S. HRG. 115–4 

NOMINATION OF REX TILLERSON 

TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JANUARY 11, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

NOMINATION OF REX TILLERSON TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

24–573 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 115–4 

NOMINATION OF REX TILLERSON 

TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JANUARY 11, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

BOB CORKER, Tennessee, Chairman

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

TODD WOMACK, Staff Director

JESSICA LEWIS, Democratic Staff Director

ROB STRAYER, Majority Chief Counsel

MARGARET TAYLOR, Minority Chief Counsel

JOHN DUTTON, Chief Clerk

(II)

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from Tennessee .................................................. 1 

Cornyn, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Texas ....................................................... 3 

Cruz, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Texas ............................................................. 4 

Nunn, Hon. Sam, former U.S. Senator from Georgia ........................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Gates, Hon. Robert M., former U.S. Secretary of Defense ................................... 8 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from Maryland ..................................... 13 

Tillerson, Rex Wayne, of Texas, To Be Secretary of State ................................... 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

ANSWERS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Secretary-Designate Tillerson’s Answers to Questions: 

From Senator Corker ....................................................................................... 159 

From Senator Cardin ....................................................................................... 161 

From Senator Risch .......................................................................................... 208 

From Senators Cardin and Gardner ............................................................... 210 

From Senator Rubio ......................................................................................... 211 

From Senator Menendez .................................................................................. 230 

From Senator Flake ......................................................................................... 244 

From Senator Shaheen .................................................................................... 246 

From Senator Young ........................................................................................ 251 

From Senator Coons ......................................................................................... 254 

From Senator Udall .......................................................................................... 261 

From Senator Barrasso .................................................................................... 272 

From Senator Murphy ...................................................................................... 273 

From Senator Kaine ......................................................................................... 276 

From Senator Markey ...................................................................................... 284 

From Senator Booker ....................................................................................... 305 

(III)

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

Page

IV 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Annex I.—Correspondence Between the Securities and Exchange 

Commission and ExxonMobil, January 2006 

1. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Letter to ExxonMobil Regarding 

Disclosures Relating to Contact With Countries Identified as State Sponsors 

of Terrorism, January 6, 2006 ............................................................................ 315 

2. ExxonMobil’s Response to the Securities and Exchange Commission ............ 319 

Annex II.—Material Submitted by Senator Rubio 

1. Syrian and Russian Forces Targeting Hospitals as a Strategy of War, 

Amnesty International ......................................................................................... 329 

2. U.S. Blames Russia After U.N. Aid Convoy in Syria Targeted by Air 

Attack, The Guardian .......................................................................................... 335 

3. Attack, Deceive, Destroy Putin at War in Syria, The Atlantic Council .......... 339 

4. Letters and Other Material Submitted by Various Human Rights Advocacy 

Groups ................................................................................................................... 367 

5. Partial List of Political Dissidents, Journalists, and Critics of Vladimir 

Putin Who Were Suspiciously Murdered or Died Under Highly Suspicious 

Circumstances ...................................................................................................... 407 

6. International Leaders on Russian War Crimes in Syria .................................. 409 

7. Letter to President-Elect Donald J. Trump from Several European Leaders 411 

8. Letter to Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Cardin from Vladimir 

V. Kara-Mursa ...................................................................................................... 413 

9. Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Saudi Arabia.—U.S. Department of State, 2015 .............................................................................................. 415 

Annex III.—Material Submitted by Senator Young 

1. U.S. and European Union Sanctions on Russia for Activities Related to 

Ukraine; A Comparison, Congressional Research Service ................................ 469 

Annex IV.—Material Submitted by Senator Cardin 

1. Communication From Publish What You Pay, A British Charity, Advocating for Transparency in the Financial Activities of the Fossil Fuel Industry .......................................................................................................................... 477 

Annex V.—Material Submitted by Senator Shaheen 

1. More of the Kremlin’s Opponents Are Ending Up Dead, New York Times, 

September 20, 2016 .............................................................................................. 485 

Annex VI.—Material Submitted by Senator Kaine 

1. Global Climate Change, The Op-Ed Series, Published by ExxonMobil, 2000 493 

2. In-House Communication from Roger W. Cohen to A.M. Natkin, Office 

of Science and Technology, Exxon Corporation, 1982 ....................................... 499 

3. The Petroleum and Poverty Paradox: Assessing U.S. and International 

Community Efforts to Fight the Resource Curse, a report submitted to 

the members of the committee by Senator Richard G. Lugar, ranking member .......................................................................................................................... 503 

Annex VII.—Material Submitted by Senator Merkley 

1. Under Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil Forged Its Own Path Abroad, New York 

Times, December 13, 2016 ................................................................................... 507 

2. Ukraine Crisis Drives a Quiet Lobbying Boom in U.S., Bloomberg News, 

May 23, 2014 ........................................................................................................ 515 

3. Tillerson Visited White House Often Over Russia Sanctions, Bloomberg 

News, December 12 and 13, 2016 ....................................................................... 519 

4. Rex Tillerson’s Company, Exxon, Has Billions at Stake Over Sanctions 

on Russia, New York Times, December 12, 2016 ............................................... 523 

5. Rex Tillerson is No Fan of Russia Sanctions Bill, CBS News, December 

15, 2016 ................................................................................................................. 529 

6. ExxonMobil Helped Defeat Russia Sanctions Bill, Politico, December 18, 

2016 ....................................................................................................................... 533

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

Page

V 

7. ExxonMobil and Iran Did Business Under Secretary of State Nominee 

Tillerson, USA Today, January 6, 2006 ............................................................. 537 

Annex VIII.—Material Submitted by Senators Cardin and Menendez 

1. Lobbying Disclosure Forms Filed by ExxonMobil, Selected Quarters, 2010– 

2016 ....................................................................................................................... 541

2. Document Submitted by The Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment Expressing Concern Over the Nomination of Rex W. Tillerson to 

be U.S. Secretary of State ................................................................................... 643 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(1) 

NOMINATION OF REX TILLERSON TO BE 

SECRETARY OF STATE 

Wednesday, January 11, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:02 a.m., in Room 

SD–106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio, Johnson, 

Flake, Gardner, Young, Barrasso, Isakson, Portman, Paul, Cardin, 

Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, 

Merkley, and Booker. 

Also Present: Senators Cornyn, King, and Cruz. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE 

Senator CORKER. The Foreign Relations Committee will come to 

order. 

We appreciate everybody being here as the Senate carries out 

one of its most important responsibilities, which is to give advice 

and consent to nominees that are put forth by a President. 

We thank all of you for being here. Obviously, there is a lot of 

interest in this hearing. We would ask those who, like us, have the 

privilege of being in this room, we would ask you to respect democracy, respect the right for us to have a hearing, to control yourselves in an appropriate manner. And I am sure that is going to 

be the case. 

This is the best of America here, serving with outstanding members on this committee. As a matter of fact, because of so much 

happening in the world today and because of the role that this committee has played over the last several years, demand on this committee has grown. And with that, I want to welcome new members, 

who I know will play a big role in the future of our country. 

Mr. Todd Young, newly elected to the Senate. We welcome you 

here. This is your first public appearance on this Committee. We 

thank you for your interest in our country’s future and for being 

here. 

Mr. Rob Portman, who also joins the committee. I think he 

serves on more committees here than anybody in the Senate. But 

we thank you for your responsible thinking and leadership. 

I want to thank Jeff Merkley, who I know cares very, very deeply 

about these issues, for joining this committee, for your principled 

efforts in so many regards. And I know they will continue here. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

2 

And Cory Booker, new star to the Senate, who I know will play 

a very vigorous role here, and we thank you so much for being here 

today. 

Just to give you a little bit of a sense of what is going to happen 

today, we have four very distinguished people, two of whom are colleagues, who will introduce the nominee and then we will move to 

opening statements. I will give an opening statement. Our distinguished ranking member will give an opening statement. And then 

our nominee, Mr. Rex Tillerson, will give his. Each person here will 

have ten minutes to ask questions, a little bit more than the norm. 

We have coordinated the schedule with the ranking member, but 

also with Senator Schumer and others, just to ensure that the 

American people and certainly all of us have the opportunity to ask 

the kind of questions that people would like to ask. 

I would say to members—I know some of us have an art form 

of being able to ask about nine questions and then the time ending 

about five seconds before the witness responds. The ten minutes includes the response, and in order to be respectful of everybody’s 

time, which is a little bit unusual here, we are going to hold to that 

in a very rigid way. 

Our plan is that we will go until about 1:00 p.m. today, if everybody uses their time. We will take a break, out of showing mercy 

to our nominee and to many of us up here, for about 45 minutes. 

And then we will come back and resume until the ‘‘vote-a-rama,’’ 

which I think begins around 6:00 this evening. 

Again, in order to make sure that all questions are answered, the 

ranking member and I have agreed that should there be another 

day necessary, we will begin in the morning at 10:00. Hopefully, 

with all that will happen today, that will be unnecessary, but our 

nominee is very aware that that may well occur. 

I think all of you know that our business meeting, again in order 

to show respect for all who are here, is moved until tonight when 

we have the vote-a-rama, at which time we will take up the Montenegro accession to NATO, and we will take up the resolution relative to Israel. We will do that off the floor this evening. 

So, with that— 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, could I just thank you for the accommodations for this hearing? I know you started it at 9:00 a.m. 

as an accommodation so that we could all have a little bit more 

time in the morning for asking questions, and I thank you very 

much for that, accommodating a 10-minute round. 

The chairman and I have worked closely together to make sure 

that this hearing was the type of hearing that we would be proud 

of in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and I want to personally thank you for that and welcome our four new members to 

our committee. 

And with that, I will withhold until after the introductions. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. 

This committee has certainly been a beacon of bipartisanship, as 

was mentioned, sometimes an island of bipartisanship. But I think 

all of us understand the importance of us being united, especially 

when we leave the shore’s edge. And I know that we will continue. 

We will conduct the hearing today in that manner. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

3 

With that, we have four very distinguished individuals who 

would like to introduce the nominee. We thank each of them for 

being here. I know that they plan to spend about 2 1/2 minutes 

each to do so. We welcome you here. 

We have the distinguished Senator Cornyn from Texas; the distinguished Senator Cruz from Texas; the distinguished Sam Nunn 

from Georgia, who we miss, but thank him for his service; and the 

distinguished Secretary Gates, who has served eight Presidents. I 

am actually surprised he is not serving a ninth, but we thank you 

for being here. 

Each of you, if you would, please give your comments, and then 

we will move to openings statements. Thank you for being here. 

Senator Cornyn. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. Chairman Corker and Ranking Member 

Cardin, members of the committee, I am proud to be here today 

with my colleague Senator Cruz to introduce a fellow Texan, Rex 

Tillerson, as the nominee to be the next Secretary of State. 

Without a doubt, Rex Tillerson is an inspired choice by President-elect Trump for this critical position. The depth and breadth 

of his experience as an accomplished and successful business leader 

and skilled negotiator, given the solid understanding of our current 

geopolitical and economic challenges, making him uniquely qualified to serve in this important office. 

After graduating from the University of Texas with a degree in 

engineering, Mr. Tillerson joined the Exxon Corporation, eventually 

moving up the ranks and into overseas assignments in Asia, the 

Middle East, and Europe. In 2006, he assumed command of 

ExxonMobil, a tenure during which he displayed exceptional acumen, helping Exxon weather complex geopolitical obstacles to make 

the company into one of the world’s most profitable corporations. 

As a lifelong Texan, Rex has been recognized for something you 

do not ordinarily associate with being a powerful business leader 

and head of one of the largest corporations in the world. He has 

been recognized for his humility and his altruism. 

One of my constituents recently wrote a piece in the Dallas 

Morning News talking about serving on a jury with Mr. Tillerson 

recently. She noted that on that jury, his natural leadership ability 

and charisma helped them deliver justice in a delicate and difficult 

case of sexual assault. Following the trial, Mr. Tillerson then donated to the local nonprofit that helped support and counsel the 

victim after the trial. 

Mr. Tillerson understands how to separate friendships and business. He knows who he works for. My first encounter with Rex was 

when I was attorney general. I do not know if he remembers this, 

but we were on opposite sides of a lawsuit. I was representing, in 

my capacity as attorney general, the State of Texas, and we had 

the temerity to sue ExxonMobil. 

And let us say our first encounter was a little awkward, to say 

the least. But over the years, I have grown to admire and respect 

Rex, and he did not let our differences get in the way of what we 

could agree on. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

4 

Since then I have seen him demonstrate an uncanny ability that 

will serve him and our country well as its chief diplomat, and that 

is an ability to deftly handle business matters while maintaining 

and building relationships, a further testament to his integrity and 

strength of character. 

Once he is confirmed, I am confident that he will be instrumental 

in shaping American foreign policy as we face a broad array of diplomatic challenges that will define the security and success of our 

Nation for generations. 

So thank you, Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Cardin, members of the committee, for letting me introduce Rex Tillerson. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you for being maybe the first prompt 

Senator I have witnessed here. Thank you so much. 

Senator CORNYN. I am trying to set the standard, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORKER. Senator Cruz. Thank you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator CRUZ. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cardin, members of the committee, good morning. 

It is a privilege to join you this morning and have the opportunity to help introduce my fellow Texan and the Secretary of State 

designee, Rex Tillerson. 

As many of you know, Rex is a Texan, born and raised in Wichita 

Falls, and he is a proud Texas Longhorn, which John and I might 

think is plenty enough alone to qualify him for Secretary of State, 

but I recognize you all might set a higher bar than that. 

The good news is that is only the beginning of a long, substantive 

list of qualifications, achievements, and international relationships 

that Rex brings to the table, a list that I believe has prepared him 

to be a strong candidate to lead our State Department as we face 

the monumental task of restoring America’s influence across the 

world. 

As all of us know, this is no easy task. We live in a dangerous 

year and a dangerous world. And after the last 8 years, we face a 

circumstance where many of our friends no longer trust us and 

many of our enemies no longer fear us. 

Rex Tillerson is a serious man who understands the value of perseverance, and he knows what it takes to accomplish difficult 

tasks. From an early age, he worked to climb the ranks in Boy 

Scouts to become an Eagle Scout, and he started as a production 

engineer at Exxon in 1975, eventually climbing his way to the top 

as CEO of the Fortune 10 company. 

At Exxon, he led one of the world’s most respected companies 

with over 75,000 employees and over $250 billion in revenue. 

Exxon, a proud Texas company, does business in 52 countries, and 

Rex has traveled the globe negotiating business deals with world 

leaders, effectively advocating for the interests of his company, 

shareholders, and employees. 

The numerous achievements that Rex has earned, they do not 

come without hard work, dedication, and passion for one’s mission. 

This is the work ethic and spirit that America needs in its Secretary of State. That is the attitude that gives me confidence in the 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

5 

opportunity that Rex has to chart a different, better, and stronger 

course for our national security and diplomacy. 

We need a Secretary of State who understands that America is 

exceptional, who will establish policies upon that foundation of 

exceptionalism, and who will put America’s interests first. Repeatedly, the current administration has used the United Nations to try 

to circumvent the will of Congress and the American people. I look 

forward to a President and Secretary of State who will instead vigorously defend U.S. sovereignty. 

I believe that Rex has an incredible opportunity to defend the 

foreign policy principles upon which President-elect Trump campaigned, to strengthen our friendship and alliances and to defeat 

our enemies. And I look forward to all of us working with him in 

the years ahead as we restore American leadership across the 

globe. 

Thank you. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you also for those concise comments. 

Much appreciated. 

Thank you both for being here, and should you need to leave to 

go to other hearings, please feel free to do so. 

Senator Nunn, sir? 

STATEMENT OF HON. SAM NUNN, 

FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA 

Senator NUNN. Thank you, Chairman Corker— 

Senator CORKER. You need to turn your mic on, sir. You have 

been out of practice leaving here for a few years. 

Senator NUNN. Well, I thank you, Chairman Corker and Senator 

Cardin and my friend for a long time Johnny Isakson, Senator 

Isakson, members of the committee. 

I just wish I had thought of this clock a long time ago. It would 

have saved an awful lot of agony for our committee. So I am going 

to try to cut my statement as short as possible and ask the whole 

statement be put into the record. 

Senator CORKER. Without objection, thank you. 

Senator NUNN. Mr. Chairman, Rex Tillerson’s resume is well 

known. So let me just tackle two points that I know have been 

raised with the committee as well as with the Senate. First, Rex 

Tillerson’s knowledge of and experience in Russia and, second, how 

his work in the private sector prepares him to be our top diplomat 

and run one of the most important departments in our Government. 

With respect to Russia, certain facts are clear. Russia’s recent 

flagrant actions indicate that its national interests sharply differ 

from America’s national interests in important places, most acutely 

in Ukraine, in Europe, and in Syria. Russia’s values differ from 

America’s values, in particular, in our form of government, and our 

commitment to personal freedom, human rights, and the rule of 

law. 

These fundamental differences are very important, and the fact 

that our interests and values differ should always inform our policy 

toward Russia. But Mr. Chairman, the important facts do not end 

here. It is also a fact that Russia today deploys hundreds of nuclear 

warheads on ballistic missiles that could be fired and hit their tarFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

6 

gets around the globe in less time than it will take to have opening 

statements at the hearing today. 

It is also a fact that for both the United States and Russia, the 

risk of an accidental, unauthorized, or mistaken launch of a nuclear ballistic missile is unnecessarily high, particularly in our 

world of increasing cyber vulnerability. It is also a fact that the 

United States and Russia, like it or not, are bound together in 

areas of unavoidable common interests, including the prevention of 

nuclear and biological terrorism, the prevention of nuclear proliferation, false warnings of nuclear attacks, and the hacking of 

command and control systems or nuclear facilities. 

These facts lead me to an inescapable conclusion. It is dangerous 

for the United States and Russia and for the world to have virtually no dialogue on reducing nuclear risk and very little militaryto-military communication. If this continues and we are guided by 

zero sum logic on both sides, we and Russia may be rewarded at 

some point with catastrophe. 

This is my judgment even when we have stark disputes, including strong evidence from our intelligence community that Russia 

has interfered in U.S. elections, a finding that Congress must fully 

examine, including its ominous implications for our political process and our security. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, there have been 

other moments in history when voices in both Washington and 

Moscow argued that our areas of disagreement were so great that 

we should not work on issues even of common interest between our 

two countries. For those who are considering this point, I would 

suggest re-reading President Kennedy’s commencement address at 

American University delivered just months after the Cuban missile 

crisis. 

President Kennedy spoke of the pursuit of peace as necessary 

and rational, quoting him, ‘‘in an age where a single nuclear weapon contains almost 10 times the explosive power delivered by all 

the allied forces in the Second World War.’’ 

President Kennedy rejected voices saying it is useless to speak 

of peace until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. 

Kennedy warned, ‘‘Let us not be blind to our differences, but let 

us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means 

by which these differences can be resolved.’’ 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, these words remain true today. I know Rex Tillerson pretty well, and I am confident that he is well prepared to do what is essential for the security of our Nation, to hold firm and tough where our national interests and values demand it and to build on our common interests 

in working with other nations, including Russia, on practical, concrete steps that will make the American people safer and more secure. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Cardin, and other members of the committee, I also consider Rex Tillerson’s experience and knowledge in 

business as an asset, as well as his knowledge of Russia. I think 

both are assets, not liabilities. I also consider his business experience very relevant to the world today. It is an asset. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

7 

As I look at the world today, every significant international challenge we face has a very important business component. It is true 

in Ukraine. It is true in the Middle East. It is true in most places. 

Rex Tillerson knows these crucial regions. He knows the leaders, 

and he understands the challenges and the risks. He is also keenly 

aware of the power of the private sector and the important role it 

can play in addressing these fundamental issues. 

Mr. Chairman, in wrapping up, I am confident that, if confirmed 

to be Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson will take off his corporate 

hat, but he will use his vast experience to devote 100 percent of 

his considerable intellect, energy, and experience to protecting 

America’s interests in the troubled world we are in. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I urge his confirmation. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Nunn follows:] 

STATEMENT OF FORMER SENATOR SAM NUNN

Chairman Corker, Senator Cardin, Senator Isakson, and members of the Committee: 

Rex Tillerson doesn’t have the typical background of a nominee for Secretary of 

State, but in today’s world, I believe that this will prove to be an advantage for our 

nation. He is a civil engineer—who started as a production engineer at Exxon and 

worked his way up to become its Chairman and CEO. Rex has an exemplary record 

of civic leadership and engagement, including as past national President of the Boy 

Scouts of America—a group that helps shape the skills and values of millions of 

young men—including my own. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, Rex’s resume is well known, so 

let me briefly tackle just two points that I know have been raised within this Committee and the Senate. First, Rex Tillerson’s knowledge of, and experience in, Russia—and, second, how his work in the private sector prepares him to be our nation’s 

top diplomat and run one of the most important departments in our government. 

I strongly support a vigorous analysis and debate over the U.S. strategic relationship with Russia. A hard-headed assessment of our national interests and policy options is overdue. To protect the full range of America’s interest and keeps our people 

safe—our country, and our country’s leaders, must deal in facts. With respect to 

Russia, certain facts are clear: 

Russia’s recent flagrant actions indicate that its national interests sharply differ 

from America’s national interests in important places, most acutely in Ukraine, in 

Europe, and in Syria. Russia’s values differ from America’s values, in particular, in 

our form of government and our commitment to personal freedom, human rights 

and the rule of law. 

These fundamental differences are important, and the fact that our interests and 

values differ should always inform our policy towards Russia. But the important 

facts don’t end there. 

In particular: 

• It is also a fact that Russia today deploys hundreds of nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles that could be fired and hit their targets around the globe in less 

time than it will take to hear opening statements at today’s hearing. 

• It is also a fact that, for both the United States and Russia, the risk of an accidental, unauthorized, or mistaken launch of a nuclear ballistic missile is unnecessarily high—particularly in our world of increasing cyber vulnerability. 

• It is also a fact that the United States and Russia are bound together in areas 

of unavoidable common interest, including the prevention of nuclear and biological terrorism, the prevention of nuclear proliferation, false warnings of nuclear 

attacks, and hacking of command and control systems or nuclear facilities. 

These facts lead me to an inescapable conclusion—it is dangerous for the United 

States, for Russia and for the world when we have virtually no dialogue on reducing 

nuclear risks and very little military-to-military communication. If this continues 

and we are guided by zero sum logic—we and Russia may be rewarded at some 

point with catastrophe. This is my judgment even when we have stark disputes— 

including strong evidence from our intelligence community that Russia has interfered in U.S. elections—a finding that Congress must fully examine—including its 

implications for our security. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

8 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee—there have been other moments 

in history when voices in both Washington and Moscow argued that our areas of 

disagreement were so great that we should not work even on issues of common interest between our two nations. 

For those who are considering whether to oppose Rex Tillerson’s nomination for 

Secretary of State because he knows and has worked with leaders in Moscow, I 

would suggest re-reading President Kennedy’s commencement address at American 

University, delivered just months after the Cuban Missile Crisis. 

President Kennedy spoke of the pursuit of peace as necessary and rational ‘‘in an 

age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War.’’ 

President Kennedy rejected voices saying it is useless to speak of peace until the 

leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I would note that 

many say the same today with respect to Russia. 

Kennedy warned the American people not to fall into the trap of seeing only a 

distorted and desperate view of the other side. 

He concluded, ‘‘Let us not be blind to our differences—but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be 

resolved . . . For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s 

future. And we are all mortal.’’ 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee—those words remain true today. 

I know Rex Tillerson pretty well, and I am confident that he is well prepared to 

do what is essential for the security of our nation: to hold firm and tough where 

our national interests and our values demand it and to build on our common interests in working with other nations—including Russia—on practical, concrete steps 

that will make the American people safer and more secure. 

My bottom line—Mr. Chairman, Senator Cardin and other members of the Committee—in this period of profound distrust—I consider Rex Tillerson’s experience 

and knowledge of Russia an asset—not a liability. 

I also consider Rex’s global business experience to be an asset as well. If we look 

at the world today, almost every significant international challenge—or crisis—that 

we face has an economic component that is inseparable from its diplomatic and security aspects. For example: 

• There is no durable resolution to the crisis in Ukraine that does not involve stabilizing and improving the Ukrainian economy. • There is no solving the Middle East challenges today—including the unprecedented flows of migrants and refugees—that does not involve stabilizing and improving multiple economies across the region. • And there is no solution to the issue of global warming that does not involve 

vigorously addressing global environmental challenges at the same time that we 

meet the growing energy needs of the global population. 

Rex Tillerson knows these crucial regions—he knows the leaders—and he understands these challenges and the risks. He is also keenly aware of the power of the 

private sector and the important role it can play in addressing these fundamental 

issues. 

Mr. Chairman and Senator Cardin, I am confident that if confirmed to be Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson will take off his corporate hat—but use his vast experience to devote 100 percent of his considerable intellect, energy and experience to 

protecting America’s interests in this troubled world. If I had any doubt on this 

point, I would not be here today. Mr. Chairman and Senator Cardin, I urge this 

Committee and the Senate to support his nomination. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you so much for being here and participating and your many, many contributions relative to nuclear safety around the world. 

Secretary Gates? 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT M. GATES, 

FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

Secretary GATES. Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Cardin, 

distinguished members of the Foreign Relations Committee, it 

gives me great pleasure to introduce my friend and fellow Eagle 

Scout, Rex Tillerson, as the President-elect’s nominee to be the 

next Secretary of State. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

9 

I have known Mr. Tillerson for a number of years through our 

shared experience in leading the Boy Scouts of America. On many 

occasions, after a day of meetings, Rex and I would talk, often for 

hours, about international affairs, including Russia and Vladimir 

Putin. I believe I have a pretty good idea about how he thinks 

about the world and the challenges we face. 

The Secretary of State has four important roles—advising the 

President, negotiating with foreign governments and international 

organizations, representing the United States abroad, and leading 

the Department of State. Against a backdrop of having known or 

worked with 12 Secretaries of State, I believe Mr. Tillerson is superbly qualified to carry out each of these roles. 

He is deeply knowledgeable about the international scene and 

geopolitics and, importantly, would be an informed and independent adviser to the President. He would be candid and honest, 

willing to tell the President straight from the shoulder what he 

needs to hear. He would bring decades of experience as a tough and 

successful negotiator with foreign governments to the position. 

I have heard him speak often to Scout groups about American 

values, and I know he would be an eloquent and passionate representative of the United States to the world. And finally, based on 

his long experience in leading a major corporation as well as the 

Boy Scouts, I know he will lead the Department of State with skill 

and respect for the professionals. 

Much has been said and written about Mr. Tillerson and Russia. 

I have spent my entire adult life dealing with the Soviet Union and 

Russia. I joined CIA over 50 years ago to do my bit in the epic 

struggle with the Soviet Union. 

During that time, I acquired a reputation as something as a 

hardliner. Just ask a couple of previous Secretaries of State. Yet 

I knew that we not only had to resist and contain the USSR, we 

also had to contain the risk of conflict with it, and that meant engaging in dialogue, negotiations, and even reaching agreements 

limiting strategic nuclear weapons and establishing agreed procedures to prevent confrontations from escalating. 

This new administration must thread the needle between pushing back against Vladimir Putin’s aggressions, meddling, interventionism, ambitions, and bullying and, at the same time, find a way 

to stop a dangerous downward spiral in our relationship with Russia. I believe Mr. Tillerson is the right person at the right time to 

help accomplish both of those goals. And so it is with pride and 

confidence that I introduce him to you today and encourage his 

confirmation. 

Senator CORKER. We thank you all for being here. You honor us 

with your presence. We thank you for your contribution. 

You do not have to leave, but you cannot stay there. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CORKER. So we actually hope you will stay somewhere 

on the premises and participate if you would like. 

[Pause.] 

Senator CORKER. We have some new members to the committee 

today, and I was thinking prior to this hearing that ten years ago, 

I came on this committee as a new Senator in many ways to broadFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

10 

en my ability to serve our Nation and to serve our State, having 

been mostly a business person. 

When I came here, the first order of business was to deal with 

the surge in Iraq, a pretty monumental time. We had an underresourced effort that was taking place in Iraq and at a time when 

really in many ways the United States had unleashed forces in the 

region that had not been seen, not unlike taking, in some ways, a 

big stick and hitting a hornets’ nest and changing dramatically the 

dynamic in the region. And so we had the choice of whether we 

surge and try to be successful at what we began or take another 

course. 

Afghanistan also had been under-resourced, and all of a sudden, 

we began discussing things like nation building, things that had 

not been part of our vocabulary for many years. 

We had the Arab Spring that took place in 2011, again some of 

which was built off of some of the activities that I mentioned earlier. And we had all kinds of incoherent things that took place, the 

quick throwing aside of a leader in Egypt that we had known for 

years, an undertaking in Libya that I still have never understood 

what the goal was but left a large vacuum in the region with arms 

spreading throughout Northern Africa and other places. 

We had the conflict in Syria that began, if you remember, with 

us cheering on the people who wanted basic human rights and 

more of a democracy. And then we had the red line that our country did not follow up on. 

After that, we had the taking of Crimea and the destabilizing of 

eastern Ukraine, some of which I think was driven by observing 

U.S. leadership in the world. We had China redrawing a map that 

had been around for thousands of years in the South China Sea 

and claiming islands and properties and building runways and 

doing things that, again, until up to that time had not occurred. 

We have had the whole destabilization of Europe, where I think 

confidence levels in Europe are probably the lowest they have been 

in our lifetimes, driven by concerns in many cases about what our 

role is, but also the role of Russia and what it has been doing in 

the region, the role of immigrants that are flowing in, the whole 

challenging of the European model. 

And then we have had a campaign that has been somewhat unorthodox, one that has also given concern to our allies in the world 

and to many around the world as to just where America is going 

to be. With all of this chaos that has exhibited through multiple 

administrations and will continue under this administration for a 

period of time, we have had chaos where the United States has 

been withdrawing in its leadership role. And to me, that is a recipe 

for further chaos. 

So this is a very important hearing. I had the ability the other 

day to sit down with General Flynn, who is going to be the National Security Adviser, and I spent time with people around him 

for some time. And I know that, rightly so, his focus is also on our 

country doing well economically. 

Every military leader we have had before us and certainly Secretary Gates, have told us that if our Nation is not strong economically, if we are not doing things fiscally to keep ourselves strong, 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

11 

then our Nation will be weak, and our leadership around the world 

will be diminished. 

And so I am thankful that that is the case. A lot of people here 

realize it is not only important for us to be economically successful, 

but we understand that autocrats in other places when they, themselves, are not successful end up creating havoc around the world 

for nationalistic reasons, to build support within their countries. 

And therefore, we do not wish the other major countries in the 

world harm as it relates to economic growth. We want them to do 

well, countries like China and even Russia, who no doubt has conducted very nefarious activities here in our country. 

Many of us have seen in the Middle East the fact that poverty, 

not unlike what happens in our own country, where people who 

live in cities and neighborhoods have no hope, crime permeates, 

things occur. We have seen the same thing happen in the Middle 

East, where young people who have no hope are attracted to 

ideologies that end up threatening our own nation. 

So I appreciate the fact that at the National Security Office they 

are not only connected to those who will be dealing with our issues 

of foreign policy and our role in the world, but also focus on those 

economic issues, which brings me to trade. 

Our country has shown great leadership around the world. Rob 

Portman served as our Trade Representative in previous administrations, and there has been a great deal of talk about what our 

role will be in that regard. 

I think most of us believe that a world that continues to focus 

on free enterprise, a world that continues to have democratic principles more and more permeated is a world that is a better place 

for us. [Disturbance in hearing room.] 

Senator CORKER. And while we should also always focus on trade 

as it relates to improving the standard of living of Americans, an 

ancillary benefit is that people within those countries begin to 

adopt the values that we hold so dear here in our country. 

One of the things that many of us on the committee and so many 

in the audience have been able to do is also to see the importance 

of American values around the world. It is an amazing thing to be 

in Afghanistan, for instance, and to see women at 4:30 in the morning—who, by the way, do all of the hard work in Afghanistan—up 

and ready to vote in the first election that they have voted in or 

to see young girls going to schools that they never had the opportunity to go. 

To be in refugee camps, where truly every eye is on America with 

hope. To be in Venezuela and to see families whose loved ones are 

in prison for political reasons and looking to us to change that. To 

be in villages in Africa, where, for the first time because of American ingenuity, 600 million people without power now have hope, 

with very little in the way of U.S. resources but our leadership in 

setting a vision and working with others. The elimination almost 

of HIV, the dealing with malaria, dealing with other diseases like 

Ebola. 

Many of us, all of us, I think, have been in situations where 

young people just want to touch us. They just want to see us. They 

want to hug Americans because they, like the people who founded 

our country, believe in the American ideal. It is not just a country, 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

12 

but it is their hope. It is their vision of what their life might be 

with American leadership. 

I believe the world is at its best when America leads, and I think 

most people at this dais believe the same thing. We understand the 

importance of diplomacy and all of us know the one percent of the 

U.S. budget that we spend on efforts like Mr. Tillerson may lead, 

with that one percent, if we are successful, the likelihood of the 

men and women that we cherish so much in our military are much 

less likely to be in harm’s way. 

Which brings me to you. This is a person, Mr. Tillerson, who, by 

the way, had never met Mr. Trump, as I understand, until a few 

weeks ago or a month ago. I believe, like Senator Cornyn said, that 

it is very, very possible that you are, in fact, an inspired choice. 

We look at the President-elect who, if you think about it, approaches everything almost from an economic standpoint. That has 

been the world that he has lived in. And the fact that you have led 

a global enterprise with 70,000 employees around the world, have 

been there for 41 1/2 years, have met world leaders, know them up 

close and personally, to me, that is going to give our new President 

much greater confidence in your ability to offer advice. And I think 

it is going to give the State Department possibly the ability to have 

the appropriate balance with other forces, as it relates within the 

White House and other places to developing a vision for our country. 

If you think about it, not only does the world not really understand where America is today, and all of us have had leaders in 

our offices wondering what is next, all of us. But if you think about 

the body politic here our own country does not understand. 

You look at the election. We had the Bush presidency, and then 

we had the Obama presidency, which was not the Bush presidency. 

And then we have had this election, where many things have been 

said and sometimes in unorthodox ways. And so not only do just 

the world leaders not know where we are, not just citizens who 

watch us on television and other places, but our body politic here 

does not know. 

So, Mr. Tillerson, this is a momentous time. This, to me, is the 

most important nomination that the President has made. The 

world paying attention to this hearing I think denotes that. You 

have the ability, no doubt, to draw a crowd. 

But it is going to be your responsibility to define clearly what 

America’s role in the world is going to be. I know Secretary Gates 

has spoken to this many times as he talks about the way the world 

was when it was us and the Soviet Union, but now it is very different. And the American people even do not fully understand what 

the future holds. 

You have got to restore our credibility, secondly. The NATO alliance is shaken. Europe is shaken. Our Arab friends, because of negotiations that have taken place, are concerned about the future. 

And I could go on and on, but I want to be respectful to other people’s time. 

But one of your first goals is going to be to restore U.S. credibility around the world. You are going to need to prioritize. One of 

the things I have witnessed over the last several—for the entire 10 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

13 

years I have been here, actually—is there is a lot of activity that 

takes place, but it is hard to discern where it is taking us. 

And so I think as a person who has led an organization, who has 

risen from the bottom, who has been the CEO of a global enterprise 

may, in fact, be an inspired choice to prioritize, to restore credibility, which is what a company like yours has had to do to have 

those relationships based on trust, based on people knowing that 

we are going to do what we say. 

And then, lastly, you are the person that is charged with being 

the principal adviser to the President on foreign policy. And I think 

that is the question that people on both sides of the aisle will raise 

most here today is we know that the President-elect’s foreign policy 

is evolving as he takes office, as he talks to people, and there is 

no way that you could speak on his behalf today. That cannot happen. 

So what people here today are going to want to know is how are 

you going to advise him? You are going to be one of the last people 

to talk to him. You are going to be up under the hood, sharing with 

him what you think ought to happen. 

We know that at the end of the day, you are going to carry out 

his policy. And all of us have watched as other Secretaries of State 

have tried to carry out their own policy and not the President’s, 

and we know that that does not work. 

So we thank you for being here. My sense is that you are going 

to rise to the occasion, that you are going to demonstrate that you 

are, in fact, an inspired choice, that you are going to be able to take 

the years of accomplishment and relationships and transfer that 

and translate it into a foreign policy that benefits U.S. national interests. 

Thank you again for being willing to put yourself before our 

country and the world in this manner. And with that, let me turn 

to our distinguished ranking member and my friend, Ben Cardin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Well, again, Senator Corker, thank you very 

much for the accommodations in this hearing. 

And I agree with your final comment. This hearing is about Mr. 

Tillerson and Mr. Tillerson’s views, though I think we are going to 

have some specific questions because of statements made by Mr. 

Trump. But we do want to hear your views, particularly as it relates to many of the challenges that Chairman Corker went 

through in his opening statement. 

To Senator Nunn, it is a pleasure to have you in our committee, 

and we thank you very much for your years of public service. 

Secretary Gates, thank you for all of your service, and you honor 

our committee, both of you, by being here today. 

And I also want to once again welcome our new colleagues—Senator Booker, Senator Merkley, Senator Portman, Senator Young. I 

have worked with all four of you before in different capacities, and 

I know your commitment to our national security and to foreign 

policy, and I know you all will be great additions to our committee. 

I want to acknowledge Senator King, who is here. This is not the 

first time that Senator King has been in our committee room to obFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

14 

serve a hearing. We have got to get you on the committee. But we 

thank you again for your interest in this hearing. 

And Mr. Tillerson, as I told you in our private meeting, thank 

you. Thank you for being willing to serve the public. It is not easy 

to put yourself forward. As you have found since your nomination 

has been brought forward, your life has changed pretty dramatically. Not just for you, but for your entire family. And we thank 

you for your willingness to serve our country. 

Providing advice and consent on the nominees of the President 

is one of the most important constitutional powers of the Senate. 

It is an awesome responsibility, and one that I know that all of us 

on this committee take with the utmost seriousness. 

Mr. Tillerson, there is no question about your impressive record 

in the business world, rising through the ranks and then running 

Exxon, one of the largest multinational operations in the world. 

Yet, I would offer, having a view from the C-suite at Exxon is not 

at all the same as a view from the seventh floor of the Department 

of State. And those who suggest that anyone who can run a successful business can, of course, run a Government agency do a profound disservice to both. 

Serving the narrow, market-driven interest of Exxon shareholders is not the same as serving the national interest of all the 

American people. Effective corporate governance and management 

does not always lend itself to Government decision-making, where 

bureaucracies and representative institutions such as Congress 

serve different political and social purposes than maximizing profits. 

I, therefore, want to get a sense of how you envision pivoting 

from the mindset of an oilman focused on profits to that of a statesman focused on promoting American interests and values around 

the world. And as you know, Congress, as a separate and coequal 

branch of Government, has an important role to play in assuring 

that the values that have animated our Nation since its founding 

continue to flourish. 

So, first, I want to share with you, as I did in our private meeting, my vision of the United States foreign policy and the role of 

the Secretary of State in carrying out that policy. 

I approach this hearing and discussion today with a clear set of 

expectations of the next administration. I believe strongly in a 

world where America works with its allies and partners, a world 

that is governed by laws and institutions consistent with the liberal international order and one where we champion our values 

both at home and abroad. 

Indeed, I think it is worth spending a few minutes this morning 

on the questions of human rights, democracy, good governance, 

anti-corruption, and civil society support. It is worth doing so both 

because of the critical importance of these issues for America’s role 

in the world—and our values are our interests, not a separate set 

of considerations—but also because the nature of Exxon and your 

work there, Mr. Tillerson, leaves some troubling questions about 

how you view these issues and how you, as Secretary of State, intend to approach them. 

As you may know, over the course of my tenure in the House and 

Senate, I have championed the cause of human rights and the imFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

15 

portance of democratic process and good governance. So when I see 

violations of sovereignty by China in the South China Sea, I speak 

out. When I see gross human rights violations in Ethiopia, I speak 

out. 

When I see massive corruption in countries with extreme poverty 

like Equatorial New Guinea, I speak out. And when I see severe 

erosion of democratic institutions in Venezuela, I speak out. 

Indeed, events over the past year serve as a stark reminder that 

democracy will not defend itself. It requires those of us who believe 

in the enduring values of the democratic experiment to nurture and 

support it and to defend it from authoritarian opponents who do 

not share our values. 

Perhaps the most egregious events we have seen recently has 

been where President Putin of Russia, having effectively killed his 

nation’s nascent democracy, has led efforts across Europe and the 

former Soviet Union to erode support for democratic institutions 

and call into question well-established rules of the road. 

Moscow directs efforts to undermine democracy through propaganda, false news, cyber attacks, and funding for populist political 

parties abroad. So perhaps it should come as no surprise that these 

nefarious activities have reached our shores, but it is stunning 

nonetheless. 

Last week, the intelligence community found that Mr. Putin did, 

indeed, direct efforts to interfere in our elections. That is their conclusion. They found that the Kremlin attacked Hillary Clinton and 

directed resources to that end. 

I am not saying that Russia’s efforts were decisive in our election 

outcome. That is not the point. The point is that we, the United 

States, were victims of cyber attack of our democratic process. Recent news accounts indicate Russia may well have information 

about Mr. Trump, and they could use that to compromise our presidency. 

It cannot be business as usual. That is why I was proud to introduce a bipartisan bill yesterday with Senator McCain and several 

members of this committee, including Senators Menendez, Shaheen, Rubio, and Portman, along with Senators Graham, Klobuchar, Sasse, and Durbin, which will impose enhanced sanctions 

on Russia for its interference in our election and its ongoing aggression in Ukraine and Syria. 

We need to stand up to this bully in Moscow and increase the 

cost for his behavior. So I was disappointed that in your prepared 

opening remarks submitted to the committee yesterday, there was 

no mention about the direct confirmed cyber attack by Russia on 

America. But you did find time to say it was the absence of American leadership that this door was left open, and unintended signals were sent. 

So I want to know exactly what additional actions the United 

States should have taken against Russia, in your view? Do you, for 

example, support additional sanctions against Russia, demonstrating America’s leadership, like what my colleagues and I introduced yesterday? 

Mr. Tillerson, I am sure you can understand why I and many of 

my colleagues have deep concerns about your relationship with Mr. 

Putin. And this is not simply a question of what you saw when you 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

16 

gazed into his eyes—you do not strike me as someone likely to be 

naive—but also about how Exxon conducted itself in supporting, directly and indirectly, funding for the tools that Putin has used to 

crush democracy and dissent at home and to sow division abroad. 

While I do not suggest it was your intent, it is, frankly, not too 

great of a distance from Exxon’s business partnerships to Putin’s 

Kremlin-controlled slush funds essential for his disinformation 

campaign around the world. 

You will be representing a President who may blatantly ignore 

the consensus of 17 independent intelligence agencies who have 

said that the Russians interfered with our election in an unprecedented way. The same President to whom you will report has also 

made it clear that he may ignore Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, his 

illegal annexation of Crimea, his interference in Syria, where Russian forces partnered with Iran, Hezbollah, and Shia militia to shift 

battlefield momentum toward a dictator guilty of war crimes. 

Russia itself is culpable of war crimes for its backing of Bashar 

al-Assad, who has starved, barrel bombed, and tortured the Syrian 

people into submission. And yet President-elect Trump may take 

quick steps to make Putin a close ally of the United States of 

America. 

So there is a serious discussion to be had here today about Russia and the President-elect’s plans for Putin, and we need to know 

and understand your views, as the chairman has said, on these 

critical issues of national security. 

In addition, if we take seriously that your tenure and experience 

at Exxon serves as qualifications for Secretary of State, then there 

is likewise a serious discussion this committee needs to have about 

the potential for conflicts of interest that arise from your long corporate tenure. 

For far too long, in my estimation, U.S. foreign policy has treated 

core governance issues as secondary considerations. If you become 

our Nation’s top diplomat, I want to know if governance issues will 

become a primary consideration. 

I have always worked to treat governance issues as one of the 

most important aspects of our foreign policy. I have been centrally 

involved in several legislative efforts over the years to bring transparency to extractive industries, to foster high standards of 

uncorrupt practices, and to use all the tools at our disposal when 

it comes to supporting human rights and civil societies. So I am 

troubled that, on many of these issues, Exxon, under your leadership, appears to have been pushing in the opposite direction. 

Mr. Tillerson, we have much to discuss. If confirmed, you will be 

assuming your new job at a consequential time. Indeed, I believe 

the United States today stands at a turning point in history. National power, along with economic, military, diplomatic power, is 

being redefined and redistributed across the globe. 

International institutions, international financial and economic 

orders are under distress. Climate change is causing irreparable 

harm and creating and leading to greater instability. In many 

parts of the world, there is a view that American power, determination, and maybe more importantly, our support for American values is uncertain, and clearly, candidate Trump added to that uncertainty. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

17 

We have global challenges. The Middle East is undergoing a period of unprecedented violence and instability. Iran is committed to 

confrontations with the United States and its allies, and is fomenting terrorism to challenge regional order. There are no less than 

three civil wars in this part of the world. 

U.S. leadership is required to support movement toward negotiated political settlements. Six years after the hope of Arab 

Spring, the region has entered into a long winter in which many 

governments are backsliding on inclusive politics, space for civil society and open economies. The fractured Middle East underscores 

my fundamental belief that the United States cannot pursue a 

hard-nosed security agenda or economic ties without prioritizing 

values such as political inclusion, human rights, and a free, active 

media and civil society. 

Without these elements, instability will persist, with serious implications for countering violent extremism and stemming the flow 

of refugees heading for Europe’s shore. 

I also need to stress that our important partner in this part of 

the world, Israel, needs more than tweets about how great our relationship is going to be. I hope we will hear from you today concrete 

plans with specific proposals for the way forward and strengthening that strategic partnership. 

And despite the challenges, encouraging opportunities exist for 

our country. President Obama leaves the next administration as an 

inheritance strengthened relationships with historic allies in Europe and Asia, a reenergized partnership with India, and growing 

economic relations with countries across Sub-Sahara Africa that 

provide promising platforms to advance U.S. security and economic 

interests. 

I recognize that what I outlined here may not be in line with 

President-elect Trump’s vision of the world. But I believe that core 

values like standing up against violations of international law, 

against war crimes, against human rights violations, against corruption, and speaking up for democracy and freedom of speech 

must be at the forefront of America’s foreign policy agenda. 

Finally, I want to note that, if confirmed, you will be taking over 

as leader of one of the most skilled and able workforces of any organization on the planet. Our foreign affairs and development professionals are truly among the most able and dedicated of our public servants on the front line safeguarding our national security, 

and as ranking member of this committee, I have benefited greatly 

from their insight and counsel over the years. 

I hope and trust and encourage you to take full advantage of the 

dedicated public servants of the Department of State and USAID, 

should you be confirmed. They are deeply committed to protecting 

and extending our Nation’s values and interests. I am certain that 

you and our Nation will benefit greatly from a full and robust partnership between your office and the department you have been 

nominated to lead. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our witness and 

I look forward to questions. 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Tillerson, thank you for being here. I think 

you have been adequately introduced, and I think the world knows 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

18 

more about you than they ever thought they would. So without 

using any more time, we thank you for being here today. 

I know you may have some family members to introduce, which 

is always helpful. And if you wish to do so, begin with that and 

then with your comments. 

STATEMENT OF REX WAYNE TILLERSON, OF TEXAS, 

NOMINATED TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE 

Mr. TILLERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I do have members of my family with me today: my wife, Renda, for more than 

30 years, who has kept a welcoming home when I would come back 

from my many travels, and also for our sons and our five grandchildren. My sister Jo Peters—Jo Lynn Peters, a lifelong educator, 

high school mathematics teacher, math teacher coach, and teaching 

many, many years in the Texas Public School Systems. My sister, 

Dr. Rae Ann Hamilton, a family practice physician in Abilene, 

Texas for more than 30 years. And my brother-in-law, Judge Lee 

Hamilton, who is now finishing or has just begun to serve his fifth 

term on the bench at the 104th District of State District Courts of 

Texas in Abilene, Texas. 

I appreciate so much the love and support they have given me 

in my past endeavors, but, most particularly, that they would come 

all the way up from Texas to be with me today. 

Good morning, Chairman Corker and others. I am honored to 

have the backing of Senator Cornyn and Senator Cruz from my 

home State of Texas. I do want to thank Senator Nunn for his commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, something he remains as 

steadfast today as ever, and to Secretary Gates for his service to 

eight U.S. Presidents and his own leadership as president of the 

Boy Scouts of America. 

Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Cardin, and members of the 

committee, it is an honor to appear before you today as Presidentelect Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State, and seek the approval of this committee and the full Senate for my confirmation. 

I come before you at a pivotal time in both the history of our Nation and our world. Nearly everywhere we look, people and nations 

are deeply unsettled. Old ideas and international norms, which 

were well understood, and government behaviors in the past may 

no longer be effective in our time. 

We face considerable threats in this evolving new environment. 

China has emerged as an economic power in global trade, and our 

interactions have been both friendly and adversarial. While Russia 

seeks respect and relevance on the global stage, its recent activities 

have disregarded America’s interests. Radical Islam is not a new 

ideology, but it is hateful, deadly, and an illegitimate expression of 

the Islamic faith. Adversaries, like Iran and North Korea, pose 

grave threats to the world because of their refusal to conform to 

international norms. 

As we confront these realities, how should America respond? My 

answer is simple. To achieve the stability that is foundational to 

peace and security in the 21st century, American leadership must 

not only be renewed, it must be asserted. 

We have many advantages on which to build. Our alliances are 

durable, and our allies are looking for a return of our leadership. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

19 

Our men and women in uniform are the world’s finest fighting 

force, and we possess—[Disturbance in hearing room.] 

Mr. TILLERSON. Our men and women in uniform are the world’s 

finest fighting force, and we possess the world’s largest economy. 

America is still the destination of choice for people the world over 

because of our track record of benevolence and hope for our fellow 

man. America has been indispensable in providing the stability to 

prevent another world war, increased global prosperity, and encourage the expansion of liberty. 

Our role in the world has also historically entailed a place of 

moral leadership. In the scope of international affairs, America’s 

level of goodwill toward the world is unique, and we must continue 

to display a commitment to personal liberty, human dignity, and 

principled action in our foreign policy. Quite simply, we are the 

only global superpower with the means and the moral compass capable of shaping the world for good. If we do not lead, we risk 

plunging the world deeper into confusion and danger. 

But we have stumbled. In recent decades, we have cast American 

leadership into doubt. In some instances, we have withdrawn from 

the world. In others, we have intervened with good intentions, but 

did not achieve the stability and global security we sought. Instead 

our actions and our non-actions have triggered a host of unintended consequences and created a void of uncertainty. Today our 

friends still want to help us, but they do not know how. And meanwhile, our adversaries have been emboldened to take advantage of 

this absence of American leadership. 

In this campaign, President-elect Trump proposed a bold, new 

commitment to advancing American interests in our foreign policy. 

I hope to explain what this approach means and how I would implement it if confirmed as Secretary of State. 

Americans welcome this re-dedication to American security, liberty, and prosperity, but new leadership is incomplete without accountability. If accountability does not start with ourselves, we cannot credibly extend it to our friends and our adversaries. We must 

hold ourselves accountable to upholding the promises we make to 

others. An America that can be trusted in good faith is essential 

to supporting our partners, achieving our goals, and assuring our 

security. 

We must hold our allies accountable to commitments they make. 

We cannot look the other way at allies who do not meet their obligations. This is an injustice not only to us, but to longstanding 

friends who honor their promises and bolster our own national security, such as Israel. And we must hold those who are not our 

friends accountable to the agreements they make. 

Our failure to do this over the recent decades has diminished our 

standing and encouraged bad actors around the world to break 

their word. We cannot afford to ignore violations of international 

accords as we have done with Iran. We cannot continue to accept 

empty promises, like the ones China has made to pressure North 

Korea to reform, only to shy away from enforcement. Looking the 

other way when trust is broken only encourages more bad behavior, and it must end. 

We cannot be accountable, though, if we are not truthful and 

honest in our dealings. As you are aware, in my longstanding inFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

20 

volvement with the Boy Scouts of America, one of our bedrock 

ideals is honesty. Indeed, the phrase, ‘‘On my honor,’’ begins the 

Boy Scout Oath, and it must undergird our foreign policy. 

In particular, we need to be honest about radical Islam. It is with 

good reason that our fellow citizens have a growing concern about 

radical Islam and the murderous acts committed in its name 

against Americans and our friends. Radical Islam poses a grave 

risk to the stability of nations and the well-being of their citizens. 

Powerful digital media platforms now allow ISIS, al Qaeda, and 

other terror groups to spread a poisonous ideology that runs completely counter to the values of the American people and all people 

around the world who value human life. These groups are often enabled and emboldened by nations, organizations, and individuals 

sympathetic to their cause. These actors must face consequences 

for aiding and abetting what can only be called evil. 

The most urgent step in thwarting radical Islam is defeating 

ISIS. The Middle East and its surrounding region pose many challenges which require our attention, including Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. There are competing priorities in this region which 

must be and will be addressed, but they must not distract from our 

utmost mission of defeating ISIS, because when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. Defeating ISIS must be our foremost 

priority in the Middle East. 

Eliminating ISIS will be the first step in disrupting the capabilities of other groups and individuals committed to striking our 

homeland and our allies. The demise of ISIS will allow us to increase our attention on other agents of radical Islam like, al Qaeda, 

the Muslim Brotherhood, and certain elements within Iran. But defeat will not occur on the battlefield alone. We must win the war 

of ideas. If confirmed, I will ensure the State Department does it 

its part in supporting Muslims around the world who reject radical 

Islam in all its forms. 

We should also acknowledge the realities about China. China’s 

island building in the South China Sea is an illegal taking of disputed areas without regard for international norms. China’s economic and trade practices have not always followed its commitments to global agreements. It steals our intellectual property and 

is aggressive and expansionist in the digital realm. It has not been 

a reliable partner in using its full influence to curb North Korea. 

China has proven a willingness to act with abandonment in the 

pursuit of its own goals, which at times has put it in conflict with 

American interests. We have to deal with what we see, not what 

we hope. 

But we need to see the positive dimensions in our relationship 

with China as well. The economic well-being of our two nations is 

deeply intertwined. China has been a valuable ally in curtailing 

certain elements of radical Islam. We should not let disagreements 

over other issues exclude areas for productive partnership. 

We must also be clear eyed about our relationship with Russia. 

Russia today poses a danger, but it is not unpredictable in advancing its own interests. It has invaded the Ukraine, including the 

taking of Crimea, and supported Syrian forces that brutally violates the laws of war. Our NATO allies are right to be alarmed at 

a resurgent Russia. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

21 

But it was in the absence of American leadership that this door 

was left open and unintended signals were sent. We backtracked 

on commitments we made to allies. We sent weak or mixed signals 

with red lines that turned into green lights. We did not recognize 

that Russia did not—does not think like we do. 

Words alone do not sweep away an uneven and, at times, contentious history between our two nations, but we need an open and 

frank dialogue with Russia regarding its ambitions so we know 

how to chart our own course. Where cooperation with Russia based 

on common interests is possible, such as reducing the global threat 

of terrorism, we ought to explore these options. Where important 

differences remain, we should be steadfast in defending the interests of America and her allies. Russia must know that we will be 

accountable to our commitments and those of our allies, and that 

Russia must be held to account for its actions. 

Our approach to human rights begins by acknowledging that 

American leadership requires moral clarity. We do not face an either/or choice on defending global human rights. Our values are 

our interests when it comes to human rights and humanitarian assistance. It is unreasonable to expect that every foreign policy endeavor will be driven by human rights considerations alone, especially when the security of the American people is at stake. But our 

leadership demands actions specifically focused on improving the 

conditions of people the world over, utilizing both aid and, where 

appropriate, economic sanctions as instruments of foreign policy. 

And we must adhere to standards of accountability. Our recent 

engagements with the government of Cuba was not accompanied by 

any significant concessions on human rights. We have not held 

them accountable for their conduct. Their leaders receive much 

while their people received little. That serves neither the interest 

of Cubans or Americans. 

Abraham Lincoln declared that America is the last best hope of 

earth. Our moral light must not go out if we are to remain an 

agent of freedom for mankind. Supporting human rights in our foreign policy is a key component of clarifying to a watching world 

what America stands for. 

In closing, let us also be proud about the ideals that define us 

and the liberties we have secured at great cost. The ingenuity, 

ideas, and culture of Americans who came before us made the 

United States the greatest Nation in history; so have their sacrifices. We should never forget that we stand on the shoulders of 

those who have sacrificed much and, in some cases, everything. 

They include our fallen heroes in uniform, our foreign service officers, and other Americans in the field who likewise gave all for 

their country. 

If confirmed, in my work for the President and the American people, I will seek to engender trust with foreign leaders and governments and put in place agreements that will serve the purposes 

and interest of American foreign policy. The Secretary of State 

works for the President and seeks to implement his foreign policy 

objectives. To do that, I must work closely with my Cabinet colleagues and all relevant departments and agencies of the Administration to build consensus. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

22 

But let me also stress that keeping the President’s trust means 

keeping the public trust, and keeping the public trust means keeping faith with their elected representatives. I want all the members 

of this committee to know that should I be confirmed, I will listen 

to your concerns and those of your staff and partner together to 

achieve great things for the country we all love. 

I am an engineer by training. I seek to understand the facts, follow where they lead, and apply logic to all international affairs. We 

must see the world for what it is, have clear priorities, and understand that our power is considerable, but it is not infinite. We 

must, where possible, build pathways to new partnerships and 

strengthen old bonds which have frayed. If confirmed, I intend to 

conduct a foreign policy consistent with these ideals. 

We will never apologize for who we are or what we hold dear. 

We will see the world for what it is, be honest with ourselves and 

the American people, follow facts where they lead us, and hold ourselves and others accountable. 

I thank you for your time and look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tillerson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE DESIGNATE REX TILLERSON

Good morning. 

I am honored to have the backing of Senator Cornyn and Senator Cruz from my 

home state of Texas. I also want to thank Senator Nunn for his commitment to nuclear non-proliferation, and Secretary Gates for his service to eight presidents and 

his own leadership as President of the Boy Scouts of America. 

Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Cardin, and Members of the Committee, it 

is an honor to appear before you today as President-elect Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State and to seek the approval of this Committee and the full Senate for 

my confirmation. 

I would like to first introduce members of my family who are here today. These 

are the most important people in my life, and I want to express my gratitude to 

them for all their love and support over the years. First, my wife of over 30 years, 

Renda, who has always kept the home fires burning during my many trips abroad. 

My sisters Jo Lynn Peters and Rae Ann Hamilton and my brother-in-law Lee Hamilton. I am grateful and proud they are with me today. 

I come before you at a pivotal time in both the history of our nation and our 

world. 

Nearly everywhere we look, people and nations are deeply unsettled. Old ideas 

and international norms which were well-understood and governed behaviors in the 

past may no longer be effective in our time. 

We face considerable threats in this evolving new environment. China has 

emerged as an economic power in global trade, and our interactions have been both 

friendly and adversarial. While Russia seeks respect and relevance on the global 

stage, its recent activities have disregarded American interests. Radical Islam is not 

a new ideology, but it is hateful, deadly, and an illegitimate expression of the Islamic faith. Adversaries like Iran and North Korea pose grave threats to the world 

because of their refusal to conform to international norms. 

As we confront these realities, how should America respond? 

My answer is simple. To achieve the stability that is foundational to peace and 

security in the 21st century, American leadership must not only be renewed, it must 

be asserted. 

We have many advantages on which to build. Our alliances are durable and our 

allies are looking for a return of our leadership. Our men and women in uniform 

are the world’s finest fighting force, and we possess the world’s largest economy. 

America is still the destination of choice for people the world over because of our 

track record of benevolence and hope for our fellow man. America has been indispensable in providing the stability to prevent another world war, increase global 

prosperity, and encourage the expansion of liberty. 

Our role in the world has also historically entailed a place of moral leadership. 

In the scope of international affairs, America’s level of goodwill toward the world 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

23 

is unique, and we must continue to display a commitment to personal liberty, 

human dignity, and principled action in our foreign policy. 

Quite simply, we are the only global superpower with the means and the moral 

compass capable of shaping the world for good. 

If we do not lead, we risk plunging the world deeper into confusion and danger. 

But we’ve stumbled. 

In recent decades, we have cast American leadership into doubt. In some instances, we have withdrawn from the world. In others, we have intervened with 

good intentions but did not achieve the stability and global security we sought. Instead, we triggered a host of unintended consequences and created a void of uncertainty. Today, our friends still want to help us, but they don’t know how. Meanwhile, our adversaries have been emboldened to take advantage of this absence of 

American leadership. 

In this campaign, President-elect Trump proposed a bold new commitment to advancing American interests in our foreign policy. I hope to explain what this approach means and how I would implement that policy if confirmed as Secretary of 

State. 

Americans welcome this rededication to American security, liberty, and prosperity. But new leadership is incomplete without accountability. If accountability 

does not start with ourselves, we cannot credibly extend it to our friends or our adversaries. 

We must hold ourselves accountable to upholding the promises we make to others. 

An America that can be trusted in good faith is essential to supporting our partners, 

achieving our goals, and assuring our security. 

We must hold our allies accountable to commitments they make. We cannot look 

the other way at allies who do not meet their obligations; this is an injustice not 

only to us, but to longstanding friends who honor their promises and bolster our 

own national security. 

And we must hold those who are not our friends accountable to the agreements 

they make. Our failure to do this over recent decades has diminished our standing 

and encouraged bad actors around the world to break their word. We cannot afford 

to ignore violations of international accords, as we have done with Iran. We cannot 

continue to accept empty promises like the ones China has made to pressure North 

Korea to reform, only to shy away from enforcement. Looking the other way when 

trust is broken only encourages more bad behavior. And it must end. 

We cannot be accountable if we are not truthful and honest in our dealings. Some 

of you are aware of my longstanding involvement with the Boy Scouts of America. 

One of our bedrock ideals is honesty. Indeed, the phrase ‘‘on my honor’’ begins the 

Boy Scout Oath, and it must undergird our foreign policy. 

In particular, we need to be honest about radical Islam. It is with good reason 

that our fellow citizens have a growing concern about radical Islam and murderous 

acts committed in its name against Americans and our friends. 

Radical Islam poses a grave risk to the stability of nations and the well- being 

of their citizens. Powerful digital media platforms now allow ISIS, al-Qaeda, and 

other terror groups to spread a poisonous ideology that runs completely counter to 

the values of the American people and all people around the world who value 

human life. These groups are often enabled and emboldened by nations, organizations, and individuals sympathetic to their cause. These actors must face consequences for aiding and abetting what can only be called evil. 

The most urgent step in thwarting radical Islam is defeating ISIS. The Middle 

East and its surrounding regions pose many challenges which require our attention, 

including Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. There are competing priorities in this region 

which must be and will be addressed, but they must not distract from our utmost 

mission of defeating ISIS. Because when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. Defeating ISIS must be our foremost priority in the Middle East. 

Eliminating ISIS would be the first step in disrupting the capabilities of other 

groups and individuals committed to striking our Homeland and our allies. The demise of ISIS would also allow us to increase our attention on other agents of radical 

Islam like al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and certain elements within Iran. But 

defeat will not occur on the battlefield alone; we must win the war of ideas. If confirmed, I will ensure the State Department does its part in supporting Muslims 

around the world who reject radical Islam in all its forms. 

We should also acknowledge the realities about China. China’s island- building in 

the South China Sea is an illegal taking of disputed areas without regard for international norms. China’s economic and trade practices have not always followed its 

commitments to global agreements. It steals our intellectual property, and is aggressive and expansionist in the digital realm. It has not been a reliable partner in 

using its full influence to curb North Korea. China has proven a willingness to act 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

24 

with abandon in pursuit of its own goals, which at times has put it in conflict with 

America’s interests. We have to deal with what we see, not with what we hope. 

But we need to see the positive dimensions in our relationship with China as well. 

The economic well-being of our two nations is deeply intertwined. China has been 

a valuable ally in curtailing elements of radical Islam. We should not let disagreements over other issues exclude areas for productive partnership. 

We must also be clear-eyed about our relationship with Russia. Russia today 

poses a danger, but it is not unpredictable in advancing its own interests. It has 

invaded Ukraine, including the taking of Crimea, and supported Syrian forces that 

brutally violate the laws of war. Our NATO allies are right to be alarmed at a resurgent Russia. 

But it was in the absence of American leadership that this door was left open and 

unintended signals were sent. We backtracked on commitments we made to allies. 

We sent weak or mixed signals with ‘‘red lines’’ that turned into green lights. We 

did not recognize that Russia does not think like we do. 

Words alone do not sweep away an uneven and at times contentious history between our two nations. But we need an open and frank dialogue with Russia regarding its ambitions, so that we know how to chart our own course. 

Where cooperation with Russia based on common interests is possible, such as reducing the global threat of terrorism, we ought to explore these options. Where important differences remain, we should be steadfast in defending the interests of 

America and her allies. Russia must know that we will be accountable to our commitments and those of our allies, and that Russia must be held to account for its 

actions. 

Our approach to human rights begins by acknowledging that American leadership 

requires moral clarity. We do not face an ‘‘either or’’ choice on defending global 

human rights. Our values are our interests when it comes to human rights and humanitarian assistance. 

It is unreasonable to expect that every foreign policy endeavor will be driven by 

human rights considerations alone, especially when the security of the American 

people is at stake. 

But our leadership demands action specifically focused on improving the conditions of people the world over, utilizing both aid and economic sanctions as instruments of foreign policy when appropriate. 

And we must adhere to standards of accountability. Our recent engagement with 

the government of Cuba was not accompanied by any significant concessions on 

human rights. We have not held them accountable for their conduct. Their leaders 

received much, while their people received little. That serves neither the interest of 

Cubans or Americans. 

Abraham Lincoln declared that America is ‘‘the last best hope of Earth.’’ Our 

moral light must not go out if we are to remain an agent of freedom for mankind. 

Supporting human rights in our foreign policy is a key component of clarifying to 

a watching world what America stands for. 

In closing, let us also be proud about the ideals that define us and the liberties 

we have secured at great cost. The ingenuity, ideas, and culture of Americans who 

came before us made the United States the greatest nation in history. So have their 

sacrifices. We should never forget that we stand on the shoulders of those who have 

sacrificed much, and in some cases, everything. They include our fallen heroes in 

uniform, our Foreign Service Officers, and other government agents in the field who 

likewise gave all for their country. 

If confirmed, in my work for the President and the American people I will seek 

to engender trust with foreign leaders and governments, and put in place agreements that will serve the purposes and interests of American foreign policy. The 

Secretary of State works for the President and seeks to implement his foreign policy 

objectives. To do that I must work closely with my Cabinet colleagues and all relevant departments and agencies of the administration to build consensus. Let me 

also stress that keeping the President’s trust means keeping the public trust. And 

keeping the public’s trust means keeping faith with their elected representatives. I 

want all the members of this committee to know that, should I be confirmed, I will 

seek to be responsive to your concerns. 

I am an engineer by training. I seek to understand the facts, follow where they 

lead, and apply logic to our international affairs. We must see the world for what 

it is, have clear priorities, and understand that our power is considerable, but it is 

not infinite. We must, where possible, build pathways to new partnerships, and 

strengthen old bonds which have frayed. 

If confirmed, I intend to conduct a foreign policy consistent with these ideals. We 

will never apologize for who we are or what we hold dear. We will see the world 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

25 

for what it is, be honest with ourselves and the American people, follow facts where 

they lead us, and hold ourselves and others accountable. 

I thank you for your time and look forward to your questions. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you very much for your testimony. Do 

you commit to appear and testify upon request from this committee? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator CORKER. With that, I know the committee members 

know I rarely give opening statements, certainly not expansive 

ones like I gave. In order to move this along, I am going to reserve 

my time for interjections and move to the ranking member, Senator 

Cardin. And then we will move to Senator Rubio. 

Senator CARDIN. Once again, Mr. Tillerson, thank you very 

much. Do you agree with me that creating stable, democratic, and 

free societies around the world that support the aspirations of their 

people, including basic human rights, is in our long-term national 

security interests? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Without question, Senator. 

Senator CARDIN. And do you also agree that Russia under Mr. 

Putin’s leadership fails in that category? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARDIN. So, what we try to do in order to provide international leadership is to put a face on an issue. Thousands of people in Russia have been harmed or killed as a result of Mr. Putin’s 

leadership, and millions have been impacted by that. There is one 

person who lost his life in a courageous way. Sergei Magnitsky, a 

young attorney representing a client with U.S. interests, found corruption, did what any lawyer is supposed to do, reported it to the 

authorities. As a result, he was arrested, tortured, and killed, and 

those who benefited from the corruption were held to no accountability whatsoever. 

Through U.S. leadership, we brought that case to the international forum. Congress has passed a law, the Magnitsky Law— 

other countries have now passed similar laws—to deny our banking 

system and the right to visit our country to those who perpetrated 

those gross violations of human rights that were not held accountable by Russia. 

Do you support that law? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, sir, I do. 

Senator CARDIN. I thank you for that, because under the Obama 

Administration there have been 39 individuals who have been individually sanctioned under the Magnitsky Law, and five more were 

just recently added on Monday. 

That law provides for Congress to be able to submit through appropriate channels additional names to be reviewed by the Administration for inclusion for sanctions. Do you commit that you will 

follow that provision on names that we submit to you for potential 

sanctions for human rights violations under the Magnitsky Law? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, I will ensure that the—that if confirmed, myself and the State Department does comply with that 

law. 

Senator CARDIN. And this year under the National Defense Authorization Act, that was extended globally and now applies to 

human rights violations throughout the world. Do you also commit 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

26 

to support the global Magnitsky Law using the tools of our visa restrictions to prevent human rights violators from coming to America? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, again, consistent with all applicable 

laws that might impact immigration, we will endeavor to comply 

with that, yes. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, the law allows the Secretary of State to— 

visas are privileges to come to America. There is no due process 

issue when issuing the visas. This is a privilege to be able to come 

to a country. So, I am not aware of any restrictions on your ability 

to withdraw the right of someone to come to America. There may 

be—other than through treaties that we have diplomats that have 

to come in, which is exempted from that provision. 

Mr. TILLERSON. I understand, Senator, and that was what I intended is that I think I would have ensure that a full examination 

was made of any and all applicable laws or other policies. But then 

we would follow those and implement. 

Senator CARDIN. You mentioned in your statement about the invasion by Russia of Crimea. Does Russia have, in your view, a legal 

claim to Crimea? 

Mr. TILLERSON. No, sir. That was the taking of territory that was 

not theirs. 

Senator CARDIN. And do you agree that Russia has not complied 

with the Minsk Agreement in regards to the resolution of Ukraine? 

Mr. TILLERSON. The process for implementing the Minsk Agreement, as I understand it, continues. And no, full—a full completion 

of all the Minsk Accords has not yet been achieved. 

Senator CARDIN. So, I want to get your view on the sanctions 

that the United States applied, and maybe I will drill down, if I 

might, by asking you this first question. You stated in your statement that part of the reasons why we were ineffective in preventing Russia is that we did not exercise strong enough international leadership. What would you have done or recommended to 

have been done to prevent Russia from doing what it did? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, Senator, in terms of the taking of Crimea, 

I think my understanding is that caught a lot of people by surprise. 

It certainly caught me by surprise just as a private citizen. So, I 

think the real question was the response to the taking of Crimea 

that then led to subsequent actions by Russia, which I mentioned, 

the next action being coming across the border of Eastern Ukraine 

with both military assets and men. That was the next illegal action. 

I think the absence of a very firm and forceful response to the 

taking of Crimea was judged by the leadership in Russia as a weak 

response, and, therefore—— 

Senator CARDIN. So, what would you have done? After we were 

surprised by what they did in taking over Crimea, what should the 

U.S. leadership have done in response to that that we did not do? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I would have recommended that the Ukraine 

take all of its military assets it had available, put them on that 

eastern border, provide those assets with defensive weapons that 

are necessary just to defend themselves, announce that the U.S. is 

going to provide them intelligence, and that there will—either 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

27 

NATO or U.S. will provide air surveillance over that border to 

monitor any movements. 

Senator CARDIN. So, your recommendation would have been to do 

a more robust supply of military? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, sir. I think what Russian leadership would 

have understand—would have understood is a powerful response 

that indicated—— 

Senator CARDIN. So—— 

Mr. TILLERSON.—yes, you took the Crimea, but you are—this 

stops right here. 

Senator CARDIN. So, to understand, our NATO partners, particularly in the Baltics and Poland, are very concerned about Russian 

aggression. NATO has deployed troops in this region in order to 

show Russia that Article 5 means something. I take it you support 

that type of action. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, I do. That is the type of response that Russia expects. If Russia acts with force—taking of Crimea was an act 

of force. They did not—they did not just volunteer themselves. So, 

it required a proportional act—proportional show of force to indicate to Russia that there will be no more taking of territory. 

Senator CARDIN. That is encouraging to me to hear you say that 

because it is not exactly consistent with what Mr. Trump has been 

saying in regards to Article 5 commitments under NATO by the 

United States. So, I appreciate your commitment and your views 

on that issue. So, let me get to the response that was done. 

We imposed U.S.-led sanctions against Russia as a result of its 

conduct in Ukraine. We went to Europe and were able to get Europe to act. The United States, in my view, wanted to go even further, but we could not get Europe to go beyond what they were 

willing to do. Do you agree or disagree with that strategy for the 

United States to lead by showing sanctions as we did? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, sanctions are a powerful tool, and they 

are an important tool, in terms of deterring additional action. Once 

actors have acted up, then we want to deter any further action on 

their part. So, yes, American leadership is oftentimes, if not almost 

always, required to demonstrate that first step. 

Senator CARDIN. And, as you understand, unless we move, and 

we have to move in a strong position, we are going to be the best. 

We are going to get the strongest reaction on sanctions from the 

United States. We saw that in Iran. And I know that some of us 

have mentioned to you the legislation which was filed yesterday. I 

do not know if you have had a chance yet to respond to it or not. 

I might do that for questions for the record. 

But we have legislation I would urge you to take a look at. It 

seems consistent with what you are saying here that would provide 

the Administration with the tools to show Russia that if you attack 

us by cyber, or you continue to do what you are doing in Ukraine, 

or what you are doing in Georgia, that there is going to be an economic price you are going to pay. I take it you believe that is a 

powerful tool and one that you would consider applying? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, I have not had the opportunity to review the legislation. I am aware that it has been introduced. And, 

yes, I think in carrying out—the State Department carrying out its 

diplomacy or carrying out its important role in trying to negotiate 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

28 

to a different course of action, to a different pathway, we need a 

strong deterrent in our hand. It is the old tenet of Teddy Roosevelt: 

‘‘Walk softly; carry a big stick.’’ Well, even in diplomacy, it is useful 

to have a stick that is in your hand so that whether you use it or 

not becomes part of that conversation. 

Senator CARDIN. I appreciate that. Let me ask one final question. 

I was meeting with Mr. Pruitt yesterday, and I asked him about 

his view of global leadership on climate issues, and he said you 

should ask that question to the Secretary of State nominee. So, I 

am going to ask it to you, and that is we were part of COP21. Do 

you agree that the United States should continue in international 

leadership on climate change issues with the international community? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think it is important that the United States 

maintain its seat at the table in the conversations around how to 

address the threats of climate change which do require a global response. No one country is going to solve this alone. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. Senator Rubio. 

Senator RUBIO. Welcome, Mr. Tillerson. Do you believe during 

the 2016 presidential campaign, Russian intelligence services directed a campaign of active measures involving the hacking of 

emails, the strategic leak of these emails, the use of internet trolls, 

and the dissemination of fake news with the goal of denigrating a 

presidential candidate and also undermining faith in our election 

process? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, I have—I have had no unclassified 

briefings because I have not received my clearance yet. However, 

I did read the interagency report that was released on January the 

6th. That report clearly is troubling, and indicates that all of the 

actions you just described were undertaken. 

Senator RUBIO. Based on your knowledge of Russian leaders and 

Russian politics, do you believe these activities could have happened without the knowledge and the consent of Vladimir Putin? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I am not in a position to be able to make that 

determination. Again, that is indicated in the report, but I know 

there is additional classified information that might inform my 

views. 

Senator RUBIO. Mr. Tillerson, you have engaged in significant 

business activities in Russia, so I am sure you are aware that very 

few things of a major proportion happen in that country without 

Vladimir Putin’s permission. So, I ask, based on your views of Russian politics and your experience, is it possible for something like 

this involving the United States elections to have happened without Vladimir Putin knowing about it and authorizing it? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think that is a fair assumption. 

Senator RUBIO. That he would have needed to. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes. 

Senator RUBIO. If Congress passed a bill imposing mandatory 

visa bans and asset freeze sanctions on persons who engage in significant activities undermining the cybersecurity of public or private infrastructure and democratic institutions in the United 

States, would you advise the President to sign it? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

29 

Mr. TILLERSON. I would certainly want to examine it, all the corners—all four corners of that. 

Senator RUBIO. Well, those are the four corners. We would sanction people who are involved in cyberattacks against the United 

States and interfering in our elections. 

Mr. TILLERSON. The threat of cyberattacks is a broad issue, and 

those are coming from many, many corners of the world. Certainly, 

this most recent manifestation, and I think the new threat posed 

in terms of how Russia has used this as a tool, that introduces 

even another element of threat. But cyberattacks are occurring 

from many nations. 

Senator RUBIO. So, no matter where they come from. If they 

come from Belgium, if they come from France, I do not—if someone 

is conducting cyberattacks against the United States and we pass 

a law that authorizes the President to sanction them or actually 

imposes these sanctions as mandatory, would you advise the President to sign it? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think it is that second element, Senator, that 

you described that leaves the executive branch no latitudes or flexibility in dealing with the broad array of cyberthreats. I think it is 

important that those be dealt with on a country-by-county basis, 

taking all other elements into consideration in the relationship. So, 

giving the executive the tool is one thing. Requiring the executive 

to use it without any other considerations, I would have concerns 

about. 

Senator RUBIO. So, Mr. Tillerson, if I understand your testimony, 

you are saying if it was mandatory, you would not be able to advise 

the President to sign it because you want to have the President— 

to have the flexibility to decide which countries to sanction and 

which ones to not sanction. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Under which circumstances do you sanction. 

Senator RUBIO. In essence, because you want to be able, for example, to take other things into account, like, for example, the desire to perhaps improve relations with that country. And, therefore, 

the President maybe does not want to sanction even though they 

are attacking us. 

Mr. TILLERSON. There could be a whole array of important issues 

that require consideration, including trading issues, trade relation 

issues, mutual agreements around our national security. So, I do 

not think it is—I do not think it is appropriate, and certainly for 

me at this time, to indicate that I would just say that it is a blanket—a blanket application. I think that is the role of the—of the 

executive branch. It is the role of the Secretary of State and State 

Department to assist and inform the President in judgments about 

how to use what is a clearly powerful tool. 

Senator RUBIO. Well, again, I mean, what is troubling about your 

answer is the implication that somehow if there is some country 

that we are trying to improve relations with or have significant 

economic ties with, the President—you may advise the President 

not to impose sanctions on that country, on individuals in that 

country, out of concern that it could damage our—the rest of our 

relationship with them on a cyberattack, which is a direct attack 

on our national security and our electoral process. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

30 

So, let me ask you: would you advise the President-elect to repeal 

the Obama Administration’s recent executive orders regarding cybersecurity and Russian interference in the 2016 elections? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think the President-elect has indicated and, if 

confirmed, I would support, that what is really required is a comprehensive assessment of our cyberthreat and cybersecurity policies. In my view, based on what I have been able to read and have 

been briefed, we do not have a cybersecurity policy. We do not have 

a comprehensive strategy around how to deal with what has been 

a rapidly-emerging threat. 

Senator RUBIO. But, Mr. Tillerson—— 

Mr. TILLERSON. And as I said, we are seeing it manifest itself in 

ways that we never envisioned. 

Senator RUBIO. But, Mr. Tillerson, I understand the cybersecurity plan. We have to have one to protect ourselves and handle 

cyberattacks against our country. That is separate from the question of whether people that have already conducted attacks should 

be sanctioned and singled out. 

There is an executive order that is now active that has sanctioned those individuals. And my question is, do you believe that 

executive order should be repealed by the incoming President? 

Mr. TILLERSON. If confirmed, Senator, I would want to examine 

it and all aspects of it in consultation not only with the President, 

but with other inter-agencies who are going to have input on this 

as to their views. 

Senator RUBIO. Well, again, Mr. Tillerson, all the executive order 

says is that certain individuals responsible for cyber actions 

against the United States will be sanctioned. And you still need to 

examine whether that is a good idea or not. Is that correct? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator RUBIO. Let me ask you this question. Is Vladimir Putin 

a war criminal? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I would not use that term. 

Senator RUBIO. Well, let me describe the situation in Aleppo, and 

perhaps that will help you reach that conclusion. 

In Aleppo, Mr. Putin has directed his military to conduct a devastating campaign. He has targeted schools, markets. Not just assisted the Syrians in doing it. His military has targeted schools, 

and markets, and other civilian infrastructure. It has resulted in 

the deaths of thousands of civilians. 

This is not the first time Mr. Putin is involved in campaigns of 

this kind. Back when he was just appointed prime minister before 

he was elected [to the presidency], and I am sure you are aware 

of that period of time, there was a series of bombings, and they 

blamed it on the Chechens. And Mr. Putin personally said that he 

would punish them, and so he ordered the air force to bomb the 

Chechen capital of Grozny. 

They used Scud missiles to hit hospitals, the city’s main outdoor 

markets packed with shoppers. A hundred and thirty-seven people 

died instantly. They used thermobaric and fuel air explosive bombs. 

These are the bombs that ignite, and they burn the air breathed 

in by people who are hiding in basements. They used cluster munitions. He used battlefield weapons against civilians. And when it 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

31 

was all said and done, an estimated 300,000 civilians were killed, 

and the city was completely destroyed. 

By the way, there was a credible body of reporting, open source 

and others, that this was all—all those bombings were part of a 

black flag operation on the part of the FSB. And if you want to 

know the motivation, here is what it is: Putin’s approval ratings 

before the attacks against the Chechens were at 31 percent. By 

mid-August of that year, it was at 78 percent in just three months. 

So, based on all this information and what is publicly in the 

record about what has happened in Aleppo and the Russian military, you are still not prepared to say that Vladimir Putin and his 

military have violated the rules of war and have conducted war 

crimes in Aleppo. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Those are very, very serious charges to make, 

and I would want to have much more information before reaching 

a conclusion. I understand there is a body of record in the public 

domain. I am sure there is a body of record in the classified domain. And I think in order to—in order to deal with a serious question like this—— 

Senator RUBIO. Mr. Tillerson, what has happened in Aleppo is in 

the public domain. 

Mr. TILLERSON. And I would want to be fully informed—— 

Senator RUBIO. The videos and the pictures of—— 

Mr. TILLERSON.—before advising the President. 

Senator RUBIO. Well, I encourage you—there is so much information out there about what has happened in Aleppo, leaving the 

Chechen issue aside. What happened there is clearly documented 

as well. There is so much information out there. 

It should not be hard to say that Vladimir Putin’s military has 

conducted war crimes in Aleppo because it is never acceptable, you 

would agree, for a military to specifically target civilians, which is 

what has happened there through the Russian military. And, you 

know, I find it discouraging your inability to cite that, which I 

think is globally accepted. 

I want to in my last minute and a half here move really quickly 

to an additional question. In fact, I want to enter two things into 

the record. Mr. Chairman, without objection? 

Senator CORKER. Without objection. 

Senator RUBIO. The first is a partial list of political dissidents, 

journalists, and critics of Vladimir Putin who were suspiciously 

murdered or died under highly suspicious circumstances. 

[The information referred to is located in Annex II, page 407] 

Senator RUBIO. The second thing I want to enter into the record 

is a letter addressed to this committee by Vladimir Kara-Murza, 

who himself was mysteriously poisoned and is an opponent of the 

Putin regime. I would like to enter that into the record. 

Senator CORKER. Without objection. 

[The information referred to is located in Annex II, page 413.] 

Senator RUBIO. Mr. Tillerson, do you believe that Vladimir Putin 

and his cronies are responsible for ordering the murder of countless 

dissidents, journalists, and political opponents? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I do not have sufficient information to make that 

claim. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

32 

Senator RUBIO. Are you aware that people who oppose Vladimir 

Putin wind up dead all over the world, poisoned, shot in the back 

of the head? And do you think that was coincidental, or do you 

think that it is quite possible or likely, as I believe, that they were 

part of an effort to murder his political opponents? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, people who speak up for freedom in regimes that are oppressive are often at threat, and this—and these 

things happen to them. In terms of assigning specific responsibilities, I would have to have more information. As I indicated, I feel 

it is important that in advising the President, if confirmed, that I 

deal with facts, that I deal with sufficient information, which 

means having access to all information. And I am sure there is a 

large body of information that I have never seen that is in the classified realm. 

I look forward, if confirmed, to becoming fully informed. But I am 

not willing to make conclusions on what is only publicly available 

or have been publicly reported. 

Senator RUBIO. None of this is classified, Mr. Tillerson. These 

people are dead. Political opponents are dead—— 

Mr. TILLERSON. Your question was—your question was people 

who are directly responsible for that. I am not disputing these people are dead. 

Senator CORKER. Senator Menendez. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you. Mr. Tillerson, congratulations on 

your nomination. Thank you for coming by to meet with me. And 

I would like to take this opportunity to expand upon the conversation we had last week. 

Since you have worked in one sector for one company throughout 

your entire career, getting a sense of your world view is incredibly 

important since you will be the chief advocate and advisor to the 

President-elect on those issues. So, I would like to go through a series of questions. I think many of them can be and answered by 

a simple ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’ Others will probably take a greater, more 

extensive answer, so. And you have alluded to some of this in your 

opening statement, so let me go through several of them. 

Do you believe it is in the national interest of the United States 

to continue to support international laws and norms that were established after World War II? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Do you believe that the international order 

includes respecting the territorial integrity of sovereign countries 

and the inviolability of their borders? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Did Russia violate this international order 

when it forcefully annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, it did. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Did Russia’s continuing occupation of foreign 

countries violate international laws and norms? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I am not sure which specific countries you are 

referring to. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, the annexation of Crimea, the—— 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator MENENDEZ.—Eastern Ukraine, Georgia, just to mention 

a few. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

33 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Does Russia and Syria’s targeted bombing 

campaign in Aleppo, on hospitals, for example, violate this international order? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, that is not acceptable behavior. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Do you believe these actions constitute war 

crimes? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Again, Senator, I am not—I do not have sufficient information to make that type of a serious conclusion. Coming 

to that conclusion is going to require me to have additional specific 

facts. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Do you understand what the standard is for 

a war crime? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I do. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And knowing that standard and knowing 

what is all within the realm of public information, you cannot say 

whether those actions constitute a war crime or not. 

Mr. TILLERSON. I would not want to rely solely upon what has 

been reported in the public realm. I would want confirmation from 

agencies who would be able to present me with indisputable facts. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, all the—— 

Senator CORKER. Senator Menendez, if I could, let me ask a little—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. If you will not take my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORKER. No, I am not taking your time. It will be added 

back. If you had sufficient evidence, though, in looking at classified 

information that had taken place, would that not be a war crime? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. 

Senator MENENDEZ. For all of these answers that you have given 

me, does the President-elect agree with you? 

Mr. TILLERSON. The President-elect and I have not had the opportunity to discuss this specific issue or the specific area. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, in your statement on page 3, you say, 

‘‘In his campaign, President-elect Trump proposed a bold, new commitment to advancing American interests in our foreign policy. I 

hope to explain what this approach means and how I would implement that policy if I am confirmed as Secretary of State.’’ So, I assume to some degree that you have had some discussion about 

what it is that that world view is going to be in order to understand whether you are willing to execute that on behalf of the person you are going to work for. 

Mr. TILLERSON. In a broad construct and in terms of the principles that are going to guide that, yes, sir. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And I would have thought that Russia would 

be at the very top of that considering all the actions that are taking 

place. Did that not happen? 

Mr. TILLERSON. That has not occurred yet, Senator. 

Senator MENENDEZ. That’s pretty amazing. You have built a career on ExxonMobil that you said afforded you the opportunity to 

engage regularly with world leaders, including Vladimir Putin in 

Russia. In 2013, he awarded you with the Order of Friendship 

Award, and in our conversations you told me you had direct and 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

34 

personal access to the Russian president over the course of your 

tenure there. 

Then in 2014, ExxonMobil lobbied aggressively against sanctions 

on Russia after their invasion of Ukraine. Exxon lobbied against 

the Stability and Democracy for Ukraine Act, which I introduced 

in the Senate last year. You employed well-known Washingtonbased lobbyists to support these efforts. You personally visited the 

White House and reported that you were engaged ‘‘at the highest 

levels of government.’’ 

In essence, Exxon became the in-house lobbyist for Russia 

against these sanctions. Sanctions are one of the most effective diplomatic tools in our arsenal, one we rely on to avoid putting American lives at risk by engaging in traditional kinetic warfare. Now, 

today in response to a previous question by Senator Cardin, you 

said sanctions are a powerful tool. But you have made statements 

and given speeches where you have said you do not believe sanctions are a useful tool. 

So, if sanctions are not a useful tool, have you changed your 

view? What are the tools of peaceful diplomacy you will use to get 

countries to return and act within the international order? What 

are you going to say to Vladimir Putin when he says to you, but, 

Rex, you said sanctions were bad? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Now, Senator, I think it is important to acknowledge that when sanctions are imposed, they by their design are 

going to harm American business. That is, the idea is to disrupt 

America’s business engagement in whatever country is being targeted for sanctions. And so, broadly—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. I do not think it is to disrupt American business. I think it is to disrupt the economies of those countries. Now, 

American business may or may not be affected to some degree. 

Mr. TILLERSON. American business—if America is going to have 

an influence on disrupting those economies, and the intent behind 

the sanctions is to disrupt that country’s access to American business, investment, money flows, technology—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. A lot of the financial sectors. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Correct. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Our financial sectors. 

Mr. TILLERSON. So, by its very—and I am only stating a fact. I 

am not debating it. But the fact is sanctions, in order to be implemented, do impact American business interests. 

In protecting America’s interest, and I think this is where the 

President-elect would see the argument as well, is sanctions are a 

powerful tool. Let us design them well, let us target them well, and 

then let us enforce them fully. And to the extent we can, if we can 

have other countries join us or if we are designing sanctions in concert, let us ensure those sanctions apply equally everywhere so that 

U.S. interests is not—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, when you made your remarks, and I 

have a long list here, which I will introduce for the record— 

[The information referred to is located in Annex VIII, page 541] 

Senator MENENDEZ.—you did not differentiate that way. You basically made the broad case that sanctions are not an effective tool. 

Now, I heard your response now, but in your opening statement 

you said that, ‘‘America must continue to display a commitment to 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

35 

personal liberty, human dignity, principles of action in our foreign 

policy,’’ and that we are the only global superpower with the means 

and moral compass capable of shaping the world for good. I totally 

agree with you in that respect. 

But, Mr. Tillerson, our efforts in leading the international community, for example, on sanctions against our adversaries, like 

Iran and North Korea, represent exactly that, leadership and a 

moral compass. It is not about disadvantaging American businesses. It is about putting patriotism over profit. 

Diplomacy is not the same as deal making. Diplomacy requires 

getting other countries often to do things they may not always 

want to do, and there is not necessarily something to trade for it 

for. This is how we were able to build an extensive and effective 

sanctions network against Iran through legislation from Congress 

and diplomatic pressure from secretaries of state across different 

Administrations. We were able to build a framework of primary 

and secondary actions that ultimately crippled Iran’s economy. 

Now, you lobbied against the comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act, which I was the author of. You 

reportedly under ExxonMobil—and I say ‘‘you,’’ ExxonMobil, but 

you were the head of ExxonMobil—wanted to eliminate secondary 

sanctions that would prevent joint ventures. This makes sense as 

in 2003 and 2004 and 2005 you were engaged through a subsidiary 

company in businesses with countries who the United States listed 

as state sponsors of terrorism, including Iran, Syria, and the 

Sudan. Countries that, except for the maneuver of your subsidiary, 

ExxonMobil could not have been dealing with. 

ExxonMobil is listed as a coalition member of USA Engage, an 

advocacy group that lobbies against sanctions. This group also lobbied against sanctions, including against Iran, and applauded passage of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. 

So, my question is with that as a history, with the work that you 

did in the spring of 2011, where you oversaw an ExxonMobil deal 

with the Kurdish regional government in Iraq, after the United 

States government expressly did not want to see that happen fearing that a deal would undermine the U.S. policy of one Iraq, and 

leave the country closer to civil war, what message are you now 

going to be able to send to American businesses who are intent on 

pursuing their own interests at the expense of U.S. policies and potential political stability in foreign countries? How are you going to 

recalibrate your priorities as Secretary of State? Your shareholders 

are the American people and their security and their interests. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, there was a lot in that question, Senator—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. I will give you the rest of my time. 

Mr. TILLERSON.—around which I could respond. First, I have 

never lobbied against sanctions personally. I continue to believe—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. But the company you directed did. 

Mr. TILLERSON. To my knowledge, Exxon never directly lobbied 

against sanctions. Not to my knowledge. In terms of all the other 

actions that were—that were mentioned there, they have been 

with—they were all undertaken with a great deal of transparency, 

and openness, and engagement, and input to the process. That is— 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

36 

that is the beauty of American process is that others are invited 

to express their view and inform the process. 

But that—my pivot now, if confirmed to be Secretary of State, 

will have one mission only, and that is to represent the interests 

of the American people. And as I have stated multiple times, sanctions are an important and powerful tool, but designing poor sanctions and having poor and ineffective sanctions can have a worse 

effect than having no sanctions at all if they convey a weak response. 

