Following his meeting with Vladimir Putin. Its what he told his Senior Leadership team to do and how he wants us to deploy his Foreign Policy strategy. And do you know if the frozen stabilization funds for syria, the 200 million, was that ever discussed . Senator, theres been we are still working to review that policy. Thats a state department policy. We are still working to review it. The policy was the same the day before as it was the day after the president s meeting with Vladimir Putin. And do you know if iran was referenced in the context of syria in their discussions . Senator, again, its not for me to disclose the contents of those conversations. I can tell you that each time ive spoken with President Trump both before helsinki summit and after iran has been a Central Point that we have focused on with respect to u. S. Policy in syria. Im confident it will remain so. So, in an interview general votel was asked about whether a deal was made on syria between President Trump and Vladimir Putin. And he said, as you indicated, that he had received no instructions to change what hes doing. And he went fourthurther on to i quote, i would want to make sure its not something we step into lightly. Im not recommending that and that would be a pretty big step at this point. In response to his comments, the Russian Ministry of defense put out a statement and also posted on social media and, again, im quoting the Russian Media. They say, ministry, i mean. With his statements, general votel discredited the official position of his Supreme Commander in chief but also exacerbated the illegality of u. S. Law and International Law of service men in syria. Can you tell me what our response has been to the Russian Ministry of defense with respect to this statement . Senator, my guess, the response would be most appropriately from the department of defense and not from the department of state but i i will humbly suggest to you to have more confidence in statements of general votel than the Russian Ministry of defense. I do have more confidence in general votels statement and seems to me that our response to the Russian Ministry of defense ought to be very strong to say, they have nothing to say about what our generals are doing in syria. Thats not their business. Thats our business. And i would hope that thats a point that we make very strongly. I had the opportunity to visit syria. A little over two weeks ago. And i was very impressed with the work that our military has been doing in northern northeast syria along the turkish border. I was very impressed with the work of the Syrian Democratic forces. And what i heard over and over again both from the men and women who were serving and from the civilian, syrian civilians on the ground was, please dont leave us here to the fate of either assad or the russians or other forces that may come in to that part of syria. And please just a little bit in help for reconstruction efforts would go a very long way. That part of syria has stabilize. Theyre in reconstruction. Theyre sending back people who have been displaced to their homes. And it would be i believe a real terrible reversal of policy for us to leave those folks after what we have done and to turn them over to the russians or to assads forces. Senator, if i might, just so the facts are clear, the Previous Administration is the one that enabled russia to have the capacity they have in syria im not defending the Previous Administration. This administration i want this administration to continue doing whats working. Its policy. This administrations policy. Youre advocating for the continuation of this administrations policy. Thats important for everyone to understand. Senator flake. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, secretary. Thank you, jeff. For your testimony. I want to commend the state department. You in particular for quick statements with regard to the nature of the conversation as it was between president putin and President Trump regarding certain individuals like mr. Mcfaul and others traveling to russia to be interrogated by the russians. State department came out and said that was inappropriate despite the president s statement of an incredible offer. It took the white house a full two days or three days to, you know, to contradict that statement that president putin had made but the state department quickly said that that was inappropriate. And so, thank you for doing that. Thanks but, senator flake, you give me little bit too much credit. Im doing my level best every day to implement the president s policies. That statement was from the United States president s state department. Okay. But the United States president said that it was an incredible offer. And so, thats why im pointing out the difference and commending you. Please take it. With regard to what else was said during that meeting, i know you have given some indication of what was discussed, let me just give a sense of how russia is characterizing that meeting and this is the problem with the private meeting like this. Many of us voiced strong concerns about having a private meeting like this with no readout. Officially. For what happened. And heres what happens when the private meeting like that is held. Vladimir putins meeting with donald trump was, quote, better than super, russias top diplomat has said. The summit was fabulous. I think that was lavrov who also said. The remarks of Russian News Agency summed up the mood that mr. Trump sided over their own intelligence agencies. Heres how one paper in russia, trump hernandez failed to dominate putin. Another said a quiet modest trump has paled in comparison with Vladimir Putin. Its clear that putin has outmaneuvered the u. S. President. Thats the Russian Media characterizing a meeting and we have no readout to dispute any of it. All we have are the statements made by the president that made an incredible offer, for example, to have former u. S. Diplomats shipped off to russia to be interrogated. Im glad to hear that one a little more time before a new meeting between the two principles. By the way, i think its good that our president and the russian president speak and meet together. Thats a good thing. I dont think its a good thing to meet in private with only interpreter