To the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty the language that was in there about acquire some people quibble over, but their commitment to the npt was clear and i misspoke in that regard. Thank you. I appreciate your comment in response to questions from senator markly and others about keeping a seat at the table through the Paris Agreement and the general approach that suggests. I believe Climate Change is a major concern for us in the long term and the short term, and that its human caused and there are actions we can and should take in response to it as a trained chemist, i respect your training as an engineer, would urge you to be a Tttentive To T science because i think it is overwhelming to this point. I do think the jpoa structure, p 5 plus 1 that brought it into force and is enforcing it and the Paris Climate Agreement are two examples of tables where we should have a seat at the table and be advocates and be driving
it. I want to ask you about one other table that was literally designed where the seat for the United States is still empty. There has been discussion about the South China Sea and chinas aggressive actions in building islands. The u. N. Convention on the law of the sea, decade ago, was advanced by Republican Administration but has still never been ratified by this senate. And in june of 2012, you signed a letter indicating in your role of ceo of exxon mobil, you supported the law of the sea. I was a member of this committee when then chairman john kerry convened Seven Hearings Where Panel after panel of fourstar admirals and generals and Business Leaders and National Security leaders and former republican leaders, the administration and senators all testified in support of this, yet we fell short of ratification. Had we ratified it, we would have that seat at the table to
aggressively assert the International Law of the sea and to push back on chinas actions, which during that debate were hypothetical, today are real. Would you work to support the law of the Sea Convention if confirmed as secretary . Well, i will certainly work with the president. Weve not discussed that particular treaty. Certainly my position ive taken in the past was one from the per sti perspective of the role i had at the time. I am aware of objection people have. That is the principal objection people have. When given the opportunity to discuss this in the inter agency or the National Security council, im sure well have a robust discussion about it. I dont know what the president s view is on it and i wouldnt want to get out ahead of him. Well, let me ask about that
if i might, because i came to this hearing with a whole list of questions. And in response to others, youve addressed many of them. Where, in my view, you have a notable difference of view from at least some of the concerns based on some Campaign Statements by the President Elect. No ban on muslims, no nuclear arms race, no nukes for japan, south korea, saudi arabia, no abandoning our neto allies. No deal with russia to accept the annex asian of cry krimea. All of these to me are quite encouraging. But they suggest some tension with statements made by the President Elect. How will you work through those differences . And just reassure me that you will stand up to the president when you disagree on what is the right path forward in terms of policy. I think earlier in the day someone asked me a similar
acknowledged at this time. However, anybody who wishes to come down can do so. So, its going to be menendez, rubio, sha hee n, rubio, card in, james markly. Sounds like a pretty full third round. Im glad everybody is interested. Thank you. Mr. Tillerson, i admire your stamina. Youve been through several rounds here. And from my perspective, i hope understand while my questions may seem tough in some respects, i take my role of advise and consent of any nominee important. In your case you have a unique background coming to this job. So, trying to understand the person who is going to be the Chief Advisor to the President Elect in the meetings you just described where everybody gets around the table, but in Foreign Policy its going to be you. So, i try to get from the past a gleaming of it so i understand where youre going to be in the future. I hope you understand the nature of my questions. Let me take a quick moment. You heard a lot about cuba in proportion to things in the
senator rischs comments on iran, iran was designated a State Sponsor of terrorism in 1984 following its connection to the 1983 bombings of u. S. Marine personnels in lebanon, a horrific event. Killed 241 u. S. Service personnel. That label on iran has unfortunately not changed. Just this june the State Department in its Annual Report on global Terrorist Activity listed iran as the State Sponsor of terrorism. The report indicated that iran in 2015, quote, provided a range of support including financial training, equipment to terrorist groups Around The World including hezbollah. It has been brought to my aa tension that between 2003 and 2005, exxon mobil sold 53 million worth of chemicals and fuel additives to iranian customers. Alarmingly, exxon did not originally disclose this business with iran in its annual 10 k Annual Report with the sec
