President has gotten some concessions from the european 81 june that would avoid a trade war. Theres no way to confirm this. The two have been talking about ways they could get around their differences. The president proposed in the europeans seemed to be open to lowering tariffs on both sides. The president says to zeros. The europeans says not quite zero but we would be open to that as well. If it looks like they have struck a deal, that would lift stocks, which was happening. Were monitoring that. When they come to the podium, well take you there. Now back to this Senate Grilling of mike pompeo. Senator, its not for me to discuss the contents of those conversations. I can tell you each time that ive spoke with President Trump before helsinki and after, iran has been a Central Point that weve 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. He said, as you indicated, that he received no instructions to change what hes doing. He went further to say and i quote, i want to make sure this isnt something that we stepped into lightly. Im not recommending that and that would be a 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 Russian Media, they ministry, they say that that would not only affect his position of supreme commanderinchief but exacerbated the illegal law and u. S. Law of the military presence of the american servicemen in syria. Can you tell me what our response has been to the Russian Ministry of defense with respect to this statement . My guess the response would be most appropriately from the department of defense and not from the department of state. But i will humbly suggest to you that you ought to have more confidence in statements from general votel than the Russian Ministry of defense. I do. But our response should be 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. I was very impressed with the work that our military has been doing in northeast syria, along the turkish border. I was very impressed with the work of the Syrian Democratic forces. What i heard over and over again, both from the men and women that were serving and from the 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. Please just a little bit in help for reconstruction efforts would go a very long way. That part of syria has stabilized. Theyre in to reconstruction. They are sending back people that have been displaced to their homes. 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 assads forces. So i might, the Previous Administration is the one that enabled russia to have im not defending the Previous Administration, mr. Secretary. I want this administration to continue doing what is working. This administrations policy. Youre advocating for this administrations policy. Its important for every one to understand. Senator flake. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, secretary, for your testimony. I want on the commend the state department, you in particular, for a quick statement with respect to the nature of the conversation action it was between president putin and President Trump regarding certain individuals like mr. Mcfall and others traveling to russia to be interrogated by the russians. The white house took three days to contradict the statement that there was an offer, that president putin made, the state department quickly said that that was inappropriate. So thank you for doing that. Senator flake, you gave me 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. The United States president said that it was an incredible offer. So thats why im pointing out the difference in commending you. Please take it. With respect 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. This is the problem with a private meeting like this. Many of us voiced strong concerns about having a private meeting like this with no readout officially for what happened. Heres what happens when a private meeting like that is held. Vladimir putins meeting with trump was better than super russias top diplomat has said. He said the meeting was fabulous. That was lavrov that said that. The remarks reported by russian News Agencies summed up the mood that mr. Trump sided with the kremlin over his own intelligence agencies, so theyre reporting that as well. Heres how one paper in russia characterized it. Trump has failed to dominate putin. Another tabloid said its clear that putin has outmaneuvered the u. S. President. Thats the Russian Media characterizing the meeting. We have no readout to dispute it. All we have are the statements by the president that they made an incredible offer to have former u. S. Diplomats shipped off to russia to be interrogated. Im glad to hear that a little more time will be had before a meeting take place. By the way, i think its good that our president and the russian president speak and meet together. Its a good thing. I dont think its good to meet in private with an interpreter present with no readout so whatever is characterized is only characterized by the russian side. You have any response or thoughts on it . I have a personal experience. I had a private conversation with north koreans. We didnt issue a readout on the conversations quite intentionally. The north korean press chose to characterize it. We thought it was in americas best interest not to respond tit for tat about the nature of that conversation. We knew the truth. We knew what had taken place there. You know, its the north korean press. So i assume that most reasonable people will discount it fairly significant the same way one might the Russian Press. These are important decisions about how much to disclose about private conversations were had because everyone knows you may have an expectation that youll 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 i know you had private conversations and you valued them. You and someone else in that room and it was important. You didnt give anyone a read out from it because you wanted the chance to do it again. You thought you could make Real Progress