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. Thank you. I appreciate your comment in response to questions from senator markly and others about keeping a seat at the table through the Paris Agreement and the general approach that suggests. I believe Climate Change is a major concern for us in the long term and the short term, and that its human caused and there are actions we can and should take in response to it as a trained chemist, i respect your training as an engineer, would urge you to be a Tttentive To T science because i think it is overwhelming to this point. I do think the jpoa structure, p 5 plus 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 where the seat for the United States is still empty. There has been discussion about the South China Sea and chinas aggressive actions in building islands. The u. N. Convention on the law of the sea, decade ago, was advanced by Republican Administration but has still never been ratified by this senate. And in june of 2012, you signed a letter indicating in your role of ceo of exxon mobil, you supported 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 fourstar admirals and generals and Business Leaders and National Security leaders and former republican leaders, 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 chinas actions, which during that debate were hypothetical, today are real. Would you work to support the law of the Sea Convention if confirmed as secretary . Well, i will certainly work with the president. Weve not discussed that particular treaty. Certainly my position ive taken in the past was one from the per sti perspective of the role i had at the time. I am aware of objection people have. That is the principal objection people have. When given the opportunity to discuss this in the inter agency or the National Security council, im sure well have a robust discussion about it. I dont know what the president s view is on it and i wouldnt want to get out ahead of him. Well, let me ask about that
if i might, because i came to this hearing with a whole list of questions. And in response to others, youve 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, saudi arabia, no abandoning our neto allies. No deal with russia to accept the annex asian of cry krimea. 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. I think earlier in the day someone asked me a similar
acknowledged at this time. However, anybody who wishes to come down can do so. So, its going to be menendez, rubio, sha hee n, rubio, card in, james markly. Sounds like a pretty full third round. Im glad everybody is interested. Thank you. Mr. Tillerson, i admire your stamina. Youve been through several rounds here. And from my perspective, i hope understand while my questions may seem tough in some respects, i take my role of advise and consent of any nominee important. In your case you have a unique background coming to this job. So, trying to understand the person who is going to be the Chief Advisor to the President Elect in the meetings you just described where everybody gets around the table, but in Foreign Policy its going to be you. So, i try to get from the past a gleaming of it so i understand where youre going to be in the future. I hope you understand the nature of my questions. Let me take a quick moment. You heard a lot about cuba in proportion to things in the
senator rischs comments on iran, iran was designated a State Sponsor of terrorism in 1984 following its connection to the 1983 bombings of u. S. Marine personnels in lebanon, a horrific event. 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 the State Sponsor of terrorism. The report indicated that iran in 2015, quote, provided a range of support including financial training, equipment to terrorist groups Around The World including hezbollah. It has been brought to my aa tension that between 2003 and 2005, exxon mobil 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 10 k Annual Report with the sec
in 2006. Exxon mobil 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, quote, subject to export controls imposed on iran as a result of its absence in support of terrorism, and in pursuit of Weapons Of Mass Destruction and missile programs. It went on to say we know your form 10 k does not contain any disclosure about your operations in iran, syria and sudan, close quote. Exxons response has been transaction were legal because infinishian, the transactions did not involve any u. S. Employees. In other words, this was clearly seen 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 this sales to iran was the Iranian National oil company which is wholly owned by the iranian government. The Treasury Department of the United States has determined that that entity is an agent or affiliate of irans Islamic Revolutionary guard core. The irgc is irans main connection to its terrorist activities Around The World and pledge allegiance to irans Supreme Leader the iatola. In other words, the irgc and the foreign arm, the kuds force are the army. They are currently in syria 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 . Senator, as i indicated earlier, i do not recall the
