with our leadership and we are back with a plan of
how to affect where events in Syria go from here. We cannot do
anything about where we are today.
I think you described the situation accurately. Russia,
Syria, Turkey, and Iran are dictating the terms of how things
are going to play out in Syria today, absent our participation.
So I think that it is a reengagement with our traditional
allies, sharing with them where we believe we have to now go in
Syria.
We have to reengage with President Erdogan in Turkey. This
is a longstanding NATO ally that, in the absence of American
leadership, he got pretty nervous about his situation and he
turned to who was next available and he turned to an ally in
Russia that is not a sustainable ally. And it is making clearer
to him that is not a sustainable alliance. Your sustainable
alliance is with the United States of America.
So it is just--the first step is that reengagement and
reinforce what had been longstanding commitments by the United
States to stability and security in this part of the world, and
that includes reestablishing a clear statement of how important
Israel is to us and our national security and the role they
play in this region of the world for our benefit as well.
After that, then we will have a plan that will be developed
in concert with the National Security Council as to how we
accomplish two things. One: We have got to protect the innocent
people on the ground in Syria. People are fleeing areas. How do
we secure their protection so they are no longer
indiscriminately bombed, put under threat? And if that can
happen, then perhaps there can be a stabilization of the
outflow of people who are leaving because there is not a safe
place to go.
The second step then, as I indicated, is defeat ISIS. We
have had two competing priorities in Syria under this
administration. Bashar al-Assad must go and a defeat of ISIS.
And the truth of the matter is carrying both of those out
simultaneously is extremely difficult because at times they
conflict with one another.
The clear priority is to defeat ISIS. We defeat ISIS, we at
least create some level of stability in Syria, which then lets
us deal with the next priority of what is going to be the exit
of Bashar Assad. But importantly, before we decide that is in
fact what needs to happen, we have to answer the question:
''What comes next?'' What is going to be the governance
structure in Syria, and can we have any influence over that or
not?
So there are a number of steps and a long road of regaining
stability in Syria, defeating one of the greatest threats to
us, which is ISIS, and then determining what is the fate and
future of the Syrian people and Syria as a nation. It is going
to take many steps, but it is not going to start until we get
reengaged in that region.
Senator Isakson. I will make a statement. You do not have
to concur with it or not. But I think it is implicit that we
would not be where we are today had two things--we had not
failed to do two things. One, we failed to enforce the red line
when we drew it, number one, with Syria, and I think that is an
important thing to understand because we did not renew and
assert our leadership in that position.
And secondly, we never changed our ISIL policy from
containment to destruction, and because containment allowed
them to continue to operate in that area, it made it impossible
to get to the position we are today. Would you have any comment
on that?
Mr. Tillerson. I would agree with both of those
reflections.
Senator Isakson. Are you familiar with the term the Dutch
disease?
Mr. Tillerson. I am.
Senator Isakson. I think that is what Tim, what Senator
Kaine was referring to. My son wrote his master's these at
Tulane in the early 1990s on the Dutch disease so that is the
only reason I know anything about it. But it points out the
second thing about the State Department that is so important.
The Dutch disease is what the Middle East suffers from. They
have an infinite source of--well, not infinite but for all
practical purposes infinite source of wealth in terms of oil
and petroleum. They decided not to invest that money in their
people and in infrastructure and instead kind of bought their
people off with the money they had and had kingdoms and palaces
where they live. And now we are suffering today because they
have no medicine, they have no educational system, they have no
infrastructure.
USAID, Millennium Challenge Corporation, those entities
within the State Department which would be under your
responsibility are where we take our soft power to develop
countries and friends at the same time, the Peace Corps being
another example. But I am a huge supporter of those
institutions and of seeing those dollars, those soft dollars
investing and helping to build the infrastructure of human life
within these countries that do not have it, a tremendous asset
for us in the future. Do you share that belief?
Mr. Tillerson. I do, Senator. And as I think I commented
earlier, USAID has one set of criteria by which the aid is
provided. [Disturbance in hearing room.]
Mr. Tillerson. The use of AID is multifaceted in terms of
both disaster relief and development. One of the most
successful programs I have seen is the Millennium Challenge
Corporation because it has ownership on part of the country.
They have to request the grant, they have to take ownership of
the implementation, and it is in many ways an advancement of
their institutional capacity to actually get something done.
That is where you would hope we can put all of these countries
on a pathway where they can begin to take responsibility and
develop the infrastructure and the educational systems and the
need to meet the needs of their people.
It is a different journey for each of these countries, and
the use of the foreign assistance, to the extent we can make
USAID development programs more like Millennium Challenge,
recognizing different criteria, but it goes to the
responsibility of the recipient government in putting some
level of criteria where we are promoting the development of
their institutional capacity to begin to address--look back to
their people and address their needs. Now, they are powerful
tools, and they are powerful because, as I said earlier, they
really project the best of American compassion.
Senator Isakson. I appreciate your answer because a lot of
people have questioned whether or not we ought to have
corporate executives from the private sector be Secretary of
State. Soft power, which all of us prefer to hard power, if we
can use it, depends on the concept of joint venture and the
investment of capital and natural resources to bring about the
best for people where those resources are. Your knowledge of
that joint venture process is going to be invaluable with the
State Department as we go through Africa and other developing
countries, to use Millennium Challenge to bring about a
reduction in corruption, an increase in friends, and hopefully
better votes in the U.N. when we need them the most.
Mr. Tillerson. I think we certainly should use that as a
way to build those connections with developing countries around
the world, and countries that hopefully are going to be on the
rise and can be important models to others to demonstrate that
it is possible to lift yourself out of this condition.
Senator Isakson. One last quick question, and it is not a
Catch 22. But I am a big supporter of trade. I think trade is
important. It is a weapon that we have, to use a soft-power
weapon to have friends and help the United States of America.
China, the whole issue of TPP has been an issue. I know the
President was questionable on TPP, but not on trade itself.
Do you think trade is a foreign component in
intergovernmental relationships between countries and has a
role at the State Department?
Mr. Tillerson. Having strong economic alliances where there
is a certain--I hate to use the word ``interdependency''
because some people find that a threatening term. But having
those important connections allows us to have these economic
ties where we want to maintain good relations with one another.
They also provide an enormous opportunity for us to know one
another as people. This is just people going about their daily
lives, doing their jobs, and having connections with others in
other countries that are doing the same. It allows us to
project America's values into those countries we are trading
with. We have a presence in those countries, bringing American
standards of conduct, honest dealings, ethical behavior, a
structure around honoring our deals. A deal is a deal; we honor
it. So economic trade is critical to the success of our foreign
policy.
Senator Isakson. Well, thank you very much for your
willingness to serve, and thanks to your wife and family for
their willingness to help support you in that service.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Corker. Thank you, sir.
Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Mr. Tillerson, during your tenure as CEO of ExxonMobil, the
company massively expanded its involvement in Russia, going
from virtually no holdings in that country to holding the
drilling rights to 63 million acres. That is an area inside of
Russia that is the size of Wyoming and almost five times the
amount of holdings Exxon has here in the United States.
As CEO of Exxon, you vocally opposed the Russian sanctions
that have been put in place which hamper Exxon's ability to
drill there.
Now, in recent weeks we have learned about the incredibly
disturbing extent to which Russia has sought to weaken our
nation from its efforts to undermine the election to
yesterday's news that it has compromising personal and
financial information about the President-elect.
Now, I am sure that I am not alone in saying that I believe
that these allegations, if true, demand more and stronger
sanctions against Russia. Just this morning, Donald Trump said
that he thinks that the Russians did hack our American
election.
So, Mr. Tillerson, in light of what you now know about the
extent of Russia's hostile acts against our country, do you
support increasing sanctions against Russia even if doing so
hurts ExxonMobil?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, Senator, if confirmed, in consultation
with the President and I am sure what will be an interagency
decision around imposing additional sanctions on Russia, there
will be no space between me and the President or the
Administration in those decisions. I serve--if confirmed, I
serve only the interests of the American people.
Senator Markey. Well, again, the question that the American
people are going to have is that you have spent 41 years at
ExxonMobil, and ExxonMobil controls, for leasing purposes,
drilling purposes, oil purposes, an area the size of Wyoming
inside of Russia, and you have spent your entire adult life
working there. So there is a question that people have in their
minds about your ability to be able to separate.
If the head of the Sierra Club was named tomorrow to be the
new CEO of ExxonMobil, some of the shareholders at ExxonMobil
might wonder whether or not the head of Sierra Club could put
aside their whole past history in order to be able to advance
that shareholder interest.
Well, the shareholders of the United States, the people who
are watching this hearing, are wondering the same thing about
this issue with regard to your past history and not just the
vast interests which ExxonMobil has in Russia but in dozens of
other countries across the world.
Now, earlier you said that you would recuse yourself from
issues involving ExxonMobil, as required by statute. But that
statute, that statutory recusal period is only for one year.
You could be Secretary of State for four years, or for eight
years. You, in my opinion, are going to have many, many issues
after that one-year period is up that relates to the economic
interests of ExxonMobil.
So I ask you, sir, if you would be willing to recuse
yourself for the duration of your time as Secretary of State
from any manner dealing with ExxonMobil's economic interest so
that the American people are sure that the only interest that
you are serving is the interest of the American people.
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, as I indicated earlier, I will
honor, obviously, the statutory recusal period, and then after
that any matter that might involve ExxonMobil or that has the
appearance that it could lead to some type of conflict, I will
seek the guidance of the ethics counsel, a review by them, and
if it is the view that it would be proper for me to recuse, I
will honor that.
Senator Markey. Well, again, one year is a very brief
period of time given the vast economic effects of ExxonMobil in
Nigeria, in Iraq, in Russia, in country after country around
the world. I think, Mr. Tillerson, it would be far better for
you just to say that for the duration of your time as Secretary
that you will not allow for your own personal involvement to be
a part of any decision about anything that affects ExxonMobil
anywhere in the world. I think the American people would feel
much more comforted if you would, in fact, make that commitment
to them.
Now, during your tenure as CEO, Exxon has supported public
policy groups who have spread climate denial. Senator Kaine
dealt with that issue. And also opposed clean energy,
including, for example, financial support in 2015 for the
American Legislative Exchange Council and the Manhattan
Institute, two groups which are climate deniers. In 2016, when
the attorney general of Massachusetts asked Exxon for
information on the company's climate activities under
Massachusetts consumer and financial protection laws, Exxon
sued the state of Massachusetts, the attorney general of
Massachusetts and other public policy groups that had been
critical of Exxon.
So we have evidence in the past that Exxon, during the time
you have been there, supported groups opposing climate action
and also trying to silence groups that have been critical of
Exxon.
So give the American people, given your personal history at
ExxonMobil and the actions of that company, some reason to have
confidence that the climate agreement negotiated by Secretary
Kerry and President Obama will be something that the Trump
Administration State Department will honor and that U.S.
leadership will continue on the issue of climate change around
the planet. We are not just any country. We cannot be a
laggard. We must be the leader. The world expects us to be the
leader on climate change. Please give us those assurances that
you will guarantee that the State Department will be the
leader, as it has been, in advancing a climate agenda for our
country.
Mr. Tillerson. Well, if confirmed, Senator, I am sure that
there will be opportunity, and I know the President-elect will
want the opportunity to do a fulsome review of our policies
around engagement on climate issues through global accords,
global agreements. As I indicated, I will feel free to express
my views to him around those.
I also know that the President, as part of his priority in
campaigning, was America first. So there are important
considerations as we commit to such accords, and as those
accords are executed over time, are there any elements of that
that put America at a disadvantage.
Senator Markey. Do you believe that it should be a priority
of the United States to work with other countries in the world
to find climate change solutions to that problem?
Mr. Tillerson. I think it is important for America to
remain engaged in those discussions so that we are at the table
expressing a view and understanding what the impacts may be on
the American people and American competitiveness.
Senator Markey. Do you commit to ensure that no employee of
the State Department is influenced to take action because it
would be favorable to business interests associated with the
President-elect or his family?
Mr. Tillerson. If I understood the question, yes.
Senator Markey. All right. The President-elect said
famously in a tweet, wouldn't you rather have, in a certain
sense, Japan with nuclear weapons when North Korea has nuclear
weapons? And the President-elect has also said that he would be
open to South Korea and Saudi Arabia acquiring nuclear weapons.
Senator Nunn, who introduced you, has previously described
these comments as dangerously off base and has stated that Mr.
Trump's suggestion would make American families less safe.
Do you disagree with the President-elect that it would not
be a bad thing for us if Japan and South Korea and Saudi Arabia
acquired nuclear weapons?
Senator Corker. Succinctly, if you will.
Mr. Tillerson. I think the priority has to be to deny North
Korea the ability to deploy its nuclear weapons.
Senator Markey. What about Saudi Arabia and South Korea?
Senator Corker. Senator Paul, please.
Senator Paul. Mr. Tillerson, congratulations on your
nomination.
They say that those who refuse to learn the lessons of
history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. The
President-elect has said that the Iraq war was a big, fat
mistake. He said this many, many, many times. I was wondering
if you agree with the statement, and if you do agree with the
statement, how it will inform your judgment as to the future of
the Middle East and the other conflicts that we are engaged or
possibly engaged in in the Middle East.
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, I alluded to the Iraq war in my
opening comments when I indicated that actions over the past
decades, while well intended, had unintended consequences that
in the end did not achieve the stability that we sought or the
national security, and I think in that regard the decision to
go into Iraq and change the leadership in Iraq, upon
reflection, perhaps did not achieve those objectives. We did
not have a more stable region in the world, and our national
security has not been enhanced or is still certainly under
threat today.
Senator Paul. I think that is an important point that we
talk about, whether our national security was enhanced, that I
think sometimes gets lost in the emotions of these are terrible
evil people, X, whichever country we are talking about, and we
have to do something about it, and in reality we maybe forget
that really what we are trying to do is to be protecting our
vital national interests.
Another statement that President-elect Trump has made is
that the U.S. should stop racing to topple foreign regimes that
we know nothing about, that we should not be involved with.
This is kind of interrelated to the last question, but I think
it is also important in the sense that there are some within
the foreign policy community who say, oh, we must go in and
topple the regime in Iran. It will be a cake walk. They will
welcome us with open arms.
One of the interesting things you find as you meet Iranian
Americans, many of whom lost all of their land, all of their
wealth, and you ask them about Iran and you say would it be a
good idea to militarily invade Iran, and they say completely
the opposite, that much of Iran is younger, much of Iran is
pro-Western, and that with the first bomb that is dropped you
will reverse a lot of good will that is potentially there when
Iran does finally change its regime on its own.
But I think it is important, because we do. Nobody wants
Iran to have nuclear weapons. Nobody wants Iran to be an
aggressor in the region. And at the same time, I think it is
important that we look at the lessons of the Iraq war. The Iraq
war actually emboldened Iran, made Iran stronger.
So the questions are the same thing with Libya. We toppled
the regime in Libya.
But I guess the question is, with regard to Iran, those who
are advocating that it will be a cake walk, that we should have
military regime change, what do you think of that advocacy, and
what do you think of, I guess, Donald Trump's statements with
regard to regime change?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I think you have described it in many
ways in the same way I would see it, is that what is in the
best interest of our national security. I think this is where
these priorities sometimes come into conflict of our values and
the projection of our American values and our desire and out of
our compassion for the mistreatment of people, the violation of
human rights, oppressive regimes, we want those people to have
what we have. But balancing that against our national security
interest, and what is most important is that we protect the
American people first.
This is where sometimes I think our priorities, we have too
many priorities, and therefore we lose sight of what is the
most important. Any decision to effect a change of leadership
in a country by force cannot be taken lightly, and I think the
question that one has to answer is one that I posed a couple of
times: What comes next? In the case of Libya, I think that was
the failing in the decision to change the regime there. No one
had a clear plan or a view of what would come next. That is
what we are experiencing and have experienced somewhat in Iraq,
and it is the question in Syria when people talk about changing
the leadership there. What comes next?
Certainly, making a decision to use force is a serious,
serious decision, because we know it will come at a cost of
precious American lives. So I think that is important, and if
confirmed as Secretary of State, my job is to make sure we
never get there. My job is to chart out other pathways by which
we can have a steady progress towards causing regimes who
oppress their people to change their behavior and use all the
other tools available to us.
Having said that, I do think that we have to be clear-eyed
about the threat Iran poses today and ensure that we have taken
all steps appropriate through all mechanisms available to
contain that threat and to limit their ability to grow that
threat, and in particular not just in acquiring a nuclear
weapon but, more importantly, their widespread support of
terrorism around the world. We have to disrupt that.
Senator Paul. Thank you. With regard to foreign aid, there
has been a lot of love for foreign aid going around today, but
I think there is another side that we ought to think about.
There are many, many, many reports talking about corruption
within foreign aid, that we give it to developing countries and
70 percent of it is stolen off the top. The Mubarak family in
Egypt, everybody loved the Mubaraks. They were pro-Western,
pro-American, and yet they are said to be worth about $15
billion. I do not think they ever created anything other than
they skimmed a little bit off the top of everything that comes
into the country. We have given them $60 billion, and they are
worth $10 or $15 billion.
I believe it was Equatorial Guinea that had one of their
sons stopped in Paris a few years ago loading about 10
different cars onto an airplane that were all worth $200,000,
$300,000 cars. So there is a lot of corruption.
Now, some of the things that have been mentioned are more
directed towards either third-party charities or private
entities. I would argue that these are a lot less bad. But I
would argue that we cannot blithely just look at foreign aid
and say, oh, it is all great and it is all going to a good
cause. Sometimes it actually works in the opposite way, and I
will give you an example in Egypt.
We gave so much and the Mubaraks took so much of this
money, but some of it they actually spent because we have
provisions that they have to buy stuff from us with the money.
It is sort of this creation of economic business kind of game
that we do. But one of the things that they bought from us was
tear gas. So when they had these big democratic protests in
Cairo, they were being doused with tear gas from the U.S., and
they would pick the canisters up on the street. I would argue
that that soft power maybe is not giving a warm, soft, fuzzy
feeling for America, that in supporting many people who really
are not pro-human rights or pro-American interests, that
actually sometimes the foreign aid backfires on us because they
resist those leaders who are using undemocratic and forceful,
authoritarian means on their own people, that it backfires.
I would appreciate your comments on whether or not you see
any kind of difficulty or problems with corruption within
foreign aid or things that need to be reformed.
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, I am very aware of, and even in my
prior work I have seen the examples of what you described, even
in disaster relief cases where foreign assistance is flown in,
food supplies. While they are literally being unloaded at the
airport, military forces are picking them up and taking them
away to be sold.
So the challenge is never in the intent, in our compassion
and the need we are trying to address. The challenge is always
in the execution. I do think that it is important that we have
as well-developed execution plans if we are going to deliver
aid into a country where we know this is a risk. What can we do
in the execution of the delivery of that aid? If it is disaster
relief, are there other agencies we can partner with to limit
that type of theft going on?
In terms of development assistance, to the extent we do not
give grants directly to governments but whether we give them to
particular projects or perhaps partnering agencies or public/
private-sector initiatives which are executed by credible NGOs
so the money just never passes through the hands, that is the
preferred mechanisms, I think.
Senator Paul. And then one final point I would make, and
you do not necessarily need to comment on this, is that it is
not only corruption but it is unintended consequences. As a
business person you will immediately recognize this, and I
think even right and left actually agree on some of this. If
you dump Haiti with rice for 10 years, you ruin the ability for
them to have their own rice market and to grow their own rice.
If you want to give them rice during the middle of a famine,
that is one thing. But you have to be very careful about having
a big heart, small brain syndrome that we ruin their local
economy sometimes with aid, as well.
But I appreciate you thinking about corruption, and then
also thinking about unintended consequences of our aid. Thank
you.
Senator Corker. Thank you.
Before turning to Senator Merkley, I think you have made
great contributions as it relates to foreign aid, and I think
that there is support for the one percent that we spend to try
to use it in an appropriate way for soft power.
I think, and I have shared this with the Trump incoming
transition group, that still much of our aid is the Cold War
model where we are buying influence, and so much of it needs to
be--all of it, actually--transformed into something that has
appropriate efficacy. What we are doing right now with food aid
is beyond belief, and I could rant about this for another 20
minutes. It is beyond belief. But efforts like we have to end
modern slavery where partnerships are created, where you are
building on best practices, some of the things we are doing
with water, some of the things we are doing with electricity, I
think they are set up on the right principles, but I appreciate
the comments. I appreciate, hopefully, all of you looking at
foreign aid because there is much waste, there is corruption.
We could deliver it in a much better way.
Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a
pleasure to join the committee.
Mr. Tillerson, during his campaign, the President-elect
talked a lot about what he saw as major mistakes with NAFTA and
with giving China full access to our markets in terms of its
impact on American manufacturing. He was very critical of the
TPP. Do you share his vision that NAFTA and WTO China access
and the TPP are big mistakes in terms of creating living-wage
American jobs?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, my understanding of the issue that
the President-elect has with those trade agreements is, in the
case of NAFTA, it is an agreement that has been in place for
decades now, and I think even President Pena Nieto of Mexico
has indicated that, yes, perhaps it needs a relook, that we are
in a different era now both in terms of the type of trade and
technology, but also the global trading environment has changed
since that agreement has been put in place.
Senator Merkley. Do you share his opposition to the TPP?
Mr. Tillerson. I do not oppose TPP. I share some of his
views regarding whether the agreement that was negotiated
serves all of America's interests at best.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Exxon has a partnership with Shell, a company known as
Infinium, that did a fair number of transactions with Iran,
bypassing U.S. sanctions. Are you familiar with the use of this
subsidiary to bypass U.S. sanctions, and do you think it was
the right thing to do?
Mr. Tillerson. I do not recall the instance. I have read
about it, but I do not recall it specifically.
Senator Merkley. So the SEC directly contacted Exxon while
you were in the senior leadership saying that this seems fairly
material for investors, an effort to bypass U.S. sanctions, and
asked why Exxon did not disclose it. Do you have any memory of
that or discussions of whether Exxon should have disclosed
these transactions?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, I think the question would be best
placed to ExxonMobil, where the information would reside.
Senator Merkley. No, sir. You were there. I am asking if
you had discussions about this or have a memory of it.
Mr. Tillerson. I do not.
Senator Merkley. If you were Secretary of State and you
were working to enforce U.S. sanctions and another CEO had a
subsidiary set up and utilized to bypass American sanctions,
would you call up that CEO or weigh in and say this is not a
good idea, this undermines U.S. efforts to take on a serious
terrorist threat or other malfeasance by some country in the
world?
Mr. Tillerson. I think if the actions that are being taken
violate the sanctions, then there are proper authorities that
would examine that and deal with it.
Senator Merkley. It is not an issue of the technicality of
violating the operation. A subsidiary was set up in Europe
specifically that Exxon set up so it could legally bypass U.S.
sanctions. But it was certainly inconsistent with the goal of
U.S. policy to pressure Iran. If you were the leader, the
Secretary of State, would you try to make sure that U.S.
leadership and the effectiveness of using sanctions was not
undermined through the set-up of foreign subsidiaries?
Mr. Tillerson. I would certainly be open to having folks at
the State Department contact companies and just inquire as to
whether they are aware of the actions that they are taking and
the State Department's view of that.
Senator Merkley. Well, to be aware of something is
different than to be concerned or to be upset by it. Would you
consider you would uphold the integrity of the U.S. goal of
diminishing the ability of nations like Iran to do a whole host
of things destructive to U.S. interests?
Mr. Tillerson. I understand, Senator, but I also think it
is important that the State Department, as with any agency,
also respects the laws that have been put in place, and there
is a difference between expressing a concern and suggesting
someone is breaking the law.
Senator Merkley. Yes. So as you look back on the
subsidiary, it does not upset you that Exxon took this role to
undermine U.S. sanctions and that you would not express concern
if another company legally set up a foreign subsidiary to
undermine U.S. sanctions?
Mr. Tillerson. As I said, I do not recall the
circumstances.
Senator Merkley. I am not asking you to recall the
circumstances. I am asking--your answer is that you do not
consider that a problem. It sounds like you are not considering
that to be an issue.
Mr. Tillerson. I do not know the example, so I do not know
how to answer the question.
Senator Merkley. Okay. Thank you.
Let's turn to lobbying the Ukraine. You said earlier in
this hearing ``I have never personally lobbied against
sanctions. To my knowledge, Exxon never lobbied against
sanctions.'' And yet there is a whole host of material in the
public sector about Exxon lobbying on these sanctions. There is
a whole host of these lobbying reports in which Exxon reports
under the law that they lobbied on these bills that imposed
sanctions. There is your report at the 2014 meeting, and I
quote, ``We do not support sanctions generally.'' And you
continued, ``So we always encourage the people who are making
those decisions to consider the very broad collateral damage of
who are they really harming.''
I would like to enter these articles into the record, if I
could.
Senator Corker. Without objection.
[The information referred to is located in Annex VII, pages
507 to 537.]
Senator Merkley. And this article is titled, from the New
York Times, ``Rex Tillerson's Company Exxon Has Billions At
Stake Over Sanctions on Russia.'' It is a political article
that lays out ExxonMobil helped defeat Russia sanctions bill
and notes how it is a model. ``Mobil successfully lobbied
against a bill that would make it harder for the next president
to lift sanctions against Russia.''
Another article lays out, ``Tillerson visited the White
House often over the Russian sanctions.''
So there is a host of material showing a widespread pattern
of weighing in against these sanctions that were harming Exxon
interests, activities in Russia, which was a major area of your
effort. Do you still maintain that Exxon did not lobby against
these sanctions?
Mr. Tillerson. ExxonMobil did not lobby against the
sanctions but were engaged in how the sanctions would be
constructed. As to the reports of my visits to the White House,
my visits were to work through the process of ExxonMobil's
compliance with the sanctions. I described earlier the
situation where, when the sanctions were enacted, there were--
drilling activities involved considerable risk that were
underway for which ExxonMobil sought a special license from
OFAC in order to complete those, in full compliance with the
sanctions. Had we been denied the license, we would have had to
pull people out or ExxonMobil would have had to pull people out
at that time.
Senator Merkley. Is that the only instance in which you
weighed in----
Mr. Tillerson. In all of the other meetings--I am sorry.
Senator Merkley. In 20 meetings going to the White House,
that is the only issue you weighed in on, on Exxon sanctions?
Mr. Tillerson. I do not recall 20 meetings, but the visits
to the White House--because under the terms of the compliance
with the sanctions, the first action was to seek the license to
allow us to deal with the imminent risk of the drilling
situation. Following that, OFAC required ExxonMobil to file
reports on a periodic basis around our ongoing compliance
activities.
ExxonMobil has holdings in Russia, offshore Sakhalin
Island, that are not subject to the sanctions, in partnership
with Rosneft, which does contain individuals who are subject to
the sanctions.
Senator Merkley. I am going to summarize that these reports
you consider to be incorrect.
Mr. Tillerson. They are inaccurate.
Senator Merkley. Okay, thank you. I will continue.
There are three individuals who were involved in the Trump
campaign--Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, and Carter Page--who
public reports indicate have been involved in dialogue with
Russia with the goal of finding a common strategy, with Russia
believing that Trump would be better on Syria and Ukraine
policy, and Trump believing that Russia could help defeat
Hillary Clinton.
Now, these reports have not been substantiated. I am sure
much more will come on them. But in theory, how do you feel
about a U.S. candidate turning to a foreign country to
essentially find another partner in defeating another opponent
in a U.S. presidential election?
Mr. Tillerson. That would not comport with our democratic
process.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. I am sure we are going to have
a lot of discussion of this because the extent of the false
news stories, the hacking, the cyber warfare, the use of
botnets to amplify false news stories, the hiring of trolls,
all of which really attack the fundamentals of our democracy.
The reports have it that Russia not only wanted to weigh in in
the election but they also wanted to undermine U.S. confidence,
the citizens' confidence in the electoral process and in our
democratic values. So that is a real concern to the future of
our state, and I assume it is a concern that you might share as
well.
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, sir. It is a concern I share. I also
noted in the publicly available report that I read that the
interagency report also acknowledged that these types of
activities were carried out during the Cold War as well. The
tools of sophistication have only advanced with the advent of
cyber.
Senator Merkley. Yes. Many of these tools were Internet-
based electronic cyber warfare that was much different in that
setting.
When we come back in our next round, because I have a few
seconds left, I would like to ask a few questions about Exxon's
involvement in Equatorial Guinea. My colleague mentioned it on
the other side, and I think that would be of interest.
Senator Corker. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations on your nomination.
I wanted to go to your opening statement and try to talk
about a couple of things that we have not really gotten into
yet. One of the statements that you made had to do with
defeating ISIS. As you said, defeating ISIS must be our
foremost priority in the Middle East. You go on to say but
defeat will not occur on the battlefield alone, we must win the
war of ideas.
If I could just engage you a little bit to talk about how
we can use diplomatic efforts and other ways to target and
actually undermine the ISIS ideology and its legitimacy, and
how can we do that and improve U.S.-led coordination in the
region with our allies.
Mr. Tillerson. Well, the defeat of ISIS globally is
extremely challenging because it does not represent a country
that we can apply traditional approaches to. The defeat of ISIS
as an ideology--in other words, other than the battlefield--is
going to require advanced capabilities in our own communication
tools in terms of disrupting their communication to develop
their network, and more importantly to further their ideology.
This means getting into the Internet airspace and putting forth
different ideas and disrupting their delivery of ideas to
people who are persuaded to join them.
ISIS, the defeat of ISIS in the Middle East removes their
caliphate territory, which then undermines their legitimacy.
That in itself will not defeat ISIS once and for all. It will
simply morph to its next version, and we see that already as
terrorist organizations existing in other parts of the world
have decided to identify themselves with ISIS just because of
the strength of their brand, quite frankly.
So I think it is going to require a comprehensive
interagency effort informed by intelligence, informed by the
Defense Department and other agencies as to how can we disrupt
the delivery of this ideology. Why the ideology takes hold in a
particular location, again there is not a country that
identifies itself as ISIS. That is why taking away their
caliphate is so important.
Senator Barrasso. It even looks like they are trying to
extend in Afghanistan--I was there at Thanksgiving--and near
Jalalabad near the Afghan-Pakistan border. It seems like they
are trying to establish a caliphate in that area as well. So
the cancer has spread, and I appreciate those thoughts.
In your opening statement you just talked about--and even
those that introduced you talked about the fact that the U.S.
is not as strong and respected as it had been previously, and
we need a foreign policy aimed at securing our national
interests, demonstrating our leadership. From a standpoint of
credibility, you and I talked about having the capacity to do
something, having a commitment to use that capacity, and
communicating that commitment about the capacity.
Could you share with us a little bit about what you intend
to do in terms of restoring America's position in the world?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, as I indicated also in my opening
statement, we are dealing from a position of strength, so the
only reason we are not perceived to be there with our friends
is because we are not asserting that strength in these issues.
So it does begin with reengaging with friends and allies,
reconnecting with them that our commitment is to the stability
of the region, that if there are existing commitments and
agreements in place, that we fully intend to fulfill those, and
then developing a strategy in the region to deal with the most
imminent threat.
It means projecting the strength of our U.S. military
might, but hopefully not having to use it in terms of trying to
persuade countries to change their course of action. But in the
case of the most immediate threat of ISIS, it involves can we
construct a renewed coalition that, using the forces that are
already there, including the Syrian Kurds, which have been our
greatest allies, that we recommit to the Syrian Kurds that we
intend to continue to support you with the capability to
continue the advance on Raqqa, and then build coalition forces
that can contain ISIS if it attempts to move into other parts
of the country and eliminate them from Syria to begin.
I think the effort in Iraq is progressing. Hopefully it
will progress to a successful conclusion as well in terms of
removing the caliphate from ISIS.
Senator Barrasso. Staying in the Middle East in terms of
the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians, I always
felt, as has been the position of the country, that direct
negotiation between the parties without interference from
outsiders was the key. The Obama Administration recently
abandoned Israel with a one-sided resolution at the Security
Council of the United Nations by abstaining from a vote, which
in the past we would routinely have vetoed.
Could you talk a little bit about your views on the refusal
to veto the recent U.N. Security Council resolution and
subsequent speech by Secretary Kerry?
Mr. Tillerson. Israel is, has always been, and remains our
most important ally in the region. They are important to our
national security. The U.N. resolution that was passed, in my
view, is not helpful. I think it actually undermines setting a
good set of conditions for talks to continue. The Secretary's
speech which followed that U.N. resolution I found quite
troubling because of the attacks on Israel and in many ways
undermining the government of Israel itself in terms of its own
legitimacy in the talks.
I think in the Trump Administration, the President-elect
has already made it clear, and if I am confirmed I agree
entirely with support. We have to recommit. This is in the
statements I keep making about renewing and committing that we
are going to meet our obligations to Israel as our most
important strategic partner in the region.
Senator Barrasso. Staying with the United Nations then, you
talked about the international agreements. Specifically, you
were asked about the climate agreements, the international
climate change. Funding is a part of that. The Obama
Administration has unilaterally pledged $3 billion to the U.N.
Green Climate Fund. The Administration has requested $1.3
billion for global climate change initiatives in this year's
President's budget for Fiscal Year 2017. You mentioned Donald
Trump campaigning on America first.
Will you commit to ensuring that no funding will go to the
U.N. Green Climate Fund?
Mr. Tillerson. In consultation with the President, my
expectation is that we are going to look at all of these things
from the bottom up in terms of funds we have committed towards
this effort.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Isakson asked about and talked
about the value of using soft power, and it just seems there
are so many opportunities, whether it is humanitarian
assistance, democracy promotion, embassy security measures that
are necessary, and countering global terrorist threats, where
money could possibly be better spent than on these efforts. So
I appreciate your effort to look into that.
Senator Corker earlier talked about some of the wonderful
things that have been done around the world because of U.S.
involvement in soft power. Part of that is power helping to
power energy in a number of communities around the world. Many
of us have been to Africa to see what happens in a community
where there is energy available that had not been previously in
terms of helping as a tool for those countries so people can
get better education opportunities, health, well-being.
We have had a situation where some of the programs in place
have not really supported ``all of the above'' energy. We have
seen where the World Bank has blocked funding for coal-fired
power plants which would help bring light and other
opportunities to a number of countries in Africa. I wonder if
you could comment on the need to use all of the sources of
energy to help people who are living in poverty and without
power.
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I think--and I know you touched on it,
but nothing lifts people out of poverty quicker than
electricity. That is just a fact. You give people light, you
give them the ability to refrigerate food, medicine. It changes
their entire quality of life. They no longer cook on animal
dung and wood cooking in their homes, so health issues, their
health improves.
I think it is very important that we use wisely the
American people's dollars as we support these programs, and
that means whatever is the most efficient, effective way to
deliver electricity to these areas that do not have it, that
should be the choice. That is the wisest use of American
dollars.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Corker. Thank you.
Just for the state of play, we are running slightly behind.
We are going to go ahead and finish up with Senator Coons and
Senator Portman. Senator Risch and Senator Booker are not here.
We will take a 45-minute recess when these two gentlemen finish
their time. Each of them will have ten minutes when they get
back to start, and then we will resume again in the same order,
starting with Senator Cardin, and we will do 7-minute rounds
when we get back. So it looks like we will recess at about 1:30
and come back at 2:15.
With that, Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tillerson, good afternoon. And to Renda, to your whole
family, welcome and thank you for your willingness to serve
this country in this important post.
I appreciate the frank conversation we had in my office
last week. I just want the American people to hear some of the
answers you gave me on, I think, some pressing and relevant
questions around your nomination and your views on the world,
but in a focused way and on the record.
Many of my colleagues have already asked about how you will
handle the transition from CEO of the world's leading energy
oil company to Secretary of State, advocating for human rights
and open press and democracy. I have been encouraged to hear
you say we will stand by our NATO allies, that you would not
support accepting the annexation of Crimea by Russia, and that
you see Russia as currently an adversary and possibly an enemy.
I want to focus in on how you see Putin's leadership and
Russia's role.
You said previously that the Russians are strategic
thinkers and they have a plan. They have a plan to restore
their role in the world order. My core concern is that their
plan is actually to change the world order, and that they have
used a wide range of tools, and we have not successfully pushed
back on their campaign.
I led a bipartisan delegation to Eastern Europe in August
and was struck at the number of times in several countries we
were briefed on a continuous campaign to divide Europe and the
United States, to undermine our NATO alliance, and to divide
Europe from within; and that Russia has used all the tools of
state power, both overt and covert, to wage an aggressive
propaganda campaign.
Back in the `90s, after the fall of the Soviet Union, we
used effectively Radio Free Europe and the National Endowment
for Democracy. We were engaged in a full-on fight for democracy
in the former Warsaw Pact countries and former Soviet
Republics. I think we should be using all of our tools to push
back on this Russian aggression.
Do you see RT as a Russian propaganda outlet, and how would
you use and lead the resources of the State Department to
counter Russian propaganda and to push back on this effort to
change the rules of the world order?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, as you point out, utilizing the
opportunity to communicate to the people of Russia through
mechanisms that were successful in the past, Radio Free Europe,
and utilizing those type of sources, as well as providing
information on the Internet to the extent people can access
Internet so that they have availability to the facts, the facts
as they exist, to the alternative reporting of events that are
presented through the largely controlled media outlets inside
of Moscow. That is an important way in which to at least begin
to inform the Russian people as to what the realities are in
the world. It is an important tool and it should be utilized.
Senator Coons. It is the intelligence community's
assessment that the Kremlin has a longstanding plan to
undermine the global democratic order that we spent so much
time and effort building in the decades since the Second World
War. Will you rely on and will you encourage the President-
elect to rely on the career professionals in the intelligence
community in your role as Secretary of State, if confirmed?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, I have enormous respect for the
intelligence agencies and the vital role that they play. So I
will certainly be informed by their findings, and I think in
terms of then understanding that as they apply to the facts on
the ground, it is important in guiding our future policy
decisions and guiding our future options for how to respond.
Senator Coons. I know this press conference has happened
while you have been here in this confirmation hearing, but just
an hour or so ago the President-elect finally publicly said
that he thinks it is most likely true that Russia was behind
the hacking effort, and he gave no more specific response to
the question what should we do about it other than we will work
something out. Many of us are concerned about the lack of a
clear embrace of a congressional role and a clear embrace of
congressional-led sanctions.
There is a bipartisan bill that will move forward to enact
sanctions so that it is not just the action of one outgoing
president. You have given some constructive answers previously
about your view on sanctions and your view that if done in a
solid and sustainable way, they can be a constructive tool of
foreign policy. Please reassure me that you would welcome
working closely with Congress on enacting sanctions against
Russia in response to their war crimes in Syria, their invasion
of Crimea and its occupation, and their attack on our
democracy.
Mr. Tillerson. If confirmed, Senator, I look forward to
engaging with this entire committee particularly on the
construct of new sanctions, and I think, as I have indicated in
response to other questions, what I would hope is that the
executive branch and then my role at the State Department, if
confirmed, would be the latitude to use those sanctions in
efforts to cause modifications in Russia's positions. If they
are already in place and mandatory, then that may remove some
opportunities for us to explore ways in which we could use them
as a tool and give the Russian government the option of moving
because of the threat of those.
Senator Coons. I will say, if I could, Mr. Tillerson, that
I was a member of this committee when the current Secretary of
State came and asked us not to strengthen the sanctions against
Iran, to give the executive branch the freedom to operate, and
I think by a vote of 99 to 0, the Senate went ahead with
bipartisan sanctions. Senator Menendez pressed you about this
earlier.
I do think that we should work in concert and in
consultation, but there are some tools that Congress sometimes
chooses to move forward with, and it is my hope we could
strengthen sanctions to show our determination to contain
Putin's aggression and to push back on his adversarial actions.
Let me move to another topic, if I could. Do you think it
advances America's interests to have the Russian military
supporting Assad, coordinating with Iran, and engaging in
combat actions in Syria against the moderate opposition and
against the folks who we have relied on as allies in the fight
against ISIS?
Mr. Tillerson. As I indicated in my opening remarks, that
is contrary to American interests.
Senator Coons. How do you think we can strengthen our hand
against Iran given their destabilizing regional actions? And in
your view, as you reconsider the nuclear agreement with Iran,
if we withdraw from the agreement unilaterally, how will we
sustain the current level of visibility we have into Iran's
nuclear program, and how would that make us safer or stronger?
Mr. Tillerson. With respect to the recent agreement to
limit Iran's ability to advance or make progress toward the
development of a nuclear weapon, if confirmed my
recommendations, and I think this is consistent with where the
President-elect is now, is to do a full review of that
agreement, as well as any number of side agreements that I
understand are part of that agreement, examine whether Iran and
our ability to verify whether Iran is meeting its obligations
under the agreement and ensure that we are enforcing all
mechanisms available that hold them to that agreement.
No one disagrees with the ultimate objective that Iran
cannot have a nuclear weapon. The current agreement does freeze
their ability to progress, but it does not ultimately deny them
the ability to have a nuclear weapon. My understanding is that
the current agreement, for instance, does not deny them the
ability to purchase a nuclear weapon. It just denies them the
ability to develop one.
So I think there are additional areas that have to be
considered, and most importantly, if we choose to use this
agreement as a way to provide an opportunity to discuss what
comes next, because the real important question is what comes
at the end of this agreement, and what comes at the end of this
agreement must be a mechanism that does, in fact, deny Iran the
ability to develop a nuclear weapon, and that means no uranium
enrichment in Iran, no nuclear materials stored in Iran.
The other side of that is what does Iran get would be
through working with partners would be to provide Iran the
access and the means to peaceful uses of nuclear materials,
nuclear power, medical applications and industrial
applications. But that would be done under a very controlled
process, working with other partners to do that. Whether Iran
is prepared to chart a pathway that looks like that we will
only know once we engage in discussions.
Senator Coons. Well, many members of this committee look
forward to working with you to make sure that we are
restraining Iran's nuclear ambitions effectively, fiercely, and
that we are implementing what we get out of that current
agreement and reviewing it closely going forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Corker. Thank you, and I appreciate your
observation that every administration is anxious to work with
Congress until such a time it in any way inhibits their ability
to do whatever they wish. So I thank you for that. [Laughter.]
Senator Corker. Senator Portman.
Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tillerson, it has been a long morning, and now we are
going into a long afternoon, and I think I am the one person
between you and a break, so I will try to be as quick as I can.
I appreciate your willingness to step forward and serve
your country, and I know it is not without some sacrifice, but
also an incredible opportunity. We talked a little in my
office, and I appreciate your meeting with me, about restoring
America's role in the world. Just listening today to your
testimony back and forth, I think there is a consensus building
in this country that we do need to do some things immediately
to put America back in a position of being trusted and
respected by our allies and our adversaries.
I like to look at it more that we are not looking to be the
world's policeman but, to put it in Texas terms, more like the
sheriff who gets the posse together. On the eastern border of
Ukraine and Crimea, that would be NATO. Although Ukraine is not
a member of NATO, that region relies on it, and those countries
need leadership.
With regard to Syria, I think it is the Kurds, it is the
Sunni countries in the neighborhood, so it is the posse.
In the South China Sea where China has been increasingly
aggressive, I think it is the Pacific Rim countries who, as you
know, are very nervous. But they are looking for leadership,
and the security umbrella we have provided since World War II
has kept the peace.
So I hope that is consistent with what you have told me in
private and what you are saying here publicly today. I think
there is an opportunity, as well as a sacrifice, related to
your service.
As we talked about in our meeting, a number of my
constituents in my home state of Ohio have family ties to
Eastern and Central Europe, including Ukraine, and are very
interested in those issues. We have gotten much more deeply
involved in those issues over the last several years, including
traveling to that region. So my questions are going to focus a
lot on that.
The first one, NATO. Just to be clear, because I know there
was some discussion about NATO earlier, particularly Article 5,
which reads, ``An armed attack against one or more members
shall be considered an attack against them all.'' Can you just
clarify that you believe that Article 5 creates a binding
obligation to assist any member of the alliance who is a victim
of aggression regardless of their size or geographic location?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, sir. I do.
Senator Portman. And as Secretary of State, would you ever
threaten to break the U.S. commitment to Article 5 as a means
of pressuring allies to spend more on defense?
Mr. Tillerson. I would not recommend that. No, sir.
Senator Portman. Okay. Understanding that I think all of us
around this dais would like to see our partners step up and do
more in terms of the defense budget.
Since 2014, of course, Ukraine has struggled to defend its
sovereignty and its territorial integrity against the Russian
aggression. It has been discussed here a lot today. One point
that has not been discussed in the way I think it ought to be
is the fact that back in 1994, the United States, Britain,
Russia, and Ukraine signed an agreement, the Budapest
Memorandum, which said that when Ukraine regained its
independence following the collapse, having possessed at that
time the world's third largest nuclear arsenal, that in
exchange for giving up that nuclear arsenal that we would
assure Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. I think
that is very important because it sends a signal. We talked
earlier about Sam Nunn and his good work on nuclear non-
proliferation.
What kind of signal does that send? Clearly, that agreement
has been violated by Russia, and the question is whether we are
going to keep to that agreement as well, in my view. So, a
couple of questions.
One, in your written statement you talk about the taking of
Crimea. We talked a little about that. Just to clarify, do you
regard the Russian annexation of Crimea as an illegal
occupation and annexation in direct violation of Ukrainian
sovereignty?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, I do.
Senator Portman. Okay. Do you pledge that the United States
would never recognize that annexation of Crimea if you serve as
Secretary of State, similar to the way the United States never
recognized the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states?
Mr. Tillerson. The only way that that could ever happen is
if there were some broader agreement that was satisfactory to
the Ukrainian people. So absent that, no, we would never
recognize that.
Senator Portman. Never recognize. Okay. I think that is
fair.
If the President-elect were to ask you for your advice as
Secretary of State on whether he should maintain sanctions
against Russia for its actions in Ukraine and in Crimea until
Russia ceased its aggression and fulfilled its obligation under
the Minsk agreements, what would you tell him?
Mr. Tillerson. As I indicated in an answer to a question
earlier, I would recommend maintaining the status quo until we
are able to engage with Russia and understand better what their
intentions are.
Senator Portman. Does that mean keeping the sanctions in
place?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, sir.
Senator Portman. As Russia continues arming, training,
organizing, and fighting alongside this effort in Eastern
Ukraine, do you support providing defensive lethal assistance
so Ukrainians can defend themselves?
Mr. Tillerson. I think it is important that we support the
Ukrainians in all ways to protect themselves from any further
expansion or aggression. I am hopeful that ceasefires will
hold. But in the absence of that, I think it is important for
us to support them in their ability to defend themselves.
Senator Portman. So you would provide them with defensive
lethal weapons to be able to defend themselves?
Mr. Tillerson. That would come in consultation through the
National Security Council and certainly would require the input
of others. But I would support that.
Senator Portman. The United States Senate is on record
supporting that. The Administration has chosen not to do that.
They used a national security waiver, as the Chairman talked
about earlier. I think this is significant, and I heard you say
that earlier today, and I think this is a big change in terms
of U.S. policy that is positive and will get Russia to the
table, in my view.
We talked a lot about the terrorists threat here today, and
obviously that is a growing threat that we need to address in a
much more aggressive way. I believe there is another growing
threat to our national security and to the stability of our
allies around the world, our democratic allies in particular.
It is not a kinetic or a military threat. It is propaganda. It
is disinformation. Russia, China in particular, but also other
countries are more and more pursuing these extensive
disinformation and propaganda campaigns against the United
States and other democracies.
By the way, this happened well before our most recent
presidential election, and the information we have today about
what might have happened here in this country I think is part
of a broader effort that we ought to be more focused on, which
is this effort of disinformation, and not just by Russia.
When I have been to Ukraine and the Baltic countries,
members of NATO, by the way, I have been struck by the
conversations I have had with their leadership. This is at the
top of their mind and the top of their list. They feel like
they are under assault every day. They feel like they are
sovereign democratically-elected governments that are being
attacked through these disinformation and propaganda campaigns.
I have also been struck by recent public comments by
officials in Germany, in the U.K., and over time comments by
our friends in Japan, Taiwan and other places about these kinds
of operations and the meddling in their democracies.
As you know, these operations blend a range of tools and
methods, including cyber attacks and hacking, false news, troll
farms to flood the zone on social media, funding of think tanks
right here in this town, and political organizations that help
them, and also state-owned media, some of whom are following
your hearing today and are here in the room with us today.
Senator Murphy and I have legislation recently signed into
law that is meant to strengthen our outdated U.S. response to
this disinformation and propaganda campaigns and establishes a
new interagency center at the State Department to coordinate
and synchronize U.S. counter-propaganda activities against
foreign threats. It has just been passed, just been set up.
So my question to you is, one, how would you characterize
the threat posed by foreign government influence operations,
not just Russia but in general? And second, what should be done
about it, and do you support the establishment of this new
agency, and would you put your personal support behind that?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, as I indicated in response to your
question earlier, in terms of the broader threat of cyber--and
I put all of the activities that you just described as a subset
because those are largely delivered through digital means to
people in terms of the propaganda or the undermining, the
placing of fake news. All of that is done, by and large, in the
digital space. So as part of this comprehensive cyber strategy,
it has to include how do we deal with all of this
misinformation that goes on around the world, and there are a
number of actors playing in this space, Russia most notably, as
you point out, but we know that others are playing in this
space as well to undermine legitimate governments.
To be honest, the bad actors have got the jump on us. They
have been at this already for some time, and we have failed to
develop a way to respond to that in that digital space. So this
is a very complex technical issue that I think has to be part
of a comprehensive assessment of how are we going--how is the
U.S. going to protect itself in the cyber space and all the
aspects of those threats that present themselves, including the
one that you just described, and what are the mechanisms for
responses, appropriate responses, and how do we get
international agreement around some of that that sends messages
back to the bad actors that there is going to be a cost if this
continues, that there is a consequence to these actions? What
is the proper proportional, or if it is not proportional, maybe
it is asymmetrical? I do not know the answers because I think
that is part of what is needed in a comprehensive assessment.
It would be multi-agency, interagency driven.
But that is, I think, one of the most vexing challenges in
front of us, but we cannot just be vexed by it. We need to
begin to address it.
Senator Portman. Well, it sounds like you acknowledge the
threat. I would just add one footnote. I do not disagree with
you that our cyber response is the weakest part of our
response, and we need to strengthen that. But it is beyond
cyber. I mean, this is, again, media, it is funding think tanks
that are spreading this disinformation and false news. Some of
it is pretty old fashioned. We are just not up to the task.
Radio Free Europe is not the answer. It has to be much more
sophisticated, and I look forward to working with you in that
regard.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Corker. Thank you.
We will recess until 2:15 sharp. We will begin with Senator
Risch and Booker if they are here, and then start from the
beginning.
I will see you at 2:15. [Recess.]
Senator Corker. I call to order the Foreign Relations
hearing, and we are going to begin with Senator Booker. Senator
Risch ended up having a conflict. So we might reserve time for
him when he is able to make it back.
And with that, turn to one of our newest members, Senator
Booker.
Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate this
opportunity.
Mr. Tillerson, thank you very much for being here. I think
you should mark for the record that it is a testimony to your
character that even your in-laws have stuck through this, which
is something you rarely see. [Laughter.]
Sir, I just want to follow up on a few points of testimony
that I heard, and I know I had to leave, unfortunately, for two
other committees that were meeting at the same time. So I may
have missed some of this. But I know that folks are going to
get back to some of the issues regarding many of the things we
discussed.
But I just want to know, U.S. Engage, do you know what USA
Engage is?
Mr. Tillerson. USA Engage?
Senator Booker. Yes.
Mr. Tillerson. No, sir. I am not--it is not ringing a bell
with me.
Senator Booker. So what my notes here say is that USA
Engage is an industry lobbying group for oil companies that did
a lot of lobbying. In fact, they worked very hard on lobbying
against a lot of the U.S. sanctions that were in place, and you
do not know if ExxonMobil is a member of USA Engage and pays
into that group for those lobbying purposes?
Mr. Tillerson. I do not know.
Senator Booker. Okay. Would you be able to find that out
for me for the record?
Mr. Tillerson. You might want to put the question to
ExxonMobil, or if it is not on the lobbying report, I----
Senator Booker. All right. Thank you very much.
Another issue before I get into my question, I just want to
follow up on. You characterize some of the Obama administration
foreign policy as characterized as weakness, that we did not
show strength around the globe. Is that correct?
Mr. Tillerson. I think it is an absence of asserting our
leadership, yes, sir.
Senator Booker. And you indicated that our response to
Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine was one of those
indicators of that weakness. Is that correct?
Mr. Tillerson. That is my opinion, yes.
Senator Booker. Right. And it seemed in the testimony that
you were saying that such an aggression should be met with a
proportional response that we did not show?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I do not think that is exactly the way
I stated it. I think what I indicated in terms of the next step
was my view of it is back to my predictability comment, that
Russia is not unpredictable.
That when the response to the taking of Crimea was met
with, in my estimation, a response that was less than I suspect
the leadership of Russia thought they would encounter, then the
next move was logical to come across the eastern border of
Ukraine. Because it was pretty well known that there were
elements in eastern Ukraine that already were sympathetic to
Russia interest.
Senator Booker. And so that might be a case then when they
annexed Crimea, entered into eastern Ukraine, this is a sign of
weakness because we did not respond in a way that would deter
further actions?
Mr. Tillerson. Working with allies in the region and,
obviously, working with the government in Kiev, both.
Senator Booker. And so what we did do in those cases was to
put together with the Europeans a way of sanctioning them
economically, but that was not sufficient in your mind to stop
them from their aggressions?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I think you are on to a really
important point around sanctions, and obviously, there has been
a lot of questions about sanctions. And so I think it is--it is
good to try to clarify my view on those.
As I have said, sanctions are a very powerful tool. They
are an important tool. And they can be used in two
circumstances. One is to punish someone or a country for what
they have already done. The other is to intervene and cause
them not to do certain things.
And in this case, clearly, the sanctions that were put in
place in response to Crimea did not deter them from entering
into----
Senator Booker. And so is it your opinion that----
Mr. Tillerson.--Ukraine.
Senator Booker. Is it your opinion then that our sanctions
should have been much more severe, or do you think in that case
there should have been a match of equal force, in other words,
military action?
Mr. Tillerson. That, the latter is--was my response in that
in that situation, given the dramatic--the dramatic taking of
Crimea, that was a dramatic action, sanctions were going to be
insufficient to deter the Russian leadership from taking the
next step.
Senator Booker. And your opinion thinks it should have been
military force then?
Mr. Tillerson. I am sorry?
Senator Booker. Your opinion then is that it should have
been military force?
Mr. Tillerson. My opinion is there should have been a show
of force, a military response in defensive posture. Not an
offensive posture, but in defensive posture to send the message
that it stops here. It stops here. And sanctions, in my view,
taken after the fact were not going to be adequate to deter
that.
Now that is my opinion. We will never know----
Senator Booker. Right. But you understand----
Mr. Tillerson.--how that would have played out.
Senator Booker. You understand that if you put yourself in
a defensive posture, there is an old saying that if you pull a
gun, you should be prepared to use it. That that could quickly
escalate into a conflict and you are going to be making
decisions about whether we should have commit American troops,
commit European troops. If there is a military response,
obviously, they were not putting it forth in Crimea. It would
have to come from someplace else.
And do you understand that that seems to be that you are
advocating for greater U.S.--use of U.S. military power,
greater U.S. military engagement in conflicts like the one we
saw in Ukraine?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, I am advocating for responses that
will deter and prevent a further expansion of a bad actor's
behavior. I would not in any way have wanted anyone to take
away the thought that I would recommend that as the first
action. And again, in any decision to respond with a show of
force, that will be taken within the National Security Council
and be fully informed by others, including Department of
Defense and intelligence agents--agencies as to whether that
would, in fact, first, can it be executed upon? Can it be
effective? But looking at your other options as well.
And again, I am not dismissive of the sanctions. That is
just----
Senator Booker. But you did characterize the Obama
administration's decisions as weakness, even though you are
saying that you would not necessarily do something different?
Mr. Tillerson. In that instance, I would have done
something different.
Senator Booker. Military force?
Mr. Tillerson. A show of force at the border of the country
that had been--already had territory taken from them.
Senator Booker. American military force in this case?
Mr. Tillerson. No. I indicated Ukrainian military force,
supported by the U.S. providing them with capable defensive
weapons. If that is not seen across the border, then it is not
a show of force.
Senator Booker. Switching gears now, it is an American
value, this value of transparency in government. Correct?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes.
Senator Booker. And accountability in government?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes.
Senator Booker. I have a concern, and it is not a great
one--you could allay it right now--that as a leader of a
private company, you made it clear in many ways that you were,
first and foremost, accountable to shareholders, employees, and
customers. But as the Secretary of State, you are accountable
to the American public and would be expected to keep the media,
the public constantly informed of general activities.
And I just know that when my staff did a rough calculation
of past Secretaries' interactions with the press, Clinton had
over 3,200 in her 4 years. Secretary Kerry had about 3,000.
When you were at ExxonMobil, it was a far, far smaller number,
but I imagine as Secretary of State, you believe in the
importance of transparency, of engaging with the public, of
answering to the questions that often come from the media?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes. And I indicated in my opening statement
that that is part of earning the public trust is also to engage
with this committee, and that is a way to communicate with the
public as well.
Senator Booker. And so you will bring press corps with you
as you travel overseas, and you will commit to having those
regular interactions with the press?
Mr. Tillerson. If confirmed, I will look into what would be
appropriate to take. I have not--I have not gotten that far in
my thinking.
Senator Booker. Okay. And so you have not thought through
about issues of accountability and transparency?
Mr. Tillerson. I have thought through issues of
accountability and transparency. Your question was the size of
my press corps, I think.
Senator Booker. No, sir. It was not. My question was access
of the media and the public to the work of the Secretary of
State.
Mr. Tillerson. We want to ensure at all times, if
confirmed, that the Secretary of State and the State Department
is fully transparent with the public. That is part of my
comment of being truthful and being--you know, and holding
ourselves accountable as well as others accountable.
Senator Booker. Okay. Switching gears, and I will get back
to this in the next round of questioning. In fact, I am going
to yield back because it is a new line of questioning that I
have.
Senator Corker. Okay. I will, just as a matter of sharing
some information regarding the supplying of lethal defensive
support to Ukraine at a time when we were only sending used
night vision goggles and MREs was something that was strongly
supported in a bipartisan way on this committee under Chairman
Menendez's leadership.
I just want to say that for the record. And so I did not
view the response to be necessarily in any way outside the
norms of what this committee overwhelmingly supported at that
time. I am just saying that for information, and I am more than
glad to talk more fully about that.
So we are going to start the second round. There are going
to be seven-minute rounds, and we are going to go in the same
order that we began.
If Senator Risch comes in, I would like to be able to give
him time since he was not around earlier and now has a
conflict. And with that, I will turn to Senator Cardin again.
Senator Cardin. Well, once again, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, Mr. Chairman, in response to Senator Menendez's
questions about lobbying in regards to the Iran Sanctions Act,
just to make the record complete, I am going to ask consent to
put into the record the lobbying disclosure form from
ExxonMobil Corporation that indicates that approximately $3.4
million was spent in lobbying on behalf of the Iran Sanctions
Act.
I will put that into the record, Mr. Chairman. Without
objection. [Laughter.]
Senator Cardin. I wanted to be chairman. I was putting some
information into the record.
Senator Corker. I understand you became the chairman while
I was talking, but--[Laughter.]
Senator Cardin. You always have to watch out.
Senator Corker. Without objection.
[The information referred to is located in Annex VIII, page
541.]
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Second thing, Mr. Tillerson, I want to just underscore a
point. We talked about it in my office. It has come up several
times, and that is you keep referring to your concern in
regards to the Ukrainian sanctions that were imposed against
Russia for their actions in Ukraine, that you were concerned
that American companies could be at a disadvantage because of
Europe being treated differently, the grandfathered clause, et
cetera.
And then we talk about leadership, and it was very true on
Iran, and Senator Menendez took the leadership role on this,
that but for the U.S. leadership role, we would not have gotten
other countries to act.
So if we take the position we are going to the lowest
common denominator, we are not going to get anything really
done. And you talk about being tough and taking tough
positions, it requires leadership and requires us to be willing
to go the extra amount.
And one last point on this, and I agree with Senator
Corker, we have never had any administration believe that
Congress should just take away their discretion. That is
absolutely fact. Whether there is a Democratic or Republican
administration, they would just as soon do away with Congress.
We understand that. We get it.
But you, I assume, understand the advantage we have in
America with the separation of branches of Government. And it
can be helpful to you if you are confirmed as our principal
negotiator, to have clear directions from Congress that you
must impose sanctions, unless you get real progress towards the
issues on which those sanctions will be imposed.
Take advantage of the independent branch of Government.
Work with us so you can have those strong tools to help
America's interests.
I am going to take most of my time on this round to go over
an issue that Senator Corker and I have been working through.
And I am not going to spend a lot of time. I am going to go
over some of the issues on tax returns, and we will save that
for a different time for our committee because it really
involves an internal debate here more so than our nominee.
But as a result, I had sent to you 20 questions to answer
that are related to the tax issues because we did not have the
tax returns. And before the close of business for asking
questions, I will be proposing questions to you related to your
tax issues in order to better understand areas that I think we
need to have information on.
I am concerned, I think members of the committee are
concerned, that you will have some private interests. You are
going to continue to operate a farm. You are going to have a
charitable foundation. You have a real estate firm, a real
estate partnership. We need to know a little bit more how that
operates from the person who is going to be Secretary of State.
You have trusts that are being set up and how those
payments are paid out over time. We need to have better
understanding how that operates during your term, if you are
confirmed as Secretary of State. So that type of information is
useful to us.
I am still trying to figure out exactly how this trust that
you are taking restricted stock and, if confirmed, selling it,
they are putting cash in rather than restricted stock, but then
you are able to withdraw the funds from the trust in the same
schedule as, I believe, as the restricted stock would have
become actionable. But as a result of that, you are also
putting contingencies on your receipt so you can defer the
taxes--at least as I understand, defer taxes for a significant
period of time.
These are issues that I think we have to have more
transparency on because they are big dollars. One hundred
eighty million dollars, if I understand, in restricted stock,
the tax consequences are about $70 million. And these are not
types of tools that can be used by average Americans. So I
think we need to know more about those types of issues.
We also have concerns about making sure that all of your
employees have been properly documented and paid their taxes.
That is a standard issue that has been raised now in
confirmation hearings, and Senator Corker and I may not think
it is relevant to the final confirmations--I should not say
``relevant,'' determinative to a final confirmation, but it is
certainly relevant for us to have that information before we
make those answers.
So, Mr. Tillerson, I am going to ask you to answer these
questions for the record. I hope we will be able to get the
cooperation in a timely way so that the committee can have this
information before we are called upon to act on your
nomination.
You can respond.
Mr. Tillerson. I am happy to try to answer the areas of
concern you have, and I indicated that in the original
questionnaire that it is my objective to address concerns you
have. You know, I am--I am also, though, mindful of privacy
issues that are afforded to every American and the privacy
issues that are afforded under individuals' tax returns.
So I will do my best to answer the questions that you have,
but I hope you will also respect the privacy of myself and my
family and the longstanding tradition of the privacy of
individuals' tax returns.
Senator Cardin. And I can assure you that that will
absolutely be observed. As I had explained to Senator Corker,
much of this information is not even reviewed by members. It is
strictly by people who can tell us whether we have a problem or
not. So I absolutely respect what you are saying, and my
intentions are to fully maintain your legitimate rights of
privacy.
I look forward to following up on that, and I thank you for
your reply.
Senator Corker. Thank you.
Just for the edification of the committee, I think that it
is true that over the last four years, I have worked as the
lead Republican on Foreign Relations to ensure that we move
nominee candidates out as quickly as possible. I think that has
been stated at every nominations meeting we have had.
And what I have shared with the ranking member is we have a
tradition here that we are following. This has not been a
committee that has asked for tax returns. It has asked for an
ethics-disclosure form. And just because we were so
overwhelmingly helpful with a Democratic President's nominees
does not mean that we want to be changing the standards or
unhelpful, if you will, regarding Republican nominees.
So I have tried to keep things exactly the same, exactly
the same. Disclosures are exactly the same. And you know, I
have told Senator Cardin that if there is a substantial issue
that we need to look into that would affect Senator
Tillerson's--excuse me. You do not want to be demoted to that.
[Laughter.]
The nominee Tillerson's role, then I am more than glad to
look much deeper into it and if we need to have somebody from
the outside to do so.
But to get into silly ``gotcha'' questions, not that you
have done that, that is just not what we have done in this
committee. And I hope we will not turn this process into one
that turns qualified people away from wanting to serve.
So, again, if there is some substantive issue that we need
to pursue and we need to get into some private setting and have
someone come in from an accounting firm that really matters as
it relates to his ability to not have conflicts as a Secretary
of State or something like that, I am willing to look at it, as
I know he is.
Asking questions that are not in any way determinative in
that manner, to me, is belittling the committee and certainly a
huge change in the protocol and the respect with which we have
dealt with nominees and their privacy in the past.
Senator Cardin. Could I just say----
Senator Corker. But I thank you for working with me on that
part.
Senator Cardin. If you would just yield for one moment? And
I thank you for that. And I can assure you the disagreement on
supplying tax returns has nothing to do with Mr. Tillerson. It
is a discussion we are having, and it has not at all delayed
any of our operations. And I fully expect that I will continue
to use whatever means I can to change our committee practices
so that we do have our nominees, as many other committees in
the Senate require, file tax returns.
That is not unique. Small Business, I have been told by
Senator Shaheen, requires tax returns.
But the second point I would just make very quickly is
that, the ability of members to ask questions for the record
and ask questions of the nominee has pretty well been
respected. And I would hope that that right would not be
diminished, that we have the ability to ask questions of the
witnesses in regards to areas that we think are important.
Senator Corker. No one in any way is trying to diminish
that. I know that you and I have agreed on a series of
questions that will come from the committee itself, and Mr.
Tillerson, as I understand it, is going to answer those. I
would think that absolutely the arrangement that he has with
Exxon is something that should be fully vetted, and everyone
here understands that that is going to happen. And he is going
to make that all forth and has, actually.
I would just say again, we may wish to change our standards
four years from now. Our most recent Secretary of State, as I
understand it, as a couple was worth over $1 billion, had all
kinds of far-ranging investments. And as a committee, we never
tried to force a tax return issue. They filled out the
disclosures, and we as a committee asked them questions. Same
thing happened with Secretary Clinton.
So all I am trying to do is not in any way change the way
that we operate because of the outcome of an election and
continue to be, again, that island of bipartisanship, where we
continue to operate, regardless of who wins an election, in the
same manner.
I am in no way trying to infer that you are attempting to
do that. I am just telling you what I am attempting to do. And
with that, if we can close this matter out, I will turn to
Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Mr. Tillerson, when we met on Monday night, and thank you
for coming by, I provided you a copy of a bill that was filed
in the last Congress, which I anticipate has or will be filed
again in this new Congress here in the Senate by my colleague
Senator Flake and Senator Leahy. What it would do is it would
remove the travel ban to Cuba by Americans.
If you are confirmed and that bill were to pass the
Congress, would you advise--can you commit that you would
advise the President to veto that bill?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, as to--as to the current status of
travel to Cuba, that is going to be under discussion with the
President-elect. I think he has been fairly clear on his intent
that he is going to ask all agencies, essentially on day one,
to do a complete review of recent executive orders and the
change of the status of travel to Cuba as well as business
activities in Cuba.
So that would be--it would be my expectation that the
President would not immediately approve that bill until after
that review had occurred because that would be part of a
broader view of our posture towards Cuba.
Senator Rubio. Well, again, if he does not act on the bill,
it would become law without a signature. So my question is, at
this time, you cannot commit to supporting a veto of that bill,
should it pass?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I would--I would support a veto
because I do not think we want to change the current status of
things until we have completed that review.
Senator Rubio. Okay. That was the question I wanted to get
to.
Let me ask you this. If a bill were to pass Congress that
would remove the U.S. embargo against Cuba, and there has not
been democratic changes on the island of Cuba, would you advise
the President to veto a bill that lifted the embargo on Cuba?
Mr. Tillerson. If confirmed, yes, I would.
Senator Rubio. And can you also commit that you would
advise the President to reverse many, if not all, of the Obama
administration's Cuba regulations and executive orders
regarding Cuba that were recently submitted in 2014?
Mr. Tillerson. As indicated, I expect a comprehensive
review of all those executive orders, and from the State
Department perspective, I would want to examine carefully the
criteria under which Cuba was delisted from the list of
terrorist--nations that support terrorism and whether or not
that delisting was appropriate and whether or not the
circumstances which led to that delisting still exist.
Senator Rubio. You do not currently have an opinion at this
time as to whether Cuba belongs on the list of terror sponsors?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I would need to examine all the
criteria that were used to make the current determination and
then utilizing the expertise of those in the State Department,
again informed by the interagency process, to look at those
criteria that would put Cuba back on that list.
Senator Rubio. As I am sure you are aware, there is a
dispute between China and Japan over control of the Senkaku
Island chain. If China attempted to take over the island chain
through the use of military force, would you support the United
States responding with military force to prevent that from
happening?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, we have longstanding ally commitments
with Japan and South Korea in the area, and I think we would
respond in accordance with those accords, which are not a NATO-
type agreement. But certainly, we have made commitments to
Japan in terms of a guarantee of their defense.
Senator Rubio. I want to--because in your opening remarks,
you referred to human rights, and I am glad that you did, and I
wanted to walk you through a few examples quickly. I shared
with you when we met on Monday a political prisoner database
maintained by the Congressional Executive Commission on China.
It contains more than 1,400 active records of individuals known
or believed to be in detention.
Do you believe China is one of the world's worst human
rights violators?
Mr. Tillerson. China has serious human rights violations.
Relative to characterizing it against other nations, I would
have to have more information. But they certainly have serious
human rights violations.
Senator Rubio. Okay. Well, since President Rodrigo Duterte
took office last June, the Los Angeles Times reports that
roughly over 6,200 people have been killed in the Philippines
by police and vigilantes in alleged drug raids. In your view,
is this the right way to conduct an anti-drug campaign?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, the U.S., America and the people of
the Philippines have a longstanding friendship, and I think it
is important that we keep that in perspective in engaging with
the government of the Philippines that that longstanding
friendship--and they have been an ally, and we need to ensure
that they stay an ally.
Senator Rubio. That is correct, Mr. Tillerson. But my
question is about the 6,200 people that have been killed in
these alleged drug raids. Do you believe that that is an
appropriate way to conduct that operation, or do you believe
that it is something that is conducive to human rights
violations that we should be concerned about and condemning?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, if confirmed, again, it is an area
that I would want to understand in greater detail in terms of
the facts on the ground. I am not disputing anything you are
saying because I know you have access to information that I do
not have.
Senator Rubio. This is from the Los Angeles Times.
Mr. Tillerson. Well, again, I am not going to rely on
solely what I read in the newspapers. I will go to the facts on
the ground. I am sure there is--I am sure there is good,
credible information available through our various Government
agencies.
Senator Rubio. Well, one of the sources for that number in
the campaign and its nature is President Duterte himself, who
openly brags about the people that are being shot and killed on
the streets, who he has determined are drug dealers, without
any trial.
So if, in fact, he continues to brag about it, would that
be reliable information that you would look at and say, okay,
it is happening. I mean, what is happening in the Philippines
is not an intelligence issue. It is openly reported in multiple
press accounts. The President-elect has spoken about it. And
quite frankly, the president of the Philippines has admitted to
it, in fact, brags about it.
So I guess my question is, is that, in your opinion, an
appropriate way for him to act, and should it influence our
relationship with the Philippines?
Mr. Tillerson. If the facts--if the facts are, in fact,
supportive of those numbers and those actions, then I do not
think any of us would accept that as a proper way to deal with
offenders, no matter how egregious the offenders may be.
Senator Rubio. I am sure you are also aware of the lack of
both religious freedoms and the rights--and lack of rights of
women in Saudi Arabia. In your opinion, is Saudi Arabia a human
rights violator?
Mr. Tillerson. Saudi Arabia certainly does not share the
same values of America. However, American interests have been
advocating in Saudi Arabia for some time, and I think the
question is what is the pace of progress that should be
expected for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to advance--advance
rights to women and others in the country?
Senator Rubio. But as it currently stands, do you consider
what they are doing to be human rights violations?
Mr. Tillerson. I would need to have greater information,
Senator, in order to make a true determination of that.
Senator Rubio. You are not familiar with the state of
affairs for people in Saudi Arabia, what life is like for
women? They cannot drive.
Mr. Tillerson. Yes----
Senator Rubio. They have people jailed and lashed--you are
familiar with all of that?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, Senator. I am familiar with all of that
and----
Senator Rubio. So what more information would you need?
Mr. Tillerson. In terms of when you designate someone or
label someone, the question is, is that the most effective way
to have progress continue to be made in Saudi Arabia or any
other country? So my interest is the same as yours. Our
interests are not different, Senator, and there seems to be
some misunderstanding that somehow I see the world through a
different lens, and I do not.
I share all the same values that you share and want the
same things for people the world over in terms of freedoms. But
I am also clear-eyed and realistic about dealing in cultures.
These are centuries-long cultures, cultural differences.
It does not mean that we cannot affect them and affect them
to change. And in fact, over the many, many years that I have
been traveling to the Kingdom, while the pace has been slow,
slower than any of us wish, there is a change under way in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. How and if they ever arrive to the
same value system we have, I cannot predict that.
But what I do believe is it is moving in the direction that
we want it to move. What I would not want to do is to take some
kind of a precipitous action that suddenly causes the
leadership in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to have to interrupt
that. I would like for them to continue to make that progress.
Senator Corker. Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tillerson, I know that you are new to this, and I know
that the chairman was trying to help you out on the question of
lobbying on sanctions. You stated on the record that to your
knowledge, neither you nor Exxon ever lobbied against
sanctions, that you were merely seeking information.
I have four different lobbying reports totaling millions of
dollars, as required by the Lobbying Disclosure Act, that lists
ExxonMobil's lobbying activities on four specific pieces of
legislation authorizing sanctions, including the Comprehensive
Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010; the
Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014; the Ukraine Freedom
Support Act of 2014; and the Stand for Ukraine Act.
Now I know you are new to this, but it is pretty clear. My
understanding is that when you employ lobbyists who submit
lobbying forms under the law, you are taking a position. Is
that not correct?
Mr. Tillerson. If the form clearly indicates whether we
were--I do not know. I have not seen the form you are holding
in your hand. So I do not know it indicates were we lobbying
for the sanctions, or were we lobbying against the sanctions?
Senator Menendez. I know you were not lobbying for the
sanctions. But----
Mr. Tillerson. Well, if the form here----
Senator Menendez. It says specifically, for example, here,
specific lobbying issues--Russian Aggression Prevention of 2014
provisions related to energy. You were not lobbying for
sanctions on energy, were you?
Mr. Tillerson. I think that is a description of the subject
that was discussed. And I have not seen the form, Senator. So I
do not want to be presumptuous here.
Senator Menendez. Well, you do not--let me just edify for
the future. You do not need a lobbying disclosure form to
simply seek information and clarification about a bill. That is
not lobbying.
Lobbying specifically is to promote a view, a position, and
what not. So that is--I would ask unanimous consent to have
these included in the record.