with that person. Lets talk about north korea. You brought it up. You mentioned that you traveled to north korea to continue on as you put it to follow up on commitments made in singapore. Lets talk act those commitments for a minute. You mentioned they have committed to denuclearization. They may have a different readout than we do on what that entails. So far they seem to be walking back any 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 to 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 . It all depends what you draw as the projected line to say are we in a better place or a worse place than we would have been absent the singapore summit. One can draw a counter factual references. Well never me where we might have been. I will concede, theres a long way to go. Im not trying to oversell the a accomplishments that weve had. Theres a lot of work to do it will be highly contested, the modalities, the means, the testing of this. Things well discuss for a time. Theres public reports and i know the United States is tracking the disassembly of a test engine site. Something that chairman kim committed to orally. It wasnt in the written agreement. Chairman kim committed in his conversation with President Trump to do. Theyre beginning to dismantle that. It has to do with their missile program. Its a good thing. Steps forward. Thank you. Quickly before the time is out, the country rwanda right now you may be familiar with this because of this weeks focus on religious freedom. Yes. Has indicated a move to severe restrictions on religious freedom from outside groups. What are the plans of the state department to let them know that that is not in their own interests, nor ours . Senator, i share your concerns. Ill have to get back to you in terms of what actions. Well call it out and well label it for what it is. We do need to see what it is tragic and anyway, i share your concerns. Its a huge challenge. Thank you. Senator cain. Thank you. A couple thoughts. I was very discouraged at the helsinki summit when the president basically was offered a choice in some of the questions that he believed u. S. Intel or did he believe Vladimir Putin, that he had engaged in hacking of the election. He basically said my own people made a great case to me. Vladimir putin has made a great case to me. I dont see why russia would have done this. He came back and corrected it the next day. In the end, he said i believe my intel community. Theres a lot of people out there that could have been someone else. This dragged on for a couple days. You know where i live. You know i have a lot of constituents that used to be your employees at the cia. People come up to me all the time and say im with the i. C. And theyre very demoralized by this. Theyre very demoralized that when standing next to Vladimir Putin, the president s words were to suggest that he trusted Vladimir Putin over them. There was a suggestion when President Trump said it was an incredible offer about ambassador mcfall this 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 of that. What i want to ask you about is our military. Our military leadership. There was an article yesterday in the Washington Post general dunford, chairman of the chiefs of staff, as of monday, general dunford has not been briefed on helsinki. Do you know why theres been no briefing of general dunford about the discussions that took place . Senator, you have to ask the dense of defense or chairman dunford. You dont dispute you have no knowledge that there was a briefing of general dunford about the helsinki you read me a piece from the Washington Post. Im asking your knowledge. Do you have any knowledge that the administration has shared discussions about u. S. Russiaish europeans with the joint chief of staffs . Ive spoken with chairman dunford about it. I was with him yesterday. We had a conversation about it, yes. About our plan. Absolutely. So yesterday may have been the first time he was briefed about it. Im going to ask about general votel, the information that senator shaheen mentioned earlier. He expressed weariness about working with russia and the Russian Defense ministry. This is an interesting state. They went after general votel, the head of centcom that oversees military operations in the middle east. He dis credcredited the officia position of the commanderinchief. Do you know what that is . You have to speak with the Russian Ministry of defense to know. You can understand why were concerned. If its being reported in the Russian Press and secretary flake and senator shaheen said theyre talking about official positions that the president has outlined. As far as you know, general votels statements did not violate any information position of the United States, did they . You seem to be giving a great deal of credit to the Russian Defense. Let me ask you about general votel. I dont have i have great belief in his truthfulness. So you dont believe any of the statements hes read violate any official position of the United States, do you . If you would, best approach general votel and the department of defense. If i could introduce for the record, theres an interesting article in buzz feed news recently today. That just list as whole series of headlines. These are struckive, mr. Chairman. Trumps announcement that he will end u. S. Korean drills catches the pentagon off guard. Pentagon caught off guard by space force announcement. Trump signals withdrawal of troops from syria spenting pentagon and state department. Pentagon caught surprise by trumps travel ban pushes for summer rockies to get special consideration. U. S. Joint chiefs blindsided by trumps transgender ban. Northcom caught off guard. If i could introduce this. No objection. I worry about the administration that would suggest that it might be a great deal to consider handing over a former diplomat for questioning. I worry about an administration that is catching the pentagon off guard. That is not consulting with