details or the circumstances around what you just described the question would have to go to exxon mobil for them to be able to answer that. You have no recollection of this as the ceo . I dont recall the details around it, no, sir. This would be a pretty big undertaking to try to circumvent u. S. Sanctions by using what may or may not im not ready to make that determination a legal loop hole to do so. But it would be pretty significant. It wouldnt come to your level . It wouldnt come to your level that the securities and Exchange Commission raised questions with your company about lack of disclosure . That would have. Im just saying I Dont Recall 2006 would have been the first year that i would have been looking at those things. I just dont recall this is all im saying. Do you recall whether exxon mobil was doing business with three different State Sponsors of terrorism, including iran in the first place . I dont recall. Again, id have to look back and refresh myself. I would hope you would do so and i would be willing to hear your response for the record because i think its important. Moving to a different thing because its all in my sanctions field. Im trying to understand that. Regardless of whether or not you have read the bill that senator card in and i and others have sponsored in a bipartisan basis, do you believe that additional sanctions on russia, in view of everything that has been ascertained, is, in fact, appropriate . You may view that some may be more useful than others, but do you believe any additional actions in terms of sanctions on russia is appropriate for their actions . Well, i would like to reserve my final judgment on that until i have been fully briefed on the most recent cyber events. Ive not had that briefing. And as i indicated, i like to be fully informed on decisions i appreciate that. I would just say that in the public forum that you could read
or any other citizen could read, its pretty definitive by all the Intelligence Agencies of what they did. So, it just seems to me that whiem i know youre cautious and you want to deal with the facts, thats the essence of you being an engineer and a scientist and i respect that. There are some things in the public realm from which one can deduce a decision. Id like to hear your response for the record as well. When i know there is Additional Information and there are additional facts in the classified area, i would wait until ive seen all the facts. If i knew that theres nothing else to be learned and this is all the facts and theres nothing else out there, then i would say i could make a determination on because this is all we know. But as i have been told, at least im aware, there is a classified portion of this report that, when i have the opportunity, i look forward to examining that. And then ill have all the information in front of me. I have one final question, mr. Chair, but ill wait for my
next time. In order for efficacy to prevail, please go on. So, in light of efficacy, so, heres characterizes in essence my big question for you. It is an article that appeared in time magazine, and i really want to hear your honest response. Im going to quote from the record. What russia wants from tillerson is one that stops putting principles ahead of profits, focusing instead on getting the best political bargain available and treats russia as an equal. Quote, for the next four years, we can forget about america as the bearer of values, said a former Russian Energy minister who went 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
the radio host this week in moscow. Its an environment where states men 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 oil fields in the arctic. Through the canny eyes of a political deal maker, washingtons oldest commitments in europe and The Middle East could be seen in much the same way, as a stack of Bargaining Chips to be traded rather than principles to be upheld. Id like to hear your thats not you being quoted, but thats a characterization that was in one article, but beyond that its a characterization ive heard many times. And, so, to me that comes down to the core of everything ive tried to deduce in my line of questioning to you and i want to give you an opportunity to respond to it. I havent seen the article in its entirety, but ill just deal with the quotes that you read. If you conclude that thats the characterization of me, then i have really done a poor job
today because what i had hoped to do in Todays Exchange on the questions is to demonstrate to you that im a very open and transparent person. I do have strong values that are grounded in my person ideals and beliefs and the values that i was raised with, and theyre under pinned ive spoken to the boy scouts earlier this morning. Theyre under pinned by those same values, duty to god and country, duty it to others and duty to yourself. 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 dont view this as a game in any way as that article seems to imply. So, i hope, if ive done nothing else today, you at least know me better. Thank you. If theres no objection, there
has been a response from exxon mobil that my staff gave me relative to the sudan, iran, syria issue. Im going to enter it into the record if thats okay for everyone to be able to peruse. With that, senator rubio. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Tillerson. You can see the finish line, were almost there. I really just have four clarifications. I dont think theyll take long. Going back to the sanctions piece to build on what Senator Menendez just asked you, its my recollection that your testimony earlier this morning, i had asked specifically about sanctions on those who conducted Cyber Attacks against the United States. Not specifying russia in particular, just a bill that said anyone who has guilty of Cyber Attacks or infrastructure would be subject to sanctions and your answer if i recall correctly, we would want to weigh other factors. Thats why you wanted the flexibility not the mandatory language. There may be other factors to take into account such as trade
and economic 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 your recommendation to the president about whether or not to institute sanctions. Is that a correct characterization . Yes, it is. And i think the way i would try to explain this, at least why im taking this position, sanctions are not a strategy. Sanctions are a tactic. And if we are going to engage and ill use russia in this case, but i can use any other country that these sanctions would apply to. If were going to engage in trying to address a broad array of serious issues, id like to have this as a tool, as a tactic. If its already played, its not available to me as a tactic in