Senator Corker. Without objection.
[The information referred to is located in Annex VIII,
beginning on page 643.]
Senator Menendez. So there was lobbying here. And I know
that Senator Booker asked you about USA Engage, which you said
you do not know about. But ExxonMobil is listed on USA Engage,
whose whole purpose--and I am sure that while Exxon is a huge
corporation, like the State Department is a very big entity,
that you may not know every minutiae of what is going on, but
you have to generally understand that you are giving direction
as to whether or not you want to be lobbying on certain issues
or not. You want to be taking positions on certain issues or
not.
And so just like you told me earlier that in your world
conversation with the President-elect, you did not discuss
Russia, it is a little difficult to think you actually do not
know that Exxon was lobbying on these issues of sanctions.
Mr. Tillerson. My understanding is those reports are
required whether you are lobbying for something or you are
lobbying against something. You are still required to report
that you have lobbying activities.
Senator Menendez. So you believe you were paying monies to
lobby for sanctions?
Mr. Tillerson. I do not know. All I know, Senator, is I do
not recall----
Senator Menendez. Could you imagine being in a position in
which you would have your company and its shareholders pay
money to lobby for sanctions that would affect your bottom
line?
Mr. Tillerson. I do not know, Senator. It would depend on
the circumstance.
Senator Menendez. All right. Let me turn to Mexico, a
little different part of the world than we have been
discussing. Some of us care about the Western Hemisphere.
Last week, the President-elect tweeted that any money spent
on building the great wall will be paid by Mexico. Mr.
Tillerson, building a wall on the southern border and having
Mexico pay for it has been a hallmark chant at Trump rallies.
Now the President-elect says the American people will pay
for it and then that the Mexicans will reimburse us. I also
want to point out that the last time a country tried to wall
itself completely from its neighbor was in Berlin in 1961, and
that wall was constructed by Communist East Germany.
Former Mexican president last week tweeted, and it seems
that somehow we are conducting foreign policy by tweets these
days, that ``Trump may ask whoever he wants, but still neither
myself nor Mexico are going to pay for his racist monument.
Another promise he cannot keep.''
As you are well aware, the President-elect has repeatedly
referred to Mexican citizens who have come to the United States
as saying they are sending ``people that have lots of problems,
and they are bringing those problems with us. They are bringing
drugs. They are bringing crime. They are rapists. And some,
some, I assume, are good people.''
So, Mr. Tillerson, do you think Mexicans are criminals,
drug dealers, and rapists?
Mr. Tillerson. I would never characterize an entire
population of people with any single term at all.
Senator Menendez. Do you think that those comments help our
relationship with Mexico, our third-largest trading partner, a
trading partner that represents $583 billion in trades of goods
and services, including our second-largest goods export market?
Mr. Tillerson. Mexico is a longstanding neighbor and friend
of this country.
Senator Menendez. And so that does not help your job as the
Secretary of State, does it, if you are to achieve nomination?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, we are going to engage with Mexico
because of their importance to us in this hemisphere, and we
have many, many common issues, common areas of concern.
Senator Menendez. Let me turn to another part in the
Western Hemisphere. Senator Rubio referred to it. So he took
care of some of the things I cared about. When you and I met,
you indicated to me on Cuba that you needed more time, which is
fair, to come to a conclusion about your opinion on U.S.-Cuba
policy and the Obama administration changes.
I want to share with you the latest report by--it is not
me, okay--by Amnesty International that noted, ``Despite
increasingly open diplomatic relations, severe restrictions on
freedom of expression, association, and movement continue.
Thousands of cases of harassment of government critics and
arbitrary arrests and detentions were reported.'' Thousands,
that is their quote.
The Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National
Reconciliation, which works within Cuba, documented more than
8,600 politically motivated detentions of government opponents
and activists during the year. There is a group of women who
march every Sunday to church with gladiolas. They are called
the Women in White. They get beaten savagely simply because of
their peaceful protest.
Now I would hope that you would agree with me that if our
engagement is still going to allow that to take place, then
something is wrong with our engagement. Something fell short.
And I have a specific question on Cuba.
Do you think that as a condition of establishing diplomatic
relations with Cuba, we, at a minimum, should have insisted on
the return of fugitives, cop killers like New Jersey cop killer
Joanne Chesimard and other American fugitives of justice being
harbored by the Castro regime?
Mr. Tillerson. I do, Senator.
Senator Menendez. Thank you very much.
Now would you, finally, commit yourself, if you are
confirmed as Secretary of State, to work with us and others,
New Mexico, others have cop killers that are in--and other
fugitives that are in Cuba, to make that conditioning of any
future transactions as it relates to Cuba?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, if confirmed, I look forward to
working with you most specifically, as well as Senator Rubio
and others that I know have a great depth of knowledge on Cuba,
to ensure that we are not relaxing the pressure on Cuba to
reform its oppressive regime.
And certainly, as I indicated in response to a question
earlier and in my opening remarks, Cuban leadership got a lot
out of the most recent deal. We need to make no mistake about
where the flows of funds are going inside of Cuba, and the
Cuban people got almost nothing.
And as I indicated, the President-elect I think has been
very clear on his intent to direct a bottoms-up review of the
entire relationship with Cuba.
Senator Menendez. Thank you.
Senator Corker. I appreciate the great Senator from New
Jersey acknowledging that when our nominee has left an
impression that I do not think he is wishing to leave that I am
giving him an opportunity to change that.
Thank you.
And with that, Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Corker. Senator Risch has got a ten-minute segment
because he missed the first round. Thank you for being here.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not take
that full 10 minutes.
Mr. Tillerson, thank you for your willingness to do this.
You are going to be hitting the ground at a very difficult time
as far as U.S. relationships around the world. They have
spiraled out of control from time to time, and we are not in a
good place in many parts of the world primarily because of U.S.
policy.
And it is going to be rethought, it is going to be
redeveloped, and I thank you for willing to take--for
willingness to take that on.
I was struck when you were named that this is something
that has been a bit off of the radar screen of most Americans,
and that is the importance of the work that the State
Department does in dealing with our companies and with commerce
in foreign countries. Most Americans do not realize how
difficult it is to do business overseas, and the State
Department really needs to focus on that more than what they
have and be helpful to countries that do want to do business
overseas because it is--a lot of times, it has to go through
government sources to get into business over there.
So I was impressed with that, and I am glad having your
business background that you do, I think you are going to be
very helpful in that regard and helping the State Department
further understand its responsibilities in that regard.
And the State Department does a good job. Every one of us
have traveled overseas, sometimes in bipartisan fashion. Is
that not right, Senator Shaheen? And we are always treated,
regardless of the political party, so well by our people, State
Department people that are working there.
We have talked a lot. Russia has got a lot of play in this
meeting, but we have not talked much about Iran and North
Korea. Those are a couple of real challenges for us.
And those policies, as far as those two countries are
concerned, really need to be rethought and recalibrated and
then re-announced in a way that they understand what America is
going to do, where we are coming from and what we are going to
do. I think the--in talking with people, our allies, they are
confused as to where we want to go with this and what we are
going to do and how we are going to do it.
And the same, the same is true with ISIS. How we are going
to handle that situation where they are operating both in Iraq
and Syria. So I am not going to press you on those because you
are just getting your feet on the ground, and I hope the
President-elect will be--after you are able to get your arms
around these things, he will listen to you carefully as to the
policies we are going to develop for that. The policies need to
be entirely different than what they are.
In that part of the world, the sipping tea and singing
``Kum Ba Yah'' is not a way that you are going to be successful
in a lot of those countries. They understand strength. Not
necessarily the use of strength, but they understand people who
possess strength and people who they are convinced will use
that strength if necessary.
They need to be convinced of that, and I know there is a
lot of people complaining about the relationship between Mr.
Putin and the President-elect and, for that matter, yourself
and Mr. Putin. I hope Mr. Putin gets to know both of you guys
really, really well because I think he will be convinced that
you do project American strength and that America still has the
muscle that it has had and that we still stand for what we
stand for, and we are going to project that around the world.
So in that regard, I really hope that Mr. Putin does have a
relationship to where we gets to know both of you guys, and
especially the President-elect, because I think that that will
impress him that he is not going to be able to get away with
the kind of stuff that he has gotten away with in the Crimea or
in Syria or in other places where they have been meddling in
the world where they should not be.
So, finally, let me say again thank you for your
willingness to do this. I have been impressed as we have been
sitting here. You know, the meeting we had in my office was
very good. We were able to develop a lot of these thoughts a
lot more deeply than we can here.
And I want to say that I have been really impressed. Having
come from a private sector background myself, it is difficult
for people to understand that the transition from the private
sector and business into the world of diplomacy is very
different. It is a transition that needs to be made.
And just sitting here listening to you over the hours that
you have been here, I have been very impressed that you have
been able to make that transition. You are speaking in terms
that the diplomats understand. I appreciate that. I think it
will serve you well as you go forward.
So, again, thank you for willingness to do this, and with
that, I will yield back time, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Corker. Thank you. This was the last person of the
first round. So we are going to get back into the sync we were
in before.
Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tillerson, I
want to go back to the four responsibilities that Secretary
Gates laid out for the Secretary of State--advise the
President, negotiate agreements, represent us abroad, and lead
the State Department.
Take representing the U.S. abroad. I met you the morning I
returned from my trip to Israel, which was a couple days
before, I would term it, the U.S.'s shameful abstention in that
vote on settlements.
I have never understood why any administration, we have
done this in a bipartisan fashion, would force a friend, an
ally, to sit down and negotiate with those that refuse to
acknowledge their right to exist. I mean, that is the table
stakes, right? It would be like forcing negotiation to buy a
company somebody does not want to sell.
Do you have a similar type of view on that? I appreciate
the fact that you think, and I agree, that actually complicates
the future negotiation.
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I do have a view on it, Senator, and
thank you. It would be akin, in many respects, if you were
negotiating with someone that denies your right to exist, you
would have to question, well, why would they ever live up to
any agreement if they do not expect you to be around? So it is
already a complex negotiation, and then to force one party to
the table through coercion, or however you want to describe the
most recent resolution, is not useful.
There have been many opportunities since the Oslo Accord
for parties to sit down and try to work things out. The
leadership certainly has not seized those opportunities. I
would say in the case of the Palestinian leadership, while they
have renounced violence, it is one thing to renounce it, and it
is another to take concrete action to prevent it.
And I think until there is a serious demonstration on their
part that they are willing to do more than just renounce the
violence, they are willing to do something to at least
interrupt it or interfere with it, it is going to be very
difficult to create conditions at the table for parties to have
any productive discussion around a settlement.
Senator Johnson. Do you agree that Israel has conceded just
about every point, and at this point in time, the Palestinians
just refuse to say yes?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I think there have been many, many
opportunities again for progress to be made, and those have
never been seized upon. So I do think it is a matter to be
discussed and decided between the two parties.
To the extent America's foreign policy engagement can
create a more--a more fruitful environment for those
discussions, then I think that is the role we can play. But at
the end of it, this has to be settled between these two
parties.
Senator Johnson. Our policy should be to help strengthen
our friends. In terms of negotiating agreements and advising
the President, I think Congress has willingly given away its
advice/consent power most famously in the recent Iranian
agreement.
If you look at the Federal--or the Foreign Affairs Manual,
I think it makes clear that the Iranian agreement was a treaty,
and I think had we honestly upheld our oath of office, that
vote on my amendment deeming that a treaty should have been 100
to 0. Every Senator should have voted to support and defend the
Constitution, which first starts with jealously guarding our
advice and consent power.
Would you advise--first of all, do you believe that was a
treaty?
Mr. Tillerson. It would have all the appearances of a
treaty. It looks like a treaty.
Senator Johnson. What about the Paris Climate Accord, which
commits us to a fair amount of expenditure? Do you believe that
is a treaty or just an agreement that the executive can enter
into on its own?
Mr. Tillerson. It looks like a treaty.
Senator Johnson. Will you work with us then, will you
advise the President as you go negotiate for this Nation, to
respect the Constitution and come to Congress, come to the
Senate for advice and consent on treaties?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, I respect the proper roles of both
branches of Government. In my conversations with the President-
elect, he does as well, and I think he has expressed some of
these same views that under the past administration, the
executive branch has gone pretty far out there in terms of
recognizing the proper role of Congress as a body to express
its own view on some of these agreements.
Senator Johnson. As for leading the State Department. You
were the CEO of a successful organization of 75,000 employees.
But they are employees that have the same mission statement.
They understand their roles to achieve the goals. They are
actually supportive of the goals of the organization.
You are going to be assuming the leadership of a department
that, let us face it, in many cases, you have entrenched
bureaucrats that not only do not necessarily agree with your
foreign policy or the next administration's foreign policy, and
might be hostile to it. Do you understand that challenge, and
as an experienced manager, how are you going to react to that?
How are you going to deal with that?
Mr. Tillerson. You are right, Senator. The State Department
has a little over 70,000 employees, interestingly about the
same size of the organization that I led when I was at
ExxonMobil, about more than 40,000 of those State Department
employees are deployed overseas. Interestingly, about 60
percent of ExxonMobil's employees are not Americans.
So in terms of understanding and dealing with people who
are representing you around the world and they are half way
around the world in various embassies and missions, how do you
get all of these people aligned with one objective? And the
objective is America's interests and America's national
security.
So I think part of leadership is expressing very clear
views, and part of leadership is having an organization that
has clear line of sight on issues as to who owns these and who
is going to be held accountable for them and having an
organization that is all working in concert toward that
objective.
My experience has been that people, people look for
leadership. And when they are acting in ways that are contrary
to the overall mission, it is generally because there has been
an absence of strong leadership to clearly define to them what
that expectation is and what their role in it is. And then
reward people who are behaving in a way that supports the
overall mission and not support their own agenda.
I have used the term many times in large organizations of
``working in the general interest.'' Well, the general interest
of the State Department is the American people's interest.
And if anyone is working in a way that is only to advance
their own interest, they are not working in the general
interest. And I think it is important that people understand
that is the responsibility of all of us who will serve the
country in the State Department is the general interest, which
is the American people's interest.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Tillerson. And good luck in
your next assignment.
Senator Corker. Thank you. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I am glad you came back after lunch, Mr. Tillerson. I
appreciated very much your response to that question because I
have to say my experience with State Department employees is
that the overwhelming majority of them are dedicated. They are
dedicated to this country. They do their work often at great
personal sacrifice, and I think we should appreciate the work
that they do, and it sounds to me like you share that
appreciation for the sacrifices that they make.
Mr. Tillerson. I most certainly do, Senator. I have a great
affection for those who are willing to take these overseas
assignments. Many of them are in very difficult locations, and
particularly when their families go with them, they truly are
sacrificing on behalf of this country. And I think that they
deserve the recognition for that and the appreciation for it.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you.
There has been some discussion today about the concerns
that this committee has expressed about--which I think are
legitimate, about potential conflicts of interests that you
might face if confirmed as Secretary of State because of your
long career at Exxon. And while I understand there are some
concerns about the precise approach that you have taken to
divest your financial interest in Exxon, I do appreciate that
you have taken these concrete actions and that you plan to take
more if you are confirmed.
And I wonder if you could talk about why you think that is
important?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, Senator, and again, as I commented in
response to a question earlier, I had a great 41 1/2 year
career. I was truly blessed, enjoyed every minute of it. That
part of my life is over. I have been humbled and honored with
the opportunity to now serve my country. Never thought I would
have an opportunity to serve in this way.
And so when I made the decision to say yes to President-
elect Trump when he asked me to do this, the first step I took
was to retain my own outside counsel to begin the process. And
the only guidance I gave them is I must have a complete and
clear, clean break from all of my connections to ExxonMobil,
not even the appearance. And whatever is required for us to
achieve that, get that in place.
I am appreciative that the ExxonMobil Corporation, who are
represented by their own counsel, and the ExxonMobil board were
willing to work with me to achieve that as well. It was their
objective, too.
And in the end, if that required me to walk away from some
things, that is fine. Whatever was necessary to achieve that,
and again, I told people I do not even want the appearance that
there is any connection to myself and the future fortunes, up
or down, of the ExxonMobil Corporation.
Senator Shaheen. Well, again, thank you very much for that.
I am sad to say that I think it stands in stark contrast to
what we heard from President-elect Trump today, who announced
that he is not going to divest himself of his vast business
interests around the world. So I do appreciate your recognition
that this is important for maintaining the integrity of the
position with the American public and the world.
You talked about eliminating ISIS as one of your top
priorities if you are confirmed. And your opening statement
connects radical Islam to ISIS, and you also make the point of
saying that you think it is important to support Muslims around
the world who reject radical Islam.
During the last Congress, this committee heard about the
importance of working with the Muslim community in the United
States to combat ISIS and the domestic terrorists that have
been produced as the result of ISIS ideology. In your view, is
it helpful to suggest that, as Americans, we should be afraid
of Muslims?
Mr. Tillerson. No, Senator. In my travels--and because of
my past work, I have traveled extensively in Muslim countries,
not just the Middle East, but throughout Southeast Asia, and
have gained an appreciation and recognition of this great
faith. And that is why I made a distinction that we should
support those Muslim voices that reject this same radical Islam
that we reject. This is part of winning the war other than on
the battlefield.
I mentioned we have to win it not just on the battlefield.
We have got to win the war by this, and our greatest, one of
our greatest allies in this war is going to be the moderate
voices of Muslim, of people of the Muslim faith who speak from
their perspective and their rejection of that representation of
what is otherwise a great faith.
Senator Shaheen. And so do you support restricting travel
or immigration to the United States by Muslims?
Mr. Tillerson. I think what is important is that we are
able to make a judgment about the people that are coming into
the country, and so, no, I do not support a blanket-type
rejection of any particular group of people.
But clearly, we have serious challenges to be able to vet
people coming into the country. And particularly under the
current circumstances because of the instability in the parts
of the worlds that is occurring and the massive migration that
has occurred out of the region and a lack of any documentation
following people as they have moved through various other
countries, it is a huge challenge.
And I do not think we can just close our eyes and ignore
that. We have to be very clear-eyed about recognizing that
threat and developing a means to deal with it.
Senator Shaheen. Well, I certainly agree with that, which
is very different, I think, than a ban on an entire religion,
people of that religion.
Do you support creating a national registry for American
Muslims?
Mr. Tillerson. I would need to have a lot more information
around how such an approach would even be constructed, and if
it were a tool for vetting, then it probably extends to other
people as well, other groups that are threats to the U.S. But
that is a--it would just require me much more information
around how that would even be approached.
Senator Shaheen. And one of the things you and I discussed
when we met was the Special Immigrant Visa program that we have
maintained for Afghans who have helped our men and women in the
military on the ground. And will you support continuing that
program to ensure that those people who have been properly
vetted, who helped our men and women, are able to come to this
country when their lives are threatened in Afghanistan?
Mr. Tillerson. The Special Visa Waiver program, it is
important that we protect those whose lives are truly at risk
because of their efforts to assist our American military forces
or other forces in Afghanistan. I think it is also important to
make the distinction--otherwise, we undermine this program and
risk losing it--and not expand it to allow other people to come
through the program that are not truly at risk.
And so it is--I think it is the execution. And this gets
back to following through on what the intent of these programs
were, and let us be very specific and execute well and not get
sloppy in the execution and start having a lot of other folks
coming through the program that really do not meet that
criteria.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. I think Congress has
pretty narrowly focused the program. I appreciate that.
Senator Corker. Thank you.
And I do want to say I appreciate the fact that you were
able to highlight that the Secretary of State shares his views.
Ultimately, he has to carry out the policies of the President,
or he is not successful.
But I think it is good to distinguish that sometimes people
have very different views, and they lobby strongly for those
views, and that is what we are wanting to hear from is what Mr.
Tillerson's views are on these issues and how he will attempt
to persuade the administration. He may not be successful, but I
thank you for highlighting that just now.
Senator Gardner.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tillerson,
thank you again for continued patience and participation in
this very important discussion.
I would follow up with many of the discussions today on
human rights issues. I just was notified that the
Administration has sanctioned two additional individuals in
North Korea under the legislation that we passed this past
year, the North Korea Sanctions Act. The younger sister of Kim
Jong-un was sanctioned for human rights violations as well as
the Minister of State Security in North Korea.
I think it is important that we continue, and I appreciate
your commitment that you gave me in the prior round of
questioning about your commitment to the mandatory sanctioning
of people who carry out human rights violations. It is
something that we can do together. It is something the
Administration and Congress should work together to make sure
that we are trying to protect people from tyrants around the
globe who would murder their own people.
Mr. Tillerson, you mentioned Southeast Asia in your last
answer to Senator Shaheen. China has been actively reclaiming,
building islands in the South China Sea, 3,000 acres of land
since reclamation activities commenced in 2013. Reports and
open source information that they have militarized some of
these reclamation areas. We authored legislation last year, a
resolution that called for the Obama Administration to take a
very strong or much more aggressive approach to these
activities in the South China Sea, including additional and
more frequent freedom of navigation operations, overflights of
the South China Sea. In July, The Hague, the International
Tribunal, ruled against China, held that they violated
Philippines' sovereignty.
What do you believe the position of the United States ought
to be in the South China Sea, and what more could we be doing
to stop China from violating international law?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I think when it comes to China, and
you mentioned North Korea previous to this, that we have really
got to take what I would call a whole--a whole of China
government approach. I think part of where we struggle with
China, and I mentioned it in my opening remarks, we do have
important economic relationships. As I said, our economies are
intertwined, but we have got to step back and look at all of
China's activities.
And the one you mentioned now, the island building in the
South China Sea, the declaration of control of airspace in
waters over the Senkaku Islands with Japan, both of those are
illegal actions. They are taking--they are taking territory or
control or declaring control of territories that are not
rightfully China's.
The island building in the South China Sea itself in many
respects, in my view, building islands and then putting
military assets on those islands is akin to Russia's taking of
Crimea. It is taking of territory that others lay claim to. The
U.S. has never taken a side on the issues whether we--but what
we have advocated for is, look, that is a disputed area. There
are international processes for dealing with that, and China
should respect those international processes. As you mentioned,
part of--some of their actions have already been challenged at
the--at the courts in The Hague, and they were found to be in
violation.
So, it is--China's activity in this area is extremely
worrisome, and I think, again, a failure of a response has
allowed them just to keep pushing the envelope on this. So
again, we find--we are where we are, and we just have to deal
with it. And the way we have got to deal with it is we have got
to show back up in the region with our traditional allies in
Southeast Asia, and, I think, use some existing structures to
begin the reengagement. Use ASEAN, which most of the members of
ASEAN are affected by this.
You have got $5 trillion of economic trade that goes
through those waters every day, and this is a threat to the
entire global economy if China is allowed to somehow dictate
the terms of passage through these waters. So, this is a global
issue of great importance to many, many of our important
allies, but certainly to people in the region.
Senator Gardner. And you would support a more aggressive
posture in the South China Sea.
Mr. Tillerson. We are going to have send China a clear
signal that, first, the island building stops, and, second,
your access to those islands is also not going to be allowed.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Tillerson. Last year I
passed legislation that would encourage Taiwan's entry into the
international police organization, Interpol. It was signed into
law by the President. The President has made it clear that
Taiwan is our friend, and last Sunday mainland Chinese, as a
result of some of President-elect Trump's activities and
actions, the state-run newspaper, the Global Times, said the
following: ``If Trump reneges on the one China policy after
taking office, the Chinese people will demand the government to
take revenge. There is no room for bargaining.'' The editorial
also went on to say that should--they should ``also impose
military pressure on Taiwan and push it to the edge of being
reunified by force.''
Combined with the PRC's recent show of force exercised
around Taiwan, it appears that Beijing has increased its
pressure considerably on Taiwan. Can you share with this
committee the Administration's--the Trump Administration's
position on Taiwan, and its position on the one China policy?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I think with respect to Taiwan, we
have--we have made important commitments to Taiwan through the
Taiwan Relations Act, through the Six Issues Accord, and I
think we should express a reaffirmation of those. Again, this
is part of this approach that I am trying to lay out over and
over that we have made commitments to people. We need to
reaffirm those commitments and live up to those commitments.
And I think it is important that Taiwan know that we are going
to live up to the commitments under the Relations Act and the
Six Issues Accord.
That in and of itself is a message, so I think the
importance of that action to, again, this whole of China
approach that I am speaking about is we have got to deal with
the whole of China's actions and recognize that we have these
balancing forces in our relationship that need to be dealt
with.
Senator Gardner. In terms of the one China policy, the new
Administration's position.
Mr. Tillerson. I do not know of any plans to alter the one
China position.
Senator Gardner. Thank you. And an issue back in Colorado
that I think is very important, and it is coming to the
attention of a lot of people around the country as they hear
from NGOs, Compassion International, a faith-based group in
Colorado, has served nearly two million children living in
extreme property around the world. They have operated in
Colorado since--Compassion has operated in India since 1968.
They have contributed nearly $50 million in aid to India. They
have provided one-to-one scholarships for 145,000 Indian
children. But since 2014, Compassion has been the target of
multiple coordinated governmental attacks because of its
unapologetically Christian belief, and--but it has been
delivering humanitarian services to hundreds of thousands of
Indian children. But due to the restrictions by the Indian
government, they have been unable to fund its India operations
since February of 2016 despite having broken no laws.
I believe the State Department should take notice that this
ill treatment of Compassion International should stop. It is
part of a broader pattern by the government of India where
other NGOs have seen similar problems. The State Department
should insist the Indian government release Compassion funds,
restore its FCRA licenses, and permit Compassion to immediately
resume its humanitarian operations, and we would just
appreciate your assistance on that. This is a pattern that is
very disturbing as the organization does nothing more than try
to help children in poverty.
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, I appreciate you bringing it to my
attention and look forward, if I am confirmed, to discussing it
further with you.
Senator Corker. And I also appreciate you bringing that up.
I know Chairman Royce is very concerned about this issue, and I
know he will be thankful that you brought it to everyone's
attention here today. Thank you.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tillerson, in
your capacity as CEO of ExxonMobil, you praised the Paris
Agreement last year noting that addressing climate change, and
I quote, ``requires broad-based, practical solutions around the
world.'' Do you personally believe that the overall national
interests of the United States are better served by staying in
the Paris Agreement? If so, why, and if not, why not?
Mr. Tillerson. As I indicated earlier in a response, I
think having a seat at the table to address this issue on a
global basis, and it is--it is important. I think it is 190
countries or thereabouts have signed on to begin to take
action. I think we are better served by being at that table
than leaving that table.
Senator Udall. And I think you understand that it has
been--it has been a generation or more that it has taken to get
all the countries at the table to sign an agreement, be willing
to move forward with targets. And it would be very unfortunate,
I think, to move away from the table. So, thank you for your
answer there.
I just wanted to follow up on a discussion Senator Flake
had with you in the first round urging you to look at the
successes of our policy change in Cuba. And this is mainly
because you, as CEO at Exxon, I suspect that you had a low
tolerance for old ideas that had failed to produce positive
results.
Regardless of what one thinks about the Cuban government,
no one can argue that the policy of embargo and isolation has
achieved any progress. The proof is right in front of us. The
Castro regime endures, and I am a strong supporter of the
policy of reengagement, which has already produced results.
And, you know, you mentioned you are going to do a bottoms-
up review. In thinking about that bottoms-up review, I would
just point out that these things that I am going to mention
have happened and are very positive. First of all, we have
worked with the Cubans to combat diseases, such as Zika,
diabetes, and a multinational effort to combat Ebola in Africa.
Efforts to increase access to the Internet have paid off with
new Wi-Fi hotspots in Havana, and increased efforts to bring
improved cellular access to the island, including roaming deals
with U.S. carriers; increased bilateral business activity
supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Hispano
Chamber of Commerce. And last week, the United States and Cuba
signed a bilateral agreement to prepare for and respond to oil
spills and hazardous substance pollution in the Gulf of Mexico
and the Straits of Florida.
Our new policy towards Cuba, according to a 2015 Pew
Research poll, shows that 72 percent of Americans support the
renewed diplomatic relations, and 73 percent support ending the
embargo. I doubt that there are many issues where such a vast
majority of the American people agree, and I hope we will not
be letting those Americans down by returning to a period where
such efforts are made impossible by a failed policy that showed
no results. Instead, I hope you will continue to work to
support the Cuban small business owner, almost 500,000 licensed
businesses and growing, and to continue the engagement which
has led to increased opportunities for both Cuban and American
businesses in Cuba.
Will you recommend to President-elect Trump a policy of
engagement with Cuba in order to foster the change that is
needed on the island, or do you prefer to go back to the old
policy of the past 50 years that failed to bring real change or
undermine the Castro regime?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, Senator, again, if confirmed, the job
of the--of the diplomat is to engage, and so engagement is
always preferred, and our doors are always open to want to
engage to effect change.
But I think we have to be--we have to be honest with
ourselves about the engagement with Cuba. There is longstanding
or longstanding statutes in place that govern that
relationship: the Helms-Burton Amendment, the trading--the
designated list of state sponsors of terrorism, and their
specific criteria around whether we and organizations, and
those who are doing--conducting affairs in Cuba are in
compliance with those statutory requirements.
So, if we are able to engage in a positive way and still
meet all of the compliance of those statutes, then that is a
good thing. I do not know because I have not had the
opportunity to have a fulsome examination, as I said earlier,
of what changed because there is a lot of activity that has
been enabled, and obviously someone had to make a determination
that something changed.
Did it, in fact, change? I would like to see the--all the
documentation, the information around that. Otherwise, if we
are going to change the relationship, we have got to change the
statutes as well. So, I am--you know, again, kind of this
common theme maybe you are hearing from me is I believe we live
up to the agreements, and we live up to the laws, and we fully
enforce them. They were put there for a reason. If
circumstances change and we need to change our posture on those
as well.
But that is the reason I think it demands a bottoms-up
review because a lot of things have been changed in the recent
past year, much of it by executive order. And I think the
President-elect has indicated he would really like to
understand all of that. What was the criteria that the State
Department used to make its determinations? That is what he is
going to be asking me.
Senator Udall. Well, the reason I cited those polls is I
think the American people are at the point of wanting those
statutes to be set aside. And I quoted one, and so I do not
want to argue with you. But I very much appreciate your answers
in terms of consulting State Department people. And, you know,
I cannot think of better professionals than these State
Department professionals who have spent decades learning about
the regions that they serve in, the specific countries they
work on. And I appreciate your thoughtfulness in terms of doing
that.
And just a final question here is, Senator Menendez
mentioned the whole issue of fugitives. We also have a fugitive
by the name of Charlie Hill who I believe should be brought to
justice. And I really believe that we have a better chance at
getting him out, and we are already having discussions, if we
engage with them rather than going back to a policy of
isolation.
So, with that, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Corker. Thank you, sir. Senator Flake.
Senator Flake. Thank you. We will continue on the same
theme for just a bit. I want to talk for a minute about what is
it--we hear the word ``concession'' a lot, and we should not
make concessions to dictators or despots.
Part of the--some of the executive orders that have been
taken over the past couple of years, one of the first of which
is in 2009, we found that Cuban-Americans who had family still
in Cuba, would have to choose between going to their mother's
funeral or their father's funeral if their parents died within
the same three years. What a horrible thing to ask of an
American.
Do you believe that it is a concession to the regime to
allow a Cuban-American to visit or to go to his father or
mother's funeral in Cuba?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, these are really heartbreaking
questions that, again, I take--I have to take us back to what
are our statutes, you know. What are the provisions that govern
that, and these are the--these are where exceptions become
really difficult.
Senator Flake. Right.
Mr. Tillerson. And so, I want to be honest with you when I
say my expectation is, if confirmed, is to--is to do a complete
bottoms-up review of all these issues, you know. Under what
provisions are we making exceptions? What provisions allow for
a waiver? Under what conditions can we grant perhaps an
exception for someone to resolve these really--these difficult
personal issues for people, but not undermine our American
values, which is the leadership of Cuba must change the way it
treats its people.
Senator Flake. Right. I do not think it was in the
President's executive authority to make that change. I do not
think it was questioned. There were certainly no lawsuits filed
or any real resistance. As soon as Cuban-Americans started to
travel back to Cuba, it was assumed this is a great thing, and
hundreds of thousands of them have and have remitted more
money. It was illegal for them to send fish hooks to their
family members on the island before. Those are some of the
restrictions that were removed. I would submit that those are
not concessions to a regime. It is not a concession to a regime
to allow Americans to travel. Those sanctions are on Americans,
not Cubans.
In the same vein, with regard to diplomatic relations, we
have diplomatic relations with some pretty unsavory countries,
or the leadership of some countries is pretty unsavory. We have
diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. We do not agree with
how they treat women and political opponents in that country.
Is it a concession to the regime to have diplomatic relations
with the country?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, this is a question, again, that is--
that is grounded in longstanding historic policy of the United
States----
Senator Flake. Right.
Mr. Tillerson.--and that policy and the statutes that
govern that policy. If the time has come for statutes to be
altered, that will be the role of Congress to alter those
statutes.
Senator Flake. Right. Exactly.
Mr. Tillerson. In the meantime, at the State Department, if
I am there and confirmed to be there, it is our role to enforce
what Congress has expressed its desire. And so, if the judgment
of the Congress and the judgment of the State Department, the
President-elect through consultation, views that we have moved
to a different place, then we should address that, but not just
ignore what the law of the land is.
Senator Flake. Right. No, I understand that completely. I
am just saying that diplomatic relations with countries is not
a concession to those countries. It is in our national
interest. It is the way we practice state craft and diplomacy
is to have diplomatic relations, and I would suggest that that
is the same with Cuba.
As mentioned, there are fugitives from justice in Cuba that
we would like back. There are fugitives from justice in a
number of other countries that we would like back as well. We
use our diplomatic relations, we use state craft and diplomacy
to try to arrange those things. If we have said to every
country that held fugitives from justice we are going to
withhold diplomatic relations, recall our ambassadors, where
would we be?
And so, I would suggest that a review is prudent. I am glad
that the Administration is undertaking a review. I believe that
a review will conclude that some of the measures that have been
taken allowing Americans to travel to Cuba, we still have
restrictions. I would suggest that the restrictions that are
still in place simply force Americans to place more money in
the government's hands when they do travel to Cuba, Cuban-
Americans and other citizens of this country; that if we just
lifted the travel ban completely and they could more easily
ensure that more money goes to family members and entrepreneurs
on that island. So, I am glad that a review is taken--going to
take place, and I am glad that you are going to be a part of
that review.
Just in a minute and a half left. You have talked a lot
about sanctions. As I mentioned in the beginning, I share your
aversion to sanctions, particularly when they are practiced
unilaterally. What other--sanctions are simply a method we have
or a tool to change behavior or to induce or to punish
countries. What other tools do we have without resorting to
sanctions?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, depending on exactly what the issue is
and what the target country is, certainly we have other tools
related to our trade policies in general. We have tools related
to our immigration and visa exchange policies, in particular,
in terms of the soft power side of this. Obviously, we always
have the hard power tool to use.
And so, I think it does depend on the specific country, the
specific issue, what our relationship has been, what are--you
know, what are the pressure points that are going to--if they
are going to feel it, because just--and that is the issue I
have around ensuring that sanctions are properly structured so
that we hit the proper pressure point that causes a change in
the way--that party's thinking or change in the direction they
are going.
So, it is--it is very much case by case in terms of what we
can use to apply pressure to whatever government we are wanting
to alter their course.
Senator Flake. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Corker. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
comments on Cuba and the multilateral sanctions issue. And I
will say you are going to find on both sides of the aisle
strong divisions on the issue of Cuba, people sitting next to
each other having very, very, very different views. And I do
hope you will seek input of all as you move ahead into this top
to bottom review.
Having sat here the whole hearing, I do want to just
clarify, I do not think that necessarily you have expressed an
aversion to sanctions. I think what you may have expressed, if
I heard correctly, is just ensuring that when they are
implemented, they are implemented in a way that is appropriate.
Is that correct?
Mr. Tillerson. That is correct, Senator--Chairman. And as
I--I meant, I think I commented at one point this morning
having ineffective sanctions is worse than having no sanctions
at all because it sends--it sends a weak signal to the target
country. And then they say, oh well, they are not really
serious after all. And so, that is why if we are going to have
sanctions, they need to be carefully crafted so that they are
effective.
Senator Corker. Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks
again, Mr. Tillerson. I want to stay in the Americas. You and I
had a good discussion in my office about the Americas, and you
have done work in the Americas, and also being a Texan, I think
you, you know, understand the importance of the relationships.
We have been grappling on this committee and in this
country with unaccompanied minors coming from the Northern
Triangle. That migration from Mexico is now kind of almost at
an even zero point, but the instability in the Northern
Triangle--violence, drug trade, weak civil institutions--has
created some challenges. We have supported in a bipartisan way
investments in the Northern Triangle, but we want to make sure
that the investments are, you know, targeted the right way to
accomplish the objective of bringing more stability and
creating more opportunity there so people do not feel a need to
flee.
Talk a little bit about that that part of our foreign
affairs portfolio and how would you approach those issues.
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, I really appreciate you bringing us
back to the Western Hemisphere----
Senator Kaine. Yeah.
Mr. Tillerson.--because we have just--we have talked about
the hot spots. But I--and I--and I say that in all seriousness
because I do not think we should in any way downgrade the
importance of the Western Hemisphere and what is going on, not
just in Central America, but South America as well. There are
important relationships. There are--there are not unimportant
national security issues in this hemisphere also.
But as to the immigration challenge, and I think you
described it pretty well that what has happened over the last--
the most recent time is a real shift in where these people
coming across the border in an illegal fashion, where they are
coming from. And they are largely transiting through Mexico
coming from south of Mexico's border.
I am aware of the Northern Triangle Project, which is
trying to strengthen law enforcement because a lot of people
are motivated to run from high crime-ridden areas, anti-
narcotics trafficking, helping strengthen the governance
institutions, and providing a safer environment for people down
there, and to the extent we can direct assistance programs that
then gets at some economic development as well, some of which
is simple infrastructure projects.
And some of this, again, gets back to how to--how to use
not just this special targeted effort and the funds that have
been made available there, but also how we use other aid
programs, like the Millennial Challenge Corporation, to develop
the capabilities of these countries to perform better.
I do think, and I know you and I spoke about this when we
were in your office, that out of--our true compassion for the--
these people that are coming across the border, many of which
are unaccompanied minors, how to deal with that. And I know in
response to that challenge, there has been some well-intended
action taken, programs like DACA, the deferred treatment of
adjudication of these cases. All well intended, but when those
got translated back to the host country, the place these people
are leaving from, we know that it got--it got misinterpreted.
And even the leaders of those countries have spoken in public
and indicated that, look, the wrong signals are being sent down
here as a result of this effort to be compassionate. And, in
fact, it is incentivizing some, because it is misunderstood, to
take even greater risk to themselves, to their children, to try
to make this journey across Mexico, largely using illegal
smugglers to get them to this country.
So, I think we just have to be very thoughtful about the
signals we are sending, the messages we are signaling, and I
think go back--as you say, go back and try to address some of
the issues in the host country. Also, work with Mexico, our
partner right next door. Now, this is not--this is a challenge
for them, how to secure their southern porous border and deal
with all of this transiting of their country to get to the land
of the free and the home of the brave where everybody wants to
be.
So, I acknowledge the challenge that we have before us. We
are going to have to deal with the situation that we have
today, the reality of it. I think this is where the intent of
the President-elect, and while he does express it in the view
of the wall, what he is really expressing is we have got to get
control of this--of this border. We have got to prevent and
stop the flow of people coming across, and how we--how we do
that. What policies, and how we execute those are yet to be
developed. But certainly, the State Department, if I am
confirmed, will have a big role in the foreign aspects of that.
Once they come across the border, they are largely the
Department of Homeland Security's responsibility. The State
Department's role will be what actions can we take to prevent
the movement of the people in an illegal fashion. We want
people to come legally. This is the history the country is that
people came here legally.
Senator Kaine. Mr. Tillerson, thank you for that. And I--as
I said in my office, I have always encouraged the Secretary of
State to fly north/south and not just east/west. I think there
are huge opportunities in the Americas that we sometimes do not
take advantage of. And other parts of the world have a claim on
our attention obviously, but there are some real opportunities.
I assume you support the U.S. position that has been in
place since the 1940s to do what we can, even if it is hard, to
promote a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine with--a
Jewish state of Israel and an independent state of Palestine
living peacefully side by side, that that is the dream that we
hope for that region. And I assume that you support that.
Mr. Tillerson. I do not think anyone would take a position
that they do not hope for peace in that area and for the issues
to be ultimately resolved.
Senator Kaine. And peace within the context of a two-state
solution as was--as was determined by the UN and has been the
bipartisan policy of the United States since the late 1940s.
Mr. Tillerson. I think that is the dream that everyone is
in pursuit of. Whether it could ever be a reality remains to be
seen.
Senator Kaine. What do you think the right--I think this is
something that has frustrated all of us, that there has been so
little progress toward it in the last few years. And so, what
do you think from the Secretary of State's position you could
do to try to hasten the day when we could find a path forward.
People did not think you could find a peace deal between
Ireland and Northern Ireland either for hundreds of years, and
yet youngsters in Ireland now do not remember when there was a
problem. What might you bring to the table on that?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, and I am glad you put it in the
context of hundreds of years. I know that was a--that was just
euphemistic. But I think it is--it is indicative of how
conflicts like this take a long time, and sometimes it takes
another generation to have a changed view. Oftentimes, we just
have to try and make the situation as stable as possible and
limit the impacts on people that are living there now.
The Palestinian people have suffered a lot, under their own
leadership in many cases, as a result of there not being more
progress made. So, I think it has to be a shared aspiration of
all of us that that ultimately is resolved. The issues are
longstanding, and I think it is the State Department's role to
create--try to create an environment that brings parties
together to want to find a way forward.
I can tell you under the conditions today, that is just--it
is extremely challenging to do that, but that has to be the
aspirational goal. And to your example, sometimes it takes a
different generation that is not carrying all that baggage of
the past with them.
Senator Kaine. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Corker. Absolutely. Thank you. Senator Young.
Senator Young. Thank you. Mr. Tillerson, from the outset, I
just want to thank you for the level of--the level of candor
you have shown throughout this hearing. You have engaged on
issues. You have answered questions. You have been adept at
times, and I want that from our Nation's chief diplomat. The
only request I would make is that they do not coach that out of
you should your nomination move forward and you become our next
Secretary of State, which I suspect you will. So, thank you for
that.
In your prepared statement, you write, ``Defeating ISIS
must be our foremost priority in the Middle East.'' And you
also note later that ``Defeat will not occur on the battlefield
alone. We must win the war of ideas,'' something we have
already discussed a bit here. I could not agree more. We have
to win the war of ideas.
We can kill every single irreconcilable, as you know, who
subscribes to this poisonous ideology as those who join ISIS
do, and yet we are still going to have a problem. The
organization will reconstitute itself. And so, we really--there
is something deeper we need to tap into, a deeper tap root.
In your prepared statement, going back to that, you
indicate that if confirmed you will ensure the State Department
does its part here in this war of ideas. Now, based on your
presentation for this hearing, what is your assessment of the
State Department's current performance in the war of ideas? And
I want you to make your comments specific to our effort against
the Islamic State.
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, I am not sure I could articulate
what the current State Department is doing in the war on ideas
other than the advocacy--the public advocacy condemning this
type of brutality. I think--I think your observation that even
if we defeat ISIS and its caliphate in Syria and Iraq, they
will morph into something else. And I think this is where we
have to be truthful and realistic in our conversations with the
American people.
You know, terrorism has been a part of the world for
centuries. It is--it is the nature of man, the unfortunate
nature of man. But what we have to do is certainly limit it and
suppress it to a level that it is no longer a threat to our
national security or a threat--an imminent threat to Americans
or all other people in the world who value human life.
Senator Young. So, in a recent hearing before the Senate
Armed Services Committee, DNI Clapper indicated that he
believes the U.S. might reestablish the United States
Information Agency to fight this information war and to advance
our efforts to defeat, you know, radical extremists or
terrorists, however one chooses to brand them. Do you agree
that this would be a good idea?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I think, as I indicated in an exchange
with Senator Portman, we have got to up our game in terms of
how we engage in both the digital communication world, because
that is where ISIS has been very effective, and other radical
groups. Al Qaeda and others have been effective in using the
digital communications space to spread their message. We have
got become more effective at--in countering that messaging and
countering that message.
But I also take Senator Portman's observation that it is
not all digital. There are other communication mechanisms that
are effective broad-based in terms of how do you--how do we
communicate, particularly in those parts of the world that
could be susceptible to these messages.
Senator Young. For the record, for the benefit of our--my
colleagues and also for your benefit, I will note that I am
just coming from the House of Representatives. And in my final
two-year term, I introduced legislation so that Congress could
assess whether or not the countering violent extremism
initiative within the Obama Administration was working or not.
Is it working. I was prepared to be briefed in a classified
setting, yet the Administration came out fairly strongly
against our efforts to exercise oversight.
So, my hope would be I can--that I can work together in a
bipartisan way and in the next Administration, we will have the
tools to assess whether or not we are improving, and work with
the Administration to ensure that we are, in fact, killing the
terrorists, countering violent extremism, and, most
importantly, making sure that this effort does not reconstitute
itself moving forward.
Mr. Tillerson, back to the prepared statement. You write
that China has not been a reliable partner in using its
influence to curb to curb North Korea. I know we have discussed
this before, a slightly different tack here. Just an open-ended
question here. Why do you believe China has not done more?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I am aware that under the most recent
version, I believe, of the UN sanctions, which have been
ratcheted up with each of North Korea's provocative, whether it
has been a nuclear test or the test firing of a missile, that--
and I indicated earlier that China is 90 percent of North
Korea's trading--exports, import trading. So, they really do
have complete control over what sustains the government of
North Korea. A big part of that is the sale of anthracite coal
across the border, and the sanctions did speak to that sale.
And I think that is an area where I think we have to hold China
accountable to comporting with the sanctions that were put in
place by the UN. And just we have to call people out on it when
we view they are not complying.
Senator Young. So, there might be--there might be an
opportunity to exploit there with respect to that reliance on
anthracite coal to ensure that the missile and nuclear
programs, you know, they comply with international law and our
security interests.
Mr. Tillerson. Well, under the UN resolutions, North Korea
has already violated those on multiple occasions with both the
nuclear test, including the one most recently in September, as
well as their firing of----
Senator Young. I am going to interject, which is D.C. talk
for interrupt. But, so, what would you suggest to the President
of the United States that he consider doing to wield more
effective influence over China's decision making on North
Korea? In 10 seconds or less, please.
Mr. Tillerson. Well, it does involve--well it does involve
a concerted response from our allies as well--Japan, North
Korea--and making sure China understands as part of this whole
of China approach that this is an important element of what
they can do to strengthen our relationship, or they can do to
weaken our relationship with them.
Senator Young. Thank you.
Senator Corker. Thank you, sir. Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
sticking this out, Mr. Tillerson. I know this is a long day.
I want to come back to the issue of human rights because I
do worry that there are going to be a lot of human rights
advocates, a lot of people who are hoping that the United
States maintains its leadership role on maintaining and
promoting human rights around the world, who are going to be
very worried by some of your testimony here today. Asked about
the 3,500 extrajudicial killings in the Philippines, you were
not yet ready to say that you had enough evidence to call that
a violation of human rights. Similar answer on Saudi Arabia,
and a similar answer with respect to the war crimes perpetuated
by the Russians inside Syria.
So, I guess the simple question for you is this. If you are
not ready to say today that what is happening in the
Philippines is a human rights violation, despite the fact that
the president brags about killing people without trial, or the
denial of rights to women in Saudi Arabia as a named human
rights violation, or what is happening in Syria as a war crime,
can you maybe give us a little bit of a sense of what countries
today you would consider to be violators of human rights, or
how you are going to make judgments about where the U.S.
pursues human rights violators and where we do not, because
think it will be a surprise to a lot of people coming out of
his hearing that you are not ready today to call President
Duterte a violator of human right, or to call what is happening
in Saudi Arabia a named violation of human rights under
international law.
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I think somewhere in your question
there, Senator Murphy, was, in fact, the answer. I am going to
act on factual information. I am not going to act on what
people write about in the newspapers or even what people may
brag they have done, because people brag about things that they
may or may not have done. I am going to act on the facts. And
if confirmed, I am going to have access to a lot of information
that I do not have access today.
It is just my nature to not prejudge events or prejudge and
make conclusions or conclude that someone has, in fact,
violated this norm or, in fact, now meets the standard to be
labeled this until I have seen those facts myself. That should
in no way suggest that if those acts that you have described
are backed up by the facts, I would agree with your labeling
and characterization. I am just not willing to do that on the
record today because I have not seen that information. So,
please do not confuse that with my stand--my standards are no
different than yours.
Senator Murphy. But just give--let us take Philippines for
an example. I mean, I do not know that there is anybody on this
committee that would deny that there are extrajudicial killings
happening in Philippines. That has been widely reported. Our
embassy has reported it. The president himself talks about it.
What more information do you need before deeming the
Philippines to be a human rights violator? What is happening
there is a massacre, one that is there for everyone to see.
Mr. Tillerson. I am sure the committee has seen a lot of
evidence that I have not seen. I am not disputing your
conclusion. You are asking me to make a judgment on only what I
am being told. That is not how I make judgments.
Senator Murphy. So, what information in that case would
you--would you need? Who would you need to hear from?
Mr. Tillerson. I would want to see the factual basis behind
the statistics and the factual connection as to who is--who is
committing those acts.
Senator Murphy. Well, we do not have--a lot of times the
factual evidence is reporting by objective observers on the
ground. I am not initially sure you are going to get a
videotape of an extrajudicial killing. So, oftentimes the
evidence is the objective reporting we get from sources on the
ground inside a place like the Philippines.
Mr. Tillerson. I will rely on multiple sources to confirm
what I am being told. That is--that is--you can blame it on me
being an engineer. It is the engineer in me that I deal with
facts, and then I analyze, and then I conclude. And I am sure
there is a lot of credible information out there that I simply
have not seen.
Senator Murphy. This is a question that often gets asked of
members of Congress to judge their view of politics and
conflict in the Middle East. It is pretty simple one. Do you
believe that the Iraq War--not the conduct of the war, but the
war itself--was a mistake?
Mr. Tillerson. I think I indicated in response--I believe
it was to Senator Paul's question that I think our motives were
commendable, but we did not achieve the objectives. We did not
achieve greater stability. We did not achieve improved national
security for the United States of America. And those--and that
is just the events have borne that out.
And at the time I held the same view that I was concerned,
just as I was concerned before the decisions were made to go
into Libya and change the leadership there. It is not that I
endorse that leadership, but that leadership had the place
somewhat stable with a lot of bad actors locked up in prison.
Now those bad actors are running around just world.
Senator Murphy. Just----
Mr. Tillerson. So, it is just a--it is the question of--it
is not a question that our ultimate goal has to be to change
that type of oppressive leadership. It has to be, though, that
we know what--we know what is coming after, or we have a high
confidence that we can control what comes after or influence
it, and it will be better than what we just took out.
Senator Murphy. In this case, which motives are you
referring to that were commendable?
Mr. Tillerson. I think the concerns were that Saddam
Hussein represented a significant threat to stability in that
part of the world and to the United States directly. And so, I
understand that people had--were looking at information that
was available to them, information that is not available to me,
at least at this point. So, I am making this--I am making this
comment as a--as a casual observer.
Senator Murphy. One last question going back to Russia. You
have said in an earlier--answer to an earlier question that you
would not commit today to the continuation of sanctions against
the Russians for their involvement in the U.S. presidential
election. But could you make a commitment to us today that if
you deem sanctions to be the inappropriate policy, that you
will recommend and argue for a substitute response for the
interference in U.S. elections? Will you argue for a U.S.
response even if you do not believe sanctions is the right
policy?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes. Yes. And all I have read is, again, the
unclassified portions, but it is troubling. And if--and if
there is additional information that indicates the level of
interference, it deserves a response.
Senator Murphy. Thank you.
Senator Corker. Thank you. Just to follow up, our embassies
in countries have pretty massive capabilities that are well
known. If in the Philippines, for instance, our embassy there
assessed to you with very high confidence since you are not
going to be able to be on the ground checking things out
yourself in a 75,000-person organization, and you are going to
rely on people that as you did as an engineer and certainly as
CEO of a company if they assess that extrajudicial killings
were taking place, that would probably be enough evidence for
you that he was a human rights violator, would it not be?
Mr. Tillerson. In all likelihood, it would.
Senator Corker. Just to follow up on one other thing, I
know this committee passed very strongly in a bipartisan way,
and now it has been through multiple iterations of
appropriations and now an authorization bill, a bill to end
modern slavery, to work in partnership with others around the
world. And I say this because I visited a place in the
Philippines where much of that is occurring, and thank you for
reminding me.
But do you plan to continue to support the effort that has
been authorized here and has been appropriated towards to work
in conjunction with the world community to end one of the
greatest blights in the world today, and that is 27 million
people in the world being enslaved more than at any time in the
world's history?
Mr. Tillerson. I think it is part of America's moral
clarity and our values that we must speak out, and not just
speak out, but take action that to cause the countries that are
allowing this to go on or facilitating at worst, to cause them
to change that. And I know that this is a particularly
passionate issue to yourself and other members of the committee
and--but I want to enlarge it to human trafficking at large as
well. Slavery and human trafficking have to be addressed, and
America has to lead in this particular area.
Senator Corker. Thank you so much. Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tillerson,
thank you very much for your candor and your respect you have
exhibited for the committee and the process. We are proud of
your nomination and commend you to the--to the Senate. I want
to ask one question, and then I am going to waive the rest of
my times so we get a little rest.
One of the important roles of the State Department, going
back to the State Department, for some is soft power. And part
of our soft power is our ability to solve problems that nobody
else can solve, the most recent example, Ebola. When the Ebola
outbreak took place in West Africa, it was the CDC that created
the mechanism by which we actually stopped Ebola. And now we
have a vaccine that will prevent Ebola, which is a great
victory for humanity and a great victory for the process. The
money that was done to treat the initial patients from West
Africa was a special appropriation of the United States Senate
and the House to create an emergency fund to deal with Ebola.
During the same period of time the State Department had
referred a Lassa fever patient to the CDC, to Emory University,
to take care of it, which they did. There were no funds
available for that Lassa abatement, and to this day Emory has
not been reimbursed for that payment--for that treatment.
My question is, it seems to be a good time for us to look
at the CDC, which is the heart of the solution, and create an
emergency fund reserve where when we have an amount of money
available to the CDC secretary, that they can--that they can
immediately go to use for an emergency like Ebola or like Lassa
fever. I am going to work to try and establish that this year,
and I hope as the Secretary of State when you are confirmed,
you will work with me to do that.
Mr. Tillerson. I look forward to that, Senator, and
engaging with you on it. I think you are right. The CDC's
response in the Ebola outbreak is--was remarkably well managed.
I would make an observation, because all of this at some point
gets to somebody has got to pay for all this. And in examining
the--how the World Health Organization did in these outbreaks,
I think what it exposed was some deficiencies within the World
Health Organization as well that that they were not able to
respond. And that is where normally--this was an outbreak that
occurred in another part of the world. They should have been
the first responders to the scene. But as you point out, CDC as
well as other U.S. assets had to be put in to those countries
to address that.
So, I think it is worth an examination as we are
considering CDC's role, it is worth an examination of how that
interfaces. You know, these types of outbreaks, whether it is
Ebola or the Zika virus, how is that interface working with the
global health organizations as well?
Senator Isakson. Thank you very much for your time, and
congratulations on your nomination.
Senator Corker. Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tillerson, do
you agree with President-elect Trump when he said, ``It would
not be a bad thing for us if Japan, South Korea, or Saudi
Arabia acquired nuclear weapons?''
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, I do not think anyone advocates for
more nuclear weapons on the planet.
Senator Markey. Donald Trump said it would not be a bad
thing. Do you agree with that or disagree with it?
Mr. Tillerson. I do not agree.
Senator Markey. You do not agree. Would you commit to
working vigorously to ensure that no additional country on the
planet obtains a nuclear weapons capacity?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, I think if confirmed, it is a
vital--one of the vital roles for the State Department to play.
In working in the National Security Council and in an
interagency way has to be the pursuit of nuclear
nonproliferation. We just simply cannot back away from our
commitment to see a reduction in the number of these weapons on
the planet.
Senator Markey. Okay. President-elect Trump recently said
on Twitter that in his view the United States must ``expand its
nuclear capability.'' When warned that this could trigger an
arms race, he replied, ``Let it be an arms race.'' Do you agree
with President-elect Trump that the United States should
welcome a nuclear arms race with Russia or with China? Would
that be a good thing for the United States?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, I think as we are pursuing
nonproliferation and we are also pursuing the enforcement of
important agreements like New START, that we have to also
approach those from a position of strength. I think in the
context of some of the quotes that you are running through
here, the President-elect has also indicated a commitment to
ensuring that the level of nuclear arms and capability that we
are going to maintain under agreed treaties, that those
capabilities must be maintained, and that from time to time
that means we have got to renew them, and bring them up to
date, and ensure that they are capable. Otherwise, we now have
an asymmetric arrangement with people we are negotiating with.
Senator Markey. Right. Just that it is at odds with what he
has been quoted publicly as saying, so I just think it is
important for us to hear you take a position that, in fact,
negotiations towards reducing the nuclear threat rather than
having a nuclear arms race is much better for our country and
the global security. If you are confirmed, will you commit to
protect the rights of all career employees of the State
Department so that they--that they retain their right to speak
with Congress?
Mr. Tillerson. As pursuant to an open and effective
dialogue with Congress, I would encourage that issues are put
on the table for discussion with Congress, yes.
Senator Markey. You just had, I think, a great conversation
with Senator Isakson about global health issues. And one of our
great achievements over the last couple of decades has been the
establishment and investment in PEPFAR and U.S. leadership in
the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and malaria. Millions of
lives have been saved and health infrastructure has been built
in the developing world. Could you discuss your view of those
programs and your commitment to strengthening them in the years
ahead?
Mr. Tillerson. PEPFAR is just really one of the remarkable
successes of the past decade or more, obviously begun under
President Bush. And I think what is--what is notable about
PEPFAR is there are measurable results. Very well managed, very
well targeted at getting at those three diseases. I think it
serves as a model for us to look to as we are thinking about
other ways in which to project America's values, project our
compassion to want to solve these threats that are in other
parts of the world that by and large we are not threatened by a
lot of this here in this country.
Malaria eradicated decades ago. TB, well under control.
AIDS, great treatment programs available to people. Projecting
that into other parts of the world is a marvelous way to send a
message of the compassion of the American people that we care
about people's lives all over the world. So, PEPFAR is a
terrific model to look at in the future as we think about other
areas that may be useful for us to put additional programs in
place.
Senator Markey. Now, I would like to move on to another
global health issue as it impacts the United States, and,
again, this is the opioid epidemic. It has now been transformed
into a fentanyl issue. In Massachusetts this year, in New
Hampshire--Senator Shaheen's home State--three-quarters of the
people who died in 2016 of opioid overdose died from fentanyl.
And if it was occurring across the country as it did in
Massachusetts in 2016, that would be 75,000 people a year dying
from fentanyl overdoses.
Now, the way this is coming into America is pretty much the
chemicals come in from China. They go down to Mexico, and then
they are trafficked in out of Mexico into the regions of the
country. Senator Rubio has a similar problem in Florida. We
need to elevate this issue, Mr. Secretary, to a much higher
level of importance in our country.
The terrorist that is going to kill Americans on the
streets of our country are the terrorists who are selling
fentanyl. It is the Mexican and Chinese operatives who are
funneling this into our country. That is the terrorist fear in
the hearts of Americans.
Can you talk about how strong you intend on ensuring that
the State Department takes in terms of actions to tell the
Chinese and the Mexicans how serious we are about this threat,
this existential threat to families all across our country?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, if confirmed, this will be--this
will require an interagency approach both in terms of applying
many of the tools that have been used in terror financing
elsewhere to track the flow of money, attempt to disrupt on
both ends of that, because I think it is one thing we can send
the Chinese a message, but it is another then to put in place
the mechanisms, whether it be working with Treasury and other
parts of the interagency process to disrupt the flow of these--
of these materials and these drugs as well.
Clearly, we have a message to the project to China, but I
am also clear-eyed about China just suddenly say, oh, okay,
never mind.
Senator Markey. A wall across our southern border will not
keep the fentanyl out. It is going to take much tougher action
if we are going to save ultimately two Vietnams per year of
deaths inside of the United States from that one drug.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Corker. Thank you. Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
your patience in staying with us. I have just a couple
questions to follow up on some things that you have been asked
already.
A little earlier, you were talking about the efficiency and
effectiveness of PEPFAR and that government can at times do
things well. The American public also knows that government is
full of waste and fraud and abuse. You saw some of it in the
private sector, and you will see it in government.
I just want, with the kind of debt that we have as a
Nation, to know that you are committed also to, when you see
it, to eliminating duplication, eliminating redundancies, and
do what you can to try to address this incredible debt that we
have.
Mr. Tillerson. Well, Senator, obviously, it is just in my
nature to look for inefficiencies and to streamline, and that
will start, if confirmed, it will start right there in the
State Department itself in terms of assessing the organization
structure in the State Department.
I know, as part of preparing, I have looked at organization
charts from a few years ago to organization charts today, and I
have noticed there are a few more boxes. Now, some of those may
be for very good and valid reasons, but also it appears to me
that new issues which have been added may rightfully need to be
placed back into the mission and integrated into the mission
itself because it appears to me we have some duplication.
But it is not only about saving the American taxpayer
dollars and spending them wisely. It is also about the delivery
on the issue. If we have it dispersed in several places, we are
probably not dealing with the issue very effectively either
because there is lack of clarity as to how does this issue
integrate into the mission's obligations and what we are trying
to achieve in the various missions of the State Department.
So I just give you that as a simple example because it was
so obvious to me when I began to look at the charts. So I know
there will be opportunities to streamline things with the
objective primarily of being more effective in terms of how we
carry out the State Department's mission, making sure people
understand what they own, having clarity and line of sight to
who is accountable.
And then out of that, I think we are naturally going to
capture some efficiencies and cost savings.
Senator Barrasso. Another topic that was discussed was
human rights. And as we travel around the world, we talk to
leaders around the world who are concerned about security in
their nations, economic growth in their nations, and somewhat
human rights, but perhaps not to the degree that we would like
to see that commitment. And these are people that we have
interests with, in terms of our own global security.
So as Secretary of State, how do you balance engaging these
countries in terms of trying to protect their security as well
as the economic aspect as well as protecting and focusing on
human rights?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, I take the view that it is never an
either/or choice we make. I think it has been said our values
are our interests, and our interests are our values. So
regardless of what we may be dealing with, our values are never
not right sitting on our shoulder in full display, on the
table.
I think the real question you are trying to get to is, how
do we advance those values though against other priorities at
the time? And I did, again, just speaking in an honest
assessment in my opening remarks, acknowledge that, from time
to time, our national security may have to take the priority.
It does not mean our values were deprioritized. It does not
mean they are not still as important. It does not mean they are
not right here on our shoulder with us.
It is really--I think what you are asking is, how do we
project those values to another country in a negotiation in a
way that they begin to move closer to our values. That is
always there, and it is never an either/or choice.
Senator Barrasso. And then the last thing I wanted to get
to was the issue of energy as a master resource in the way that
Putin uses it as a political weapon.
And one of the things we are seeing now is this Nord Stream
2 pipeline, the pipeline between Russia and Germany that the
United States has been working closely with our European
partners with respect to that.
And this is something that we have had bipartisan support
on. Looking across the aisle, Senator Shaheen, Senator Murphy
have signed a letter with me with Senator Risch and Senator
Rubio, Senator Johnson, because of our concern with the ability
with this pipeline to deliver more energy and make Europe more
dependent upon Russia for energy. It also bypasses Ukraine, and
impacts the Ukrainian economy as well, when it runs directly
from Russian under the Baltic Sea directly into Germany.
Several European countries have raised the concerns that
this pipeline would undermine sanctions on Russia, increase
Russia's political leverage over Eastern Europe.
Can you give us your assessment on something on which there
is actually a lot of bipartisan agreement on this panel, with
regard to?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, energy is vital to every economy the
world over, so it can be used as a powerful tool to influence,
kind of tip the balance of the table in one party's direction
or the other. So it is important that we are watching and
paying attention to when this balance is upset.
Now, the greatest response the United States can give to
that threat is the development of our own natural resources.
The country is blessed with enormous natural resources, both
oil and natural gas. And I know the Congress took action here
in the recent past to approve the export of crude oil. We now
have exports of liquefied natural gas.
The more U.S. supply, which comes from a stable country
that lives by our values, we can provide optionality to
countries so that they are not--cannot be held captive to a
single source or to a dominant source. That is a physical
response to that issue.
I think from a policy standpoint, it is engaging with
countries to make sure they understand they have choices and
what those choices are, and what can we do in foreign policy to
help them gain access to multiple choices so they are not
captive to just one or a dominant source.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you. Thank you for your
willingness to serve.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Corker. Thank you.
Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And again, I want to thank you. This has been a very long
process, and you have shown a remarkable amount of poise and
equipoise and endurance, so thank you very much.
I would like to pick up on something that Senator Shaheen
was asking you about, which are just issues with our Muslim
allies around the globe as well as Muslim countries.
You have been really resonating with my spirit pretty
strong in talking about the Muslim faith. You called it, I
wrote down when you said it, the great faith. It shows a level
of respect and deference that I am sure will serve you well as
Secretary of State, should you be confirmed.
What I worry about is a lot of the rhetoric coming from the
President-elect and others. It really does undermine often our
relationships with a lot of our allies. When I was traveling to
the Middle East, in countries like Jordan, for example, I was
surprised that people at the highest levels of the government
were directly concerned about the rhetoric coming from
individual leaders in this country.
The President-elect has said that he would consider Muslim
Americans being required to register in a government database.
I just want to ask you directly, you do not support a
Muslim registry, do you, for people coming into this country,
based on religion?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, I think in response to that
question, I do not support targeting any particular group.
If a registry of some sort that is broadly applied to any
person entering the country that could present a threat----
Senator Booker. Sir, I am sorry to interrupt you. My time
is short.
Let us just use specifically the NSEERS program, the
National Security Entry-Exit Registry System. I introduced
legislation last week to eliminate that, potentially. And under
the Bush administration, there were about 25 countries
registered. All of them were Muslim countries that were in that
NSEERS program, except for one, which was North Korea. That was
then--the policy of Obama administration was to zero out that
registry.
Is that something you would support? The NSEERS mechanism
is still there. And how would that affect our ability to deal
with countries that we are working so closely with, such as
Jordan, which is my example?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, I appreciate the question. I am not
familiar enough to be able to address this specifically. I am
happy to get back to you with an answer though.
Senator Booker. No, sir, I appreciate that.
How does it affect, in your opinion, our ability to work
with Muslim countries, for example, when people like General
Michael Flynn have publicly called Islam a political ideology
not a religion, saying that it is like a cancer, and writing
that fear of Muslims is rational?
That cannot be constructive to our foreign policy, to our
diplomacy with key countries in Southeast Asia as well as the
Middle East.
Mr. Tillerson. My experience, Senator, has been the best
relationships in which you can make progress on tough issues is
built on mutual respect of one another, which then leads
hopefully to mutual trust, just as we want to be trusted as
whether we are Christians or we practice the faith of Judaism,
or whatever our religious faith may be. And in this country, we
have the freedom to practice that in any way we want. We want
to be respected for that as well.
But that relationship has to be built on a mutual respect
for each other, and not a judgment about one's faith.
Senator Booker. Sir, I am really grateful, not that I am
surprised at all, but I am grateful for you putting forth those
very important values.
Could you answer me this? What do you think it does to our
enemies' ability to push forth more propaganda about the West
or incite more radicalism when you hear these evil terrorist
organizations--what do you think it does to their recruiting
efforts when rhetoric like that comes from the highest levels
of leadership in our country?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I think these radical Islamic factions
that we have been talking about, whether it is ISIS or Al
Qaeda, they have broad networks obviously that they are putting
in place, and that is what we have to disrupt.
We have to disrupt their ability to reach large numbers of
people who could be persuaded, that is what I spoke to earlier,
with new tools to advance our ability to do that.
Senator Booker. Clearly, sharing intelligence with other
Muslim-majority nations, cooperating with them, creating those
relationships that you say are so important, it is important to
counter ISIL. But if you are insulting and demeaning their very
faith, not only does it make it probably more difficult to deal
with your allies, but it might even incite more radicalism
potentially, correct?
Mr. Tillerson. My expectation is that we are going to be
able to reengage with our traditional friends and allies in the
region, not just in the Middle East, but I think, as you
pointed out, there are large Muslim populations in Southeast
Asia, Indonesia, Malaysia, other important countries in that
part of the world where we have serious issues of common
interest as well.
Senator Booker. Again, there is much about our conversation
privately that I appreciated, and there is much about your
testimony that I appreciate as well. One thing we discussed was
how important USAID is, when we were together.
I have real concerns, now having been out around the globe,
seeing the powerful impact that USAID is making for really
asserting human dignity. I really worry that its budget has
been cut, the base international affairs budget, which includes
funding to State and USAID that has repeatedly been cut around
30 percent, adjusted for inflation, since fiscal year 2010,
despite the fact that, across multiple bipartisan
administrations, there has always been broad agreement that
supporting both USAID and the State Department is a moral,
economic, and strategic perspective.
I just want to hope that you will be especially--I read a
lot about the way you ran your private business with
streamlining and the like, but I hope that a priority for yours
is a more robust USAID program. Is that something I have--can
you give me reason to hope?
Mr. Tillerson. I hope what you are after is more effective
programs with better use of the taxpayers' dollars. And to the
extent that we are good at that and we have even greater
opportunity, then we should seek additional funding. But there
will be a complete and comprehensive review of how effective we
are with the dollars over there.
USAID, as I said, is an important part of the projection of
America's values around the world. We are going to have--I
think there is a joint strategic plan that is required between
the State Department and USAID in fiscal year 2017. That is
going to be a perfect opportunity for me and those who will be
working with me, if I am confirmed, over at the State
Department to take a comprehensive look at the effectiveness
and what are our ranges of opportunities out there that might
argue for greater funding.
So I want to be effective with the program and make sure
that, as we are using the taxpayers' dollars, they are
delivering a result that we are proud of.
Senator Booker. And that is something that I respect. I was
a mayor. The chairman was the mayor. We know that spending more
money on a problem does not necessarily mean that you are
dealing with it more effectively.
But if you do have effective evidence-based programs,
investing more resources is a strategic as well as human rights
advantage.
Sir, I am a low man on the totem pole, and I am done with
my time. I do want to say this to the chairman----
Senator Corker. You had an extra minute this morning, so go
ahead. You are high man on the totem pole now. You have the
mike.
Senator Booker. If only people told me this committee was
so magnanimous, as it is.
Sir, I am just going to use my last few seconds, I am not
sure if we are going to have another round--we are not. My
ranking member is not.
So I just want----
Senator Corker. Just by agreement with others, if I could,
there has been I think a request to all members asking. I know
there are some members that want to go another round, and we
are going to make that available to them today.
Senator Booker. I have expressed my thoughts to my ranking
member, and I will wait for his instruction.
But in the few seconds I have left, I just want you to know
that this is probably one of the more important positions on
the planet Earth, the one to which you are nominated for. It is
not just about always--it is obviously always looking for
America's interest and strategic advantage but it is also about
American values, values of human rights, values of taking care
of poor and marginalized people.
And I expect that you at some point will be confirmed, and
I look forward to working with you to asserting those values of
human dignity as well as American interests abroad. So thank
you, sir.
Senator Cardin. If I might, Mr. Chairman, before you call
the next witness, for my members, there are some additional
questions that members have asked--second rounds, when they
ask. We are going to try to be able to give you the time.
But it is possible, if we all cooperate, we might be able
to complete this hearing this evening and not go into tomorrow,
so that is what we are trying to do. Obviously, we have to
complete it by 6 o'clock because we have business on the floor
at 6 o'clock.
Senator Corker. I saw the look of disappointment on Mr.
Tillerson's face. [Laughter.]
Senator Corker. As I understand it, Senator Rubio will have
additional questions, Senator Menendez, and Senator Shaheen has
additional questions. For those members--Senator Risch--so we
may be here tomorrow.
But it looks like--we are going to try to finish this
evening, if everybody can cooperate. And again, if that is not
the case, as we all know, we are perfectly willing to come back
tomorrow. We are really trying to accommodate the members.
Senator Cardin. I appreciate the chairman. He has been very
open about that, and it has been very helpful. We also have
some members who have not had their second rounds yet. We know
that.
Senator Corker. Yes.
And now to Senator Portman.
Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And again, Mr. Tillerson, thanks for your willingness to be
patient and answer the questions as you have with candor, and I
appreciate your willingness to serve.
One thing we did not talk about this morning in my
questions was the Middle East, and I know you have had a lot of
experience in the Middle East, particularly you have done
business in many of the Arab countries.
We talked about this a little in our meeting, but this
relationship we have with Israel is a special one, of course.
It is a cornerstone of our strategy in the Middle East. They
are our greatest ally in the Middle East, the one true
democracy.
I want to talk to you a little about your views on Israel
and the U.S.-Israel relationship. One important issue for me,
as you know, is this issue of Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions
Movement, the so-called BDS Movement, which is a global
movement targeting Israel.
I have been concerned about this for a while and introduced
some legislation on it. In fact, Ben Cardin and I have not just
introduced but passed legislation in this regard, to try to
push back against the BDS forces.
Recently, of course with the consent of the Obama
administration, the U.N. Security Council passed this
resolution condemning the settlements and demanding Israel
cease all activities in the occupied Palestinian territories
including East Jerusalem, is the way the resolution reads. I
think this will no doubt galvanize additional BDS activity.
And so here is my question to you. Would you make it a
priority to counter Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions efforts
against Israel, make sure Israel is not held to a double
standard but instead treated as a normal member of the
international community?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, I would.
Senator Portman. Any preliminary thoughts as to how you
would do that?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I think just by raising it in our
interactions with countries that do put in place provisions
that boycott whatever elements of activity or business with
Israel and their country. We begin by highlighting that we
oppose that and just expressing that view. And those countries
need to understand that does shade our view of them as well
then.
One of the things that would I think help change the
dynamic obviously would be if there were a change in the
dynamic regionally. Today, because of Iran and the threat that
Iran poses, we now find that Israel, the U.S., and the Arab
neighbors in the region all share the same enemy. This gives us
an opportunity to discuss things that previously I think could
not have been discussed.
Senator Portman. Do you find more support among the Sunni
countries in the region for Israel as a result of that new
dynamic?
Mr. Tillerson. I do not want to speak for them, Senator,
but I think, clearly, there is much more sharing going on
between the leaders of those countries as they confront this
singular threat to the whole region.
Senator Portman. That is my sense, and I think it is an
opportunity. On BDS we do have legislation that ties trade
negotiations to dismantling BDS.
Would you support that legislation? It is law of the land.
And as we conduct trade negotiations, would you support using
those negotiations to help dismantle the BDS efforts in those
countries?
Mr. Tillerson. From the standpoint of the State
Department's view, if confirmed, I would advocate for that
position as well, recognizing there are other agencies that
would really have the purview over that.