general dunford or briefing him for a week after a summit of this importance to our military. Mr. Secretary, youre aware of the nda prohibition on russian and military russian and u. S. Joint military operations, are you not . Im aware of the existence of that provision, yes. The provision prohibits any use of funds in the nda, any use of funds to support joint russian and u. S. Military operations and gives the secretary of defense the ability to undertake a National Security waiver if he thinks that that is the right idea. Does the administration accept the legality and binding nature of that provision of law . Senator, i think the dod general counsel would be the right one to ask about complex issues that span the gap between i think what youre getting between and coordination. Its a complex undertaking. Not a waiver that the state department has the authority. More broadly, yes, this administration follows the law. If thats the question. Sitting here today, youre not aware of a legal concern that the administration has about this nda provision, are you . Im not aware of one. Youre not aware that the secretary of defense has issued any waiver to allow u. S. Russian military joint neil were going to breakaway momentarily from the grilling of the secretary state and to a trade deal potentially with europe. Senator john bozeman. Thank you. Senator mike crapo. Thank you. Senator steve danes. Theyre all here. Thank you. Senator cindy hyde smith. Thank you. Senator james langford. 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. How is it coming, kevin . Good . Representative mike conway. Representative dan newhouse. Thank you. Representative christy norm. I have to call her governor now. A great win. Thank you. Representative david rychert. 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. Strong trade relations in which both of us will win. Were fighting jointly against terrorism. The United States and the European Union have more than 50 of the global gdp. Together were more than 50 of trade. If we team up, we can make our planet a more secure and prosperous place. Already today the United States and the European Union have a 1 trillion bilateral trade relationship, the largest commit 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 first of all to Work Together to w. Toward zero tariffs, zero nontariff barriers and zero subsidies on nonauto industrial goods. Thank you. [applause] thank you. We will also work to reduce barriers that increase trade and services, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, medical products and soy beans. Soy beans is a big deal. The European Union is going to start almost immediately to buy a lot of soy beans. Tremendous market. Buy a lot of soy beans from our farmers in the midwest primarily. So i thank you for that, jeanclaude. This will open markets for farmers, increase investment and lead to greater prosperity in both the United States and the European Union. It will also make trade fairer and more reciprocal, my favorite word. Secondly, we agreed to a strengthened and strengthening of our strategic cooperation with respect to energy. The European Union wants to import more liquified natural gas, lng from the United States and theyre going to be a very, very big buyer. Were going to make it much easier for them. Theyre going to be a massive buyer of lng so they will diversify their energy supply. They want that very much. We have plenty of it. Thirdly, we agree 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 weve never done like were doing i can say from the stabbed point of the United States. Weve never done this well but were going to do better after we do this deal and other deals that were currently working on. Li likewise, the European Union is going to do better, stronger. Were going to work 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 Enterprises and overcapacity. We decided to set up immediately an executive working group of very intelligent people on both sides. It will be our closer advisers and theyre going to 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. 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. That will get resolved as part of what were doing. 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. We made a deal today. We have identified a number of areas on which to Work Together. Work to have zero tariffs on industrial goods. That was my main intention, to propose to come down to zero tariffs on industrial goods. Weve decided to strengthen our cooperation on energy. You will import liquid final 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 soy beans from the u. S. And it will be done. We also agreed to Work Together on the reform of the wta. This, of course, is on the understanding that as long as were negotiating, unless one party would stop the negotiations, we will hold off further tariffs and reassess existing tariffs on steel and alumin aluminum. This was a good constructive meeting. Thank you. Thank you very much, jeanclaude. [applause] i just want to conclude but 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. Mr. President , why did you cancel the meeting with Vladimir Putin, sir . Did Michael Cohen neil this is a Stunning Development on trade. If you just tuned in, the europeans might be deemed have blinked. They have made concessions to President Trump, the European Union delegation, which included jeanclaude juncker, the European Commission president , has met the president s demands to lift tariffs that are already in effect against the European Union. They will be lifted while they sort out these differences and commitments on the part of the europeans. We are told dow jones is reporting as well that they will work with the administration to lower industrial tariffs, that this will happen on both sides of the atlantic and that they will, the europeans more to the point, increase their shipments of liquefied natural gas from the United States. That will also