present with no read out and what was characterized is only the russian side. So, you have any response or thoughts on that . So, i have a personal experience. I had a private conversation with North Koreans. We didnt issue a readout on the conversations quite intentionally and the north korean press chose to characterize it. We thought it was in americas interest not to respond tit for tat about the nature of that conversation. We knew the truth, what had taken place there. And, you know, its north korean press and so i assume that most reasonable people will discount it fairly significantly the same way one might the Russian Press. These are important decisions about how much to disclose about private conversations had and everyone knows that you may have an expectation that you will have another private conversation one day and the absence of their belief that that private conversation has the capacity to remain in that space reduces the freedom to have those conversations. I know you have had this in your life, too, senator. You have had private conversations and valued them. It was just you and someone nels that room and it was important and you didnt give anyone a readout to do that again and thought you could make Real Progress with that person. Right. Lets talk about north korea. You brought it up. You mentioned that you traveled to north korea to continue on as you put it i guess to follow up on commitments made in singapore. Lets talk about those commitments for a minute. You mentioned that they have committed to denuclearization. They may have a different readout than we do on what that entails but so far they seem to be walking back any commitment, real commitment, that was made there. What commitment, firm commitment, other than discussion of returning remains, im not discounting that. But in terms of denuclearization, what real commitments were made . Yeah. Im not going do get into the private commitments that have been shared. I dont think its fair to characterize them walking back from commitments. Remember where we were. Right . So it all depends what you draw as the projected line to say are we in a better place or a worse place than we would have been absent the singapore summit . One can draw counter factual reference. Well never know where we might have been. But i will concede there is an awful long way to go. Im not trying to oversell the accomplishments we have had toward the path of denuclearization. Theres a great deal of work to do. Its highly contested, that is the modalities and timing of this. Things to discuss for a period of time. There have been public reports and i know the United States is tracking the disassembly of a missile test site. Something chairman kim committed to orally. In his conversation with President Trump to do. Theyre beginning to dismantle that. It has to do with a missile program. It is a good thing. Steps forward. Okay. Thank you. Quickly, before the time is out, something completely different. The country of rwanda right now, you may be familiar with this because of this weeks focus on religious freedom. Yes. A move toward severe restrictions on religious freedom particularly from outside groups. What are the plans of the state department to let them know that that is not their own interests nor ours . Senator, i share your concerns. Ill need to get back to you in terms of what actions i know well call it out. I know well label it for what it is. We did need to see what it is tragic. And i share your concerns. Its a huge challenge for us. Thank you. Thank you. Senator kaine. Mr. Secretary, just a couple of thoughts. I was very discouraged at the helsinki summit when the president was basically offered a variety of question that is he hadnt engaged in hacking of the election and he basically said my own people made a great to me. Vladimir putin made a case to me. I dont see why russia would have done this. He came back and corrected it the next day in the United States but at the end he said i believe my Intel Community but theres a lot of people out there. Could have been someone else and then this dragged on for a couple of days. You know where i live. I have a lot of constituents who used to be your employees at cia. People say in virginia all the time im with the ic and theyre very demoralized by this, demoralized standing next to Vladimir Putin the president s words were to suggest that he trusted Vladimir Putin over them. There was the suggestion when President Trump said it was an incredible offer about ambassador mcfaul he was also potentially willing to throw not just intel folks under the bus but state Department Diplomats under the bus. They live in virginia, too. They feel the demoralization about your comments today that were going to go to bat for current reformer. Thats very, very helpful. But what i want to ask you about is our military. And our military leadership. Theres an article yesterday in the washington post. General dunford as of monday still hadnt been briefed on helsinki even though directly affects more than 1 million troops he oversees. Do you know why there would have been no briefing of general dunford about the discussions that took place at helsinki . Senator, you have to ask the department of defense or chairman dunford. But you dont dispute that that was you have no knowledge there was a briefing of general dunford to today about the helsinki discussion, do you . You read me a piece from post. Im asking your knowledge. Do you have any knowledge that the administration has shared discussions about u. S. Russia Military issues with the head of the United States joint chiefs of staff . Ive spoken with him about it. I was with him yesterday in a series of meetings and had a chance of a conversation about it, yes. Okay. About our absolutely. Okay. So yesterday may have been the first time he was briefed about it. I want to ask thats possible, yes. I was going to ask about general votel, the information that jeanne shaheen, senator shaheen mentioned earlier. We expressed worriness of the working with russia. This is this is an interesting statement. They went after general votel, the head of the centcom oversees military operations. With his statements, general votel not only discredited the official position of