Senator Portman. What attitude do you take toward the U.N.
initiatives relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Is it
your intention to press the Palestinians to resume negotiations
with Israel rather than seeking to negotiate through
international bodies such as the U.N.? What is your position on
that?
Mr. Tillerson. I think, as I have expressed in answers to a
couple other questions--I want to be brief because I realize we
are trying to get through questions quickly.
This issue has to be settled between the Israelis and the
Palestinians. No one can be coerced into coming to the
negotiating table. That will not lead to a solution.
So I support the parties being allowed to deal with this
speaking for themselves.
Senator Portman. With regard to Syria, complicated,
obviously. In my view, it has been made worse by our inaction
and specifically drawing red lines and not honoring them, but
also not establishing safe zones and no-fly zones.
As you know, Russia's entry into Syria's civil war has
helped turn the tide decisively. So Iran was strongly backing
Assad and now you have Russia more involved, and this Assad-
Iran-Hezbollah axis has been strengthened.
And yet, as an indication of how complicated it is over
there, the enemy of that axis, of course, would be ISIS.
One of my questions for you is, would you, under any
circumstances, advise any sort of cooperation with Iran where
we might have a confluence of interest, namely in confronting
ISIS?
Mr. Tillerson. That is an area that requires exploration. I
think earlier I indicated that that is where we have to find a
way to engage in the overall peace process or the ceasefire
process that has been agreed by Russia, Turkey, Syria, and with
Iran's involvement as well.
Can we get engaged in that? Can we at least stabilize the
situation regarding the rebel activity with the Syrian
Government and turn our attention on ISIS? That remains to be
seen. And that would involve, obviously, the engagement of
others as well and input from others as well.
Senator Portman. Do you think Russia has an interest or
desire in this conflict to push back against ISIS? Or do you
think they are simply in Syria to help Assad's regime?
Mr. Tillerson. I think it has provided a convenient open
door for Russia to now establish a presence in the Middle East,
a region that it has long been absent from.
Having said that, though, there are common threats that
Russia faces because of terrorist organizations and radical
Islam themselves.
I have seen statistics there are significant fighters in
ISIS that are all speaking Russian as a language. That
indicates Russia has a problem as well in terms of where those
people came from and where they may go back home to.
So I think there is scope for discussion. This is what I
alluded to earlier. We will have to see what Russia's posture
is. Are they looking for a partnership with us where we can try
to reestablish some type of a positive working relationship? Or
are they uninterested in that?
Senator Portman. Again, an incredibly complex situation in
a difficult part of the world. But my sense is that Russia has
not followed through on its statements with regard to pushing
back on ISIS in Syria and, in fact, have focused on simply
protecting Assad's regime.
Again, thank you for your willingness to step forward into
some of these complicated situations. We are looking forward to
the opportunity of working together with you going forward, and
I wish you the best of luck.
Thank you.
Senator Corker. Thank you.
Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I have 10
articles, I mentioned one or two earlier, that I would like to
submit for the record related to Exxon's involvement regarding
sanctions and Russia's activity in Ukraine.
Senator Corker. Without objection.
[The information referred to is located in Annex VII, pages
507 to 537]
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
I wanted to turn to climate, the environment. And, of
course, you have received many, many questions today, and we
talked about this some in my office, what I think is a
reflection on how important it is.
As we look down a few generations from now, people will
say, ``Here was a major threat to the planet. What did you all
do?''
And you noted earlier in your conversation with the
chairman that our ability to affect the impacts of climate
change are very limited, but I believe that when I met with
you, you indicated that but you also indicated that while we
cannot model with certainty, that should not bother people too
much. The fact that we have a risk and challenge, we should not
let that go.
And I think you continued: My view has always been it is a
serious risk, and we need to take steps to address it.
Is that a fair recounting of how you view it?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, sir. I think the fact--I think what I
said is, the fact that we cannot predict with precision, and
certainly all of the models that we discussed that day, none of
them agree, does not mean that we should do nothing.
Senator Merkley. One of the things I have seen in my time
here in the Senate is we have gone from talking about models in
the future to talking about what is happening on the ground
right now.
In my State, the forests are burning at a much faster rate
due to pine beetle expansion and the additional heat and
dryness. Over on the coast, the oysters are having trouble
reproducing because the ocean is 30 percent more acidic than
before we started burning fossil fuels.
In Senator Shaheen's State, the moose are dying because the
tics are not killed off during the winter and they are
transmitting disease.
And along the coast of Senator Coons' State, I think
accurately the lowest average land level in the country, and
very concerned about the advancing sea level and storms, and
experienced that in Hurricane Sandy.
And so every one of us is our States are seeing effects on
the ground. And as we see that, we know we are just at the
beginning of these impacts, that they are getting worse each
year.
But we are also viewing often climate change as a national
security issue. And since you believe--so I wanted to ask, do
you see it as a national security issue?
Mr. Tillerson. I do not see it as the imminent national
security threat that perhaps others do.
Senator Merkley. One of the things that is noted is how the
changing climate in the Middle East concentrated Syrian
villages into the towns and sparked the civil war that has now
produced something like 4 million and counting refugees, having
profound impacts on European security, and that would be an
example.
Is that something you have looked at or consider to be real
or perhaps misleading? Any thoughts in that regard?
Mr. Tillerson. The facts on the ground are indisputable in
terms of what is happening with drought, disease, insect
populations, all the things you cite. Now the science behind
the clear connection is not conclusive, and there are many
reports out there that we are unable yet to connect specific
events to climate change alone.
Senator Merkley. What we are seeing are a lot of scientific
reports that will say we can tell you the odds increased. We
cannot tell you any specific event was the direct consequence.
For example, Hurricane Sandy might have occurred in 100-
year period, but the odds of it happening are higher with the
higher sea level, the higher energy in the storms.
So do you agree with that viewpoint, that essentially the
odds of dramatic events occurring, whether it is more forest
fires or more hurricanes with more power, is a rational
observation from the scientific literature?
Mr. Tillerson. I think, as you indicated, that there is
some literature out there that suggests that. There is other
literature that says it is inconclusive.
Senator Merkley. One of the things we--I am sorry to hear
that viewpoint, because it is overwhelmingly the scales are on
one side of this argument, and I hope you will continue to look
at the scientific literature and take it seriously.
One of the things that you mentioned was, it was impressive
that so many countries came together in Paris as a part of a
global effort to take this on, that that was an important
outcome, that there is a global conversation. I just want to
make sure that I am capturing correctly your impression of
Paris.
Mr. Tillerson. As I stated before in my statements around
climate change, and responses to it, that it will require a
global response, and the countries that attempt to influence
this by acting alone are probably only arming themselves.
So the global approach was an important step. And I think
also, as I indicated in response to a question earlier, I think
it is important that the U.S. maintain a seat at that table, so
that we can also judge the level of commitment of the other 189
or so countries that are around that table and chart out--
again, adjust our own course accordingly.
Senator Merkley. Is this a case where really American
leadership in the world matters? We rarely see big efforts to
take on global problems unless America is driving the
conversation. Do you think it is important for America to drive
this conversation?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I think it is important for us to have
a seat at the table. But I also think it is important that
others need to step forward and decide whether this is
important to them or not.
If America is the only one that is willing to lead, then my
conclusion is the rest of the world does not think it is very
important.
Senator Merkley. We saw, in the sanctions on Iran, it was
America that led and then we brought the rest of the world to
the table. We also saw that leading up to Paris, China is
committed to producing as much renewable power as our entire
electricity production in the United States. And we have seen
India now talking about how to shift providing electricity to
300 million people who do not have it and doing it primarily--
or shifting primarily from a coal strategy to a primarily
renewable energy strategy.
So we are seeing big countries with big populations that
have far smaller carbon footprints than the United States
stepping up. And should we not step up as well?
Mr. Tillerson. I think the United States has stepped up.
And as I indicated earlier, I think the United States has a
record over the last 20 years of which it can be quite proud.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. And it sounds like that means
you think we should keep not just being at a table--to be at a
table, you can be table silent, but an active participant in
taking on this challenge.
Mr. Tillerson. I think it is important that we are engaged
in that same conversation, as I said, so we have a clear view
of what others are doing and actions they are taking.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. I am out of time.
Senator Corker. You are. If you would like to take 30
seconds?
Senator Merkley. Earlier--thank you. I will take those 30
seconds.
Earlier, we talked about the Exxon working with a
subsidiary to bypass American sanctions and do business with
Iran, and you said you did not have knowledge of it, had not
heard about it.
Have you participated in any Exxon meetings in which you
strategized or individuals strategized to find a legal path to
do business with nations on which we had sanctions?
Mr. Tillerson. No.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Senator Corker. Thank you.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you.
Mr. Tillerson, several questions ago in an answer you
stated, and I was delighted to hear that, that you had
reservations occasionally when the United States acts about
what was going to happen afterward if a regime changed. Let me
tell you that that is a refreshing view up here. I sit on this
committee and, of course, I sit on the Intelligence Committee,
and we hear proposals all the time and we hear of actions
people want to take all the time.
But they cannot answer the question of, okay, what is going
to happen next? And that is something I hope you will remain
committed to while you are at this job. And when you are
sitting at that table and those decisions are being made, I
hope you will insist that people tell you what is going to
happen next, because we have been very, very short on strategy
after being able to topple a regime.
If we want to do it, we can do it. We have the power to do
it. But then what comes next?
And everyone, for a long time around here, I heard, well,
we are going to do nation-building and everything is going to
be wonderful. It is going to be a new America when we are done
with them.
Well, the nation-building was a great strategy in the World
War II era, and it worked. That strategy is not working
anymore. We have been notoriously unsuccessful in attempting to
do nation-building. And part of it is because--there are a lot
of reasons for it. But, obviously, one of them is that we are
operating in countries where the culture is so much different
than ours, very different from the landscape in World War II
and after World War II.
So again, I want to encourage you to take that question to
the table every time and say, ``Okay, guys, I see what you have
got planned. I think it is going to work. What happens next?''
Because that is an incredibly important decision when we decide
what we are going to do.
Let me shift gears here for a minute. I want to talk about
the Iran situation.
As you know, there are a lot of us up here that were very
much opposed to the deal that was cut by the current
administration with Iran. There are a lot of us up here that
believe we are not done yet. This thing has set Iran on a path
toward having a nuclear weapon.
Now, it is going to be some time. I couldn't agree more
that it is going to be further down the road as a result of the
deal. But it gives them, in my judgment, a legal path forward
if they continue to do all the things that they are required to
do in the agreement and take it step by step and year by year,
and then the agreement expires and they are going to say,
``Okay, we are done. We did everything we said we were going to
do. Now we are going to build a bomb.''
And if people object, they are going to say, ``Well, wait a
second. You know, we negotiated in good faith. We did
everything we said we were going to do.'' You know--so that is
not over.
But what is more concerning is the more instant question,
and that is, a lot of us at this table, particularly on this
side of the table, urged the administration in very clear
terms, both in open hearings and in closed hearings, to push
the Iranians to behave themselves, to change their conduct, not
just--not quit fiddling with enrichment and what have you.
These people are the primary sponsor, the greatest sponsor
of terrorist activity in the world. When they were talking
about giving them however many billions of dollars it was on
pallets, we said, look, these people have been financing
terrorist activities when they were broke. What do you think is
going to happen when we make them rich? And they said, well,
you know, we do not want to do that because it will interfere
with what we are talking about on the nuclear deal.
And to me, it was not worth the deal at all when they
limited it just to that.
When it comes to the U.N. sanctions, the U.N. resolutions
that have been passed, they said you have to behave yourself.
For instance, you cannot launch missiles anymore. I mean, 1
week after the thing went into effect, they were launching
missiles.
There are a lot of us here that want to reimpose sanctions,
in fact, ratchet sanctions up for their activities on
terrorism, for their failure to obey the U.N. sanctions on
missile activity. And the Iranians are saying, no, you cannot
put any more sanctions on us. In fact, some people up here are
arguing that, that that is not the case.
We believe that that--look, the administration itself said
that it did not cover those--the agreement did not cover those
activities. It was limited to nuclear.
Do you have a view on that, because I think you are going
to be dealing with that sooner rather than later? There are a
lot of us that feel very strongly about that. And if we are
going to change these people's attitude about joining the world
stage with the rest of civilized society, we are going to have
to curtail their activities not just in the nuclear area but in
these other things that are just despicable acts that they
committed. Have you got some views on that?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I think I may have commented earlier
that one of the unfortunate effects of all the attention placed
on the Iran nuclear agreement I think I have heard--at least I
have heard this expressed by others, resulted in a bit of a
down focus on the real immediate threat today, and that is
Iran's continued sponsorship of terrorism and terrorist
organizations there in the region, most particularly support
for Hezbollah and Hamas.
So I think we do have to keep what is important in front of
us and what is imminent in front of us.
As to the nuclear agreement itself, I do look forward to,
if confirmed, to taking a comprehensive look at that along with
the side agreements to see what are all of the elements
available to us to enforce--stay informed on their activities
and are they complying with all of the inspection requirements
and confirming that they are meeting the agreement.
But back to your point of what happens next in the case of
taking certain regimes out, the same thing is true here with
this agreement. It is what happens at the end of this agreement
that is really the important question we have to be asking
ourselves, because the objective has not changed. Iran cannot
have a nuclear agreement.
What happens at that end, as you point out, is they go
right back to where they were, and we have not achieved our
objective.
So my intention is to use the elements of this agreement
that may be helpful to us in addressing the ``what comes next''
when this agreement is over or what replaces it, which has to
be we have once and for all blocked Iran's path to a nuclear
weapon, because they have agreed they are no longer going to
pursue one because they have no reason to, because we have
changed behaviors, or because we have mechanisms in place that
are going to prevent them from pursuing that.
That is--that will be a difficult negotiation because it is
in the context of their continued sponsorship of terrorism
around the world. And we cannot just work this and turn a blind
eye to that. It is a complicated discussion but I think we do
have to take that approach with them.
And we are not going to do a one-off deal with you and act
like all of this stuff over here is not happening. It has to be
looked at in full view, and we just have to be honest and
acknowledge it.
Senator Risch. And that is exactly what happened. I am
encouraged to hear you say that.
Let me warn you about one thing. I sit on this committee. I
sit on the Intelligence Committee. And I have not seen the side
agreements, nor has any Member of the United States Congress
seen the side agreements.
I have traveled to the U.N. operations in Vienna and met
with the IAEA. They will not let you see those side agreements.
So these people were voting--the people who voted for that
Iran agreement did so on an agreement that part of which we
were not able to see.
So I wish you well. We have had one witness who said she
was in the room where they had the side agreements and they
were passing them around and she touched them as they went by
but did not read them, so she was not able to tell us either
what was in the side agreements.
I wish you well. If you get your hands on the side
agreements, give me a call, would you, because I would like to
join you and have a look at them?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Corker. Thank you.
Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Tillerson, for your fortitude and patience.
It bodes well for what I think are the rigors and demands of
service as Secretary of State.
Since Senator Risch has taken us on a guided tour of the
JCPOA, I just thought I would start by going back to an
important point that you referenced in passing. I believe
earlier today you said one of the failings of the deal is it
does not deny Iran the ability to purchase a nuclear weapon.
And my very diligent staff has reminded me that the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty does prohibit the purchase of a nuclear
weapon. But more importantly, the JCPOA, which I have, in
provision three of the general provisions at the very front,
says Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever
seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons.
My general approach to this agreement has been distrust and
verify. I couldn't agree with you more that Iran's ongoing
activities in their ballistic missile program, their human
rights violations domestically, their support for terrorism in
the region, make them one of the most dangerous regimes in the
world and one that deserves very close scrutiny. But I did not
want us to move forward without some clarity that at least the
paper, at least the words on the page, do say that they
committed to not acquiring a nuclear weapon. That was I think
one of the positives about it, in addition to the inspection
protocols.
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, if I could correct for the record,
I misspoke. And during the break, I went and checked my source
for that and confirmed that I misspoke, and that, in fact,
their commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the
language that was in there about ``acquire'' some people
quibble over, but their commitment to the NPT was clear, and I
misspoke in that regard.
Senator Coons. Thank you.
And I appreciate your comment in response to questions from
Senator Merkley and others about keeping a seat at the table
through the Paris Agreement, and the general approach that that
suggests.
I believe climate change is a major concern for us in the
long term and the short term, and that it is human-caused, and
that there are actions we can and should take in response to
it. As a trained chemist, I respect your training as an
engineer, and would urge you to be attentive to the science,
because I think it is fairly overwhelming on this point.
I do think that the JCPOA structure, the P5+1 that brought
it into force and is enforcing it, and the Paris climate
agreement, are two examples of tables where we should have a
seat at the table and be advocates and be driving it.
I want to ask you about one other table that was literally
designed with a seat for the United States that still sits
empty. There have been a number of questions in discussion
today about the South China Sea and about China's aggressive
actions in building islands. The U.N. Convention on the Law of
the Sea decades ago was advanced by a Republican administration
but has still never been ratified by this Senate.
And in June 2012, you signed a letter indicating in your
role as CEO of ExxonMobil that you supported the Senate's
consent to ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Law of
the Sea.
I was a member of this committee when then-Chairman John
Kerry convened seven hearings where panel after panel of four-
star admirals and generals and business leaders and national
security leaders and former Republican leaders of the
administration and Senators all testified in support of this,
yet we fell short of ratification.
Had we ratified it, we would have that seat at the table to
aggressively assert the international law of the sea and to
push back on China's actions, which during that debate were
hypothetical, today are real.
Would you work to support the Law of the Sea Convention, if
confirmed as Secretary?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I will certainly work with the
President. We have not discussed that particular treaty.
Certainly, my position I have taken in the past was one from
the perspective of the role I had at that time.
And I do take note of it, and I do acknowledge the concerns
people have about subjecting any of our activities to
international courts. And that is the principal objection that
people have.
But when given the opportunity, if given the opportunity to
discuss this in the interagency or the National Security
Council, I am sure we will have a robust discussion about it.
I do not know what the President's view is on it, and I
would not want to get out ahead of him.
Senator Coons. Well, let me ask you about that, if I might,
because I came to this hearing with a whole list of questions,
and in response to others, you have addressed many of them
where, in my view, you have a notable difference of view from
at least some of the concerns based on some campaign statements
by the President-elect: no ban on Muslims; no nuclear arms
race; no nukes for Japan, South Korea, or Saudi Arabia; no
abandoning our NATO allies; no deal with Russia to accept the
annexation of Crimea; stay engaged potentially in both the Iran
agreement and the Paris climate treaty.
All of these, to me, are quite encouraging, but they
suggest some tension with statements made by the President-
elect.
How will you work through those differences? And just
reassure me that you will stand up to the President when you
disagree on what is the right path forward in terms of policy.
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I think, early in the day, someone
asked me a similar question, and I said that one of the reasons
that I came to the conclusion, among many, to say yes to
President-elect Trump when he asked me to do this is in my
conversations with him on the subjects we have discussed, he
has been very open and inviting of hearing my views and
respectful of those views.
I do not think, in terms of discussing or perhaps
characterizing it as my willingness to push back on him, my
sense is that we are going to have all the views presented on
the table and everyone will be given the opportunity to express
those and make their case, and then the President will decide.
And I am not trying to dodge a question in any way, but
this is one that I do not know where the President may be, nor
do I know where some of the other agencies and departments that
will have input on this will be under the new administration.
So I respect their rights to express their views also.
And again, as you point out, I am on the record as having
signed a letter from my prior position in which I was
representing different interests. When I hear all the arguments
for myself, I want to commit to you that my views might not
change if I hear different arguments because I was looking at
it only from a particular perspective.
Senator Coons. And a number of Senators, myself included,
have pressed you on making the transition from CEO of
ExxonMobil and its interests and a 41-year career there to
representing America's interests.
And I understand the concerns about sovereignty that some
raised in the hearings. Having sat through the hearings and
heard the testimony, I am convinced that the interests of the
United States are best advanced by our acceding to that treaty
and ratifying it.
I have more questions, but I will wait for the next round.
Senator Corker. And we are beginning that round now.
Senator Cardin has deferred to Senator Menendez, and only
those who really have questions I think are going to be
acknowledged at this time. However, anybody who wishes to come
down can do so.
So it is going to be Menendez, Rubio, Shaheen, Cardin,
Coons, Merkley. Sounds like a pretty full third round, and I am
glad everybody is interested.
Senator.
Senator Menendez. Thank you.
Mr. Tillerson, I admire your stamina. You have been through
several rounds here. And from my perspective, I hope you
understand that my questions, while they may seem tough in some
respects, I take my role of advise and consent of any nominee
really important.
And in your case, you have a very unique background coming
to this job, so I am trying to understand as the person who is
going to be the chief adviser to the President-elect in the
meetings that you just described where everybody gets around
the table. But in foreign policy, it is going to be you.
And so I try to get from the past, a gleaming of it, so I
understand where you are going to be in the future. So I hope
you understand the nature of my questions.
Let me take a quick moment on Cuba. You have heard a lot
about Cuba here, maybe disproportionately to things in the
world.
But I think it is rewarding a regime when the only way you
can do business in Cuba is with Castro's son or son-in-law.
They head the two monopolies inside of Cuba that control
tourism and everything hotel- and tourism-related, and
everything agriculture-related, which are the two main areas
that people want to do business with in Cuba.
And who are they? Not only are they the son and son-in-law
but they are high-ranking officials of the Cuban military. So
what do we do? When we allow business to take place with them--
and you can only do business with them; I wish you could do
business with average Cuban and empower them and make those
economic decisions that would free them in some respects--then
you strengthen what? They are both high-ranking officials of
the Cuban military.
So you ultimately fund the very oppressive regime that you
are trying to get them to change, in terms of human rights and
democracy.
So when you do your bottom-up review, that is another
element I would like you to take into consideration.
Let me ask you this. As you know, following up on Senator
Risch's comments on Iran, Iran was designated a state sponsor
of terrorism in 1984 following its connection to the 1983
bombings of U.S. Marine personnel in Lebanon, a horrific event
that killed 241 U.S. service personnel.
That label on Iran has, unfortunately, not changed. Just
this June, the State Department in its annual report on global
terrorist activity listed Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism.
The report indicated that Iran in 2015 ``provided a range of
support, including financial training, equipment to terrorist
groups around the world, including Hezbollah.''
It has been brought to my attention that between 2003 and
2005, ExxonMobil sold $53 million worth of chemicals and fuel
additives to Iranian customers. Alarmingly, Exxon did not
originally disclose this business with Iran in its annual 10K
annual report with the SEC in 2006. ExxonMobil only disclosed
this information to the SEC after receiving a letter from the
SEC asking for explanations.
The Securities and Exchange Commission asked Exxon to
explain these dealings because Iran at the time was ``subject
to export controls imposed on Iran as a result of its actions
in support of terrorism and in pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction and missile programs.'' They went on to say, ``We
note that your form 10K does not contain any disclosure about
your operations in Iran, Syria, and Sudan.''
Exxon's response has been that transactions were legal
because Infineum, the chemicals joint venture with Shell, was
based in Europe and the transaction did not involve any U.S.
employees.
In other words, this would clearly seem as a move designed
to do business with Iran to evade sanctions on Iran. So I have
a few questions for you to the extent that you are familiar
with this of the customer at the end of that deal and whether
you can ascertain that Exxon was either knowingly or
unknowingly potentially funding terrorism.
One of the customers in these sales to Iran was the Iranian
national oil company, which is wholly owned by the Iranian
Government. The Treasury Department of the United States had
determined that that entity is an agent or affiliate of Iran's
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The IRGC is Iran's main
connection to its terrorist activities around the world and
pledges allegiance to Iran's supreme leader, the ayatollah.
In other words, the IRGC and its foreign arm, the Quds
Force, are the ayatollah's army. In fact, they are currently in
Syria right now helping Assad remain in power.
So can you tell the committee whether these business
dealings with Iran did not fund any state-sponsored terrorism
activities by Iran?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, as I indicated earlier, I do not
recall the details of the circumstances around what you just
described. The question would have to go to ExxonMobil for them
to be able to answer that.
Senator Menendez. You have no recollection of this as the
CEO?
Mr. Tillerson. I do not recall the details around it. No,
sir.
Senator Menendez. This would be a pretty big undertaking to
try to circumvent U.S. sanctions by using what may or may not,
I am not ready to make that determination, a legal loophole to
do so. But it would be pretty significant.
It would not come to your level? It would not come to your
level that the Securities and Exchange Commission raised
questions with your company about lack of disclosure?
Mr. Tillerson. That would happen. I am just saying I do not
recall. 2006 would have been the first year that I would have
been looking at those things. I just do not recall this one is
all I am saying.
Senator Menendez. Do you recall whether ExxonMobil was
doing business with three different state sponsors of
terrorism, including Iran, in the first place?
Mr. Tillerson. No, I do not recall. Again, I would have to
look back and refresh myself.
Senator Menendez. I would hope you would do so, and I would
be willing to hear your response for the record, because I
think it is important.
Regardless of--moving to a different thing, because this is
all in the sanctions field. I am trying to understand that, and
this is an expression of that.
Regardless of whether or not you have read the bill that
Senator Cardin and I and others have sponsored on a bipartisan
basis, do you believe that additional sanctions on Russia, in
view of everything that has been ascertained, is, in fact,
appropriate? You may feel that some may be more useful than
others, but do you believe that any additional actions in terms
of sanctions on Russia is appropriate for their actions?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I would like to reserve my final
judgment on that until I have been fully briefed on the most
recent cyber events. I have not had that briefing. And as I
indicated, I like to be fully informed on decisions.
Senator Menendez. I appreciate that. I would just say that
in the public forum that you could read or any other citizen
could read, it is pretty definitive by all of the intelligence
agencies of what they did. So it just seems to me that while I
know you are cautious and you want to deal with the facts, that
is the essence of you being an engineer and a scientist and I
respect that, there are some things in the public realm for
which one can deduce and make a decision, and I would love to
hear your response to that at least for the record as well.
Mr. Tillerson. Well, when I know there is additional
information and there are additional facts in the classified
area, I would wait until I have seen all the facts. If I knew
that there is nothing else to be learned and this is all the
facts and there is nothing else out there, then I would say
that I could make a determination because this is all we know.
But as I have been told, at least I am aware there is a
classified portion of this report that, when I have the
opportunity, I look forward to examining that. And then I will
have all the information in front of me.
Senator Menendez. I have one final question, Mr. Chairman,
but I will wait for my next turn.
Senator Corker. In order for efficacy to prevail, please go
on.
Senator Menendez. So in light of efficacy, so here
characterizes, in essence, my big question for you, my question
about you. It is an article that appeared in TIME Magazine, and
I really want to hear your honest response to this, and I am
going to quote from the article.
It says, ``What the Russians want from Tillerson is bigger
than sanctions relief. They want to see a whole new approach to
American diplomacy, one that stops putting principles ahead of
profits, focusing instead on getting the best political bargain
available and treats Russia as an equal. 'For the next 4 years,
we can forget about America as the bearer of values,' said
Vladimir Milov, a former Russian Energy Minister who went on to
join the opposition. 'America is going to play the deal game
under Trump. And for Putin, that is a very comfortable
environment,' he told a radio host this week in Moscow. It is
an environment in which statesmen sit before a map of the world
and they haggle over pieces available to them, much like
Putin''--this is the article, not me--``like Putin and
Tillerson did while weighing the oilfields of Texas against
Russia's reserves in the Arctic. Through the canny eyes of a
political dealmaker, many of Washington's oldest commitments in
Europe and the Middle East could come to be seen in much the
same way, as a stack of bargaining chips to be traded rather
than principles to be upheld.''
I would like to hear your--that is not you being quoted,
but that is a characterization that was in one article, but
beyond that, it is a characterization I have heard many times.
And so, to me, that comes down to the core of everything I have
tried to deduce in my line of questions to you, and I want to
give you an open opportunity to respond to it.
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I have not seen article in its
entirety, but I will just deal with the quotes that you read.
If you conclude that that is the characterization of me,
then I have really done a poor job today, because what I have
hoped to do in today's exchange on the questions is to
demonstrate to you that I am a very open and transparent
person. I do have strong values that are grounded in my
American ideals and beliefs, the values that I was raised with.
And they are underpinned--I have spoken to the Boy Scouts this
morning earlier. They are underpinned by those same values,
duty to God and country, duty to others, and duty to yourself.
And that has guided my life for all of my life. And it will
guide my values. And it will guide the way in which I will
represent the American people, if given the chance to do so.
I understand full well the responsibilities and the
seriousness of it. I do not view this as a game in any way, as
that article seems to imply.
So I hope, if I have done nothing else today, you at least
know me better.
Senator Corker. Thank you.
If there is no objection, there has been a response from
ExxonMobil that my staff gave me relative to the Sudan-Iran-
Syria issue, and I am just going to enter it into the record,
if that is okay, for everyone to be able to peruse.
[The information referred to is located in Annex I, page
319.]
Senator Corker. With that, Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Tillerson, for your patience. You can see the finish line from
here I think. We are almost there. I really just have four
clarifications. I do not think they are going to take very
long, just going back to some of the things.
On the sanctions piece, to build on what Senator Menendez
had just asked you, it is my recollection that your testimony
earlier this morning about--I forget, but I had asked
specifically about sanctions on those who conducted
cyberattacks against the United States, not specifying Russia
in particular. Just bill that said anyone who is guilty of
cyberattacks against our infrastructure would be subject to
sanctions.
And your answer, if I recall correctly, was that we would
want to weigh other factors before--that is why you wanted the
flexibility and not the mandatory language because there may be
other factors to take into account, such as our trade and
economic relations with that country or actor before we chose
whether or not to use a tool, such as sanctions. So, in
essence, even if you had information available to you, or will
in the future, about specific actors, that alone may not be
enough based on that testimony. There are other factors that
you would want to take into account before making a
recommendation to the President about whether or not to
institute sanctions. Is that a correct characterization?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, it is. And I think the way I would try
to try to--try to explain this, at least why I am taking this
position, sanctions are not a strategy. Sanctions are a tactic.
And if we are going to engage in, and I will use Russia in this
case, but I can use any other country that these sanctions
would apply to. If we are going to engage in trying to address
a broad array of serious issues, I would like to have this as a
tool, as a tactic. If it is already played, it is not available
to me as a tactic in advancing those discussions and trying to
come to some conclusion that best serves America's interest and
America's national security interest.
It is a powerful tool. I would like to be able to use it
tactically. And if it has already been played, it is not
available to me to use tactically.
Senator Rubio. Okay. The second is a clarification of an
exchange you had with Senator Portman about an hour or so ago.
He asked you whether there was any--basically any sort of
cooperation with Iran where we may have a confluence
confronting ISIS and working with Iran to confront ISIS, your
answer was, ``That is an area requiring exploration. As I
indicated that is where we have to find a way to engage in the
overall process.''
Just to clarify, does that mean you would be open
potentially to working with Iran on issues that we have
potentially in common, such as defeating ISIS?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, defeating ISIS is the one that is
right in front of us, and we are already cooperating with them
in Iraq.
Senator Rubio. Okay. The third question has to do with
sanctions on Crimea against--again, Senator Portman's question.
I believe your answer was, and I caught it on television. I had
just stepped out at the tail end of the first round. And he
asked, and I think your testimony was along the lines of we
will not change anything right away after we examine the
situation, but embedded in that was the notion that potentially
at some point there could be an arrangement in which the United
States would recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea if the
government in Kiev signed off on it or accepted it as part of a
broader deal to ensure peace and stability.
Is that an accurate assessment of the testimony as I heard
it?
Mr. Tillerson. I think what I was trying to recognize is
that since that was territory that belongs to Ukraine, Ukraine
will have something to say about it in the context of a broader
solution to some kind of a lasting agreement. I am not saying
that that--that that is on the table. I am merely saying I do
not think that is ours alone to decide.
Senator Rubio. Okay. Here is my last clarification, and it
is more about the hearing here today in general. At the end of
the last round, at the end of the questioning you said that
there must--there was some misunderstanding in alluding to
human rights. You said, ``We share the same values,'' but that
you are ``clear-eyed and realistic about it.'' So, I wanted you
to understand the purpose of the questions I have asked you
today because they are in pursuit of clarity and realism.
On the clarity front, I was very pleased when your
statement today used the term ``moral clarity'' because I think
we have been missing that for the last eight years. And that is
why I asked you about whether Vladimir Putin was a war
criminal, something that you declined to label him as. I asked
about China, whether they were one of the worst human rights
violators in the world, which, again, you did not want to
compare them to other countries. I asked about the killings in
the Philippines. I asked about Saudi Arabia being a human
rights violator, which you also declined to label them.
And the reason was not because I was trying to get you
involved in the name of international name calling, but for the
sake--for the sake of name calling, but because in order to
have moral clarity, we need clarity. We cannot achieve moral
clarity with rhetorical ambiguity.
I also did it in pursuit of realism because here is what is
realistic. You said that you did not want to label them because
it would somehow hurt our chances to influence them or our
relationship with them. But here is the reality. If confirmed
by the Senate and you run the Department of State, you are
going to have to label countries and individuals all the time.
You expressed today support for the Magnitsky Act, which
specifically labels individuals and sanctions them. You are
going to have to designate nations as sponsors of terrorism or
organizations as terror groups, again a label. And one that I
think a lot of us care about is the Trafficking in Persons
Report, which specifically labels countries and ranks them
based on how good a job they are doing.
And that one really concerns me because in that one, over
the last year there is evidence that the rankings and the tier
system has been manipulated for political purposes. They
upgraded Cuba. They upgraded Malaysia because we are working
with them now to improve relations, and we did not want to have
a label out there that hurt the chances of doing that. And so,
that is why I think it is important for you to----
But here is the last reason. You gave the need for a lot
more information in order to comment on some of these, and,
believe me, I understand that. It is a big world. There are a
lot of topics. These were not obscure areas. And I can tell you
that, number one, the questions I asked did not require access
to any sort of special information that we have. All these
sources were built on voluminous open source reporting, rights
groups, the leaders sometimes themselves when it comes to the
Philippines, the State Department, et cetera. And so, we are
not going off news reports alone.
But the selling point for your nomination has been that
while you do not have experience in government and in foreign
policy, you have traveled the world extensively. You have
relationships all over the world, and you have a real
understanding of some of these issues as a result of that. Yet,
today we have been--I have been unable to get you to
acknowledge that the attacks on Aleppo were conducted by
Russia, and that, in fact, they are or would be considered
under any standard of human rights; that somehow you are
unaware about what is happening in the Philippines, that you do
not--are not prepared to label what is happening in China and
Saudi Arabia, a country that, my understanding, you are quite
aware of. Women have no rights in that country. That is well
documented, and if you visited--anyone who has, they would
know.
Now, I want you to understand this, too, and I said this to
you when we met. I have no questions about your character, your
patriotism. You do not need this job. You did not campaign for
this job. It sounds like a month and a half ago if someone had
said that you were going to be up here today, you would say
that is not true. That is not what I--there is only one reason
for you to be sitting behind that table today, and that is your
love for this country and your willingness to serve it, and I
do admire that. I do.
But I also told you when we met that the position that you
have been nominated to is, in my opinion, the second most
important position in the U.S. government, with all due respect
to the Vice President. It is the face of this country for
billions of people, for hundreds of millions of people as well,
and particularly for people that are suffering and that are
hurting. For those people--those 1,400 people in jail in China,
those dissidents in Cuba, the girls that want to drive and go
to school--they look to the United States. They look to us, and
often to the Secretary of State.
And when they see the United States is not prepared to
stand up and say, yes, Vladimir Putin is a war criminal, Saudi
Arabia violates human rights. We deal with these countries
because they have the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet,
because China is the second largest economy in the world,
because Saudi Arabia is a strategic partner in what is
happening Middle East, but we still condemn what they do. It
demoralizes these people all over the world, and it leads
people to conclude this, which is damaging and it hurt us
during the Cold War, and that is this: America cares about
democracy and freedom as long--as long as it is not being
violated by someone that they need for something else. That
cannot be who we are in the 21st century.
We need a Secretary of State that will fight for these
principles. That is why I asked you these questions. That is
why I asked those questions because I believe it is that
important for the future of the world that America lead now
more than ever. So, I thank you for your patience today.
Senator Corker. Thank you, sir. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
giving us some additional time.
I want to just comment on Senator Rubio's statement and
Senator Menendez's because I think the concern that I have
listening to your testimony today is that your eloquence about
the values and the principles of this country cannot be denied,
but many of those statements have been undercut by earlier
statements by the President-elect. And so, what I want to know
is which values are going to prevail, and are you deferring on
answering some of these questions because of concerns about
statements that the President-elect has made. So, I will make
that as a rhetorical statement. I do not know that you need to
respond to that unless you would like to, but I do think that
is a concern that I have listening to the discussion today.
I want to go back to nonproliferation because it got short
shrift. The five most recent U.S. presidents, including Barack
Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and
Ronald Reagan, have negotiated agreements with Russia to ensure
strategic stability and to reduce nuclear stockpiles. I think
you said this morning, earlier, that you do support the New
START treaty, which is the most recent of those agreements. But
more broadly, do you support the longstanding bipartisan policy
of engaging with Russia and other nuclear armed states to
verifiably reduce nuclear stockpiles?
Mr. Tillerson. Yes, I do.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. And I want to go back to
climate change because I appreciate your recognition about the
science and your concern as an engineer about wanting to have
scientific evidence. I would argue that we have a lot of
scientific evidence. In New Hampshire, we have a Sustainability
Institute at the University of New Hampshire that produced a
report in 2014 that pointed out the impacts of climate change
in New Hampshire and the New England region. And will not read
all of those, but two that I thought were most alarming is that
for the New England region as a whole right now, the majority
of our winter precipitation is rain. It is not snow. That is
having a huge economic impact in New Hampshire and other parts
of New England on our ski industry, on snowmobiling, on our
maple sugaring industry. And also, that by 2070, New Hampshire
will begin to look like North Carolina. So, there are
tremendous economic implications of that as well as
implications on everything from, you know, our wildlife, our
moose, our trout, to our fauna, and lots of other things that
affect the State.
Now, I do appreciate your comments about being at the table
as we continue to negotiate around climate change. In 2009, the
U.S. government along with other nations that are part of the
Group of 20--the G20--agreed to phase out fossil fuel
subsidies. I for one believe that the science shows that fossil
fuels have contributed dramatically to climate change. And
while much of the responsibility for this G20 agreement falls
on the Treasury Department, the State Department also does have
a role in overseeing the objective.
So, I really have a two-part question here with respect to
subsidies for fossil fuels. The first is, at this time when
many of our oil companies, particularly large oil companies,
like Exxon, are reaping very good profits, do we really need to
continue these subsidies? And second, if confirmed, how would
you as Secretary of State help to fulfill our international
commitment to phase out those fossil fuel subsidies?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, and that--since it is a two-part
question, obviously the first part I am happy to offer a
personal view on----
Senator Shaheen. Good.
Mr. Tillerson.--even though that is not within the State
Department's role to make that judgment. This comes from my
understanding of how the various tax elements of the Tax Code
treat certain investments, certain research credits, and
whatnot. And I am not aware of anything the fossil fuel
industry gets that I would characterize as a subsidy. Rather,
it is--it is simply the application of the Tax Code, broadly a
Tax Code that broadly applies to all industry, and it is just
the way the Tax Code applies to this particular industry.
So, I am not sure what subsidies we are speaking of other
than if we want to eliminate whole sections of the Tax Code,
then they will not apply to any other industries as well. And I
just say that as kind of a broad observation.
So, as to the State Department's role then in participating
in summits or discussions around others taking similar action,
it would be with that view in terms of how we are going to
apply things at home, because I think that the President-elect
has made clear in his views that his whole objective of his
campaign in putting America first, that he is not going to
support anything that would put U.S. industry and any
particular sector at a disadvantage to its competitors outside
of the U.S., whether it is automobile manufacturing, or steel
making, or the oil and gas industry.
So, it would depend upon how the--how the domestic part of
that and how that decision is made by others would then inform
the positions that I would be carrying forward in the State
Department.
Senator Shaheen. Well, so then, I know you said earlier
that you do not want to talk about tax reform, which I
appreciate. But if we assume that the way the Tax Code is
written is it provides additional subsidies, and I would argue
that they are subsidies to oil companies and fossil--the fossil
fuel industry, should we, if we are going to comply with the
2009 agreement with the G20, should we then think about as we
are looking at tax reform and rewriting the Tax Code, that we
change that aspect of the Tax Code in order to deal with our
commitment to phase out those subsidies?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I would really have to defer to
Treasury and others that are going to undertake that exercise,
as well as the other--the other agencies that will inform the
State Department's view of how that compares to what others are
doing to live up to their commitment to phase out ``subsidies''
as well. So, it is hard for me to make a judgment on whether I
think we should do this until I know what other--what is the--
what is the parallel in the agreement that other countries are
going to do as well.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Corker. Thank you. Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Well, first, let me start off again by
thanking Senator Corker for the time that has been allowed. I
think Senator Coons has a question or two if we could yield
perhaps to Senator Coons?
Senator Corker. Absolutely. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. If I might, Mr. Tillerson, we spoke in my
office countering violent extremism and fragile states, and a
number of other senators have asked questions about three
countries--Turkey, Egypt, and the Philippines--but there are
many others we could be focusing on, that have been partners of
ours or allies of ours, and where they have recently turned
away from democratic norms and have cracked down on civil
society, on press freedom, on human rights.
And you talked with me, and you have also said here, that
in some instances we have to set aside for the moment human
rights, civil liberties, democracy, as our number one goal when
our national security is at risk. And I just wanted to ask you
about to what extent you think the actions to curtail human
rights and press freedom by some governments actually fuel
instability or strengthen terrorist threats--we talked in
particular about Nigeria--or places where human rights
violations might actually increase the risk of instability. And
what strategy would you follow to prevent partners like Turkey,
Egypt, the Philippines, and others, from sliding further away
from sharing some of our core values in terms of democracy and
human rights?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I certainly would take no exception to
what you have posed, that to the extent human rights either
deteriorate, oppression increases, or to the extent it exists
and it is not addressed, it foments within the population.
There is no question about it. And that over time, you know, it
is going to take its effect on--in terms of the stability of
the country.
And so, I think, as I have--as I have talked about these
competing priorities, and I made it clear earlier that these
most precious of human values that we advocate for are never
absent. They are never absent. And they really are only going
to be trumped, so to speak, when there are--when there are
serious national security concerns. And if we are engaged with
a ``partner'' today, and that is what I talked about. Sometimes
people are partners. Sometimes they are adversaries. Sometimes
they are friends. Sometimes they are friends and partners.
But if we are engaged in an area where this relationship
and what we are pursuing is in the national security interest,
the values stay with us, but we may have--we may not be able to
assert those values at this time. It does not mean they are
gone. It does not mean we do not talk about them. It does not
mean we dismiss them. We just may not--we may not--it may not
be in our interest to condition our national security pursuits
on a country making certain commitments around oppression and
human rights.
These are the--these are the most difficult of choices.
They are the most difficult choices, but we have to keep--be
very clear about what the objective is.
Senator Coons. Thank you. I have a few more questions. I
will try and move through them quickly if I could.
I believe that LGBTQ rights are human rights, that gay
rights are human rights. And in a number of meetings with
African heads of state, I have advocated for them to push back
on actions where they have engaged in preventing people from
meeting, from advocating, where they have been physically
abused or tortured. I will never forget meeting in my office in
Delaware with a woman from Zimbabwe who had been given asylum
in the United States after being tortured in Zimbabwe because
of who she loved.
Do you believe gay rights are human rights, and is that a
piece of our human rights advocacy agenda around the world?
Mr. Tillerson. American values do not accommodate violence
or discrimination against anyone. That is just--that is part of
that American values that we protect.
Senator Coons. Could I press you for a more specific
question, sir? I was encouraged by your tough leadership moment
at the Boy Scouts, and I simply wanted to reassert that in my
work around the world, although not always easy or comfortable,
it is, I think, important that we include respect for the whole
range of peoples' relations in our menu of how we define human
rights.
Let me ask you about support for foreign assistance. Others
have asked about it before. But both Condoleezza Rice and Bob
Gates, former leaders who have introduced and spoken in support
of you, agree that diplomacy and development have to be equal
to defense. And in our total budget, about 50 percent is DOD
and about one percent is State Department/USAID.
Are you going to press, in partnership with those of us in
Congress who are committed to making foreign aid transparent,
accountable, and efficient, to sustain our investments in
development and diplomacy?
Mr. Tillerson. I think to quote General Jim Mattis, I think
he said if the State Department does not get the money it
needs, then I have to buy more ammunition. And so, I think
clearly the recognition of the importance of ensuring that
resources are available to advance our foreign policy and
diplomacy goals are important and elevated to a level that even
by the nominee of the Secretary of Defense has recognized.
Senator Coons. There are at least, I think, six non-career
ambassadors who have reached out to you for some consideration.
They are in allied countries. Not partner countries. Allied
countries. And because of some of their visa rules, they cannot
stay on as private citizens more than a few months, and they
were hoping to be able to stay through the end of the school
year in accommodation for their family concerns. I hope you
will take that seriously.
In previous transitions, even with a difference in Party
registration, non-career ambassadors have been considered on a
case-by-case basis for some clemency for family reasons to stay
through the end of the school year, and I hope you will
seriously consider that.
Mr. Tillerson. I am aware that certain people have
petitioned for a review, and I think there is a process that
is--that is underway while I have been preparing for these
hearings. I have not--I have not been directly engaged in it.
Senator Coons. I appreciate your attention to these
hearings, but I would--I would be grateful for any
consideration.
My last question. As you have cited, there is a whole
string of important presidential legacies around development
and foreign assistance: AGOA in the Clinton Administration,
PEPFAR and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which I think
have been terrific initiatives of the Bush Administration, Feed
the Future, Power Africa, and the Global Health Security
initiatives in the Obama Administration. Part of what has built
a good agenda for us around the world--the developing world is
that the best ideas of previous Administrations have been
sustained.
Are you familiar with the Young African Leadership
Initiative, or YALI, which brings some of the most promising
young Africans to the United States for a summer to meet with
civil society leaders, business leaders, elected leaders around
the country? Are you familiar with Power Africa? I believe you
are. It has been discussed before. And with the Global Health
Security Initiative. And are these the sorts of things you will
seriously consider sustaining in the future?
Mr. Tillerson. I think all of those have proven to be
extremely valuable programs, successful programs. We need to
look for the successful programs, understand why they are
successful, and how can they be replicated in other areas,
perhaps either addressing other geographic areas or addressing
other issues that we want to advance.
Senator Coons. Mr. Tillerson, thank you for your testimony
in front of the committee today, and I appreciate the
opportunity to hear your views, and look forward to the
opportunity to continue our work together.
Senator Corker. Thank you. And if I could, since he has
been very busy in getting ready for this hearing, we spent some
time talking to the Transition Team about some of the
ambassadors and others that have hardship. And I know there has
been something set up where they can, in fact, petition even
before he comes into office. So, hopefully some of that is
being accommodated. And I want to thank you Senator Kaine and
others for bringing it to my attention.
Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
President-elect Trump has argued that the United States
should again waterboard suspected terrorists. Yesterday Senator
Sessions said that that would be illegal, and General Mattis
has said that it would be ineffective. Will you advise, Mr.
Tillerson, President-elect Trump that torture in any form is
illegal, immoral, and ineffective?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I think others have opined on that
sufficiently, and I would not disagree with what they have
said.
Senator Markey. So, you agree with what they said.
Mr. Tillerson. I would agree with what they have said.
Senator Markey. Okay. Thank you. I think that is important.
Now, last year in the world, one-half of all new electricity
which was installed was renewables. One-half, all new
electricity in the world. And China has announced that it is
now going to invest $360 billion in renewable energy in its
country.
The global climate agreement that was reached in Paris is
driving much of this investment, but if the United States does
not take advantage of this global market which is going to open
up, it is going to mean that we are going to lose jobs here in
the United States. We now have 300,000 people in the wind and
solar industry in the United States and only 65,000 coal miners
who are left. So, this sector is growing and growing, and the
Chinese clearly want to get the lion's share of it.
Can you talk a little bit about how you see this renewable
energy revolution as a job creating engine for the United
States, and as a way of dealing with the commitments which the
United States has made in Paris to the reduction of its
greenhouse gases?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I think this is largely a trade issue,
one of America's manufacturing, investments, and
competitiveness. And I think to the extent we can let free
market forces work, then I would expect American companies to
be competitive in participating in this growing market. But
this will be subject to trade agreements perhaps, or just
subject to a continuation of free and open trade to supply--to
be a supplier to these countries that are installing this
significant capacity.
There has been significant capacity already installed in
the U.S., but, as you point out, there is a growing market out
there as a result of this agreement. So, I think it is really a
question for the U.S. private sector working with the
Administration, and the Commerce Department, and others as to
ensuring that there are no trade obstacles to their ability to
participate should they choose to do so.
Senator Markey. You were quoted a few years ago as saying,
``Energy made in America is not as important as energy simply
made wherever it is most economic in the world.'' From this
committee's perspective, we look at the foreign policy of the
United States, and we feel a great responsibility for the young
men and women who we export over to the Middle East to defend
our country, and these ships of oil that keep coming back into
the United States. And we are still importing five million
barrels of oil a day, meaning that we do not have it here, but
we continue to import it.
Could you talk about this view that you have that an
American-made barrel of oil is no different than a barrel of
oil made overseas, because from our perspective the issue of
importation of oil ties us into policies, into regions, into
countries that we would otherwise never really have to give the
weight of importance to that we now do just because of the fact
that they have oil.
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I think the context in which that
statement was made, because I made it often, at the time was
that anything that puts more supply onto the global market
means the global market is less dependent on any single source.
So, a greater diversity of supply, and I think it was made
probably in the context of promoting American--America fully
developing our own natural resources and America being willing
to put its supply into the global market as well. So, it was
just--it was just an observation that to the extent you have
more supply from more sources, you have a more stable market,
less reliance on any particular part of the world.
Senator Markey. And I understand that from an ExxonMobil
corporate perspective that a barrel of oil is a barrel of oil
wherever it is produced in the world, and it is flooding out
onto the market. But on the other hand, we have this issue of
the impact which importation of oil has on the United States.
So, would you agree that it is in America's best interest that
we reduce consumption of foreign oil so that we are not
dependent upon that extra barrel of oil wherever it is being
produced in the world?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, my--you are getting into areas that
are of the purview of other agencies, but I would just make
observations that anything we did to prohibit the availability
of supplies to the United States would in all likelihood put
the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage.
Senator Markey. Well, I do not think it is outside of the
purview of the State Department because where we import oil
from, the country Saudi Arabia, other countries in the Middle
East, Northern Africa that we import oil from, that then
implicates our foreign policy, your attitude or whoever is the
Secretary of State's attitude towards that country. So, it goes
to the question of should we reduce the demand for oil so that
it increases the leverage of a secretary of state when they are
talking to the leaders of this country, because we are telling
them we do not need their oil in order to run our own country.
Mr. Tillerson. I would not agree with that conclusion.
Senator Markey. Well, how would you describe our need to
import oil and allowing that country to have that as one of the
discussion points as you are sitting there with them?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, it is back to where you started the
conversation. Once an oil--once a barrel of oil is on a tanker,
a barrel of oil is a barrel of oil. And the end consumer does
not really care where that barrel of oil came from because it
is going to be priced in a global market. As long as they have
free access to the barrels and they have the ability to shop
around for barrels, that is what is most supportive of their
economic activity.
Senator Markey. Yeah, but we are not just talking about
economic activity any longer, Mr. Tillerson. We are now talking
about the impact which that barrel of oil coming in from Saudi
Arabia, coming in from another country has upon the leverage
they have over any discussion that the United States is having
with that country about other issues. And it is on the table
even as we are asking them to give us help in other issue
areas.
So, I am not just talking about what the global price of
oil may be. I am also talking about where that barrel of oil
comes from, and that the less it comes from a country that we
do not want to allow them to use oil as a leverage point is the
more leverage the Secretary of State or the President will have
in telling them we do not need you. We do not need your oil to
run our country. We are energy independent.
So, do you think that energy independence, again, should be
our goal, and that the five million barrels of oil that we are
still importing should be something that we are trying to keep
out of our country's economic system?
Mr. Tillerson. No, I have never supported energy
independence. I have supported energy security. And I guess to
go to your concerns, our largest supplier of imported oil is
Canada.
Senator Markey. No, I appreciate that, but we still----
Mr. Tillerson. I do not know whether we feel hostage to
them or not.
Senator Markey. Well, I do not--well, I appreciate that,
but I also appreciate the fact that we are still importing from
Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East. And I do
feel that that is unnecessary if we could develop our capacity
within our own country to be able to develop oil. So, Canada is
one thing. Saudi Arabia is another thing all together. And I
just--I just do not think that a barrel of oil is a barrel of
oil. I think it has real consequences when it is coming from a
country that has itself a strategic vulnerability that can be
bolstered by the fact that we need or other countries need
their oil.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Corker. Thank you. Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regard
to North Korea, we have had a lot of concerns about their long-
term expansion of their missile program and missiles gaining
more and more range. Should America put down a line in terms of
them testing very long range missiles? And if North Korea
violates that line, what should the U.S. do?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I think the UN resolutions have
already put down some pretty hard lines, and North Korea has
continued to violate those, both in terms of conducting nuclear
tests as well as conducting the launch of delivery systems as
well. So, we really are already passed that point.
Senator Merkley. Well, my question was not in context of
the UN, but in the context of whether the U.S. should lay down
a line and respond if it is crossed, because our security is
more and more endangered as the range gets longer. I take your
answer to be one way of saying, no, there is probably nothing
we can do?
Mr. Tillerson. No, you should not take it----
Senator Merkley. Okay.
Mr. Tillerson.--in that regard at all. We need to work
closely with our allies in the area--Japan, South Korea, in
particular--because anything we do will have a--will certainly
have a profound impact on them. And anything that we might
consider and what all of our alternatives might be would
require a careful conversation at the National Security Council
in terms of our capabilities, which certainly we have the
capabilities to bring a missile test down. But how and what
might be the consequences of that would require careful
thought. So, I am not--I am not rejecting that as an option. I
am just not prepared to sign up for it today.
Senator Merkley. Fair enough. Let me turn to Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia has been utilizing cluster munitions in Yemen.
Much of the world has said these are terrible weapons to use
because they have a range of fuses and they can often go off
months or years after they have been laid down. These are--
these are the cluster bombs. You are familiar with them. They
have also been targeting civilians. How should the U.S. respond
to those actions?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I would hope that we could work with
Saudi Arabia perhaps by providing them better targeting
intelligence, better targeting capability to avoid mistakenly
identifying targets where civilians are hit, impacted. So, that
is an area where I would hope that cooperation with them could
minimize this type of collateral damage.
Senator Merkley. How about on the cluster munitions side?
Mr. Tillerson. Could you ask the question?
Senator Merkley. How about in regard to the cluster--use of
cluster munitions?
Mr. Tillerson. Well, I would have to examine what our past
policy has been. I do not want to get out ahead--if we have
made commitments in this area, I do not want to get out ahead
of anyone on that.
Senator Merkley. I do think this is a little bit of an
example that my colleague from Massachusetts was pointing to,
because we have often been reluctant to put as much pressure on
states that we are dependent upon for oil than in situations
with states where we are not dependent on oil. So, there is
this, sometimes economists refer to it as shadow costs.
Some of the studies that have been done in think tanks
place a shadow cost on gasoline of imported oil because of the
type of national security apparatus we need to make sure we
sustain access, secure supply, to quote your words, of $5 to
$10 a gallon. And I think that is where Senator Markey was
driving, that there is a distinction between an imported gallon
and a domestically produced gallon.
I do not need you to respond to that, but I just wanted to
amplify his point that for many of us there is a significant
difference between an imported gallon and domestic gallon.
I wanted to turn to Equatorial Guinea. A senator brought
this up earlier today about the corruption of the leadership of
that particular country. The president for a life, President
Obiang, has become exceedingly rich, and part of the way that
he has become exceedingly rich is the payments that Exxon has
made have gone to his family's accounts rather than going to
the national treasury. What are your thoughts on why Exxon
participated in that, which continued in the time that you were
in the leadership of the--of the company?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, I am familiar with the circumstance
you are talking about. That was the subject of an investigation
by the Judiciary Committee. There were no findings that Exxon
had committed any wrong or broken any laws at the end of that
investigation. In terms of the payments that ExxonMobil would
make in any arrangement, a contract in any company--country
would be no different than they are made with domestic
producers here in the U.S. that are operating on Federal lands.
There is royalty and there are taxes paid to the--to the
Treasury.
What the government does with those monies once the company
pays those is up to the government. Obviously, the U.S.
government distributes those funds responsibly. Some countries,
I understand, do not. In our--in ExxonMobil's engagement in
countries like this, though, I do think that on the whole there
are--there are positive benefits to the people of the country
in terms of job creation that occurs because of the activity,
employment that occurs because of the activity. And I am not in
any way suggesting that that mitigates the corruption in the
country, but that it is not without benefit, and it is not
without having American values on the ground in those countries
as well.
So, this is true not just of the extractive industries
portion or sector, but it is true of any American business that
may be engaging in business activities in countries where they
have poor governance structures at the top.
Senator Merkley. You have mentioned that royalties and
taxes should go to the government, but in this case Exxon
paid--made the payments to a private account controlled by the
president. Do you see anything wrong with that?
Mr. Tillerson. I would have to--I would want to review for
my memory the circumstance you are talking about. My
recollection is that that account was designated as the
government's account, and I think when it was discovered that
the account either may or may not have been a valid account, it
was closed.
Senator Merkley. There are also a number of contracts that
Exxon did with companies controlled by the family members of
the president. This included building leases and land leases
and a number of--series of other contracts, the net effect of
which was transferring a lot of wealth to a president for life,
someone who has no interest in democratic principles.
The State Department has reported on this for many, many
years, each year doing this report on Equatorial Guinea. In
2003 it states, ``There is little evidence the government uses
the country's oil wealth for the public good. The oil wealth is
concentrated in the hands of the top government officials while
the majority of the population remain poor.''
The State Department actually cut their foreign economic
assistance to the country because of the massive corruption in
control by this family, and I--it ties in--earlier one of my
colleagues mentioned a situation where, I believe, a whole
series of very expensive sports cars were being loaded onto a
plane to be flown into Equatorial Guinea, but those were not
being paid for by U.S. foreign assistance. Those were being
paid for by diverted oil royalties.
And I think it does raise not just a legal question, and
you have noted that no legal violation was found, but it
certainly raises a moral question about how one engages a
country and increases the power of leaders who are doing
nothing to elevate the quality of life of their citizens. Do
not you share any of that perspective?
Mr. Tillerson. Senator, again, my recollection is that in
all the examples that you mentioned, they were investigated.
There were no violations of law. During my time at ExxonMobil,
ExxonMobil took at that time, and I expect still do, very
seriously the Foreign Corrupt Practices Acts--Act, and it had--
has in place processes to ensure that the corporation and all
of its employees remain in full compliance.
Any suspected violations were always fully investigated,
and if anything was found, the process would have dictated a
full investigation, a resolution, and, if required, a self-
reporting process. So, I think the corporation had very strong
procedures in place to ensure compliance, and I think the
examples you are giving, while they are--I understand the
concern you are expressing--indicated that the process to
ensure there was no violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act did perform and did withstand that investigation.
Senator Merkley. So, I am going to conclude with just a
thought about this. In the course of this conversation, you
have given--you have spent the whole day answering our
questions, and I appreciate that very much. And with my
colleagues, I appreciate your willingness to serve. The process
of vetting in the Senate is a challenging one, and you have
appeared with dignity.
I have--I do have remaining concerns from some of the
conversation from today. When Senator Shaheen raised the
question of the national registry for Muslims, you noted that
you needed more information. To me, I am somewhat disturbed
because we are Nation founded on religious freedom, and there
is a clarity--can I complete my sentence--my statement?
Senator Corker. I hope it is not paragraphs.
Senator Merkley. It is not a--not a paragraph, no. And when
Senator Rubio asked about the president of the Philippines
slaughtering thousands of people, you said you needed more
information. To me there is a moral dimension to that. And when
I raised the issue of bypassing U.S. sanctions and helping
Iran, there is a moral dimension to that. And on this issue of
strengthening a dictator for life, there is a moral dimension
to that.
And you came to my office and said--the first thing you
said was I want moral clarity to be a foundation for U.S.
policy. I agree with that. I am not sure we are hearing it in
these--in these particular instances.
Senator Corker. Thank you. Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, if I could
ask consent to put in the record a statement from Publish What
You Pay.
Senator Corker. Without objection.
[The information referred to is located in Annex IV, page
477.]
Senator Cardin. And if I could just follow up very quickly
on a couple points. I am not going to be asking you any
questions. But in regards to the issues of transparency and
anti-corruption, I just want to comment on the conversations we
had in the office, and I really appreciate the conversations we
had when we talked. We talked about, Mr. Chairman, the
Trafficking in Persons Report and the commitment to end modern
day slavery, and how effective it was to have directed goals so
countries knew how they could make advancements so there was a
clear path forward.
I have suggested, as you know, legislation that would do
that for fighting corruption, and I look forward, if you are
confirmed, Mr. Tillerson, to working with you as to how we can
advance a more effective way to judge how--the international
community can judge progress in fighting corruption, because
every country has the problem, but, as you pointed out many
times during this hearing, there are countries that are very
challenged, and you look for certain standards, as you did as a
businessperson, to do business in a country. And the United
States should lead the world in developing those standards on
corruption. So, I look forward to working with you on that
issue.
We also talked about transparency in the extractive
industries, and I appreciate your candor there as to the
usefulness for that to make sure that resources actually get to
the people rather than to corrupt leaders. I thank you on both
of those points.
I will make one quick comment about the role of Congress.
We have talked about this many times. You are pretty strong
about the Senate's role to confirm and ratify treaties. You
have talked very firmly about complying with our laws in
regards to Cuba, and you then talked very firmly about having
enforceable sanctions. I would just point out when we do
mandatory sanctions or sanctions with waiver language, it makes
it much more likely we will have strong enforcement. So, I
would just point that out and hope that we can work together
with that.
I also want to just acknowledge another role that I play. I
am the ranking Democrat on the Helsinki Commission. Senator
Wicker is the chairman of that. It is a commission that deals
not just with human rights, but it is known for human rights.
It also deals with security and economic issues. And we look
forward to working with you if you are confirmed at the State
Department to advance the congressional role in dealing with
the OSCE through the Helsinki Commission.
We will be asking you some additional questions for the
record. I have not had a chance to ask questions on refugees,
and there are some others that I will ask. Senator Gardner and
I will ask you questions in regards to Burma. I am his ranking
on the subcommittee for the last Congress, and we have some
serious issues about the human rights progress being made in
Burma. But we will ask those questions for the record.
I want to thank you for being responsive to our questions
today, and I thank you for being willing to put up with such a
long day. I was commenting to Senator Corker, about an hour ago
we passed the new limits on the overtime rules that were
adopted by Department of Labor, so I think we are all entitled
to extra pay for the length of the day's hearings. But thank
you very much for your attention.
Senator Corker. So, Senator Cardin, again, I want to thank
you for working in a post-election environment to make sure
that this hearing occurred in the way that it did today. And I
thank all the committee members for the way that they conducted
themselves as they always do, and the fact that we stayed at I
believe a very high level.
I want to thank the nominee for being here today, and I
would just like to make an observation. I have been here ten
years. I do not know how many hearings that I have been to,
briefings, people in my office. We take in a tremendous amount
of information here. It is very hard to replicate that. Back
home when I am talking to people, I discuss the fact that being
a United States senator is much like getting a Ph.D. almost on
a daily basis just because of the information flow that we
have, the access to intelligence, the access to brilliant
staffers who are constantly emailing us 24/7 with updates.
And I just would like to say that we have a man who has
come in from the private sector. I think he was notified he was
selected less than a month ago for this job, and I know there
have been some comments about clarity. I have, as I mentioned,
been here ten years. I have seen secretaries of state who come
before our committee who have been around for 30 years, and
when they take questions they have booklets open and paragraphs
written to answer those questions. And I think if you look at
what has happened today, I do not think there have been any
notes referred to.
And so, to some of my friends on both sides of the aisle
that may talk about clarity, which I respect, and I actually
think many--almost every senator here did an outstanding job
today. But I hope they will take into account that we have a
person who has been wafted in, if you will, from a totally
different world, has arrived, has been through briefings, has
been through mortar boards, has met with every single member of
the committee, and sat here today, excepting a 45-minute break,
for nine hours and answered questions without any notes.
I am going to leave the record open until the close of
business tomorrow for people to continue to ask questions.
I know that Mr. Tillerson had planned to be here tomorrow
in front of all of us all day if necessary. And I would just
urge those who may have had questions about clarity to remember
something and then maybe do something. Senators develop pretty
strong opinions, and sometimes we express those opinions in a
very crisp, direct, strong manner just to break right through
the clutter that we have to deal with to make a point.
And we have had years, again, years of input, and so we
develop really strong opinions about what is happening in China
as it relates to human rights, what Putin may be doing. Many of
us have been to refugee camps. We have seen photos of what has
happened in prison camps and what Assad has done to his own
people. And so, it evokes a clarity of how we feel about what
has happened on the ground.
A nominee coming in, on the other hand, wants to make sure
that he is not getting out over his skis. He is working for a
President that he does not know that well yet. He is trying to
accommodate the fact that, he is going to be working in an
interagency situation to come to conclusions. So, I just hope
that those things will be taken into account if there are
questions about clarity.
Mr. Tillerson is an Eagle Scout, a person who has lived an
exemplary life. He has been at the company for 41-and-a-half
years, and, again, I think has handled himself in a very good
manner. So, I would ask if there are questions about that
clarity, contact us. Contact the Transition Team. Give him an
opportunity to sit down in front of people and discuss these
things, especially in person, when the media is not there and
every single question is going to be obviously written about in
multiple ways. And let us really think about this.
This is a very important decision. We have a President-
elect who is coming into office also without a great deal of
background in foreign policy, and for him to have someone who
he has confidence in and who has demonstrated that he is very
much in the mainstream of foreign policy thinking. But for him
to have someone who he has confidence in, who is sitting up
under the hood, who is helping him shape his views to me is
something that is very, very important.
And my sense is that very quickly on these issues of
clarity, the nominee, when exposed to what is happening in the
way that all of us have been, will, in fact, develop clarity.
So, I thank you for your time, and the meeting is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 6:12 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Answers to Additional Questions Submitted
by Members of the Committee
----------
Secretary-Designate Tillerson's Answers to
Questions from Senator Corker
State Department Management Failures
Question. The Management Offices and Bureaus at State are centrally
controlled by the Under Secretary for Management. In the last decade,
the Department's management functions have suffered from many
significant scandals and deficiencies: the meltdown of security at
Benghazi, over a decade of substandard IT security including several
successful cyber-attacks, Department-wide mishandling of classified
information including the spillage of classified information during a
FOIA release, and failing grades for records preservation. The
Department is in desperate need of a new strategic planning framework
and top-to-bottom management reforms. What are you prepared to do to
tackle this problem?
Answer. I am aware of the many problems the State Department has
faced over the past decade and the historic challenges to managing a
large enterprise with diffuse and sometimes competing lines of
authority. In my opening statement to the committee, and in responses
to Senators' questions, I discussed how transparency and accountability
are at the forefront of my approach to management. If confirmed, I plan
to begin tackling these problems on day one, with strong visibility and
accountability at the top, but also reviewing the organization from the
bottom-up. I believe this is necessary since many of the problems exist
because of convoluted reporting lines, management by committee, and
lack of clear decision rights. I will make sure that all Under
Secretary and Assistant Secretary positions are filled by strong
leaders who have accountability and clear decision rights for their own
portfolio, and know how to cooperate with their peers when
collaboration is often needed, especially across the agencies. If
confirmed, I plan to use the process for developing the FY 19 budget,
which begins immediately, as a method to set management priorities,
tone, and culture, which I will begin discussing on day one publicly
and within the halls of the Department. The near-term reports required
by the recently signed Reauthorization Act, authored by you, Mr.
Chairman, provides an excellent opportunity to coalesce some energy
around vital new management focus. Along with Departmental responses to
GAO, OIG, and Congressional committee investigations, I believe we can
work together to make these documents road maps to true reform, rather
than simply status reports.
Sanctions
Question. In your hearing, your comments on sanctions seemed to be
mainly focused on sectoral/corporate sanctions. What are your thoughts
on the role and efficacy of personal sanctions?
Answer. As I stated in my oral testimony, I believe sanctions as a
tool of statecraft are most effective in the context of an overall
strategy. I believe individual sanctions could be part of an effective
strategy. In addition, it is my understanding that U.S. law directs
sanctioning individuals in some cases (e.g., the Sergei Magnitsky Rule
of Law Accountability Act of 2012). Should I be confirmed, I commit to
following the law.
Arms Sales
Question. The Saudis are under a persistent and real threat from
Iran that reaches well beyond the borders of Yemen. The Obama
Administration has recently refused to formally submit to Congress
which Congress has informally approved already--several important sales
notifications of Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) to the Kingdom,
citing concerns about collateral civilian casualties stemming from the
Saudis' actions against the Houthis in Yemen.
Given the urgent need to support a key ally in the region, is the
Trump Administration committed to continuing arms sales to our Gulf
allies, particularly PGMs, and if so, when do you expect the State
Department to formally send the long-pending sales to Congress for
formal review and approval?
Answer. The conflict in Yemen is concerning to the United States
for humanitarian and strategic reasons. Iran is supporting the Shia
Houthi forces as part of a drive to extend its influence over broad
swaths of the Middle East. Taking advantage of the ensuing civil war
and collapse of the internationally recognized government's authority,
al-Qaeda and ISIS affiliates have taken control of territory elsewhere
in Yemen. The United States should engage with Saudi Arabia and its
other allies in the region to reduce the humanitarian toll of this
conflict, mediate a solution that ensures stability, and prevent
terrorists from targeting the American homeland. As part of that
engagement, the United States should assist Saudi Arabia in securing
its border against terrorism and attacks from Houthi forces, and work
with Riyadh and other key regional allies to eliminate the threat of
al-Qaeda. Weapons sales, including Precision-Guided Munitions, are an
important U.S. policy tool.
__________
Secretary-Designate Tillerson's Answers to
Questions from Senator Cardin
Anti-Corruption
Question. There is a growing body of evidence that poor
governance--marked by high corruption and lack of government
transparency--is a key driver of fragility and political instability in
many parts of the world today. Citizens frustrated by government
corruption, repression, and a loss of dignity and hope are more likely
to tolerate or support violent extremist groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS
and Boko Haram. Obviously this jeopardizes both the United States and
its allies.
Can you tell this Committee what concrete steps you will take, if
confirmed, to promote good governance, anti-corruption, and
transparency efforts around the world to help keep America safe?
Answer. As I mentioned during the Committee's hearing, I believe in
transparency and accountability, not just for those countries who
receive taxpayer dollars but also from all our development assistance
agencies, programs, and implementing partners, to lead by example.
Making programs more effective requires more than just efficiency. It
is about doing the right things and encouraging other countries to do
the right thing. That is why I believe in the MCC model, where it
applies. I plan to conduct a complete and comprehensive review of our
development assistance programs.
Question. Will you commit to work with me and the committee to
ensure that anti-corruption initiatives at the State Department receive
the level of funding and personnel required by this essential priority?
Answer. Yes. I look forward to working with you and the committee
not only to be sure that anticorruption programs are adequately funded,
but also to instill in our personnel working on those programs and on
any international development effort that anti-corruption
considerations are an integral part of their portfolio and how they do
business every day.
Question. As Secretary of State, how would you deal with the
leaders of dictatorships where Exxon has operated for decades, but
where people suffer due to a lack of the rule of law, limited
transparency, endemic corruption and lack of international
accountability (for example, Equatorial Guinea, Angola and Chad)?
Answer. My tenure at ExxonMobil has ended. If confirmed, my only
interests will be those of the United States, which I will pursue
vigorously without favoritism.
Question. During your time at ExxonMobil, the company reaped
tremendous profits from its willingness to operate in challenging
political environments, including by collaborating with some well-known
autocratic and abusive leaders. How, if at all, do you envisage you
might approach this challenge, if confirmed to be Secretary of State?
How would respect for human rights, the rule of law, and a long-
standing U.S. commitment to support anti-corruption and transparency
measures factor into your foreign policy priorities? Would you
aggressively and explicitly support all of the elements of the U.S.
anti-kleptocracy initiative, first started under President George W.
Bush, including denying visas to heads of state in oil-rich countries
where Exxon may have business dealings, if they are credibly implicated
in corruption?
Answer. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil was
committed to complying with U.S. laws, promoting the rule of law, and
respecting human rights. If confirmed, human rights, the rule of law,
and anti-corruption and transparency measures would be high priorities.
Question. You and I have also discussed the anti-corruption
legislation I introduced last year and will introduce in this new
Congress, that identifies and ranks countries according to their levels
of corruption. You know I believe that American values are more than
the share-holder bottom line you successfully pursued at ExxonMobil
that moral leadership is an asset. Despite your record of skepticism
about sanctions, can you reassure me and the Committee that as
Secretary of State you will advocate for strong rules to ensure that
our government and private sector is operating in a transparent manner
that makes it more difficult for corrupt leaders to siphon off wealth
that should be benefiting all citizens of their country? Can I count on
you to partner with me in your new role?
Answer. Yes.
Extractives Industry Transparency
Question. Transparency and accountability are critical to good
governance, the fight against corruption, and rule of law. I have
worked to enhance transparency in the extractive industries through
Section 1504 of Dodd-Frank--which requires extractive industry
companies to disclose their payments to foreign governments at the
project level. This Rule, often referred to as the Cardin-Lugar Rule,
has been endorsed by Shell, BP, Total, the world's largest mining
company--BHP Billiton, and U.S. companies Kosmos Energy and Newmont,
among others.
What impact, if any, do you think resource payment transparency
should have on U.S.government foreign assistance efforts?
Answer. Where transparency is not the norm, using our development
assistance to help establish a new norm should be a primary objective.
During the hearing, I responded to questions from Senator Kaine about
the so-called ``Resource Curse'' and to Senator Isakson 's comments on
the so-called ``Dutch Disease.'' I believe these countries have to be
put on a pathway to taking responsibility for meeting the needs of
their people. It is a different journey for each country, but those
with resource wealth should have the expectation that any American or
multinational business engaged there is doing so above-board and with
transparency. Part of my job, if confirmed as Secretary of State will
be to make sure that because American companies, NGOs, and development
relief efforts are expected to play by the rules and abide by Dodd-
Frank, Cardin-Lugar, FCPA , and other laws, that foreign companies or
investors do not get an unfair advantage by cheating or keeping to a
lower standard.
Question. Please discuss any efforts you have undertaken at Exxon
Mobil to advance transparency.
Answer. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil strongly
supported efforts to increase the transparency of government revenues
from the extractive industries.
Question. Exxon sits on the global board of the EITI and has
released its tax payments in other countries, but not the United
States. Meanwhile, its competitors like Shell and BP have released
their tax payments in the United States. Why has Exxon Mobil, under
your leadership, refused to report their tax payments in the U.S., as
required by the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI),
which Exxon has stated it supports?