include more promise soy beans purchases from the European Union and their regulatory standards, to hear a lot of u. S. Businesses have tell us, have been more onerous and more in line with those in the United States generally considered to be looser and more acceptable. Both sides apparently have finetuning the specifics on this, but it would appear that it works with the goal the president said to eventually secure zero tariffs on nonauto products with the goal beyond that to start extending that to autorelated products. This at a time some of the major european auto manufacturers have said that they would be open to doing just that if the European Union was open to doing that. Apparently this is a sign on the part of the European Union officials that they are. This is a major win for President Trump and for the European Union to change their s structure to buy more from the United States. Awhile ago, they were poopooing from this. Many said the president had run rough shot here. This is still an agreement that will require a lot of aggressive policing but will set the stage in a rather dramatic sense for rollback of tariffs on nonauto products, the likes of which the president has said we have not seen. The devil is in the details and the exact concessions. But for the president of the United States as the secretary of state is being grilled on capitol hill, a win and a big one economically. The hint of this today was lifting stocks up 172 points. Now back to the grilling. Were sitting at the table having conversations. We had lots of discussions that im not going to get to today. You discussed the destruction of the missile engine facility. It was functional, viable and operational and in use of january 2017 before this administration took office. I just just a fact. You and i interpret that gesture differently. Im talking about not trusting kim jongun without verifying actions. Thats what the discussion about. What has been verified. I understand youre talking. Heres what i also understand. The United States has suspended military exercises with south korea. That north korea hasnt started returning american war dead despite the 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 sanctions that didnt exist before this regime took office. And north korea still has chemical and biological weapons and brutalizes its own people. Theres no verifiable evidence that theres no denuclearization. Im afraid 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. I guess you didnt ask okay. Fear not, this administration has taken enormously constructive actions that have put us in a place that is far better than in either of the two Previous Administrations, one republican, one democrat. We put sanctions in place that is unequalled. Were continuing to enforce that. We made it clear that we will continue to enforce sanction regime until such time as denuclearization as we defined it is complete. Pressure on the regime is clearly being felt. We have lots of work to do. Unlike Previous Administrations, senator, we have no intention of allowing the un sanctions, the worlds sanctions, that we led the charge to have put in place to align those sanctions to either be lifted or not enforced. Until such time as chairman kim fulfilled the commitsment, that im hope he will we have not ben taken for a ride. I hope you is sleep better tonight. One quick issue that i know youre familiar with. The state Department Export controls that are designed to help ensure that weapons dont get in the wrong hands abroad. I want to bring to your attention an exemption that the state Department Plans to issue this friday. That i will allow blueprints for downloadable plans to be published online and acceptable worldwide. I dont think that we want to be in a world where hamas and gaza has an ability to download a capacity for an ar15 that could endanger security in that region and the same thing could happen around the world. I ask the state department to please reconsider this decision. It has National Security and domestic security concerns for our country. You have my commitment. Ill take a look at it. Thank you for your testimony. Theres been a great deal of gnashing of team and wringing of hands and dozens of senators saying the president shouldnt have met with president putin. I wonder because if somehow weve been sidetracked bipartisanship. Because in the past, president obama met with president putin. President george bush met with putin. I guess the question i have whether or not were entering into a naive team that if somebody is a perfect jeffersonian democrat that we shouldnt meet with him. Some suggest he should call him a murderer and a thug. You think theres a possibility that we can have a relationship where we criticize the human rights records of other countries and still sit down and attempt to have diplomacy to dont escalate things . You think it was the right idea for President Trump to meet with president putin . You asked two questions. Yes, we can accomplishment. We can meet with less than perfect citizens of the world. I think it was more than appropriate. And my personal opinion we need to deescalate the partisan tensions in our country and look for ways with discussions with foreign leaders and not to shout and scream. I think back to reagan talking to gorbachev. He said tear down that wall. I dont imagine reagan yelling and shaking his fist and saying murderer and thug and talking about human rights abuses. Theres a difference for anybody that thought about this between sitting down and how diplomacy would occur and reciting a litany of human rights abuses. In that vane, theres a limitless appetite for more sanctions but insufficient interest there is to remove sanctions. So senator rubio mentioned this deter act. I guess my concern with this, the definition of who might be meddling in an election in our country is not just limited to russia. This could include allies that spend money on social media in our