advancing those discussions and trying to come to some conclusion that best serves americas interests and americas National Security interest. Its a powerful tool. Id like to be able to use it tact tickly. If its already been played, its not available to me to use tactically. Okay. The second is a clarification of the exchange you had with Senator Portman about an hour or so ago. He asked you whether there was basically any sort of cooperation with iran where we may have a confluence working on iran. Thats the way we have 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 . Well, defeating isis is the one thats right in front of us and were already kooptding with them in iraq. Okay. The third question has to do with sanctions on krimea against Senator Portmans 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 wont 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 russias annex asian of krimea if the government in kiev signed off on it or accepted it as a broader deal to ensure peace and stability. Is that an accurate assessment of the testimony as i third . 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. Im not saying that that is on the table. Im merely saying i dont think thats ours alone to decide. Okay. Heres my last clarification. And its more about the hearing here today in general. In the end of the last round, at the end of questioning, you said there was some misunderstanding in alluding to human rights. You said we share the same values, but you are clear eyed and realistic about it, end quote. I want you to understand the purpose of the questions ive asked you today because they are in pursuit of clarity and realism. On the clarity i was pleased when your Statement Today used the term moral clarity and thats what weve been missing the last eight years. Thats why i asked you whether Vladimir Putin was a war criminal. 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 didnt want to compare them to other countries. I asked about the killings in the philippines. I asked about saudi arabia, being a human rights violator, which you also declined to label them. The reason was im not trying to get you involved in International Name calling, but for the sake of having moral
clarity, we need clarity. We cant achieve moral clarity with rhetorical ambiguity. I also did it in pursuit of realism because heres whats realistic. You said you didnt want to label them because it would ruin our chance to influence them or relationship with them. Heres the reality. If confirmed by the senate and you run the department of state, youre going to have to label countries and individuals all the time. You expressed todays support from the which 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 i think a lost us care about is trafficking and persons report which specifically labels countries and ranks them based on how good a job theyre doing. That concerns me because that one over the last year, the rankings and the tier system has been manipulated for political purposes. They upgraded cuba and malaysia because were working with them to improve relations. We he didnt want to have a
label out there that hurt the chances of doing that. Thats why i think its important. But heres 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. Its a big world, theres a lot of topics. These were not obscure areas. I can tell you, number one the questions i asked did not require special information we have. All these sources were built on voluminous open source reporting, rights groups, the leaders sometimes themselves when it comes to the philippines, State Department, et cetera, and so were not going off news reports alone. But the selling point for your nomination has been that while you dont 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 weve been ive been unable to get you to acknowledge the attacks on aleppo were by russia and they
would be considered under any standard human rights, somehow you are unaware of what is happening in the philippines, you are not prepared to label whats happening in china and saudi arabia, a country that my understanding youre quite aware of. Women have no rights in that country. Thats well documented. Have you visited there, anyone who has would know. I want you to understand this, too. I said this to you when we met. I have no questions about your character, your patriotism. You dont need this job. You didnt campaign for this job. It sounds like a month and a half ago, someone said you were going to be up here today, youd say thats not true. Theres only one reason for you to be sitting behind that table and thats your love for this country and your willingness to serve. I do admire that, i do. But i also told you when we met the position youve been nominated to, is in my opinion, the second most important position of the u. S. Government with all due respect to the vicepresident. It is the fashion of this country for billions of people, for hundreds of millions of people as well, and particularly for people that are suffering
and hurting. For those 1400 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 china is the largest in the world. 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 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. Thats why i asked you these questions. Thats why i ask those questions because i believe its that important for the future of the