So, it is important in designing sanctions that, as I have said, if 

they are carefully crafted, they are carefully targeted with a—with 

an intended effect, and then enforced. And to the extent American 

leadership then can broaden participation in those sanctions, and 

you are exactly right, the Iran sanctions were extraordinarily effective because others joined in. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. Senator Menendez has played an 

incredible role for our Nation, making sure that sanctions are in 

place, and has led us all, if you will, relative to Iran. And let the 

record say your time ran over to accommodate the interjection I 

made earlier. 

It is my understanding, and I think you have called me during 

this time, that your concern with the sanctions that were in place 

relative to Iran were not that they were put in place, but that the 

Europeans had put them in place in a way that was different and 

it caused adverse situation for U.S. business relative to European 

businesses. Is that correct? 

Mr. TILLERSON. That was with respect to the sanctions for Russia. That is correct. 

Senator CORKER. With that, and let me just on Senator Rubio’s 

questions, I understand how a nominee would wish to be careful 

how they answer, especially one that plans to do what they say. In 

the event with many of those where he was asking about war 

crimes, if you are able through your own independent knowledge 

and working with classified agencies here within the government 

to determine that the types of activities that he so well articulated 

took place, you would agree that those, in fact, would be war 

crimes. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator CORKER. Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, welcome, Mr. 

Tillerson. I imagine you are having a pretty good time already. 

I want to pick up a little bit on sanctions because I have had my 

own legitimate concerns about the effectiveness of sanctions and 

their double-edged sword nature. For example, you are pretty well 

aware of events and the public opinion inside Russia. I am concerned that some not well-designed sanctions can actually solidify 

Vladimir Putin’s standing within Russia. Is that a legitimate concern? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, sir, I think it is. 

Senator JOHNSON. In your testimony, you said ‘‘Russia is not unpredictable,’’ which is another way of saying that Russia is pretty 

predictable. You also said, ‘‘Russia does not think like we do.’’ Can 

you further expand on both those comments? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

37 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, in terms of their—[Disturbance in hearing 

room.] 

Senator CORKER. Bertie, if you would, I can easily add time myself, but if you would stop the clock when these kind of interferences take place, it would be appreciated. With that, Senator 

Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. If you forgot the question, it was to explain 

your comments that Russia is predictable basically, and that Russia does not think like we do. Expand on that. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, in my experience of both dealing with Russia and representatives of Russian government and Russian entities, and then as my—the length of time I have spent in Russia as 

an observer, my experience with the Russians are that they are 

very calculating. They are very strategic in their thinking, and they 

develop a plan. [Disturbance in hearing room.] 

Senator JOHNSON. I apologize for that, Mr. Tillerson. Now, you 

can maybe answer the question unimpeded. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yeah. I have found the Russians to be very strategic in their thinking, very tactical, and they generally have a 

very clear plan that they have laid before them. And so, in terms 

of—when I make the statement they are not unpredictable, if one 

is able to step back and understand what their long-term motivation is and you see that they are going to chart a course, then it 

is an understanding of how are they likely to carry that plan out, 

and where are all of the elements of that plan that are on the 

table. 

And in my view, the leadership of Russia has a plan. It is a— 

it is a—it is a geographic plan that is in front of them, and they 

are taking actions to implement that plan. They are judging responses, and then they are making the next step in the plan based 

upon the response. And in that regard, they are not unpredictable. 

If you—if Russia does not receive an adequate response to an action, they will execute the next step of the plan. 

Senator JOHNSON. So, be a little more specific. Summarize that 

plan that you see that they have. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, Russia, more than anything, wants to reestablish its role in the global world order. They have a view that following the breakup of the Soviet Union they were mistreated in 

some respects in the transition period. They believe they deserve 

a rightful role in the global world order because they are a nuclear 

power, and they are—they are searching as to how to establish 

that. 

And for most of the past 20-plus years since the demise of the 

Soviet Union, they were not in a position to assert that. They have 

spent all of these years developing the capability to do that, and 

I think that is now what we are witnessing is an assertion on their 

part in order to force a conversation about what is Russia’s role in 

the global world order. And so, the steps being taken are simply 

to make that point, that Russia is here, Russia matters, and we are 

a force to be dealt with. And that is a fairly predictable course of 

action they are taking. 

I think the important conversation that we have to have with 

them is does Russia want to now and forever be an adversary of 

the United States. Do you want this to get worse, or does Russia 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

38 

desire a different relationship? We are not likely to ever be friends. 

I think as others have noted, our value systems are starkly different. We do not hold the same values. 

But I also know the Russian people because of having spent so 

many years in Russia. There is scope to define a different relationship that can bring down the temperature around the conflicts we 

have today, and these—and I think as Secretary Gates alluded to 

and as Secretary Nunn alluded to, both in their opening remarks, 

dialogue is critical so that these things do not spin out of control. 

We need to move Russia from being an adversary always to a 

partner at times, and on other issues we are going to be adversaries. It is not unlike my comments I made on China. At times 

China is friendly, and at times China is an adversary. But with 

Russia, engagement is necessary in order to define what is that relationship going to be, and then we will know how to chart our own 

plan of action to respond to that. 

Senator JOHNSON. In my mind, if I take the spectrum of America’s relationships with different nations, you have friends and allies. You have friendly rivals. You have unfriendly adversaries. You 

have enemies. And right now, you are basically putting Russia in 

the unfriendly adversary category? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, unfriendly to enemies. I think at this point, 

they clearly are in the—in the unfriendly adversary category. I 

hope they do not move to enemy because that would imply even 

more direct conflict with one another. 

Senator JOHNSON. But do you hold out much hope that we can 

move them into the friendly rival category? Maybe partners where 

we have mutual interests. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yeah, I—Senator, I tend to think of—that in 

three categories. There are our friends, there are our partners, and 

there are our adversaries. And at times, certainly our friends are 

partners from time to time on specific actions. Our adversaries 

from time to time can be partners, but on other issues we are just 

not going to agree, and so we remain adversaries. An adversary at 

the—at the ideological level is one thing. An adversary at the conflict level—direct conflict level—that is very different. 

Senator JOHNSON. Now, I want to switch subjects a little bit. I 

agree with former Senator Nunn when he said that your business 

experience, your private sector background, your relationship with 

Putin is actually an asset coming to this position. I come from the 

private sector. I think that kind of perspective is sorely needed. I 

do not think we have enough people from private sector. 

I think economic strength is inextricably linked to national 

strength. Your background traveling the world is extensive. I know 

I asked you when we met—I do not know if you ever did the calculation. How many different countries have you traveled to? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I have never actually counted them up. I would 

say over 40—somewhere between 40 and 50. I have never actually 

counted them. 

Senator JOHNSON. How many countries have you actually done 

deals with—where you dealt with top leadership? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I have never counted those, but it is certainly, 

you know, probably in the—between 10 and 20 where I have—was 

directly engaged in a significant way. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

39 

Senator JOHNSON. Let me ask you, as somebody from the private 

sector being asked to serve your Nation, understanding you will be 

going through a process like this, understanding all the disclosure, 

leaving a life behind that I am sure you valued, what was your 

greatest reservation with saying yes? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, when I went through all of the analysis, 

all the reasons I had for saying no, which is your question, were 

all selfish reasons. So, I had no reason to say no. 

Senator JOHNSON. You obviously had a responsibility as the CEO 

of ExxonMobil—a fiduciary responsibility. Your role is going to 

change. Do you have any reservation, and can you describe exactly 

what your mindset is from making that transition? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, I have no reservations about my clean 

break with my private sector life. It was a wonderful 41-and-a-halfyear career. I am extraordinarily proud of it. I learned an awful lot. 

But now, I am moving to a completely different responsibility. My 

love of country and my patriotism is going to dictate that I serve 

no one’s interest but that of the American people and advancing 

our own national security. 

Senator JOHNSON. As you have traveled the world with a business mindset working at developing projects around the world, obviously you hear from people around the world. Former President 

Carter in June of 2015 was commenting on President Obama’s foreign policy, and here are some excerpts. He said he cannot think 

of many nations in the world where we have a better relationship 

now than when he took over—President Obama. ‘‘United States’ influence and prestige and respect in the world is probably lower now 

than it was six or seven years ago.’’ 

Is that your general sense as you have traveled around the world 

during the last eight years of this Administration, that our power, 

influence, prestige, respect is lower, that we have not developed 

better relationships around the world? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, I think—I do not remember if I shared 

it with you in the meeting we had been, but I know I shared it 

with others in meetings, that in many respects I have spent the 

last 10 years on an unintended listening tour as I have traveled 

about the world conducting affairs, engaging with the top leadership, heads of state in many of these countries. And I have had the 

opportunity to listen to them express their frustrations, their fears, 

their concerns as to the withdrawal and the stepping back of America’s leadership, the lack of that engagement. And they are yearning and they want American leadership reasserted. 

And when I met with President-elect and we were meeting about 

his ultimately asking me to do this, I indicated to him, I said, Mr. 

President, we have got a tough hand of cards that you have been 

dealt, but I said, you know, there is no use in whining about. There 

is no use in complaining or pointing fingers at anyone. We are 

going to just play that hand out, because what I know is America 

still holds all the aces. We just need to draw them out of that deck, 

and that leaders around the world want our engagement. I said, 

you are going to be pushing on an open door because people want 

America to come back. 

Senator JOHNSON. One of the reasons I really value the private 

sector experience is in your opening statement. The number of 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

40 

times you used ‘‘reality,’’ ‘‘clarity,’’ ‘‘moral leadership,’’ ‘‘moral clarity,’’ ‘‘moral lights,’’ ‘‘facts.’’ You used ‘‘logic,’’ ‘‘clear priorities.’’ 

Those are the words of a business person. That is why I think your 

perspective will be very welcome in the State Department. 

Thank you, Mr. Tillerson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. 

Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Tillerson, for being willing to consider the 

nomination, which has been put forward, to be Secretary of State. 

I agree with your opening statement that the United States has 

an important role to play in the world, not just standing up for our 

interests and values but also for democracy, for press freedom, for 

human rights, for rule of law. 

You were unwilling to agree with Senator Rubio’s characterization of Vladimir Putin as a war criminal, and you point out in your 

statement that Russia has disregarded American interests. I would 

suggest, as I think has been brought out in later testimony, that 

not only has it disregarded American interests but international 

norms and humanitarian interests. 

The State Department has described Russia as having an authoritarian political system dominated by President Vladimir Putin. 

Meanwhile, Freedom House currently puts Russia in a category of 

countries like Iran with very restricted political rights ruled by one 

part, or military dictatorships, religious hierarchies, or autocrats. 

Do you agree with that characterization of Russia and Vladimir 

Putin? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I would have no reason to take exception. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Senator Rubio and Senator Cardin both 

talked about some of those people who have been victims of the 

Putin authoritarian regime in Russia. And behind me is a poster 

with a recent New York Times story. I quote, ‘‘More of Kremlin’s 

Opponents Are Ending Up Dead.’’ 

I would like to ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to enter 

the article into the record. 

Senator CORKER. Without objection. 

[The information referred to is located in Annex V, page 485.] 

Senator SHAHEEN. I think a picture is always worth a thousand 

words, and when you put a face to Sergei Magnitsky, as this poster 

does, and see two other victims of the authoritarian regime in Russia, I think it speaks to what is happening there and how we 

should think about the country and dealing with President Putin. 

So I understand what Senator Nunn said, I mean former Senator 

Nunn, and Secretary Gates said when they talked about the need 

to have dialogue with Russia and to continue a mil-to-mil relationship, but I also think it is important for us to understand who we 

are dealing with. 

In 2008, you notably said that there is no respect for the rule of 

law in Russia today. Do you think that continues to be true? 

Mr. TILLERSON. That is still the case, yes. 

Senator SHAHEEN. So I think you can probably understand, Mr. 

Tillerson, why some of us are very concerned about the Presidentelect’s statements praising Vladimir Putin’s leadership, his intelligence, including after being reminded of his ruthless persecution 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

41 

of political enemies and after receiving compelling information that 

Russia has interfered with our elections. 

So do you think now is the right time to lift sanctions against 

Russia? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think it is important that we keep the status 

quo until we are able to develop what our approach is going to be, 

that it will be all part of the approach. That is, part of the incentives on the one hand, or part of the greater pressure on the other, 

that will be an important element of developing that approach of 

that first conversation with Russia. 

If confirmed, that is the foreign policy step that I will be working 

through other inter-agencies, again, informed in the National Security Council with classified information as well as being informed 

by the views of others to develop that strategic approach to engagement with Russia. 

So I would leave things in the status quo so that we are able to 

convey this can go either way. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Under your leadership, ExxonMobil has in- vested more than $100 million in its global Women’s Economic Opportunity Initiative, partnering with the U.S. Government and foreign governments. As you know, the State Department also places 

a high priority on global women’s empowerment, on gender equity, 

on combating violence against women. 

I was very disturbed when there was a request from the Trump 

transition team to find out who the employees within the State Department have been who have worked on gender equity programs. 

And while I know that has been walked back by that transition 

team, I still think it sends a chilling message to people in the State 

Department and to people concerned about efforts to empower 

women around the globe. 

So can I ask whether you agree that we should continue that initiative to empower women and what steps you would take to ensure that the State Department and USAID continue to fund necessary programs to address global women’s issues? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, this is an issue that has long been important to me personally as well. I have seen firsthand the impact 

of empowering women, particularly empowering women’s participation in economic activities in the lesser developed part of the world. 

I know this is a really important area to you, and we talked 

about it in your office. And there are study after study to confirm 

that when you empower women in these developing parts of the 

world, you change the future of the country because you change the 

cycle within that family. Whether that woman has daughters or 

sons, when you empower the woman, and they see them participating at an economic level, it changes the way they will view 

things as they grow. 

I have seen specific examples and visited projects in Papua New 

Guinea, which allowed women to participate by forming a coalition 

of bread bakers. It takes very little money. These are women that 

want the opportunity. What they need is the wherewithal and some 

structure to guide them around how to conduct a small business. 

Interesting in that example, when the women began to be successful selling their bread in villages all up and down the trails in 

the jungle, their next concern when they came to our folks was, 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

42 

‘‘We have all this money, and we are having to hide it all over the 

place, and we are worried somebody is going to steal it. What do 

we do?’’ They were introduced to banking and were assisted with 

opening a bank account in the capital. 

This is just an example, though. Think about someone who starts 

with nothing, does not even know what a bank is, and, all of a sudden, now they have a bank account. That will change their children, and it will change the cycle within that area. 

So these are extraordinarily powerful programs. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I certainly agree with that. And does that 

mean that you will commit to continuing those programs, if you are 

confirmed as Secretary of State? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes. I think it is an important part of all of our 

foreign aid assistance efforts, whether it is the USAID or whether 

it is through other opportunities we have in more structured ways. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Under your leadership in 2012, ExxonMobil’s foundation also 

helped develop a roadmap for promoting women’s economic empowerment that specifically cited access to family planning and reproductive health services as a means to improve productivity and 

earning potential for women. You and I also served, as we discussed, in 2010 on the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Commission on Smart Global Health Policy, which also advocated for expanded access to family planning services. 

Will you pledge to continue to prioritize quality family planning 

and reproductive health services for women worldwide, and ensure 

that resources and access to these programs are not conflated with 

support for abortion? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, there are statutory requirements in 

place around the foreign aid. They are well-known I know to yourself and to myself as well. As I understand it, we currently invest 

a little bit or something around a half billion dollars a year in programs directed at family planning through foreign assistance, and 

I think that is an important level of support. 

Senator SHAHEEN. So do I take that as a yes? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I would want to, if confirmed, and I have 

the opportunity to examine all of the aspects of that program. I just 

am just aware that we do spend about a half billion dollars now. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Well, as you know, if the approximately 225 

million women worldwide with unmet family planning needs had 

access to modern methods of contraception, we would see 52 million 

fewer unintended pregnancies, resulting in 600,000 fewer stillbirths, 6 million fewer miscarriages, and 15 million fewer unsafe 

abortions. 

So I would attest that this is not only a humanitarian value that 

we should support but also an economic one. 

And I am almost out of time, but I just want to go back to Russia 

for a brief moment, because as you talk about the potential to work 

with them, one of those areas that we have been successful on is 

the new START treaty back in 2010, which this committee supported and the Senate supported, which ensures that Russians 

have to reduce their nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles. And 

it has given us more access to onsite inspections. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

43 

Do you believe that continuing to support those efforts is important for us? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, Senator. I think, again, this is an area 

where we have to stay engaged with Russia, hold them accountable 

to commitments made under the new START, and also ensure that 

we are in a position to meet our accountability as well. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. 

Senator Flake. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Thank you for your testimony, and thank you for your willingness to serve. It is a difficult thing to put your family through and 

everything else, so I want you to know how much we appreciate 

that. 

In your opening testimony, you talked about this war on ISIS, 

that it will take a while. That is the implication I get from what 

you wrote, and I think that is certainly true. 

In Congress here, we rarely declare war these days, but we do 

authorize the use of military force or pass so-called AUMF. We 

have not passed one yet with regard to ISIS. We are still working 

under an ill-fitting 2001 AUMF with regard to Al Qaeda and Afghanistan. 

Senator Kaine and I have offered a bipartisan AUMF to deal 

with Al Qaeda—I am sorry, with ISIS. And we think that it certainly helps to have congressional buy-in, that our allies certainly 

deserve to know where we are, and our adversaries need to know. 

What are your thoughts with regard to an AUMF specifically regarding ISIS? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I think the President-elect in broad terms 

indicated during his campaign and in comments made in other instances that he believes it is important that we not just lightly go 

into these conflicts, that he would seek the engagement of Congress 

and the support of Congress in some means, whether it is through 

a sense of the Congress or specific legislation. 

And I would not disagree with your characterization that it is 

much more powerful when the U.S. shows up with everyone 

aligned, and I think having the support of the Congress standing 

behind those decisions to commit U.S. men and women, U.S. military resources, does give us a much stronger position to engage 

with allies in building those alliances that are important. 

And in the case of defeating ISIS, that is one of the first actions 

that is going to be necessary, to reengage with our allies in the 

area and ensure that we know what they are willing to commit as 

well. 

So, yes, I would strongly support engaging, certainly at the minimum with this committee, and ultimately if legislative action 

would support our efforts to defeat ISIS, I would be certainly talking to the President about that. 

Senator FLAKE. That certainly would be welcomed here. What we 

do not want to see—I do not want to speak for my colleagues certainly, but what I would not like to see is what we saw after the 

promise and the drawing of the red line, which you mentioned in 

your testimony. When you draw a red line, you said we sent weak 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

44 

or mixed signals with red lines that turned into green lights. I 

think that is certainly the case. 

But what happened with the last administration is that red line 

was drawn, but rather than enforce that red line when it was 

crossed, the administration came to Congress to ask permission. 

And we always enjoy the administration coming to us, but when 

you draw a red line, enforce it. The War Powers Act allows 60 

days, and that is what I think we—that kind of collaboration with 

Congress is using us as a crutch rather than an ally in this battle. 

Mr. TILLERSON. I take the point. 

Senator FLAKE. With regard to Cuba, you mentioned that their 

leaders under the new arrangement we have for diplomatic relations and loosened travel restrictions, I believe you are referring to, 

‘‘Their leaders received much while their people have received little. This serves neither the interests of Cubans or Americans.’’ 

I would encourage you in the coming weeks and months to look 

at what has happened in Cuba. Certainly, I think the government 

is no less repressive with regard to dissidents that is still going on. 

But when President Obama allowed American—Cuban-Americans, 

in particular—to travel unfettered to Cuba and lifted caps on remittances, it allowed Cubans who had previously worked for the 

government in Cuba to engage in private sector activity. 

And from virtually no private sector employment in Cuba, we 

have gone to about 25 percent of the Cuban work force in the private sector. And I would submit that they enjoy now a measure of 

economic freedom and political freedom that they did not before. 

So I think that has benefited the Cuban people and will continue 

to, if we continue the approach that we have now taken. 

And I do share your aversion to sanctions, particularly those that 

are not multilateral. I think we have seen that in spades in Cuba 

over the years, where it was only the U.S. who employed sanctions, 

and then sanctions that were not comprehensive and did not mean 

that much other than giving the regime there a convenient excuse 

for the failure of socialism. 

So I would encourage you in the next couple weeks to look at 

what has happened in Cuba with regard to our new policy. 

With regard to Africa, we had a good discussion in my office. You 

at ExxonMobil had dealt with Africa a lot. 

Let us talk about soft diplomacy for a while. We have a lot of 

programs through USAID all over the continent. As you have 

viewed those programs, in addition to what ExxonMobil has done 

in the corporate governance area, what works and what does not? 

How can we refashion some of our policies to nudge countries toward democracy that need nudging, or that punish countries where 

it deems fit, or encourage cooperation with us on security measures 

or humanitarian measures? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, certainly, the use of important USAID assistance really falls in kind of two broad areas, disaster relief, addressing imminent situations on the ground where there is starvation, or the result of storms or the result of conflict, providing assistance to relieve immediate suffering. That is an important part 

of USAID. 

Over the past few years, in looking at the balance of that against 

what I would call development assistance, which is designed to creFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

45 

ate change, which hopefully becomes a sustainable change, regrettably, the disaster assistance part of that budget has grown, and 

that means there is less available for development. 

Other important ways in which we can provide assistance though 

are through other mechanisms such as Millennium Challenge Corporation for those countries that qualify. That is a different model. 

So I think, in terms of what is the issue we are trying to address, 

that then conditions how do we put obligations on the country then 

to modify behaviors, whether it is to take steps to reduce corruption, improve the strength of governments and their own institutional capacity to manage their affairs. 

Where I have seen good progress is when assistance was put into 

the country with some requirement that, for instance, they modify 

or streamline their permitting process. One of the ways to begin to 

reduce corruption is to remove the complexities of how people are 

able to carry out their activities. The more steps you have in the 

process, the more opportunities there are for people to be taking 

something out of it or adding a cost to it. 

So I know there are examples where governments have been required to simplify the simple thing of a citizen going down and getting a driver’s license or the citizen getting a permit to buy an 

automobile or piece of equipment. It only goes to one place. You can 

shine a bright light on that, and it is easy to follow the money, as 

they say. And that in and of itself can be very effective in beginning to change the behaviors within some of these developing countries. 

So I think where we can tie our assistance to obligations, it is 

important that we do so, and then able to follow up. And again, we 

have I think it is—every country’s issues need to be examined on 

a case-by-case basis and then try to target and design assistance 

to advance America’s values and help that country continue its 

journey along better governance. 

But in some cases, if it is disaster relief, that is hard to do, because it is hard to start feeding starving people and then, when the 

host government is not meeting its obligations, we suddenly are 

going to stop feeding starving people. Those are very difficult 

choices to make, and I understand and appreciate that. 

Senator FLAKE. We had talked in our office about some of the 

programs like PEPFAR. Can you talk about how that has helped 

our situation and what you have observed in Africa in terms of 

goodwill? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, PEPFAR I think clearly has been one of 

the most extraordinarily successful programs in Africa. I saw it up 

close and personal because ExxonMobil had taken on the challenge 

of eradicating malaria because of business activities in Central Africa where malaria is quite prevalent, and worked with competent 

NGOs, some of which were receiving funding through PEPFAR, 

some through other agencies, along with other public-private partnerships. 

So eradicating malaria, there has been a great deal of progress 

made. That is where I saw it up close and personal. 

But I know that PEPFAR broadly has brought so much goodwill 

from Africa, recognition of the goodwill and the compassionate nature of the American people. It is probably one of the best projecFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

46 

tions of the American goodwill and compassion into the continent 

that I think you will find anywhere, broadly recognized by leaders, 

but more importantly, broadly recognized by those it touches. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you so much. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and you and 

the ranking member, for working so carefully with us to get this 

organized in such a good fashion. 

Mr. Tillerson, let me, first of all, just thank you very much for 

your visit to my office and us being able to exchange ideas and discuss how you want to approach things as the incoming Secretary 

of State, if you are approved. 

And I want to thank so much your family for being here. It is 

always wonderful to see family, Brenda and brothers and sisters, 

and so that is a very good start, I believe. 

You know, Exxon has done and continues to do business in various countries in the world that are very problematic to the U.S., 

and you have mentioned that a little bit here. And in some cases, 

some of those countries are just outright hostile. 

We now know Exxon did business in Iran, and Iran’s regime has 

supported terrorist attacks against Americans. Exxon has a massive oil interest in Russia, which has recently acted to undermine 

our elections and civil society. And, of course, Exxon also has a history of major political contributions and a large Washington lobbyist presence. 

Would you permit Exxon to lobby the State Department under 

your leadership? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, Senator, as to any issues involving 

ExxonMobil that might come before me, if confirmed as Secretary 

of State, I would recuse myself from those issues. 

Senator UDALL. And would you take phone calls from the new 

CEO about foreign matters or any interests they had around the 

world that were within the jurisdiction of the State Department? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I would not extend to the new chairman and 

CEO of ExxonMobil any courtesies beyond that which I would extend to anyone. 

Senator UDALL. So are you saying you would take calls and visit 

with the CEO? I mean, I am trying to understand—— 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, it would be—— 

Senator UDALL.—what kind of limits you are going to put on 

yourself in terms of dealing with your company and employees. 

I know that you have made a clean break in terms of the ethics 

agreements and things like that, but give us an understanding of 

the policy that you are going to follow, if you are approved, as to 

how you are going to deal with these situations. 

I mean, there are many countries, as you know, in the world 

where—to give you an example, Australia, Equatorial Guinea, Malaysia, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, and the United Kingdom, Exxon 

right now is asking for tax dollars back from those. And if you are 

carrying out foreign policy in those countries, how are you going to 

deal with that situation, in terms of contact with Exxon, with your 

former colleagues, in that kind of situation? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

47 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, let me start with where you began, in 

terms of taking phone calls. I would not expect that I will be taking 

phone calls from any business leaders. In my prior role, I never 

called on the Secretary of State directly. I called on the Deputy 

often, or the Missions, primarily the Ambassadors. 

So whether I will take phone calls from anyone is subject to the 

question itself. 

As to how I would deal with the past history I have in my prior 

position with ExxonMobil, I have made clear in my disclosures, and 

I think in answers to questions that have been posed, that obviously there is a statutory recusal period, which I will adhere to on 

any matters that might come before the State Department that 

deal directly and specifically with ExxonMobil. 

Beyond that, though, in terms of broader issues dealing with the 

fact that it might involve the oil and natural gas industry itself, 

the scope of that is such that I would not expect to have to recuse 

myself. 

In any instance where there is any question or even the appearance, I would expect to seek the guidance of counsel from the Office 

of Ethics in the State Department and will follow their guidance 

as to whether it is an issue that I should recuse myself from. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much for that answer. 

And I was very heartened by some of the exchange we had in my 

office with regard to climate change. As you know, climate change 

has been expressed as a serious national security concern—sea levels rising, threatened Navy bases. We have crop disruption and 

water shortages all over the world, and in my State of New Mexico, 

and other natural disasters that I think are going to threaten the 

stability of many developing countries. 

During the transition, some departments have been asked to 

name individuals involved in climate policy who attended international climate meetings, which made many Federal employees 

concerned about a witch-hunt against civil servants involved in climate policy. 

Do you plan or would you support any efforts to persecute, sideline, or otherwise retaliate against career State Department employees who have worked on climate change in the past? 

Mr. TILLERSON. No, sir. That would be a pretty unhelpful way to 

get started. [Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. Well, that is—I like that answer. 

While you were CEO of Exxon, the company Web site stated, and 

I quote here, ‘‘The risk of climate change is clear, and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are 

having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess 

the risk.’’ And that is the end of the quote on your Web site. 

I understand that, if confirmed, you will be serving under President-elect Trump, but do you still personally stand by this statement today, yes or no? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I do not take exception to that statement. I 

might articulate it a little differently as to my personal views. 

But the President-elect has invited my views on climate change. 

He has asked for them. He knows that I am on the public record 

with my views. And I look forward to providing those, if confirmed, 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

48 

to him in discussions around how the U.S. should conduct its policies in this area. 

Ultimately, the President-elect, he was elected, and I will carry 

out his policies in order to be as successful as possible. 

But I think it is important to note that he has asked, and I feel 

free to express those views. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

During our meeting, you expressed support for a carbon tax as 

one preferred measure to address issues of climate change. Will 

you continue to work with the Congress on this complex issue and 

to make this a priority in the State Department, if you are confirmed? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, when it gets to tax policy, that is going to 

be the responsibility of other agencies to conduct. My role at State 

would be only to deal with those issues that are relevant to treaties 

or international accords that we have entered into, in terms of our 

continued compliance with those, participation in those. And so 

that would be the area that I will be most engaged in. 

Senator UDALL. And my understanding, in the discussion with 

you in my office, and I think you said you were going to talk about 

this publicly if you were asked questions, you came to the carbon 

tax conclusion doing a very thorough analysis of everything that 

was out there, whatever was trying to bring down carbon emissions, you looked at everything and then you concluded the best 

recommendation was to move forward with a carbon tax. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. TILLERSON. The analysis that I went through, which was 

largely informed by a number of studies, economic studies by academic institutions and others, was during the time that the Congress was debating the cap and trade approach, which in my view 

had not produced the result that everyone wanted in Europe. So we 

had a working model in Europe that we had been watching, and 

ExxonMobil had been participating in that model. 

The debate around a cap and trade as being the option versus 

something else is what stimulated the question for me of, ‘‘Well, if 

this is not working, what might?’’ So that began the investigation 

of other alternatives. 

One of the important elements of even considering something 

like that as a solution, though, are two other aspects. And one is 

that it replaces the hodgepodge of approaches we have today, which 

are scattered and some of which are through mandates, some of 

which are through well-intended but ineffective incentives. 

So let us simplify the system. This is the one and only effort we 

are going to undertake to begin to try to influence people’s choices. 

And then the second qualifier I have always placed on it is, revenues from—if a carbon tax were put in place, it has to be revenue 

neutral. All the revenues go back out into the economy through either reduced employee payroll taxes, because there will be impacts 

on jobs, so let us mitigate that by reducing the impact by putting 

it back into the economy, so none of the money is held in the Federal Treasury for other purposes. This is simply a mechanism to 

incentivize choices people are making. It is not a revenue raiser. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Tillerson. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

49 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Tillerson, if I could, Senator Udall did an 

outstanding job of teasing this out. The one thing that was not 

stated, though, would you succinctly state your position, your personal position, as it relates to climate change? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I came to my personal position over about 20 

years as an engineer and a scientist understanding the evolution 

of the science. I came to the conclusion a few years ago that the 

risk of climate change does exist and that the consequences of it 

could be serious enough that action should be taken. 

The type of action seems to be where the largest areas of debate 

exist in the public discourse. I think it is important to recognize the 

U.S. has done a pretty good job—— 

Senator CORKER. This is not quite as succinct as I was hoping. 

[Laughter.] 

Would you—it is my understanding that you believe—— 

Senator UDALL. I think we should let him finish, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORKER. —you believe that human activity, based on 

your belief in science, is contributing to climate change? 

Mr. TILLERSON. The increase in the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are having an effect. Our ability to predict 

that effect is very limited. 

Senator CORKER. Senator Gardner? 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Tillerson, for your service, or hopeful service 

to the country. And to your family, thank you as well to your commitment, because if confirmed, this is a sacrifice for you as well. 

So I thank you for your willingness to serve our Nation, should 

that be the will of the Senate. 

In your opening statement, you talk about what I believe is the 

idea of America: liberty, prosperity, security, that we live in a Nation founded on liberty, maintaining liberty through security, and 

growing the prosperity of the American people. 

Periods of history, whether it is the Industrial Revolution or 

whether it was the Civil War, World War I, Depression, World War 

II, the time period afterward, was not just a year or 2 or 3 in time 

but a generational, if not more, definition and changing lives, impacting our children. And the moment we are in today, the changes 

we have seen around the globe, the changes in technology, changes 

in stability, will greatly impact the lives of our children, my children, your children. 

So I believe that engagement with the world matters, and that 

U.S. engagement matters greatly. And you would agree with that 

assessment, correct? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, sir. I would. 

Senator GARDNER. This is not a time for the U.S. to shrink from 

the world or to shrink from that engagement. Is that correct? 

Mr. TILLERSON. That is correct, Senator. As I indicated in my 

opening remarks, that is what has been absent, is U.S. leadership. 

Senator GARDNER. And that U.S. values matter, Western values 

matter, that we build and continue to build upon those international norms that have made this country great, those ideas of 

liberty, security, prosperity. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, sir. We are the only country able to project 

that with authority. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

50 

Senator GARDNER. One of the things that I find so interesting 

about this committee and the work that we do has been the opportunity to lead around the globe with diplomacy and the will of good 

people of this country, and not just defense. Would you agree with 

that? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator GARDNER. And that we will use force when necessary, 

and we should never back away from the obligation to use force 

where necessary, correct? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes. I know that everyone understands that is 

the least attractive option. 

Senator GARDNER. And that we must leave no doubt in the 

minds of our alliances the willingness and the commitment of the 

United States to both use the diplomacy and force where necessary 

to achieve the goals of that alliance? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Diplomacy will be ineffective if it is not backed 

up by the threat of force. 

Senator GARDNER. Mr. Tillerson, North Korea has developed a 

series of nuclear capabilities that pose a significant threat to the 

United States trying to develop those capabilities, the United 

States, our allies, and to the region. 

Last Congress, Senator Menendez and I helped lead—did lead 

the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act, which 

passed the Senate, signed into law by the President, a unanimous 

vote, and it abandoned this administration’s failed policy of strategic patience. 

The legislation is the first standalone sanction legislation on 

North Korea, mandated sanctions on those who assist Pyongyang’s 

proliferation activities, human rights violations, and its malicious 

cyber efforts. 

Do you intend, if confirmed, to fulfill all mandatory sanction requirements of this sanctions act? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes. Yes, I would, Senator. In fact, that is the 

issue with North Korea, is we have failed to enforce existing sanctions regimes, including that which is overseen by the United Nations. 

Senator GARDNER. I want to get into that a little bit more. And 

your plan obviously as it relates to North Korea. Our actions toward North Korea depend greatly on South Korea, Japan, our relationship with those two nations. How do we bolster the relationship 

between the United States, South Korea, and Japan? 

Mr. TILLERSON. It starts with our friends and allies, and that is 

South Korea and Japan, ensuring that we are completely aligned 

on our commitment to enforce these sanctions. 

Senator GARDNER. And the alliance that we have with South 

Korea will be strengthened under President-elect Trump’s administration. Is that correct? 

Mr. TILLERSON. That would be my expectation, yes, sir. 

Senator GARDNER. And one of the keys, of course, to success with 

North Korea’s peaceful denuclearization is China. Are you willing 

to exert additional pressure on North Korea through China, including additional U.N. Security Council resolutions and pushing China 

to do more to enforce these resolutions as it relates to North 

Korea? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

51 

Mr. TILLERSON. As indicated, I think a lot of our troubles today 

are that we do not enforce—we make commitments, we say we are 

going to do something, and then we do not enforce it. And that is, 

again, a mixed message that I think has been sent in the case of 

North Korea and our expectations of China. 

I think we have to be clear-eyed as to how far China will go and 

not get overly optimistic as to how far they will go. And that is 

why, ultimately, it is going to require a new approach with China 

in order for China to understand our expectations of them going beyond certainly what they have in the past, which has fallen short. 

Senator GARDNER. If you look at the North Korean economy, a 

tremendous amount of it exists and relies upon China, and China 

has not, as a result, enforced the sanctions allowing them to continue proliferation activities through the dollars earned with the 

transactions through activities that otherwise would have been 

subject to sanctions. 

Would you support secondary sanctions against Chinese entities, 

if found and confirmed to have violated U.N. resolution agreements 

they have entered into? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Ninety percent of North Korea’s trade is with 

China, so, to your point, they are solely dependent on Chinese 

trade. To the extent that there are specific violations of the sanctions, such as the purchase of coal, which is specifically mentioned 

in the U.N. sanctions most recently, if there are gaps of enforcement, they have to be enforced. If China is not going to comply 

with those U.N. sanctions, then it is appropriate for the United 

States to consider actions to compel them to comply. 

Senator GARDNER. And how do you intend to lead U.S. multilateral efforts, multinational efforts, multilateral efforts, to peacefully 

disarm Pyongyang? 

Mr. TILLERSON. It is going to be I think a long-term plan and it 

starts with, again, designing the sanctions and enforcing the sanctions to close gaps that exist. And you have already highlighted 

that there are gaps in those sanctions today that are undermining 

their effectiveness. So it is a question of closing those gaps where 

it is appropriate to seek further steps against those who are not 

fully complying with those sanctions and revisiting are there other 

ways and other areas where we can close off access by North Korea 

to resources that allow them to continue to develop their nuclear 

capabilities. 

It is looking at all of that approach as to what is still there, what 

can we—how can we put additional pressure on them to deny them 

the capability to continue to advance not just the development but 

the delivery systems, which is where the greatest threat exists 

today. 

Senator GARDNER. Mr. Tillerson, last Congress, for the first time, 

this committee added cybersecurity to its jurisdiction, and I chaired 

the Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific and International Cybersecurity Policy. 

As part of that effort, we held a number of hearings that were 

exclusively devoted to international cybersecurity and mandated 

that the State Department produce a long-overdue policy on the 

outgoing administration’s international cybersecurity policies. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

52 

The North Korea bill that we passed also includes, as I mentioned, mandatory cyber sanctions for the first time that any legislation has done so. I have supported, as others have on this committee, the idea of creating in Congress a standalone, permanent 

committee on cybersecurity, so that we have a whole-of-government 

view of how to address our cyber-policy concerns and needs from 

the standpoint of the commercial sector to the standpoint of national security needs. I believe that is something that we should do. 

How will you prioritize cybersecurity at the State Department? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, if confirmed, as I indicated, the imminent 

threat today is ISIS, and I highlighted that in my remarks. But 

probably the greatest and most complex threat we are facing today 

is in the area of cybersecurity. 

Certainly, the U.S. has significant capabilities of its own, but we 

also are extraordinarily vulnerable, partly because we have not 

maintained our own IT infrastructure. We have not built sufficient 

defensive mechanisms to protect not just government sites and government information but important infrastructure and, in some 

cases, important private sector from attack as well. 

It is important that we put in place once and for all a comprehensive strategy for dealing with cybersecurity and cyber 

threats that includes what are appropriate norms for behavior, appropriate use of cyber information, and what is and what would be 

an acceptable response when nations violate those norms. 

I think the U.S. has to lead in this area because no one is doing 

it. So this is an area where it is going to require a lot of interagency engagement from all of the—from Commerce to the Defense 

Department to the Intelligence Community of how do we construct 

a thoughtful approach to cybersecurity and a thoughtful approach 

to what are going to be the norms. 

And then I think we engage with our friends and allies first, and 

we establish what those norms are going to be and build out the 

international support for those, so that when these attacks happen, 

we are not struggling with what is an appropriate response, how 

far should we go? This will be the accepted norms. 

It is a complicated issue. It has a lot of aspects to it that have 

to be carefully considered. But we cannot delay beginning to develop this comprehensive approach. 

Senator GARDNER. And do you believe the issue of cybersecurity, 

cyber policy, should be elevated within the State Department, perhaps even toward an ambassadorial-level position? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think that could be part of the outcome of a 

comprehensive assessment of what is the right way for the U.S. to 

manage the threat and be prepared to respond when others take 

action. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, Senator. 

You have shown extreme stamina for a 64-year-old male. And 

with that, we are going to have a 5-minute recess. If you wish to 

exit the room, I would suggest you coming this way. And we will 

resume with Senator Kaine in five minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Senator CORKER. Bring the hearing back to order. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

53 

Mr. Tillerson, based on a previous conversation, before moving to 

Senator Kaine, I know we had a little bit of a conversation about 

this, but when it comes to lobbying for sanctions, it is my understanding that there was not a lobbying that took place against 

sanctions. It was more to go through the details of what those sanctions would do to make sure that they were applied appropriately 

across the board. Is that correct? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, that is correct. I never lobbied against 

the sanctions. To my knowledge, ExxonMobil never lobbied against 

the sanctions. ExxonMobil participated in understanding how the 

sanctions were going to be constructed and was asked and provided 

information regarding how those might impact American business 

interests. And the only engagement I had really came after the 

sanctions were in place. ExxonMobil was in the middle of drilling 

a well in the very remote part of the Russian Arctic in the Kara 

Sea several hundred miles away from any safe harbor. 

When the sanctions went into place, because of the way the sanctions were written, they took immediate effect. There was no grace 

period; there was no grandfathering period. And I engaged immediately with the State Department and with Treasury and OFAC 

to explain to them there was significant risk to people and the environment if in order—and we were going to comply with the sanctions, fully comply, but that compliance meant immediate evacuation of all these people, which was going to put lives at risk and 

the environment at risk because this was a wildcat exploration well 

that was at a very delicate position at the time, provided a lot of 

technical information to OFAC and the State Department, was 

thankful that it took about five days for them to understand that. 

And ExxonMobil stood still while they were evaluating that, and 

in the end did grant a temporary license to allow that work to be 

completed safely so we could get all the people then out of the 

country, get all of the equipment that was subject to sanctions out 

of the country, including the rig out of the country. 

That was my direct engagement was really in dealing with an effect of the sanctions. So, again, the characterization that 

ExxonMobil lobbied against the sanctions is just not accurate. 

Senator CORKER. Senator Kaine. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, Mr. Tillerson, thank 

you for your willingness to serve. Congratulations on your nomination. 

How much information do you have about financial connections 

between President-elect Trump, the Trump family, or Trump organizations and Russian individuals or organizations or the Russian 

Government? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I have no knowledge. 

Senator KAINE. And if I asked you the same question and I substituted Turkey, China, Pakistan, or Japan for Russia in that question, would your answer be the same? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I have no knowledge. 

Senator KAINE. So I gather from your answer that you will then 

have no way of knowing how actions proposed by a President 

Trump regarding those countries or others would affect his personal or family financial interests? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I have no knowledge. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

54 

Senator KAINE. How is a Congress and the American public supposed to fully judge the actions, official actions proposed by a President Trump if we lack basic information about how those actions 

may benefit his personal finances? 

Mr. TILLERSON. That is a question that others will have to address, Senator. 

Senator KAINE. You are aware that government leaders of many 

of the countries that you dealt with in your capacity as CEO of 

ExxonMobil have used their positions of leadership to greatly advance their personal wealth while they were in office, correct? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I have no direct knowledge of that. 

Senator KAINE. But you have read press accounts, for example, 

about folks like Vladimir Putin or the leaders of Equatorial Guinea 

and other nations suggesting that they have amassed great personal wealth while in office, correct? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I am aware of the press reports. 

Senator KAINE. Do you think that such behavior by a head of 

government is in accord with values of the United States or contrary to U.S. values? 

Mr. TILLERSON. If the reports are true and there has been inappropriate taking of funds that belong rightfully to the government 

and that that is not provided for under the government’s laws, then 

that would be contrary to our values, which are to respect the laws. 

Senator KAINE. Should Congress be diligent to make sure that 

Federal officials, including the President, do not use their public 

positions to amass personal wealth while in office? 

Mr. TILLERSON. That is the standard in the United States, yes, 

sir. 

Senator KAINE. Without full disclosure of the President of all his 

financial interests, is there not a chance that you might be across 

the table in a negotiating setting, say, with Russian officials who 

know more about the President’s financial interests and exposure 

than you do? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator KAINE. If that was the case, would that not put America 

and our national interests at somewhat of a disadvantage? 

Mr. TILLERSON. If it is not to my knowledge, it is not going to 

change the way I am negotiating with them. 

Senator KAINE. But if someone on the other side of a negotiating 

table—you have been in negotiations—has more knowledge than 

you do, is that not something that could put you at a disadvantage? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think as long as the objective of the negotiation 

is clear, what are we trying to achieve, that is all that matters. If 

you achieve the objective, the art of negotiating is just how you 

achieve that objective. 

Senator KAINE. I am going to switch and ask you some questions 

about climate, following up on Senator Udall. We talked about this 

in my office. There has been a great deal of coverage about 

ExxonMobil’s history with the issue of climate change. There was 

a recent two-part article in the New York Review of Books prepared by members of the Rockefeller Family Foundation and investigated by an independent team for the Columbia School of Journalism, in 2015 there was a three-part series in the Los Angeles 

Times, and in the same year, Inside Climate News did an 8-month 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

55 

investigation and produced a nine-part series that was a finalist for 

a Pulitzer Prize, all on the question of ExxonMobil’s knowledge of 

basic climate science. 

These articles conclude the following, and then I am going to ask 

you some questions: 1) ExxonMobil concluded as early as the 1970s 

that pollution from CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels was 

affecting the climate in potentially destructive ways; 2) despite this 

knowledge, ExxonMobil took public positions against the scientific 

consensus regarding climate science; 3) ExxonMobil funded outside 

organizations that publicly denied, downplayed, and obscured the 

scientific consensus; and 4) ExxonMobil, despite claims to the contrary, continues to provide funding, if at a lower level, to outside 

groups that deny, downplay, or obscure this scientific consensus. 

Are these conclusions about ExxonMobil’s history of promoting and 

funding climate science denial, despite its internal awareness of 

the reality of climate change during your tenure with the company, 

true or false? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, since I am no longer with ExxonMobil, 

I am in no position to speak on their behalf. The question would 

have to be put to them. 

Senator KAINE. I am not asking you to speak on ExxonMobil’s behalf. You were with the company for nearly 42 years? 

Mr. TILLERSON. That is correct. 

Senator KAINE. And for the majority of your time you were with 

the company in an executive and management position? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Approximately half the time. 

Senator KAINE. And you became CEO in 2006? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Correct. 

Senator KAINE. So I am not asking you on behalf of ExxonMobil. 

You have resigned from ExxonMobil. I am asking you whether 

those allegations about ExxonMobil’s knowledge of climate science 

and decision to fund and promote a view contrary to its awareness 

of the science, whether those allegations are true or false. 

Mr. TILLERSON. The question would have to be put to 

ExxonMobil. 

Senator KAINE. And let me ask you, do you lack the knowledge 

to answer my question or are you refusing to answer my question? 

Mr. TILLERSON. A little of both. [Laughter.] 

Senator KAINE. I have a hard time believing you lack the knowledge to answer my question, but that is an editorial comment just 

like your comment was an editorial comment. 

With respect refusing to answer my question, we talked in my 

office. You have severed your financial ties with ExxonMobil, correct? 

Mr. TILLERSON. That is correct. 

Senator KAINE. Are you subject to any confidentiality agreement 

that continues to be in force that would limit your ability to talk 

about the matter I am asking you about or any other matters concerning ExxonMobil? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Let me clarify my first answer. All the ties will 

be severed if I am confirmed. 

Senator KAINE. Right. Absolutely. 

Mr. TILLERSON. I—— 

Senator KAINE. I got that. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

56 

Mr. TILLERSON. I spoke too quickly. 

Senator KAINE. Yes, I understood that. 

Mr. TILLERSON. To my knowledge, I have no such confidentiality 

agreement in place, but I would have to consult with counsel. 

Senator KAINE. I will file that question for the record, and I 

would be—— 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes. 

Senator KAINE.—curious as to whether there is any existing confidentiality agreement and when the agreement was entered into. 

Senator KAINE. Mr. Chairman, I want to enter a couple of documents in the record: first, a letter dated September 2, 1982, from 

the Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Laboratory director of 

Exxon Research Company, Roger Cohen. And I would just quote 

from it and enter it into the record, September 2, 1982. ‘‘Over the 

past several years, a clear scientific consensus has emerged regarding the expected climatic effect of increased atmospheric CO2. The 

consensus is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from its 

preindustrial revolution value would result in an average global 

temperature rise of between 1.5 and 3.0 degrees centigrade. There 

is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant 

changes in the Earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and 

alterations in the biosphere. The time required for doubling of atmospheric CO2 depends on future world consumption of fossil fuels. 

‘‘In summary, the results of our research are in accord with the 

scientific consensus on the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on 

climate. We are now ready to present our research to the scientific 

community through the usual mechanisms of conference, presentations, and publications. As we discussed in the August 24 meeting, there is the potential for our research to attract the attention 

of the popular news media because of the connection between 

Exxon’s major business and the role of fossil fuel combustion in 

contributing to the increase of atmospheric CO2. Our ethical responsibility is to permit the publication of our research in the scientific literature. Indeed, to do otherwise would be a breach of 

Exxon’s public position and ethical credo on honesty and integrity.’’ 

And I would like to introduce that letter for the record. 

Senator CORKER. Without objection. 

[The information referred to is located in Annex VI, page 499.] 

Senator KAINE. I would like to also introduce an op-ed series produced by ExxonMobil in 2000, and I will read the following: ‘‘Geological evidence indicates that climate and greenhouse gas levels 

experience significant natural variability for reasons having nothing to do with human activity. Against this backdrop of large, poorly understood natural variability, it is impossible for scientists to 

attribute the recent small surface temperature increase to human 

causes.’’ 

And I would like to introduce that as well. 

Senator CORKER. Without objection. 

[The information referred to is located in Annex VI. page 493.] 

Senator KAINE. Mr. Tillerson, one last subject. I know you are familiar with the use of the phrase ‘‘resource curse’’ to describe the 

phenomenon whereby oil-rich countries often find that their abunFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

57 

dance of natural resources actually impedes development of a diverse economy and promotes authoritarianism, violence, environmental despoliation, poverty, and corruption. That is not an iron 

law, but that has been a much-discussed topic in economic literature since the early 1990s. 

ExxonMobil does business in many countries—Chad, Equatorial 

Guinea, Nigeria, Indonesia, Angola—that have suffered through 

this phenomenon. I would like you to talk about, as Secretary of 

State, where we have a development portfolio that tries to help nations raise sustainable economies, how will you work with nations 

that have suffered under this ‘‘resource curse,’’ and how will you 

work with them to make sure they respect human rights, the rule 

of law, and our longstanding commitment to transparency and 

anticorruption interests? 

Senator CORKER. Good question. Succinct answer, please. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, there is a lot of opportunity through our 

USA programs to strengthen institutional capacities and set standards of expectation in the developing part of the world, including 

those that have resource wealth. 

Senator KAINE. Mr. Chair, if I could put one more document in 

the record, and it is a document from this committee. It is a report 

that was directed by Senator Lugar when he was the ranking 

member of the committee in 2008 entitled ‘‘The Petroleum and Poverty Paradox: Assessing U.S. and International Community Efforts 

to Fight the Resource Curse.’’ And it has a number of suggestions 

for both the President and Secretary of State that I think still have 

some merit, and I would commend it to the attention of the witness. 

Senator CORKER. Without objection. Thank you. 

[The information referred to is located in Annex VI, page 503.] 

Senator CORKER. Senator Young. 

Senator YOUNG. New guy. [Laughter.] 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks so much, Mr. Tillerson, 

for your presence here today. 

I would like to return to an issue which has received quite a bit 

of discussion and dialogue here today, and it is the sanctions that 

have been imposed on Russia in the wake of their annexation of 

Crimea, their armed intervention in eastern Ukraine. And you 

have indicated to me privately and again here publicly that you 

had a couple of concerns. Aside from the fiduciary concerns, that 

is, your duty to ensure you maximize shareholder value as CEO of 

ExxonMobil, you had concerns with respect to the ill-formation of 

these sanctions, the fact that there is a disparity between the U.S. 

and EU’s sanctions regime, and therefore, you did not believe that 

sanctions regime would work. Is that correct? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I think I expressed the view that it was 

likely to be ineffective. 

Senator YOUNG. Okay. I am going to give you an opportunity to 

explain that in greater detail. In the wake of our private meeting, 

we contacted the Congressional Research Service and they indicated—and I will submit this report for the record here—but that 

in practice—and I am quoting—‘‘It appears that U.S. and EU sectoral sanctions are broadly similar.’’ They did say it appears, but 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

58 

kindly explain the distinction between those two sanctions regimes 

that made you conclude they would be ineffective. 

Mr. TILLERSON. And I was speaking in terms of the sector that 

I was involved in at the time, oil and natural gas development. The 

EU sanctions contained a grandfathering provision, which allowed 

activity that was already underway in the targeted sanction areas 

to continue. In the U.S. sanctions, there was no grandfathering. 

And in this dialogue that was going on during the development of 

the sanctions, that was part of the input to the process, both to the 

Treasury Secretary—I spoke to Secretary Lew myself to point out 

that there was this gap and that it was going to—it could lead to 

problems for U.S. interests from two perspectives. One was the 

operational effect that I just described a moment ago in response 

to the chairman’s question that an immediate effect would put operations that were ongoing at risk. So there was that issue. 

But the second was that to the extent European activities in the 

same sanctioned areas could continue because they were grandfathered would put U.S. interests in this particular part of the sector at a disadvantage because U.S. could not continue to demonstrate its capabilities; our European partners could. And it put 

at risk the possibility that agreements that had been entered into 

might be terminated. 

Senator YOUNG. So it is the grandfathering component. We will 

look more into that. 

Mr. Chairman, submit this for the record, please. 

Senator CORKER. Without objection. 

[The information referred to is located in Annex III, page 469.] 

Senator YOUNG. Let me pose a hypothetical, perhaps a bit—it 

gets to the heart of the matter of trying to separate one’s responsibilities, one’s incentives as the CEO of a major multinational corporation, though U.S.-based, from perhaps your coming role as the 

chief diplomat of the United States. 

Assume that something that is not particularly lacking in plausibility, that Russia were to send troops and weapons into the Kiev 

area, into Ukraine. Assume further that a well-formed sanctions 

regime is presented to you as Secretary of State. Finally, assume 

that that sanctions regime would disadvantage the bottom line of 

American-based multinationals. Would you still propose, would you 

still advocate that the United States of America advance its national interests by adopting this sanctions regime? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, I think as I have indicated now several 

times, the use of sanctions is an important and can be powerful 

tool as long as they are constructed to be effective. In an instance 

like the example you give, there will be, I am sure, discussion at 

the National Security Council all of the options, but the sanctions 

will be certainly an important option to have on the table for consideration. And if that is the option selected, I will vigorously support those. 

Senator YOUNG. Very good. With respect to the U.S. and EU 

sanctions, it has already been presented to you that there is a possibility of removing those. You indicated that for now you believe 

the status quo should reign in part because—I think understandably; I am sympathetic to this—you indicated you lack sufficient inFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

59 

formation. You have not been ‘‘read-in’’ with respect to classified 

material, correct? 

Mr. TILLERSON. That is correct. 

Senator YOUNG. All right. Your nomination was announced on 

December 13. You have never served in government before. It is 

understandable you would not have a security clearance until now, 

until last evening. You had a security clearance. Would you be willing to receive a classified security brief from our intelligence community this evening, assuming we may go into tomorrow with respect to this hearing, focused intently on Russia? 

Mr. TILLERSON. If all of the paper is in place and I have been 

cleared, I understand it is on file; I just have not received any notice yet. But I look forward to having access to the additional information. 

Senator YOUNG. So you would be willing? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes. 

Senator YOUNG. Further, as the nation’s chief diplomat, it is really important, as we have seen with this previous administration, 

that the chief diplomat of the United States speak with a voice that 

is perceived to be the voice of the President of the United States. 

There cannot be space between what you are saying, the policies 

you are putting forward, and those that are embraced by our now 

President-elect. He has a history of utilizing to very well-known effect social media, Twitter in particular. And some of the Presidentelect’s tweets appear to be quickly drafted, not vetted by staff or 

coordinated with the transition team’s senior officials. So this gives 

pause to me. This gives some concern that in coming months, in 

coming years you might not be empowered to actually serve as the 

chief diplomat. You would lack credibility. 

So how do you finesse this? How would you ensure that the legs 

are not cut out from underneath you as the nation’s chief diplomat? 

And perhaps you have some ideas on this. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, if confirmed and I am able to serve this 

President-elect, I do not think I am going to be telling the boss how 

he ought to communicate with the American people. That is going 

to be his choice. 

But in carrying out and executing and implementing the foreign 

policy, including traveling abroad—and I understand your point; I 

am overseas—that it would be my expectation that any way the 

President might choose to communicate through whatever method 

would be supportive of that policy we both agreed on. 

Senator YOUNG. So do you have in mind any contingency plans 

to—— 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, I have his cell—— 

Senator YOUNG.—address—— 

Mr. TILLERSON. I have his cell phone number. [Laughter.] 

Senator YOUNG. Okay. 

Mr. TILLERSON. And he has promised me he will answer. And he 

does. 

Senator YOUNG. We will hope for the best there, unless you have 

anything else to add. 

In your prepared statement, you write that ‘‘Russia must know 

that we will be accountable to our commitments and those of our 

allies.’’ Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that ‘‘An armed 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

60 

attack against one or more member states in Europe or North 

America shall be considered an attack against them all.’’ Mr. 

Tillerson, if Putin were to instigate a Crimea-style invasion of a 

NATO member, let us say Estonia or Latvia or Lithuania, do you 

believe the U.S. should and would honor its treaty obligation, join 

our allies in defending our fellow NATO member against external 

invasion? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Article 5 commitment is inviolable, and the U.S. 

is going to stand behind that commitment. 

Senator YOUNG. So yes? 

Mr. TILLERSON. If that is the consensus of NATO members that 

that is the appropriate use of article 5, then yes. 

Senator YOUNG. Okay. I yield back. 

Senator CORKER. All right. Thank you so much. 

Senator Murphy. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Tillerson, for your willingness to serve. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Thanks. 

Senator MURPHY. And as a Cub Scout leader who was wearing 

the uniform last night as I led my Wolf den, I thank you for your 

service to the Boy Scouts and your leadership there as well. 

A comment and then a few questions. In your testimony you said 

that you had not lobbied Congress on the issue of sanctions, and 

I guess we fleshed out that in your mind calling a United States 

Senator to express your belief that sanctions would be ineffective 

is not lobbying. I would argue that is a distinction without a difference. If you are calling a United States Senator on the phone to 

express your belief that sanctions that would affect your company 

would be ineffective likely constitutes lobbying. And in 14 different 

lobbying reports between 2006 and 2014, Exxon did list lobbying on 

sanctions as part of its political activity. 

I have a question, though, on another potential inconsistency. In 

your testimony and in your private meetings with us, you spent a 

lot of time I think, you know, very smartly talking about the importance of consistency and clarity in American policy and your belief 

that you need to rebuild that. 

In this light, your response to Senator Rubio on whether you 

would support mandatory sanctions against specific individuals involved in confirmed, verifiable cyber attacks against the United 

States is fairly extraordinary. The U.S. is under attack today. We 

are under attack by Russia, by North Korea, by China through 

these cyber attacks. 

And so I guess I am going to ask you to square how you can have 

a clear, consistent policy on preventing cyber attacks against the 

United States when you have said before this committee that you 

do not support mandatory sanctions against verified individuals 

who have committed attacks against the United States because 

there might be complicated multifaceted relationships with certain 

countries in which you might want to weigh the attack against the 

United States with another consideration. How do you deter cyber 

attacks against the United States if you send a message that you 

can get away with it with no sanctions against those individuals 

as long as there are other equities at stake with the United States? 

Put those two together for me. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

61 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, what I was intending to convey is that 

I need to be fully informed as to what all the options are. And I 

am not fully informed as of yet, and it will involve—you know, if 

confirmed, it will involve interagency discussions, including that 

within the National Security Council of what are all—and I think 

I have said this—what are all the options to respond? And again, 

this is a symptom of the—in the absence of a clear policy and a 

clear strategy, I fully appreciate this body and in particular this 

committee that has these important responsibilities wanting to 

take action. What I do not know because I have not been allowed 

or not had the sufficient briefings yet, what are the other potential 

ways to respond to these types of attacks? And if sanctions are the 

most effective, then that is certainly what I would support. But I 

do not know because I have not been briefed as to what are our 

proportional capabilities in responding. Are there other options 

available to us that could prove to be even more effective and get 

a more immediate change in the behavior of whoever is attacking 

us? 

And so it is—I hope I did not convey or did not intend to convey 

that kind of a narrow of a response. What I was trying to convey 

is this is an extraordinarily complicated threat that exists today, 

and we are being attacked. I do not dispute that statement in any 

way. But I also believe we have to look at all of the options and 

all of the tools available to us, and sanctions is one of them. It is 

a powerful tool. 

And I think, as I said, if in an interagency, a national-securitytype environment, that conversation is existing and the conclusion 

is made that these sanctions are going to be the best and most appropriate way to act, then I think the executive would like to have 

the optionality to make that decision, not to the exclusion that 

there could be better options available, and yet we have to do this 

as well. 

Senator MURPHY. Mr. Tillerson, as you know, the New York 

Times, Washington Post, CNN, amongst others, are reporting that 

Russia has a dossier of very damaging and embarrassing information about the President-elect that they have used to influence his 

views on Russian-American policy. This report is as 

earthshattering as it is thinly sourced, but it was deemed credible 

enough for our intelligence agencies to reportedly read in both the 

President and the President-elect. I think we all pray that it is not 

true, and I certainly understand you are not in a position to testify 

to the contents of that report. But let me just ask you some very 

simple questions. Have you been briefed yet on these allegations 

and on this report? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I have not. 

Senator MURPHY. There is some confusion as to whether the 

President-elect has been briefed. Can you confirm whether he has 

been briefed or not? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I do not know. 

Senator MURPHY. In this report there are allegations that there 

were specific agents of the Trump campaign that communicated between it and Russia. Have you or Exxon had any business dealings, 

any business relationships with either Paul Manafort or with Carter Page? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

62 

Mr. TILLERSON. Not that I am aware of. 

Senator MURPHY. Could you take that question for the record 

and get a response to the committee?— 

Mr. TILLERSON. I would be happy to do that. 

[The information referred to had not been received by the committee in time to be included in this hearing print. ] 

Senator MURPHY. And finally, do you believe that U.S. law enforcement, most notably the FBI, should seek to determine the accuracy of these allegations? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think that I would leave that to those agencies 

to determine. 

Senator MURPHY. If they chose to conduct an investigation, 

would the State Department under your leadership cooperate with 

that investigation? 

Mr. TILLERSON. To the extent there is a role for the State Department in such an investigation. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Tillerson. 

You have talked a lot in your testimony about the importance of 

setting red lines and then standing by them when you set them, 

and I want to ask you some questions about it. The President made 

his red-line statement in the context of a press conference, and so 

I just want to get your position right here. You believe it is statements by American Presidents, even those that are made off-thecuff, are taken by world leaders as statements of U.S. policy, is 

that correct? 

Mr. TILLERSON. In that case I think the statement was pretty unequivocal. 

Senator MURPHY. And so let me give you another unequivocal 

statement and ask for your thoughts on it. On Twitter, Presidentelect Trump said that a North Korean ICBM launch was ‘‘not going 

to happen.’’ That sounds about as clear as a red line as I can figure 

one out. Do you interpret that to be a red line? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I do not know that I would interpret that to be 

a red line. I could interpret that to mean a lot of things. 

Senator MURPHY. Elaborate. Elaborate on that. 

Mr. TILLERSON. It is not going to happen because the President 

views the North Koreans are not going to do one. It could be interpreted that way. 

Senator MURPHY. You do not think that should be interpreted by 

the global community as the United States promising to do whatever is necessary not to allow the North Koreans to obtain an 

ICBM? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think that is a pretty far extension of that 

statement to come to that conclusion. 

Senator MURPHY. I think many have interpreted it that way. 

And I think to Senator Young’s question, therein lies the challenge 

when you conduct foreign policy by 140 characters, it does become 

a little opaque as to what you mean. I do not think there is as 

much confusion there, but that will certainly be a challenge that 

you will have. 

Finally, I want to drill down a little bit more on this series of 

questions from Senator Menendez. He was getting at a question 

about conduct at ExxonMobil that directly contradicted American 

foreign policy in Iraq when you made a decision to do a deal with 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

63 

the Kurdish Government even when the United States Government 

had requested that you refrain from doing such a deal. 

In addition, there is testimony now that, through subsidiaries or 

joint partnerships, Exxon did work in places like Iran, Syria, and 

Sudan. This is a question that is going to sound confrontational but 

I mean it sincerely. Was there any country in the world whose 

record of civil rights was so horrible or whose conduct so directly 

threatened global security or U.S. national security interests that 

Exxon would not do business with it? Was there any line while you 

were at Exxon where you would not do business with a country, 

given that Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Russia were on the list of those 

that you would? 

Mr. TILLERSON. The standard that is applied is, first, is it legal? 

Does it violate any of the laws of the United States to conduct business in any particular country? Then beyond that, it goes to the 

question of the country itself. Do they honor contract sanctity? Do 

they have a rule of law? And if they do or do not, are there mitigating actions that can be put in place to protect whatever business 

activity might be undertaken. 

Senator MURPHY. But on that list is not a question of their 

record of human rights abuses or U.S. national security interests? 

Mr. TILLERSON. That could go to contract sanctity, rule of law, 

and stability of the country, which is always a judgment as well. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. 

Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Senator Corker, and thank you for 

your outstanding opening remarks. I think you cast the hearing exactly in the place it should be. 

Mr. Tillerson, thank you for accepting this challenge, and thank 

you for accepting the challenge of sitting before us for a couple of 

hours and answering a lot of tough questions in a great way. 

Thank you also for bringing United States Senator Sam Nunn to 

introduce you. That goes a long way with me and I think a lot of 

people here. Sam served for 24 years in the United States Senate. 

He chaired the Armed Services Committee, and he and Dick Lugar 

did the Nunn-Lugar Initiative, which has reduced the exposure of 

the world to nuclear fissile material to be used by terrorists around 

the world and was a chief advisor to me and a number of other 

members of the committee on the New START Treaty and did a 

great job of helping us to understand what Russian capabilities 

were and how important it was for us to maintain a strong road 

on that. So I appreciate you having Sam here. He is a great testimony to you as an individual. 

You mentioned a number of things, and I am going to take them 

in order real quickly and try and ask specific questions. With regard to American leadership being renewed and reasserted because 

to lead in the world, we have to renew our leadership; we have to 

reassert our leadership. You have said that. 

Probably one of the most interesting places in the world right 

now where we basically are out of the picture is the Middle East 

with regard to Aleppo and in regard to Syria. Turkey and Iran and 

Russia are sitting at the table as they divide up what is left of 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

64 

Syria and its assets and what is going to happen in the future, and 

we are sitting outside. 

As the nominee for being the chief negotiating diplomat for the 

United States of America, what would you recommend we do to get 

a seat at that table? And what form of renewed leadership should 

we exercise to have that leadership respected? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, if confirmed, Senator, I think the first step 

we have to take is to reengage with our traditional allies and 

friends in the area and reaffirm that we are back. We are back 

with our leadership and we are back with a plan of how to affect 

where events in Syria go from here. We cannot do anything about 

where we are today. 

I think you described the situation accurately. Russia, Syria, 

Turkey, and Iran are dictating the terms of how things are going 

to play out in Syria today, absent our participation. So I think that 

it is a reengagement with our traditional allies, sharing with them 

where we believe we have to now go in Syria. 

We have to reengage with President Erdogan in Turkey. This is 

a longstanding NATO ally that, in the absence of American leadership, he got pretty nervous about his situation and he turned to 

who was next available and he turned to an ally in Russia that is 

not a sustainable ally. And it is making clearer to him that is not 

a sustainable alliance. Your sustainable alliance is with the United 

States of America. 

So it is just—the first step is that reengagement and reinforce 

what had been longstanding commitments by the United States to 

stability and security in this part of the world, and that includes 

reestablishing a clear statement of how important Israel is to us 

and our national security and the role they play in this region of 

the world for our benefit as well. 

After that, then we will have a plan that will be developed in 

concert with the National Security Council as to how we accomplish two things. One: We have got to protect the innocent people 

on the ground in Syria. People are fleeing areas. How do we secure 

their protection so they are no longer indiscriminately bombed, put 

under threat? And if that can happen, then perhaps there can be 

a stabilization of the outflow of people who are leaving because 

there is not a safe place to go. 

The second step then, as I indicated, is defeat ISIS. We have had 

two competing priorities in Syria under this administration. 

Bashar al-Assad must go and a defeat of ISIS. And the truth of the 

matter is carrying both of those out simultaneously is extremely 

difficult because at times they conflict with one another. 

The clear priority is to defeat ISIS. We defeat ISIS, we at least 

create some level of stability in Syria, which then lets us deal with 

the next priority of what is going to be the exit of Bashar Assad. 

But importantly, before we decide that is in fact what needs to 

happen, we have to answer the question: ’’What comes next?’’ What 

is going to be the governance structure in Syria, and can we have 

any influence over that or not? 

So there are a number of steps and a long road of regaining stability in Syria, defeating one of the greatest threats to us, which 

is ISIS, and then determining what is the fate and future of the 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

65 

Syrian people and Syria as a nation. It is going to take many steps, 

but it is not going to start until we get reengaged in that region. 

Senator ISAKSON. I will make a statement. You do not have to 

concur with it or not. But I think it is implicit that we would not 

be where we are today had two things—we had not failed to do two 

things. One, we failed to enforce the red line when we drew it, 

number one, with Syria, and I think that is an important thing to 

understand because we did not renew and assert our leadership in 

that position. 

And secondly, we never changed our ISIL policy from containment to destruction, and because containment allowed them to continue to operate in that area, it made it impossible to get to the 

position we are today. Would you have any comment on that? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I would agree with both of those reflections. 

Senator ISAKSON. Are you familiar with the term the Dutch disease? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I am. 

Senator ISAKSON. I think that is what Tim, what Senator Kaine 

was referring to. My son wrote his master’s these at Tulane in the 

early 1990s on the Dutch disease so that is the only reason I know 

anything about it. But it points out the second thing about the 

State Department that is so important. The Dutch disease is what 

the Middle East suffers from. They have an infinite source of—well, 

not infinite but for all practical purposes infinite source of wealth 

in terms of oil and petroleum. They decided not to invest that 

money in their people and in infrastructure and instead kind of 

bought their people off with the money they had and had kingdoms 

and palaces where they live. And now we are suffering today because they have no medicine, they have no educational system, 

they have no infrastructure. 

USAID, Millennium Challenge Corporation, those entities within 

the State Department which would be under your responsibility are 

where we take our soft power to develop countries and friends at 

the same time, the Peace Corps being another example. But I am 

a huge supporter of those institutions and of seeing those dollars, 

those soft dollars investing and helping to build the infrastructure 

of human life within these countries that do not have it, a tremendous asset for us in the future. Do you share that belief? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I do, Senator. And as I think I commented earlier, USAID has one set of criteria by which the aid is provided. 

[Disturbance in hearing room.] 

Mr. TILLERSON. The use of AID is multifaceted in terms of both 

disaster relief and development. One of the most successful programs I have seen is the Millennium Challenge Corporation because it has ownership on part of the country. They have to request 

the grant, they have to take ownership of the implementation, and 

it is in many ways an advancement of their institutional capacity 

to actually get something done. That is where you would hope we 

can put all of these countries on a pathway where they can begin 

to take responsibility and develop the infrastructure and the educational systems and the need to meet the needs of their people. 

It is a different journey for each of these countries, and the use 

of the foreign assistance, to the extent we can make USAID development programs more like Millennium Challenge, recognizing difFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

66 

ferent criteria, but it goes to the responsibility of the recipient government in putting some level of criteria where we are promoting 

the development of their institutional capacity to begin to address—look back to their people and address their needs. Now, 

they are powerful tools, and they are powerful because, as I said 

earlier, they really project the best of American compassion. 

Senator ISAKSON. I appreciate your answer because a lot of people have questioned whether or not we ought to have corporate executives from the private sector be Secretary of State. Soft power, 

which all of us prefer to hard power, if we can use it, depends on 

the concept of joint venture and the investment of capital and natural resources to bring about the best for people where those resources are. Your knowledge of that joint venture process is going 

to be invaluable with the State Department as we go through Africa and other developing countries, to use Millennium Challenge to 

bring about a reduction in corruption, an increase in friends, and 

hopefully better votes in the U.N. when we need them the most. 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think we certainly should use that as a way to 

build those connections with developing countries around the 

world, and countries that hopefully are going to be on the rise and 

can be important models to others to demonstrate that it is possible to lift yourself out of this condition. 

Senator ISAKSON. One last quick question, and it is not a Catch 

22. But I am a big supporter of trade. I think trade is important. 

It is a weapon that we have, to use a soft-power weapon to have 

friends and help the United States of America. China, the whole 

issue of TPP has been an issue. I know the President was questionable on TPP, but not on trade itself. 

Do you think trade is a foreign component in intergovernmental 

relationships between countries and has a role at the State Department? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Having strong economic alliances where there is 

a certain—I hate to use the word ‘‘interdependency’’ because some 

people find that a threatening term. But having those important 

connections allows us to have these economic ties where we want 

to maintain good relations with one another. They also provide an 

enormous opportunity for us to know one another as people. This 

is just people going about their daily lives, doing their jobs, and 

having connections with others in other countries that are doing 

the same. It allows us to project America’s values into those countries we are trading with. We have a presence in those countries, 

bringing American standards of conduct, honest dealings, ethical 

behavior, a structure around honoring our deals. A deal is a deal; 

we honor it. So economic trade is critical to the success of our foreign policy. 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, thank you very much for your willingness 

to serve, and thanks to your wife and family for their willingness 

to help support you in that service. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Mr. Tillerson, during your tenure as CEO of ExxonMobil, the 

company massively expanded its involvement in Russia, going from 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

67 

virtually no holdings in that country to holding the drilling rights 

to 63 million acres. That is an area inside of Russia that is the size 

of Wyoming and almost five times the amount of holdings Exxon 

has here in the United States. 

As CEO of Exxon, you vocally opposed the Russian sanctions that 

have been put in place which hamper Exxon’s ability to drill there. 

Now, in recent weeks we have learned about the incredibly disturbing extent to which Russia has sought to weaken our nation 

from its efforts to undermine the election to yesterday’s news that 

it has compromising personal and financial information about the 

President-elect. 

Now, I am sure that I am not alone in saying that I believe that 

these allegations, if true, demand more and stronger sanctions 

against Russia. Just this morning, Donald Trump said that he 

thinks that the Russians did hack our American election. 

So, Mr. Tillerson, in light of what you now know about the extent 

of Russia’s hostile acts against our country, do you support increasing sanctions against Russia even if doing so hurts ExxonMobil? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, Senator, if confirmed, in consultation with 

the President and I am sure what will be an interagency decision 

around imposing additional sanctions on Russia, there will be no 

space between me and the President or the Administration in those 

decisions. I serve—if confirmed, I serve only the interests of the 

American people. 

Senator MARKEY. Well, again, the question that the American 

people are going to have is that you have spent 41 years at 

ExxonMobil, and ExxonMobil controls, for leasing purposes, drilling 

purposes, oil purposes, an area the size of Wyoming inside of Russia, and you have spent your entire adult life working there. So 

there is a question that people have in their minds about your ability to be able to separate. 

If the head of the Sierra Club was named tomorrow to be the 

new CEO of ExxonMobil, some of the shareholders at ExxonMobil 

might wonder whether or not the head of Sierra Club could put 

aside their whole past history in order to be able to advance that 

shareholder interest. 

Well, the shareholders of the United States, the people who are 

watching this hearing, are wondering the same thing about this 

issue with regard to your past history and not just the vast interests which ExxonMobil has in Russia but in dozens of other countries across the world. 

Now, earlier you said that you would recuse yourself from issues 

involving ExxonMobil, as required by statute. But that statute, 

that statutory recusal period is only for one year. You could be Secretary of State for four years, or for eight years. You, in my opinion, are going to have many, many issues after that one-year period 

is up that relates to the economic interests of ExxonMobil. 

So I ask you, sir, if you would be willing to recuse yourself for 

the duration of your time as Secretary of State from any manner 

dealing with ExxonMobil’s economic interest so that the American 

people are sure that the only interest that you are serving is the 

interest of the American people. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, as I indicated earlier, I will honor, obviously, the statutory recusal period, and then after that any matter 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

68 

that might involve ExxonMobil or that has the appearance that it 

could lead to some type of conflict, I will seek the guidance of the 

ethics counsel, a review by them, and if it is the view that it would 

be proper for me to recuse, I will honor that. 

Senator MARKEY. Well, again, one year is a very brief period of 

time given the vast economic effects of ExxonMobil in Nigeria, in 

Iraq, in Russia, in country after country around the world. I think, 

Mr. Tillerson, it would be far better for you just to say that for the 

duration of your time as Secretary that you will not allow for your 

own personal involvement to be a part of any decision about anything that affects ExxonMobil anywhere in the world. I think the 

American people would feel much more comforted if you would, in 

fact, make that commitment to them. 

Now, during your tenure as CEO, Exxon has supported public 

policy groups who have spread climate denial. Senator Kaine dealt 

with that issue. And also opposed clean energy, including, for example, financial support in 2015 for the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Manhattan Institute, two groups which are 

climate deniers. In 2016, when the attorney general of Massachusetts asked Exxon for information on the company’s climate activities under Massachusetts consumer and financial protection laws, 

Exxon sued the state of Massachusetts, the attorney general of 

Massachusetts and other public policy groups that had been critical 

of Exxon. 

So we have evidence in the past that Exxon, during the time you 

have been there, supported groups opposing climate action and also 

trying to silence groups that have been critical of Exxon. 

So give the American people, given your personal history at 

ExxonMobil and the actions of that company, some reason to have 

confidence that the climate agreement negotiated by Secretary 

Kerry and President Obama will be something that the Trump Administration State Department will honor and that U.S. leadership 

will continue on the issue of climate change around the planet. We 

are not just any country. We cannot be a laggard. We must be the 

leader. The world expects us to be the leader on climate change. 

Please give us those assurances that you will guarantee that the 

State Department will be the leader, as it has been, in advancing 

a climate agenda for our country. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, if confirmed, Senator, I am sure that there 

will be opportunity, and I know the President-elect will want the 

opportunity to do a fulsome review of our policies around engagement on climate issues through global accords, global agreements. 

As I indicated, I will feel free to express my views to him around 

those. 

I also know that the President, as part of his priority in campaigning, was America first. So there are important considerations 

as we commit to such accords, and as those accords are executed 

over time, are there any elements of that that put America at a 

disadvantage. 

Senator MARKEY. Do you believe that it should be a priority of 

the United States to work with other countries in the world to find 

climate change solutions to that problem? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think it is important for America to remain engaged in those discussions so that we are at the table expressing 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

69 

a view and understanding what the impacts may be on the American people and American competitiveness. 

Senator MARKEY. Do you commit to ensure that no employee of 

the State Department is influenced to take action because it would 

be favorable to business interests associated with the Presidentelect or his family? 

Mr. TILLERSON. If I understood the question, yes. 

Senator MARKEY. All right. The President-elect said famously in 

a tweet, wouldn’t you rather have, in a certain sense, Japan with 

nuclear weapons when North Korea has nuclear weapons? And the 

President-elect has also said that he would be open to South Korea 

and Saudi Arabia acquiring nuclear weapons. 

Senator Nunn, who introduced you, has previously described 

these comments as dangerously off base and has stated that Mr. 

Trump’s suggestion would make American families less safe. 

Do you disagree with the President-elect that it would not be a 

bad thing for us if Japan and South Korea and Saudi Arabia acquired nuclear weapons? 

Senator CORKER. Succinctly, if you will. 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think the priority has to be to deny North 

Korea the ability to deploy its nuclear weapons. 

Senator MARKEY. What about Saudi Arabia and South Korea? 

Senator CORKER. Senator Paul, please. 

Senator PAUL. Mr. Tillerson, congratulations on your nomination. 

They say that those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are 

doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. The President-elect has 

said that the Iraq war was a big, fat mistake. He said this many, 

many, many times. I was wondering if you agree with the statement, and if you do agree with the statement, how it will inform 

your judgment as to the future of the Middle East and the other 

conflicts that we are engaged or possibly engaged in in the Middle 

East. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, I alluded to the Iraq war in my opening 

comments when I indicated that actions over the past decades, 

while well intended, had unintended consequences that in the end 

did not achieve the stability that we sought or the national security, and I think in that regard the decision to go into Iraq and 

change the leadership in Iraq, upon reflection, perhaps did not 

achieve those objectives. We did not have a more stable region in 

the world, and our national security has not been enhanced or is 

still certainly under threat today. 

Senator PAUL. I think that is an important point that we talk 

about, whether our national security was enhanced, that I think 

sometimes gets lost in the emotions of these are terrible evil people, X, whichever country we are talking about, and we have to do 

something about it, and in reality we maybe forget that really what 

we are trying to do is to be protecting our vital national interests. 

Another statement that President-elect Trump has made is that 

the U.S. should stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know 

nothing about, that we should not be involved with. This is kind 

of interrelated to the last question, but I think it is also important 

in the sense that there are some within the foreign policy community who say, oh, we must go in and topple the regime in Iran. It 

will be a cake walk. They will welcome us with open arms. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

70 

One of the interesting things you find as you meet Iranian Americans, many of whom lost all of their land, all of their wealth, and 

you ask them about Iran and you say would it be a good idea to 

militarily invade Iran, and they say completely the opposite, that 

much of Iran is younger, much of Iran is pro-Western, and that 

with the first bomb that is dropped you will reverse a lot of good 

will that is potentially there when Iran does finally change its regime on its own. 

But I think it is important, because we do. Nobody wants Iran 

to have nuclear weapons. Nobody wants Iran to be an aggressor in 

the region. And at the same time, I think it is important that we 

look at the lessons of the Iraq war. The Iraq war actually 

emboldened Iran, made Iran stronger. 

So the questions are the same thing with Libya. We toppled the 

regime in Libya. 

But I guess the question is, with regard to Iran, those who are 

advocating that it will be a cake walk, that we should have military regime change, what do you think of that advocacy, and what 

do you think of, I guess, Donald Trump’s statements with regard 

to regime change? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I think you have described it in many ways 

in the same way I would see it, is that what is in the best interest 

of our national security. I think this is where these priorities sometimes come into conflict of our values and the projection of our 

American values and our desire and out of our compassion for the 

mistreatment of people, the violation of human rights, oppressive 

regimes, we want those people to have what we have. But balancing that against our national security interest, and what is 

most important is that we protect the American people first. 

This is where sometimes I think our priorities, we have too many 

priorities, and therefore we lose sight of what is the most important. Any decision to effect a change of leadership in a country by 

force cannot be taken lightly, and I think the question that one has 

to answer is one that I posed a couple of times: What comes next? 

In the case of Libya, I think that was the failing in the decision 

to change the regime there. No one had a clear plan or a view of 

what would come next. That is what we are experiencing and have 

experienced somewhat in Iraq, and it is the question in Syria when 

people talk about changing the leadership there. What comes next? 

Certainly, making a decision to use force is a serious, serious decision, because we know it will come at a cost of precious American 

lives. So I think that is important, and if confirmed as Secretary 

of State, my job is to make sure we never get there. My job is to 

chart out other pathways by which we can have a steady progress 

towards causing regimes who oppress their people to change their 

behavior and use all the other tools available to us. 

Having said that, I do think that we have to be clear-eyed about 

the threat Iran poses today and ensure that we have taken all 

steps appropriate through all mechanisms available to contain that 

threat and to limit their ability to grow that threat, and in particular not just in acquiring a nuclear weapon but, more importantly, their widespread support of terrorism around the world. We 

have to disrupt that. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

71 

Senator PAUL. Thank you. With regard to foreign aid, there has 

been a lot of love for foreign aid going around today, but I think 

there is another side that we ought to think about. There are 

many, many, many reports talking about corruption within foreign 

aid, that we give it to developing countries and 70 percent of it is 

stolen off the top. The Mubarak family in Egypt, everybody loved 

the Mubaraks. They were pro-Western, pro-American, and yet they 

are said to be worth about $15 billion. I do not think they ever created anything other than they skimmed a little bit off the top of 

everything that comes into the country. We have given them $60 

billion, and they are worth $10 or $15 billion. 

I believe it was Equatorial Guinea that had one of their sons 

stopped in Paris a few years ago loading about 10 different cars 

onto an airplane that were all worth $200,000, $300,000 cars. So 

there is a lot of corruption. 

Now, some of the things that have been mentioned are more directed towards either third-party charities or private entities. I 

would argue that these are a lot less bad. But I would argue that 

we cannot blithely just look at foreign aid and say, oh, it is all 

great and it is all going to a good cause. Sometimes it actually 

works in the opposite way, and I will give you an example in 

Egypt. 

We gave so much and the Mubaraks took so much of this money, 

but some of it they actually spent because we have provisions that 

they have to buy stuff from us with the money. It is sort of this 

creation of economic business kind of game that we do. But one of 

the things that they bought from us was tear gas. So when they 

had these big democratic protests in Cairo, they were being doused 

with tear gas from the U.S., and they would pick the canisters up 

on the street. I would argue that that soft power maybe is not giving a warm, soft, fuzzy feeling for America, that in supporting 

many people who really are not pro-human rights or pro-American 

interests, that actually sometimes the foreign aid backfires on us 

because they resist those leaders who are using undemocratic and 

forceful, authoritarian means on their own people, that it backfires. 

I would appreciate your comments on whether or not you see any 

kind of difficulty or problems with corruption within foreign aid or 

things that need to be reformed. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, I am very aware of, and even in my 

prior work I have seen the examples of what you described, even 

in disaster relief cases where foreign assistance is flown in, food 

supplies. While they are literally being unloaded at the airport, 

military forces are picking them up and taking them away to be 

sold. 

So the challenge is never in the intent, in our compassion and 

the need we are trying to address. The challenge is always in the 

execution. I do think that it is important that we have as well-developed execution plans if we are going to deliver aid into a country 

where we know this is a risk. What can we do in the execution of 

the delivery of that aid? If it is disaster relief, are there other agencies we can partner with to limit that type of theft going on? 

In terms of development assistance, to the extent we do not give 

grants directly to governments but whether we give them to particular projects or perhaps partnering agencies or public/privateFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

72 

sector initiatives which are executed by credible NGOs so the 

money just never passes through the hands, that is the preferred 

mechanisms, I think. 

Senator PAUL. And then one final point I would make, and you 

do not necessarily need to comment on this, is that it is not only 

corruption but it is unintended consequences. As a business person 

you will immediately recognize this, and I think even right and left 

actually agree on some of this. If you dump Haiti with rice for 10 

years, you ruin the ability for them to have their own rice market 

and to grow their own rice. If you want to give them rice during 

the middle of a famine, that is one thing. But you have to be very 

careful about having a big heart, small brain syndrome that we 

ruin their local economy sometimes with aid, as well. 

But I appreciate you thinking about corruption, and then also 

thinking about unintended consequences of our aid. Thank you. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. 

Before turning to Senator Merkley, I think you have made great 

contributions as it relates to foreign aid, and I think that there is 

support for the one percent that we spend to try to use it in an appropriate way for soft power. 

I think, and I have shared this with the Trump incoming transition group, that still much of our aid is the Cold War model where 

we are buying influence, and so much of it needs to be—all of it, 

actually—transformed into something that has appropriate efficacy. 

What we are doing right now with food aid is beyond belief, and 

I could rant about this for another 20 minutes. It is beyond belief. 

But efforts like we have to end modern slavery where partnerships 

are created, where you are building on best practices, some of the 

things we are doing with water, some of the things we are doing 

with electricity, I think they are set up on the right principles, but 

I appreciate the comments. I appreciate, hopefully, all of you looking at foreign aid because there is much waste, there is corruption. 

We could deliver it in a much better way. 

Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a pleasure to join the committee. 

Mr. Tillerson, during his campaign, the President-elect talked a 

lot about what he saw as major mistakes with NAFTA and with 

giving China full access to our markets in terms of its impact on 

American manufacturing. He was very critical of the TPP. Do you 

share his vision that NAFTA and WTO China access and the TPP 

are big mistakes in terms of creating living-wage American jobs? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, my understanding of the issue that the 

President-elect has with those trade agreements is, in the case of 

NAFTA, it is an agreement that has been in place for decades now, 

and I think even President Pena Nieto of Mexico has indicated 

that, yes, perhaps it needs a relook, that we are in a different era 

now both in terms of the type of trade and technology, but also the 

global trading environment has changed since that agreement has 

been put in place. 

Senator MERKLEY. Do you share his opposition to the TPP? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I do not oppose TPP. I share some of his views 

regarding whether the agreement that was negotiated serves all of 

America’s interests at best. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

73 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Exxon has a partnership with Shell, a company known as 

Infinium, that did a fair number of transactions with Iran, bypassing U.S. sanctions. Are you familiar with the use of this subsidiary 

to bypass U.S. sanctions, and do you think it was the right thing 

to do? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I do not recall the instance. I have read about 

it, but I do not recall it specifically. 

Senator MERKLEY. So the SEC directly contacted Exxon while 

you were in the senior leadership saying that this seems fairly material for investors, an effort to bypass U.S. sanctions, and asked 

why Exxon did not disclose it. Do you have any memory of that or 

discussions of whether Exxon should have disclosed these transactions? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, I think the question would be best 

placed to ExxonMobil, where the information would reside. 

Senator MERKLEY. No, sir. You were there. I am asking if you 

had discussions about this or have a memory of it. 

Mr. TILLERSON. I do not. 

Senator MERKLEY. If you were Secretary of State and you were 

working to enforce U.S. sanctions and another CEO had a subsidiary set up and utilized to bypass American sanctions, would 

you call up that CEO or weigh in and say this is not a good idea, 

this undermines U.S. efforts to take on a serious terrorist threat 

or other malfeasance by some country in the world? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think if the actions that are being taken violate 

the sanctions, then there are proper authorities that would examine that and deal with it. 

Senator MERKLEY. It is not an issue of the technicality of violating the operation. A subsidiary was set up in Europe specifically 

that Exxon set up so it could legally bypass U.S. sanctions. But it 

was certainly inconsistent with the goal of U.S. policy to pressure 

Iran. If you were the leader, the Secretary of State, would you try 

to make sure that U.S. leadership and the effectiveness of using 

sanctions was not undermined through the set-up of foreign subsidiaries? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I would certainly be open to having folks at the 

State Department contact companies and just inquire as to whether they are aware of the actions that they are taking and the State 

Department’s view of that. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, to be aware of something is different 

than to be concerned or to be upset by it. Would you consider you 

would uphold the integrity of the U.S. goal of diminishing the ability of nations like Iran to do a whole host of things destructive to 

U.S. interests? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I understand, Senator, but I also think it is important that the State Department, as with any agency, also respects the laws that have been put in place, and there is a difference between expressing a concern and suggesting someone is 

breaking the law. 

Senator MERKLEY. Yes. So as you look back on the subsidiary, it 

does not upset you that Exxon took this role to undermine U.S. 

sanctions and that you would not express concern if another comFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

74 

pany legally set up a foreign subsidiary to undermine U.S. sanctions? 

Mr. TILLERSON. As I said, I do not recall the circumstances. 

Senator MERKLEY. I am not asking you to recall the circumstances. I am asking—your answer is that you do not consider 

that a problem. It sounds like you are not considering that to be 

an issue. 

Mr. TILLERSON. I do not know the example, so I do not know how 

to answer the question. 

Senator MERKLEY. Okay. Thank you. 

Let’s turn to lobbying the Ukraine. You said earlier in this hearing ‘‘I have never personally lobbied against sanctions. To my 

knowledge, Exxon never lobbied against sanctions.’’ And yet there 

is a whole host of material in the public sector about Exxon lobbying on these sanctions. There is a whole host of these lobbying 

reports in which Exxon reports under the law that they lobbied on 

these bills that imposed sanctions. There is your report at the 2014 

meeting, and I quote, ‘‘We do not support sanctions generally.’’ And 

you continued, ‘‘So we always encourage the people who are making those decisions to consider the very broad collateral damage of 

who are they really harming.’’ 

I would like to enter these articles into the record, if I could. 

Senator CORKER. Without objection. 

[The information referred to is located in Annex VII, pages 507 

to 537.] 

Senator MERKLEY. And this article is titled, from the New York 

Times, ‘‘Rex Tillerson’s Company Exxon Has Billions At Stake Over 

Sanctions on Russia.’’ It is a political article that lays out 

ExxonMobil helped defeat Russia sanctions bill and notes how it is 

a model. ‘‘Mobil successfully lobbied against a bill that would make 

it harder for the next president to lift sanctions against Russia.’’ 

Another article lays out, ‘‘Tillerson visited the White House often 

over the Russian sanctions.’’ 

So there is a host of material showing a widespread pattern of 

weighing in against these sanctions that were harming Exxon interests, activities in Russia, which was a major area of your effort. 

Do you still maintain that Exxon did not lobby against these sanctions? 

Mr. TILLERSON. ExxonMobil did not lobby against the sanctions 

but were engaged in how the sanctions would be constructed. As 

to the reports of my visits to the White House, my visits were to 

work through the process of ExxonMobil’s compliance with the 

sanctions. I described earlier the situation where, when the sanctions were enacted, there were—drilling activities involved considerable risk that were underway for which ExxonMobil sought a 

special license from OFAC in order to complete those, in full compliance with the sanctions. Had we been denied the license, we 

would have had to pull people out or ExxonMobil would have had 

to pull people out at that time. 

Senator MERKLEY. Is that the only instance in which you 

weighed in—— 

Mr. TILLERSON. In all of the other meetings—I am sorry. 

Senator MERKLEY. In 20 meetings going to the White House, that 

is the only issue you weighed in on, on Exxon sanctions? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

75 

Mr. TILLERSON. I do not recall 20 meetings, but the visits to the 

White House—because under the terms of the compliance with the 

sanctions, the first action was to seek the license to allow us to 

deal with the imminent risk of the drilling situation. Following 

that, OFAC required ExxonMobil to file reports on a periodic basis 

around our ongoing compliance activities. 

ExxonMobil has holdings in Russia, offshore Sakhalin Island, 

that are not subject to the sanctions, in partnership with Rosneft, 

which does contain individuals who are subject to the sanctions. 

Senator MERKLEY. I am going to summarize that these reports 

you consider to be incorrect. 

Mr. TILLERSON. They are inaccurate. 

Senator MERKLEY. Okay, thank you. I will continue. 

There are three individuals who were involved in the Trump 

campaign—Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, and Carter Page—who 

public reports indicate have been involved in dialogue with Russia 

with the goal of finding a common strategy, with Russia believing 

that Trump would be better on Syria and Ukraine policy, and 

Trump believing that Russia could help defeat Hillary Clinton. 