country. Doesnt seem to differentiate between social media and hacking to our electoral system and changing thousands of votes. It also takes the power away from the president and gives it to the director of National Intelligence. This is the deter act were talking about. I know you indicated sanctions are probably a good idea to deter them. You think its a good idea to take the sanction power, give it to the dni and the sanctions have to remain 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 mall factors . Without have seening the legislation, i dont think thats a good idea. I liked in your statement where you said President Trump believes now is the time to make clear to president putin theres the possibility to reverse the negative course of our relationship. That gets at the heart of why we have these discussions. If you heap sanctions on and Congress Puts them on and they can never come off, if theres no off ramp, if theres no discussion, thats what diplomacy is supposed to be about. I commend you for talking to kim. For sanctions to have an effect, you have to have negotiation. So what i would say to my colleagues that have been all over tv saying there should not have been a meeting, think again. Just keep heaping these sanctions on and you dont want any ability to talk to the adversary about how we would actually remove the sanctions if behavior changed. You have to have communications. Not to mention the fact that we have planes flying within a mile within each other in syria. We have to have open lines of communication. We need to deescalate the partisanship in our country to be open to some diplomacy. One question with regard to iran. You and i differ on the iranian 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. Yet i would have tried to built upon it rather than destroy it. We had a lot of money that was a carrot to bring iran to the table. Now instead of one small group of issues, we have a bigger group. The Nuclear Issues are back on the material and the Ballistic Missile issue. The point that i think that we need to think through in discussions with iran, i think iran from their perspective would see getting rid of their Ballistic Missile program as basically unilateral surrender. Its not my viewpoint. I believe what their viewpoint is. They see saudi arabia as a great adversary and israel as an adversary. So if you get all three together and say lets get rid our missiles, they wont do that. So moving forward, its important that you understand this isnt going to be easy. The first iran agreement also was a multilateral agreement. You had multilateral sanctions. You have more unilateral sanctions and a unilateral agreement that is your own agreement. So i think we shouldnt be so optimistic. Id like to hear from you how you what makes you believe that iran will come to the table to discuss Ballistic Missiles . Senator, im under no illusions about how importance iran views their Ballistic Missile program. I agree with you there. The question that President Trump phased, was the agreement good enough. He said it wasnt. It was one of the worst deals in history. He thought we would be better off to revisit the issues, the missile program, their maligned activity around the world in a packa package. He did accept the understanding there would be those that wouldnt come with us. But its a coalition. Its not america and america alone. The israelis, the saudis, other smaller european governments. Theres a number of folks begin doing coalesce and how we can take down the nuclear risk to the United States and these other maligned activities. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, secretary pompeo, for your service. Secretary pompeo, we have quite the record of President Trumps business relations with russia, extensive reporting and reportings show a large amount of money from former soviet states and russia into trump projects. Trump international to youner toronto, the trump hotel in panama. Those are a few big examples here. Heres another one. A Russian Oligarch bought a property from candidate trump for 95 million in 2008. Less than four years after President Trump paid 41 million. He doubled his money. Donald trump jr. In 2008 stated that a real estate conference in new york and i quote here, russians make up a pretty disproportionate Cross Section of a loss of our assets. 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. 2015, answering a question from indicted russian operative and alleged spy maria butina, candidate trump made clear his desires with russia saying i would get along with putin and we dont need the sanctions. The president said they made important verbal agreements with president putin. He seems to know more about helsinki and what happened there than the Senate Foreign relations committee. 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. Its a fact of political life that Many Americans are concerned about the unthinkable that a u. S. President could have compromised a compromising relationship with a foreign power. The president could clear this up. Releasing the tax returns and those of the trump organizations and the taxes from the various family businesses, some of which we dont know about. After helsinki, do you think that the American People deserve to know what is 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 that you and i ended in last time i was sitting here. 