his Supreme Commander in chief, are you aware what the official position is that is being rerveferenced that statement . You have to speak to them to know. You can understand why were concerned if its being reported in Russian Press as secretary flake and senator flake and senator shaheen said talking about official positions that the president outlined. As far as you know, general votels statements did not violate any official position of the United States, did they . You seem to be giving a great deal of credit to the Russian Ministry of defense with truthfulness. I might not share that same let me ask you general votel. Great belief in his truthfulness. You do not believe that the statements made including those i read violate any official position of the United States, do you . If you would, thats best approached to general votel, department of defense. Im three orders removed flys an interesting article in Buzzfeed News just recently today that just lists a whole series of headlines and i think these are instructive, mr. Chair. Trumps headline catches pentagon off guard. Pentagon is surprised to halt military exercises. Trump signals withdrawal soon of u. S. Troops from syria. Surprising pentagon and state department. Pentagon caught by surprise by trumps travel ban uses for some iraqis to get special consideration. U. S. Joint chiefs blindsided by trumps transgender ban. Northcom caught off guard adds trump orders troops to border. If i could introduce this for the record, mr. Chairman. Without objection. I worry about an administration to take the putin position over the Intel Community. I worry about the suggestion of a great deal to consider handing over a former diplomat for questioning. I worry about an administration catching the pentagon off guard. That is not consulting with general dunford or briefing him for a week after a summit of this importance to our military. Mr. Secretary, youre aware of the ndaa prohibition currently on russian and military joint military operations, are you not . Im aware of the existence of that provision, yes. The provision prohibits any use of funds. Its in the nda. Any use of funds to support joint russian and u. S. Military exercises and the ability to undertake a National Security waiver if he thinks thats the right idea. Does the administration accept the legality and binding nature of that provision of law . Senator, i i think the dod general counsel would be the right person to ask about the nda provision to have to do with complex issues that span the gap between i think what you are getting between deconfliction and coordination. Its a complex undertaking. But you not a waiver that the state department has the authority and broadly, yes, this administration follows the law. Thats the question. You are not aware of a legal concern that the administration has about this we are going to break away from this Contentious SenateForeign Relations committee herring and go to the white house rose garden and where President Trump and Jean Claude Junker are about to speak. I appreciate our great senators and so many of the representatives for being here. Senator john boseman . John, youre here some place. Hi, john. Thank you. Senator mike crappo. Thank you, mike. Senator steve danes. Senator hoeven. Thank you. Theyre all here. Senator cindy hydesmith. Thank you very much. Senator james lankford. James . Thank you, james. Senator pat roberts. He loves those farms. He loves the farmers like i do. Representative diane black. Diane, thank you. Representative kevin brady. With our new tax bill. Hows it coming, kevin . Good . Representative mike conaway. Mike . Thank you, mike. Representative dan newhouse. Thank you, dan. Representative christie norm. I have to call her governor now. That was a great win you. That you, christie. Representative david reicher. David, thank you. So we had a big day. Very big. We met right here at the white house to launch a new phase in the relationship between the United States and the European Union, a phase of close relationship, of strong trade relations and both of us will win. Of working Better Together for Global Security and prosperity and a fighting jointly against terrorism. The United States and the European Union together account for more than 830 million citizens and more than 50 of the global gdp. In other words, together were more than 50 of trade. If we team up, we can make our planet a better, more secure and more prosperous place. Already today, the United States and the European Union have a 1 trillion bilateral trade relationship. The largest economic relationship anywhere in the world. We want to further strengthen this trade relationship to the benefit of all american and european citizens. This is why we agreed today first of all to Work Together toward zero tariffs, zero nontariff barriers and zero subsidies on non auto industrial goods. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We will also work to reduce barriers and increase trade and services, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, medical products as well as soybeans. Soybeans is a big deal. And the European Union is going to start almost immediately to buy a lot of soybeans. Theyre a tremendous market. Buy a lot of soybeans from our farmers in the midwest primarily. So, i thank you for that, jeanclaude. This will open markets for farmers, markets and increase investment and lead to prosperity in both the United States and the European Union. It will also make trade fairer and more reciprocal. My favorite word. Reciprocal. We agreed to a strengthened and strengthening of our strategic cooperation with respect to energy. The European Union wants to import more liquefied natural gas lng from the United States and a very, very big buyer. We are going to make it much easier for them but theyre a massive buyer of lng. So theyll be able to diversify their Energy Supply which they want very much to do and we have plenty of it. Thirdly, we agreed today to launch a close dialogue on standards in order to ease trade, reduce bureaucratic obstacles and slash costs dramatically. Fourthly, we agreed to join forces to protect american and European Companies from better and really better than ever we have never done like we are now. From the standpoint