Now, these reports have not been substantiated. I am sure much 

more will come on them. But in theory, how do you feel about a 

U.S. candidate turning to a foreign country to essentially find another partner in defeating another opponent in a U.S. presidential 

election? 

Mr. TILLERSON. That would not comport with our democratic 

process. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. I am sure we are going to have 

a lot of discussion of this because the extent of the false news stories, the hacking, the cyber warfare, the use of botnets to amplify 

false news stories, the hiring of trolls, all of which really attack the 

fundamentals of our democracy. The reports have it that Russia 

not only wanted to weigh in in the election but they also wanted 

to undermine U.S. confidence, the citizens’ confidence in the electoral process and in our democratic values. So that is a real concern to the future of our state, and I assume it is a concern that 

you might share as well. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, sir. It is a concern I share. I also noted in 

the publicly available report that I read that the interagency report 

also acknowledged that these types of activities were carried out 

during the Cold War as well. The tools of sophistication have only 

advanced with the advent of cyber. 

Senator MERKLEY. Yes. Many of these tools were Internet-based 

electronic cyber warfare that was much different in that setting. 

When we come back in our next round, because I have a few seconds left, I would like to ask a few questions about Exxon’s involvement in Equatorial Guinea. My colleague mentioned it on the other 

side, and I think that would be of interest. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Congratulations on your nomination. 

I wanted to go to your opening statement and try to talk about 

a couple of things that we have not really gotten into yet. One of 

the statements that you made had to do with defeating ISIS. As 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

76 

you said, defeating ISIS must be our foremost priority in the Middle East. You go on to say but defeat will not occur on the battlefield alone, we must win the war of ideas. 

If I could just engage you a little bit to talk about how we can 

use diplomatic efforts and other ways to target and actually undermine the ISIS ideology and its legitimacy, and how can we do that 

and improve U.S.-led coordination in the region with our allies. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, the defeat of ISIS globally is extremely 

challenging because it does not represent a country that we can 

apply traditional approaches to. The defeat of ISIS as an ideology— 

in other words, other than the battlefield—is going to require advanced capabilities in our own communication tools in terms of disrupting their communication to develop their network, and more 

importantly to further their ideology. This means getting into the 

Internet airspace and putting forth different ideas and disrupting 

their delivery of ideas to people who are persuaded to join them. 

ISIS, the defeat of ISIS in the Middle East removes their caliphate territory, which then undermines their legitimacy. That in 

itself will not defeat ISIS once and for all. It will simply morph to 

its next version, and we see that already as terrorist organizations 

existing in other parts of the world have decided to identify themselves with ISIS just because of the strength of their brand, quite 

frankly. 

So I think it is going to require a comprehensive interagency effort informed by intelligence, informed by the Defense Department 

and other agencies as to how can we disrupt the delivery of this 

ideology. Why the ideology takes hold in a particular location, 

again there is not a country that identifies itself as ISIS. That is 

why taking away their caliphate is so important. 

Senator BARRASSO. It even looks like they are trying to extend 

in Afghanistan—I was there at Thanksgiving—and near Jalalabad 

near the Afghan-Pakistan border. It seems like they are trying to 

establish a caliphate in that area as well. So the cancer has spread, 

and I appreciate those thoughts. 

In your opening statement you just talked about—and even those 

that introduced you talked about the fact that the U.S. is not as 

strong and respected as it had been previously, and we need a foreign policy aimed at securing our national interests, demonstrating 

our leadership. From a standpoint of credibility, you and I talked 

about having the capacity to do something, having a commitment 

to use that capacity, and communicating that commitment about 

the capacity. 

Could you share with us a little bit about what you intend to do 

in terms of restoring America’s position in the world? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, as I indicated also in my opening statement, we are dealing from a position of strength, so the only reason 

we are not perceived to be there with our friends is because we are 

not asserting that strength in these issues. So it does begin with 

reengaging with friends and allies, reconnecting with them that 

our commitment is to the stability of the region, that if there are 

existing commitments and agreements in place, that we fully intend to fulfill those, and then developing a strategy in the region 

to deal with the most imminent threat. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

77 

It means projecting the strength of our U.S. military might, but 

hopefully not having to use it in terms of trying to persuade countries to change their course of action. But in the case of the most 

immediate threat of ISIS, it involves can we construct a renewed 

coalition that, using the forces that are already there, including the 

Syrian Kurds, which have been our greatest allies, that we recommit to the Syrian Kurds that we intend to continue to support you 

with the capability to continue the advance on Raqqa, and then 

build coalition forces that can contain ISIS if it attempts to move 

into other parts of the country and eliminate them from Syria to 

begin. 

I think the effort in Iraq is progressing. Hopefully it will progress 

to a successful conclusion as well in terms of removing the caliphate from ISIS. 

Senator BARRASSO. Staying in the Middle East in terms of the 

relationship between Israel and the Palestinians, I always felt, as 

has been the position of the country, that direct negotiation between the parties without interference from outsiders was the key. 

The Obama Administration recently abandoned Israel with a onesided resolution at the Security Council of the United Nations by 

abstaining from a vote, which in the past we would routinely have 

vetoed. 

Could you talk a little bit about your views on the refusal to veto 

the recent U.N. Security Council resolution and subsequent speech 

by Secretary Kerry? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Israel is, has always been, and remains our most 

important ally in the region. They are important to our national security. The U.N. resolution that was passed, in my view, is not 

helpful. I think it actually undermines setting a good set of conditions for talks to continue. The Secretary’s speech which followed 

that U.N. resolution I found quite troubling because of the attacks 

on Israel and in many ways undermining the government of Israel 

itself in terms of its own legitimacy in the talks. 

I think in the Trump Administration, the President-elect has already made it clear, and if I am confirmed I agree entirely with 

support. We have to recommit. This is in the statements I keep 

making about renewing and committing that we are going to meet 

our obligations to Israel as our most important strategic partner in 

the region. 

Senator BARRASSO. Staying with the United Nations then, you 

talked about the international agreements. Specifically, you were 

asked about the climate agreements, the international climate 

change. Funding is a part of that. The Obama Administration has 

unilaterally pledged $3 billion to the U.N. Green Climate Fund. 

The Administration has requested $1.3 billion for global climate 

change initiatives in this year’s President’s budget for Fiscal Year 

2017. You mentioned Donald Trump campaigning on America first. 

Will you commit to ensuring that no funding will go to the U.N. 

Green Climate Fund? 

Mr. TILLERSON. In consultation with the President, my expectation is that we are going to look at all of these things from the bottom up in terms of funds we have committed towards this effort. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Isakson asked about and talked 

about the value of using soft power, and it just seems there are so 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

78 

many opportunities, whether it is humanitarian assistance, democracy promotion, embassy security measures that are necessary, and 

countering global terrorist threats, where money could possibly be 

better spent than on these efforts. So I appreciate your effort to 

look into that. 

Senator Corker earlier talked about some of the wonderful things 

that have been done around the world because of U.S. involvement 

in soft power. Part of that is power helping to power energy in a 

number of communities around the world. Many of us have been 

to Africa to see what happens in a community where there is energy available that had not been previously in terms of helping as 

a tool for those countries so people can get better education opportunities, health, well-being. 

We have had a situation where some of the programs in place 

have not really supported ‘‘all of the above’’ energy. We have seen 

where the World Bank has blocked funding for coal-fired power 

plants which would help bring light and other opportunities to a 

number of countries in Africa. I wonder if you could comment on 

the need to use all of the sources of energy to help people who are 

living in poverty and without power. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I think—and I know you touched on it, but 

nothing lifts people out of poverty quicker than electricity. That is 

just a fact. You give people light, you give them the ability to refrigerate food, medicine. It changes their entire quality of life. They 

no longer cook on animal dung and wood cooking in their homes, 

so health issues, their health improves. 

I think it is very important that we use wisely the American people’s dollars as we support these programs, and that means whatever is the most efficient, effective way to deliver electricity to 

these areas that do not have it, that should be the choice. That is 

the wisest use of American dollars. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. 

Just for the state of play, we are running slightly behind. We are 

going to go ahead and finish up with Senator Coons and Senator 

Portman. Senator Risch and Senator Booker are not here. We will 

take a 45-minute recess when these two gentlemen finish their 

time. Each of them will have ten minutes when they get back to 

start, and then we will resume again in the same order, starting 

with Senator Cardin, and we will do 7-minute rounds when we get 

back. So it looks like we will recess at about 1:30 and come back 

at 2:15. 

With that, Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Tillerson, good afternoon. And to Renda, to your whole family, welcome and thank you for your willingness to serve this country in this important post. 

I appreciate the frank conversation we had in my office last 

week. I just want the American people to hear some of the answers 

you gave me on, I think, some pressing and relevant questions 

around your nomination and your views on the world, but in a focused way and on the record. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

79 

Many of my colleagues have already asked about how you will 

handle the transition from CEO of the world’s leading energy oil 

company to Secretary of State, advocating for human rights and 

open press and democracy. I have been encouraged to hear you say 

we will stand by our NATO allies, that you would not support accepting the annexation of Crimea by Russia, and that you see Russia as currently an adversary and possibly an enemy. I want to 

focus in on how you see Putin’s leadership and Russia’s role. 

You said previously that the Russians are strategic thinkers and 

they have a plan. They have a plan to restore their role in the 

world order. My core concern is that their plan is actually to 

change the world order, and that they have used a wide range of 

tools, and we have not successfully pushed back on their campaign. 

I led a bipartisan delegation to Eastern Europe in August and 

was struck at the number of times in several countries we were 

briefed on a continuous campaign to divide Europe and the United 

States, to undermine our NATO alliance, and to divide Europe 

from within; and that Russia has used all the tools of state power, 

both overt and covert, to wage an aggressive propaganda campaign. 

Back in the ‘90s, after the fall of the Soviet Union, we used effectively Radio Free Europe and the National Endowment for Democracy. We were engaged in a full-on fight for democracy in the 

former Warsaw Pact countries and former Soviet Republics. I think 

we should be using all of our tools to push back on this Russian 

aggression. 

Do you see RT as a Russian propaganda outlet, and how would 

you use and lead the resources of the State Department to counter 

Russian propaganda and to push back on this effort to change the 

rules of the world order? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, as you point out, utilizing the opportunity 

to communicate to the people of Russia through mechanisms that 

were successful in the past, Radio Free Europe, and utilizing those 

type of sources, as well as providing information on the Internet to 

the extent people can access Internet so that they have availability 

to the facts, the facts as they exist, to the alternative reporting of 

events that are presented through the largely controlled media outlets inside of Moscow. That is an important way in which to at 

least begin to inform the Russian people as to what the realities 

are in the world. It is an important tool and it should be utilized. 

Senator COONS. It is the intelligence community’s assessment 

that the Kremlin has a longstanding plan to undermine the global 

democratic order that we spent so much time and effort building 

in the decades since the Second World War. Will you rely on and 

will you encourage the President-elect to rely on the career professionals in the intelligence community in your role as Secretary of 

State, if confirmed? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, I have enormous respect for the intelligence agencies and the vital role that they play. So I will certainly be informed by their findings, and I think in terms of then 

understanding that as they apply to the facts on the ground, it is 

important in guiding our future policy decisions and guiding our future options for how to respond. 

Senator COONS. I know this press conference has happened while 

you have been here in this confirmation hearing, but just an hour 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

80 

or so ago the President-elect finally publicly said that he thinks it 

is most likely true that Russia was behind the hacking effort, and 

he gave no more specific response to the question what should we 

do about it other than we will work something out. Many of us are 

concerned about the lack of a clear embrace of a congressional role 

and a clear embrace of congressional-led sanctions. 

There is a bipartisan bill that will move forward to enact sanctions so that it is not just the action of one outgoing president. You 

have given some constructive answers previously about your view 

on sanctions and your view that if done in a solid and sustainable 

way, they can be a constructive tool of foreign policy. Please reassure me that you would welcome working closely with Congress on 

enacting sanctions against Russia in response to their war crimes 

in Syria, their invasion of Crimea and its occupation, and their attack on our democracy. 

Mr. TILLERSON. If confirmed, Senator, I look forward to engaging 

with this entire committee particularly on the construct of new 

sanctions, and I think, as I have indicated in response to other 

questions, what I would hope is that the executive branch and then 

my role at the State Department, if confirmed, would be the latitude to use those sanctions in efforts to cause modifications in Russia’s positions. If they are already in place and mandatory, then 

that may remove some opportunities for us to explore ways in 

which we could use them as a tool and give the Russian government the option of moving because of the threat of those. 

Senator COONS. I will say, if I could, Mr. Tillerson, that I was 

a member of this committee when the current Secretary of State 

came and asked us not to strengthen the sanctions against Iran, 

to give the executive branch the freedom to operate, and I think by 

a vote of 99 to 0, the Senate went ahead with bipartisan sanctions. 

Senator Menendez pressed you about this earlier. 

I do think that we should work in concert and in consultation, 

but there are some tools that Congress sometimes chooses to move 

forward with, and it is my hope we could strengthen sanctions to 

show our determination to contain Putin’s aggression and to push 

back on his adversarial actions. 

Let me move to another topic, if I could. Do you think it advances America’s interests to have the Russian military supporting 

Assad, coordinating with Iran, and engaging in combat actions in 

Syria against the moderate opposition and against the folks who 

we have relied on as allies in the fight against ISIS? 

Mr. TILLERSON. As I indicated in my opening remarks, that is 

contrary to American interests. 

Senator COONS. How do you think we can strengthen our hand 

against Iran given their destabilizing regional actions? And in your 

view, as you reconsider the nuclear agreement with Iran, if we 

withdraw from the agreement unilaterally, how will we sustain the 

current level of visibility we have into Iran’s nuclear program, and 

how would that make us safer or stronger? 

Mr. TILLERSON. With respect to the recent agreement to limit 

Iran’s ability to advance or make progress toward the development 

of a nuclear weapon, if confirmed my recommendations, and I think 

this is consistent with where the President-elect is now, is to do a 

full review of that agreement, as well as any number of side agreeFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

81 

ments that I understand are part of that agreement, examine 

whether Iran and our ability to verify whether Iran is meeting its 

obligations under the agreement and ensure that we are enforcing 

all mechanisms available that hold them to that agreement. 

No one disagrees with the ultimate objective that Iran cannot 

have a nuclear weapon. The current agreement does freeze their 

ability to progress, but it does not ultimately deny them the ability 

to have a nuclear weapon. My understanding is that the current 

agreement, for instance, does not deny them the ability to purchase 

a nuclear weapon. It just denies them the ability to develop one. 

So I think there are additional areas that have to be considered, 

and most importantly, if we choose to use this agreement as a way 

to provide an opportunity to discuss what comes next, because the 

real important question is what comes at the end of this agreement, and what comes at the end of this agreement must be a 

mechanism that does, in fact, deny Iran the ability to develop a nuclear weapon, and that means no uranium enrichment in Iran, no 

nuclear materials stored in Iran. 

The other side of that is what does Iran get would be through 

working with partners would be to provide Iran the access and the 

means to peaceful uses of nuclear materials, nuclear power, medical applications and industrial applications. But that would be 

done under a very controlled process, working with other partners 

to do that. Whether Iran is prepared to chart a pathway that looks 

like that we will only know once we engage in discussions. 

Senator COONS. Well, many members of this committee look forward to working with you to make sure that we are restraining 

Iran’s nuclear ambitions effectively, fiercely, and that we are implementing what we get out of that current agreement and reviewing 

it closely going forward. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, and I appreciate your observation 

that every administration is anxious to work with Congress until 

such a time it in any way inhibits their ability to do whatever they 

wish. So I thank you for that. [Laughter.] 

Senator CORKER. Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Tillerson, it has been a long morning, and now we are going 

into a long afternoon, and I think I am the one person between you 

and a break, so I will try to be as quick as I can. 

I appreciate your willingness to step forward and serve your 

country, and I know it is not without some sacrifice, but also an 

incredible opportunity. We talked a little in my office, and I appreciate your meeting with me, about restoring America’s role in the 

world. Just listening today to your testimony back and forth, I 

think there is a consensus building in this country that we do need 

to do some things immediately to put America back in a position 

of being trusted and respected by our allies and our adversaries. 

I like to look at it more that we are not looking to be the world’s 

policeman but, to put it in Texas terms, more like the sheriff who 

gets the posse together. On the eastern border of Ukraine and Crimea, that would be NATO. Although Ukraine is not a member of 

NATO, that region relies on it, and those countries need leadership. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

82 

With regard to Syria, I think it is the Kurds, it is the Sunni 

countries in the neighborhood, so it is the posse. 

In the South China Sea where China has been increasingly aggressive, I think it is the Pacific Rim countries who, as you know, 

are very nervous. But they are looking for leadership, and the security umbrella we have provided since World War II has kept the 

peace. 

So I hope that is consistent with what you have told me in private and what you are saying here publicly today. I think there is 

an opportunity, as well as a sacrifice, related to your service. 

As we talked about in our meeting, a number of my constituents 

in my home state of Ohio have family ties to Eastern and Central 

Europe, including Ukraine, and are very interested in those issues. 

We have gotten much more deeply involved in those issues over the 

last several years, including traveling to that region. So my questions are going to focus a lot on that. 

The first one, NATO. Just to be clear, because I know there was 

some discussion about NATO earlier, particularly Article 5, which 

reads, ‘‘An armed attack against one or more members shall be 

considered an attack against them all.’’ Can you just clarify that 

you believe that Article 5 creates a binding obligation to assist any 

member of the alliance who is a victim of aggression regardless of 

their size or geographic location? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, sir. I do. 

Senator PORTMAN. And as Secretary of State, would you ever 

threaten to break the U.S. commitment to Article 5 as a means of 

pressuring allies to spend more on defense? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I would not recommend that. No, sir. 

Senator PORTMAN. Okay. Understanding that I think all of us 

around this dais would like to see our partners step up and do 

more in terms of the defense budget. 

Since 2014, of course, Ukraine has struggled to defend its sovereignty and its territorial integrity against the Russian aggression. It has been discussed here a lot today. One point that has not 

been discussed in the way I think it ought to be is the fact that 

back in 1994, the United States, Britain, Russia, and Ukraine 

signed an agreement, the Budapest Memorandum, which said that 

when Ukraine regained its independence following the collapse, 

having possessed at that time the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal, that in exchange for giving up that nuclear arsenal that we 

would assure Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. I 

think that is very important because it sends a signal. We talked 

earlier about Sam Nunn and his good work on nuclear non-proliferation. 

What kind of signal does that send? Clearly, that agreement has 

been violated by Russia, and the question is whether we are going 

to keep to that agreement as well, in my view. So, a couple of questions. 

One, in your written statement you talk about the taking of Crimea. We talked a little about that. Just to clarify, do you regard 

the Russian annexation of Crimea as an illegal occupation and annexation in direct violation of Ukrainian sovereignty? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, I do. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

83 

Senator PORTMAN. Okay. Do you pledge that the United States 

would never recognize that annexation of Crimea if you serve as 

Secretary of State, similar to the way the United States never recognized the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states? 

Mr. TILLERSON. The only way that that could ever happen is if 

there were some broader agreement that was satisfactory to the 

Ukrainian people. So absent that, no, we would never recognize 

that. 

Senator PORTMAN. Never recognize. Okay. I think that is fair. 

If the President-elect were to ask you for your advice as Secretary of State on whether he should maintain sanctions against 

Russia for its actions in Ukraine and in Crimea until Russia ceased 

its aggression and fulfilled its obligation under the Minsk agreements, what would you tell him? 

Mr. TILLERSON. As I indicated in an answer to a question earlier, 

I would recommend maintaining the status quo until we are able 

to engage with Russia and understand better what their intentions 

are. 

Senator PORTMAN. Does that mean keeping the sanctions in 

place? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator PORTMAN. As Russia continues arming, training, organizing, and fighting alongside this effort in Eastern Ukraine, do 

you support providing defensive lethal assistance so Ukrainians 

can defend themselves? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think it is important that we support the 

Ukrainians in all ways to protect themselves from any further expansion or aggression. I am hopeful that ceasefires will hold. But 

in the absence of that, I think it is important for us to support 

them in their ability to defend themselves. 

Senator PORTMAN. So you would provide them with defensive lethal weapons to be able to defend themselves? 

Mr. TILLERSON. That would come in consultation through the National Security Council and certainly would require the input of 

others. But I would support that. 

Senator PORTMAN. The United States Senate is on record supporting that. The Administration has chosen not to do that. They 

used a national security waiver, as the Chairman talked about earlier. I think this is significant, and I heard you say that earlier 

today, and I think this is a big change in terms of U.S. policy that 

is positive and will get Russia to the table, in my view. 

We talked a lot about the terrorists threat here today, and obviously that is a growing threat that we need to address in a much 

more aggressive way. I believe there is another growing threat to 

our national security and to the stability of our allies around the 

world, our democratic allies in particular. It is not a kinetic or a 

military threat. It is propaganda. It is disinformation. Russia, 

China in particular, but also other countries are more and more 

pursuing these extensive disinformation and propaganda campaigns against the United States and other democracies. 

By the way, this happened well before our most recent presidential election, and the information we have today about what 

might have happened here in this country I think is part of a 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

84 

broader effort that we ought to be more focused on, which is this 

effort of disinformation, and not just by Russia. 

When I have been to Ukraine and the Baltic countries, members 

of NATO, by the way, I have been struck by the conversations I 

have had with their leadership. This is at the top of their mind and 

the top of their list. They feel like they are under assault every 

day. They feel like they are sovereign democratically-elected governments that are being attacked through these disinformation and 

propaganda campaigns. 

I have also been struck by recent public comments by officials in 

Germany, in the U.K., and over time comments by our friends in 

Japan, Taiwan and other places about these kinds of operations 

and the meddling in their democracies. 

As you know, these operations blend a range of tools and methods, including cyber attacks and hacking, false news, troll farms to 

flood the zone on social media, funding of think tanks right here 

in this town, and political organizations that help them, and also 

state-owned media, some of whom are following your hearing today 

and are here in the room with us today. 

Senator Murphy and I have legislation recently signed into law 

that is meant to strengthen our outdated U.S. response to this 

disinformation and propaganda campaigns and establishes a new 

interagency center at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize U.S. counter-propaganda activities against foreign threats. 

It has just been passed, just been set up. 

So my question to you is, one, how would you characterize the 

threat posed by foreign government influence operations, not just 

Russia but in general? And second, what should be done about it, 

and do you support the establishment of this new agency, and 

would you put your personal support behind that? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, as I indicated in response to your question earlier, in terms of the broader threat of cyber—and I put all 

of the activities that you just described as a subset because those 

are largely delivered through digital means to people in terms of 

the propaganda or the undermining, the placing of fake news. All 

of that is done, by and large, in the digital space. So as part of this 

comprehensive cyber strategy, it has to include how do we deal 

with all of this misinformation that goes on around the world, and 

there are a number of actors playing in this space, Russia most notably, as you point out, but we know that others are playing in this 

space as well to undermine legitimate governments. 

To be honest, the bad actors have got the jump on us. They have 

been at this already for some time, and we have failed to develop 

a way to respond to that in that digital space. So this is a very 

complex technical issue that I think has to be part of a comprehensive assessment of how are we going—how is the U.S. going to protect itself in the cyber space and all the aspects of those threats 

that present themselves, including the one that you just described, 

and what are the mechanisms for responses, appropriate responses, 

and how do we get international agreement around some of that 

that sends messages back to the bad actors that there is going to 

be a cost if this continues, that there is a consequence to these actions? What is the proper proportional, or if it is not proportional, 

maybe it is asymmetrical? I do not know the answers because I 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

85 

think that is part of what is needed in a comprehensive assessment. It would be multi-agency, interagency driven. 

But that is, I think, one of the most vexing challenges in front 

of us, but we cannot just be vexed by it. We need to begin to address it. 

Senator PORTMAN. Well, it sounds like you acknowledge the 

threat. I would just add one footnote. I do not disagree with you 

that our cyber response is the weakest part of our response, and 

we need to strengthen that. But it is beyond cyber. I mean, this 

is, again, media, it is funding think tanks that are spreading this 

disinformation and false news. Some of it is pretty old fashioned. 

We are just not up to the task. Radio Free Europe is not the answer. It has to be much more sophisticated, and I look forward to 

working with you in that regard. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. 

We will recess until 2:15 sharp. We will begin with Senator Risch 

and Booker if they are here, and then start from the beginning. 

I will see you at 2:15. [Recess.] 

Senator CORKER. I call to order the Foreign Relations hearing, 

and we are going to begin with Senator Booker. Senator Risch 

ended up having a conflict. So we might reserve time for him when 

he is able to make it back. 

And with that, turn to one of our newest members, Senator 

Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate this opportunity. 

Mr. Tillerson, thank you very much for being here. I think you 

should mark for the record that it is a testimony to your character 

that even your in-laws have stuck through this, which is something 

you rarely see. [Laughter.] 

Sir, I just want to follow up on a few points of testimony that 

I heard, and I know I had to leave, unfortunately, for two other 

committees that were meeting at the same time. So I may have 

missed some of this. But I know that folks are going to get back 

to some of the issues regarding many of the things we discussed. 

But I just want to know, U.S. Engage, do you know what USA 

Engage is? 

Mr. TILLERSON. USA Engage? 

Senator BOOKER. Yes. 

Mr. TILLERSON. No, sir. I am not—it is not ringing a bell with 

me. 

Senator BOOKER. So what my notes here say is that USA Engage 

is an industry lobbying group for oil companies that did a lot of lobbying. In fact, they worked very hard on lobbying against a lot of 

the U.S. sanctions that were in place, and you do not know if 

ExxonMobil is a member of USA Engage and pays into that group 

for those lobbying purposes? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I do not know. 

Senator BOOKER. Okay. Would you be able to find that out for 

me for the record? 

Mr. TILLERSON. You might want to put the question to 

ExxonMobil, or if it is not on the lobbying report, I—— 

Senator BOOKER. All right. Thank you very much. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

86 

Another issue before I get into my question, I just want to follow 

up on. You characterize some of the Obama administration foreign 

policy as characterized as weakness, that we did not show strength 

around the globe. Is that correct? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think it is an absence of asserting our leadership, yes, sir. 

Senator BOOKER. And you indicated that our response to Russian 

aggression in eastern Ukraine was one of those indicators of that 

weakness. Is that correct? 

Mr. TILLERSON. That is my opinion, yes. 

Senator BOOKER. Right. And it seemed in the testimony that you 

were saying that such an aggression should be met with a proportional response that we did not show? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I do not think that is exactly the way I 

stated it. I think what I indicated in terms of the next step was 

my view of it is back to my predictability comment, that Russia is 

not unpredictable. 

That when the response to the taking of Crimea was met with, 

in my estimation, a response that was less than I suspect the leadership of Russia thought they would encounter, then the next move 

was logical to come across the eastern border of Ukraine. Because 

it was pretty well known that there were elements in eastern 

Ukraine that already were sympathetic to Russia interest. 

Senator BOOKER. And so that might be a case then when they 

annexed Crimea, entered into eastern Ukraine, this is a sign of 

weakness because we did not respond in a way that would deter 

further actions? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Working with allies in the region and, obviously, 

working with the government in Kiev, both. 

Senator BOOKER. And so what we did do in those cases was to 

put together with the Europeans a way of sanctioning them economically, but that was not sufficient in your mind to stop them 

from their aggressions? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I think you are on to a really important 

point around sanctions, and obviously, there has been a lot of questions about sanctions. And so I think it is—it is good to try to clarify my view on those. 

As I have said, sanctions are a very powerful tool. They are an 

important tool. And they can be used in two circumstances. One is 

to punish someone or a country for what they have already done. 

The other is to intervene and cause them not to do certain things. 

And in this case, clearly, the sanctions that were put in place in 

response to Crimea did not deter them from entering into—— 

Senator BOOKER. And so is it your opinion that—— 

Mr. TILLERSON.—Ukraine. 

Senator BOOKER. Is it your opinion then that our sanctions 

should have been much more severe, or do you think in that case 

there should have been a match of equal force, in other words, military action? 

Mr. TILLERSON. That, the latter is—was my response in that in 

that situation, given the dramatic—the dramatic taking of Crimea, 

that was a dramatic action, sanctions were going to be insufficient 

to deter the Russian leadership from taking the next step. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

87 

Senator BOOKER. And your opinion thinks it should have been 

military force then? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I am sorry? 

Senator BOOKER. Your opinion then is that it should have been 

military force? 

Mr. TILLERSON. My opinion is there should have been a show of 

force, a military response in defensive posture. Not an offensive 

posture, but in defensive posture to send the message that it stops 

here. It stops here. And sanctions, in my view, taken after the fact 

were not going to be adequate to deter that. 

Now that is my opinion. We will never know—— 

Senator BOOKER. Right. But you understand—— 

Mr. TILLERSON.—how that would have played out. 

Senator BOOKER. You understand that if you put yourself in a 

defensive posture, there is an old saying that if you pull a gun, you 

should be prepared to use it. That that could quickly escalate into 

a conflict and you are going to be making decisions about whether 

we should have commit American troops, commit European troops. 

If there is a military response, obviously, they were not putting it 

forth in Crimea. It would have to come from someplace else. 

And do you understand that that seems to be that you are advocating for greater U.S.—use of U.S. military power, greater U.S. 

military engagement in conflicts like the one we saw in Ukraine? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, I am advocating for responses that will 

deter and prevent a further expansion of a bad actor’s behavior. I 

would not in any way have wanted anyone to take away the 

thought that I would recommend that as the first action. And 

again, in any decision to respond with a show of force, that will be 

taken within the National Security Council and be fully informed 

by others, including Department of Defense and intelligence 

agents—agencies as to whether that would, in fact, first, can it be 

executed upon? Can it be effective? But looking at your other options as well. 

And again, I am not dismissive of the sanctions. That is just—— 

Senator BOOKER. But you did characterize the Obama administration’s decisions as weakness, even though you are saying that 

you would not necessarily do something different? 

Mr. TILLERSON. In that instance, I would have done something 

different. 

Senator BOOKER. Military force? 

Mr. TILLERSON. A show of force at the border of the country that 

had been—already had territory taken from them. 

Senator BOOKER. American military force in this case? 

Mr. TILLERSON. No. I indicated Ukrainian military force, supported by the U.S. providing them with capable defensive weapons. 

If that is not seen across the border, then it is not a show of force. 

Senator BOOKER. Switching gears now, it is an American value, 

this value of transparency in government. Correct? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes. 

Senator BOOKER. And accountability in government? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes. 

Senator BOOKER. I have a concern, and it is not a great one— 

you could allay it right now—that as a leader of a private company, 

you made it clear in many ways that you were, first and foremost, 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

88 

accountable to shareholders, employees, and customers. But as the 

Secretary of State, you are accountable to the American public and 

would be expected to keep the media, the public constantly informed of general activities. 

And I just know that when my staff did a rough calculation of 

past Secretaries’ interactions with the press, Clinton had over 

3,200 in her 4 years. Secretary Kerry had about 3,000. When you 

were at ExxonMobil, it was a far, far smaller number, but I imagine as Secretary of State, you believe in the importance of transparency, of engaging with the public, of answering to the questions 

that often come from the media? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes. And I indicated in my opening statement 

that that is part of earning the public trust is also to engage with 

this committee, and that is a way to communicate with the public 

as well. 

Senator BOOKER. And so you will bring press corps with you as 

you travel overseas, and you will commit to having those regular 

interactions with the press? 

Mr. TILLERSON. If confirmed, I will look into what would be appropriate to take. I have not—I have not gotten that far in my 

thinking. 

Senator BOOKER. Okay. And so you have not thought through 

about issues of accountability and transparency? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I have thought through issues of accountability 

and transparency. Your question was the size of my press corps, I 

think. 

Senator BOOKER. No, sir. It was not. My question was access of 

the media and the public to the work of the Secretary of State. 

Mr. TILLERSON. We want to ensure at all times, if confirmed, 

that the Secretary of State and the State Department is fully 

transparent with the public. That is part of my comment of being 

truthful and being—you know, and holding ourselves accountable 

as well as others accountable. 

Senator BOOKER. Okay. Switching gears, and I will get back to 

this in the next round of questioning. In fact, I am going to yield 

back because it is a new line of questioning that I have. 

Senator CORKER. Okay. I will, just as a matter of sharing some 

information regarding the supplying of lethal defensive support to 

Ukraine at a time when we were only sending used night vision 

goggles and MREs was something that was strongly supported in 

a bipartisan way on this committee under Chairman Menendez’s 

leadership. 

I just want to say that for the record. And so I did not view the 

response to be necessarily in any way outside the norms of what 

this committee overwhelmingly supported at that time. I am just 

saying that for information, and I am more than glad to talk more 

fully about that. 

So we are going to start the second round. There are going to be 

seven-minute rounds, and we are going to go in the same order 

that we began. 

If Senator Risch comes in, I would like to be able to give him 

time since he was not around earlier and now has a conflict. And 

with that, I will turn to Senator Cardin again. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, once again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

89 

First, Mr. Chairman, in response to Senator Menendez’s questions about lobbying in regards to the Iran Sanctions Act, just to 

make the record complete, I am going to ask consent to put into 

the record the lobbying disclosure form from ExxonMobil Corporation that indicates that approximately $3.4 million was spent in 

lobbying on behalf of the Iran Sanctions Act. 

I will put that into the record, Mr. Chairman. Without objection. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARDIN. I wanted to be chairman. I was putting some information into the record. 

Senator CORKER. I understand you became the chairman while 

I was talking, but—[Laughter.] 

Senator CARDIN. You always have to watch out. 

Senator CORKER. Without objection. 

[The information referred to is located in Annex VIII, page 541.] 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Second thing, Mr. Tillerson, I want to just underscore a point. 

We talked about it in my office. It has come up several times, and 

that is you keep referring to your concern in regards to the Ukrainian sanctions that were imposed against Russia for their actions in 

Ukraine, that you were concerned that American companies could 

be at a disadvantage because of Europe being treated differently, 

the grandfathered clause, et cetera. 

And then we talk about leadership, and it was very true on Iran, 

and Senator Menendez took the leadership role on this, that but for 

the U.S. leadership role, we would not have gotten other countries 

to act. 

So if we take the position we are going to the lowest common denominator, we are not going to get anything really done. And you 

talk about being tough and taking tough positions, it requires leadership and requires us to be willing to go the extra amount. 

And one last point on this, and I agree with Senator Corker, we 

have never had any administration believe that Congress should 

just take away their discretion. That is absolutely fact. Whether 

there is a Democratic or Republican administration, they would 

just as soon do away with Congress. We understand that. We get 

it. 

But you, I assume, understand the advantage we have in America with the separation of branches of Government. And it can be 

helpful to you if you are confirmed as our principal negotiator, to 

have clear directions from Congress that you must impose sanctions, unless you get real progress towards the issues on which 

those sanctions will be imposed. 

Take advantage of the independent branch of Government. Work 

with us so you can have those strong tools to help America’s interests. 

I am going to take most of my time on this round to go over an 

issue that Senator Corker and I have been working through. And 

I am not going to spend a lot of time. I am going to go over some 

of the issues on tax returns, and we will save that for a different 

time for our committee because it really involves an internal debate 

here more so than our nominee. 

But as a result, I had sent to you 20 questions to answer that 

are related to the tax issues because we did not have the tax reFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

90 

turns. And before the close of business for asking questions, I will 

be proposing questions to you related to your tax issues in order 

to better understand areas that I think we need to have information on. 

I am concerned, I think members of the committee are concerned, 

that you will have some private interests. You are going to continue to operate a farm. You are going to have a charitable foundation. You have a real estate firm, a real estate partnership. We 

need to know a little bit more how that operates from the person 

who is going to be Secretary of State. 

You have trusts that are being set up and how those payments 

are paid out over time. We need to have better understanding how 

that operates during your term, if you are confirmed as Secretary 

of State. So that type of information is useful to us. 

I am still trying to figure out exactly how this trust that you are 

taking restricted stock and, if confirmed, selling it, they are putting 

cash in rather than restricted stock, but then you are able to withdraw the funds from the trust in the same schedule as, I believe, 

as the restricted stock would have become actionable. But as a result of that, you are also putting contingencies on your receipt so 

you can defer the taxes—at least as I understand, defer taxes for 

a significant period of time. 

These are issues that I think we have to have more transparency 

on because they are big dollars. One hundred eighty million dollars, if I understand, in restricted stock, the tax consequences are 

about $70 million. And these are not types of tools that can be used 

by average Americans. So I think we need to know more about 

those types of issues. 

We also have concerns about making sure that all of your employees have been properly documented and paid their taxes. That 

is a standard issue that has been raised now in confirmation hearings, and Senator Corker and I may not think it is relevant to the 

final confirmations—I should not say ‘‘relevant,’’ determinative to 

a final confirmation, but it is certainly relevant for us to have that 

information before we make those answers. 

So, Mr. Tillerson, I am going to ask you to answer these questions for the record. I hope we will be able to get the cooperation 

in a timely way so that the committee can have this information 

before we are called upon to act on your nomination. 

You can respond. 

Mr. TILLERSON. I am happy to try to answer the areas of concern 

you have, and I indicated that in the original questionnaire that it 

is my objective to address concerns you have. You know, I am—I 

am also, though, mindful of privacy issues that are afforded to 

every American and the privacy issues that are afforded under individuals’ tax returns. 

So I will do my best to answer the questions that you have, but 

I hope you will also respect the privacy of myself and my family 

and the longstanding tradition of the privacy of individuals’ tax returns. 

Senator CARDIN. And I can assure you that that will absolutely 

be observed. As I had explained to Senator Corker, much of this 

information is not even reviewed by members. It is strictly by people who can tell us whether we have a problem or not. So I absoFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

91 

lutely respect what you are saying, and my intentions are to fully 

maintain your legitimate rights of privacy. 

I look forward to following up on that, and I thank you for your 

reply. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. 

Just for the edification of the committee, I think that it is true 

that over the last four years, I have worked as the lead Republican 

on Foreign Relations to ensure that we move nominee candidates 

out as quickly as possible. I think that has been stated at every 

nominations meeting we have had. 

And what I have shared with the ranking member is we have a 

tradition here that we are following. This has not been a committee 

that has asked for tax returns. It has asked for an ethics-disclosure 

form. And just because we were so overwhelmingly helpful with a 

Democratic President’s nominees does not mean that we want to be 

changing the standards or unhelpful, if you will, regarding Republican nominees. 

So I have tried to keep things exactly the same, exactly the 

same. Disclosures are exactly the same. And you know, I have told 

Senator Cardin that if there is a substantial issue that we need to 

look into that would affect Senator Tillerson’s—excuse me. You do 

not want to be demoted to that. [Laughter.] 

The nominee Tillerson’s role, then I am more than glad to look 

much deeper into it and if we need to have somebody from the outside to do so. 

But to get into silly ‘‘gotcha’’ questions, not that you have done 

that, that is just not what we have done in this committee. And 

I hope we will not turn this process into one that turns qualified 

people away from wanting to serve. 

So, again, if there is some substantive issue that we need to pursue and we need to get into some private setting and have someone 

come in from an accounting firm that really matters as it relates 

to his ability to not have conflicts as a Secretary of State or something like that, I am willing to look at it, as I know he is. 

Asking questions that are not in any way determinative in that 

manner, to me, is belittling the committee and certainly a huge 

change in the protocol and the respect with which we have dealt 

with nominees and their privacy in the past. 

Senator CARDIN. Could I just say—— 

Senator CORKER. But I thank you for working with me on that 

part. 

Senator CARDIN. If you would just yield for one moment? And I 

thank you for that. And I can assure you the disagreement on supplying tax returns has nothing to do with Mr. Tillerson. It is a discussion we are having, and it has not at all delayed any of our operations. And I fully expect that I will continue to use whatever 

means I can to change our committee practices so that we do have 

our nominees, as many other committees in the Senate require, file 

tax returns. 

That is not unique. Small Business, I have been told by Senator 

Shaheen, requires tax returns. 

But the second point I would just make very quickly is that, the 

ability of members to ask questions for the record and ask questions of the nominee has pretty well been respected. And I would 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

92 

hope that that right would not be diminished, that we have the 

ability to ask questions of the witnesses in regards to areas that 

we think are important. 

Senator CORKER. No one in any way is trying to diminish that. 

I know that you and I have agreed on a series of questions that 

will come from the committee itself, and Mr. Tillerson, as I understand it, is going to answer those. I would think that absolutely the 

arrangement that he has with Exxon is something that should be 

fully vetted, and everyone here understands that that is going to 

happen. And he is going to make that all forth and has, actually. 

I would just say again, we may wish to change our standards 

four years from now. Our most recent Secretary of State, as I understand it, as a couple was worth over $1 billion, had all kinds 

of far-ranging investments. And as a committee, we never tried to 

force a tax return issue. They filled out the disclosures, and we as 

a committee asked them questions. Same thing happened with Secretary Clinton. 

So all I am trying to do is not in any way change the way that 

we operate because of the outcome of an election and continue to 

be, again, that island of bipartisanship, where we continue to operate, regardless of who wins an election, in the same manner. 

I am in no way trying to infer that you are attempting to do that. 

I am just telling you what I am attempting to do. And with that, 

if we can close this matter out, I will turn to Senator Rubio. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you. 

Mr. Tillerson, when we met on Monday night, and thank you for 

coming by, I provided you a copy of a bill that was filed in the last 

Congress, which I anticipate has or will be filed again in this new 

Congress here in the Senate by my colleague Senator Flake and 

Senator Leahy. What it would do is it would remove the travel ban 

to Cuba by Americans. 

If you are confirmed and that bill were to pass the Congress, 

would you advise—can you commit that you would advise the 

President to veto that bill? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, as to—as to the current status of travel 

to Cuba, that is going to be under discussion with the Presidentelect. I think he has been fairly clear on his intent that he is going 

to ask all agencies, essentially on day one, to do a complete review 

of recent executive orders and the change of the status of travel to 

Cuba as well as business activities in Cuba. 

So that would be—it would be my expectation that the President 

would not immediately approve that bill until after that review had 

occurred because that would be part of a broader view of our posture towards Cuba. 

Senator RUBIO. Well, again, if he does not act on the bill, it 

would become law without a signature. So my question is, at this 

time, you cannot commit to supporting a veto of that bill, should 

it pass? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I would—I would support a veto because 

I do not think we want to change the current status of things until 

we have completed that review. 

Senator RUBIO. Okay. That was the question I wanted to get to. 

Let me ask you this. If a bill were to pass Congress that would 

remove the U.S. embargo against Cuba, and there has not been 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

93 

democratic changes on the island of Cuba, would you advise the 

President to veto a bill that lifted the embargo on Cuba? 

Mr. TILLERSON. If confirmed, yes, I would. 

Senator RUBIO. And can you also commit that you would advise 

the President to reverse many, if not all, of the Obama administration’s Cuba regulations and executive orders regarding Cuba that 

were recently submitted in 2014? 

Mr. TILLERSON. As indicated, I expect a comprehensive review of 

all those executive orders, and from the State Department perspective, I would want to examine carefully the criteria under which 

Cuba was delisted from the list of terrorist—nations that support 

terrorism and whether or not that delisting was appropriate and 

whether or not the circumstances which led to that delisting still 

exist. 

Senator RUBIO. You do not currently have an opinion at this time 

as to whether Cuba belongs on the list of terror sponsors? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I would need to examine all the criteria 

that were used to make the current determination and then utilizing the expertise of those in the State Department, again informed by the interagency process, to look at those criteria that 

would put Cuba back on that list. 

Senator RUBIO. As I am sure you are aware, there is a dispute 

between China and Japan over control of the Senkaku Island 

chain. If China attempted to take over the island chain through the 

use of military force, would you support the United States responding with military force to prevent that from happening? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, we have longstanding ally commitments 

with Japan and South Korea in the area, and I think we would respond in accordance with those accords, which are not a NATOtype agreement. But certainly, we have made commitments to 

Japan in terms of a guarantee of their defense. 

Senator RUBIO. I want to—because in your opening remarks, you 

referred to human rights, and I am glad that you did, and I wanted 

to walk you through a few examples quickly. I shared with you 

when we met on Monday a political prisoner database maintained 

by the Congressional Executive Commission on China. It contains 

more than 1,400 active records of individuals known or believed to 

be in detention. 

Do you believe China is one of the world’s worst human rights 

violators? 

Mr. TILLERSON. China has serious human rights violations. Relative to characterizing it against other nations, I would have to 

have more information. But they certainly have serious human 

rights violations. 

Senator RUBIO. Okay. Well, since President Rodrigo Duterte took 

office last June, the Los Angeles Times reports that roughly over 

6,200 people have been killed in the Philippines by police and vigilantes in alleged drug raids. In your view, is this the right way to 

conduct an anti-drug campaign? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, the U.S., America and the people of the 

Philippines have a longstanding friendship, and I think it is important that we keep that in perspective in engaging with the government of the Philippines that that longstanding friendship—and 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

94 

they have been an ally, and we need to ensure that they stay an 

ally. 

Senator RUBIO. That is correct, Mr. Tillerson. But my question 

is about the 6,200 people that have been killed in these alleged 

drug raids. Do you believe that that is an appropriate way to conduct that operation, or do you believe that it is something that is 

conducive to human rights violations that we should be concerned 

about and condemning? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, if confirmed, again, it is an area that 

I would want to understand in greater detail in terms of the facts 

on the ground. I am not disputing anything you are saying because 

I know you have access to information that I do not have. 

Senator RUBIO. This is from the Los Angeles Times. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, again, I am not going to rely on solely what 

I read in the newspapers. I will go to the facts on the ground. I 

am sure there is—I am sure there is good, credible information 

available through our various Government agencies. 

Senator RUBIO. Well, one of the sources for that number in the 

campaign and its nature is President Duterte himself, who openly 

brags about the people that are being shot and killed on the 

streets, who he has determined are drug dealers, without any trial. 

So if, in fact, he continues to brag about it, would that be reliable 

information that you would look at and say, okay, it is happening. 

I mean, what is happening in the Philippines is not an intelligence 

issue. It is openly reported in multiple press accounts. The President-elect has spoken about it. And quite frankly, the president of 

the Philippines has admitted to it, in fact, brags about it. 

So I guess my question is, is that, in your opinion, an appropriate way for him to act, and should it influence our relationship 

with the Philippines? 

Mr. TILLERSON. If the facts—if the facts are, in fact, supportive 

of those numbers and those actions, then I do not think any of us 

would accept that as a proper way to deal with offenders, no matter how egregious the offenders may be. 

Senator RUBIO. I am sure you are also aware of the lack of both 

religious freedoms and the rights—and lack of rights of women in 

Saudi Arabia. In your opinion, is Saudi Arabia a human rights violator? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Saudi Arabia certainly does not share the same 

values of America. However, American interests have been advocating in Saudi Arabia for some time, and I think the question is 

what is the pace of progress that should be expected for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to advance—advance rights to women and 

others in the country? 

Senator RUBIO. But as it currently stands, do you consider what 

they are doing to be human rights violations? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I would need to have greater information, Senator, in order to make a true determination of that. 

Senator RUBIO. You are not familiar with the state of affairs for 

people in Saudi Arabia, what life is like for women? They cannot 

drive. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes—— 

Senator RUBIO. They have people jailed and lashed—you are familiar with all of that? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

95 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, Senator. I am familiar with all of that 

and—— 

Senator RUBIO. So what more information would you need? 

Mr. TILLERSON. In terms of when you designate someone or label 

someone, the question is, is that the most effective way to have 

progress continue to be made in Saudi Arabia or any other country? So my interest is the same as yours. Our interests are not different, Senator, and there seems to be some misunderstanding that 

somehow I see the world through a different lens, and I do not. 

I share all the same values that you share and want the same 

things for people the world over in terms of freedoms. But I am 

also clear-eyed and realistic about dealing in cultures. These are 

centuries-long cultures, cultural differences. 

It does not mean that we cannot affect them and affect them to 

change. And in fact, over the many, many years that I have been 

traveling to the Kingdom, while the pace has been slow, slower 

than any of us wish, there is a change under way in the Kingdom 

of Saudi Arabia. How and if they ever arrive to the same value system we have, I cannot predict that. 

But what I do believe is it is moving in the direction that we 

want it to move. What I would not want to do is to take some kind 

of a precipitous action that suddenly causes the leadership in the 

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to have to interrupt that. I would like for 

them to continue to make that progress. 

Senator CORKER. Senator Menendez. 

Senator MENENDEZ. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Tillerson, I know that you are new to this, and I know that 

the chairman was trying to help you out on the question of lobbying on sanctions. You stated on the record that to your knowledge, neither you nor Exxon ever lobbied against sanctions, that 

you were merely seeking information. 

I have four different lobbying reports totaling millions of dollars, 

as required by the Lobbying Disclosure Act, that lists ExxonMobil’s 

lobbying activities on four specific pieces of legislation authorizing 

sanctions, including the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010; the Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014; the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014; and 

the Stand for Ukraine Act. 

Now I know you are new to this, but it is pretty clear. My understanding is that when you employ lobbyists who submit lobbying 

forms under the law, you are taking a position. Is that not correct? 

Mr. TILLERSON. If the form clearly indicates whether we were— 

I do not know. I have not seen the form you are holding in your 

hand. So I do not know it indicates were we lobbying for the sanctions, or were we lobbying against the sanctions? 

Senator MENENDEZ. I know you were not lobbying for the sanctions. But—— 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, if the form here—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. It says specifically, for example, here, specific lobbying issues—Russian Aggression Prevention of 2014 provisions related to energy. You were not lobbying for sanctions on energy, were you? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

96 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think that is a description of the subject that 

was discussed. And I have not seen the form, Senator. So I do not 

want to be presumptuous here. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, you do not—let me just edify for the 

future. You do not need a lobbying disclosure form to simply seek 

information and clarification about a bill. That is not lobbying. 

Lobbying specifically is to promote a view, a position, and what 

not. So that is—I would ask unanimous consent to have these included in the record. 

Senator CORKER. Without objection. 

[The information referred to is located in Annex VIII, beginning 

on page 643.] 

Senator MENENDEZ. So there was lobbying here. And I know that 

Senator Booker asked you about USA Engage, which you said you 

do not know about. But ExxonMobil is listed on USA Engage, 

whose whole purpose—and I am sure that while Exxon is a huge 

corporation, like the State Department is a very big entity, that 

you may not know every minutiae of what is going on, but you 

have to generally understand that you are giving direction as to 

whether or not you want to be lobbying on certain issues or not. 

You want to be taking positions on certain issues or not. 

And so just like you told me earlier that in your world conversation with the President-elect, you did not discuss Russia, it is a little difficult to think you actually do not know that Exxon was lobbying on these issues of sanctions. 

Mr. TILLERSON. My understanding is those reports are required 

whether you are lobbying for something or you are lobbying against 

something. You are still required to report that you have lobbying 

activities. 

Senator MENENDEZ. So you believe you were paying monies to 

lobby for sanctions? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I do not know. All I know, Senator, is I do not 

recall—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. Could you imagine being in a position in 

which you would have your company and its shareholders pay 

money to lobby for sanctions that would affect your bottom line? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I do not know, Senator. It would depend on the 

circumstance. 

Senator MENENDEZ. All right. Let me turn to Mexico, a little different part of the world than we have been discussing. Some of us 

care about the Western Hemisphere. 

Last week, the President-elect tweeted that any money spent on 

building the great wall will be paid by Mexico. Mr. Tillerson, building a wall on the southern border and having Mexico pay for it has 

been a hallmark chant at Trump rallies. 

Now the President-elect says the American people will pay for it 

and then that the Mexicans will reimburse us. I also want to point 

out that the last time a country tried to wall itself completely from 

its neighbor was in Berlin in 1961, and that wall was constructed 

by Communist East Germany. 

Former Mexican president last week tweeted, and it seems that 

somehow we are conducting foreign policy by tweets these days, 

that ‘‘Trump may ask whoever he wants, but still neither myself 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

97 

nor Mexico are going to pay for his racist monument. Another 

promise he cannot keep.’’ 

As you are well aware, the President-elect has repeatedly referred to Mexican citizens who have come to the United States as 

saying they are sending ‘‘people that have lots of problems, and 

they are bringing those problems with us. They are bringing drugs. 

They are bringing crime. They are rapists. And some, some, I assume, are good people.’’ 

So, Mr. Tillerson, do you think Mexicans are criminals, drug 

dealers, and rapists? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I would never characterize an entire population 

of people with any single term at all. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Do you think that those comments help our 

relationship with Mexico, our third-largest trading partner, a trading partner that represents $583 billion in trades of goods and 

services, including our second-largest goods export market? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Mexico is a longstanding neighbor and friend of 

this country. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And so that does not help your job as the 

Secretary of State, does it, if you are to achieve nomination? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, we are going to engage with Mexico because of their importance to us in this hemisphere, and we have 

many, many common issues, common areas of concern. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Let me turn to another part in the Western 

Hemisphere. Senator Rubio referred to it. So he took care of some 

of the things I cared about. When you and I met, you indicated to 

me on Cuba that you needed more time, which is fair, to come to 

a conclusion about your opinion on U.S.-Cuba policy and the 

Obama administration changes. 

I want to share with you the latest report by—it is not me, 

okay—by Amnesty International that noted, ‘‘Despite increasingly 

open diplomatic relations, severe restrictions on freedom of expression, association, and movement continue. Thousands of cases of 

harassment of government critics and arbitrary arrests and detentions were reported.’’ Thousands, that is their quote. 

The Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, which works within Cuba, documented more than 8,600 

politically motivated detentions of government opponents and activists during the year. There is a group of women who march every 

Sunday to church with gladiolas. They are called the Women in 

White. They get beaten savagely simply because of their peaceful 

protest. 

Now I would hope that you would agree with me that if our engagement is still going to allow that to take place, then something 

is wrong with our engagement. Something fell short. And I have a 

specific question on Cuba. 

Do you think that as a condition of establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba, we, at a minimum, should have insisted on the 

return of fugitives, cop killers like New Jersey cop killer Joanne 

Chesimard and other American fugitives of justice being harbored 

by the Castro regime? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I do, Senator. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you very much. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

98 

Now would you, finally, commit yourself, if you are confirmed as 

Secretary of State, to work with us and others, New Mexico, others 

have cop killers that are in—and other fugitives that are in Cuba, 

to make that conditioning of any future transactions as it relates 

to Cuba? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, if confirmed, I look forward to working 

with you most specifically, as well as Senator Rubio and others 

that I know have a great depth of knowledge on Cuba, to ensure 

that we are not relaxing the pressure on Cuba to reform its oppressive regime. 

And certainly, as I indicated in response to a question earlier 

and in my opening remarks, Cuban leadership got a lot out of the 

most recent deal. We need to make no mistake about where the 

flows of funds are going inside of Cuba, and the Cuban people got 

almost nothing. 

And as I indicated, the President-elect I think has been very 

clear on his intent to direct a bottoms-up review of the entire relationship with Cuba. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you. 

Senator CORKER. I appreciate the great Senator from New Jersey 

acknowledging that when our nominee has left an impression that 

I do not think he is wishing to leave that I am giving him an opportunity to change that. 

Thank you. 

And with that, Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Senator CORKER. Senator Risch has got a ten-minute segment because he missed the first round. Thank you for being here. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not take that 

full 10 minutes. 

Mr. Tillerson, thank you for your willingness to do this. You are 

going to be hitting the ground at a very difficult time as far as U.S. 

relationships around the world. They have spiraled out of control 

from time to time, and we are not in a good place in many parts 

of the world primarily because of U.S. policy. 

And it is going to be rethought, it is going to be redeveloped, and 

I thank you for willing to take—for willingness to take that on. 

I was struck when you were named that this is something that 

has been a bit off of the radar screen of most Americans, and that 

is the importance of the work that the State Department does in 

dealing with our companies and with commerce in foreign countries. Most Americans do not realize how difficult it is to do business overseas, and the State Department really needs to focus on 

that more than what they have and be helpful to countries that do 

want to do business overseas because it is—a lot of times, it has 

to go through government sources to get into business over there. 

So I was impressed with that, and I am glad having your business background that you do, I think you are going to be very helpful in that regard and helping the State Department further understand its responsibilities in that regard. 

And the State Department does a good job. Every one of us have 

traveled overseas, sometimes in bipartisan fashion. Is that not 

right, Senator Shaheen? And we are always treated, regardless of 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

99 

the political party, so well by our people, State Department people 

that are working there. 

We have talked a lot. Russia has got a lot of play in this meeting, 

but we have not talked much about Iran and North Korea. Those 

are a couple of real challenges for us. 

And those policies, as far as those two countries are concerned, 

really need to be rethought and recalibrated and then re-announced in a way that they understand what America is going to 

do, where we are coming from and what we are going to do. I think 

the—in talking with people, our allies, they are confused as to 

where we want to go with this and what we are going to do and 

how we are going to do it. 

And the same, the same is true with ISIS. How we are going to 

handle that situation where they are operating both in Iraq and 

Syria. So I am not going to press you on those because you are just 

getting your feet on the ground, and I hope the President-elect will 

be—after you are able to get your arms around these things, he 

will listen to you carefully as to the policies we are going to develop 

for that. The policies need to be entirely different than what they 

are. 

In that part of the world, the sipping tea and singing ‘‘Kum Ba 

Yah’’ is not a way that you are going to be successful in a lot of 

those countries. They understand strength. Not necessarily the use 

of strength, but they understand people who possess strength and 

people who they are convinced will use that strength if necessary. 

They need to be convinced of that, and I know there is a lot of 

people complaining about the relationship between Mr. Putin and 

the President-elect and, for that matter, yourself and Mr. Putin. I 

hope Mr. Putin gets to know both of you guys really, really well 

because I think he will be convinced that you do project American 

strength and that America still has the muscle that it has had and 

that we still stand for what we stand for, and we are going to 

project that around the world. 

So in that regard, I really hope that Mr. Putin does have a relationship to where we gets to know both of you guys, and especially 

the President-elect, because I think that that will impress him that 

he is not going to be able to get away with the kind of stuff that 

he has gotten away with in the Crimea or in Syria or in other 

places where they have been meddling in the world where they 

should not be. 

So, finally, let me say again thank you for your willingness to do 

this. I have been impressed as we have been sitting here. You 

know, the meeting we had in my office was very good. We were 

able to develop a lot of these thoughts a lot more deeply than we 

can here. 

And I want to say that I have been really impressed. Having 

come from a private sector background myself, it is difficult for people to understand that the transition from the private sector and 

business into the world of diplomacy is very different. It is a transition that needs to be made. 

And just sitting here listening to you over the hours that you 

have been here, I have been very impressed that you have been 

able to make that transition. You are speaking in terms that the 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

100 

diplomats understand. I appreciate that. I think it will serve you 

well as you go forward. 

So, again, thank you for willingness to do this, and with that, I 

will yield back time, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. This was the last person of the first 

round. So we are going to get back into the sync we were in before. 

Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tillerson, I 

want to go back to the four responsibilities that Secretary Gates 

laid out for the Secretary of State—advise the President, negotiate 

agreements, represent us abroad, and lead the State Department. 

Take representing the U.S. abroad. I met you the morning I returned from my trip to Israel, which was a couple days before, I 

would term it, the U.S.’s shameful abstention in that vote on settlements. 

I have never understood why any administration, we have done 

this in a bipartisan fashion, would force a friend, an ally, to sit 

down and negotiate with those that refuse to acknowledge their 

right to exist. I mean, that is the table stakes, right? It would be 

like forcing negotiation to buy a company somebody does not want 

to sell. 

Do you have a similar type of view on that? I appreciate the fact 

that you think, and I agree, that actually complicates the future 

negotiation. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I do have a view on it, Senator, and thank 

you. It would be akin, in many respects, if you were negotiating 

with someone that denies your right to exist, you would have to 

question, well, why would they ever live up to any agreement if 

they do not expect you to be around? So it is already a complex negotiation, and then to force one party to the table through coercion, 

or however you want to describe the most recent resolution, is not 

useful. 

There have been many opportunities since the Oslo Accord for 

parties to sit down and try to work things out. The leadership certainly has not seized those opportunities. I would say in the case 

of the Palestinian leadership, while they have renounced violence, 

it is one thing to renounce it, and it is another to take concrete action to prevent it. 

And I think until there is a serious demonstration on their part 

that they are willing to do more than just renounce the violence, 

they are willing to do something to at least interrupt it or interfere 

with it, it is going to be very difficult to create conditions at the 

table for parties to have any productive discussion around a settlement. 

Senator JOHNSON. Do you agree that Israel has conceded just 

about every point, and at this point in time, the Palestinians just 

refuse to say yes? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I think there have been many, many opportunities again for progress to be made, and those have never been 

seized upon. So I do think it is a matter to be discussed and decided between the two parties. 

To the extent America’s foreign policy engagement can create a 

more—a more fruitful environment for those discussions, then I 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

101 

think that is the role we can play. But at the end of it, this has 

to be settled between these two parties. 

Senator JOHNSON. Our policy should be to help strengthen our 

friends. In terms of negotiating agreements and advising the President, I think Congress has willingly given away its advice/consent 

power most famously in the recent Iranian agreement. 

If you look at the Federal—or the Foreign Affairs Manual, I 

think it makes clear that the Iranian agreement was a treaty, and 

I think had we honestly upheld our oath of office, that vote on my 

amendment deeming that a treaty should have been 100 to 0. 

Every Senator should have voted to support and defend the Constitution, which first starts with jealously guarding our advice and 

consent power. 

Would you advise—first of all, do you believe that was a treaty? 

Mr. TILLERSON. It would have all the appearances of a treaty. It 

looks like a treaty. 

Senator JOHNSON. What about the Paris Climate Accord, which 

commits us to a fair amount of expenditure? Do you believe that 

is a treaty or just an agreement that the executive can enter into 

on its own? 

Mr. TILLERSON. It looks like a treaty. 

Senator JOHNSON. Will you work with us then, will you advise 

the President as you go negotiate for this Nation, to respect the 

Constitution and come to Congress, come to the Senate for advice 

and consent on treaties? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, I respect the proper roles of both 

branches of Government. In my conversations with the Presidentelect, he does as well, and I think he has expressed some of these 

same views that under the past administration, the executive 

branch has gone pretty far out there in terms of recognizing the 

proper role of Congress as a body to express its own view on some 

of these agreements. 

Senator JOHNSON. As for leading the State Department. You 

were the CEO of a successful organization of 75,000 employees. But 

they are employees that have the same mission statement. They 

understand their roles to achieve the goals. They are actually supportive of the goals of the organization. 

You are going to be assuming the leadership of a department 

that, let us face it, in many cases, you have entrenched bureaucrats 

that not only do not necessarily agree with your foreign policy or 

the next administration’s foreign policy, and might be hostile to it. 

Do you understand that challenge, and as an experienced manager, 

how are you going to react to that? How are you going to deal with 

that? 

Mr. TILLERSON. You are right, Senator. The State Department 

has a little over 70,000 employees, interestingly about the same 

size of the organization that I led when I was at ExxonMobil, about 

more than 40,000 of those State Department employees are deployed overseas. Interestingly, about 60 percent of ExxonMobil’s 

employees are not Americans. 

So in terms of understanding and dealing with people who are 

representing you around the world and they are half way around 

the world in various embassies and missions, how do you get all 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

102 

of these people aligned with one objective? And the objective is 

America’s interests and America’s national security. 

So I think part of leadership is expressing very clear views, and 

part of leadership is having an organization that has clear line of 

sight on issues as to who owns these and who is going to be held 

accountable for them and having an organization that is all working in concert toward that objective. 

My experience has been that people, people look for leadership. 

And when they are acting in ways that are contrary to the overall 

mission, it is generally because there has been an absence of strong 

leadership to clearly define to them what that expectation is and 

what their role in it is. And then reward people who are behaving 

in a way that supports the overall mission and not support their 

own agenda. 

I have used the term many times in large organizations of ‘‘working in the general interest.’’ Well, the general interest of the State 

Department is the American people’s interest. 

And if anyone is working in a way that is only to advance their 

own interest, they are not working in the general interest. And I 

think it is important that people understand that is the responsibility of all of us who will serve the country in the State Department is the general interest, which is the American people’s interest. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Tillerson. And good luck in 

your next assignment. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I am glad you came back after lunch, Mr. Tillerson. I appreciated very much your response to that question because I have to 

say my experience with State Department employees is that the 

overwhelming majority of them are dedicated. They are dedicated 

to this country. They do their work often at great personal sacrifice, and I think we should appreciate the work that they do, and 

it sounds to me like you share that appreciation for the sacrifices 

that they make. 

Mr. TILLERSON. I most certainly do, Senator. I have a great affection for those who are willing to take these overseas assignments. 

Many of them are in very difficult locations, and particularly when 

their families go with them, they truly are sacrificing on behalf of 

this country. And I think that they deserve the recognition for that 

and the appreciation for it. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Well, thank you. 

There has been some discussion today about the concerns that 

this committee has expressed about—which I think are legitimate, 

about potential conflicts of interests that you might face if confirmed as Secretary of State because of your long career at Exxon. 

And while I understand there are some concerns about the precise 

approach that you have taken to divest your financial interest in 

Exxon, I do appreciate that you have taken these concrete actions 

and that you plan to take more if you are confirmed. 

And I wonder if you could talk about why you think that is important? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, Senator, and again, as I commented in response to a question earlier, I had a great 41 1/2 year career. I was 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

103 

truly blessed, enjoyed every minute of it. That part of my life is 

over. I have been humbled and honored with the opportunity to 

now serve my country. Never thought I would have an opportunity 

to serve in this way. 

And so when I made the decision to say yes to President-elect 

Trump when he asked me to do this, the first step I took was to 

retain my own outside counsel to begin the process. And the only 

guidance I gave them is I must have a complete and clear, clean 

break from all of my connections to ExxonMobil, not even the appearance. And whatever is required for us to achieve that, get that 

in place. 

I am appreciative that the ExxonMobil Corporation, who are represented by their own counsel, and the ExxonMobil board were 

willing to work with me to achieve that as well. It was their objective, too. 

And in the end, if that required me to walk away from some 

things, that is fine. Whatever was necessary to achieve that, and 

again, I told people I do not even want the appearance that there 

is any connection to myself and the future fortunes, up or down, 

of the ExxonMobil Corporation. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Well, again, thank you very much for that. 

I am sad to say that I think it stands in stark contrast to what 

we heard from President-elect Trump today, who announced that 

he is not going to divest himself of his vast business interests 

around the world. So I do appreciate your recognition that this is 

important for maintaining the integrity of the position with the 

American public and the world. 

You talked about eliminating ISIS as one of your top priorities 

if you are confirmed. And your opening statement connects radical 

Islam to ISIS, and you also make the point of saying that you think 

it is important to support Muslims around the world who reject 

radical Islam. 

During the last Congress, this committee heard about the importance of working with the Muslim community in the United States 

to combat ISIS and the domestic terrorists that have been produced 

as the result of ISIS ideology. In your view, is it helpful to suggest 

that, as Americans, we should be afraid of Muslims? 

Mr. TILLERSON. No, Senator. In my travels—and because of my 

past work, I have traveled extensively in Muslim countries, not just 

the Middle East, but throughout Southeast Asia, and have gained 

an appreciation and recognition of this great faith. And that is why 

I made a distinction that we should support those Muslim voices 

that reject this same radical Islam that we reject. This is part of 

winning the war other than on the battlefield. 

I mentioned we have to win it not just on the battlefield. We 

have got to win the war by this, and our greatest, one of our greatest allies in this war is going to be the moderate voices of Muslim, 

of people of the Muslim faith who speak from their perspective and 

their rejection of that representation of what is otherwise a great 

faith. 

Senator SHAHEEN. And so do you support restricting travel or immigration to the United States by Muslims? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think what is important is that we are able to 

make a judgment about the people that are coming into the counFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

104 

try, and so, no, I do not support a blanket-type rejection of any particular group of people. 

But clearly, we have serious challenges to be able to vet people 

coming into the country. And particularly under the current circumstances because of the instability in the parts of the worlds 

that is occurring and the massive migration that has occurred out 

of the region and a lack of any documentation following people as 

they have moved through various other countries, it is a huge challenge. 

And I do not think we can just close our eyes and ignore that. 

We have to be very clear-eyed about recognizing that threat and 

developing a means to deal with it. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Well, I certainly agree with that, which is 

very different, I think, than a ban on an entire religion, people of 

that religion. 

Do you support creating a national registry for American Muslims? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I would need to have a lot more information 

around how such an approach would even be constructed, and if it 

were a tool for vetting, then it probably extends to other people as 

well, other groups that are threats to the U.S. But that is a—it 

would just require me much more information around how that 

would even be approached. 

Senator SHAHEEN. And one of the things you and I discussed 

when we met was the Special Immigrant Visa program that we 

have maintained for Afghans who have helped our men and women 

in the military on the ground. And will you support continuing that 

program to ensure that those people who have been properly vetted, who helped our men and women, are able to come to this country when their lives are threatened in Afghanistan? 

Mr. TILLERSON. The Special Visa Waiver program, it is important 

that we protect those whose lives are truly at risk because of their 

efforts to assist our American military forces or other forces in Afghanistan. I think it is also important to make the distinction— 

otherwise, we undermine this program and risk losing it—and not 

expand it to allow other people to come through the program that 

are not truly at risk. 

And so it is—I think it is the execution. And this gets back to 

following through on what the intent of these programs were, and 

let us be very specific and execute well and not get sloppy in the 

execution and start having a lot of other folks coming through the 

program that really do not meet that criteria. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Well, thank you. I think Congress has pretty 

narrowly focused the program. I appreciate that. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. 

And I do want to say I appreciate the fact that you were able 

to highlight that the Secretary of State shares his views. Ultimately, he has to carry out the policies of the President, or he is 

not successful. 

But I think it is good to distinguish that sometimes people have 

very different views, and they lobby strongly for those views, and 

that is what we are wanting to hear from is what Mr. Tillerson’s 

views are on these issues and how he will attempt to persuade the 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

105 

administration. He may not be successful, but I thank you for highlighting that just now. 

Senator Gardner. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tillerson, 

thank you again for continued patience and participation in this 

very important discussion. 

I would follow up with many of the discussions today on human 

rights issues. I just was notified that the Administration has sanctioned two additional individuals in North Korea under the legislation that we passed this past year, the North Korea Sanctions Act. 

The younger sister of Kim Jong-un was sanctioned for human 

rights violations as well as the Minister of State Security in North 

Korea. 

I think it is important that we continue, and I appreciate your 

commitment that you gave me in the prior round of questioning 

about your commitment to the mandatory sanctioning of people 

who carry out human rights violations. It is something that we can 

do together. It is something the Administration and Congress 

should work together to make sure that we are trying to protect 

people from tyrants around the globe who would murder their own 

people. 

Mr. Tillerson, you mentioned Southeast Asia in your last answer 

to Senator Shaheen. China has been actively reclaiming, building 

islands in the South China Sea, 3,000 acres of land since reclamation activities commenced in 2013. Reports and open source information that they have militarized some of these reclamation areas. 

We authored legislation last year, a resolution that called for the 

Obama Administration to take a very strong or much more aggressive approach to these activities in the South China Sea, including 

additional and more frequent freedom of navigation operations, 

overflights of the South China Sea. In July, The Hague, the International Tribunal, ruled against China, held that they violated 

Philippines’ sovereignty. 

What do you believe the position of the United States ought to 

be in the South China Sea, and what more could we be doing to 

stop China from violating international law? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I think when it comes to China, and you 

mentioned North Korea previous to this, that we have really got to 

take what I would call a whole—a whole of China government approach. I think part of where we struggle with China, and I mentioned it in my opening remarks, we do have important economic 

relationships. As I said, our economies are intertwined, but we 

have got to step back and look at all of China’s activities. 

And the one you mentioned now, the island building in the South 

China Sea, the declaration of control of airspace in waters over the 

Senkaku Islands with Japan, both of those are illegal actions. They 

are taking—they are taking territory or control or declaring control 

of territories that are not rightfully China’s. 

The island building in the South China Sea itself in many respects, in my view, building islands and then putting military assets on those islands is akin to Russia’s taking of Crimea. It is taking of territory that others lay claim to. The U.S. has never taken 

a side on the issues whether we—but what we have advocated for 

is, look, that is a disputed area. There are international processes 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

106 

for dealing with that, and China should respect those international 

processes. As you mentioned, part of—some of their actions have 

already been challenged at the—at the courts in The Hague, and 

they were found to be in violation. 

So, it is—China’s activity in this area is extremely worrisome, 

and I think, again, a failure of a response has allowed them just 

to keep pushing the envelope on this. So again, we find—we are 

where we are, and we just have to deal with it. And the way we 

have got to deal with it is we have got to show back up in the region with our traditional allies in Southeast Asia, and, I think, use 

some existing structures to begin the reengagement. Use ASEAN, 

which most of the members of ASEAN are affected by this. You have got $5 trillion of economic trade that goes through 

those waters every day, and this is a threat to the entire global 

economy if China is allowed to somehow dictate the terms of passage through these waters. So, this is a global issue of great importance to many, many of our important allies, but certainly to people 

in the region. 

Senator GARDNER. And you would support a more aggressive posture in the South China Sea. 

Mr. TILLERSON. We are going to have send China a clear signal 

that, first, the island building stops, and, second, your access to 

those islands is also not going to be allowed. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Tillerson. Last year I passed 

legislation that would encourage Taiwan’s entry into the international police organization, Interpol. It was signed into law by the 

President. The President has made it clear that Taiwan is our 

friend, and last Sunday mainland Chinese, as a result of some of 

President-elect Trump’s activities and actions, the state-run newspaper, the Global Times, said the following: ‘‘If Trump reneges on 

the one China policy after taking office, the Chinese people will demand the government to take revenge. There is no room for bargaining.’’ The editorial also went on to say that should—they 

should ‘‘also impose military pressure on Taiwan and push it to the 

edge of being reunified by force.’’ 

Combined with the PRC’s recent show of force exercised around 

Taiwan, it appears that Beijing has increased its pressure considerably on Taiwan. Can you share with this committee the Administration’s—the Trump Administration’s position on Taiwan, and its 

position on the one China policy? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I think with respect to Taiwan, we have— 

we have made important commitments to Taiwan through the Taiwan Relations Act, through the Six Issues Accord, and I think we 

should express a reaffirmation of those. Again, this is part of this 

approach that I am trying to lay out over and over that we have 

made commitments to people. We need to reaffirm those commitments and live up to those commitments. And I think it is important that Taiwan know that we are going to live up to the commitments under the Relations Act and the Six Issues Accord. 

That in and of itself is a message, so I think the importance of 

that action to, again, this whole of China approach that I am 

speaking about is we have got to deal with the whole of China’s 

actions and recognize that we have these balancing forces in our 

relationship that need to be dealt with. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

107 

Senator GARDNER. In terms of the one China policy, the new Administration’s position. 

Mr. TILLERSON. I do not know of any plans to alter the one China 

position. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you. And an issue back in Colorado 

that I think is very important, and it is coming to the attention of 

a lot of people around the country as they hear from NGOs, Compassion International, a faith-based group in Colorado, has served 

nearly two million children living in extreme property around the 

world. They have operated in Colorado since—Compassion has operated in India since 1968. They have contributed nearly $50 million in aid to India. They have provided one-to-one scholarships for 

145,000 Indian children. But since 2014, Compassion has been the 

target of multiple coordinated governmental attacks because of its 

unapologetically Christian belief, and—but it has been delivering 

humanitarian services to hundreds of thousands of Indian children. 

But due to the restrictions by the Indian government, they have 

been unable to fund its India operations since February of 2016 despite having broken no laws. 

I believe the State Department should take notice that this ill 

treatment of Compassion International should stop. It is part of a 

broader pattern by the government of India where other NGOs 

have seen similar problems. The State Department should insist 

the Indian government release Compassion funds, restore its FCRA 

licenses, and permit Compassion to immediately resume its humanitarian operations, and we would just appreciate your assistance on that. This is a pattern that is very disturbing as the organization does nothing more than try to help children in poverty. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, I appreciate you bringing it to my attention and look forward, if I am confirmed, to discussing it further 

with you. 

Senator CORKER. And I also appreciate you bringing that up. I 

know Chairman Royce is very concerned about this issue, and I 

know he will be thankful that you brought it to everyone’s attention here today. Thank you. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tillerson, in your 

capacity as CEO of ExxonMobil, you praised the Paris Agreement 

last year noting that addressing climate change, and I quote, ‘‘requires broad-based, practical solutions around the world.’’ Do you 

personally believe that the overall national interests of the United 

States are better served by staying in the Paris Agreement? If so, 

why, and if not, why not? 

Mr. TILLERSON. As I indicated earlier in a response, I think having a seat at the table to address this issue on a global basis, and 

it is—it is important. I think it is 190 countries or thereabouts 

have signed on to begin to take action. I think we are better served 

by being at that table than leaving that table. 

Senator UDALL. And I think you understand that it has been— 

it has been a generation or more that it has taken to get all the 

countries at the table to sign an agreement, be willing to move forward with targets. And it would be very unfortunate, I think, to 

move away from the table. So, thank you for your answer there. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

108 

I just wanted to follow up on a discussion Senator Flake had 

with you in the first round urging you to look at the successes of 

our policy change in Cuba. And this is mainly because you, as CEO 

at Exxon, I suspect that you had a low tolerance for old ideas that 

had failed to produce positive results. 

Regardless of what one thinks about the Cuban government, no 

one can argue that the policy of embargo and isolation has 

achieved any progress. The proof is right in front of us. The Castro 

regime endures, and I am a strong supporter of the policy of reengagement, which has already produced results. 

And, you know, you mentioned you are going to do a bottoms-up 

review. In thinking about that bottoms-up review, I would just 

point out that these things that I am going to mention have happened and are very positive. First of all, we have worked with the 

Cubans to combat diseases, such as Zika, diabetes, and a multinational effort to combat Ebola in Africa. Efforts to increase access 

to the Internet have paid off with new Wi-Fi hotspots in Havana, 

and increased efforts to bring improved cellular access to the island, including roaming deals with U.S. carriers; increased bilateral business activity supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

and the Hispano Chamber of Commerce. And last week, the United 

States and Cuba signed a bilateral agreement to prepare for and 

respond to oil spills and hazardous substance pollution in the Gulf 

of Mexico and the Straits of Florida. 

Our new policy towards Cuba, according to a 2015 Pew Research 

poll, shows that 72 percent of Americans support the renewed diplomatic relations, and 73 percent support ending the embargo. I 

doubt that there are many issues where such a vast majority of the 

American people agree, and I hope we will not be letting those 

Americans down by returning to a period where such efforts are 

made impossible by a failed policy that showed no results. Instead, 

I hope you will continue to work to support the Cuban small business owner, almost 500,000 licensed businesses and growing, and 

to continue the engagement which has led to increased opportunities for both Cuban and American businesses in Cuba. 

Will you recommend to President-elect Trump a policy of engagement with Cuba in order to foster the change that is needed on the 

island, or do you prefer to go back to the old policy of the past 50 

years that failed to bring real change or undermine the Castro regime? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, Senator, again, if confirmed, the job of 

the—of the diplomat is to engage, and so engagement is always 

preferred, and our doors are always open to want to engage to effect change. 

But I think we have to be—we have to be honest with ourselves 

about the engagement with Cuba. There is longstanding or longstanding statutes in place that govern that relationship: the 

Helms-Burton Amendment, the trading—the designated list of 

state sponsors of terrorism, and their specific criteria around 

whether we and organizations, and those who are doing—conducting affairs in Cuba are in compliance with those statutory requirements. 

So, if we are able to engage in a positive way and still meet all 

of the compliance of those statutes, then that is a good thing. I do 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

109 

not know because I have not had the opportunity to have a fulsome 

examination, as I said earlier, of what changed because there is a 

lot of activity that has been enabled, and obviously someone had 

to make a determination that something changed. 

Did it, in fact, change? I would like to see the—all the documentation, the information around that. Otherwise, if we are going 

to change the relationship, we have got to change the statutes as 

well. So, I am—you know, again, kind of this common theme maybe 

you are hearing from me is I believe we live up to the agreements, 

and we live up to the laws, and we fully enforce them. They were 

put there for a reason. If circumstances change and we need to 

change our posture on those as well. 

But that is the reason I think it demands a bottoms-up review 

because a lot of things have been changed in the recent past year, 

much of it by executive order. And I think the President-elect has 

indicated he would really like to understand all of that. What was 

the criteria that the State Department used to make its determinations? That is what he is going to be asking me. 

Senator UDALL. Well, the reason I cited those polls is I think the 

American people are at the point of wanting those statutes to be 

set aside. And I quoted one, and so I do not want to argue with 

you. But I very much appreciate your answers in terms of consulting State Department people. And, you know, I cannot think of 

better professionals than these State Department professionals who 

have spent decades learning about the regions that they serve in, 

the specific countries they work on. And I appreciate your thoughtfulness in terms of doing that. 

And just a final question here is, Senator Menendez mentioned 

the whole issue of fugitives. We also have a fugitive by the name 

of Charlie Hill who I believe should be brought to justice. And I 

really believe that we have a better chance at getting him out, and 

we are already having discussions, if we engage with them rather 

than going back to a policy of isolation. 

So, with that, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, sir. Senator Flake. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. We will continue on the same theme 

for just a bit. I want to talk for a minute about what is it—we hear 

the word ‘‘concession’’ a lot, and we should not make concessions 

to dictators or despots. 

Part of the—some of the executive orders that have been taken 

over the past couple of years, one of the first of which is in 2009, 

we found that Cuban-Americans who had family still in Cuba, 

would have to choose between going to their mother’s funeral or 

their father’s funeral if their parents died within the same three 

years. What a horrible thing to ask of an American. 

Do you believe that it is a concession to the regime to allow a 

Cuban-American to visit or to go to his father or mother’s funeral 

in Cuba? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, these are really heartbreaking questions that, again, I take—I have to take us back to what are our 

statutes, you know. What are the provisions that govern that, and 

these are the—these are where exceptions become really difficult. 

Senator FLAKE. Right. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

110 

Mr. TILLERSON. And so, I want to be honest with you when I say 

my expectation is, if confirmed, is to—is to do a complete bottomsup review of all these issues, you know. Under what provisions are 

we making exceptions? What provisions allow for a waiver? Under 

what conditions can we grant perhaps an exception for someone to 

resolve these really—these difficult personal issues for people, but 

not undermine our American values, which is the leadership of 

Cuba must change the way it treats its people. 

Senator FLAKE. Right. I do not think it was in the President’s executive authority to make that change. I do not think it was questioned. There were certainly no lawsuits filed or any real resistance. As soon as Cuban-Americans started to travel back to Cuba, 

it was assumed this is a great thing, and hundreds of thousands 

of them have and have remitted more money. It was illegal for 

them to send fish hooks to their family members on the island before. Those are some of the restrictions that were removed. I would 

submit that those are not concessions to a regime. It is not a concession to a regime to allow Americans to travel. Those sanctions 

are on Americans, not Cubans. 

In the same vein, with regard to diplomatic relations, we have 

diplomatic relations with some pretty unsavory countries, or the 

leadership of some countries is pretty unsavory. We have diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. We do not agree with how they 

treat women and political opponents in that country. Is it a concession to the regime to have diplomatic relations with the country? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, this is a question, again, that is—that is 

grounded in longstanding historic policy of the United States—— 

Senator FLAKE. Right. 

Mr. TILLERSON.—and that policy and the statutes that govern 

that policy. If the time has come for statutes to be altered, that will 

be the role of Congress to alter those statutes. 

Senator FLAKE. Right. Exactly. 

Mr. TILLERSON. In the meantime, at the State Department, if I 

am there and confirmed to be there, it is our role to enforce what 

Congress has expressed its desire. And so, if the judgment of the 

Congress and the judgment of the State Department, the President-elect through consultation, views that we have moved to a different place, then we should address that, but not just ignore what 

the law of the land is. 

Senator FLAKE. Right. No, I understand that completely. I am 

just saying that diplomatic relations with countries is not a concession to those countries. It is in our national interest. It is the way 

we practice state craft and diplomacy is to have diplomatic relations, and I would suggest that that is the same with Cuba. 

As mentioned, there are fugitives from justice in Cuba that we 

would like back. There are fugitives from justice in a number of 

other countries that we would like back as well. We use our diplomatic relations, we use state craft and diplomacy to try to arrange 

those things. If we have said to every country that held fugitives 

from justice we are going to withhold diplomatic relations, recall 

our ambassadors, where would we be? 

And so, I would suggest that a review is prudent. I am glad that 

the Administration is undertaking a review. I believe that a review 

will conclude that some of the measures that have been taken alFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

111 

lowing Americans to travel to Cuba, we still have restrictions. I 

would suggest that the restrictions that are still in place simply 

force Americans to place more money in the government’s hands 

when they do travel to Cuba, Cuban-Americans and other citizens 

of this country; that if we just lifted the travel ban completely and 

they could more easily ensure that more money goes to family 

members and entrepreneurs on that island. So, I am glad that a 

review is taken—going to take place, and I am glad that you are 

going to be a part of that review. 

Just in a minute and a half left. You have talked a lot about 

sanctions. As I mentioned in the beginning, I share your aversion 

to sanctions, particularly when they are practiced unilaterally. 

What other—sanctions are simply a method we have or a tool to 

change behavior or to induce or to punish countries. What other 

tools do we have without resorting to sanctions? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, depending on exactly what the issue is and 

what the target country is, certainly we have other tools related to 

our trade policies in general. We have tools related to our immigration and visa exchange policies, in particular, in terms of the soft 

power side of this. Obviously, we always have the hard power tool 

to use. 

And so, I think it does depend on the specific country, the specific issue, what our relationship has been, what are—you know, 

what are the pressure points that are going to—if they are going 

to feel it, because just—and that is the issue I have around ensuring that sanctions are properly structured so that we hit the proper 

pressure point that causes a change in the way—that party’s thinking or change in the direction they are going. 

So, it is—it is very much case by case in terms of what we can 

use to apply pressure to whatever government we are wanting to 

alter their course. 

Senator FLAKE. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments on Cuba and the multilateral sanctions issue. And I will say 

you are going to find on both sides of the aisle strong divisions on 

the issue of Cuba, people sitting next to each other having very, 

very, very different views. And I do hope you will seek input of all 

as you move ahead into this top to bottom review. 

Having sat here the whole hearing, I do want to just clarify, I 

do not think that necessarily you have expressed an aversion to 

sanctions. I think what you may have expressed, if I heard correctly, is just ensuring that when they are implemented, they are 

implemented in a way that is appropriate. Is that correct? 

Mr. TILLERSON. That is correct, Senator—Chairman. And as I— 

I meant, I think I commented at one point this morning having ineffective sanctions is worse than having no sanctions at all because 

it sends—it sends a weak signal to the target country. And then 

they say, oh well, they are not really serious after all. And so, that 

is why if we are going to have sanctions, they need to be carefully 

crafted so that they are effective. 

Senator CORKER. Senator Kaine. 

Senator KAINE. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks again, 

Mr. Tillerson. I want to stay in the Americas. You and I had a good 

discussion in my office about the Americas, and you have done 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

112 

work in the Americas, and also being a Texan, I think you, you 

know, understand the importance of the relationships. 

We have been grappling on this committee and in this country 

with unaccompanied minors coming from the Northern Triangle. 

That migration from Mexico is now kind of almost at an even zero 

point, but the instability in the Northern Triangle—violence, drug 

trade, weak civil institutions—has created some challenges. We 

have supported in a bipartisan way investments in the Northern 

Triangle, but we want to make sure that the investments are, you 

know, targeted the right way to accomplish the objective of bringing more stability and creating more opportunity there so people do 

not feel a need to flee. 

Talk a little bit about that that part of our foreign affairs portfolio and how would you approach those issues. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, I really appreciate you bringing us back 

to the Western Hemisphere—— 

Senator KAINE. Yeah. 

Mr. TILLERSON.—because we have just—we have talked about 

the hot spots. But I—and I—and I say that in all seriousness because I do not think we should in any way downgrade the importance of the Western Hemisphere and what is going on, not just in 

Central America, but South America as well. There are important 

relationships. There are—there are not unimportant national security issues in this hemisphere also. 

But as to the immigration challenge, and I think you described 

it pretty well that what has happened over the last—the most recent time is a real shift in where these people coming across the 

border in an illegal fashion, where they are coming from. And they 

are largely transiting through Mexico coming from south of Mexico’s border. 

I am aware of the Northern Triangle Project, which is trying to 

strengthen law enforcement because a lot of people are motivated 

to run from high crime-ridden areas, anti-narcotics trafficking, 

helping strengthen the governance institutions, and providing a 

safer environment for people down there, and to the extent we can 

direct assistance programs that then gets at some economic development as well, some of which is simple infrastructure projects. 

And some of this, again, gets back to how to—how to use not just 

this special targeted effort and the funds that have been made 

available there, but also how we use other aid programs, like the 

Millennial Challenge Corporation, to develop the capabilities of 

these countries to perform better. 

I do think, and I know you and I spoke about this when we were 

in your office, that out of—our true compassion for the—these people that are coming across the border, many of which are unaccompanied minors, how to deal with that. And I know in response to 

that challenge, there has been some well-intended action taken, 

programs like DACA, the deferred treatment of adjudication of 

these cases. All well intended, but when those got translated back 

to the host country, the place these people are leaving from, we 

know that it got—it got misinterpreted. And even the leaders of 

those countries have spoken in public and indicated that, look, the 

wrong signals are being sent down here as a result of this effort 

to be compassionate. And, in fact, it is incentivizing some, because 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

113 

it is misunderstood, to take even greater risk to themselves, to 

their children, to try to make this journey across Mexico, largely 

using illegal smugglers to get them to this country. 

So, I think we just have to be very thoughtful about the signals 

we are sending, the messages we are signaling, and I think go 

back—as you say, go back and try to address some of the issues 

in the host country. Also, work with Mexico, our partner right next 

door. Now, this is not—this is a challenge for them, how to secure 

their southern porous border and deal with all of this transiting of 

their country to get to the land of the free and the home of the 

brave where everybody wants to be. 

So, I acknowledge the challenge that we have before us. We are 

going to have to deal with the situation that we have today, the 

reality of it. I think this is where the intent of the President-elect, 

and while he does express it in the view of the wall, what he is 

really expressing is we have got to get control of this—of this border. We have got to prevent and stop the flow of people coming 

across, and how we—how we do that. What policies, and how we 

execute those are yet to be developed. But certainly, the State Department, if I am confirmed, will have a big role in the foreign aspects of that. 

Once they come across the border, they are largely the Department of Homeland Security’s responsibility. The State Department’s role will be what actions can we take to prevent the movement of the people in an illegal fashion. We want people to come 

legally. This is the history the country is that people came here legally. 

Senator KAINE. Mr. Tillerson, thank you for that. And I—as I 

said in my office, I have always encouraged the Secretary of State 

to fly north/south and not just east/west. I think there are huge opportunities in the Americas that we sometimes do not take advantage of. And other parts of the world have a claim on our attention 

obviously, but there are some real opportunities. 

I assume you support the U.S. position that has been in place 

since the 1940s to do what we can, even if it is hard, to promote 

a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine with—a Jewish state 

of Israel and an independent state of Palestine living peacefully 

side by side, that that is the dream that we hope for that region. 

And I assume that you support that. 

Mr. TILLERSON. I do not think anyone would take a position that 

they do not hope for peace in that area and for the issues to be ultimately resolved. 

Senator KAINE. And peace within the context of a two-state solution as was—as was determined by the UN and has been the bipartisan policy of the United States since the late 1940s. 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think that is the dream that everyone is in pursuit of. Whether it could ever be a reality remains to be seen. 

Senator KAINE. What do you think the right—I think this is 

something that has frustrated all of us, that there has been so little 

progress toward it in the last few years. And so, what do you think 

from the Secretary of State’s position you could do to try to hasten 

the day when we could find a path forward. People did not think 

you could find a peace deal between Ireland and Northern Ireland 

either for hundreds of years, and yet youngsters in Ireland now do 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

114 

not remember when there was a problem. What might you bring 

to the table on that? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, and I am glad you put it in the context of 

hundreds of years. I know that was a—that was just euphemistic. 

But I think it is—it is indicative of how conflicts like this take a 

long time, and sometimes it takes another generation to have a 

changed view. Oftentimes, we just have to try and make the situation as stable as possible and limit the impacts on people that are 

living there now. 

The Palestinian people have suffered a lot, under their own leadership in many cases, as a result of there not being more progress 

made. So, I think it has to be a shared aspiration of all of us that 

that ultimately is resolved. The issues are longstanding, and I 

think it is the State Department’s role to create—try to create an 

environment that brings parties together to want to find a way forward. 

I can tell you under the conditions today, that is just—it is extremely challenging to do that, but that has to be the aspirational 

goal. And to your example, sometimes it takes a different generation that is not carrying all that baggage of the past with them. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORKER. Absolutely. Thank you. Senator Young. 

Senator YOUNG. Thank you. Mr. Tillerson, from the outset, I just 

want to thank you for the level of—the level of candor you have 

shown throughout this hearing. You have engaged on issues. You 

have answered questions. You have been adept at times, and I 

want that from our Nation’s chief diplomat. The only request I 

would make is that they do not coach that out of you should your 

nomination move forward and you become our next Secretary of 

State, which I suspect you will. So, thank you for that. 

In your prepared statement, you write, ‘‘Defeating ISIS must be 

our foremost priority in the Middle East.’’ And you also note later 

that ‘‘Defeat will not occur on the battlefield alone. We must win 

the war of ideas,’’ something we have already discussed a bit here. 

I could not agree more. We have to win the war of ideas. 

We can kill every single irreconcilable, as you know, who subscribes to this poisonous ideology as those who join ISIS do, and 

yet we are still going to have a problem. The organization will reconstitute itself. And so, we really—there is something deeper we 

need to tap into, a deeper tap root. 