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 Posture review that set Vladimir Putin on his ear because of its rebust i we put mr. Secretary, youve already no, i havent begun youve already you havent answered my question. Let me try it a different way. Wouldnt you want to know as secretary state i mean, im taking you in your sincerity here, secretary of state, whether all of these russian financial interests, oligarchs and others are part of the Decision Making of the president . Wouldnt you want that out in the open and to understand what went on . Its helsinki. Its an easy, yes or no question. I dont need secondhand understands what President Trump is instructing his administration to do to push back against russia. I have first hand understanding. Well and direct. And we proposed nordstream 2, we got a im happy to continue the list. I will submit the entirety of this administrations actions against russia for the record, if i might, will back a truck up and get it in here. Candidate trump has failed to keep his promise to disclose his tax returns. Every president ial candidate since Richard Nixon has disclosed. Jimmy carter sold his peanut farm to avoid a conflict of interest. The interest with President Trumps potential Foreign Policy conflicts of interest is unprecedented and unacceptable. Under the emoluments clause, its unconstitutional as well. Let me just ask a couple questions about helsinki. You talked about what youre tasked with. The director of National Intelligence coats stated at the Aspen Security Forum said he didnt know what happened Nuclear Weapons helsinki. Did the president personally brief you . Are you 100 confident that you know everything that President Trump discussed with president putin . Thats a very easy yes or no. If you dont want to answer it, ill move on. Yes or no. Im very confident that i received a confident debriefing from President Trump. Good. Okay. 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 stay out of the political circus. That question gets political were you tasked with that . You gave us i came here to talk about american Foreign Policy. I attempted to articulate all of these business interests are entwined, sir, with our Foreign Policy. Yes, the Foreign Policy that led to a massive defense buildup, a Nuclear Posture review that has frightened Vladimir Putin. 60 spies 213 sanctions. Let me also ask you about an additional question on helsinki. When i was a member of congress, i tried to get president obama to do one of those things and unsuccessful. The president bragged about how he 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 talked about something about american Foreign Policy, this committee would know. You werent tasked when im tasked with something by the president relating to Foreign Policy, this committee will be made aware of it. Thank you. Senator gardner. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Secretary for your service to the country and your time with us today. When you were last here, i asked about whether or not you agreed with secretary mattis that north korea is the most urgent Security Threat that the United States faces. Do you still agree with that at the time . You said you did. Yeah, still a real priority. We also do you believe its the most urgent National Security threat . I do. But having said that, i dont recall the precise timing when i was here. I think april perhaps. So it is. If fact that were having conversations and we havent had additional missile tests and Nuclear Testing maybe its still a priority. I dont know how to think about it. Im optimistic that were headed in a path is the right direction. You used the term final fully denuclearization. You used denuclearization. Are they all the same terms . Yes. Denuclearization according to u. S. Law and security resolutions . Yes. Why the different words . Sometimes one needs to just breakaway. Im happy to use the term complete verifiable denuclearization. They mean the same thing. The determination, was that addressed at the singapore summit with President Trump and chairman kim . It was. The cvid, why was it not in the communique . Id rather not talk about the course of the negotiations and how we arrived at the language we did. Is north korea still making advancements to undertake a Nuclear Program . May i answer that question in a different setting . You cant answer that question here . Yeah, id prefer not to. We would love to provide that soon. Happy to do it if we need to. Im not trying to be cute. Were engaged in a complex negotiation with a difficult adversary. Each of the activities that we undertake is not fully apparent to the world at the moment its undertaken. Will there will be processes and discussions. Its important that theyre not disclosed. As i answer one question and choose not to answer another, its obvious why i chose not to answer one or the other and therefore it seems 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 the Washington Post and the new york times. Its a very important point of information that we get though, to know whether or not north korea is either overtly covertly, however theyre doing it, making advancements in their Nuclear Program and still continuing a measure of their program. I did answer one question that touches on that at least. I answered a question from senator markey and whether theyre continuing to create fissile material. I answered that they are. The goal originally i think was complete verifying denuclearization by the end of the president s first term. Is that correct . Yes. Does that remain the goal. Yes. More quickly if possible. When will we know if theyre moving towards denuclearization . I dont know. I dont know the answer to that. I couldnt tell you what day. Im guessing this group would disagree about when that moment took place that is a process for sure. 