of the United States, we have never done this well but were going to do better after we do this deal and other deals that we are currently working on. Likewise, the European Union is going to do better, stronger, bigger. We will, therefore, work closely together with likeminded partners to reform the wto and to address unfair trading practices including intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, industrial subsidies, distortions created by stateowned nt enterprises and overcapacity. We decided to set up immediately an executive working group of very intelligent people on both sides. They will be our closest advisers and carry out this joint agenda. In addition, it will identify shortterm measures to facilitate commercial exchanges and assess existing tariff measures and what we can do about that to the betterment of both. While were working on this, we will not go against the spirit of this agreement unless either party terminates the negotiation. So were starting the negotiation right now but we know very much where its going. We also will resolve the steel and aluminum tariff issues and we will resolve retaliatory tariffs. We have some tariffs that are retaliatory and that will get resolved as part of what we are doing. And with that, jeanclaude, please. Mr. President , ladies and gentlemen, when i was invited by the president to the white house i had one intention. I had the intention to make a deal today. And we made a deal today. We have identified a number of areas on which to Work Together. Work towards zero tariffs on industrial goods. That was my main intention to propose, to come down to zero tariffs on industrial goods. We have decided to strengthen our cooperation on energy. You will build more terminals to import liquefied natural gas from the u. S. This is a message for others. We agreed to establish a dialogue on standards. As far as agriculture is concerned, the European Union can import more soybeans from the u. S. And it will be done. And wele also agreed to Work Together on the reform of wto. This, of course, is on the understanding that as long as we are negotiating unless one party would stop the negotiations we hold off further tariffs. And reassess existing tariffs on steel and aluminum. This was a good, constructive meeting. Thank you, donald. Thank you very much, jeanclaude. I just want to conclude by saying this was a very big day for free and fair trade. Very big day, indeed. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. All right. That was the president and the president of the European Commission making an announcement to agree to Work Together on important issues and go back to the Senate ForeignRelations Committee hearing with secretary of state mike pompeo. Is not korea continuing to pursue submarine launch Ballistic Missiles . I cant answer that for you. You cant answer that . No, senator. I look forward to you providing that in a classified setting so that the members of this committee and ultimately the American People can know what is happening. I think its pretty clear they are. But i will move on. Has north korea committed to you that it will destroy its chemical weapons stockpiles . The North Koreans understand precisely the definition of denukization and agreed. Have they committed to destroying chemical weapons stockpiles . Senator, we have talked about cwd and thats part of the denuclearization and understand the scope of denuclearization entails. Have they committed to destroying their biological weapons . In the same way i just destroibed, senator. They have committed . Senator, what i said is as follows. We have made very clear that the entirety of the north korean cwb program is in the denuclearization and confident they understand clearly americas definition and they have agreed to denuclearize. Does the United States have an inventory of north koreas warheads, materials, facilities and other programs . I cant answer that here. Has north korea committed to halting the human rights abuses . Senator, their human rights abuses continue today. If i might say with respect to each of the questions, each of the activities that you have described was taking place on january 19th, 2017. And we are working to stop them. In ways that were not being undertaken prior to the time the Trump Administration took office. There were fullon trade with north korea. I appreciate all that. I guess what im saying is yeah. I think its important to understand the progress we have made and the efforts we are using to stop the activity going on for decades. Im just going back to the statement made by President Trump that north korea is no longer a Nuclear Threat and im just trying to determine what that means. And im happy to help articulate is there any verifiable evidence of progress towards denuclearization . Oh, yes. Absolutely. What is verify snbl. We are sitting at the table having conversations. We have had lots of discussions im not going do get into here today but ill tell you that you discounted the destruction of the missile test enjill facility. That facility was functional, viable and operatal and in use in january of 2017. Before this administration took office. Well, that i guess just facts. You and i interpret that gesture differently. Senator, i have made no im talking about not trusting kim jongun without verifying, verifying north koreas actions. So thats really what the discussions about. What has been verified. I understand youre talking but yeah. Heres what i also understand. The United States has unexpectedly suspended military exercises with south korea. North korea hasnt started returning american war dead despite the president s announcement that the returns had already taken place. China and russia continue to export oil to north korea in violation of the u. N. Resolutions and sanctions that didnt exist before this regime took office. North korea has chemical and biological weapons and brutalizes his own people and theres no verifiable evidence that north korea is denuclearizing. Im afraid that at this point the United States, the Trump Administration, is being taken for a ride. Fear not, senator. Fear not. Theres no evidence. To the contrary. Fear not, senator. Theres no evidence. Fear not. May i . Please. I guess you didnt ask