world that america lead now more than ever. So, i thank you for your patience today. Thank you, sir. Senator sha hee n. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you for giving us some additional time. I want to just comment on senator rubios statement and Senator Menendezs because the concern i think i have listening to your testimony today is that your he will Kweeloquence Cannoe undercut. 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 that statements that the President Elect has made. So, i wont make that as a rhetorical statement. I dont know that you need to respond to that unless you would like to. But i do think thats 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. President s, including barack obama, george w. Bush, bill clinton, george h. W. Bush and ronald reagan, 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 arm states to verifiably reduce Nuclear Stockpiles . Yes, i do. Thank you. And i want to go back to Climate Change because i appreciate your recognition about the science and your concern as an engineer about wanting to have scientific evidence. I would argue that we have a lot
of scientific evidence. In New Hampshire we have a sustain Ability Institute at the university of New Hampshire that produced a report that pointed out the impact of Climate Change in New Hampshire and new england region, i wont 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. Its not snow. Thats having a huge Economic Impact in New Hampshire and other parts of new england on our ski industry, snowmobiling, maple sugar industry. And also 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 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 twopart question here with respect to subsidies for fossil fuels. The first is at this time when many of our oil companies, particularly large oil companies
like exxon are reaping very good profits, do we really need to continue these subsidies . And second, if confirmed, how would you as Secretary Of State help to fulfill our International Commitment to phase out those Fossil Fuel Subsidies . Well, since its twopart question, obviously the first part, im happy to offer a personal view on even though thats not within State Departments role to make that judgment. This just comes from my understanding of how the various tax elements and tax codes treat certain investments, certain Research Credits and whatnot. And im not aware of anything the Fossil Fuel Industry gets that i would characterize as a subsidy. Rather, its simply the application of the tax code broadly, tax code that broadly applies to all industry. And its just the way the tax
code applies to this particular industry. So, im not sure what subsidies were speaking of. If you want to eliminate whole sections of the tax code, then they wont apply to any other industries as well. I just say that as kind of a broad observation. So, as to the State Departments role, then, in participating in sum its or discussions around others taking similar action, it would be with that view in terms of how were going to apply things at home because i think the President Elects made clear in his views and his whole objective of his campaign of putting America First that he is not going to support anything that would put u. S. Industry in any particular sector at a disadvantage to its competitors outside of the u. S. , whether its Automobile Manufacturing or
steel making or the oil and gas industry. So, it would depend upon 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. Were going to break away momentarily. Senator marco rubio is outside the hearing. Hes speaking to reporters, answering questions on his tough questions of Rex Tillerson. Lets listen in. Hes been nominate today what i believe is the second most important position in the u. S. Executive branch, the second most visible american on the planet. And from a government perspective. And, so, i intend to take this very seriously. Do you think theyll be willing indication you wont actually be able to support his nomination . I wouldnt read into either one. I think it is an indication of why the hearing, from my perspective, involved the questions that it did. Its not an effort to embarrass anyone. This is a gentleman who didnt need to do this. I mean, he was headed for very comfortable retirement. And the only reason hes doing this is because he loves america and wants to serve it. And i respect that deeply and i wanted him to under it. But i also wanted him to understand these questions were designed for very specific reason, and that is that if were going to have moral clarity in our Foreign Policy, we need to be clear. And i dont want to see us move towards a Foreign Policy in which human rights only matters when nothing else matters, when something more important Isnt Standing in the way. Is it because of donald trump on these issues . This is the criteria i believe should be applied to every one of our Secretary Of States, no matter who the president may be. If he couldnt resolve your concerns in a hearing, a daylong hearing, how could he resolve your hearin resolve your concerns when the hearing is over . Im going to look at this, a very important decision. I recognize partisan split of the committee and what it all means. I have to make sure that im
100 behind whatever decision that i make because once i make it, it isnt going to change. If you make the decision to vote against him, you could staal this committee, this nomination in committee. Are you prepared to be the one republican to vote no . Im prepared to do whats right. Im not analyzing it from a partisan standpoint. I was elected by the people of florida, i have a very clear view on Foreign Policy, in my president ial race and in reelection. I swore an oath a week ago to defend and uphold the constitution of this country. My view is that the president deserves wide latitude in their nominations, but the more important the position is the less latitude they have. Its like a cone. Its really wide. In some positions as it gets higher and higher, the discretion becomes more limited and our scrutiny should become higher and i consider this the highest of them all. If you decide, would you still let it go out of the committee unfavorably or i havent analyze it this