In your prepared statement, going back to that, you indicate that 

if confirmed you will ensure the State Department does its part 

here in this war of ideas. Now, based on your presentation for this 

hearing, what is your assessment of the State Department’s current performance in the war of ideas? And I want you to make your 

comments specific to our effort against the Islamic State. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, I am not sure I could articulate what 

the current State Department is doing in the war on ideas other 

than the advocacy—the public advocacy condemning this type of 

brutality. I think—I think your observation that even if we defeat 

ISIS and its caliphate in Syria and Iraq, they will morph into 

something else. And I think this is where we have to be truthful 

and realistic in our conversations with the American people. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

115 

You know, terrorism has been a part of the world for centuries. 

It is—it is the nature of man, the unfortunate nature of man. But 

what we have to do is certainly limit it and suppress it to a level 

that it is no longer a threat to our national security or a threat— 

an imminent threat to Americans or all other people in the world 

who value human life. 

Senator YOUNG. So, in a recent hearing before the Senate Armed 

Services Committee, DNI Clapper indicated that he believes the 

U.S. might reestablish the United States Information Agency to 

fight this information war and to advance our efforts to defeat, you 

know, radical extremists or terrorists, however one chooses to 

brand them. Do you agree that this would be a good idea? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I think, as I indicated in an exchange with 

Senator Portman, we have got to up our game in terms of how we 

engage in both the digital communication world, because that is 

where ISIS has been very effective, and other radical groups. Al 

Qaeda and others have been effective in using the digital communications space to spread their message. We have got become more 

effective at—in countering that messaging and countering that 

message. 

But I also take Senator Portman’s observation that it is not all 

digital. There are other communication mechanisms that are effective broad-based in terms of how do you—how do we communicate, 

particularly in those parts of the world that could be susceptible to 

these messages. 

Senator YOUNG. For the record, for the benefit of our—my colleagues and also for your benefit, I will note that I am just coming 

from the House of Representatives. And in my final two-year term, 

I introduced legislation so that Congress could assess whether or 

not the countering violent extremism initiative within the Obama 

Administration was working or not. Is it working. I was prepared 

to be briefed in a classified setting, yet the Administration came 

out fairly strongly against our efforts to exercise oversight. 

So, my hope would be I can—that I can work together in a bipartisan way and in the next Administration, we will have the tools 

to assess whether or not we are improving, and work with the Administration to ensure that we are, in fact, killing the terrorists, 

countering violent extremism, and, most importantly, making sure 

that this effort does not reconstitute itself moving forward. 

Mr. Tillerson, back to the prepared statement. You write that 

China has not been a reliable partner in using its influence to curb 

to curb North Korea. I know we have discussed this before, a 

slightly different tack here. Just an open-ended question here. Why 

do you believe China has not done more? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I am aware that under the most recent 

version, I believe, of the UN sanctions, which have been ratcheted 

up with each of North Korea’s provocative, whether it has been a 

nuclear test or the test firing of a missile, that—and I indicated 

earlier that China is 90 percent of North Korea’s trading—exports, 

import trading. So, they really do have complete control over what 

sustains the government of North Korea. A big part of that is the 

sale of anthracite coal across the border, and the sanctions did 

speak to that sale. And I think that is an area where I think we 

have to hold China accountable to comporting with the sanctions 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

116 

that were put in place by the UN. And just we have to call people 

out on it when we view they are not complying. 

Senator YOUNG. So, there might be—there might be an opportunity to exploit there with respect to that reliance on anthracite 

coal to ensure that the missile and nuclear programs, you know, 

they comply with international law and our security interests. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, under the UN resolutions, North Korea has 

already violated those on multiple occasions with both the nuclear 

test, including the one most recently in September, as well as their 

firing of—— 

Senator YOUNG. I am going to interject, which is D.C. talk for interrupt. But, so, what would you suggest to the President of the 

United States that he consider doing to wield more effective influence over China’s decision making on North Korea? In 10 seconds 

or less, please. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, it does involve—well it does involve a concerted response from our allies as well—Japan, North Korea—and 

making sure China understands as part of this whole of China approach that this is an important element of what they can do to 

strengthen our relationship, or they can do to weaken our relationship with them. 

Senator YOUNG. Thank you. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, sir. Senator Murphy. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

sticking this out, Mr. Tillerson. I know this is a long day. 

I want to come back to the issue of human rights because I do 

worry that there are going to be a lot of human rights advocates, 

a lot of people who are hoping that the United States maintains 

its leadership role on maintaining and promoting human rights 

around the world, who are going to be very worried by some of your 

testimony here today. Asked about the 3,500 extrajudicial killings 

in the Philippines, you were not yet ready to say that you had 

enough evidence to call that a violation of human rights. Similar 

answer on Saudi Arabia, and a similar answer with respect to the 

war crimes perpetuated by the Russians inside Syria. 

So, I guess the simple question for you is this. If you are not 

ready to say today that what is happening in the Philippines is a 

human rights violation, despite the fact that the president brags 

about killing people without trial, or the denial of rights to women 

in Saudi Arabia as a named human rights violation, or what is 

happening in Syria as a war crime, can you maybe give us a little 

bit of a sense of what countries today you would consider to be violators of human rights, or how you are going to make judgments 

about where the U.S. pursues human rights violators and where 

we do not, because think it will be a surprise to a lot of people coming out of his hearing that you are not ready today to call President 

Duterte a violator of human right, or to call what is happening in 

Saudi Arabia a named violation of human rights under international law. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I think somewhere in your question there, 

Senator Murphy, was, in fact, the answer. I am going to act on factual information. I am not going to act on what people write about 

in the newspapers or even what people may brag they have done, 

because people brag about things that they may or may not have 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

117 

done. I am going to act on the facts. And if confirmed, I am going 

to have access to a lot of information that I do not have access 

today. 

It is just my nature to not prejudge events or prejudge and make 

conclusions or conclude that someone has, in fact, violated this 

norm or, in fact, now meets the standard to be labeled this until 

I have seen those facts myself. That should in no way suggest that 

if those acts that you have described are backed up by the facts, 

I would agree with your labeling and characterization. I am just 

not willing to do that on the record today because I have not seen 

that information. So, please do not confuse that with my stand— 

my standards are no different than yours. 

Senator MURPHY. But just give—let us take Philippines for an 

example. I mean, I do not know that there is anybody on this committee that would deny that there are extrajudicial killings happening in Philippines. That has been widely reported. Our embassy 

has reported it. The president himself talks about it. What more 

information do you need before deeming the Philippines to be a 

human rights violator? What is happening there is a massacre, one 

that is there for everyone to see. 

Mr. TILLERSON. I am sure the committee has seen a lot of evidence that I have not seen. I am not disputing your conclusion. You 

are asking me to make a judgment on only what I am being told. 

That is not how I make judgments. 

Senator MURPHY. So, what information in that case would you— 

would you need? Who would you need to hear from? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I would want to see the factual basis behind the 

statistics and the factual connection as to who is—who is committing those acts. 

Senator MURPHY. Well, we do not have—a lot of times the factual 

evidence is reporting by objective observers on the ground. I am not 

initially sure you are going to get a videotape of an extrajudicial 

killing. So, oftentimes the evidence is the objective reporting we get 

from sources on the ground inside a place like the Philippines. 

Mr. TILLERSON. I will rely on multiple sources to confirm what 

I am being told. That is—that is—you can blame it on me being 

an engineer. It is the engineer in me that I deal with facts, and 

then I analyze, and then I conclude. And I am sure there is a lot 

of credible information out there that I simply have not seen. 

Senator MURPHY. This is a question that often gets asked of 

members of Congress to judge their view of politics and conflict in 

the Middle East. It is pretty simple one. Do you believe that the 

Iraq War—not the conduct of the war, but the war itself—was a 

mistake? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think I indicated in response—I believe it was 

to Senator Paul’s question that I think our motives were commendable, but we did not achieve the objectives. We did not achieve 

greater stability. We did not achieve improved national security for 

the United States of America. And those—and that is just the 

events have borne that out. 

And at the time I held the same view that I was concerned, just 

as I was concerned before the decisions were made to go into Libya 

and change the leadership there. It is not that I endorse that leadership, but that leadership had the place somewhat stable with a 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

118 

lot of bad actors locked up in prison. Now those bad actors are running around just world. 

Senator MURPHY. Just—— 

Mr. TILLERSON. So, it is just a—it is the question of—it is not 

a question that our ultimate goal has to be to change that type of 

oppressive leadership. It has to be, though, that we know what— 

we know what is coming after, or we have a high confidence that 

we can control what comes after or influence it, and it will be better than what we just took out. 

Senator MURPHY. In this case, which motives are you referring 

to that were commendable? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think the concerns were that Saddam Hussein 

represented a significant threat to stability in that part of the 

world and to the United States directly. And so, I understand that 

people had—were looking at information that was available to 

them, information that is not available to me, at least at this point. 

So, I am making this—I am making this comment as a—as a casual observer. 

Senator MURPHY. One last question going back to Russia. You 

have said in an earlier—answer to an earlier question that you 

would not commit today to the continuation of sanctions against 

the Russians for their involvement in the U.S. presidential election. 

But could you make a commitment to us today that if you deem 

sanctions to be the inappropriate policy, that you will recommend 

and argue for a substitute response for the interference in U.S. 

elections? Will you argue for a U.S. response even if you do not believe sanctions is the right policy? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes. Yes. And all I have read is, again, the unclassified portions, but it is troubling. And if—and if there is additional information that indicates the level of interference, it deserves a response. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. Just to follow up, our embassies in 

countries have pretty massive capabilities that are well known. If 

in the Philippines, for instance, our embassy there assessed to you 

with very high confidence since you are not going to be able to be 

on the ground checking things out yourself in a 75,000-person organization, and you are going to rely on people that as you did as an 

engineer and certainly as CEO of a company if they assess that 

extrajudicial killings were taking place, that would probably be 

enough evidence for you that he was a human rights violator, 

would it not be? 

Mr. TILLERSON. In all likelihood, it would. 

Senator CORKER. Just to follow up on one other thing, I know 

this committee passed very strongly in a bipartisan way, and now 

it has been through multiple iterations of appropriations and now 

an authorization bill, a bill to end modern slavery, to work in partnership with others around the world. And I say this because I visited a place in the Philippines where much of that is occurring, and 

thank you for reminding me. 

But do you plan to continue to support the effort that has been 

authorized here and has been appropriated towards to work in conjunction with the world community to end one of the greatest 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

119 

blights in the world today, and that is 27 million people in the 

world being enslaved more than at any time in the world’s history? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think it is part of America’s moral clarity and 

our values that we must speak out, and not just speak out, but 

take action that to cause the countries that are allowing this to go 

on or facilitating at worst, to cause them to change that. And I 

know that this is a particularly passionate issue to yourself and 

other members of the committee and—but I want to enlarge it to 

human trafficking at large as well. Slavery and human trafficking 

have to be addressed, and America has to lead in this particular 

area. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you so much. Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tillerson, 

thank you very much for your candor and your respect you have 

exhibited for the committee and the process. We are proud of your 

nomination and commend you to the—to the Senate. I want to ask 

one question, and then I am going to waive the rest of my times 

so we get a little rest. 

One of the important roles of the State Department, going back 

to the State Department, for some is soft power. And part of our 

soft power is our ability to solve problems that nobody else can 

solve, the most recent example, Ebola. When the Ebola outbreak 

took place in West Africa, it was the CDC that created the mechanism by which we actually stopped Ebola. And now we have a vaccine that will prevent Ebola, which is a great victory for humanity 

and a great victory for the process. The money that was done to 

treat the initial patients from West Africa was a special appropriation of the United States Senate and the House to create an emergency fund to deal with Ebola. 

During the same period of time the State Department had referred a Lassa fever patient to the CDC, to Emory University, to 

take care of it, which they did. There were no funds available for 

that Lassa abatement, and to this day Emory has not been reimbursed for that payment—for that treatment. 

My question is, it seems to be a good time for us to look at the 

CDC, which is the heart of the solution, and create an emergency 

fund reserve where when we have an amount of money available 

to the CDC secretary, that they can—that they can immediately go 

to use for an emergency like Ebola or like Lassa fever. I am going 

to work to try and establish that this year, and I hope as the Secretary of State when you are confirmed, you will work with me to 

do that. 

Mr. TILLERSON. I look forward to that, Senator, and engaging 

with you on it. I think you are right. The CDC’s response in the 

Ebola outbreak is—was remarkably well managed. I would make 

an observation, because all of this at some point gets to somebody 

has got to pay for all this. And in examining the—how the World 

Health Organization did in these outbreaks, I think what it exposed was some deficiencies within the World Health Organization 

as well that that they were not able to respond. And that is where 

normally—this was an outbreak that occurred in another part of 

the world. They should have been the first responders to the scene. 

But as you point out, CDC as well as other U.S. assets had to be 

put in to those countries to address that. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

120 

So, I think it is worth an examination as we are considering 

CDC’s role, it is worth an examination of how that interfaces. You 

know, these types of outbreaks, whether it is Ebola or the Zika 

virus, how is that interface working with the global health organizations as well? 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you very much for your time, and congratulations on your nomination. 

Senator CORKER. Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tillerson, do 

you agree with President-elect Trump when he said, ‘‘It would not 

be a bad thing for us if Japan, South Korea, or Saudi Arabia acquired nuclear weapons?’’ 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, I do not think anyone advocates for 

more nuclear weapons on the planet. 

Senator MARKEY. Donald Trump said it would not be a bad 

thing. Do you agree with that or disagree with it? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I do not agree. 

Senator MARKEY. You do not agree. Would you commit to working vigorously to ensure that no additional country on the planet 

obtains a nuclear weapons capacity? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, I think if confirmed, it is a vital—one 

of the vital roles for the State Department to play. In working in 

the National Security Council and in an interagency way has to be 

the pursuit of nuclear nonproliferation. We just simply cannot back 

away from our commitment to see a reduction in the number of 

these weapons on the planet. 

Senator MARKEY. Okay. President-elect Trump recently said on 

Twitter that in his view the United States must ‘‘expand its nuclear capability.’’ When warned that this could trigger an arms 

race, he replied, ‘‘Let it be an arms race.’’ Do you agree with President-elect Trump that the United States should welcome a nuclear 

arms race with Russia or with China? Would that be a good thing 

for the United States? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, I think as we are pursuing nonproliferation and we are also pursuing the enforcement of important agreements like New START, that we have to also approach those from 

a position of strength. I think in the context of some of the quotes 

that you are running through here, the President-elect has also indicated a commitment to ensuring that the level of nuclear arms 

and capability that we are going to maintain under agreed treaties, 

that those capabilities must be maintained, and that from time to 

time that means we have got to renew them, and bring them up 

to date, and ensure that they are capable. Otherwise, we now have 

an asymmetric arrangement with people we are negotiating with. 

Senator MARKEY. Right. Just that it is at odds with what he has 

been quoted publicly as saying, so I just think it is important for 

us to hear you take a position that, in fact, negotiations towards 

reducing the nuclear threat rather than having a nuclear arms 

race is much better for our country and the global security. If you 

are confirmed, will you commit to protect the rights of all career 

employees of the State Department so that they—that they retain 

their right to speak with Congress? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

121 

Mr. TILLERSON. As pursuant to an open and effective dialogue 

with Congress, I would encourage that issues are put on the table 

for discussion with Congress, yes. 

Senator MARKEY. You just had, I think, a great conversation 

with Senator Isakson about global health issues. And one of our 

great achievements over the last couple of decades has been the establishment and investment in PEPFAR and U.S. leadership in the 

Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and malaria. Millions of lives have 

been saved and health infrastructure has been built in the developing world. Could you discuss your view of those programs and 

your commitment to strengthening them in the years ahead? 

Mr. TILLERSON. PEPFAR is just really one of the remarkable successes of the past decade or more, obviously begun under President 

Bush. And I think what is—what is notable about PEPFAR is there 

are measurable results. Very well managed, very well targeted at 

getting at those three diseases. I think it serves as a model for us 

to look to as we are thinking about other ways in which to project 

America’s values, project our compassion to want to solve these 

threats that are in other parts of the world that by and large we 

are not threatened by a lot of this here in this country. 

Malaria eradicated decades ago. TB, well under control. AIDS, 

great treatment programs available to people. Projecting that into 

other parts of the world is a marvelous way to send a message of 

the compassion of the American people that we care about people’s 

lives all over the world. So, PEPFAR is a terrific model to look at 

in the future as we think about other areas that may be useful for 

us to put additional programs in place. 

Senator MARKEY. Now, I would like to move on to another global 

health issue as it impacts the United States, and, again, this is the 

opioid epidemic. It has now been transformed into a fentanyl issue. 

In Massachusetts this year, in New Hampshire—Senator Shaheen’s 

home State—three-quarters of the people who died in 2016 of 

opioid overdose died from fentanyl. And if it was occurring across 

the country as it did in Massachusetts in 2016, that would be 

75,000 people a year dying from fentanyl overdoses. 

Now, the way this is coming into America is pretty much the 

chemicals come in from China. They go down to Mexico, and then 

they are trafficked in out of Mexico into the regions of the country. 

Senator Rubio has a similar problem in Florida. We need to elevate 

this issue, Mr. Secretary, to a much higher level of importance in 

our country. 

The terrorist that is going to kill Americans on the streets of our 

country are the terrorists who are selling fentanyl. It is the Mexican and Chinese operatives who are funneling this into our country. That is the terrorist fear in the hearts of Americans. 

Can you talk about how strong you intend on ensuring that the 

State Department takes in terms of actions to tell the Chinese and 

the Mexicans how serious we are about this threat, this existential 

threat to families all across our country? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, if confirmed, this will be—this will require an interagency approach both in terms of applying many of 

the tools that have been used in terror financing elsewhere to track 

the flow of money, attempt to disrupt on both ends of that, because 

I think it is one thing we can send the Chinese a message, but it 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

122 

is another then to put in place the mechanisms, whether it be 

working with Treasury and other parts of the interagency process 

to disrupt the flow of these—of these materials and these drugs as 

well. 

Clearly, we have a message to the project to China, but I am also 

clear-eyed about China just suddenly say, oh, okay, never mind. 

Senator MARKEY. A wall across our southern border will not keep 

the fentanyl out. It is going to take much tougher action if we are 

going to save ultimately two Vietnams per year of deaths inside of 

the United States from that one drug. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

your patience in staying with us. I have just a couple questions to 

follow up on some things that you have been asked already. 

A little earlier, you were talking about the efficiency and effectiveness of PEPFAR and that government can at times do things 

well. The American public also knows that government is full of 

waste and fraud and abuse. You saw some of it in the private sector, and you will see it in government. 

I just want, with the kind of debt that we have as a Nation, to 

know that you are committed also to, when you see it, to eliminating duplication, eliminating redundancies, and do what you can 

to try to address this incredible debt that we have. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, Senator, obviously, it is just in my nature 

to look for inefficiencies and to streamline, and that will start, if 

confirmed, it will start right there in the State Department itself 

in terms of assessing the organization structure in the State Department. 

I know, as part of preparing, I have looked at organization charts 

from a few years ago to organization charts today, and I have noticed there are a few more boxes. Now, some of those may be for 

very good and valid reasons, but also it appears to me that new 

issues which have been added may rightfully need to be placed 

back into the mission and integrated into the mission itself because 

it appears to me we have some duplication. 

But it is not only about saving the American taxpayer dollars 

and spending them wisely. It is also about the delivery on the 

issue. If we have it dispersed in several places, we are probably not 

dealing with the issue very effectively either because there is lack 

of clarity as to how does this issue integrate into the mission’s obligations and what we are trying to achieve in the various missions 

of the State Department. 

So I just give you that as a simple example because it was so obvious to me when I began to look at the charts. So I know there 

will be opportunities to streamline things with the objective primarily of being more effective in terms of how we carry out the 

State Department’s mission, making sure people understand what 

they own, having clarity and line of sight to who is accountable. 

And then out of that, I think we are naturally going to capture 

some efficiencies and cost savings. 

Senator BARRASSO. Another topic that was discussed was human 

rights. And as we travel around the world, we talk to leaders 

around the world who are concerned about security in their naFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

123 

tions, economic growth in their nations, and somewhat human 

rights, but perhaps not to the degree that we would like to see that 

commitment. And these are people that we have interests with, in 

terms of our own global security. 

So as Secretary of State, how do you balance engaging these 

countries in terms of trying to protect their security as well as the 

economic aspect as well as protecting and focusing on human 

rights? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, I take the view that it is never an either/or choice we make. I think it has been said our values are our 

interests, and our interests are our values. So regardless of what 

we may be dealing with, our values are never not right sitting on 

our shoulder in full display, on the table. 

I think the real question you are trying to get to is, how do we 

advance those values though against other priorities at the time? 

And I did, again, just speaking in an honest assessment in my 

opening remarks, acknowledge that, from time to time, our national security may have to take the priority. It does not mean our 

values were deprioritized. It does not mean they are not still as important. It does not mean they are not right here on our shoulder 

with us. 

It is really—I think what you are asking is, how do we project 

those values to another country in a negotiation in a way that they 

begin to move closer to our values. That is always there, and it is 

never an either/or choice. 

Senator BARRASSO. And then the last thing I wanted to get to 

was the issue of energy as a master resource in the way that Putin 

uses it as a political weapon. 

And one of the things we are seeing now is this Nord Stream 2 

pipeline, the pipeline between Russia and Germany that the 

United States has been working closely with our European partners with respect to that. 

And this is something that we have had bipartisan support on. 

Looking across the aisle, Senator Shaheen, Senator Murphy have 

signed a letter with me with Senator Risch and Senator Rubio, 

Senator Johnson, because of our concern with the ability with this 

pipeline to deliver more energy and make Europe more dependent 

upon Russia for energy. It also bypasses Ukraine, and impacts the 

Ukrainian economy as well, when it runs directly from Russian 

under the Baltic Sea directly into Germany. 

Several European countries have raised the concerns that this 

pipeline would undermine sanctions on Russia, increase Russia’s 

political leverage over Eastern Europe. 

Can you give us your assessment on something on which there 

is actually a lot of bipartisan agreement on this panel, with regard 

to? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, energy is vital to every economy the world 

over, so it can be used as a powerful tool to influence, kind of tip 

the balance of the table in one party’s direction or the other. So it 

is important that we are watching and paying attention to when 

this balance is upset. 

Now, the greatest response the United States can give to that 

threat is the development of our own natural resources. The country is blessed with enormous natural resources, both oil and natFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

124 

ural gas. And I know the Congress took action here in the recent 

past to approve the export of crude oil. We now have exports of liquefied natural gas. 

The more U.S. supply, which comes from a stable country that 

lives by our values, we can provide optionality to countries so that 

they are not—cannot be held captive to a single source or to a dominant source. That is a physical response to that issue. 

I think from a policy standpoint, it is engaging with countries to 

make sure they understand they have choices and what those 

choices are, and what can we do in foreign policy to help them gain 

access to multiple choices so they are not captive to just one or a 

dominant source. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you. Thank you for your willingness to serve. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. 

Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And again, I want to thank you. This has been a very long process, and you have shown a remarkable amount of poise and equipoise and endurance, so thank you very much. 

I would like to pick up on something that Senator Shaheen was 

asking you about, which are just issues with our Muslim allies 

around the globe as well as Muslim countries. 

You have been really resonating with my spirit pretty strong in 

talking about the Muslim faith. You called it, I wrote down when 

you said it, the great faith. It shows a level of respect and deference that I am sure will serve you well as Secretary of State, 

should you be confirmed. 

What I worry about is a lot of the rhetoric coming from the President-elect and others. It really does undermine often our relationships with a lot of our allies. When I was traveling to the Middle 

East, in countries like Jordan, for example, I was surprised that 

people at the highest levels of the government were directly concerned about the rhetoric coming from individual leaders in this 

country. 

The President-elect has said that he would consider Muslim 

Americans being required to register in a government database. 

I just want to ask you directly, you do not support a Muslim registry, do you, for people coming into this country, based on religion? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, I think in response to that question, I 

do not support targeting any particular group. 

If a registry of some sort that is broadly applied to any person 

entering the country that could present a threat—— 

Senator BOOKER. Sir, I am sorry to interrupt you. My time is 

short. 

Let us just use specifically the NSEERS program, the National 

Security Entry-Exit Registry System. I introduced legislation last 

week to eliminate that, potentially. And under the Bush administration, there were about 25 countries registered. All of them were 

Muslim countries that were in that NSEERS program, except for 

one, which was North Korea. That was then—the policy of Obama 

administration was to zero out that registry. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

125 

Is that something you would support? The NSEERS mechanism 

is still there. And how would that affect our ability to deal with 

countries that we are working so closely with, such as Jordan, 

which is my example? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, I appreciate the question. I am not familiar enough to be able to address this specifically. I am happy 

to get back to you with an answer though. 

Senator BOOKER. No, sir, I appreciate that. 

How does it affect, in your opinion, our ability to work with Muslim countries, for example, when people like General Michael Flynn 

have publicly called Islam a political ideology not a religion, saying 

that it is like a cancer, and writing that fear of Muslims is rational? 

That cannot be constructive to our foreign policy, to our diplomacy with key countries in Southeast Asia as well as the Middle 

East. 

Mr. TILLERSON. My experience, Senator, has been the best relationships in which you can make progress on tough issues is built 

on mutual respect of one another, which then leads hopefully to 

mutual trust, just as we want to be trusted as whether we are 

Christians or we practice the faith of Judaism, or whatever our religious faith may be. And in this country, we have the freedom to 

practice that in any way we want. We want to be respected for that 

as well. 

But that relationship has to be built on a mutual respect for each 

other, and not a judgment about one’s faith. 

Senator BOOKER. Sir, I am really grateful, not that I am surprised at all, but I am grateful for you putting forth those very important values. 

Could you answer me this? What do you think it does to our enemies’ ability to push forth more propaganda about the West or incite more radicalism when you hear these evil terrorist organizations—what do you think it does to their recruiting efforts when 

rhetoric like that comes from the highest levels of leadership in our 

country? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I think these radical Islamic factions that 

we have been talking about, whether it is ISIS or Al Qaeda, they 

have broad networks obviously that they are putting in place, and 

that is what we have to disrupt. 

We have to disrupt their ability to reach large numbers of people 

who could be persuaded, that is what I spoke to earlier, with new 

tools to advance our ability to do that. 

Senator BOOKER. Clearly, sharing intelligence with other Muslim-majority nations, cooperating with them, creating those relationships that you say are so important, it is important to counter 

ISIL. But if you are insulting and demeaning their very faith, not 

only does it make it probably more difficult to deal with your allies, 

but it might even incite more radicalism potentially, correct? 

Mr. TILLERSON. My expectation is that we are going to be able 

to reengage with our traditional friends and allies in the region, 

not just in the Middle East, but I think, as you pointed out, there 

are large Muslim populations in Southeast Asia, Indonesia, Malaysia, other important countries in that part of the world where we 

have serious issues of common interest as well. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

126 

Senator BOOKER. Again, there is much about our conversation 

privately that I appreciated, and there is much about your testimony that I appreciate as well. One thing we discussed was how 

important USAID is, when we were together. 

I have real concerns, now having been out around the globe, seeing the powerful impact that USAID is making for really asserting 

human dignity. I really worry that its budget has been cut, the 

base international affairs budget, which includes funding to State 

and USAID that has repeatedly been cut around 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, since fiscal year 2010, despite the fact that, 

across multiple bipartisan administrations, there has always been 

broad agreement that supporting both USAID and the State Department is a moral, economic, and strategic perspective. 

I just want to hope that you will be especially—I read a lot about 

the way you ran your private business with streamlining and the 

like, but I hope that a priority for yours is a more robust USAID 

program. Is that something I have—can you give me reason to 

hope? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I hope what you are after is more effective programs with better use of the taxpayers’ dollars. And to the extent 

that we are good at that and we have even greater opportunity, 

then we should seek additional funding. But there will be a complete and comprehensive review of how effective we are with the 

dollars over there. 

USAID, as I said, is an important part of the projection of America’s values around the world. We are going to have—I think there 

is a joint strategic plan that is required between the State Department and USAID in fiscal year 2017. That is going to be a perfect 

opportunity for me and those who will be working with me, if I am 

confirmed, over at the State Department to take a comprehensive 

look at the effectiveness and what are our ranges of opportunities 

out there that might argue for greater funding. 

So I want to be effective with the program and make sure that, 

as we are using the taxpayers’ dollars, they are delivering a result 

that we are proud of. 

Senator BOOKER. And that is something that I respect. I was a 

mayor. The chairman was the mayor. We know that spending more 

money on a problem does not necessarily mean that you are dealing with it more effectively. 

But if you do have effective evidence-based programs, investing 

more resources is a strategic as well as human rights advantage. 

Sir, I am a low man on the totem pole, and I am done with my 

time. I do want to say this to the chairman—— 

Senator CORKER. You had an extra minute this morning, so go 

ahead. You are high man on the totem pole now. You have the 

mike. 

Senator BOOKER. If only people told me this committee was so 

magnanimous, as it is. 

Sir, I am just going to use my last few seconds, I am not sure 

if we are going to have another round—we are not. My ranking 

member is not. 

So I just want—— 

Senator CORKER. Just by agreement with others, if I could, there 

has been I think a request to all members asking. I know there are 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

127 

some members that want to go another round, and we are going 

to make that available to them today. 

Senator BOOKER. I have expressed my thoughts to my ranking 

member, and I will wait for his instruction. 

But in the few seconds I have left, I just want you to know that 

this is probably one of the more important positions on the planet 

Earth, the one to which you are nominated for. It is not just about 

always—it is obviously always looking for America’s interest and 

strategic advantage but it is also about American values, values of 

human rights, values of taking care of poor and marginalized people. 

And I expect that you at some point will be confirmed, and I look 

forward to working with you to asserting those values of human 

dignity as well as American interests abroad. So thank you, sir. 

Senator CARDIN. If I might, Mr. Chairman, before you call the 

next witness, for my members, there are some additional questions 

that members have asked—second rounds, when they ask. We are 

going to try to be able to give you the time. 

But it is possible, if we all cooperate, we might be able to complete this hearing this evening and not go into tomorrow, so that 

is what we are trying to do. Obviously, we have to complete it by 

6 o’clock because we have business on the floor at 6 o’clock. 

Senator CORKER. I saw the look of disappointment on Mr. 

Tillerson’s face. [Laughter.] 

Senator CORKER. As I understand it, Senator Rubio will have additional questions, Senator Menendez, and Senator Shaheen has 

additional questions. For those members—Senator Risch—so we 

may be here tomorrow. 

But it looks like—we are going to try to finish this evening, if 

everybody can cooperate. And again, if that is not the case, as we 

all know, we are perfectly willing to come back tomorrow. We are 

really trying to accommodate the members. 

Senator CARDIN. I appreciate the chairman. He has been very 

open about that, and it has been very helpful. We also have some 

members who have not had their second rounds yet. We know that. 

Senator CORKER. Yes. 

And now to Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And again, Mr. Tillerson, thanks for your willingness to be patient and answer the questions as you have with candor, and I appreciate your willingness to serve. 

One thing we did not talk about this morning in my questions 

was the Middle East, and I know you have had a lot of experience 

in the Middle East, particularly you have done business in many 

of the Arab countries. 

We talked about this a little in our meeting, but this relationship 

we have with Israel is a special one, of course. It is a cornerstone 

of our strategy in the Middle East. They are our greatest ally in 

the Middle East, the one true democracy. 

I want to talk to you a little about your views on Israel and the 

U.S.-Israel relationship. One important issue for me, as you know, 

is this issue of Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions Movement, the socalled BDS Movement, which is a global movement targeting 

Israel. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

128 

I have been concerned about this for a while and introduced 

some legislation on it. In fact, Ben Cardin and I have not just introduced but passed legislation in this regard, to try to push back 

against the BDS forces. 

Recently, of course with the consent of the Obama administration, the U.N. Security Council passed this resolution condemning 

the settlements and demanding Israel cease all activities in the occupied Palestinian territories including East Jerusalem, is the way 

the resolution reads. I think this will no doubt galvanize additional 

BDS activity. 

And so here is my question to you. Would you make it a priority 

to counter Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions efforts against Israel, 

make sure Israel is not held to a double standard but instead treated as a normal member of the international community? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, I would. 

Senator PORTMAN. Any preliminary thoughts as to how you 

would do that? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I think just by raising it in our interactions 

with countries that do put in place provisions that boycott whatever elements of activity or business with Israel and their country. 

We begin by highlighting that we oppose that and just expressing 

that view. And those countries need to understand that does shade 

our view of them as well then. 

One of the things that would I think help change the dynamic 

obviously would be if there were a change in the dynamic regionally. Today, because of Iran and the threat that Iran poses, we now 

find that Israel, the U.S., and the Arab neighbors in the region all 

share the same enemy. This gives us an opportunity to discuss 

things that previously I think could not have been discussed. 

Senator PORTMAN. Do you find more support among the Sunni 

countries in the region for Israel as a result of that new dynamic? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I do not want to speak for them, Senator, but I 

think, clearly, there is much more sharing going on between the 

leaders of those countries as they confront this singular threat to 

the whole region. 

Senator PORTMAN. That is my sense, and I think it is an opportunity. On BDS we do have legislation that ties trade negotiations 

to dismantling BDS. 

Would you support that legislation? It is law of the land. And as 

we conduct trade negotiations, would you support using those negotiations to help dismantle the BDS efforts in those countries? 

Mr. TILLERSON. From the standpoint of the State Department’s 

view, if confirmed, I would advocate for that position as well, recognizing there are other agencies that would really have the purview 

over that. 

Senator PORTMAN. What attitude do you take toward the U.N. 

initiatives relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Is it your intention to press the Palestinians to resume negotiations with Israel 

rather than seeking to negotiate through international bodies such 

as the U.N.? What is your position on that? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think, as I have expressed in answers to a couple other questions—I want to be brief because I realize we are trying to get through questions quickly. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

129 

This issue has to be settled between the Israelis and the Palestinians. No one can be coerced into coming to the negotiating 

table. That will not lead to a solution. 

So I support the parties being allowed to deal with this speaking 

for themselves. 

Senator PORTMAN. With regard to Syria, complicated, obviously. 

In my view, it has been made worse by our inaction and specifically 

drawing red lines and not honoring them, but also not establishing 

safe zones and no-fly zones. 

As you know, Russia’s entry into Syria’s civil war has helped 

turn the tide decisively. So Iran was strongly backing Assad and 

now you have Russia more involved, and this Assad-Iran-Hezbollah 

axis has been strengthened. 

And yet, as an indication of how complicated it is over there, the 

enemy of that axis, of course, would be ISIS. 

One of my questions for you is, would you, under any circumstances, advise any sort of cooperation with Iran where we 

might have a confluence of interest, namely in confronting ISIS? 

Mr. TILLERSON. That is an area that requires exploration. I think 

earlier I indicated that that is where we have to find a way to engage in the overall peace process or the ceasefire process that has 

been agreed by Russia, Turkey, Syria, and with Iran’s involvement 

as well. 

Can we get engaged in that? Can we at least stabilize the situation regarding the rebel activity with the Syrian Government and 

turn our attention on ISIS? That remains to be seen. And that 

would involve, obviously, the engagement of others as well and 

input from others as well. 

Senator PORTMAN. Do you think Russia has an interest or desire 

in this conflict to push back against ISIS? Or do you think they are 

simply in Syria to help Assad’s regime? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think it has provided a convenient open door 

for Russia to now establish a presence in the Middle East, a region 

that it has long been absent from. 

Having said that, though, there are common threats that Russia 

faces because of terrorist organizations and radical Islam themselves. 

I have seen statistics there are significant fighters in ISIS that 

are all speaking Russian as a language. That indicates Russia has 

a problem as well in terms of where those people came from and 

where they may go back home to. 

So I think there is scope for discussion. This is what I alluded 

to earlier. We will have to see what Russia’s posture is. Are they 

looking for a partnership with us where we can try to reestablish 

some type of a positive working relationship? Or are they uninterested in that? 

Senator PORTMAN. Again, an incredibly complex situation in a 

difficult part of the world. But my sense is that Russia has not followed through on its statements with regard to pushing back on 

ISIS in Syria and, in fact, have focused on simply protecting 

Assad’s regime. 

Again, thank you for your willingness to step forward into some 

of these complicated situations. We are looking forward to the opFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

130 

portunity of working together with you going forward, and I wish 

you the best of luck. 

Thank you. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. 

Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I have 10 articles, I mentioned one or two earlier, that I would like to submit 

for the record related to Exxon’s involvement regarding sanctions 

and Russia’s activity in Ukraine. 

Senator CORKER. Without objection. 

[The information referred to is located in Annex VII, pages 507 

to 537] 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

I wanted to turn to climate, the environment. And, of course, you 

have received many, many questions today, and we talked about 

this some in my office, what I think is a reflection on how important it is. 

As we look down a few generations from now, people will say, 

‘‘Here was a major threat to the planet. What did you all do?’’ 

And you noted earlier in your conversation with the chairman 

that our ability to affect the impacts of climate change are very 

limited, but I believe that when I met with you, you indicated that 

but you also indicated that while we cannot model with certainty, 

that should not bother people too much. The fact that we have a 

risk and challenge, we should not let that go. 

And I think you continued: My view has always been it is a serious risk, and we need to take steps to address it. 

Is that a fair recounting of how you view it? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, sir. I think the fact—I think what I said is, 

the fact that we cannot predict with precision, and certainly all of 

the models that we discussed that day, none of them agree, does 

not mean that we should do nothing. 

Senator MERKLEY. One of the things I have seen in my time here 

in the Senate is we have gone from talking about models in the future to talking about what is happening on the ground right now. 

In my State, the forests are burning at a much faster rate due 

to pine beetle expansion and the additional heat and dryness. Over 

on the coast, the oysters are having trouble reproducing because 

the ocean is 30 percent more acidic than before we started burning 

fossil fuels. 

In Senator Shaheen’s State, the moose are dying because the tics 

are not killed off during the winter and they are transmitting disease. 

And along the coast of Senator Coons’ State, I think accurately 

the lowest average land level in the country, and very concerned 

about the advancing sea level and storms, and experienced that in 

Hurricane Sandy. 

And so every one of us is our States are seeing effects on the 

ground. And as we see that, we know we are just at the beginning 

of these impacts, that they are getting worse each year. 

But we are also viewing often climate change as a national security issue. And since you believe—so I wanted to ask, do you see 

it as a national security issue? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

131 

Mr. TILLERSON. I do not see it as the imminent national security 

threat that perhaps others do. 

Senator MERKLEY. One of the things that is noted is how the 

changing climate in the Middle East concentrated Syrian villages 

into the towns and sparked the civil war that has now produced 

something like 4 million and counting refugees, having profound 

impacts on European security, and that would be an example. 

Is that something you have looked at or consider to be real or 

perhaps misleading? Any thoughts in that regard? 

Mr. TILLERSON. The facts on the ground are indisputable in 

terms of what is happening with drought, disease, insect populations, all the things you cite. Now the science behind the clear 

connection is not conclusive, and there are many reports out there 

that we are unable yet to connect specific events to climate change 

alone. 

Senator MERKLEY. What we are seeing are a lot of scientific reports that will say we can tell you the odds increased. We cannot 

tell you any specific event was the direct consequence. 

For example, Hurricane Sandy might have occurred in 100-year 

period, but the odds of it happening are higher with the higher sea 

level, the higher energy in the storms. 

So do you agree with that viewpoint, that essentially the odds of 

dramatic events occurring, whether it is more forest fires or more 

hurricanes with more power, is a rational observation from the scientific literature? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think, as you indicated, that there is some literature out there that suggests that. There is other literature that 

says it is inconclusive. 

Senator MERKLEY. One of the things we—I am sorry to hear that 

viewpoint, because it is overwhelmingly the scales are on one side 

of this argument, and I hope you will continue to look at the scientific literature and take it seriously. 

One of the things that you mentioned was, it was impressive that 

so many countries came together in Paris as a part of a global effort to take this on, that that was an important outcome, that there 

is a global conversation. I just want to make sure that I am capturing correctly your impression of Paris. 

Mr. TILLERSON. As I stated before in my statements around climate change, and responses to it, that it will require a global response, and the countries that attempt to influence this by acting 

alone are probably only arming themselves. 

So the global approach was an important step. And I think also, 

as I indicated in response to a question earlier, I think it is important that the U.S. maintain a seat at that table, so that we can 

also judge the level of commitment of the other 189 or so countries 

that are around that table and chart out—again, adjust our own 

course accordingly. 

Senator MERKLEY. Is this a case where really American leadership in the world matters? We rarely see big efforts to take on global problems unless America is driving the conversation. Do you 

think it is important for America to drive this conversation? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I think it is important for us to have a seat 

at the table. But I also think it is important that others need to 

step forward and decide whether this is important to them or not. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

132 

If America is the only one that is willing to lead, then my conclusion is the rest of the world does not think it is very important. 

Senator MERKLEY. We saw, in the sanctions on Iran, it was 

America that led and then we brought the rest of the world to the 

table. We also saw that leading up to Paris, China is committed to 

producing as much renewable power as our entire electricity production in the United States. And we have seen India now talking 

about how to shift providing electricity to 300 million people who 

do not have it and doing it primarily—or shifting primarily from 

a coal strategy to a primarily renewable energy strategy. 

So we are seeing big countries with big populations that have far 

smaller carbon footprints than the United States stepping up. And 

should we not step up as well? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think the United States has stepped up. And 

as I indicated earlier, I think the United States has a record over 

the last 20 years of which it can be quite proud. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. And it sounds like that means you 

think we should keep not just being at a table—to be at a table, 

you can be table silent, but an active participant in taking on this 

challenge. 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think it is important that we are engaged in 

that same conversation, as I said, so we have a clear view of what 

others are doing and actions they are taking. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. I am out of time. 

Senator CORKER. You are. If you would like to take 30 seconds? 

Senator MERKLEY. Earlier—thank you. I will take those 30 seconds. 

Earlier, we talked about the Exxon working with a subsidiary to 

bypass American sanctions and do business with Iran, and you said 

you did not have knowledge of it, had not heard about it. 

Have you participated in any Exxon meetings in which you 

strategized or individuals strategized to find a legal path to do 

business with nations on which we had sanctions? 

Mr. TILLERSON. No. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. 

Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you. 

Mr. Tillerson, several questions ago in an answer you stated, and 

I was delighted to hear that, that you had reservations occasionally 

when the United States acts about what was going to happen afterward if a regime changed. Let me tell you that that is a refreshing 

view up here. I sit on this committee and, of course, I sit on the 

Intelligence Committee, and we hear proposals all the time and we 

hear of actions people want to take all the time. 

But they cannot answer the question of, okay, what is going to 

happen next? And that is something I hope you will remain committed to while you are at this job. And when you are sitting at 

that table and those decisions are being made, I hope you will insist that people tell you what is going to happen next, because we 

have been very, very short on strategy after being able to topple 

a regime. 

If we want to do it, we can do it. We have the power to do it. 

But then what comes next? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

133 

And everyone, for a long time around here, I heard, well, we are 

going to do nation-building and everything is going to be wonderful. 

It is going to be a new America when we are done with them. 

Well, the nation-building was a great strategy in the World War 

II era, and it worked. That strategy is not working anymore. We 

have been notoriously unsuccessful in attempting to do nationbuilding. And part of it is because—there are a lot of reasons for 

it. But, obviously, one of them is that we are operating in countries 

where the culture is so much different than ours, very different 

from the landscape in World War II and after World War II. 

So again, I want to encourage you to take that question to the 

table every time and say, ‘‘Okay, guys, I see what you have got 

planned. I think it is going to work. What happens next?’’ Because 

that is an incredibly important decision when we decide what we 

are going to do. 

Let me shift gears here for a minute. I want to talk about the 

Iran situation. 

As you know, there are a lot of us up here that were very much 

opposed to the deal that was cut by the current administration 

with Iran. There are a lot of us up here that believe we are not 

done yet. This thing has set Iran on a path toward having a nuclear weapon. 

Now, it is going to be some time. I couldn’t agree more that it 

is going to be further down the road as a result of the deal. But 

it gives them, in my judgment, a legal path forward if they continue to do all the things that they are required to do in the agreement and take it step by step and year by year, and then the 

agreement expires and they are going to say, ‘‘Okay, we are done. 

We did everything we said we were going to do. Now we are going 

to build a bomb.’’ 

And if people object, they are going to say, ‘‘Well, wait a second. 

You know, we negotiated in good faith. We did everything we said 

we were going to do.’’ You know—so that is not over. 

But what is more concerning is the more instant question, and 

that is, a lot of us at this table, particularly on this side of the 

table, urged the administration in very clear terms, both in open 

hearings and in closed hearings, to push the Iranians to behave 

themselves, to change their conduct, not just—not quit fiddling 

with enrichment and what have you. 

These people are the primary sponsor, the greatest sponsor of 

terrorist activity in the world. When they were talking about giving 

them however many billions of dollars it was on pallets, we said, 

look, these people have been financing terrorist activities when 

they were broke. What do you think is going to happen when we 

make them rich? And they said, well, you know, we do not want 

to do that because it will interfere with what we are talking about 

on the nuclear deal. 

And to me, it was not worth the deal at all when they limited 

it just to that. 

When it comes to the U.N. sanctions, the U.N. resolutions that 

have been passed, they said you have to behave yourself. For instance, you cannot launch missiles anymore. I mean, 1 week after 

the thing went into effect, they were launching missiles. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

134 

There are a lot of us here that want to reimpose sanctions, in 

fact, ratchet sanctions up for their activities on terrorism, for their 

failure to obey the U.N. sanctions on missile activity. And the Iranians are saying, no, you cannot put any more sanctions on us. In 

fact, some people up here are arguing that, that that is not the 

case. 

We believe that that—look, the administration itself said that it 

did not cover those—the agreement did not cover those activities. 

It was limited to nuclear. 

Do you have a view on that, because I think you are going to be 

dealing with that sooner rather than later? There are a lot of us 

that feel very strongly about that. And if we are going to change 

these people’s attitude about joining the world stage with the rest 

of civilized society, we are going to have to curtail their activities 

not just in the nuclear area but in these other things that are just 

despicable acts that they committed. Have you got some views on 

that? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I think I may have commented earlier that 

one of the unfortunate effects of all the attention placed on the Iran 

nuclear agreement I think I have heard—at least I have heard this 

expressed by others, resulted in a bit of a down focus on the real 

immediate threat today, and that is Iran’s continued sponsorship 

of terrorism and terrorist organizations there in the region, most 

particularly support for Hezbollah and Hamas. 

So I think we do have to keep what is important in front of us 

and what is imminent in front of us. 

As to the nuclear agreement itself, I do look forward to, if confirmed, to taking a comprehensive look at that along with the side 

agreements to see what are all of the elements available to us to 

enforce—stay informed on their activities and are they complying 

with all of the inspection requirements and confirming that they 

are meeting the agreement. 

But back to your point of what happens next in the case of taking certain regimes out, the same thing is true here with this 

agreement. It is what happens at the end of this agreement that 

is really the important question we have to be asking ourselves, because the objective has not changed. Iran cannot have a nuclear 

agreement. 

What happens at that end, as you point out, is they go right back 

to where they were, and we have not achieved our objective. 

So my intention is to use the elements of this agreement that 

may be helpful to us in addressing the ‘‘what comes next’’ when 

this agreement is over or what replaces it, which has to be we have 

once and for all blocked Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon, because 

they have agreed they are no longer going to pursue one because 

they have no reason to, because we have changed behaviors, or because we have mechanisms in place that are going to prevent them 

from pursuing that. 

That is—that will be a difficult negotiation because it is in the 

context of their continued sponsorship of terrorism around the 

world. And we cannot just work this and turn a blind eye to that. 

It is a complicated discussion but I think we do have to take that 

approach with them. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

135 

And we are not going to do a one-off deal with you and act like 

all of this stuff over here is not happening. It has to be looked at 

in full view, and we just have to be honest and acknowledge it. 

Senator RISCH. And that is exactly what happened. I am encouraged to hear you say that. 

Let me warn you about one thing. I sit on this committee. I sit 

on the Intelligence Committee. And I have not seen the side agreements, nor has any Member of the United States Congress seen the 

side agreements. 

I have traveled to the U.N. operations in Vienna and met with 

the IAEA. They will not let you see those side agreements. 

So these people were voting—the people who voted for that Iran 

agreement did so on an agreement that part of which we were not 

able to see. 

So I wish you well. We have had one witness who said she was 

in the room where they had the side agreements and they were 

passing them around and she touched them as they went by but 

did not read them, so she was not able to tell us either what was 

in the side agreements. 

I wish you well. If you get your hands on the side agreements, 

give me a call, would you, because I would like to join you and 

have a look at them? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. 

Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Tillerson, for your fortitude and patience. It 

bodes well for what I think are the rigors and demands of service 

as Secretary of State. 

Since Senator Risch has taken us on a guided tour of the JCPOA, 

I just thought I would start by going back to an important point 

that you referenced in passing. I believe earlier today you said one 

of the failings of the deal is it does not deny Iran the ability to purchase a nuclear weapon. And my very diligent staff has reminded 

me that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty does prohibit the purchase of a nuclear weapon. But more importantly, the JCPOA, 

which I have, in provision three of the general provisions at the 

very front, says Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will 

Iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons. 

My general approach to this agreement has been distrust and 

verify. I couldn’t agree with you more that Iran’s ongoing activities 

in their ballistic missile program, their human rights violations domestically, their support for terrorism in the region, make them 

one of the most dangerous regimes in the world and one that deserves very close scrutiny. But I did not want us to move forward 

without some clarity that at least the paper, at least the words on 

the page, do say that they committed to not acquiring a nuclear 

weapon. That was I think one of the positives about it, in addition 

to the inspection protocols. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, if I could correct for the record, I 

misspoke. And during the break, I went and checked my source for 

that and confirmed that I misspoke, and that, in fact, their commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the language that 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

136 

was in there about ‘‘acquire’’ some people quibble over, but their 

commitment to the NPT was clear, and I misspoke in that regard. 

Senator COONS. Thank you. 

And I appreciate your comment in response to questions from 

Senator Merkley and others about keeping a seat at the table 

through the Paris Agreement, and the general approach that that 

suggests. 

I believe climate change is a major concern for us in the long 

term and the short term, and that it is human-caused, and that 

there are actions we can and should take in response to it. As a 

trained chemist, I respect your training as an engineer, and would 

urge you to be attentive to the science, because I think it is fairly 

overwhelming on this point. 

I do think that the JCPOA structure, the P5+1 that brought it 

into force and is enforcing it, and the Paris climate agreement, are 

two examples of tables where we should have a seat at the table 

and be advocates and be driving it. 

I want to ask you about one other table that was literally designed with a seat for the United States that still sits empty. There 

have been a number of questions in discussion today about the 

South China Sea and about China’s aggressive actions in building 

islands. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea decades ago 

was advanced by a Republican administration but has still never 

been ratified by this Senate. 

And in June 2012, you signed a letter indicating in your role as 

CEO of ExxonMobil that you supported the Senate’s consent to 

ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. 

I was a member of this committee when then-Chairman John 

Kerry convened seven hearings where panel after panel of four-star 

admirals and generals and business leaders and national security 

leaders and former Republican leaders of the administration and 

Senators all testified in support of this, yet we fell short of ratification. 

Had we ratified it, we would have that seat at the table to aggressively assert the international law of the sea and to push back 

on China’s actions, which during that debate were hypothetical, 

today are real. 

Would you work to support the Law of the Sea Convention, if 

confirmed as Secretary? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I will certainly work with the President. 

We have not discussed that particular treaty. Certainly, my position I have taken in the past was one from the perspective of the 

role I had at that time. 

And I do take note of it, and I do acknowledge the concerns people have about subjecting any of our activities to international 

courts. And that is the principal objection that people have. 

But when given the opportunity, if given the opportunity to discuss this in the interagency or the National Security Council, I am 

sure we will have a robust discussion about it. 

I do not know what the President’s view is on it, and I would not 

want to get out ahead of him. 

Senator COONS. Well, let me ask you about that, if I might, because I came to this hearing with a whole list of questions, and in 

response to others, you have addressed many of them where, in my 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

137 

view, you have a notable difference of view from at least some of 

the concerns based on some campaign statements by the Presidentelect: no ban on Muslims; no nuclear arms race; no nukes for 

Japan, South Korea, or Saudi Arabia; no abandoning our NATO allies; no deal with Russia to accept the annexation of Crimea; stay 

engaged potentially in both the Iran agreement and the Paris climate treaty. 

All of these, to me, are quite encouraging, but they suggest some 

tension with statements made by the President-elect. 

How will you work through those differences? And just reassure 

me that you will stand up to the President when you disagree on 

what is the right path forward in terms of policy. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I think, early in the day, someone asked 

me a similar question, and I said that one of the reasons that I 

came to the conclusion, among many, to say yes to President-elect 

Trump when he asked me to do this is in my conversations with 

him on the subjects we have discussed, he has been very open and 

inviting of hearing my views and respectful of those views. 

I do not think, in terms of discussing or perhaps characterizing 

it as my willingness to push back on him, my sense is that we are 

going to have all the views presented on the table and everyone 

will be given the opportunity to express those and make their case, 

and then the President will decide. 

And I am not trying to dodge a question in any way, but this is 

one that I do not know where the President may be, nor do I know 

where some of the other agencies and departments that will have 

input on this will be under the new administration. So I respect 

their rights to express their views also. 

And again, as you point out, I am on the record as having signed 

a letter from my prior position in which I was representing different interests. When I hear all the arguments for myself, I want 

to commit to you that my views might not change if I hear different 

arguments because I was looking at it only from a particular perspective. 

Senator COONS. And a number of Senators, myself included, have 

pressed you on making the transition from CEO of ExxonMobil and 

its interests and a 41-year career there to representing America’s 

interests. 

And I understand the concerns about sovereignty that some 

raised in the hearings. Having sat through the hearings and heard 

the testimony, I am convinced that the interests of the United 

States are best advanced by our acceding to that treaty and ratifying it. 

I have more questions, but I will wait for the next round. 

Senator CORKER. And we are beginning that round now. 

Senator Cardin has deferred to Senator Menendez, and only 

those who really have questions I think are going to be acknowledged at this time. However, anybody who wishes to come down 

can do so. 

So it is going to be Menendez, Rubio, Shaheen, Cardin, Coons, 

Merkley. Sounds like a pretty full third round, and I am glad everybody is interested. 

Senator. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

138 

Mr. Tillerson, I admire your stamina. You have been through 

several rounds here. And from my perspective, I hope you understand that my questions, while they may seem tough in some respects, I take my role of advise and consent of any nominee really 

important. 

And in your case, you have a very unique background coming to 

this job, so I am trying to understand as the person who is going 

to be the chief adviser to the President-elect in the meetings that 

you just described where everybody gets around the table. But in 

foreign policy, it is going to be you. 

And so I try to get from the past, a gleaming of it, so I understand where you are going to be in the future. So I hope you understand the nature of my questions. 

Let me take a quick moment on Cuba. You have heard a lot 

about Cuba here, maybe disproportionately to things in the world. 

But I think it is rewarding a regime when the only way you can 

do business in Cuba is with Castro’s son or son-in-law. They head 

the two monopolies inside of Cuba that control tourism and everything hotel- and tourism-related, and everything agriculture-related, which are the two main areas that people want to do business with in Cuba. 

And who are they? Not only are they the son and son-in-law but 

they are high-ranking officials of the Cuban military. So what do 

we do? When we allow business to take place with them—and you 

can only do business with them; I wish you could do business with 

average Cuban and empower them and make those economic decisions that would free them in some respects—then you strengthen 

what? They are both high-ranking officials of the Cuban military. 

So you ultimately fund the very oppressive regime that you are 

trying to get them to change, in terms of human rights and democracy. 

So when you do your bottom-up review, that is another element 

I would like you to take into consideration. 

Let me ask you this. As you know, following up on Senator 

Risch’s comments on Iran, Iran was designated a state sponsor of 

terrorism in 1984 following its connection to the 1983 bombings of 

U.S. Marine personnel in Lebanon, a horrific event that killed 241 

U.S. service personnel. 

That label on Iran has, unfortunately, not changed. Just this 

June, the State Department in its annual report on global terrorist 

activity listed Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. The report indicated that Iran in 2015 ‘‘provided a range of support, including financial training, equipment to terrorist groups around the world, 

including Hezbollah.’’ 

It has been brought to my attention that between 2003 and 2005, 

ExxonMobil sold $53 million worth of chemicals and fuel additives 

to Iranian customers. Alarmingly, Exxon did not originally disclose 

this business with Iran in its annual 10K annual report with the 

SEC in 2006. ExxonMobil only disclosed this information to the 

SEC after receiving a letter from the SEC asking for explanations. 

The Securities and Exchange Commission asked Exxon to explain these dealings because Iran at the time was ‘‘subject to export controls imposed on Iran as a result of its actions in support 

of terrorism and in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

139 

missile programs.’’ They went on to say, ‘‘We note that your form 

10K does not contain any disclosure about your operations in Iran, 

Syria, and Sudan.’’ 

Exxon’s response has been that transactions were legal because 

Infineum, the chemicals joint venture with Shell, was based in Europe and the transaction did not involve any U.S. employees. 

In other words, this would clearly seem as a move designed to 

do business with Iran to evade sanctions on Iran. So I have a few 

questions for you to the extent that you are familiar with this of 

the customer at the end of that deal and whether you can ascertain 

that Exxon was either knowingly or unknowingly potentially funding terrorism. 

One of the customers in these sales to Iran was the Iranian national oil company, which is wholly owned by the Iranian Government. The Treasury Department of the United States had determined that that entity is an agent or affiliate of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The IRGC is Iran’s main connection to its 

terrorist activities around the world and pledges allegiance to 

Iran’s supreme leader, the ayatollah. 

In other words, the IRGC and its foreign arm, the Quds Force, 

are the ayatollah’s army. In fact, they are currently in Syria right 

now helping Assad remain in power. 

So can you tell the committee whether these business dealings 

with Iran did not fund any state-sponsored terrorism activities by 

Iran? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, as I indicated earlier, I do not recall the 

details of the circumstances around what you just described. The 

question would have to go to ExxonMobil for them to be able to answer that. 

Senator MENENDEZ. You have no recollection of this as the CEO? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I do not recall the details around it. No, sir. 

Senator MENENDEZ. This would be a pretty big undertaking to 

try to circumvent U.S. sanctions by using what may or may not, 

I am not ready to make that determination, a legal loophole to do 

so. But it would be pretty significant. 

It would not come to your level? It would not come to your level 

that the Securities and Exchange Commission raised questions 

with your company about lack of disclosure? 

Mr. TILLERSON. That would happen. I am just saying I do not recall. 2006 would have been the first year that I would have been 

looking at those things. I just do not recall this one is all I am saying. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Do you recall whether ExxonMobil was 

doing business with three different state sponsors of terrorism, including Iran, in the first place? 

Mr. TILLERSON. No, I do not recall. Again, I would have to look 

back and refresh myself. 

Senator MENENDEZ. I would hope you would do so, and I would 

be willing to hear your response for the record, because I think it 

is important. 

Regardless of—moving to a different thing, because this is all in 

the sanctions field. I am trying to understand that, and this is an 

expression of that. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

140 

Regardless of whether or not you have read the bill that Senator 

Cardin and I and others have sponsored on a bipartisan basis, do 

you believe that additional sanctions on Russia, in view of everything that has been ascertained, is, in fact, appropriate? You may 

feel that some may be more useful than others, but do you believe 

that any additional actions in terms of sanctions on Russia is appropriate for their actions? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I would like to reserve my final judgment 

on that until I have been fully briefed on the most recent cyber 

events. I have not had that briefing. And as I indicated, I like to 

be fully informed on decisions. 

Senator MENENDEZ. I appreciate that. I would just say that in 

the public forum that you could read or any other citizen could 

read, it is pretty definitive by all of the intelligence agencies of 

what they did. So it just seems to me that while I know you are 

cautious and you want to deal with the facts, that is the essence 

of you being an engineer and a scientist and I respect that, there 

are some things in the public realm for which one can deduce and 

make a decision, and I would love to hear your response to that at 

least for the record as well. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, when I know there is additional information and there are additional facts in the classified area, I would 

wait until I have seen all the facts. If I knew that there is nothing 

else to be learned and this is all the facts and there is nothing else 

out there, then I would say that I could make a determination because this is all we know. 

But as I have been told, at least I am aware there is a classified 

portion of this report that, when I have the opportunity, I look forward to examining that. And then I will have all the information 

in front of me. 

Senator MENENDEZ. I have one final question, Mr. Chairman, but 

I will wait for my next turn. 

Senator CORKER. In order for efficacy to prevail, please go on. 

Senator MENENDEZ. So in light of efficacy, so here characterizes, 

in essence, my big question for you, my question about you. It is 

an article that appeared in TIME Magazine, and I really want to 

hear your honest response to this, and I am going to quote from 

the article. 

It says, ‘‘What the Russians want from Tillerson is bigger than 

sanctions relief. They want to see a whole new approach to American diplomacy, one that stops putting principles ahead of profits, 

focusing instead on getting the best political bargain available and 

treats Russia as an equal. ’For the next 4 years, we can forget 

about America as the bearer of values,’ said Vladimir Milov, a 

former Russian Energy Minister who went on to join the opposition. ’America is going to play the deal game under Trump. And for 

Putin, that is a very comfortable environment,’ he told a radio host 

this week in Moscow. It is an environment in which statesmen sit 

before a map of the world and they haggle over pieces available to 

them, much like Putin’’—this is the article, not me—‘‘like Putin 

and Tillerson did while weighing the oilfields of Texas against Russia’s reserves in the Arctic. Through the canny eyes of a political 

dealmaker, many of Washington’s oldest commitments in Europe 

and the Middle East could come to be seen in much the same way, 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

141 

as a stack of bargaining chips to be traded rather than principles 

to be upheld.’’ 

I would like to hear your—that is not you being quoted, but that 

is a characterization that was in one article, but beyond that, it is 

a characterization I have heard many times. And so, to me, that 

comes down to the core of everything I have tried to deduce in my 

line of questions to you, and I want to give you an open opportunity 

to respond to it. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I have not seen article in its entirety, but 

I will just deal with the quotes that you read. 

If you conclude that that is the characterization of me, then I 

have really done a poor job today, because what I have hoped to 

do in today’s exchange on the questions is to demonstrate to you 

that I am a very open and transparent person. I do have strong 

values that are grounded in my American ideals and beliefs, the 

values that I was raised with. And they are underpinned—I have 

spoken to the Boy Scouts this morning earlier. They are underpinned by those same values, duty to God and country, duty to others, and duty to yourself. 

And that has guided my life for all of my life. And it will guide 

my values. And it will guide the way in which I will represent the 

American people, if given the chance to do so. 

I understand full well the responsibilities and the seriousness of 

it. I do not view this as a game in any way, as that article seems 

to imply. 

So I hope, if I have done nothing else today, you at least know 

me better. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. 

If there is no objection, there has been a response from 

ExxonMobil that my staff gave me relative to the Sudan-Iran-Syria 

issue, and I am just going to enter it into the record, if that is okay, 

for everyone to be able to peruse. 

[The information referred to is located in Annex I, page 319.] 

Senator CORKER. With that, Senator Rubio. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Tillerson, for your patience. You can see the finish line from here 

I think. We are almost there. I really just have four clarifications. 

I do not think they are going to take very long, just going back to 

some of the things. 

On the sanctions piece, to build on what Senator Menendez had 

just asked you, it is my recollection that your testimony earlier this 

morning about—I forget, but I had asked specifically about sanctions on those who conducted cyberattacks against the United 

States, not specifying Russia in particular. Just bill that said anyone who is guilty of cyberattacks against our infrastructure would 

be subject to sanctions. 

And your answer, if I recall correctly, was that we would want 

to weigh other factors before—that is why you wanted the flexibility and not the mandatory language because there may be other 

factors to take into account, such as our trade and economic relations with that country or actor before we chose whether or not to 

use a tool, such as sanctions. So, in essence, even if you had information available to you, or will in the future, about specific actors, 

that alone may not be enough based on that testimony. There are 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

142 

other factors that you would want to take into account before making a recommendation to the President about whether or not to institute sanctions. Is that a correct characterization? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, it is. And I think the way I would try to try 

to—try to explain this, at least why I am taking this position, sanctions are not a strategy. Sanctions are a tactic. And if we are going 

to engage in, and I will use Russia in this case, but I can use any 

other country that these sanctions would apply to. If we are going 

to engage in trying to address a broad array of serious issues, I 

would like to have this as a tool, as a tactic. If it is already played, 

it is not available to me as a tactic in advancing those discussions 

and trying to come to some conclusion that best serves America’s 

interest and America’s national security interest. 

It is a powerful tool. I would like to be able to use it tactically. 

And if it has already been played, it is not available to me to use 

tactically. 

Senator RUBIO. Okay. The second is a clarification of an exchange you had with Senator Portman about an hour or so ago. He 

asked you whether there was any—basically any sort of cooperation 

with Iran where we may have a confluence confronting ISIS and 

working with Iran to confront ISIS, your answer was, ‘‘That is an 

area requiring exploration. As I indicated that is where we have to 

find a way to engage in the overall process.’’ 

Just to clarify, does that mean you would be open potentially to 

working with Iran on issues that we have potentially in common, 

such as defeating ISIS? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, defeating ISIS is the one that is right in 

front of us, and we are already cooperating with them in Iraq. 

Senator RUBIO. Okay. The third question has to do with sanctions on Crimea against—again, Senator Portman’s question. I believe your answer was, and I caught it on television. I had just 

stepped out at the tail end of the first round. And he asked, and 

I think your testimony was along the lines of we will not change 

anything right away after we examine the situation, but embedded 

in that was the notion that potentially at some point there could 

be an arrangement in which the United States would recognize 

Russia’s annexation of Crimea if the government in Kiev signed off 

on it or accepted it as part of a broader deal to ensure peace and 

stability. 

Is that an accurate assessment of the testimony as I heard it? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think what I was trying to recognize is that 

since that was territory that belongs to Ukraine, Ukraine will have 

something to say about it in the context of a broader solution to 

some kind of a lasting agreement. I am not saying that that—that 

that is on the table. I am merely saying I do not think that is ours 

alone to decide. 

Senator RUBIO. Okay. Here is my last clarification, and it is more 

about the hearing here today in general. At the end of the last 

round, at the end of the questioning you said that there must— 

there was some misunderstanding in alluding to human rights. You 

said, ‘‘We share the same values,’’ but that you are ‘‘clear-eyed and 

realistic about it.’’ So, I wanted you to understand the purpose of 

the questions I have asked you today because they are in pursuit 

of clarity and realism. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

143 

On the clarity front, I was very pleased when your statement 

today used the term ‘‘moral clarity’’ because I think we have been 

missing that for the last eight years. And that is why I asked you 

about whether Vladimir Putin was a war criminal, something that 

you declined to label him as. I asked about China, whether they 

were one of the worst human rights violators in the world, which, 

again, you did not want to compare them to other countries. I 

asked about the killings in the Philippines. I asked about Saudi 

Arabia being a human rights violator, which you also declined to 

label them. 

And the reason was not because I was trying to get you involved 

in the name of international name calling, but for the sake—for the 

sake of name calling, but because in order to have moral clarity, 

we need clarity. We cannot achieve moral clarity with rhetorical 

ambiguity. 

I also did it in pursuit of realism because here is what is realistic. You said that you did not want to label them because it would 

somehow hurt our chances to influence them or our relationship 

with them. But here is the reality. If confirmed by the Senate and 

you run the Department of State, you are going to have to label 

countries and individuals all the time. You expressed today support 

for the Magnitsky Act, which specifically labels individuals and 

sanctions them. You are going to have to designate nations as 

sponsors of terrorism or organizations as terror groups, again a 

label. And one that I think a lot of us care about is the Trafficking 

in Persons Report, which specifically labels countries and ranks 

them based on how good a job they are doing. 

And that one really concerns me because in that one, over the 

last year there is evidence that the rankings and the tier system 

has been manipulated for political purposes. They upgraded Cuba. 

They upgraded Malaysia because we are working with them now 

to improve relations, and we did not want to have a label out there 

that hurt the chances of doing that. And so, that is why I think 

it is important for you to—— 

But here is the last reason. You gave the need for a lot more information in order to comment on some of these, and, believe me, 

I understand that. It is a big world. There are a lot of topics. These 

were not obscure areas. And I can tell you that, number one, the 

questions I asked did not require access to any sort of special information that we have. All these sources were built on voluminous 

open source reporting, rights groups, the leaders sometimes themselves when it comes to the Philippines, the State Department, et 

cetera. And so, we are not going off news reports alone. 

But the selling point for your nomination has been that while 

you do not have experience in government and in foreign policy, 

you have traveled the world extensively. You have relationships all 

over the world, and you have a real understanding of some of these 

issues as a result of that. Yet, today we have been—I have been 

unable to get you to acknowledge that the attacks on Aleppo were 

conducted by Russia, and that, in fact, they are or would be considered under any standard of human rights; that somehow you are 

unaware about what is happening in the Philippines, that you do 

not—are not prepared to label what is happening in China and 

Saudi Arabia, a country that, my understanding, you are quite 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

144 

aware of. Women have no rights in that country. That is well documented, and if you visited—anyone who has, they would know. 

Now, I want you to understand this, too, and I said this to you 

when we met. I have no questions about your character, your patriotism. You do not need this job. You did not campaign for this job. 

It sounds like a month and a half ago if someone had said that you 

were going to be up here today, you would say that is not true. 

That is not what I—there is only one reason for you to be sitting 

behind that table today, and that is your love for this country and 

your willingness to serve it, and I do admire that. I do. 

But I also told you when we met that the position that you have 

been nominated to is, in my opinion, the second most important position in the U.S. government, with all due respect to the Vice 

President. It is the face of this country for billions of people, for 

hundreds of millions of people as well, and particularly for people 

that are suffering and that are hurting. For those people—those 

1,400 people in jail in China, those dissidents in Cuba, the girls 

that want to drive and go to school—they look to the United States. 

They look to us, and often to the Secretary of State. 

And when they see the United States is not prepared to stand 

up and say, yes, Vladimir Putin is a war criminal, Saudi Arabia 

violates human rights. We deal with these countries because they 

have the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, because China is 

the second largest economy in the world, because Saudi Arabia is 

a strategic partner in what is happening Middle East, but we still 

condemn what they do. It demoralizes these people all over the 

world, and it leads people to conclude this, which is damaging and 

it hurt us during the Cold War, and that is this: America cares 

about democracy and freedom as long—as long as it is not being 

violated by someone that they need for something else. That cannot 

be who we are in the 21st century. 

We need a Secretary of State that will fight for these principles. 

That is why I asked you these questions. That is why I asked those 

questions because I believe it is that important for the future of the 

world that America lead now more than ever. So, I thank you for 

your patience today. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, sir. Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

giving us some additional time. 

I want to just comment on Senator Rubio’s statement and Senator Menendez’s because I think the concern that I have listening 

to your testimony today is that your eloquence about the values 

and the principles of this country cannot be denied, but many of 

those statements have been undercut by earlier statements by the 

President-elect. And so, what I want to know is which values are 

going to prevail, and are you deferring on answering some of these 

questions because of concerns about statements that the Presidentelect has made. So, I will make that as a rhetorical statement. I 

do not know that you need to respond to that unless you would like 

to, but I do think that is a concern that I have listening to the discussion today. 

I want to go back to nonproliferation because it got short shrift. 

The five most recent U.S. presidents, including Barack Obama, 

George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

145 

Reagan, have negotiated agreements with Russia to ensure strategic stability and to reduce nuclear stockpiles. I think you said 

this morning, earlier, that you do support the New START treaty, 

which is the most recent of those agreements. But more broadly, 

do you support the longstanding bipartisan policy of engaging with 

Russia and other nuclear armed states to verifiably reduce nuclear 

stockpiles? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Yes, I do. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. And I want to go back to climate 

change because I appreciate your recognition about the science and 

your concern as an engineer about wanting to have scientific evidence. I would argue that we have a lot of scientific evidence. In 

New Hampshire, we have a Sustainability Institute at the University of New Hampshire that produced a report in 2014 that pointed 

out the impacts of climate change in New Hampshire and the New 

England region. And will not read all of those, but two that I 

thought were most alarming is that for the New England region as 

a whole right now, the majority of our winter precipitation is rain. 

It is not snow. That is having a huge economic impact in New 

Hampshire and other parts of New England on our ski industry, 

on snowmobiling, on our maple sugaring industry. And also, that 

by 2070, New Hampshire will begin to look like North Carolina. So, 

there are tremendous economic implications of that as well as implications on everything from, you know, our wildlife, our moose, 

our trout, to our fauna, and lots of other things that affect the 

State. 

Now, I do appreciate your comments about being at the table as 

we continue to negotiate around climate change. In 2009, the U.S. 

government along with other nations that are part of the Group of 

20—the G20—agreed to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. I for one believe that the science shows that fossil fuels have contributed dramatically to climate change. And while much of the responsibility 

for this G20 agreement falls on the Treasury Department, the 

State Department also does have a role in overseeing the objective. 

So, I really have a two-part question here with respect to subsidies for fossil fuels. The first is, at this time when many of our 

oil companies, particularly large oil companies, like Exxon, are 

reaping very good profits, do we really need to continue these subsidies? And second, if confirmed, how would you as Secretary of 

State help to fulfill our international commitment to phase out 

those fossil fuel subsidies? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, and that—since it is a two-part question, 

obviously the first part I am happy to offer a personal view on—— 

Senator SHAHEEN. Good. 

Mr. TILLERSON.—even though that is not within the State Department’s role to make that judgment. This comes from my understanding of how the various tax elements of the Tax Code treat certain investments, certain research credits, and whatnot. And I am 

not aware of anything the fossil fuel industry gets that I would 

characterize as a subsidy. Rather, it is—it is simply the application 

of the Tax Code, broadly a Tax Code that broadly applies to all industry, and it is just the way the Tax Code applies to this particular industry. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

146 

So, I am not sure what subsidies we are speaking of other than 

if we want to eliminate whole sections of the Tax Code, then they 

will not apply to any other industries as well. And I just say that 

as kind of a broad observation. 

So, as to the State Department’s role then in participating in 

summits or discussions around others taking similar action, it 

would be with that view in terms of how we are going to apply 

things at home, because I think that the President-elect has made 

clear in his views that his whole objective of his campaign in putting America first, that he is not going to support anything that 

would put U.S. industry and any particular sector at a disadvantage to its competitors outside of the U.S., whether it is automobile 

manufacturing, or steel making, or the oil and gas industry. 

So, it would depend upon how the—how the domestic part of that 

and how that decision is made by others would then inform the positions that I would be carrying forward in the State Department. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Well, so then, I know you said earlier that you 

do not want to talk about tax reform, which I appreciate. But if we 

assume that the way the Tax Code is written is it provides additional subsidies, and I would argue that they are subsidies to oil 

companies and fossil—the fossil fuel industry, should we, if we are 

going to comply with the 2009 agreement with the G20, should we 

then think about as we are looking at tax reform and rewriting the 

Tax Code, that we change that aspect of the Tax Code in order to 

deal with our commitment to phase out those subsidies? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I would really have to defer to Treasury 

and others that are going to undertake that exercise, as well as the 

other—the other agencies that will inform the State Department’s 

view of how that compares to what others are doing to live up to 

their commitment to phase out ‘‘subsidies’’ as well. So, it is hard 

for me to make a judgment on whether I think we should do this 

until I know what other—what is the—what is the parallel in the 

agreement that other countries are going to do as well. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, first, let me start off again by thanking 

Senator Corker for the time that has been allowed. I think Senator 

Coons has a question or two if we could yield perhaps to Senator 

Coons? 

Senator CORKER. Absolutely. Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. If I might, Mr. Tillerson, we spoke in my office 

countering violent extremism and fragile states, and a number of 

other senators have asked questions about three countries—Turkey, Egypt, and the Philippines—but there are many others we 

could be focusing on, that have been partners of ours or allies of 

ours, and where they have recently turned away from democratic 

norms and have cracked down on civil society, on press freedom, 

on human rights. 

And you talked with me, and you have also said here, that in 

some instances we have to set aside for the moment human rights, 

civil liberties, democracy, as our number one goal when our national security is at risk. And I just wanted to ask you about to 

what extent you think the actions to curtail human rights and 

press freedom by some governments actually fuel instability or 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

147 

strengthen terrorist threats—we talked in particular about Nigeria—or places where human rights violations might actually increase the risk of instability. And what strategy would you follow 

to prevent partners like Turkey, Egypt, the Philippines, and others, 

from sliding further away from sharing some of our core values in 

terms of democracy and human rights? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I certainly would take no exception to what 

you have posed, that to the extent human rights either deteriorate, 

oppression increases, or to the extent it exists and it is not addressed, it foments within the population. There is no question 

about it. And that over time, you know, it is going to take its effect 

on—in terms of the stability of the country. 

And so, I think, as I have—as I have talked about these competing priorities, and I made it clear earlier that these most precious of human values that we advocate for are never absent. They 

are never absent. And they really are only going to be trumped, so 

to speak, when there are—when there are serious national security 

concerns. And if we are engaged with a ‘‘partner’’ today, and that 

is what I talked about. Sometimes people are partners. Sometimes 

they are adversaries. Sometimes they are friends. Sometimes they 

are friends and partners. 

But if we are engaged in an area where this relationship and 

what we are pursuing is in the national security interest, the values stay with us, but we may have—we may not be able to assert 

those values at this time. It does not mean they are gone. It does 

not mean we do not talk about them. It does not mean we dismiss 

them. We just may not—we may not—it may not be in our interest 

to condition our national security pursuits on a country making 

certain commitments around oppression and human rights. 

These are the—these are the most difficult of choices. They are 

the most difficult choices, but we have to keep—be very clear about 

what the objective is. 

Senator COONS. Thank you. I have a few more questions. I will 

try and move through them quickly if I could. 

I believe that LGBTQ rights are human rights, that gay rights 

are human rights. And in a number of meetings with African heads 

of state, I have advocated for them to push back on actions where 

they have engaged in preventing people from meeting, from advocating, where they have been physically abused or tortured. I will 

never forget meeting in my office in Delaware with a woman from 

Zimbabwe who had been given asylum in the United States after 

being tortured in Zimbabwe because of who she loved. 

Do you believe gay rights are human rights, and is that a piece 

of our human rights advocacy agenda around the world? 

Mr. TILLERSON. American values do not accommodate violence or 

discrimination against anyone. That is just—that is part of that 

American values that we protect. 

Senator COONS. Could I press you for a more specific question, 

sir? I was encouraged by your tough leadership moment at the Boy 

Scouts, and I simply wanted to reassert that in my work around 

the world, although not always easy or comfortable, it is, I think, 

important that we include respect for the whole range of peoples’ 

relations in our menu of how we define human rights. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

148 

Let me ask you about support for foreign assistance. Others have 

asked about it before. But both Condoleezza Rice and Bob Gates, 

former leaders who have introduced and spoken in support of you, 

agree that diplomacy and development have to be equal to defense. 

And in our total budget, about 50 percent is DOD and about one 

percent is State Department/USAID. 

Are you going to press, in partnership with those of us in Congress who are committed to making foreign aid transparent, accountable, and efficient, to sustain our investments in development 

and diplomacy? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think to quote General Jim Mattis, I think he 

said if the State Department does not get the money it needs, then 

I have to buy more ammunition. And so, I think clearly the recognition of the importance of ensuring that resources are available 

to advance our foreign policy and diplomacy goals are important 

and elevated to a level that even by the nominee of the Secretary 

of Defense has recognized. 

Senator COONS. There are at least, I think, six non-career ambassadors who have reached out to you for some consideration. 

They are in allied countries. Not partner countries. Allied countries. And because of some of their visa rules, they cannot stay on 

as private citizens more than a few months, and they were hoping 

to be able to stay through the end of the school year in accommodation for their family concerns. I hope you will take that seriously. 

In previous transitions, even with a difference in Party registration, non-career ambassadors have been considered on a case-bycase basis for some clemency for family reasons to stay through the 

end of the school year, and I hope you will seriously consider that. 

Mr. TILLERSON. I am aware that certain people have petitioned 

for a review, and I think there is a process that is—that is underway while I have been preparing for these hearings. I have not— 

I have not been directly engaged in it. 

Senator COONS. I appreciate your attention to these hearings, 

but I would—I would be grateful for any consideration. 

My last question. As you have cited, there is a whole string of 

important presidential legacies around development and foreign assistance: AGOA in the Clinton Administration, PEPFAR and the 

Millennium Challenge Corporation, which I think have been terrific 

initiatives of the Bush Administration, Feed the Future, Power Africa, and the Global Health Security initiatives in the Obama Administration. Part of what has built a good agenda for us around 

the world—the developing world is that the best ideas of previous 

Administrations have been sustained. 

Are you familiar with the Young African Leadership Initiative, or 

YALI, which brings some of the most promising young Africans to 

the United States for a summer to meet with civil society leaders, 

business leaders, elected leaders around the country? Are you familiar with Power Africa? I believe you are. It has been discussed 

before. And with the Global Health Security Initiative. And are 

these the sorts of things you will seriously consider sustaining in 

the future? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I think all of those have proven to be extremely 

valuable programs, successful programs. We need to look for the 

successful programs, understand why they are successful, and how 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

149 

can they be replicated in other areas, perhaps either addressing 

other geographic areas or addressing other issues that we want to 

advance. 

Senator COONS. Mr. Tillerson, thank you for your testimony in 

front of the committee today, and I appreciate the opportunity to 

hear your views, and look forward to the opportunity to continue 

our work together. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. And if I could, since he has been 

very busy in getting ready for this hearing, we spent some time 

talking to the Transition Team about some of the ambassadors and 

others that have hardship. And I know there has been something 

set up where they can, in fact, petition even before he comes into 

office. So, hopefully some of that is being accommodated. And I 

want to thank you Senator Kaine and others for bringing it to my 

attention. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

President-elect Trump has argued that the United States should 

again waterboard suspected terrorists. Yesterday Senator Sessions 

said that that would be illegal, and General Mattis has said that 

it would be ineffective. Will you advise, Mr. Tillerson, Presidentelect Trump that torture in any form is illegal, immoral, and ineffective? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I think others have opined on that sufficiently, and I would not disagree with what they have said. 

Senator MARKEY. So, you agree with what they said. 

Mr. TILLERSON. I would agree with what they have said. 

Senator MARKEY. Okay. Thank you. I think that is important. 

Now, last year in the world, one-half of all new electricity which 

was installed was renewables. One-half, all new electricity in the 

world. And China has announced that it is now going to invest 

$360 billion in renewable energy in its country. 

The global climate agreement that was reached in Paris is driving much of this investment, but if the United States does not take 

advantage of this global market which is going to open up, it is 

going to mean that we are going to lose jobs here in the United 

States. We now have 300,000 people in the wind and solar industry 

in the United States and only 65,000 coal miners who are left. So, 

this sector is growing and growing, and the Chinese clearly want 

to get the lion’s share of it. 

Can you talk a little bit about how you see this renewable energy 

revolution as a job creating engine for the United States, and as 

a way of dealing with the commitments which the United States 

has made in Paris to the reduction of its greenhouse gases? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I think this is largely a trade issue, one of 

America’s manufacturing, investments, and competitiveness. And I 

think to the extent we can let free market forces work, then I 

would expect American companies to be competitive in participating in this growing market. But this will be subject to trade 

agreements perhaps, or just subject to a continuation of free and 

open trade to supply—to be a supplier to these countries that are 

installing this significant capacity. 

There has been significant capacity already installed in the U.S., 

but, as you point out, there is a growing market out there as a reFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

150 

sult of this agreement. So, I think it is really a question for the 

U.S. private sector working with the Administration, and the Commerce Department, and others as to ensuring that there are no 

trade obstacles to their ability to participate should they choose to 

do so. 

Senator MARKEY. You were quoted a few years ago as saying, 

‘‘Energy made in America is not as important as energy simply 

made wherever it is most economic in the world.’’ From this committee’s perspective, we look at the foreign policy of the United 

States, and we feel a great responsibility for the young men and 

women who we export over to the Middle East to defend our country, and these ships of oil that keep coming back into the United 

States. And we are still importing five million barrels of oil a day, 

meaning that we do not have it here, but we continue to import it. 

Could you talk about this view that you have that an Americanmade barrel of oil is no different than a barrel of oil made overseas, 

because from our perspective the issue of importation of oil ties us 

into policies, into regions, into countries that we would otherwise 

never really have to give the weight of importance to that we now 

do just because of the fact that they have oil. 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I think the context in which that statement 

was made, because I made it often, at the time was that anything 

that puts more supply onto the global market means the global 

market is less dependent on any single source. So, a greater diversity of supply, and I think it was made probably in the context of 

promoting American—America fully developing our own natural resources and America being willing to put its supply into the global 

market as well. So, it was just—it was just an observation that to 

the extent you have more supply from more sources, you have a 

more stable market, less reliance on any particular part of the 

world. 

Senator MARKEY. And I understand that from an ExxonMobil 

corporate perspective that a barrel of oil is a barrel of oil wherever 

it is produced in the world, and it is flooding out onto the market. 

But on the other hand, we have this issue of the impact which importation of oil has on the United States. So, would you agree that 

it is in America’s best interest that we reduce consumption of foreign oil so that we are not dependent upon that extra barrel of oil 

wherever it is being produced in the world? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, my—you are getting into areas that are 

of the purview of other agencies, but I would just make observations that anything we did to prohibit the availability of supplies 

to the United States would in all likelihood put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage. 

Senator MARKEY. Well, I do not think it is outside of the purview 

of the State Department because where we import oil from, the 

country Saudi Arabia, other countries in the Middle East, Northern 

Africa that we import oil from, that then implicates our foreign policy, your attitude or whoever is the Secretary of State’s attitude towards that country. So, it goes to the question of should we reduce 

the demand for oil so that it increases the leverage of a secretary 

of state when they are talking to the leaders of this country, because we are telling them we do not need their oil in order to run 

our own country. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

151 

Mr. TILLERSON. I would not agree with that conclusion. 

Senator MARKEY. Well, how would you describe our need to import oil and allowing that country to have that as one of the discussion points as you are sitting there with them? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, it is back to where you started the conversation. Once an oil—once a barrel of oil is on a tanker, a barrel 

of oil is a barrel of oil. And the end consumer does not really care 

where that barrel of oil came from because it is going to be priced 

in a global market. As long as they have free access to the barrels 

and they have the ability to shop around for barrels, that is what 

is most supportive of their economic activity. 

Senator MARKEY. Yeah, but we are not just talking about economic activity any longer, Mr. Tillerson. We are now talking about 

the impact which that barrel of oil coming in from Saudi Arabia, 

coming in from another country has upon the leverage they have 

over any discussion that the United States is having with that 

country about other issues. And it is on the table even as we are 

asking them to give us help in other issue areas. 

So, I am not just talking about what the global price of oil may 

be. I am also talking about where that barrel of oil comes from, and 

that the less it comes from a country that we do not want to allow 

them to use oil as a leverage point is the more leverage the Secretary of State or the President will have in telling them we do not 

need you. We do not need your oil to run our country. We are energy independent. 

So, do you think that energy independence, again, should be our 

goal, and that the five million barrels of oil that we are still importing should be something that we are trying to keep out of our 

country’s economic system? 

Mr. TILLERSON. No, I have never supported energy independence. 

I have supported energy security. And I guess to go to your concerns, our largest supplier of imported oil is Canada. 

Senator MARKEY. No, I appreciate that, but we still—— 

Mr. TILLERSON. I do not know whether we feel hostage to them 

or not. 

Senator MARKEY. Well, I do not—well, I appreciate that, but I 

also appreciate the fact that we are still importing from Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East. And I do feel that that 

is unnecessary if we could develop our capacity within our own 

country to be able to develop oil. So, Canada is one thing. Saudi 

Arabia is another thing all together. And I just—I just do not think 

that a barrel of oil is a barrel of oil. I think it has real consequences when it is coming from a country that has itself a strategic vulnerability that can be bolstered by the fact that we need 

or other countries need their oil. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regard to 

North Korea, we have had a lot of concerns about their long-term 

expansion of their missile program and missiles gaining more and 

more range. Should America put down a line in terms of them testing very long range missiles? And if North Korea violates that line, 

what should the U.S. do? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

152 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I think the UN resolutions have already 

put down some pretty hard lines, and North Korea has continued 

to violate those, both in terms of conducting nuclear tests as well 

as conducting the launch of delivery systems as well. So, we really 

are already passed that point. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, my question was not in context of the 

UN, but in the context of whether the U.S. should lay down a line 

and respond if it is crossed, because our security is more and more 

endangered as the range gets longer. I take your answer to be one 

way of saying, no, there is probably nothing we can do? 

Mr. TILLERSON. No, you should not take it—— 

Senator MERKLEY. Okay. 

Mr. TILLERSON.—in that regard at all. We need to work closely 

with our allies in the area—Japan, South Korea, in particular—because anything we do will have a—will certainly have a profound 

impact on them. And anything that we might consider and what 

all of our alternatives might be would require a careful conversation at the National Security Council in terms of our capabilities, 

which certainly we have the capabilities to bring a missile test 

down. But how and what might be the consequences of that would 

require careful thought. So, I am not—I am not rejecting that as 

an option. I am just not prepared to sign up for it today. 

Senator MERKLEY. Fair enough. Let me turn to Saudi Arabia. 

Saudi Arabia has been utilizing cluster munitions in Yemen. Much 

of the world has said these are terrible weapons to use because 

they have a range of fuses and they can often go off months or 

years after they have been laid down. These are—these are the 

cluster bombs. You are familiar with them. They have also been 

targeting civilians. How should the U.S. respond to those actions? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I would hope that we could work with 

Saudi Arabia perhaps by providing them better targeting intelligence, better targeting capability to avoid mistakenly identifying 

targets where civilians are hit, impacted. So, that is an area where 

I would hope that cooperation with them could minimize this type 

of collateral damage. 

Senator MERKLEY. How about on the cluster munitions side? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Could you ask the question? 

Senator MERKLEY. How about in regard to the cluster—use of 

cluster munitions? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Well, I would have to examine what our past policy has been. I do not want to get out ahead—if we have made commitments in this area, I do not want to get out ahead of anyone 

on that. 

Senator MERKLEY. I do think this is a little bit of an example 

that my colleague from Massachusetts was pointing to, because we 

have often been reluctant to put as much pressure on states that 

we are dependent upon for oil than in situations with states where 

we are not dependent on oil. So, there is this, sometimes economists refer to it as shadow costs. 

Some of the studies that have been done in think tanks place a 

shadow cost on gasoline of imported oil because of the type of national security apparatus we need to make sure we sustain access, 

secure supply, to quote your words, of $5 to $10 a gallon. And I 

think that is where Senator Markey was driving, that there is a 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

153 

distinction between an imported gallon and a domestically produced gallon. 

I do not need you to respond to that, but I just wanted to amplify 

his point that for many of us there is a significant difference between an imported gallon and domestic gallon. 

I wanted to turn to Equatorial Guinea. A senator brought this 

up earlier today about the corruption of the leadership of that particular country. The president for a life, President Obiang, has become exceedingly rich, and part of the way that he has become exceedingly rich is the payments that Exxon has made have gone to 

his family’s accounts rather than going to the national treasury. 

What are your thoughts on why Exxon participated in that, which 

continued in the time that you were in the leadership of the—of the 

company? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, I am familiar with the circumstance you 

are talking about. That was the subject of an investigation by the 

Judiciary Committee. There were no findings that Exxon had committed any wrong or broken any laws at the end of that investigation. In terms of the payments that ExxonMobil would make in any 

arrangement, a contract in any company—country would be no different than they are made with domestic producers here in the 

U.S. that are operating on Federal lands. There is royalty and 

there are taxes paid to the—to the Treasury. 

What the government does with those monies once the company 

pays those is up to the government. Obviously, the U.S. government distributes those funds responsibly. Some countries, I understand, do not. In our—in ExxonMobil’s engagement in countries 

like this, though, I do think that on the whole there are—there are 

positive benefits to the people of the country in terms of job creation that occurs because of the activity, employment that occurs 

because of the activity. And I am not in any way suggesting that 

that mitigates the corruption in the country, but that it is not without benefit, and it is not without having American values on the 

ground in those countries as well. 

So, this is true not just of the extractive industries portion or sector, but it is true of any American business that may be engaging 

in business activities in countries where they have poor governance 

structures at the top. 

Senator MERKLEY. You have mentioned that royalties and taxes 

should go to the government, but in this case Exxon paid—made 

the payments to a private account controlled by the president. Do 

you see anything wrong with that? 

Mr. TILLERSON. I would have to—I would want to review for my 

memory the circumstance you are talking about. My recollection is 

that that account was designated as the government’s account, and 

I think when it was discovered that the account either may or may 

not have been a valid account, it was closed. 

Senator MERKLEY. There are also a number of contracts that 

Exxon did with companies controlled by the family members of the 

president. This included building leases and land leases and a 

number of—series of other contracts, the net effect of which was 

transferring a lot of wealth to a president for life, someone who has 

no interest in democratic principles. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

154 

The State Department has reported on this for many, many 

years, each year doing this report on Equatorial Guinea. In 2003 

it states, ‘‘There is little evidence the government uses the country’s oil wealth for the public good. The oil wealth is concentrated 

in the hands of the top government officials while the majority of 

the population remain poor.’’ 

The State Department actually cut their foreign economic assistance to the country because of the massive corruption in control by 

this family, and I—it ties in—earlier one of my colleagues mentioned a situation where, I believe, a whole series of very expensive 

sports cars were being loaded onto a plane to be flown into Equatorial Guinea, but those were not being paid for by U.S. foreign assistance. Those were being paid for by diverted oil royalties. 

And I think it does raise not just a legal question, and you have 

noted that no legal violation was found, but it certainly raises a 

moral question about how one engages a country and increases the 

power of leaders who are doing nothing to elevate the quality of life 

of their citizens. Do not you share any of that perspective? 

Mr. TILLERSON. Senator, again, my recollection is that in all the 

examples that you mentioned, they were investigated. There were 

no violations of law. During my time at ExxonMobil, ExxonMobil 

took at that time, and I expect still do, very seriously the Foreign 

Corrupt Practices Acts—Act, and it had—has in place processes to 

ensure that the corporation and all of its employees remain in full 

compliance. 