a question. You can please answer. Fear not. This administration has taken enormously constructive actions that put us in a place far better than in either of the two Previous Administrations. One democrat, one republican. We have put in sanctions unequaled. We are continuing to enforce that sanctions regime. We have made it incredibly clear to continue to enforce that regime until such time as denuclearization as we have defined it is complete. Pressure on the regime is clearly being felt. We have lots of work to do. But unlike Previous Administrations, senator, we have no intention of allowing the u. N. Sanctions, the worlds sanctions, that we led the charge to have put in place to allowing the sanctions to either be lifted or not enforced. And until such time adds chairman kim fulfills the commitment and im hopeful he will, the sanctions remain. We have not been taken for a ride. We are going to disagree. I hope you can sleep better tonight. One quick issue and something i know youre familiar with is state Department Export controls designed to help ensure that weapons dont get into the wrong hands, broad. So i want do bring to your attention a special exemption of those export control rules that the state Department Plans to use this friday. Allowing blueprints for downhillible guns online and acceptable worldwide. I dont think that we want to be in a world of hamas in the gaza has an ability to download a capacity for an ar15 to endanger security in that region and the same thing could happen around the world. I ask the state department to please reconsider this decision. I think it has longtermiNational Security and domestic security considerations for our country. You have my commitment, ill take a look at it. Senator paul. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Theres been a great deal of gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands and, you know, dozens and dozens of senators saying that the president shouldnt have met with president putin. And i guess i wonder because if somehow we have become sidetracked by partisanship because in the past president obama met with putin, george bush met with putin. The question i have is if were entering a naive time thinking unless someone is a perfect jenniferian democrat we wont meet with him. We have people saying he should have shook his fist at him and called him a murderer and a thug. Do you think theres a possibility to have a relationship and still also sit down and attempt to have diplomacy and channels so we dont escalate things . Do you think it was a right idea for President Trump to meet with president put snn. I think you asked two questions and yes to each of them. I think we can accomplish that. Meet with less than perfect citizens of the world and hopefully move the ball in the right direction and more appropriate that President Trump meet with Vladimir Putin. And my own personal opinion is i think we need to deescalate the partisan tensions in our country and look to ways to have discussions with foreign leaders and not be so simplistic that somehow they have to have a perfect record or shout and scream. I mean, i think back to reagan talking to gorbachev. He said tear down that wall and i dont mean him yelling and screaming and shaking his fist and saying, murderer, thug and reciting the stalin human rights an i bu a buss. In that vein, i think there is there seems to be a limitless appetite for more sanctions but maybe insufficient interest of describing the actions needed to remove sanctions. And so, senator rubio mentioned the deter act. I guess my concern with some of this is that the definition of who might be meddling in an election in our countrys not limited to russia. It could even include allies spending money on social media somehow in our country. It doesnt seem to differentiate between social media and actually hacking into our electoral system and changing thousands of votes. It also takes the power from the president and gives it to the director of national intelligence, this is the deter act we were talking about. I know you indicated that sanctions are probably a good idea to deter them but do you think its a good idea to take the sanction power, give it to the dni and then sanctions in place for eight hours with the president not having any ability to decide whether theres been some kind of change in behavior by the malefactors . Senator, without having seen the legislation, i do not think thats a good idea. Okay. I liked in your statement where you said the President Trump believes this nows the time for direct communication in the relationship in order to make clear to president putin that there is the possibility to reverse negative course of a relationship. I think that gets at the heart of why we have the discussions. So if you heap sanctions on and Congress Puts them on and stay on for eight years, if theres no off ramp, if theres no discussion, thiss diplomacy supposed to be about. I commend you talking to kim. Are we here to extol kims record on human rights . Obviously not. At the same time for sanctions to have an effect, you have to have negotiation. So what i would say to my colleagues who have been all over tv saying there should not have been a meeting, think again. Just keep heaping the sanctions on and you dont want any ability to talk about how to actually remove the sanctions if behavior changed. You have to have communications. Not to mention the fact we have planes flying within a mile or within 100 yards of each other in syria. We have to have open lines of communication. So what i would ask is that we try to deescalate the partisanship in our country to be open to diplomacy. One question with regard to iran. We differ on the possibility of iranian further iranian agreement. I think its much more difficult. I had my own criticisms of the nuclear agreement. I didnt think it was perfect and yet i would have tried to built upon it rather than destroy it. We had money at the time, a carrot to try to bring iran to the table. But now we have instead of one issue we have instead of a Smaller Group of issues we have a bigger issue. The Nuclear Issues back on the table and the Ballistic Missile issue. And the point that i think that we need to think through in discussions with