Answer. The BIT/ called for the disclosure of government payments
relating to U.S. oil and gas production. However, ExxonMobil's U.S.
income tax represents the net result of its worldwide upstream,
downstream, and chemical businesses. The EITI did not require the
disclosure of these tax payments.
Question. As Secretary of State, how would you deal with the
leaders of dictatorships where Exxon has operated for decades, but
where people suffer due to a lack of the rule of law, limited
transparency, endemic corruption and lack of international
accountability (for example, Equatorial Guinea, Angola and Chad)?
Answer. My tenure at ExxonMobil has ended. If confirmed, my only
interests will be those of the United States, which I will pursue
vigorously without favoritism.
Where transparency is not the norm, using our development
assistance to help establish a new norm should be a primary objective.
During the hearing, I responded to questions from Senator Kaine about
the so-called ``Resource Curse'' and to Senator Isakson 's comments on
the so-called ``Dutch Disease.'' I believe these countries have to be
put on a pathway to taking responsibility for meeting the needs of
their people. It is a different journey for each country, but those
with resource wealth should have the expectation that any American or
multinational business engaged there is doing so above-board and with
transparency. Part of my job, if confirmed as Secretary of State, will
be to make sure that because American companies, NGOs, and development
relief efforts are expected to play by the rules and abide by Dodd-
Frank, Cardin-Lugar, FCPA, and other laws, that foreign companies or
investors do not get an unfair advantage by cheating or keeping to a
lower standard. American companies should not retreat or be sidelined,
because when our people have a level playing field, both countries
benefit. The ref ore, it is important not just to have transparency
rules in place but also to be sure everyone is abiding by them.
Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, how would you handle
poor resource revenue transparency by governments with which we
partner, support, or ally? What do you believe to be the U.S. role in
encouraging greater transparency and accountability among governments?
Answer. As I stated at the hearing and during questions and above,
if confirmed, I would take a cleareyed, comprehensive view and
understand all the tools available to achieve U.S. foreign policy and
national security objectives most effectively. Where transparency is
not the norm, using our development assistance to help establish a new
norm should be a primary objective, so that other assistance program
resources do not go to waste.
Helsinki/OSCE
Question. How would you evaluate the potential of the OSCE to
advance U.S. security interests and promote cooperation in Europe, and
will the Trump Administration make full use of that potential by
maintaining a strong emphasis on the OSCE's Human Dimension, including
by vigorously raising human rights violations in Russia and elsewhere
at OSCE fora, as well as supporting and, if possible, increasing a
robust OSCE field presence, particularly in Ukraine? Do you agree with
the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly's characterization of the Russian
Federation's actions in Ukraine since 2014 as clear, gross and
uncorrected violations of Helsinki Principles and that we should at
least say so regardless of what specific measures we may decide it is
in our interest to take at a particular time?
Answer. As has been the case historically, the OSCE remains an
important forum for promoting security cooperation, democratic values,
and human rights across Europe and the states of the former Soviet
Union.
It is in U.S. interests to ensure that the OSCE' s potential is
fully utilized--including its Human Dimension and field missions in
conflict zones like Ukraine.
The OSCE offers an important arena where human rights concerns can
be raised, and members, like Russia, can be held accountable on their
commitments to the OSCE' s core principles.
It is clear that Russia's aggression against Ukraine stands in
stark violation of Helsinki's defense of the inviolability of national
frontiers and respect for territorial integrity.
The United States should not shy away from speaking up for the
principles and values that it holds dear, especially when they are
flagrantly violated.
Law of the Sea
Question. On June 8, 2012, you sent a letter to this Committee
expressing Exxon's support for U.S. ratification of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Could you please provide
details on why you believed the treaty was beneficial to U.S.
commercial interests, whether you continue to believe that it is
beneficial to U.S. commercial interests today, and whether you will
express to the President-elect the view that ratification of UNCLOS
should be a priority?
Answer. As indicated in my June 8, 2012, letter, as Chairman and
CEO of ExxonMobil, I supported U.S. ratification of U.N. LOS because it
would provide a legal basis for the settlement of conflicting claims in
areas--recognized for sovereignty purposes under U.N. LOS. Resolution
of these claims would help support natural resource development as well
as other commercial interests.
I understand UNCLOS has been debated on several occasions by the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The United States should only
join treaties that advance U.S. national interests, and I will, if
confirmed, examine U.N. LOS to determine whether it is in the continued
best interests of the United States to be a party.
SEC Inquiries into ExonMobil Subsidiary
Question. In January 6, 2006, the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission sent a letter to ExxonMobil noting that the company and its
subsidiary, ``may have existing or anticipated operations associated
with Iran, Syria and Sudan, which are identified as state sponsors of
terrorism by the U.S. State Department and subject to export controls
imposed, in part, as a result of actions in support of terrorism and/or
pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.'' The
letter noted that ExxonMobil's ``Form 10-K does not contain any
disclosure about operations in these countries.'' In response, on
February 7, 2006, ExxonMobil released a letter acknowledging that its
``Chemical segment'' had sold, between 2003 and 2005, approximately
$67.7 million chemicals to Syrian customers, and, furthermore, that
Infineum, a European joint venture by ExxonMobil and the Shell Oil
Company; had, during the same time period, made smaller transactions
with Syria and Sudan and sold $53.2 million worth of chemicals and fuel
additives to the Iranian National Oil Company, listed by the Treasury
Department as an affiliate of the Iranian Revolution Guard Corps, which
the United States has labeled a direct sponsor of terrorist groups.
ExxonMobil stated that ``no United States person is involved in those
business transactions.'' which were instead carried out by Infineum's
European affiliates. During your hearing on Wednesday, in response to
questions concerning this issue, you stated. ``I do not recall the
details of the circumstances around what you just described'' and that
you ``would have to look back and refresh myself.''
Given the sensitive nature of how these countries are identified
under U.S. law, would ExxonMobil's senior leadership team be made aware
of these transactions before they were approved? Please provide to the
committee the Minutes of the Exxon Board meeting discussing the 2006
SEC letter.
Answer. The 2006 correspondence from the SEC concerned transactions
that predated my tenure as Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil and arrived
shortly after I became CEO. I am not aware that the transactions were
discussed at an ExxonMobil Board meeting, nor do I have copies of Board
meeting minutes in my personal files. Given the size of ExxonMobil and
the content of the response I also do not recall whether the issue was
elevated to me for advance review and comment.
Question. Why would ExxonMobil not disclose the transactions in the
Form 10-K, no matter their size?
Answer. I understand that ExxonMobil provided a full explanation
for its treatment of these transactions in its publicly filed response
to the SEC's January 6, 2006, letter.
Question. You also stated Wednesday that ``sanctions are a powerful
tool, and they are an important tool, in terms of deterring additional
action.'' Do you think it is appropriate for U.S. businesses to seek to
sidestep U.S. sanctions laws?
Answer. No, and during my tenure as Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil,
the company's policy was to comply fully with U.S. sanctions laws.
Question. Would you say that these sales were made in a manner
consistent with the intent of the United States government in
``deterring additional action'' from the target countries?
Answer. To the best of my knowledge, these transactions complied
fully with U.S. sanctions laws.
Question. Would you characterize Exxon and Infineum's transactions
with Iran, Syria and Sudan, as well as subsequent disclosure of these
transactions, as the model for how companies should transact business
with countries identified as state sponsors of terrorism?
Answer. Based on my knowledge of corporate operating principles at
ExxonMobil during my tenure as Chairman and CEO, I would characterize
these transactions as fully compliant with the U.S. sanctions laws in
place at the time.
Refugees
Question. The refugees fleeing violence in Syria are only a
fraction of the over 65 million people displaced around the world
today. Taken together, they would make up the 21st largest and the
third fastest growing country in the world. This historic humanitarian
crisis has had a destabilizing effect on some of our allies in the
Middle East, such as Jordan and Turkey, and even our closest allies in
Europe, including Germany and France.
As Secretary of State, how will you confront this humanitarian
crisis and how, in your view, can the U.S. better work with partners to
provide life-saving assistance to refugees? In response to the global
refugee crisis, the U.S. convened a Global Summit on Refugees in
September 2016. What steps will you take to carry forward this
convening role and to ensure the U.S. and other countries follow-
through with their pledges from the Summit?
Answer. It is my belief that it is important for refugees to be
safe from harm, wherever they may be. Should I be confirmed as
Secretary, I will work to implement the President-elect's stated goal
of establishing safe zones to help ensure the protection of displaced
Syrians. I will also work with our partners around the world to help
continue humanitarian aid contributions, pursuant to direction by the
President.
Question. How should the U.S. follow up and implement the
commitments made at the World Humanitarian Summit and U.N. Summit for
Refugees and Migrants?
Answer. While I am not aware of all of the commitments made by the
current Administration at the World Humanitarian Summit and the U.N.
Summit for Refugees, should I be confirmed as Secretary, I will
continue to work with our global partners to carry out the President-
elect's priorities with regard to the global refugee crisis.
Question. As Secretary of State, what lessons from the successful
integration of previous waves of refugees would you seek to apply to
welcoming refugees in our current era?
Answer. Because I have not yet been fully briefed on the historical
trends of U.S. refugee resettlement, I cannot comment on what lessons I
would or would not seek to apply to future refugee resettlement.
Question. What role will you take to support U.S. leadership by
securing the necessary investments to respond to humanitarian crises
around the world?
Answer. Should I be confirmed as Secretary, I will work with our
partners around the world to help continue humanitarian aid
contributions, pursuant to direction by the President.
Question. The global displacement crisis is driven by internal and
transnational conflict--including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, South
Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen--and a critical challenge of our time,
with tremendous regional stability and other geopolitical consequences
across the globe. What role does the U.S. have to address both the
causes and consequences of the displacement?
Answer. The United States should seek to lead efforts to help
promote peace and to ensure the ability of displaced persons to
repatriate.
U.S. Refugee Admissions
Question. How do you think refugee resettlement benefits U.S.
interests abroad?
Answer. I do not have a comprehensive understanding of the
historical impact of refugee resettlement on U.S. interests abroad.
Should I be confirmed, I will work to further my understanding.
Question. Do you support a robust refugee program?
Answer. I believe that refugees and other displaced persons should
be safe from harm, no matter their location.
Question. How would a decrease in refugee admissions to the US, or
a change in the nationalities that are admitted as refugees, hinder the
ability of the U.S. government to encourage other countries to resettle
refugees and keep their borders open to refugees?
Answer. I do not have a comprehensive understanding of every
permutation of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, or how hypothetical
changes to the program would change the ability of the U.S. government
to encourage other countries to resettle refugees. Should I be
confirmed, I will work to further my understanding.
Question. Do you believe the U.S. should deny certain refugees
admission to the U.S. based on their religion or nationality? If not,
how will you protect against it?
Answer. I do not believe anyone should be discriminated against
based on their religion or nationality.
Question. How would a ban on resettlement from certain countries,
such as Syria and Somalia, impact the U.S. government's diplomatic
efforts to foster regional stability?
Answer. I do not have a comprehensive understanding of every aspect
of the Refugee Admissions Program, or how hypothetical changes to the
program could impact efforts to foster regional stability. Should I be
confirmed, I will work to further my understanding.
Question. The U.S. resettlement program focuses on resettling the
refugees who need this solution the most, such as those with urgent
medical needs, victims of torture, single female households, and
families with very specific circumstances whose protection or
assistance needs cannot be met through existing humanitarian assistance
programs in their host countries. Do you support this approach?
Answer. The determination of which individuals would or would not
be considered refugees for purposes of resettlement in the United
States is governed by applicable provisions of the Immigration and
Nationality Act. Should I be confirmed as Secretary, I will faithfully
execute our laws consistent with the Constitution.
Question. Over the course of the last two years there has been
increased public concern, as well as significant misinformation,
surrounding the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. Refugees are subject
to the most rigorous and detailed security screenings of any category
of persons -immigrant or visitor--to enter the US, in a process that on
average takes 18-24 months and involves over a dozen national security,
law enforcement and intelligence agencies. It is a security process
that has been reviewed, continuously improved (including as new
technological advances are introduced) and reaffirmed under both the
Obama and Bush administration. Understanding that you are limited in
what you can say in this setting, can you explain what specifically you
would do to improve the existing program, without decreasing the number
of refugees who are resettled, especially in light of the urgent
humanitarian need?
Answer. I have not yet been briefed on all aspects of the U.S.
Refugee Admissions Program, but should be confirmed as Secretary, I
will faithfully administer the Refugee Admissions Program consistent
with law and the policy preferences of the President-elect.
Question. Many refugees in the U.S. are waiting anxiously for the
resettlement of their family members. Family unity is a fundamental
human need, and family reunification is also a key component of
obligations under the Refugee Convention and a critical element of
successful integration into the US. Do you support family reunification
policies?
Answer. I have not yet been briefed on all aspects of the U.S.
Refugee Admissions Program, thus I cannot make a determination
regarding family reunification under the Program.
Role of the Secretary of State
Question. Since 9/11 but especially in the last decade, the State
Department's ability to carry out its functions as the lead agency
responsible for the supervision and general direction of U.S. foreign
assistance has been eroded, in Large part by increasing authorities and
funding for the Department of Defense to manage programs intended to
build the capacity of foreign security forces. In many cases such
programs have a dubious track record with respect to cost-
effectiveness, sustainability, and overall value to U.S. foreign
policy. While the Department of Defense and many other federal
departments and agencies have important roles to play overseas, the
Secretary of State should effectively coordinate the various programs
to ensure such assistance supports broader U.S. foreign policy
objectives. Do you agree that the State Department should play a
leading, and at a minimum a concurrent, role in the general direction,
and to the extent practicable, the formulation of overseas programs
implemented by other department and agencies when the Secretary
determines that such programs impact U.S. foreign policy?
Answer. The Secretary of State is the principal foreign policy
advisor to the President. Overseas, our Ambassadors have authority over
all U.S. government agencies in their country of assignment, with the
one exception being uniformed military under the authority of a
combatant command. Clearly our engagements overseas in the past decade
have had a heavy military component, related to our wartime deployments
to Afghanistan and Iraq. In those contexts, and in many others, the
State Department and other civilian foreign affairs agencies have
worked very closely with their military counterparts--something that I
would expect to continue in the Trump Administration. Diplomacy and
military force are complementary instruments of our national power. In
war zones the military can be expected to have the lead; elsewhere, the
Department of State should have the primary role in directing overseas
activities. If we are both confirmed, I would expect Defense Secretary
Mattis and myself to work these matters out in ways that best advance
American interests--either directly or through the NSC process.
Flynn
Question. While General Michael Flynn was sitting in on the
classified national security briefings given to Donald Trump, starting
in August 2016, his lobbying firm, the Flynn Intel Group, was providing
foreign clients with ``all-source intelligence su;,port.'' The Flynn
Intel Group's list of clients has included the firm Innova BV, which is
owned by Turkish businessman Kamil Ekim Alptekin, who has close ties to
President Erdogan of Turkey, and has paid the firm ``tens of thousands
of dollars'' for analysis on world affairs. This relationship was not
publicly disclosed when General Flynn published an op-ed calling for
the extradition of Fethullah Gulen, a Turkish preacher in Pennsylvania
who has been blamed by President Erdogan for the July 2016 failed
military coup. Do you see any problems with this? Bradley Moss, an
attorney who routinely represents defense contractors in security
clearance disputes, stated that ``Security adjudicators would have
concerns that someone with Flynn's level of experience wouldn't think
twice about sitting in on a classified briefing while working for
foreign clients,'' and that ``The moment he sat in on classified
briefings, his association with his own company had to be severed. By
not doing that he exposed himself unnecessarily to foreign influence
and raised questions about his good judgment.'' Do you agree with Mr.
Moss's characterization of this incident?
Answer. I do not have knowledge of General Flynn's business
activities and associations and am not able to comment.
Crowley
Question. Monica Crowley, the appointee for senior director of
strategic communications at the NSA, has claimed frequently that
Clinton aide Huma Abedin has ``ties to Islamic supremacists.'' has
defended birtherist conspiracy theories as ``legitimate questions.''
and has tweeted that President Obama has gotten away ``w/ bloody murder
(literally).'' Of greatest concern to me was her frankly frightening
claim that ``we are in a holy war'' against Islamic terrorists that
pits ``the Constitution versus the Quran on every level. The
Constitution is not built to fight this war.'' Do you agree that we are
in a ``holy war'', and that our Constitution was not built to fight
this war? Would you characterize such sentiments as reckless?
Answer. I cannot speak to the comments of others.
Chief of Mission Authority
Question. Do you believe in chief of mission authority (COM)? Will
you agree, if confirmed as Secretary of State, to do everything
possible to ensure adequate support and guidance to U.S. ambassadors
deployed overseas to ensure the COM authority is adhered to? Will you,
if confirmed, work to ensure that all non-State Department officials
overseas are aware of COM authority, understand why it is necessary,
and commit not to undermine it?
Answer. Yes. I fully support Chief of Mission authority for the
State Department and for all our ambassadors, and will ensure, if
confirmed, all U.S. government personnel, with the exception of those
under a combatant commander, also are fully aware and understand.
Budget
Question. In President Obama's first term, Secretaries Hillary
Clinton and Robert Gates joined forces to argue against cuts to the
State Department's budget. They argued that a balanced national
security strategy requires a balanced national security budget. Do you
believe the State Department requires a larger budget?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to conducting a thorough
review of all aspects of the Department, including the resource needs
necessary to implement the President's foreign policy objectives, and
to equip, train, and protect, our men and women who serve daily on the
front line of diplomacy, and to be a careful steward of the taxpayer
dollars entrusted to me.
Diversity
Question. The Department of State Authorities Act of Fiscal Year
2017, Public Law No: 114-323, requires the Secretary to report on the
progress the Department of State is making to recruit and retain highly
qualified diverse candidates to the Foreign Service and Civil Service.
If confirmed, what would your strategy be to diversify our State
Department workforce and implement the letter of the law in creating
effective mechanisms to recruit and retain diverse candidates?
Answer. Throughout my more than four decades in business, I have
worked hard to build an inclusive and diverse workforce. I will work to
ensure the Department reflects the great diversity of America.
Question. American leadership in the world rests on ``the three
D's.''development, diplomacy, and defense. Together, these policy tools
enable our government to address global concerns and to ensure our
national security. The integrity of this approach relies on recognition
of the value of coordinated, but distinct and independent, development
and diplomacy agendas. Development must stand alongside diplomatic and
defense activities, and cannot be subsumed by either.
Looking at a proposed Cabinet in which a number of national
security roles would be played by military generals, how will you
elevate diplomacy and development to ensure they're on equal footing?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I do not believe I will have to
``elevate'' the role of diplomacy. I believe that role will be both
respected and supported by the President-elect and his cabinet. It is
my understanding that the retired senior military officers that the
President-elect selected for his cabinet understand well the importance
of statecraft, diplomacy, and the role of the State Department in
making and implementing foreign policy. It is my understanding both
General Mattis and General Kelly so stated in their written and oral
testimony. By reputation, I believe those are sincerely their beliefs.
Further, I believe the President-elect knows well that soft and hard
power work best when they are used for the right task and in the proper
balance.
Question. Will you support a fully empowered USAID Administrator?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, yes.
Question. Can you commit to this Committee that USAID will not be
subsumed under the State Department?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. I understand there are different views on
this issue. Should I be confirmed, I look forward to consulting with
and working with Congress on this issue.
Question. What is your view about how to balance the need for a
strong, independent USAID with the necessity of coordinating with the
State Department and other foreign policy agencies?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. I understand there are different views on
this issue. Should I be confirmed, my number one goal for our foreign
assistance programs would be to ensure that foreign assistance is
sufficient and effective consistent with U.S. interests. Should I be
confirmed, I look forward to consulting and working with Congress on
this issue.
Conflicts of Interest
Question. If confirmed, you will be handling the most sensitive and
significant negotiations between our country and the rest of the world.
As you know, I am very concerned about possible conflicts of interest
with our foreign policy that may arise from our President's overseas
business arrangements. How can you confirm for us that your
negotiations and interactions with other countries will steer clear of
such conflicts?
Answer. I share your concern about avoiding possible conflicts of
interest-and I am grateful to the ethics officials at the Office of
Government Ethics and State Department for working in consultation with
me to prepare the Ethics Agreement that I submitted to the Committee on
January 3, 2017, which sets forth the steps I agreed to take to avoid
any such conflicts if confirmed as Secretary. That Ethics Agreement has
been praised by Walter Shaub, the Director of the Office of Government
Ethics, as a ``sterling model'' for other nominees.
In addition, as I testified at my hearing in response to a question
from Senator Udall, I would expect to seek-and follow-the advice of
State Department ethics counsel with respect to potential conflicts of
interest.
Working with Congress
Question. On behalf of the American people, this Congress--and this
Committee--has an important role to play in U.S. diplomacy and
development. When there is transparency, partnership, and trust between
Congress and the State Department, it is possible to confront the many
challenges the United States faces as a united front. In fact, eight
distinct foreign aid bills were enacted into law in the last Congress
alone, underscoring the importance of the relationship between
theExecutive and Congress. How would you engage Congress, and will you
pledge to start a new chapter of transparency and partnership with this
Committee?
Answer. As I stated in my testimony, both in my opening statement
and in response to Senators' questions, I believe that accountability,
transparency, and integrity start at the top, and if confirmed as
Secretary,
I intend to model those values. The American people deserve access
to their institutions, like the State Department, and I will approach
the people's representatives in Congress as partners, with that same
transparency. I will engage in the comprehensive, bottom-up reviews
discussed earlier upon taking office, if confirmed, and will work with
Congress to implement solutions. Beginning with the ongoing budget and
appropriations processes for the current fiscal year, if confirmed, I
will ensure the State Department takes Congressional guidance seriously
when responding to committee requests and reports required in the
recent re-authorization act and other legislation, with actionable
recommendations when appropriate, not just status reports.
Taxes
Question. Have you had any household employees (including but not
limited to housekeepers, nannies, gardeners, handymen, drivers,
caretakers) that you have become aware may not have had legal
documentation or for whom taxes were not properly withheld? If yes,
please provide details and an explanation of the issue.
Answer. As I mentioned during my confirmation hearing on January
11, I intend to respect the longstanding tradition of privacy of
individuals' tax returns. Because answering this question would require
me in part to comment on third parties' confidential information, I do
not believe it is appropriate to answer it. As I have previously
indicated in response to the original committee questionnaire, I
believe I have timely met all of my tax obligations.
Prioritization
Question. It has been reported that, during your tenure at
ExxonMobil, the company favored political stability in developing
countries where it did business, even if such stability meant the
continuation of authoritarian regimes. But as the world's leading
democracy, our values and interests are far broader and more complex
than corporate prerogatives and shareholders, including support for
democracy, free expression, and strong protections of human rights. How
will you as Secretary of State be the voice of these deeply held
American values and support open, transparent, and accountable
governance overseas, and protect those who fight for justice and
democracy in their own societies? Will advancing human rights and
democracy be a top priority for you alongside other interests like
national security, energy, and economic issues? In light of your career
focused on energy issues, what is your vision for advancing human
rights and democracy? Have you ever raised concerns in this area with
leaders in countries in your prior professional capacities?
Answer. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, I did
speak with foreign leaders about human rights and democracy concerns.
As I expressed during my confirmation hearing on January 11, human
rights violations, if left unaddressed, cause great upheaval in civil
society. I believe that respect for human rights and the rule of law
are essential foundations for a stable and functioning society.
I believe that American core values include standing up against
violations of international law, war crimes, human rights violations,
and corruption. The United States should speak up for the principles of
democracy and free speech, and these principles must be at the
forefront of the U.S. foreign policy agenda. Our approach to human
rights begins by acknowledging that leadership requires moral clarity.
The United States does not face a choice on defending human rights. Our
values are our interests when it comes to human rights and humanitarian
assistance. Supporting human rights is essential to showing the
watching world what America stands for.
That said, it is not reasonable to expect that every policy or
position undertaken by the United States will be driven solely by human
rights considerations, especially when the security of the American
people is at stake. But the advancement of human rights is integral to
U.S. foreign policy in many situations. For example, I believe it was a
mistake not to formally integrate human rights concessions from Cuba as
part of our recent engagements with that nation. The Castro regime has
not been held accountable for its conduct. That serves neither the
interests of Cubans or Americans.
DRG Budget
Question. According to Freedom House, freedom in the world has been
in decline over the last decade. Meanwhile, as seen in the President's
budget justification, the actual spending for Democracy, Rights, and
Governance (DRG) has fallen from $3.27 billion in 2010 to $1.93 billion
in 2015. An opportunity exists for the incoming administration and
Congress to reinforce U.S. leadership in the promotion of DRG and to
assist those seeking freedom and opportunity in the face of repressive
regimes and governments. Secretary Condoleezza Rice, as she sat before
this panel, stated, ``America and the free world are once again engaged
in a long-term struggle against an ideology of hatred and tyranny and
terror and hopelessness.'' This is still true today. As Secretary of
State, how will you uphold democracy and protect its fundamentals--
including support for elections, democratic governance, civil society,
rule of law, free speech, and human rights protection, especially as
people around the world-who share our values--struggle against the
dangers presented by repressive and authoritarian regimes and
governments?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the activities and programs on
human rights and democracy conducted by the Under Secretary for
Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights, most notably in the
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, and the Office to Combat
and Monitor Trafficking in Persons.
DRL conducts human rights investigations, reports on country
conditions, speeches and votes in the U.N. and creates asylum profiles.
DRL develops, edits, and submits to Congress an annual 5,000-page
report on human rights conditions in over 190 countries. DRL also
provides relevant information on country conditions to the Department
of Homeland Security and to immigration judges in asylum cases.
Balancing DRG and Security Assistance
Question. Are there specific steps that should be taken to ensure
that we are complementing our security assistance with democracy and
governance funding in countries with poor human rights and democracy
records, particularly in Africa and the Middle East? Should we be
conditioning our security sector assistance-such as the provision of
lethal equipment-on countries meeting some sort of governance and or
rule of law standards?
Answer. The primary responsibility of the federal government is
protecting the security of the American people. In some instances that
responsibility obliges the United States to provide security assistance
to nations that do not share our respect for human rights and
democracy. The conditioning of security assistance on the improvement
on human rights is something that must be considered on a country-by-
country basis.
Business Conduct and Labor Rights
Question. Will you ensure American business is subject to high
standards of performance on human rights, and held accountable when
involved in human rights abuses abroad? Through which steps?
The Department of State plays an important role in promoting labor
rights and enhancing economic security and working conditions for
workers abroad. Will you continue to support and strengthen
international labor standards and fundamental principles and rights at
work? Through which steps?
Will you support and expand upon the National Action Plan on
Responsible Business Conduct? Through which steps?
Answer. If confirmed I will support the efforts of the State
Department's Office of International Labor Affairs to strengthen
respect for labor rights in the global economy and advance U.S. foreign
policy goals related to human rights, democracy promotion, trade, and
sustainable development.
If confirmed, I will review the National Action Plan on Responsible
Business Conduct to ensure it strikes the proper balance between the
promotion of U.S. businesses abroad and the protection of the human
rights of the people in the nations in which U.S. businesses operate.
Women's Empowerment
Question. As you know, the State Department places a high priority
on global women's empowerment, gender equity, and combating violence
against women. Gender inequality and gender-based violence are
impediments to development, economic advancements, democracy and
security. One of the State Department's core missions is to promote
gender equality and equal rights for men and women around the world,
including the right of all women and girls to decide if, when and whom
they marry. This understanding has transcended party lines. As former
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted, ``In today's modem world, no
country can achieve lasting success and stability and security if half
of its population is sitting on the sidelines.'' More recently,
Secretary of State Kerry noted: ``Our path forward is clear. We must
prevent and respond to gender-based violence . . . We must open the
doors for women to fully participate in society--as farmers,
entrepreneurs, engineers, executives, and leaders of their countries.
And we must invest in the next generation of women by making sure girls
can go to school in a safe environment.''
If you are confirmed as Secretary of State, how will you ensure
that empowering women remains a core pillar of U.S. foreign policy?
How do you intend to build on the progress that has been made to
ensure that our foreign policy reflects our national values that men
and women should enjoy equal rights? Among other things, as Secretary
of State, how will you build on the work of your predecessors to
elevate and fully integrate gender analysis into U.S. foreign policy?
How will you support continued development and implementation of the
U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally
and the U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security?
How will you ensure gender-focused metrics such as constraints on
women's mobility, levels of violence against women, rates of child
marriage and girls' access to quality education, are integrated into
programs and assessments?
Answer. As I stated in my hearing testimony, the issue of
empowering women is personally important to me. I have seen firsthand
the impact of empowering women, particularly regarding their
participation in economic activities in the less-developed parts of the
world. Investing in women produces a multiplier effect--women reinvest
a large portion of their income in their families and communities,
which also furthers economic growth and stability. As I indicated, I
believe women's empowerment is an important part of our foreign aid
efforts and I will support such programs, including efforts to mitigate
the impact of violence against women.
Intercountry Adoption
Question. In 1994 The Department of State created The Office of
Children's Issues to actively engage in intercountry adoption and
international parental child abduction. From 2010-2013 the State
Department reported more than 5,000 American children were kidnapped
overseas by a parent, including children of Marylanders. Few of these
kidnapped American citizen children have made it home, and it is often
left to victimized parents to fight battles in foreign countries and
foreign courts where the deck is stacked against them. State Department
officials have testified to the value of quiet diplomacy in resolving
these cases, yet it has not yielded the needed results for American
families. What efforts and public actions would your State Department
take to bring internationally kidnapped American children home?
Answer. In 1988, the United States became a party to the Hague
Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (``the
Convention''), which establishes a mechanism to enforce the return of
abducted children to the United States. In 1988 Congress also enacted
the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA) to authorize
state and federal courts to hear cases under the Convention and to
allow the U.S. Central Authority under the Convention (the Office of
Children's Issues in the Department of State's Bureau of Consular
Affairs) to access information in U.S. records on the location of the
abducted child and the abducting parent. More recently, in 2014,
Congress enacted Public Law No. 113-150, the Sean and David Goldman
International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act of 2014 (the
``Goldman Act''), to ensure compliance with the Convention by countries
with which the United States has reciprocal obligations, and to
establish mechanisms for the return of children who were abducted to
other countries. The Goldman Act provides a variety of tools for
engaging with foreign governments to encourage them to send home
American children who have been abducted and brought overseas. Such
tools include the delivery of a demarche as well as the suspension of
foreign assistance. It is heartbreaking for parents to be separated
from their children, and it is crucial for the State Department to
safeguard the wellbeing of U.S. citizens abroad, especially children,
who are the most vulnerable among them. As I consider the best strategy
to improve State Department efforts to address international child
abduction I will assess the full range of tools provided by the
authorities discussed above and by any other applicable laws.
Civil Society
Question. Civil society around the world continues to be under
threat. We traditionally talk about the threat from governments and
autocratic regimes, but we would be remiss not to talk about the
threats to civil society from powerful business entities like Exxon. In
recent years Exxon has publicly challenged civil society groups,
journalists and philanthropists investigating its record on climate
science----going so far as to say their activities amount to a
conspiracy. In my view, civil society is one the most important actors
in advancing democracy, increasing transparency and countering
corruption, and we must continue to vigorously defend these non-
governmental entities.
Do you support civil society organizations' freedoms to associate,
assemble, and communicate both publicly and privately?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What role do you believe the State Department should play
in supporting and defending civil society around the globe?
Answer. I believe defending civil society should be integral to
U.S. foreign policy and statecraft. Should I be confirmed, I commit to
reviewing current department programs and assessing them to see if they
are adequate.
Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, how would you engage
with civil society?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I would make engagement a priority.
Question. Will you commit to prioritize meeting with civil society
groups during your travels as Secretary of State?
Answer. Yes.
International Disability Rights
Question. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
entered into force 10 years ago. Since then, 170 nations have ratified
this basic human rights treaty. Studies show that the Treaty has
already begun to positively affect national constitutions by generating
new language on safeguarding rights and including people with
disabilities in civil society. The United States signed the Treaty in
2009, based in part on the similarities between existing law (The
Americans with Disabilities Act) and the Treaty. Bipartisan efforts
were made in 2011 and 2012 to ratify, but failed narrowly in the
Senate. If confirmed, will you advise President-elect Trump to again
submit the Treaty to the Senate for advice and consent?
Answer. In December 2012, the Senate considered a resolution of
advice and consent to ratification/or the Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities (.''he Convention''). This resolution was
voted on and was not agreed to. The United States is strongly committed
to protecting the rights of disabled Americans through the legal
protections afforded by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and
other applicable laws, and to working cooperatively with like-minded
partner countries interested in strengthening their own disabilities
rights laws. If confirmed, my advice to the President-elect regarding
the question of whether to transmit the Convention to the Senate again
for its advice and consent will be based on such factors as whether the
Convention benefits Americans who live in the United States and whether
the Convention improves disability rights in other countries, thus
benefiting Americans living abroad, the Convention's effects on U.S.
sovereignty, and the Convention's impact on existing protections in the
law and under the Constitution.
LGBTQ
Question. As a board member of Boy Scouts of America, you lobbied
for inclusion of homosexual youth, based on the understanding that
``the mission [had] not changed,'' and I thank you for that worthwhile
effort. In Uganda and a number of other U.S. aid recipient countries
LGBTQ activity is illegal. In a number of these regions--from Africa
and the Caribbean to the Former Soviet Union--we have seen lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people targeted for simply
being who they are. They have been criminalized, arrested, tortured and
even killed simply because of their sexual orientation or gender
identity. In the last few years, the U.S. has therefore begun to
include the human rights of LGBTQ people among the wide array of human
rights that we've fought for and protected from religious and ethnic
minorities to political dissidents and journalists. As Secretary of
State, how do you intend to advance LGBTQ, and other human rights, as
to stay true to the mission of America of ``freedom and justice for
all.'' Will you commit to fully empowering the Special Envoy for the
Rights of LGBTQ Persons?
Answer. Should I be confirmed as Secretary of State, I would be
charged with promoting American values on the world stage, and that
means standing for universal human rights and fighting for the dignity
of every person. The United States has an obligation to stand strongly
for those who fight against discrimination worldwide. As I mentioned in
my opening statement, the United States must continue to display a
commitment to personal liberty, human dignity, and principled action in
foreign policy. The State Department under my leadership will work
aggressively to advance human rights for everyone.
Trafficking in Persons
Question. Trafficking for sexual exploitation is a horrific crime
which we must end. Trafficking for labor is also horrible crime. Of the
estimated 20.9 million victims of human trafficking worldwide, the
International Labor Organization reports the 68 percent of those
enslaved are trapped in labor trafficking. Yet, only 7 percent of the
6.609 convictions reported worldwide last year were labor cases. Labor
traffickers operate with near impunity across the globe, in large part
because of the increased resources it takes to recognize, investigate
and prosecute these cases. What can the State Department do to help
build this expertise globally and ensure that more labor cases are
identified and perpetrators of slavery prosecuted?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to ensuring that the State
Department does all that it can to assist in the fight against human
trafficking. I commit to working tirelessly with the President-elect,
representatives of the National Security Council, and other federal
agencies. Also as I stated previously, I believe the United States
should continue to lead international efforts to combat trafficking in
persons. In particular, in order to do so, I believe the Trafficking in
Persons report should be viewed as credible. The report remains a
valuable diplomatic tool Should I be confirmed, I will direct the
Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking and Persons (OMTCP) to
integrate empirical and data-based metrics into the rankings and
evaluations for the report in order to improve the report's
objectivity.
Genocide/Atrocity Prevention
Question. Most of the approximately 1 million people who were
slaughtered in the Rwandan genocide died in the first few weeks. In
countries such as Syria, South Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, and Myanmar, mass
atrocities are occurring and could worsen. When crises reach such
levels, options are limited, risky, expensive, and may not be
sufficiently timely. Investing in early prevention of mass atrocities
saves both lives and valuable resources.
What will you do to strengthen existing atrocity prevention
initiatives, to ensure that atrocity prevention is institutionalized in
the national security structure, and to promote international
cooperation on atrocity prevention?
Answer. Atrocity crimes have occurred with such frequency in the
past 100 years that various academic and advocacy groups have
identified patterns which indicate that a society is moving toward mass
violence. What we know from this research is that atrocity crimes tend
not to happen suddenly, that there are early warning signs which serve
as indication of the need for diplomatic action. When the killings,
rapes, and dispossession have started, it is already, in most cases,
too late.
Part of the State Department's mission should be to gather the best
advice and scholarship in this field to help us determine the early
indicators of atrocity crimes; determine how this has informed programs
Department-wide; and work to further integrate these insights
Department-wide, especially at the bureau level, to ensure that our
diplomatic corps is prepared to identify any early warning signs for
atrocity crimes.
Human rights violations, as we have seen with the case of ISIS,
often spill over into national security issues. Properly understanding
and addressing these with a human rights context is important, not only
because the United States should promote human rights, but also because
of the national security implications of not doing so.
Question. Do you agree with the 2011, the Presidential Study
Directive-10 which states that ``Preventing mass atrocities and
genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral
responsibility of the United States''?
Answer. We need to understand and act on the nexus between our
national security and human rights abuses, which often grow into larger
security concerns. In this way, human rights issues are not only
important in their own right, but are also important as early warning
signs of imminent security problems that can be regionally or even
globally destabilizing.
Question. If so, how will you seek to pursue that interest and
responsibility?
Answer. As stated above, we need to know the early warning signs of
atrocity crimes to ensure that we remain vigilant, so we know when
political developments are in danger of becoming something much worse,
and we are able to respond before it is too late. And we need to stay
vigilant as to the connection between human rights and international
security.
Question. What efforts would you support to prevent and to punish
genocide?
Answer. Local, national, regional, and international efforts all
play a part. It is necessary to examine each situation to determine
what efforts are most appropriate.
To take the current example of ISIS, many have claimed--and I
support this view, although it is necessary for courts to make a final
determination--that ISIS is committing genocide and other atrocity
crimes against Yazidis, Christians, and others in the areas where they
operate. The victim communities have asked for international
involvement in the prosecution of this genocide, and this could occur
in a number of ways. Appropriate action will depend on the needs of the
victims, the political will of the relevant parties, the nature of the
conflict and a host of other variables. It is necessary to determine
what the needs and the desires of the victim communities are, and then
assess what is possible given the political dynamics, with an eye
toward the swift delivery of justice.
Question. Do you think prosecution of suspected perpetrators of
mass atrocities can help prevent future atrocities?
Answer. Yes, especially when such prosecutions focus on the
leaders. These prosecutions counter the political mythology that
surrounds violent movements and attracts followers and sympathizers.
The prosecution of the leaders of such movements sends a message that
resounds through history. Part of our collective memory of the genocide
perpetrated by the Nazis is not only images and words that come to us
from places like Auschwitz and Dachau, but also those we associate with
the trial at Nuremberg.
Trials of ISIS leadership, for example, would badly tarnish their
carefully crafted propaganda and help solidify the narrative worldwide
that they are criminals, whose actions are inexcusable.
Torture
Question. Do you believe that the United States should use
interrogation techniques that are tantamount to torture, such as
waterboarding, on persons apprehended by the U.S. or partners on
suspicion of terrorism activities?
Answer. Current Federal law provides that no individual in U.S.
custody may be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach
that is not authorized by and listed in the Army Field Manual If
confirmed, I would support the Administration in complying with that
law and all other applicable law.
Conflict Mitigation
Question. Do you believe it is in the U.S. national interest to
fund foreign assistance programs intended to mitigate conflict and
prevent mass atrocities, or should the U.S. refrain from getting
involved in foreign disputes unless U.S. personnel or property are
directly threatened?
Answer. The Department of State and USAID already have programs
that focus on conflict mitigation, including the Interagency Conflict
Assessment Framework. This program provides guidance for implementing
stabilization protocols. USAID programs, such as Provincial
Reconstruction Teams, serve as a measure to support revitalization in
fragile states. By continuing these programs, we will better understand
the underlying causes of individual weak and fragile states, and
utilize those results to craft better diplomatic and development
policy. As for which conflicts we work to mitigate, we should make
those choices based on a variety of factors, including the threat to
U.S. citizens, the threat to U.S. interests, the kind of impact we can
expect to have, and the safety of the personnel we send into the field.
Diplomacy and Development
Question. General Mattis had one of the most enduring quotes about
the importance of development and diplomacy as :o our national
security. At a hearing in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee
in 2013, he said, ``If you don't fund the State Department fully, then
I need to buy more ammunition.'' Starting in 2002 and every year since,
U.S. National Security Strategies have elevated diplomacy and
development alongside defense as the three instruments of national
security power, and with the number of complex challenges we face,
coordination between the State Department, our military, and our
development agencies has never been more important. Development must
stand alongside diplomatic and defense activities, and cannot be
subsumed by either. Looking at a proposed Cabinet in which a number of
national security roles would be played by military generals, how will
you elevate diplomacy and development to ensure they're on equal
footing as key components of our national security strategy? Will you
support a fully empowered USAID Administrator?
Answer. As I stated previously, should I be confirmed, I do not
believe I will have to ``elevate'' the role of diplomacy. I believe
that role will be both respected and supported by the President-elect
and his cabinet. It is my understanding that the retired senior
military officers that the President-elect has selected for his cabinet
understand well the importance of statecraft, diplomacy, and the role
of the State Department in making and implementing foreign policy. It
is my understanding both General Mattis and General Kelly so stated in
their written and oral testimony. By reputation, I believe those are
sincerely their beliefs. Further, I believe the President-elect knows
well that soft and hard power work best when are used for the right
task and in the proper balance.
Nominee Leadership
Question. In addition to serving on the Commission on Smart Global
Health Policy convened by the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, during your time as Chairman and CEO of the Exxon Mobile
Corporation the Exxon Foundation has made investments to reduce poverty
through improved energy access, global health and women's empowerment.
How would this demonstrated leadership for reducing global poverty
inform your approach to foreign assistance?
Answer. It is important to understand how the success of programs
on global health, women's empowerment, and energy access are measured
and how we may replicate them in other geographic areas and other issue
areas that we want to advance. The global health programs focused on
fighting diseases, including PEPFAR, PM], and USAID's Global
Tuberculosis (TB) Program, as well as energy initiatives such as Power
Africa, have proven to be extremely valuable and successful. These
public private partnerships should be maintained during my leadership,
in an effort to reduce global poverty in the long term.
Foreign Assistance Transparency
Question. In recent years, the State Department has made real
progress becoming more transparent and accountable to taxpayers. In
2015, Senator Rubio and I introduced the ``Foreign Aid Transparency and
Accountability Act'' (PL. 114-191) which was enacted into law last
year. The Act establishes common guidelines to evaluate our foreign
assistance programs, allowing us to see what's working and what's not,
ensuring that we incorporate learning into all future efforts so we
have the best possible outcomes. Would transparency, accountability,
and effectiveness be a priority for you at the State Department? How
would you invest in foreign assistance data use and access,
evaluations, and learning to make sure we're getting the most from our
foreign assistance dollars?
Answer. In order for State and USAID to carry forward their
critical foreign-assistance work, it is important to measure the
efficiency of their foreign-assistance and development programs and
closely examine the administrative and management practices of both
entities. By doing so, the State Department and USAID will be able to
more effectively prioritize development investments and eliminate
inefficiencies, including the duplication of effort Making sure that
our foreign-assistance mission is implemented in an accountable,
transparent, and cost-saving manner is one of my key administrative and
management priorities.
Aid Conditionality
Question. I was concerned about your remarks both in our private
meeting and during the hearing about conditioning all foreign
assistance. In the last 30 years, we have learned a lot about the
effectiveness of policy conditionality of foreign assistance. The World
Bank in the 80's and 90's proved that when every dollar is conditioned
on very specific policy changes identified by lenders or aid agencies,
those policy reforms typically fail. While conditionality sounds
logical, sometimes it incentivizes countries to simply pretend to
reform just long enough to get the money. MCC was established partly to
test exactly the question: when IS conditionality effective? Over 10
years of learning shows that when the U.S. sets achievable reform
outcomes in countries that have the capacity and incentive to deliver,
conditionality can work. However, the U.S. turns to foreign assistance
as a tool for a variety of reasons, and in some instances, it serves
the national interest to work with countries that do not have the
capacity to reform, or who are prioritizing other agendas on our behalf
(Jordan, Niger, etc). In those instances--when we are worried that
refugee migrations could destabilize an ally, or when we are concerned
that untreated health conditions could lead to an epidemic--I would
argue that firm-across the board conditionality is neither effective
nor in the U.S. national interest. In our meeting, you seemed to say
the opposite. Are you arguing that the U.S. should maintain a posture
of pure conditionality even when it undermines our national interest?
Or do you see a more practical, businesslike approach where we use the
tool when it serves us well?
Answer. When evaluating a country's eligibility for aid, a number
of/actors come into play, including government compliance, U.S.
interests in the region, and the level of need of the population. Many
of our foreign assistance programs take the multitude of factors into
account to inform its decisions. We should continue to consider all
factors, and refine how we weight those factors.
Privatization of Aid
Question. Over the past decade, we have seen a growing trend
towards using private, for profit companies to deliver humanitarian
assistance. What are your thoughts on using private companies for this
purpose?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to
learning more about this issue. It is my understanding that government,
NGOs, faith-based institutions, the private sector, and contractual
services all have roles to play in development and foreign assistance.
I would want to the best mix of these to achieve our foreign policy
objectives. As with all aspects of foreign assistance, should I be
confirmed, my number one goal with regard to foreign assistance
programs would be to ensure that foreign assistance is sufficient and
effective consistent with U.S. interests. Should I be confirmed, I look
forward to consulting and working with Congress on this issue.
Question. What kind of impact do you see the privatization of aid
having on the provision of humanitarian assistance?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response It is my understanding there are different
views on this issue. Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more
about this issue and how it may impact the effectiveness of U.S. aid
and our foreign policy programs.
Question. How will you ensure that humanitarian assistance
delivered by private entities gets to the people who need it most?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. It is my understanding there are different
views on this issue. Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more
about this issue and how it may impact the effectiveness of U.S. aid
and our foreign policy programs.
Education
Question. U.S. foreign assistance helps millions of people in need
around the world. While at ExxonMobil, you stated that ``educating
women and girls yields a higher rate of return than any other community
investment available in the developing world.'' Since 2011, USAID
education projects have benefited more than 41.5 million children and
youth. Furthermore, studies have shown that each additional year of
education can bring with it a 10% increase in income and if all
children in low-income countries left school with basic reading skills
there would be a 12% reduction in world poverty. As Secretary of State,
how would you continue to prioritize investment in education,
especially for the world's most excluded children?
Answer. From my previous experience I understand the importance of
education in development and assistance programs. As to the role I will
play as Secretary of State, should I be confirmed, I would need to be
fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response.
Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about the State
Department's appropriate role. As with all aspects of foreign
assistance, my number one goal with regard to foreign assistance
programs would be to ensure that foreign assistance is sufficient and
effective consistent with U.S. interests. Should I be confirmed, I look
forward to consulting and working with Congress on this issue.
Food Security and Nutrition
Question. There is solid evidence that early malnutrition,
especially during the 1,000-day window from pregnancy to age 2, is an
obstacle to cognitive and physical development. It affects long-term
health, learning and earning potential. Malnutrition, in other words,
is a constraint to economic growth. Malnutrition is also the underlying
cause of half of all deaths of children before they reach their 5th
birthday. The recently enacted Global Food Security Act recognizes the
importance food security and nutrition to U.S. national security. How
will you build on the longstanding U.S. legacy of fighting hunger,
malnutrition and poverty and promoting child survival around the
global?
Answer. Power Africa provides electricity, the Global Food Security
Act fights hunger, and PEPFAR promotes child survival by decreasing
mother-to-child transmissions of HIV/AIDS. We should continue to
support these programs, as they aid a country in lifting itself out of
poverty. Examining all of our development programs to make sure that
taxpayer dollars are being used efficiently will increase our ability
to implement world-class programs that focus on food security and
global health.
Global Health--U.S. Leadership
Question. Under your watch, the Exxon Mobil Foundation has invested
millions of philanthropic dollars in community level health activities
where the company had business interests, of particular note the work
on malaria and HIV in oil-rich parts of Africa. Clearly you understand
the value--both economic and humanitarian--of providing health services
to those in need, which in turn builds a strong workforce that fuels
emerging economies. What are your views on the role the U.S. should
play in fighting pervasive global infectious diseases like HIV, TB and
malaria? What are your views on President Obama's Global Health
Security Agenda? What is the role for the private sector?
Answer. The global health programs focused on fighting diseases,
including PEPFAR, the President's Malaria Initiative (PMI), and USA/D's
Global Tuberculosis (TB) Program, as well as the Global Health Security
Agenda, have proven to be extremely valuable and successful programs.
It is important to understand how their success is measured and how can
they be replicated in other geographic areas and other issue areas.
USAID should continue to engage in public-private partnerships
concerning these issues, in an effort to maintain global health
programs in the long run.
Global Health--Women
Question. Women's health and reproductive rights have served as a
political football from Administration to Administration. How will you
ensure that the leadership and success of the U.S. government in
reducing infant and maternal mortality continue?
Answer. PEPFAR is a global health program that aims to reduce
infant and maternal mortality by decreasing mother-to-child
transmissions of HIV/AIDS. PEPFAR is a successful and valuable program
and it should serve as a model for future programs.
Global Health--Health System Strengthening
Question. For decades the U.S. government has been a leader in
strengthening health systems around the world to prevent, detect, and
minimize the impact of emerging infectious diseases. The United States
is one of over 50 countries that have committed to the Global Health
Security Agenda, which aims to help countries improve their capacity to
prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease outbreaks. As
Secretary, how would you support and enhance global efforts to detect,
prevent, and respond to diseases internationally to prevent them from
becoming a threat to the U.S.? How will you ensure that we effectively
address emerging crises and maintain our leadership role in global
health?
Answer. The global health programs focused on fighting diseases,
including PEPFAR, PM[, and USA/D's Global Tuberculosis (TB) Program, as
well as the Global Health Security Agenda, have proven to he extremely
valuable and successful programs. In order to ensure that we
effectively address emerging crises and outbreaks, such as Ebola and
the Zika virus, it is important to understand how their success is
measured so that we can properly prevent, detect, and respond to future
outbreaks.
Global Health--The Global Fund
Question. America's approach to global health has been extremely
successful, including the effort to move toward ending the epidemics of
AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria he hallmark of America's work against
the three diseases has been to support results-oriented, accountable
and transparent programming through the Global Fund and bilateral
programs including PEPFAR, PMI and the USAID tuberculosis program. The
Global Fund and our bilateral programs closely coordinate their work
and depend on each other to implement comprehensive programming. As
Secretary, will you be committed to continuing America's leadership
against AIDS, TB and malaria through our bilateral and Global Fund
investments? Do you support PEPFAR remaining the cornerstone global
health program at the Department of State?
Answer. PEPFAR is one of the remarkable successes of the past
decade or more. In addition, there are measurable results that are well
managed and targeted at combating HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria through
PEPFAR, the President's Malaria Initiative (PMI), and the USAID
tuberculosis program. Through these global health programs, we project
America's leadership and compassion and they serve as models for the
future as we think about other areas that may be useful for us to put
additional programs in place.
Humanitarian--Iraq
Question. When the battle for Mosul began about two months ago,
many feared that mass departures from the city would overwhelm already
crowded camps in Iraq. Instead, most people heeded government advice to
stay in their homes as security forces advanced. Now many of those
residents lack even basic services, with water supplies cut by the
fighting and humanitarian aid distributions unable to reach all of
those in need. In areas still controlled by ISIL, a siege by security
forces is slowly tightening, pushing up food prices and causing
shortages while the militants prevent people from leaving.
As the humanitarian situation in Mosul worsens, is your vision for
how the U.S. should work with the Government of Iraq and Kurdish
Regional Government to meet humanitarian need stemming from counter-
ISIL operations?
Answer. Defeating ISIS on the battlefield is important, but it
isn't enough. If, despite the coalition's military success, the people
of Mosul are left with a humanitarian catastrophe and the destruction
of their homes, it will be a matter of time before the next iteration
of ISIS emerges. That's why addressing the humanitarian and
reconstruction needs of the population in a timely manner has to be an
integral part of the coalition's strategy.
Question. What preparations should the U.S. and the Global
Coalition to Counter ISIL take to ensure that a similar situation does
not play out in the Syrian city of Raqqa? Do the State Department and
USAID have sufficient humanitarian funding to respond to these growing
needs in Iraq?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. It is my understanding that the United
States has an important role to play in providing humanitarian relief
in the region, establishing stability, and preventing a resurgence of
groups like ISIS. I believe the United States can perform these tasks
without resorting to ``nation building.'' Should I be confirmed, I
commit to work with other relevant federal agencies and Congress to
provide appropriate assistance to address this mission consistent with
U.S. interests.
Humanitarian--Yemen
Question. At least 10,000 civilians have died during the course of
the current conflict in Yemen. Almost 19 million more civilians are
currently in humanitarian need- over two thirds of the nation's
population- 7 million of whom are severely food insecure. Given the
horrifying humanitarian toll that this conflict has wrought, how would
you address the suffering of the Yemeni people?
Answer. Providing assistance to relieve the immediate suffering is
an important part of USAID, and the agency is already providi11g
emergency food assistance to those suffering in Yemen, which should be
continued.
Humanitarian--Syria
Question. Syrian civil society organizations are the only
humanitarian actors supporting many communities in Syria, particularly
in besieged areas. They are providing essential services that can't be
eliminated without causing a further deterioration in vulnerable and
fragile communities. Yet, they still face challenges with the Syrian
government and many cannot legally register. This puts their lives at
risk. These organizations need recognition as legitimate humanitarian
actors and the ability to continue operations. However, there are
concerning reports that local civil society leaders have been forcibly
removed from their communities and relocated to other parts of the
country as part of the conditions of truce negotiations. These actions
add to the false perception that these independent humanitarian aid
actors are political agents, which further puts their lives at risk.
The Russian and the Syrian government must end the practice of
including humanitarian actors in the list of political and military
actors to be removed from areas retaken by the Syrian government. In
your role, how will you make the protection of all Syrian humanitarian
workers and their ability to maintain operations one of our key points
in any negotiations with Russia and the Government of Syria ?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. It is my understanding that the United
States has an important role to play in providing humanitarian relief
in the region, establishing stability, and preventing a resurgence of
groups like ISIS. I believe the United States can perform these tasks
without resorting to ``nation building.'' Should I be confirmed, I
commit to work with other relevant federal agencies and Congress to
provide appropriate assistance to address this mission consistent with
U.S. interests.
Question. As Secretary of State, would you commit to appointing a
Special Adviser to serve as the U.S. government's representative for
the No Lost Generation strategy to ensure the needs of children and
youth affected by the Syrian conflict are met?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to
learning more about this issue and implementing the most effective
policies to address humanitarian issues consistent with U.S. interests.
I look forward toconsulting with Congress on this issue.
Risks to Aid Workers
Question. How do we as a nation assure that counter-terror measures
and programs do not impose unintended hurdles to the effective delivery
of life-saving humanitarian assistance and democracy programs in
difficult operating environments with limited civil society space? For
example, many international NGOs in Pakistan are being raided on a
regular basis by the Inter-Service Intelligence, and they and their
national implementing partners are often threatened and harassed under
the suspicion that they are U.S. intelligence agents. However, these
same organizations are now being asked to collect and submit the
personal identifying information of their Pakistani partners against
U.S. intelligence databases in order to receive U.S. government
funding.
Under your Department of State, will you commit to working with
NGOs in order to assure effective delivery of foreign assistance
without putting NGO workers and critical life-saving and democracy
programs at undue risk?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, yes.
Question. What is your view about whether the State Department and
USAID should conduct counterterror vetting directly rather than
requiring NGOs to act as an intermediary?
Answer. I would like to be fully briefed on this issue before
responding, as I understand there are different views on how to best
address this issue. Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more
about the issue. I look forward to consulting and working with Congress
on this issue.
Center for Global Engagement
Question. I am deeply concerned that President-elect Trump's anti-
muslim rhetoric throughout the campaign is going to severely damage
U.S. efforts to work with Muslim countries on counter-terrorism
activities and countering violent extremism across the board, as well
as assist terrorist recruitment and incitement.
How would you address that?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to advocating for and
implementing policies and programs that will protect and advance U.S.
interests without regards to religion. Our fight is with radical
Islamic terrorists. I will do my utmost to engage with foreign leaders
and audiences in the Muslim world with the goal of explaining the
shared danger we face from radical Islam.
Question. I am also concerned that the Center for Global Engagement
(GEC) at State, which focuses on innovative ways to counter-message
terrorists and violent extremists, must get strong support and
endorsement from the next Secretary of State, especially since this
year's NDAA mandated that the Center expand its mission to a]so
countering foreign propaganda. How will you use the GEC, or successor
entity, to focus on countering violent extremism, and will you
prioritize that mission above others?
Answer. I would need to he fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to
learning more about the center, its programs, and their effectiveness.
International Humanitarian Law
Question. The U.S. has made great strides in adopting measures to
minimize harm to civilians in its military operations. These measures
have spared many civilian lives in armed conflicts where the U.S. is a
party.
How will you direct existing U.S. leadership in these regards to
reinforce rules-based international order and international
cooperation?
Answer. Should I he confirmed, above all I will insist that they
follow U.S. laws and the government's obligations under those laws.
Question. How will you further the U.S. and global interests in
respect for minimizing civilian harm?
Answer. Should I he confirmed, I will work with the President-
elect, my partners on the National Security Council, and other agencies
to ensure our policy and programs are consistent with our obligations
under the law.
Question. Do you believe that U.S. policy and practice has norm-
setting influence on other States?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What role does the U.S. have to promote a rules-based
international order and how will you pursue this as Secretary of State?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, first and foremost I will strive for
the United States to lead by example-follow our laws and our
obligations under those laws.
Question. What steps should the U.S. take to help ensure that
allies and other parties to conflict employ comparable measures to
safeguard civilian life during armed conflict?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to
learning more about the policies and safeguards that are in place,
assessing their effectiveness, and ensuring that they are adequate,
consistent with U.S. law and the president's foreign policy objectives.
Question. Should the U.S. expect security partners to take pro-
active steps to minimize harm to civilians as a condition for U.S.
security cooperation and, if so, what measures should the U.S. take in
this regard?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to
learning more about the policies and safeguards that are in place,
assessing their effectiveness, and ensuring that they are adequate,
consistent with U.S. law and the President-elect's foreign policy
objectives.
Question. Civilians, health workers and medical facilities are
being deliberately attacked in conflict areas across the globe. How
will you respond to these unconscionable assaults to ensure the safety
of children, families, and communities who require medical care as well
as the health workers whoprovide it?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to
learning more about the policies and safeguards that are in place,
assessing their effectiveness, and ensuring that they are adequate,
consistent with U.S. law and the president's foreign policy objectives.
Climate Change
Question. Do you accept the consensus among scientists that the
combustion of fossil fuels is the leading cause for increased
concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which is the key
factor in the rising global average temperatures?
Answer. I agree with the consensus view that combustion of fossil
fuels is a leading cause for increased concentrations of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere. I understand these gases to be a factor in
rising temperatures, but I do not believe the scientific consensus
supports their characterization as the ``key'' factor.
Question. How do you square your statement from the 2012 Council of
Foreign Relations Forum on science and technology where you said ``Ours
is an industry that is built on technology, it's built on science, it's
built on engineering, and because we have a society that by and large
is illiterate in these areas, science, math and engineering, what we do
is a mystery to them and they find it scary.'' with the fact that
Exxon's internal reports and memos detail a decades long strategy to
ignore and conceal its own sound scientific research on climate change
and its impacts?
Answer. My statement from 2012 is consistent with ExxonMobil's
conduct ExxonMobil has vigorously contested allegations that it engaged
in a decades-long strategy to ignore and conceal scientific research
related to the risk of climate change.
Question. Do you believe that renewable energy technologies, like
wind and solar, and distributive generation and micro grid transmission
platforms are viable means for action on climate change that also
supports the need to provide the world's poor with plentiful and
affordable energy?
Answer. Renewable energy technologies may be a viable form of aid,
assuming they are sufficiently economic to deploy. If I am confirmed, I
will remain mindful that foreign aid is funded with taxpayer dollars,
and will seek to ensure that those dollars are used as effectively and
efficiently as possible.
Question. Given the high degree of certainty about the occurrence
of climate change and its potential impacts (something that our defense
and intelligence communities recognize), how will you direct the
department to manage this risk, and its implications for other core
national security priorities?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to conduct a review of the current
role that the State Department plays in international climate change
efforts.
Question. Will you commit to taking appropriate actions to advance
the HFC amendment to the Montreal Protocol?
Answer. The recent HFC amendment to the Montreal Protocol requires
review and study. If confirmed, I will direct the State Department to
review the HFC amendment, in consultation with other parts of the U.S.
government, to determine whether it should be transmitted to the Senate
for advice and consent
Arms Sales--Philippines
Question. There have been huge numbers of extrajudicial killings by
Philippine police as part of President Duterte's drug war. Would you,
as Secretary of State, approve the sale of weapons to Philippine police
forces? President Duterte himself has claimed that President-elect
Trump supports his actions in a recent phone conversation; is he
correct?
Answer. The alliance with the Philippines is rooted in shared
interests and values, which include concerns for human rights. If
confirmed, I will continue to review each arms notification for the
Philippine Police and Armed Forces on a case-by-case basis to ensure
that we provide support to forces upholding these values rather than
those undermining them.
Cyber
Question. We are clearly in something of a ''Cyber Cold War'' with
Russia and China, if not others, that go beyond the traditional pattern
of espionage for national security reasons. The President recently
recognized this in part by designating national election systems as
``critical infrastructure'' to protect under his Cyber Sanctions
Executive Order. Do you think these sanctions are sufficient,
excessive, or too weak?
Retaliating against a cyber-attack with another cyber-attack
carries an inherent risk of escalation to ever-more-serious cyber-
attacks. Should the U.S. also seek to retaliate in other, asymmetric
ways against such attacks, such as cutting or revoking visas for
students from the attacking country (which, in the case of China, would
also diminish conventional espionage problems)?
Answer. The U.S. government should keep all options open, including
both cyber and non-cyber, to deter cyber attacks.
Question. Will you seek to increase cooperation and concerted
action with other partner countries to respond, defeat and deter cyber-
attach? What initiatives will you undertake?
Answer. Yes, we will seek to increase international cooperation to
reduce cyber security threats. I will also review the State Department
organization as it relates to cyber security and ensure that this issue
is elevated as a higher priority.
Question. The use by the U.S. of cyber means to attack, or
retaliate, against a foreign country that could cause damage to or
disable civilian or military infrastructure, broadly defined, is and
should be considered a ``use of force'' issue, tantamount to an act of
warfare. As such, it should only be authorized through a Congressional
use of force authorization, which are in the sole jurisdiction of the
Foreign Relations and Foreign Affairs Committees. Under what
circumstances would you consider a U.S. cyber action against a foreign
country to involve Congress' Constitutional warmaking powers? Under
what circumstances should a President seek an authorization of use of
military force?
Answer. The conditions that constitute an act of war extend to acts
conducted in cyberspace. We would apply the same criteria to cyber
attacks as to any other attack on America's national interests.
Financial Disclosure
Question. When you do a deal on the scale of the one you did with
Russia on Sakhalin Island, you conduct a thorough due diligence
process. You require your company to share audited financial
statements, details of their loans and investments, the backgrounds of
their management team and their employment agreements and a host of
other documentation as well, correct? And one of the main goals of this
process is to uncover any exposure to risk that may not be immediately
apparent, correct? Would you ever partner with a firm that refused to
fully disclose its assets and liabilities?
Answer. Due diligence is an important part of any corporate deal In
most situations, ExxonMobil would conduct an independent evaluation of
a potential partner's assets and liabilities, rather than relying
solely on that potential partner's representations. In some instances,
particularly where third-party joint financing was in play, financiers
would require self-disclosures from potential borrowers. In those
situations, I would rely both on self-disclosures and ExxonMobil's
independent analysis.
Multilateral Institutions
Question. For decades, the U.S. has led a network of international
institutions, from the World Bank to the IMF to what is now the WTO.
Throughout your career at Exxon, these institutions have evolved in
their missions, their reach, and their membership. They are far from
perfect, but they have helped to foster international coordination in
crises from Asia in 1997 to the global economic collapse of 2008. They
have worked to establish guidance and support for countries in
financial crisis, to monitor economies and trends. And they have
promoted predictability and rules for the conduct of international
trade and finance, as well as forums for seeking important agreements.
As CEO, you had economists who relied on their data, who reported their
economic forecasts, and who followed their interventions in economic
crises. These institutions have been a key part of the global financial
architecture in which Exxon conducted its affairs. What is your view of
them? Are theyimportant, not just to our trade and finance, but to our
global leadership? Can we do without them?
Answer. I agree that multilateral institutions can be effective
instruments for advancing U.S. interests and exercising global
leadership. I agree they are not perfect. Should I be confirmed, I
commit to using them as effectively as possible and working to improve
their efficiency and effectiveness.
Bilateral Investment Treaties
Question. As CEO of Exxon, you strongly supported inclusion of the
Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism in our Bilateral
Investment Treaties (BITs) and trade agreements. And during your time
with the company, Exxon successfully used these provisions to sue
foreign governments and obtain damages. In one case, Exxon argued that
a Canadian requirement to invest in local research and development,
such as education, job training, and innovation, was too onerous. The
supranational NAFTA panel awarded Exxon millions of dollars in damages
and Canada was forced to revisit that law. President-elect Trump has
argued against ISDS, noting that ``the TPP creates a new international
commission that makes decisions the American people can't veto.'' Last
year you joined a letter from the U.S. China Business Council and the
Paulson Institute urging the Administration to prioritize negotiating a
BIT with China that would include an ISDS provision. Do you still
believe ISDS provisions should be included in our BITs or do you agree
with the President-Elect that they represent a threat to U.S.
sovereignty? The BIT negotiations with China have been underway since
2008, with active participation by our State Department, with close
monitoring by our multinational businesses. Should those negotiations
continue?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will follow the direction of the
President
Nonproliferation--Asia
Question. What are your views on nuclear proliferation in Asia?
Given Trump's comments on Japan and South Korea gaining nuclear
capabilities, how will the administration encourage or discourage
nuclear proliferation?
Answer. As I said in my testimony, the proliferation of nuclear
weapons-in Asia or anywhere else-is not in America's interests.
Since the end of World War II, U.S. strength and leadership, both
within our alliances and through key international institutions like
the Non-Proliferation Treaty, have been absolutely critical to limiting
the spread of nuclear weapons.
I fully expect that record of U.S. leadership to continue,
especially as we confront dangerous proliferation challenges with the
neighbors of North Korea-not to mention the nightmare scenario of
terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons.
Nonproliferation--North Korea
Question. North Korea remains a critical security threat. North
Korea's leader Kim Jong Un recently said they were close to test-
launching an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) which would
allow North Korea for the first time to directly target the United
States with nuclear weapons. Outside experts who closely monitor the
progress of North Korea's nuclear program believe an ICBM test is a
distinct possibility in 2017.
If it appeared North Korea was posed to conduct a test launch of an
ICBM would you support taking military action to prevent such a test?
Answer. It is important that North Korea's leadership have no doubt
that the United States is prepared to use all elements of our national
power to prevent it from posing a nuclear threat to our homeland.
Question. How would you adjust U.S. policy towards North Korea?
Should the United States consider direct negotiations with North Korea
about its nuclear program?
Answer. The entire world is on record opposing North Korea's
pursuit of nuclear weapons, including its most powerful regional
neighbors: China, Russia, Japan and South Korea.
In 2016, the U.N. Security Council came together to impose two
rounds of extremely harsh sanctions in response to North Korea's
nuclear tests.
The United States should focus on strengthening the impact of that
global consensus, including by intensifying Pyongyang's isolation and
pressing key countries, first and foremost China, to implement fully
its obligations under U.N. sanctions.
Nonproliferation--Russia
Question. The United States has a variety of arms control
agreements with Russia which seek to ensure strategic stability with
them. For example, the New START treaty which sets limitations on the
U.S. and Russian nuclear forces until 2021. Do you support the New
START agreement or do you believe the United States should withdraw
from the treaty?
Answer. In general, and with respect to New START specifically, the
United States should abide by our international commitments-provided,
of course, that our partners continue to fulfill their obligations as
well.
Nonproliferation Agreements
Question. Are there particular arms control agreements you think
the United States should withdraw from? What impact do you think it
would have if the United States begins withdrawing from various
international agreements?
Answer. I have not been fully briefed on the universe of agreements
that the United States is party to, but I am currently unaware of any
from which I would recommend we withdraw.
So long as international agreements continue to advance the
security and values of the American people, it is very much in our
national interest to strictly observe our commitments.
Nonproliferation--U.S.
Question. The United States has maintained a moratorium on nuclear
testing since 1992. There has been discussion that a Trump
administration might reverse this policy and begin nuclear testing. Do
you support the resumption of nuclear testing? If the United States
conducted a nuclear test do you believe that Russia and China would
rapidly restart their nuclear testing programs?
Answer. I am not aware of any plan to resume nuclear testing. So
long as the reliability of our nuclear deterrent can be guaranteed
through other means, I think the moratorium has served us well. It
would not serve U.S. interests to have Russia and China resume nuclear
testing.
United Nations--U.S. Engagement
Question. No single country can effectively address today's global
challenges alone, whether terrorism, contagious disease, conflict,
transnational crime, human trafficking, or any number of other
problems. The United States benefits from the ability of the United
Nations to coordinate international efforts against such threats, but
the U.N. is only as effective as its member states want it to be. Some
believe that our response to the U.N.'s weaknesses should be to cut
funding or withdraw from certain U.N. agencies that take actions we
disagree with. Do you believe the U.S. is better off remaining actively
engaged in all aspects of the U.N. to influence reform efforts and
protect our interests, or do you believe that we are better off
reducing or withdrawing our support?
Answer. The new Secretary General has acknowledged the need for
vigorous management and accountability reform of the United Nations. I
believe many U.N. reforms can be achieved by robust, long-term and
sustained engagement. But using America's financial leverage by
conditioning our assessed contributions can be a useful catalyst when
these traditional efforts fail. The possibility of the United States
withholding a portion of our dues has led the U.N. to be more receptive
to reforms. For example, concern over potential withholding in response
to major scandals that received the strong attention and interest of
Congress, such as the Oil-for-Food scandal and sexual abuses by
peacekeepers, has led the U.N. to be more willing to adopt reforms.
In other cases, such as where U.S. law prohibits funding to the
U.N. Scientific, Educational and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),
withholding serves U.S. interests by opposing Palestinian efforts to
secure recognition absent a negotiated peace with Israel With billions
of U.S. tax dollars going to the U.N. every year, I believe we should
continually evaluate U.S. funding to the U.N. and other international
organizations to determine if budgets are justified or should be
reduced or increased to advance American interests.
U.S. Policy Towards Africa
Question. The President's 2012 Policy Directive for Africa lists
four pillars of U.S. policy towards Africa. Chief among then: is
strengthening democratic institutions. Another is advancing peace and
security. Do you agree that stronger democratic institutions and
respect for rule oflaw should remain one of the primary objectives of
our Africa policy? What steps will you take if confirmed to support
democracy and rule of law in the region?
Answer. Helping countries in Africa strengthen democratic
institutions and the rule of law should remain a primary U.S.
objective. If confirmed, support for democracy and the rule of law will
continue to be an important part of our diplomatic engagement with
countries throughout the continent.
Africa--Security Challenges
Question. Four Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership (TSCTP)
countries Mali, Niger, Mauritania, and Burkina Faso--have experienced
military coups or attempted coups while participating in the program.
Mali was a significant recipient of military aid under TSCTP prior to
its 2012 military coup. Since then, Mali's military has displayed
severe capacity shortfalls and elements of the security forces have
been accused of serious human rights abuses. African Union Mission
troops in Somalia have played an essential role in helping improve
security in Somalia. Unfortunately, some of those same troops have been
accused of attacks on civilians, including indiscriminate killings, and
sexual exploitation and abuse. The Nigerian military is alleged to have
killed 350 people in Zaire in December 2015, and buried the bodies in
mass graves to conceal evidence. The Anti-Terrorism Police Unit in
Kenya has been accused of extrajudicial killings of youth and alleged
terror suspects. Ethiopian forces have been implicated in killings of
largely peaceful protesters in 2015 and 2016.
Given persistent failure to fully respect human rights and rule of
law by some elements within the African militaries with which we
engage, what will you do if confirmed to ensure that we are adequately
incorporating support for effective accountability structures and
institutions into our security assistance programs such that the police
and military are able to credibly investigate and prosecute allegations
of abuse and wrongdoing?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that as we seek to
advance America's vital interests in combating terrorism, we are also
doing everything possible to prevent the abuse of U.S. assistance
programs.
Question. What more will you commit to do to ensure that we are
promoting and supporting accountability for police and military abuses,
especially those committed by units we are training?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing what additional
steps might be taken to support accountability and avoid abuses by
militaries with whom we partner on critical counterterrorism efforts.
Question. How does the Trump Administration view the efforts of the
Obama Administration to build African capacity to address security
challenges, such as in Somalia and Kenya, and in the Lake Chad Basin
region?
Answer. While I cannot yet speak on behalf of the Trump
Administration, support for efforts to build partner capacity in
Africa, particularly on counter-terrorism challenges that threaten the
American people, is very important.
Question. What will be the State Department's role in shaping U.S.
military engagement in Africa? What priority and role will Counter
Violent Extremism (CVE) programming and other medium to longer-term
efforts play to diminish the terror threat be given under your
leadership.
Answer. The challenge of radical Islamic terrorism in Africa is a
serious and growing problem. Through its diplomacy engagement,
assistance programs, and public diplomacy efforts, the State Department
clearly has a leading role in helping shape long-term U.S. efforts to
counter and defeat the ideology of radical Islamic terrorism-in Africa
and around the world.
Africa--South Sudan
Question. The security and humanitarian situations in South Sudan
are dire. Since the outbreak of civil war in 2013, tens of thousands
have been killed and over two million people displaced by violence that
continues to this day. The United Nations Security Council failed last
month to approve an arms embargo and targeted sanctions despite the
fact that former Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and others have all
warned of potential genocide. If confirmed, what immediate steps do you
plan to take as Secretary of State to help prevent genocide in South
Sudan? If confirmed will you appoint a new Special Envoy for Sudan and
South Sudan as one of your first acts?
Answer. The situation in South Sudan is one of the most pressing
humanitarian situations in the world. It is critical to help build some
political space for reconciliation between the government and rebel
factions. The United States should continue to engage in international
forums like the U.N. and bilaterally with key partners in the area to
address this issue, and decide upon a combined policy to address this
violence. This would include deploying robust diplomacy, possible
sanctions, peacekeeping efforts, and other measures.
Africa--Nigeria
Question. The 2015 Global Terrorism Index indicates that Nigeria
witnessed the largest increase in terrorist deaths ever recorded by any
country, increasing by over 300% to 7,512 fatalities, making the two
Boko Haram factions collectively the deadliest terrorist group in the
world. The humanitarian situation is worse than that in Syria,
according to some aid groups. There is currently a Senior Coordinator
for Countering Boko Haram at the State Department. At a hearing earlier
this year on terrorism and instability in Africa the Chairman asked why
terrorism in Africa does not get as much attention as it does in other
parts of the world. Another of my colleagues suggested it was race
related.