in 2006. Exxon mobil only disclosed this information to the sec after receiving a letter from the sec asking for explanations. The securities and Exchange Commission asked exxon to explain these dealings because iran at the time was, quote, subject to export controls imposed on iran as a result of its absence in support of terrorism, and in pursuit of Weapons Of Mass Destruction and missile programs. It went on to say we know your form 10 k does not contain any disclosure about your operations in iran, syria and sudan, close quote. Exxons response has been transaction were legal because infinishian, the transactions did not involve any u. S. Employees. In other words, this was clearly seen as a move designed to do business with iran to evade sanctions on iran. So, i have a few questions for you to the extent that you are familiar with this, of the
customer at the end of that deal, and whether you can ascertain that exxon was either knowingly or unknowingly potentially funding terrorism. One of the customers in this sales to iran was the Iranian National oil company which is wholly owned by the iranian government. The Treasury Department of the United States has determined that that entity is an agent or affiliate of irans Islamic Revolutionary guard core. The irgc is irans main connection to its terrorist activities Around The World and pledge allegiance to irans Supreme Leader the iatola. In other words, the irgc and the foreign arm, the kuds force are the army. They are currently in syria now helping assad remain in power. So, can you tell the committee whether these Business Dealings with iran did not fund any State Sponsored terrorism activities by iran . Senator, as i indicated earlier, i do not recall the
details or the circumstances around what you just described the question would have to go to exxon mobil for them to be able to answer that. You have no recollection of this as the ceo . I dont recall the details around it, no, sir. This would be a pretty big undertaking to try to circumvent u. S. Sanctions by using what may or may not im not ready to make that determination a legal loop hole to do so. But it would be pretty significant. It wouldnt come to your level . It wouldnt come to your level that the securities and Exchange Commission raised questions with your company about lack of disclosure . That would have. Im just saying I Dont Recall 2006 would have been the first year that i would have been looking at those things. I just dont recall this is all im saying. Do you recall whether exxon mobil was doing business with three different State Sponsors of terrorism, including iran in the first place . I dont recall. Again, id have to look back and refresh myself. I would hope you would do so and i would be willing to hear your response for the record because i think its important. Moving to a different thing because its all in my sanctions field. Im trying to understand that. Regardless of whether or not you have read the bill that senator card in and i and others have sponsored in a bipartisan basis, do you believe that additional sanctions on russia, in view of everything that has been ascertained, is, in fact, appropriate . You may view that some may be more useful than others, but do you believe any additional actions in terms of sanctions on russia is appropriate for their actions . Well, i would like to reserve my final judgment on that until i have been fully briefed on the most recent cyber events. Ive not had that briefing. And as i indicated, i like to be fully informed on decisions i appreciate that. I would just say that in the public forum that you could read
or any other citizen could read, its pretty definitive by all the Intelligence Agencies of what they did. So, it just seems to me that whiem i know youre cautious and you want to deal with the facts, thats the essence of you being an engineer and a scientist and i respect that. There are some things in the public realm from which one can deduce a decision. Id like to hear your response for the record as well. When i know there is Additional Information and there are additional facts in the classified area, i would wait until ive seen all the facts. If i knew that theres nothing else to be learned and this is all the facts and theres nothing else out there, then i would say i could make a determination on because this is all we know. But as i have been told, at least im aware, there is a classified portion of this report that, when i have the opportunity, i look forward to examining that. And then ill have all the information in front of me. I have one final question, mr. Chair, but ill wait for my
next time. In order for efficacy to prevail, please go on. So, in light of efficacy, so, heres characterizes in essence my big question for you. It is an article that appeared in time magazine, and i really want to hear your honest response. Im going to quote from the record. What russia wants from tillerson is one that stops putting principles ahead of profits, focusing instead on getting the best political bargain available and treats russia as an equal. Quote, for the next four years, we can forget about america as the bearer of values, said a former Russian Energy minister who went to join the opposition. America is going to play the deal game under trump. And for putin that is a very comfortable environment, he told