way. Im not going to vote two different ways. All right . Senator, there are also as you know, the Intelligence Committee having intelligence from the russians about potential information that could compromise donald trump financially and personally. Have you been briefed about any of this information and are you concerned about that . As i said on the campaign, im not going to comment about anything that was procured or could potentially be the work of a Foreign Intelligence Agency to undermine a political process. So, i have trust inial the agencies involved and obviously the congress will have a role to play at some point. Not on that matter, but on anything. Im not going to comment on things like that. As a critic of russia, are you concerned about trumps ties to russia . Again, i just operate on what we know to be true and im not going to allow i think the russians have already achieved a large objective of theirs and that is to undermine the legitimacy of the of our president ial election, pit us against each other. I think theyre sitting back and saying, you know, weve got
americans fighting over our involvement in the elections. Thats perfect. It undermines their democracy. Were going to take our job seriously. Were going to work hard to get to the truth but im not going to be an active participant in furthering that division until all the truth is out one way or the other. Okay . Thanks, guys. Thank you. So there you see the news, important news. Senator marco rubio of florida basically saying hes not sure if hes going to vote to confirm Rex Tillerson as the next Secretary Of State. There are 11 republicans on the Senate Foreign relations committee, ten democrats. Jim sciutto, if he votes against, if he votes against this confirmation, that confirmation could stall as our correspondent pointed out in the committee. Thats exactly right. It would be significant, no question, and weve been sitting here watching. What had been a very smooth hearing. There were some tough questions there, but It Wasnt The Fire works some had predicted going in when Rex Tillerson was announced particularly in light of his ties to russia, a long
history of Vladimir Putin and in light of the difficulties with russia. It seemed smooth. Its interesting raising, repeatedly raising the possibility of voting against him and its interesting, its not really on the issue that we would have expected that to happen. We might have expected it to happen on russia, but we had Rex Tillerson say many times russia is not our friend, does not share our values, we have to get tougher on russia. He holds open the possibility of lets have discussions, maybe there is a way to dee escalate. He didnt come out there embracing russia. In fact, he differed with President Elect trump on the muslim ban, on giving Nuclear Weapons to u. S. Allies on a departure from neto article 5. All those issues he was mainstream. What ends up possibly tripping him up from marco rubios perspective is issues of human rights, not wanting to call out Vladimir Putin for killing civilians in syria, not wanting to call out saudi arabia for violations of Womens Rights or the philippine president duterte
for extra judicial killings, not the issue we expect we dont know whats going to happen to trip this up. He said im prepared to do whats right when asked. Will you vote to confirm Rex Tillerson as the next Secretary Of State . The people of florida elected me to do. Hes leaving it open. He is. The question sult mattly does marco rubio want to expend this Political Capital on blocking one of the Flagship Nominees for Donald Trumps cabinet. It wouldnt only be an issue for marco rubio of crossing the President Elect donald trump and his choice, but its also an issue of him crossing Mitch Mcconnell and creating an enemy at the very beginning of this new Republican Congress out of the republican leader. Does he Mitch Mcconnell promised donald trump not only would he get these nominees confirmed, but he would do so quickly without drama. This could be some drama if marco rubio were to hold up this
nomination. Does he want to create an enemy of Mitch Mcconnell when marco rubio will have priorities of his own he wants to pass through congress. He could use this to extract concessions later from mcconnell if he shows that hes thinking about this and then ultimately does support Rex Tillerson. As you point out, jim sciutto, he really wanted Rex Tillerson to say that, yes, the russians are engaged in war crimes, for example, in aleppo, in syria right now. He didnt hear that. He didnt. Deft answers i might say from Rex Tillerson. Keep in mind if he were to get through, he would be americas top diplomat. For americas Secretary Of State to say to an ally of the philippines, yes, their president is murdering people. That has import. You can understand him wanting to be diplomatic as the nations top diplomat there. But clearly not satisfying answers to marco rubio. I suppose we should give marco rubio credit that at the end of the day thats what a Confirmation Hearing is about,
about asking hard questions. He said its the the second most important job in the country. And if he feels that his conscience doesnt allow him to vote for him, then hes doing his job as a senator. Yeah, hes very passionate about these issues of human rights. You see this as part of a bigger problem potentially for maybe for some of the other Cabinet Nominees . Potentially. I mean, on all of these hearings what were seeing consistently are democrats and some republicans really looking for the issues where they can show a wedge between some of these nominees and the Republican Party and the President Elect donald trump, and there are plenty of these issues, not only russia, but in some of these other issues like nato. We talked about the Transpacific Partnership today in this hearing and tillerson said he actually does not oppose it and would suggested he would support these Multi Lateral trade agreements that donald trump has not supported. And, so, i think were really seeing sort of these fights that will continue throughout this