What accounts for the disparity in attention between terrorism not
only in Nigeria, but in Africa writ large, and other parts of the
world, and what should be done to correct it? If confirmed, will you
maintain a Coordinator for Countering Boko Haram?
Answer. The threat of radical Islamic terrorism in Africa is
serious and growing, and certainly deserves increased U.S. attention.
If confirmed, I will look closely at how the State Department can most
effectively contribute to U.S. efforts to combat the threat posed by
Boko Haram.
Question. What are the first actions you will take, if confirmed,
to address the multitude of challenges terrorism, violence in the Delta
and Middle Belt, corruption, serious human rights abuses and
violations, and the humanitarian catastrophe in the northeast-facing
one of the most strategically important countries to the United States
in the region?
Answer. I agree that Nigeria is strategically important to the
stability and security of the entire region. If confirmed, I will work
to strengthen and improve the effectiveness of the U.S.-Nigerian
relationship and how we can best partner with Nigeria to fight
terrorism, reduce violence, and support the country's security,
stability, and development, including its human rights situation.
Africa--Ethiopia
Question. Over the past 14 months, Ethiopian security forces have
killed hundreds of protestors, and the government has jailed political
opponents and harassed and imprisoned journalists. In response to
protests, the government has imposed a state of emergency, authorizing
detention without a warrant, blocking Internet access, prohibiting
public gatherings, and imposing curfews. Promises of a national
dialogue and consideration of constitutional changes have not been met.
In the face of all that, Ethiopia remains one of our closest
counterterrorism partners, and receives hundreds of millions of dollars
in U.S. foreign assistance through Power Africa, Feed the Future and
other signature aid initiatives. I've asked in hearings if the United
States isn't sending mixed signals to our counterterrorism partners on
issues related to respect for human rights and democracy, by not
carefully reviewing our security assistance to countries that engage in
actions similar to those Ethiopia has carried out to ensure we are not
providing arms and training that is turned on civilians, including
those advocating for democratic rights.
Will you commit, if confirmed, to undertaking an interagency review
our security assistance portfolio for Ethiopia and other
counterterrorism partners on the continent to ensure the assistance and
training we are providing is not being used against civilians
advocating for human rights and democratic freedoms?
Answer. If confirmed, I will engage Ethiopia to express our
concerns about violations of human rights and our support for
responsible governance. Ethiopia has a critical role to play in
encouraging stability in Africa and is an important partner for the
United States. Continued diplomatic engagement will be necessary to
ensure that it meets those commitments and continues to contribute
positively to the United States' goals in the region.
Question. Will you commit, if confirmed, to deliver to Congress a
strategy for supporting greater democracy in Ethiopia?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with
Congress to advance U.S. interests in Ethiopia and throughout Africa,
including by supporting greater democracy and human rights.
Exxon in Africa--Equatorial Guinea
Question. ExxonMobil has a substantial presence in Africa,
including in countries that are among the worst dictatorships and
kleptocracies in the world. Equatorial Guinea, which has for years been
considered one of the world's most corrupt countries is one example. A
2004 report found that ExxonMobil established an oil distribution
business in Equatorial Guinea 85-percent owned by ExxonMobil and 15-
percent by Abayak S.A., a company controlled by the longtime President
of Equatorial Guinea, President Teodoro Obiang.
Were you aware of President Obiang's involvement in Abayak? Was
there any hesitation at entering into such a business arrangement with
an individual who was not democratically elected, with a reputation of
being a kleptocrat?
Answer. ExxonMobil began operating in Equatorial Guinea before I
became CEO, and I was not involved in the decision to establish the
referenced oil distribution business.
Question. How much money did ExxonMobil pay President Obiang
through Abayak? Did Exxon Mobile make payments to Theodora Obiang,
eldest son of President Obiang, currently facing trial in France for
corruption?
Answer. I do not know the amount of any payments to Abayak. Any
information about those payments, if they took place, is in ExxonMobil
files to which I no longer have access. To the best of my knowledge,
ExxonMobil did not make payments to Theodora Obiang or to his father,
President Obiang.
Additionally, during my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil
maintained an anticorruption legal compliance guide for its employees,
laying out company policy and legal requirements in this area.
Exxon in Africa--Nigeria
Question. Exxon is a major player in Nigeria's oil sector. I
understand it made a major discovery offshore that could produce 500
million to 1 billion barrels of oil. ExxonMobil's 2009 deal to secure
rights to Nigerian oil reserves is currently under investigation by the
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission of Nigeria. We are told that
ExxonMobil beat out China despite apparently underbidding its rival bid
by $2.25 billion. Is the aforementioned accurate to the best of your
knowledge? What details can you share with us about Exxon's bid, and
the current investigation underway?
Answer. To the best of my knowledge, ExxonMobil complied with all
requirements of Nigerian law when bidding on the referenced oil mining
licenses. Information concerning any ongoing investigation would need
to be provided by ExxonMobil
Burma--Rohingya
Question. As of January 9th, according to the United Nations Office
for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs an estimated 65,000 people
have fled Burma, mostly Rohingya fleeing persecution. Amnesty
International reported and documented a campaign of violence
perpetuated by the Burmese security forces which have indiscriminately
fired on and killed civilians, raped women and girls, and arbitrarily
arrested Rohingya men without any information about their whereabouts--
charges which ``may amount to crimes against humanity.'' There has also
been a recent upsurge in violence in Shan and Kachin States, as well.
What should our diplomatic strategy be towards promoting a peaceful,
prosperous, and democratic Burma that respects the human rights of all
its people regardless of ethnicity and religion, including the
Rohingya?
Answer. The United States must continue to engage with Burma to
support its democratic transition. But we cannot turn a blind eye to
reported military abuses in the country's north and west. Not only is
the mistreatment of the Rohingya a tragedy, but it also threatens to
radicalize a generation of young Rohingya. The United States must
support regional and international efforts to investigate abuses and
pressure the Burmese government and military. U.S. assistance packages
must include aid for the Rohingya and other ethnic minorities. Further
progress in our military-to-military relationship should depend on
improvements in the professionalization and civilian control of the
Burmese military. In applying this pressure, however, the United States
should avoid isolating Burma to such a degree that it strangles its
democratic transition and forces Burma back into overdependence on
China.
Burma--Extractives Sector
Question. The jade and gemstone sector has been identified as one
of the principle drivers of conflict in Burma, including ethnic
conflict, the narcotics trade, and corruption in that country. As
someone who has experience in the of field of extractive industries,
what should the United States do to support a transparent, equitable
and sustainable jade and gemstone sector in Burma that benefits
allsegments of the Burmese society?
Answer. The United States can assist the Burmese government to
build greater capacity to monitor and certify its production of jade
and precious stones-areas in which it has made progress since beginning
the transition to civilian control. But much of the country's jade and
gemstone industry is based in conflict areas in the north, where
proceeds from smuggling help fund armed ethnic groups that maintain
close ties to China. It is therefore critical that the United States
work with China, along with other neighboring countries and
international organizations, to crack down on the illicit trade in jade
and gemstones from Burma.
China
Question. The joint communique of 1972, 1979, and 1982, under
Presidents Nixon, Carter, and Reagan are the foundation of the U.S.-PRC
relationship, along with the Taiwan Relations Act that guides U.S.
policy toward Taiwan. Could you lay out your understanding of the core
principles of these communiques and the TRA? Do you think that these
principles remain important foundations of the relationship? Do you
believe that the One China policy remains valid, or needs revision?
Answer. The Three Communiques, Taiwan Relations Act, and Six
Assurances provide the foundation for U.S. policy toward China and
Taiwan. The United States should continue to uphold the One China
policy and support a peaceful and mutually agreeable cross-Strait
outcome. Under this policy, the United States recognizes the People's
Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and
acknowledges the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China. As
required by the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States continues to
provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character and maintains the
capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other
forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or
economic system, of the people of Taiwan. The United States also
upholds the Six Assurances on U.S. policy toward Taiwan. If confirmed,
I would continue these policies and work to ensure that the cross-
Strait military balance remains favorable to peace and stability.
Question. Should the U.S. continue to conduct the Strategic and
Economic Dialogue with China in its current form, or should adjustments
be made in that mechanism?
Answer. The Strategic and Economic Dialogue provides a valuable
forum for U.S. and Chinese leaders to discuss issues of mutual
interest. These discussions must, however, result in real results if
the forum is to be a productive element of the bilateral relationship.
If confirmed, I will work to ensure that this mechanism is effective in
addressing areas of both cooperation and competition.
Taiwan
Question. Are you concerned that in suggesting the One China policy
is negotiable the President-elect may have created the impression that
Taiwan is nothing more than a bargaining chip, and that that might
undermine our ability to support Taiwan and protect U.S. interests in
peace and stability in the region?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to support the One China policy. The
people of Taiwan are friends of the United States and should not be
treated as a bargaining chip. The U.S. commitment to Taiwan is both a
legal commitment and a moral imperative. If confirmed, I would work to
ensure economic and military stability across the Strait.
China trade
Question. In the last few years, Chinese investment has been
pouring into the U.S. While U.S. companies have substantial investments
in China, they are restricted in many sectors from acquiring
controlling interests, while China does not face comparable
restrictions in the U.S. Would you favor requiring reciprocity on
investments so that China will face restrictions in sectors where U.S.
investors in China faces restrictions? Do you favor negotiation of a
Bilateral Investment Treaty to cover such issues? If Chinese companies
benefit from stolen intellectual property from American companies,
should those Chinese companies be banned from trade and investment with
the U.S.?
Answer. The United States should adopt a whole-of-government
approach to ensure that American workers and consumers are receiving
the benefits of fair trade with China. Restrictions on U.S. firms and
stealing of intellectual property pose serious threats to the U.S.
economy. A bilateral investment treaty could help address this
imbalance, as would additional steps to penalize companies that benefit
from stolen intellectual property. If confirmed, I will work with the
rest of the U.S. government to ensure fairness in U.S.-China trade.
China Human Rights
Question. What is the most effective way for the United States to
promote Americana values and respect for human rights in China? Will
you try to persuade the Chinese leadership to unblock web sites of
American media companies? Will you advocate for the rights of Tibetans
and the people of Hong Kong? How?
Answer. American values are a critical component of American
interests. Standing up for human rights and democracy is not just a
moral imperative but is in the best traditions of our country. If
confirmed, I will support efforts to advocate for democracy and human
rights as an integral element of our diplomatic engagement with China
and other countries around the world.
Southeast Asia
Question. Does the U.S. still value promoting democracy,
particularly in countries such as Myanmar, Thailand, and the
Philippines? What are your views on the persecution of minorities,
ethnic or religious, in the region and elsewhere?
Answer. Promoting U.S. values, such as the pursuit of liberal and
democratic governance, contributes to the long-term U.S. strategy of
strengthening the international order. Whether in allied countries such
as the Philippines and Thailand, or new partners such as Burma and
Vietnam, the United States must continue to ensure that U.S. values are
upheld as a core element of U.S. foreign policy.
South China Sea
Question. In your testimony yesterday you stated that ``China's
island building in the SCS is an illegal taking of disputed areas
without regard for international norms.'' If China is committing ``an
illegal taking of disputed areas'' do you believe the United States
should clarify its approach with regards to the different and competing
claims of sovereignty in the South China Sea? Should it be an objective
of U.S. policy to remove the Chinese presence from these disputed
features, what is your strategy for doing so? How should U.S. respond
if China ``illegally'' builds more of these features? Should a rules-
based order be central to the U.S. approach to the South China Sea?
What should be U.S. strategy to preventing further Chinese
militarization of the land features in the South China Sea, challenges
to freedom of navigation, and Chinese coercion against its neighbors?
Answer. To expand on the discussion of U.S. policy options in the
South China Sea, the United States seeks peaceful resolution of
disputes and does not take a position on overlapping sovereignty
claims, but the United States also does not recognize China's excessive
claims to the waters and airspace of the South China Sea. China cannot
be allowed to use its artificial islands to coerce its neighbors or
limit freedom of navigation or overflight in the South China Sea. The
United States will uphold freedom of navigation and overflight by
continuing to fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows.
If a contingency occurs, the United States and its allies and partners
must be capable of limiting China's access to and use of its artificial
islands to pose a threat to the United States or its allies and
partners. The United States must be willing to accept risk if it is to
deter further destabilizing actions and reassure allies and partners
that the United States will stand with them in upholding international
rules and norms. If confirmed, I would look forward to working with
interagency partners to develop a whole-of-government approach to deter
further Chinese coercion and land reclamation as well as challenges to
freedom of navigation or overflight in the South China Sea.
North Korea
Question. What is your diplomatic strategy in regard to North
Korea? What role do the current sanctions play? Do you believe that
additional sanctions, including secondary sanctions, are needed?
Will you offer bilateral talks or do you support
reinvigorating the Six-Party Talks framework? Specifically, do
you favor a path of increased pressure and sanctions or do you
also see a role, in the right sequence, for diplomatic
engagement?
Do you think we can work cooperatively with China, and
Russia, on North Korea? Do you believe that we should be
sanctioning Chinese and Russian companies that do business with
North Korea?
Recent policy has been to not allow daylight between the
United States and South Korea on North Korea policy. Will that
continue in the Trump Administration? If the next South Korean
government seeks a new approach to North Korea, what would your
approach be?
Is there a ``red line'' for the North Korean nuclear
weapons program or missile program that would trigger a U.S.
action? How do you propose to effectively and credibly convey a
red line to North Korea?
What are your views on the nuclear and missile threats
posed by North Korea? Do you see Pyongyang's developments as
posing a direct threat to the United States? How do you believe
these threats will change over the course of the
administration? Would you support policies that aim to isolate
North Korea and halt these programs?
What role should U.S. allies play in the administration's
approach to North Korea? To what extent does your approach
require coordination with South Korea and Japan?
What strategy does the Administration intend to deploy to
deal with human rights abuses in the DPRK?
Answer. North Korea is one of the leading threats to regional and
global security. If confirmed, I will work closely with my interagency
colleagues to develop a new approach to proactively address the
multitude of threats that North Korea poses to its neighbors and the
international community. Foremost among these challenges are North
Korea's continuing pursuit of nuclear weapons and the ballistic
missiles to launch them (which pose a direct threat to the United
States), the human rights tragedy resulting from the regime's
repressive system, the continuation of illicit activity that spreads
instability, and the risk of a humanitarian crisis that could engulf
the Korean Peninsula. These challenges will continue to worsen if a new
strategy is not adopted. In preparing a new strategy to address these
concerns, the United States should keep all options on the table, from
the threat of military force to the willingness to remain open to
diplomacy. In particular, the threat or use of sanctions, including
secondary sanctions, may be necessary to force North Korean leaders,
and those that support them, to reassess the costs or benefits of
continuing current policies. Key to this strategy is working closely
with U.S. allies and partners, particularly South Korea and Japan, to
ensure close coordination and execution of this strategy. In addition,
the United States should look to work with China and Russia to the
greatest extent possible in order to increase pressure on North Korea.
Only by forcing North Korea to reconsider its dangerous path can the
United States and its allies and partners ensure that the regime does
not further undermine regional and global security.
East Asia Allies
Question. If a ``fair'' burden-sharing agreement cannot be reached
with Japan or the Republic of Korea would you be willing to withdraw
U.S. forces?
Answer. Japan and South Korea already contribute large amounts to
support U.S. forces in their respective countries and I am optimistic
that future discussions will continue to be productive and result in
equitable burden-sharing arrangements. Our shared alliances form the
foundation for security in Northeast Asia and beyond, so we must
strengthen and modernize these alliances to manage growing regional and
global challenges.
Thailand
Question. What are your plans for how will you manage U.S.
relations with Thailand?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to pursue ways to strengthen
our long-standing alliance with Thailand while clearly communicating
that the United States will hold the military government to their
commitment to return to civilian rule later this year. In the long
term, the U.S. relationship with Thailand will be strengthened, not
weakened, by demonstrating that we recognize and support the Thai
people's demand for democracy and human rights.
Multilateral Institutions in Asia
Question. What role do you foresee for U.S. multilateral
organizations such as the East Asia Summit or other forums in Asia?
What can the United States do to support the emergence of a functional
problem-solving ASEAN central to the future of the Asia-Pacific region?
What is the administration's view on the importance of participating in
regional forums such as ARF, EAS, and APEC? Do you have any concerns
that lack of high level participation will allow the Chinese to fill an
American vacuum and undermine our interests in the region?
Answer. Multilateral institutions provide vital forums for Asian-
Pacific nations, including the United States, to cooperate in pursuit
of shared interests and negotiate peaceful solutions when interests
conflict Active U.S. engagement in multilateral institutions, including
the ASEAN Regional Forum, East Asia Summit, and Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation, is critical to support regional states and prevent a power
vacuum that could call into question regional security and prosperity.
Therefore, if I am confirmed, I will ensure that attendance at
multilateral meetings continues to be seen as a priority in the State
Department
Russia/Asia
Question. What challenges are presented by Russia's apparent
determination to play a larger role in Asia, particularly a more active
military role?
Answer. Russia has become more active in Asia in recent years,
including increasing the number and extent of its operations and
exercises around U.S. allies, U.S. forces, and even U.S. territory. One
concern is that Russian military pressure is adding to the already
substantial burden of U.S. allies, such as Japan, that already face
mounting challenges from China. The United States should work with its
allies and partners to show solidarity against Russian military
incursions and to encourage Russia to play a positive and productive
role in Asia, including through the Six Party Talks.
Exxon in Asia--Indonesia
Question. A federal court has found sufficient evidence that Exxon
Mobil is responsible for human rights abuses by security forces on its
Indonesia operations and, on that basis, has allowed the case to
proceed to trial despite strenuous efforts by Exxon to prevent this.
The human rights abuses detailed in the case include killings and
torture-- shootings, beatings, kidnapping, sexual assault, electric
shocks to genitals, destruction of homes and property. Evidence from a
federal lawsuit indicates that high-level Exxon Mobil executives knew
about serious human rights abuses by Exxon's security forces in
Indonesia and received frequent detailed reports on ``deployment
goals'' and ``operational strategy'' of military security personnel and
``set standards, plans, and tasks'' for security in Asia. Many of the
documents in the case remain sealed at Exxon's request.
Prior to your confirmation, in order to provide clarity regarding
the role of Exxon in these abuses and your own role, including in
response to reports of abuses, will you ask Exxon to publicly release
the documents from the case?
Answer. I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to make
such a special request of ExxonMobil given my status as nominee for
Secretary of State. Nor do I have any reason to believe the company
would alter its long-term litigation strategy at my request, as I am no
longer an officer or director of ExxonMobil
While conducting its business in Indonesia, ExxonMobil has worked
for generations to improve the quality of life in Ace through
employment of local workers, provision of health services, and
extensive community investment. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO,
ExxonMobil strongly condemned human rights violations in any form.
Question. Will you release documents that indicate your knowledge
or participation in deliberations about human rights violations and
security forces in Exxon's Ace operations?
Answer. To the best of my knowledge, there are no such documents.
Question. While a highly-placed Exxon executive, did you met with
Indonesian officials on behalf of Exxon and discuss such abuses?
Answer. No, to the best of my knowledge.
Question. What did you do to stop the abuses?
Answer. The allegations in the referenced lawsuit predate my tenure
as Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, and I was not employed in a capacity
that would have given me any responsibility over the Indonesian
production facilities during the relevant time period.
During my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil vigorously
contested the abuse allegations-and my understanding is that it
continues to do so. Additionally, under my leadership, ExxonMobil
enhanced nearly all of its private security personnel contracts to
include provisions addressing human rights concerns.
Question. Why didn't the abuses stop?
Answer. The allegations in the referenced lawsuit predate my tenure
as Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, and I was not employed in a capacity
that would have given me any responsibility over the Indonesian
production facilities during the relevant time period.
During my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil vigorously
contested the abuse allegations-and my understanding is that it
continues to do so. Additionally, under my leadership, ExxonMobil
enhanced nearly all of its private security personnel contracts to
include provisions addressing human rights concerns.
Question. Is Exxon still providing financial support for the
Indonesian military or other Indonesian armed forces?
Answer. As I am no longer with the company, I cannot comment on its
current business practices in Indonesia.
Question. Do you believe that this case deserves a full hearing in
U.S. courts?
Answer. As expressed during my testimony, I am a strong believer in
the rule of law. It is ultimately the responsibility of the federal
courts to determine whether a trial is warranted.
Question. A full and fair hearing will require that the Indonesian
plaintiffs appear in person to testify in U.S. court. If confirmed,
will you commit to supporting the Indonesian plaintiff's efforts to
obtain visas to be able travel to the U.S. to testify?
Answer. If confirmed, I will consult with responsible ethics
advisors to determine whether any such support would be permissible, or
if this would be a matter warranting my recusal
Afghanistan
Question. The U.S. maintains about 10,000 troops in Afghanistan and
provide billions in security and development assistance. How do you see
U.S. interests in Afghanistan? Do you think that the U.S. should pursue
a peace deal with militant groups in the country?
Answer. Afghanistan is the longest war in American history. Today,
the United States should engage the government of Afghanistan President
Ashraf Ghani and CEO Abdullah Abdullah to increase stability, reduce
corruption, ensure a better standard of living for Afghans,
particularly women and girls, and ensure that Afghanistan is never
again used as a base for international terrorism. The United States
should also engage with Islamabad to strengthen the civilian government
and eliminate the safe havens that terrorist groups like the Haqqani
network enjoy. The United States should work with both Afghanistan and
Pakistan to encourage cooperation, build trust, and seek to ensure
regional stability, including peace in Afghanistan, in a context of
mutual respect and appreciation of each country' interests.
Pakistan
Question. The U.S. has provided billions in security assistance to
Pakistan since 9/11 but the country's intelligence services continue to
support terrorist groups. What are our interests with respect to
Pakistan? How would you change the U.S. approach to Pakistan in order
to ensure enhanced pressure on militant groups?
Answer. The United States has an interest in a democratic Pakistan
that respects human rights and contributes to regional stability,
including the security of its nuclear arsenal The United States should
engage with Islamabad to strengthen the civilian government and
eliminate the safe havens that terrorist groups like the Haqqani
network enjoy. If confirmed, I will also work with the Department of
Defense to encourage the military to take steps against those actors
involved with providing assistance to such organizations, which remains
a serious threat to Americans, Afghans, and Pakistanis alike.
India
Question. We have a very robust and growing relationship with
India, which I support, but there are many irritants remain regarding
values including India's dismal record on bonded labor and religious
freedom. How would address these issues as Secretary of State?
Answer. India is an important partner for the United States. It is
the world's most populous democracy, and one which is playing an
increasingly important role in the region and throughout the world.
However, certain areas of India's behavior remain concerning. If
confirmed, I will engage India to express our concern on issues like
infringements of religious freedom to encourage the government to take
positive action.
Central Asia
Question. The countries of Central Asia continue to have
challenging human rights records. I have advocated for the release of
political prisoners across the region directly to these governments and
through the State Department. Do I have your commitment to raise cases
of political prisoners with leadership in the five Central Asian
republics?
Answer. If confirmed as Secretary, I will engage the states of
Central Asia to advocate for the release of political prisoners and
ensure improvements in human rights and responsible governance. The
U.S. maintains bilateral relationships with each of the nations in
Central Asia that encompass multiple facets including security, human
rights, energy, and other issues. The status of political prisoners
should be part of the regular discussions the United States holds with
these nations, so they are aware of our concern over the issue and are
encouraged to take positive action in response.
Rosneft
Question. Rosneft, currently under sanctions, now holds the
mortgage on CITGO's U.S. holdings. You have extensive experience with
the Russian state-owned oil industry. Do you believe that Rosneft
should be permitted to own critical U.S. energy infrastructure such as
CITGO's refineries and pipelines?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on the details of this
case, but in general I am very supportive of the process by which the
U.S. government seeks to prevent our adversaries--or even potential
adversaries--from controlling critical U.S. infrastructure that would
leave the American people more vulnerable.
Yukos
Question. In 2011, while you were CEO, ExxonMobil signed a $3.2
billion investment deal with Rosneft, the Russian state-owned oil
company that had, a few years earlier, taken over the assets of the
Yukos oil company, which was effectively expropriated by the Russian
government and whose CEO, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, spent more than ten
years in prison on what was widely recognized as politically motivated
charges. It is estimated that more than 20,000 individual U.S.
investors, public pension funds, as well as more than seventy private
investment funds lost their investments in Yukos. As Secretary of
State, would you commit to helping them receive a fair compensation
from the Russian government?
Answer. My understanding is these have been/are being litigated in
the appropriate courts. I do not know the status of specific claims,
but the United States should and will always support the rule of law.
Cyprus
Question. Cyprus is a reliable strategic partner of the United
States in the volatile region of the Eastern Mediterranean. How will
the new U.S. Administration further develop the bilateral ties between
the United States and the Republic of Cyprus, and how will it support
the ongoing reunification negotiations and that a reunified federal
Cyprus will be able to pursue its own independent and sovereign foreign
policy, as a Member State of the European Union?
Answer. Strong bilateral ties with the Republic of Cyprus will help
ensure future stability and prosperlty in the region. A long-term
solution for Cyprus is important for U.S. interests in the region. The
United States should continue to support the efforts of the Greek and
Turkish Cypriot leaders to achieve a just resolution that is consistent
with U.N. resolutions and heals the island's divisions. If confirmed, I
look forward to working closely with the U.N. and other key actors to
support a solution.
Romania--Security Relationship
Question. Romania joined NATO in 2004. The Romanian military served
in both Afghanistan and Iraq and were among the last allied forces to
withdraw from Iraq. Mihail Kogainiceanu (MK) airbase in southern
Romania is one of the primary transit points for American troops and
equipment entering and exiting Afghanistan. At any given moment, there
are hundreds of U.S. troops in transit through Romania. Do you continue
to recognize this unique contribution of Romanians in both Afghanistan
and Iraq, and will it be the position of the United States to ask
Romania to continue to perform this critical role, including the
mission at MK airbase?
Answer. I recognize the many valuable contributions that Romania
has made and continues to make to our common security, including the
important role of the M.K. Air Base. I look forward to working closely
with the government of Romania to meet future challenges to our common
security if confirmed.
Romania--NATO & Missiles Defense in Deveselu
Question. In 2010 Romania's president agreed to host the Aegis
Ashore missile defense system for NATO. The primary purpose of the
system is to protect Romania and NATO's southern flank from ballistic
missiles launched from Iran. In the period since the system was
proposed, the Russian government, with varying degrees of intensity,
has opposed the plan-claiming that it would somehow erode the Russian
nuclear deterrent. Romanian President Klaus Johannis stated in May
that, when the missiles become operational and the Russians protested
that the Russians were overreacting and that the system was not
directed at Russia and added, ``NATO needs to be prepared to respond to
incidents coming from other areas outside the trans-Atlantic space . .
. The system is not against any state, having a strictly defensive
role.'' Will it continue to be the position of the United States to
support this system?
Answer. Iran poses a serious threat to the security of the United
States and our European allies. It is critical to have the right
defensive capabilities in place, and I value the role that Romania is
playing as host of the Aegis Ashore missile defense system. If
confirmed, I will support our continued commitment to having the right
defense systems in place to defend Romania and our other NATO allies.
Romania and the Rule of Law
Question. Over the past 25 years, U.S. engagement with Romania at
the highest levels has consistently emphasized the importance of rule
of law, transparency and anticorruption in providing stability for the
country's political system and predictability for its markets. As
Republican and Democratic presidents, vice presidents, secretaries of
state and other cabinet ministers have emphasized, this is important
for insuring the continuity of Romanian democracy, undergirding the
country as a strategic ally and making Romania a more attractive
destination for U.S. investment. Do you agree that anticorruption and
rule of law should continue to be a pillar of our relationship and a
high priority for the Romanian government?
Answer. Romania is an important ally, and I fully agree that anti-
corruption and rule of law should continue to underpin our
relationship. I look forward to working with the Romanian government on
these issues if confirmed.
Israel--Two State Solution
Question. Since 1967, successive U.S. administrations have promoted
a negotiated two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians with
both sides living side-by-side in peace and security. Do you believe
that supporting the two-state solution should still be U.S. policy?
Answer. Yes.
Israel--MOU
Question. In September, the United States concluded a new 10-year
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Israel for military aid. Do you
support the funding levels agreed to by the United States and Israel?
In the new U.S.-Israel MOU, the two governments agreed to phase out Off
Shore Procurement (OSP), a benefit by which Israel was permitted to
spend 26.3% of U.S. foreign military financing (FMF) on Israel's
defense industry, rather than the United States. If confirmed as
Secretary of State, to you intend to continue the agreed-upon plan to
phase out of OSP for Israel?
Answer. I am deeply committed to Israel's security and to our
bilateral relationship. Israel is America's closest ally in the Middle
East, and a key bastion of democracy. If confirmed, I intend to engage
Israel to deepen this relationship and ensure Israel has the means to
defend itself. I will discuss with my Israeli partners the key
components of Israeli security, and ensure that both American and
Israeli key interests are met
Israel--UNSCR 2334
Question. In December, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution
2334, which I believe is a biased resolution that unfairly targets
Israel and makes restarting direct negotiations for a two-state
solution more difficult. In your view, how can other governments and
the Palestinians use Resolution 2334 to further isolate Israel or
promote unilateral Palestinian action through international
organizations? If confirmed as Secretary of State, what steps do you
plan to take to mitigate the negative implications of 2334?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I will ensure that Israel will be able
to count on the United States for political and diplomatic support,
particularly in international forums. The United States should not
allow Israel to be singled out by international bodies for special
censure. Doing so only increases Israel's insecurity, and damages its
standing in the world. The U.N. resolution that was passed is
particularly troubling because in many ways it could be interpreted as
undermining the legitimacy of Israel as well as the peace process.
Israel--UN Database
Question. The U.N. Human Rights Council is preparing a database of
companies in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This is possibly the
first step in preparing sanctions against these companies. What can the
U.S. do to limit the input of this dangerous exercise?
Answer. The passage of UNSCR 2334 was damaging for many reasons,
but in particular because it subjects Israel to potential litigation,
delegitimization efforts, and penalties in other international arenas.
The United States should robustly engage in these forums to ensure that
Israel is protected. It should also engage member governments on a
bilateral basis to make them aware of our concern over these efforts
and seek their support for our policy in defense of Israel
Egypt--Assistance
Question. Egypt is the second largest recipient of U.S. assistance,
both military and economic. I am committed to a healthy U.S.-Egypt
partnership, but have concerns about anti-American rhetoric in state-
sponsored media, backsliding on Egypt's political reform agenda, and
the Egyptian government's blocking of U.S. assistance programs. Do you
support current conditions on U.S. aid to Egypt, including the
maintenance of the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty? What about conditions
based on political and human rights reforms? Do you believe that the
Egyptian government 1s capable of stopping anti-American rhetoric in
state-sponsored media?
Answer. Egypt is one of the United States' most important partners
in the region. The United States should engage Egypt to express its
concern over human rights issues in the country, as well as anti-
American messages in the media. Our aid should always aim to reflect
our values. Egypt has an important role to play regionally, as a leader
in the Arab world, in the peace process, and in the region. Foreign
assistance to Egypt, including security assistance, is an important
part of our relationship, and critical to Egypt's ability to both
contribute to U.S. national security goals and to improve the lives of
Egyptians.
Egypt--CFF
Question. The Obama Administration announced in April 2015 that it
would end Cash Flow Financing (CFF), a financial mechanism that enables
foreign governments to pay for U.S. defense equipment using U.S.
funding in partial installments. The Egyptian Government has indicated
that it will formally ask the Trump Administration to restart CFF for
Egypt. In your view, is CFF in the U.S. national security interest?
Answer. The United States should work to help Egypt achieve the
necessary means to defend itself and contribute to stability in the
region. I will engage Cairo to determine the capabilities it needs, and
how the United States can best meet those needs when they are in
concert with our own national interests. Economic prosperity is
certainly one of those interests; I will closely examine how Egypt
spends its foreign assistance to ensure both of our key goals are being
met.
Lebanon--New Government
Question. After nearly three years of political paralysis and the
deterioration of public services, I was pleased by the election of a
President, appointment sofa Prime Minister, and the fairly rapid
formation of the new government. However, the Lebanese Ministerial
Statement affirmed the right of ``armed resistance'' and of
``liberation'' outside the authority of the state, allowing non-state
actors to remain armed and to make war and peace decisions on behalf f
the state and the nation. In your view, what should the U.S. policy
approach be to the new Lebanese government? Does Lebanon's stability
and security matter for U.S. national security? What U.S. actions or
policies would be destabilizing for Lebanon?
Answer. The United States should engage Lebanon to ensure its
stability, contribute to regional stability, and take action against
terrorist groups. Careful diplomatic attention must be paid as the
government of Lebanon attempts to balance all of its domestic factions
in the context of a regionalized civil war. If confirmed as Secretary,
I would work through regional and international mechanisms to
contribute to political stability in Lebanon, the sustainment of
Lebanese human rights, and the disarmament of Hezbollah, consistent
with U.N. Security Council resolutions.
Hezbollah
Question. Hezbollah continues to amass thousands of rockets on
Israel's border and regularly calls for Israel's destruction. It has
also become highly engaged in the Syrian civil war playing a central
role in supporting Bashar al Assad. None of this would be possible
without the support and weapons Hezbollah receives from Iran and which
go through Syria. Yet President-Elect Trump has argued that in Syria we
should negotiate an agreement with Russia and possibly coordinate with
Assad to fight ISIL. In your view, why does Iran continue to transfer
sophisticated weapons to Hezbollah? Does Iran need a compliant
government in Damascus in order to continue transferring weapons to
Hezbollah? Is it possible to negotiate an agreement with Russia to end
the civil war in Syria, that also halts Iran's use of Syria as a
strategic corridor to Hezbollah in Lebanon?
Answer. The threat of the Islamic Republic of Iran is one of the
gravest national security challenges faced by the United States.
Hezbollah is a key ally in Iran's effort to expand its control over the
region. The Syrian government is another key ally of Iran; it provides
critical support for Iran's transfer of military hardware, personnel,
and supplies to Hezhollah. If confirmed, one of my top priorities will
he to craft a political settlement for Syria that does not permit the
territory of Syria to be grounds for international terrorism that might
reach the American homeland or that of America's allies. The United
States should also engage Iran's regional rivals to emphasize the need
to halt advanced Iranian weapons and other strategic support from
reaching Hezbollah.
Saudi Arabia--Yemen
Question. It is my view that the threats facing Saudi Arabia from
Houthi rebels and associated forces constitute legitimate security
threats. Since April 2015, the Houthis and their allies have conducted
cross-border raids and launched missiles into Saudi Arabia, and
currently occupy Saudi national territory. Many of these missiles have
fallen in civilian areas, and the Houthi-aligned forces now boast that
their long-range missiles could reach Mecca. At least 500 civilians are
estimated to have been killed inside Saudi territory due to these
attacks; hundreds of homes, schools, and other civilian structures have
been closed. In your view, is there more that the United States could
do to support Saudi border defense?
Answer. The conflict in Yemen is deeply concerning to the United
States for humanitarian and strategic reasons. Iran is supporting the
Shia Houthi forces as part of a drive to extend its influence over
broad swaths of the Middle East. Taking advantage of the ensuing civil
war and collapse of the internationally-recognized government's
authority, al-Qaeda and ISIS affiliates have taken control of territory
elsewhere in Yemen. The United States should engage with Saudi Arabia
and its other allies in the region to reduce the humanitarian toll of
this conflict, mediate a solution that ensures stability, and prevent
terrorists from targeting the American homeland. As part of that
engagement, the United States should assist Saudi Arabia in securing
its border against terrorism and attacks from Houthi forces.
Saudi Arabia--Arms Race
Question. According to the Congressional Research Service, Saudi
Arabia concluded over $93 Billion in arms sales agreements from 2008 to
2015. Most of these weapons purchases were from the United States for
sophisticated lethal military systems such as advanced aircraft,
precision-guided munitions, tanks, attack helicopters, and advanced
command, communication and control systems. Yet despite this extensive
arms sale relationship and years of U.S. military training, exercises,
and education, Saudi military forces have not been able to
significantly shift the battlefield dynamic in Yemen where they have
formed a coalition to back the internationally recognized government of
Yemeni President Hadi and push back against aggression by Houthi rebels
and forces aligned with former President Saleh. Meanwhile, the Saudi-
led Coalition's air strikes and ground operations have contributed to
unprecedented suffering in Yemen, and many airstrikes--whether
deliberate or accidental--have resulted in the deaths of Yemeni
civilians and destruction of civilian infrastructure.
Should the United States continue to sell sophisticated
weapons systems to Saudi Arabia?
Do you believe that the United States is culpable or
complicit in civilian deaths or destruction of civilian
infrastructure in Yemen because of its arms sales to Saudi
Arabia?
Are there specific kinds of weapons that you do not support
selling to Saudi Arabia? Do you support the sale of precision-
guided munitions? If yes, should these sales be conditioned on
Saudi military conduct?
What are the risks to U.S. national sec1.1rity if the
United States stops selling arms to Saudi Arabia?
While I believe that Israel continues to have a
``Qualitative Military Edge'' over its Arab neighbors, I also
believe that advantage is shrinking, especially as we continue
to sell more advanced weapon systems to the Gulf States. Israel
is also concerned about its neighbors acquiring a significant
``quantitative military edge,'' in which raw numbers of
somewhat less advanced militaries could still too considerable
harm to Israel's security. How will you respond to these two
concerns by our closest partner in the Middle East?
Answer. The relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States
is one of the key elements of stability in the Middle East. Saudi
Arabia currently feels itself besieged by a hostile and revolutionary
Iran: on its borders in Yemen; in Syria; in Bahrain; and
internationally through the JCPOA. Iranian domination of the Middle
East will not benefit either Washington or Riyadh. The United States
should reassure Saudi Arabia that it will remain engaged to secure the
stability of the Middle East. This includes a strong relationship with
Israel, one of our closest allies in the region, and a commitment that
the United States will never allow Israeli security to be imperiled. If
confirmed, I will engage Israel closely, in conjunction with the
Department of Defense, to ensure Israel's Qualitative Military Edge is
never threatened by its neighbors. While ensuring the security of
Israel and our other allies in the region, the United States should
also, always, work to avoid civilian casualties in its own operations
and those of its partners.
Syria--War Crimes
Question. In your opening statement, you said that Syrian forces
have brutally violated the laws of war. Is this is the same as war
crimes? Which entities, both government and nongovernment, operating in
Syria over the past year are guilty of war crimes? Your opening remarks
also point out that Russia has supported Syrian forces in these
violations of the laws of war. Do you also believe that Russia is
guilty of war crimes in Syria? If confirmed as Secretary of State, do
you commit to including war crimes accountability as a key element of
any political agreement to end the civil war in Syria?
Answer. It is highly likely that war crimes have been committed,
perhaps by multiple combatants, during the course of the Syrian civil
war. Russian, Iranian, and Syrian forces have conducted operations that
have killed many civilians. If confirmed, I will seek all necessary
information, including critical classified information, to ensure that
the United States not only alleviates humanitarian suffering in Syria
but works to hold those parties culpable of war crimes accountable,
within the context of a stable political solution to the conflict.
Syria--Russia
Question. President-elect Trump has suggested that the United
States can work with Russia on counterterrorism in Syria, and Bashar
al-Assad said that President-elect Trump can be a ``natural ally'' in
the counterterrorism fight. First, however, there must be agreement on
what groups are terrorists. If confirmed, what definition of terrorism
will you use in your discussions on Syria, and what will you do if
there is disagreement with your Russian counterparts on this
definition? Do you believe that Russia and Assad are targeting
terrorists that meet the U.S. definition of terrorism, in Syria? Is it
your assessment that the majority of Russian and Assad regime air
strikes have targeted terrorists?
Answer. ISIS presents a critical national security threat to the
United States, Russia, and many other countries. Russia needs to do
more to target ISIS and we should reject conflating ISIS with
opposition groups with legitimate political grievances with the Assad.
If confirmed, this will be a critical point of discussion in any
engagement of the Russian government
Syria--Iran
Question. Iran is helping Assad just as much as Russia. Some of the
most effective forces coming to aid Assad's strained forces are the
Iranian Revolutionary Guards and LebaneseHezbollah. How can the United
States seek an agreement on Syria with Russia that doesn't also support
Iran's position?
Answer. The United States will engage Russia robustly to negotiate
a political settlement to the Syrian civil war. There are areas of the
Syrian conflict in which we share an interest with Russia, such as
ensuring regional stability and preventing Syria from being used as a
launching pad for international terrorism. At the same time, the United
States needs to emphasize to Russia the negative role Iran often plays
in meeting these goals and the destabilizing influence it can have on
Syria and throughout the Middle East If confirmed, I would work closely
with our allies in the region to ensure that any political settlement
in Syria does not place their security in jeopardy, nor leave Iran in a
dominating position.
ISIL--Counter-ISIL Campaign
Question. Please provide a summary of your understanding of the
main lines of effort of the U.S.-led Global Coalition to Counter ISIL.
Have these lines of effort been effective in shrinking the territory
held by ISIL in Iraq and Syria? In your view, is U.S. leadership
necessary to global efforts to counter ISIL? Why? If confirmed, will
you recommend that the U.S. Government retain these lines of effort as
its strategic approach to countering ISIL? What are the specific
recommendations you intend to offer for strengthening the U.S.-led
Global Coalition to Counter ISIL?
Answer. Coordinated military action by the United States and its
allies has indeed helped to erode the physical size of the territory
held by ISIS in Iraq and Syria. To date, however, the bulk of the
existing strategy remains unimplemented. With the notable exception of
U.S. government efforts to disrupt the organization's finances, very
little has been done to fully address the complexity of the threat
posed by ISIS.
In my view, much of the approach begun by the Obama administration
has continuing relevance. However, U.S. government efforts have so far
suffered from a lack of leadership and resources necessary to lead to
lasting success. One of my top priorities as Secretary will be to
engage with the Global Coalition and determine which strategies hold
the greatest promise for future success, particularly in the realm of
countering the IS/S's corrosive ideology.
ISIL--War of Ideas and CVE
Question. In your opening statement you state that defeating ISIL
will not occur on the battlefield along, but that ``we must win the war
of ideas.'' You go on to state, ``If confirmed, I will ensure the State
Department does its part in supporting Muslims around the world who
reject radical Islam in all its forms.''
How do you define radical Islam?
Answer. Radical Islam is a political manifestation of the Islamic
faith, one that does not value human life and is deeply antagonistic to
democratic values and institutions and which seeks to replace them with
strict Islamic governance on a local, regional, and ultimately a global
level
Question. Do you anticipate that the people, organizations, and
governments that you seek to work with share this definition?
Answer. While it is impossible to expect all our partners to share
our view of the threat posed by radical Islam, the Global Coalition to
counter ISIS is proof that it is possible, at the very least, to build
a broad, united front against the most extreme manifestations of this
phenomenon.
Question. Under your leadership, where would State's efforts to
counter terrorism and violent extremism sit within the broader policy
framework?
Answer. Quite simply, America cannot ``go it alone'' in the fight
against radical Islam. Because of the scope of this struggle, it is
imperative that the United States secure international support and
assistance for its efforts. The Department has a critical role to play
in engaging global partners, and in helping to shape the ideological
counter-narrative to radical Islamic thought.
Question. How would you prioritize them compared to other critical
issues such as injustice, autocratic governance, refugees, political
violence, humanitarian crisis and violent conflict?
Answer. While certainly not the only challenge facing the United
States, it is my view that the struggle against radical Islam
represents one of the top national security and foreign policy
priorities of our government.
Question. How would you define our objectives regarding countering
terrorism and violent extremism?
Answer. In the near term, the United States must eliminate the
ability of radical groups such as ISIS to threaten the U.S. homeland,
and reduce the threat they pose to American interests and American
allies abroad. In the longer term, we should work to discredit and
marginalize the most extreme interpretations of the Islamic faith,
while simultaneously empowering moderate versions of the same.
Question. Can they be achieved with current means and methods, and
what role does the State Department specifically play in achieving
them?
Answer. The terrorism challenge confronting the United States is
one that is far broader than ISIS alone. It encompasses the rise of
other militant groups, the growing global popularity of extreme
Islamist thought, and the mass mobilization of Islamic radicals in the
Middle East and beyond. In order to adequately address these and other
threats, the U.S. government must be prepared to engage in long-term
conflict. It must also formulate a counterterrorism strategy that is as
complex, as adaptive, and as wide-ranging as the forces that it seeks
to confront and defeat. So far, it has not.
The role of the State Department in this effort is a critical one,
involving both outreach to coalition partners and engagement with the
Muslim world, with the goal of discrediting the radical Islamist
message.
Question. Please provide three examples of new initiatives that you
will promote at the State Department to support Muslims in countering
violent extremism?
Answer. Today, the private sector is the site of significant
innovation in countering violent extremism, with organizations such as
Jigsaw creating new technologies and methods by which to steer
vulnerable individuals away from radicalism. As Secretary, I would
encourage greater governmental investments in these private sector
enterprises as a way of amplifying their effectiveness and reach.
Likewise, I would expand the scope and authorities of the Global
Engagement Center, or whatever entity replaces it, in order to more
effectively counter not only the ideology of ISIS, but that of other
extreme groups as well (including radical Shi'ite movements and
actors).
Finally, I would oversee a significant reorganization and fusion of
the existing public diplomacy functions currently located in various
parts of the bureaucracy, as a way of helping the State Department to
more effectively lead the ``war of ideas'' against radical Islam.
Question. Please provide three examples of ongoing State Department
initiatives that positively contribute to countering violent extremism
and that you would seek to retain if confirmed?
Answer. Over the past year, the State Department has experienced
significant success, with social media companies such as Facebook and
Twitter, in limiting the ability of extremists to occupy and exploit
the social media space. Likewise, the U.S. government effort to disrupt
ISIS's finances (in which the State Department plays a significant
role) has had a notable effect on the group's overall financial
fortunes. Finally, the State Department has helped to engage with
foreign allies in an effort to develop strategies to prevent
radicalized individuals from joining the ranks of ISIS in Iraq and
Syria.
Question. What are U.S. policies--both domestic and international-
that might alienate the very Muslims you seek to work with in
countering violent extremism?
Answer. In recent years, the perception that the United States is
disengaged from--and disinterested in--the Muslim world has become
increasingly prevalent abroad. This perception is deeply injurious to
our efforts to forge a broad counterterrorism coalition with the
resources and resolve to defeat ISIS and other manifestations of
radical Islam. Our allies and partners in this effort must know that
the United States is committed to a long-term struggle against Islamic
extremism in all of its forms.
Iran--Sanctions
Question. Speaking in the context of sanctions against Russia over
its invasion of Crimea, you expressed skepticism of the efficacy of
sanctions in general, unless they are applied in a 'comprehensible'
fashion. At Exxon's 2014 annual meeting, you are quoted as saying, ``We
do not support sanctions, generally, because we don't find them to be
effective unless they are very well implemented comprehensibly, and
that's a very hard thing to do. So we always encourage the people who
are making those decisions to consider the very broad collateral damage
of who are they really harming.'' Sanctions--implemented effectively-
have been the linchpin of our strategy to prevent an Iranian nuclear
weapons capability, and to obstructing its malign regional influence.
Is there anything in this statement that you would like to clarify? Did
Exxon, either itself or through proxies and associations, oppose
sanctions against Iran?
Answer. My statement at ExxonMobil's 2014 annual meeting provided
ExxonMobil's perspective on sanctions as a general matter. ExxonMobil
did not lobby against Iran sanctions during my tenure as Chairman and
CEO, but rather sought to share information with lawmakers that would
assist them in mitigating disproportionate harm to U.S. companies as
compared to their foreign competitors. To the best of my knowledge,
ExxonMobil has disclosed all such activity as required by the lobbying
disclosure laws.
Iran--JCPOA
Question. While the JCPOA suspended nuclear sanctions against Iran,
the U.S. retains the right to enforce and impose new sanctions on Iran
for its support for terrorism, human rights abuses, development and
testing of ballistic missiles, cyber crimes, and corruption. If
confirmed, do you plan on advocating for sanctioning Iranian entities
involved in these malign activities? How will the State Department
respond under your leadership if Iranian officials threaten to abrogate
the JCPOA? What do you see as the proper path forward with regard to
the JCPOA?
Please provide specific examples of new sanctions that can be
applied in each category listed above, and whether the executive branch
has authority to implement such sanctions or needs new legislative
authority.
Answer. The United States should closely examine, and at the very
least rigorously enforce, the provisions of the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA). It should engage the IAEA, the Joint
Commission, and other international and multilateral organizations--as
well as individual states--to ensure Iran does not cheat on its
commitments. At the same time, the United States should work with its
regional partners and allies to dismantle Iran's sponsorship of
terrorist groups and block Iranian aggression throughout the Middle
East. Non-nuclear sanctions are an important part of that effort. If I
am confirmed, the United States will closely monitor and enforce those
sanctions, including on entities linked to the Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps. However, I would like to receive all available material,
including that in the classified realm, before identifying specific
targets.
Mexico
Question. A December 2016 report by the Center for Disease Control
found that heroin is the leading cause of overdose deaths in the U.S.
Most of the heroin ravaging U.S. communities comes from Mexico, where
transnational criminal organizations control poppy cultivation, heroin
production, and trafficking routes to the United States. The damage
done to U.S.-Mexico relations during the campaign threatens to
undermine the deepened security cooperation begun under President
George W. Bush with the Merida Initiative. If confirmed, how will you
work with the Government of Mexico to diminish the threat posed to
American families by heroin? Will you continue the Merida Initiative
and support the Mexican government's efforts to reform its justice
sector, expand training for civilian police, combat corruption, and
protect human rights?
Answer. Mexico is a country of great importance to the United
States, as a neighbor and trading partner. Although we will probably
have differences with the government of Mexico regarding enforcement of
our immigration laws, we will still need to continue to cooperate with
Mexico on important issues of common interest, such as narcotics
trafficking. If confirmed, I would review the track record of the
Merida Initiative, and certainly endeavor to continue projects that
improve Mexican performance in the areas you have noted.
Canada--Reviewing Keystone Pipeline Permit
Question. On November 6, 2015, following extensive technical
consultations with eight federal agencies, Secretary of State John
Kerry determined that it was in the U.S. national interest to deny the
permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. The technical review found
marginal benefits for the American economy and our energy security, and
a range of concerns for local communities and water supplies in the
U.S. If confirmed, would you seek consider the Keystone pipeline matter
settled, or would you seek to reopen the past technical review process
or launch a new review?
Answer. During the campaign, the President-elect made a commitment
to reopen this matter and proceed with the Keystone Pipeline-in the
interests of energy security and job creation. If confirmed, I will
quickly review the legal and foreign policy aspects of Secretary
Kerry's decision and work with the President-elect to carry out his
policy objectives.
Colombia
Question. U.S. support for Colombia across three U.S. and three
Colombian Administrations, through Plan Colombia and now Peace
Colombia, is rightly seen as perhaps the most successful bipartisan
foreign policy success in the 21st Century. The United States has
invested billions while our Colombian partners have far outpaced that
investment in terms of blood and treasure. Fifteen years ago, Colombia
teetered on the edge of being a failed state. Today, it has an historic
peace agreement and stands on the verge of joining the OECD. If
confirmed, do you pledge to continue U.S. support for Colombia through
Peace Colombia to help Colombia consolidate its historic peace
agreement?
Answer. I agree that Plan Colombia has made a dramatic difference
and can be considered a foreign policy success for both the United
States and for Colombia. Colombia is, I believe, one of our closest
allies in the hemisphere, and an important trading partner. If
confirmed, I would make every effort to continue our close cooperation
with the Colombian government, holding them to their commitments to
rein in drug production and trafficking. I would also seek to review
the details of Colombia's recent peace agreement, and determine the
extent to which the United States should continue to support it.
Venezuela
Question. In 2016, Venezuela delivered the world's worst economic
performance in terms of GDP contraction and inflation. As the country
has moved towards economic collapse, widespread shortages of essential
medicines and basic food products have created an increasingly urgent
humanitarian situation. This situation is complicated by an
authoritarian government whose members are engaged in widespread
corruption and, in the case of some officials, direct involvement in
the drug trade. If confirmed, what policy tools do you recommend the
United States use to resolve or mitigate the growing humanitarian
crisis and collapsing economy Venezuela? How will you work with other
governments in the region to address the challenges in Venezuela?
Answer. I think we are in full agreement as to the calamity that
has befallen Venezuela, largely a product of its incompetent and
dysfunctional government-first under Hugo Chavez, and now under his
designated successor, Nicolas Maduro. If confirmed, I would urge close
cooperation with our friends in the hemisphere, particularly
Venezuela's neighbors Brazil and Colombia, as well as multilateral
bodies such as the OAS, to seek a negotiated transition to democratic
rule in Venezuela. In the end, it will be rebuilt political
institutions, led by brave Venezuelan democracy and human-rights
advocates, that will pave the way for the kinds of reforms needed to
put Venezuela on the path to economic recovery.
Brazil
Question. Since March 2014, an ongoing legal probe in Brazil has
uncovered billions of dollars of corruption and led to the arrest of
more than 160 people. In December 2016, pursuant to information
uncovered in the aforementioned probe and in accordance with the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Brazilian company Odebrecht, S.A. and
subsidiary Braskem, S.A. admitted that they had paid more than $788
million in bribes to foreign government officials and agreed to a
settlement of $3.5 billion in penalties. Given your affirmative
response to question G.1. in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
questionnaire and expressed commitment to supporting U.S. efforts
globally to address corruption, if confirmed as Secretary of State,
will you use your voice to express support for ongoing independent
legal investigations of corruption in Brazil? If confirmed as Secretary
of State, will you seek to ensure the independence of the criminal
probe opened by a Brazilian federal prosecutor to examine potentially
corrupt investments in the hotel located at Rua Professor Coutinho
Frois 10, Barra da Tijuca, Rio de Janeiro, State of Rio de Janeiro
22620-360, Brazil (formerly known as Trump Hotel Rio de Janeiro), as
well as any possible links between corrupt investments and the
companies that own, developed, or managed the hotel?
Answer. If confirmed, I would see it as my duty to seek enforcement
of American laws, including such statutes as the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act. I do not believe it would be in the purview of the
Secretary of State to interfere in another sovereign country's internal
legal deliberations-other than to ensure that if Americans are parties
to a dispute that they are treated fairly, granted access to bona-fide
legal counsel, and not discriminated against because of their American
nationality.
Chabad Dispute
Question. There is a legal dispute with Russia over the Schneerson
Library, a collection of 12,000 books and 50,000 religious documents
assembled by the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement over two centuries
prior to World War II, and kept since in Russia. For decades the Chabad
organization, which is based in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, has been
trying to regain possession of the library, saying that it was
illegally held by the Soviet authorities after the war. In 1991 a court
in Moscow ordered the library turned over to the Chabad organization;
the Soviet Union then collapsed, and the judgment was set aside by the
Russian authorities. In 2010, Chabad took the dispute to federal court
here in the United States. A federal judge ruled in favor of the Chabad
organization, ordering Russia to turn over all Schneerson documents
held at the Russian State Library, the Russian State Military Archive
and elsewhere. Russian officials have refused to obey the court order.
Mr. Tillerson, if confirmed as Secretary of State, will you work with
the Congress in convincing the Russian government to turn over the
Schneerson Library?
Answer. This is a very important matter. I intend to engage with
Congress to determine the best approach regarding the return of the
Schneerson Library.
Pre-Hearing Questions
Question. Please provide detailed information about the legal
incorporation and framework for, and activities and value of, the
Russian company Exxon Neftegas. Please describe in detail your
activities in your role as Director of Neftegas.
Answer. Exxon Neftegas Limited, or ENL, is a subsidiary of Exxon
Mobil Corporation. Formed in the Bahamas in 1991, ENL has its
registered office in the Bahamas and maintains additional foreign
branch office registrations in the Russian Federation, in accordance
with Russian and other applicable laws. ENL's value, measured by its
authorized capital, is approximately USD $2 billion.
ENL is the operator of the Sakhalin-1 Project, which develops and
produces oil and gas fields off the coast of Sakhalin Island in the
Russian Far East. An international consortium, which includes ENL and
Japanese, Russian, and Indian companies, are investors in the Sakhalin-
1 Project. Additional information on the project can be found at http:/
/www.sakhalin-1.com.
As a Director of ENL, I helped oversee the affairs of the company
pursuant to applicable laws and regulations. In accordance with those
responsibilities, I participated in board meetings, voted on corporate
resolutions, and otherwise interacted with ENL's management.
Question. Please describe all gifts you received in your
professional capacity within the last 3 years that exceeded $1000 per
annum including the sender of the gift, a description of the gift, the
value of the gift, and the disposition of the gift.
Answer. Based on my own recollection and a review of ExxonMobil
records, I have not received any gifts in my professional capacity
within the last 3 years that had a value over $1000.
Question. Please list all income received from foreign sources and
all foreign taxes paid or accrued (in each case, by country) since
January 1, 2013. Please list foreign taxes claimed as a foreign tax
credit or deduction on your U.S. Federal income tax returns for such
period. Please confirm that, if required, the nominee and your spouse
has filed accurate, complete and timely Forms FinCEN 114 (FBAR) and IRS
Forms 8938 (Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets) for each
year since January 1, 2013.
Answer. Certain of the investments listed on my Form 278e would
have been subject to foreign taxes, but those taxes were paid at the
fund level.
Question. In the ethics agreement submitted to the committee on
January 3, you indicate that you "will not accept any payment from the
trust unless ExxonMobil has acted in good faith to reduce the amount of
the lump sum payment to the trust sufficiently to offset for the time
value of the accelerated payment to the trust and to offset for the
economic value of the waiver of any rights under the clawback
provision." Please provide a schedule of the time value and amounts
referred to in this sentence.
Answer. Exxon Mobil's January 4, 2017 Form 8-K explains that the
payment will be discounted by approximately $3 million. Further
questions should be directed to Exxon Mobil.
Question. In the ethics agreement submitted to the committee on
January 3, you indicate that "[t]he trustee will make payments to [you]
on a schedule closely approximating the ordinary schedules for removal
of the restrictions on my restricted stock and for payout of the stock
units." Please provide a schedule of the amounts and dates of the
schedule of payout referred to in this sentence.
As indicated to the Office of Government Ethics, under Exxon Mobil
policy, I am entitled to receive payments on a pre-established, roughly
annual basis for the first ten years following my retirement (2017 to
2026). The amounts of these payments will depend on the performance of
the assets in the irrevocable trust.
Question. In the ethics agreement submitted to the committee on
January 3, you indicated that payments from the Tillerson Foundation
will continue, if you are confirmed as Secretary of State, in the form
of compensation for services or as unconditional irrevocable gifts.
Please describe what types of services and gifts and who would be the
recipients. Do you commit that the Tillerson Foundation will not make
any gifts to foreign persons or entities or otherwise award gifts that
would potentially conflict with your role as Secretary of State?
Answer. I commit that the Tillerson Foundation will not make any
gifts to foreign persons or entities or otherwise award gifts that
would potentially conflict with my role as Secretary of State.
Question. You have indicated in your response to the Committee's
questionnaire that you intend to sever all of your business
associations in the event you are confirmed by the Senate. Please
provide a full and detailed response regarding your intentions for
disposition of any and all ownership interests, investment interests,
or other interests in ExxonMobil Corporation, or any corporation owned
or affiliated with ExxonMobil Corporation, in the event you are
confirmed.
Answer. Attached is a copy of my ethics agreement with the State
Department, i.e., my letter dated today to Katherine McManus, the State
Department's Designated Agency Ethics Official. This letter-agreement,
which has been approved by the Office of Government Ethics and is being
delivered to the Committee today, fully describes my intentions for
disposition of any and all ownership interests, investment interests,
or other interests in ExxonMobil Corporation, or any corporation owned
or affiliated with ExxonMobil Corporation, in the event I am confirmed.
__________
January 3, 2017
Ms. Katherine D. McManus Deputy Legal Adviser
and Designated Agency Ethics Official,
Office of the Legal Adviser,
Department of State.
Re: Ethics Undertakings
Dear Ms. McManus, I am committed to the highest standards of
ethical conduct for government officials. If confirmed as Secretary of
State, as required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 208(a), I will not participate
personally and substantially in any particular matter in which I know
that I have a financial interest directly and predictably affected by
the matter, or in which I know that a person whose interests are
imputed to me has a financial interest directly and predictably
affected by the matter, unless I first obtain a written waiver,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 208(b)(1), or qualify for a regulatory
exemption, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 208(b)(2). I understand that the
interests of the following persons are imputed to me: any spouse or
minor child of mine; any general partner of a partnership in which I am
a limited or general partner; any organization in which I serve as
officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee; and any person
or organization with which I am negotiating or have an arrangement
concerning prospective employment.
Upon confirmation, I will resign from my positions with the
following entities: Ford's Theatre Society, Center for Strategic and
International Studies, and Boy Scouts of America. I previously resigned
from my positions with the Business Roundtable and American Petroleum
Institute. For a period of one year after my resignation from each of
these entities, I will not participate personally and substantially in
any particular matter involving specific parties in which I know that
entity is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized
to participate, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. Sec. 2635.502(d).
My spouse and I own Bar RR Ranches, LLC. Upon confirmation, I will
resign from my position as managing member of this entity. I will
continue to have a financial interest in this entity, but I will not
provide services material to the production of income. Instead, I will
receive only passive investment income from it. I will not participate
personally and substantially in any particular matter that to my
knowledge has a direct and predictable effect on the financial
interests of Bar RR Ranches, LLC, unless I first obtain a written
waiver, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 208(b)(1).
I am the sole owner of R2 Real Estate, LLC. During my appointment,
this entity will continue to exist solely to hold personal assets. Upon
confirmation, I will resign from my position as managing member of this
entity. I will not participate personally and substantially in any
particular matter that to my knowledge has a direct and predictable
effect on the financial interests of this entity, unless I first obtain
a written waiver pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 208(b)(1).
I resigned from my position as Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil
Corporation (ExxonMobil) on December 31, 2016. For a period of one year
after my resignation from ExxonMobil, I will not participate personally
and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties
in which I know that ExxonMobil is a party or represents a party,
unless I am first authorized to participate, pursuant to 5 C.F.R.
Sec. 2635.502(d).
At the time of my resignation, I held restricted stock and
restricted stock units. I have not received, and will not receive,
additional grants of restricted stock or restricted stock units
following my resignation. ExxonMobil's incentive program plan provides
that the Compensation Committee may authorize an employee who departs
before reaching the established retirement age to retain restricted
stock and restricted stock units, provided that the employee worked for
the company for at least 15 years and was at least 55 years old. The
longstanding practice of the Compensation Committee has been to
authorize the retention of these items for most eligible employees.
Consistent with this practice, the Compensation Committee has
authorized me to retain my restricted stock and restricted stock units.
Ordinarily, these items would, in the case of the restricted stock,
become free of the restrictions on transfer and, in the case of the
restricted stock units, pay out at various times, both over the next 10
years. However, to eliminate any conflict of interest that might arise
if I were to continue to hold a financial interest in ExxonMobil as
Secretary, ExxonMobil's board has authorized an arrangement under
which, prior to assuming the position of Secretary, I will surrender to
ExxonMobil all of my outstanding restricted stock awards and restricted
stock unit awards for cancellation in exchange for a cash payment to an
irrevocable trust, to be administered by an independent trustee that is
beyond the control of ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil will waive any right to
exercise a clawback provision that authorizes it to rescind some or all
of the payout for any of a variety of reasons, including a
determination that the recipient has engaged in conduct detrimental to
the company. Instead, the trust instrument will provide that, if I
become employed by or provide services to a company in the oil and gas
industry or the oil and gas services industry, I will forfeit the
remaining undistributed assets in the trust. Such forfeited assets will
be distributed to a charity of the trustee's choosing dedicated to the
alleviation of disease and poverty in the developing world. I will not
accept any payment from the trust unless ExxonMobil has acted in good
faith to reduce the amount of the lump sum payment to the trust
sufficiently to offset for the time value of the accelerated payment to
the trust and to offset for the economic value of the waiver of any
rights under the clawback provision. The trustee will make payments to
me on a schedule closely approximating the ordinary schedules for
removal of the restrictions on my restricted stock and for payout of
the stock units. To further resolve any potential for conflicts of
interest, the trust instrument will require that, during my appointment
to the position of Secretary, the trust's holdings be limited to cash,
cash equivalents, obligations of the United States, investment funds
that qualify for the exemption at 5 C.F.R. Sec. 2640.201(a), and
municipal bonds. You have explained to me that, as a beneficiary of
this trust, I must disclose in my public financial disclosure reports
all holdings of this trust that meet the reporting thresholds
established in 5 C.F.R. part 2634, subpart C.
Half of my annual bonus was paid in cash and half was paid in
Earnings Bonus Units, which represent a contractual obligation that
ExxonMobil will make payments if certain earnings per share targets
have been met within three years after the award of the Earnings Bonus
Units. At the time of my resignation, I was not owed any unpaid cash
bonuses, but I continued to hold Earnings Bonus Units for the years
2014, 2015, and 2016. I will forfeit these Earnings Bonus Units upon
confirmation.
I hold stock in ExxonMobil. I do not hold any vested or unvested
stock options. I will divest my stock in ExxonMobil within 90 days of
my confirmation. I will not participate personally and substantially in
any particular matter that to my knowledge has a direct and predictable
effect on the financial interests of ExxonMobil until I have divested
this stock, unless I first obtain a written waiver, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec. 208(b)(1), or qualify for a regulatory exemption, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 208(b)(2).
I will elect to receive a total distribution of my interests in the
ExxonMobil Qualified Defined Benefit Pension Plan, the ExxonMobil
Nonqualified Defined Benefit Supplemental Pension Plan, the ExxonMobil
Defined Contribution Nonqualified Supplemental Savings Plan, and the
ExxonMobil Nonqualified Defined Benefit Additional Payments Plan
consistent with the standard terms of these plans, including the
ordinary timelines for making distributions. Until my interests in each
plan are fully distributed, I will not participate personally and
substantially in any particular matter that to my knowledge has a
direct and predictable effect on the ability or willingness of
ExxonMobil to provide the benefits under the plan, unless I first
obtain a written waiver, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 208(b)(1), or
qualify for a regulatory exemption, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 208(b)(2). I also have an interest in the Defined Contribution
ExxonMobil Savings Plan, which I will divest prior to assuming the
duties of the position of Secretary.
As a retired ExxonMobil executive, I am entitled to receive the
following standard retiree benefits: retiree medical benefits; use of a
product discount credit card; office space and administrative support;
financial counseling; and tax preparation services. I will forfeit all
of these benefits upon confirmation. I am also entitled to participate
in an executive life insurance plan. Before I assume the duties of the
position of Secretary, ExxonMobil will terminate my participation in
this life insurance plan and provide me with a prepaid life insurance
policy, with equivalent benefits, through an independent insurer.Within
90 days of confirmation, I will divest my interests in the entities
listed in Attachment A. With regard to each of these entities, I will
not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter
that to my knowledge has a direct and predictable effect on the
financial interests of the entity until I have divested it, unless I
first obtain a written waiver, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 208(b)(1), or
qualify for a regulatory exemption, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 208(b)(2). During my appointment to the position of Secretary, if
I have a managed account, I will ensure that the account manager does
not purchase any new assets other than cash, cash equivalents,
obligations of the United States, investment funds that qualify for the
exemption at 5 C.F.R. Sec. 2640.201(a), and municipal bonds.
Upon confirmation, I will resign from my positions with the
Tillerson Foundation. I will not participate personally and
substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in
which this entity is a party or represents a party, unless I am first
authorized to participate, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. Sec. 2635.502(d).
Within 90 days of my confirmation, the Tillerson Foundation will divest
its interests in ExxonMobil. Thereafter, for the duration of my
appointment to the position of Secretary, the Foundation's holdings
will be limited to cash, cash equivalents, obligations of the United
States, investment funds that qualify for the exemption at 5 C.F.R.
Sec. 2640.201(a), and municipal bonds. The Tillerson Foundation has not
previously received contributions from persons other than myself or my
spouse, and, during my appointment as Secretary, it will not receive
any contributions from persons other than myself or my spouse. In
addition, it will not make payments to any outside entities except as
compensation for services or as unconditional, irrevocable gifts.
I have previously paid taxes owed by certain grantor trusts
disclosed in my financial disclosure report. I am not a trustee of
these trusts. Neither my spouse nor I, nor any minor child of mine, is
a beneficiary of these trusts. Before I assume the duties of the
position of Secretary, in order to resolve any potential conflicts of
interest, I will take steps to ensure that I and my spouse are not
responsible for the taxes owed by these trusts.
I have disclosed my financial interests in HF Renaissance EQ, LLC.
However, a preexisting confidentiality agreement bars me from
identifying the underlying assets of this fund in my financial
disclosure report. Therefore, I will divest my financial interests in
this fund as soon as possible after confirmation and not later than 90
days after my confirmation. Until I have divested this fund, I will not
participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that
to my knowledge has a direct and predictable effect on the financial
interests of the fund or its underlying assets, unless I first obtain a
written waiver, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 208(b)(1), or qualify for a
regulatory exemption, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 208(b)(2).
In addition, I will recuse myself on a case-by-case basis from
participation in any particular matter involving specific parties in
which I determine that a reasonable person with knowledge of the
relevant facts would question my impartiality in the matter, unless I
am first authorized to participate, pursuant to 5 C.F.R.
Sec. 2635.502(d).
I understand that I may be eligible to request a Certificate of
Divestiture for qualifying assets and that a Certificate of Divestiture
is effective only if obtained prior to divestiture. Regardless of
whether I receive a Certificate of Divestiture, I will ensure that all
divestitures discussed in this agreement occur within the agreed upon
timeframes and that all proceeds are invested in non-conflicting
assets.
Within 90 days of my confirmation, I will document compliance with
this ethics agreement by notifying you when I have completed these
implementing actions.
I have been advised that this ethics agreement will be posted
publicly, consistent with 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552, on the website of the U.S.
Office of Government Ethics with ethics agreements of other
Presidential nominees who file public financial disclosure reports.
Sincerely,
/s/ Rex W. Tillerson Rex W. Tillerson
ATTACHMENT A
Entities in Which Secretary-Designate Has An Interest
1.-AbbVie, Inc.
2.-Accenture Plc
3.-Airbus Group
4.-Alaska Air Group, Inc.
5.-Alaska Air (Note: open position for written call option)
6.-Alibaba Group Hldg
7.-American Express Co.
8.-Amgen, Inc.
9.-Anhui Conch Cement
10.-Apple, Inc.
11.-AT&T, Inc.
12.-Atlantia SPA
13.-Aviva Plc
14.-AXA
15.-Baidu, Inc.
16.-Blackrock, Inc.
17.-BNP Paribas
18.-Boeing Co.
19.-Bristol Myers Squibb Co
20.-BYD Company, Ltd
21.-Carnival Cp
22.-Carrefour SA
23.-Caterpillar, Inc.
24.-Caterpillar, Inc., (Note: two open positions for written call
option)
25.-CDN Pacific Ry Ltd
26.-Celgene Corp
27.-Celgene (Note: open position for written call option)
28.-Chevron Corp
29.-China Mobile, Ltd.
30.-China Pete & Chem CP
31.-Chubb, Ltd.
32.-Cisco Sys Inc.
33.-Citigroup Inc.
34.-Coca Cola Co.
35.-Colgate Palmolive Co.
36.-Compagnie de St. Gobain
37.-Compagnie Fin Richemontag
38.-Ctrip.com Intl, Ltd.
39.-Cummins, Inc.
40.-Cummins, Inc. (Note: open position for written call option)
41.-CVS Health Corp
42.-D R Horton, Inc.
43.-Daimler AG
44.-Deere & Co.
45.-Deere & Co. (Note: open position for written call option)
46.-Delta Air Lines, Inc.
47.-Deutsche Telekom AG
48.-Discover Financial Services
49.-East Japan Ry Co.
50.-Eaton Corp Plc
51.-Electricite de France
52.-EMC Corp Mass
53.-Extra Space Storage, Inc.
54.-Fedex Corp
55.-Ferrovial SA
56.-Fidelity National Information SE
57.-Ford Motor Co
58.-Fresenius SE & Co.
59.-General Electric Co.
60.-General Mills, Inc.
61.-General Motors Co.
62.-GlaxoSmithKline Plc
63.-Goldman Sachs Group (Note: open position for written call option)
64.-Goldman Sachs Grp
65.-Heineken NV Spn
66.-Honda Motor Company
67.-Honeywell International, Inc.
68.-Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing
69.-Howden Joinery Group Plc
70.-Iberdrola SA
71.-Infineon Technologies AG
72.-ING Groep NV
73.-Ingenico Group
74.-Ingersoll-Rand Plc
75.-Intel Corp
76.-Intel Corp. (Note: open position for written call option)
77.-International Business Machines Corp
78.-Intesa Sanpaolo S.P.A.
79.-ITC Holdings
80.-Japan ARPT Term Co.
81.-Japan Exchange Group, Inc.
82.-JD COM, Inc.
83.-Johnson & Johnson
84.-JPMorgan Chase & Co.
85.-Komatsu, Ltd.
86.-Koninklijke Phil EL
87.-LafargeHolcim
88.-Legal & General Plc
89.-Lennar Corporation
90.-Line Corp
91.-Lloyds Banking Group Plc
92.-Lockheed Martin Corp
93.-Lowes Companies, Inc.
94.-Magna International, Inc.
95.-Marsh & McLennan Cos
96.-Masco Corp
97.-Medtronic Plc
98.-Metlife Incorporated
99.-Microsoft Corp
100.-Mitsubishi UFJ Fincl Grp
101.-Mondelez Intl, Inc.
102.-Monsanto Co
103.-National Grid Transco Plc
104.-Nestle
105.-Nextera Energy, Inc.
106.-Nielsen Holdings Plc
107.-Nike, Inc.
108.-Nippon Shinyaku Co
109.-Nippon Telegraph & Telephone
110.-Novartis AG
111.-Novo Nordisk
112.-NXP Semiconductors NV
113.-Packaging Corp of America
114.-Pepsico, Inc.
115.-Pfizer, Inc.
116.-Phillips 66
117.-Potash Cp of Saskatchewan, Inc.
118.-Praxair, Inc.
119.-Procter & Gamble
120.-Prudential Financial, Inc.
121.-Qualcomm, Inc.
122.-Rakuten, Inc.
123.-Reckitt Benckiser Plc
124.-Royal Dutch Shell Plc
125.-Sanofi
126.-Schlumberger, Ltd,
127.-Seven & I Holdings Co Ltd.
128.-Shin Etsu Chem Co Ltd.
129.-Shire Plc
130.-Sony Corp
131.-Southwest Airlines
132.-State Street Corp
133.-Target Corporation
134.-TE Connectivity, Ltd.
135.-Time Warner, Inc.
136.-Time Warner, Inc. (Note: open position for written call option)
137.-Total SA
138.-Toyota Motor Corp
139.-Travelers Companies, Inc.
140.-UBS Group AG
141.-Union Pacific Corp
142.-Union Pacific Corp. (Note: open position for written call option)
143.-United Technologies Corp
144.-UnitedHealth Group
145.-Verizon Communications
146.-VF Corporation
147.-Vinci SA
148.-Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
149.-Walt Disney Co.