the radio host this week in moscow. Its an environment where states men sit before a Map Of The World and they haggle over Pieces Available to them, much like putin this is the article, not me like putin and tillerson did while weighing the oil fields in the arctic. Through the canny eyes of a political deal maker, washingtons oldest commitments in europe and The Middle East could be seen in much the same way, as a stack of Bargaining Chips to be traded rather than principles to be upheld. Id like to hear your thats not you being quoted, but thats a characterization that was in one article, but beyond that its a characterization ive heard many times. And, so, to me that comes down to the core of everything ive tried to deduce in my line of questioning to you and i want to give you an opportunity to respond to it. I havent seen the article in its entirety, but ill just deal with the quotes that you read. If you conclude that thats the characterization of me, then i have really done a poor job
today because what i had hoped to do in Todays Exchange on the questions is to demonstrate to you that im a very open and transparent person. I do have strong values that are grounded in my person ideals and beliefs and the values that i was raised with, and theyre under pinned ive spoken to the boy scouts earlier this morning. Theyre under pinned by those same values, duty to god and country, duty it to others and duty to yourself. That has guided my life for all of my life, and it will guide my values and it will guide the way in which i will represent the American People if given the chance to do so. I understand full well the responsibilities and the seriousness of it. I dont view this as a game in any way as that article seems to imply. So, i hope, if ive done nothing else today, you at least know me better. Thank you. If theres no objection, there
has been a response from exxon mobil that my staff gave me relative to the sudan, iran, syria issue. Im going to enter it into the record if thats okay for everyone to be able to peruse. With that, senator rubio. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Tillerson. You can see the finish line, were almost there. I really just have four clarifications. I dont think theyll take long. Going back to the sanctions piece to build on what Senator Menendez just asked you, its my recollection that your testimony earlier this morning, i had asked specifically about sanctions on those who conducted Cyber Attacks against the United States. Not specifying russia in particular, just a bill that said anyone who has guilty of Cyber Attacks or infrastructure would be subject to sanctions and your answer if i recall correctly, we would want to weigh other factors. Thats why you wanted the flexibility not the mandatory language. There may be other factors to take into account such as trade
and economic with that country or actor before we chose whether or not to use a tool such as sanctions. So, in essence, even if you had Information Available to you or will in the future about specific actors, that alone may not be enough based on that testimony. There are other factors that you would want to take into account before making your recommendation to the president about whether or not to institute sanctions. Is that a correct characterization . Yes, it is. And i think the way i would try to explain this, at least why im taking this position, sanctions are not a strategy. Sanctions are a tactic. And if we are going to engage and ill use russia in this case, but i can use any other country that these sanctions would apply to. If were going to engage in trying to address a broad array of serious issues, id like to have this as a tool, as a tactic. If its already played, its not available to me as a tactic in
advancing those discussions and trying to come to some conclusion that best serves americas interests and americas National Security interest. Its a powerful tool. Id like to be able to use it tact tickly. If its already been played, its not available to me to use tactically. Okay. The second is a clarification of the exchange you had with Senator Portman about an hour or so ago. He asked you whether there was basically any sort of cooperation with iran where we may have a confluence working on iran. Thats the way we have to engage in the overall process. Just to clarify, does that mean you would be open potentially to working with iran on issues that we have potentially in common such as defeating isis . Well, defeating isis is the one thats right in front of us and were already kooptding with them in iraq. Okay. The third question has to do with sanctions on krimea against Senator Portmans question. I believe your answer was and i caught it on television, i had just stepped out at the tail end of the first round. And he asked and i think your testimony was along the lines of we wont change anything right away after we examine the situation. But embedded in that was the notion that potentially at some point there could be an arrangement in which the United States would recognize russias annex asian of krimea if the government in kiev signed off on it or accepted it as a broader deal to ensure peace and stability. Is that an accurate assessment of the testimony as i third . I think what i was trying to recognize is that since that was territory that belongs to ukraine, ukraine will have something to say about it in the context of a broader solution to some kind of a lasting agreement. Im not saying that that is on the table. Im merely saying i dont think thats ours alone to decide. Okay. Heres my last clarification. And its more about the hearing here today in general. In the end of the last round, at the end of questioning, you said there was some misunderstanding in alluding to human rights. You said we share the same