iran is that i think iran from their perspective would see getting rid of the Ballistic Missile program as unilateral surrender. It is not my viewpoint but i believe to be their viewpoint. I think they also see saudi arabia as a great adversary and i think they see israel as a potential adversary and i dont think unless it would be great to get all three to come together and have a multilateral agreement on not developing Nuclear Weapons and Ballistic Missiles. I dont see the other two coming to the table to do that so i think in moving forward its important you understand its not easy. The first iran agreement also was a multilateral agreement. You had multilateral sanctions. You now have more unilateral sanctions and you will have a unilateral agreement, a sort of own agreement. So i just think we shouldnt be so optimistic and like to hear from you how do you what makes you believe that iran will come to the table to discuss Ballistic Missiles . Snoenator, im under no allusions of how important iran view it is Ballistic Missile program. I agree with you there. The question for President Trump is it good enough . I think he said one of the worst deals in history. I dont want to get the language wrong. So he concluded we would find ourselves in a better place with an opportunity to revisit all of these issues. Broad spectrum of issues. Not just the Nuclear Portfolio but the maligned activity around the world, all of them in a package. It did accept the understanding that there would be those not coming alongside of us and theres a coalition, not american, america alone. We have others who believe that this was the right decision, too. The israelis, the saudis, other smaller european governments, not the e3 themselves and a number of folks coa les around an understanding of how to respond to iran to take down their nuclear risk to the United States as well as the risk of the other maligned activities. Thank you. Senator udall. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you, secretary pompeo, for your service. Secretary pompeo, we have quite the record of President Trumps business relations with russia. Extensive reporting in public records show a large amount of money from former soviet states and russia in the trump projects. Trump International Tower and hotel in toronto. The trump hotel in panama. The trump project in soho in new york city are a few of the big examples here. And heres another one. A Russian Oligarch bought a property from President Trump for 95 candidate trump at the time or maybe before. For 95 million in 2008. Less than four years after President Trump paid 41 million. So he more than doubled his money. Donald trump jr. In 2008 stated at a real estate conference in new york and i quote here, russians make up a pretty disproportionate crosssection of a lot of our assets, end quote. Donald trump tried to build a trump tower in moscow for 30 years. He even tweeted in 2013, trump tower moscow is next. Thats in quotes. In 2015, answering a question from indicted russian operative and alleged spy maria butina candidate trump made clear the desires with russia stating, i would get along with putin and i dont think we need the sanctions. Now, the Russian Ambassador to the United States has said the president made and this is his quote, important verbal agreements with president putin. And he seems to know more about more about helsinki and what happened there than the Senate ForeignRelations Committee. An as we saw in helsinki and throughout his presidency and the campaign, this president is extremely sympathetic to the russian government that attacked and continues to attack our democracy and those of our allies. It is a fact of political life today that Many Americans are concerned about the unthinkable that a u. S. President could have compromised, a compromising relationship with a foreign power. President can clear this up in three simple aways. Releasing the tax returns and those of the trump organization. And the taxes from the various family businesses. Some of which we dont even know about. After helsinki, do you think that the American People deserve to know whats in President Trumps tax returns and business interests that are intertwined with russia . Senator, im going to try to stay out of the same political circus you and i ended up in last time i was sitting here. And simply respond by saying, this same president with which you seem to express such deep concern is engaged in a massive defense buildup which threatens Vladimir Putins regime. He instructed us to put together a nuclear past review that sent Vladimir Putin on the ear because of the robustness. He kicked out 60 spies. Banned i mr. Secretary, you have already no, senator, i havent begun to describe you havent answered my question. Let me try it a little different way. Wouldnt you want to know as secretary of state i mean, im taking you and your sincerity here as secretary of state whether all the russian financial interests, oligarchs and others are part of the Decision Making of the president. I mean, wouldnt you want that out in the open and understand what went on at helsinki . Its an easy kind of yes or no question. Senator, i dont need second hand understandings of what President Trump is instructing his administration to do to push back against russia. I was firsthand understandings. Well and directives. Let me ask the question a little bit differently here. We have opposed a 4 x 30 out of nato. A big setback for russia. Im happy to continue the list. Im happy to well i will submit the entirety of this administrations actions against russia for the record if i might. Please do. Well back a truck up and got it on in here. Candidate trump failed to keep his promise to disclose his tax returns. Every president ial candidate since Richard Nixon disclosed. Jimmy carter even sold his peanut farm to avoid a conflict of interest. The situation with President Trumps potential Foreign Policy conflicts of interest is unprecedented and unacceptable and under the emoluments clause i think its unconstitutional, as well. Let me ask about helsinki. You talked about what youre tasked with. The director of nation at intelligence coats stated at the Aspen Security Forum he did not know what happened in the one on one meeting in helsinki. Did the president personally debrief you on this conversation or are you 100 confident that you know everything that President Trump discussed with president put snn thats an easy yes or no. Yes or no . Im very confident i received a comprehensive debriefing from President Trump. Good. Okay. Now, do you know for a fact whether President Trump or president putin discussed any investments in Trump Properties or any trump projects such as the previous attempt to build a trump real estate project in moscow . Senator, again, im going to try to stay out of the political circus. No, but were you tasked with that . You gave us a list i came here to talk about american Foreign Policy today. All of these business interests are intertwined, sir, with our Foreign Policy. Yes. Foreign policy thats led to a massive defense buildup, Nuclear Posture review that frightened Vladimir Putin. 