administration previewed in these hearings, and democrats and even some republicans are airing them in public. That could be a problem for donald trump moving forward. I want to go to our correspondent on capitol hill right now. You were right in the middle of that q a with marco rubio. The headline is he is not saying he will vote to confirm Rex Tillerson as the next Secretary Of State. Reporter absolutely, very significant what marco rubio said coming out of this hearing. He has significant concerns with tillerson and his answers through the course of this day long hearing. He said this is the second most important job in government. And as the Secretary Of State, you need to have moral clarity and speak with clarity Around The World. And he said that through the course of this hearing, he was not hearing very clear answers to very clear questions, namely about russia. At the beginning of this hearing today, rubio saying that
actually whether or not if Vladimir Putin is a war criminal, he said, do you think Vladimir Putin is a war criminal . Rex tillerson conanswer that question. Similar, through the course of the hearing, asking questions about china, one of the biggest human rights abusers, similarly mr. Tillerson said a human rights abuser. Im not sure if its one of worlds biggest human rights abusers. Questions about philippines and saudi. Rubio was not satisfied with those answers. So, wolf, if he votes no on this committee, it could be enough to stall the nomination because theres only one seat difference between republicans and democrats right now on the Senate Foreign relations committee. It could be enough to stall the nomination. There are still ways republicans could presumably avoid a deadlocked committee in which they would not be able to get the votes out of the committee. There are procedures they could do to advance the nomination to the floor and try to prove it on a full senate floor, but that is
frowned upon. It is it doesnt usually happen in the senate. We dont know if it will actually get to that point. Suffice to say if rubio votes no, it will be extremely significant. Donald trump may have to choose another nominee, especially if he does not get that approval of the Senate Foreign relations committee. So, very significant. Rex tillersons testimony did not satisfy marco rubios concerns. It is not clear what exactly will actually alleviate those concerns. Hes not going to have a chance to question him further. So, other than in written testimony. A Big Development just now outside the hearing room for marco rubio saying he doesnt know yet whether he can support Rex Tillerson. He still has significant concerns about key issues that tillerson would deal with as Secretary Of State, wolf. He said im prepared to do whats right. He refused to say whether or not he would vote to confirm. Very quickly, manu, the ten democrats on the Senate Foreign relations committee, youre working under the assumption that all of them will vote to
deny confirmation. But there are some of them who might vote yea. Reporter that is absolutely true. Its possible some democrats could turn the other way and eventually vote for mr. Tillerson. Perhaps they could save tillersons nomination. We dont know that yet. I did ask cory booker specifically, the new jersey democratic senator, are you open to supporting Rex Tillerson. And he said that he is open to it. He did not rule outvoting for Rex Tillerson. So, well see when push comes to shove how the democrats and the republicans on the committee eventually vote. But if the democrats decide to vote in unison and rubio votes no, that is big, big trouble for Rex Tillerson. And on the floor of the senate, wolf, there are also concerns from, say, lindsey graham, the South Carolina republican voicing concerns about tillersons views on russia. And if rubio votes no, im sure that could persuade lindsey graham, potentially, to vote no on the floor of the senate as
well as potentially his friend john mccain, another sharp critic of russia. Those are three republicans, all three of those republicans if they vote no, that means tillerson is not going to be the next Secretary Of State. You raise a key point, what do democrats do, they have not made a decision them self. Perhaps some of them end up voting and saving Rex Tillerson. It could come down to the wire, wolf. Some of those democrats have said they are certainly open to the possibility of voting to confirm. Senator chris coons, he hasnt decided yet but he seemed at least open to that possibility. Manu, stand by for a moment. Dana bash is with us. Dana, this could be the first major speed bump or hiccough in the major Confirmation Process for Donald Trumps potential nominees. He could. Lets just talk about kind of, i dont know if its irony or just kind of the strange situation we are in politically here with marco rubio who was one of the last of trumps primary
opponents for the presidency for the republican nomination now potentially holding the fate of his nominee for Secretary Of State in his hands. And doing so, not because of politics. I mean i think its genuine and those of us who have followed marco rubio in the senate know this is his passion, Foreign Policy is his passion. You can tell by the way that he questioned Rex Tillerson. Where he was going, he really wanted answers and the fact he talked about moral clarity and realism in the way that Rex Tillerson would conduct himself. That kind of tells you what the answer to that, about the politics. But i do think, you know, you kind of remember back to when donald trump was making fun of rubio throwing the water over his head, little marco, that is all coming to fore. Now, having said that, to your point i was actually just looking at the list of democrats on the committee, although there are ten democrats up for Reelection In Trump states in