150.-Walt Disney Co. (Note: open position for written call option)
151.-WEC Energy Group, Inc.
152.-Wells Fargo & Co.
153.-Whirlpool Corp
154.-Yandex NV
155.-Yum China Holdings
156.-ZTO Express Cayman, Inc.
----------
Additional Questions Submitted to Secretary-Designate Tillerson by
Senator Cardin (January 20, 2017) for Which No Response Has Been
Received
Taxation/Conflicts of Interest
Question. I recognize that there is a disagreement about your
provision of 3 years' worth of tax returns, as I had requested, and
that you do not intend to do so.
Your answer to Question 17 was non-responsive. Please
provide the information requested. Any confidential information
you provide will be treated as confidential by the committee.
Have you complied with all United States tax laws related
to your personal finances, your personal residence, Bar RR
Ranches, LLC and R2 Real Estate LLC?
Please list all income received from foreign sources since
January 1, 2013.
Extractives Transparency and Section 1504
Question. Mr. Tillerson, you stated in your response to question 2A
that part of your job, if confirmed as Secretary of State, "will be to
make sure that because American companies, NGOs, and development relief
efforts are expected to play by the rules and abide by Dodd Frank,
Cardin-Lugar, FCPA, and other laws, that foreign companies or investors
do not get an unfair advantage by cheating or keeping to a lower
standard." 30 countries have now adopted similar rules to the US.
State-owned companies from Russia, Brazil, and China are covered, and
the global EITI, which Exxon supported while you were CEO, has aligned
its standard with Cardin-Lugar covering more than 60 countries that
implement the initiative. These requirements cover the majority of
leading oil, gas and mining companies already covered, and Cardin-Lugar
has been endorsed by investors worth $10 trillion in assets.
Given the Cardin-Lugar standards are now effectively
global, and you have said that making transparency the norm
should be ``a primary objective,'' would you oppose any efforts
to roll Cardin-Lugar back since that would put US diplomatic
relationships and our global leadership on transparency, good
governance and anti-corruption at risk?
Conflicts of Interest
Question. Thank you for your answer. However, the question was
about the President Trump's conflicts of interest and overseas business
arrangements. Please answer the question as written. In addition,
please answer yes or no to the following additional questions about
potential conflicts of interest:
Because the President has not divested his interests in the
Trump Organization-which does business in many countries around
the world-and is not providing transparency to the American
public regarding his or the Trump Organization's foreign debts,
business interests, holdings, and potential conflicts of
interest, will you have sufficient information to gauge whether
the State Department or USAID is contributing to self-dealing
and other inappropriate enrichment by the President and his
family in the Administration's dealings with other countries?
In your years at Exxon did you ever conclude a deal with a
counterparty who refused to disclose relevant financial
interests and exposure?
If yes, please cite an example.
If no, please explain why the president should be exempt
from the disclosure and divestiture practices followed by his
predecessors.
If you become aware of a violation of the Foreign
Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution in your time as
Secretary of State, will you report it to this Committee?
The Global Fund
Question. Mr. Tillerson, question 41 asked about the Global Fund,
but your answer did not didn't mention the global fund.
What are your views of the Global Fund?
If confirmed, will you be committed to continuing America's
leadership against AIDS, TB and malaria through our bilateral
and Global Fund investments?
Humanitarian issues in Syria
Question. In part of your response to Question 44a, you referenced
``nation building.'' This question was not about nation building. This
question is about Russia and Syria deliberately targeting and attacking
Syrian aid workers and civil society organizations. So, to repeat the
question:
In your role, how will you make the protection of all
Syrian humanitarian workers and their ability to maintain
operations one of your key points in any negotiations with
Russia and the Government of Syria?
International Humanitarian Law
Question. In your response to question 47a. about how you would use
US leadership to reinforce rules-based international order and
international cooperation, you noted that `` . . . above all I will
insist that they follow U.S. laws and the government's obligations
under those laws.''
Do you agree that the conventions signed and ratified by
the United States on this issue are U.S. law?
ISIL--Counter-ISIL Campaign
Question. Your answer did not respond to all sub-questions in
Question 105, ``ISIL--Counter-ISIL Campaign.'' Specifically, please
answer the following:
If confirmed, will you recommend that the U.S. Government
retain these lines of effort as its strategic approach to
countering ISIL?
What are the specific recommendations you intend to offer
for strengthening the U.S.-led Global Coalition to Counter
ISIL?
Brazil
Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, will you ensure that
no U.S. officials seek to inappropriately influence the independence of
the criminal probe opened by a Brazilian federal prosecutor to examine
potentially* corrupt investments in the hotel located at Rua Professor
Coutinho Frois 10, Barra da Tijuca, Rio de Janeiro, State of Rio de
Janeiro 22620-360, Brazil (formerly known as Trump Hotel Rio de
Janeiro), as well as any possible links between corrupt investments and
the companies that own, developed, or managed the hotel?
__________
Secretary-Designate Tillerson's Answers to
Questions from Senator Risch
Advocacy of U.S. business
Question. One of your unique qualifications for the position of
Secretary of State is your experience managing investments in countries
all over the world, including in emerging markets. Based on this
experience, how well do you believe the State Department has helped to
assist U.S. investors to gaining access to foreign markets, and do you
believe the State Department has done all that it could over the years
to assist U.S. investors in dealing with political challenges that
sometimes arise, particularly in emerging markets? What additional ways
do you think State Department could do to help U.S. foreign investors
to gain access to foreign markets?
Answer. Since development assistance and USAID was established by
President Kennedy more than 50 years ago, the private sector, through
foreign direct investment (FDI), has skyrocketed past government aid to
become the overwhelming engine of economic growth in the developing
world. The U.S.Government does many terrific things to help FDI,
including OPIC, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the
incredibly successful PEPFAR program. However, the U.S. Government can
do a lot more, and it is clear that development assistance must undergo
a full review, and perhaps reform, to ensure that we are fully
leveraging and helping FDI find opportunities in countries of the
developing world. If confirmed, I will lead an effort to analyze and
critique how to make development assistance more effective and
efficient, with the intention of ensuring that that assistance is
designed for the 21st Century, and not the previous one, as we seek to
help nurture the vast power of FDI to lift hundreds of millions of
people out of poverty.
The Department of State should be a strong advocate for contract
sanctity and the rule of law. These are foundational conditions for
successful U.S. investment abroad.
Central Asia
Question. The countries in Central Asia have often experienced
substantial pressure from Russia to host military facilities or limit
their interaction with the United States and other Western nations. Do
you believe the United States has interests in the region, and if so,
what role do you believe the United States should play in the region?
Answer. It is important to recognize that some of those countries
have played important roles in logistics for U.S. military actions
while fighting the war on terror. If confirmed as Secretary, I will
engage the states of Central Asia to ensure that U.S. national security
interests are met. These include regional stability, countering
transnational terrorist groups, the war in Afghanistan, human rights,
energy, and other issues. The United States should play a positive
diplomatic role in bilateral and multilateral forums to advance our
interests with our regional partners.
Political Islam
Question. In your opening statement you referred to the threat of
Radical Islam. One of the biggest challenges in confronting radical
Islam is the funneling of money, given for charitable purposes, that is
often diverted to supporting extremist teaching and terrorism. What
additional measures do you believe are necessary to track and eliminate
these money flows? While financial sanctions are enforced by the
Department of Justice, do you support increased measures to track and
eliminate these money flows? Will you prioritize these issues in your
meetings with foreign leaders?
Answer. I do not yet have a full understanding of the financial
sanctions that are enforced by the Department of Justice working in
concert with the Department of the Treasury. Should I be confirmed, to
the extent permitted by law, I will work with other departments to
track and eliminate the transit of money used to support terrorism and
spread radical Islam. One possible approach is to ensure that those
known charities who funnel money to terrorist organizations are exposed
to their donors.
State Department Management
Question. American diplomats and diplomacy increasingly need a
range of skills and knowledge that go beyond traditional limits,
including the need to work more closely with the U.S. military and
officials of other agencies to oversee development projects and help
build strategic partnerships with fragile democracies and allies. What
steps would you take to prepare the State Department to master these
new requirements?
Answer. Modernization of learning modules and training platforms
has been underway at the Foreign Service Institute for some time,
including distance learning. A new look at leadership and management
training was undertaken in 2016. You are right to point out that the
skills required and ability to undergo life-long learning in new trade
crafts will be vital. The Department already has mature programs to
send recently promoted mid-career officers and those identified senior
officers preparing for top leadership assignments as principal officers
to our War Colleges, but we need to find more and newer ways to achieve
an even broader range of skills. Just as we encourage a secondment to
Capitol Hill through the Pearson Fellows program, we can do more if we
align the HR and promotions process to reward professional training,
development, and cross-pollination. If confirmed, I would like to
explore with you more ways we can encourage these priorities, ensuring
successful programs such as MCC and PEPFAR, Power Africa, are used in
case studies.
Russia
Question. Do you believe that tensions between the United States
and Russia result primarily from misunderstandings or from conflicting
interests and objectives?
Answer. Tensions in U.S.-Russian relations stem primarily from real
conflicts of interest between our two countries, based on enduring
factors like history, geography, culture and worldview. Diffusing these
tensions and conflicts requires open dialogue around our differences,
Question. In your opening statement, you said we ``must hold those
who are not our friends accountable to the agreements they make. We
cannot ignore violations of international accords.'' Over the past
decade the world has seen substantial treaty violations by the Russians
regarding a number of treaties the United States has with them, such as
the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, the Intermediate Nuclear
Forces Treaty, violations of other arms control agreements laid out by
the State Department's own reports, the Budapest Memorandum regarding
Ukraine, and a number of other agreements. How do you envision imposing
accountability on a government that does not live up to its agreements?
What tools do you think are the most important?
Answer. When adversaries of the United States violate their
international obligations and transgress international norms, they
should confront a clear, swift and firm response--not only from America
but from our allies as well.
We should be prepared to use the range of diplomatic, economic and
security tools at our disposal, deploying them after careful
consideration of how U.S. objectives can best be achieved against
Russia or any other adversary.
__________
Secretary-Designate Tillerson's Answers Questions
from Senators Cardin and Gardner
Question. Mr. Tillerson--since 2011, the country of Burma has
embarked on a path toward democracy, culminating in peaceful elections
in November 2015 that brought Nobel Peace Prize winner and democracy
icon Aung San Suu Kyi to power. However, Burma's new democratic
government continues to face serious challenges, including the stalled
ethnic peace process, violence in Rakhine State and elsewhere, lack of
economic development, and the military's continuing grip on key
institutions of power, which impedes genuine democratic governance,
accountability, and transparency. Indeed, as of January 9, according to
the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
an estimated 65,000 people have fled Burma, mostly Rohingya fleeing
persecution. Amnesty International reported and documented a campaign
of violence perpetuated by the Burmese security forces which have
indiscriminately fired on and killed civilians, raped women and girls,
and arbitrarily arrested Rohingya men without any information about
their whereabouts--charges which ``may amount to crimes against
humanity.'' There has also been a recent upsurge in violence in Shan
and Kachin States, as well.
How will the Trump Administration incentivize democracy in Burma
and promote a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic Burma that respects
the human rights of its entire people regardless of ethnicity and
religion, including the Rohingya?
Answer. I am extremely encouraged by the positive developments that
have taken place in Burma over the past few years, including the
conduct of elections and the coming to power of Aung San Suu Kyi Burma
has made significant strides, even though there is a long way to go,
especially in the protection of minority rights.
The United States has long been a supporter of protecting
minorities in Burma, and I would expect that stance to continue under a
Trump Administration.
Question. Do you believe that economic sanctions can be useful
leverage to support key U.S. policy objectives in Burma with regard to
democracy and human rights?
Answer. Economic sanctions are certainly one of the tools available
to the United States to exercise pressure on countries. That said, we
have good reason to believe that engagement with the leadership in
Burma and other international actors can produce positive results
without resorting to such measures at this time.
Question. Given that the jade and gemstone sector has been
identified by many analysts as one of the principle drivers of conflict
in Burma, including ethnic conflict, the narcotics trade, and
corruption, what should the United States do to support a transparent,
equitable and sustainable jade and gemstone sector in Burma that
benefits all segments of the Burmese society?
Answer. The United States can assist the Burmese government to
build greater capacity to monitor and certify its production of jade
and precious stones-areas in which it has made progress since beginning
the transition to civilian control. But much of the country's jade and
gemstone industry is based in conflict areas in the north, where
proceeds from smuggling help fund armed ethnic groups that maintain
close ties to China. It is therefore critical that the United States
work with China, along with other neighboring countries and
international organizations, to crack down on the illicit trade in jade
and gemstones from Burma.
Question. Will you prioritize the development of the power sector
in Burma, where only a third of the population has reliable access to
electricity?
Answer. Yes.
__________
Secretary-Designate Tillerson's Answers to
Questions from Senator Rubio
Russia
Question. What is your view regarding the long-term implications of
allowing a state to violate the sovereignty and annex the territory of
its smaller neighbor?
Answer. I believe it establishes a very dangerous precedent and can
lead to destabilizing a region as seen in Europe and Asia during World
War IL This could have a profound negative impact on U.S. national
interests.
Question. Do you believe Russia committed an act of aggression by
invading Georgia and seizing Georgian territory in August 2008?
Answer. Yes. As I stated in my oral testimony, such actions by
Russia represent unacceptable behavior. Almost nine years after the war
ended, Russia is still in violation of the Six Point Peace Plan
brokered by then French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Question. Do you believe the United States should accept a Russian
sphere of influence in any part of the world?
If so, what are the countries or regions that would fall into such
a sphere-Ukraine? Georgia? The Balkans? The Middle East?
Answer. No.
Question. If not, what lengths should the United States be willing
to pursue to prevent the establishment of spheres of influence?
Answer. I do not believe nations are entitled to a sphere of
influence over other sovereign nations. We should strengthen our
alliances with other like-minded nations who also oppose any nation
seeking to establish spheres of influence.
Question. In 2008, you delivered remarks in Russia in which you
said ``Russia must improve the functioning of its judicial system and
its judiciary. There is no respect for the rule of law in Russia
today.'' In 2012, you concluded one of the biggest energy deals in
Russian history. Do you believe the rule flaw in Russia improved
between 2008 and 2012?
Answer. No.
Question. Does your conclusion that there is no rule of law in
Russia remain just as applicable today as it was in 2008?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What is your relationship with Igor Sechin?
Would you describe him as a business partner or do you have a
closer relationship?
Answer. As Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, I interacted with Mr.
Sechin as a business partner in his capacity as CEO of Rosneft. I also
interacted with Mr. Sechin's predecessor at Rosneft, Eduard
Khudainatov, in the same capacity.
Question. The Russian press has published various reports about Mr.
Sechin, his property holdings, and his lifestyle. Independent news
organizations have been pressured by the Russian regime to retract
these reports. Do you believe that Mr. Sechin is corrupt?
Answer. I have not interacted with Mr. Sechin in his personal
capacity since the sanctions were put in place in April 2014. All of my
interactions with him have been on behalf of our respective employers,
and all of ExxonMobil's business transactions with Rosneft have been
fully compliant with U.S. laws. If confirmed, I can commit to you that
I will review relevant information that would help me to assess your
question fully.
Question. Did you meet with him after he was designated a
sanctioned individual by the U.S. Treasury Department in April 2014?
Answer. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, the
company conducted business with Rosneft. Consistent with the
designation, I only met with Mr. Sechin following his designation in
his role as CEO of Rosneft to conduct business.
Question. Did you consult with the U.S. State Department, U.S.
Treasury Department, or any lawyers about your ongoing interactions
with Mr. Sechin to determine if your meetings with him constituted
``material support'' of an individual sanctioned by the U.S.
Government?
Answer. To the best of my knowledge, ExxonMobil took all
appropriate steps to ensure that its actions involving Mr. Sechin as
CEO of Rosneft were fully compliant with applicable U.S. laws and
regulations.
Question. Did you or anyone at ExxonMobil ever personally request
the U.S. Government to re-examine or lift sanctions imposed against Mr.
Sechin?
Answer. I did not do so personally. Nor, to the best of my
knowledge, did anyone at ExxonMobil
Question. Did Mr. Sechin ever make such a request of you or anyone
at ExxonMobil?
Answer. Not to me personally. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, did
he make any such request of others at ExxonMobil
Question. Would you, if confirmed as Secretary of State, recommend
that sanctions on Mr. Sechin be lifted or altered?
Answer. If confirmed, I would favor continuing the status quo until
all relevant facts and circumstances were fully reviewed.
Question. Would you, as Secretary of State, continue meeting with
Mr. Sechin even though he is a sanctioned individual and part of your
job would be to convince other countries to abide by U.S. sanctions?
Answer. No.
Question. Press reports indicate that you were asked by the Obama
Administration not to attend the 2014 World Petroleum Conference in
Moscow.
Who conveyed this request to you?
Answer. No one. To the best of my knowledge, I did not receive any
such request.
Question. Why did you disregard this request?
Answer. To the best of my knowledge, I received no request asking
that I not attend the 2014 World Petroleum Congress, where I was a
scheduled speaker given my role at ExxonMobil. The World Petroleum
Congress is an industry-wide event that occurs every three years in a
different country, and is widely attended by executives and government
officials. I did not intend by my presence to signal support or
opposition to Russian leadership, but rather to represent ExxonMobil
and share its perspective on industry matters.
Question. Last year, you reportedly attended the St. Petersburg
International Economic Forum even though the U.S. Government had
discouraged American business leaders from attending.
Why did you ignore the U.S. Government's request?
Answer. To the best of my knowledge, I did not receive any such
request.
Question. Did you discuss your attendance at this conference in
advance with any U.S. officials?
Answer. Not to my recollection.
Question. Will you and the incoming Administration pledge not to
lift or weaken sanctions currently imposed on Russian officials and
individuals until:
Russia recognizes that Crimea is part of Ukraine?
Russia removes all military and irregular forces from
Ukrainian territory?
Russia halts its support for war crimes in Syria?
If no, what specific actions do you believe Russia needs to
take before sanctions are lifted or modified?
Answer. I believe the current sanctions should remain in place. As
to additional sanctions, I would like to include sanctions, whether
executive or legislative in nature, in a process that identifies how to
most-effectively respond to the series of illegal takings,
interferences, support of atrocities, and other unacceptable events by
Russian and Russian-backed elements. If confirmed, I will be working
closely with the President-elect, the entire National Security team,
and Congress to determine the appropriate next steps regarding Russian
sanctions.
Question. The Russian government seems to think that its
interference in our elections, through leaking of personal information
and promotion of fake news stories, is no different from our support
for non- governmental organizations (NGOs) and independent media that
promote human rights and free elections in Russia and other foreign
countries.
Do you agree that what we do and what they do is basically the
same?
Answer. No.
Question. If not, how would you explain the difference?
Answer. As I stated in my oral testimony, the United States is
committed to working within the rule of law. Russia is not.
Question. Are you aware that Kremlin-funded television and Internet
sites routinely spread anti-American propaganda, including that the
United States murdered its own citizens on 9/11, and spread equally
vile lies in Europe to undermine our allies there?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What are your thoughts about how we should combat this
propaganda? Is it in our interest to support a free, independent media
in the Russian speaking world and elsewhere?
Answer. We should support a free and independent media in the
Russian-speaking world. Should I be confirmed, I will commit to
supporting that effort.
Answer. In your travels to Russia, have you ever met with any
Russian human rights activists or any members of Russian civil society
who are trying to defend human rights or to fight corruption in that
country?
Answer. My records do not reflect any such meeting, but it is
entirely possible that I would have met with Russian activists or NGOs.
Question. Did you meet such non-governmental activists in any other
countries in which Exxon operated?
Answer. Under my leadership, ExxonMobil regularly interacted with
human rights and other non- governmental activists. I would also
occasionally meet with activists and NGOs. For example, in late 2010, I
participated in a global forum to end human trafficking, hosted by the
United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking and the
Suzanne Mubarak Women's International Peace Movement.As you know,
President Barack Obama initiated a so-called ``reset'' of relations
with Russia early during his tenure. Were you supportive of the Russian
``reset'' at the time?
Answer. As Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, I did not express a view
on whether to support the so-called ``reset'' of relations with Russia.
Question. Was the ``reset'' beneficial to Exxon's dealings in
Russia?
Answer. ExxonMobil's involvement in Russia predates the ``reset''
of relations with Russia under President Obama. I do not believe the
``reset'' was itself beneficial or detrimental to the company's
dealings in Russia.
Question. What do you think the lessons learned from the ``reset''
are?
Answer. The Administration's strategy for dealing with Russia,
while well intended, fell short in execution. As I stated in my oral
testimony, if confirmed, I will seek to develop an effective strategy
to engage Russia that protects and advances U.S. interests.
Question. President George W. Bush earlier tried to cooperate with
President Vladimir Putin, but President Bush's tenure in office ended
with Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008. What do you think the legacy
of the Bush approach to Russia is?
Answer. The legacy of the Bush Administration's approach to Russia,
in the end, was not too different from that of the past Administration.
Question. A group of former leaders of America's European allies
recently wrote a letter to President-elect Trump stating: ``Under
Putin, Russia's record of militarism, wars, threats, broken treaties
and false promises have made Europe a more dangerous place.... A deal
with Putin will not bring peace. On the contrary, it makes war more
likely.'' Do you share their assessment? Why or why not?Yes. Current
Russian policies are a threat peace and stability in Europe.
Ukraine
Question. Is it true that you once told a U.S. government official
that the United States should have just asked Putin to pay for Crimea?
Answer. No, to the best of my knowledge.
Question. Do you believe estimates that up to 400-500 Russian
soldiers have lost their lives fighting in Ukraine?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed to say with confidence how
many Russian soldiers have died fighting in Ukraine. What is clear from
available reporting is that a significant number of Russian military
members have died in Ukraine, quite possibly many more than 500.
Question. Is Russia currently in violation of the Minsk agreement?
Answer. Yes. Russia has not yet implemented and adhered to its
obligations under the Minsk Agreements.
NATO/European Security
Question. How should the United States respond to Russia's use of
energy as a weapon of geopolitical influence against European
countries, such as when it shut off gas to Ukraine during the winters
of 2006 and 2009?
Answer. As I stated in my oral testimony, I believe the first and
most important contribution the U.S. can make is to develop the
abundant energy resources that we have in the United States and make
them available for export to our friends and allies through the
instruments of the free market
Question. Would you change longstanding U.S. opposition to the
Nordstream II pipeline?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you believe there is an economic justification for the
Nordstream II pipeline?
Answer. Having access to abundant supplies of natural gas is
fundamental to Europe's continual economic prosperity. As such, there
could be an economic justification. However, rather than deepening its
dependency on a single supply--Russia--Europe would realize benefits
from diversifying its supply on natural gas from other reliable
countries.
Question. What about South Stream?
Answer. No.
Question. The Republic of Moldova is seeking better relations with
the United States and aspires to membership in the European Union (EU).
Russia opposes Moldova's interest in joining the EU, to the point of
imposing a trade embargo on the country when it signed an association
agreement with the EU in 2014. Do you believe it is appropriate for
Russia to pressure the Moldovan government not to join the EU?
Answer. No. The Moldovan people and their elected representatives
should decide whether EU membership is right or not for their nation
and economy.
Question. If not, will you support Moldova's right to decide for
itself whether to pursue membership in the EU?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What actions will you take if confirmed as Secretary of
State to assist Moldova in standing up to Russian pressure?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I would want to work with the
President and the other members of the National Security Council to
determine the best actions to be taken.
Question. Do you believe that European nations that do not belong
to the European Union (EU) or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) should be free to join the EU, NATO, or other nations if they
meet the criteria for membership in these organizations.
Answer. The door is always open to those European nations who seek
membership.
Question. Should membership in these organizations be subject to
negotiation with Russia?
Answer. No.
Sanctions as a national security tool
Question. Can you give me an example of an instance in which the
Obama Administration properly exercised a national security waiver in
congressionally-imposed sanctions, and also an example where it did
not?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. What I can say is that, should I be
confirmed, I will follow the law. I would never recommend exceeding the
intent of national security waiver provisions. I would advise the
President to use them as Congress intends to account for unforeseen
developments, where using the waiver was appropriate with the purpose
of the provision-advancing and protecting U.S. interests.
Question. You have stated that ``[w]e do not support sanctions,
generally, because we don't find them to be effective unless they are
very well implemented comprehensively and that's a very hard thing to
do.'' What is an example of a case where the United States used
``comprehensive'' sanctions effectively to achieve national security
goals?
Answer. As I stated in my oral testimony, sanctions can be
effective if they are part of an effective overall strategy aimed at
accomplishing national security goals. For instance, as I stated in my
oral testimony, I believe comprehensive sanctions against Cuba were
important for our national security and promoting support for human
rights in Cuba. Should I be confirmed, for example, I would want a
comprehensive review of the executive order delisting Cuba as a state
sponsor of terrorism to determine if delisting was appropriate.
Question. Do you agree that sanctions played a role in bringing
Iran to the negotiating table, even though these sanctions were not
adhered to by every foreign government that is a major economic partner
with Iran?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you believe that sanctions played a role in leading to
democratic reform in Burma?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you believe that sanctions play an important role in
slowing the growth of North Korea's weapons of mass destruction
programs?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Is Russia the only country in which you believe sanctions
have not been successful or are there other cases?
Answer. Sanctions are a critical tool of U.S. foreign policy.
Should I be confirmed, I would review the applicable laws in place and
make an assessment as to whether they are being effectively
implemented. I look forward to working with the Committee on this
important issue.
Answer. If confirmed as Secretary of State, part of your job when
dealing with rogue regimes will be convincing other foreign governments
to respect and abide by U.S. sanctions, some of which are unilateral
U.S. sanctions.
Question. How do you intend to make arguments in support of these
sanctions given your own past remarks questioning the efficacy of
sanctions?
Answer. I have confidence in the President-elect and his team to
develop sound strategies to protect and advance American interests.
Should I be confirmed, I will press for sanction policies that align
with those strategies. The Department of State will work with other
federal agencies and foreign governments to fully implement them.
Question. Do you commit to making sanctions implementation a
priority if you are confirmed as Secretary of State?
Answer. Yes.
Israel
Question. During your time at ExxonMobil, did you ever conduct any
business with Israel or Israeli companies?
Answer. Yes. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil
regularly conducted business in Israel and with Israeli companies.
Question. During your time at ExxonMobil, did you ever turn away
business with Israel in order not to damage relationship with Arab
states? Did your Jewish employees ever face discrimination in Arab
countries?
If so, how did you respond to such incidents?
Answer. No. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil had a
robust antiboycott legal compliance program, providing clear guidance
to employees concerning the United States antiboycott laws.
I am not aware of any particular instances of discrimination faced
by ExxonMobil's Jewish employees in Arab countries that occurred during
my tenure as Chairman and CEO. It was important to me that ExxonMobil
take discrimination very seriously. If any employees were harassed,
they would have been entitled to a prompt and thorough investigation by
ExxonMobil's human resources department, and appropriate follow-up.
Question. Have you ever visited Israel?
Answer. I have not yet had an opportunity to visit Israel but look
forward to doing so soon after being confirmed, if I am confirmed.
Question. Can you confirm that President-elect Donald Trump will
move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem? If so, can you provide a timetable
for the move?
Answer. Congress has mandated that the United States move its
embassy in Israel to East Jerusalem from its current location in Tel
Aviv. If confirmed, I would engage all the regional partners of the
United States to discuss implementing this mandate. Such a move should
only take place after the closest possible consultations with Jordan,
in particular, which has an historically important role to play in
preserving stability.
Question. What specific steps will the Trump Administration take in
response to the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution
2334?
Answer. As I stated in my oral testimony, Israel is a vital ally of
the United States, and we must meet our obligations to Israel as our
most important strategic ally in the region.. Should I be confirmed, I
would recommend to the President that the U.S. announce it no longer
supports that resolution and that it veto any U.N. Security Council
efforts to implement the resolution or enforce it, and block any future
U.N. sanctions based on it.
Question. Would the Trump Administration object to continued
Israeli construction in either existing or new settlements?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to gaining a greater
understanding of U.S. interests and advocating for policies that as I
stated in my oral testimony meet our obligations to our most important
strategic ally in the region.
Question. Do you regard construction of Israeli settlements as a
primary reason for the failure of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks to
date?
Answer. No. Palestinian terrorist attacks, not the settlements, are
the reason for the collapse of the Oslo Accords.
Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, what would you
personally do to counter the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS)
movement?
Answer. As I stated in my oral testimony, Israel is a vitally of
the United States, and we must meet our obligations to Israel as our
most important strategically in the region. Should I be confirmed, I
would recommend to the President that the U.S. announce it no longer
supports that resolution and would veto any U.N. Security Council
efforts to implement it or enforce it, and block any future U.N.
sanctions based on it.
Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, will you work to
fight the anti-Israel bias at the United Nations?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Will you pledge to support the vetoing of any and all
anti-Israel resolutions in the United Nations Security Council?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Many close American allies and aid recipients blindly
support anti-Israel resolutions in the General Assembly and various
U.N. bodies. Are you willing to use American leverage in our bilateral
relationship with specific countries to reduce activity hostile to
Israel and to our own nation in the U.N. system?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree that the United States should condition its
contributions to the United Nations on certification that no U.N.
agency or affiliated agencies grants any official status,
accreditation, or recognition to any organization which promotes or
condones anti-Semitism?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Is Bashar al-Assad the legitimate ruler of Syria? Is he a
friend of the United States?
Answer. Bashar al-Assad is a brutal dictator who rules only through
the use of force and intimidation. He is no friend of the United
States.
Question. Do you think we should directly partner with Russia in
military operations in Syria?
Answer. No.
Question. How many ISIS fighters have Russian forces killed in
Syria?
Answer. It is my understanding that they have killed very few, but
I do not know an accurate number, and I look forward to a full
briefing.
Question. Do you believe Russia's actions in Syria have
strengthened or weakened Iran?
Answer. Russia has generally strengthened Iran's position.
Question. Is American influence greater or weaker in the Middle
East than it was prior to Russia getting involved in Syria?
Answer. American influence has become weaker.
Question. ``In Syria,'' wrote Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, President-
Elect Trump's incoming national security advisor, in his recent book
Field of Fight, ``[Russia and Iran] have loudly proclaimed they are
waging war against ISIS, but in reality the great bulk of their efforts
are aimed at the opponents of the Assad regime.'' Do you agree with
Gen. Flynn's view that Russia and Iran have devoted the bulk of their
efforts in Syria to defeating the moderate opposition, thereby
strengthening the influence of ISIS?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you support assisting moderate Syrian opposition
forces in Syria with non-lethal and lethal assistance?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to gaining
a greater knowledge of this issue and pressing for policies that best
protect and advance U.S. interests in the region.
Question. Is the current U.S. strategy of relying heavily on
support from the Syrian Kurds to capture territory in northern Syria in
the eventual offensive against Raqqa the strategy you would recommend
to President Trump?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. However, it is my understanding that the
Syrian Kurds have the most effective fighting force in retaking
territories previously held by ISIS. Should I be confirmed, I commit to
gaining a greater knowledge of this issue and pressing for policies
that best protect and advance U.S. interests in the region.
Question. Is it in America's interest for Iraq to be dominated by
Iranian influence?
Answer. No.
Question. Were you supportive of the Iraq War in 2003?
Answer. As a private citizen, I was generally supportive of
continued containment of Saddam Hussein and his ruling government
Question. Do-you believe the United States should have taken
control of oil production in Iraq and received some or all of the
proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you believe the United States should have retained a
military presence in Iraq after 2011?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you support Kurdish independence?
Answer. No. Kurdish autonomy within a federal and decentralized
Iraqi state is a preferable outcome for U.S. national interests.
Question. Is Iranian President Hassan Rouhani a moderate? Is he
someone the United States can do business with?
Answer. Regardless of President Rouhani's political position, the
key decisions on issues of critical importance to the United States--
like nuclear program--are made by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah
Khomeini.
Answer. Khomeini is not a moderate.
Question. Did you support the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA)?
If not, why?
Answer. The JCPOA did not adequately reduce the threat posed by
Iran. One of the priorities of the Trump Administration will be making
sure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapons capability.
Question. Do you agree that the JCPOA should be renegotiated or
abrogated?
If so, which parameters of the JCPOA need to be modified?
Answer. As I stated in my oral testimony, should I be confirmed, I
commit to working with the President-elect and the National Security
Council in assessing JCPOA and determining what further actions are
required to protect and advance U.S. interests.
Question. Will you support the imposition of additional sanctions
on Iran for its ballistic missile efforts? Its continued support for
terrorism? Its human rights abuses?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Did ExxonMobil, either individually or as part of a
coalition, ever lobby on or against Iran sanctions?
Answer. ExxonMobil did not lobby against Iran sanctions during my
tenure as Chairman and CEO, but rather sought to share information with
lawmakers that would assist them in mitigating disproportionate harm to
U.S. companies as compared to their foreign competitors. I understand
that ExxonMobil disclosed all such activity as required by the lobbying
disclosure laws.
Question. You told Senator Portman during your confirmation hearing
that the United States should explore cooperation with Iran against
ISIS. You later told me: ``Well, defeating ISIS is the one that is
right in front of us and we're already cooperating with them in Iraq.''
How is the United States ``cooperating'' with Iran in Iraq?
Answer. It is my current understanding the U.S. is not directly
cooperating with these forces.
Question. Do you acknowledge that Iran and its terrorist proxies
have killed Americans?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Why would you think that the United States should
cooperate with a country that even Obama administration officials have
described as the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism?
Answer. The U.S. should not cooperate with Iran in Iraq or anywhere
else.
Question. There are tens of thousands of political prisoners in
President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's Egypt today, including American
citizens such as Aya Hijazi, who has been jailed for nearly three years
on baseless charges after she started an NGO to help street children.
What will you do to protect American citizens abroad, and how will you
work to press for the release of Americans held by foreign governments,
including by U.S. allies such as Egypt?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will ensure that the State
Department fulfills its responsibilities, using its resources and
expertise to proactively protect Americans when they travel, such as by
communicating clearly the U.S. government's expectations that other
governments protect, and treat lawfully and fairly, visiting Americans.
In the event of danger to an American overseas, I will ensure all
relevant personnel within the State Department treat the situation as a
priority, and that there is coordination with other U.S. government
agencies. For those Americans unjustly held by foreign governments, I
will press at all opportunities with those governments and their
publics the case that the Americans should be exonerated and freed, and
I will examine all options for concerted action with other U.S.
government agencies for gaining a speedy release.
Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, how would you work
with Egypt's leaders to focus the country's energy on countering its
real security threats and reforming its economy, while respecting
freedom of the press, due process, civil society, and other fundamental
freedoms?
What are the risks to Egypt's stability if its leaders
continue down the same path of repression and economic
stagnation?
Answer. As I stated in my oral testimony, I believe that the
deterioration of human rights is a threat to security. Instability in
Egypt risks proliferating instability throughout the region. Should I
be confirmed, I would make clear that the U.S. strongly believes an
open and equitable society is the best way to ensure a strong, peaceful
Egypt. The State Department should use every opportunity to encourage
Egypt in that direction.
Question. Do you believe the el-Sisi government is making Egypt
more or less stable, and what evidence have you seen that supports your
views?
How would you explain the surge in terrorist violence and
public unrest since el-Sisi seized power?
Answer. The Muslim Brotherhood represented a greater threat to
stability and human rights in Egypt and the region. Radical Islamist
elements opposed to the government continue to instigate terrorism
across Egypt.
Question. Do you believe that the United States gives Egypt the
right amount of foreign assistance, too much, or too little?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to gaining
a greater understanding of the terrorist threat in Egypt and developing
effective U.S. policies to address them commensurate with U.S.
interests. I will also examine other opportunities for U.S. foreign
assistance that will support stability in the country by addressing
human rights needs.
Question. After the upheaval of the Arab Spring, only one country-
Tunisia-remains standing as an emerging democracy in the region. Do you
believe it should be a national security priority of the United States
to support Tunisia's transition to democracy? What specifically should
the United States do?
Answer. Yes, I do believe Tunisia is a strategically important
country for the United States and an important partner for us in
bringing stability to the region. I believe we should broadly engage
with Tunisia on security, economic, governance, and civil society
development As to the specifics of the next steps in this vital
relationship.
I would need to be fully briefed on this issue. Should I be
confirmed, I commit to gaining a greater understanding of the
effectiveness of U.S. foreign assistance and bilateral programs and
develop proposals to make assistance and engagement as effective as
possible to deepen and broaden the relationship and joint commitment to
regional peace, stability and prosperity.
Question. Over the past year, Bahrain has dramatically escalated
its crackdown against human rights defenders and peaceful opposition
leaders. As the home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, a stable Bahrain is
critical to U.S. national security interests. But unless the Sunni
monarchy moves to share power with its restive Shia- majority
population, the country risks descending into open sectarian conflict
that could destabilize the country and jeopardize the Fifth Fleet. If
confirmed as Secretary of State, how will you encourage Bahrain's
rulers to reverse course, and implement genuine political reform to
stabilize the country and secure the U.S. Fifth Fleet in the years
ahead?
Answer. Bahrain has long been one of our most vital partners in the
Gulf region, particularly in terms of the crucial support it provides
the U.S. Fifth Fleet Bahrain faces a number of challenges, not least
the ongoing threat to its security and stability from an aggressive
Iran. If confirmed, I will work with Bahrain's leaders to strengthen
our alliance and combat common threats, while also encouraging reforms
that can enhance Bahrain's long-term stability and security.
Question. ExxonMobil's logo has apparently appeared on numerous
fliers for lectures by hate preachers in Qatar. Examples include hate
preacher lectures both at the Katara cultural village, where your firm
had a ``strategic partnership,'' as well as at a Qatari Ramadan
festival in 2016. Such hate preachers had claimed that 9/11 was carried
out by Israel and the American right wing, that Jews are ``devils in
human form,'' that Christians are ``crusaders,'' and that 9/11 and the
Charlie Hebdo attacks were a ``comedy film,'' and that the only
``solution'' for dealing with Jews is to wage ``jihad'' against them.
Were you aware that ExxonMobil was funding such hateful and violent
rhetoric?
Answer. This type of rhetoric directly contradicts what I know to
be ExxonMobil's corporate values, and I condemn it personally. During
my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil promoted diversity and
inclusion in its operations, both in the United States and abroad, and
strictly prohibited harassment and discrimination in the workplace. I
am not aware of ExxonMobil funding hateful and violent rhetoric or any
of the individuals described above.
Question. What was your role in overseeing ExxonMobil's operations
in Qatar?
Answer. As Chairman and CEO, I was involved in high-level strategic
decisions regarding ExxonMobil's operations, and I relied on my
subordinates to elevate issues in connection with day-to-day operations
as appropriate.
Question. Does the use of ExxonMobil's imprimatur to promote such
hate preachers reflect negatively upon your capabilities for overseeing
a large bureaucracy and tackling thorny international issues?
Answer. I am not aware of the imprimatur being used in the manner
described by your question. If it were used in that manner, it would
have been without ExxonMobil's permission or knowledge. I condemn
hateful speech in all its forms.
Question. What would you do as secretary of state to fight
religious incitement by state-backed preachers in Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
and other countries?
Answer. It is my understanding there are on-going efforts in these
areas through entities within the State Department including the Office
of Global Engagement. Should I be confirmed, I commit to assessing
their effectiveness and implementing appropriate measures. I look
forward to working with Congress on this issue.
Question. You have repeatedly praised Qatari rulers and spoken of
their ``visionary leadership.'' Do you believe that Qatar has done
enough to fight extremist Islamist and anti-Israel terrorist groups?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you believe that Qatar should continue to host the
political leader of Hamas, Khaled Mashal?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you believe that there have been any negative
repercussions of Qatar's rise as an economic and military power,
largely fueled by its partnership with companies like Exxon?
Answer. At times Qatar has supported groups and organizations which
have been counter to U.S. national interests. However, on balance Qatar
continues to be an important regional ally for the U.S. and even hosts
one of the largest American air bases outside the United
States.Afghanistan
Question. Should the United States keep troops in Afghanistan for
the foreseeable future?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do ISIS and other Islamist terror groups pose an
existential threat to the United States?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Does the United States need the assistance of Muslim-
Americans and majority-Muslim countries around the world to defeat ISIS
and affiliated groups?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree that the failure to provide lethal and non-
lethal assistance to the moderate Syrian opposition helped give rise to
ISIS and other jihadist groups?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response.
China
Question. A Hague tribunal last year rejected China's argument that
it enjoys historic rights over most of the South China Sea. Do you
agree that Beijing's ``Nine Dash Line'' claim of sovereignty over the
South China Sea is invalid?
Answer. Yes. It is my understanding that the United States
government recognizes the findings of the PCA to be part of
international law. As the PCA found the Chinese claims to the South
China Sea based upon the ``Nine Dash Line'' to have no legal standing,
it is my understanding that the U.S. government sees such claims as
having no basis in international law.
Question. Would you further agree that any attempt by China to
unilaterally change the security status quo in the region is
unacceptable?
Answer. Yes.
Question. As Secretary of State, would you be willing to consider
the imposition of targeted sanctions against Chinese companies involved
in militarizing the South China Sea?
Answer. The United States should consider a full range of options
to dissuade China from pursuing its destabilizing activities in the
South China Sea. This should include considering targeted sanctions
against Chinese and other companies involved in militarizing the South
China Sea.
Question. The political prisoner database maintained by the
Congressional Executive Commission on China (CECC) which currently
contains more than 1400 active records of individuals known or believed
to be in detention. While this number is staggering it is far from
exhaustive. Mindful that Chinese leaders determine U.S. seriousness on
human rights by the level and the frequency with which it is raised, do
you commit to ensuring that human rights concerns are integrated in
every senior bilateral engagement, and that specific prisoner cases are
raised at the highest levels both publicly and privately?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to ensuring human rights
issues, like political prisoner cases, will be incorporated into our
diplomatic engagement with China.
Question. A December 2016 Washington Post headline read,
``Christians in China feel the full force of Authorities Repression.''
The story specifically documented the crackdown on the once thriving
Living Stone Church, the detention of one of its pastors on charges of
``possessing state secrets'' (last week he was reportedly sentenced to
two-and-one-half years in prison) and dozens of church attendees being
regularly followed by police. The Communist Party is still avowedly
atheist and routinely employs repression, intimidation and even
imprisonment in its efforts to control the spread of religion. How
would you engage with Chinese authorities on these issues?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to ensuring that diplomatic
engagements with China properly and actively address threats to
religious freedom.
Question. What priority would you give to religious freedom issues
to include not just house church Christians, but Tibetan Buddhists,
Uyghur Muslims, Falun Gong practitioners and others?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, this would be a high priority. It is
my understanding that in 2016, China was re-designated a Country of
Particular Concern. Evaluations on the state of religious freedom
should continue to be included in the annually released International
Religious Freedom report.
Question. It has long been the policy of the U.S. government,
provided by the Tibetan Policy Act, to promote a dialogue between the
envoys of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government toward a solution
on the Tibet issue that guarantees the respect of the ``distinct
identity'' of the Tibetan people, who continue to suffer under China's
oppressive rule. The dialogue is now at a standstill and the lack of
substantive progress toward a genuine resolution continues to be a
thorny issue in U.S.-China relations. What will you do to promote
dialogue between envoys of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, while recognizing Tibet as part of
the People's Republic of China, I will continue to encourage dialogue
between Beijing and representatives of Tibet's ``government in exile''
and/or the Dalai Lama. I will also encourage Beijing and the
governments of all nations to respect and preserve the distinct
religious, linguistic, and cultural identity of the Tibetan people
worldwide.
Question. Will you commit to receiving and meeting with the Dalai
Lama?
Answer. Yes.
Question. China consistently blocks the access of reporters, civil
society actors, diplomats and others to places like Tibet, routinely
denies visas to foreign journalists and otherwise restricts both
freedom of movement and freedom of information. At the same time,
Chinese government officials encounter none of these same challenges in
the U.S. Even state-controlled media is given free reign and broadcasts
without interference in cities across America. Do you view this as
problematic?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you think it would be advisable to limit the number of
visas allowed to executives or administrative personnel from Chinese
state-owned media enterprises operating in the U.S. if foreign
journalists continue to face visa restrictions, police harassment and
surveillance?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to assessing what should be
the best policy, recognizing that reciprocity in treatment is a
principal in bilateral relations.
Question. Would you support targeting Chinese officials who are
responsible for denying access to Tibet to U.S. citizens with visa
sanctions, as provided in the ``Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act''
introduced in the last Congress?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to assessing what should be
the best policy, recognizing that reciprocity in treatment is a
principal in bilateral relations.
Question. Some have called China's Internet Firewall the Berlin
Wall of the 21st Century. What priority would you place on Internet
freedom programs in countries like China, Iran and Cuba? In your view,
did the Obama Administration give this issue sufficient attention given
its geopolitical implications?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to assessing what should be
the best policy, recognizing that efforts to limit the free flow of
information, including by altering the governance structure, should be
opposed.
Question. The 2016 Report form the Congressional Executive
Commission on China finds that ``Hong Kong's 'high degree of autonomy,'
guaranteed under the 'one country, two systems' principle enshrined in
the Basic Law, faced renewed threat of interference from mainland
China.'' Beijing's recent actions in Hong Kong are unprecedented, and
should send chills down the spines of people who care about promoting
democratic governance in Hong Kong by preserving its independent legal
system. Increasingly it seems that Hong Kong's cherished 'high degree
of autonomy' has limits, and those limits are whatever the Communist
Party in China decides. Do you believe that China is violating its
promise from the handover to respect Hong Kong's independence?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about this
issue. It is my understanding that the government has a binding
international commitment to provide Hong Kong a ``high degree of
autonomy. I would think U.S. policy should reflect that commitment.
Question. What do you believe is America's role in ensuring that
Beijing keeps its commitment in full?
Answer. The United States should press the government to honor its
obligations.
Question. How would you work to ensure that the people of Hong Kong
who yearn for greater electoral representation, democratic reform,
protection of human rights and a legal system that functions
independent of mainland interference, find in the U.S. a friend willing
to oppose efforts by the Chinese government to crush or suppress
dissent?
Answer. It is my understanding that under the Hong Kong Policy Act,
the United States is committed to democracy in Hong Kong on an ongoing
basis. I would follow the law.
Taiwan
Question. The Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8), enacted on
April 10, 1979, along with the ``Six Assurances,'' form the cornerstone
of U.S.-Taiwan relations. Will you and the Administration continue to
reiterate and reaffirm the TRA and ``Six Assurances.''
Answer. Yes.
Question. The United States for decades has benefited from a strong
security and economic relationship with Taiwan. However, the United
States continues to maintain self-imposed restrictions on high-level
exchanges with Taiwan. Will you and the Administration encourage
exchanges between the United State and Taiwan at all levels?
Answer. Yes.
Question. As Secretary of State, would you be willing to:
Visit Taiwan?
Answer. It is my understanding that the United States has
commitments to Taiwan under the TRA and ``Six Assurances.'' The United
States also has commitments to the PRC in the context of the ``Three
Communiques.'' Should I be confirmed, any travel I take would conform
to the United States' understanding of all of these.
Meet with your Taiwanese counterpart in the United States?
Answer. It is my understanding that the United States has
commitments to Taiwan under the TRA and ``Six Assurances.'' The United
States also has commitments to the PRC in the context of the ``Three
Communiques.'' Should I be confirmed, I would insist that any travel
conform to the United States' understanding of all of these.
Authorize the travel of Senate-confirmed officials to
Taiwan?
Answer. It is my understanding that the United States has
commitments to Taiwan under the TRA and ``Six Assurances.'' The United
States also has commitments to the PRC in the context of the ``Three
Communiques.'' Should I be confirmed, any travel conform to the United
States' understanding of all of these. It is my understanding that a
review of travel restrictions could result in Senate-confirmed
personnel being permitted to travel to Taiwan.
Question. Global health, international aviation security, and
transnational crime are all matters of global importance that requires
cooperation from stakeholders from all around the world. Congress has
passed legislations requiring the State Department to support Taiwan's
meaningful participation in international organizations such as the
World Health Organization (WHO), the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO), and the International Criminal Police Organization
(INTERPOL). How do you and the Administration plan to support Taiwan's
international participation?
If confirmed, do you pledge to support the early delivery
of a new arms package to Taiwan?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, yes, I would be prepared to approve
of the sale of arms of a defensive character to Taiwan as necessary to
maintain a credible deterrent. The need for many such items, such as
advanced fighters, are a matter of public record, as is the need for
diesel electric submarines and the U.S. commitment to help Taiwan
acquire them.
Question. As the American Action Forum noted in November, Japan
contributes 50 percent and South Korea 41 percent of the costs to
support the American military presence in each country. Would you agree
that this cost sharing for America's bases is fair?
Answer. Strong alliances are vital to both the United States and
its allies. Cost sharing arrangements between the United States and
Japan and South Korea are governed by Special Measures Agreements.
Under these bilateral agreements, Japan and South Korea provide
substantial support to U.S. forces. The President-elect has committed
to working with U.S. allies to review these arrangements, as is done
periodically, to ensure that the United States and its allies are each
contributing their fair share of the costs and duties of these
alliances.
Question. Would you further agree that the United States shares
common security interests with both Tokyo and Seoul?Yes.
Question. Would you also agree that forward-deploying U.S. forces
with these bases is less costly than projecting them from the U.S.
mainland?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. It is my understanding that obtaining and
defending U.S. national interests in Asia requires bases and access,
sufficient forward-deployed military forces to deter aggression, robust
follow-on forces, and strong alliances and security relationships such
as those with Japan and South Korea. It is also my understanding that
replacing permanent forward-deployed forces in Asia with rotational
troops would incur significant costs and would reduce American
capabilities and influence in the region.
Question. On June 13, 2013, you praised the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP), saying that it was a ``most promising development''
in the effort to lower tariffs and end protectionist policies. If
enacted, you added that it could ``shore up the energy security of
Asian allies and trading partners'' while also benefiting the U.S.
economy as a whole. Do you still support the TPP?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will be guided by the decision of
the President
Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, will you encourage
the Congress to ratify the agreement?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will be guided by the decision of
the President
Central America
Question. Tens of thousands of vulnerable children and families
continue to flee to the United States from Guatemala, Honduras, and El
Salvador. Many of them are threatened by ruthless gangs and criminal
networks who effectively hold authority in their neighborhoods and who
deploy a forced recruiting policy, known as ``join [the gang] or die.''
Some have witnessed the killing of family members. How would you work
with the federal governments of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador to
ensure that they are prioritizing these marginalized youth and
protecting them from police brutality in their Alliance for Prosperity
plans?
Answer. If confirmed, I would review our law enforcement
cooperation programs with Central American countries with a view
towards ensuring that they are effective in fighting crime and also
holding the police forces in these countries who receive our assistance
to high standards of conduct, respecting the human rights of their
citizens.
Question. Would you be willing to scale up and speed up the extant
programs to process asylum-seekers in their home countries?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to working with other
federal agencies to increase the speed and scale to effectively process
asylum claims consistent with U.S. security interests.
Question. Freedoms have declined in Nicaragua as President Daniel
Ortega has consolidated his power and increased pressure on media and
civil society, yet the Obama Administration did little to respond. What
policies will you implement to handle things differently than the
previous administration?
Answer. I agree that President Ortega has not governed
democratically in Nicaragua. If confirmed, I will commit to reviewing
our policy toward that country, with the ultimate aim of bolstering
civil society and democratic institutions. We could also, in
consultation with your committee, discuss whether there is any trade or
other benefits to which Nicaragua would become disqualified as a result
of its government's abuses of power.
Question. In Nicaragua, according to the2015 State Department's
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Country reports ``there
was widespread corruption including in the police, Supreme Court
Justice (CSJ) and other government organs.'' If confirmed as Secretary
of State, what steps will you take to address corruption among high
level officials that is having such corrosive effect on good governance
and the rule of law in Nicaragua?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to gaining a greater
understanding of this issue and pressing for the most effective
policies to address the issue of rampant corruption in Nicaragua
consistent with U.S. interests.
Question. I along with my colleague Senator Markey have cosponsored
a resolution regarding the trafficking of illicit fentanyl into the
United States from Mexico and China. Our bipartisan resolution urges
the United States Government, including the Secretary of State, the
Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director
of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, to use the broad
diplomatic and law enforcement resources of the United States, in
partnership with the Governments of Mexico and China, to stop the
production of illicit fentanyl and its trafficking into the United
States. If confirmed, will you commit to work closely with federal
agencies to stop the production and trafficking of illicit fentanyl to
the U.S.?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you support the United States continuing to invest in
the Alliance for Prosperity Initiative in Central America?
Answer. Yes. Should I be confirmed, I will seek to formulate goals
and prioritize our efforts as to where the most help is needed. A
particular focus should be on improving the capabilities of these
countries to reduce the flow of people coming illegally and to combat
transnational criminal networks.
Question. Despite the Obama Administration's controversial decision
to normalize relations with Cuba and hopes that this could lead to
improved governance and human rights, Cuban officials continue to
arrest dissidents and violate the rights of citizens, and tourism
revenues benefit only government officials and a small minority of the
population. How do you plan to approach the United States' relationship
with Cuba?
Answer. The Administration's policy, as I stated in my oral
testimony, does not serve Cubans or Americans. Should I be confirmed, I
commit to working with the President-elect and the members of the
National Security Council in crafting better policies. For example, I
would want to reassess removing the Cuban government's designation as a
state sponsor of terrorism.
Question. How will you support human rights defenders and democracy
activists in Cuba?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, supporting human rights and
democracy in Cuba will be at the forefront of the policy I recommend
and implement in addressing the regime.
Question. What bilateral and/or multilateral pressure will you
exert against authoritarian rule in Cuba?
Answer. It is my understanding the Administration's decision to
normalize relations with Cuba was not met with any improvement any
significant concessions on human rights. Nor has the Cuban government
improved its behavior towards the United States. It is clear the Obama
Administration's policies do not serve the interests of the United
States or the Cuban people.
Should I be confirmed, I commit as an immediate priority to gain a
greater understanding of bilateral and multilateral options for
applying pressure to bring about a change of behavior from the Cuban
government.
Question. The Obama Administration has issued a series of
regulations and licenses that allow transactions with business entities
owned by the Cuban military and that traffic in properties previously
confiscated from American citizens. These transactions are inconsistent
with U.S. statutes and Congressional intent under the LIBERTAD Act. Do
you commit to reversing these licenses and regulations?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you commit to ensuring no transactions in Cuba involve
Cuban military-owned entities or traffic in properties stolen from
American citizens?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will do so to the extent of my
authorities, consistent with statutory requirements.
Question. Will you ensure to commit to strictly enforcing the
statutory prohibition on tourism-related transactions towards Cuba?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will affirm enforcement of all
statutory requirements.
Question. In 2016, a modem record-setting 10,000+ political arrests
by the Castro regime were documented in Cuba; democracy activists such
as artist Danilo Maldonado (``El Sexto''), the Christian Liberation
Movement's Dr. Eduardo Cardet and members of The Ladies in White,
Xiomara de las Mercedes Cruz, Yaquelin Heredia, Marietta Martinez and
Yuneth Cairo, remain imprisoned under inhumane conditions; Cuba remains
the only country in the Americas to be labeled as ``Not Free'' by
Freedom House; and groups such as Human Rights Watch provide details on
the myriad of ways that basic rights and liberties are still not
respected in Cuba. By any objective measure, the Castro regime has not
improved its human rights record since the Obama Administration
announced its new policy on December 17, 2014. To the contrary, human
rights conditions on the island have worsened. Will you commit that the
U.S. will maintain and increase democracy assistance for the Cuban
people?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will do so to the extent of my
authority , consistent with statutory requirements.
Question. The FBI estimates there are more than 70 fugitives from
justice that are being provided safe-harbor by the Castro regime. These
include Joanne Chesimard, a cop-killer on the FBI's Top Ten Most Wanted
Terrorists list; William Morales, a convicted FALN (Fuerzas Armadas de
Liberacion Nacional) bomb-maker who conducted a deadly terrorist attack
in New York City; and Ishmael LaBeet, who was convicted in U.S. courts
to eight life sentences for the murder of eight people. Will you commit
to making the repatriation of these terrorists and other fugitives from
U.S. justice a condition for the continuation of diplomatic relations
with the Cuban government?
Answer. Yes.
Question. There are billions of dollars of outstanding American
property claims against the Cuban government. In the past, as in the
case of Libya, the United States has not normalized relations with
countries subject to outstanding American claims until they have been
resolved or a process for their resolution has been established. There
are thousands of verified American claimants who have been waiting for
decades to be compensated for the Castro regime's illegal expropriation
of their property and assets. There are also billions of dollars in
outstanding judgments from U.S. federal courts against the Cuban
government for acts of terrorism. Prior to the establishing of
diplomatic relations, the Cuban government should have been forced to
compensate all of the verified claimants. Will you commit to making the
resolution of properties confiscated from Americans a condition for the
continuation of diplomatic relations with the Cuban government?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I would review the status of the
resolution of claims and determining the best course of action for
resolving the issue.
Question. Next month, February 24th, will mark the 20th anniversary
of the shootdown of two U.S. civilian aircraft over international
waters, which resulted in the murder of three Americans and a permanent
resident of the U.S. This shoot-down led to the 2003 federal indictment
of three Cuban military officials, General Ruben Martinez Puente,
Colonel Lorenzo Alberto Perez-Perez, and Colonel Francisco Perez-
Perez, on four counts of murder, two counts of destruction of aircraft,
and one count of conspiracy to kill United States nationals. Will you
commit to making the extradition of these Cuban military officials a
condition for the continuation of diplomatic relations with the Cuban
government?
Answer. Yes. Continuing diplomatic relations should be made
conditional on issues like these, including repayment for the $8
billion in U.S. citizens' and entities' seized assets and improvement
on human rights as outlined in the Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity Act (Helms Burton).
Question. The Obama administration approved six U.S. domestic
airlines to fly to nine Cuban airports. Among those Cuban airports
chosen are Varadero (Matanzas), Cayo Coco, and Cayo Largo. These three
airports are feeders to the Cuban military's isolated beach resorts.
These flights seek to circumvent statutory restrictions on tourism-
related transactions towards Cuba. Will you ensure to commit to
strictly enforcing the statutory prohibition on tourism-related
transactions towards Cuba?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will do so to the extent of my
authorities, consistent with statutory requirements.
Question. With each passing day, the humanitarian situation is
worsening in Venezuela, and opposition activists, human rights
defenders, and lawyers continued to be harassed, attacked, and
imprisoned.
More than 100 remain in jail. What should the United States do to
prevent Venezuela from becoming a failed state?
Answer. The U.S. should continue to support legitimate dialogue to
resolve the political crisis between the Maduro government and the
opposition that now controls the National Assembly. We must continue to
denounce the Maduro government's undemocratic practices, call for the
release of political prisoners, and enforce sanctions against
Venezuelan human rights violators and narcotics traffickers. We should
deliver humanitarian aid to mitigate food insecurity and the shortage
of medical supplies, as appropriate.
Question. Venezuela was a country rich in natural resources and
with one of the most educated class in the world. The mismanagement,
corruption and failed policies of former Hugo Chavez and the current
administration of Nicolas Maduro have taken Venezuela in the wrong
path, and become a failed state. There are shortages of medicine;
newborn deaths have been reported, innocent individuals seat in jail
for opposing and voicing their opinions against such tyrannical and
oppressive regime. In response, the U.S. Congress passed legislation to
support our commitment to the Venezuelan people, this legislation,
``the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014''
authorizes sanctions against individuals who violate human rights.
President Obama failed for not implementing the legislation the way it
was intended. If confirmed, will you fully execute the intent of this
legislation?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Colombia is a strong U.S. ally in Latin America. In 1997,
the U.S. designated the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de
Colombia) a foreign terrorist organization, responsible for the deaths
of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions within
Colombia. If confirmed, do you commit to not remove the FARC as a
foreign terrorist organization?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to reviewing the status of
FARC as a terrorist organization according to U.S. law and making
designations and recommendations based on the letter of the law.
Question. Extradition laws in the U.S. uphold essential treaties
and agreements between nations. Simon Trinidad was a leader of the FARC
and convicted by a court in Colombia for aggravated kidnapping and
rebellion and sentenced to 35 years in prison on May 4, 2004. He was
convicted by a U.S. jury for plotting to hold three American nationals
hostage after they were captured in Colombia, and was sentenced to 60
years in prison on January 28, 2008. He is serving his time in a U.S.
prison. If confirmed, can you affirm this committee that under your
supervision, the U.S. will not offer or accept the release of any
person currently held in the U.S. including Simon Trinidad, nor will
the U.S. offer or accept the transfer of Trinidad or other individuals
to Colombia?
Answer. It is my understanding that the longstanding policy of the
United States is to hold FARC terrorists accountable for violating
American laws and that that policy serves the United States well and
should be heavily weighed when making this determination. Should I be
confirmed, I commit to reviewing current policy.
Question. Florida is home to the largest Haitian American community
in the nation. For decades the country has suffered from corruption,
the mismanagement of foreign aid, political instability as well as
devastating natural disasters. If confirmed, what will be your approach
to the ongoing political situation on the island?
Answer. It is my understanding that foreign assistance can be a
powerful tool but in the case of Haiti, it has distorted the local
markets and hindered rather than helped growing prosperity, building
strong political institutions and a healthy civil society. Should I be
confirmed, I commit to reviewing the effectiveness of current policies
and determining a better course of action.
Question. Is Russia violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
(INF) Treaty?
If so, should the United States continue to remain a party
to a treaty that the other party is violating?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to gaining
a full understanding of government's assessment of compliance with the
INF Treaty. I believe the United States should expect full compliance
with the treaty.
Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, would you support
further U.S. nuclear reductions?
Should nuclear reductions occur outside of an agreement
with the Russian Federation or other nuclear powers?
Answer. I do not support further unilateral reductions in the U.S.
nuclear arsenal
Question. Will you commit to continue the deployment of U.S.
missile defense systems to Central and Eastern Europe, despite Russian
objections?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, would you support the extension of the New
START agreement?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to gaining
a greater understanding of the issue and making a recommendation to the
president. I look forward to consulting Congress on this issue.
Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, would you support the
ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty?
Answer. If confirmed, I will respect the Senate's constitutional
role in ratifying any treaty, including the CTBT.
Question. The outgoing administration supported a United Nations
Security Council resolution in an attempt to undermine the Senate's
1999 rejection of the treaty. If confirmed, would you make clear to the
international community that given the Senate's objection, the United
States is not subject to the object and purpose of the treaty?
Answer. If confirmed, I would seek a fuller briefing in today's
context from experts on the CTBT and both the advantages and concerns
associated with it.
Question. The U.S. Government's budget for international affairs is
approximately 1.3% of the total U.S. budget. The overall foreign
assistance budget is at its lowest point since 2008, at $33.9B. The
specific section of that for peace and security is nearly half in 2017
and 16 what it was in 2014 and 15. At the same time, freedom and
democracy are sliding, the number of armed conflicts is up, refugees
are at their highest level since WWII and terrorist attacks continue to
rise. Are we spending enough on foreign assistance, and if not, how
will you ensure that the Department of State has what it needs to
address current worldwide concerns?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to
assessing U.S. foreign assistance to ensure it is sufficient,
effective, and consistent with U.S. interests. As I stated in my oral
testimony, I have seen too many situations where recipient countries
exploit the aid that we provide. We need to allocate adequate resources
but ensure they are used appropriately by recipient countries. I look
forward to working with Congress on this issue.
Question. USAID is currently located as the F Bureau of the
Department of State. Will you advocate for the Agency to maintain its
current identity, position and role, become more integrated within the
Department of State, or become more independent?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I look forward to
working with Congress to address this issue.
Question. In recent years, the State Department has made real
progress becoming more transparent and accountable to taxpayers. In
2015, the Department released an updated Evaluation Policy,l3l to guide
how the agency determines what's working and what's not. In 2016, the
``Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act'' (PL. 114-191) was
enacted, ensuring that foreign assistance dollars are accounted for on
the Foreign Assistance website and evaluated for results. Would
transparency, accountability, and effectiveness be a priority for you
at the State Department?
Answer. Yes, if I am confirmed.
Question. The politically driven manipulation of the State
Department's 2015 Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report and continued
concerns in the 2016 report were a major setback to U.S. efforts to
combat human trafficking around the world. Major media outlets reported
that within the State Department, the administration allowed political
considerations to manipulate expert recommendations of the State
Department's human rights and trafficking professionals. This resulted
in the politically-driven upgrade of countries, specifically Cuba and
Malaysia, from the ``Tier 3'' category to the ``Tier 2 Watch List.''
Given the widely held perception that several countries were
undeservedly upgraded in the 2015 report due to the Obama
Administration's politicization of the process, what will you do to
rebuild the credibility of the report and ensure that a qualified,
senior diplomat fills the position of Ambassador at Large for
Trafficking in Persons in a timely fashion?
Answer. I believe the U.S. should continue to lead international
efforts to combat trafficking in persons. In order to do so, I believe
the Trafficking in Persons report should be viewed as credible. The
report remains a valuable diplomatic tool. Should I be confirmed, I
will direct the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
(JMCTP) to integrate empirical and data-based metrics into the rankings
and evaluations for the report in order to improve the report's
objectivity. Should I be confirmed, I will make every effort to ensure
that the Ambassador-at-Large position is filled in a timely manner.
Question. One of the State Department's core missions is to promote
equal rights for men and women around the world, including the right of
all women and girls to decide if, when and whom they marry. Last year,
I chaired a subcommittee hearing on the issue during which we heard
sobering testimony about how child marriage perpetuates poverty, has
lasting maternal and infant health ramifications and often contributes
to violence. Ending child marriage is a U.S. foreign policy priority,
and recently our diplomats and development officers have been working
to end this human rights abuse. Please describe the steps you will take
to ensure the U.S. continues to be a leader in ending child marriage.
Answer. Should I be confirmed I commit to learning more about this
issue and developing policy. I strongly support the goal to end the
human rights abuse of child marriage. I look forward to working with
Congress on this issue.
Question. The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL)
plays a key role in executing the will of Congress on human rights,
democracy promotion, and religious freedom. It produces the annual
human rights report and the annual International Religious Freedom
Report, and vetting of security units. If confirmed, will you commit to
continue funding to DRL and work to identify areas that require
additional funding?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed I commit to learning
more about this issue and developing the best recommendations on future
funding. I look forward to working with Congress on this issue.
Question. During your time as CEO of Exxon, did you ever you ever
raise concerns in the areas of human rights and democracy with country
leaders in your professional capacity?
Answer. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, I did
speak with foreign leaders about human rights and democracy concerns.
As I expressed during my confirmation hearing on January 11, human
rights violations, if left unaddressed, cause great upheaval in civil
society. I believe that respect for human rights and the rule of law
are essential foundations for a stable and functioning society.
Question. Given that several notorious human rights abusers
perennially try to run for seats on the United Nations Human Rights
Council, do you agree that the United States should make its
participation in the Council contingent upon certain standards for
membership?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The Obama Administration had a notoriously long vacancy
in the post of Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom
during its first term and then when the post was eventually filled in
the President's first time the position was downgraded within the
Department and staffing levels of the office reached an all-time low.
One of the final bills passed and signed into law during the last
Congress was legislation I introduced in the Senate, the Frank Wolf
International Religious Freedom Act which seeks to ensure that
America's first freedom is given the prominence it deserves in American
foreign policy. Will the proper implementation of this law be a
priority for you?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you commit to nominating someone to fill the
ambassador post, which now reports directly to you, in your first 100
days, should you be confirmed?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will do so to the best of my
abili-ty.
Question. What are your views on prioritizing humanitarian
assistance to those religious and ethnic communities identified in
Secretary Kerry's genocide designation?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to
provide a complete response. I believe that victims of ISIS genocide,
which include Yazidis, Christians, and Shia Muslims, should be provided
humanitarian assistance. Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning
more about this issue and developing the best recommendations on
delivering assistance. I look forward to consulting with Congress on
this issue.
Question. The Helms amendment states, ``No foreign assistance funds
may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of
family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice
abortions.'' If confirmed, can you guarantee there will be a strict
adherence to the Helms amendment in the administration of U.S. foreign
assistance?
Answer. The President-elect has already made a number of pro-life
commitments. The Helms Amendment is current law and I will absolutely
commit to abiding by the law.
Question. If confirmed, can you guarantee there will be a return to
strict adherence of the Mexico City Policy, which President Obama
overturned?
Answer. The President-elect has not taken a specific position on
the policy known as the Mexico City Policy, but it would certainly be
consistent with his other pro-life commitments.
Question. Given your support of the Paris agreement, what role do
you envision the State Department playing on climate and environmental
issues?
Answer. As I stated in my oral testimony, the United States should
have a seat at the table when it comes to the discussion on climate
change and other global environmental issues. We must participate and
engage in those discussions to advance the interests of the United
States. Should I be confirmed, that is exactly what I will do.
Question. Do you support U.S. funding of the Green Climate Fund?
Answer. As I stated in my oral testimony, should I be confirmed, at
the direction of the president, it is my expectation we would look at
U.S. support of these programs from the bottom up in terms of funding.
We would want to put resources where they can be most effective. Should
I be confirmed, I will commit to this effort.
__________
Secretary-Designate Tillerson's Answers to
Questions from Senator Menendez
western hemisphere
Central America
Question. Last year, Democrats and Republicans came together to
provide $750 million for a comprehensive assistance package to Central
America to address the high levels of violence, weak rule of law, and
widespread poverty driving irregular migration. This assistance was, in
part, an acknowledgement by both parties in both chambers of Congress
that when it comes to immigration, enforcement alone is not enough.
Will you commit to building on this bipartisan progress and continue
efforts and funding to address the root causes of Central America
migration? As tens of thousands of vulnerable people arrive at the
southern border, how will you ensure the United States' legal and moral
obligations are fulfilled in protecting their well-being and rights?
Will you maintain the United States partnership with the U.N. High
Commissioner for Refugees to ensure that Central American migrants
fleeing violence receive sufficient protections and that they can be
screened for relocation in third-countries?
Answer. Should I be confirmed as Secretary, I will work with
Congress and the President-elect to ensure that our foreign policy
priorities align with our domestic needs and fulfil our legal
obligations. I have not yet been briefed on all aspects of the U.S.
Refugee Admissions Program, but should I be confirmed as Secretary, I
will faithfully administer the Refugee Admissions Program consistent
with law and the policy preferences of the President-elect.
Mexico
Question. In its 2016 National Drug Threat Assessment, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) identified Mexican transnational
criminal organizations as the ``greatest criminal drug threat'' to the
United States. As you know, the State Department plays a central role
in coordinating U.S. counternarcotics assistance and Mexican criminal
organizations continue to illegally traffic South American cocaine and
a growing volume of Mexican-produced heroin and Mexican- and Chinese-
produced fentanyl into the U.S.--which is fueling opioid addiction and
an alarming number of overdoses across the U.S. As we cannot resolve
this challenge alone, if confirmed, what strategies will you employ to
work with the Government of Mexico to combat these criminal
organizations and the illegal drug trade?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to being fully briefed on the
State Department's current responsibilities and strategies in this area
and helping the President-elect address the illegal drug epidemic in
the United States, as appropriate and in consultation with other
agencies with jurisdiction in this mission area.
Question. According to the DEA November 2016 National Drug Threat
Assessment, Mexican transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) use a
wide variety of smuggling methods, but ``the most common method
employed by Mexican TCOs involves transporting drugs in vehicles
through [legal] U.S. ports of entry. Illicit drugs are smuggled into
the United States in concealed compartments within passenger vehicles
or commingled with legitimate goods on tractor trailers.'' In the same
report, DEA stated that from 1990 through FY2015, 224 tunnels were
found under the U.S.-Mexican border, including 14 in FY2014 and 8 in
FY2015. Do you agree with the DEA's findings? Do you agree that a
border wall would not prevent illicit narcotics from being trafficked
through legal points of entry into the United States or subterranean
tunnels?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to being fully briefed on the
recent Drug Enforcement Administration threat assessment findings and
helping the President-elect and the Secretary of Homeland Security stem
the flow of illicit narcotics through legal points of entry.
Venezuela
Question. With each passing day, the humanitarian situation is
worsening in Venezuela, and opposition activists, human rights
defenders, and lawyers continued to be harassed, attacked, and
imprisoned. More than 100 remain in jail. What should the United States
do to prevent Venezuela from becoming a failed state?
Answer. The U.S. should continue to support legitimate dialogue to
resolve the political crisis between the Maduro government and the
opposition that now controls the National Assembly. We must continue to
denounce the Maduro government's undemocratic practices, call for the
release of political prisoners, and enforce sanctions against
Venezuelan human rights violators and narcotics traffickers. We should
deliver humanitarian aid to mitigate food insecurity and the shortage
of medical supplies, as appropriate.
Question. In Venezuela we must address how the deterioration of the
rule of law and lack of respect for human rights contributes to
regional stability vis a vis people flooding across borders, increased
opportunities for drug smuggling and terrorism. I authored legislation
that would sanction the regime leaders responsible for fomenting these
anti-democratic developments. Would you commit to pressure the
Venezuelan government to release ALL political prisoners, including
Leopoldo Lopez and to hold the Maduro regime accountable for its
crimes?
Answer. Yes, if I am confirmed.
Cuba
Question. Despite the Obama Administration's controversial and
misguided decision to normalize relations with Cuba and its' hope that
this could lead to improved governance and human rights, Cuban
officials continue to arrest dissidents and violate the rights of
citizens, and tourism revenues benefit only government officials and a
small minority of the population.
Question. a.How do you plan to approach the United States'
relationship with Cuba? How will you support human rights defenders and
democracy activists in Cuba? What bilateral and/or multilateral
pressure will you exert to lessen authoritarian rule in Cuba?
Answer. If confirmed, I will engage with Cuba but continue to press
for reform of its oppressive regime. I will support human rights
defenders and democracy activists in Cuba, empower civil society,
defend freedom of expression, and promote improved Internet access and
I will ask our allies to do the same.
Question. Will you continue to support programs that promote
democratic voices and initiatives in Cuba like Radio and TV Marti?
Answer. Yes, if I am confirmed.
Question. What steps will you take to pressure the Castro regime to
return American political fugitives like New Jersey cop-killer Joanne
Chesimard?
Answer. If confirmed, I will engage bilaterally and multilaterally
to bring these fugitives to justice.
Question. Will you work with the Treasury Department to ensure that
no revenue from American businesses goes directly toward supporting the
Cuban military and the regime?
Answer. Yes, if I am confirmed.
Question. What steps will you take to encourage the government of
Cuba to release political prisoners, artists, journalists, and other
Cubans being detained for politically-motivated reasons?
Answer. If confirmed, I will press Cuba to meet its pledge to
become more democratic and consider placing conditions on trade or
travel policies to motivate the release of political prisoners.
Question. What steps will you take to promote judicial reform in
Cuba?
Answer. I will work bilaterally and multilaterally to identify
training and technical assistance opportunities to assist with judicial
reform, if I am confirmed.
Question. On October 12, 2016, PEOTUS Donald Trump stated, ``The
people of Cuba have struggled too long. I will reverse Obama's
Executive Orders and concessions towards Cuba until freedoms are
restored.''