60 spies. 219, 213 sanctions. Let me also ask you about an additional question of helsinki. I tried to get president obama to do one of those things and was unsuccessful. When President Trump hosted top russian officials at the white house last year he bragged about how he had fired james comey at his press conference with putin President Trump called special counselor muellers investigation a disaster for the country. Can you tell us what President Trump discussed about the investigation during his private meeting with president putin . Im not going to talk about private were you tasked with anything in that respect . When im tasked about something, this committee will know you. You werent tasked with something . When im tasked by president about Foreign Policy, this committee will be made aware of it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Senator gardiner. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you, mr. Secretary, for your service and your time here today. I asked you about a question of secretary mattis of the threat of the United States and in light of developments do you agree with that . At the time you said you did. Its still a real priority. We also talked about do you believe its the most urgent National Security threat . I did but i dont recall the precise timing when i was here. I think it was in april perhaps. Yeah. So it is. The fact that were having conversations and we havent had additional missile tests and Nuclear Testing maybe its stale priority. I dont know how to think about it. Im optimistic that were headed in a path thats the right direction an we have to get the rate of change testimony you used the term final fully verified denuclearization and previous testimony you used the word permanent verifiable irreversible denuclearization. Are these the same terms . Do they mean the same thing . Precisely. Exactly . Full, complete, denuclearization according to u. S. Law and u. N. Sclougs . Yes, senator. Why the different words . Sometimes one needs to just break away. Im happy to use the term complete yeah. They mean the same thing. The cved determination, was that addressed at the singapore summit with President Trump and chairman kim . It was. And it was brought up, the complete verifiable irreversible denuclearization. Why was it not in the communique . Id rather not talk about the course of the negotiation and we arrived at the language we did. Is north korea still moving or making advancements undertaking Nuclear Program . May i answer that question in a different setting . You cant answer that question here . Yeah. Id prefer not to. Wed love to provide that setting for you soon. Happy to do it if we need to. Im happy to do that. Senator, here im not trying to be cute. Were engaged in a complex negotiation with a difficult adversary and each of the activity that is we undertake is not going to be fully apparent to the world at the moment it is undertaken and processes and discussions that will be had that are important that they not be realtimed disclosed and then its obvious why i chose not to answer one or the other and therefore it seems to me that a blanket prohibition on heading down that path is the only way to ensure that i have the opportunity to negotiate this thing in a way that isnt being done in post and the new york times. I understand. I think its an important point of information we get, though, to know whether or not north korea is either overtly, covertly, however they do it, making advancements in the program or still continuing measure of their Nuclear Program and very important for us to i did answer one question that touches on that at least. I answered a question of senator mar i c markey of creating fissule material. The goal i think was denuclearization by the end of the president s first term . Is that correct . Yes. Is that still the goal . Yes. More quickly if possible. Will we know . I dont know. I dont know the answer to that. I couldnt tell you what day. Im guessing the group would disagree of when that moment took place. That is a process, for sure. And some will find the first step along the way demonstration of i think you said substantial progress. Others may want to wait until were almost done to declare substantial progress. I cant answer that. Its a process and well take time. We have had discussions in this committee on patience. The statement you used uses patient diplomacy. Is the u. S. Doctrine of north korea still one of maximum pressure . It is. Ill tell you. Subtle and perhaps i dont want to overstate the difference in the language. Heres whats different. Strategic was in our judgment hoping that something worked right. Here we have a strategic objective backed up with a diplomatic and economic pressure and we believe gives us a pathway to achieve the objective and also an off ramp in the event to conclude that it doesnt work to head another direction to achieve the denuclearization of north korea. Its section 102 requiring the president to initiate investigations into possible designations, nskss into the possible designations of persons of evidence that theyre violating, you know, proliferating activities, et cetera so we can apply additional sections. How many investigations into new designations are taking place right now . I dont know, senator. Let me try to answer in another way and see if this meets the bill. It is