Any suspected violations were always fully investigated, and if 

anything was found, the process would have dictated a full investigation, a resolution, and, if required, a self-reporting process. So, 

I think the corporation had very strong procedures in place to ensure compliance, and I think the examples you are giving, while 

they are—I understand the concern you are expressing—indicated 

that the process to ensure there was no violation of the Foreign 

Corrupt Practices Act did perform and did withstand that investigation. 

Senator MERKLEY. So, I am going to conclude with just a thought 

about this. In the course of this conversation, you have given—you 

have spent the whole day answering our questions, and I appreciate that very much. And with my colleagues, I appreciate your 

willingness to serve. The process of vetting in the Senate is a challenging one, and you have appeared with dignity. 

I have—I do have remaining concerns from some of the conversation from today. When Senator Shaheen raised the question of the 

national registry for Muslims, you noted that you needed more information. To me, I am somewhat disturbed because we are Nation 

founded on religious freedom, and there is a clarity—can I complete 

my sentence—my statement? 

Senator CORKER. I hope it is not paragraphs. 

Senator MERKLEY. It is not a—not a paragraph, no. And when 

Senator Rubio asked about the president of the Philippines slaughtering thousands of people, you said you needed more information. 

To me there is a moral dimension to that. And when I raised the 

issue of bypassing U.S. sanctions and helping Iran, there is a moral 

dimension to that. And on this issue of strengthening a dictator for 

life, there is a moral dimension to that. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

155 

And you came to my office and said—the first thing you said was 

I want moral clarity to be a foundation for U.S. policy. I agree with 

that. I am not sure we are hearing it in these—in these particular 

instances. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, if I could ask 

consent to put in the record a statement from Publish What You 

Pay. 

Senator CORKER. Without objection. 

[The information referred to is located in Annex IV, page 477.] 

Senator CARDIN. And if I could just follow up very quickly on a 

couple points. I am not going to be asking you any questions. But 

in regards to the issues of transparency and anti-corruption, I just 

want to comment on the conversations we had in the office, and I 

really appreciate the conversations we had when we talked. We 

talked about, Mr. Chairman, the Trafficking in Persons Report and 

the commitment to end modern day slavery, and how effective it 

was to have directed goals so countries knew how they could make 

advancements so there was a clear path forward. 

I have suggested, as you know, legislation that would do that for 

fighting corruption, and I look forward, if you are confirmed, Mr. 

Tillerson, to working with you as to how we can advance a more 

effective way to judge how—the international community can judge 

progress in fighting corruption, because every country has the problem, but, as you pointed out many times during this hearing, there 

are countries that are very challenged, and you look for certain 

standards, as you did as a businessperson, to do business in a 

country. And the United States should lead the world in developing 

those standards on corruption. So, I look forward to working with 

you on that issue. 

We also talked about transparency in the extractive industries, 

and I appreciate your candor there as to the usefulness for that to 

make sure that resources actually get to the people rather than to 

corrupt leaders. I thank you on both of those points. 

I will make one quick comment about the role of Congress. We 

have talked about this many times. You are pretty strong about the 

Senate’s role to confirm and ratify treaties. You have talked very 

firmly about complying with our laws in regards to Cuba, and you 

then talked very firmly about having enforceable sanctions. I would 

just point out when we do mandatory sanctions or sanctions with 

waiver language, it makes it much more likely we will have strong 

enforcement. So, I would just point that out and hope that we can 

work together with that. 

I also want to just acknowledge another role that I play. I am 

the ranking Democrat on the Helsinki Commission. Senator Wicker 

is the chairman of that. It is a commission that deals not just with 

human rights, but it is known for human rights. It also deals with 

security and economic issues. And we look forward to working with 

you if you are confirmed at the State Department to advance the 

congressional role in dealing with the OSCE through the Helsinki 

Commission. 

We will be asking you some additional questions for the record. 

I have not had a chance to ask questions on refugees, and there 

are some others that I will ask. Senator Gardner and I will ask you 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

156 

questions in regards to Burma. I am his ranking on the subcommittee for the last Congress, and we have some serious issues 

about the human rights progress being made in Burma. But we 

will ask those questions for the record. 

I want to thank you for being responsive to our questions today, 

and I thank you for being willing to put up with such a long day. 

I was commenting to Senator Corker, about an hour ago we passed 

the new limits on the overtime rules that were adopted by Department of Labor, so I think we are all entitled to extra pay for the 

length of the day’s hearings. But thank you very much for your attention. 

Senator CORKER. So, Senator Cardin, again, I want to thank you 

for working in a post-election environment to make sure that this 

hearing occurred in the way that it did today. And I thank all the 

committee members for the way that they conducted themselves as 

they always do, and the fact that we stayed at I believe a very high 

level. 

I want to thank the nominee for being here today, and I would 

just like to make an observation. I have been here ten years. I do 

not know how many hearings that I have been to, briefings, people 

in my office. We take in a tremendous amount of information here. 

It is very hard to replicate that. Back home when I am talking to 

people, I discuss the fact that being a United States senator is 

much like getting a Ph.D. almost on a daily basis just because of 

the information flow that we have, the access to intelligence, the 

access to brilliant staffers who are constantly emailing us 24/7 with 

updates. 

And I just would like to say that we have a man who has come 

in from the private sector. I think he was notified he was selected 

less than a month ago for this job, and I know there have been 

some comments about clarity. I have, as I mentioned, been here ten 

years. I have seen secretaries of state who come before our committee who have been around for 30 years, and when they take 

questions they have booklets open and paragraphs written to answer those questions. And I think if you look at what has happened 

today, I do not think there have been any notes referred to. 

And so, to some of my friends on both sides of the aisle that may 

talk about clarity, which I respect, and I actually think many—almost every senator here did an outstanding job today. But I hope 

they will take into account that we have a person who has been 

wafted in, if you will, from a totally different world, has arrived, 

has been through briefings, has been through mortar boards, has 

met with every single member of the committee, and sat here 

today, excepting a 45-minute break, for nine hours and answered 

questions without any notes. 

I am going to leave the record open until the close of business 

tomorrow for people to continue to ask questions. 

I know that Mr. Tillerson had planned to be here tomorrow in 

front of all of us all day if necessary. And I would just urge those 

who may have had questions about clarity to remember something 

and then maybe do something. Senators develop pretty strong opinions, and sometimes we express those opinions in a very crisp, direct, strong manner just to break right through the clutter that we 

have to deal with to make a point. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

157 

And we have had years, again, years of input, and so we develop 

really strong opinions about what is happening in China as it relates to human rights, what Putin may be doing. Many of us have 

been to refugee camps. We have seen photos of what has happened 

in prison camps and what Assad has done to his own people. And 

so, it evokes a clarity of how we feel about what has happened on 

the ground. 

A nominee coming in, on the other hand, wants to make sure 

that he is not getting out over his skis. He is working for a President that he does not know that well yet. He is trying to accommodate the fact that, he is going to be working in an interagency situation to come to conclusions. So, I just hope that those things will 

be taken into account if there are questions about clarity. 

Mr. Tillerson is an Eagle Scout, a person who has lived an exemplary life. He has been at the company for 41-and-a-half years, and, 

again, I think has handled himself in a very good manner. So, I 

would ask if there are questions about that clarity, contact us. Contact the Transition Team. Give him an opportunity to sit down in 

front of people and discuss these things, especially in person, when 

the media is not there and every single question is going to be obviously written about in multiple ways. And let us really think about 

this. 

This is a very important decision. We have a President-elect who 

is coming into office also without a great deal of background in foreign policy, and for him to have someone who he has confidence in 

and who has demonstrated that he is very much in the mainstream 

of foreign policy thinking. But for him to have someone who he has 

confidence in, who is sitting up under the hood, who is helping him 

shape his views to me is something that is very, very important. 

And my sense is that very quickly on these issues of clarity, the 

nominee, when exposed to what is happening in the way that all 

of us have been, will, in fact, develop clarity. 

So, I thank you for your time, and the meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 6:12 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(159) 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

ANSWERS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

SECRETARY-DESIGNATE TILLERSON’S ANSWERS TO

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CORKER

STATE DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT FAILURES

Question. The Management Offices and Bureaus at State are centrally controlled 

by the Under Secretary for Management. In the last decade, the Department’s management functions have suffered from many significant scandals and deficiencies: 

the meltdown of security at Benghazi, over a decade of substandard IT security including several successful cyber-attacks, Department-wide mishandling of classified 

information including the spillage of classified information during a FOIA release, 

and failing grades for records preservation. The Department is in desperate need 

of a new strategic planning framework and top-to-bottom management reforms. 

What are you prepared to do to tackle this problem? 

Answer. I am aware of the many problems the State Department has faced over 

the past decade and the historic challenges to managing a large enterprise with diffuse and sometimes competing lines of authority. In my opening statement to the 

committee, and in responses to Senators’ questions, I discussed how transparency 

and accountability are at the forefront of my approach to management. If confirmed, 

I plan to begin tackling these problems on day one, with strong visibility and accountability at the top, but also reviewing the organization from the bottom-up. I 

believe this is necessary since many of the problems exist because of convoluted reporting lines, management by committee, and lack of clear decision rights. I will 

make sure that all Under Secretary and Assistant Secretary positions are filled by 

strong leaders who have accountability and clear decision rights for their own portfolio, and know how to cooperate with their peers when collaboration is often needed, especially across the agencies. If confirmed, I plan to use the process for developing the FY 19 budget, which begins immediately, as a method to set management 

priorities, tone, and culture, which I will begin discussing on day one publicly and 

within the halls of the Department. The near-term reports required by the recently 

signed Reauthorization Act, authored by you, Mr. Chairman, provides an excellent 

opportunity to coalesce some energy around vital new management focus. Along 

with Departmental responses to GAO, OIG, and Congressional committee investigations, I believe we can work together to make these documents road maps to true 

reform, rather than simply status reports. 

Sanctions 

Question. In your hearing, your comments on sanctions seemed to be mainly focused on sectoral/corporate sanctions. What are your thoughts on the role and efficacy of personal sanctions? 

Answer. As I stated in my oral testimony, I believe sanctions as a tool of 

statecraft are most effective in the context of an overall strategy. I believe individual 

sanctions could be part of an effective strategy. In addition, it is my understanding 

that U.S. law directs sanctioning individuals in some cases (e.g., the Sergei 

Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012). Should I be confirmed, I commit 

to following the law. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

160 

Arms Sales 

Question. The Saudis are under a persistent and real threat from Iran that 

reaches well beyond the borders of Yemen. The Obama Administration has recently 

refused to formally submit to Congress which Congress has informally approved already—several important sales notifications of Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) 

to the Kingdom, citing concerns about collateral civilian casualties stemming from 

the Saudis’ actions against the Houthis in Yemen. 

Given the urgent need to support a key ally in the region, is the Trump Administration committed to continuing arms sales to our Gulf allies, particularly PGMs, 

and if so, when do you expect the State Department to formally send the long-pending sales to Congress for formal review and approval? 

Answer. The conflict in Yemen is concerning to the United States for humanitarian and strategic reasons. Iran is supporting the Shia Houthi forces as part of 

a drive to extend its influence over broad swaths of the Middle East. Taking advantage of the ensuing civil war and collapse of the internationally recognized government’s authority, al-Qaeda and ISIS affiliates have taken control of territory elsewhere in Yemen. The United States should engage with Saudi Arabia and its other 

allies in the region to reduce the humanitarian toll of this conflict, mediate a solution that ensures stability, and prevent terrorists from targeting the American 

homeland. As part of that engagement, the United States should assist Saudi Arabia in securing its border against terrorism and attacks from Houthi forces, and 

work with Riyadh and other key regional allies to eliminate the threat of al-Qaeda. 

Weapons sales, including Precision-Guided Munitions, are an important U.S. policy 

tool. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

161 

SECRETARY-DESIGNATE TILLERSON’S ANSWERS TO

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CARDIN

Anti-Corruption 

Question. There is a growing body of evidence that poor governance—marked by 

high corruption and lack of government transparency—is a key driver of fragility 

and political instability in many parts of the world today. Citizens frustrated by government corruption, repression, and a loss of dignity and hope are more likely to 

tolerate or support violent extremist groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS and Boko 

Haram. Obviously this jeopardizes both the United States and its allies. 

Can you tell this Committee what concrete steps you will take, if confirmed, to 

promote good governance, anti-corruption, and transparency efforts around the 

world to help keep America safe? 

Answer. As I mentioned during the Committee’s hearing, I believe in transparency and accountability, not just for those countries who receive taxpayer dollars 

but also from all our development assistance agencies, programs, and implementing 

partners, to lead by example. Making programs more effective requires more than 

just efficiency. It is about doing the right things and encouraging other countries 

to do the right thing. That is why I believe in the MCC model, where it applies. 

I plan to conduct a complete and comprehensive review of our development assistance programs. 

Question. Will you commit to work with me and the committee to ensure that 

anti-corruption initiatives at the State Department receive the level of funding and 

personnel required by this essential priority? 

Answer. Yes. I look forward to working with you and the committee not only to 

be sure that anticorruption programs are adequately funded, but also to instill in 

our personnel working on those programs and on any international development effort that anti-corruption considerations are an integral part of their portfolio and 

how they do business every day. 

Question. As Secretary of State, how would you deal with the leaders of dictatorships where Exxon has operated for decades, but where people suffer due to a lack 

of the rule of law, limited transparency, endemic corruption and lack of international accountability (for example, Equatorial Guinea, Angola and Chad)? 

Answer. My tenure at ExxonMobil has ended. If confirmed, my only interests will 

be those of the United States, which I will pursue vigorously without favoritism. 

Question. During your time at ExxonMobil, the company reaped tremendous profits from its willingness to operate in challenging political environments, including 

by collaborating with some well-known autocratic and abusive leaders. How, if at 

all, do you envisage you might approach this challenge, if confirmed to be Secretary 

of State? How would respect for human rights, the rule of law, and a long-standing 

U.S. commitment to support anti-corruption and transparency measures factor into 

your foreign policy priorities? Would you aggressively and explicitly support all of 

the elements of the U.S. anti-kleptocracy initiative, first started under President 

George W. Bush, including denying visas to heads of state in oil-rich countries 

where Exxon may have business dealings, if they are credibly implicated in corruption? 

Answer. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil was committed to 

complying with U.S. laws, promoting the rule of law, and respecting human rights. 

If confirmed, human rights, the rule of law, and anti-corruption and transparency 

measures would be high priorities. 

Question. You and I have also discussed the anti-corruption legislation I introduced last year and will introduce in this new Congress, that identifies and ranks 

countries according to their levels of corruption. You know I believe that American 

values are more than the share-holder bottom line you successfully pursued at 

ExxonMobil that moral leadership is an asset. Despite your record of skepticism 

about sanctions, can you reassure me and the Committee that as Secretary of State 

you will advocate for strong rules to ensure that our government and private sector 

is operating in a transparent manner that makes it more difficult for corrupt leaders to siphon off wealth that should be benefiting all citizens of their country? Can 

I count on you to partner with me in your new role? 

Answer. Yes. 

Extractives Industry Transparency 

Question. Transparency and accountability are critical to good governance, the 

fight against corruption, and rule of law. I have worked to enhance transparency 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

162 

in the extractive industries through Section 1504 of Dodd-Frank—which requires 

extractive industry companies to disclose their payments to foreign governments at 

the project level. This Rule, often referred to as the Cardin-Lugar Rule, has been 

endorsed by Shell, BP, Total, the world’s largest mining company—BHP Billiton, 

and U.S. companies Kosmos Energy and Newmont, among others. 

What impact, if any, do you think resource payment transparency should have on 

U.S.government foreign assistance efforts? 

Answer. Where transparency is not the norm, using our development assistance 

to help establish a new norm should be a primary objective. During the hearing, 

I responded to questions from Senator Kaine about the so-called ‘‘Resource Curse’’ 

and to Senator Isakson ’s comments on the so-called ‘‘Dutch Disease.’’ I believe these 

countries have to be put on a pathway to taking responsibility for meeting the needs 

of their people. It is a different journey for each country, but those with resource 

wealth should have the expectation that any American or multinational business engaged there is doing so above-board and with transparency. Part of my job, if confirmed as Secretary of State will be to make sure that because American companies, 

NGOs, and development relief efforts are expected to play by the rules and abide 

by Dodd-Frank, Cardin-Lugar, FCPA , and other laws, that foreign companies or investors do not get an unfair advantage by cheating or keeping to a lower standard. 

Question. Please discuss any efforts you have undertaken at Exxon Mobil to advance transparency. 

Answer. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil strongly supported efforts to increase the transparency of government revenues from the extractive industries. 

Question. Exxon sits on the global board of the EITI and has released its tax payments in other countries, but not the United States. Meanwhile, its competitors like 

Shell and BP have released their tax payments in the United States. Why has 

Exxon Mobil, under your leadership, refused to report their tax payments in the 

U.S., as required by the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), which 

Exxon has stated it supports? 

Answer. The BIT/ called for the disclosure of government payments relating to 

U.S. oil and gas production. However, ExxonMobil’s U.S. income tax represents the 

net result of its worldwide upstream, downstream, and chemical businesses. The 

EITI did not require the disclosure of these tax payments. 

Question. As Secretary of State, how would you deal with the leaders of dictatorships where Exxon has operated for decades, but where people suffer due to a lack 

of the rule of law, limited transparency, endemic corruption and lack of international accountability (for example, Equatorial Guinea, Angola and Chad)? 

Answer. My tenure at ExxonMobil has ended. If confirmed, my only interests will 

be those of the United States, which I will pursue vigorously without favoritism. 

Where transparency is not the norm, using our development assistance to help establish a new norm should be a primary objective. During the hearing, I responded 

to questions from Senator Kaine about the so-called ‘‘Resource Curse’’ and to Senator Isakson ’s comments on the so-called ‘‘Dutch Disease.’’ I believe these countries 

have to be put on a pathway to taking responsibility for meeting the needs of their 

people. It is a different journey for each country, but those with resource wealth 

should have the expectation that any American or multinational business engaged 

there is doing so above-board and with transparency. Part of my job, if confirmed 

as Secretary of State, will be to make sure that because American companies, 

NGOs, and development relief efforts are expected to play by the rules and abide 

by Dodd-Frank, Cardin-Lugar, FCPA, and other laws, that foreign companies or investors do not get an unfair advantage by cheating or keeping to a lower standard. 

American companies should not retreat or be sidelined, because when our people 

have a level playing field, both countries benefit. The ref ore, it is important not 

just to have transparency rules in place but also to be sure everyone is abiding by 

them. 

Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, how would you handle poor resource 

revenue transparency by governments with which we partner, support, or ally? 

What do you believe to be the U.S. role in encouraging greater transparency and 

accountability among governments? 

Answer. As I stated at the hearing and during questions and above, if confirmed, 

I would take a cleareyed, comprehensive view and understand all the tools available 

to achieve U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives most effectively. 

Where transparency is not the norm, using our development assistance to help esFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

163 

tablish a new norm should be a primary objective, so that other assistance program 

resources do not go to waste. 

Helsinki/OSCE 

Question. How would you evaluate the potential of the OSCE to advance U.S. security interests and promote cooperation in Europe, and will the Trump Administration make full use of that potential by maintaining a strong emphasis on the 

OSCE’s Human Dimension, including by vigorously raising human rights violations 

in Russia and elsewhere at OSCE fora, as well as supporting and, if possible, increasing a robust OSCE field presence, particularly in Ukraine? Do you agree with 

the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly’s characterization of the Russian Federation’s 

actions in Ukraine since 2014 as clear, gross and uncorrected violations of Helsinki 

Principles and that we should at least say so regardless of what specific measures 

we may decide it is in our interest to take at a particular time? 

Answer. As has been the case historically, the OSCE remains an important forum 

for promoting security cooperation, democratic values, and human rights across Europe and the states of the former Soviet Union. 

It is in U.S. interests to ensure that the OSCE’ s potential is fully utilized—including its Human Dimension and field missions in conflict zones like Ukraine. 

The OSCE offers an important arena where human rights concerns can be raised, 

and members, like Russia, can be held accountable on their commitments to the 

OSCE’ s core principles. 

It is clear that Russia’s aggression against Ukraine stands in stark violation of 

Helsinki’s defense of the inviolability of national frontiers and respect for territorial 

integrity. 

The United States should not shy away from speaking up for the principles and 

values that it holds dear, especially when they are flagrantly violated. 

Law of the Sea 

Question. On June 8, 2012, you sent a letter to this Committee expressing Exxon’s 

support for U.S. ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the 

Sea (UNCLOS). Could you please provide details on why you believed the treaty 

was beneficial to U.S. commercial interests, whether you continue to believe that it 

is beneficial to U.S. commercial interests today, and whether you will express to the 

President-elect the view that ratification of UNCLOS should be a priority? 

Answer. As indicated in my June 8, 2012, letter, as Chairman and CEO of 

ExxonMobil, I supported U.S. ratification of U.N. LOS because it would provide a 

legal basis for the settlement of conflicting claims in areas—recognized for sovereignty purposes under U.N. LOS. Resolution of these claims would help support 

natural resource development as well as other commercial interests. 

I understand UNCLOS has been debated on several occasions by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The United States should only join treaties that advance U.S. national interests, and I will, if confirmed, examine U.N. LOS to determine whether it is in the continued best interests of the United States to be a party. 

SEC Inquiries into ExonMobil Subsidiary 

Question. In January 6, 2006, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sent 

a letter to ExxonMobil noting that the company and its subsidiary, ‘‘may have existing or anticipated operations associated with Iran, Syria and Sudan, which are identified as state sponsors of terrorism by the U.S. State Department and subject to 

export controls imposed, in part, as a result of actions in support of terrorism and/ 

or pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.’’ The letter noted 

that ExxonMobil’s ‘‘Form 10-K does not contain any disclosure about operations in 

these countries.’’ In response, on February 7, 2006, ExxonMobil released a letter acknowledging that its ‘‘Chemical segment’’ had sold, between 2003 and 2005, approximately $67.7 million chemicals to Syrian customers, and, furthermore, that 

Infineum, a European joint venture by ExxonMobil and the Shell Oil Company; had, 

during the same time period, made smaller transactions with Syria and Sudan and 

sold $53.2 million worth of chemicals and fuel additives to the Iranian National Oil 

Company, listed by the Treasury Department as an affiliate of the Iranian Revolution Guard Corps, which the United States has labeled a direct sponsor of terrorist 

groups. ExxonMobil stated that ‘‘no United States person is involved in those business transactions.’’ which were instead carried out by Infineum’s European affiliates. During your hearing on Wednesday, in response to questions concerning this 

issue, you stated. ‘‘I do not recall the details of the circumstances around what you 

just described’’ and that you ‘‘would have to look back and refresh myself.’’ 

Given the sensitive nature of how these countries are identified under U.S. law, 

would ExxonMobil’s senior leadership team be made aware of these transactions beFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

164 

fore they were approved? Please provide to the committee the Minutes of the Exxon 

Board meeting discussing the 2006 SEC letter. 

Answer. The 2006 correspondence from the SEC concerned transactions that predated my tenure as Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil and arrived shortly after I 

became CEO. I am not aware that the transactions were discussed at an 

ExxonMobil Board meeting, nor do I have copies of Board meeting minutes in my 

personal files. Given the size of ExxonMobil and the content of the response I also 

do not recall whether the issue was elevated to me for advance review and comment. 

Question. Why would ExxonMobil not disclose the transactions in the Form 10- 

K, no matter their size? 

Answer. I understand that ExxonMobil provided a full explanation for its treatment of these transactions in its publicly filed response to the SEC’s January 6, 

2006, letter. 

Question. You also stated Wednesday that ‘‘sanctions are a powerful tool, and they 

are an important tool, in terms of deterring additional action.’’ Do you think it is 

appropriate for U.S. businesses to seek to sidestep U.S. sanctions laws? 

Answer. No, and during my tenure as Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, the 

company’s policy was to comply fully with U.S. sanctions laws. 

Question. Would you say that these sales were made in a manner consistent with 

the intent of the United States government in ‘‘deterring additional action’’ from the 

target countries? 

Answer. To the best of my knowledge, these transactions complied fully with U.S. 

sanctions laws. 

Question. Would you characterize Exxon and Infineum’s transactions with Iran, 

Syria and Sudan, as well as subsequent disclosure of these transactions, as the 

model for how companies should transact business with countries identified as state 

sponsors of terrorism? 

Answer. Based on my knowledge of corporate operating principles at ExxonMobil 

during my tenure as Chairman and CEO, I would characterize these transactions 

as fully compliant with the U.S. sanctions laws in place at the time. 

Refugees 

Question. The refugees fleeing violence in Syria are only a fraction of the over 65 

million people displaced around the world today. Taken together, they would make 

up the 21st largest and the third fastest growing country in the world. This historic 

humanitarian crisis has had a destabilizing effect on some of our allies in the Middle East, such as Jordan and Turkey, and even our closest allies in Europe, including Germany and France. 

As Secretary of State, how will you confront this humanitarian crisis and how, 

in your view, can the U.S. better work with partners to provide life-saving assistance to refugees? In response to the global refugee crisis, the U.S. convened a Global 

Summit on Refugees in September 2016. What steps will you take to carry forward 

this convening role and to ensure the U.S. and other countries follow-through with 

their pledges from the Summit? 

Answer. It is my belief that it is important for refugees to be safe from harm, 

wherever they may be. Should I be confirmed as Secretary, I will work to implement 

the President-elect’s stated goal of establishing safe zones to help ensure the protection of displaced Syrians. I will also work with our partners around the world to 

help continue humanitarian aid contributions, pursuant to direction by the President. 

Question. How should the U.S. follow up and implement the commitments made 

at the World Humanitarian Summit and U.N. Summit for Refugees and Migrants? 

Answer. While I am not aware of all of the commitments made by the current 

Administration at the World Humanitarian Summit and the U.N. Summit for Refugees, should I be confirmed as Secretary, I will continue to work with our global 

partners to carry out the President-elect’s priorities with regard to the global refugee crisis. 

Question. As Secretary of State, what lessons from the successful integration of 

previous waves of refugees would you seek to apply to welcoming refugees in our 

current era? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

165 

Answer. Because I have not yet been fully briefed on the historical trends of U.S. 

refugee resettlement, I cannot comment on what lessons I would or would not seek 

to apply to future refugee resettlement. 

Question. What role will you take to support U.S. leadership by securing the necessary investments to respond to humanitarian crises around the world? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed as Secretary, I will work with our partners around 

the world to help continue humanitarian aid contributions, pursuant to direction by 

the President. 

Question. The global displacement crisis is driven by internal and transnational 

conflict—including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and 

Yemen—and a critical challenge of our time, with tremendous regional stability and 

other geopolitical consequences across the globe. What role does the U.S. have to 

address both the causes and consequences of the displacement? 

Answer. The United States should seek to lead efforts to help promote peace and 

to ensure the ability of displaced persons to repatriate. 

U.S. Refugee Admissions 

Question. How do you think refugee resettlement benefits U.S. interests abroad? 

Answer. I do not have a comprehensive understanding of the historical impact of 

refugee resettlement on U.S. interests abroad. Should I be confirmed, I will work 

to further my understanding. 

Question. Do you support a robust refugee program? 

Answer. I believe that refugees and other displaced persons should be safe from 

harm, no matter their location. 

Question. How would a decrease in refugee admissions to the US, or a change in 

the nationalities that are admitted as refugees, hinder the ability of the U.S. government to encourage other countries to resettle refugees and keep their borders 

open to refugees? 

Answer. I do not have a comprehensive understanding of every permutation of the 

U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, or how hypothetical changes to the program 

would change the ability of the U.S. government to encourage other countries to resettle refugees. Should I be confirmed, I will work to further my understanding. 

Question. Do you believe the U.S. should deny certain refugees admission to the 

U.S. based on their religion or nationality? If not, how will you protect against it? 

Answer. I do not believe anyone should be discriminated against based on their 

religion or nationality. 

Question. How would a ban on resettlement from certain countries, such as Syria 

and Somalia, impact the U.S. government’s diplomatic efforts to foster regional stability? 

Answer. I do not have a comprehensive understanding of every aspect of the Refugee Admissions Program, or how hypothetical changes to the program could impact 

efforts to foster regional stability. Should I be confirmed, I will work to further my 

understanding. 

Question. The U.S. resettlement program focuses on resettling the refugees who 

need this solution the most, such as those with urgent medical needs, victims of torture, single female households, and families with very specific circumstances whose 

protection or assistance needs cannot be met through existing humanitarian assistance programs in their host countries. Do you support this approach? 

Answer. The determination of which individuals would or would not be considered 

refugees for purposes of resettlement in the United States is governed by applicable 

provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Should I be confirmed as Secretary, I will faithfully execute our laws consistent with the Constitution. 

Question. Over the course of the last two years there has been increased public 

concern, as well as significant misinformation, surrounding the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. Refugees are subject to the most rigorous and detailed security 

screenings of any category of persons -immigrant or visitor—to enter the US, in a 

process that on average takes 18-24 months and involves over a dozen national security, law enforcement and intelligence agencies. It is a security process that has 

been reviewed, continuously improved (including as new technological advances are 

introduced) and reaffirmed under both the Obama and Bush administration. Understanding that you are limited in what you can say in this setting, can you explain 

what specifically you would do to improve the existing program, without decreasing 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

166 

the number of refugees who are resettled, especially in light of the urgent humanitarian need? 

Answer. I have not yet been briefed on all aspects of the U.S. Refugee Admissions 

Program, but should be confirmed as Secretary, I will faithfully administer the Refugee Admissions Program consistent with law and the policy preferences of the 

President-elect. 

Question. Many refugees in the U.S. are waiting anxiously for the resettlement 

of their family members. Family unity is a fundamental human need, and family 

reunification is also a key component of obligations under the Refugee Convention 

and a critical element of successful integration into the US. Do you support family 

reunification policies? 

Answer. I have not yet been briefed on all aspects of the U.S. Refugee Admissions 

Program, thus I cannot make a determination regarding family reunification under 

the Program. 

Role of the Secretary of State 

Question. Since 9/11 but especially in the last decade, the State Department’s ability to carry out its functions as the lead agency responsible for the supervision and 

general direction of U.S. foreign assistance has been eroded, in Large part by increasing authorities and funding for the Department of Defense to manage programs intended to build the capacity of foreign security forces. In many cases such 

programs have a dubious track record with respect to cost-effectiveness, sustainability, and overall value to U.S. foreign policy. While the Department of Defense 

and many other federal departments and agencies have important roles to play 

overseas, the Secretary of State should effectively coordinate the various programs 

to ensure such assistance supports broader U.S. foreign policy objectives. Do you 

agree that the State Department should play a leading, and at a minimum a concurrent, role in the general direction, and to the extent practicable, the formulation of 

overseas programs implemented by other department and agencies when the Secretary determines that such programs impact U.S. foreign policy? 

Answer. The Secretary of State is the principal foreign policy advisor to the President. Overseas, our Ambassadors have authority over all U.S. government agencies 

in their country of assignment, with the one exception being uniformed military 

under the authority of a combatant command. Clearly our engagements overseas in 

the past decade have had a heavy military component, related to our wartime deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq. In those contexts, and in many others, the State 

Department and other civilian foreign affairs agencies have worked very closely 

with their military counterparts—something that I would expect to continue in the 

Trump Administration. Diplomacy and military force are complementary instruments of our national power. In war zones the military can be expected to have the 

lead; elsewhere, the Department of State should have the primary role in directing 

overseas activities. If we are both confirmed, I would expect Defense Secretary 

Mattis and myself to work these matters out in ways that best advance American 

interests—either directly or through the NSC process. 

Flynn 

Question. While General Michael Flynn was sitting in on the classified national 

security briefings given to Donald Trump, starting in August 2016, his lobbying 

firm, the Flynn Intel Group, was providing foreign clients with ‘‘all-source intelligence su;,port.’’ The Flynn Intel Group’s list of clients has included the firm Innova 

BV, which is owned by Turkish businessman Kamil Ekim Alptekin, who has close 

ties to President Erdogan of Turkey, and has paid the firm ‘‘tens of thousands of 

dollars’’ for analysis on world affairs. This relationship was not publicly disclosed 

when General Flynn published an op-ed calling for the extradition of Fethullah 

Gulen, a Turkish preacher in Pennsylvania who has been blamed by President 

Erdogan for the July 2016 failed military coup. Do you see any problems with this? 

Bradley Moss, an attorney who routinely represents defense contractors in security 

clearance disputes, stated that ‘‘Security adjudicators would have concerns that 

someone with Flynn’s level of experience wouldn’t think twice about sitting in on 

a classified briefing while working for foreign clients,’’ and that ‘‘The moment he sat 

in on classified briefings, his association with his own company had to be severed. 

By not doing that he exposed himself unnecessarily to foreign influence and raised 

questions about his good judgment.’’ Do you agree with Mr. Moss’s characterization 

of this incident? 

Answer. I do not have knowledge of General Flynn’s business activities and associations and am not able to comment. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

167 

Crowley 

Question. Monica Crowley, the appointee for senior director of strategic communications at the NSA, has claimed frequently that Clinton aide Huma Abedin has 

‘‘ties to Islamic supremacists.’’ has defended birtherist conspiracy theories as ‘‘legitimate questions.’’ and has tweeted that President Obama has gotten away ‘‘w/ bloody 

murder (literally).’’ Of greatest concern to me was her frankly frightening claim that 

‘‘we are in a holy war’’ against Islamic terrorists that pits ‘‘the Constitution versus 

the Quran on every level. The Constitution is not built to fight this war.’’ Do you 

agree that we are in a ‘‘holy war’’, and that our Constitution was not built to fight 

this war? Would you characterize such sentiments as reckless? 

Answer. I cannot speak to the comments of others. 

Chief of Mission Authority 

Question. Do you believe in chief of mission authority (COM)? Will you agree, if 

confirmed as Secretary of State, to do everything possible to ensure adequate support and guidance to U.S. ambassadors deployed overseas to ensure the COM authority is adhered to? Will you, if confirmed, work to ensure that all non-State Department officials overseas are aware of COM authority, understand why it is necessary, and commit not to undermine it? 

Answer. Yes. I fully support Chief of Mission authority for the State Department 

and for all our ambassadors, and will ensure, if confirmed, all U.S. government personnel, with the exception of those under a combatant commander, also are fully 

aware and understand. 

Budget 

Question. In President Obama’s first term, Secretaries Hillary Clinton and Robert 

Gates joined forces to argue against cuts to the State Department’s budget. They 

argued that a balanced national security strategy requires a balanced national security budget. Do you believe the State Department requires a larger budget? 

Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to conducting a thorough review of all aspects of the Department, including the resource needs necessary to implement the 

President’s foreign policy objectives, and to equip, train, and protect, our men and 

women who serve daily on the front line of diplomacy, and to be a careful steward 

of the taxpayer dollars entrusted to me. 

Diversity 

Question. The Department of State Authorities Act of Fiscal Year 2017, Public 

Law No: 114-323, requires the Secretary to report on the progress the Department 

of State is making to recruit and retain highly qualified diverse candidates to the 

Foreign Service and Civil Service. If confirmed, what would your strategy be to diversify our State Department workforce and implement the letter of the law in creating effective mechanisms to recruit and retain diverse candidates? 

Answer. Throughout my more than four decades in business, I have worked hard 

to build an inclusive and diverse workforce. I will work to ensure the Department 

reflects the great diversity of America. 

Question. American leadership in the world rests on ‘‘the three D’s.’’development, 

diplomacy, and defense. Together, these policy tools enable our government to address global concerns and to ensure our national security. The integrity of this approach relies on recognition of the value of coordinated, but distinct and independent, development and diplomacy agendas. Development must stand alongside 

diplomatic and defense activities, and cannot be subsumed by either. 

Looking at a proposed Cabinet in which a number of national security roles would 

be played by military generals, how will you elevate diplomacy and development to 

ensure they’re on equal footing? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I do not believe I will have to ‘‘elevate’’ the role 

of diplomacy. I believe that role will be both respected and supported by the President-elect and his cabinet. It is my understanding that the retired senior military 

officers that the President-elect selected for his cabinet understand well the importance of statecraft, diplomacy, and the role of the State Department in making and 

implementing foreign policy. It is my understanding both General Mattis and General Kelly so stated in their written and oral testimony. By reputation, I believe 

those are sincerely their beliefs. Further, I believe the President-elect knows well 

that soft and hard power work best when they are used for the right task and in 

the proper balance. 

Question. Will you support a fully empowered USAID Administrator? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, yes. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

168 

Question. Can you commit to this Committee that USAID will not be subsumed 

under the State Department? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. I understand there are different views on this issue. Should I be confirmed, I look forward to consulting with and working with Congress on this issue. 

Question. What is your view about how to balance the need for a strong, independent USAID with the necessity of coordinating with the State Department and 

other foreign policy agencies? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. I understand there are different views on this issue. Should I be confirmed, my number one goal for our foreign assistance programs would be to ensure 

that foreign assistance is sufficient and effective consistent with U.S. interests. 

Should I be confirmed, I look forward to consulting and working with Congress on 

this issue. 

Conflicts of Interest 

Question. If confirmed, you will be handling the most sensitive and significant negotiations between our country and the rest of the world. As you know, I am very 

concerned about possible conflicts of interest with our foreign policy that may arise 

from our President’s overseas business arrangements. How can you confirm for us 

that your negotiations and interactions with other countries will steer clear of such 

conflicts? 

Answer. I share your concern about avoiding possible conflicts of interest-and I 

am grateful to the ethics officials at the Office of Government Ethics and State Department for working in consultation with me to prepare the Ethics Agreement that 

I submitted to the Committee on January 3, 2017, which sets forth the steps I 

agreed to take to avoid any such conflicts if confirmed as Secretary. That Ethics 

Agreement has been praised by Walter Shaub, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, as a ‘‘sterling model’’ for other nominees. 

In addition, as I testified at my hearing in response to a question from Senator 

Udall, I would expect to seek-and follow-the advice of State Department ethics counsel with respect to potential conflicts of interest. 

Working with Congress 

Question. On behalf of the American people, this Congress—and this Committee— 

has an important role to play in U.S. diplomacy and development. When there is 

transparency, partnership, and trust between Congress and the State Department, 

it is possible to confront the many challenges the United States faces as a united 

front. In fact, eight distinct foreign aid bills were enacted into law in the last Congress alone, underscoring the importance of the relationship between theExecutive 

and Congress. How would you engage Congress, and will you pledge to start a new 

chapter of transparency and partnership with this Committee? 

Answer. As I stated in my testimony, both in my opening statement and in response to Senators’ questions, I believe that accountability, transparency, and integrity start at the top, and if confirmed as Secretary, 

I intend to model those values. The American people deserve access to their institutions, like the State Department, and I will approach the people’s representatives 

in Congress as partners, with that same transparency. I will engage in the comprehensive, bottom-up reviews discussed earlier upon taking office, if confirmed, and 

will work with Congress to implement solutions. Beginning with the ongoing budget 

and appropriations processes for the current fiscal year, if confirmed, I will ensure 

the State Department takes Congressional guidance seriously when responding to 

committee requests and reports required in the recent re-authorization act and 

other legislation, with actionable recommendations when appropriate, not just status reports. 

Taxes 

Question. Have you had any household employees (including but not limited to 

housekeepers, nannies, gardeners, handymen, drivers, caretakers) that you have become aware may not have had legal documentation or for whom taxes were not 

properly withheld? If yes, please provide details and an explanation of the issue. 

Answer. As I mentioned during my confirmation hearing on January 11, I intend 

to respect the longstanding tradition of privacy of individuals’ tax returns. Because 

answering this question would require me in part to comment on third parties’ confidential information, I do not believe it is appropriate to answer it. As I have previously indicated in response to the original committee questionnaire, I believe I 

have timely met all of my tax obligations. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

169 

Prioritization 

Question. It has been reported that, during your tenure at ExxonMobil, the company favored political stability in developing countries where it did business, even 

if such stability meant the continuation of authoritarian regimes. But as the world’s 

leading democracy, our values and interests are far broader and more complex than 

corporate prerogatives and shareholders, including support for democracy, free expression, and strong protections of human rights. How will you as Secretary of State 

be the voice of these deeply held American values and support open, transparent, 

and accountable governance overseas, and protect those who fight for justice and democracy in their own societies? Will advancing human rights and democracy be a 

top priority for you alongside other interests like national security, energy, and economic issues? In light of your career focused on energy issues, what is your vision 

for advancing human rights and democracy? Have you ever raised concerns in this 

area with leaders in countries in your prior professional capacities? 

Answer. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, I did speak 

with foreign leaders about human rights and democracy concerns. As I expressed 

during my confirmation hearing on January 11, human rights violations, if left 

unaddressed, cause great upheaval in civil society. I believe that respect for human 

rights and the rule of law are essential foundations for a stable and functioning society. 

I believe that American core values include standing up against violations of 

international law, war crimes, human rights violations, and corruption. The United 

States should speak up for the principles of democracy and free speech, and these 

principles must be at the forefront of the U.S. foreign policy agenda. Our approach 

to human rights begins by acknowledging that leadership requires moral clarity. 

The United States does not face a choice on defending human rights. Our values 

are our interests when it comes to human rights and humanitarian assistance. Supporting human rights is essential to showing the watching world what America 

stands for. 

That said, it is not reasonable to expect that every policy or position undertaken 

by the United States will be driven solely by human rights considerations, especially 

when the security of the American people is at stake. But the advancement of 

human rights is integral to U.S. foreign policy in many situations. For example, I 

believe it was a mistake not to formally integrate human rights concessions from 

Cuba as part of our recent engagements with that nation. The Castro regime has 

not been held accountable for its conduct. That serves neither the interests of Cubans or Americans. 

DRG Budget 

Question. According to Freedom House, freedom in the world has been in decline 

over the last decade. Meanwhile, as seen in the President’s budget justification, the 

actual spending for Democracy, Rights, and Governance (DRG) has fallen from $3.27 

billion in 2010 to $1.93 billion in 2015. An opportunity exists for the incoming administration and Congress to reinforce U.S. leadership in the promotion of DRG and 

to assist those seeking freedom and opportunity in the face of repressive regimes 

and governments. Secretary Condoleezza Rice, as she sat before this panel, stated, 

‘‘America and the free world are once again engaged in a long-term struggle against 

an ideology of hatred and tyranny and terror and hopelessness.’’ This is still true 

today. As Secretary of State, how will you uphold democracy and protect its fundamentals—including support for elections, democratic governance, civil society, 

rule of law, free speech, and human rights protection, especially as people around 

the world-who share our values—struggle against the dangers presented by repressive and authoritarian regimes and governments? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support the activities and programs on human rights 

and democracy conducted by the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, 

and Human Rights, most notably in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and 

Labor, and the Office to Combat and Monitor Trafficking in Persons. 

DRL conducts human rights investigations, reports on country conditions, speeches and votes in the U.N. and creates asylum profiles. DRL develops, edits, and submits to Congress an annual 5,000-page report on human rights conditions in over 

190 countries. DRL also provides relevant information on country conditions to the 

Department of Homeland Security and to immigration judges in asylum cases. 

Balancing DRG and Security Assistance 

Question. Are there specific steps that should be taken to ensure that we are complementing our security assistance with democracy and governance funding in countries with poor human rights and democracy records, particularly in Africa and the 

Middle East? Should we be conditioning our security sector assistance-such as the 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

170 

provision of lethal equipment-on countries meeting some sort of governance and or 

rule of law standards? 

Answer. The primary responsibility of the federal government is protecting the security of the American people. In some instances that responsibility obliges the 

United States to provide security assistance to nations that do not share our respect 

for human rights and democracy. The conditioning of security assistance on the improvement on human rights is something that must be considered on a country-bycountry basis. 

Business Conduct and Labor Rights 

Question. Will you ensure American business is subject to high standards of performance on human rights, and held accountable when involved in human rights 

abuses abroad? Through which steps? 

The Department of State plays an important role in promoting labor rights and 

enhancing economic security and working conditions for workers abroad. Will you 

continue to support and strengthen international labor standards and fundamental 

principles and rights at work? Through which steps? 

Will you support and expand upon the National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct? Through which steps? 

Answer. If confirmed I will support the efforts of the State Department’s Office 

of International Labor Affairs to strengthen respect for labor rights in the global 

economy and advance U.S. foreign policy goals related to human rights, democracy 

promotion, trade, and sustainable development. 

If confirmed, I will review the National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct to ensure it strikes the proper balance between the promotion of U.S. businesses abroad and the protection of the human rights of the people in the nations 

in which U.S. businesses operate. 

Women’s Empowerment 

Question. As you know, the State Department places a high priority on global 

women’s empowerment, gender equity, and combating violence against women. Gender inequality and gender-based violence are impediments to development, economic 

advancements, democracy and security. One of the State Department’s core missions 

is to promote gender equality and equal rights for men and women around the 

world, including the right of all women and girls to decide if, when and whom they 

marry. This understanding has transcended party lines. As former Secretary of 

State Condoleezza Rice noted, ‘‘In today’s modem world, no country can achieve lasting success and stability and security if half of its population is sitting on the sidelines.’’ More recently, Secretary of State Kerry noted: ‘‘Our path forward is clear. 

We must prevent and respond to gender-based violence . . . We must open the doors 

for women to fully participate in society—as farmers, entrepreneurs, engineers, executives, and leaders of their countries. And we must invest in the next generation 

of women by making sure girls can go to school in a safe environment.’’ 

If you are confirmed as Secretary of State, how will you ensure that empowering 

women remains a core pillar of U.S. foreign policy? 

How do you intend to build on the progress that has been made to ensure that 

our foreign policy reflects our national values that men and women should enjoy 

equal rights? Among other things, as Secretary of State, how will you build on the 

work of your predecessors to elevate and fully integrate gender analysis into U.S. 

foreign policy? How will you support continued development and implementation of 

the U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally and 

the U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security? 

How will you ensure gender-focused metrics such as constraints on women’s mobility, levels of violence against women, rates of child marriage and girls’ access to 

quality education, are integrated into programs and assessments? 

Answer. As I stated in my hearing testimony, the issue of empowering women is 

personally important to me. I have seen firsthand the impact of empowering women, 

particularly regarding their participation in economic activities in the less-developed 

parts of the world. Investing in women produces a multiplier effect—women reinvest 

a large portion of their income in their families and communities, which also furthers economic growth and stability. As I indicated, I believe women’s empowerment 

is an important part of our foreign aid efforts and I will support such programs, 

including efforts to mitigate the impact of violence against women. 

Intercountry Adoption 

Question. In 1994 The Department of State created The Office of Children’s Issues 

to actively engage in intercountry adoption and international parental child abduction. From 2010-2013 the State Department reported more than 5,000 American 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

171 

children were kidnapped overseas by a parent, including children of Marylanders. 

Few of these kidnapped American citizen children have made it home, and it is 

often left to victimized parents to fight battles in foreign countries and foreign 

courts where the deck is stacked against them. State Department officials have testified to the value of quiet diplomacy in resolving these cases, yet it has not yielded 

the needed results for American families. What efforts and public actions would 

your State Department take to bring internationally kidnapped American children 

home? 

Answer. In 1988, the United States became a party to the Hague Convention on 

the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (‘‘the Convention’’), which establishes a mechanism to enforce the return of abducted children to the United States. 

In 1988 Congress also enacted the International Child Abduction Remedies Act 

(ICARA) to authorize state and federal courts to hear cases under the Convention 

and to allow the U.S. Central Authority under the Convention (the Office of Children’s Issues in the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs) to access information in U.S. records on the location of the abducted child and the abducting 

parent. More recently, in 2014, Congress enacted Public Law No. 113-150, the Sean 

and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act of 

2014 (the ‘‘Goldman Act’’), to ensure compliance with the Convention by countries 

with which the United States has reciprocal obligations, and to establish mechanisms for the return of children who were abducted to other countries. The Goldman 

Act provides a variety of tools for engaging with foreign governments to encourage 

them to send home American children who have been abducted and brought overseas. Such tools include the delivery of a demarche as well as the suspension of foreign assistance. It is heartbreaking for parents to be separated from their children, 

and it is crucial for the State Department to safeguard the wellbeing of U.S. citizens 

abroad, especially children, who are the most vulnerable among them. As I consider 

the best strategy to improve State Department efforts to address international child 

abduction I will assess the full range of tools provided by the authorities discussed 

above and by any other applicable laws. 

Civil Society 

Question. Civil society around the world continues to be under threat. We traditionally talk about the threat from governments and autocratic regimes, but we 

would be remiss not to talk about the threats to civil society from powerful business 

entities like Exxon. In recent years Exxon has publicly challenged civil society 

groups, journalists and philanthropists investigating its record on climate science- 

---going so far as to say their activities amount to a conspiracy. In my view, civil 

society is one the most important actors in advancing democracy, increasing transparency and countering corruption, and we must continue to vigorously defend these 

non-governmental entities. 

Do you support civil society organizations’ freedoms to associate, assemble, and 

communicate both publicly and privately? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. What role do you believe the State Department should play in supporting and defending civil society around the globe? 

Answer. I believe defending civil society should be integral to U.S. foreign policy 

and statecraft. Should I be confirmed, I commit to reviewing current department 

programs and assessing them to see if they are adequate. 

Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, how would you engage with civil society? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I would make engagement a priority. 

Question. Will you commit to prioritize meeting with civil society groups during 

your travels as Secretary of State? 

Answer. Yes. 

International Disability Rights 

Question. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities entered into 

force 10 years ago. Since then, 170 nations have ratified this basic human rights 

treaty. Studies show that the Treaty has already begun to positively affect national 

constitutions by generating new language on safeguarding rights and including people with disabilities in civil society. The United States signed the Treaty in 2009, 

based in part on the similarities between existing law (The Americans with Disabilities Act) and the Treaty. Bipartisan efforts were made in 2011 and 2012 to ratify, 

but failed narrowly in the Senate. If confirmed, will you advise President-elect 

Trump to again submit the Treaty to the Senate for advice and consent? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

172 

Answer. In December 2012, the Senate considered a resolution of advice and consent to ratification/or the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (.’’he 

Convention’’). This resolution was voted on and was not agreed to. The United 

States is strongly committed to protecting the rights of disabled Americans through 

the legal protections afforded by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and 

other applicable laws, and to working cooperatively with like-minded partner countries interested in strengthening their own disabilities rights laws. If confirmed, my 

advice to the President-elect regarding the question of whether to transmit the Convention to the Senate again for its advice and consent will be based on such factors 

as whether the Convention benefits Americans who live in the United States and 

whether the Convention improves disability rights in other countries, thus benefiting Americans living abroad, the Convention’s effects on U.S. sovereignty, and the 

Convention’s impact on existing protections in the law and under the Constitution. 

LGBTQ 

Question. As a board member of Boy Scouts of America, you lobbied for inclusion 

of homosexual youth, based on the understanding that ‘‘the mission [had] not 

changed,’’ and I thank you for that worthwhile effort. In Uganda and a number of 

other U.S. aid recipient countries LGBTQ activity is illegal. In a number of these 

regions—from Africa and the Caribbean to the Former Soviet Union—we have seen 

lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people targeted for simply 

being who they are. They have been criminalized, arrested, tortured and even killed 

simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. In the last few years, 

the U.S. has therefore begun to include the human rights of LGBTQ people among 

the wide array of human rights that we’ve fought for and protected from religious 

and ethnic minorities to political dissidents and journalists. As Secretary of State, 

how do you intend to advance LGBTQ, and other human rights, as to stay true to 

the mission of America of ‘‘freedom and justice for all.’’ Will you commit to fully empowering the Special Envoy for the Rights of LGBTQ Persons? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed as Secretary of State, I would be charged with promoting American values on the world stage, and that means standing for universal 

human rights and fighting for the dignity of every person. The United States has 

an obligation to stand strongly for those who fight against discrimination worldwide. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, the United States must continue to display a commitment to personal liberty, human dignity, and principled action in foreign policy. The State Department under my leadership will work aggressively to 

advance human rights for everyone. 

Trafficking in Persons 

Question. Trafficking for sexual exploitation is a horrific crime which we must 

end. Trafficking for labor is also horrible crime. Of the estimated 20.9 million victims of human trafficking worldwide, the International Labor Organization reports 

the 68 percent of those enslaved are trapped in labor trafficking. Yet, only 7 percent 

of the 6.609 convictions reported worldwide last year were labor cases. Labor traffickers operate with near impunity across the globe, in large part because of the increased resources it takes to recognize, investigate and prosecute these cases. What 

can the State Department do to help build this expertise globally and ensure that 

more labor cases are identified and perpetrators of slavery prosecuted? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to ensuring that the State Department 

does all that it can to assist in the fight against human trafficking. I commit to 

working tirelessly with the President-elect, representatives of the National Security 

Council, and other federal agencies. Also as I stated previously, I believe the United 

States should continue to lead international efforts to combat trafficking in persons. 

In particular, in order to do so, I believe the Trafficking in Persons report should 

be viewed as credible. The report remains a valuable diplomatic tool Should I be 

confirmed, I will direct the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking and Persons 

(OMTCP) to integrate empirical and data-based metrics into the rankings and evaluations for the report in order to improve the report’s objectivity. 

Genocide/Atrocity Prevention 

Question. Most of the approximately 1 million people who were slaughtered in the 

Rwandan genocide died in the first few weeks. In countries such as Syria, South 

Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, and Myanmar, mass atrocities are occurring and could 

worsen. When crises reach such levels, options are limited, risky, expensive, and 

may not be sufficiently timely. Investing in early prevention of mass atrocities saves 

both lives and valuable resources. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

173 

What will you do to strengthen existing atrocity prevention initiatives, to ensure 

that atrocity prevention is institutionalized in the national security structure, and 

to promote international cooperation on atrocity prevention? 

Answer. Atrocity crimes have occurred with such frequency in the past 100 years 

that various academic and advocacy groups have identified patterns which indicate 

that a society is moving toward mass violence. What we know from this research 

is that atrocity crimes tend not to happen suddenly, that there are early warning 

signs which serve as indication of the need for diplomatic action. When the killings, 

rapes, and dispossession have started, it is already, in most cases, too late. 

Part of the State Department’s mission should be to gather the best advice and 

scholarship in this field to help us determine the early indicators of atrocity crimes; 

determine how this has informed programs Department-wide; and work to further 

integrate these insights Department-wide, especially at the bureau level, to ensure 

that our diplomatic corps is prepared to identify any early warning signs for atrocity 

crimes. 

Human rights violations, as we have seen with the case of ISIS, often spill over 

into national security issues. Properly understanding and addressing these with a 

human rights context is important, not only because the United States should promote human rights, but also because of the national security implications of not 

doing so. 

Question. Do you agree with the 2011, the Presidential Study Directive-10 which 

states that ‘‘Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States’’? 

Answer. We need to understand and act on the nexus between our national security and human rights abuses, which often grow into larger security concerns. In 

this way, human rights issues are not only important in their own right, but are 

also important as early warning signs of imminent security problems that can be 

regionally or even globally destabilizing. 

Question. If so, how will you seek to pursue that interest and responsibility? 

Answer. As stated above, we need to know the early warning signs of atrocity 

crimes to ensure that we remain vigilant, so we know when political developments 

are in danger of becoming something much worse, and we are able to respond before 

it is too late. And we need to stay vigilant as to the connection between human 

rights and international security. 

Question. What efforts would you support to prevent and to punish genocide? 

Answer. Local, national, regional, and international efforts all play a part. It is 

necessary to examine each situation to determine what efforts are most appropriate. 

To take the current example of ISIS, many have claimed—and I support this 

view, although it is necessary for courts to make a final determination—that ISIS 

is committing genocide and other atrocity crimes against Yazidis, Christians, and 

others in the areas where they operate. The victim communities have asked for 

international involvement in the prosecution of this genocide, and this could occur 

in a number of ways. Appropriate action will depend on the needs of the victims, 

the political will of the relevant parties, the nature of the conflict and a host of other 

variables. It is necessary to determine what the needs and the desires of the victim 

communities are, and then assess what is possible given the political dynamics, with 

an eye toward the swift delivery of justice. 

Question. Do you think prosecution of suspected perpetrators of mass atrocities 

can help prevent future atrocities? 

Answer. Yes, especially when such prosecutions focus on the leaders. These prosecutions counter the political mythology that surrounds violent movements and attracts followers and sympathizers. The prosecution of the leaders of such movements 

sends a message that resounds through history. Part of our collective memory of the 

genocide perpetrated by the Nazis is not only images and words that come to us 

from places like Auschwitz and Dachau, but also those we associate with the trial 

at Nuremberg. 

Trials of ISIS leadership, for example, would badly tarnish their carefully crafted 

propaganda and help solidify the narrative worldwide that they are criminals, 

whose actions are inexcusable. 

Torture 

Question. Do you believe that the United States should use interrogation techniques that are tantamount to torture, such as waterboarding, on persons apprehended by the U.S. or partners on suspicion of terrorism activities? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

174 

Answer. Current Federal law provides that no individual in U.S. custody may be 

subjected to any interrogation technique or approach that is not authorized by and 

listed in the Army Field Manual If confirmed, I would support the Administration 

in complying with that law and all other applicable law. 

Conflict Mitigation 

Question. Do you believe it is in the U.S. national interest to fund foreign assistance programs intended to mitigate conflict and prevent mass atrocities, or should 

the U.S. refrain from getting involved in foreign disputes unless U.S. personnel or 

property are directly threatened? 

Answer. The Department of State and USAID already have programs that focus 

on conflict mitigation, including the Interagency Conflict Assessment Framework. 

This program provides guidance for implementing stabilization protocols. USAID 

programs, such as Provincial Reconstruction Teams, serve as a measure to support 

revitalization in fragile states. By continuing these programs, we will better understand the underlying causes of individual weak and fragile states, and utilize those 

results to craft better diplomatic and development policy. As for which conflicts we 

work to mitigate, we should make those choices based on a variety of factors, including the threat to U.S. citizens, the threat to U.S. interests, the kind of impact we 

can expect to have, and the safety of the personnel we send into the field. 

Diplomacy and Development 

Question. General Mattis had one of the most enduring quotes about the importance of development and diplomacy as :o our national security. At a hearing in 

front of the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2013, he said, ‘‘If you don’t fund 

the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.’’ Starting in 2002 

and every year since, U.S. National Security Strategies have elevated diplomacy and 

development alongside defense as the three instruments of national security power, 

and with the number of complex challenges we face, coordination between the State 

Department, our military, and our development agencies has never been more important. Development must stand alongside diplomatic and defense activities, and 

cannot be subsumed by either. Looking at a proposed Cabinet in which a number 

of national security roles would be played by military generals, how will you elevate 

diplomacy and development to ensure they’re on equal footing as key components 

of our national security strategy? Will you support a fully empowered USAID Administrator? 

Answer. As I stated previously, should I be confirmed, I do not believe I will have 

to ‘‘elevate’’ the role of diplomacy. I believe that role will be both respected and supported by the President-elect and his cabinet. It is my understanding that the retired senior military officers that the President-elect has selected for his cabinet understand well the importance of statecraft, diplomacy, and the role of the State Department in making and implementing foreign policy. It is my understanding both 

General Mattis and General Kelly so stated in their written and oral testimony. By 

reputation, I believe those are sincerely their beliefs. Further, I believe the President-elect knows well that soft and hard power work best when are used for the 

right task and in the proper balance. 

Nominee Leadership 

Question. In addition to serving on the Commission on Smart Global Health Policy 

convened by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, during your time 

as Chairman and CEO of the Exxon Mobile Corporation the Exxon Foundation has 

made investments to reduce poverty through improved energy access, global health 

and women’s empowerment. How would this demonstrated leadership for reducing 

global poverty inform your approach to foreign assistance? 

Answer. It is important to understand how the success of programs on global 

health, women’s empowerment, and energy access are measured and how we may 

replicate them in other geographic areas and other issue areas that we want to advance. The global health programs focused on fighting diseases, including PEPFAR, 

PM], and USAID’s Global Tuberculosis (TB) Program, as well as energy initiatives 

such as Power Africa, have proven to be extremely valuable and successful. These 

public private partnerships should be maintained during my leadership, in an effort 

to reduce global poverty in the long term. 

Foreign Assistance Transparency 

Question. In recent years, the State Department has made real progress becoming 

more transparent and accountable to taxpayers. In 2015, Senator Rubio and I introduced the ‘‘Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act’’ (PL. 114-191) which 

was enacted into law last year. The Act establishes common guidelines to evaluate 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

175 

our foreign assistance programs, allowing us to see what’s working and what’s not, 

ensuring that we incorporate learning into all future efforts so we have the best possible outcomes. Would transparency, accountability, and effectiveness be a priority 

for you at the State Department? How would you invest in foreign assistance data 

use and access, evaluations, and learning to make sure we’re getting the most from 

our foreign assistance dollars? 

Answer. In order for State and USAID to carry forward their critical foreign-assistance work, it is important to measure the efficiency of their foreign-assistance 

and development programs and closely examine the administrative and management practices of both entities. By doing so, the State Department and USAID will 

be able to more effectively prioritize development investments and eliminate inefficiencies, including the duplication of effort Making sure that our foreign-assistance 

mission is implemented in an accountable, transparent, and cost-saving manner is 

one of my key administrative and management priorities. 

Aid Conditionality 

Question. I was concerned about your remarks both in our private meeting and 

during the hearing about conditioning all foreign assistance. In the last 30 years, 

we have learned a lot about the effectiveness of policy conditionality of foreign assistance. The World Bank in the 80’s and 90’s proved that when every dollar is conditioned on very specific policy changes identified by lenders or aid agencies, those 

policy reforms typically fail. While conditionality sounds logical, sometimes it 

incentivizes countries to simply pretend to reform just long enough to get the 

money. MCC was established partly to test exactly the question: when IS conditionality effective? Over 10 years of learning shows that when the U.S. sets achievable 

reform outcomes in countries that have the capacity and incentive to deliver, conditionality can work. However, the U.S. turns to foreign assistance as a tool for a variety of reasons, and in some instances, it serves the national interest to work with 

countries that do not have the capacity to reform, or who are prioritizing other 

agendas on our behalf (Jordan, Niger, etc). In those instances—when we are worried 

that refugee migrations could destabilize an ally, or when we are concerned that untreated health conditions could lead to an epidemic—I would argue that firm-across 

the board conditionality is neither effective nor in the U.S. national interest. In our 

meeting, you seemed to say the opposite. Are you arguing that the U.S. should 

maintain a posture of pure conditionality even when it undermines our national interest? Or do you see a more practical, businesslike approach where we use the tool 

when it serves us well? 

Answer. When evaluating a country’s eligibility for aid, a number of/actors come 

into play, including government compliance, U.S. interests in the region, and the 

level of need of the population. Many of our foreign assistance programs take the 

multitude of factors into account to inform its decisions. We should continue to consider all factors, and refine how we weight those factors. 

Privatization of Aid 

Question. Over the past decade, we have seen a growing trend towards using private, for profit companies to deliver humanitarian assistance. What are your 

thoughts on using private companies for this purpose? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about this issue. 

It is my understanding that government, NGOs, faith-based institutions, the private 

sector, and contractual services all have roles to play in development and foreign 

assistance. I would want to the best mix of these to achieve our foreign policy objectives. As with all aspects of foreign assistance, should I be confirmed, my number 

one goal with regard to foreign assistance programs would be to ensure that foreign 

assistance is sufficient and effective consistent with U.S. interests. Should I be confirmed, I look forward to consulting and working with Congress on this issue. 

Question. What kind of impact do you see the privatization of aid having on the 

provision of humanitarian assistance? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response It is my understanding there are different views on this issue. Should 

I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about this issue and how it may impact 

the effectiveness of U.S. aid and our foreign policy programs. 

Question. How will you ensure that humanitarian assistance delivered by private 

entities gets to the people who need it most? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. It is my understanding there are different views on this issue. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

176 

Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about this issue and how it may 

impact the effectiveness of U.S. aid and our foreign policy programs. 

Education 

Question. U.S. foreign assistance helps millions of people in need around the 

world. While at ExxonMobil, you stated that ‘‘educating women and girls yields a 

higher rate of return than any other community investment available in the developing world.’’ Since 2011, USAID education projects have benefited more than 41.5 

million children and youth. Furthermore, studies have shown that each additional 

year of education can bring with it a 10% increase in income and if all children in 

low-income countries left school with basic reading skills there would be a 12% reduction in world poverty. As Secretary of State, how would you continue to prioritize 

investment in education, especially for the world’s most excluded children? 

Answer. From my previous experience I understand the importance of education 

in development and assistance programs. As to the role I will play as Secretary of 

State, should I be confirmed, I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order 

to provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more 

about the State Department’s appropriate role. As with all aspects of foreign assistance, my number one goal with regard to foreign assistance programs would be to 

ensure that foreign assistance is sufficient and effective consistent with U.S. interests. Should I be confirmed, I look forward to consulting and working with Congress 

on this issue. 

Food Security and Nutrition 

Question. There is solid evidence that early malnutrition, especially during the 

1,000-day window from pregnancy to age 2, is an obstacle to cognitive and physical 

development. It affects long-term health, learning and earning potential. Malnutrition, in other words, is a constraint to economic growth. Malnutrition is also the underlying cause of half of all deaths of children before they reach their 5th birthday. 

The recently enacted Global Food Security Act recognizes the importance food security and nutrition to U.S. national security. How will you build on the longstanding 

U.S. legacy of fighting hunger, malnutrition and poverty and promoting child survival around the global? 

Answer. Power Africa provides electricity, the Global Food Security Act fights 

hunger, and PEPFAR promotes child survival by decreasing mother-to-child transmissions of HIV/AIDS. We should continue to support these programs, as they aid 

a country in lifting itself out of poverty. Examining all of our development programs 

to make sure that taxpayer dollars are being used efficiently will increase our ability to implement world-class programs that focus on food security and global health. 

Global Health—U.S. Leadership 

Question. Under your watch, the Exxon Mobil Foundation has invested millions 

of philanthropic dollars in community level health activities where the company had 

business interests, of particular note the work on malaria and HIV in oil-rich parts 

of Africa. Clearly you understand the value—both economic and humanitarian—of 

providing health services to those in need, which in turn builds a strong workforce 

that fuels emerging economies. What are your views on the role the U.S. should 

play in fighting pervasive global infectious diseases like HIV, TB and malaria? What 

are your views on President Obama’s Global Health Security Agenda? What is the 

role for the private sector? 

Answer. The global health programs focused on fighting diseases, including 

PEPFAR, the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI), and USA/D’s Global Tuberculosis 

(TB) Program, as well as the Global Health Security Agenda, have proven to be extremely valuable and successful programs. It is important to understand how their 

success is measured and how can they be replicated in other geographic areas and 

other issue areas. USAID should continue to engage in public-private partnerships 

concerning these issues, in an effort to maintain global health programs in the long 

run. 

Global Health—Women 

Question. Women’s health and reproductive rights have served as a political football from Administration to Administration. How will you ensure that the leadership and success of the U.S. government in reducing infant and maternal mortality 

continue? 

Answer. PEPFAR is a global health program that aims to reduce infant and maternal mortality by decreasing mother-to-child transmissions of HIV/AIDS. PEPFAR 

is a successful and valuable program and it should serve as a model for future programs. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

177 

Global Health—Health System Strengthening 

Question. For decades the U.S. government has been a leader in strengthening 

health systems around the world to prevent, detect, and minimize the impact of 

emerging infectious diseases. The United States is one of over 50 countries that 

have committed to the Global Health Security Agenda, which aims to help countries 

improve their capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease outbreaks. As Secretary, how would you support and enhance global efforts to detect, 

prevent, and respond to diseases internationally to prevent them from becoming a 

threat to the U.S.? How will you ensure that we effectively address emerging crises 

and maintain our leadership role in global health? 

Answer. The global health programs focused on fighting diseases, including 

PEPFAR, PM[, and USA/D’s Global Tuberculosis (TB) Program, as well as the Global Health Security Agenda, have proven to he extremely valuable and successful 

programs. In order to ensure that we effectively address emerging crises and outbreaks, such as Ebola and the Zika virus, it is important to understand how their 

success is measured so that we can properly prevent, detect, and respond to future 

outbreaks. 

Global Health—The Global Fund 

Question. America’s approach to global health has been extremely successful, including the effort to move toward ending the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis and 

malaria he hallmark of America’s work against the three diseases has been to support results-oriented, accountable and transparent programming through the Global 

Fund and bilateral programs including PEPFAR, PMI and the USAID tuberculosis 

program. The Global Fund and our bilateral programs closely coordinate their work 

and depend on each other to implement comprehensive programming. As Secretary, 

will you be committed to continuing America’s leadership against AIDS, TB and malaria through our bilateral and Global Fund investments? Do you support PEPFAR 

remaining the cornerstone global health program at the Department of State? 

Answer. PEPFAR is one of the remarkable successes of the past decade or more. 

In addition, there are measurable results that are well managed and targeted at 

combating HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria through PEPFAR, the President’s Malaria 

Initiative (PMI), and the USAID tuberculosis program. Through these global health 

programs, we project America’s leadership and compassion and they serve as models 

for the future as we think about other areas that may be useful for us to put additional programs in place. 

Humanitarian—Iraq 

Question. When the battle for Mosul began about two months ago, many feared 

that mass departures from the city would overwhelm already crowded camps in 

Iraq. Instead, most people heeded government advice to stay in their homes as security forces advanced. Now many of those residents lack even basic services, with 

water supplies cut by the fighting and humanitarian aid distributions unable to 

reach all of those in need. In areas still controlled by ISIL, a siege by security forces 

is slowly tightening, pushing up food prices and causing shortages while the militants prevent people from leaving. 

As the humanitarian situation in Mosul worsens, is your vision for how the U.S. 

should work with the Government of Iraq and Kurdish Regional Government to 

meet humanitarian need stemming from counter-ISIL operations? 

Answer. Defeating ISIS on the battlefield is important, but it isn’t enough. If, despite the coalition’s military success, the people of Mosul are left with a humanitarian catastrophe and the destruction of their homes, it will be a matter of time 

before the next iteration of ISIS emerges. That’s why addressing the humanitarian 

and reconstruction needs of the population in a timely manner has to be an integral 

part of the coalition’s strategy. 

Question. What preparations should the U.S. and the Global Coalition to Counter 

ISIL take to ensure that a similar situation does not play out in the Syrian city of 

Raqqa? Do the State Department and USAID have sufficient humanitarian funding 

to respond to these growing needs in Iraq? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. It is my understanding that the United States has an important role 

to play in providing humanitarian relief in the region, establishing stability, and 

preventing a resurgence of groups like ISIS. I believe the United States can perform 

these tasks without resorting to ‘‘nation building.’’ Should I be confirmed, I commit 

to work with other relevant federal agencies and Congress to provide appropriate 

assistance to address this mission consistent with U.S. interests. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

178 

Humanitarian—Yemen 

Question. At least 10,000 civilians have died during the course of the current conflict in Yemen. Almost 19 million more civilians are currently in humanitarian needover two thirds of the nation’s population- 7 million of whom are severely food insecure. Given the horrifying humanitarian toll that this conflict has wrought, how 

would you address the suffering of the Yemeni people? 

Answer. Providing assistance to relieve the immediate suffering is an important 

part of USAID, and the agency is already providi11g emergency food assistance to 

those suffering in Yemen, which should be continued. 

Humanitarian—Syria 

Question. Syrian civil society organizations are the only humanitarian actors supporting many communities in Syria, particularly in besieged areas. They are providing essential services that can’t be eliminated without causing a further deterioration in vulnerable and fragile communities. Yet, they still face challenges with the 

Syrian government and many cannot legally register. This puts their lives at risk. 

These organizations need recognition as legitimate humanitarian actors and the 

ability to continue operations. However, there are concerning reports that local civil 

society leaders have been forcibly removed from their communities and relocated to 

other parts of the country as part of the conditions of truce negotiations. These actions add to the false perception that these independent humanitarian aid actors are 

political agents, which further puts their lives at risk. The Russian and the Syrian 

government must end the practice of including humanitarian actors in the list of 

political and military actors to be removed from areas retaken by the Syrian government. In your role, how will you make the protection of all Syrian humanitarian 

workers and their ability to maintain operations one of our key points in any negotiations with Russia and the Government of Syria ? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. It is my understanding that the United States has an important role 

to play in providing humanitarian relief in the region, establishing stability, and 

preventing a resurgence of groups like ISIS. I believe the United States can perform 

these tasks without resorting to ‘‘nation building.’’ Should I be confirmed, I commit 

to work with other relevant federal agencies and Congress to provide appropriate 

assistance to address this mission consistent with U.S. interests. 

Question. As Secretary of State, would you commit to appointing a Special Adviser 

to serve as the U.S. government’s representative for the No Lost Generation strategy to ensure the needs of children and youth affected by the Syrian conflict are 

met? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about this issue 

and implementing the most effective policies to address humanitarian issues consistent with U.S. interests. I look forward toconsulting with Congress on this issue. 

Risks to Aid Workers 

Question. How do we as a nation assure that counter-terror measures and programs do not impose unintended hurdles to the effective delivery of life-saving humanitarian assistance and democracy programs in difficult operating environments 

with limited civil society space? For example, many international NGOs in Pakistan 

are being raided on a regular basis by the Inter-Service Intelligence, and they and 

their national implementing partners are often threatened and harassed under the 

suspicion that they are U.S. intelligence agents. However, these same organizations 

are now being asked to collect and submit the personal identifying information of 

their Pakistani partners against U.S. intelligence databases in order to receive U.S. 

government funding. 

Under your Department of State, will you commit to working with NGOs in order 

to assure effective delivery of foreign assistance without putting NGO workers and 

critical life-saving and democracy programs at undue risk? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, yes. 

Question. What is your view about whether the State Department and USAID 

should conduct counterterror vetting directly rather than requiring NGOs to act as 

an intermediary? 

Answer. I would like to be fully briefed on this issue before responding, as I understand there are different views on how to best address this issue. Should I be 

confirmed, I commit to learning more about the issue. I look forward to consulting 

and working with Congress on this issue. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

179 

Center for Global Engagement 

Question. I am deeply concerned that President-elect Trump’s anti-muslim rhetoric throughout the campaign is going to severely damage U.S. efforts to work with 

Muslim countries on counter-terrorism activities and countering violent extremism 

across the board, as well as assist terrorist recruitment and incitement. 

How would you address that? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to advocating for and implementing policies and programs that will protect and advance U.S. interests without regards to 

religion. Our fight is with radical Islamic terrorists. I will do my utmost to engage 

with foreign leaders and audiences in the Muslim world with the goal of explaining 

the shared danger we face from radical Islam. 

Question. I am also concerned that the Center for Global Engagement (GEC) at 

State, which focuses on innovative ways to counter-message terrorists and violent 

extremists, must get strong support and endorsement from the next Secretary of 

State, especially since this year’s NDAA mandated that the Center expand its mission to a]so countering foreign propaganda. How will you use the GEC, or successor 

entity, to focus on countering violent extremism, and will you prioritize that mission 

above others? 

Answer. I would need to he fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about the center, 

its programs, and their effectiveness. 

International Humanitarian Law 

Question. The U.S. has made great strides in adopting measures to minimize 

harm to civilians in its military operations. These measures have spared many civilian lives in armed conflicts where the U.S. is a party. 

How will you direct existing U.S. leadership in these regards to reinforce rulesbased international order and international cooperation? 

Answer. Should I he confirmed, above all I will insist that they follow U.S. laws 

and the government’s obligations under those laws. 

Question. How will you further the U.S. and global interests in respect for minimizing civilian harm? 

Answer. Should I he confirmed, I will work with the President-elect, my partners 

on the National Security Council, and other agencies to ensure our policy and programs are consistent with our obligations under the law. 

Question. Do you believe that U.S. policy and practice has norm-setting influence 

on other States? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. What role does the U.S. have to promote a rules-based international 

order and how will you pursue this as Secretary of State? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, first and foremost I will strive for the United 

States to lead by example-follow our laws and our obligations under those laws. 

Question. What steps should the U.S. take to help ensure that allies and other 

parties to conflict employ comparable measures to safeguard civilian life during 

armed conflict? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about the policies 

and safeguards that are in place, assessing their effectiveness, and ensuring that 

they are adequate, consistent with U.S. law and the president’s foreign policy objectives. 

Question. Should the U.S. expect security partners to take pro-active steps to minimize harm to civilians as a condition for U.S. security cooperation and, if so, what 

measures should the U.S. take in this regard? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about the policies 

and safeguards that are in place, assessing their effectiveness, and ensuring that 

they are adequate, consistent with U.S. law and the President-elect’s foreign policy 

objectives. 

Question. Civilians, health workers and medical facilities are being deliberately 

attacked in conflict areas across the globe. How will you respond to these unconscionable assaults to ensure the safety of children, families, and communities who 

require medical care as well as the health workers whoprovide it? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

180 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about the policies 

and safeguards that are in place, assessing their effectiveness, and ensuring that 

they are adequate, consistent with U.S. law and the president’s foreign policy objectives. 

Climate Change 

Question. Do you accept the consensus among scientists that the combustion of 

fossil fuels is the leading cause for increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in 

the atmosphere which is the key factor in the rising global average temperatures? 

Answer. I agree with the consensus view that combustion of fossil fuels is a leading cause for increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. I understand these gases to be a factor in rising temperatures, but I do not believe the 

scientific consensus supports their characterization as the ‘‘key’’ factor. 

Question. How do you square your statement from the 2012 Council of Foreign 

Relations Forum on science and technology where you said ‘‘Ours is an industry 

that is built on technology, it’s built on science, it’s built on engineering, and because we have a society that by and large is illiterate in these areas, science, math 

and engineering, what we do is a mystery to them and they find it scary.’’ with the 

fact that Exxon’s internal reports and memos detail a decades long strategy to ignore and conceal its own sound scientific research on climate change and its impacts? 

Answer. My statement from 2012 is consistent with ExxonMobil’s conduct 

ExxonMobil has vigorously contested allegations that it engaged in a decades-long 

strategy to ignore and conceal scientific research related to the risk of climate 

change. 

Question. Do you believe that renewable energy technologies, like wind and solar, 

and distributive generation and micro grid transmission platforms are viable means 

for action on climate change that also supports the need to provide the world’s poor 

with plentiful and affordable energy? 

Answer. Renewable energy technologies may be a viable form of aid, assuming 

they are sufficiently economic to deploy. If I am confirmed, I will remain mindful 

that foreign aid is funded with taxpayer dollars, and will seek to ensure that those 

dollars are used as effectively and efficiently as possible. 

Question. Given the high degree of certainty about the occurrence of climate 

change and its potential impacts (something that our defense and intelligence communities recognize), how will you direct the department to manage this risk, and 

its implications for other core national security priorities? 

Answer. If confirmed, I plan to conduct a review of the current role that the State 

Department plays in international climate change efforts. 

Question. Will you commit to taking appropriate actions to advance the HFC 

amendment to the Montreal Protocol? 

Answer. The recent HFC amendment to the Montreal Protocol requires review 

and study. If confirmed, I will direct the State Department to review the HFC 

amendment, in consultation with other parts of the U.S. government, to determine 

whether it should be transmitted to the Senate for advice and consent 

Arms Sales—Philippines 

Question. There have been huge numbers of extrajudicial killings by Philippine 

police as part of President Duterte’s drug war. Would you, as Secretary of State, 

approve the sale of weapons to Philippine police forces? President Duterte himself 

has claimed that President-elect Trump supports his actions in a recent phone conversation; is he correct? 

Answer. The alliance with the Philippines is rooted in shared interests and values, which include concerns for human rights. If confirmed, I will continue to review 

each arms notification for the Philippine Police and Armed Forces on a case-by-case 

basis to ensure that we provide support to forces upholding these values rather than 

those undermining them. 

Cyber 

Question. We are clearly in something of a ’’Cyber Cold War’’ with Russia and 

China, if not others, that go beyond the traditional pattern of espionage for national 

security reasons. The President recently recognized this in part by designating national election systems as ‘‘critical infrastructure’’ to protect under his Cyber SancFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

181 

tions Executive Order. Do you think these sanctions are sufficient, excessive, or too 

weak? 

Retaliating against a cyber-attack with another cyber-attack carries an inherent 

risk of escalation to ever-more-serious cyber-attacks. Should the U.S. also seek to 

retaliate in other, asymmetric ways against such attacks, such as cutting or revoking visas for students from the attacking country (which, in the case of China, would 

also diminish conventional espionage problems)? 

Answer. The U.S. government should keep all options open, including both cyber 

and non-cyber, to deter cyber attacks. 

Question. Will you seek to increase cooperation and concerted action with other 

partner countries to respond, defeat and deter cyber-attach? What initiatives will 

you undertake? 

Answer. Yes, we will seek to increase international cooperation to reduce cyber 

security threats. I will also review the State Department organization as it relates 

to cyber security and ensure that this issue is elevated as a higher priority. 

Question. The use by the U.S. of cyber means to attack, or retaliate, against a 

foreign country that could cause damage to or disable civilian or military infrastructure, broadly defined, is and should be considered a ‘‘use of force’’ issue, tantamount 

to an act of warfare. As such, it should only be authorized through a Congressional 

use of force authorization, which are in the sole jurisdiction of the Foreign Relations 

and Foreign Affairs Committees. Under what circumstances would you consider a 

U.S. cyber action against a foreign country to involve Congress’ Constitutional 

warmaking powers? Under what circumstances should a President seek an authorization of use of military force? 

Answer. The conditions that constitute an act of war extend to acts conducted in 

cyberspace. We would apply the same criteria to cyber attacks as to any other attack on America’s national interests. 

Financial Disclosure 

Question. When you do a deal on the scale of the one you did with Russia on 

Sakhalin Island, you conduct a thorough due diligence process. You require your 

company to share audited financial statements, details of their loans and investments, the backgrounds of their management team and their employment agreements and a host of other documentation as well, correct? And one of the main goals 

of this process is to uncover any exposure to risk that may not be immediately apparent, correct? Would you ever partner with a firm that refused to fully disclose 

its assets and liabilities? 

Answer. Due diligence is an important part of any corporate deal In most situations, ExxonMobil would conduct an independent evaluation of a potential partner’s 

assets and liabilities, rather than relying solely on that potential partner’s representations. In some instances, particularly where third-party joint financing was in 

play, financiers would require self-disclosures from potential borrowers. In those situations, I would rely both on self-disclosures and ExxonMobil’s independent analysis. 

Multilateral Institutions 

Question. For decades, the U.S. has led a network of international institutions, 

from the World Bank to the IMF to what is now the WTO. Throughout your career 

at Exxon, these institutions have evolved in their missions, their reach, and their 

membership. They are far from perfect, but they have helped to foster international 

coordination in crises from Asia in 1997 to the global economic collapse of 2008. 

They have worked to establish guidance and support for countries in financial crisis, 

to monitor economies and trends. And they have promoted predictability and rules 

for the conduct of international trade and finance, as well as forums for seeking important agreements. As CEO, you had economists who relied on their data, who reported their economic forecasts, and who followed their interventions in economic 

crises. These institutions have been a key part of the global financial architecture 

in which Exxon conducted its affairs. What is your view of them? Are 

theyimportant, not just to our trade and finance, but to our global leadership? Can 

we do without them? 

Answer. I agree that multilateral institutions can be effective instruments for advancing U.S. interests and exercising global leadership. I agree they are not perfect. 

Should I be confirmed, I commit to using them as effectively as possible and working to improve their efficiency and effectiveness. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

182 

Bilateral Investment Treaties 

Question. As CEO of Exxon, you strongly supported inclusion of the Investor State 

Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism in our Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) 

and trade agreements. And during your time with the company, Exxon successfully 

used these provisions to sue foreign governments and obtain damages. In one case, 

Exxon argued that a Canadian requirement to invest in local research and development, such as education, job training, and innovation, was too onerous. The supranational NAFTA panel awarded Exxon millions of dollars in damages and Canada 

was forced to revisit that law. President-elect Trump has argued against ISDS, noting that ‘‘the TPP creates a new international commission that makes decisions the 

American people can’t veto.’’ Last year you joined a letter from the U.S. China Business Council and the Paulson Institute urging the Administration to prioritize negotiating a BIT with China that would include an ISDS provision. Do you still believe 

ISDS provisions should be included in our BITs or do you agree with the PresidentElect that they represent a threat to U.S. sovereignty? The BIT negotiations with 

China have been underway since 2008, with active participation by our State Department, with close monitoring by our multinational businesses. Should those negotiations continue? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will follow the direction of the President 

Nonproliferation—Asia 

Question. What are your views on nuclear proliferation in Asia? Given Trump’s 

comments on Japan and South Korea gaining nuclear capabilities, how will the administration encourage or discourage nuclear proliferation? 

Answer. As I said in my testimony, the proliferation of nuclear weapons-in Asia 

or anywhere else-is not in America’s interests. 

Since the end of World War II, U.S. strength and leadership, both within our alliances and through key international institutions like the Non-Proliferation Treaty, 

have been absolutely critical to limiting the spread of nuclear weapons. 

I fully expect that record of U.S. leadership to continue, especially as we confront 

dangerous proliferation challenges with the neighbors of North Korea-not to mention the nightmare scenario of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons. 

Nonproliferation—North Korea 

Question. North Korea remains a critical security threat. North Korea’s leader 

Kim Jong Un recently said they were close to test-launching an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) which would allow North Korea for the first time to directly 

target the United States with nuclear weapons. Outside experts who closely monitor 

the progress of North Korea’s nuclear program believe an ICBM test is a distinct 

possibility in 2017. 

If it appeared North Korea was posed to conduct a test launch of an ICBM would 

you support taking military action to prevent such a test? 

Answer. It is important that North Korea’s leadership have no doubt that the 

United States is prepared to use all elements of our national power to prevent it 

from posing a nuclear threat to our homeland. 

Question. How would you adjust U.S. policy towards North Korea? Should the 

United States consider direct negotiations with North Korea about its nuclear program? 

Answer. The entire world is on record opposing North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear 

weapons, including its most powerful regional neighbors: China, Russia, Japan and 

South Korea. 

In 2016, the U.N. Security Council came together to impose two rounds of extremely harsh sanctions in response to North Korea’s nuclear tests. 

The United States should focus on strengthening the impact of that global consensus, including by intensifying Pyongyang’s isolation and pressing key countries, 

first and foremost China, to implement fully its obligations under U.N. sanctions. 

Nonproliferation—Russia 

Question. The United States has a variety of arms control agreements with Russia 

which seek to ensure strategic stability with them. For example, the New START 

treaty which sets limitations on the U.S. and Russian nuclear forces until 2021. Do 

you support the New START agreement or do you believe the United States should 

withdraw from the treaty? 

Answer. In general, and with respect to New START specifically, the United 

States should abide by our international commitments-provided, of course, that our 

partners continue to fulfill their obligations as well. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

183 

Nonproliferation Agreements 

Question. Are there particular arms control agreements you think the United 

States should withdraw from? What impact do you think it would have if the United 

States begins withdrawing from various international agreements? 

Answer. I have not been fully briefed on the universe of agreements that the 

United States is party to, but I am currently unaware of any from which I would 

recommend we withdraw. 

So long as international agreements continue to advance the security and values 

of the American people, it is very much in our national interest to strictly observe 

our commitments. 

Nonproliferation—U.S. 

Question. The United States has maintained a moratorium on nuclear testing 

since 1992. There has been discussion that a Trump administration might reverse 

this policy and begin nuclear testing. Do you support the resumption of nuclear testing? If the United States conducted a nuclear test do you believe that Russia and 

China would rapidly restart their nuclear testing programs? 

Answer. I am not aware of any plan to resume nuclear testing. So long as the 

reliability of our nuclear deterrent can be guaranteed through other means, I think 

the moratorium has served us well. It would not serve U.S. interests to have Russia 

and China resume nuclear testing. 

United Nations—U.S. Engagement 

Question. No single country can effectively address today’s global challenges alone, 

whether terrorism, contagious disease, conflict, transnational crime, human trafficking, or any number of other problems. The United States benefits from the ability of the United Nations to coordinate international efforts against such threats, 

but the U.N. is only as effective as its member states want it to be. Some believe 

that our response to the U.N.’s weaknesses should be to cut funding or withdraw 

from certain U.N. agencies that take actions we disagree with. Do you believe the 

U.S. is better off remaining actively engaged in all aspects of the U.N. to influence 

reform efforts and protect our interests, or do you believe that we are better off reducing or withdrawing our support? 

Answer. The new Secretary General has acknowledged the need for vigorous management and accountability reform of the United Nations. I believe many U.N. reforms can be achieved by robust, long-term and sustained engagement. But using 

America’s financial leverage by conditioning our assessed contributions can be a useful catalyst when these traditional efforts fail. The possibility of the United States 

withholding a portion of our dues has led the U.N. to be more receptive to reforms. 

For example, concern over potential withholding in response to major scandals that 

received the strong attention and interest of Congress, such as the Oil-for-Food 

scandal and sexual abuses by peacekeepers, has led the U.N. to be more willing to 

adopt reforms. 

In other cases, such as where U.S. law prohibits funding to the U.N. Scientific, 

Educational and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), withholding serves U.S. interests by opposing Palestinian efforts to secure recognition absent a negotiated peace 

with Israel With billions of U.S. tax dollars going to the U.N. every year, I believe 

we should continually evaluate U.S. funding to the U.N. and other international organizations to determine if budgets are justified or should be reduced or increased 

to advance American interests. 

U.S. Policy Towards Africa 

Question. The President’s 2012 Policy Directive for Africa lists four pillars of U.S. 

policy towards Africa. Chief among then: is strengthening democratic institutions. 

Another is advancing peace and security. Do you agree that stronger democratic institutions and respect for rule oflaw should remain one of the primary objectives of 

our Africa policy? What steps will you take if confirmed to support democracy and 

rule of law in the region? 

Answer. Helping countries in Africa strengthen democratic institutions and the 

rule of law should remain a primary U.S. objective. If confirmed, support for democracy and the rule of law will continue to be an important part of our diplomatic engagement with countries throughout the continent. 

Africa—Security Challenges 

Question. Four Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership (TSCTP) countries 

Mali, Niger, Mauritania, and Burkina Faso—have experienced military coups or attempted coups while participating in the program. Mali was a significant recipient 

of military aid under TSCTP prior to its 2012 military coup. Since then, Mali’s miliFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

184 

tary has displayed severe capacity shortfalls and elements of the security forces 

have been accused of serious human rights abuses. African Union Mission troops in 

Somalia have played an essential role in helping improve security in Somalia. Unfortunately, some of those same troops have been accused of attacks on civilians, 

including indiscriminate killings, and sexual exploitation and abuse. The Nigerian 

military is alleged to have killed 350 people in Zaire in December 2015, and buried 

the bodies in mass graves to conceal evidence. The Anti-Terrorism Police Unit in 

Kenya has been accused of extrajudicial killings of youth and alleged terror suspects. Ethiopian forces have been implicated in killings of largely peaceful protesters 

in 2015 and 2016. 

Given persistent failure to fully respect human rights and rule of law by some 

elements within the African militaries with which we engage, what will you do if 

confirmed to ensure that we are adequately incorporating support for effective accountability structures and institutions into our security assistance programs such 

that the police and military are able to credibly investigate and prosecute allegations of abuse and wrongdoing? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that as we seek to advance America’s 

vital interests in combating terrorism, we are also doing everything possible to prevent the abuse of U.S. assistance programs. 

Question. What more will you commit to do to ensure that we are promoting and 

supporting accountability for police and military abuses, especially those committed 

by units we are training? 

Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing what additional steps might be 

taken to support accountability and avoid abuses by militaries with whom we partner on critical counterterrorism efforts. 

Question. How does the Trump Administration view the efforts of the Obama Administration to build African capacity to address security challenges, such as in Somalia and Kenya, and in the Lake Chad Basin region? 

Answer. While I cannot yet speak on behalf of the Trump Administration, support 

for efforts to build partner capacity in Africa, particularly on counter-terrorism challenges that threaten the American people, is very important. 

Question. What will be the State Department’s role in shaping U.S. military engagement in Africa? What priority and role will Counter Violent Extremism (CVE) 

programming and other medium to longer-term efforts play to diminish the terror 

threat be given under your leadership. 

Answer. The challenge of radical Islamic terrorism in Africa is a serious and 

growing problem. Through its diplomacy engagement, assistance programs, and 

public diplomacy efforts, the State Department clearly has a leading role in helping 

shape long-term U.S. efforts to counter and defeat the ideology of radical Islamic 

terrorism-in Africa and around the world. 

Africa—South Sudan 

Question. The security and humanitarian situations in South Sudan are dire. 

Since the outbreak of civil war in 2013, tens of thousands have been killed and over 

two million people displaced by violence that continues to this day. The United Nations Security Council failed last month to approve an arms embargo and targeted 

sanctions despite the fact that former Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and others 

have all warned of potential genocide. If confirmed, what immediate steps do you 

plan to take as Secretary of State to help prevent genocide in South Sudan? If confirmed will you appoint a new Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan as one 

of your first acts? 

Answer. The situation in South Sudan is one of the most pressing humanitarian 

situations in the world. It is critical to help build some political space for reconciliation between the government and rebel factions. The United States should continue 

to engage in international forums like the U.N. and bilaterally with key partners 

in the area to address this issue, and decide upon a combined policy to address this 

violence. This would include deploying robust diplomacy, possible sanctions, peacekeeping efforts, and other measures. 

Africa—Nigeria 

Question. The 2015 Global Terrorism Index indicates that Nigeria witnessed the 

largest increase in terrorist deaths ever recorded by any country, increasing by over 

300% to 7,512 fatalities, making the two Boko Haram factions collectively the deadliest terrorist group in the world. The humanitarian situation is worse than that in 

Syria, according to some aid groups. There is currently a Senior Coordinator for 

Countering Boko Haram at the State Department. At a hearing earlier this year on 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

185 

terrorism and instability in Africa the Chairman asked why terrorism in Africa does 

not get as much attention as it does in other parts of the world. Another of my colleagues suggested it was race related. 

What accounts for the disparity in attention between terrorism not only in Nigeria, but in Africa writ large, and other parts of the world, and what should be done 

to correct it? If confirmed, will you maintain a Coordinator for Countering Boko 

Haram? 