2018. Many of them are not on this committee. A lot of, frankly, more Liberal Democrats on this committee. But it doesnt mean they wont vote like chris coons to give him who he wants to Secretary Of State. Clearly russia now, the whole relationship between the u. S. And russia, nonrelationship if you want to call it that, and the personal connection between the President Elect and putin, it puts Rex Tillerson in answering tough questions for marco rubio about war crimes, is he a war criminal, putin, for what hes done in krimea, in syria, in aleppo. It puts him in a very awkward position. You kind of saw Rex Tillerson strike that balance, walk that fine line between giving a nod to senators telling them what they wanted to hear which is, yes, russia is an adversary. I think he went further in a lot of places than donald trump did, calling russia adversary. Saying he did believe russia
putin probably was behind the hacking. By saying that their actions in krimea were illegal. He definitely didnt want to go as far as to kind of personally criticize putin, talk about any actions that they might take against putin. And i thought it was very interesting. In addition to that, he was saying, listen, i know russia. I know Vladimir Putin, and im going to know how to talk to him. I know what they want. What do they want . They want to create their sphere of influence. They want influence in the world, and this is why theyre going into krimea. This is why theyre going into syria. If you can give a nod to how they are trying to spread their influence and try and bring them to the table, then he thinks that there may be a more constructive relationship. And he also said that the u. S. Needs to get tougher with russia, which i thought was ironic because President Elect trump is talking about better relations. He said in ukraine that they should have the u. S. Should have shown a more robust military posture, that russia
accepts and respects strength and the u. S. Needs to be a lot stronger. And as he did throughout the hearing, he was talking about weak leadership by the Obama Administration for not standing up to putin and kind of said, look, the reason we are where we are now is because of weak leadership. I want to be precise. The current Secretary Of State, and you covered john kerry, the State Department right now, they have not called putin a war criminal. Have they they havent called putin a war criminal. Secretary kerry has been very careful. These are legal definitions that the lawyers have to sign off on. He has gone very far up to the line to say that it looks as if war crimes have been conducted and these should be investigated and he has been not shy about criticizing vladmir putin. He has not branded the war criminal before the International Criminal court. Enter it has said it does appear that war crimes were committed by syria and russia and they
should be look into. Didnt skirt the line but looked up to it. Tillerson has a close relationship with russia. Listen to this exchange with tillerson before the Foreign RelationsCommittee Earlier this morning on russia. I think what we are witnessing is an assertion on their part to force a conversation about what is russias role in the global world order. The steps being taken are simply to make that point. Russia is here. Russia matters. They are a force to be dealt with. Thats a fairly predictable course of action. The important conversation 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. Our Value Systems are starkly different. We do not hold the same values. I also know the russian people. There is scope to define a different relationship that can bring down the temperature around the conflicts we have today. A very diplomatic response. Those were questions posed by marco rubio. Rex tillerson here have drew all these Issues Prebted a very mainstream policy for the u. S. Very consistent on russia. Bush tried it, obama tried it. Try today get friendly. It didnt work. The muslim ban, something that
donald trump on the Campaign Trail held out that possibility. So you have a very mainstream guy, a very bipartisan Foreign Policy there which puts him in direct contradiction with his president. Does that pull the president towards the center. Is this an indication this doesnt show his plans. I think it is the latter. When everything that i have heard, a big part of the goal of the transition and frankly of donald trump himself was to get people whom he considers peers so he does have the respect to listen to him. If Rex Tillerson does come to donald trump with what you call a mainstream Foreign Policy that perhaps he will let Rex Tillerson kind of lead the way on that. Obviously, there are very
specific issues where they do differ. That will be fascinate tog see. The big point we were talking about in a lot of the hearing and this Press Conference that trump had this morning on russia, the question going in was whether it was going to be Rex Tillersons achilles heel has done this so well and gotten an awrd. Even if it stalls, they have procedures to bring it up for a floor vote and see what happen when is all 100 members of the senate vote . It is very rare. I believe the last time they this this was john volt when he was a nominee to be an ambassador. It was stalled in the committee for a very long time. They just circumvent the committee and put it on the senate floor. It doesnt happen very much for a reason. The leadership of both parties
and the senators themselves want to give deference to the committees. Thats why they exist. I think you need to remember, john bolt, who most of this committee did not want was one of the main candidates for Secretary Of State now for deputy. Be careful what you wish for. If marco rubio does not vote in Rex Tillerson and the President Elect is force td d t look to someone else, he may look to john bolton. We are going to take a quick break and resume our special coverage. Much more coming up right after this