the case that the administration is continuing to work on Enforcement Actions for existing sanctions for the existing sanctions regime and not let it wander out and rename a ship and get from underneath the sanctions regime. There are active enforcement work done at the state department and the department of treasury related to north korea. It is your view that there are additional north korean or chinese entities that could be identified for additional sanctions. Is that correct . . Oh, yes, sir. Absolutely. Theyre not upheld or laid off . Theyll continue . Well use them in a way to increase the likely had thao chairman kim fulfills the commitment made to President Trump. Why havent we seen any designations recently . I cant answer that question. Id like to get an answer for that if we could. Has south korea made additional requests to the United States for sanctions relief . As it relates to additional activities with north korea. So i think the request that south korea has made are public. And have occurred through the committee up at the united nations. So i think the list of thing that is the South Koreans are requesting in terms of either making sure that the activity is consistent with the sanctions regime. There are exceptions, humanitarian. Is the u. S. Considering granting the requests . We are reviewing the requests. We approved one. To the south korea. Im sorry yes. Im sorry. We approved one for a military to military communications channel. The others are under review. If we could get perhaps an understanding of what some of measures are that would be great. A very good speech july 22 on iran policy at the reagan library. To substitute the word out iran out and substitute in the word north korea, would your speech still describe the state of affairs in north korea . Boy, it was a long speech, senator. Basically i think in large part it would be consistent. There is a difference. In terms of their operational capacity for Nuclear Program but the nature of the two regimes is similar. Im out of time, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. Im going to use a little bit of my time. You obviously acquit yourself very well and those of us who know you and work with you have mostly i know many of us including i, ill say most of us, actually ill go with him. We have tremendous faith in your ability to make things happen and we thank you for all of the issues youre taking on. Youre building a great culture in the state department, bringing on people that are truly exemplary. We feel the same way about secretary mattis. The way we conducts himself and tremendous faith on both sides of the aisle an his abilities and what he does. Much of what youre hearing today has nothing whatsoever to do with you and i would agree with you that the policies that were putting in place in many cases are stronger than have ever been put in place. I agree with you. Its the president that causes people to have concerns. And i just id love to have some insights for example of the helsinki summit of an equivalence of our Intelligence Community and what putin is saying that shocks people. I mean, you can imagine you saw dan coats response and here today i think related to what he said at helsinki and then the notion of even thinking about exchanging diplomats, sending diplomats over to be interrogated by putin, to think about that, to let it be said as an official statement out of the white house to this is my opinion and i believe its right. To purposely cause the American People to misunderstand about the nato contributions and to cause them to doubt nato and to really drive Public Opinion against nato. That to me is purposeful. Not unlike what happened right after charlottesville and then article 5. To go on television and say, well, you know, why would we honor im paraphrasing. But why would we honor article 5 in montenegro . We passed a law to send two to nato. He signed it. I mean, it would be a dereliction of duty if we if he did cause that to the case. Why does he do those things . Is there a strategy of creating doubt on both sides of the aisle . Doubt in the American People. As to what his motivations are when we have tremendous faith in you . I think youre a patriot. Tremendous faith in mattis. But its the president s actions that create tremendous distrust in our nation, among our allies. Its palpable. We meet and talk with them. Is there a strategy to this or what is it that causes the president to purposely, purposely create distrust in these institutions and what we are doing . Senator, i just i disagree with most of what you said here. You somehow disconnect the administrations activities from the president s actions. Theyre theyre the one and the same. Every sanction that was in place signed off by the president of the United States. Every spy removed was directed go to the points i just made. Talk to them. Talk to them. I know what were doing. Talk to the point i just made. Heres what the world needs to know. With respect to russia, this administrations been tougher than Previous Administrations and i fully expect it will. The president s own words were hes happy to figure out if we can make improvements with respect to the relationship of Vladimir Putin and if not ill get the words wrong, hell be their toughest enemy, most difficult enemy. I think i can prove that thats the case today. I think i have. Yeah. So somehow theres this idea that this administration is free floating. This is President Trumps administration. Make no mistake. Whens fully in charge of this and directing each of these activities that is caused Vladimir Putin to be in a very difficult place today. Yeah. Well, look. I you handle yourself in exactly the way you should in my opinion as it relates to comments. I notice that you are not responding to what im saying. I think i responded to everything that you go over what no, you didnt. And the fact is that well you just didnt. Okay . We dont disagree. Run the transcript again if you want to talk about it. Well let the world decide. Its the president s public statements that create concern amongst senators on both sides of the aisle. And i was asking you if in fact there was some, you know, some rhyme or reason that this type of distrust or discord would be created in and