Answer. The threat of radical Islamic terrorism in Africa is serious and growing, 

and certainly deserves increased U.S. attention. If confirmed, I will look closely at 

how the State Department can most effectively contribute to U.S. efforts to combat 

the threat posed by Boko Haram. 

Question. What are the first actions you will take, if confirmed, to address the 

multitude of challenges terrorism, violence in the Delta and Middle Belt, corruption, 

serious human rights abuses and violations, and the humanitarian catastrophe in 

the northeast-facing one of the most strategically important countries to the United 

States in the region? 

Answer. I agree that Nigeria is strategically important to the stability and security of the entire region. If confirmed, I will work to strengthen and improve the 

effectiveness of the U.S.-Nigerian relationship and how we can best partner with Nigeria to fight terrorism, reduce violence, and support the country’s security, stability, and development, including its human rights situation. 

Africa—Ethiopia 

Question. Over the past 14 months, Ethiopian security forces have killed hundreds 

of protestors, and the government has jailed political opponents and harassed and 

imprisoned journalists. In response to protests, the government has imposed a state 

of emergency, authorizing detention without a warrant, blocking Internet access, 

prohibiting public gatherings, and imposing curfews. Promises of a national dialogue 

and consideration of constitutional changes have not been met. In the face of all 

that, Ethiopia remains one of our closest counterterrorism partners, and receives 

hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. foreign assistance through Power Africa, Feed 

the Future and other signature aid initiatives. I’ve asked in hearings if the United 

States isn’t sending mixed signals to our counterterrorism partners on issues related 

to respect for human rights and democracy, by not carefully reviewing our security 

assistance to countries that engage in actions similar to those Ethiopia has carried 

out to ensure we are not providing arms and training that is turned on civilians, 

including those advocating for democratic rights. 

Will you commit, if confirmed, to undertaking an interagency review our security 

assistance portfolio for Ethiopia and other counterterrorism partners on the continent to ensure the assistance and training we are providing is not being used 

against civilians advocating for human rights and democratic freedoms? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will engage Ethiopia to express our concerns about violations of human rights and our support for responsible governance. Ethiopia has a 

critical role to play in encouraging stability in Africa and is an important partner 

for the United States. Continued diplomatic engagement will be necessary to ensure 

that it meets those commitments and continues to contribute positively to the 

United States’ goals in the region. 

Question. Will you commit, if confirmed, to deliver to Congress a strategy for supporting greater democracy in Ethiopia? 

Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with Congress to advance 

U.S. interests in Ethiopia and throughout Africa, including by supporting greater 

democracy and human rights. 

Exxon in Africa—Equatorial Guinea 

Question. ExxonMobil has a substantial presence in Africa, including in countries 

that are among the worst dictatorships and kleptocracies in the world. Equatorial 

Guinea, which has for years been considered one of the world’s most corrupt countries is one example. A 2004 report found that ExxonMobil established an oil distribution business in Equatorial Guinea 85-percent owned by ExxonMobil and 15- 

percent by Abayak S.A., a company controlled by the longtime President of Equatorial Guinea, President Teodoro Obiang. 

Were you aware of President Obiang’s involvement in Abayak? Was there any 

hesitation at entering into such a business arrangement with an individual who was 

not democratically elected, with a reputation of being a kleptocrat? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

186 

Answer. ExxonMobil began operating in Equatorial Guinea before I became CEO, 

and I was not involved in the decision to establish the referenced oil distribution 

business. 

Question. How much money did ExxonMobil pay President Obiang through 

Abayak? Did Exxon Mobile make payments to Theodora Obiang, eldest son of President Obiang, currently facing trial in France for corruption? 

Answer. I do not know the amount of any payments to Abayak. Any information 

about those payments, if they took place, is in ExxonMobil files to which I no longer 

have access. To the best of my knowledge, ExxonMobil did not make payments to 

Theodora Obiang or to his father, President Obiang. 

Additionally, during my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil maintained 

an anticorruption legal compliance guide for its employees, laying out company policy and legal requirements in this area. 

Exxon in Africa—Nigeria 

Question. Exxon is a major player in Nigeria’s oil sector. I understand it made 

a major discovery offshore that could produce 500 million to 1 billion barrels of oil. 

ExxonMobil’s 2009 deal to secure rights to Nigerian oil reserves is currently under 

investigation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission of Nigeria. We are 

told that ExxonMobil beat out China despite apparently underbidding its rival bid 

by $2.25 billion. Is the aforementioned accurate to the best of your knowledge? What 

details can you share with us about Exxon’s bid, and the current investigation underway? 

Answer. To the best of my knowledge, ExxonMobil complied with all requirements 

of Nigerian law when bidding on the referenced oil mining licenses. Information concerning any ongoing investigation would need to be provided by ExxonMobil 

Burma—Rohingya 

Question. As of January 9th, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs an estimated 65,000 people have fled Burma, 

mostly Rohingya fleeing persecution. Amnesty International reported and documented a campaign of violence perpetuated by the Burmese security forces which 

have indiscriminately fired on and killed civilians, raped women and girls, and arbitrarily arrested Rohingya men without any information about their whereabouts— 

charges which ‘‘may amount to crimes against humanity.’’ There has also been a recent upsurge in violence in Shan and Kachin States, as well. What should our diplomatic strategy be towards promoting a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic Burma 

that respects the human rights of all its people regardless of ethnicity and religion, 

including the Rohingya? 

Answer. The United States must continue to engage with Burma to support its 

democratic transition. But we cannot turn a blind eye to reported military abuses 

in the country’s north and west. Not only is the mistreatment of the Rohingya a 

tragedy, but it also threatens to radicalize a generation of young Rohingya. The 

United States must support regional and international efforts to investigate abuses 

and pressure the Burmese government and military. U.S. assistance packages must 

include aid for the Rohingya and other ethnic minorities. Further progress in our 

military-to-military relationship should depend on improvements in the 

professionalization and civilian control of the Burmese military. In applying this 

pressure, however, the United States should avoid isolating Burma to such a degree 

that it strangles its democratic transition and forces Burma back into overdependence on China. 

Burma—Extractives Sector 

Question. The jade and gemstone sector has been identified as one of the principle 

drivers of conflict in Burma, including ethnic conflict, the narcotics trade, and corruption in that country. As someone who has experience in the of field of extractive 

industries, what should the United States do to support a transparent, equitable 

and sustainable jade and gemstone sector in Burma that benefits allsegments of the 

Burmese society? 

Answer. The United States can assist the Burmese government to build greater 

capacity to monitor and certify its production of jade and precious stones-areas in 

which it has made progress since beginning the transition to civilian control. But 

much of the country’s jade and gemstone industry is based in conflict areas in the 

north, where proceeds from smuggling help fund armed ethnic groups that maintain 

close ties to China. It is therefore critical that the United States work with China, 

along with other neighboring countries and international organizations, to crack 

down on the illicit trade in jade and gemstones from Burma. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

187 

China 

Question. The joint communique of 1972, 1979, and 1982, under Presidents Nixon, 

Carter, and Reagan are the foundation of the U.S.-PRC relationship, along with the 

Taiwan Relations Act that guides U.S. policy toward Taiwan. Could you lay out your 

understanding of the core principles of these communiques and the TRA? Do you 

think that these principles remain important foundations of the relationship? Do 

you believe that the One China policy remains valid, or needs revision? 

Answer. The Three Communiques, Taiwan Relations Act, and Six Assurances provide the foundation for U.S. policy toward China and Taiwan. The United States 

should continue to uphold the One China policy and support a peaceful and mutually agreeable cross-Strait outcome. Under this policy, the United States recognizes 

the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledges the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China. As required by the Taiwan 

Relations Act, the United States continues to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character and maintains the capacity of the United States to resist any resort 

to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social 

or economic system, of the people of Taiwan. The United States also upholds the 

Six Assurances on U.S. policy toward Taiwan. If confirmed, I would continue these 

policies and work to ensure that the cross-Strait military balance remains favorable 

to peace and stability. 

Question. Should the U.S. continue to conduct the Strategic and Economic Dialogue with China in its current form, or should adjustments be made in that mechanism? 

Answer. The Strategic and Economic Dialogue provides a valuable forum for U.S. 

and Chinese leaders to discuss issues of mutual interest. These discussions must, 

however, result in real results if the forum is to be a productive element of the bilateral relationship. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that this mechanism is effective 

in addressing areas of both cooperation and competition. 

Taiwan 

Question. Are you concerned that in suggesting the One China policy is negotiable 

the President-elect may have created the impression that Taiwan is nothing more 

than a bargaining chip, and that that might undermine our ability to support Taiwan and protect U.S. interests in peace and stability in the region? 

Answer. If confirmed, I intend to support the One China policy. The people of Taiwan are friends of the United States and should not be treated as a bargaining chip. 

The U.S. commitment to Taiwan is both a legal commitment and a moral imperative. If confirmed, I would work to ensure economic and military stability across the 

Strait. 

China trade 

Question. In the last few years, Chinese investment has been pouring into the 

U.S. While U.S. companies have substantial investments in China, they are restricted in many sectors from acquiring controlling interests, while China does not 

face comparable restrictions in the U.S. Would you favor requiring reciprocity on investments so that China will face restrictions in sectors where U.S. investors in 

China faces restrictions? Do you favor negotiation of a Bilateral Investment Treaty 

to cover such issues? If Chinese companies benefit from stolen intellectual property 

from American companies, should those Chinese companies be banned from trade 

and investment with the U.S.? 

Answer. The United States should adopt a whole-of-government approach to ensure that American workers and consumers are receiving the benefits of fair trade 

with China. Restrictions on U.S. firms and stealing of intellectual property pose serious threats to the U.S. economy. A bilateral investment treaty could help address 

this imbalance, as would additional steps to penalize companies that benefit from 

stolen intellectual property. If confirmed, I will work with the rest of the U.S. government to ensure fairness in U.S.-China trade. 

China Human Rights 

Question. What is the most effective way for the United States to promote Americana values and respect for human rights in China? Will you try to persuade the 

Chinese leadership to unblock web sites of American media companies? Will you advocate for the rights of Tibetans and the people of Hong Kong? How? 

Answer. American values are a critical component of American interests. Standing 

up for human rights and democracy is not just a moral imperative but is in the best 

traditions of our country. If confirmed, I will support efforts to advocate for democFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

188 

racy and human rights as an integral element of our diplomatic engagement with 

China and other countries around the world. 

Southeast Asia 

Question. Does the U.S. still value promoting democracy, particularly in countries 

such as Myanmar, Thailand, and the Philippines? What are your views on the persecution of minorities, ethnic or religious, in the region and elsewhere? 

Answer. Promoting U.S. values, such as the pursuit of liberal and democratic governance, contributes to the long-term U.S. strategy of strengthening the international order. Whether in allied countries such as the Philippines and Thailand, 

or new partners such as Burma and Vietnam, the United States must continue to 

ensure that U.S. values are upheld as a core element of U.S. foreign policy. 

South China Sea 

Question. In your testimony yesterday you stated that ‘‘China’s island building in 

the SCS is an illegal taking of disputed areas without regard for international 

norms.’’ If China is committing ‘‘an illegal taking of disputed areas’’ do you believe 

the United States should clarify its approach with regards to the different and competing claims of sovereignty in the South China Sea? Should it be an objective of 

U.S. policy to remove the Chinese presence from these disputed features, what is 

your strategy for doing so? How should U.S. respond if China ‘‘illegally’’ builds more 

of these features? Should a rules-based order be central to the U.S. approach to the 

South China Sea? What should be U.S. strategy to preventing further Chinese militarization of the land features in the South China Sea, challenges to freedom of 

navigation, and Chinese coercion against its neighbors? 

Answer. To expand on the discussion of U.S. policy options in the South China 

Sea, the United States seeks peaceful resolution of disputes and does not take a position on overlapping sovereignty claims, but the United States also does not recognize China’s excessive claims to the waters and airspace of the South China Sea. 

China cannot be allowed to use its artificial islands to coerce its neighbors or limit 

freedom of navigation or overflight in the South China Sea. The United States will 

uphold freedom of navigation and overflight by continuing to fly, sail, and operate 

wherever international law allows. If a contingency occurs, the United States and 

its allies and partners must be capable of limiting China’s access to and use of its 

artificial islands to pose a threat to the United States or its allies and partners. The 

United States must be willing to accept risk if it is to deter further destabilizing 

actions and reassure allies and partners that the United States will stand with 

them in upholding international rules and norms. If confirmed, I would look forward 

to working with interagency partners to develop a whole-of-government approach to 

deter further Chinese coercion and land reclamation as well as challenges to freedom of navigation or overflight in the South China Sea. 

North Korea 

Question. What is your diplomatic strategy in regard to North Korea? What role 

do the current sanctions play? Do you believe that additional sanctions, including 

secondary sanctions, are needed? 

♦ Will you offer bilateral talks or do you support reinvigorating the Six-Party 

Talks framework? Specifically, do you favor a path of increased pressure and 

sanctions or do you also see a role, in the right sequence, for diplomatic engagement? 

♦ Do you think we can work cooperatively with China, and Russia, on North 

Korea? Do you believe that we should be sanctioning Chinese and Russian companies that do business with North Korea? 

♦ Recent policy has been to not allow daylight between the United States and 

South Korea on North Korea policy. Will that continue in the Trump Administration? If the next South Korean government seeks a new approach to North 

Korea, what would your approach be? 

♦ Is there a ‘‘red line’’ for the North Korean nuclear weapons program or missile 

program that would trigger a U.S. action? How do you propose to effectively and 

credibly convey a red line to North Korea? 

♦ What are your views on the nuclear and missile threats posed by North Korea? 

Do you see Pyongyang’s developments as posing a direct threat to the United 

States? How do you believe these threats will change over the course of the administration? Would you support policies that aim to isolate North Korea and 

halt these programs? 

♦ What role should U.S. allies play in the administration’s approach to North 

Korea? To what extent does your approach require coordination with South 

Korea and Japan? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

189 

♦ What strategy does the Administration intend to deploy to deal with human 

rights abuses in the DPRK? 

Answer. North Korea is one of the leading threats to regional and global security. 

If confirmed, I will work closely with my interagency colleagues to develop a new 

approach to proactively address the multitude of threats that North Korea poses to 

its neighbors and the international community. Foremost among these challenges 

are North Korea’s continuing pursuit of nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles 

to launch them (which pose a direct threat to the United States), the human rights 

tragedy resulting from the regime’s repressive system, the continuation of illicit activity that spreads instability, and the risk of a humanitarian crisis that could engulf the Korean Peninsula. These challenges will continue to worsen if a new strategy is not adopted. In preparing a new strategy to address these concerns, the 

United States should keep all options on the table, from the threat of military force 

to the willingness to remain open to diplomacy. In particular, the threat or use of 

sanctions, including secondary sanctions, may be necessary to force North Korean 

leaders, and those that support them, to reassess the costs or benefits of continuing 

current policies. Key to this strategy is working closely with U.S. allies and partners, particularly South Korea and Japan, to ensure close coordination and execution of this strategy. In addition, the United States should look to work with China 

and Russia to the greatest extent possible in order to increase pressure on North 

Korea. Only by forcing North Korea to reconsider its dangerous path can the United 

States and its allies and partners ensure that the regime does not further undermine regional and global security. 

East Asia Allies 

Question. If a ‘‘fair’’ burden-sharing agreement cannot be reached with Japan or 

the Republic of Korea would you be willing to withdraw U.S. forces? 

Answer. Japan and South Korea already contribute large amounts to support U.S. 

forces in their respective countries and I am optimistic that future discussions will 

continue to be productive and result in equitable burden-sharing arrangements. Our 

shared alliances form the foundation for security in Northeast Asia and beyond, so 

we must strengthen and modernize these alliances to manage growing regional and 

global challenges. 

Thailand 

Question. What are your plans for how will you manage U.S. relations with Thailand? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to pursue ways to strengthen our long-standing alliance with Thailand while clearly communicating that the United States will 

hold the military government to their commitment to return to civilian rule later 

this year. In the long term, the U.S. relationship with Thailand will be strengthened, not weakened, by demonstrating that we recognize and support the Thai people’s demand for democracy and human rights. 

Multilateral Institutions in Asia 

Question. What role do you foresee for U.S. multilateral organizations such as the 

East Asia Summit or other forums in Asia? What can the United States do to support the emergence of a functional problem-solving ASEAN central to the future of 

the Asia-Pacific region? What is the administration’s view on the importance of participating in regional forums such as ARF, EAS, and APEC? Do you have any concerns that lack of high level participation will allow the Chinese to fill an American 

vacuum and undermine our interests in the region? 

Answer. Multilateral institutions provide vital forums for Asian-Pacific nations, 

including the United States, to cooperate in pursuit of shared interests and negotiate peaceful solutions when interests conflict Active U.S. engagement in multilateral institutions, including the ASEAN Regional Forum, East Asia Summit, and 

Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, is critical to support regional states and prevent 

a power vacuum that could call into question regional security and prosperity. 

Therefore, if I am confirmed, I will ensure that attendance at multilateral meetings 

continues to be seen as a priority in the State Department 

Russia/Asia 

Question. What challenges are presented by Russia’s apparent determination to 

play a larger role in Asia, particularly a more active military role? 

Answer. Russia has become more active in Asia in recent years, including increasing the number and extent of its operations and exercises around U.S. allies, U.S. 

forces, and even U.S. territory. One concern is that Russian military pressure is 

adding to the already substantial burden of U.S. allies, such as Japan, that already 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

190 

face mounting challenges from China. The United States should work with its allies 

and partners to show solidarity against Russian military incursions and to encourage Russia to play a positive and productive role in Asia, including through the Six 

Party Talks. 

Exxon in Asia—Indonesia 

Question. A federal court has found sufficient evidence that Exxon Mobil is responsible for human rights abuses by security forces on its Indonesia operations 

and, on that basis, has allowed the case to proceed to trial despite strenuous efforts 

by Exxon to prevent this. The human rights abuses detailed in the case include 

killings and torture-- shootings, beatings, kidnapping, sexual assault, electric shocks 

to genitals, destruction of homes and property. Evidence from a federal lawsuit indicates that high-level Exxon Mobil executives knew about serious human rights 

abuses by Exxon’s security forces in Indonesia and received frequent detailed reports on ‘‘deployment goals’’ and ‘‘operational strategy’’ of military security personnel and ‘‘set standards, plans, and tasks’’ for security in Asia. Many of the documents in the case remain sealed at Exxon’s request. 

Prior to your confirmation, in order to provide clarity regarding the role of Exxon 

in these abuses and your own role, including in response to reports of abuses, will 

you ask Exxon to publicly release the documents from the case? 

Answer. I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to make such a special 

request of ExxonMobil given my status as nominee for Secretary of State. Nor do 

I have any reason to believe the company would alter its long-term litigation strategy at my request, as I am no longer an officer or director of ExxonMobil 

While conducting its business in Indonesia, ExxonMobil has worked for generations to improve the quality of life in Ace through employment of local workers, provision of health services, and extensive community investment. During my tenure 

as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil strongly condemned human rights violations in 

any form. 

Question. Will you release documents that indicate your knowledge or participation in deliberations about human rights violations and security forces in Exxon’s 

Ace operations? 

Answer. To the best of my knowledge, there are no such documents. 

Question. While a highly-placed Exxon executive, did you met with Indonesian officials on behalf of Exxon and discuss such abuses? 

Answer. No, to the best of my knowledge. 

Question. What did you do to stop the abuses? 

Answer. The allegations in the referenced lawsuit predate my tenure as Chairman 

and CEO of ExxonMobil, and I was not employed in a capacity that would have 

given me any responsibility over the Indonesian production facilities during the relevant time period. 

During my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil vigorously contested the 

abuse allegations-and my understanding is that it continues to do so. Additionally, 

under my leadership, ExxonMobil enhanced nearly all of its private security personnel contracts to include provisions addressing human rights concerns. 

Question. Why didn’t the abuses stop? 

Answer. The allegations in the referenced lawsuit predate my tenure as Chairman 

and CEO of ExxonMobil, and I was not employed in a capacity that would have 

given me any responsibility over the Indonesian production facilities during the relevant time period. 

During my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil vigorously contested the 

abuse allegations-and my understanding is that it continues to do so. Additionally, 

under my leadership, ExxonMobil enhanced nearly all of its private security personnel contracts to include provisions addressing human rights concerns. 

Question. Is Exxon still providing financial support for the Indonesian military or 

other Indonesian armed forces? 

Answer. As I am no longer with the company, I cannot comment on its current 

business practices in Indonesia. 

Question. Do you believe that this case deserves a full hearing in U.S. courts? 

Answer. As expressed during my testimony, I am a strong believer in the rule of 

law. It is ultimately the responsibility of the federal courts to determine whether 

a trial is warranted. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

191 

Question. A full and fair hearing will require that the Indonesian plaintiffs appear 

in person to testify in U.S. court. If confirmed, will you commit to supporting the 

Indonesian plaintiff’s efforts to obtain visas to be able travel to the U.S. to testify? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will consult with responsible ethics advisors to determine 

whether any such support would be permissible, or if this would be a matter warranting my recusal 

Afghanistan 

Question. The U.S. maintains about 10,000 troops in Afghanistan and provide billions in security and development assistance. How do you see U.S. interests in Afghanistan? Do you think that the U.S. should pursue a peace deal with militant 

groups in the country? 

Answer. Afghanistan is the longest war in American history. Today, the United 

States should engage the government of Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani and 

CEO Abdullah Abdullah to increase stability, reduce corruption, ensure a better 

standard of living for Afghans, particularly women and girls, and ensure that Afghanistan is never again used as a base for international terrorism. The United 

States should also engage with Islamabad to strengthen the civilian government 

and eliminate the safe havens that terrorist groups like the Haqqani network enjoy. 

The United States should work with both Afghanistan and Pakistan to encourage 

cooperation, build trust, and seek to ensure regional stability, including peace in Afghanistan, in a context of mutual respect and appreciation of each country’ interests. 

Pakistan 

Question. The U.S. has provided billions in security assistance to Pakistan since 

9/11 but the country’s intelligence services continue to support terrorist groups. 

What are our interests with respect to Pakistan? How would you change the U.S. 

approach to Pakistan in order to ensure enhanced pressure on militant groups? 

Answer. The United States has an interest in a democratic Pakistan that respects 

human rights and contributes to regional stability, including the security of its nuclear arsenal The United States should engage with Islamabad to strengthen the 

civilian government and eliminate the safe havens that terrorist groups like the 

Haqqani network enjoy. If confirmed, I will also work with the Department of Defense to encourage the military to take steps against those actors involved with providing assistance to such organizations, which remains a serious threat to Americans, Afghans, and Pakistanis alike. 

India 

Question. We have a very robust and growing relationship with India, which I 

support, but there are many irritants remain regarding values including India’s dismal record on bonded labor and religious freedom. How would address these issues 

as Secretary of State? 

Answer. India is an important partner for the United States. It is the world’s 

most populous democracy, and one which is playing an increasingly important role 

in the region and throughout the world. 

However, certain areas of India’s behavior remain concerning. If confirmed, I will 

engage India to express our concern on issues like infringements of religious freedom to encourage the government to take positive action. 

Central Asia 

Question. The countries of Central Asia continue to have challenging human 

rights records. I have advocated for the release of political prisoners across the region directly to these governments and through the State Department. Do I have 

your commitment to raise cases of political prisoners with leadership in the five 

Central Asian republics? 

Answer. If confirmed as Secretary, I will engage the states of Central Asia to advocate for the release of political prisoners and ensure improvements in human 

rights and responsible governance. The U.S. maintains bilateral relationships with 

each of the nations in Central Asia that encompass multiple facets including security, human rights, energy, and other issues. The status of political prisoners should 

be part of the regular discussions the United States holds with these nations, so 

they are aware of our concern over the issue and are encouraged to take positive 

action in response. 

Rosneft 

Question. Rosneft, currently under sanctions, now holds the mortgage on CITGO’s 

U.S. holdings. You have extensive experience with the Russian state-owned oil inFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

192 

dustry. Do you believe that Rosneft should be permitted to own critical U.S. energy 

infrastructure such as CITGO’s refineries and pipelines? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on the details of this case, but in general 

I am very supportive of the process by which the U.S. government seeks to prevent 

our adversaries—or even potential adversaries—from controlling critical U.S. infrastructure that would leave the American people more vulnerable. 

Yukos 

Question. In 2011, while you were CEO, ExxonMobil signed a $3.2 billion investment deal with Rosneft, the Russian state-owned oil company that had, a few years 

earlier, taken over the assets of the Yukos oil company, which was effectively expropriated by the Russian government and whose CEO, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, spent 

more than ten years in prison on what was widely recognized as politically motivated charges. It is estimated that more than 20,000 individual U.S. investors, public pension funds, as well as more than seventy private investment funds lost their 

investments in Yukos. As Secretary of State, would you commit to helping them receive a fair compensation from the Russian government? 

Answer. My understanding is these have been/are being litigated in the appropriate courts. I do not know the status of specific claims, but the United States 

should and will always support the rule of law. 

Cyprus 

Question. Cyprus is a reliable strategic partner of the United States in the volatile 

region of the Eastern Mediterranean. How will the new U.S. Administration further 

develop the bilateral ties between the United States and the Republic of Cyprus, 

and how will it support the ongoing reunification negotiations and that a reunified 

federal Cyprus will be able to pursue its own independent and sovereign foreign policy, as a Member State of the European Union? 

Answer. Strong bilateral ties with the Republic of Cyprus will help ensure future 

stability and prosperlty in the region. A long-term solution for Cyprus is important 

for U.S. interests in the region. The United States should continue to support the 

efforts of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders to achieve a just resolution that 

is consistent with U.N. resolutions and heals the island’s divisions. If confirmed, I 

look forward to working closely with the U.N. and other key actors to support a solution. 

Romania—Security Relationship 

Question. Romania joined NATO in 2004. The Romanian military served in both 

Afghanistan and Iraq and were among the last allied forces to withdraw from Iraq. 

Mihail Kogainiceanu (MK) airbase in southern Romania is one of the primary transit points for American troops and equipment entering and exiting Afghanistan. At 

any given moment, there are hundreds of U.S. troops in transit through Romania. 

Do you continue to recognize this unique contribution of Romanians in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and will it be the position of the United States to ask Romania to 

continue to perform this critical role, including the mission at MK airbase? 

Answer. I recognize the many valuable contributions that Romania has made and 

continues to make to our common security, including the important role of the M.K. 

Air Base. I look forward to working closely with the government of Romania to meet 

future challenges to our common security if confirmed. 

Romania—NATO & Missiles Defense in Deveselu 

Question. In 2010 Romania’s president agreed to host the Aegis Ashore missile defense system for NATO. The primary purpose of the system is to protect Romania 

and NATO’s southern flank from ballistic missiles launched from Iran. In the period 

since the system was proposed, the Russian government, with varying degrees of intensity, has opposed the plan-claiming that it would somehow erode the Russian nuclear deterrent. Romanian President Klaus Johannis stated in May that, when the 

missiles become operational and the Russians protested that the Russians were 

overreacting and that the system was not directed at Russia and added, ‘‘NATO 

needs to be prepared to respond to incidents coming from other areas outside the 

trans-Atlantic space . . . The system is not against any state, having a strictly defensive role.’’ Will it continue to be the position of the United States to support this 

system? 

Answer. Iran poses a serious threat to the security of the United States and our 

European allies. It is critical to have the right defensive capabilities in place, and 

I value the role that Romania is playing as host of the Aegis Ashore missile defense 

system. If confirmed, I will support our continued commitment to having the right 

defense systems in place to defend Romania and our other NATO allies. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

193 

Romania and the Rule of Law 

Question. Over the past 25 years, U.S. engagement with Romania at the highest 

levels has consistently emphasized the importance of rule of law, transparency and 

anticorruption in providing stability for the country’s political system and predictability for its markets. As Republican and Democratic presidents, vice presidents, 

secretaries of state and other cabinet ministers have emphasized, this is important 

for insuring the continuity of Romanian democracy, undergirding the country as a 

strategic ally and making Romania a more attractive destination for U.S. investment. Do you agree that anticorruption and rule of law should continue to be a pillar of our relationship and a high priority for the Romanian government? 

Answer. Romania is an important ally, and I fully agree that anti-corruption and 

rule of law should continue to underpin our relationship. I look forward to working 

with the Romanian government on these issues if confirmed. 

Israel—Two State Solution 

Question. Since 1967, successive U.S. administrations have promoted a negotiated 

two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians with both sides living side-byside in peace and security. Do you believe that supporting the two-state solution 

should still be U.S. policy? 

Answer. Yes. 

Israel—MOU 

Question. In September, the United States concluded a new 10-year Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) with Israel for military aid. Do you support the funding 

levels agreed to by the United States and Israel? In the new U.S.-Israel MOU, the 

two governments agreed to phase out Off Shore Procurement (OSP), a benefit by 

which Israel was permitted to spend 26.3% of U.S. foreign military financing (FMF) 

on Israel’s defense industry, rather than the United States. If confirmed as Secretary of State, to you intend to continue the agreed-upon plan to phase out of OSP 

for Israel? 

Answer. I am deeply committed to Israel’s security and to our bilateral relationship. Israel is America’s closest ally in the Middle East, and a key bastion of democracy. If confirmed, I intend to engage Israel to deepen this relationship and ensure 

Israel has the means to defend itself. I will discuss with my Israeli partners the 

key components of Israeli security, and ensure that both American and Israeli key 

interests are met 

Israel—UNSCR 2334 

Question. In December, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 2334, which 

I believe is a biased resolution that unfairly targets Israel and makes restarting direct negotiations for a two-state solution more difficult. In your view, how can other 

governments and the Palestinians use Resolution 2334 to further isolate Israel or 

promote unilateral Palestinian action through international organizations? If confirmed as Secretary of State, what steps do you plan to take to mitigate the negative 

implications of 2334? 

Answer. If I am confirmed, I will ensure that Israel will be able to count on the 

United States for political and diplomatic support, particularly in international forums. The United States should not allow Israel to be singled out by international 

bodies for special censure. Doing so only increases Israel’s insecurity, and damages 

its standing in the world. The U.N. resolution that was passed is particularly troubling because in many ways it could be interpreted as undermining the legitimacy 

of Israel as well as the peace process. 

Israel—UN Database 

Question. The U.N. Human Rights Council is preparing a database of companies 

in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This is possibly the first step in preparing 

sanctions against these companies. What can the U.S. do to limit the input of this 

dangerous exercise? 

Answer. The passage of UNSCR 2334 was damaging for many reasons, but in particular because it subjects Israel to potential litigation, delegitimization efforts, and 

penalties in other international arenas. The United States should robustly engage 

in these forums to ensure that Israel is protected. It should also engage member 

governments on a bilateral basis to make them aware of our concern over these efforts and seek their support for our policy in defense of Israel 

Egypt—Assistance 

Question. Egypt is the second largest recipient of U.S. assistance, both military 

and economic. I am committed to a healthy U.S.-Egypt partnership, but have conFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

194 

cerns about anti-American rhetoric in state-sponsored media, backsliding on Egypt’s 

political reform agenda, and the Egyptian government’s blocking of U.S. assistance 

programs. Do you support current conditions on U.S. aid to Egypt, including the 

maintenance of the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty? What about conditions based on political and human rights reforms? Do you believe that the Egyptian government 1s 

capable of stopping anti-American rhetoric in state-sponsored media? 

Answer. Egypt is one of the United States’ most important partners in the region. 

The United States should engage Egypt to express its concern over human rights 

issues in the country, as well as anti-American messages in the media. Our aid 

should always aim to reflect our values. Egypt has an important role to play regionally, as a leader in the Arab world, in the peace process, and in the region. Foreign 

assistance to Egypt, including security assistance, is an important part of our relationship, and critical to Egypt’s ability to both contribute to U.S. national security 

goals and to improve the lives of Egyptians. 

Egypt—CFF 

Question. The Obama Administration announced in April 2015 that it would end 

Cash Flow Financing (CFF), a financial mechanism that enables foreign governments to pay for U.S. defense equipment using U.S. funding in partial installments. 

The Egyptian Government has indicated that it will formally ask the Trump Administration to restart CFF for Egypt. In your view, is CFF in the U.S. national security 

interest? 

Answer. The United States should work to help Egypt achieve the necessary 

means to defend itself and contribute to stability in the region. I will engage Cairo 

to determine the capabilities it needs, and how the United States can best meet 

those needs when they are in concert with our own national interests. Economic 

prosperity is certainly one of those interests; I will closely examine how Egypt 

spends its foreign assistance to ensure both of our key goals are being met. 

Lebanon—New Government 

Question. After nearly three years of political paralysis and the deterioration of 

public services, I was pleased by the election of a President, appointment sofa Prime 

Minister, and the fairly rapid formation of the new government. However, the Lebanese Ministerial Statement affirmed the right of ‘‘armed resistance’’ and of ‘‘liberation’’ outside the authority of the state, allowing non-state actors to remain armed 

and to make war and peace decisions on behalf f the state and the nation. In your 

view, what should the U.S. policy approach be to the new Lebanese government? 

Does Lebanon’s stability and security matter for U.S. national security? What U.S. 

actions or policies would be destabilizing for Lebanon? 

Answer. The United States should engage Lebanon to ensure its stability, contribute to regional stability, and take action against terrorist groups. Careful diplomatic attention must be paid as the government of Lebanon attempts to balance all 

of its domestic factions in the context of a regionalized civil war. If confirmed as 

Secretary, I would work through regional and international mechanisms to contribute to political stability in Lebanon, the sustainment of Lebanese human rights, 

and the disarmament of Hezbollah, consistent with U.N. Security Council resolutions. 

Hezbollah 

Question. Hezbollah continues to amass thousands of rockets on Israel’s border 

and regularly calls for Israel’s destruction. It has also become highly engaged in the 

Syrian civil war playing a central role in supporting Bashar al Assad. None of this 

would be possible without the support and weapons Hezbollah receives from Iran 

and which go through Syria. Yet President-Elect Trump has argued that in Syria 

we should negotiate an agreement with Russia and possibly coordinate with Assad 

to fight ISIL. In your view, why does Iran continue to transfer sophisticated weapons to Hezbollah? Does Iran need a compliant government in Damascus in order to 

continue transferring weapons to Hezbollah? Is it possible to negotiate an agreement with Russia to end the civil war in Syria, that also halts Iran’s use of Syria 

as a strategic corridor to Hezbollah in Lebanon? 

Answer. The threat of the Islamic Republic of Iran is one of the gravest national 

security challenges faced by the United States. Hezbollah is a key ally in Iran’s effort to expand its control over the region. The Syrian government is another key 

ally of Iran; it provides critical support for Iran’s transfer of military hardware, personnel, and supplies to Hezhollah. If confirmed, one of my top priorities will he to 

craft a political settlement for Syria that does not permit the territory of Syria to 

be grounds for international terrorism that might reach the American homeland or 

that of America’s allies. The United States should also engage Iran’s regional rivals 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

195 

to emphasize the need to halt advanced Iranian weapons and other strategic support from reaching Hezbollah. 

Saudi Arabia—Yemen 

Question. It is my view that the threats facing Saudi Arabia from Houthi rebels 

and associated forces constitute legitimate security threats. Since April 2015, the 

Houthis and their allies have conducted cross-border raids and launched missiles 

into Saudi Arabia, and currently occupy Saudi national territory. Many of these missiles have fallen in civilian areas, and the Houthi-aligned forces now boast that 

their long-range missiles could reach Mecca. At least 500 civilians are estimated to 

have been killed inside Saudi territory due to these attacks; hundreds of homes, 

schools, and other civilian structures have been closed. In your view, is there more 

that the United States could do to support Saudi border defense? 

Answer. The conflict in Yemen is deeply concerning to the United States for humanitarian and strategic reasons. Iran is supporting the Shia Houthi forces as part 

of a drive to extend its influence over broad swaths of the Middle East. Taking advantage of the ensuing civil war and collapse of the internationally-recognized government’s authority, al-Qaeda and ISIS affiliates have taken control of territory 

elsewhere in Yemen. The United States should engage with Saudi Arabia and its 

other allies in the region to reduce the humanitarian toll of this conflict, mediate 

a solution that ensures stability, and prevent terrorists from targeting the American 

homeland. As part of that engagement, the United States should assist Saudi Arabia in securing its border against terrorism and attacks from Houthi forces. 

Saudi Arabia—Arms Race 

Question. According to the Congressional Research Service, Saudi Arabia concluded over $93 Billion in arms sales agreements from 2008 to 2015. Most of these 

weapons purchases were from the United States for sophisticated lethal military 

systems such as advanced aircraft, precision-guided munitions, tanks, attack helicopters, and advanced command, communication and control systems. Yet despite 

this extensive arms sale relationship and years of U.S. military training, exercises, 

and education, Saudi military forces have not been able to significantly shift the 

battlefield dynamic in Yemen where they have formed a coalition to back the internationally recognized government of Yemeni President Hadi and push back against 

aggression by Houthi rebels and forces aligned with former President Saleh. Meanwhile, the Saudi-led Coalition’s air strikes and ground operations have contributed 

to unprecedented suffering in Yemen, and many airstrikes—whether deliberate or 

accidental—have resulted in the deaths of Yemeni civilians and destruction of civilian infrastructure. 

♦ Should the United States continue to sell sophisticated weapons systems to 

Saudi Arabia? 

♦ Do you believe that the United States is culpable or complicit in civilian deaths 

or destruction of civilian infrastructure in Yemen because of its arms sales to 

Saudi Arabia? 

♦ Are there specific kinds of weapons that you do not support selling to Saudi 

Arabia? Do you support the sale of precision-guided munitions? If yes, should 

these sales be conditioned on Saudi military conduct? 

♦ What are the risks to U.S. national sec1.1rity if the United States stops selling 

arms to Saudi Arabia? 

♦ While I believe that Israel continues to have a ‘‘Qualitative Military Edge’’ over 

its Arab neighbors, I also believe that advantage is shrinking, especially as we 

continue to sell more advanced weapon systems to the Gulf States. Israel is also 

concerned about its neighbors acquiring a significant ‘‘quantitative military 

edge,’’ in which raw numbers of somewhat less advanced militaries could still 

too considerable harm to Israel’s security. How will you respond to these two 

concerns by our closest partner in the Middle East? 

Answer. The relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States is one of 

the key elements of stability in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia currently feels itself 

besieged by a hostile and revolutionary Iran: on its borders in Yemen; in Syria; in 

Bahrain; and internationally through the JCPOA. Iranian domination of the Middle 

East will not benefit either Washington or Riyadh. The United States should reassure Saudi Arabia that it will remain engaged to secure the stability of the Middle 

East. This includes a strong relationship with Israel, one of our closest allies in the 

region, and a commitment that the United States will never allow Israeli security 

to be imperiled. If confirmed, I will engage Israel closely, in conjunction with the 

Department of Defense, to ensure Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge is never threatened by its neighbors. While ensuring the security of Israel and our other allies in 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

196 

the region, the United States should also, always, work to avoid civilian casualties 

in its own operations and those of its partners. 

Syria—War Crimes 

Question. In your opening statement, you said that Syrian forces have brutally 

violated the laws of war. Is this is the same as war crimes? Which entities, both 

government and nongovernment, operating in Syria over the past year are guilty of 

war crimes? Your opening remarks also point out that Russia has supported Syrian 

forces in these violations of the laws of war. Do you also believe that Russia is guilty 

of war crimes in Syria? If confirmed as Secretary of State, do you commit to including war crimes accountability as a key element of any political agreement to end 

the civil war in Syria? 

Answer. It is highly likely that war crimes have been committed, perhaps by multiple combatants, during the course of the Syrian civil war. Russian, Iranian, and 

Syrian forces have conducted operations that have killed many civilians. If confirmed, I will seek all necessary information, including critical classified information, to ensure that the United States not only alleviates humanitarian suffering in 

Syria but works to hold those parties culpable of war crimes accountable, within the 

context of a stable political solution to the conflict. 

Syria—Russia 

Question. President-elect Trump has suggested that the United States can work 

with Russia on counterterrorism in Syria, and Bashar al-Assad said that Presidentelect Trump can be a ‘‘natural ally’’ in the counterterrorism fight. First, however, 

there must be agreement on what groups are terrorists. If confirmed, what definition of terrorism will you use in your discussions on Syria, and what will you do 

if there is disagreement with your Russian counterparts on this definition? Do you 

believe that Russia and Assad are targeting terrorists that meet the U.S. definition 

of terrorism, in Syria? Is it your assessment that the majority of Russian and Assad 

regime air strikes have targeted terrorists? 

Answer. ISIS presents a critical national security threat to the United States, 

Russia, and many other countries. Russia needs to do more to target ISIS and we 

should reject conflating ISIS with opposition groups with legitimate political grievances with the Assad. If confirmed, this will be a critical point of discussion in any 

engagement of the Russian government 

Syria—Iran 

Question. Iran is helping Assad just as much as Russia. Some of the most effective 

forces coming to aid Assad’s strained forces are the Iranian Revolutionary Guards 

and LebaneseHezbollah. How can the United States seek an agreement on Syria 

with Russia that doesn’t also support Iran’s position? 

Answer. The United States will engage Russia robustly to negotiate a political settlement to the Syrian civil war. There are areas of the Syrian conflict in which we 

share an interest with Russia, such as ensuring regional stability and preventing 

Syria from being used as a launching pad for international terrorism. At the same 

time, the United States needs to emphasize to Russia the negative role Iran often 

plays in meeting these goals and the destabilizing influence it can have on Syria 

and throughout the Middle East If confirmed, I would work closely with our allies 

in the region to ensure that any political settlement in Syria does not place their 

security in jeopardy, nor leave Iran in a dominating position. 

ISIL—Counter-ISIL Campaign 

Question. Please provide a summary of your understanding of the main lines of 

effort of the U.S.-led Global Coalition to Counter ISIL. Have these lines of effort 

been effective in shrinking the territory held by ISIL in Iraq and Syria? In your 

view, is U.S. leadership necessary to global efforts to counter ISIL? Why? If confirmed, will you recommend that the U.S. Government retain these lines of effort 

as its strategic approach to countering ISIL? What are the specific recommendations 

you intend to offer for strengthening the U.S.-led Global Coalition to Counter ISIL? 

Answer. Coordinated military action by the United States and its allies has indeed helped to erode the physical size of the territory held by ISIS in Iraq and 

Syria. To date, however, the bulk of the existing strategy remains unimplemented. 

With the notable exception of U.S. government efforts to disrupt the organization’s 

finances, very little has been done to fully address the complexity of the threat 

posed by ISIS. 

In my view, much of the approach begun by the Obama administration has continuing relevance. However, U.S. government efforts have so far suffered from a 

lack of leadership and resources necessary to lead to lasting success. One of my top 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

197 

priorities as Secretary will be to engage with the Global Coalition and determine 

which strategies hold the greatest promise for future success, particularly in the 

realm of countering the IS/S’s corrosive ideology. 

ISIL—War of Ideas and CVE 

Question. In your opening statement you state that defeating ISIL will not occur 

on the battlefield along, but that ‘‘we must win the war of ideas.’’ You go on to state, 

‘‘If confirmed, I will ensure the State Department does its part in supporting Muslims around the world who reject radical Islam in all its forms.’’ 

How do you define radical Islam? 

Answer. Radical Islam is a political manifestation of the Islamic faith, one that 

does not value human life and is deeply antagonistic to democratic values and institutions and which seeks to replace them with strict Islamic governance on a local, 

regional, and ultimately a global level 

Question. Do you anticipate that the people, organizations, and governments that 

you seek to work with share this definition? 

Answer. While it is impossible to expect all our partners to share our view of the 

threat posed by radical Islam, the Global Coalition to counter ISIS is proof that it 

is possible, at the very least, to build a broad, united front against the most extreme 

manifestations of this phenomenon. 

Question. Under your leadership, where would State’s efforts to counter terrorism 

and violent extremism sit within the broader policy framework? 

Answer. Quite simply, America cannot ‘‘go it alone’’ in the fight against radical 

Islam. Because of the scope of this struggle, it is imperative that the United States 

secure international support and assistance for its efforts. The Department has a 

critical role to play in engaging global partners, and in helping to shape the ideological counter-narrative to radical Islamic thought. 

Question. How would you prioritize them compared to other critical issues such 

as injustice, autocratic governance, refugees, political violence, humanitarian crisis 

and violent conflict? 

Answer. While certainly not the only challenge facing the United States, it is my 

view that the struggle against radical Islam represents one of the top national security and foreign policy priorities of our government. 

Question. How would you define our objectives regarding countering terrorism and 

violent extremism? 

Answer. In the near term, the United States must eliminate the ability of radical 

groups such as ISIS to threaten the U.S. homeland, and reduce the threat they pose 

to American interests and American allies abroad. In the longer term, we should 

work to discredit and marginalize the most extreme interpretations of the Islamic 

faith, while simultaneously empowering moderate versions of the same. 

Question. Can they be achieved with current means and methods, and what role 

does the State Department specifically play in achieving them? 

Answer. The terrorism challenge confronting the United States is one that is far 

broader than ISIS alone. It encompasses the rise of other militant groups, the growing global popularity of extreme Islamist thought, and the mass mobilization of Islamic radicals in the Middle East and beyond. In order to adequately address these 

and other threats, the U.S. government must be prepared to engage in long-term 

conflict. It must also formulate a counterterrorism strategy that is as complex, as 

adaptive, and as wide-ranging as the forces that it seeks to confront and defeat. So 

far, it has not. 

The role of the State Department in this effort is a critical one, involving both 

outreach to coalition partners and engagement with the Muslim world, with the goal 

of discrediting the radical Islamist message. 

Question. Please provide three examples of new initiatives that you will promote 

at the State Department to support Muslims in countering violent extremism? 

Answer. Today, the private sector is the site of significant innovation in countering violent extremism, with organizations such as Jigsaw creating new technologies and methods by which to steer vulnerable individuals away from radicalism. As Secretary, I would encourage greater governmental investments in these 

private sector enterprises as a way of amplifying their effectiveness and reach. 

Likewise, I would expand the scope and authorities of the Global Engagement 

Center, or whatever entity replaces it, in order to more effectively counter not only 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

198 

the ideology of ISIS, but that of other extreme groups as well (including radical Shi 

’ite movements and actors). 

Finally, I would oversee a significant reorganization and fusion of the existing 

public diplomacy functions currently located in various parts of the bureaucracy, as 

a way of helping the State Department to more effectively lead the ‘‘war of ideas’’ 

against radical Islam. 

Question. Please provide three examples of ongoing State Department initiatives 

that positively contribute to countering violent extremism and that you would seek 

to retain if confirmed? 

Answer. Over the past year, the State Department has experienced significant 

success, with social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter, in limiting the 

ability of extremists to occupy and exploit the social media space. Likewise, the U.S. 

government effort to disrupt ISIS’s finances (in which the State Department plays 

a significant role) has had a notable effect on the group’s overall financial fortunes. 

Finally, the State Department has helped to engage with foreign allies in an effort 

to develop strategies to prevent radicalized individuals from joining the ranks of 

ISIS in Iraq and Syria. 

Question. What are U.S. policies—both domestic and international- that might alienate the very Muslims you seek to work with in countering violent extremism? 

Answer. In recent years, the perception that the United States is disengaged 

from—and disinterested in—the Muslim world has become increasingly prevalent 

abroad. This perception is deeply injurious to our efforts to forge a broad counterterrorism coalition with the resources and resolve to defeat ISIS and other manifestations of radical Islam. Our allies and partners in this effort must know that the 

United States is committed to a long-term struggle against Islamic extremism in all 

of its forms. 

Iran—Sanctions 

Question. Speaking in the context of sanctions against Russia over its invasion of 

Crimea, you expressed skepticism of the efficacy of sanctions in general, unless they 

are applied in a ’comprehensible’ fashion. At Exxon’s 2014 annual meeting, you are 

quoted as saying, ‘‘We do not support sanctions, generally, because we don’t find 

them to be effective unless they are very well implemented comprehensibly, and 

that’s a very hard thing to do. So we always encourage the people who are making 

those decisions to consider the very broad collateral damage of who are they really 

harming.’’ Sanctions—implemented effectively- have been the linchpin of our strategy to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapons capability, and to obstructing its malign 

regional influence. Is there anything in this statement that you would like to clarify? Did Exxon, either itself or through proxies and associations, oppose sanctions 

against Iran? 

Answer. My statement at ExxonMobil’s 2014 annual meeting provided 

ExxonMobil’s perspective on sanctions as a general matter. ExxonMobil did not 

lobby against Iran sanctions during my tenure as Chairman and CEO, but rather 

sought to share information with lawmakers that would assist them in mitigating 

disproportionate harm to U.S. companies as compared to their foreign competitors. 

To the best of my knowledge, ExxonMobil has disclosed all such activity as required 

by the lobbying disclosure laws. 

Iran—JCPOA 

Question. While the JCPOA suspended nuclear sanctions against Iran, the U.S. 

retains the right to enforce and impose new sanctions on Iran for its support for 

terrorism, human rights abuses, development and testing of ballistic missiles, cyber 

crimes, and corruption. If confirmed, do you plan on advocating for sanctioning Iranian entities involved in these malign activities? How will the State Department respond under your leadership if Iranian officials threaten to abrogate the JCPOA? 

What do you see as the proper path forward with regard to the JCPOA? 

Please provide specific examples of new sanctions that can be applied in each category listed above, and whether the executive branch has authority to implement 

such sanctions or needs new legislative authority. 

Answer. The United States should closely examine, and at the very least rigorously enforce, the provisions of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). 

It should engage the IAEA, the Joint Commission, and other international and multilateral organizations—as well as individual states—to ensure Iran does not cheat 

on its commitments. At the same time, the United States should work with its regional partners and allies to dismantle Iran’s sponsorship of terrorist groups and 

block Iranian aggression throughout the Middle East. Non-nuclear sanctions are an 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

199 

important part of that effort. If I am confirmed, the United States will closely monitor and enforce those sanctions, including on entities linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. However, I would like to receive all available material, including that in the classified realm, before identifying specific targets. 

Mexico 

Question. A December 2016 report by the Center for Disease Control found that 

heroin is the leading cause of overdose deaths in the U.S. Most of the heroin ravaging U.S. communities comes from Mexico, where transnational criminal organizations control poppy cultivation, heroin production, and trafficking routes to the 

United States. The damage done to U.S.-Mexico relations during the campaign 

threatens to undermine the deepened security cooperation begun under President 

George W. Bush with the Merida Initiative. If confirmed, how will you work with 

the Government of Mexico to diminish the threat posed to American families by heroin? Will you continue the Merida Initiative and support the Mexican government’s 

efforts to reform its justice sector, expand training for civilian police, combat corruption, and protect human rights? 

Answer. Mexico is a country of great importance to the United States, as a neighbor and trading partner. Although we will probably have differences with the government of Mexico regarding enforcement of our immigration laws, we will still need 

to continue to cooperate with Mexico on important issues of common interest, such 

as narcotics trafficking. If confirmed, I would review the track record of the Merida 

Initiative, and certainly endeavor to continue projects that improve Mexican performance in the areas you have noted. 

Canada—Reviewing Keystone Pipeline Permit 

Question. On November 6, 2015, following extensive technical consultations with 

eight federal agencies, Secretary of State John Kerry determined that it was in the 

U.S. national interest to deny the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. The technical review found marginal benefits for the American economy and our energy security, and a range of concerns for local communities and water supplies in the U.S. 

If confirmed, would you seek consider the Keystone pipeline matter settled, or would 

you seek to reopen the past technical review process or launch a new review? 

Answer. During the campaign, the President-elect made a commitment to reopen 

this matter and proceed with the Keystone Pipeline-in the interests of energy security and job creation. If confirmed, I will quickly review the legal and foreign policy 

aspects of Secretary Kerry’s decision and work with the President-elect to carry out 

his policy objectives. 

Colombia 

Question. U.S. support for Colombia across three U.S. and three Colombian Administrations, through Plan Colombia and now Peace Colombia, is rightly seen as 

perhaps the most successful bipartisan foreign policy success in the 21st Century. 

The United States has invested billions while our Colombian partners have far outpaced that investment in terms of blood and treasure. Fifteen years ago, Colombia 

teetered on the edge of being a failed state. Today, it has an historic peace agreement and stands on the verge of joining the OECD. If confirmed, do you pledge to 

continue U.S. support for Colombia through Peace Colombia to help Colombia consolidate its historic peace agreement? 

Answer. I agree that Plan Colombia has made a dramatic difference and can be 

considered a foreign policy success for both the United States and for Colombia. Colombia is, I believe, one of our closest allies in the hemisphere, and an important 

trading partner. If confirmed, I would make every effort to continue our close cooperation with the Colombian government, holding them to their commitments to 

rein in drug production and trafficking. I would also seek to review the details of 

Colombia’s recent peace agreement, and determine the extent to which the United 

States should continue to support it. 

Venezuela 

Question. In 2016, Venezuela delivered the world’s worst economic performance in 

terms of GDP contraction and inflation. As the country has moved towards economic 

collapse, widespread shortages of essential medicines and basic food products have 

created an increasingly urgent humanitarian situation. This situation is complicated 

by an authoritarian government whose members are engaged in widespread corruption and, in the case of some officials, direct involvement in the drug trade. If confirmed, what policy tools do you recommend the United States use to resolve or mitigate the growing humanitarian crisis and collapsing economy Venezuela? How will 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

200 

you work with other governments in the region to address the challenges in Venezuela? 

Answer. I think we are in full agreement as to the calamity that has befallen Venezuela, largely a product of its incompetent and dysfunctional government-first 

under Hugo Chavez, and now under his designated successor, Nicolas Maduro. If 

confirmed, I would urge close cooperation with our friends in the hemisphere, particularly Venezuela’s neighbors Brazil and Colombia, as well as multilateral bodies 

such as the OAS, to seek a negotiated transition to democratic rule in Venezuela. 

In the end, it will be rebuilt political institutions, led by brave Venezuelan democracy and human-rights advocates, that will pave the way for the kinds of reforms 

needed to put Venezuela on the path to economic recovery. 

Brazil 

Question. Since March 2014, an ongoing legal probe in Brazil has uncovered billions of dollars of corruption and led to the arrest of more than 160 people. In December 2016, pursuant to information uncovered in the aforementioned probe and 

in accordance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Brazilian company Odebrecht, 

S.A. and subsidiary Braskem, S.A. admitted that they had paid more than $788 million in bribes to foreign government officials and agreed to a settlement of $3.5 billion in penalties. Given your affirmative response to question G.1. in the Senate 

Foreign Relations Committee questionnaire and expressed commitment to supporting U.S. efforts globally to address corruption, if confirmed as Secretary of 

State, will you use your voice to express support for ongoing independent legal investigations of corruption in Brazil? If confirmed as Secretary of State, will you seek 

to ensure the independence of the criminal probe opened by a Brazilian federal prosecutor to examine potentially corrupt investments in the hotel located at Rua Professor Coutinho Frois 10, Barra da Tijuca, Rio de Janeiro, State of Rio de Janeiro 

22620-360, Brazil (formerly known as Trump Hotel Rio de Janeiro), as well as any 

possible links between corrupt investments and the companies that own, developed, 

or managed the hotel? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would see it as my duty to seek enforcement of American 

laws, including such statutes as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. I do not believe 

it would be in the purview of the Secretary of State to interfere in another sovereign 

country’s internal legal deliberations-other than to ensure that if Americans are parties to a dispute that they are treated fairly, granted access to bona-fide legal counsel, and not discriminated against because of their American nationality. 

Chabad Dispute 

Question. There is a legal dispute with Russia over the Schneerson Library, a collection of 12,000 books and 50,000 religious documents assembled by the ChabadLubavitch Hasidic movement over two centuries prior to World War II, and kept 

since in Russia. For decades the Chabad organization, which is based in Crown 

Heights, Brooklyn, has been trying to regain possession of the library, saying that 

it was illegally held by the Soviet authorities after the war. In 1991 a court in Moscow ordered the library turned over to the Chabad organization; the Soviet Union 

then collapsed, and the judgment was set aside by the Russian authorities. In 2010, 

Chabad took the dispute to federal court here in the United States. A federal judge 

ruled in favor of the Chabad organization, ordering Russia to turn over all 

Schneerson documents held at the Russian State Library, the Russian State Military Archive and elsewhere. Russian officials have refused to obey the court order. 

Mr. Tillerson, if confirmed as Secretary of State, will you work with the Congress 

in convincing the Russian government to turn over the Schneerson Library? 

Answer. This is a very important matter. I intend to engage with Congress to determine the best approach regarding the return of the Schneerson Library. 

PRE-HEARING QUESTIONS

Question. Please provide detailed information about the legal incorporation and 

framework for, and activities and value of, the Russian company Exxon Neftegas. 

Please describe in detail your activities in your role as Director of Neftegas. 

Answer. Exxon Neftegas Limited, or ENL, is a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil Corporation. Formed in the Bahamas in 1991, ENL has its registered office in the Bahamas 

and maintains additional foreign branch office registrations in the Russian Federation, in accordance with Russian and other applicable laws. ENL’s value, measured 

by its authorized capital, is approximately USD $2 billion. 

ENL is the operator of the Sakhalin-1 Project, which develops and produces oil 

and gas fields off the coast of Sakhalin Island in the Russian Far East. An interFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

201 

national consortium, which includes ENL and Japanese, Russian, and Indian companies, are investors in the Sakhalin-1 Project. Additional information on the project 

can be found at http://www.sakhalin-1.com. 

As a Director of ENL, I helped oversee the affairs of the company pursuant to 

applicable laws and regulations. In accordance with those responsibilities, I participated in board meetings, voted on corporate resolutions, and otherwise interacted 

with ENL’s management. 

Question. Please describe all gifts you received in your professional capacity within the last 3 years that exceeded $1000 per annum including the sender of the gift, 

a description of the gift, the value of the gift, and the disposition of the gift. 

Answer. Based on my own recollection and a review of ExxonMobil records, I have 

not received any gifts in my professional capacity within the last 3 years that had 

a value over $1000. 

Question. Please list all income received from foreign sources and all foreign taxes 

paid or accrued (in each case, by country) since January 1, 2013. Please list foreign 

taxes claimed as a foreign tax credit or deduction on your U.S. Federal income tax 

returns for such period. Please confirm that, if required, the nominee and your 

spouse has filed accurate, complete and timely Forms FinCEN 114 (FBAR) and IRS 

Forms 8938 (Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets) for each year since 

January 1, 2013. 

Answer. Certain of the investments listed on my Form 278e would have been subject to foreign taxes, but those taxes were paid at the fund level. 

Question. In the ethics agreement submitted to the committee on January 3, you 

indicate that you ′′will not accept any payment from the trust unless ExxonMobil 

has acted in good faith to reduce the amount of the lump sum payment to the trust 

sufficiently to offset for the time value of the accelerated payment to the trust and 

to offset for the economic value of the waiver of any rights under the clawback provision.′′ Please provide a schedule of the time value and amounts referred to in this 

sentence. 

Answer. Exxon Mobil’s January 4, 2017 Form 8-K explains that the payment will 

be discounted by approximately $3 million. Further questions should be directed to 

Exxon Mobil. 

Question. In the ethics agreement submitted to the committee on January 3, you 

indicate that ′′[t]he trustee will make payments to [you] on a schedule closely approximating the ordinary schedules for removal of the restrictions on my restricted 

stock and for payout of the stock units.′′ Please provide a schedule of the amounts 

and dates of the schedule of payout referred to in this sentence. 

As indicated to the Office of Government Ethics, under Exxon Mobil policy, I am 

entitled to receive payments on a pre-established, roughly annual basis for the first 

ten years following my retirement (2017 to 2026). The amounts of these payments 

will depend on the performance of the assets in the irrevocable trust. 

Question. In the ethics agreement submitted to the committee on January 3, you 

indicated that payments from the Tillerson Foundation will continue, if you are confirmed as Secretary of State, in the form of compensation for services or as unconditional irrevocable gifts. Please describe what types of services and gifts and who 

would be the recipients. Do you commit that the Tillerson Foundation will not make 

any gifts to foreign persons or entities or otherwise award gifts that would potentially conflict with your role as Secretary of State? 

Answer. I commit that the Tillerson Foundation will not make any gifts to foreign 

persons or entities or otherwise award gifts that would potentially conflict with my 

role as Secretary of State. 

Question. You have indicated in your response to the Committee’s questionnaire 

that you intend to sever all of your business associations in the event you are confirmed by the Senate. Please provide a full and detailed response regarding your intentions for disposition of any and all ownership interests, investment interests, or 

other interests in ExxonMobil Corporation, or any corporation owned or affiliated 

with ExxonMobil Corporation, in the event you are confirmed. 

Answer. Attached is a copy of my ethics agreement with the State Department, 

i.e., my letter dated today to Katherine McManus, the State Department’s Designated Agency Ethics Official. This letter-agreement, which has been approved by 

the Office of Government Ethics and is being delivered to the Committee today, fully 

describes my intentions for disposition of any and all ownership interests, investFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

202 

ment interests, or other interests in ExxonMobil Corporation, or any corporation 

owned or affiliated with ExxonMobil Corporation, in the event I am confirmed. 

January 3, 2017 

Ms. Katherine D. McManus Deputy Legal Adviser 

and Designated Agency Ethics Official, 

Office of the Legal Adviser, 

Department of State. 

Re: Ethics Undertakings 

DEAR MS. MCMANUS, I am committed to the highest standards of ethical conduct 

for government officials. If confirmed as Secretary of State, as required by 18 U.S.C. 

§ 208(a), I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter 

in which I know that I have a financial interest directly and predictably affected 

by the matter, or in which I know that a person whose interests are imputed to me 

has a financial interest directly and predictably affected by the matter, unless I first 

obtain a written waiver, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(1), or qualify for a regulatory 

exemption, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(2). I understand that the interests of the 

following persons are imputed to me: any spouse or minor child of mine; any general 

partner of a partnership in which I am a limited or general partner; any organization in which I serve as officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee; and 

any person or organization with which I am negotiating or have an arrangement 

concerning prospective employment. 

Upon confirmation, I will resign from my positions with the following entities: 

Ford’s Theatre Society, Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Boy 

Scouts of America. I previously resigned from my positions with the Business 

Roundtable and American Petroleum Institute. For a period of one year after my 

resignation from each of these entities, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which I know that entity 

is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(d). 

My spouse and I own Bar RR Ranches, LLC. Upon confirmation, I will resign 

from my position as managing member of this entity. I will continue to have a financial interest in this entity, but I will not provide services material to the production 

of income. Instead, I will receive only passive investment income from it. I will not 

participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that to my knowledge has a direct and predictable effect on the financial interests of Bar RR 

Ranches, LLC, unless I first obtain a written waiver, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 208(b)(1). 

I am the sole owner of R2 Real Estate, LLC. During my appointment, this entity 

will continue to exist solely to hold personal assets. Upon confirmation, I will resign 

from my position as managing member of this entity. I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that to my knowledge has a direct 

and predictable effect on the financial interests of this entity, unless I first obtain 

a written waiver pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(1). 

I resigned from my position as Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil Corporation 

(ExxonMobil) on December 31, 2016. For a period of one year after my resignation 

from ExxonMobil, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which I know that ExxonMobil is a party 

or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate, pursuant to 5 

C.F.R. § 2635.502(d). 

At the time of my resignation, I held restricted stock and restricted stock units. 

I have not received, and will not receive, additional grants of restricted stock or restricted stock units following my resignation. ExxonMobil’s incentive program plan 

provides that the Compensation Committee may authorize an employee who departs 

before reaching the established retirement age to retain restricted stock and restricted stock units, provided that the employee worked for the company for at least 

15 years and was at least 55 years old. The longstanding practice of the Compensation Committee has been to authorize the retention of these items for most eligible 

employees. Consistent with this practice, the Compensation Committee has authorized me to retain my restricted stock and restricted stock units. Ordinarily, these 

items would, in the case of the restricted stock, become free of the restrictions on 

transfer and, in the case of the restricted stock units, pay out at various times, both 

over the next 10 years. However, to eliminate any conflict of interest that might 

arise if I were to continue to hold a financial interest in ExxonMobil as Secretary, 

ExxonMobil’s board has authorized an arrangement under which, prior to assuming 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

203 

the position of Secretary, I will surrender to ExxonMobil all of my outstanding restricted stock awards and restricted stock unit awards for cancellation in exchange 

for a cash payment to an irrevocable trust, to be administered by an independent 

trustee that is beyond the control of ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil will waive any right 

to exercise a clawback provision that authorizes it to rescind some or all of the payout for any of a variety of reasons, including a determination that the recipient has 

engaged in conduct detrimental to the company. Instead, the trust instrument will 

provide that, if I become employed by or provide services to a company in the oil 

and gas industry or the oil and gas services industry, I will forfeit the remaining 

undistributed assets in the trust. Such forfeited assets will be distributed to a charity of the trustee’s choosing dedicated to the alleviation of disease and poverty in 

the developing world. I will not accept any payment from the trust unless 

ExxonMobil has acted in good faith to reduce the amount of the lump sum payment 

to the trust sufficiently to offset for the time value of the accelerated payment to 

the trust and to offset for the economic value of the waiver of any rights under the 

clawback provision. The trustee will make payments to me on a schedule closely approximating the ordinary schedules for removal of the restrictions on my restricted 

stock and for payout of the stock units. To further resolve any potential for conflicts 

of interest, the trust instrument will require that, during my appointment to the 

position of Secretary, the trust’s holdings be limited to cash, cash equivalents, obligations of the United States, investment funds that qualify for the exemption at 5 

C.F.R. § 2640.201(a), and municipal bonds. You have explained to me that, as a beneficiary of this trust, I must disclose in my public financial disclosure reports all 

holdings of this trust that meet the reporting thresholds established in 5 C.F.R. part 

2634, subpart C. 

Half of my annual bonus was paid in cash and half was paid in Earnings Bonus 

Units, which represent a contractual obligation that ExxonMobil will make payments if certain earnings per share targets have been met within three years after 

the award of the Earnings Bonus Units. At the time of my resignation, I was not 

owed any unpaid cash bonuses, but I continued to hold Earnings Bonus Units for 

the years 2014, 2015, and 2016. I will forfeit these Earnings Bonus Units upon confirmation. 

I hold stock in ExxonMobil. I do not hold any vested or unvested stock options. 

I will divest my stock in ExxonMobil within 90 days of my confirmation. I will not 

participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that to my knowledge has a direct and predictable effect on the financial interests of ExxonMobil 

until I have divested this stock, unless I first obtain a written waiver, pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(1), or qualify for a regulatory exemption, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 208(b)(2). 

I will elect to receive a total distribution of my interests in the ExxonMobil Qualified Defined Benefit Pension Plan, the ExxonMobil Nonqualified Defined Benefit 

Supplemental Pension Plan, the ExxonMobil Defined Contribution Nonqualified 

Supplemental Savings Plan, and the ExxonMobil Nonqualified Defined Benefit Additional Payments Plan consistent with the standard terms of these plans, including 

the ordinary timelines for making distributions. Until my interests in each plan are 

fully distributed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular 

matter that to my knowledge has a direct and predictable effect on the ability or 

willingness of ExxonMobil to provide the benefits under the plan, unless I first obtain a written waiver, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(1), or qualify for a regulatory 

exemption, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(2). I also have an interest in the Defined 

Contribution ExxonMobil Savings Plan, which I will divest prior to assuming the 

duties of the position of Secretary. 

As a retired ExxonMobil executive, I am entitled to receive the following standard 

retiree benefits: retiree medical benefits; use of a product discount credit card; office 

space and administrative support; financial counseling; and tax preparation services. I will forfeit all of these benefits upon confirmation. I am also entitled to participate in an executive life insurance plan. Before I assume the duties of the position of Secretary, ExxonMobil will terminate my participation in this life insurance 

plan and provide me with a prepaid life insurance policy, with equivalent benefits, 

through an independent insurer.Within 90 days of confirmation, I will divest my interests in the entities listed in Attachment A. With regard to each of these entities, 

I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that to 

my knowledge has a direct and predictable effect on the financial interests of the 

entity until I have divested it, unless I first obtain a written waiver, pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(1), or qualify for a regulatory exemption, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 208(b)(2). During my appointment to the position of Secretary, if I have a managed 

account, I will ensure that the account manager does not purchase any new assets 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

204 

other than cash, cash equivalents, obligations of the United States, investment 

funds that qualify for the exemption at 5 C.F.R. § 2640.201(a), and municipal bonds. 

Upon confirmation, I will resign from my positions with the Tillerson Foundation. 

I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving 

specific parties in which this entity is a party or represents a party, unless I am 

first authorized to participate, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(d). Within 90 days 

of my confirmation, the Tillerson Foundation will divest its interests in ExxonMobil. 

Thereafter, for the duration of my appointment to the position of Secretary, the 

Foundation’s holdings will be limited to cash, cash equivalents, obligations of the 

United States, investment funds that qualify for the exemption at 5 C.F.R. 

§ 2640.201(a), and municipal bonds. The Tillerson Foundation has not previously received contributions from persons other than myself or my spouse, and, during my 

appointment as Secretary, it will not receive any contributions from persons other 

than myself or my spouse. In addition, it will not make payments to any outside 

entities except as compensation for services or as unconditional, irrevocable gifts. 

I have previously paid taxes owed by certain grantor trusts disclosed in my financial disclosure report. I am not a trustee of these trusts. Neither my spouse nor I, 

nor any minor child of mine, is a beneficiary of these trusts. Before I assume the 

duties of the position of Secretary, in order to resolve any potential conflicts of interest, I will take steps to ensure that I and my spouse are not responsible for the 

taxes owed by these trusts. 

I have disclosed my financial interests in HF Renaissance EQ, LLC. However, a 

preexisting confidentiality agreement bars me from identifying the underlying assets of this fund in my financial disclosure report. Therefore, I will divest my financial interests in this fund as soon as possible after confirmation and not later than 

90 days after my confirmation. Until I have divested this fund, I will not participate 

personally and substantially in any particular matter that to my knowledge has a 

direct and predictable effect on the financial interests of the fund or its underlying 

assets, unless I first obtain a written waiver, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(1), or 

qualify for a regulatory exemption, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(2). 

In addition, I will recuse myself on a case-by-case basis from participation in any 

particular matter involving specific parties in which I determine that a reasonable 

person with knowledge of the relevant facts would question my impartiality in the 

matter, unless I am first authorized to participate, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. 

§ 2635.502(d). 

I understand that I may be eligible to request a Certificate of Divestiture for 

qualifying assets and that a Certificate of Divestiture is effective only if obtained 

prior to divestiture. Regardless of whether I receive a Certificate of Divestiture, I 

will ensure that all divestitures discussed in this agreement occur within the agreed 

upon timeframes and that all proceeds are invested in non-conflicting assets. 

Within 90 days of my confirmation, I will document compliance with this ethics 

agreement by notifying you when I have completed these implementing actions. 

I have been advised that this ethics agreement will be posted publicly, consistent 

with 5 U.S.C. § 552, on the website of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics with 

ethics agreements of other Presidential nominees who file public financial disclosure 

reports. 

Sincerely, 

/S/ REX W. TILLERSON REX W. TILLERSON

ATTACHMENT A 

ENTITIES IN WHICH SECRETARY-DESIGNATE HAS AN INTEREST

1.–AbbVie, Inc. 

2.–Accenture Plc 

3.–Airbus Group 

4.–Alaska Air Group, Inc. 

5.–Alaska Air (Note: open position for 

written call option) 

6.–Alibaba Group Hldg 

7.–American Express Co. 

8.–Amgen, Inc. 

9.–Anhui Conch Cement 

10.–Apple, Inc. 

11.–AT&T, Inc. 

12.–Atlantia SPA 

13.–Aviva Plc 

14.–AXA 

15.–Baidu, Inc. 

16.–Blackrock, Inc. 

17.–BNP Paribas 

18.–Boeing Co. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

205 

19.–Bristol Myers Squibb Co 

20.–BYD Company, Ltd 

21.–Carnival Cp 

22.–Carrefour SA 

23.–Caterpillar, Inc. 

24.–Caterpillar, Inc., (Note: two open 

positions for written call option) 

25.–CDN Pacific Ry Ltd 

26.–Celgene Corp 

27.–Celgene (Note: open position for 

written call option) 

28.–Chevron Corp 

29.–China Mobile, Ltd. 

30.–China Pete & Chem CP 

31.–Chubb, Ltd. 

32.–Cisco Sys Inc. 

33.–Citigroup Inc. 

34.–Coca Cola Co. 

35.–Colgate Palmolive Co. 

36.–Compagnie de St. Gobain 

37.–Compagnie Fin Richemontag 

38.–Ctrip.com Intl, Ltd. 

39.–Cummins, Inc. 

40.–Cummins, Inc. (Note: open position 

for written call option) 

41.–CVS Health Corp 

42.–D R Horton, Inc. 

43.–Daimler AG 

44.–Deere & Co. 

45.–Deere & Co. (Note: open position for 

written call option) 

46.–Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

47.–Deutsche Telekom AG 

48.–Discover Financial Services 

49.–East Japan Ry Co. 

50.–Eaton Corp Plc 

51.–Electricite de France 

52.–EMC Corp Mass 

53.–Extra Space Storage, Inc. 

54.–Fedex Corp 

55.–Ferrovial SA 

56.–Fidelity National Information SE 

57.–Ford Motor Co 

58.–Fresenius SE & Co. 

59.–General Electric Co. 

60.–General Mills, Inc. 

61.–General Motors Co. 

62.–GlaxoSmithKline Plc 

63.–Goldman Sachs Group (Note: open 

position for written call option) 

64.–Goldman Sachs Grp 

65.–Heineken NV Spn 

66.–Honda Motor Company 

67.–Honeywell International, Inc. 

68.–Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing 

69.–Howden Joinery Group Plc 

70.–Iberdrola SA 

71.–Infineon Technologies AG 

72.–ING Groep NV 

73.–Ingenico Group 

74.–Ingersoll-Rand Plc 

75.–Intel Corp 

76.–Intel Corp. (Note: open position for 

written call option) 

77.–International Business Machines 

Corp 

78.–Intesa Sanpaolo S.P.A. 

79.–ITC Holdings 

80.–Japan ARPT Term Co. 

81.–Japan Exchange Group, Inc. 

82.–JD COM, Inc. 

83.–Johnson & Johnson 

84.–JPMorgan Chase & Co. 

85.–Komatsu, Ltd. 

86.–Koninklijke Phil EL 

87.–LafargeHolcim 

88.–Legal & General Plc 

89.–Lennar Corporation 

90.–Line Corp 

91.–Lloyds Banking Group Plc 

92.–Lockheed Martin Corp 

93.–Lowes Companies, Inc. 

94.–Magna International, Inc. 

95.–Marsh & McLennan Cos 

96.–Masco Corp 

97.–Medtronic Plc 

98.–Metlife Incorporated 

99.–Microsoft Corp 

100.–Mitsubishi UFJ Fincl Grp 

101.–Mondelez Intl, Inc. 

102.–Monsanto Co 

103.–National Grid Transco Plc 

104.–Nestle 

105.–Nextera Energy, Inc. 

106.–Nielsen Holdings Plc 

107.–Nike, Inc. 

108.–Nippon Shinyaku Co 

109.–Nippon Telegraph & Telephone 

110.–Novartis AG 

111.–Novo Nordisk 

112.–NXP Semiconductors NV 

113.–Packaging Corp of America 

114.–Pepsico, Inc. 

115.–Pfizer, Inc. 

116.–Phillips 66 

117.–Potash Cp of Saskatchewan, Inc. 

118.–Praxair, Inc. 

119.–Procter & Gamble 

120.–Prudential Financial, Inc. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

206 

121.–Qualcomm, Inc. 

122.–Rakuten, Inc. 

123.–Reckitt Benckiser Plc 

124.–Royal Dutch Shell Plc 

125.–Sanofi 

126.–Schlumberger, Ltd, 

127.–Seven & I Holdings Co Ltd. 

128.–Shin Etsu Chem Co Ltd. 

129.–Shire Plc 

130.–Sony Corp 

131.–Southwest Airlines 

132.–State Street Corp 

133.–Target Corporation 

134.–TE Connectivity, Ltd. 

135.–Time Warner, Inc. 

136.–Time Warner, Inc. (Note: open 

position for written call option) 

137.–Total SA 

138.–Toyota Motor Corp 

139.–Travelers Companies, Inc. 

140.–UBS Group AG 

141.–Union Pacific Corp 

142.–Union Pacific Corp. (Note: open 

position for written call option) 

143.–United Technologies Corp 

144.–UnitedHealth Group 

145.–Verizon Communications 

146.–VF Corporation 

147.–Vinci SA 

148.–Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 

149.–Walt Disney Co. 

150.–Walt Disney Co. (Note: open 

position for written call option) 

151.–WEC Energy Group, Inc. 

152.–Wells Fargo & Co. 

153.–Whirlpool Corp 

154.–Yandex NV 

155.–Yum China Holdings 

156.–ZTO Express Cayman, Inc. 

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY-DESIGNATE TILLERSON BY SEN- ATOR CARDIN (JANUARY 20, 2017) FOR WHICH NO RESPONSE HAS BEEN RECEIVED

Taxation/Conflicts of Interest 

Question. I recognize that there is a disagreement about your provision of 3 years’ 

worth of tax returns, as I had requested, and that you do not intend to do so. 

♦ Your answer to Question 17 was non-responsive. Please provide the information 

requested. Any confidential information you provide will be treated as confidential by the committee. 

♦ Have you complied with all United States tax laws related to your personal finances, your personal residence, Bar RR Ranches, LLC and R2 Real Estate 

LLC? 

♦ Please list all income received from foreign sources since January 1, 2013. 

Extractives Transparency and Section 1504 

Question. Mr. Tillerson, you stated in your response to question 2A that part of 

your job, if confirmed as Secretary of State, ′′will be to make sure that because 

American companies, NGOs, and development relief efforts are expected to play by 

the rules and abide by Dodd Frank, Cardin-Lugar, FCPA, and other laws, that foreign companies or investors do not get an unfair advantage by cheating or keeping 

to a lower standard.′′ 30 countries have now adopted similar rules to the US. Stateowned companies from Russia, Brazil, and China are covered, and the global EITI, 

which Exxon supported while you were CEO, has aligned its standard with CardinLugar covering more than 60 countries that implement the initiative. These requirements cover the majority of leading oil, gas and mining companies already covered, 

and Cardin-Lugar has been endorsed by investors worth $10 trillion in assets. 

♦ Given the Cardin-Lugar standards are now effectively global, and you have said 

that making transparency the norm should be ‘‘a primary objective,’’ would you 

oppose any efforts to roll Cardin-Lugar back since that would put US diplomatic 

relationships and our global leadership on transparency, good governance and 

anti-corruption at risk? 

Conflicts of Interest 

Question. Thank you for your answer. However, the question was about the President Trump’s conflicts of interest and overseas business arrangements. Please answer the question as written. In addition, please answer yes or no to the following 

additional questions about potential conflicts of interest: 

♦ Because the President has not divested his interests in the Trump Organization-which does business in many countries around the world-and is not proFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

207 

viding transparency to the American public regarding his or the Trump Organization’s foreign debts, business interests, holdings, and potential conflicts of interest, will you have sufficient information to gauge whether the State Department or USAID is contributing to self-dealing and other inappropriate enrichment by the President and his family in the Administration’s dealings with 

other countries? 

♦ In your years at Exxon did you ever conclude a deal with a counterparty who 

refused to disclose relevant financial interests and exposure? 

♦ If yes, please cite an example. 

♦ If no, please explain why the president should be exempt from the disclosure 

and divestiture practices followed by his predecessors. 

♦ If you become aware of a violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the 

U.S. Constitution in your time as Secretary of State, will you report it to this 

Committee? 

The Global Fund 

Question. Mr. Tillerson, question 41 asked about the Global Fund, but your answer did not didn’t mention the global fund. 

♦ What are your views of the Global Fund? 

♦ If confirmed, will you be committed to continuing America’s leadership against 

AIDS, TB and malaria through our bilateral and Global Fund investments? 

Humanitarian issues in Syria 

Question. In part of your response to Question 44a, you referenced ‘‘nation building.’’ This question was not about nation building. This question is about Russia and 

Syria deliberately targeting and attacking Syrian aid workers and civil society organizations. So, to repeat the question: 

♦ In your role, how will you make the protection of all Syrian humanitarian workers and their ability to maintain operations one of your key points in any negotiations with Russia and the Government of Syria? 

International Humanitarian Law 

Question. In your response to question 47a. about how you would use US leadership to reinforce rules-based international order and international cooperation, you 

noted that ‘‘ . . . above all I will insist that they follow U.S. laws and the government’s obligations under those laws.’’ 

♦ Do you agree that the conventions signed and ratified by the United States on 

this issue are U.S. law? 

ISIL—Counter-ISIL Campaign 

Question. Your answer did not respond to all sub-questions in Question 105, 

‘‘ISIL—Counter-ISIL Campaign.’’ Specifically, please answer the following: 

♦ If confirmed, will you recommend that the U.S. Government retain these lines 

of effort as its strategic approach to countering ISIL? 

♦ What are the specific recommendations you intend to offer for strengthening the 

U.S.-led Global Coalition to Counter ISIL? 

Brazil 

Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, will you ensure that no U.S. officials 

seek to inappropriately influence the independence of the criminal probe opened by 

a Brazilian federal prosecutor to examine potentially≥ corrupt investments in the 

hotel located at Rua Professor Coutinho Frois 10, Barra da Tijuca, Rio de Janeiro, 

State of Rio de Janeiro 22620-360, Brazil (formerly known as Trump Hotel Rio de 

Janeiro), as well as any possible links between corrupt investments and the companies that own, developed, or managed the hotel? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

208 

SECRETARY-DESIGNATE TILLERSON’S ANSWERS TO

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR RISCH

Advocacy of U.S. business 

Question. One of your unique qualifications for the position of Secretary of State 

is your experience managing investments in countries all over the world, including 

in emerging markets. Based on this experience, how well do you believe the State 

Department has helped to assist U.S. investors to gaining access to foreign markets, 

and do you believe the State Department has done all that it could over the years 

to assist U.S. investors in dealing with political challenges that sometimes arise, 

particularly in emerging markets? What additional ways do you think State Department could do to help U.S. foreign investors to gain access to foreign markets? 

Answer. Since development assistance and USAID was established by President 

Kennedy more than 50 years ago, the private sector, through foreign direct investment (FDI), has skyrocketed past government aid to become the overwhelming engine of economic growth in the developing world. The U.S.Government does many 

terrific things to help FDI, including OPIC, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, 

and the incredibly successful PEPFAR program. However, the U.S. Government can 

do a lot more, and it is clear that development assistance must undergo a full review, and perhaps reform, to ensure that we are fully leveraging and helping FDI 

find opportunities in countries of the developing world. If confirmed, I will lead an 

effort to analyze and critique how to make development assistance more effective 

and efficient, with the intention of ensuring that that assistance is designed for the 

21st Century, and not the previous one, as we seek to help nurture the vast power 

of FDI to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. 

The Department of State should be a strong advocate for contract sanctity and 

the rule of law. These are foundational conditions for successful U.S. investment 

abroad. 

Central Asia 

Question. The countries in Central Asia have often experienced substantial pressure from Russia to host military facilities or limit their interaction with the United 

States and other Western nations. Do you believe the United States has interests 

in the region, and if so, what role do you believe the United States should play in 

the region? 

Answer. It is important to recognize that some of those countries have played important roles in logistics for U.S. military actions while fighting the war on terror. 

If confirmed as Secretary, I will engage the states of Central Asia to ensure that 

U.S. national security interests are met. These include regional stability, countering 

transnational terrorist groups, the war in Afghanistan, human rights, energy, and 

other issues. The United States should play a positive diplomatic role in bilateral 

and multilateral forums to advance our interests with our regional partners. 

Political Islam 

Question. In your opening statement you referred to the threat of Radical Islam. 

One of the biggest challenges in confronting radical Islam is the funneling of money, 

given for charitable purposes, that is often diverted to supporting extremist teaching 

and terrorism. What additional measures do you believe are necessary to track and 

eliminate these money flows? While financial sanctions are enforced by the Department of Justice, do you support increased measures to track and eliminate these 

money flows? Will you prioritize these issues in your meetings with foreign leaders? 

Answer. I do not yet have a full understanding of the financial sanctions that are 

enforced by the Department of Justice working in concert with the Department of 

the Treasury. Should I be confirmed, to the extent permitted by law, I will work 

with other departments to track and eliminate the transit of money used to support 

terrorism and spread radical Islam. One possible approach is to ensure that those 

known charities who funnel money to terrorist organizations are exposed to their 

donors. 

State Department Management 

Question. American diplomats and diplomacy increasingly need a range of skills 

and knowledge that go beyond traditional limits, including the need to work more 

closely with the U.S. military and officials of other agencies to oversee development 

projects and help build strategic partnerships with fragile democracies and allies. 

What steps would you take to prepare the State Department to master these new 

requirements? 

Answer. Modernization of learning modules and training platforms has been underway at the Foreign Service Institute for some time, including distance learning. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

209 

A new look at leadership and management training was undertaken in 2016. You 

are right to point out that the skills required and ability to undergo life-long learning in new trade crafts will be vital. The Department already has mature programs 

to send recently promoted mid-career officers and those identified senior officers preparing for top leadership assignments as principal officers to our War Colleges, but 

we need to find more and newer ways to achieve an even broader range of skills. 

Just as we encourage a secondment to Capitol Hill through the Pearson Fellows program, we can do more if we align the HR and promotions process to reward professional training, development, and cross-pollination. If confirmed, I would like to explore with you more ways we can encourage these priorities, ensuring successful 

programs such as MCC and PEPFAR, Power Africa, are used in case studies. 

Russia 

Question. Do you believe that tensions between the United States and Russia result primarily from misunderstandings or from conflicting interests and objectives? 

Answer. Tensions in U.S.-Russian relations stem primarily from real conflicts of 

interest between our two countries, based on enduring factors like history, geography, culture and worldview. Diffusing these tensions and conflicts requires open 

dialogue around our differences, 

Question. In your opening statement, you said we ‘‘must hold those who are not 

our friends accountable to the agreements they make. We cannot ignore violations 

of international accords.’’ Over the past decade the world has seen substantial treaty 

violations by the Russians regarding a number of treaties the United States has 

with them, such as the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, violations of other arms control agreements laid out by the 

State Department’s own reports, the Budapest Memorandum regarding Ukraine, 

and a number of other agreements. How do you envision imposing accountability on 

a government that does not live up to its agreements? What tools do you think are 

the most important? 

Answer. When adversaries of the United States violate their international obligations and transgress international norms, they should confront a clear, swift and 

firm response—not only from America but from our allies as well. 

We should be prepared to use the range of diplomatic, economic and security tools 

at our disposal, deploying them after careful consideration of how U.S. objectives 

can best be achieved against Russia or any other adversary. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

210 

SECRETARY-DESIGNATE TILLERSON’S ANSWERS QUESTIONS

FROM SENATORS CARDIN AND GARDNER

Question. Mr. Tillerson—since 2011, the country of Burma has embarked on a 

path toward democracy, culminating in peaceful elections in November 2015 that 

brought Nobel Peace Prize winner and democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi to power. 

However, Burma’s new democratic government continues to face serious challenges, 

including the stalled ethnic peace process, violence in Rakhine State and elsewhere, 

lack of economic development, and the military’s continuing grip on key institutions 

of power, which impedes genuine democratic governance, accountability, and transparency. Indeed, as of January 9, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs an estimated 65,000 people have fled Burma, 

mostly Rohingya fleeing persecution. Amnesty International reported and documented a campaign of violence perpetuated by the Burmese security forces which 

have indiscriminately fired on and killed civilians, raped women and girls, and arbitrarily arrested Rohingya men without any information about their whereabouts— 

charges which ‘‘may amount to crimes against humanity.’’ There has also been a recent upsurge in violence in Shan and Kachin States, as well. 

How will the Trump Administration incentivize democracy in Burma and promote 

a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic Burma that respects the human rights of its 

entire people regardless of ethnicity and religion, including the Rohingya? 

Answer. I am extremely encouraged by the positive developments that have taken 

place in Burma over the past few years, including the conduct of elections and the 

coming to power of Aung San Suu Kyi Burma has made significant strides, even 

though there is a long way to go, especially in the protection of minority rights. 

The United States has long been a supporter of protecting minorities in Burma, 

and I would expect that stance to continue under a Trump Administration. 

Question. Do you believe that economic sanctions can be useful leverage to support key U.S. policy objectives in Burma with regard to democracy and human 

rights? 

Answer. Economic sanctions are certainly one of the tools available to the United 

States to exercise pressure on countries. That said, we have good reason to believe 

that engagement with the leadership in Burma and other international actors can 

produce positive results without resorting to such measures at this time. 

Question. Given that the jade and gemstone sector has been identified by many 

analysts as one of the principle drivers of conflict in Burma, including ethnic conflict, the narcotics trade, and corruption, what should the United States do to support a transparent, equitable and sustainable jade and gemstone sector in Burma 

that benefits all segments of the Burmese society? 

Answer. The United States can assist the Burmese government to build greater 

capacity to monitor and certify its production of jade and precious stones-areas in 

which it has made progress since beginning the transition to civilian control. But 

much of the country’s jade and gemstone industry is based in conflict areas in the 

north, where proceeds from smuggling help fund armed ethnic groups that maintain 

close ties to China. It is therefore critical that the United States work with China, 

along with other neighboring countries and international organizations, to crack 

down on the illicit trade in jade and gemstones from Burma. 

Question. Will you prioritize the development of the power sector in Burma, where 

only a third of the population has reliable access to electricity? 

Answer. Yes. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

211 

SECRETARY-DESIGNATE TILLERSON’S ANSWERS TO

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR RUBIO

Russia 

Question. What is your view regarding the long-term implications of allowing a 

state to violate the sovereignty and annex the territory of its smaller neighbor? 

Answer. I believe it establishes a very dangerous precedent and can lead to destabilizing a region as seen in Europe and Asia during World War IL This could have 

a profound negative impact on U.S. national interests. 

Question. Do you believe Russia committed an act of aggression by invading Georgia and seizing Georgian territory in August 2008? 

Answer. Yes. As I stated in my oral testimony, such actions by Russia represent 

unacceptable behavior. Almost nine years after the war ended, Russia is still in violation of the Six Point Peace Plan brokered by then French President Nicolas 

Sarkozy. 

Question. Do you believe the United States should accept a Russian sphere of influence in any part of the world? 

If so, what are the countries or regions that would fall into such a sphereUkraine? Georgia? The Balkans? The Middle East? 

Answer. No. 

Question. If not, what lengths should the United States be willing to pursue to 

prevent the establishment of spheres of influence? 

Answer. I do not believe nations are entitled to a sphere of influence over other 

sovereign nations. We should strengthen our alliances with other like-minded nations who also oppose any nation seeking to establish spheres of influence. 

Question. In 2008, you delivered remarks in Russia in which you said ‘‘Russia 

must improve the functioning of its judicial system and its judiciary. There is no 

respect for the rule of law in Russia today.’’ In 2012, you concluded one of the biggest energy deals in Russian history. Do you believe the rule flaw in Russia improved between 2008 and 2012? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Does your conclusion that there is no rule of law in Russia remain just 

as applicable today as it was in 2008? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. What is your relationship with Igor Sechin? 

Would you describe him as a business partner or do you have a closer relationship? 

Answer. As Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, I interacted with Mr. Sechin as 

a business partner in his capacity as CEO of Rosneft. I also interacted with Mr. 

Sechin’s predecessor at Rosneft, Eduard Khudainatov, in the same capacity. 

Question. The Russian press has published various reports about Mr. Sechin, his 

property holdings, and his lifestyle. Independent news organizations have been pressured by the Russian regime to retract these reports. Do you believe that Mr. Sechin 

is corrupt? 

Answer. I have not interacted with Mr. Sechin in his personal capacity since the 

sanctions were put in place in April 2014. All of my interactions with him have been 

on behalf of our respective employers, and all of ExxonMobil’s business transactions 

with Rosneft have been fully compliant with U.S. laws. If confirmed, I can commit 

to you that I will review relevant information that would help me to assess your 

question fully. 

Question. Did you meet with him after he was designated a sanctioned individual 

by the U.S. Treasury Department in April 2014? 

Answer. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, the company 

conducted business with Rosneft. Consistent with the designation, I only met with 

Mr. Sechin following his designation in his role as CEO of Rosneft to conduct business. 

Question. Did you consult with the U.S. State Department, U.S. Treasury Department, or any lawyers about your ongoing interactions with Mr. Sechin to determine 

if your meetings with him constituted ‘‘material support’’ of an individual sanctioned 

by the U.S. Government? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

212 

Answer. To the best of my knowledge, ExxonMobil took all appropriate steps to 

ensure that its actions involving Mr. Sechin as CEO of Rosneft were fully compliant 

with applicable U.S. laws and regulations. 

Question. Did you or anyone at ExxonMobil ever personally request the U.S. Government to re-examine or lift sanctions imposed against Mr. Sechin? 

Answer. I did not do so personally. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, did anyone 

at ExxonMobil 

Question. Did Mr. Sechin ever make such a request of you or anyone at 

ExxonMobil? 

Answer. Not to me personally. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, did he make any 

such request of others at ExxonMobil 

Question. Would you, if confirmed as Secretary of State, recommend that sanctions on Mr. Sechin be lifted or altered? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would favor continuing the status quo until all relevant 

facts and circumstances were fully reviewed. 

Question. Would you, as Secretary of State, continue meeting with Mr. Sechin 

even though he is a sanctioned individual and part of your job would be to convince 

other countries to abide by U.S. sanctions? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Press reports indicate that you were asked by the Obama Administration not to attend the 2014 World Petroleum Conference in Moscow. 

Who conveyed this request to you? 

Answer. No one. To the best of my knowledge, I did not receive any such request. 

Question. Why did you disregard this request? 