Do you stand by PEOTUS Trump's commitment to reverse the Obama
Administration's Cuba regulations until freedoms are restored on the
island?
Answer. Yes. There will be a comprehensive review of current
policies and executive orders regarding Cuba to determine how best to
pressure Cuba to respect human rights and promote democratic changes.
Question. On October 14, 2016, VPEOTUS Mike Pence reiterated this
commitment by stating, ``When Donald Trump and I take to the White
House, we will reverse Barack Obama's executive orders on Cuba.'' Do
you stand by VPEOTUS Pence's commitment to reverse the Obama
Administration's Cuba regulations?
Answer. Yes, if I am confirmed.
Nicaragua
Question. Freedoms have declined in Nicaragua as President Daniel
Ortega has consolidated his power and increased pressure on the media
and civil society, yet the Obama Administration did little in response.
What policies will you implement to handle things differently than
the previous administration?
Answer. I agree that President Ortega has not governed
democratically in Nicaragua. If confirmed, I will commit to reviewing
our policy toward that country, with the ultimate aim of bolstering
civil society and democratic institutions. We could also, in
consultation with your committee, discuss whether there is any trade or
other benefits to which Nicaragua would become disqualified as a result
of its government's abuses of power.
Haiti
Question. Years after the earthquake that devastated Haiti,
meaningful rebuilding and redevelopment continues, but it is far from
complete and Hurricane Matthew only complicated an already desperate
situation for Haitian nationals. The U.S. Congress played an
instrumental role in the recovery effort by approving $3.6 billion in
assistance for the Haitian government and its people, but more work is
needed. If confirmed, what measures as Secretary of State will you take
to prioritize disaster assistance and recovery?
Answer. Unfortunately, Haiti appears to go through cycles of
natural disaster and incomplete recovery over and over, in part because
of its geographic location and also because of its history of poor
governance. If confirmed, I would try to mobilize international support
to share the burden of U.S. assistance for Haiti. Additionally, I would
have the State Department reach out to the Haitian American community
to join in recovery efforts.
near eastern and south and central asia affairs
Iran
Question. In the hearing, you said that you had no recollection of
the subsidiary company Infineum, which Exxon set up in order to do
business with known state sponsors of terrorism including Iran, Sudan,
and Syria, with whom United States companies were prohibited from doing
business.
The Press has revealed documents that show the Securities and
Exchange Commission contacted ExxonMobil in 2006 and 2010 about
Infineum and its work with Iran. On Jan. 6, 2006, the SEC wrote to you
specifically noting press reports about company sales and the lack of
any mention of them in the company's annual compliance report to the
agency.
According to the Washington Post: On Feb. 7, 2006, Exxon's
assistant general counsel Richard E. Gutman wrote back saying the
transactions were too tiny for a company with $371 billion in revenue
to matter to investors. He noted that Exxon did not have oil fields,
refineries, offices or employees in the three countries.
Nonetheless, the Post continues, the Gutman letter described to the
SEC a variety of transactions. An ExxonMobil subsidiary sold $24.3
million in chemicals to Syria in 2005. Infineum, the 50-50 joint
venture between Exxon and Shell, sold $16.1 million of products to Iran
in 2005, and more in the two previous years. Another Exxon subsidiary
had purchased Syrian crude oil on the open market from third parties
outside Syria.
Are you aware of this correspondence? Were you aware of this
correspondence at your hearing on January 11? Were you aware of the
operations in countries that promote terrorism and directly threaten
the security of the United States, our interests, and our allies?
Answer. I am now aware of this correspondence, although I did not
recall it specifically during my confirmation hearing on January 11.
The correspondence from 2006 concerned transactions that preceded my
tenure as Chairman and CEO and arrived shortly after I became CEO. The
correspondence from 2010 stemmed from false press reports of ExxonMobil
activity in Iran. Given the size of ExxonMobil and the content of the
response I also do not recall whether the issue was elevated to me for
advance review and comment.
Question. Was this subsidiary company set up to avoid U.S.
sanctions?
Answer. No. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil sought
to comply fully with all applicable U.S. sanctions laws. Infineum was
established in 1999 to pursue a commercial joint venture with Shell.
Question. How will you approach American businesses who take
actions to subvert U.S. laws designed to protect Americans and cut of
funds to dictators and state sponsors of terrorism?
Answer. If I am confirmed, the State Department will not hesitate
to alert U.S. businesses to actions that have the effect of subverting
U.S. laws meant to protect Americans and cut of funds to dictators and
state sponsors of terrorism.
Question. ran continues to be the largest state sponsor of
terrorism in the world and a nuclear-armed Iran poses a grave threat to
the States and our allies.
What concrete steps will you take to stop Iranian influence in
Syria and Iraq?
What steps can we take with the Iraqi government and the Iraqi
people to stop the influence of Iran?
Answer. Iran should not be permitted to destabilize Syria and Iraq
with impunity.
The United States, working with our allies, should be prepared to
impose a significant price on Iran for its malicious activities,
including the imposition of painful economic sanctions.
In Iraq, the U.S. should be exercising its significant leverage to
press our allies in the Iraqi government, the Iraqi security forces,
and the Kurdistan Regional Government to work with us in constraining
Iran 's malign influence and activities, including the operation of
Iranian backed militias.
Question. Do you believe that joint Russian-Iranian operations in
Syria are in the interest of the United States? If no, please describe
what steps specifically you plan to take to weaken the network of
Russian-Iranian military actions in Syria and across the region.
Answer. To the extent that Russia's operations in Syria help expand
the influence and power of Iran and its terrorist proxy, Hezbollah,
they certainly do not serve U.S. interests.
The growing threat that Iran poses to peace and security in the
region should be a primary topic of any forthcoming U.S.-Russian
discussions on Syria, ISIS and the challenge of radical Islamic
terrorism.
Question. How do you plan to aggressively stop Iranian proxy
networks like Hezbollah from attacking Americans and United States'
interests?
Answer. The United States should be prepared to inflict a painful
price on Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hezbollah for their malign
activities, including the imposition of harsh economic sanctions.
Question. Do you plan to enforce sanctions against Iranian
individuals and actors who are known to fund terrorism?
Answer. Yes. Economic sanctions that target the Iranian individuals
and entities that support terrorism are one of the most powerful tools
we have to punish and deter Iran 's malign behavior.
Question. How will you work with other countries to ensure they
comply with primary and secondary sanctions we have in place to stop
Iran's proxy terrorist networks from destabilizing the region?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that maintaining pressure on
Iran and its proxy terrorist network will be among the highest
priorities of U.S. diplomacy.
Syria
Question. There are more refugees and internally displaced persons
(IDP) in the world now than any other time since World War II. Many,
but not all, of these refugees and IDPs stem from years of conflict in
Iraq and Syria. 20%-25% of Lebanon is made up of such individuals. Are
you satisfied with the leadership of U.S., from policy and financial
angles, within the international community to address the crisis? If
not, what do you plan to do to ameliorate the situation? Should you be
confirmed, what concrete steps will you take to address the dire
humanitarian crisis in Syria and to correct what I think you called a
policy of weakness in the region? Do you feel a no-fly zone would
contribute to improving the situation? How would you propose to
reinvigorate non-extremist opposition groups?
Answer. The dynamics of refugee settlements have changed
significantly over the past fifty years; more and more people are
moving as a result of warfare, which has caused significant
humanitarian suffering. The plight of these refugees is deeply
concerning to me. The United States must lead with its values; that
includes working with our partners to alleviate such suffering,
particularly in conflict zones where the most vulnerable are often
targeted. Today, alleviating the world's refugee crises must start in
Syria.
The actions of both Iran and ISIS decrease stability and increase
the number of Syrians fleeing their homes. If confirmed, I would work
closely with our partners in the region to alleviate their suffering.
Question. The destruction of antiquities and culturally significant
properties in Syria is deeply troubling and improvises us all. How
important is this issue to you and what, if anything, should the U.S.
be doing to prevent this wanton looting, destruction, and trafficking?
Answer. The Syrian civil war is deeply concerning for the United
States. If confirmed, I will engage our partners and other parties to
the conflict to develop a sustainable political settlement that
respects the human rights of Syrians. This political settlement would
assist the United States and other interested parties in preventing the
trafficking of priceless human antiquities that remain in the country
and have been under threat from ISIS and other actors.
Egypt
Question. Do you believe the al-Sisi government is making Egypt
more or less stable, and what evidence have you seen that supports your
views? How would you explain the surge in terrorist violence and public
unrest since al-Sisi seized power? Will you directly engage with the
government to ensure the protection of minority communities including
Coptic Christians?
Answer. Egypt is one of the United States' most important partners
in the region. The United States should work to help Egypt achieve the
necessary means to defend itself. This is a time of unprecedented
instability in the Middle East. If confirmed, I would engage the
government of Egypt to aid them in combating ISIS, building regional
stability, and improving the government's own record of human rights
issues in the country, including the protection of Coptic Christians.
Foreign assistance to Egypt, including security assistance, is an
important part of our relationship, and critical to Egypt's ability to
both contribute to U.S. national security goals and to improve the
lives of Egyptians.
Afghanistan
Question. This is longest running conflict in U.S. history. Success
seems elusive despite an unprecedented commitment by the U.S. and our
allies. What specific policy steps would you take to bring our
engagement in the country to a positive end? How do you plan to use the
tools at your disposal to neutralize the Taliban and secure a
stability? The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction
has documented gross corruption and mismanagement of U.S. dollars. What
steps will you take to promote transparency and governance in the
Afghan government? How will you ensure that American taxpayer dollars
are well spent?
Answer. The war in Afghanistan is the longest war in American
history. Today, the United States should engage the government of
Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani and CEO Abdullah Abdullah to
increase stability, reduce corruption, ensure a better standard of
living for Afghans, particularly women and girls, and ensure that
Afghanistan is never again used as a base for international terrorism.
Foreign aid is part of this engagement; however, I will engage closely
with Kabul to ensure that American aid dollars are not wasted, either
in the humanitarian or security sectors.
The United States should also engage with Islamabad, to strengthen
the civilian government and eliminate the safe havens that terrorist
groups like the Haqqani network enjoy. The United States should work
with both Afghanistan and Pakistan to encourage cooperation, build
trust, and seek to ensure regional stability, including peace in
Afghanistan, in a context of mutual respect and appreciation of each
country's interests.
India
Question. As the largest Democracy in the world and growing world
economic power, cultivating and nurturing improved diplomatic,
economic, and military relations is vital to securing a peaceful,
prosperous, and stable region. While our relations with India have
improved, much work needs to be done.
What steps would you take as Secretary of State to engage with
India and to improve bilateral relations?
Answer. If confirmed, I would make the strengthening of our
relations with India in all aspects a high priority.
Question. How do you view U.S.-Indian relations in the context of
our broader Asia policy?
Answer. Stronger political, economic, and security relations
between the United States and India, the world's two largest
democracies, can only help bolster stability in Asia--especially as we
face common challenges like a more assertive China and common threats
like radical Islamic terrorism.
Question. How can we best promote U.S. business interests in India?
Answer. We should encourage India to continue opening its market
while making the support and promotion of American businesses an
important goal of U.S. diplomacy.
Question. How can we more productively engage India in the fight
against radical terrorism? How can we better partner with them as we
continue our operations in Afghanistan?
Answer. Radical Islamic terrorism poses a major threat to both the
United States and India, and increasing our cooperation against that
threat should be a major goal of our bilateral diplomacy.
The United States and India both have an interest in Afghanistan 's
stability and ensuring that the country is not a safe haven for radical
jihadist groups. The United States should encourage India to use its
substantial political and economic power and influence to promote
security, stability and reconciliation in Afghanistan.
europe
The Ecumenical Patriarchate in Turkey
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure Turkey
fully meets its obligations under international human rights and
religious freedom laws, especially with respect to the Ecumenical
Patriarchate? If confirmed, would you call for the immediate reopening
of the Halki Seminary with no preconditions, so it may train future
generations of Orthodox Christian clergy?
Answer. Religious freedom is a core American principle and an
important aspect of international peace and stability. If confirmed, I
will work with Turkey to safeguard religious minorities and promote
respect for their cultural heritages, including the Ecumenical
Patriarchate and the Halki Seminary.
Question. In response to the Turkish government's decision to allow
a daily reading from The Koran during Ramadan in Hagia Sophia, State
Department Spokesman Mark Toner said on June 9, ``We recognize Hagia
Sophia as a site of extraordinary significance and we would encourage
Turkey to preserve Hagia Sophia in a way that respects its tradition
and also its complex history.'' Do you concur with the position
conveyed by Spokesman Toner? What further steps will you take to convey
your concern to the Turkish Government?
Answer. I agree that Hagia Sophia is a site of extraordinary
significance that should be preserved in a way that respects its
tradition and complex history. If confirmed, I will encourage the
Turkish government along these lines.
Turkey
Question. In our meeting, you indicated that we need to bring
Turkey back into the Western fold. What should our approach be with
Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan? How would you bring Turkey back
into the Western fold? How does this goal square with Turkey's current
involvement in the Syria conflict? Iraq? And the Kurds?
Answer. The first step in bringing Turkey back into the Western
fold is to restore trust between the United States and Turkey. Lack of
American leadership in the region in recent years has resulted in
significant instability with immense negative effects for Turkey.
Turkey is a crucial, strategically located ally, and its bases play a
critical role in the U.S. -led war against ISIS. If confirmed, I will
make it a top priority to engage constructively with the Turkish
government, including on the Kurdish issue, and to advance our common
security interests in Syria and Iraq.
Question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you did not seem
particularly concerned about recent undemocratic trends including new
constitutional changes and the jailing of dissidents and journalists.
In recent months, Erdogan has undertaken an intense crackdown on
perceived opponents--what many are calling a witch hunt in retaliation
for the July 2016 coup attempt. This has included the firing more than
100,000 state employees including soldiers, police officers, members of
the military, judges, and even midwives; imprisonment of tens of
thousands, including journalists, human rights defenders, and
activists, many of whom have alleged torture and brutal mistreatment
while in custody; restrictions on internet and social media access; and
the shuttering of media and civil society organizations.
How do you plan to approach the U.S. relationship with Turkey? Do
you believe the crackdown instituted by President Erdogan is
strengthening or weakening stability and governance in Turkey?
Answer. The U.S. relationship with Turkey must be based on mutual
trust, which requires a proper recognition of the concerns of both of
our governments. The Turkish government has a legitimate right to
preserve the integrity of its democracy, including taking the necessary
measures to prevent future coup attempts. I am, however, very concerned
about many of the measures recently taken by the Turkish government. I
believe that strong U.S. engagement and leadership, including on human
rights, is the best way to secure a strong, stable and democratic
Turkey that remains a critical ally in the fight against terrorism.
Cyprus
Question. We have a historic opportunity to achieve a peaceful
resolution of the long festering and untenable situation in Cyprus.
Positive Turkish engagement and support of this process is vital, as is
that of International Organizations and the U.S. How do you view the
current, ongoing Cyprus settlement talks held under U.N. auspices? Do
you support a reunified Cyprus with a single sovereignty, single
international personality and single citizenship; and with its
independence and territorial integrity safeguarded as described in the
relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions? Will you maintain U.S.
high-level engagement on this issue?
Answer. A long-term solution for Cyprus is important for U.S.
interests in the region. The United States should continue to support
the efforts of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders to achieve a just
resolution that is consistent with U.N. resolutions and heals the
island's divisions. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely
with the U.N. and other key actors to support a solution.
Armenia
Question. 2015 marked the centenary of the Armenian Genocide, which
was condemned as a crime against humanity by the Allied Powers as it
occurred, but which Turkey denies to this day. Pope Francis publicly
affirmed the Armenian Genocide stating it is an open wound that must be
healed. What steps will you take to end its denial and reaffirm the
proud chapter in U.S. diplomatic history to help save the survivors of
the first genocide of the twentieth century?
Answer. The tragic atrocities of 1915 remain a painful issue in the
relationship between Armenia and Turkey, and it is in the U.S. interest
to ensure peaceful and stable relations between the two countries. If
confirmed, I will support a full accounting of the historical events
and an open dialogue between Armenia and Turkey in the interest of
regional stability.
Question. Will you continue our nation's strong bipartisan support
for, and cooperation with, Ukraine, the only non-NATO partner nation to
have contributed actively to all NATO-led operations and missions for
the past 20 years? Will you support the further enactment of actions
authorized by the bipartisan Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014,
including the supplying of defensive equipment, services, and military
training?
In addition to living up to our public and binding security
guarantees to Ukraine, will the United States maintain its investments
in programs promoting democratic governance, as well as education,
professional and cultural exchange programs towards the development of
civil society in Ukraine at current levels?
Answer. I value the many contributions that Ukraine has made to
NATO-led operations. If confirmed, I will support the active
consideration of all appropriate measures to support Ukraine's security
and stability and advance broader U.S. interests in the region. I will
also support investment in programs, including exchanges, which have a
proven record of effectively promoting democratic governance and civil
society.
Question. Furthermore, all U.S. Secretaries of State and all U.S.
Presidents (save President Obama) have made it policy to visit Ukraine
since it regained its independence in 1991. When can we expect visits
by you and President Trump?
Answer. Personal diplomacy is a crucial foreign policy tool and
official visits are an important part of our statecraft If confirmed, I
will certainly meet with the Ukrainian leadership early on and look
forward to visiting Ukraine at the appropriate time. I would encourage
the President-elect along similar lines.
africa
Ethiopia
Question. Ethiopia, an important security partner for the United
States, is suffering its worst unrest in years, in response to the
government's intensifying human rights abuses and restrictions on
freedoms. The government's harsh response to the unrest--which has
involved the killing of hundreds of protesters, mass arrests, the
imposition of a state of emergency that includes curfews and travel
restrictions for foreign diplomats, and even reports of torture--has
created an unsustainable situation and raises serious questions about
the Ethiopian government's ability to effectively partner on terrorism.
How do you plan to address this situation?
Answer. If confirmed, I will engage Ethiopia to express our
concerns about violations of human rights and our support for
responsible governance. Ethiopia has a critical role to play in
encouraging stability in Africa and is an important partner for the
United States. Continued diplomatic engagement will be necessary to
ensure that it meets those commitments and continues to contribute
positively to the United States' goals in the region.
Functional
Question. You mentioned to me in our meeting that you decided to
pull investment from certain countries because of governmental
corruption and diminished rule of law and governing structures. You
have also indicated that you believe we can best promote American
interests and values through business engagement and opportunity.
However, the United States doesn't just have the option of walking away
from other nation states.
Do you believe that democracy and human rights programs funded by
State and USAID lead to more stable countries that are less prone to
terrorism, internal conflict and refugee crises that spill across
borders? Do you agree that U.S. support for democratic institutions and
human rights creates a climate in developing nations that is friendlier
to U.S. business operations, our exports, and tourism?
Please describe how you intend to use USAID and the Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor to sharpen and improve our
engagement in governance and rule of law areas international for the
furtherance of our national policy objectives?
Answer. Our values are our interests and our interests are our
values, so it is in our interests to project the value of democracy by
supporting democratic institutions, Already, there are great programs
that promote democracy and fight corruption. Through USAID's Center of
Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance, there are
programs such as the Assistance for Afghanistan 's Anticorruption
Authority. The State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights,
and Labor has helped improve access to the legal system in Sri Lanka
through the Jaffna Legal Aid Project In the coming year, we have the
opportunity to rewrite the Department of State-USAID Joint Strategic
Plan. Utilizing input from both agencies, we will be able to assess
current issues regarding democracy and human rights, as well as review
how programs from each agency may contribute to resolving chronic
challenges.
Human Rights
Question. Throughout the world, political dissidents, activists,
journalists, and human rights defenders have been victims of repression
and imprisoned solely for peacefully exercising their right to freedom
of expression. What would you do to reiterate the U.S. government's
commitment to protect and advocate for those on the frontline,
including civil society organizations, who are exercising basic
freedoms?
Answer. I believe the United States must shine a spotlight on those
seeking freedom and democracy around the world. Our support helps
encourage those seeking greater human rights, and puts those abusing
such rights on notice.
We should continue to provide democracy-building assistance, and
support civil society organizations.
We also need to exercise American leadership on key regional and
security issues such as fighting terrorism, where the United States and
other countries--whether democratic or not--share common interests. By
engaging on a wide range of issues, we will increase the degree to
which other nations pay attention to the concerns we express over
democracy and human rights.
Question. Thousands of people have been jailed on politically
motivated charges and are languishing in the jail cells of U.S.
military allies. These allies include Ethiopia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia,
Israel, Bahrain, Turkey, Kyrgyzstan, South Korea (Republic of Korea),
Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia. These governments continue to benefit
from U.S. military aid and arms sales while imprisoning peaceful
critics at home.
What steps will you take to push U.S. military allies to stop
imprisoning those who engage in peaceful dissent or criticism of their
governments?
Answer. Over the past several years, the United States has pulled
back from many of its traditional leadership roles on global security
issues. This has left many allies uneasy about U.S. support and
concerned about regional adversaries. Many of these allies have also
cracked down on domestic opponents.
At the same time, the United States has been less focused on human
rights than in the past. And even where the United States has raised
human rights concerns, many such military allies have dismissed U.S.
concerns as the United States has appeared uninterested in their
regional security concerns.
The United States should never shy away from standing up for our
values and supporting human rights, even with our closest friends and
allies. If confirmed as Secretary of State, I will actively discuss
such cases with friends and adversaries alike.
We will have more success, however, to the extent we are seen by
others, especially our friends and allies, as helping to address
regional and security issues that are critical to those nations.
Question. While border security is of great concern to many
Americans, the success of U.S.-Mexican security cooperation will depend
in large part on our joint ability to tackle impunity, strengthen rule
of law, and bolster protections for vulnerable populations in Mexico.
How do you think the Merida Initiative and other bilateral security
efforts have fared?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ask to be fully briefed on the Merida
Initiative and other bilateral security efforts and will seek to
evaluate their effectiveness.
Question. Similarly, securing the southern U.S. border must be done
in conjunction with addressing root causes driving people to flee
Central America, and offering protection to asylum seekers from that
region as required under U.S. immigration law and U.S. obligations
under the Refugee Convention and its Protocol, which the U.S. codified
in the Refugee Act of 1980. Currently, only 5,000 resettlement slots
are offered for refugees from Central and South America. Will you
commit to increasing the number of resettlement slots to refugees from
Central America?
Answer. I have not yet been briefed on all aspects of the U.S.
Refugee Admissions Program, but should I be confirmed as Secretary, I
will faithfully administer the Refugee Admissions Program consistent
with law and the policy preferences of the President-elect.
Women and Girls
Question. There is a growing body of evidence showing that the
empowerment of women and girls, through investments in their health,
education, livelihoods, and the prevention of violence, not only
benefits them as individuals, but leads to healthier, more prosperous,
and more stable societies. Under your leadership, how will you continue
to prioritize the empowerment of women and girls in U.S. development
and humanitarian assistance and diplomatic engagement?
Answer. As I stated in my hearing testimony, the issue of
empowering women is personally important to me. I have seen firsthand
the impact of empowering women, particularly regarding their
participation in economic activities in the lesser developed part of
the world. Investing in women and girls produces a multiplier effect--
women reinvest a large portion of their income in their families and
communities, which also furthers economic growth and stability. As I
indicated, I believe women's empowerment and advancement is an
important part of our foreign aid efforts and I will support such
programs, including efforts to advance women 's participation in peace,
security and the political process. I will support efforts to end
violence against women and girls as well as to mitigate the impact of
such violence. I look forward, if confirmed, to closely examining all
aspects of these issues to determine if our funding levels and other
resources are appropriate.
Question. The U.N. carries out crucial work supporting women and
girls access to education and employment, helping them register to vote
and run for office, and advising governments on how to combat violence
against women and girls. These efforts build respect for the rule of
law, lead to increased GDP, and make countries more stable and safe.
The demand for this work far outstrips the U.N. ability to deliver it,
due to funding gaps and inconsistent political will amongst U.N. Member
States. Given the enormous, proven returns on investment this work
generates, and its importance to U.S. Foreign Policy, how do you plan
to further the U.N. efforts in this regard?
Answer. The U.N. has made a considerable contribution to the
advancement of women and girls around the world. As I have said, the
empowerment of women and girls has always been a top priority for me.
If confirmed I will continue to support and enhance these efforts and
ensure that our funding is directed at programs that have had
measurable impact on providing women with opportunity around the globe.
Trafficking in Persons
Question. Human trafficking is often characterized by networks of
traffickers that extend across international borders and by victims who
are moved across jurisdictions. To effectively combat this criminal
phenomenon, governments and non-governmental organizations must work
together to build and execute multi-layered strategies. Will you commit
to developing and implementing regional partnerships, particularly in
the Americas and Southeast Asia, to more effectively combat human
trafficking?
Answer. Should I be confirmed as Secretary, I will commit to
combating the scourge of human trafficking in all its forms, consistent
with the law and policy preferences of the President-elect
Question. The crime of human trafficking is a $150 billion
worldwide enterprise that enslaves tens of millions of people in
commercial sex and forced labor. According to estimates by the
International Labor Organization, nearly 21 million people around the
world are victims of human trafficking. In order to ensure that we are
addressing the crime of trafficking effectively and efficiently, it is
essential that we have robust data from which we can make informed
decisions. Recently, the State Department's Trafficking in Persons
office began funding a project led by the International Organization
for Migration that will be the first global data repository on human
trafficking. Anti-trafficking organizations around the world will
provide de-identified data on victim demographics, trafficking types,
locations of the exploitation, and the forms of control used by
traffickers, which will be compiled in this data repository to allow
policymakers, law enforcement, and civil society organizations to
access up-to-date information on what trafficking looks like around the
world. Will you commit to continuing funding for the Counter-
Trafficking Data Collaborative and prioritize efforts to increase the
data we have on trafficking around the world?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on the Collaborative to
provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed as Secretary, I will
commit to working with Congress and the President-elect to combat human
trafficking.
Question. Human trafficking is often characterized by networks of
traffickers that extend across international borders and by victims who
are moved across jurisdictions. To effectively combat this criminal
phenomenon, governments and non-governmental organizations must work
together to build and execute multi-layered strategies. Will you commit
to developing and implementing regional partnerships, particularly in
the Americas and Southeast Asia, to more effectively combat human
trafficking?
Answer. Should I be confirmed as Secretary, I will commit to
combating the scourge of human trafficking in all its forms consistent
with the law and policy preferences of the President-elect.
Question. As you know, there have been serious questions from both
the Foreign Relations Committee and civil society organizations
regarding the integrity of the past two years' Trafficking in Persons
reports. And last month, I introduced legislation with Senator Rubio
that makes sweeping reforms to restore integrity to the TIP ranking
process. We plan to reintroduce that legislation in the coming weeks,
and from my past conversations with my colleagues here on the
Committee, I understand that there is broad, bipartisan consensus that
reforming the ranking process is a priority that we should address
early in this Congress.
Question. Will you commit to working with this Committee to ensure
that we restore integrity to the TIP Report?
Answer. Yes, if I am confirmed.
Question. The legislation I introduced with Senator Rubio requires
TIP rankings to be contingent on concrete actions taken by a country in
the preceding reporting period, and that the StateDepartment specify
how these actions, or lack thereof, justify the ranking. A recent GAO
study highlighted this as a major gap in the existing TIP ranking
process. Would you support such changes?
Answer. I do not yet have a comprehensive understanding of the GAO
study on the TIP ranking process. Should I be confirmed as Secretary, I
will work with this Committee to support an informed TIP ranking
process.
Question. Will you assure the Committee that, if confirmed, you
will rely upon the advice provided by the experts at the Office to
Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons when assigning rankings in
the TIP Reports during your time as Secretary?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support a robust TIP ranking process
consistent with the law.
Climate and Energy
Question. In 2015, under your leadership, ExxonMobil settled an
$8.9 billion lawsuit with the State of New Jersey for only a small
fraction of the damages sought by the state for decades of toxic
pollution and loss of wetlands and other lands. While this deal was no
doubt a financial boon for the company, New Jersey communities will now
be stuck paying the price for ExxonMobil's toxic legacy.
As Secretary of State, you will have to understand the impacts of
your foreign policies on local communities. Given your company's
actions in New Jersey, how do you weigh the high human costs of your
policies on families and local communities against possible financial
or strategic advantages?
Answer. The referenced settlement was approved by a New Jersey
judge as fair and in the public interest. Under the settlement, I
understand that ExxonMobil has committed to performing remedial
cleanups of certain identified sites.
If I am confirmed, my duty as Secretary of State will be to further
the interests of the United States, and its people, in the country's
dealings abroad.
If confirmed, I further expect that the State Department, acting
with the National Security Council and other departments of the
government, will endeavor to make policy choices that weigh the human
costs on families and communities that will be affected.
Question. The Paris climate agreement sets a baseline goal of
limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius over preindustrial temperatures,
with an ultimate goal of limiting it to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Under your
leadership, ExxonMobil has supported the Paris agreement and the goals
that it set. However, the President-elect has nominated individuals for
Attorney General and Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency that have broadly denied the existence of climate change and
have strongly opposed the Clean Power Plan, which is one of the primary
mechanisms by which the United States plans to meet its commitments
under the Paris agreement.
Given your, or your company's, prior support, do you believe the
United States should meet its commitments under the Paris agreement? If
so, by what mechanisms--whether through the Clean Power Plan or some
alternate proposal--should these commitments be met? If not, how do you
intend to manage the diplomatic consequences of reneging on an
agreement adopted with near global consensus?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect that the State Department and other
departments of the government will conduct a review of the Nationally
Determined Contribution submitted by the Obama Administration as part
of our review of the Paris Agreement and the U.N. Framework Convention
on Climate Change to determine whether the NDC and/or the international
agreements advance U.S. national interests.
Question. According to the Energy Information Administration, in
2015, the most recent year for which complete data is available, the
United States was a net importer of an average of 6.898 million barrels
of crude oil a day. Yet, at the beginning of 2016, over my opposition
and over the opposition of many, your company successfully lobbied the
United States Congress to lift the ban on exporting American crude oil.
I have long held that we need to transition to clean domestic forms of
energy, and that in the interim American oil should be used to help
American families. Being an importer of oil means that we are often
dependent on nations like Venezuela that are anti-democratic, have
abysmal human rights records, and actively pursue anti-American
interests on the global stage to meet our energy needs.
Do you agree that energy independence improves our national
security and is in the interest of the United States?
Answer. As an executive at ExxonMobil, I was a proponent of energy
security as opposed to energy independence. As Secretary of State, if
confirmed, I will share my views with the President and other members
of the Cabinet, though I suspect that primary responsibility for energy
issues will fall to the Departments of Energy and Commerce and other
relevant parts of government.
Question. While you stated in your testimony to the Committee that
you were not aware of any subsidies provided to the fossil fuel
industry, the fact is the United States does provide a series of tax
and financial incentives specific to the oil and gas industry-including
the deduction for intangible drilling and development costs; the
percentage depletion allowance for oil and gas wells; the deduction for
tertiary injectants; and the royalty relief for certain deepwater oil
and gas production.
Given this information, and given your acknowledgement that climate
change is a real threat, should the United States be providing
financial incentives to both foreign and domestic corporations to
develop fossil fuel resources in the United States? Given the threat of
climate change, is it in the U.S. interest for foreign governments to
provide their own financial incentives to foreign companies to increase
oil production within their own country? Do you believe that it is more
difficult to advance U.S. interests abroad when our own domestic
policies do not reflect the actions that we would like to see foreign
governments take?
Answer. As Secretary of State, if confirmed, I will share my views
with the President and other members of the Cabinet on these matters if
asked to do so, though I suspect that primary responsibility for energy
issues will fall to the Departments of Energy and Treasury, and other
relevant parts of government.
Question. The United States and Canada recently announced joint
actions to remove much of the Arctic Ocean and parts of the Atlantic
from consideration for future oil and gas drilling. Similarly, the
United States and China have entered into a joint agreement that would
see China halt increases in its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, with
a stated goal of peaking earlier than that.
Question. Do you think that it is in the U.S. interest to see
Canada and China uphold their sides of these agreements? If meeting
their obligations is contingent upon us meeting our own commitments, is
it in our interest to uphold our side of the agreements?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support an Arctic policy that combines
environmental protection with economic opportunity and a proper regard
for U.S. national security interests. I am not convinced that the
recently announced joint actions with Canada to remove parts of the
Arctic and Atlantic Oceans from consideration for future oil and gas
drilling strike the right balance, and I would want to undertake a
thorough review of these actions before recommending a path forward.
With respect to the joint agreement with China, I believe that the
agreement should be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether its
implementation is realistic and will accomplish its stated goals
without causing unnecessary harm to the U.S. economy and national
security interests.
Question. Marine mammals play a vital role in marine ecosystems and
are critical to the health of our oceans. Unfortunately, human
activities, from unsustainable hunting and commercial whaling practices
to seismic airgun blasting during oil and gas exploration, have
devastated many populations of marine mammals. The Marine Mammal
Protection Act provides protections on the domestic level to all of
these animals, preventing the harassment or take of marine mammals
without a preauthorized permit. On an international level, the United
States is a signatory of the International Convention for the
Regulation of Whaling and a member of the International Whaling
Commission, which regulates whaling practices and the conservation of
whales. The International Whaling Commission has implemented a
moratorium on commercial whaling since 1986 with exceptions for certain
subsistence whaling by indigenous populations.
Do you intend to maintain the United States' commitment to the
International Whaling Commission? Will you continue to enforce the
international moratorium on whaling?
Answer. I recognize the importance of marine mammals to marine
ecosystems. If confirmed, I will support the United States' commitment
to the International Whaling Commission and work to enforce policies
that ensure healthy oceans, robust marine ecosystems and proper
protection of endangered species as well as economic opportunities for
indigenous populations, including the current moratorium on commercial
whaling.
General Trade/IP Questions
Question. Increasingly, the United Nations is taking a more active
role relating to intellectual property protections that drive America's
$6.6 trillion innovation economy and support more than 45 million jobs
across the country. The U.S. biopharmaceutical industry, for example,
supports approximately 4 million American jobs. If confirmed, what will
you do to ensure the U.N. system values and protects intellectual
property and the incentives it provides for new advances that
contribute so much to economic growth and development here and around
the world?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the U.N. system,
and other international institutions, value and protect intellectual
property (IP) rights.
Question. Intellectual property is crucial to the well-being of our
economy. More money is spent on R&D in the U.S. than in any other
country in the world. In fact, 30% of the American workforce is
employed directly or indirectly in IP-intensive industries. The U.S.
biopharmaceutical industry, for example, supports approximately 4
million American jobs. But in order to continue accelerating the pace
innovation in our economy, our trading partners must all play by the
same rules with respect to market access and protecting intellectual
property. We have seen a disturbing trend in recent years whereby some
of our trading partners have ignored their international commitments,
particularly with respect to intellectual property protection, either
by failing to fully implement agreements or by flouting the rules in
order to give their businesses an unfair advantage.
How can the United States use trade agreements to ensure U.S.
businesses benefit from strong intellectual property protections and
greater access to global markets?
Answer. Working with the United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD), the United States will promote academic findings
that increasingly show stronger domestic intellectual property rights
systems promote faster economic growth and innovation. Scholars
producing this research have received support from the World Bank and
other respected research bodies. I would also point UNCTAD and other
U.N. institutions to a June 8, 2016 speech by FTC Commissioner Maureen
Ohlhausen (before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) entitled ``The
Case for a Strong Patent System, which highlights recent research
supporting the importance of strong patents to a vibrant economy.
Studies show that developing countries (a special concern of UNCTAD) as
well as developed countries benefit from robust IP Protection and the
rule of law, because those factors promote new investment and the
development of indigenous high tech industries. In short, strong IP
rights are good for development.
Question. What can the State Department do to ensure our trading
partners are enforcing existing commitments and deter countries from
weakening such standards in their own IP regimes.
Answer. The United States will continue to work within other
institutions in which it participates, including, for example, the
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Trade
Organization (WTO), and the World Bank to work for strengthened
intellectual property protection. For example, the WTO may wish to
focus on adherence to TRIPS (trade-related intellectual property
rights) commitments in its regular peer reviews of individual nations.
The United States Government may support additional OECD and World Bank
efforts aimed at highlighting how IP rights are vital to development.
Question. In your view, how does the monitoring and enforcement of
trade agreements impact the sustainability and growth of IP-intensive
industries such as the biopharmaceutical sector?Commissioner Ohlhausen
(see speech cited above) and other scholars have commented on how U.S.
Government policies that have been critical of strong IP rights
(emanating from the Justice Department Antitrust Division, the Federal
Trade Commission, the White House, and the Patent and Trademark Office)
have not only discouraged U.S. IP holders, but also have encouraged
foreign governments to take positions antithetical to strong IP rights.
Those policies will be reversed and American IP rights will thereby be
better protected.
State Department
Question. As one of the most diverse countries in the world, the
U.S. possesses unparalleled foreign policy strength--its diverse
citizenry--with its linguistic, socio-cultural, experiential, diaspora
connections, and other strengths. Unfortunately, many racial and ethnic
groups have been historically underrepresented in the State Department.
The most recent numbers available demonstrate Hispanic and Asian
representation within theDepartment of State's workforce are at 6
percent each; and although African Americans represent 15 percent of
the total State Department workforce, they only represent 6 percent of
the Foreign Service. Native Americans are virtually non-existent among
our Foreign Service agencies workforce. Many of these racial and ethnic
groups remain stagnated in low and mid-career positions. This curtails
their opportunities for career advancement towards senior level
positions, further limiting racial and ethnic diversity among the
agency's top ranks.
What steps will you be taking to cultivate diversity among the
State Department's Foreign Service and more broadly, and in particular
among its senior and mid-level leadership?
Answer. Over the years the Department of State has made numerous
efforts to modify its intake of junior officers to create a more
diverse workforce. At the same time, the application process has
remained competitive, attracting the best and the brightest candidates.
Balancing these two objectives-- diversity and competitiveness--will
always be a challenge. If confirmed I will seek creative ways to strike
the right balance between diversity and competitiveness, while also
ensuring that promotion through the ranks is purely merit-based.
Question. The Department of State Authorities Act for Fiscal Year
2017 mandates the expansion of theCharles B. Rangel International
Affairs Program and the Thomas R. Pickering Foreign Affairs Fellowship
Program at the Department of State. These fellowship programs have
raised the Department's measures of Foreign Service workforce diversity
by 21 percent. I would argue that this is not enough.
Beyond an increase in the afore mentioned fellowship programs, what
other steps will you take to make sure the State Department reflects
the diversity on American society?
Answer. If confirmed, I would certainly follow the letter of the
Authorization Act to continue the Rangel and Pickering Fellowship
programs. I would also seek creative means to reach out to non-
traditional audiences across the country to elicit a more diverse pool
of applicants for entry into the various State Department career paths.
__________
Secretary-Designate Tillerson's Answers to
Questions from Senator Flake
Question. The outgoing administration was content to wage war on
ISIS using authorities granted in a 2001 authorization for the use of
military force that was approved in the days after the September 11th
attacks and focused on fighting al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Some of us
voiced concern that this was insufficient, in part because it's the
responsibility of Congress to weigh in on the use of force. Our allies
and our adversaries need to know that conflicts waged by the U.S. have
the backing of Congress.
What are your views on the 2001 AUMF, and do you think there's
utility in working with Congress on an AUMF that addresses today's
realities?
Answer. While AUMF is primarily within the Department of Defense's
equities and the 2001 AUMF was appropriate at the time, a new AUMF
could demonstrate U.S. strength and unity of purpose. Having the
support of Congress to stand behind the decisions to commit American
men and women as well as military resources strengthens our position in
the world because it signals our intention to bring the requisite
resources, both diplomatic and militarily, to bear in international
conflicts.
Question. If Congress were to consider an AUMF that was approved
only along party lines, would you find that less helpful than having no
updated AUMF at all?
Answer. Defeating ISIS is the U.S. government's top priority in the
Middle East, and this is not a partisan matter. If legislative action
would support our efforts in defeating ISIS, I suspect that the
Department of Defense would look forward to the discussion.
Question. During your confirmation hearing, you were asked a number
of questions about Cuba and recent U.S. policy changes toward that
country.
If confirmed, do you commit to looking at all sides of the issue as
it relates to U.S. policy toward Cuba, and to review the impact that
these policy changes have had on the ground there?
Answer. Yes.
Question. For all the many threats the U.S. is facing, the one that
keeps me awake at night is our national debt. If we don't put our
fiscal house in order and put ourselves on a sustainable fiscal path
forward, we won't be able to address any of the serious threats our
country faces.
Do you agree that our national debt poses a serious threat
to our national security?
What steps might you take to address our national debt as
leader of the Department of State, if confirmed?
Answer. I agree that the national debt is a priority and is a
serious threat to our national security and our standing in the world.
If we do not put our fiscal house in order, we will not have the
resources to address serious threats or new, emerging problems we may
not have anticipated. If confirmed, I will make stewardship of the
Department of State's budget one of my key management priorities. If
confirmed, I will begin looking immediately at any potential FY 17
Supplemental and full year appropriations prior to the end of the
current Continuing Resolution to see if some of the requested funding
is no longer a priority, then turn attention to the FY 18 request
before it is submitted to assure alignment with these same priorities.
Question. As Chairman of the African Affairs Subcommittee, I worked
on legislation to ``electrify Africa,'' that was signed into law in the
115th Congress. The legislation authorized a USAID-administered program
called ``Power Africa'' which seeks to use public-private partnerships
to bring electricity to the parts of Africa that do not have access to
it.
Question. Do you believe that helping parts of Africa gain access
to electricity is in the interest of the United States?
Answer. Nothing lifts people out of poverty faster than
electricity. When you provide electricity, you provide the ability to
refrigerate food and gain access to medicine. It changes the quality of
life and improves health. I think it is very important to use
efficiently taxpayer dollars to support these types of programs,
including Power Africa, and we should continue to support these
programs.
Question. When considering what projects should receive U.S.
funding, do you agree that projects should be selected based on their
potential to provide access to energy, and without preference for, or
regard to fuel type or technology?
Answer. Projects should be selected based on what is the most
efficient, effective option in order to deliver electricity to the
areas that do not have it--that should be the priority. That is the
wisest use of American funding.
__________
Secretary-Designate Tillerson's Answers to
Questions from Senator Shaheen
Conflicts of Interest
Question. How will you ensure that State Department employees you
mean to lead will not feel pressure or encouragement, explicit or
implicit, to benefit the President-elect's financial position or that
of his family?
Answer. I will seek the counsel of the professional ethics staff at
the Department of State and/or the Office of Government Ethics as
appropriate.
Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, how will you respond
if you suspect that a foreign government or entity is attempting to
influence the President-elect's decision-making through his financial
holdings or other means of leverage? Will you notify this committee?
Answer. I will consult with security professionals and the ethics
staff at the Department of State. I will act in accordance with
security and ethics guidelines as appropriate.
Question. Russian harassment of U.S. diplomatic personnel in Russia
has significantly increased in the past few years and now routinely
violates established international norms for treatment of other
countries' diplomats. In response, the Obama Administration expelled 35
Russian government officials, and their families, from the United
States and closed two Russian government compounds. As Secretary of
State, what specifically would you do, in conjunction with other U.S.
Government agencies, to prevent future harassment of U.S. diplomatic
personnel by Russia?
Answer. If confirmed, I would immediately seek a fuller briefing
and discussion on the treatment of U.S. diplomatic personnel by Russia.
At a minimum, a strong message should be delivered to the highest
levels of the Russian government that the harassment of U.S. diplomats
must come to an end. Should that message not be heeded, I would work in
conjunction with the President and other U.S. government agencies to
develop an appropriate re response.
Negotiations with Russia
Question. What specific changes in U.S. policies do you expect the
Russian government to seek from the Trump Administration? Where do you
see potential room for compromise? What existing U.S. policies and
commitments do you regard as non-negotiable?
Answer. It remains to be seen what Russia's approach to the Trump
Administration will be. One policy that will likely be on Russia's
agenda is Western sanctions, in particular sanctions for Russia's
aggression against Ukraine. While the sanctions have clearly imposed a
price on Russia's economy, Moscow has so far been unwilling to reverse
its aggression or comply with its obligations under the Minsk process.
Though Russia has long sought to weaken and undermine the NATO
alliance, Moscow should know that the U.S. commitment to NATO and its
Article V security commitment are firm and non- negotiable. One area
that the President-elect has identified for possible cooperation with
Russia is the fight against ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism. Russia
in the past has been the victim of terrorist attacks and fought at
least two bloody wars in Chechnya. There are estimates that thousands
of Russian citizens are fighting for ISIS in Iraq and Syria, many of
whom may eventually seek to return home to carry the jihad back to
Russia.
NATO/ERi
Question. Do you support the steps that the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) has taken to bolster its defensive posture in
response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and its increasingly
threatening posture in Europe, particularly NATO's deployment of
additional forces to the Baltic States and Eastern Europe?
Do you support the European Reassurance Initiative (ERi),
undertaken jointly by the Departments of State and Defense on a
bilateral basis with European partners?
Answer. During the Trump Administration, the United States will
remain fully committed to NATO collective defense--period. The steps
that the United States and NATO have taken to strengthen the
credibility of collective defense in the eyes of our allies and
adversaries alike have been reasonable and should continue. This
includes the deployment of NATO forces on the territory of the Baltic
States and others in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as the U.S.
actions taken under the rubric of the European Reassurance Initiative.
Our allies should have no doubts about the U.S. commitment to NATO.
That being said, it should not be only the United States that
expresses such a strong commitment to NATO. While the Baltic states are
clearly doing their share on defense spending--either at 2 percent of
GDP, or on their way there-we are concerned that many other NATO allies
are not demonstrating as strong a commitment to NATO. Making sure that
all NATO allies--the United States and European allies alike-are doing
their share will be a critical focus for NATO policy in the months
ahead.
Balkans
Question. Although there is a perception that Europe is a
``finished project'' and no longer requires American leadership on
democracy-building and economic development, countries like Bosnia and
Herzegovina still face significant economic, political and social
challenges. The U.S. has a very positive legacy in the Balkan region,
in particular having helped to end armed conflict in the former
Yugoslavia. If confirmed, will you continue State Department programs
that have sought to promote stability in the European nations that
aspire to join NATO and the EU like Bosnia and Herzegovina?
Answer. If I am confirmed, the State Department, in conjunction
with our Transatlantic partners and other key actors, will continue
programs that effectively promote stability in Europe, including in
Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Balkan region.
Cyprus
Question. Cyprus is a reliable strategic partner of the United
States in the volatile region of the Eastern Mediterranean. How will
the new U.S. Administration further develop the bilateral ties between
the United States and the Republic of Cyprus, and how will it support
the ongoing reunification negotiations and the implementation of any
deal that is reached?
Answer. A long-term solution for Cyprus is important for U.S.
interests in the region. The United States should continue to support
the efforts of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders to achieve a just
resolution that is consistent with U.N. resolutions and heals the
island's divisions. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely
with the U.N. and other key actors to support a solution. Strong
bilateral ties with the Republic of Cyprus will help ensure future
stability and prosperity in the region.
Georgia
Question. Georgia is a staunch ally of the United States and
reliable partner in the fight against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan
that punches well above its weight with respect to its security
contributions. At the same time, Georgia is a leading reformer in the
region, transforming itself from a post-Soviet state to an established
democracy that has vigorously pursued greater Euro-Atlantic
integration. Georgia has made this progress even as 20% of its
territory has been illegally occupied by Russia since 2008.
In this context, can you assure the Committee that you will give
your full support to Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity,
and its Euro-Atlantic integration path? As Secretary of State, what
policies will you pursue to help Georgia develop its economy and civil
society and to protect its territorial sovereignty?
Answer. I value the contributions of Georgia to our common
security, including operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. If confirmed, I
will support Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well
as its efforts to strengthen democracy and economic reform.
Counter-drug Cooperation
Question. The State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics
and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) is responsible for building other
countries' capacity to fight drug trafficking and organized crime. This
mission is particularly important to my constituents in New Hampshire
as we continue to face, along with many other town and cities around
the United States, an onslaught of deaths caused by heroin and fentanyl
that has been smuggled into our country. How do you plan to strengthen
INL's work?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to being fully briefed on the
Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
responsibilities in this area and to using INL to help the President-
elect address the heroin epidemic in the United States, as appropriate
and in consultation with other agencies with jurisdiction in this
mission area.
Question. Mexico is an important partner in efforts to stop illegal
drugs from reaching the U.S. How do you plan to maintain this important
partnership?
Answer. I look forward to working closely with the Mexican
Government on all aspects of the vibrant and mutually beneficial
diplomatic relationship between our countries and to maintaining and
working through their interagency process to improve our important
partnership in the area of illegal drug interdiction.
United Nations
Question. No single country can effectively address today's global
challenges alone, whether terrorism, contagious disease, conflict,
transnational crime, human trafficking, or any number of other
problems. The United States benefits from the ability of the United
Nations to coordinate international efforts against such threats, but
the U.N. is only as effective as its member states want it to be. Some
believe that our response to the U.N. weaknesses or decisions made by
member states at the U.N. should be to cut funding or withdraw from
certain U.N. agencies. Do you believe the U.S. is better off remaining
actively engaged in all aspects of the U.N. to influence reform efforts
and protect our interests?
Answer. The new Secretary General has acknowledged the need for
vigorous management and accountability reform of the United Nations. I
believe many U.N. reforms can be achieved by robust, long-term and
sustained engagement. But using America's financial leverage by
conditioning our assessed contributions can be a useful catalyst when
these traditional efforts fail. The possibility of the U.S. withholding
a portion of our dues has led the U.N. to be more receptive to reforms.
For example, concern over potential withholding in response to major
scandals which received the strong attention and interest of the
Congress, such as the Oil-for-Food scandal and sexual abuses by
peacekeepers, has led the U.N. to be more willing to adopt reforms.
In other cases, such as where U.S. law prohibits funding to the
U.N. Scientific, Educational and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),
withholding serves U.S. interests by opposing Palestinian efforts to
secure recognition absent a negotiated peace with Israel With billions
of U.S. tax dollars going to the U.N. every year, I believe we should
continually evaluate U.S. funding to the U.N. and otherinternational
organizations to determine if budgets are justified or should be
reduced or increased toadvance American interests.
Achieving a Balanced U.S. Foreign Policy
Question. Achieving a more equitable balance in responsibility for
resources between the Departments of State and Defense is crucial to
the success of U.S. foreign policy. Gen. Mattis once commented in
testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that, ``If you
don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more
ammunition,'' so he is likely to be a willing partner in this endeavor.
Please share your perspective on this issue and describe how you plan
to work with Gen. Mattis if you both are confirmed?
Answer. I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that diplomacy and the
military are instruments of national power that go hand in hand. Your
quote from General Mattis is consistent with comments made by Robert
Gates during the time when he was Defense Secretary. If we are both
confirmed, I would look forward to working closely with General Mattis
to build upon the already strong relationships that bind together the
Departments of State and Defense. Of course, balancing resources is
more in the domain of Congress, when they vote on our budgets. If
confirmed, I expect to be back on Capitol Hill explaining and defending
State Department budget requests on a regular basis.
Clean Energy
Question. The International Energy Agency projects that over the
coming decades more than $60 trillion will be invested in energy
efficiency and clean energy technologies as countries address climate
change.These investments will substantially benefit American clean
energy companies and the 2.5 million U.S. workers they employ. The
State Department plays a key role in helping to spur these markets and
create the conditions for America's companies to tap into the growing
demand for their products.If confirmed, how would you continue to
support these clean energy efforts that are helping open markets to
American clean energy companies?
America, as a leader in global energy, is a critical force in
advancing energy efficiency and clean energy efforts around the world.
American businesses are at the forefront of innovation in the clean
energy and energy efficiency technologies and American workers are the
best trained in the world. We have great competitive advantages in
these areas, and, as you have stated, are able to support the
livelihoods of millions of American workers as a result. As the demand
for energy increases, further support for clean energy developments
will be paramount.
Question. A key piece to guaranteeing a prosperous future for these
American workers and companies is to make the country the most
attractive place to do business in the world, and to continue to build
upon strong trade relationships with global neighbors. The State
Department's Bureau of Energy Resources manages critical programs which
allow us to capitalize on U.S. leadership in clean energy innovation
and open markets for U.S. companies abroad by promoting market-based
policies and facilitating the introduction of advanced and efficient
clean energy technologies into markets worldwide. By working with the
President to implement our national policy goals of supporting and
protecting American interests, we will be able to both cultivate a
positive environment for capital investment at home and create market
opportunities abroad. In doing so, this becomes advantageous, not only
to energy efficiency and clean energy technology development, but to
the American economy as a whole.
Educational and Cultural Exchange
Question. As Secretary, you would be in charge of a large and
diverse set of State Department educational and cultural exchange
programs. There is strong bipartisan consensus in Congress that these
programs are a critical part of our country's public diplomacy toolbox
and that they contribute significantly to our national security.
Exchange programs allow us to create crucial relationships with current
leaders around the world and engage students and professionals who will
be their country's future leaders. It is equally important that we
continue welcoming international visitors of all ages and from all
comers of the world to the United States. We know that exchange
visitors form deep, lasting ties to families and communities throughout
the country--ties that create the mutual understanding that enables
closer diplomatic and business relationships.
What is your personal experience with exchange programs and your
view of these programs' importance to our national security and foreign
policy? Will you continue to support and foster the State Department's
deep commitment educational and cultural exchange?
Answer. In my experience in the oil industry I have met many
foreign leaders who have benefited from exchange programs with the
United States. It is very much the case that educational and cultural
exchange programs are a cost-effective way to build long-term personal
ties and trust with current and future business, educational, media,
and government leaders around the world. If confirmed, I will certainly
seek to continue these worthwhile programs.
Global Women's Issues
Question. What steps will you take to ensure that the State
Department and USAID maintain the structures and funding necessary to
address global women's issues, from child marriage to gender-based
violence to peace and security? Will you commit to ensuring sufficient
financial resources and support for the Secretary's Office of Global
Women's Issues, including an ambassador at the helm, and USAID's Office
of Senior Coordinator on Gender equality so they can continue their
crucial work?
Answer. As I stated in my hearing testimony, the issue of
empowering women is personally important to me. I have seen firsthand
the impact of empowering women, particularly regarding their
participation in economic activities in the lesser developed part of
the world. Investing in women and girls produces a multiplier effect-
women reinvest a large portion of their income in their families and
communities, which also furthers economic growth and stability. As I
indicated, I believe women's empowerment and advancement is an
important part of our foreign aid efforts and I will support such
programs, including efforts to advance women's participation in peace,
security and the political process. I will support efforts to end
violence against women and girls as well as to mitigate the impact of
such violence. I look forward, if confirmed, to closely examining all
aspects of these issues to determine if our funding levels and other
resources are appropriate.
Question. Women's direct participation in security sectors enhances
the operational effectiveness of those forces to achieve U.S. foreign
policy and national security objectives. Yet women remain grossly
underrepresented in security sectors around the globe. What steps will
you take to leverage U.S. security assistance to increase the
recruitment, retention, and promotion of women in security sectors?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Office of Global Women's
Issues, to incorporate women into security sectors.
Question. The United States has made a strong commitment through
the implementation of the National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and
Security to advance the inclusion of women in peace and security
processes around the globe. Research tells us this is critical to
ensuring the effectiveness and sustainability of these efforts, saving
tremendous resources in the long-term. What steps will you take to
prioritize women's participation in peace and security efforts as a
core pillar of U.S. foreign policy?
Answer. As I stated in my hearing testimony, the issue of
empowering women is personally important to me. I have seen firsthand
the impact of empowering women, particularly regarding their
participation in economic activities in the lesser developed part of
the world. Investing in women produces a multiplier effect--women
reinvest a large portion of their income in their families and
communities, which also furthers economic growth and stability. As I
indicated, I believe women's empowerment and advancement is an
important part of our foreign aid efforts and I will support such
programs, including efforts to advance women's participation in peace
and security. I look forward, if confirmed, to closely examining all of
these programs to determine if our funding levels and otherresources
are appropriate.
Question. As you know, if the approximately 225 million women
worldwide with an unmet family planning need had access to modem
methods of contraception, we would see 52 million fewer unintended
pregnancies, resulting in 600,000 fewer stillbirths, 6 million fewer
miscarriages, and 15 million fewer unsafe abortions. Family planning is
also one of the most cost-effective interventions, with every dollar
spent on contraceptive services saving almost $1.50 in the cost of
providing pregnancy-related and newborn health care. Do you agree that
these facts support robust funding for U.S. family planning and
reproductive health programming?
Answer. The decision about how much funding goes to family
planning, reproductive health and maternal health is made by Congress
each year, and Congress has routinely supported these activities at
robust levels. The U.S. government also has long standing statutory
prohibitions on taxpayer funding of abortion or coercion in family
planning. In the event that an organization were to lose money under
these statutory requirements, I imagine that funds for that
organization could be redirected to other entities that can provide
family planning, reproductive or maternal health
LGBTQ Rights
Question. In a number of regions--from Africa and the Caribbean to
the Farmer Soviet Union--lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer
people are targeted for simply being who they are. They have been
criminalized, arrested, tortured and even killed. In response, the U.S.
has begun to include the human rights of LGBTQ people among the wide
array of human rights that we have fought for and protected.
How do you plan to continue this work to protect the human rights
of all people, no matter who they are or whom they love?
Answer. The United States needs to stand firmly for all human
rights. This includes support for basic political freedoms such as
freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, as well as non-
discrimination against women, minorities, and a shared commitment to
protect the human rights of all people, no matter who they are or whom
they love.
In supporting all such human rights, we should be aware of cultural
and historic differences and how they can be used to weaken U.S.
influence. We need to stay true to our own values, while being
tactically smart about how to advance those values throughout the
world.
Refugees
Question. Protecting and assisting refugees is a longstanding and
hallmark of U.S. foreign policy. Since 1975, the U.S. has resettled
more than 3.2 million refugees representing more than 70 nationalities.
The U.S. has also provided significant assistance to refugees in need
around the world, including the millions of Syrians displaced by the
conflict in their country. How do you plan to carry forward this proud
tradition?
Answer. I have not yet been briefed on all aspects of the U.S.
Refugee Admissions Program, but should I be confirmed as Secretary, I
will faithfully administer the Refugee Admissions Program consistent
with law and the policy preferences of the President-elect.
__________
Secretary-Designate Tillerson's Answers to
Questions from Senator Young
Question. What is your assessment of the Obama Administration's
Russia reset policy? Do you believe it was a failure?
Answer. The Administration 's strategy for dealing with Russia,
while well intended, fell short in execution.
Question. Why did it fail?
Answer. It failed because a lack of U.S. resolve convinced Russia
they would not pay a serious price for their misbehavior.
Question. What lessons do you draw from that failure?
Answer. The lesson is that a weak posture with Russia invites
rather than deters their aggression.
Question. How should that failure inform U.S. policy toward Russia
going forward?
Answer. Being clear about American interests and our intent to
defend those interests is the best way to have a stable relationship
with Russia-a relationship that would encourage cooperation in areas
where our interests overlap.
Question. A theme of your prepared testimony is accountability. The
State Department's annual Compliance Report continues to confirm that
Russia is not complying with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
(INF) Treaty. What specific steps should the new Administration take to
hold Russia accountable for its violation of the INF Treaty?
Answer. Russia's violations of the INF treaty should he a high
priority of U.S. diplomacy with Moscow. If Russia refuses to comply
with its obligations, the U.S. should not hesitate to take appropriate
steps to defend its interests and those of our allies in Europe.
Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, you will be
responsible for the safety of State Department employees around the
world--including in all of our embassies, consulates, and special
mission facilities?
Answer. The work of the Foreign Service in many parts of the world
entails risks and dangers that require great sacrifices on the part of
our employees. If confirmed, I will be fully committed to the security
of our people and our facilities overseas.
Question. Have you reviewed the 2012 Accountability Review Board's
(ARB) findings and recommendations? Based on your preparation of this
position, what is your assessment of the State Department's
implementation of the ARB's recommendations? Which recommendations have
not been implemented?
Answer. If confirmed, I will commit to reviewing fully the
recommendations of the ARB, and direct that any of the measures in that
report that would enhance our security, be put into place if not done
so already.
Question. The second finding of the ARB was that quote ``Systemic
failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels
within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special
Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly
inadequate to deal with the attack that look place.'' To avoid such
``systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies''
requires that the Secretary of State make clear that subordinate State
Department officials in Washington should move heaven and earth to
ensure our ambassadors overseas have what they need to keep our
personnel safe. The State Department Inspector General (IG) has
testified that implementation of the Benghazi ARB recommendations must
be administered from the top down, rather than led by individual
bureaus, to ensure their enduing impact. If confirmed, do you commit to
making the security of our State Department personnel overseas a
leading priority?
Answer. Yes, ensuring the safety of personnel overseas will he a
leading priority, if I am confirmed.
Question. If confirmed, will you let me and this committee know if
there is ever anything that you need to improve the security of our
facilities overseas?
Answer. The critical element to successfully carrying out these
measures is that clear responsibility is conveyed and those who have
that responsibility are accountable. If corfirmed, I will consult with
you and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations about progress to
improve security and/or requests for resources for that purpose.
Question. In your prepared statement, you wrote that, ``We cannot
look the other way at allies who do not meet their obligations.'' What
specific allies and obligations are you referring to?
Answer. I believe strongly in a world where America works with
allies and partners. Our alliances are durable and our allies are
looking for a return of American leadership. Many of those allies have
also commmented to us that we should be vigilant in encouraging. This
is long-standing U.S. policy. Our NATO allies have committed themselves
to spending at least 2 percent of GDP on defense, but many NATO members
currently do not meet this commitment. If confirmed, I will work to
ensure that our allies reach the two percent commitment through
constructive engagements in bilateral and multilateral forums. I will
also work with our NATO allies to ensure that resources are spent
efficiently, so that increased spending levels actually result in
stronger capabilities. I regard it as paramount to develop appropriate
incentive structures that ensure greater investment by all of'our
allies in real capabililies that strengthen U.S. national security and
contribute to global stability.
Question. What is your assessment of the situation in Afghanistan?
Do you agree that we can never permit Afghanistan to once again become
a safe haven and launching pad for international terrorism?
Do you agree that our military posture in Afghanistan
should be based on our national security interests, the facts
on the ground, and the advice of our commanders-rather than
political timelines?
Do you agree that a premature withdrawal from Afghanistan
risks leaving us with the unenviable choice of accepting a
terrorist safe haven there or returning at a greater cost?
Answer. The war in Afghanistan is the longest war in American
history. Today, the United States should engage the government of
Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani and CEO Abdullah Abdullah to
increase stability, reduce corruption, ensure better standard living
for Afghans, particularly women and girls, and ensure that Afghanistan
is never again used as a base for international terrorism. It should
also engage with Islamabad to strengthen the civilian government and
eliminate the safe havens that terrorist groups like the Haqqani
network enjoy. Always, the United States should make decisions based on
military and strategic interests, rather than political expedients or
artificial timelines. The United States should work with both
Afghanistan and Pakistan to encourage cooperation, build trust, and
seek to ensure regional stability in a context of mutual respect and
its national interests.
Question. Would you agree that establishing sustainable peace and
stability in Iraq and Syria will require inclusive, non-sectarian
regimes in Damascus and Baghdad (hat treat Sunnis as full and equal
citizens?
Absent such inclusive regimes, would you agree that Sunni
Islamist terrorist organizations will find fertile ground for
terrorist recruitment and operations?
Based on that, do you agree that any sustainable peace in
Syria must include a political transition that includes the
departure of Assad and the establishment of an inclusive regime
in Damascus?
If confirmed, how would you achieve the departure of Assad?
Answer. If confirmed, I will robustly engage Russia and other
parties to negotiate a political settlement to the Syrian civil war
that alleviates the humanitarian suffering of Syrians. Iraqis have also
suffered greatly from ISIS. Sectarian policies, like those of Bashar
Assad in Syria, contribute to violence and make a sustainable peace
more unattainable. The United States should emphasize to Russia and
others the negative sectarian policies Iran encourages the Syrian (and
sometimes the Iraqi) government to adopt, which fuels ethno sectarian
violence and contributes to destabilization throughout the Middle East
This does not serve the interests of the United States, and I would
stress to Russia that it does not serve Russia's interests either. If
confirmed, I would also work closely with our allies in the region to
ensure that any political settlement in Syria does not place their
security in jeopardy, nor leave Iran in a dominating position, nor
result in widespread humanitarian violations.
Question. What is your assessment of the U.S. relationship with
India?
Answer. India is an important partner with the United States, It is
the world's most populous democracy, and one which is playing an
increasingly important role in the region and throughout the world. As
the largest country in South Asia, India has an important role to play
in ensuring regional stability. ever, certain areas of India 's
behavior remain concerning.
Question. Do you believe that we should seek to deepen our
economic, and military ties with India?
Answer. If confirmed, I will engage India to deepen our
cooperation, while raising issues the United States would like India to
address.
Question. If confirmed, would you do all that you can to ensure
[hat U.S. policy supports the maintenance of Israel's Qualitative
Military Edge (QME)?
Answer. Yes. Israel is America's strongest and most reliable
partner in the Middle East. Its security and wellbeing are a vital U.S.
interest.
The United States is bound by law as well as duty to ensure that
our only democratic ally in the region is fully capable of defeating
any credible military threat that may emerge to its security.
Question. In his July 2015 nomination hearing before the Senate
Armed Services Committee to serve as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, General Joseph Dunford was asked ``What would [he] consider
the greatest threat to our national security?''
General Dunford said, ``Russia presents the greatest threat to our
national security.'' He continued saying, ``in Russia, we have a
nuclear power. We have one that not only has capability to violate
sovereignty of our allies and to do things that are inconsistent with
our national interests but they're in the process or doing so. So if
you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat
to the United States, I'd have to point to Russia. And if you look at
their behavior, it's nothing short of alarming.''
Do you agree with Genera] Dunford's assessment?
Answer. Based on the excerpt provided, I would he interested in
hearing more from the General about his assessment.
__________
Secretary-Designate Tillerson's Answers to
Questions from Senator Coons
Russia
Question. How do development and State Department resources for
anti-corruption, rule of law, and human rights fit into your plan for
the future of U.S.-Russian relations?
Answer. As we engage Russia diplomatically to protect and advance
U.S. interests, we must continue looking for opportunities to fight
corruption and promote the rule of law and human rights.
Question. As Secretary of State, will you make it a priority to
support the Moldovan government's efforts to regain control of its
territory and secure the withdrawal of Russian occupation forces from
Transnistria? If so, what steps will you be prepared to take to achieve
these objectives?
Answer. Through both its bilateral diplomacy and in multilateral
institutions, the United States should support Moldova's peaceful
efforts to restore sovereignty over its territory through the
withdrawal of Russian forces.
Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance
Question. Where do you see the biggest threats to civil society
around the world, and who is responsible for these threats?
Answer. Over the past several years, we have seen a growth in the
number and assertiveness of authoritarian leaders around the world.
This puts significant pressure on civil society, including journalists
and the media, political parties, NGOs, and even professional
associations. In addition to traditional authoritarian states, ISIS has
brutally cracked down on human rights and freedoms in areas under its
control.
The authoritarian leaders and terrorists are themselves responsible
for this crack-down on human rights.
The United States and other democracies around the world have a
responsibility to call attention to threats to civil society and
support our own core values of freedom, democracy, human rights, and
the rule of law.
Question. Combined Department of State and Department of Defense
funding for security assistance in Africa grew from just over $500
million in FY 13 to approximately $1 billion in FY 15. At the same
time, the amounts available for democracy building fell from $230
million in FY 13 to only $170 million in FY 15.
Do you believe it is appropriate to decrease funding for democracy
and good governance while increasing funding for security assistance in
Africa?
Should we be conditioning our security sector assistance-such as
the provision of lethal equipment-on countries meeting some sort of
governance and or rule of law standards?
Answer. The increase in security assistance spending in Africa over
this time period is entirely appropriate given the increased threat
posed by ISIS and other terrorist groups, as well as the fragility of
many states in the region.
I believe the United States should also provide support for
democracy-building in the region, but I do not see the need for trade-
offs between these two important objectives.
As for conditioning our assistance, the nature of the governments
we work with should clearly be a factor in our thinking. But we must
also remember that our overseas security assistance is designed to
enhance the security of the United States and its people--and that
should always be our first priority.
International Organizations
Question. As Secretary of State, how will you engage with the U.N.
to meet priorities such as providing humanitarian aid, monitoring
compliance with multilateral sanctions, and preventing the
proliferation of nuclear weapons?
Answer. I will work with leaders like the High Commissioners for
Refugees and the Executive Director of the World Food Program to
address humanitarian crises with all possible speed. This will require
U.S. support, involvement, and oversight. On proliferation, as you know
the U.N. can be hindered on those matters by opposition and lack of
cooperation from member states. However, I will work with institutions
like the IAEA and the U.N. Security Council to address and monitor
these issues where possible. We will also avail ourselves of
alternative measures like bilateral and non-UN multilateral sanctions
where appropriate and joint efforts like the Proliferation Security
Initiative.
Question. For decades, the U.S. has led a network of international
institutions, from, the World Bank to the IMF to what is now the WTO.
They are far from perfect, but they have helped to foster international
coordination in crises from Asia in 1997 to the global economic
collapse of 2008.
Are these institutions important, not just to our trade and
finance, but to our global leadership?
Answer. America's stature in the world depends first and foremost
on our leadership, policies, economy, and determination to protect our
interests and those of our allies. The World Bank, IMF, and WTO can be
important vehicles and venues to advance our political and economic
interests.
Foreign Assistance and International Development
Question. Last year, the President signed the Foreign Aid
Transparency and Accountability Act, which I cosponsored, into law. The
Act requires the President to establish and implement guidelines with
measurable goals and performance metrics across U.S. international
development and economic assistance programs. How do you intend to
advance transparency and accountability for U.S. foreign assistance
dollars?
Answer. In order for State and USAID to carry forward their
critical foreign-assistance work, it is important to measure the
efficiency of their foreign-assistance and development programs and
closely examine the administrative and management practices of both
entities. By doing so, the State Department and USAID will be able to
more effectively prioritize development investments and eliminate
inefficiencies, including duplication of effort. Making sure that our
foreign-assistance mission is implemented in an accountable,
transparent, and cost-saving manner is one of my key administrative and
management priorities.
Question. We've seen a string of presidential legacies on
development-from AGOA in the Clinton
Answer. Administration to PEPFAR and MCC in the Bush Administration
to Feed the Future and Power Africa in the Obama Administration. Can we
expect a development initiative from the Trump administration? PEPFAR,
MCC, Feed the Future, and Power Africa have all been very successful
and valuable. I hope to aid the President in continuing this trend of
groundbreaking presidential initiatives.
Question. How will you work to strengthen public-private
partnerships that alleviate poverty?
Answer. Through an efficient use of taxpayer dollars, we can
support and implement more effective programs that focus on food
security, including Feed the Future, which fights hunger. In an effort
to maintain global health programs in the long-term, USAID should
continue to engage in public-private partnerships. These partnerships
aid a country in lifting itself out of poverty, and continuing them is
necessary for fighting deprivation around the globe. At the same time,
it is important to understand how the success of these initiatives is
measured and how highly successful initiatives may be replicated in
other geographic areas and in other issue areas that we want to
advance.
Question. General Mattis, the President-elect's nominee to be
Secretary of Defense, said at a hearing in front of the Senate Armed
Services Committee in 2013, ``If you don't fund the State Department
fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.'' The budget for the State
Department, USAID, and related agencies represents just over 1% of our
overall budget.
As Secretary of State, will you argue to maintain this level of
funding? If confirmed, how will you work to ensure our civilian tools
of national security remain key components of our national security
strategy?
Answer. By evaluating current development and diplomacy programs
for best practices and standards of efficiency, we hope to maintain
funding for these programs proportional to the U.S. budget. If
confirmed, I will work to ensure that development and diplomacy are
viewed as complements to, not competitors of, our national security
goals. Africa
Question. If confirmed, what immediate steps do you plan to take as
Secretary of State to help prevent genocide in South Sudan?
Answer. The situation in South Sudan is one of the most pressing
humanitarian situations in the world. It is critical to help build some
political space for reconciliation between the government and rebel
factions. The United States should continue to engage in international
forums like the U.N. and bilaterally with key partners in the area to
address this issue, and decide upon a combined policy to address this
violence. This would include deploying robust diplomacy, possible
sanctions, peacekeeping efforts, and other measures.
Question. As Secretary of State, how do you propose to support the
Great Lakes region in managing displacement in accordance with
international and regional legal norms?
Answer. The United States must lead with its values, including
alleviating humanitarian concerns where it can. Internally displaced
persons are one such concern, particularly in the Great Lakes region of
Africa where over three million people are forcibly displaced. If
confirmed, I would engage on this issue bilaterally, with the key
regional states like Uganda and multilaterally with the African Union
and the U.N. Special Envoy for the Great Lakes Region to ensure that
this humanitarian concern remains a focus of the international
community.
Question. Will you work to support and advance the goals of the
Electrify Africa Act?
Answer. Nothing lifts people out of poverty faster than
electricity. When you provide electricity, you provide the ability to
refrigerate food and gain access to medicine. It changes the quality of
life and improves health. I think it is very important to support the
Electrify Africa Act, which authorized the USAID administered program
Power Africa. We should continue to efficiently use taxpayer dollars to
support and advance the goals of the Act and the Power Africa program,
in order to use public-private partnerships to bring electricity to the
parts of Africa that do not have access to it.
Fragility
Question. An estimated 2 billion people live in conflict-affected
and fragile states, and 37% of U.S. Official Development Assistance is
spent in these states.
If confirmed, how would you craft a new agenda for fragile states,
and how would you integrate development, diplomacy and military action
in a unified U.S. response to fragile states?
Answer. The Department of State and USAID already have programs
that focus on the causes and potential remedies for weak and fragile
states, including the Interagency Conflict Assessment Framework. This
program provides guidance for implementing stabilization protocols.
USAID programs, such as Provincial Reconstruction Teams, serve as a
measure to support revitalization in fragile states. These programs
help us better understand the underlying causes of individual weak and
fragile states, and utilize those results to craft better diplomatic
and development policy.
Question. How will you budget for conflict prevention and
peacebuilding?
Answer. In reference to how to budget for these fragile states, it
is valuable to look back on previous budgets to analyze for best
budgeting practices.
India
Question. In the last two years, the State Department has engaged
in a high level exchange known as the Strategic and Commercial Dialogue
with the world's largest democracy and Asia's fastest growing large
economy- India. Will you continue the Strategic and Commercial Dialogue
with India?
Answer. If confirmed, I will certainly continue all efforts to
strengthen U.S.-Indian bilateral relations politically, economically,
and strategically.
Turkey
Question. A Delawarean named Ismail Kul is currently detained in
Turkey. If confirmed, will you commit to having the State Department
update me on this case and will you commit to fighting for the release
of detained American citizens in Turkey?
Answer. Yes. If I am confirmed, the State Department will remain in
close touch about the case and make the release of Ismail Kul and other
detained American citizens a very high priority in Turkey and elsewhere
around the world.