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. So i cant answer that. Its definitely a process and it will take time. Weve had a lot of discussions on strategic patience. The statement you used uses patient diplomacy. Is the u. S. Doctrine to north korea one of maximum pressure . It is. That difference is subtle. I dont want to overstate the difference in the language. Heres whats different. That was standing around hoping that something worked right. Here we have a strategic objective backed up with diplomatic and economic pressure, which we believe gives us a pathway to achieve the objective and also an off ramp in the event that we conclude that it doesnt work to head ott direction to achieve the denuclearization of north korea. Maximum pressure requires the president to initiate investigations to possible designations investigations of possible designations of persons upon evidence that theyre violating proliferating activities, et cetera. How many investigations into new designations are taking place right now . I dont know how many, senator but let me try to answer your question another way. Its the case that this administration is continuing to work on Enforcement Actions for existing sanctions for the existing regime. That is were not going to let it weaken. You cant rename ship and get out from under the sanctions. Theres active work at the state department and the department of treasury related to north korea. Its your view there are additional north korean or chinese entities that could be identify for additional sanctions . Yes, sir. The designations are not being upheld or laid off . They will continue . Were going to use them in a way to make sure that chairman kim fulfills the commitment he made to the president . We havent we seen any designations recently . I dont have an answer. Id like to have one. Has south korea made additional requests to the United States for sanctions relief . As relates to additional activities with north korea. 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 things that the South Koreans are requesting in terms of either making sure that their activity is consistent with the sanctions regime. Theres humanitarian exceptions. Is the us is considering any of them . Were reviewing each of the requests. We approved one. To south korea. Yes. We approved one that had to do with a military to military communications channel. Others are under review i. If well get an understanding of what some of those measures are, that would be great. You gave a good speech sunday, july 22 at the Reagan Library on iran policy. If you were 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. Theres a difference in terms of their operational capacity for the Nuclear Program. Nature of the two regimes is similar. Im out of time. Thank you. Before turning to im going to use some of my time. You obviously acquit yourself very well. Those of us that know you and work with you have mostly, i know, most of us, including me, ill say most of us actually actualactually we have tremendous fate for making things happen. Youre building a great culture in the state department, bringing open people that are exemplary. We field the same way about secretary mattis. We have abilities in what he does. Much of what youre hearing today has nothing whatsoever to do with you. I would agree with you 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. Id love to have some insights to you as to, for instance, at the helsinki conference create an equivalence between our Intelligence Agency and what putin is saying that shocks people. You can imagine. You saw dan coats respond afterwards. You today candidly related to what he said at helsinki. The notion about exchanging diplomats. Sending diplomats over to be interrogated by putin. To think about that, to let that be said as an official statement out of the white house. This is my opinion. I believe its right. To purposely cause the American People to misunderstood about the nato contributions and to cause them to doubt nato and to really drive Public Opinion against nato. That to me was purposeful, not unlike what happened after charlottesville. Article 5, to go on television and say, you know, why would we honor im paraphrasing. Why would we honor article 5 in montenegro . We passed a law to ascend them to nato. He signed it. I mean, it would be a dereliction of duty if he did cause that to be the case. So why does he do those things . Is there some strategy behind creating doubt and u. S. Senators minds on both sides of the aisle, doubt in the American People as what his motivations are when we in fact have tremendous faith in you . I think youre a patriot. Tremendous faith in mattis. Its the president s actions that create tremendous distrust among our allies. Its palpable. We meet and talk with them. Is there a strategy to this . What is it that causes the president to purposely, purposely create distrust in these institutions . And what were doing. I disagree with most of what you just said. You somehow disconnect the administrations activities from the president s actions. They are one in the same. Every sanction put in place was signed out by the president of the United States. Neil you are watching the secretary of state getting a grilling from both sides. This is getting predictable heat from republicans who think the president went too far, being too cozy with Vladimir Putin. The secretary of state defending the president. The bigger development was up the road at the white house where the president scored a major deal, we are told, with the europeans, the details of the European Commission president. It will avoid a trade war for now. A cease and desist on auto tariffs that would have taken effect. They have made progress, and commitments from the europeans to buy more u. S. Soybeans, natural gas, to change their regulations. It was heating up stocks on the word this was happening. This appears to be a major concession on the part of the europeans, what some term blinking in the face of a trade war threat from the president of the United States. We are ceasing and assisting. Take note, china. The five now. Jason i am Jesse Watters with jedediah, juan williams, dana perino, and greg gutfeld. Its 5 00 and eric see, this is the five. Fox news alert. A major clash on capitol hill. Secretary of state mike pompeo squaring off with senators about President Trumps meeting with Vladimir Putin and much more. The latest on the heated hearing which is underway, but first to another major story we are following. Who is lying and who is not and where is the rest of the tape . Those questions are front and center in a