Answer. To the best of my knowledge, I received no request asking that I not attend the 2014 World Petroleum Congress, where I was a scheduled speaker given 

my role at ExxonMobil. The World Petroleum Congress is an industry-wide event 

that occurs every three years in a different country, and is widely attended by executives and government officials. I did not intend by my presence to signal support 

or opposition to Russian leadership, but rather to represent ExxonMobil and share 

its perspective on industry matters. 

Question. Last year, you reportedly attended the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum even though the U.S. Government had discouraged American business 

leaders from attending. 

Why did you ignore the U.S. Government’s request? 

Answer. To the best of my knowledge, I did not receive any such request. 

Question. Did you discuss your attendance at this conference in advance with any 

U.S. officials? 

Answer. Not to my recollection. 

Question. Will you and the incoming Administration pledge not to lift or weaken 

sanctions currently imposed on Russian officials and individuals until: 

♦ Russia recognizes that Crimea is part of Ukraine? 

♦ Russia removes all military and irregular forces from Ukrainian territory? 

♦ Russia halts its support for war crimes in Syria? 

♦ If no, what specific actions do you believe Russia needs to take before sanctions 

are lifted or modified? 

Answer. I believe the current sanctions should remain in place. As to additional 

sanctions, I would like to include sanctions, whether executive or legislative in nature, in a process that identifies how to most-effectively respond to the series of illegal takings, interferences, support of atrocities, and other unacceptable events by 

Russian and Russian-backed elements. If confirmed, I will be working closely with 

the President-elect, the entire National Security team, and Congress to determine 

the appropriate next steps regarding Russian sanctions. 

Question. The Russian government seems to think that its interference in our 

elections, through leaking of personal information and promotion of fake news stories, is no different from our support for non- governmental organizations (NGOs) 

and independent media that promote human rights and free elections in Russia and 

other foreign countries. 

Do you agree that what we do and what they do is basically the same? 

Answer. No. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

213 

Question. If not, how would you explain the difference? 

Answer. As I stated in my oral testimony, the United States is committed to working within the rule of law. Russia is not. 

Question. Are you aware that Kremlin-funded television and Internet sites routinely spread anti-American propaganda, including that the United States murdered 

its own citizens on 9/11, and spread equally vile lies in Europe to undermine our 

allies there? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. What are your thoughts about how we should combat this propaganda? 

Is it in our interest to support a free, independent media in the Russian speaking 

world and elsewhere? 

Answer. We should support a free and independent media in the Russian-speaking world. Should I be confirmed, I will commit to supporting that effort. 

Answer. In your travels to Russia, have you ever met with any Russian human 

rights activists or any members of Russian civil society who are trying to defend 

human rights or to fight corruption in that country? 

Answer. My records do not reflect any such meeting, but it is entirely possible 

that I would have met with Russian activists or NGOs. 

Question. Did you meet such non-governmental activists in any other countries in 

which Exxon operated? 

Answer. Under my leadership, ExxonMobil regularly interacted with human 

rights and other non- governmental activists. I would also occasionally meet with 

activists and NGOs. For example, in late 2010, I participated in a global forum to 

end human trafficking, hosted by the United Nations Global Initiative to Fight 

Human Trafficking and the Suzanne Mubarak Women’s International Peace Movement.As you know, President Barack Obama initiated a so-called ‘‘reset’’ of relations 

with Russia early during his tenure. Were you supportive of the Russian ‘‘reset’’ at 

the time? 

Answer. As Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, I did not express a view on 

whether to support the so-called ‘‘reset’’ of relations with Russia. 

Question. Was the ‘‘reset’’ beneficial to Exxon’s dealings in Russia? 

Answer. ExxonMobil’s involvement in Russia predates the ‘‘reset’’ of relations with 

Russia under President Obama. I do not believe the ‘‘reset’’ was itself beneficial or 

detrimental to the company’s dealings in Russia. 

Question. What do you think the lessons learned from the ‘‘reset’’ are? 

Answer. The Administration’s strategy for dealing with Russia, while well intended, fell short in execution. As I stated in my oral testimony, if confirmed, I will 

seek to develop an effective strategy to engage Russia that protects and advances 

U.S. interests. 

Question. President George W. Bush earlier tried to cooperate with President 

Vladimir Putin, but President Bush’s tenure in office ended with Russia’s invasion 

of Georgia in 2008. What do you think the legacy of the Bush approach to Russia 

is? 

Answer. The legacy of the Bush Administration’s approach to Russia, in the end, 

was not too different from that of the past Administration. 

Question. A group of former leaders of America’s European allies recently wrote 

a letter to President-elect Trump stating: ‘‘Under Putin, Russia’s record of militarism, wars, threats, broken treaties and false promises have made Europe a more 

dangerous place.... A deal with Putin will not bring peace. On the contrary, it makes 

war more likely.’’ Do you share their assessment? Why or why not?Yes. Current 

Russian policies are a threat peace and stability in Europe. 

Ukraine 

Question. Is it true that you once told a U.S. government official that the United 

States should have just asked Putin to pay for Crimea? 

Answer. No, to the best of my knowledge. 

Question. Do you believe estimates that up to 400-500 Russian soldiers have lost 

their lives fighting in Ukraine? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed to say with confidence how many Russian 

soldiers have died fighting in Ukraine. What is clear from available reporting is that 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

214 

a significant number of Russian military members have died in Ukraine, quite possibly many more than 500. 

Question. Is Russia currently in violation of the Minsk agreement? 

Answer. Yes. Russia has not yet implemented and adhered to its obligations 

under the Minsk Agreements. 

NATO/European Security 

Question. How should the United States respond to Russia’s use of energy as a 

weapon of geopolitical influence against European countries, such as when it shut 

off gas to Ukraine during the winters of 2006 and 2009? 

Answer. As I stated in my oral testimony, I believe the first and most important 

contribution the U.S. can make is to develop the abundant energy resources that 

we have in the United States and make them available for export to our friends and 

allies through the instruments of the free market 

Question. Would you change longstanding U.S. opposition to the Nordstream II 

pipeline? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you believe there is an economic justification for the Nordstream II 

pipeline? 

Answer. Having access to abundant supplies of natural gas is fundamental to Europe’s continual economic prosperity. As such, there could be an economic justification. However, rather than deepening its dependency on a single supply—Russia— 

Europe would realize benefits from diversifying its supply on natural gas from other 

reliable countries. 

Question. What about South Stream? 

Answer. No. 

Question. The Republic of Moldova is seeking better relations with the United 

States and aspires to membership in the European Union (EU). Russia opposes 

Moldova’s interest in joining the EU, to the point of imposing a trade embargo on 

the country when it signed an association agreement with the EU in 2014. Do you 

believe it is appropriate for Russia to pressure the Moldovan government not to join 

the EU? 

Answer. No. The Moldovan people and their elected representatives should decide 

whether EU membership is right or not for their nation and economy. 

Question. If not, will you support Moldova’s right to decide for itself whether to 

pursue membership in the EU? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. What actions will you take if confirmed as Secretary of State to assist 

Moldova in standing up to Russian pressure? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I would want to work with the President and the 

other members of the National Security Council to determine the best actions to be 

taken. 

Question. Do you believe that European nations that do not belong to the European Union (EU) or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) should be free 

to join the EU, NATO, or other nations if they meet the criteria for membership 

in these organizations. 

Answer. The door is always open to those European nations who seek membership. 

Question. Should membership in these organizations be subject to negotiation 

with Russia? 

Answer. No. 

Sanctions as a national security tool 

Question. Can you give me an example of an instance in which the Obama Administration properly exercised a national security waiver in congressionally-imposed 

sanctions, and also an example where it did not? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. What I can say is that, should I be confirmed, I will follow the law. 

I would never recommend exceeding the intent of national security waiver provisions. I would advise the President to use them as Congress intends to account for 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

215 

unforeseen developments, where using the waiver was appropriate with the purpose 

of the provision-advancing and protecting U.S. interests. 

Question. You have stated that ‘‘[w]e do not support sanctions, generally, because 

we don’t find them to be effective unless they are very well implemented comprehensively and that’s a very hard thing to do.’’ What is an example of a case where the 

United States used ‘‘comprehensive’’ sanctions effectively to achieve national security goals? 

Answer. As I stated in my oral testimony, sanctions can be effective if they are 

part of an effective overall strategy aimed at accomplishing national security goals. 

For instance, as I stated in my oral testimony, I believe comprehensive sanctions 

against Cuba were important for our national security and promoting support for 

human rights in Cuba. Should I be confirmed, for example, I would want a comprehensive review of the executive order delisting Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism to determine if delisting was appropriate. 

Question. Do you agree that sanctions played a role in bringing Iran to the negotiating table, even though these sanctions were not adhered to by every foreign government that is a major economic partner with Iran? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Do you believe that sanctions played a role in leading to democratic reform in Burma? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Do you believe that sanctions play an important role in slowing the 

growth of North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction programs? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Is Russia the only country in which you believe sanctions have not been 

successful or are there other cases? 

Answer. Sanctions are a critical tool of U.S. foreign policy. Should I be confirmed, 

I would review the applicable laws in place and make an assessment as to whether 

they are being effectively implemented. I look forward to working with the Committee on this important issue. 

Answer. If confirmed as Secretary of State, part of your job when dealing with 

rogue regimes will be convincing other foreign governments to respect and abide by 

U.S. sanctions, some of which are unilateral U.S. sanctions. 

Question. How do you intend to make arguments in support of these sanctions 

given your own past remarks questioning the efficacy of sanctions? 

Answer. I have confidence in the President-elect and his team to develop sound 

strategies to protect and advance American interests. Should I be confirmed, I will 

press for sanction policies that align with those strategies. The Department of State 

will work with other federal agencies and foreign governments to fully implement 

them. 

Question. Do you commit to making sanctions implementation a priority if you are 

confirmed as Secretary of State? 

Answer. Yes. 

Israel 

Question. During your time at ExxonMobil, did you ever conduct any business 

with Israel or Israeli companies? 

Answer. Yes. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil regularly 

conducted business in Israel and with Israeli companies. 

Question. During your time at ExxonMobil, did you ever turn away business with 

Israel in order not to damage relationship with Arab states? Did your Jewish employees ever face discrimination in Arab countries? 

If so, how did you respond to such incidents? 

Answer. No. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil had a robust 

antiboycott legal compliance program, providing clear guidance to employees concerning the United States antiboycott laws. 

I am not aware of any particular instances of discrimination faced by 

ExxonMobil’s Jewish employees in Arab countries that occurred during my tenure 

as Chairman and CEO. It was important to me that ExxonMobil take discrimination 

very seriously. If any employees were harassed, they would have been entitled to 

a prompt and thorough investigation by ExxonMobil’s human resources department, 

and appropriate follow-up. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

216 

Question. Have you ever visited Israel? 

Answer. I have not yet had an opportunity to visit Israel but look forward to doing 

so soon after being confirmed, if I am confirmed. 

Question. Can you confirm that President-elect Donald Trump will move the U.S. 

embassy to Jerusalem? If so, can you provide a timetable for the move? 

Answer. Congress has mandated that the United States move its embassy in 

Israel to East Jerusalem from its current location in Tel Aviv. If confirmed, I would 

engage all the regional partners of the United States to discuss implementing this 

mandate. Such a move should only take place after the closest possible consultations 

with Jordan, in particular, which has an historically important role to play in preserving stability. 

Question. What specific steps will the Trump Administration take in response to 

the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334? 

Answer. As I stated in my oral testimony, Israel is a vital ally of the United 

States, and we must meet our obligations to Israel as our most important strategic 

ally in the region.. Should I be confirmed, I would recommend to the President that 

the U.S. announce it no longer supports that resolution and that it veto any U.N. 

Security Council efforts to implement the resolution or enforce it, and block any future U.N. sanctions based on it. 

Question. Would the Trump Administration object to continued Israeli construction in either existing or new settlements? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to gaining a greater understanding of 

U.S. interests and advocating for policies that as I stated in my oral testimony meet 

our obligations to our most important strategic ally in the region. 

Question. Do you regard construction of Israeli settlements as a primary reason 

for the failure of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks to date? 

Answer. No. Palestinian terrorist attacks, not the settlements, are the reason for 

the collapse of the Oslo Accords. 

Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, what would you personally do to 

counter the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement? 

Answer. As I stated in my oral testimony, Israel is a vitally of the United States, 

and we must meet our obligations to Israel as our most important strategically in 

the region. Should I be confirmed, I would recommend to the President that the U.S. 

announce it no longer supports that resolution and would veto any U.N. Security 

Council efforts to implement it or enforce it, and block any future U.N. sanctions 

based on it. 

Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, will you work to fight the anti-Israel 

bias at the United Nations? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Will you pledge to support the vetoing of any and all anti-Israel resolutions in the United Nations Security Council? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Many close American allies and aid recipients blindly support antiIsrael resolutions in the General Assembly and various U.N. bodies. Are you willing 

to use American leverage in our bilateral relationship with specific countries to reduce activity hostile to Israel and to our own nation in the U.N. system? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Do you agree that the United States should condition its contributions 

to the United Nations on certification that no U.N. agency or affiliated agencies 

grants any official status, accreditation, or recognition to any organization which 

promotes or condones anti-Semitism? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Is Bashar al-Assad the legitimate ruler of Syria? Is he a friend of the 

United States? 

Answer. Bashar al-Assad is a brutal dictator who rules only through the use of 

force and intimidation. He is no friend of the United States. 

Question. Do you think we should directly partner with Russia in military operations in Syria? 

Answer. No. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

217 

Question. How many ISIS fighters have Russian forces killed in Syria? 

Answer. It is my understanding that they have killed very few, but I do not know 

an accurate number, and I look forward to a full briefing. 

Question. Do you believe Russia’s actions in Syria have strengthened or weakened 

Iran? 

Answer. Russia has generally strengthened Iran’s position. 

Question. Is American influence greater or weaker in the Middle East than it was 

prior to Russia getting involved in Syria? 

Answer. American influence has become weaker. 

Question. ‘‘In Syria,’’ wrote Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, President-Elect Trump’s incoming national security advisor, in his recent book Field of Fight, ‘‘[Russia and 

Iran] have loudly proclaimed they are waging war against ISIS, but in reality the 

great bulk of their efforts are aimed at the opponents of the Assad regime.’’ Do you 

agree with Gen. Flynn’s view that Russia and Iran have devoted the bulk of their 

efforts in Syria to defeating the moderate opposition, thereby strengthening the influence of ISIS? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Do you support assisting moderate Syrian opposition forces in Syria 

with non-lethal and lethal assistance? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to gaining a greater knowledge of 

this issue and pressing for policies that best protect and advance U.S. interests in 

the region. 

Question. Is the current U.S. strategy of relying heavily on support from the Syrian Kurds to capture territory in northern Syria in the eventual offensive against 

Raqqa the strategy you would recommend to President Trump? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. However, it is my understanding that the Syrian Kurds have the 

most effective fighting force in retaking territories previously held by ISIS. Should 

I be confirmed, I commit to gaining a greater knowledge of this issue and pressing 

for policies that best protect and advance U.S. interests in the region. 

Question. Is it in America’s interest for Iraq to be dominated by Iranian influence? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Were you supportive of the Iraq War in 2003? 

Answer. As a private citizen, I was generally supportive of continued containment 

of Saddam Hussein and his ruling government 

Question. Do-you believe the United States should have taken control of oil production in Iraq and received some or all of the proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you believe the United States should have retained a military presence in Iraq after 2011? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Do you support Kurdish independence? 

Answer. No. Kurdish autonomy within a federal and decentralized Iraqi state is 

a preferable outcome for U.S. national interests. 

Question. Is Iranian President Hassan Rouhani a moderate? Is he someone the 

United States can do business with? 

Answer. Regardless of President Rouhani’s political position, the key decisions on 

issues of critical importance to the United States—like nuclear program—are made 

by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. 

Answer. Khomeini is not a moderate. 

Question. Did you support the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)? 

♦ If not, why? 

Answer. The JCPOA did not adequately reduce the threat posed by Iran. One of 

the priorities of the Trump Administration will be making sure that Iran does not 

acquire a nuclear weapons capability. 

Question. Do you agree that the JCPOA should be renegotiated or abrogated? 

♦ If so, which parameters of the JCPOA need to be modified? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

218 

Answer. As I stated in my oral testimony, should I be confirmed, I commit to 

working with the President-elect and the National Security Council in assessing 

JCPOA and determining what further actions are required to protect and advance 

U.S. interests. 

Question. Will you support the imposition of additional sanctions on Iran for its 

ballistic missile efforts? Its continued support for terrorism? Its human rights 

abuses? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Did ExxonMobil, either individually or as part of a coalition, ever lobby 

on or against Iran sanctions? 

Answer. ExxonMobil did not lobby against Iran sanctions during my tenure as 

Chairman and CEO, but rather sought to share information with lawmakers that 

would assist them in mitigating disproportionate harm to U.S. companies as compared to their foreign competitors. I understand that ExxonMobil disclosed all such 

activity as required by the lobbying disclosure laws. 

Question. You told Senator Portman during your confirmation hearing that the 

United States should explore cooperation with Iran against ISIS. You later told me: 

‘‘Well, defeating ISIS is the one that is right in front of us and we’re already cooperating with them in Iraq.’’ How is the United States ‘‘cooperating’’ with Iran in Iraq? 

Answer. It is my current understanding the U.S. is not directly cooperating with 

these forces. 

Question. Do you acknowledge that Iran and its terrorist proxies have killed 

Americans? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Why would you think that the United States should cooperate with a 

country that even Obama administration officials have described as the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism? 

Answer. The U.S. should not cooperate with Iran in Iraq or anywhere else. 

Question. There are tens of thousands of political prisoners in President Abdel 

Fattah el-Sisi’s Egypt today, including American citizens such as Aya Hijazi, who 

has been jailed for nearly three years on baseless charges after she started an NGO 

to help street children. What will you do to protect American citizens abroad, and 

how will you work to press for the release of Americans held by foreign governments, including by U.S. allies such as Egypt? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will ensure that the State Department fulfills 

its responsibilities, using its resources and expertise to proactively protect Americans when they travel, such as by communicating clearly the U.S. government’s expectations that other governments protect, and treat lawfully and fairly, visiting 

Americans. In the event of danger to an American overseas, I will ensure all relevant personnel within the State Department treat the situation as a priority, and 

that there is coordination with other U.S. government agencies. For those Americans unjustly held by foreign governments, I will press at all opportunities with 

those governments and their publics the case that the Americans should be exonerated and freed, and I will examine all options for concerted action with other U.S. 

government agencies for gaining a speedy release. 

Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, how would you work with Egypt’s 

leaders to focus the country’s energy on countering its real security threats and reforming its economy, while respecting freedom of the press, due process, civil society, and other fundamental freedoms? 

♦ What are the risks to Egypt’s stability if its leaders continue down the same 

path of repression and economic stagnation? 

Answer. As I stated in my oral testimony, I believe that the deterioration of 

human rights is a threat to security. Instability in Egypt risks proliferating instability throughout the region. Should I be confirmed, I would make clear that the 

U.S. strongly believes an open and equitable society is the best way to ensure a 

strong, peaceful Egypt. The State Department should use every opportunity to encourage Egypt in that direction. 

Question. Do you believe the el-Sisi government is making Egypt more or less stable, and what evidence have you seen that supports your views? 

♦ How would you explain the surge in terrorist violence and public unrest since 

el-Sisi seized power? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

219 

Answer. The Muslim Brotherhood represented a greater threat to stability and 

human rights in Egypt and the region. Radical Islamist elements opposed to the 

government continue to instigate terrorism across Egypt. 

Question. Do you believe that the United States gives Egypt the right amount of 

foreign assistance, too much, or too little? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to gaining a greater understanding 

of the terrorist threat in Egypt and developing effective U.S. policies to address 

them commensurate with U.S. interests. I will also examine other opportunities for 

U.S. foreign assistance that will support stability in the country by addressing 

human rights needs. 

Question. After the upheaval of the Arab Spring, only one country-Tunisia-remains standing as an emerging democracy in the region. Do you believe it should 

be a national security priority of the United States to support Tunisia’s transition 

to democracy? What specifically should the United States do? 

Answer. Yes, I do believe Tunisia is a strategically important country for the 

United States and an important partner for us in bringing stability to the region. 

I believe we should broadly engage with Tunisia on security, economic, governance, 

and civil society development As to the specifics of the next steps in this vital relationship. 

I would need to be fully briefed on this issue. Should I be confirmed, I commit 

to gaining a greater understanding of the effectiveness of U.S. foreign assistance 

and bilateral programs and develop proposals to make assistance and engagement 

as effective as possible to deepen and broaden the relationship and joint commitment to regional peace, stability and prosperity. 

Question. Over the past year, Bahrain has dramatically escalated its crackdown 

against human rights defenders and peaceful opposition leaders. As the home of the 

U.S. Fifth Fleet, a stable Bahrain is critical to U.S. national security interests. But 

unless the Sunni monarchy moves to share power with its restive Shia- majority 

population, the country risks descending into open sectarian conflict that could destabilize the country and jeopardize the Fifth Fleet. If confirmed as Secretary of 

State, how will you encourage Bahrain’s rulers to reverse course, and implement 

genuine political reform to stabilize the country and secure the U.S. Fifth Fleet in 

the years ahead? 

Answer. Bahrain has long been one of our most vital partners in the Gulf region, 

particularly in terms of the crucial support it provides the U.S. Fifth Fleet Bahrain 

faces a number of challenges, not least the ongoing threat to its security and stability from an aggressive Iran. If confirmed, I will work with Bahrain’s leaders to 

strengthen our alliance and combat common threats, while also encouraging reforms 

that can enhance Bahrain’s long-term stability and security. 

Question. ExxonMobil’s logo has apparently appeared on numerous fliers for lectures by hate preachers in Qatar. Examples include hate preacher lectures both at 

the Katara cultural village, where your firm had a ‘‘strategic partnership,’’ as well 

as at a Qatari Ramadan festival in 2016. Such hate preachers had claimed that 9/ 

11 was carried out by Israel and the American right wing, that Jews are ‘‘devils 

in human form,’’ that Christians are ‘‘crusaders,’’ and that 9/11 and the Charlie 

Hebdo attacks were a ‘‘comedy film,’’ and that the only ‘‘solution’’ for dealing with 

Jews is to wage ‘‘jihad’’ against them. Were you aware that ExxonMobil was funding 

such hateful and violent rhetoric? 

Answer. This type of rhetoric directly contradicts what I know to be ExxonMobil’s 

corporate values, and I condemn it personally. During my tenure as Chairman and 

CEO, ExxonMobil promoted diversity and inclusion in its operations, both in the 

United States and abroad, and strictly prohibited harassment and discrimination in 

the workplace. I am not aware of ExxonMobil funding hateful and violent rhetoric 

or any of the individuals described above. 

Question. What was your role in overseeing ExxonMobil’s operations in Qatar? 

Answer. As Chairman and CEO, I was involved in high-level strategic decisions 

regarding ExxonMobil’s operations, and I relied on my subordinates to elevate 

issues in connection with day-to-day operations as appropriate. 

Question. Does the use of ExxonMobil’s imprimatur to promote such hate preachers reflect negatively upon your capabilities for overseeing a large bureaucracy and 

tackling thorny international issues? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

220 

Answer. I am not aware of the imprimatur being used in the manner described 

by your question. If it were used in that manner, it would have been without 

ExxonMobil’s permission or knowledge. I condemn hateful speech in all its forms. 

Question. What would you do as secretary of state to fight religious incitement 

by state-backed preachers in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and other countries? 

Answer. It is my understanding there are on-going efforts in these areas through 

entities within the State Department including the Office of Global Engagement. 

Should I be confirmed, I commit to assessing their effectiveness and implementing 

appropriate measures. I look forward to working with Congress on this issue. 

Question. You have repeatedly praised Qatari rulers and spoken of their ‘‘visionary leadership.’’ Do you believe that Qatar has done enough to fight extremist 

Islamist and anti-Israel terrorist groups? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you believe that Qatar should continue to host the political leader 

of Hamas, Khaled Mashal? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you believe that there have been any negative repercussions of 

Qatar’s rise as an economic and military power, largely fueled by its partnership 

with companies like Exxon? 

Answer. At times Qatar has supported groups and organizations which have been 

counter to U.S. national interests. However, on balance Qatar continues to be an 

important regional ally for the U.S. and even hosts one of the largest American air 

bases outside the United States.Afghanistan 

Question. Should the United States keep troops in Afghanistan for the foreseeable 

future? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Do ISIS and other Islamist terror groups pose an existential threat to 

the United States? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Does the United States need the assistance of Muslim-Americans and 

majority-Muslim countries around the world to defeat ISIS and affiliated groups? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Do you agree that the failure to provide lethal and non-lethal assistance 

to the moderate Syrian opposition helped give rise to ISIS and other jihadist 

groups? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. 

China 

Question. A Hague tribunal last year rejected China’s argument that it enjoys historic rights over most of the South China Sea. Do you agree that Beijing’s ‘‘Nine 

Dash Line’’ claim of sovereignty over the South China Sea is invalid? 

Answer. Yes. It is my understanding that the United States government recognizes the findings of the PCA to be part of international law. As the PCA found the 

Chinese claims to the South China Sea based upon the ‘‘Nine Dash Line’’ to have 

no legal standing, it is my understanding that the U.S. government sees such claims 

as having no basis in international law. 

Question. Would you further agree that any attempt by China to unilaterally 

change the security status quo in the region is unacceptable? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. As Secretary of State, would you be willing to consider the imposition 

of targeted sanctions against Chinese companies involved in militarizing the South 

China Sea? 

Answer. The United States should consider a full range of options to dissuade 

China from pursuing its destabilizing activities in the South China Sea. This should 

include considering targeted sanctions against Chinese and other companies involved in militarizing the South China Sea. 

Question. The political prisoner database maintained by the Congressional Executive Commission on China (CECC) which currently contains more than 1400 active 

records of individuals known or believed to be in detention. While this number is 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

221 

staggering it is far from exhaustive. Mindful that Chinese leaders determine U.S. 

seriousness on human rights by the level and the frequency with which it is raised, 

do you commit to ensuring that human rights concerns are integrated in every senior bilateral engagement, and that specific prisoner cases are raised at the highest 

levels both publicly and privately? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to ensuring human rights issues, like 

political prisoner cases, will be incorporated into our diplomatic engagement with 

China. 

Question. A December 2016 Washington Post headline read, ‘‘Christians in China 

feel the full force of Authorities Repression.’’ The story specifically documented the 

crackdown on the once thriving Living Stone Church, the detention of one of its pastors on charges of ‘‘possessing state secrets’’ (last week he was reportedly sentenced 

to two-and-one-half years in prison) and dozens of church attendees being regularly 

followed by police. The Communist Party is still avowedly atheist and routinely employs repression, intimidation and even imprisonment in its efforts to control the 

spread of religion. How would you engage with Chinese authorities on these issues? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to ensuring that diplomatic engagements 

with China properly and actively address threats to religious freedom. 

Question. What priority would you give to religious freedom issues to include not 

just house church Christians, but Tibetan Buddhists, Uyghur Muslims, Falun Gong 

practitioners and others? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, this would be a high priority. It is my understanding that in 2016, China was re-designated a Country of Particular Concern. 

Evaluations on the state of religious freedom should continue to be included in the 

annually released International Religious Freedom report. 

Question. It has long been the policy of the U.S. government, provided by the Tibetan Policy Act, to promote a dialogue between the envoys of the Dalai Lama and 

the Chinese government toward a solution on the Tibet issue that guarantees the 

respect of the ‘‘distinct identity’’ of the Tibetan people, who continue to suffer under 

China’s oppressive rule. The dialogue is now at a standstill and the lack of substantive progress toward a genuine resolution continues to be a thorny issue in U.S.- 

China relations. What will you do to promote dialogue between envoys of the Dalai 

Lama and the Chinese government? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, while recognizing Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China, I will continue to encourage dialogue between Beijing and representatives of Tibet’s ‘‘government in exile’’ and/or the Dalai Lama. I will also encourage Beijing and the governments of all nations to respect and preserve the distinct religious, linguistic, and cultural identity of the Tibetan people worldwide. 

Question. Will you commit to receiving and meeting with the Dalai Lama? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. China consistently blocks the access of reporters, civil society actors, 

diplomats and others to places like Tibet, routinely denies visas to foreign journalists and otherwise restricts both freedom of movement and freedom of information. 

At the same time, Chinese government officials encounter none of these same challenges in the U.S. Even state-controlled media is given free reign and broadcasts 

without interference in cities across America. Do you view this as problematic? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Do you think it would be advisable to limit the number of visas allowed 

to executives or administrative personnel from Chinese state-owned media enterprises operating in the U.S. if foreign journalists continue to face visa restrictions, 

police harassment and surveillance? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to assessing what should be the best 

policy, recognizing that reciprocity in treatment is a principal in bilateral relations. 

Question. Would you support targeting Chinese officials who are responsible for 

denying access to Tibet to U.S. citizens with visa sanctions, as provided in the ‘‘Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act’’ introduced in the last Congress? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to assessing what should be the best 

policy, recognizing that reciprocity in treatment is a principal in bilateral relations. 

Question. Some have called China’s Internet Firewall the Berlin Wall of the 21st 

Century. What priority would you place on Internet freedom programs in countries 

like China, Iran and Cuba? In your view, did the Obama Administration give this 

issue sufficient attention given its geopolitical implications? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

222 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to assessing what should be the best 

policy, recognizing that efforts to limit the free flow of information, including by altering the governance structure, should be opposed. 

Question. The 2016 Report form the Congressional Executive Commission on 

China finds that ‘‘Hong Kong’s ’high degree of autonomy,’ guaranteed under the ’one 

country, two systems’ principle enshrined in the Basic Law, faced renewed threat 

of interference from mainland China.’’ Beijing’s recent actions in Hong Kong are unprecedented, and should send chills down the spines of people who care about promoting democratic governance in Hong Kong by preserving its independent legal 

system. Increasingly it seems that Hong Kong’s cherished ’high degree of autonomy’ 

has limits, and those limits are whatever the Communist Party in China decides. 

Do you believe that China is violating its promise from the handover to respect 

Hong Kong’s independence? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about this issue. It is 

my understanding that the government has a binding international commitment to 

provide Hong Kong a ‘‘high degree of autonomy. I would think U.S. policy should 

reflect that commitment. 

Question. What do you believe is America’s role in ensuring that Beijing keeps its 

commitment in full? 

Answer. The United States should press the government to honor its obligations. 

Question. How would you work to ensure that the people of Hong Kong who yearn 

for greater electoral representation, democratic reform, protection of human rights 

and a legal system that functions independent of mainland interference, find in the 

U.S. a friend willing to oppose efforts by the Chinese government to crush or suppress dissent? 

Answer. It is my understanding that under the Hong Kong Policy Act, the United 

States is committed to democracy in Hong Kong on an ongoing basis. I would follow 

the law. 

Taiwan 

Question. The Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8), enacted on April 10, 1979, 

along with the ‘‘Six Assurances,’’ form the cornerstone of U.S.-Taiwan relations. Will 

you and the Administration continue to reiterate and reaffirm the TRA and ‘‘Six Assurances.’’ 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. The United States for decades has benefited from a strong security and 

economic relationship with Taiwan. However, the United States continues to maintain self-imposed restrictions on high-level exchanges with Taiwan. Will you and the 

Administration encourage exchanges between the United State and Taiwan at all 

levels? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. As Secretary of State, would you be willing to: 

♦ Visit Taiwan? 

Answer. It is my understanding that the United States has commitments to Taiwan under the TRA and ‘‘Six Assurances.’’ The United States also has commitments 

to the PRC in the context of the ‘‘Three Communiques.’’ Should I be confirmed, any 

travel I take would conform to the United States’ understanding of all of these. 

♦ Meet with your Taiwanese counterpart in the United States? 

Answer. It is my understanding that the United States has commitments to Taiwan under the TRA and ‘‘Six Assurances.’’ The United States also has commitments 

to the PRC in the context of the ‘‘Three Communiques.’’ Should I be confirmed, I 

would insist that any travel conform to the United States’ understanding of all of 

these. 

♦ Authorize the travel of Senate-confirmed officials to Taiwan? 

Answer. It is my understanding that the United States has commitments to Taiwan under the TRA and ‘‘Six Assurances.’’ The United States also has commitments 

to the PRC in the context of the ‘‘Three Communiques.’’ Should I be confirmed, any 

travel conform to the United States’ understanding of all of these. It is my understanding that a review of travel restrictions could result in Senate-confirmed personnel being permitted to travel to Taiwan. 

Question. Global health, international aviation security, and transnational crime 

are all matters of global importance that requires cooperation from stakeholders 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

223 

from all around the world. Congress has passed legislations requiring the State Department to support Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and the International Criminal Police Organization 

(INTERPOL). How do you and the Administration plan to support Taiwan’s international participation? 

♦ If confirmed, do you pledge to support the early delivery of a new arms package 

to Taiwan? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, yes, I would be prepared to approve of the sale 

of arms of a defensive character to Taiwan as necessary to maintain a credible deterrent. The need for many such items, such as advanced fighters, are a matter of 

public record, as is the need for diesel electric submarines and the U.S. commitment 

to help Taiwan acquire them. 

Question. As the American Action Forum noted in November, Japan contributes 

50 percent and South Korea 41 percent of the costs to support the American military presence in each country. Would you agree that this cost sharing for America’s 

bases is fair? 

Answer. Strong alliances are vital to both the United States and its allies. Cost 

sharing arrangements between the United States and Japan and South Korea are 

governed by Special Measures Agreements. Under these bilateral agreements, 

Japan and South Korea provide substantial support to U.S. forces. The Presidentelect has committed to working with U.S. allies to review these arrangements, as 

is done periodically, to ensure that the United States and its allies are each contributing their fair share of the costs and duties of these alliances. 

Question. Would you further agree that the United States shares common security 

interests with both Tokyo and Seoul?Yes. 

Question. Would you also agree that forward-deploying U.S. forces with these 

bases is less costly than projecting them from the U.S. mainland? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. It is my understanding that obtaining and defending U.S. national 

interests in Asia requires bases and access, sufficient forward-deployed military 

forces to deter aggression, robust follow-on forces, and strong alliances and security 

relationships such as those with Japan and South Korea. It is also my understanding that replacing permanent forward-deployed forces in Asia with rotational 

troops would incur significant costs and would reduce American capabilities and influence in the region. 

Question. On June 13, 2013, you praised the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), saying that it was a ‘‘most promising development’’ in the effort to lower tariffs and 

end protectionist policies. If enacted, you added that it could ‘‘shore up the energy 

security of Asian allies and trading partners’’ while also benefiting the U.S. economy 

as a whole. Do you still support the TPP? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will be guided by the decision of the President 

Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, will you encourage the Congress to 

ratify the agreement? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will be guided by the decision of the President 

Central America 

Question. Tens of thousands of vulnerable children and families continue to flee 

to the United States from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Many of them 

are threatened by ruthless gangs and criminal networks who effectively hold authority in their neighborhoods and who deploy a forced recruiting policy, known as ‘‘join 

[the gang] or die.’’ Some have witnessed the killing of family members. How would 

you work with the federal governments of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador 

to ensure that they are prioritizing these marginalized youth and protecting them 

from police brutality in their Alliance for Prosperity plans? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would review our law enforcement cooperation programs 

with Central American countries with a view towards ensuring that they are effective in fighting crime and also holding the police forces in these countries who receive our assistance to high standards of conduct, respecting the human rights of 

their citizens. 

Question. Would you be willing to scale up and speed up the extant programs to 

process asylum-seekers in their home countries? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

224 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to working with other federal agencies 

to increase the speed and scale to effectively process asylum claims consistent with 

U.S. security interests. 

Question. Freedoms have declined in Nicaragua as President Daniel Ortega has 

consolidated his power and increased pressure on media and civil society, yet the 

Obama Administration did little to respond. What policies will you implement to 

handle things differently than the previous administration? 

Answer. I agree that President Ortega has not governed democratically in Nicaragua. If confirmed, I will commit to reviewing our policy toward that country, with 

the ultimate aim of bolstering civil society and democratic institutions. We could 

also, in consultation with your committee, discuss whether there is any trade or 

other benefits to which Nicaragua would become disqualified as a result of its government’s abuses of power. 

Question. In Nicaragua, according to the2015 State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Country reports ‘‘there was widespread corruption including in the police, Supreme Court Justice (CSJ) and other government organs.’’ If confirmed as Secretary of State, what steps will you take to address corruption among high level officials that is having such corrosive effect on good governance and the rule of law in Nicaragua? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to gaining a greater understanding of 

this issue and pressing for the most effective policies to address the issue of rampant corruption in Nicaragua consistent with U.S. interests. 

Question. I along with my colleague Senator Markey have cosponsored a resolution regarding the trafficking of illicit fentanyl into the United States from Mexico 

and China. Our bipartisan resolution urges the United States Government, including the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, to use the broad 

diplomatic and law enforcement resources of the United States, in partnership with 

the Governments of Mexico and China, to stop the production of illicit fentanyl and 

its trafficking into the United States. If confirmed, will you commit to work closely 

with federal agencies to stop the production and trafficking of illicit fentanyl to the 

U.S.? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Do you support the United States continuing to invest in the Alliance 

for Prosperity Initiative in Central America? 

Answer. Yes. Should I be confirmed, I will seek to formulate goals and prioritize 

our efforts as to where the most help is needed. A particular focus should be on improving the capabilities of these countries to reduce the flow of people coming illegally and to combat transnational criminal networks. 

Question. Despite the Obama Administration’s controversial decision to normalize 

relations with Cuba and hopes that this could lead to improved governance and 

human rights, Cuban officials continue to arrest dissidents and violate the rights 

of citizens, and tourism revenues benefit only government officials and a small minority of the population. How do you plan to approach the United States’ relationship with Cuba? 

Answer. The Administration’s policy, as I stated in my oral testimony, does not 

serve Cubans or Americans. Should I be confirmed, I commit to working with the 

President-elect and the members of the National Security Council in crafting better 

policies. For example, I would want to reassess removing the Cuban government’s 

designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. 

Question. How will you support human rights defenders and democracy activists 

in Cuba? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, supporting human rights and democracy in Cuba 

will be at the forefront of the policy I recommend and implement in addressing the 

regime. 

Question. What bilateral and/or multilateral pressure will you exert against authoritarian rule in Cuba? 

Answer. It is my understanding the Administration’s decision to normalize relations with Cuba was not met with any improvement any significant concessions on 

human rights. Nor has the Cuban government improved its behavior towards the 

United States. It is clear the Obama Administration’s policies do not serve the interests of the United States or the Cuban people. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

225 

Should I be confirmed, I commit as an immediate priority to gain a greater understanding of bilateral and multilateral options for applying pressure to bring about 

a change of behavior from the Cuban government. 

Question. The Obama Administration has issued a series of regulations and licenses that allow transactions with business entities owned by the Cuban military 

and that traffic in properties previously confiscated from American citizens. These 

transactions are inconsistent with U.S. statutes and Congressional intent under the 

LIBERTAD Act. Do you commit to reversing these licenses and regulations? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Do you commit to ensuring no transactions in Cuba involve Cuban military-owned entities or traffic in properties stolen from American citizens? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will do so to the extent of my authorities, consistent with statutory requirements. 

Question. Will you ensure to commit to strictly enforcing the statutory prohibition 

on tourism-related transactions towards Cuba? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will affirm enforcement of all statutory requirements. 

Question. In 2016, a modem record-setting 10,000+ political arrests by the Castro 

regime were documented in Cuba; democracy activists such as artist Danilo 

Maldonado (‘‘El Sexto’’), the Christian Liberation Movement’s Dr. Eduardo Cardet 

and members of The Ladies in White, Xiomara de las Mercedes Cruz, Yaquelin 

Heredia, Marietta Martinez and Yuneth Cairo, remain imprisoned under inhumane 

conditions; Cuba remains the only country in the Americas to be labeled as ‘‘Not 

Free’’ by Freedom House; and groups such as Human Rights Watch provide details 

on the myriad of ways that basic rights and liberties are still not respected in Cuba. 

By any objective measure, the Castro regime has not improved its human rights 

record since the Obama Administration announced its new policy on December 17, 

2014. To the contrary, human rights conditions on the island have worsened. Will 

you commit that the U.S. will maintain and increase democracy assistance for the 

Cuban people? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will do so to the extent of my authority , consistent with statutory requirements. 

Question. The FBI estimates there are more than 70 fugitives from justice that 

are being provided safe-harbor by the Castro regime. These include Joanne 

Chesimard, a cop-killer on the FBI’s Top Ten Most Wanted Terrorists list; William 

Morales, a convicted FALN (Fuerzas Armadas de Liberacion Nacional) bomb-maker 

who conducted a deadly terrorist attack in New York City; and Ishmael LaBeet, who 

was convicted in U.S. courts to eight life sentences for the murder of eight people. 

Will you commit to making the repatriation of these terrorists and other fugitives 

from U.S. justice a condition for the continuation of diplomatic relations with the 

Cuban government? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. There are billions of dollars of outstanding American property claims 

against the Cuban government. In the past, as in the case of Libya, the United 

States has not normalized relations with countries subject to outstanding American 

claims until they have been resolved or a process for their resolution has been established. There are thousands of verified American claimants who have been waiting 

for decades to be compensated for the Castro regime’s illegal expropriation of their 

property and assets. There are also billions of dollars in outstanding judgments from 

U.S. federal courts against the Cuban government for acts of terrorism. Prior to the 

establishing of diplomatic relations, the Cuban government should have been forced 

to compensate all of the verified claimants. Will you commit to making the resolution of properties confiscated from Americans a condition for the continuation of diplomatic relations with the Cuban government? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I would review the status of the resolution of 

claims and determining the best course of action for resolving the issue. 

Question. Next month, February 24th, will mark the 20th anniversary of the 

shootdown of two U.S. civilian aircraft over international waters, which resulted in 

the murder of three Americans and a permanent resident of the U.S. This shootdown led to the 2003 federal indictment of three Cuban military officials, General 

Ruben Martinez Puente, Colonel Lorenzo Alberto Perez-Perez, and Colonel Francisco Perez- Perez, on four counts of murder, two counts of destruction of aircraft, 

and one count of conspiracy to kill United States nationals. Will you commit to makFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

226 

ing the extradition of these Cuban military officials a condition for the continuation 

of diplomatic relations with the Cuban government? 

Answer. Yes. Continuing diplomatic relations should be made conditional on 

issues like these, including repayment for the $8 billion in U.S. citizens’ and entities’ seized assets and improvement on human rights as outlined in the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act (Helms Burton). 

Question. The Obama administration approved six U.S. domestic airlines to fly to 

nine Cuban airports. Among those Cuban airports chosen are Varadero (Matanzas), 

Cayo Coco, and Cayo Largo. These three airports are feeders to the Cuban military’s 

isolated beach resorts. These flights seek to circumvent statutory restrictions on 

tourism-related transactions towards Cuba. Will you ensure to commit to strictly enforcing the statutory prohibition on tourism-related transactions towards Cuba? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will do so to the extent of my authorities, consistent with statutory requirements. 

Question. With each passing day, the humanitarian situation is worsening in Venezuela, and opposition activists, human rights defenders, and lawyers continued to 

be harassed, attacked, and imprisoned. 

More than 100 remain in jail. What should the United States do to prevent Venezuela from becoming a failed state? 

Answer. The U.S. should continue to support legitimate dialogue to resolve the 

political crisis between the Maduro government and the opposition that now controls 

the National Assembly. We must continue to denounce the Maduro government’s 

undemocratic practices, call for the release of political prisoners, and enforce sanctions against Venezuelan human rights violators and narcotics traffickers. We 

should deliver humanitarian aid to mitigate food insecurity and the shortage of 

medical supplies, as appropriate. 

Question. Venezuela was a country rich in natural resources and with one of the 

most educated class in the world. The mismanagement, corruption and failed policies of former Hugo Chavez and the current administration of Nicolas Maduro have 

taken Venezuela in the wrong path, and become a failed state. There are shortages 

of medicine; newborn deaths have been reported, innocent individuals seat in jail 

for opposing and voicing their opinions against such tyrannical and oppressive regime. In response, the U.S. Congress passed legislation to support our commitment 

to the Venezuelan people, this legislation, ‘‘the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights 

and Civil Society Act of 2014’’ authorizes sanctions against individuals who violate 

human rights. President Obama failed for not implementing the legislation the way 

it was intended. If confirmed, will you fully execute the intent of this legislation? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Colombia is a strong U.S. ally in Latin America. In 1997, the U.S. designated the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) a foreign terrorist organization, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions within Colombia. If confirmed, do you commit to not remove 

the FARC as a foreign terrorist organization? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to reviewing the status of FARC as a 

terrorist organization according to U.S. law and making designations and recommendations based on the letter of the law. 

Question. Extradition laws in the U.S. uphold essential treaties and agreements 

between nations. Simon Trinidad was a leader of the FARC and convicted by a court 

in Colombia for aggravated kidnapping and rebellion and sentenced to 35 years in 

prison on May 4, 2004. He was convicted by a U.S. jury for plotting to hold three 

American nationals hostage after they were captured in Colombia, and was sentenced to 60 years in prison on January 28, 2008. He is serving his time in a U.S. 

prison. If confirmed, can you affirm this committee that under your supervision, the 

U.S. will not offer or accept the release of any person currently held in the U.S. including Simon Trinidad, nor will the U.S. offer or accept the transfer of Trinidad 

or other individuals to Colombia? 

Answer. It is my understanding that the longstanding policy of the United States 

is to hold FARC terrorists accountable for violating American laws and that that 

policy serves the United States well and should be heavily weighed when making 

this determination. Should I be confirmed, I commit to reviewing current policy. 

Question. Florida is home to the largest Haitian American community in the nation. For decades the country has suffered from corruption, the mismanagement of 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

227 

foreign aid, political instability as well as devastating natural disasters. If confirmed, what will be your approach to the ongoing political situation on the island? 

Answer. It is my understanding that foreign assistance can be a powerful tool but 

in the case of Haiti, it has distorted the local markets and hindered rather than 

helped growing prosperity, building strong political institutions and a healthy civil 

society. Should I be confirmed, I commit to reviewing the effectiveness of current 

policies and determining a better course of action. 

Question. Is Russia violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty? 

♦ If so, should the United States continue to remain a party to a treaty that the 

other party is violating? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to gaining a full understanding of 

government’s assessment of compliance with the INF Treaty. I believe the United 

States should expect full compliance with the treaty. 

Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, would you support further U.S. nuclear reductions? 

♦ Should nuclear reductions occur outside of an agreement with the Russian Federation or other nuclear powers? 

Answer. I do not support further unilateral reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal 

Question. Will you commit to continue the deployment of U.S. missile defense systems to Central and Eastern Europe, despite Russian objections? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. If confirmed, would you support the extension of the New START agreement? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to gaining a greater understanding 

of the issue and making a recommendation to the president. I look forward to consulting Congress on this issue. 

Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, would you support the ratification 

of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will respect the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying 

any treaty, including the CTBT. 

Question. The outgoing administration supported a United Nations Security Council resolution in an attempt to undermine the Senate’s 1999 rejection of the treaty. 

If confirmed, would you make clear to the international community that given the 

Senate’s objection, the United States is not subject to the object and purpose of the 

treaty? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would seek a fuller briefing in today’s context from experts 

on the CTBT and both the advantages and concerns associated with it. 

Question. The U.S. Government’s budget for international affairs is approximately 

1.3% of the total U.S. budget. The overall foreign assistance budget is at its lowest 

point since 2008, at $33.9B. The specific section of that for peace and security is 

nearly half in 2017 and 16 what it was in 2014 and 15. At the same time, freedom 

and democracy are sliding, the number of armed conflicts is up, refugees are at their 

highest level since WWII and terrorist attacks continue to rise. Are we spending 

enough on foreign assistance, and if not, how will you ensure that the Department 

of State has what it needs to address current worldwide concerns? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to assessing U.S. foreign assistance 

to ensure it is sufficient, effective, and consistent with U.S. interests. As I stated 

in my oral testimony, I have seen too many situations where recipient countries exploit the aid that we provide. We need to allocate adequate resources but ensure 

they are used appropriately by recipient countries. I look forward to working with 

Congress on this issue. 

Question. USAID is currently located as the F Bureau of the Department of State. 

Will you advocate for the Agency to maintain its current identity, position and role, 

become more integrated within the Department of State, or become more independent? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress to 

address this issue. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

228 

Question. In recent years, the State Department has made real progress becoming 

more transparent and accountable to taxpayers. In 2015, the Department released 

an updated Evaluation Policy,l3l to guide how the agency determines what’s working and what’s not. In 2016, the ‘‘Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act’’ 

(PL. 114-191) was enacted, ensuring that foreign assistance dollars are accounted 

for on the Foreign Assistance website and evaluated for results. Would transparency, accountability, and effectiveness be a priority for you at the State Department? 

Answer. Yes, if I am confirmed. 

Question. The politically driven manipulation of the State Department’s 2015 

Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report and continued concerns in the 2016 report were 

a major setback to U.S. efforts to combat human trafficking around the world. Major 

media outlets reported that within the State Department, the administration allowed political considerations to manipulate expert recommendations of the State 

Department’s human rights and trafficking professionals. This resulted in the politically-driven upgrade of countries, specifically Cuba and Malaysia, from the ‘‘Tier 3’’ 

category to the ‘‘Tier 2 Watch List.’’ Given the widely held perception that several 

countries were undeservedly upgraded in the 2015 report due to the Obama Administration’s politicization of the process, what will you do to rebuild the credibility 

of the report and ensure that a qualified, senior diplomat fills the position of Ambassador at Large for Trafficking in Persons in a timely fashion? 

Answer. I believe the U.S. should continue to lead international efforts to combat 

trafficking in persons. In order to do so, I believe the Trafficking in Persons report 

should be viewed as credible. The report remains a valuable diplomatic tool. Should 

I be confirmed, I will direct the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons 

(JMCTP) to integrate empirical and data-based metrics into the rankings and evaluations for the report in order to improve the report’s objectivity. Should I be confirmed, I will make every effort to ensure that the Ambassador-at-Large position is 

filled in a timely manner. 

Question. One of the State Department’s core missions is to promote equal rights 

for men and women around the world, including the right of all women and girls 

to decide if, when and whom they marry. Last year, I chaired a subcommittee hearing on the issue during which we heard sobering testimony about how child marriage perpetuates poverty, has lasting maternal and infant health ramifications and 

often contributes to violence. Ending child marriage is a U.S. foreign policy priority, 

and recently our diplomats and development officers have been working to end this 

human rights abuse. Please describe the steps you will take to ensure the U.S. continues to be a leader in ending child marriage. 

Answer. Should I be confirmed I commit to learning more about this issue and 

developing policy. I strongly support the goal to end the human rights abuse of child 

marriage. I look forward to working with Congress on this issue. 

Question. The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) plays a key 

role in executing the will of Congress on human rights, democracy promotion, and 

religious freedom. It produces the annual human rights report and the annual International Religious Freedom Report, and vetting of security units. If confirmed, will 

you commit to continue funding to DRL and work to identify areas that require additional funding? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed I commit to learning more about this issue 

and developing the best recommendations on future funding. I look forward to working with Congress on this issue. 

Question. During your time as CEO of Exxon, did you ever you ever raise concerns 

in the areas of human rights and democracy with country leaders in your professional capacity? 

Answer. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, I did speak 

with foreign leaders about human rights and democracy concerns. As I expressed 

during my confirmation hearing on January 11, human rights violations, if left 

unaddressed, cause great upheaval in civil society. I believe that respect for human 

rights and the rule of law are essential foundations for a stable and functioning society. 

Question. Given that several notorious human rights abusers perennially try to 

run for seats on the United Nations Human Rights Council, do you agree that the 

United States should make its participation in the Council contingent upon certain 

standards for membership? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

229 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. The Obama Administration had a notoriously long vacancy in the post 

of Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom during its first term 

and then when the post was eventually filled in the President’s first time the position was downgraded within the Department and staffing levels of the office reached 

an all-time low. One of the final bills passed and signed into law during the last 

Congress was legislation I introduced in the Senate, the Frank Wolf International 

Religious Freedom Act which seeks to ensure that America’s first freedom is given 

the prominence it deserves in American foreign policy. Will the proper implementation of this law be a priority for you? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Do you commit to nominating someone to fill the ambassador post, 

which now reports directly to you, in your first 100 days, should you be confirmed? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will do so to the best of my abili-ty. 

Question. What are your views on prioritizing humanitarian assistance to those 

religious and ethnic communities identified in Secretary Kerry’s genocide designation? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. I believe that victims of ISIS genocide, which include Yazidis, Christians, and Shia Muslims, should be provided humanitarian assistance. Should I be 

confirmed, I commit to learning more about this issue and developing the best recommendations on delivering assistance. I look forward to consulting with Congress 

on this issue. 

Question. The Helms amendment states, ‘‘No foreign assistance funds may be 

used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to 

motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.’’ If confirmed, can you guarantee there will be a strict adherence to the Helms amendment in the administration of U.S. foreign assistance? 

Answer. The President-elect has already made a number of pro-life commitments. 

The Helms Amendment is current law and I will absolutely commit to abiding by 

the law. 

Question. If confirmed, can you guarantee there will be a return to strict adherence of the Mexico City Policy, which President Obama overturned? 

Answer. The President-elect has not taken a specific position on the policy known 

as the Mexico City Policy, but it would certainly be consistent with his other prolife commitments. 

Question. Given your support of the Paris agreement, what role do you envision 

the State Department playing on climate and environmental issues? 

Answer. As I stated in my oral testimony, the United States should have a seat 

at the table when it comes to the discussion on climate change and other global environmental issues. We must participate and engage in those discussions to advance 

the interests of the United States. Should I be confirmed, that is exactly what I will 

do. 

Question. Do you support U.S. funding of the Green Climate Fund? 

Answer. As I stated in my oral testimony, should I be confirmed, at the direction 

of the president, it is my expectation we would look at U.S. support of these programs from the bottom up in terms of funding. We would want to put resources 

where they can be most effective. Should I be confirmed, I will commit to this effort. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

230 

SECRETARY-DESIGNATE TILLERSON’S ANSWERS TO

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MENENDEZ

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

Central America 

Question. Last year, Democrats and Republicans came together to provide $750 

million for a comprehensive assistance package to Central America to address the 

high levels of violence, weak rule of law, and widespread poverty driving irregular 

migration. This assistance was, in part, an acknowledgement by both parties in both 

chambers of Congress that when it comes to immigration, enforcement alone is not 

enough. Will you commit to building on this bipartisan progress and continue efforts 

and funding to address the root causes of Central America migration? As tens of 

thousands of vulnerable people arrive at the southern border, how will you ensure 

the United States’ legal and moral obligations are fulfilled in protecting their wellbeing and rights? Will you maintain the United States partnership with the U.N. 

High Commissioner for Refugees to ensure that Central American migrants fleeing 

violence receive sufficient protections and that they can be screened for relocation 

in third-countries? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed as Secretary, I will work with Congress and the 

President-elect to ensure that our foreign policy priorities align with our domestic 

needs and fulfil our legal obligations. I have not yet been briefed on all aspects of 

the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, but should I be confirmed as Secretary, I will 

faithfully administer the Refugee Admissions Program consistent with law and the 

policy preferences of the President-elect. 

Mexico 

Question. In its 2016 National Drug Threat Assessment, the Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA) identified Mexican transnational criminal organizations as 

the ‘‘greatest criminal drug threat’’ to the United States. As you know, the State 

Department plays a central role in coordinating U.S. counternarcotics assistance 

and Mexican criminal organizations continue to illegally traffic South American cocaine and a growing volume of Mexican-produced heroin and Mexican- and Chineseproduced fentanyl into the U.S.—which is fueling opioid addiction and an alarming 

number of overdoses across the U.S. As we cannot resolve this challenge alone, if 

confirmed, what strategies will you employ to work with the Government of Mexico 

to combat these criminal organizations and the illegal drug trade? 

Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to being fully briefed on the State Department’s current responsibilities and strategies in this area and helping the Presidentelect address the illegal drug epidemic in the United States, as appropriate and in 

consultation with other agencies with jurisdiction in this mission area. 

Question. According to the DEA November 2016 National Drug Threat Assessment, Mexican transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) use a wide variety of 

smuggling methods, but ‘‘the most common method employed by Mexican TCOs involves transporting drugs in vehicles through [legal] U.S. ports of entry. Illicit drugs 

are smuggled into the United States in concealed compartments within passenger 

vehicles or commingled with legitimate goods on tractor trailers.’’ In the same report, DEA stated that from 1990 through FY2015, 224 tunnels were found under 

the U.S.-Mexican border, including 14 in FY2014 and 8 in FY2015. Do you agree 

with the DEA’s findings? Do you agree that a border wall would not prevent illicit 

narcotics from being trafficked through legal points of entry into the United States 

or subterranean tunnels? 

Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to being fully briefed on the recent Drug Enforcement Administration threat assessment findings and helping the Presidentelect and the Secretary of Homeland Security stem the flow of illicit narcotics 

through legal points of entry. 

Venezuela 

Question. With each passing day, the humanitarian situation is worsening in Venezuela, and opposition activists, human rights defenders, and lawyers continued to 

be harassed, attacked, and imprisoned. More than 100 remain in jail. What should 

the United States do to prevent Venezuela from becoming a failed state? 

Answer. The U.S. should continue to support legitimate dialogue to resolve the 

political crisis between the Maduro government and the opposition that now controls 

the National Assembly. We must continue to denounce the Maduro government’s 

undemocratic practices, call for the release of political prisoners, and enforce sanctions against Venezuelan human rights violators and narcotics traffickers. We 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

231 

should deliver humanitarian aid to mitigate food insecurity and the shortage of 

medical supplies, as appropriate. 

Question. In Venezuela we must address how the deterioration of the rule of law 

and lack of respect for human rights contributes to regional stability vis a vis people 

flooding across borders, increased opportunities for drug smuggling and terrorism. 

I authored legislation that would sanction the regime leaders responsible for fomenting these anti-democratic developments. Would you commit to pressure the Venezuelan government to release ALL political prisoners, including Leopoldo Lopez 

and to hold the Maduro regime accountable for its crimes? 

Answer. Yes, if I am confirmed. 

Cuba 

Question. Despite the Obama Administration’s controversial and misguided decision to normalize relations with Cuba and its’ hope that this could lead to improved 

governance and human rights, Cuban officials continue to arrest dissidents and violate the rights of citizens, and tourism revenues benefit only government officials 

and a small minority of the population. 

Question. a.How do you plan to approach the United States’ relationship with 

Cuba? How will you support human rights defenders and democracy activists in 

Cuba? What bilateral and/or multilateral pressure will you exert to lessen authoritarian rule in Cuba? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will engage with Cuba but continue to press for reform 

of its oppressive regime. I will support human rights defenders and democracy activists in Cuba, empower civil society, defend freedom of expression, and promote improved Internet access and I will ask our allies to do the same. 

Question. Will you continue to support programs that promote democratic voices 

and initiatives in Cuba like Radio and TV Marti? 

Answer. Yes, if I am confirmed. 

Question. What steps will you take to pressure the Castro regime to return American political fugitives like New Jersey cop-killer Joanne Chesimard? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will engage bilaterally and multilaterally to bring these 

fugitives to justice. 

Question. Will you work with the Treasury Department to ensure that no revenue 

from American businesses goes directly toward supporting the Cuban military and 

the regime? 

Answer. Yes, if I am confirmed. 

Question. What steps will you take to encourage the government of Cuba to release political prisoners, artists, journalists, and other Cubans being detained for politically-motivated reasons? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will press Cuba to meet its pledge to become more democratic and consider placing conditions on trade or travel policies to motivate the release of political prisoners. 

Question. What steps will you take to promote judicial reform in Cuba? 

Answer. I will work bilaterally and multilaterally to identify training and technical assistance opportunities to assist with judicial reform, if I am confirmed. 

Question. On October 12, 2016, PEOTUS Donald Trump stated, ‘‘The people of 

Cuba have struggled too long. I will reverse Obama’s Executive Orders and concessions towards Cuba until freedoms are restored.’’ 

Do you stand by PEOTUS Trump’s commitment to reverse the Obama Administration’s Cuba regulations until freedoms are restored on the island? 

Answer. Yes. There will be a comprehensive review of current policies and executive orders regarding Cuba to determine how best to pressure Cuba to respect 

human rights and promote democratic changes. 

Question. On October 14, 2016, VPEOTUS Mike Pence reiterated this commitment by stating, ‘‘When Donald Trump and I take to the White House, we will reverse Barack Obama’s executive orders on Cuba.’’ Do you stand by VPEOTUS 

Pence’s commitment to reverse the Obama Administration’s Cuba regulations? 

Answer. Yes, if I am confirmed. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

232 

Nicaragua 

Question. Freedoms have declined in Nicaragua as President Daniel Ortega has 

consolidated his power and increased pressure on the media and civil society, yet 

the Obama Administration did little in response. 

What policies will you implement to handle things differently than the previous 

administration? 

Answer. I agree that President Ortega has not governed democratically in Nicaragua. If confirmed, I will commit to reviewing our policy toward that country, with 

the ultimate aim of bolstering civil society and democratic institutions. We could 

also, in consultation with your committee, discuss whether there is any trade or 

other benefits to which Nicaragua would become disqualified as a result of its government’s abuses of power. 

Haiti 

Question. Years after the earthquake that devastated Haiti, meaningful rebuilding 

and redevelopment continues, but it is far from complete and Hurricane Matthew 

only complicated an already desperate situation for Haitian nationals. The U.S. 

Congress played an instrumental role in the recovery effort by approving $3.6 billion 

in assistance for the Haitian government and its people, but more work is needed. 

If confirmed, what measures as Secretary of State will you take to prioritize disaster 

assistance and recovery? 

Answer. Unfortunately, Haiti appears to go through cycles of natural disaster and 

incomplete recovery over and over, in part because of its geographic location and 

also because of its history of poor governance. If confirmed, I would try to mobilize 

international support to share the burden of U.S. assistance for Haiti. Additionally, 

I would have the State Department reach out to the Haitian American community 

to join in recovery efforts. 

NEAR EASTERN AND SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIA AFFAIRS

Iran 

Question. In the hearing, you said that you had no recollection of the subsidiary 

company Infineum, which Exxon set up in order to do business with known state 

sponsors of terrorism including Iran, Sudan, and Syria, with whom United States 

companies were prohibited from doing business. 

The Press has revealed documents that show the Securities and Exchange Commission contacted ExxonMobil in 2006 and 2010 about Infineum and its work with 

Iran. On Jan. 6, 2006, the SEC wrote to you specifically noting press reports about 

company sales and the lack of any mention of them in the company’s annual compliance report to the agency. 

According to the Washington Post: On Feb. 7, 2006, Exxon’s assistant general 

counsel Richard E. Gutman wrote back saying the transactions were too tiny for a 

company with $371 billion in revenue to matter to investors. He noted that Exxon 

did not have oil fields, refineries, offices or employees in the three countries. 

Nonetheless, the Post continues, the Gutman letter described to the SEC a variety 

of transactions. An ExxonMobil subsidiary sold $24.3 million in chemicals to Syria 

in 2005. Infineum, the 50-50 joint venture between Exxon and Shell, sold $16.1 million of products to Iran in 2005, and more in the two previous years. Another Exxon 

subsidiary had purchased Syrian crude oil on the open market from third parties 

outside Syria. 

Are you aware of this correspondence? Were you aware of this correspondence at 

your hearing on January 11? Were you aware of the operations in countries that 

promote terrorism and directly threaten the security of the United States, our interests, and our allies? 

Answer. I am now aware of this correspondence, although I did not recall it specifically during my confirmation hearing on January 11. The correspondence from 

2006 concerned transactions that preceded my tenure as Chairman and CEO and 

arrived shortly after I became CEO. The correspondence from 2010 stemmed from 

false press reports of ExxonMobil activity in Iran. Given the size of ExxonMobil and 

the content of the response I also do not recall whether the issue was elevated to 

me for advance review and comment. 

Question. Was this subsidiary company set up to avoid U.S. sanctions? 

Answer. No. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil sought to 

comply fully with all applicable U.S. sanctions laws. Infineum was established in 

1999 to pursue a commercial joint venture with Shell. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

233 

Question. How will you approach American businesses who take actions to subvert 

U.S. laws designed to protect Americans and cut of funds to dictators and state 

sponsors of terrorism? 

Answer. If I am confirmed, the State Department will not hesitate to alert U.S. 

businesses to actions that have the effect of subverting U.S. laws meant to protect 

Americans and cut of funds to dictators and state sponsors of terrorism. 

Question. ran continues to be the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world 

and a nuclear-armed Iran poses a grave threat to the States and our allies. 

What concrete steps will you take to stop Iranian influence in Syria and Iraq? 

What steps can we take with the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people to stop 

the influence of Iran? 

Answer. Iran should not be permitted to destabilize Syria and Iraq with impunity. 

The United States, working with our allies, should be prepared to impose a significant price on Iran for its malicious activities, including the imposition of painful 

economic sanctions. 

In Iraq, the U.S. should be exercising its significant leverage to press our allies 

in the Iraqi government, the Iraqi security forces, and the Kurdistan Regional Government to work with us in constraining Iran ’s malign influence and activities, including the operation of Iranian backed militias. 

Question. Do you believe that joint Russian-Iranian operations in Syria are in the 

interest of the United States? If no, please describe what steps specifically you plan 

to take to weaken the network of Russian-Iranian military actions in Syria and 

across the region. 

Answer. To the extent that Russia’s operations in Syria help expand the influence 

and power of Iran and its terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, they certainly do not serve 

U.S. interests. 

The growing threat that Iran poses to peace and security in the region should be 

a primary topic of any forthcoming U.S.-Russian discussions on Syria, ISIS and the 

challenge of radical Islamic terrorism. 

Question. How do you plan to aggressively stop Iranian proxy networks like 

Hezbollah from attacking Americans and United States’ interests? 

Answer. The United States should be prepared to inflict a painful price on Iran 

and its terrorist proxies like Hezbollah for their malign activities, including the imposition of harsh economic sanctions. 

Question. Do you plan to enforce sanctions against Iranian individuals and actors 

who are known to fund terrorism? 

Answer. Yes. Economic sanctions that target the Iranian individuals and entities 

that support terrorism are one of the most powerful tools we have to punish and 

deter Iran ’s malign behavior. 

Question. How will you work with other countries to ensure they comply with primary and secondary sanctions we have in place to stop Iran’s proxy terrorist networks from destabilizing the region? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that maintaining pressure on Iran and its 

proxy terrorist network will be among the highest priorities of U.S. diplomacy. 

Syria 

Question. There are more refugees and internally displaced persons (IDP) in the 

world now than any other time since World War II. Many, but not all, of these refugees and IDPs stem from years of conflict in Iraq and Syria. 20%-25% of Lebanon 

is made up of such individuals. Are you satisfied with the leadership of U.S., from 

policy and financial angles, within the international community to address the crisis? If not, what do you plan to do to ameliorate the situation? Should you be confirmed, what concrete steps will you take to address the dire humanitarian crisis 

in Syria and to correct what I think you called a policy of weakness in the region? 

Do you feel a no-fly zone would contribute to improving the situation? How would 

you propose to reinvigorate non-extremist opposition groups? 

Answer. The dynamics of refugee settlements have changed significantly over the 

past fifty years; more and more people are moving as a result of warfare, which has 

caused significant humanitarian suffering. The plight of these refugees is deeply 

concerning to me. The United States must lead with its values; that includes working with our partners to alleviate such suffering, particularly in conflict zones where 

the most vulnerable are often targeted. Today, alleviating the world’s refugee crises 

must start in Syria. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

234 

The actions of both Iran and ISIS decrease stability and increase the number of 

Syrians fleeing their homes. If confirmed, I would work closely with our partners 

in the region to alleviate their suffering. 

Question. The destruction of antiquities and culturally significant properties in 

Syria is deeply troubling and improvises us all. How important is this issue to you 

and what, if anything, should the U.S. be doing to prevent this wanton looting, destruction, and trafficking? 

Answer. The Syrian civil war is deeply concerning for the United States. If confirmed, I will engage our partners and other parties to the conflict to develop a sustainable political settlement that respects the human rights of Syrians. This political settlement would assist the United States and other interested parties in preventing the trafficking of priceless human antiquities that remain in the country 

and have been under threat from ISIS and other actors. 

Egypt 

Question. Do you believe the al-Sisi government is making Egypt more or less stable, and what evidence have you seen that supports your views? How would you explain the surge in terrorist violence and public unrest since al-Sisi seized power? 

Will you directly engage with the government to ensure the protection of minority 

communities including Coptic Christians? 

Answer. Egypt is one of the United States’ most important partners in the region. 

The United States should work to help Egypt achieve the necessary means to defend 

itself. This is a time of unprecedented instability in the Middle East. If confirmed, 

I would engage the government of Egypt to aid them in combating ISIS, building 

regional stability, and improving the government’s own record of human rights 

issues in the country, including the protection of Coptic Christians. Foreign assistance to Egypt, including security assistance, is an important part of our relationship, and critical to Egypt’s ability to both contribute to U.S. national security goals 

and to improve the lives of Egyptians. 

Afghanistan 

Question. This is longest running conflict in U.S. history. Success seems elusive 

despite an unprecedented commitment by the U.S. and our allies. What specific policy steps would you take to bring our engagement in the country to a positive end? 

How do you plan to use the tools at your disposal to neutralize the Taliban and secure a stability? The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction has 

documented gross corruption and mismanagement of U.S. dollars. What steps will 

you take to promote transparency and governance in the Afghan government? How 

will you ensure that American taxpayer dollars are well spent? 

Answer. The war in Afghanistan is the longest war in American history. Today, 

the United States should engage the government of Afghanistan President Ashraf 

Ghani and CEO Abdullah Abdullah to increase stability, reduce corruption, ensure 

a better standard of living for Afghans, particularly women and girls, and ensure 

that Afghanistan is never again used as a base for international terrorism. Foreign 

aid is part of this engagement; however, I will engage closely with Kabul to ensure 

that American aid dollars are not wasted, either in the humanitarian or security 

sectors. 

The United States should also engage with Islamabad, to strengthen the civilian 

government and eliminate the safe havens that terrorist groups like the Haqqani 

network enjoy. The United States should work with both Afghanistan and Pakistan 

to encourage cooperation, build trust, and seek to ensure regional stability, including peace in Afghanistan, in a context of mutual respect and appreciation of each 

country’s interests. 

India 

Question. As the largest Democracy in the world and growing world economic 

power, cultivating and nurturing improved diplomatic, economic, and military relations is vital to securing a peaceful, prosperous, and stable region. While our relations with India have improved, much work needs to be done. 

What steps would you take as Secretary of State to engage with India and to improve bilateral relations? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would make the strengthening of our relations with India 

in all aspects a high priority. 

Question. How do you view U.S.-Indian relations in the context of our broader 

Asia policy? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

235 

Answer. Stronger political, economic, and security relations between the United 

States and India, the world’s two largest democracies, can only help bolster stability 

in Asia—especially as we face common challenges like a more assertive China and 

common threats like radical Islamic terrorism. 

Question. How can we best promote U.S. business interests in India? 

Answer. We should encourage India to continue opening its market while making 

the support and promotion of American businesses an important goal of U.S. diplomacy. 

Question. How can we more productively engage India in the fight against radical 

terrorism? How can we better partner with them as we continue our operations in 

Afghanistan? 

Answer. Radical Islamic terrorism poses a major threat to both the United States 

and India, and increasing our cooperation against that threat should be a major goal 

of our bilateral diplomacy. 

The United States and India both have an interest in Afghanistan ’s stability and 

ensuring that the country is not a safe haven for radical jihadist groups. The United 

States should encourage India to use its substantial political and economic power 

and influence to promote security, stability and reconciliation in Afghanistan. 

EUROPE

The Ecumenical Patriarchate in Turkey 

Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure Turkey fully meets 

its obligations under international human rights and religious freedom laws, especially with respect to the Ecumenical Patriarchate? If confirmed, would you call for 

the immediate reopening of the Halki Seminary with no preconditions, so it may 

train future generations of Orthodox Christian clergy? 

Answer. Religious freedom is a core American principle and an important aspect 

of international peace and stability. If confirmed, I will work with Turkey to safeguard religious minorities and promote respect for their cultural heritages, including 

the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Halki Seminary. 

Question. In response to the Turkish government’s decision to allow a daily reading from The Koran during Ramadan in Hagia Sophia, State Department Spokesman Mark Toner said on June 9, ‘‘We recognize Hagia Sophia as a site of extraordinary significance and we would encourage Turkey to preserve Hagia Sophia in a 

way that respects its tradition and also its complex history.’’ Do you concur with 

the position conveyed by Spokesman Toner? What further steps will you take to convey your concern to the Turkish Government? 

Answer. I agree that Hagia Sophia is a site of extraordinary significance that 

should be preserved in a way that respects its tradition and complex history. If confirmed, I will encourage the Turkish government along these lines. 

Turkey 

Question. In our meeting, you indicated that we need to bring Turkey back into 

the Western fold. What should our approach be with Turkish president Recep 

Tayyip Erdogan? How would you bring Turkey back into the Western fold? How 

does this goal square with Turkey’s current involvement in the Syria conflict? Iraq? 

And the Kurds? 

Answer. The first step in bringing Turkey back into the Western fold is to restore 

trust between the United States and Turkey. Lack of American leadership in the 

region in recent years has resulted in significant instability with immense negative 

effects for Turkey. Turkey is a crucial, strategically located ally, and its bases play 

a critical role in the U.S. -led war against ISIS. If confirmed, I will make it a top 

priority to engage constructively with the Turkish government, including on the 

Kurdish issue, and to advance our common security interests in Syria and Iraq. 

Question. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you did not seem particularly concerned 

about recent undemocratic trends including new constitutional changes and the 

jailing of dissidents and journalists. In recent months, Erdogan has undertaken an 

intense crackdown on perceived opponents—what many are calling a witch hunt in 

retaliation for the July 2016 coup attempt. This has included the firing more than 

100,000 state employees including soldiers, police officers, members of the military, 

judges, and even midwives; imprisonment of tens of thousands, including journalists, human rights defenders, and activists, many of whom have alleged torture and 

brutal mistreatment while in custody; restrictions on internet and social media access; and the shuttering of media and civil society organizations. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

236 

How do you plan to approach the U.S. relationship with Turkey? Do you believe 

the crackdown instituted by President Erdogan is strengthening or weakening stability and governance in Turkey? 

Answer. The U.S. relationship with Turkey must be based on mutual trust, which 

requires a proper recognition of the concerns of both of our governments. The Turkish government has a legitimate right to preserve the integrity of its democracy, including taking the necessary measures to prevent future coup attempts. I am, however, very concerned about many of the measures recently taken by the Turkish government. I believe that strong U.S. engagement and leadership, including on human 

rights, is the best way to secure a strong, stable and democratic Turkey that remains a critical ally in the fight against terrorism. 

Cyprus 

Question. We have a historic opportunity to achieve a peaceful resolution of the 

long festering and untenable situation in Cyprus. Positive Turkish engagement and 

support of this process is vital, as is that of International Organizations and the 

U.S. How do you view the current, ongoing Cyprus settlement talks held under U.N. 

auspices? Do you support a reunified Cyprus with a single sovereignty, single international personality and single citizenship; and with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded as described in the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions? Will you maintain U.S. high-level engagement on this issue? 

Answer. A long-term solution for Cyprus is important for U.S. interests in the region. The United States should continue to support the efforts of the Greek and 

Turkish Cypriot leaders to achieve a just resolution that is consistent with U.N. resolutions and heals the island’s divisions. If confirmed, I look forward to working 

closely with the U.N. and other key actors to support a solution. 

Armenia 

Question. 2015 marked the centenary of the Armenian Genocide, which was condemned as a crime against humanity by the Allied Powers as it occurred, but which 

Turkey denies to this day. Pope Francis publicly affirmed the Armenian Genocide 

stating it is an open wound that must be healed. What steps will you take to end 

its denial and reaffirm the proud chapter in U.S. diplomatic history to help save the 

survivors of the first genocide of the twentieth century? 

Answer. The tragic atrocities of 1915 remain a painful issue in the relationship 

between Armenia and Turkey, and it is in the U.S. interest to ensure peaceful and 

stable relations between the two countries. If confirmed, I will support a full accounting of the historical events and an open dialogue between Armenia and Turkey 

in the interest of regional stability. 

Question. Will you continue our nation’s strong bipartisan support for, and cooperation with, Ukraine, the only non-NATO partner nation to have contributed actively to all NATO-led operations and missions for the past 20 years? Will you support the further enactment of actions authorized by the bipartisan Ukraine Freedom 

Support Act of 2014, including the supplying of defensive equipment, services, and 

military training? 

In addition to living up to our public and binding security guarantees to Ukraine, 

will the United States maintain its investments in programs promoting democratic 

governance, as well as education, professional and cultural exchange programs towards the development of civil society in Ukraine at current levels? 

Answer. I value the many contributions that Ukraine has made to NATO-led operations. If confirmed, I will support the active consideration of all appropriate 

measures to support Ukraine’s security and stability and advance broader U.S. interests in the region. I will also support investment in programs, including exchanges, which have a proven record of effectively promoting democratic governance 

and civil society. 

Question. Furthermore, all U.S. Secretaries of State and all U.S. Presidents (save 

President Obama) have made it policy to visit Ukraine since it regained its independence in 1991. When can we expect visits by you and President Trump? 

Answer. Personal diplomacy is a crucial foreign policy tool and official visits are 

an important part of our statecraft If confirmed, I will certainly meet with the 

Ukrainian leadership early on and look forward to visiting Ukraine at the appropriate time. I would encourage the President-elect along similar lines. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

237 

AFRICA

Ethiopia 

Question. Ethiopia, an important security partner for the United States, is suffering its worst unrest in years, in response to the government’s intensifying human 

rights abuses and restrictions on freedoms. The government’s harsh response to the 

unrest—which has involved the killing of hundreds of protesters, mass arrests, the 

imposition of a state of emergency that includes curfews and travel restrictions for 

foreign diplomats, and even reports of torture—has created an unsustainable situation and raises serious questions about the Ethiopian government’s ability to effectively partner on terrorism. How do you plan to address this situation? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will engage Ethiopia to express our concerns about violations of human rights and our support for responsible governance. Ethiopia has a 

critical role to play in encouraging stability in Africa and is an important partner 

for the United States. Continued diplomatic engagement will be necessary to ensure 

that it meets those commitments and continues to contribute positively to the 

United States’ goals in the region. 

Functional 

Question. You mentioned to me in our meeting that you decided to pull investment from certain countries because of governmental corruption and diminished 

rule of law and governing structures. You have also indicated that you believe we 

can best promote American interests and values through business engagement and 

opportunity. However, the United States doesn’t just have the option of walking 

away from other nation states. 

Do you believe that democracy and human rights programs funded by State and 

USAID lead to more stable countries that are less prone to terrorism, internal conflict and refugee crises that spill across borders? Do you agree that U.S. support for 

democratic institutions and human rights creates a climate in developing nations 

that is friendlier to U.S. business operations, our exports, and tourism? 

Please describe how you intend to use USAID and the Bureau of Democracy, 

Human Rights, and Labor to sharpen and improve our engagement in governance 

and rule of law areas international for the furtherance of our national policy objectives? 

Answer. Our values are our interests and our interests are our values, so it is 

in our interests to project the value of democracy by supporting democratic institutions, Already, there are great programs that promote democracy and fight corruption. Through USAID’s Center of Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance, there are programs such as the Assistance for Afghanistan ’s 

Anticorruption Authority. The State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human 

Rights, and Labor has helped improve access to the legal system in Sri Lanka 

through the Jaffna Legal Aid Project In the coming year, we have the opportunity 

to rewrite the Department of State-USAID Joint Strategic Plan. Utilizing input from 

both agencies, we will be able to assess current issues regarding democracy and 

human rights, as well as review how programs from each agency may contribute 

to resolving chronic challenges. 

Human Rights 

Question. Throughout the world, political dissidents, activists, journalists, and 

human rights defenders have been victims of repression and imprisoned solely for 

peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression. What would you do to reiterate the U.S. government’s commitment to protect and advocate for those on the 

frontline, including civil society organizations, who are exercising basic freedoms? 

Answer. I believe the United States must shine a spotlight on those seeking freedom and democracy around the world. Our support helps encourage those seeking 

greater human rights, and puts those abusing such rights on notice. 

We should continue to provide democracy-building assistance, and support civil 

society organizations. 

We also need to exercise American leadership on key regional and security issues 

such as fighting terrorism, where the United States and other countries—whether 

democratic or not—share common interests. By engaging on a wide range of issues, 

we will increase the degree to which other nations pay attention to the concerns we 

express over democracy and human rights. 

Question. Thousands of people have been jailed on politically motivated charges 

and are languishing in the jail cells of U.S. military allies. These allies include Ethiopia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Bahrain, Turkey, Kyrgyzstan, South Korea (Republic of Korea), Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia. These governments continue to 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

238 

benefit from U.S. military aid and arms sales while imprisoning peaceful critics at 

home. 

What steps will you take to push U.S. military allies to stop imprisoning those 

who engage in peaceful dissent or criticism of their governments? 

Answer. Over the past several years, the United States has pulled back from 

many of its traditional leadership roles on global security issues. This has left many 

allies uneasy about U.S. support and concerned about regional adversaries. Many 

of these allies have also cracked down on domestic opponents. 

At the same time, the United States has been less focused on human rights than 

in the past. And even where the United States has raised human rights concerns, 

many such military allies have dismissed U.S. concerns as the United States has 

appeared uninterested in their regional security concerns. 

The United States should never shy away from standing up for our values and 

supporting human rights, even with our closest friends and allies. If confirmed as 

Secretary of State, I will actively discuss such cases with friends and adversaries 

alike. 

We will have more success, however, to the extent we are seen by others, especially our friends and allies, as helping to address regional and security issues that 

are critical to those nations. 

Question. While border security is of great concern to many Americans, the success of U.S.-Mexican security cooperation will depend in large part on our joint ability to tackle impunity, strengthen rule of law, and bolster protections for vulnerable 

populations in Mexico. How do you think the Merida Initiative and other bilateral 

security efforts have fared? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ask to be fully briefed on the Merida Initiative and 

other bilateral security efforts and will seek to evaluate their effectiveness. 

Question. Similarly, securing the southern U.S. border must be done in conjunction with addressing root causes driving people to flee Central America, and offering 

protection to asylum seekers from that region as required under U.S. immigration 

law and U.S. obligations under the Refugee Convention and its Protocol, which the 

U.S. codified in the Refugee Act of 1980. Currently, only 5,000 resettlement slots 

are offered for refugees from Central and South America. Will you commit to increasing the number of resettlement slots to refugees from Central America? 

Answer. I have not yet been briefed on all aspects of the U.S. Refugee Admissions 

Program, but should I be confirmed as Secretary, I will faithfully administer the 

Refugee Admissions Program consistent with law and the policy preferences of the 

President-elect. 

Women and Girls 

Question. There is a growing body of evidence showing that the empowerment of 

women and girls, through investments in their health, education, livelihoods, and 

the prevention of violence, not only benefits them as individuals, but leads to 

healthier, more prosperous, and more stable societies. Under your leadership, how 

will you continue to prioritize the empowerment of women and girls in U.S. development and humanitarian assistance and diplomatic engagement? 

Answer. As I stated in my hearing testimony, the issue of empowering women is 

personally important to me. I have seen firsthand the impact of empowering women, 

particularly regarding their participation in economic activities in the lesser developed part of the world. Investing in women and girls produces a multiplier effect— 

women reinvest a large portion of their income in their families and communities, 

which also furthers economic growth and stability. As I indicated, I believe women’s 

empowerment and advancement is an important part of our foreign aid efforts and 

I will support such programs, including efforts to advance women ’s participation 

in peace, security and the political process. I will support efforts to end violence 

against women and girls as well as to mitigate the impact of such violence. I look 

forward, if confirmed, to closely examining all aspects of these issues to determine 

if our funding levels and other resources are appropriate. 

Question. The U.N. carries out crucial work supporting women and girls access 

to education and employment, helping them register to vote and run for office, and 

advising governments on how to combat violence against women and girls. These 

efforts build respect for the rule of law, lead to increased GDP, and make countries 

more stable and safe. The demand for this work far outstrips the U.N. ability to 

deliver it, due to funding gaps and inconsistent political will amongst U.N. Member 

States. Given the enormous, proven returns on investment this work generates, and 

its importance to U.S. Foreign Policy, how do you plan to further the U.N. efforts 

in this regard? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

239 

Answer. The U.N. has made a considerable contribution to the advancement of 

women and girls around the world. As I have said, the empowerment of women and 

girls has always been a top priority for me. If confirmed I will continue to support 

and enhance these efforts and ensure that our funding is directed at programs that 

have had measurable impact on providing women with opportunity around the 

globe. 

Trafficking in Persons 

Question. Human trafficking is often characterized by networks of traffickers that 

extend across international borders and by victims who are moved across jurisdictions. To effectively combat this criminal phenomenon, governments and non-governmental organizations must work together to build and execute multi-layered 

strategies. Will you commit to developing and implementing regional partnerships, 

particularly in the Americas and Southeast Asia, to more effectively combat human 

trafficking? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed as Secretary, I will commit to combating the 

scourge of human trafficking in all its forms, consistent with the law and policy 

preferences of the President-elect 

Question. The crime of human trafficking is a $150 billion worldwide enterprise 

that enslaves tens of millions of people in commercial sex and forced labor. According to estimates by the International Labor Organization, nearly 21 million people 

around the world are victims of human trafficking. In order to ensure that we are 

addressing the crime of trafficking effectively and efficiently, it is essential that we 

have robust data from which we can make informed decisions. Recently, the State 

Department’s Trafficking in Persons office began funding a project led by the International Organization for Migration that will be the first global data repository on 

human trafficking. Anti-trafficking organizations around the world will provide deidentified data on victim demographics, trafficking types, locations of the exploitation, and the forms of control used by traffickers, which will be compiled in this 

data repository to allow policymakers, law enforcement, and civil society organizations to access up-to-date information on what trafficking looks like around the 

world. Will you commit to continuing funding for the Counter-Trafficking Data Collaborative and prioritize efforts to increase the data we have on trafficking around 

the world? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on the Collaborative to provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed as Secretary, I will commit to working with 

Congress and the President-elect to combat human trafficking. 

Question. Human trafficking is often characterized by networks of traffickers that 

extend across international borders and by victims who are moved across jurisdictions. To effectively combat this criminal phenomenon, governments and non-governmental organizations must work together to build and execute multi-layered 

strategies. Will you commit to developing and implementing regional partnerships, 

particularly in the Americas and Southeast Asia, to more effectively combat human 

trafficking? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed as Secretary, I will commit to combating the 

scourge of human trafficking in all its forms consistent with the law and policy preferences of the President-elect. 

Question. As you know, there have been serious questions from both the Foreign 

Relations Committee and civil society organizations regarding the integrity of the 

past two years’ Trafficking in Persons reports. And last month, I introduced legislation with Senator Rubio that makes sweeping reforms to restore integrity to the TIP 

ranking process. We plan to reintroduce that legislation in the coming weeks, and 

from my past conversations with my colleagues here on the Committee, I understand that there is broad, bipartisan consensus that reforming the ranking process 

is a priority that we should address early in this Congress. 

Question. Will you commit to working with this Committee to ensure that we restore integrity to the TIP Report? 

Answer. Yes, if I am confirmed. 

Question. The legislation I introduced with Senator Rubio requires TIP rankings 

to be contingent on concrete actions taken by a country in the preceding reporting 

period, and that the StateDepartment specify how these actions, or lack thereof, justify the ranking. A recent GAO study highlighted this as a major gap in the existing 

TIP ranking process. Would you support such changes? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

240 

Answer. I do not yet have a comprehensive understanding of the GAO study on 

the TIP ranking process. Should I be confirmed as Secretary, I will work with this 

Committee to support an informed TIP ranking process. 

Question. Will you assure the Committee that, if confirmed, you will rely upon the 

advice provided by the experts at the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in 

Persons when assigning rankings in the TIP Reports during your time as Secretary? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support a robust TIP ranking process consistent with 

the law. 

Climate and Energy 

Question. In 2015, under your leadership, ExxonMobil settled an $8.9 billion lawsuit with the State of New Jersey for only a small fraction of the damages sought 

by the state for decades of toxic pollution and loss of wetlands and other lands. 

While this deal was no doubt a financial boon for the company, New Jersey communities will now be stuck paying the price for ExxonMobil’s toxic legacy. 

As Secretary of State, you will have to understand the impacts of your foreign 

policies on local communities. Given your company’s actions in New Jersey, how do 

you weigh the high human costs of your policies on families and local communities 

against possible financial or strategic advantages? 

Answer. The referenced settlement was approved by a New Jersey judge as fair 

and in the public interest. Under the settlement, I understand that ExxonMobil has 

committed to performing remedial cleanups of certain identified sites. 

If I am confirmed, my duty as Secretary of State will be to further the interests 

of the United States, and its people, in the country’s dealings abroad. 

If confirmed, I further expect that the State Department, acting with the National 

Security Council and other departments of the government, will endeavor to make 

policy choices that weigh the human costs on families and communities that will be 

affected. 

Question. The Paris climate agreement sets a baseline goal of limiting warming 

to 2 degrees Celsius over preindustrial temperatures, with an ultimate goal of limiting it to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Under your leadership, ExxonMobil has supported the 

Paris agreement and the goals that it set. However, the President-elect has nominated individuals for Attorney General and Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency that have broadly denied the existence of climate change and 

have strongly opposed the Clean Power Plan, which is one of the primary mechanisms by which the United States plans to meet its commitments under the Paris 

agreement. 

Given your, or your company’s, prior support, do you believe the United States 

should meet its commitments under the Paris agreement? If so, by what mechanisms—whether through the Clean Power Plan or some alternate proposal—should 

these commitments be met? If not, how do you intend to manage the diplomatic consequences of reneging on an agreement adopted with near global consensus? 

Answer. If confirmed, I expect that the State Department and other departments 

of the government will conduct a review of the Nationally Determined Contribution 

submitted by the Obama Administration as part of our review of the Paris Agreement and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change to determine whether the NDC and/or the international agreements advance U.S. national interests. 

Question. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2015, the most 

recent year for which complete data is available, the United States was a net importer of an average of 6.898 million barrels of crude oil a day. Yet, at the beginning 

of 2016, over my opposition and over the opposition of many, your company successfully lobbied the United States Congress to lift the ban on exporting American crude 

oil. I have long held that we need to transition to clean domestic forms of energy, 

and that in the interim American oil should be used to help American families. 

Being an importer of oil means that we are often dependent on nations like Venezuela that are anti-democratic, have abysmal human rights records, and actively 

pursue anti-American interests on the global stage to meet our energy needs. 

Do you agree that energy independence improves our national security and is in 

the interest of the United States? 

Answer. As an executive at ExxonMobil, I was a proponent of energy security as 

opposed to energy independence. As Secretary of State, if confirmed, I will share my 

views with the President and other members of the Cabinet, though I suspect that 

primary responsibility for energy issues will fall to the Departments of Energy and 

Commerce and other relevant parts of government. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

241 

Question. While you stated in your testimony to the Committee that you were not 

aware of any subsidies provided to the fossil fuel industry, the fact is the United 

States does provide a series of tax and financial incentives specific to the oil and 

gas industry-including the deduction for intangible drilling and development costs; 

the percentage depletion allowance for oil and gas wells; the deduction for tertiary 

injectants; and the royalty relief for certain deepwater oil and gas production. 

Given this information, and given your acknowledgement that climate change is 

a real threat, should the United States be providing financial incentives to both foreign and domestic corporations to develop fossil fuel resources in the United States? 

Given the threat of climate change, is it in the U.S. interest for foreign governments 

to provide their own financial incentives to foreign companies to increase oil production within their own country? Do you believe that it is more difficult to advance 

U.S. interests abroad when our own domestic policies do not reflect the actions that 

we would like to see foreign governments take? 

Answer. As Secretary of State, if confirmed, I will share my views with the President and other members of the Cabinet on these matters if asked to do so, though 

I suspect that primary responsibility for energy issues will fall to the Departments 

of Energy and Treasury, and other relevant parts of government. 

Question. The United States and Canada recently announced joint actions to remove much of the Arctic Ocean and parts of the Atlantic from consideration for future oil and gas drilling. Similarly, the United States and China have entered into 

a joint agreement that would see China halt increases in its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, with a stated goal of peaking earlier than that. 

Question. Do you think that it is in the U.S. interest to see Canada and China 

uphold their sides of these agreements? If meeting their obligations is contingent 

upon us meeting our own commitments, is it in our interest to uphold our side of 

the agreements? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support an Arctic policy that combines environmental 

protection with economic opportunity and a proper regard for U.S. national security 

interests. I am not convinced that the recently announced joint actions with Canada 

to remove parts of the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans from consideration for future oil 

and gas drilling strike the right balance, and I would want to undertake a thorough 

review of these actions before recommending a path forward. With respect to the 

joint agreement with China, I believe that the agreement should be reviewed and 

evaluated to determine whether its implementation is realistic and will accomplish 

its stated goals without causing unnecessary harm to the U.S. economy and national 

security interests. 

Question. Marine mammals play a vital role in marine ecosystems and are critical 

to the health of our oceans. Unfortunately, human activities, from unsustainable 

hunting and commercial whaling practices to seismic airgun blasting during oil and 

gas exploration, have devastated many populations of marine mammals. The Marine 

Mammal Protection Act provides protections on the domestic level to all of these 

animals, preventing the harassment or take of marine mammals without a 

preauthorized permit. On an international level, the United States is a signatory of 

the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and a member of the 

International Whaling Commission, which regulates whaling practices and the conservation of whales. The International Whaling Commission has implemented a 

moratorium on commercial whaling since 1986 with exceptions for certain subsistence whaling by indigenous populations. 

Do you intend to maintain the United States’ commitment to the International 

Whaling Commission? Will you continue to enforce the international moratorium on 

whaling? 