Iran Hostages
Question. What steps will you take to prioritize the return of
American citizens detained and missing in Iran, including Robert
Levinson, Siamak Namazi, Baquer Namazi, and Robin Shahini?
Answer. The United States must always consider detained Americans
and American hostages a top priority. It is deeply concerning to me
that the Obama Administration should conclude a diplomatic agreement
and reward a government like Iran's that is active in detaining
American citizens. In particular, the case of Robert Levinson must be
resolved. If confirmed, I would engage our partners in the region to
exert pressure on Iran, as well as examine unilateral policy options,
and stress to all parties that this is a top priority of the United
States.
Intellectual Property
Question. Some foreign governments are subjecting American
companies to antitrust investigations that often appear to lack due
process protections, thereby insulating their domestic companies from
U.S.-based competition and often eroding the value of American
companies' intellectual property rights in the process. If you are
confirmed, how will you ensure that our trading partners are living up
to their end of the bargain to treat American companies and their
intellectual property fairly, particularly in proceedings before
foreign competition agencies?
Answer. The United States has been a leader in promoting the rule
of law, including in areas of antitrust and intellectual property,
which are vital to promoting competition and innovation and benefit all
of us as consumers.
The U.S. antitrust laws are evenhandedly enforced to protect
competition, not to disadvantage foreign companies selling to U.S.
customers. Unfortunately, some other countries employ their competition
laws to exclude effective competition from American companies. Some
countries also use antitrust legal proceedings unjustifiably to require
companies to surrender their intellectual property. These actions not
only harm American companies, which are forced to give up valuable
business or assets without justification or fair compensation, but also
undercut competition and innovation.
American companies are most likely to face these unfair actions
because they are leaders in business and technology. I believe it is
appropriate for the United States to press trading partners not to
misuse legal proceedings to disadvantage American companies or gain
access to their intellectual property. There is a role for the State
Department in this, along with the Department of Commerce, the U.S.
Trade Representative, and the Department of Justice antitrust officials
addressing these issues with counterparts in other countries. As
Secretary of State, I would work with these agencies to prevent the
misuse of competition law by foreign governments that harms American
companies.
Global Health
Question. In 2014, I visited Liberia during the height of the Ebola
outbreak. The outbreak: was curbed by brave public health workers,
volunteers, and the infrastructure, but also by investments made by the
United States through our PEPFAR program and the Global Fund, our
efforts against polio and the resulting labs, communications, and the
infrastructure and the public health systems that we helped develop.
How can U.S. development and diplomatic capacities be utilized to spur
the investments needed to help foster sustainable, resilient health
systems capable of saving lives and preventing deadly outbreaks before
they threaten global health security?
Answer. The global health programs focused on fighting diseases,
including PEPFAR, PM/, and USA/D's Global Tuberculosis (TB) Program, as
well as the Global Health Security Agenda, have proven to be extremely
valuable and successful programs. In order to ensure that we
effectively address emerging crises and outbreaks, such as Ebola and
the Zika virus, it is important to understand how the success of
programs addressing these outbreaks is measured so that we may properly
prevent, detect, and respond to future outbreaks.
Question. Senator Susan Collins and I have championed the Reach
Every Mother and Child Act, a bill that aims to end preventable
maternal and child deaths worldwide within a generation by improving
delivery systems and leveraging private and public funds. As Secretary,
how do you foresee advocating for a policy that leverages private and
public funds to address maternal and child deaths worldwide?
Answer. PEPFAR is a global health program that aims to reduce
infant and maternal mortality by decreasing mother-to-child
transmissions of HIV/AIDS. PEPFAR is a successful and valuable program
and it should serve as a model for future programs.
Question. The United States has a number of strategic interests in
Africa and these same countries strongly support international climate
action. Do you believe that a possible U.S. withdrawal from the Paris
or other key international multilateral or bilateral climate agreements
have major impacts on our relationships in this region? Would that
impact advancing any other major priorities in the region?
Answer. Cooperation on international climate change is only one
issue that the United States engages in with African nations. If
confirmed, I plan to conduct a review of the current role that the
State Department plays in international climate change efforts to
ensure that U.S. national interests and American competitiveness are
not compromised.
Question. Do you believe efforts to address climate change require
governmental, business, and civil society (NGO) sector involvement?
Should one sector play a larger role than others? Does the U.S.
government, specifically the Secretary of State, have a role in
developing policy and working with the international community on
reducing the impact of climate change through appropriate foreign
policy levers?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the State Department
interacts when appropriate with all elements of civil society and the
business community regarding climate change issues.
Question. What would be your general policy approach on addressing
climate change in terms of mitigation and adaptation? Do you support
funding for programs to mitigate and respond to the impacts of climate
change on vulnerable populations where flooding, droughts, loss of
arable land, and other consequences threaten to displace tens of
millions of people?
Answer. If confirmed, I will conduct a review of the U.S. role in
international climate change matters, including the funding of
mitigation and adaptation measures through the Green Climate Fund and
other financial mechanisms.
Question. Would U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement
impact our credibility abroad and if so, how? Do you believe that there
are multiple paths and mechanisms by which the U.S. or any party can
achieve the targets in the Paris Agreement? If the U.S. was not at the
table, do you believe other countries may be more reluctant to uphold
their commitments, remain transparent, or promote innovative actions?
Answer. Under the incoming administration I expect that the State
Department and other parts of the government will conduct a review of
the Nationally Determined Contribution submitted by the Obama
Administration as part of a broad review of the Paris Agreement and the
U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change to determine whether the
NDC and/or the international agreements advance U.S. national
interests.
Question. Would you support going further and withdrawing from the
1992 U.N. Framework Convention (UNFCCC)? Given that the Senate provided
its advice and consent for the UNFCCC, do you believe that the Senate
has a role to play should the Trump administration seek to withdraw
from it?
Answer. Under the incoming administration I expect that the State
Department and other parts of the government will conduct a review of
the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to determine
whether it advances U.S. national interests. The UNFCCC includes
articles regarding withdrawal from the convention, as does the Paris
Agreement, and what role, if any, should be played by the Senate in the
event the United States withdraws from either agreement will be
determined.
Question. The U.S., with the State Department playing an important
role, has helped to spur markets abroad for American clean energy
technologies and create the conditions for America's companies to tap
into the growing demand for their products. Would you continue to
support these efforts that are helping open markets to American clean
energy companies?
Answer. America, as a leader in global energy, is a critical force
in advancing energy efficiency and clean energy efforts around the
world. American businesses are at the forefront of innovation in the
clean energy and energy efficiency technologies and American workers
are the best trained in the world. We have great competitive advantages
in these areas, and, as you have stated, are able to support the
livelihoods of millions of American workers as a result. As the demand
for energy increases, further support for clean energy developments
will be paramount.
A key piece to guaranteeing a prosperous future for these American
workers and companies is to make the country the most attractive place
to do business in the world, and to continue to build upon strong trade
relationships with global neighbors. The State Department's Bureau of
Energy Resources manages critical programs which allow us to capitalize
on U.S. leadership in clean energy innovation and open markets for U.S.
companies abroad by promoting market-based policies and facilitating
the introduction of advanced and efficient clean energy technologies
into markets worldwide. By working with the President to implement our
national policy goals of supporting and protecting American interests,
we will be able to both cultivate a positive environment for capital
investment at home and create market opportunities abroad. In doing so,
this becomes advantageous, not only to energy efficiency and clean
energy technology development, but to the American economy as a whole.
Natural Resources
Question. How do you propose balancing U.S. interests in natural
resource development abroad with the interests of the countries
containing those natural resources, especially when conflict zones or
authoritarian governments are involved?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to balance all U.S. interests,
and I look forward to engaging with you regarding concerns with respect
to specific situations. However, I do not believe it would be prudent
to opine on hypotheticals.
Question. How would you uphold U.S. values of democracy and human
rights in issues of natural resource development?
Answer. As I mentioned in my opening statement, our approach to
human rights begins by acknowledging that leadership requires moral
clarity. We do not face a choice on defending global human rights. Our
values are our interests when it comes to human rights and humanitarian
assistance. The need for leadership on human rights would apply to all
of our interests across the world including issues of natural resource
development.
Question. Wildlife trafficking has rapidly escalated in scale,
sophistication, and violence to become an issue of security and
stability. How will you work with this Congress, other federal
agencies, and countries across the globe to implement the END Wildlife
Trafficking Act and further the U.S. and international efforts to
tackle the wildlife poaching and trafficking crisis?
Answer. The global spread of wildlife trafficking has implications
for conservation, crime, and national security. Public Law No. 114-231,
Eliminate, Neutralize, and Disrupt Wildlife Trafficking Act of 2016,
which was passed by Congress unanimously and signed into law by the
President this past October, provides new tools to help the United
States and partner countries to address this crisis. I will work with
Congress on the implementation of this law and related laws. Moreover,
I will work with partner countries to further efforts to combat
poaching and wildlife trafficking.
Question. Do you support the Cardin-Lugar transparency provision
(Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act), which requires oil, gas and
mining companies to publicly disclose their project-level payment
information in every country of operation in an annual report to the
Securities and Exchange Commission?
Answer. The Securities Exchange Commission has adopted regulations
implementing the Cardin-Lugar transparency provisions, which were added
to the Exchange Act in 2010 by Section 1504 of the Dodd Frank Act. The
regulations require each resource extraction issuer to file an annual
report with the SEC, which includes information relating to any payment
made by the company to any foreign government or the federal government
for the purpose of the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or
minerals. Because these regulations are within the purview of the SEC,
I would not have any direct role in implementing them if confirmed to
be the Secretary of State.
Question. Are there natural resource situations that would lead you
to recommend withdrawing foreign aid or imposing sanctions? If so, what
are those?
Answer. I would need to be briefed and evaluate any specific
information regarding any situation in which the withdrawal of foreign
aid or the imposition of sanctions would be contemplated and am not in
a position to determine what a hypothetical situation may require.
Question. The United States policy on oceans critically impacts a
number of U.S. and global interests, including the fishing industry,
trade and shipping routes, and marine research. How would you build on
current U.S. oceans policy? What changes, if any, would you make?
Answer. President Obama issued an Executive Order in 2010 which
established a National Ocean Policy. If confirmed, I will review the
State Department's implementation of the NOP and determine whether any
changes may be necessary to ensure that it is contributing to these
goals.
Scientific Integrity and Diplomacy and R&D
Question. Do you believe that scientific cooperation on bilateral
and multilateral bases is essential to achieve U.S. national security,
public-health, and environmental goals? What do you see as the
opportunities for science, technology, and innovation through
diplomacy? For example, whether it's emerging infectious diseases like
Ebola, cooperation in space, or climate change, science and technology
play major roles on a range of global issues which involve the State
Department. What would you view as the role of science and scientific
advice in your approach to diplomacy?
Answer. Bilateral and multilateral cooperation in the area of
science, which is sometimes referred to as science diplomacy, can help
to advance U.S. interests in national security, public health, and the
environment.
These relationships are particularly vital in dealing with pandemic
outbreaks like HlNl and Ebola. Discovering cures for infectious
diseases advances humanitarian interests and innovating new ways to
meet energy demands advances development goals for emerging economies.
I will assess science-related programs in the State Department to
ensure that they further U.S. national interests, as discussed above.
Question. How would you foster a culture of scientific transparency
and accountability at the State Department, while protecting scientists
and engineers from political interference in their work?
Answer. Fostering a culture of scientific transparency and
accountability at the State Department is important to ensure the
integrity of research and development. Furthermore, scientists and
engineers whose work is supported by the State Department must be held
to the highest ethical standards because they are ultimately
responsible to the taxpayers. I will review any policies that create an
unacceptable risk of political interference or that create perverse
incentives for scientists and engineers to skew their data or findings
for political rather than scientific reasons.
Question. What policies would you undertake to best ensure that
your department contributes to America's continued leadership in
science, technology, and innovation as a part of your diplomatic
outreach?
Answer. Maintaining U.S. leadership in science, technology, and
innovation is of vital importance and I will carefully consider the
particular role that the State Department may play--working with other
agencies such as our National Labs--in this effort with any available
tools such as overseas fellowship programs, research grants for
innovators in emerging countries, and collaborations with governments
and research institutions in partner countries as well as partnerships
with U.S.-based institutions, including those in the private sector.
Question. Given your experience as a trained civil engineer and as
the CEO of Exxon Mobil, a company with a strong science and technology-
dependent profile, how would you ensure that the Department of State
has access to science and technology resources, including individual
scientists and engineers, needed to address contemporary foreign policy
issues from climate change to energy security to arms control?
Answer. I recognize there is considerable knowledge and skills in
our National Labs from nuclear physics to biothreats. We should tap
into those resources.
If confirmed, I will work to strike the right balance in terms of
staff and resource allocation among the different aspects of the State
Department's mission, including those pertaining to science and
technology so that the team as a whole is most cohesive and effective
in furthering the foreign policy agenda of the President-elect and to
meet contemporary challenges head-on with reliable scientific data and
technological expertise.
Question. Given existing budgetary constraints that place a burden
on discretionary spending, what would be your science and engineering
research priorities, and how would you balance short-term versus long-
term funding?
Answer. In light of budgetary constraints on discretionary spending
as well as the enduring duty to taxpayers to maintain fiscal
discipline, priority must be given to those scientific and research
initiatives that are the most effective in advancing U.S. interests in
national security and other areas such as humanitarian interests.
Programs and activities, whether funded in the short or long term, must
be regularly assessed according to sets of per/o performance metrics to
determine whether funding should continue and, if so, whether such
funding should be increased or decreased.
__________
Secretary-Designate Tillerson's Answers to
Questions from Senator Udall
Policy
Question. New Mexico's number one trading partner is Mexico.. .and
to be clear, the rhetoric of the President elect towards Mexico and
people of Mexican decent has been extremely harmful to our
relationship. Comments from Mr. Trump on the campaign trail that
Mexican immigrants are rapists and murderers... and that focus solely
on a wall across our border ignore complex issues our two countries are
working on together.
What is your negotiation strategy for Mexico to pay for a wall on
the U.S. border?
Answer. I have not discussed a negotiation strategy for payingfor
the wall on the southern border with the President-elect.
Question. How will you work to repair the damage done by the
President-elects statements regarding Mexican immigrants referenced in
question 1?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with the
Mexican Government on all aspects of the vibrant and mutually
beneficial diplomatic relationship between our countries.
Question. What are your thoughts on Mexico's efforts to transition
to an adversarial judicial system similar to our own and how will you
support this effort at the federal and state level in Mexico?
Answer. The landmark judicial reform passed in 2008 that is
transforming the judicial system from a closed inquisitorial system
toward an adversarial model is an important development for Mexico that
promotes more transparency and trust in the justice system. The State
Department, along with the interagency, will continue to provide
training and technical assistance programs to Mexico to realize this
transition and support the rule of law.
Question. New Mexico's national labs have played a key role in
nonproliferation and weapons monitoring since the dawn of the atomic
age. And they played a key role in the Iran agreement which is why I
have strong confidence in the agreement. Do you trust the science
behind the Iran agreement and that each pathway to create a nuclear
weapon has been effectively stopped by the JCPOA?
Answer. My concern is less with the agreement's science than with
Iran's intentions, its ambitions, and its history of cheating and
aggression.
The agreement will only be as strong as its verification and
monitoring mechanism, and the vigilance and determination of the United
States and its allies to ensure it is strictly enforced.
But I also worry about the agreement's sunset clauses and the fact
that many of its most important restrictions on Iran 's nuclear
capabilities will lapse in the not-so-distant future.
Question. Will you be open to briefings from Department of Energy
and NNSA officials while you review the JCPOA?
Answer. If confirmed, I would certainly welcome getting briefed by
experts as 1participate in the administration's review of our approach
to the JCPOA.
Question. Will you engage with the national labs and the National
Nuclear Security Administration to address key issues regarding
nonproliferation and take a science based approach to countering would
be proliferators in the future?
Answer. If confirmed, I would welcome support and input from the
national labs and the National Nuclear Security Administration in
addressing the serious nonproliferation challenges that our country
faces.
Question. What are your thoughts about the wisdom of sending arms
to so called moderate rebels in Syria? (many who are affiliated with
terrorist groups) Will you continue to support.. -in my opinion.. .this
misguided program?
Answer. The war in Syria is one of the most pressing national
security issues for the United States. If confirmed, I would engage
America's regional partners as well as the key parties in this conflict
to reach a sustainable political solution. This would require robust
diplomacy and American participation in multiple international and
bilateral dialogues. The United States should engage its key partners
to assess what policy options are most effective for achieving such a
solution, and working with them to build stability in both Syria and in
a broader context regionally.
Question. Which side are we on in the civil war in Syria?
Answer. The top national security priority for the United States in
Syria is defeating ISIS, not becoming embroiled in a sectarian civil
war. There is broad consensus that ISIS presents a critical national
security threat to the United States and many other countries. If
confirmed, I would support policies that support defeating ISIS.
Question. How much authority, in your opinion, does the 2001
Authorization for Use of Military Force give the President in Syria?
Anddo you believe that the President should seek out another AUMF if he
wishes to engage militarily in another country like Syria?
Answer. The President and Congress should always strive to present
a united front to the rest of the world on national security issues.
The President is the Commander-in-Chief; he is tasked with defending
this nation against its enemies and conducting the foreign and national
security policy of the United States. Congress also plays a key role.
The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force was effective because
it sent a clear message to the world that Congress and the President
were united on a critical threat
Answer. A new AUMF would demonstrate U.S. strength and unity of
purpose. Having the support of Congress to stand behind the decisions
to commit American men and women as well as military resources
strengthens our position in the world because it signals our intention
to bring the requisite resources to bear in international conflicts. I
look forward to working with Congress on an AUMF that addresses today's
realities, and I am open and willing to work with the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee and Congress to achieve these goals. If I am
confirmed, I would always advise the President to seek the closest
possible coordination with Congress on key national security policy
issues, including Syria.
Question. What is your stance on key multilateral treaties that the
United States is signatory to but has not ratified, for example: Would
you support the ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the
Sea and do you agree that ratifying it would give the United States a
stronger hand to address Chinese violations and illegal annexations of
islands in the South China Sea?
Answer. There are many treaties that the United States has signed
but have not received the advice and consent of the Senate. If
confirmed, such treaties will be reviewed to determine whether
ratification would advance U.S. national interests.
The United States has not signed the U.N. Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS). In 1994 President Clinton signed the ``1994
Agreement'' relating to the deep seabed provisions of UNCLOS and
transmitted both the 1994 Agreement and U.N. to the Senate.
Question. Would you support ratification of the Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities... in order to ensure that U.S.
standards for access by disabled individuals are adopted throughout the
world?
Answer. The United States is strongly committed to protecting the
rights of disabled Americans through the legal protections afforded by
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other applicable laws,
and to working cooperatively with like-minded partner countries
interested in strengthening their own disability rights laws. In fact,
the U.S. already funds and administers a number of programs that
provide assistance to strengthen disability rights in foreign
countries. My view on whether to support the ratification of the
Convention will be based on such factors as whether the Convention
benefits Americans who live in the United States and whether the
Convention improves disability rights in other countries, thus
benefiting Americans living abroad, the Convention's effects on U.S.
sovereignty, and the Convention's impact on existing protections in the
law and under the Constitution.
Question. How will you work to ensure future 123 agreements do not
inadvertently empower proliferators, while also supporting U.S.
businesses in the nuclear industry?
Answer. To the extent possible, we must work to ensure that future
123 agreements build in the strongest possible protections against
proliferation, while promoting U.S. business as the nuclear industry's
gold standard in capability and safety.
Question. Every single administration since Kennedy has worked to
negotiate reductions to our nuclear arsenal with the Soviet Union and
now Russia. What do you believe should be the next step in nuclear
negotiations after the New START treaty concludes?
Answer. While the next phase of arms control will require careful
consideration by the incoming administration, I believe America
continues to have a tremendous stake in maintaining a stable nuclear
balance with Russia at the lowest possible numbers--with an eye,
however, to the expanding arsenals of China and other nuclear powers,
as well as the nuclear ambitions of dangerous states like North Korea
and Iran.
Question. It is very clear that Russia attempted to influence our
election. Will you stand up strongly to Vladimir Putin and Russia's
hacking of our election system?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to receiving a full
intelligence briefing on the extent of Russia's interference in our
elections.
Should the facts warrant, I would not hesitate to stand up strongly
against efforts by Russia or any other state to harm our interests and
undermine our democracy.
Question. What will your message to the Russian foreign minister be
with regards to their attempts to influence the U.S. elections if you
are confirmed to serve as Secretary of State?
Answer. If confirmed, I will immediately seek a full intelligence
briefing on the recent hacking of our elections. If the facts warrant,
the message that I would deliver to my Russian counterpart would be
unequivocal as to this type of serious escalation of cyber threats.
Question. The United States has interests which may not be the
interests of Exxon. How can I be sure you will only represent the
interests of the United States if we cannot vet your financial
information and tax returns?
Answer. I made a clean break from ExxonMobil so that I could serve
as Secretary of State free of any connection, financial or otherwise,
to the company-and so the American people would know that, if
confirmed, I would serve their interests and theirs alone. I will abide
by the recusal commitments I made in the Ethics Agreement that I
submitted to the Committee on January 3, 2017, which was prepared in
consultation with ethics officials at the Department of State and the
Office of Government Ethics, on the basis of a full disclosure of my
financial interests.
Question. Colombia is one of our strongest allies in the western
hemisphere. How will you work to support the peace agreement and will
you continue the bipartisan efforts to support the rule of law and
counternarcotics work in Colombia?
Answer. We will continue our important diplomatic, economic, and
foreign assistance engagements, built upon the success of Plan
Colombia, to support the implementation of the peace agreement with the
FARC, combat transnational organized crime including narcotics
trafficking and further strengthen institutions that promote the rule
of law.
Question. Vice President Biden helped lead the initiative known as
the Alliance for Prosperity in the northern triangle of Central
America. In essence we are trying to address multiple issues in these
countries which led to a spike in narco related violence and a surge of
migrants from that region to the U.S. and Mexico. Will you continue to
support these initiatives and will you make it a priority if you are
confirmed?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to being fully briefed on the
Alliance for Prosperity initiative and to consulting with other agency
nominees, such as DHS Secretary Nominee John Kelly, to continue and/or
accelerate these initiatives if appropriate.
Question. During your time at ExxonMobil, you established the
Africa Health Initiative because, ``We strongly believe that
improvements in public health can be a basis for broader economic and
social gains.'' Is this a position you would also support as Secretary
of State?
Answer. The global health programs focused on fighting diseases,
including PEPFAR, the President's Malaria Initiative (PMI), and USAID's
Global Tuberculosis (TB) Program, as well as the Global Health Security
Agenda, have proven to be extremely valuable and successful programs.
Continuing such programs is beneficial to the U.S. and to the
developing world.
Question. ExxonMobil committed more than $ 100 million to help
identify and share best practices that include anti-malarial drugs,
treatment programs, long-range research, and advocacy. You yourself
have been a champion on the issue of malaria and have been recognized
as such. Why is this issue so important? Of course in order to
eradicate malaria, it will take the work of not just the United States
but a range of partners, including the United Nations. How important is
their role and how do you see the partnership between the U.S. and U.N.
continuing on this vital issue?
Answer. The best of our global health programs project America's
values, show our compassion, and alleviate suffering. By partnering
with other aid programs, we increase our capacity to affect positive
change. We will continue to cooperate with beneficial partners in a
fashion that reflects U.S. policy and goals.
Question. U.N. humanitarian agencies are often the first on the
ground following natural disasters to stave off humanitarian crises by
providing medical assistance, clean water, and sanitation programs. Do
you feel this is an important element of the U.N.s work and worthy of
support? What are your views on this type of global burden-sharing?
Answer. The United States is traditionally one of the biggest
givers to humanitarian efforts around the world. U.N. agencies like the
World Food Program have done critically important work to feed millions
of people, for example, and the U.S. has an important role in support
of, involvement in and oversight of such programs to assure our tax
dollars are being wisely spent and assistance is reaching those most in
need.
Question. On November 30th, the Colombian parliament ratified a
final peace agreement between the government and FARC rebels, ending
the longest-running conflict in the Western Hemisphere. Currently, a
U.N. political mission, made up of 450 unarmed military observers and
additional civilian personnel, is on the ground in Colombia with a
mandate to monitor and verify the cessation of hostilities and ensure
that the FARC gives up its weapons. Can you talk about the U.N. role
here and what the U.S. is doing to support it?
Answer. The U.N. Mission in Colombia is responsible for verifying
and monitoring the bilateral ceasefire and laying down of arms,
declared by President of Colombia Juan Manuel Santos and the leader of
the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia--People's Army (FARC-EP)
Timoleon Jimenez. The Mission has already begun its deployment and
supports logistical preparation in the areas where the separation of
forces, disarmament, and reintegration and transition to civilian life
will take place. The U.S. is supporting this U.N. mission as a member
nation but does not have any U.S. citizens among the observers.
Question. Under your leadership, Exxon Mobil has invested more than
$100 million in its global Women's Economic Opportunity Initiative,
partnering with developing country national and local governments, the
U.S. government, the United Nations Foundation, Africa, and other
leading development implementers to bring much needed assistance and
opportunities to tens of thousands of women in the developing world.
Question. As you know, the State Department places a high priority
on global women's empowerment, gender equity and combating violence
against women.
If you are confirmed as Secretary of State, how will you ensure
that empowering women is a core pillar of U.S. foreign policy?
Answer. As I stated during my confirmation hearing, the issue of
empowering women is personally important to me. I have seen firsthand
through Exxon's efforts the impact of empowering women, particularly
regarding their participation in economic activities in the lesser
developed part of the world. Investing in women produces a multiplier
effect-women reinvest a large portion of their income in their families
and communities, which also furthers economic growth and stability.
Studies confirm that when women are empowered in these developing
countries, you change the future of the country, because you change the
cycle of whole families and their view of the world positively. I
believe women's empowerment and advancement is an important part of our
foreign aid efforts and I will support such programs, including efforts
to eliminate violence against women and mitigate its impact on those
currently subject to such violence.
Question. What lessons you have learned from Exxon's women's
empowerment programs that you will bring with you to the State
Department? Why did you decide to invest so heavily in global women's
empowerment programs during your tenure at Exxon?
Answer. I believe that educating women and girls is one of the most
effective ways to invest in communities in the developing world.
Educated women are healthier, are less likely to die in childbirth, and
are more likely to have healthy children. Empowering women and girls
can drive real change and supports the achievement of international
development goals.
Question. One of the greatest obstacles to advancing women's
empowerment and gender equity is a lack of access to quality
healthcare. The U.S. government has led global efforts to combat
preventable maternal deaths through investments in maternal and child
health, nutrition, family planning, and other critical health
interventions. Can you commit to our Committee that the State
Department and USAID will continue to prioritize these lifesaving
programs if you are confirmed as Secretary of State?
Answer. I agree that life-saving humanitarian health programs are
some of the most powerful diplomatic tools in our toolkit. In addition
to helping advance our national interest through hearts and minds and
good will, helping to save the lives of the most vulnerable populations
is consistent with the character and fundamental goodness of the
American people.
Question. During the Presidential campaign, President-elect Trump
made several very troubling statements and comments indicating that in
the context of counterterrorism he would support waterboarding and
other types of torture. If you are confirmed, you will be the
president's chief foreign affairs adviser, and the Legal Bureau of the
State Department will have an important role advising the White House
on international law. Do you agree that waterboarding is torture?
Answer. Federal law provides that no individual in U.S. custody may
be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach that is not
authorized by and listed in the Army Field Manual. If confirmed, I
would support the Administration in complying with that law and all
other applicable law.
Question. Do you agree that other techniques previously utilized by
CIA personnel in the Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation (RDI)
program--including painful ``stress positions,'' subjecting detainees
to extreme cold, throwing them into walls or hitting them--constitute
torture, or are otherwise illegal under U.S. law?
Answer. Federal law provides that no individual in U.S. custody may
be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach that is not
authorized by and listed in the Army Field Manual. If confirmed, I
would support the Administration in complying with that law and all
other applicable law.
Question. Given that Congress has now made it clear in U.S. law
that U.S. interrogators may only use those techniques that are in the
U.S. Army Field Manual, and that manual clearly prohibits
waterboarding, do you agree that waterboarding cannot and should not be
used by any U.S. personnel on detainees under any circumstances?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you think that core international prohibitions on
torture and war crimes should be changed?
Answer. The United States is bound by treaties and domestic laws,
including prohibitions on torture and war crimes. That is consistent
with, and demonstrates, our values and principles. I do not support and
cannot foresee that changing. Our role in the world has entailed a
place of moral leadership in the scope of international affairs, and I
am committed to continuing that historical role.
Question. What do you believe would be the impact on America's
credibility abroad of resuming renditions or the use of interrogation
tactics like those previously used by the CIA?
Answer. U.S. Government activities concerning any detention,
interrogation and transfer practices should comply with the law in all
respects. Changes to applicable law or policy should be made only after
a careful review and consideration of the overall consequences,
including the impact on foreign relations specifically.
Question. If confirmed, how will you work with the Government of
Mexico to diminish the threat posed to American families by heroin?
Will you continue the Merida Initiative and support the Mexican
government's efforts to reform its justice sector, expand training for
civilian police, combat corruption, and protect human rights?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed helping the President-elect
address the heroin epidemic in the United States. I will ask to be
fully briefed on the Merida Initiative and will consult with other
Department leaders, such as the Homeland Security Secretary and the
Attorney General.
Question. Do you support a ban on Muslim immigration.. .and do you
agree that it is an unconstitutional religious test?
Answer. No, I do not support a ban on Muslim immigration, and I am
not aware of any proposal to impose such a ban.
Question. A bipartisan group of Senators, including Republicans and
Democrats on this Committee, have cosponsored legislation to remove
restrictions on U.S. citizens' ability to travel to Cuba and to
authorize U.S. companies to facilitate greater internet access inside
Cuba. Do you believe that current restrictions on the rights of U.S.
citizens to travel to Cuba enhances the cause of freedom for the Cuban
people?
Answer. The new Administration will conduct a comprehensive review
of current policies and executive orders regarding Cuba, including
travel restrictions, to determine how best to pressure Cuba to respect
human rights and promote democratic changes and consider conditionality
on diplomatic, economic, or travel policies to encourage those changes.
Question. Do you support allowing U.S. companies to expand internet
access inside Cuba so that the Cuban people can have greater access to
information that isn't currently available on the island?
Answer. Yes, as appropriate.
Question. Do you support the New START agreement with Russia and
how will you work with Russia to ensure that the agreement is followed?
Answer. I support the implementation of New START and would work
closely with Russia to ensure its obligations under the treaty are
fulfilled.
Question. The NNSA has made tremendous progress with the stockpile
stewardship program. In short, our science based efforts to confirm
that our stockpile is safe, secure, and reliable have worked and have
negated the need for testing of nuclear weapons. During the debates to
consider the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, this was a significant
barrier because the science had not yet matured. Now that the science
has matured, will you consider support for the ratification of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and will you visit with our experts at
NNSA to learn more about the stockpile stewardship program?
Answer. If confirmed, I would welcome being briefed by the NNSA and
other experts as the United States considers its participation in any
additional treaties.
Question. For the past 20 years, U.S. law has prohibited training
and equipment for any unit of a foreign security force that the
Secretary of State has credible information has committed a gross
violation of human rights, such as torture, rape, or summary execution
of prisoners or civilians. If the Secretary has such information, U.S.
aid to that unit is cut off unless the foreign government takes
effective steps to bring the responsible members of the unit to
justice. This law, known as the Leahy Law, has helped to prevent U.S.
aid from going to perpetrators of the worst crimes, and it encourages
governments to hold perpetrators accountable and enforce the rule of
law. Over the years, the law has been praised by top officials at the
Department of State and the Department of Defense under both Republican
and Democratic administrations. Do you agree with the intent of the
law?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Will you rigorously enforce the Leahy Law and ensure that
the necessary funds are provided to support the State Department
personnel who implement it?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will follow the law.
Question. Do you support funding for programs to mitigate and
respond to the impacts of climate change on vulnerable populations
where flooding, droughts, loss of arable land, and other consequences
threaten to displace tens of millions of people?
Answer. I believe foreign assistance is an important component of
U.S. foreign policy. Should I be confirmed, I will press for programs
that are effective and efficient and consistent with U.S. interests. I
would prioritize our programs in accordance with the goals of U.S.
foreign policy. I would apply these standards to assessing programs
that address changing environmental conditions and extreme weather.
Question. Do you believe it is in the U.S. national interest to
fund foreign assistance programs intended to mitigate conflict and
prevent mass atrocities, or should the U.S. refrain from getting
involved in foreign disputes unless U.S. personnel or property are
directly threatened?
Answer. The Department of State and USAID already have programs
that focus on the causes and potential remedies for weak and fragile
states, including the Interagency Conflict Assessment Framework. This
program provides guidance for implementing stabilization protocols.
USAID programs, such as Provincial Reconstruction Teams, serve as a
measure to support revitalization in fragile states. By continuing
these programs, we will better understand the underlying causes of
individual weak and fragile states, and utilize those results to craft
better diplomatic and development policy.
Question. For many years, U.S. law has conditioned a portion of aid
to foreign security forces in certain countries with a history of
corruption and abuses by such forces on progress by their governments
in protecting human rights and combating corruption. Do you agree with
this approach, or do you think we should provide such aid without such
conditions?
Answer. When evaluating a country's eligibility for aid, a number
of factors come into play, including government compliance, U.S.
interests in the region, and the level of need of the population. Many
of our foreign assistance programs take the multitude of factors into
account to inform decisionmaking. We should continue to consider all
factors, identify issues like corruption, and take steps to reduce
these issues, in order to efficiently and effectively provide aid.
Question. Do you agree that after more than half a century the U.S.
embargo against Cuba has failed to achieve any of its principle
objectives?
Answer. The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act
of 1996 (Helms-Burton Act) known as the embargo against Cuba is the law
of the land that we must enforce.
Question. Do you support diplomatic relations with Cuba?
Answer. Yes, as appropriate. A diplomat's job is to engage in order
to promote change.
Question. As Secretary of State would you travel to Cuba? Would you
try to prevent others from traveling there?
Answer. It would depend on the mission.
Question. Do you agree that American citizens and legal residents,
whether Cuban-Americans or others, should be able to travel freely to
Cuba as they can to every other country in the world that grants them a
visa?
Answer. Yes, as long as it does not violate U.S. law.
Question. Do you agree that the U.S. should help support private
entrepreneurs in Cuba with training or other assistance, so they can
build businesses, market their products and services, and compete with
stateowned enterprises?
Answer. Yes, as appropriate.
Question. Do you support policies that enable U.S. companies to
market their goods and services in Cuba, and by doing so compete with
companies in other countries that do business in Cuba?
Answer. Yes, as appropriate and consistent with U.S. law.
Question. Do you support cooperation between the U.S. military,
Coast Guard, and other law enforcement agencies and the Cuban military
and security services on such issues as narcotics and human
trafficking, maritime security, counter-terrorism, and search and
rescue?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The United States has been a global conservation leader
in combating transnational wildlife crime and saving imperiled species.
Wildlife trafficking is a lucrative enterprise worth tens of billions
of dollars and has undermined the rule of law of our allies and trading
partners at the range, transit and source countries. The involvement of
criminal syndicates, African armed militias, and terrorist
organizations is particularly alarming. The enactment of Eliminate,
Neutralize, and Disrupt (END) Wildlife Trafficking Act last October
illustrates the high-profile attention and broad bipartisan support the
United States Congress has given to this issue. Mr. Tillerson, will you
continue the State Department's work with this Congress and concerned
countries across the globe to further the international community' s
effort to tackle the pernicious poaching and trafficking crisis?
Answer. The global spread of wildlife trafficking has implications
for conservation, crime, and national security. Public Law No. 114-231,
Eliminate, Neutralize, and Disrupt Wildlife Trafficking Act of 2016,
which was passed by a unanimous Congress and signed into law by the
President this past October, provides new tools to help the United
States and partner countries to address this crisis. I will work with
Congress on the implementation of this law and related laws. Moreover,
I will work with partner countries to further efforts to combat
poaching and wildlife trafficking.
Question. During your testimony, you admitted the existence of
human created climate change but also said the ability to predict its
implications is ``very limited.'' What are you basing this latter
conclusion on? Please explain and list all peer reviewed publications
upon which your view about limited ability to predict climate
implications is based?
Answer. Although my background is as an engineer and scientist, I
am not a climatologist. I concluded years ago that the risk of climate
change does exist and that the consequences could be serious enough
that action should be taken. That said, it is clear to me that climate
modeling is a not an exact science and thatpast attempts to be
predictive have not been consistently correct. The UNFCCC'S own reports
on climate describes the challenge in developing accurate models.
I am not alone in this belief. John Christy, a NASA-award-winning
scientist who operates the temperature-sensing NASA satellite
instruments, has presented testimony to the House ofRepresentatives
indicating that the models have predicted approximately twice as much
warming as has actually occurred since the advent of satellite
measures.
If confirmed, I plan to conduct a review of the current role that
the State Department plays in international climate change efforts to
ensure that U.S. national interests and American competitiveness are
not compromised.
Question. In response to signals that the Trump Administration may
act less aggressively on climate change, leading Chinese officials have
stated that they will continue to act aggressively to reduce their
emissions and that they will take on more international leadership
around climate change--including establishing a national carbon market
and investing hundreds of billions in clean energy at home and abroad.
Are we putting the nation at a disadvantage internationally by ceding
U.S. leadership on climate change to China?
Answer. The United States should act to protect and advance U.S.
national interests in all matters, including climate change, regardless
of the actions of other nations, including China.
Question. Do you agree that U.S. withdrawal from international
agreements, including the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC, which all
countries support and which are top priorities for our most important
allies would be a destabilizing action and weaken not only our
diplomatic relations with our allies but also compromise our national
security?
Answer. The United States should decide to join international
agreements based upon whether membership in such agreements advances
U.S. national interests. In any event, I fail to see how U.S.
membership in a climate change agreement would have an effect on our
national security.
Question. Does your support for the Paris Agreement also include
support for the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) that the U.S.
submitted to the UNCCC ahead of COP21 and the finalization of the Paris
Agreement? If so, how do you propose we meet our NDC?
Answer. If confirmed, we will conduct a review of the Nationally
Determined Contribution submitted by the Obama Administration as part
of our review of the Paris Agreement and the U.N. Framework Convention
on Climate Change to determine whether the NDC and/or the international
agreements advance U.S. national interests.
Question. Are you aware of whether anyone on the Presidential
transition team, or connected with the Trump campaign, discussed your
possible nomination with any representatives of a foreign government or
foreign national before the President-elect announced his intention to
nominate you for this position?
Answer. No. I am not aware of any such consultation with foreigners
regarding my nomination.
Ethics
Question. Are you the beneficiary or trustee of any discretionary
trust that has not been fully disclosed to the Committee or the Office
of Government Ethics? If so, please provide detailed information about
the trust(s).
Answer. No, to the best of my knowledge.
federal it reform (state department)
Question. Each major federal agency has been graded at least three
times on their implementation of the Federal Information Technology and
Acquisition Reform Act of 2014 (FITARA, PL 113-291). The House
Oversight and Government Reform Committee with assistance from the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) issues a ``scorecard'' for
FITARA implementation. State Department received one ``C'' and three
``F's'' for an overall ``D'' grade on the May 2016 scorecard. How do
you plan to improve this grade?
Answer. I have been briefed on the key management challenges facing
the Department in this arena, but unless and until I am confirmed, I
will not have access to this data at the level of granularity to
provide detailed answers on the factors behind this situation or
ongoing plans to remedy it If confirmed, I will make this a priority
and consult with the committee on the best solutions. Please be assured
that I consider failing grades unacceptable. If confirmed, I will
assure that our employees and managers at all levels, as well as our
interagency partners and oversight stakeholders, will know that I
consider this a top area for improvement and accountability.
Question. Describe the role of your department Chief Information
Officer (CIO) in the development and oversight of the IT budget for
your department. How is the CIO involved in the decision to make an IT
investment, determine its scope, oversee its contract, and oversee
continued operation and maintenance?
Answer. The CIO is an Assistant Secretary-level official
supervising the Information Resource Management bureau, reporting to
the Under Secretary for Management. This individual also must set
policy for IT decisions involving all agencies under Chief of Mission
at our overseas posts, in collaboration with those agencies' CIOs, the
Director of National Intelligence, OMB, and other stakeholders. Each
overseas mission, embassy, and consulate has a team responsible for
Information Management, with a senior individual on that ambassador's
country team and ICASS council. Further, the Bureau of Diplomatic
Security recently created a Deputy Assistant Secretary position
responsible for information security, in collaboration with the Deputy
CIO, who is currently designated as Chief Information Security Officer
(CISO). If confirmed, I will work with the inter-agency to assure that
both the CISO role and the decision authorities of the CIO are clear
and parallel across the relevant inter-agency processes so that
decisions are made at the appropriate level or elevated to
theSecretary's office when necessary. If confirmed, I will also make
sure that the budget, acquisition, and customer support functions are
coordinated and aligned. Currently that coordination falls to the Under
Secretary for Management.
Question. Describe the existing authorities, organizational
structure, and reporting relationship of the Chief Information Officer.
Note and explain any variance from that prescribed in the Federal
Information Technology and Acquisition Reform Act of 2014 (FITARA, PL
113-291) for the above.
Answer. The CIO operates within the organizational structure
described above. There are currently opportunities to improve the
information management practices at the Department, but unless and
until I am confirmed, I will not have access to the level of
information necessary to speak to variances between the current
structure and those prescribed in the Federal Information Technology
and Acquisition Reform Act of 2014.
Question. What formal or informal mechanisms exist in your
department to ensure coordination and alignment within the CXO
community (i.e., the Chief Information Officer, the Chief Acquisition
Officer, the Chief Finance Officer, the Chief Human Capital Officer,
and so on)?
Answer. The functions you mention currently report to and through
the Under Secretary for Management, who is also currently designated as
the CFO of the Department. A more complicated coordination must occur
at the inter-agency and overseas post level.
Question. According to the Office of Personnel Management, 46
percent of the more than 80,000 Federal IT workers are 50 years of age
or older, and more than 10 percent are 60 or older. Just four percent
of the Federal IT workforce is under 30 years of age. Does your
department have such demographic imbalances? How is it addressing them?
Answer. The State Department faces similar challenges with an aging
workforce, complicated further by the security clearance requirements
and rules that require re-validation of previously investigated
individuals when they move to another parallel position or get
promoted. The Department also hires Foreign Service Information
Management Specialists on a separate track from generalist Foreign
Service Officers, which can allow more rapid hiring for those committed
to fulfilling these requirements for overseas positions as a long-term
career. Nevertheless, the competitive salaries and benefits offered by
the private sector keep such individuals in demand.
Question. How much of the department's budget goes to
Demonstration, Modernization, and Enhancement of IT systems as opposed
to supporting existing and ongoing programs and infrastructure? How has
this changed in the last five years?
Answer. I have been briefed on the key management challenges facing
the Department in the area of information systems, but unless and until
I am confirmed, I will not have access to this data at the level of
granularity to provide detailed answers.
Question. What are the 10 highest priority IT investment projects
that are under development in your department? Of these, which ones are
being developed using an ``agile'' or incremental approach, such as
delivering working functionality in smaller increments and completing
initial deployment to end-users in short, six-month time frames?
Answer. I have been briefed on the key management challenges facing
the Department in the area of information systems and technology, but
unless and until I am confirmed, I will not have access to the level of
information necessary to provide comprehensive answers on IT investment
priorities.61. To ensure that steady state investments continue to meet
agency needs, OMB has a longstanding policy for agencies to annually
review, evaluate, and report on their legacy IT infrastructure through
Operational Assessments. What Operational Assessments have you
conducted and what were the results?I have not conducted any
operational assessments as a nominee. If confirmed, I will follow up
appropriately.
Question. What are the 10 oldest IT systems or infrastructures in
your department? How old are they? Would it be cost-effective to
replace them with newer IT investments?
Answer. I have been briefed on the key management challenges facing
the Department in the area of information systems and technology, but
unless and until I am confirmed, I will not have access to the level of
information necessary to provide comprehensive answers on IT investment
priorities.
Question. How does your department's IT governance process allow
for your department to terminate or ``off ramp'' IT investments that
are critically over budget, over schedule, or failing to meet
performance goals? Similarly, how does your department's IT governance
process allow for your department to replace or ``on-ramp'' new
solutions after terminating a failing IT investment?
Answer. I have been briefed on the key management challenges facing
the Department in the area of information systems and technology, but
unless and until I am confirmed, I will not have access to the level of
information necessary to provide comprehensive answers on IT investment
priorities.
Question. What IT projects has your department decommissioned in
the last year? What are your department's plans to decommission IT
projects this year?
Answer. I have been briefed on the key management challenges facing
the Department in the area of information systems and technology, but
unless and until I am confirmed, I will not have access to the level of
information necessary to provide comprehensive answers on IT investment
priorities.
Question. The Federal Information Technology and Acquisition Reform
Act of 2014 (FITARA, PL 113-291) directs CIOs to conduct annual reviews
of their department/agency's IT portfolio. Please describe your
department's efforts to identify and reduce wasteful, low-value or
duplicative information technology (IT) investments as part of these
portfolio reviews.
Answer. I have been briefed on the key management challenges facing
the Department in the area of information systems and technology, but
unless and until I am confirmed, I will not have access to the level of
information necessary to provide comprehensive answers on IT investment
priorities.
Question. In 2011, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued
a ``Cloud First'' policy that required agency Chief Information
Officers to implement a cloud-based service whenever there was a
secure, reliable, and cost-effective option. How many of the
department's IT investments are cloud-based services (Infrastructure as
a Service, Platform as a Service, Software as a Service, etc.)? What
percentage of the department's overall IT investments are cloud-based
services? Does State Department have a Cloud strategy to encourage the
use of Cloud computing solutions? If not, by when do you plan to have
such a strategy in place?
Answer. I have been briefed on the key management challenges facing
the Department in the area of information systems and technology, but
unless and until I am confirmed, I will not have access to the level of
information necessary to provide comprehensive answers on the status of
the Department's cloud computing strategy and solutions.
Question. Congress passed the MEGABYTE Act (PL 114-210) to
encourage agencies to achieve significant savings in managing IT assets
including software licenses. What policies or processes are in place at
State Department to improve management of software licenses? What
savings do you expect State Department to report by the end of FY 2017?
Answer. I have been briefed on the key management challenges facing
the Department in the area of information systems and technology, but
unless and until I am confirmed, I will not have access to the level of
information necessary to provide comprehensive answers on IT investment
priorities.
Question. Provide short summaries of three recent IT program
successes--projects that were delivered on time, within budget, and
delivered the promised functionality and benefits to the end user. How
does your department/agency define ``success'' in IT program
management? What ``best practices'' have emerged and been adopted from
these recent IT program successes? What have proven to be the most
significant barriers encountered to more common or frequent IT program
successes?
Answer. These are excellent questions for the current
Administration. If confirmed, I will ask these same questions to
demonstrate my concerns and expectations for full accountability both
within IT systems themselves and overall information management within
the State Department and the other U.S.government systems where State
intersects. Although I have not had the opportunity to conduct any
analysis of this sort as a nominee, if confirmed, I will follow up
appropriately.
__________
Secretary-Designate Tillerson's Answers to
Questions from Senator Barrasso
Question. In 2012, the U.S. Department of State and U.S. Department
of Defense initiated a process to remove a war memorial in Wyoming,
called the Bells of Balangiga. It honors the lives of 48 soldiers who
were massacred in their sleep by insurgents in the Philippines on
September 28, 1901. The U.S. Department of Defense in coordination with
the U.S. Department of State intentionally withheld this information
from Congress. The veterans in Wyoming overwhelmingly oppose taking
down this veteran memorial.
Will you commit to me that you will not support any efforts
to deconstruct our war memorials that honor our fallen soldiers
and moving them to foreign countries?
What is your position on the U.S. Department of State
withholding these actions fromCongress?
Answer. The Bells of Balangiga are an important war memorial that
holds real significance for many Americans, especially our veterans. If
confirmed, I will support an inclusive process with theU.S. Department
of Defense to ensure that Congress is fully informed and the views of
localcommunities and veterans are fully respected when evaluating the
management of war memorials.
Question. In July 2015, the U.S. Department of State issued
guidance requiring manufacturers and gunsmiths to register with the
Department under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and the
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (IT AR). This registration
requirement also mandates that hobbyists and small business gunsmiths
pay an annual fee of $2,250. Not only is this guidance a significant
financial burden on small gunsmiths but it is also a significant
government overreach on the backs of gunsmiths who have no intent on
exporting firearms. If confirmed, will you withdraw this guidance?
Answer. I value the cultural and economic contributions of
hobbyists and small business gunsmiths. If confirmed, I will support a
review and potential withdrawal or revision of the 2015 guidance with
proper regard for U.S. national security interests.
Question. Like many U.S. industries, soda ash faces significant
trade barriers around the world. It is a key manufacturing component of
glass, detergents, soaps, and chemicals. Soda ash is also used in many
other industrial processes. ``U.S. natural soda ash.'' is refined from
the mineral trona. It has long been regarded as the standard for
quality, purity, and energy efficiency in production. The Green River
Basin in Wyoming is the world's largest area for naturally-occurring
trona. As part of your effort to promote U.S. industries in
international markets at the U.S. Department of State, will you
advocate for eliminating trade barriers for soda ash and other
important U.S. industries in the international marketplace?
Answer. Eliminating trade barriers is at the heart of promoting
U.S. competitiveness in global markets. Such barriers may include both
high tariff levels and non-tariff barriers, such as foreign regulations
designed to block made-in-America products. I will work together with
other officials responsible for such requirements.
__________
Secretary-Designate Tillerson's Answers to
Questions from Senator Murphy
Russia/USAID
Question. USAID was expelled from Russia in 2012 as part of a
crackdown on pro-democracy organizations. Do you think it is in the
U.S. national interest to have a USAID mission in Russia? If so, what
steps will the State Department take to reestablish a USAID Mission in
Russia?
Answer. Prior to the suspension of the USAID Mission in Russia in
2012, USAID provided substantial . for Russian partners and
organizations engaged in development work. The annual budget for the
USAID Mission in Russia for 2010-2012 was nearly $60 million, and
supported programs that enhanced democratic efforts, advanced human
rights, and improved health. At the time, we deemed these programs to
be in our national interest. Since USAID's suspension, democratic
governance, human rights, and health continue to be major challenges
for Russian society. Due to the political environment in Russia,
however, it is unlikely that the USAID program will be restarted in the
immediate future. Instead, it is necessary that we focus our efforts on
fighting global health, poverty, and human rights challenges in
countries where our programs can be effective and implement change.
Refugee Crisis
Question. The refugees fleeing violence in Syria are only a
fraction of the over 65 million people displaced around the world
today. This historic humanitarian crisis has had a destabilizing effect
on some of our allies in the Middle East, such as Jordan and Turkey,
and our closest allies in Europe, including Germany and France. If
confirmed, how will you confront this humanitarian crisis? How, in your
view, can the U.S. better work with partners to provide life-saving
assistance to refugees?
Answer. The United States must lead with its values; that includes
working with our partners to alleviate such suffering, particularly in
conflict zones where the most vulnerable are often targeted. Today,
alleviating the world's refugee crises must start in Syria.
There are areas of the Syrian conflict in which we share an
interest with other stakeholders, such as ensuring regional stability
and preventing Syria from being used as a launching pad for
international terrorism. The actions of both Iran and ISIS decrease
stability and increase the number of Syrians fleeing their homes. If
confirmed, I would work closely with our partners in the region to
alleviate their suffering.
Inclusive policies in the Middle East
Question. Our interest in strong and stable democratic partners
rests in part on other countries adopting fair and inclusive laws and
social policies. How would you pursue this interest in the Middle East,
where increasing social tensions led to the Arab Spring--or in Russia,
where personal liberties are under attack and the gap between the haves
and have-nots has widened?
Answer. Throughout many countries in the Middle East, the positive
openings for civil society represented in the Arab Spring were
exploited by radical Islamist extremists. This has led some regimes in
the region to feel they need to crack down to reestablish security and
law and order. This is a vicious cycle we should avoid repeating. In
the long run, the development of stable and peaceful societies in the
Middle East depends upon the increasing enfranchisement of the
population as a whole.
Given the serious threat posed by organizations such as ISIS in the
immediate term, however, we need to respect the concerns many
government have about terrorism in the region. Doing so will also give
us the opportunity to engage with them on being more open to individual
liberties and civil society in ways that do not open the door to
exploitation by jihadists.
Combating anti-LGBT laws globally
Question. Anti-LGBT laws in Russia are among the most draconian in
the world--and those laws in turn have given rise to copy-cat laws
elsewhere in the ex-Soviet space and beyond, even in Africa. How
specifically would you seek to reverse this course, and thereby help
ensure the sense of social and economic inclusion that is important to
long-term stability?
Answer. The United States needs to stand firmly for all human
rights. This includes support for basic political freedoms such as
freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, as well as non-
discrimination against women, minorities, and LGBT persons. Indeed, the
denial of basic political freedoms is often the backdrop against which
discrimination against LGBT persons takes place.
In supporting all such human rights, we should be aware of cultural
and historic differences and how they can be used to weaken U.S.
influence. We need to stay true to our own values, while being
tactically smart about how to advance those values throughout the
world.
Family planning and reproductive health and rights
Question. The United States has been a global leader in advancing
family planning worldwide for five decades. If women worldwide with
unmet needs used modern methods, we would see 52 million fewer
unintended pregnancies, resulting in 600,000 fewer stillbirths, 6
million fewer miscarriages, and 15 million fewer unsafe abortions.
Family planning is also one of the most cost-effective interventions,
with every dollar spent on contraceptive services saving almost $ 1.50
in the cost of providing pregnancy-related and newborn health care.
Will you pledge to continue, and build on, the bipartisan legacy of
U.S. support for international family planning programs? Will you
continue to support our critical contributions to UNFPA, which is
currently raising awareness about child marriage and providing maternal
care to thousands of Syrian refugees?
Answer. The decision about how much funding goes to family
planning, reproductive health and maternal health is made by Congress
each year, and Congress has routinely supported these activities at
robust levels. The U.S. government also has long-standing statutory
prohibitions on taxpayer funding of abortion or coercion in family
planning. In the event that an organization were to lose money under
these statutory requirements, I imagine that funds for that
organization could be redirected to other entities that can provide
family planning, reproductive or maternal health.
Saudi Arabia/Yemen
Question. U.S. support for the Saudi-led military campaign against
former President Saleh and Houthi rebels in Yemen has led to a
devastating humanitarian crisis and a security vacuum that has
empowered Al Qaeda and ISIS. Although the State Department and Pentagon
have engaged with Saudi Arabia for over a year, assisting them with
targeting and urging them to refrain from hitting specific civilian
targets, our advice has not been heeded. It is clear that more
targeting advice is not going to change behavior. Meanwhile, arguably
the most lethal branch of Al Qaeda is increasing their recruitment in
Yemen. Do you believe that it is in the U.S. national security interest
to end this civil war that is allowing terrorist groups to thrive? Do
you agree that the longer the war continues the more dependent the
Houthis may become on Iran? Do you agree that civilian casualties in
Yemen harm U.S. national security, given that Yemenis view this as a
US-Saudi bombing campaign? Will you support conditioning our military
aid Saudi Arabia upon ending attacks on civilian targets, facilitating
humanitarian aid delivery, and doing more to combat ISIS and Al Qaeda
in Yemen?
Answer. The situation in Yemen is tragic. The war has inflicted a
devastating toll on the country's people. The United States certainly
has an interest in a political settlement that ends the war as soon as
possible, while safeguarding the vital interests of our regional
allies. Iran's destabilizing interference in Yemen and across the
Middle East is a major U.S. concern. As we support our allies, it is
critical that we continue pressing them to do everything possible to
limit civilian casualties, reduce humanitarian suffering, and combat
the growth of ISIS and Al Qaeda in Yemen.
Tunisia
Question. After the upheaval of the Arab Spring, one country--
Tunisia--remains standing as an emerging democracy in the region. Do
you believe it should be a national security priority of the United
States to encourage democratic reform abroad, and support Tunisia's
transition to democracy as a model for the region?
Answer. Tunisia's ability to maintain its democratic path in the
face of the region's broader turmoil is a major accomplishment. The
United States certainly has an interest in supporting Tunisia's
continued transition to democracy--especially in the context of the
broader threat we face across the Middle East from the ideology of
radical Islamic terrorism.
Cyprus
Question. Cyprus is a strategic partner of the United States in the
Eastern Mediterranean. How will the new U.S. Administration further
develop the bilateral ties between the United States and the Republic
of Cyprus? How will it support the ongoing reunification negotiations?
Answer. Strong bilateral ties with the Republic of Cyprus will help
ensure future stability and prosperity in the region. A long-term
solution for Cyprus is important for U.S. interests in the region. The
United States should continue to support the efforts of the Greek and
Turkish Cypriot leaders to achieve a just resolution that is consistent
with U.N. resolutions and heals the island's divisions. If confirmed, I
look forward to working closely with the U.N. and other key actors to
support a solution.
Dealing with nuclear-armed states
Question. The United States and Russia possess the vast majority of
the world's nuclear weapons, but China, India, and Pakistan are
increasing the size and diversity of their nuclear forces too. History
shows that the risk of a military conflict involving nuclear-armed
rivals India and Pakistan is high and the role of the United States--
and the Secretary of State in particular--in deescalating any crisis
that could go nuclear is absolutely critical. Will it be a priority of
yours to prevent an escalation of the existing regional nuclear arms
competition involving these countries? What steps will you encourage
them to take to reduce nuclear risks and halt their nuclear build ups?
How will you seek to build on the current U.S.-China dialogue on
strategic and economic issues to reduce the risk of miscalculation in a
crisis?
Answer. The United States, along with the rest of the world, has a
major interest in preventing a potentially catastrophic nuclear arms
race in South Asia. Reducing that risk should be a top priority of U.S.
diplomacy with the countries of the region. Developing mechanisms to
prevents crises and avoid miscalculation should be one of the most
important goals of the U.S. strategic dialogue with China. If
confirmed, I look forward to participating in that dialogue and
advancing those goals.
Bahrain
Question. Over the past year, Bahrain has dramatically escalated
its crackdown against human rights defenders and peaceful opposition
leaders. Bahrain's rulers have imprisoned the country's leading human
rights defender for tweets, banned the country's largest opposition
political party, and jailed Shia clerics who have called for political
reform and interfaith dialogue. The government has abandoned any
pretense of reform, fulfilling only a handful of the 26 recommendations
of the Bahrain Independent Commission on Inquiry (BICI) report that the
King publicly committed to implementing ``urgently'' more than five
years ago. As the home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, the stability of
Bahrain is critical to U.S. national security interests. But unless the
Sunni monarchy moves to share power with its restive, Shia majority
population, the country risks descending into open sectarian conflict
that could destabilize the country and jeopardize the Fifth Fleet. As
Secretary of State, how will you encourage Bahrain's rulers to reverse
course, and implement genuine political reform to stabilize the country
and secure the U.S. Fifth Fleet in the years ahead?
Answer. Bahrain has long been one of our most vital partners in the
Gulf region; particularly in terms of the crucial support it provides
the U.S. Fifth Fleet. Bahrain faces a number of challenges, not least
the ongoing threat to its security and stability from an aggressive
Iran. If confirmed, I will continue working with Bahrain's leaders to
strengthen our alliance and combat common threats, while also
encouraging reforms that can enhance Bahrain's long-term stability and
security.
__________
Secretary-Designate Tillerson's Answers to
Questions from Senator Kaine
Non-Disclosure Agreement
Question. Sen. Mr. Tillerson, when asked if you were subject to a
confidentiality agreement that continues to be enforced that would
limit his ability to answer questions, such as the ones on climate
change. ``To my knowledge I have no such confidentiality agreement in
place, but I would have to consult with counsel.''
Can you confirm whether such an agreement exists or not? If so,
provide a copy.
Answer. No such agreement exists. My understanding is that, whether
memorialized in writing or not, I am required to maintain the
confidence of any ExxonMobil trade secrets and other confidential or
privileged business information that I may have obtained while an
ExxonMobil officer, director, or employee.
Diplomatic Security
Question. Over approximately the past 20 years, U.S. personnel
working in diplomatic missions overseas have faced increasing threats
to their safety and security, including numerous attacks in high-risk
location perhaps most notably, the 2012 attack on our facilities in
Benghazi. These threats have been heightened in part due to policy
decisions to keep staff in locations that previously would have been
deemed too dangerous for U.S. personnel. In your opinion, what is the
right balance between the security of our diplomats and effective
engagement overseas?
Answer. Nothing is more important than the safety and security of
those serving in our diplomatic mission and their families. The right
balance is something that will have to be assessed in each situation
with full awareness of the best intelligence and on-the-ground
expertise provided by trained professionals. If confirmed, I will rely
not only upon Diplomatic Security's expertise in these instances, but
all agencies under Chief of Mission, including the military and
intelligence communities. Engagement with the host country at every
level can be effective only if our personnel feel safe to do their jobs
and if we have a clear-eyed sense of the mission and the associated
risks our people face, including their family members at accompanied
posts.
Question. While State has taken some steps to address security
issues at residences and schools, among others, a 2015 GAO report found
that State lacks full awareness of the vulnerabilities existing at
these types of soft targets. What steps would you take to ensure that
State is appropriately protecting U.S. personnel outside of official
facilities?
Answer. Protection of our people and their families overseas as
they go about their daily lives is of the utmost importance. Embassy
security standards are prescribed by law, and Congress has provided
funding to protect soft targets. GAO has pointed out that too often,
individual posts and the State Department itself are not adhering to
their own timelines for assessing and updating residential standards.
As a former manager and leader of a global enterprise, I find this
unacceptable. If confirmed, I will take seriously my responsibility as
leader of the State Department and as landlord for all government
personnel under Chief of Mission, to assess and re-assess as conditions
on the ground change the effectiveness of protection measures around
the world, and strengthen where needed.
Also, as many of those serving overseas send their children to
schools within the local communities, I will make sure that each post
has strong guidance to utilize the Overseas Schools Advisory Council
and Overseas Security Advisory Council processes and convene local
meetings of subject matter experts and leading American institutions in
those host countries to be proactive in providing situational awareness
to our shared communities of interest, both expat American citizens and
our diplomatic community. Further, I will continue to seek approval
from Congress for increased authority to provide advice, guidance and
surplus safety supplies to potential soft targets.
Question. In recent years, the State Department has been the victim
of several cyber attacks. Ineffective protection of cyber assets can
lead to disclosure of sensitive information and threaten national
security. What steps would you take to prevent future cyber attacks
against the State Department?
Answer. Cyber awareness and training of all those who utilize State
Department IT systems or handle sensitive information has increased in
recent years, but it is not enough. Personnel must also recognize and
take serious their personal responsibilities to protect against cyber
intrusions. The Department must continue to have the technical
expertise to stay ahead of threats and must coordinate across all U.S.
government agencies at a senior level, especially those with whom State
Department systems share information. No agency can afford to be a weak
link in that chain. If confirmed, I plan to make sure cyber security is
elevated not only as an international policy priority but also as an
operational imperative, with direct lines into the Secretary's office
to assure nobody can underestimate our seriousness.
Europe
Question. With Russian support, extreme right-wing parties are
gaining prominence and democratic norms, such as transparency and
tolerance, are increasingly under attack across Europe, in countries
like Hungary.
How will you defend western democracies from increasing Russian
influence?
Answer. It does appear that Russia has embarked on a widespread
malign influence campaign to undermine support for western democracies
using a variety of tools, including propaganda, disinformation,
hacking, funding pro-Russian groups and parties, and exploiting
Russia's role as a major energy supplier. The best means of combating
such efforts is to revitalize the Transatlantic partnership,
particularly NATO, with a renewed sense of collective purpose and
strategy to successfully meet the common challenges our democracies
face--notjustfrom Russian interference and intimidation, but from
massive flows of refugees and the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism.
Renewed American leadership and strength will be critical to these
efforts. In an effort to combat these efforts I will ensure that the
department of State continues to drive and invigorate the U.S. efforts
underway, through Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and with our partners
including Freedom House and National endowment for Democracy and
others.
Question. Are you concerned about the shrinking of democratic space
in Hungary and the increasing pressure on independent media and civil
society?
Answer. The erosion of democratic norms should always be of concern
to the United States. Hungary is a valued NATO ally and a member of the
EU Like much of Europe, the Hungarian people have faced major strains
in recent years, particularly in the wake of the refugee crisis and the
political and economic difficulties roiling the EU The United States,
in cooperation with our European partners, has a significant stake in
working to strengthen democratic norms in Hungary and across the NATO
alliance.
Question. Are you concerned about the problem of corruption in
Hungary and will you insist that the U.S. use laws and tools available
to combat corruption in Hungary?
Answer. Eliminating corruption has to be a priority of the United
States, not just in parts of Hungary but globally. Corruption
undermines economic growth, while eroding public confidence in
democracy and the rule of law. America should be using all its
available tools to help democratic friends and allies like Hungary curb
corruption.
Question. What will you do to support a robust democracy in Hungary
and to insist that Hungary meet its obligations under the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the EU?
Answer. Hungary is an important NATO ally. The United States,
together with our Transatlantic partners in both NATO and the ECT, have
an important stake in supporting and strengthening Hungary's democracy.
Through vigorous bilateral and multilateral engagement, we will work to
help strengthen democratic norms and adherence to OSCE obligations in
Hungary and across Europe.
ExxonMobil and Civil Societv
Question. Over the last year, ExxonMobil (Exxon) has undertaken a
targeted campaign against environmental organizations, journalists, and
philanthropists that have challenged the company's record on climate
change. In the press and in court, Exxon is arguing that routine
advocacy activities constitute an illegal conspiracy. The nature and
scope of Exxon's campaign against these civil society groups is highly
unusual for any large corporation.
Is this an appropriate approach for the U.S. to adopt in handling
our critics on the global and national stage?
Answer. If confirmed, I would foster dialogue with civil society
groups, including those that may criticize U.S. foreign policy. During
my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil's approach to civil
litigation was appropriate and consistent with accepted practices.
Question. Why has the company chosen to go down this approach
towards handling the charges being brought against the company as
opposed to simply looking to win in court?
Answer. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil's approach
to civil litigation was appropriate and consistent with accepted
practices.
Question. Given the way your company has chosen to handle civil
society criticism at ExxonMobil, how would you as Secretary of State
defend civil society organizations' freedoms to associate, assemble,
and communicate privately?
Answer. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil maintained
an open dialogue with civil society groups. If confirmed, I would
vigorously defend civil society organizations' freedoms to associate,
assemble, and communicate both publicly and privately.
Question. Exxon has repeatedly pointed to House Science Committee
Chairman Smith's investigation as suggestive of wrongdoing on the part
of these civil society organizations.
Did you or anyone at ExxonMobil directly or indirectly request that
Chairman Lamar Smith investigate and ultimately subpoena private
communications of nongovernmental organizations who have criticized
Exxon for deceiving the public about climate science?
Answer. I did not do so personally. Nor, to the best of my
knowledge, did anyone at ExxonMobil.
Question. Is it fair to characterize your position that it is
appropriate for Congress to investigate the private communications of
organizations whose positions they do not agree with?
Answer. I respect the authority of Congress and have no personal
position regarding the scope of its investigative authority other than
that it is governed by the U.S. Constitution.
Question. The U.S. government under both Republican and Democratic
leadership has for decades supported independent civil society and
organizations that promote, document, and/or monitor issues related to
transparency, justice, corruption, human rights, and the rule of law.
Since 2010 alone, the U.S. has invested more $3 billion in
strengthening civil society. In addition, the U.S. has often promoted
laws, policies, and practices that foster a supportive environment for
civil society and has coordinated efforts to push back against undue
restrictions on non-governmental organizations, which leaders around
the world, from Egypt to Ethiopia, often employ as they attempt to
suppress organized oversight of governance. Vigorous civil societies,
not merely development and relief organizations but also advocacy and
legal groups, help to ensure governments can serve their people. Civic
groups amplify isolated voices and both empower and leverage ordinary
citizens' ability to engage with and influence their governments.
To this end, will you embrace longstanding U.S. support for
independent civil society around the globe?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you commit, if confirmed, to promote and meet
regularly with independent civil society leaders--even where
governments are increasingly intolerant of such goups and/or have
instituted funding and administrative restrictions?
Answer. Yes.
International Security
Question. As the American Action Forum noted in November, Japan
contributes 50 percent and South Korea 41 percent of the costs to
support the American military presence in each country.
Would you agee that that this cost sharing for America's bases is
fair?
Answer. Strong alliances are vital to both the United States and
its allies. Cost sharing arrangements between the United States and
Japan and South Korea are governed by Special Measures Agreements.
Under these bilateral agreements, Japan and South Korea provide
substantial support to U.S. forces. The President-elect has committed
to working with U.S. allies to review these arrangements, as is done
periodically, to ensure that the United States and its allies are each
contributing their fair share of the costs and duties of these
alliances.
Question. Would you further agree that the United States shares
common security interests with both Tokyo and Seoul?
Answer. The United States, Japan, and South Korea share common
interests on a multitude of regional and global issues, including
managing security challenges associated with North Korea and addressing
concerns surrounding China's rise. Common interests and values form the
basis for the strong and long-standing U.S. alliances with both Japan
and South Korea.
Question. Would you also agree that forward-deploying U.S. forces
with these bases is less costly than projecting them from the U.S.
mainland?
Answer. Forward deploying U.S. forces allows the United States to
proactively deter aggression, reassure allies and partners, and rapidly
respond to emerging crises or conflicts. In addition, forward deploying
U.S. forces permits the United States to conduct security cooperation
activities with U.S. allies and partners as well as maximize the time
that U.S. forces spend operating in the region. Independent studies
suggest that there could be some cost savings from bringing U.S. forces
back to the United States, but these savings would have to be balanced
against the geopolitical and operational disadvantages of withdrawing
U.S. forces.
Question. How would you interpret the President-elect's remark last
year in regards to our Asian alliances that ``at some point, there is
going to be a point at which we just can't do this anymore.''
Answer. President-elect Trump's comment arose in the context of
needing our allies, including Japan and South Korea, to do more to
support and strengthen our alliances. Indeed, both Japan and South
Korea have been taking on more responsibilities in recent years. Japan,
under the leadership ofPrime Minister Abe, has sought to make more
proactive contributions to regional and international security, which
are welcomed by the United States. Leaders in South Korea have also
been taking a more proactive role on the Korean peninsula and beyond,
including supporting advanced missile defenses to better protect both
the Korean people and allied forces on the peninsula. The United States
must continue to encourage Japan, South Korea, and other allies to do
more to strengthen our alliances to address mounting security
challenges.
Question. What is the President-elect proposing, and what is the
threshold that he mentioned?
Answer. The President-elect has made clear that the United States
needs to examine the roles, missions, and cost-sharing arrangements in
each of its alliances. It is natural for allies to examine these
questions periodically to ensure that each ally is paying and doing its
fair share. No threshold level of support should apply across the
hoard. Instead, alliances should be evaluated independently to ensure
that all parties are fairly cooperating in efforts to support and
strengthen our shared alliances.
Latin America
Question. In 2016, Venezuela delivered the world's worst economic
performance in terms of GDP contraction and inflation. As the country
has moved towards economic collapse, widespread shortages of essential
medicines and basic food products have created an increasingly urgent
humanitarian situation. This situation is complicated by an
authoritarian government whose members are engaged in widespread
corruption and, in the case of some officials, direct involvement in
the drug trade. While final data is not available, the IMF projected
that in 2016, the Venezuelan contracted 10 percent and inflation
exceeded 750 percent; both figures are the highest in the world.
If confirmed, what policy tools do you recommend the U.S. use to
mitigate the growing humanitarian crisis, collapsing economy, and
significant national security concerns present in Venezuela?
Answer. The United States should continue to support legitimate
dialogue to resolve the political crisis between the Maduro government
and the opposition that now controls the National Assembly. We must
continue to denounce the Maduro government's undemocratic practices,
callfor the release of political prisoners, and enforce sanctions
against Venezuelan human rights violators and narcotics traffickers. We
should deliver humanitarian aid to mitigate food insecurity and the
shortage of medical supplies, as appropriate. U.S. assistance to
Venezuela supports the defense of human rights, the promotion of civil
society, and the strengthening of democratic institutions; however,
Venezuela is currently subject to certain restrictions. Since 2005,
Venezuela has ``failed demonstrably'' to adhere to its obligations
under international counter-narcotics agreements.
Question. The Obama Administration has worked with our Latin
American partners, both bilaterally and at the Organization of American
States. How will you work with other governments in the region to
address the challenges in Venezuela?
Answer. The growing political, economic, and humanitarian crisis in
Venezuela is of great concern to the United States and our Latin
American allies. We will engage partner nations in the region, like
Colombia, which is directly impacted by a migration crisis from
Venezuela, to improve the human rights and economic conditions in
Venezuela. We will continue to strongly support the efforts of OAS
Secretary General Almagro in invoking the Inter-American Democratic
Charter to promote the normalization of the situation in Venezuela and
restore democratic institutions.
Question. In your role at Exxon, you have repeatedly expressed
skepticism of U.S. sanctions. In the case, of Venezuela, the White
House has carried out congressionally-mandated targeted sanctions
against specific officials in the Venezuelan government that have been
involved in human rights abuses and gross public corruption. If
confirmed, will you advocate that the U.S. continue to hold Venezuelan
government officials to account, especially given the acute levels of
impunity in that country?
Answer. Yes. I will enforce all congressionally-mandated sanctions
including the measures in the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and
Civil Society Extension Act of 2016.
Question. During his tenure as former Commander of U.S. Southern
Command, General John F. Kelly repeatedly spoke about the corrupting
impact of illicit drug trafficking on democratic institutions and the
rule of law in Central America. The United Nations International
Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) and the Organization
of American States Support Mission Against Corruption and Impunity in
Honduras (MACCIH) have played a critical role in stemming corruption
and impunity in these countries.
Given your affirmative response to question G.I. in the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee questionnaire and expressed commitment to
supporting U.S. efforts globally to address corruption, if confirmed as
Secretary of State, will you commit to maintaining continued U.S.
political and financial support for CICIG and MACCIH?
Answer. Yes, we will continue to support the important anti-
corruption mission of the CICIG in Guatemala and MACCIH in Honduras. We
will also provide foreign assistance to our Central American partners
to help combat crime and impunity, promote public safety, and ensure
that citizens of those countries have access to a functioning and fair
justice system.
Middle East
Question. The war in Yemen began more than two years ago. Since
that time, more than 7,000 people have been killed, 2.2 million
children suffer from malnutrition, and at least 1,000 Yemeni children
die every week from preventable diseases. As the Saudi-led coalition
continues to bomb the country, including civilian targets such as
schools, hospitals, and funerals, the stalemate has allowed extremist
groups like al Qaeda and ISIS to take over large swaths of territory.
Should the U.S. continue to provide aerial refueling to
Saudi jets to continue bombing, or pause that kind of military
cooperation until a peace deal?
How would you work to bring about an end to this conflict?
Answer. The conflict in Yemen is deeply concerning to the United
States for humanitarian and strategic reasons. Iran is supporting the