Answer. I recognize the importance of marine mammals to marine ecosystems. If 

confirmed, I will support the United States’ commitment to the International Whaling Commission and work to enforce policies that ensure healthy oceans, robust marine ecosystems and proper protection of endangered species as well as economic opportunities for indigenous populations, including the current moratorium on commercial whaling. 

General Trade/IP Questions 

Question. Increasingly, the United Nations is taking a more active role relating 

to intellectual property protections that drive America’s $6.6 trillion innovation 

economy and support more than 45 million jobs across the country. The U.S. biopharmaceutical industry, for example, supports approximately 4 million American 

jobs. If confirmed, what will you do to ensure the U.N. system values and protects 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

242 

intellectual property and the incentives it provides for new advances that contribute 

so much to economic growth and development here and around the world? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the U.N. system, and other international institutions, value and protect intellectual property (IP) rights. 

Question. Intellectual property is crucial to the well-being of our economy. More 

money is spent on R&D in the U.S. than in any other country in the world. In fact, 

30% of the American workforce is employed directly or indirectly in IP-intensive industries. The U.S. biopharmaceutical industry, for example, supports approximately 

4 million American jobs. But in order to continue accelerating the pace innovation 

in our economy, our trading partners must all play by the same rules with respect 

to market access and protecting intellectual property. We have seen a disturbing 

trend in recent years whereby some of our trading partners have ignored their international commitments, particularly with respect to intellectual property protection, 

either by failing to fully implement agreements or by flouting the rules in order to 

give their businesses an unfair advantage. 

How can the United States use trade agreements to ensure U.S. businesses benefit from strong intellectual property protections and greater access to global markets? 

Answer. Working with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development 

(UNCTAD), the United States will promote academic findings that increasingly 

show stronger domestic intellectual property rights systems promote faster economic 

growth and innovation. Scholars producing this research have received support from 

the World Bank and other respected research bodies. I would also point UNCTAD 

and other U.N. institutions to a June 8, 2016 speech by FTC Commissioner 

Maureen Ohlhausen (before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) entitled ‘‘The 

Case for a Strong Patent System, which highlights recent research supporting the 

importance of strong patents to a vibrant economy. Studies show that developing 

countries (a special concern of UNCTAD) as well as developed countries benefit from 

robust IP Protection and the rule of law, because those factors promote new investment and the development of indigenous high tech industries. In short, strong IP 

rights are good for development. 

Question. What can the State Department do to ensure our trading partners are 

enforcing existing commitments and deter countries from weakening such standards 

in their own IP regimes. 

Answer. The United States will continue to work within other institutions in 

which it participates, including, for example, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 

(OECD), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the World Bank to work for 

strengthened intellectual property protection. For example, the WTO may wish to 

focus on adherence to TRIPS (trade-related intellectual property rights) commitments in its regular peer reviews of individual nations. The United States Government may support additional OECD and World Bank efforts aimed at highlighting 

how IP rights are vital to development. 

Question. In your view, how does the monitoring and enforcement of trade agreements impact the sustainability and growth of IP-intensive industries such as the 

biopharmaceutical sector?Commissioner Ohlhausen (see speech cited above) and 

other scholars have commented on how U.S. Government policies that have been 

critical of strong IP rights (emanating from the Justice Department Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission, the White House, and the Patent and Trademark Office) have not only discouraged U.S. IP holders, but also have encouraged 

foreign governments to take positions antithetical to strong IP rights. Those policies 

will be reversed and American IP rights will thereby be better protected. 

State Department 

Question. As one of the most diverse countries in the world, the U.S. possesses 

unparalleled foreign policy strength—its diverse citizenry—with its linguistic, sociocultural, experiential, diaspora connections, and other strengths. Unfortunately, 

many racial and ethnic groups have been historically underrepresented in the State 

Department. 

The most recent numbers available demonstrate Hispanic and Asian representation within theDepartment of State’s workforce are at 6 percent each; and although 

African Americans represent 15 percent of the total State Department workforce, 

they only represent 6 percent of the Foreign Service. Native Americans are virtually 

non-existent among our Foreign Service agencies workforce. Many of these racial 

and ethnic groups remain stagnated in low and mid-career positions. This curtails 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

243 

their opportunities for career advancement towards senior level positions, further 

limiting racial and ethnic diversity among the agency’s top ranks. 

What steps will you be taking to cultivate diversity among the State Department’s 

Foreign Service and more broadly, and in particular among its senior and mid-level 

leadership? 

Answer. Over the years the Department of State has made numerous efforts to 

modify its intake of junior officers to create a more diverse workforce. At the same 

time, the application process has remained competitive, attracting the best and the 

brightest candidates. Balancing these two objectives— diversity and competitiveness—will always be a challenge. If confirmed I will seek creative ways to strike 

the right balance between diversity and competitiveness, while also ensuring that 

promotion through the ranks is purely merit-based. 

Question. The Department of State Authorities Act for Fiscal Year 2017 mandates 

the expansion of theCharles B. Rangel International Affairs Program and the Thomas R. Pickering Foreign Affairs Fellowship Program at the Department of State. 

These fellowship programs have raised the Department’s measures of Foreign Service workforce diversity by 21 percent. I would argue that this is not enough. 

Beyond an increase in the afore mentioned fellowship programs, what other steps 

will you take to make sure the State Department reflects the diversity on American 

society? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would certainly follow the letter of the Authorization Act 

to continue the Rangel and Pickering Fellowship programs. I would also seek creative means to reach out to non-traditional audiences across the country to elicit a 

more diverse pool of applicants for entry into the various State Department career 

paths. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

244 

SECRETARY-DESIGNATE TILLERSON’S ANSWERS TO

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR FLAKE

Question. The outgoing administration was content to wage war on ISIS using authorities granted in a 2001 authorization for the use of military force that was approved in the days after the September 11th attacks and focused on fighting alQaeda and the Taliban. Some of us voiced concern that this was insufficient, in part 

because it’s the responsibility of Congress to weigh in on the use of force. Our allies 

and our adversaries need to know that conflicts waged by the U.S. have the backing 

of Congress. 

What are your views on the 2001 AUMF, and do you think there’s utility in working with Congress on an AUMF that addresses today’s realities? 

Answer. While AUMF is primarily within the Department of Defense’s equities 

and the 2001 AUMF was appropriate at the time, a new AUMF could demonstrate 

U.S. strength and unity of purpose. Having the support of Congress to stand behind 

the decisions to commit American men and women as well as military resources 

strengthens our position in the world because it signals our intention to bring the 

requisite resources, both diplomatic and militarily, to bear in international conflicts. 

Question. If Congress were to consider an AUMF that was approved only along 

party lines, would you find that less helpful than having no updated AUMF at all? 

Answer. Defeating ISIS is the U.S. government’s top priority in the Middle East, 

and this is not a partisan matter. If legislative action would support our efforts in 

defeating ISIS, I suspect that the Department of Defense would look forward to the 

discussion. 

Question. During your confirmation hearing, you were asked a number of questions about Cuba and recent U.S. policy changes toward that country. 

If confirmed, do you commit to looking at all sides of the issue as it relates to 

U.S. policy toward Cuba, and to review the impact that these policy changes have 

had on the ground there? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. For all the many threats the U.S. is facing, the one that keeps me 

awake at night is our national debt. If we don’t put our fiscal house in order and 

put ourselves on a sustainable fiscal path forward, we won’t be able to address any 

of the serious threats our country faces. 

♦ Do you agree that our national debt poses a serious threat to our national security? 

♦ What steps might you take to address our national debt as leader of the Department of State, if confirmed? 

Answer. I agree that the national debt is a priority and is a serious threat to our 

national security and our standing in the world. If we do not put our fiscal house 

in order, we will not have the resources to address serious threats or new, emerging 

problems we may not have anticipated. If confirmed, I will make stewardship of the 

Department of State’s budget one of my key management priorities. If confirmed, 

I will begin looking immediately at any potential FY 17 Supplemental and full year 

appropriations prior to the end of the current Continuing Resolution to see if some 

of the requested funding is no longer a priority, then turn attention to the FY 18 

request before it is submitted to assure alignment with these same priorities. 

Question. As Chairman of the African Affairs Subcommittee, I worked on legislation to ‘‘electrify Africa,’’ that was signed into law in the 115th Congress. The legislation authorized a USAID-administered program called ‘‘Power Africa’’ which seeks 

to use public-private partnerships to bring electricity to the parts of Africa that do 

not have access to it. 

Question. Do you believe that helping parts of Africa gain access to electricity is 

in the interest of the United States? 

Answer. Nothing lifts people out of poverty faster than electricity. When you provide electricity, you provide the ability to refrigerate food and gain access to medicine. It changes the quality of life and improves health. I think it is very important 

to use efficiently taxpayer dollars to support these types of programs, including 

Power Africa, and we should continue to support these programs. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

245 

Question. When considering what projects should receive U.S. funding, do you 

agree that projects should be selected based on their potential to provide access to 

energy, and without preference for, or regard to fuel type or technology? 

Answer. Projects should be selected based on what is the most efficient, effective 

option in order to deliver electricity to the areas that do not have it—that should 

be the priority. That is the wisest use of American funding. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

246 

SECRETARY-DESIGNATE TILLERSON’S ANSWERS TO

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SHAHEEN

Conflicts of Interest 

Question. How will you ensure that State Department employees you mean to 

lead will not feel pressure or encouragement, explicit or implicit, to benefit the 

President-elect’s financial position or that of his family? 

Answer. I will seek the counsel of the professional ethics staff at the Department 

of State and/or the Office of Government Ethics as appropriate. 

Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, how will you respond if you suspect 

that a foreign government or entity is attempting to influence the President-elect’s 

decision-making through his financial holdings or other means of leverage? Will you 

notify this committee? 

Answer. I will consult with security professionals and the ethics staff at the Department of State. I will act in accordance with security and ethics guidelines as 

appropriate. 

Question. Russian harassment of U.S. diplomatic personnel in Russia has significantly increased in the past few years and now routinely violates established international norms for treatment of other countries’ diplomats. In response, the Obama 

Administration expelled 35 Russian government officials, and their families, from 

the United States and closed two Russian government compounds. As Secretary of 

State, what specifically would you do, in conjunction with other U.S. Government 

agencies, to prevent future harassment of U.S. diplomatic personnel by Russia? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would immediately seek a fuller briefing and discussion 

on the treatment of U.S. diplomatic personnel by Russia. At a minimum, a strong 

message should be delivered to the highest levels of the Russian government that 

the harassment of U.S. diplomats must come to an end. Should that message not 

be heeded, I would work in conjunction with the President and other U.S. government agencies to develop an appropriate re response. 

Negotiations with Russia 

Question. What specific changes in U.S. policies do you expect the Russian government to seek from the Trump Administration? Where do you see potential room for 

compromise? What existing U.S. policies and commitments do you regard as nonnegotiable? 

Answer. It remains to be seen what Russia’s approach to the Trump Administration will be. One policy that will likely be on Russia’s agenda is Western sanctions, 

in particular sanctions for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. While the sanctions 

have clearly imposed a price on Russia’s economy, Moscow has so far been unwilling 

to reverse its aggression or comply with its obligations under the Minsk process. 

Though Russia has long sought to weaken and undermine the NATO alliance, Moscow should know that the U.S. commitment to NATO and its Article V security commitment are firm and non- negotiable. One area that the President-elect has identified for possible cooperation with Russia is the fight against ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism. Russia in the past has been the victim of terrorist attacks and 

fought at least two bloody wars in Chechnya. There are estimates that thousands 

of Russian citizens are fighting for ISIS in Iraq and Syria, many of whom may eventually seek to return home to carry the jihad back to Russia. 

NATO/ERi 

Question. Do you support the steps that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

(NATO) has taken to bolster its defensive posture in response to Russia’s invasion 

of Ukraine and its increasingly threatening posture in Europe, particularly NATO’s 

deployment of additional forces to the Baltic States and Eastern Europe? 

Do you support the European Reassurance Initiative (ERi), undertaken jointly by 

the Departments of State and Defense on a bilateral basis with European partners? 

Answer. During the Trump Administration, the United States will remain fully 

committed to NATO collective defense—period. The steps that the United States 

and NATO have taken to strengthen the credibility of collective defense in the eyes 

of our allies and adversaries alike have been reasonable and should continue. This 

includes the deployment of NATO forces on the territory of the Baltic States and 

others in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as the U.S. actions taken under the 

rubric of the European Reassurance Initiative. Our allies should have no doubts 

about the U.S. commitment to NATO. 

That being said, it should not be only the United States that expresses such a 

strong commitment to NATO. While the Baltic states are clearly doing their share 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

247 

on defense spending—either at 2 percent of GDP, or on their way there-we are concerned that many other NATO allies are not demonstrating as strong a commitment 

to NATO. Making sure that all NATO allies—the United States and European allies 

alike-are doing their share will be a critical focus for NATO policy in the months 

ahead. 

Balkans 

Question. Although there is a perception that Europe is a ‘‘finished project’’ and 

no longer requires American leadership on democracy-building and economic development, countries like Bosnia and Herzegovina still face significant economic, political and social challenges. The U.S. has a very positive legacy in the Balkan region, 

in particular having helped to end armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia. If confirmed, will you continue State Department programs that have sought to promote 

stability in the European nations that aspire to join NATO and the EU like Bosnia 

and Herzegovina? 

Answer. If I am confirmed, the State Department, in conjunction with our Transatlantic partners and other key actors, will continue programs that effectively promote stability in Europe, including in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Balkan region. 

Cyprus 

Question. Cyprus is a reliable strategic partner of the United States in the volatile 

region of the Eastern Mediterranean. How will the new U.S. Administration further 

develop the bilateral ties between the United States and the Republic of Cyprus, 

and how will it support the ongoing reunification negotiations and the implementation of any deal that is reached? 

Answer. A long-term solution for Cyprus is important for U.S. interests in the region. The United States should continue to support the efforts of the Greek and 

Turkish Cypriot leaders to achieve a just resolution that is consistent with U.N. resolutions and heals the island’s divisions. If confirmed, I look forward to working 

closely with the U.N. and other key actors to support a solution. Strong bilateral 

ties with the Republic of Cyprus will help ensure future stability and prosperity in 

the region. 

Georgia 

Question. Georgia is a staunch ally of the United States and reliable partner in 

the fight against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan that punches well above its 

weight with respect to its security contributions. At the same time, Georgia is a 

leading reformer in the region, transforming itself from a post-Soviet state to an established democracy that has vigorously pursued greater Euro-Atlantic integration. 

Georgia has made this progress even as 20% of its territory has been illegally occupied by Russia since 2008. 

In this context, can you assure the Committee that you will give your full support 

to Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and its Euro-Atlantic integration 

path? As Secretary of State, what policies will you pursue to help Georgia develop 

its economy and civil society and to protect its territorial sovereignty? 

Answer. I value the contributions of Georgia to our common security, including 

operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. If confirmed, I will support Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as its efforts to strengthen democracy and 

economic reform. 

Counter-drug Cooperation 

Question. The State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) is responsible for building other countries’ capacity to fight 

drug trafficking and organized crime. This mission is particularly important to my 

constituents in New Hampshire as we continue to face, along with many other town 

and cities around the United States, an onslaught of deaths caused by heroin and 

fentanyl that has been smuggled into our country. How do you plan to strengthen 

INL’s work? 

Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to being fully briefed on the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs responsibilities in this area and to 

using INL to help the President-elect address the heroin epidemic in the United 

States, as appropriate and in consultation with other agencies with jurisdiction in 

this mission area. 

Question. Mexico is an important partner in efforts to stop illegal drugs from 

reaching the U.S. How do you plan to maintain this important partnership? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

248 

Answer. I look forward to working closely with the Mexican Government on all 

aspects of the vibrant and mutually beneficial diplomatic relationship between our 

countries and to maintaining and working through their interagency process to improve our important partnership in the area of illegal drug interdiction. 

United Nations 

Question. No single country can effectively address today’s global challenges alone, 

whether terrorism, contagious disease, conflict, transnational crime, human trafficking, or any number of other problems. The United States benefits from the ability of the United Nations to coordinate international efforts against such threats, 

but the U.N. is only as effective as its member states want it to be. Some believe 

that our response to the U.N. weaknesses or decisions made by member states at 

the U.N. should be to cut funding or withdraw from certain U.N. agencies. Do you 

believe the U.S. is better off remaining actively engaged in all aspects of the U.N. 

to influence reform efforts and protect our interests? 

Answer. The new Secretary General has acknowledged the need for vigorous management and accountability reform of the United Nations. I believe many U.N. reforms can be achieved by robust, long-term and sustained engagement. But using 

America’s financial leverage by conditioning our assessed contributions can be a useful catalyst when these traditional efforts fail. The possibility of the U.S. withholding a portion of our dues has led the U.N. to be more receptive to reforms. For 

example, concern over potential withholding in response to major scandals which received the strong attention and interest of the Congress, such as the Oil-for-Food 

scandal and sexual abuses by peacekeepers, has led the U.N. to be more willing to 

adopt reforms. 

In other cases, such as where U.S. law prohibits funding to the U.N. Scientific, 

Educational and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), withholding serves U.S. interests by opposing Palestinian efforts to secure recognition absent a negotiated peace 

with Israel With billions of U.S. tax dollars going to the U.N. every year, I believe 

we should continually evaluate U.S. funding to the U.N. and otherinternational organizations to determine if budgets are justified or should be reduced or increased 

toadvance American interests. 

Achieving a Balanced U.S. Foreign Policy 

Question. Achieving a more equitable balance in responsibility for resources between the Departments of State and Defense is crucial to the success of U.S. foreign 

policy. Gen. Mattis once commented in testimony before the Senate Armed Services 

Committee that, ‘‘If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy 

more ammunition,’’ so he is likely to be a willing partner in this endeavor. Please 

share your perspective on this issue and describe how you plan to work with Gen. 

Mattis if you both are confirmed? 

Answer. I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that diplomacy and the military are 

instruments of national power that go hand in hand. Your quote from General 

Mattis is consistent with comments made by Robert Gates during the time when 

he was Defense Secretary. If we are both confirmed, I would look forward to working closely with General Mattis to build upon the already strong relationships that 

bind together the Departments of State and Defense. Of course, balancing resources 

is more in the domain of Congress, when they vote on our budgets. If confirmed, 

I expect to be back on Capitol Hill explaining and defending State Department 

budget requests on a regular basis. 

Clean Energy 

Question. The International Energy Agency projects that over the coming decades 

more than $60 trillion will be invested in energy efficiency and clean energy technologies as countries address climate change.These investments will substantially 

benefit American clean energy companies and the 2.5 million U.S. workers they employ. The State Department plays a key role in helping to spur these markets and 

create the conditions for America’s companies to tap into the growing demand for 

their products.If confirmed, how would you continue to support these clean energy 

efforts that are helping open markets to American clean energy companies? 

America, as a leader in global energy, is a critical force in advancing energy efficiency and clean energy efforts around the world. American businesses are at the 

forefront of innovation in the clean energy and energy efficiency technologies and 

American workers are the best trained in the world. We have great competitive advantages in these areas, and, as you have stated, are able to support the livelihoods 

of millions of American workers as a result. As the demand for energy increases, 

further support for clean energy developments will be paramount. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

249 

Question. A key piece to guaranteeing a prosperous future for these American 

workers and companies is to make the country the most attractive place to do business in the world, and to continue to build upon strong trade relationships with 

global neighbors. The State Department’s Bureau of Energy Resources manages critical programs which allow us to capitalize on U.S. leadership in clean energy innovation and open markets for U.S. companies abroad by promoting market-based 

policies and facilitating the introduction of advanced and efficient clean energy technologies into markets worldwide. By working with the President to implement our 

national policy goals of supporting and protecting American interests, we will be 

able to both cultivate a positive environment for capital investment at home and 

create market opportunities abroad. In doing so, this becomes advantageous, not 

only to energy efficiency and clean energy technology development, but to the American economy as a whole. 

Educational and Cultural Exchange 

Question. As Secretary, you would be in charge of a large and diverse set of State 

Department educational and cultural exchange programs. There is strong bipartisan 

consensus in Congress that these programs are a critical part of our country’s public 

diplomacy toolbox and that they contribute significantly to our national security. Exchange programs allow us to create crucial relationships with current leaders 

around the world and engage students and professionals who will be their country’s 

future leaders. It is equally important that we continue welcoming international 

visitors of all ages and from all comers of the world to the United States. We know 

that exchange visitors form deep, lasting ties to families and communities throughout the country—ties that create the mutual understanding that enables closer diplomatic and business relationships. 

What is your personal experience with exchange programs and your view of these 

programs’ importance to our national security and foreign policy? Will you continue 

to support and foster the State Department’s deep commitment educational and cultural exchange? 

Answer. In my experience in the oil industry I have met many foreign leaders who 

have benefited from exchange programs with the United States. It is very much the 

case that educational and cultural exchange programs are a cost-effective way to 

build long-term personal ties and trust with current and future business, educational, media, and government leaders around the world. If confirmed, I will certainly seek to continue these worthwhile programs. 

Global Women’s Issues 

Question. What steps will you take to ensure that the State Department and 

USAID maintain the structures and funding necessary to address global women’s 

issues, from child marriage to gender-based violence to peace and security? Will you 

commit to ensuring sufficient financial resources and support for the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues, including an ambassador at the helm, and USAID’s 

Office of Senior Coordinator on Gender equality so they can continue their crucial 

work? 

Answer. As I stated in my hearing testimony, the issue of empowering women is 

personally important to me. I have seen firsthand the impact of empowering women, 

particularly regarding their participation in economic activities in the lesser developed part of the world. Investing in women and girls produces a multiplier effectwomen reinvest a large portion of their income in their families and communities, 

which also furthers economic growth and stability. As I indicated, I believe women’s 

empowerment and advancement is an important part of our foreign aid efforts and 

I will support such programs, including efforts to advance women’s participation in 

peace, security and the political process. I will support efforts to end violence 

against women and girls as well as to mitigate the impact of such violence. I look 

forward, if confirmed, to closely examining all aspects of these issues to determine 

if our funding levels and other resources are appropriate. 

Question. Women’s direct participation in security sectors enhances the operational effectiveness of those forces to achieve U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives. Yet women remain grossly underrepresented in security sectors 

around the globe. What steps will you take to leverage U.S. security assistance to 

increase the recruitment, retention, and promotion of women in security sectors? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Office of Global Women’s Issues, to incorporate women into security sectors. 

Question. The United States has made a strong commitment through the implementation of the National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security to advance 

the inclusion of women in peace and security processes around the globe. Research 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

250 

tells us this is critical to ensuring the effectiveness and sustainability of these efforts, saving tremendous resources in the long-term. What steps will you take to 

prioritize women’s participation in peace and security efforts as a core pillar of U.S. 

foreign policy? 

Answer. As I stated in my hearing testimony, the issue of empowering women is 

personally important to me. I have seen firsthand the impact of empowering women, 

particularly regarding their participation in economic activities in the lesser developed part of the world. Investing in women produces a multiplier effect—women reinvest a large portion of their income in their families and communities, which also 

furthers economic growth and stability. As I indicated, I believe women’s empowerment and advancement is an important part of our foreign aid efforts and I will support such programs, including efforts to advance women’s participation in peace and 

security. I look forward, if confirmed, to closely examining all of these programs to 

determine if our funding levels and otherresources are appropriate. 

Question. As you know, if the approximately 225 million women worldwide with 

an unmet family planning need had access to modem methods of contraception, we 

would see 52 million fewer unintended pregnancies, resulting in 600,000 fewer stillbirths, 6 million fewer miscarriages, and 15 million fewer unsafe abortions. Family 

planning is also one of the most cost-effective interventions, with every dollar spent 

on contraceptive services saving almost $1.50 in the cost of providing pregnancy-related and newborn health care. Do you agree that these facts support robust funding 

for U.S. family planning and reproductive health programming? 

Answer. The decision about how much funding goes to family planning, reproductive health and maternal health is made by Congress each year, and Congress has 

routinely supported these activities at robust levels. The U.S. government also has 

long standing statutory prohibitions on taxpayer funding of abortion or coercion in 

family planning. In the event that an organization were to lose money under these 

statutory requirements, I imagine that funds for that organization could be redirected to other entities that can provide family planning, reproductive or maternal 

health 

LGBTQ Rights 

Question. In a number of regions—from Africa and the Caribbean to the Farmer 

Soviet Union—lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people are targeted for 

simply being who they are. They have been criminalized, arrested, tortured and 

even killed. In response, the U.S. has begun to include the human rights of LGBTQ 

people among the wide array of human rights that we have fought for and protected. 

How do you plan to continue this work to protect the human rights of all people, 

no matter who they are or whom they love? 

Answer. The United States needs to stand firmly for all human rights. This includes support for basic political freedoms such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, as well as non-discrimination against women, minorities, and a 

shared commitment to protect the human rights of all people, no matter who they 

are or whom they love. 

In supporting all such human rights, we should be aware of cultural and historic 

differences and how they can be used to weaken U.S. influence. We need to stay 

true to our own values, while being tactically smart about how to advance those values throughout the world. 

Refugees 

Question. Protecting and assisting refugees is a longstanding and hallmark of U.S. 

foreign policy. Since 1975, the U.S. has resettled more than 3.2 million refugees representing more than 70 nationalities. The U.S. has also provided significant assistance to refugees in need around the world, including the millions of Syrians displaced by the conflict in their country. How do you plan to carry forward this proud 

tradition? 

Answer. I have not yet been briefed on all aspects of the U.S. Refugee Admissions 

Program, but should I be confirmed as Secretary, I will faithfully administer the 

Refugee Admissions Program consistent with law and the policy preferences of the 

President-elect. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

251 

SECRETARY-DESIGNATE TILLERSON’S ANSWERS TO

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR YOUNG

Question. What is your assessment of the Obama Administration’s Russia reset 

policy? Do you believe it was a failure? 

Answer. The Administration ’s strategy for dealing with Russia, while well intended, fell short in execution. 

Question. Why did it fail? 

Answer. It failed because a lack of U.S. resolve convinced Russia they would not 

pay a serious price for their misbehavior. 

Question. What lessons do you draw from that failure? 

Answer. The lesson is that a weak posture with Russia invites rather than deters 

their aggression. 

Question. How should that failure inform U.S. policy toward Russia going forward? 

Answer. Being clear about American interests and our intent to defend those interests is the best way to have a stable relationship with Russia-a relationship that 

would encourage cooperation in areas where our interests overlap. 

Question. A theme of your prepared testimony is accountability. The State Department’s annual Compliance Report continues to confirm that Russia is not complying 

with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. What specific steps 

should the new Administration take to hold Russia accountable for its violation of 

the INF Treaty? 

Answer. Russia’s violations of the INF treaty should he a high priority of U.S. diplomacy with Moscow. If Russia refuses to comply with its obligations, the U.S. 

should not hesitate to take appropriate steps to defend its interests and those of our 

allies in Europe. 

Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, you will be responsible for the safety 

of State Department employees around the world—including in all of our embassies, 

consulates, and special mission facilities? 

Answer. The work of the Foreign Service in many parts of the world entails risks 

and dangers that require great sacrifices on the part of our employees. If confirmed, 

I will be fully committed to the security of our people and our facilities overseas. 

Question. Have you reviewed the 2012 Accountability Review Board’s (ARB) findings and recommendations? Based on your preparation of this position, what is your 

assessment of the State Department’s implementation of the ARB’s recommendations? Which recommendations have not been implemented? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will commit to reviewing fully the recommendations of the 

ARB, and direct that any of the measures in that report that would enhance our 

security, be put into place if not done so already. 

Question. The second finding of the ARB was that quote ‘‘Systemic failures and 

leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the 

State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that look place.’’ 

To avoid such ‘‘systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies’’ requires that the Secretary of State make clear that subordinate State Department 

officials in Washington should move heaven and earth to ensure our ambassadors 

overseas have what they need to keep our personnel safe. The State Department 

Inspector General (IG) has testified that implementation of the Benghazi ARB recommendations must be administered from the top down, rather than led by individual bureaus, to ensure their enduing impact. If confirmed, do you commit to making the security of our State Department personnel overseas a leading priority? 

Answer. Yes, ensuring the safety of personnel overseas will he a leading priority, 

if I am confirmed. 

Question. If confirmed, will you let me and this committee know if there is ever 

anything that you need to improve the security of our facilities overseas? 

Answer. The critical element to successfully carrying out these measures is that 

clear responsibility is conveyed and those who have that responsibility are accountable. If corfirmed, I will consult with you and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations about progress to improve security and/or requests for resources for that purpose. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

252 

Question. In your prepared statement, you wrote that, ‘‘We cannot look the other 

way at allies who do not meet their obligations.’’ What specific allies and obligations 

are you referring to? 

Answer. I believe strongly in a world where America works with allies and partners. Our alliances are durable and our allies are looking for a return of American 

leadership. Many of those allies have also commmented to us that we should be vigilant in encouraging. This is long-standing U.S. policy. Our NATO allies have committed themselves to spending at least 2 percent of GDP on defense, but many 

NATO members currently do not meet this commitment. If confirmed, I will work 

to ensure that our allies reach the two percent commitment through constructive 

engagements in bilateral and multilateral forums. I will also work with our NATO 

allies to ensure that resources are spent efficiently, so that increased spending levels actually result in stronger capabilities. I regard it as paramount to develop appropriate incentive structures that ensure greater investment by all of’our allies in 

real capabililies that strengthen U.S. national security and contribute to global stability. 

Question. What is your assessment of the situation in Afghanistan? Do you agree 

that we can never permit Afghanistan to once again become a safe haven and 

launching pad for international terrorism? 

♦ Do you agree that our military posture in Afghanistan should be based on our 

national security interests, the facts on the ground, and the advice of our commanders-rather than political timelines? 

♦ Do you agree that a premature withdrawal from Afghanistan risks leaving us 

with the unenviable choice of accepting a terrorist safe haven there or returning 

at a greater cost? 

Answer. The war in Afghanistan is the longest war in American history. Today, 

the United States should engage the government of Afghanistan President Ashraf 

Ghani and CEO Abdullah Abdullah to increase stability, reduce corruption, ensure 

better standard living for Afghans, particularly women and girls, and ensure that 

Afghanistan is never again used as a base for international terrorism. It should also 

engage with Islamabad to strengthen the civilian government and eliminate the safe 

havens that terrorist groups like the Haqqani network enjoy. Always, the United 

States should make decisions based on military and strategic interests, rather than 

political expedients or artificial timelines. The United States should work with both 

Afghanistan and Pakistan to encourage cooperation, build trust, and seek to ensure 

regional stability in a context of mutual respect and its national interests. 

Question. Would you agree that establishing sustainable peace and stability in 

Iraq and Syria will require inclusive, non-sectarian regimes in Damascus and Baghdad (hat treat Sunnis as full and equal citizens? 

♦ Absent such inclusive regimes, would you agree that Sunni Islamist terrorist organizations will find fertile ground for terrorist recruitment and operations? 

♦ Based on that, do you agree that any sustainable peace in Syria must include 

a political transition that includes the departure of Assad and the establishment of an inclusive regime in Damascus? 

♦ If confirmed, how would you achieve the departure of Assad? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will robustly engage Russia and other parties to negotiate 

a political settlement to the Syrian civil war that alleviates the humanitarian suffering of Syrians. Iraqis have also suffered greatly from ISIS. Sectarian policies, like 

those of Bashar Assad in Syria, contribute to violence and make a sustainable peace 

more unattainable. The United States should emphasize to Russia and others the 

negative sectarian policies Iran encourages the Syrian (and sometimes the Iraqi) 

government to adopt, which fuels ethno sectarian violence and contributes to destabilization throughout the Middle East This does not serve the interests of the 

United States, and I would stress to Russia that it does not serve Russia’s interests 

either. If confirmed, I would also work closely with our allies in the region to ensure 

that any political settlement in Syria does not place their security in jeopardy, nor 

leave Iran in a dominating position, nor result in widespread humanitarian violations. 

Question. What is your assessment of the U.S. relationship with India? 

Answer. India is an important partner with the United States, It is the world’s 

most populous democracy, and one which is playing an increasingly important role 

in the region and throughout the world. As the largest country in South Asia, India 

has an important role to play in ensuring regional stability. ever, certain areas of 

India ’s behavior remain concerning. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

253 

Question. Do you believe that we should seek to deepen our economic, and military ties with India? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will engage India to deepen our cooperation, while raising 

issues the United States would like India to address. 

Question. If confirmed, would you do all that you can to ensure [hat U.S. policy 

supports the maintenance of Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge (QME)? 

Answer. Yes. Israel is America’s strongest and most reliable partner in the Middle 

East. Its security and wellbeing are a vital U.S. interest. 

The United States is bound by law as well as duty to ensure that our only democratic ally in the region is fully capable of defeating any credible military threat that 

may emerge to its security. 

Question. In his July 2015 nomination hearing before the Senate Armed Services 

Committee to serve as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph 

Dunford was asked ‘‘What would [he] consider the greatest threat to our national 

security?’’ 

General Dunford said, ‘‘Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security.’’ He continued saying, ‘‘in Russia, we have a nuclear power. We have one that 

not only has capability to violate sovereignty of our allies and to do things that are 

inconsistent with our national interests but they’re in the process or doing so. So 

if you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United 

States, I’d have to point to Russia. And if you look at their behavior, it’s nothing 

short of alarming.’’ 

Do you agree with Genera] Dunford’s assessment? 

Answer. Based on the excerpt provided, I would he interested in hearing more 

from the General about his assessment. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

254 

SECRETARY-DESIGNATE TILLERSON’S ANSWERS TO

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR COONS

Russia 

Question. How do development and State Department resources for anti-corruption, rule of law, and human rights fit into your plan for the future of U.S.-Russian 

relations? 

Answer. As we engage Russia diplomatically to protect and advance U.S. interests, we must continue looking for opportunities to fight corruption and promote the 

rule of law and human rights. 

Question. As Secretary of State, will you make it a priority to support the 

Moldovan government’s efforts to regain control of its territory and secure the withdrawal of Russian occupation forces from Transnistria? If so, what steps will you 

be prepared to take to achieve these objectives? 

Answer. Through both its bilateral diplomacy and in multilateral institutions, the 

United States should support Moldova’s peaceful efforts to restore sovereignty over 

its territory through the withdrawal of Russian forces. 

Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance 

Question. Where do you see the biggest threats to civil society around the world, 

and who is responsible for these threats? 

Answer. Over the past several years, we have seen a growth in the number and 

assertiveness of authoritarian leaders around the world. This puts significant pressure on civil society, including journalists and the media, political parties, NGOs, 

and even professional associations. In addition to traditional authoritarian states, 

ISIS has brutally cracked down on human rights and freedoms in areas under its 

control. 

The authoritarian leaders and terrorists are themselves responsible for this crackdown on human rights. 

The United States and other democracies around the world have a responsibility 

to call attention to threats to civil society and support our own core values of freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. 

Question. Combined Department of State and Department of Defense funding for 

security assistance in Africa grew from just over $500 million in FY 13 to approximately $1 billion in FY 15. At the same time, the amounts available for democracy 

building fell from $230 million in FY 13 to only $170 million in FY 15. 

Do you believe it is appropriate to decrease funding for democracy and good governance while increasing funding for security assistance in Africa? 

Should we be conditioning our security sector assistance-such as the provision of 

lethal equipment-on countries meeting some sort of governance and or rule of law 

standards? 

Answer. The increase in security assistance spending in Africa over this time period is entirely appropriate given the increased threat posed by ISIS and other terrorist groups, as well as the fragility of many states in the region. 

I believe the United States should also provide support for democracy-building in 

the region, but I do not see the need for trade-offs between these two important objectives. 

As for conditioning our assistance, the nature of the governments we work with 

should clearly be a factor in our thinking. But we must also remember that our 

overseas security assistance is designed to enhance the security of the United States 

and its people—and that should always be our first priority. 

International Organizations 

Question. As Secretary of State, how will you engage with the U.N. to meet priorities such as providing humanitarian aid, monitoring compliance with multilateral 

sanctions, and preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons? 

Answer. I will work with leaders like the High Commissioners for Refugees and 

the Executive Director of the World Food Program to address humanitarian crises 

with all possible speed. This will require U.S. support, involvement, and oversight. 

On proliferation, as you know the U.N. can be hindered on those matters by opposition and lack of cooperation from member states. However, I will work with institutions like the IAEA and the U.N. Security Council to address and monitor these 

issues where possible. We will also avail ourselves of alternative measures like bilateral and non-UN multilateral sanctions where appropriate and joint efforts like 

the Proliferation Security Initiative. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

255 

Question. For decades, the U.S. has led a network of international institutions, 

from, the World Bank to the IMF to what is now the WTO. They are far from perfect, but they have helped to foster international coordination in crises from Asia 

in 1997 to the global economic collapse of 2008. 

Are these institutions important, not just to our trade and finance, but to our 

global leadership? 

Answer. America’s stature in the world depends first and foremost on our leadership, policies, economy, and determination to protect our interests and those of our 

allies. The World Bank, IMF, and WTO can be important vehicles and venues to 

advance our political and economic interests. 

Foreign Assistance and International Development 

Question. Last year, the President signed the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act, which I cosponsored, into law. The Act requires the President to 

establish and implement guidelines with measurable goals and performance metrics 

across U.S. international development and economic assistance programs. How do 

you intend to advance transparency and accountability for U.S. foreign assistance 

dollars? 

Answer. In order for State and USAID to carry forward their critical foreign-assistance work, it is important to measure the efficiency of their foreign-assistance 

and development programs and closely examine the administrative and management practices of both entities. By doing so, the State Department and USAID will 

be able to more effectively prioritize development investments and eliminate inefficiencies, including duplication of effort. Making sure that our foreign-assistance mission is implemented in an accountable, transparent, and cost-saving manner is one 

of my key administrative and management priorities. 

Question. We’ve seen a string of presidential legacies on development-from AGOA 

in the Clinton 

Answer. Administration to PEPFAR and MCC in the Bush Administration to Feed 

the Future and Power Africa in the Obama Administration. Can we expect a development initiative from the Trump administration? PEPFAR, MCC, Feed the Future, 

and Power Africa have all been very successful and valuable. I hope to aid the President in continuing this trend of groundbreaking presidential initiatives. 

Question. How will you work to strengthen public-private partnerships that alleviate poverty? 

Answer. Through an efficient use of taxpayer dollars, we can support and implement more effective programs that focus on food security, including Feed the Future, which fights hunger. In an effort to maintain global health programs in the 

long-term, USAID should continue to engage in public-private partnerships. These 

partnerships aid a country in lifting itself out of poverty, and continuing them is 

necessary for fighting deprivation around the globe. At the same time, it is important to understand how the success of these initiatives is measured and how highly 

successful initiatives may be replicated in other geographic areas and in other issue 

areas that we want to advance. 

Question. General Mattis, the President-elect’s nominee to be Secretary of Defense, said at a hearing in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2013, 

‘‘If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.’’ The budget for the State Department, USAID, and related agencies represents 

just over 1% of our overall budget. 

As Secretary of State, will you argue to maintain this level of funding? If confirmed, how will you work to ensure our civilian tools of national security remain 

key components of our national security strategy? 

Answer. By evaluating current development and diplomacy programs for best 

practices and standards of efficiency, we hope to maintain funding for these programs proportional to the U.S. budget. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that development and diplomacy are viewed as complements to, not competitors of, our national security goals. Africa 

Question. If confirmed, what immediate steps do you plan to take as Secretary of 

State to help prevent genocide in South Sudan? 

Answer. The situation in South Sudan is one of the most pressing humanitarian 

situations in the world. It is critical to help build some political space for reconciliation between the government and rebel factions. The United States should continue 

to engage in international forums like the U.N. and bilaterally with key partners 

in the area to address this issue, and decide upon a combined policy to address this 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

256 

violence. This would include deploying robust diplomacy, possible sanctions, peacekeeping efforts, and other measures. 

Question. As Secretary of State, how do you propose to support the Great Lakes 

region in managing displacement in accordance with international and regional 

legal norms? 

Answer. The United States must lead with its values, including alleviating humanitarian concerns where it can. Internally displaced persons are one such concern, particularly in the Great Lakes region of Africa where over three million people are forcibly displaced. If confirmed, I would engage on this issue bilaterally, with 

the key regional states like Uganda and multilaterally with the African Union and 

the U.N. Special Envoy for the Great Lakes Region to ensure that this humanitarian concern remains a focus of the international community. 

Question. Will you work to support and advance the goals of the Electrify Africa 

Act? 

Answer. Nothing lifts people out of poverty faster than electricity. When you provide electricity, you provide the ability to refrigerate food and gain access to medicine. It changes the quality of life and improves health. I think it is very important 

to support the Electrify Africa Act, which authorized the USAID administered program Power Africa. We should continue to efficiently use taxpayer dollars to support 

and advance the goals of the Act and the Power Africa program, in order to use public-private partnerships to bring electricity to the parts of Africa that do not have 

access to it. 

Fragility 

Question. An estimated 2 billion people live in conflict-affected and fragile states, 

and 37% of U.S. Official Development Assistance is spent in these states. 

If confirmed, how would you craft a new agenda for fragile states, and how would 

you integrate development, diplomacy and military action in a unified U.S. response 

to fragile states? 

Answer. The Department of State and USAID already have programs that focus 

on the causes and potential remedies for weak and fragile states, including the 

Interagency Conflict Assessment Framework. This program provides guidance for 

implementing stabilization protocols. USAID programs, such as Provincial Reconstruction Teams, serve as a measure to support revitalization in fragile states. 

These programs help us better understand the underlying causes of individual weak 

and fragile states, and utilize those results to craft better diplomatic and development policy. 

Question. How will you budget for conflict prevention and peacebuilding? 

Answer. In reference to how to budget for these fragile states, it is valuable to 

look back on previous budgets to analyze for best budgeting practices. 

India 

Question. In the last two years, the State Department has engaged in a high level 

exchange known as the Strategic and Commercial Dialogue with the world’s largest 

democracy and Asia’s fastest growing large economy- India. Will you continue the 

Strategic and Commercial Dialogue with India? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will certainly continue all efforts to strengthen U.S.-Indian bilateral relations politically, economically, and strategically. 

Turkey 

Question. A Delawarean named Ismail Kul is currently detained in Turkey. If confirmed, will you commit to having the State Department update me on this case and 

will you commit to fighting for the release of detained American citizens in Turkey? 

Answer. Yes. If I am confirmed, the State Department will remain in close touch 

about the case and make the release of Ismail Kul and other detained American citizens a very high priority in Turkey and elsewhere around the world. 

Iran Hostages 

Question. What steps will you take to prioritize the return of American citizens 

detained and missing in Iran, including Robert Levinson, Siamak Namazi, Baquer 

Namazi, and Robin Shahini? 

Answer. The United States must always consider detained Americans and American hostages a top priority. It is deeply concerning to me that the Obama Administration should conclude a diplomatic agreement and reward a government like 

Iran’s that is active in detaining American citizens. In particular, the case of Robert 

Levinson must be resolved. If confirmed, I would engage our partners in the region 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

257 

to exert pressure on Iran, as well as examine unilateral policy options, and stress 

to all parties that this is a top priority of the United States. 

Intellectual Property 

Question. Some foreign governments are subjecting American companies to antitrust investigations that often appear to lack due process protections, thereby insulating their domestic companies from U.S.-based competition and often eroding the 

value of American companies’ intellectual property rights in the process. If you are 

confirmed, how will you ensure that our trading partners are living up to their end 

of the bargain to treat American companies and their intellectual property fairly, 

particularly in proceedings before foreign competition agencies? 

Answer. The United States has been a leader in promoting the rule of law, including in areas of antitrust and intellectual property, which are vital to promoting competition and innovation and benefit all of us as consumers. 

The U.S. antitrust laws are evenhandedly enforced to protect competition, not to 

disadvantage foreign companies selling to U.S. customers. Unfortunately, some 

other countries employ their competition laws to exclude effective competition from 

American companies. Some countries also use antitrust legal proceedings 

unjustifiably to require companies to surrender their intellectual property. These actions not only harm American companies, which are forced to give up valuable business or assets without justification or fair compensation, but also undercut competition and innovation. 

American companies are most likely to face these unfair actions because they are 

leaders in business and technology. I believe it is appropriate for the United States 

to press trading partners not to misuse legal proceedings to disadvantage American 

companies or gain access to their intellectual property. There is a role for the State 

Department in this, along with the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Department of Justice antitrust officials addressing these 

issues with counterparts in other countries. As Secretary of State, I would work 

with these agencies to prevent the misuse of competition law by foreign governments that harms American companies. 

Global Health 

Question. In 2014, I visited Liberia during the height of the Ebola outbreak. The 

outbreak: was curbed by brave public health workers, volunteers, and the infrastructure, but also by investments made by the United States through our PEPFAR 

program and the Global Fund, our efforts against polio and the resulting labs, communications, and the infrastructure and the public health systems that we helped 

develop. How can U.S. development and diplomatic capacities be utilized to spur the 

investments needed to help foster sustainable, resilient health systems capable of 

saving lives and preventing deadly outbreaks before they threaten global health security? 

Answer. The global health programs focused on fighting diseases, including 

PEPFAR, PM/, and USA/D’s Global Tuberculosis (TB) Program, as well as the Global Health Security Agenda, have proven to be extremely valuable and successful 

programs. In order to ensure that we effectively address emerging crises and outbreaks, such as Ebola and the Zika virus, it is important to understand how the 

success of programs addressing these outbreaks is measured so that we may properly prevent, detect, and respond to future outbreaks. 

Question. Senator Susan Collins and I have championed the Reach Every Mother 

and Child Act, a bill that aims to end preventable maternal and child deaths worldwide within a generation by improving delivery systems and leveraging private and 

public funds. As Secretary, how do you foresee advocating for a policy that leverages 

private and public funds to address maternal and child deaths worldwide? 

Answer. PEPFAR is a global health program that aims to reduce infant and maternal mortality by decreasing mother-to-child transmissions of HIV/AIDS. PEPFAR 

is a successful and valuable program and it should serve as a model for future programs. 

Question. The United States has a number of strategic interests in Africa and 

these same countries strongly support international climate action. Do you believe 

that a possible U.S. withdrawal from the Paris or other key international multilateral or bilateral climate agreements have major impacts on our relationships in this 

region? Would that impact advancing any other major priorities in the region? 

Answer. Cooperation on international climate change is only one issue that the 

United States engages in with African nations. If confirmed, I plan to conduct a review of the current role that the State Department plays in international climate 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

258 

change efforts to ensure that U.S. national interests and American competitiveness 

are not compromised. 

Question. Do you believe efforts to address climate change require governmental, 

business, and civil society (NGO) sector involvement? Should one sector play a larger role than others? Does the U.S. government, specifically the Secretary of State, 

have a role in developing policy and working with the international community on 

reducing the impact of climate change through appropriate foreign policy levers? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the State Department interacts when appropriate with all elements of civil society and the business community regarding 

climate change issues. 

Question. What would be your general policy approach on addressing climate 

change in terms of mitigation and adaptation? Do you support funding for programs 

to mitigate and respond to the impacts of climate change on vulnerable populations 

where flooding, droughts, loss of arable land, and other consequences threaten to 

displace tens of millions of people? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will conduct a review of the U.S. role in international climate change matters, including the funding of mitigation and adaptation measures 

through the Green Climate Fund and other financial mechanisms. 

Question. Would U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement impact our 

credibility abroad and if so, how? Do you believe that there are multiple paths and 

mechanisms by which the U.S. or any party can achieve the targets in the Paris 

Agreement? If the U.S. was not at the table, do you believe other countries may be 

more reluctant to uphold their commitments, remain transparent, or promote innovative actions? 

Answer. Under the incoming administration I expect that the State Department 

and other parts of the government will conduct a review of the Nationally Determined Contribution submitted by the Obama Administration as part of a broad review of the Paris Agreement and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate 

Change to determine whether the NDC and/or the international agreements advance U.S. national interests. 

Question. Would you support going further and withdrawing from the 1992 U.N. 

Framework Convention (UNFCCC)? Given that the Senate provided its advice and 

consent for the UNFCCC, do you believe that the Senate has a role to play should 

the Trump administration seek to withdraw from it? 

Answer. Under the incoming administration I expect that the State Department 

and other parts of the government will conduct a review of the U.N. Framework 

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to determine whether it advances U.S. 

national interests. The UNFCCC includes articles regarding withdrawal from the 

convention, as does the Paris Agreement, and what role, if any, should be played 

by the Senate in the event the United States withdraws from either agreement will 

be determined. 

Question. The U.S., with the State Department playing an important role, has 

helped to spur markets abroad for American clean energy technologies and create 

the conditions for America’s companies to tap into the growing demand for their 

products. Would you continue to support these efforts that are helping open markets 

to American clean energy companies? 

Answer. America, as a leader in global energy, is a critical force in advancing energy efficiency and clean energy efforts around the world. American businesses are 

at the forefront of innovation in the clean energy and energy efficiency technologies 

and American workers are the best trained in the world. We have great competitive 

advantages in these areas, and, as you have stated, are able to support the livelihoods of millions of American workers as a result. As the demand for energy increases, further support for clean energy developments will be paramount. 

A key piece to guaranteeing a prosperous future for these American workers and 

companies is to make the country the most attractive place to do business in the 

world, and to continue to build upon strong trade relationships with global neighbors. The State Department’s Bureau of Energy Resources manages critical programs which allow us to capitalize on U.S. leadership in clean energy innovation 

and open markets for U.S. companies abroad by promoting market-based policies 

and facilitating the introduction of advanced and efficient clean energy technologies 

into markets worldwide. By working with the President to implement our national 

policy goals of supporting and protecting American interests, we will be able to both 

cultivate a positive environment for capital investment at home and create market 

opportunities abroad. In doing so, this becomes advantageous, not only to energy efFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

259 

ficiency and clean energy technology development, but to the American economy as 

a whole. Natural Resources 

Question. How do you propose balancing U.S. interests in natural resource development abroad with the interests of the countries containing those natural resources, especially when conflict zones or authoritarian governments are involved? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work to balance all U.S. interests, and I look forward 

to engaging with you regarding concerns with respect to specific situations. However, I do not believe it would be prudent to opine on hypotheticals. 

Question. How would you uphold U.S. values of democracy and human rights in 

issues of natural resource development? 

Answer. As I mentioned in my opening statement, our approach to human rights 

begins by acknowledging that leadership requires moral clarity. We do not face a 

choice on defending global human rights. Our values are our interests when it 

comes to human rights and humanitarian assistance. The need for leadership on 

human rights would apply to all of our interests across the world including issues 

of natural resource development. 

Question. Wildlife trafficking has rapidly escalated in scale, sophistication, and violence to become an issue of security and stability. How will you work with this 

Congress, other federal agencies, and countries across the globe to implement the 

END Wildlife Trafficking Act and further the U.S. and international efforts to tackle 

the wildlife poaching and trafficking crisis? 

Answer. The global spread of wildlife trafficking has implications for conservation, 

crime, and national security. Public Law No. 114-231, Eliminate, Neutralize, and 

Disrupt Wildlife Trafficking Act of 2016, which was passed by Congress unanimously and signed into law by the President this past October, provides new tools 

to help the United States and partner countries to address this crisis. I will work 

with Congress on the implementation of this law and related laws. Moreover, I will 

work with partner countries to further efforts to combat poaching and wildlife trafficking. 

Question. Do you support the Cardin-Lugar transparency provision (Section 1504 

of the Dodd-Frank Act), which requires oil, gas and mining companies to publicly 

disclose their project-level payment information in every country of operation in an 

annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission? 

Answer. The Securities Exchange Commission has adopted regulations implementing the Cardin-Lugar transparency provisions, which were added to the Exchange Act in 2010 by Section 1504 of the Dodd Frank Act. The regulations require 

each resource extraction issuer to file an annual report with the SEC, which includes information relating to any payment made by the company to any foreign 

government or the federal government for the purpose of the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals. Because these regulations are within the purview of the SEC, I would not have any direct role in implementing them if confirmed to be the Secretary of State. 

Question. Are there natural resource situations that would lead you to recommend 

withdrawing foreign aid or imposing sanctions? If so, what are those? 

Answer. I would need to be briefed and evaluate any specific information regarding any situation in which the withdrawal of foreign aid or the imposition of sanctions would be contemplated and am not in a position to determine what a hypothetical situation may require. 

Question. The United States policy on oceans critically impacts a number of U.S. 

and global interests, including the fishing industry, trade and shipping routes, and 

marine research. How would you build on current U.S. oceans policy? What changes, 

if any, would you make? 

Answer. President Obama issued an Executive Order in 2010 which established 

a National Ocean Policy. If confirmed, I will review the State Department’s implementation of the NOP and determine whether any changes may be necessary to ensure that it is contributing to these goals. 

Scientific Integrity and Diplomacy and R&D 

Question. Do you believe that scientific cooperation on bilateral and multilateral 

bases is essential to achieve U.S. national security, public-health, and environmental goals? What do you see as the opportunities for science, technology, and innovation through diplomacy? For example, whether it’s emerging infectious diseases 

like Ebola, cooperation in space, or climate change, science and technology play 

major roles on a range of global issues which involve the State Department. What 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

260 

would you view as the role of science and scientific advice in your approach to diplomacy? 

Answer. Bilateral and multilateral cooperation in the area of science, which is 

sometimes referred to as science diplomacy, can help to advance U.S. interests in 

national security, public health, and the environment. 

These relationships are particularly vital in dealing with pandemic outbreaks like 

HlNl and Ebola. Discovering cures for infectious diseases advances humanitarian interests and innovating new ways to meet energy demands advances development 

goals for emerging economies. I will assess science-related programs in the State 

Department to ensure that they further U.S. national interests, as discussed above. 

Question. How would you foster a culture of scientific transparency and accountability at the State Department, while protecting scientists and engineers from political interference in their work? 

Answer. Fostering a culture of scientific transparency and accountability at the 

State Department is important to ensure the integrity of research and development. 

Furthermore, scientists and engineers whose work is supported by the State Department must be held to the highest ethical standards because they are ultimately responsible to the taxpayers. I will review any policies that create an unacceptable 

risk of political interference or that create perverse incentives for scientists and engineers to skew their data or findings for political rather than scientific reasons. 

Question. What policies would you undertake to best ensure that your department 

contributes to America’s continued leadership in science, technology, and innovation 

as a part of your diplomatic outreach? 

Answer. Maintaining U.S. leadership in science, technology, and innovation is of 

vital importance and I will carefully consider the particular role that the State Department may play—working with other agencies such as our National Labs—in 

this effort with any available tools such as overseas fellowship programs, research 

grants for innovators in emerging countries, and collaborations with governments 

and research institutions in partner countries as well as partnerships with U.S.- 

based institutions, including those in the private sector. 

Question. Given your experience as a trained civil engineer and as the CEO of 

Exxon Mobil, a company with a strong science and technology-dependent profile, 

how would you ensure that the Department of State has access to science and technology resources, including individual scientists and engineers, needed to address 

contemporary foreign policy issues from climate change to energy security to arms 

control? 

Answer. I recognize there is considerable knowledge and skills in our National 

Labs from nuclear physics to biothreats. We should tap into those resources. 

If confirmed, I will work to strike the right balance in terms of staff and resource 

allocation among the different aspects of the State Department’s mission, including 

those pertaining to science and technology so that the team as a whole is most cohesive and effective in furthering the foreign policy agenda of the President-elect and 

to meet contemporary challenges head-on with reliable scientific data and technological expertise. 

Question. Given existing budgetary constraints that place a burden on discretionary spending, what would be your science and engineering research priorities, 

and how would you balance short-term versus long-term funding? 

Answer. In light of budgetary constraints on discretionary spending as well as the 

enduring duty to taxpayers to maintain fiscal discipline, priority must be given to 

those scientific and research initiatives that are the most effective in advancing U.S. 

interests in national security and other areas such as humanitarian interests. Programs and activities, whether funded in the short or long term, must be regularly 

assessed according to sets of per/o performance metrics to determine whether funding should continue and, if so, whether such funding should be increased or decreased. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

261 

SECRETARY-DESIGNATE TILLERSON’S ANSWERS TO

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR UDALL

Policy 

Question. New Mexico’s number one trading partner is Mexico.. .and to be clear, 

the rhetoric of the President elect towards Mexico and people of Mexican decent has 

been extremely harmful to our relationship. Comments from Mr. Trump on the campaign trail that Mexican immigrants are rapists and murderers... and that focus 

solely on a wall across our border ignore complex issues our two countries are working on together. 

What is your negotiation strategy for Mexico to pay for a wall on the U.S. border? 

Answer. I have not discussed a negotiation strategy for payingfor the wall on the 

southern border with the President-elect. 

Question. How will you work to repair the damage done by the President-elects 

statements regarding Mexican immigrants referenced in question 1? 

Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with the Mexican Government on all aspects of the vibrant and mutually beneficial diplomatic relationship 

between our countries. 

Question. What are your thoughts on Mexico’s efforts to transition to an adversarial judicial system similar to our own and how will you support this effort at the 

federal and state level in Mexico? 

Answer. The landmark judicial reform passed in 2008 that is transforming the judicial system from a closed inquisitorial system toward an adversarial model is an 

important development for Mexico that promotes more transparency and trust in 

the justice system. The State Department, along with the interagency, will continue 

to provide training and technical assistance programs to Mexico to realize this transition and support the rule of law. 

Question. New Mexico’s national labs have played a key role in nonproliferation 

and weapons monitoring since the dawn of the atomic age. And they played a key 

role in the Iran agreement which is why I have strong confidence in the agreement. 

Do you trust the science behind the Iran agreement and that each pathway to create 

a nuclear weapon has been effectively stopped by the JCPOA? 

Answer. My concern is less with the agreement’s science than with Iran’s intentions, its ambitions, and its history of cheating and aggression. 

The agreement will only be as strong as its verification and monitoring mechanism, and the vigilance and determination of the United States and its allies to ensure it is strictly enforced. 

But I also worry about the agreement’s sunset clauses and the fact that many of 

its most important restrictions on Iran ’s nuclear capabilities will lapse in the notso-distant future. 

Question. Will you be open to briefings from Department of Energy and NNSA 

officials while you review the JCPOA? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would certainly welcome getting briefed by experts as 

1participate in the administration’s review of our approach to the JCPOA. 

Question. Will you engage with the national labs and the National Nuclear Security Administration to address key issues regarding nonproliferation and take a 

science based approach to countering would be proliferators in the future? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would welcome support and input from the national labs 

and the National Nuclear Security Administration in addressing the serious nonproliferation challenges that our country faces. 

Question. What are your thoughts about the wisdom of sending arms to so called 

moderate rebels in Syria? (many who are affiliated with terrorist groups) Will you 

continue to support.. -in my opinion.. .this misguided program? 

Answer. The war in Syria is one of the most pressing national security issues for 

the United States. If confirmed, I would engage America’s regional partners as well 

as the key parties in this conflict to reach a sustainable political solution. This 

would require robust diplomacy and American participation in multiple international and bilateral dialogues. The United States should engage its key partners 

to assess what policy options are most effective for achieving such a solution, and 

working with them to build stability in both Syria and in a broader context regionally. 

Question. Which side are we on in the civil war in Syria? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

262 

Answer. The top national security priority for the United States in Syria is defeating ISIS, not becoming embroiled in a sectarian civil war. There is broad consensus 

that ISIS presents a critical national security threat to the United States and many 

other countries. If confirmed, I would support policies that support defeating ISIS. 

Question. How much authority, in your opinion, does the 2001 Authorization for 

Use of Military Force give the President in Syria? Anddo you believe that the President should seek out another AUMF if he wishes to engage militarily in another 

country like Syria? 

Answer. The President and Congress should always strive to present a united 

front to the rest of the world on national security issues. The President is the Commander-in-Chief; he is tasked with defending this nation against its enemies and 

conducting the foreign and national security policy of the United States. Congress 

also plays a key role. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force was effective 

because it sent a clear message to the world that Congress and the President were 

united on a critical threat 

Answer. A new AUMF would demonstrate U.S. strength and unity of purpose. 

Having the support of Congress to stand behind the decisions to commit American 

men and women as well as military resources strengthens our position in the world 

because it signals our intention to bring the requisite resources to bear in international conflicts. I look forward to working with Congress on an AUMF that addresses today’s realities, and I am open and willing to work with the Senate Foreign 

Relations Committee and Congress to achieve these goals. If I am confirmed, I 

would always advise the President to seek the closest possible coordination with 

Congress on key national security policy issues, including Syria. 

Question. What is your stance on key multilateral treaties that the United States 

is signatory to but has not ratified, for example: Would you support the ratification 

of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea and do you agree that ratifying it 

would give the United States a stronger hand to address Chinese violations and illegal annexations of islands in the South China Sea? 

Answer. There are many treaties that the United States has signed but have not 

received the advice and consent of the Senate. If confirmed, such treaties will be 

reviewed to determine whether ratification would advance U.S. national interests. 

The United States has not signed the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea 

(UNCLOS). In 1994 President Clinton signed the ‘‘1994 Agreement’’ relating to the 

deep seabed provisions of UNCLOS and transmitted both the 1994 Agreement and 

U.N. to the Senate. 

Question. Would you support ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities... in order to ensure that U.S. standards for access by disabled 

individuals are adopted throughout the world? 

Answer. The United States is strongly committed to protecting the rights of disabled Americans through the legal protections afforded by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other applicable laws, and to working cooperatively with 

like-minded partner countries interested in strengthening their own disability rights 

laws. In fact, the U.S. already funds and administers a number of programs that 

provide assistance to strengthen disability rights in foreign countries. My view on 

whether to support the ratification of the Convention will be based on such factors 

as whether the Convention benefits Americans who live in the United States and 

whether the Convention improves disability rights in other countries, thus benefiting Americans living abroad, the Convention’s effects on U.S. sovereignty, and the 

Convention’s impact on existing protections in the law and under the Constitution. 

Question. How will you work to ensure future 123 agreements do not inadvertently empower proliferators, while also supporting U.S. businesses in the nuclear 

industry? 

Answer. To the extent possible, we must work to ensure that future 123 agreements build in the strongest possible protections against proliferation, while promoting U.S. business as the nuclear industry’s gold standard in capability and safety. 

Question. Every single administration since Kennedy has worked to negotiate reductions to our nuclear arsenal with the Soviet Union and now Russia. What do you 

believe should be the next step in nuclear negotiations after the New START treaty 

concludes? 

Answer. While the next phase of arms control will require careful consideration 

by the incoming administration, I believe America continues to have a tremendous 

stake in maintaining a stable nuclear balance with Russia at the lowest possible 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

263 

numbers—with an eye, however, to the expanding arsenals of China and other nuclear powers, as well as the nuclear ambitions of dangerous states like North Korea 

and Iran. 

Question. It is very clear that Russia attempted to influence our election. Will you 

stand up strongly to Vladimir Putin and Russia’s hacking of our election system? 

Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to receiving a full intelligence briefing on the 

extent of Russia’s interference in our elections. 

Should the facts warrant, I would not hesitate to stand up strongly against efforts 

by Russia or any other state to harm our interests and undermine our democracy. 

Question. What will your message to the Russian foreign minister be with regards 

to their attempts to influence the U.S. elections if you are confirmed to serve as Secretary of State? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will immediately seek a full intelligence briefing on the 

recent hacking of our elections. If the facts warrant, the message that I would deliver to my Russian counterpart would be unequivocal as to this type of serious escalation of cyber threats. 

Question. The United States has interests which may not be the interests of 

Exxon. How can I be sure you will only represent the interests of the United States 

if we cannot vet your financial information and tax returns? 

Answer. I made a clean break from ExxonMobil so that I could serve as Secretary 

of State free of any connection, financial or otherwise, to the company-and so the 

American people would know that, if confirmed, I would serve their interests and 

theirs alone. I will abide by the recusal commitments I made in the Ethics Agreement that I submitted to the Committee on January 3, 2017, which was prepared 

in consultation with ethics officials at the Department of State and the Office of 

Government Ethics, on the basis of a full disclosure of my financial interests. 

Question. Colombia is one of our strongest allies in the western hemisphere. How 

will you work to support the peace agreement and will you continue the bipartisan 

efforts to support the rule of law and counternarcotics work in Colombia? 

Answer. We will continue our important diplomatic, economic, and foreign assistance engagements, built upon the success of Plan Colombia, to support the implementation of the peace agreement with the FARC, combat transnational organized 

crime including narcotics trafficking and further strengthen institutions that promote the rule of law. 

Question. Vice President Biden helped lead the initiative known as the Alliance 

for Prosperity in the northern triangle of Central America. In essence we are trying 

to address multiple issues in these countries which led to a spike in narco related 

violence and a surge of migrants from that region to the U.S. and Mexico. Will you 

continue to support these initiatives and will you make it a priority if you are confirmed? 

Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to being fully briefed on the Alliance for 

Prosperity initiative and to consulting with other agency nominees, such as DHS 

Secretary Nominee John Kelly, to continue and/or accelerate these initiatives if appropriate. 

Question. During your time at ExxonMobil, you established the Africa Health Initiative because, ‘‘We strongly believe that improvements in public health can be a 

basis for broader economic and social gains.’’ Is this a position you would also support as Secretary of State? 

Answer. The global health programs focused on fighting diseases, including 

PEPFAR, the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI), and USAID’s Global Tuberculosis 

(TB) Program, as well as the Global Health Security Agenda, have proven to be extremely valuable and successful programs. Continuing such programs is beneficial 

to the U.S. and to the developing world. 

Question. ExxonMobil committed more than $ 100 million to help identify and 

share best practices that include anti-malarial drugs, treatment programs, longrange research, and advocacy. You yourself have been a champion on the issue of 

malaria and have been recognized as such. Why is this issue so important? Of 

course in order to eradicate malaria, it will take the work of not just the United 

States but a range of partners, including the United Nations. How important is 

their role and how do you see the partnership between the U.S. and U.N. continuing 

on this vital issue? 

Answer. The best of our global health programs project America’s values, show 

our compassion, and alleviate suffering. By partnering with other aid programs, we 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

264 

increase our capacity to affect positive change. We will continue to cooperate with 

beneficial partners in a fashion that reflects U.S. policy and goals. 

Question. U.N. humanitarian agencies are often the first on the ground following 

natural disasters to stave off humanitarian crises by providing medical assistance, 

clean water, and sanitation programs. Do you feel this is an important element of 

the U.N.s work and worthy of support? What are your views on this type of global 

burden-sharing? 

Answer. The United States is traditionally one of the biggest givers to humanitarian efforts around the world. U.N. agencies like the World Food Program have 

done critically important work to feed millions of people, for example, and the U.S. 

has an important role in support of, involvement in and oversight of such programs 

to assure our tax dollars are being wisely spent and assistance is reaching those 

most in need. 

Question. On November 30th, the Colombian parliament ratified a final peace 

agreement between the government and FARC rebels, ending the longest-running 

conflict in the Western Hemisphere. Currently, a U.N. political mission, made up 

of 450 unarmed military observers and additional civilian personnel, is on the 

ground in Colombia with a mandate to monitor and verify the cessation of hostilities 

and ensure that the FARC gives up its weapons. Can you talk about the U.N. role 

here and what the U.S. is doing to support it? 

Answer. The U.N. Mission in Colombia is responsible for verifying and monitoring 

the bilateral ceasefire and laying down of arms, declared by President of Colombia 

Juan Manuel Santos and the leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia—People’s Army (FARC-EP) Timoleon Jimenez. The Mission has already begun 

its deployment and supports logistical preparation in the areas where the separation 

of forces, disarmament, and reintegration and transition to civilian life will take 

place. The U.S. is supporting this U.N. mission as a member nation but does not 

have any U.S. citizens among the observers. 

Question. Under your leadership, Exxon Mobil has invested more than $100 million in its global Women’s Economic Opportunity Initiative, partnering with developing country national and local governments, the U.S. government, the United Nations Foundation, Africa, and other leading development implementers to bring 

much needed assistance and opportunities to tens of thousands of women in the developing world. 

Question. As you know, the State Department places a high priority on global 

women’s empowerment, gender equity and combating violence against women. 

If you are confirmed as Secretary of State, how will you ensure that empowering 

women is a core pillar of U.S. foreign policy? 

Answer. As I stated during my confirmation hearing, the issue of empowering 

women is personally important to me. I have seen firsthand through Exxon’s efforts 

the impact of empowering women, particularly regarding their participation in economic activities in the lesser developed part of the world. Investing in women produces a multiplier effect-women reinvest a large portion of their income in their 

families and communities, which also furthers economic growth and stability. Studies confirm that when women are empowered in these developing countries, you 

change the future of the country, because you change the cycle of whole families and 

their view of the world positively. I believe women’s empowerment and advancement 

is an important part of our foreign aid efforts and I will support such programs, 

including efforts to eliminate violence against women and mitigate its impact on 

those currently subject to such violence. 

Question. What lessons you have learned from Exxon’s women’s empowerment 

programs that you will bring with you to the State Department? Why did you decide 

to invest so heavily in global women’s empowerment programs during your tenure 

at Exxon? 

Answer. I believe that educating women and girls is one of the most effective 

ways to invest in communities in the developing world. Educated women are 

healthier, are less likely to die in childbirth, and are more likely to have healthy 

children. Empowering women and girls can drive real change and supports the 

achievement of international development goals. 

Question. One of the greatest obstacles to advancing women’s empowerment and 

gender equity is a lack of access to quality healthcare. The U.S. government has led 

global efforts to combat preventable maternal deaths through investments in maternal and child health, nutrition, family planning, and other critical health interventions. Can you commit to our Committee that the State Department and USAID will 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

265 

continue to prioritize these lifesaving programs if you are confirmed as Secretary 

of State? 

Answer. I agree that life-saving humanitarian health programs are some of the 

most powerful diplomatic tools in our toolkit. In addition to helping advance our national interest through hearts and minds and good will, helping to save the lives 

of the most vulnerable populations is consistent with the character and fundamental 

goodness of the American people. 

Question. During the Presidential campaign, President-elect Trump made several 

very troubling statements and comments indicating that in the context of counterterrorism he would support waterboarding and other types of torture. If you are confirmed, you will be the president’s chief foreign affairs adviser, and the Legal Bureau of the State Department will have an important role advising the White House 

on international law. Do you agree that waterboarding is torture? 

Answer. Federal law provides that no individual in U.S. custody may be subjected 

to any interrogation technique or approach that is not authorized by and listed in 

the Army Field Manual. If confirmed, I would support the Administration in complying with that law and all other applicable law. 

Question. Do you agree that other techniques previously utilized by CIA personnel 

in the Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation (RDI) program—including painful 

‘‘stress positions,’’ subjecting detainees to extreme cold, throwing them into walls or 

hitting them—constitute torture, or are otherwise illegal under U.S. law? 

Answer. Federal law provides that no individual in U.S. custody may be subjected 

to any interrogation technique or approach that is not authorized by and listed in 

the Army Field Manual. If confirmed, I would support the Administration in complying with that law and all other applicable law. 

Question. Given that Congress has now made it clear in U.S. law that U.S. interrogators may only use those techniques that are in the U.S. Army Field Manual, 

and that manual clearly prohibits waterboarding, do you agree that waterboarding 

cannot and should not be used by any U.S. personnel on detainees under any circumstances? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Do you think that core international prohibitions on torture and war 

crimes should be changed? 

Answer. The United States is bound by treaties and domestic laws, including prohibitions on torture and war crimes. That is consistent with, and demonstrates, our 

values and principles. I do not support and cannot foresee that changing. Our role 

in the world has entailed a place of moral leadership in the scope of international 

affairs, and I am committed to continuing that historical role. 

Question. What do you believe would be the impact on America’s credibility 

abroad of resuming renditions or the use of interrogation tactics like those previously used by the CIA? 

Answer. U.S. Government activities concerning any detention, interrogation and 

transfer practices should comply with the law in all respects. Changes to applicable 

law or policy should be made only after a careful review and consideration of the 

overall consequences, including the impact on foreign relations specifically. 

Question. If confirmed, how will you work with the Government of Mexico to diminish the threat posed to American families by heroin? Will you continue the 

Merida Initiative and support the Mexican government’s efforts to reform its justice 

sector, expand training for civilian police, combat corruption, and protect human 

rights? 

Answer. If confirmed, I am committed helping the President-elect address the heroin epidemic in the United States. I will ask to be fully briefed on the Merida Initiative and will consult with other Department leaders, such as the Homeland Security 

Secretary and the Attorney General. 

Question. Do you support a ban on Muslim immigration.. .and do you agree that 

it is an unconstitutional religious test? 

Answer. No, I do not support a ban on Muslim immigration, and I am not aware 

of any proposal to impose such a ban. 

Question. A bipartisan group of Senators, including Republicans and Democrats 

on this Committee, have cosponsored legislation to remove restrictions on U.S. citizens’ ability to travel to Cuba and to authorize U.S. companies to facilitate greater 

internet access inside Cuba. Do you believe that current restrictions on the rights 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

266 

of U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba enhances the cause of freedom for the Cuban people? 

Answer. The new Administration will conduct a comprehensive review of current 

policies and executive orders regarding Cuba, including travel restrictions, to determine how best to pressure Cuba to respect human rights and promote democratic 

changes and consider conditionality on diplomatic, economic, or travel policies to encourage those changes. 

Question. Do you support allowing U.S. companies to expand internet access inside Cuba so that the Cuban people can have greater access to information that isn’t 

currently available on the island? 

Answer. Yes, as appropriate. 

Question. Do you support the New START agreement with Russia and how will 

you work with Russia to ensure that the agreement is followed? 

Answer. I support the implementation of New START and would work closely 

with Russia to ensure its obligations under the treaty are fulfilled. 

Question. The NNSA has made tremendous progress with the stockpile stewardship program. In short, our science based efforts to confirm that our stockpile is 

safe, secure, and reliable have worked and have negated the need for testing of nuclear weapons. During the debates to consider the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, 

this was a significant barrier because the science had not yet matured. Now that 

the science has matured, will you consider support for the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and will you visit with our experts at NNSA to learn 

more about the stockpile stewardship program? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would welcome being briefed by the NNSA and other experts as the United States considers its participation in any additional treaties. 

Question. For the past 20 years, U.S. law has prohibited training and equipment 

for any unit of a foreign security force that the Secretary of State has credible information has committed a gross violation of human rights, such as torture, rape, or 

summary execution of prisoners or civilians. If the Secretary has such information, 

U.S. aid to that unit is cut off unless the foreign government takes effective steps 

to bring the responsible members of the unit to justice. This law, known as the 

Leahy Law, has helped to prevent U.S. aid from going to perpetrators of the worst 

crimes, and it encourages governments to hold perpetrators accountable and enforce 

the rule of law. Over the years, the law has been praised by top officials at the Department of State and the Department of Defense under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Do you agree with the intent of the law? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Will you rigorously enforce the Leahy Law and ensure that the necessary funds are provided to support the State Department personnel who implement it? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will follow the law. 

Question. Do you support funding for programs to mitigate and respond to the impacts of climate change on vulnerable populations where flooding, droughts, loss of 

arable land, and other consequences threaten to displace tens of millions of people? 

Answer. I believe foreign assistance is an important component of U.S. foreign 

policy. Should I be confirmed, I will press for programs that are effective and efficient and consistent with U.S. interests. I would prioritize our programs in accordance with the goals of U.S. foreign policy. I would apply these standards to assessing programs that address changing environmental conditions and extreme weather. 

Question. Do you believe it is in the U.S. national interest to fund foreign assistance programs intended to mitigate conflict and prevent mass atrocities, or should 

the U.S. refrain from getting involved in foreign disputes unless U.S. personnel or 

property are directly threatened? 

Answer. The Department of State and USAID already have programs that focus 

on the causes and potential remedies for weak and fragile states, including the 

Interagency Conflict Assessment Framework. This program provides guidance for 

implementing stabilization protocols. USAID programs, such as Provincial Reconstruction Teams, serve as a measure to support revitalization in fragile states. By 

continuing these programs, we will better understand the underlying causes of individual weak and fragile states, and utilize those results to craft better diplomatic 

and development policy. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

267 

Question. For many years, U.S. law has conditioned a portion of aid to foreign security forces in certain countries with a history of corruption and abuses by such 

forces on progress by their governments in protecting human rights and combating 

corruption. Do you agree with this approach, or do you think we should provide such 

aid without such conditions? 

Answer. When evaluating a country’s eligibility for aid, a number of factors come 

into play, including government compliance, U.S. interests in the region, and the 

level of need of the population. Many of our foreign assistance programs take the 

multitude of factors into account to inform decisionmaking. We should continue to 

consider all factors, identify issues like corruption, and take steps to reduce these 

issues, in order to efficiently and effectively provide aid. 

Question. Do you agree that after more than half a century the U.S. embargo 

against Cuba has failed to achieve any of its principle objectives? 

Answer. The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 

(Helms-Burton Act) known as the embargo against Cuba is the law of the land that 

we must enforce. 

Question. Do you support diplomatic relations with Cuba? 

Answer. Yes, as appropriate. A diplomat’s job is to engage in order to promote 

change. 

Question. As Secretary of State would you travel to Cuba? Would you try to prevent others from traveling there? 

Answer. It would depend on the mission. 

Question. Do you agree that American citizens and legal residents, whether 

Cuban-Americans or others, should be able to travel freely to Cuba as they can to 

every other country in the world that grants them a visa? 

Answer. Yes, as long as it does not violate U.S. law. 

Question. Do you agree that the U.S. should help support private entrepreneurs 

in Cuba with training or other assistance, so they can build businesses, market 

their products and services, and compete with stateowned enterprises? 

Answer. Yes, as appropriate. 

Question. Do you support policies that enable U.S. companies to market their 

goods and services in Cuba, and by doing so compete with companies in other countries that do business in Cuba? 

Answer. Yes, as appropriate and consistent with U.S. law. 

Question. Do you support cooperation between the U.S. military, Coast Guard, 

and other law enforcement agencies and the Cuban military and security services 

on such issues as narcotics and human trafficking, maritime security, counter-terrorism, and search and rescue? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. The United States has been a global conservation leader in combating 

transnational wildlife crime and saving imperiled species. Wildlife trafficking is a 

lucrative enterprise worth tens of billions of dollars and has undermined the rule 

of law of our allies and trading partners at the range, transit and source countries. 

The involvement of criminal syndicates, African armed militias, and terrorist organizations is particularly alarming. The enactment of Eliminate, Neutralize, and Disrupt (END) Wildlife Trafficking Act last October illustrates the high-profile attention and broad bipartisan support the United States Congress has given to this 

issue. Mr. Tillerson, will you continue the State Department’s work with this Congress and concerned countries across the globe to further the international community’ s effort to tackle the pernicious poaching and trafficking crisis? 

Answer. The global spread of wildlife trafficking has implications for conservation, 

crime, and national security. Public Law No. 114-231, Eliminate, Neutralize, and 

Disrupt Wildlife Trafficking Act of 2016, which was passed by a unanimous Congress and signed into law by the President this past October, provides new tools to 

help the United States and partner countries to address this crisis. I will work with 

Congress on the implementation of this law and related laws. Moreover, I will work 

with partner countries to further efforts to combat poaching and wildlife trafficking. 

Question. During your testimony, you admitted the existence of human created climate change but also said the ability to predict its implications is ‘‘very limited.’’ 

What are you basing this latter conclusion on? Please explain and list all peer reFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

268 

viewed publications upon which your view about limited ability to predict climate 

implications is based? 

Answer. Although my background is as an engineer and scientist, I am not a climatologist. I concluded years ago that the risk of climate change does exist and that 

the consequences could be serious enough that action should be taken. That said, 

it is clear to me that climate modeling is a not an exact science and thatpast attempts to be predictive have not been consistently correct. The UNFCCC’S own reports on climate describes the challenge in developing accurate models. 

I am not alone in this belief. John Christy, a NASA-award-winning scientist who 

operates the temperature-sensing NASA satellite instruments, has presented testimony to the House ofRepresentatives indicating that the models have predicted approximately twice as much warming as has actually occurred since the advent of 

satellite measures. 

If confirmed, I plan to conduct a review of the current role that the State Department plays in international climate change efforts to ensure that U.S. national interests and American competitiveness are not compromised. 

Question. In response to signals that the Trump Administration may act less aggressively on climate change, leading Chinese officials have stated that they will 

continue to act aggressively to reduce their emissions and that they will take on 

more international leadership around climate change—including establishing a national carbon market and investing hundreds of billions in clean energy at home and 

abroad. Are we putting the nation at a disadvantage internationally by ceding U.S. 

leadership on climate change to China? 

Answer. The United States should act to protect and advance U.S. national interests in all matters, including climate change, regardless of the actions of other nations, including China. 

Question. Do you agree that U.S. withdrawal from international agreements, including the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC, which all countries support and 

which are top priorities for our most important allies would be a destabilizing action 

and weaken not only our diplomatic relations with our allies but also compromise 

our national security? 

Answer. The United States should decide to join international agreements based 

upon whether membership in such agreements advances U.S. national interests. In 

any event, I fail to see how U.S. membership in a climate change agreement would 

have an effect on our national security. 

Question. Does your support for the Paris Agreement also include support for the 

Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) that the U.S. submitted to the UNCCC 

ahead of COP21 and the finalization of the Paris Agreement? If so, how do you propose we meet our NDC? 

Answer. If confirmed, we will conduct a review of the Nationally Determined Contribution submitted by the Obama Administration as part of our review of the Paris 

Agreement and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change to determine 

whether the NDC and/or the international agreements advance U.S. national interests. 

Question. Are you aware of whether anyone on the Presidential transition team, 

or connected with the Trump campaign, discussed your possible nomination with 

any representatives of a foreign government or foreign national before the President-elect announced his intention to nominate you for this position? 

Answer. No. I am not aware of any such consultation with foreigners regarding 

my nomination. 

Ethics 

Question. Are you the beneficiary or trustee of any discretionary trust that has 

not been fully disclosed to the Committee or the Office of Government Ethics? If so, 

please provide detailed information about the trust(s). 

Answer. No, to the best of my knowledge. 

FEDERAL IT REFORM (STATE DEPARTMENT)

Question. Each major federal agency has been graded at least three times on their 

implementation of the Federal Information Technology and Acquisition Reform Act 

of 2014 (FITARA, PL 113-291). The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee with assistance from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issues a 

‘‘scorecard’’ for FITARA implementation. State Department received one ‘‘C’’ and 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

269 

three ‘‘F’s’’ for an overall ‘‘D’’ grade on the May 2016 scorecard. How do you plan 

to improve this grade? 

Answer. I have been briefed on the key management challenges facing the Department in this arena, but unless and until I am confirmed, I will not have access to 

this data at the level of granularity to provide detailed answers on the factors behind this situation or ongoing plans to remedy it If confirmed, I will make this a 

priority and consult with the committee on the best solutions. Please be assured 

that I consider failing grades unacceptable. If confirmed, I will assure that our employees and managers at all levels, as well as our interagency partners and oversight stakeholders, will know that I consider this a top area for improvement and 

accountability. 

Question. Describe the role of your department Chief Information Officer (CIO) in 

the development and oversight of the IT budget for your department. How is the 

CIO involved in the decision to make an IT investment, determine its scope, oversee 

its contract, and oversee continued operation and maintenance? 

Answer. The CIO is an Assistant Secretary-level official supervising the Information Resource Management bureau, reporting to the Under Secretary for Management. This individual also must set policy for IT decisions involving all agencies 

under Chief of Mission at our overseas posts, in collaboration with those agencies’ 

CIOs, the Director of National Intelligence, OMB, and other stakeholders. Each 

overseas mission, embassy, and consulate has a team responsible for Information 

Management, with a senior individual on that ambassador’s country team and 

ICASS council. Further, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security recently created a Deputy Assistant Secretary position responsible for information security, in collaboration with the Deputy CIO, who is currently designated as Chief Information Security Officer (CISO). If confirmed, I will work with the inter-agency to assure that 

both the CISO role and the decision authorities of the CIO are clear and parallel 

across the relevant inter-agency processes so that decisions are made at the appropriate level or elevated to theSecretary’s office when necessary. If confirmed, I will 

also make sure that the budget, acquisition, and customer support functions are coordinated and aligned. Currently that coordination falls to the Under Secretary for 

Management. 

Question. Describe the existing authorities, organizational structure, and reporting relationship of the Chief Information Officer. Note and explain any variance 

from that prescribed in the Federal Information Technology and Acquisition Reform 

Act of 2014 (FITARA, PL 113-291) for the above. 

Answer. The CIO operates within the organizational structure described above. 

There are currently opportunities to improve the information management practices 

at the Department, but unless and until I am confirmed, I will not have access to 

the level of information necessary to speak to variances between the current structure and those prescribed in the Federal Information Technology and Acquisition 

Reform Act of 2014. 

Question. What formal or informal mechanisms exist in your department to ensure coordination and alignment within the CXO community (i.e., the Chief Information Officer, the Chief Acquisition Officer, the Chief Finance Officer, the Chief 

Human Capital Officer, and so on)? 

Answer. The functions you mention currently report to and through the Under 

Secretary for Management, who is also currently designated as the CFO of the Department. A more complicated coordination must occur at the inter-agency and overseas post level. 

Question. According to the Office of Personnel Management, 46 percent of the 

more than 80,000 Federal IT workers are 50 years of age or older, and more than 

10 percent are 60 or older. Just four percent of the Federal IT workforce is under 

30 years of age. Does your department have such demographic imbalances? How is 

it addressing them? 

Answer. The State Department faces similar challenges with an aging workforce, 

complicated further by the security clearance requirements and rules that require 

re-validation of previously investigated individuals when they move to another parallel position or get promoted. The Department also hires Foreign Service Information Management Specialists on a separate track from generalist Foreign Service 

Officers, which can allow more rapid hiring for those committed to fulfilling these 

requirements for overseas positions as a long-term career. Nevertheless, the competitive salaries and benefits offered by the private sector keep such individuals in 

demand. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

270 

Question. How much of the department’s budget goes to Demonstration, Modernization, and Enhancement of IT systems as opposed to supporting existing and 

ongoing programs and infrastructure? How has this changed in the last five years? 

Answer. I have been briefed on the key management challenges facing the Department in the area of information systems, but unless and until I am confirmed, I will 

not have access to this data at the level of granularity to provide detailed answers. 

Question. What are the 10 highest priority IT investment projects that are under 

development in your department? Of these, which ones are being developed using 

an ‘‘agile’’ or incremental approach, such as delivering working functionality in 

smaller increments and completing initial deployment to end-users in short, sixmonth time frames? 

Answer. I have been briefed on the key management challenges facing the Department in the area of information systems and technology, but unless and until I am 

confirmed, I will not have access to the level of information necessary to provide 

comprehensive answers on IT investment priorities.61. To ensure that steady state 

investments continue to meet agency needs, OMB has a longstanding policy for 

agencies to annually review, evaluate, and report on their legacy IT infrastructure 

through Operational Assessments. What Operational Assessments have you conducted and what were the results?I have not conducted any operational assessments 

as a nominee. If confirmed, I will follow up appropriately. 

Question. What are the 10 oldest IT systems or infrastructures in your department? How old are they? Would it be cost-effective to replace them with newer IT 

investments? 

Answer. I have been briefed on the key management challenges facing the Department in the area of information systems and technology, but unless and until I am 

confirmed, I will not have access to the level of information necessary to provide 

comprehensive answers on IT investment priorities. 

Question. How does your department’s IT governance process allow for your department to terminate or ‘‘off ramp’’ IT investments that are critically over budget, 

over schedule, or failing to meet performance goals? Similarly, how does your department’s IT governance process allow for your department to replace or ‘‘on-ramp’’ 

new solutions after terminating a failing IT investment? 

Answer. I have been briefed on the key management challenges facing the Department in the area of information systems and technology, but unless and until I am 

confirmed, I will not have access to the level of information necessary to provide 

comprehensive answers on IT investment priorities. 

Question. What IT projects has your department decommissioned in the last year? 

What are your department’s plans to decommission IT projects this year? 

Answer. I have been briefed on the key management challenges facing the Department in the area of information systems and technology, but unless and until I am 

confirmed, I will not have access to the level of information necessary to provide 

comprehensive answers on IT investment priorities. 

Question. The Federal Information Technology and Acquisition Reform Act of 2014 

(FITARA, PL 113-291) directs CIOs to conduct annual reviews of their department/ 

agency’s IT portfolio. Please describe your department’s efforts to identify and reduce wasteful, low-value or duplicative information technology (IT) investments as 

part of these portfolio reviews. 

Answer. I have been briefed on the key management challenges facing the Department in the area of information systems and technology, but unless and until I am 

confirmed, I will not have access to the level of information necessary to provide 

comprehensive answers on IT investment priorities. 

Question. In 2011, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a ‘‘Cloud 

First’’ policy that required agency Chief Information Officers to implement a cloudbased service whenever there was a secure, reliable, and cost-effective option. How 

many of the department’s IT investments are cloud-based services (Infrastructure 

as a Service, Platform as a Service, Software as a Service, etc.)? What percentage 

of the department’s overall IT investments are cloud-based services? Does State Department have a Cloud strategy to encourage the use of Cloud computing solutions? 

If not, by when do you plan to have such a strategy in place? 

Answer. I have been briefed on the key management challenges facing the Department in the area of information systems and technology, but unless and until I am 

confirmed, I will not have access to the level of information necessary to provide 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

271 

comprehensive answers on the status of the Department’s cloud computing strategy 

and solutions. 

Question. Congress passed the MEGABYTE Act (PL 114-210) to encourage agencies to achieve significant savings in managing IT assets including software licenses. 

What policies or processes are in place at State Department to improve management 

of software licenses? What savings do you expect State Department to report by the 

end of FY 2017? 

Answer. I have been briefed on the key management challenges facing the Department in the area of information systems and technology, but unless and until I am 

confirmed, I will not have access to the level of information necessary to provide 

comprehensive answers on IT investment priorities. 

Question. Provide short summaries of three recent IT program successes—projects 

that were delivered on time, within budget, and delivered the promised functionality 

and benefits to the end user. How does your department/agency define ‘‘success’’ in 

IT program management? What ‘‘best practices’’ have emerged and been adopted 

from these recent IT program successes? What have proven to be the most significant barriers encountered to more common or frequent IT program successes? 

Answer. These are excellent questions for the current Administration. If confirmed, I will ask these same questions to demonstrate my concerns and expectations for full accountability both within IT systems themselves and overall information management within the State Department and the other U.S.government systems where State intersects. Although I have not had the opportunity to conduct 

any analysis of this sort as a nominee, if confirmed, I will follow up appropriately. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

272 

SECRETARY-DESIGNATE TILLERSON’S ANSWERS TO

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question. In 2012, the U.S. Department of State and U.S. Department of Defense 

initiated a process to remove a war memorial in Wyoming, called the Bells of 

Balangiga. It honors the lives of 48 soldiers who were massacred in their sleep by 

insurgents in the Philippines on September 28, 1901. The U.S. Department of Defense in coordination with the U.S. Department of State intentionally withheld this 

information from Congress. The veterans in Wyoming overwhelmingly oppose taking 

down this veteran memorial. 

♦ Will you commit to me that you will not support any efforts to deconstruct our 

war memorials that honor our fallen soldiers and moving them to foreign countries? 

♦ What is your position on the U.S. Department of State withholding these actions fromCongress? 

Answer. The Bells of Balangiga are an important war memorial that holds real 

significance for many Americans, especially our veterans. If confirmed, I will support an inclusive process with theU.S. Department of Defense to ensure that Congress is fully informed and the views of localcommunities and veterans are fully respected when evaluating the management of war memorials. 

Question. In July 2015, the U.S. Department of State issued guidance requiring 

manufacturers and gunsmiths to register with the Department under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (IT AR). 

This registration requirement also mandates that hobbyists and small business gunsmiths pay an annual fee of $2,250. Not only is this guidance a significant financial 

burden on small gunsmiths but it is also a significant government overreach on the 

backs of gunsmiths who have no intent on exporting firearms. If confirmed, will you 

withdraw this guidance? 

Answer. I value the cultural and economic contributions of hobbyists and small 

business gunsmiths. If confirmed, I will support a review and potential withdrawal 

or revision of the 2015 guidance with proper regard for U.S. national security interests. 

Question. Like many U.S. industries, soda ash faces significant trade barriers 

around the world. It is a key manufacturing component of glass, detergents, soaps, 

and chemicals. Soda ash is also used in many other industrial processes. ‘‘U.S. natural soda ash.’’ is refined from the mineral trona. It has long been regarded as the 

standard for quality, purity, and energy efficiency in production. The Green River 

Basin in Wyoming is the world’s largest area for naturally-occurring trona. As part 

of your effort to promote U.S. industries in international markets at the U.S. Department of State, will you advocate for eliminating trade barriers for soda ash and 

other important U.S. industries in the international marketplace? 

Answer. Eliminating trade barriers is at the heart of promoting U.S. competitiveness in global markets. Such barriers may include both high tariff levels and nontariff barriers, such as foreign regulations designed to block made-in-America products. I will work together with other officials responsible for such requirements. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

273 

SECRETARY-DESIGNATE TILLERSON’S ANSWERS TO

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURPHY

Russia/USAID 

Question. USAID was expelled from Russia in 2012 as part of a crackdown on prodemocracy organizations. Do you think it is in the U.S. national interest to have 

a USAID mission in Russia? If so, what steps will the State Department take to 

reestablish a USAID Mission in Russia? 

Answer. Prior to the suspension of the USAID Mission in Russia in 2012, USAID 

provided substantial . for Russian partners and organizations engaged in development work. The annual budget for the USAID Mission in Russia for 2010-2012 was 

nearly $60 million, and supported programs that enhanced democratic efforts, advanced human rights, and improved health. At the time, we deemed these programs 

to be in our national interest. Since USAID’s suspension, democratic governance, 

human rights, and health continue to be major challenges for Russian society. Due 

to the political environment in Russia, however, it is unlikely that the USAID program will be restarted in the immediate future. Instead, it is necessary that we 

focus our efforts on fighting global health, poverty, and human rights challenges in 

countries where our programs can be effective and implement change. 

Refugee Crisis 

Question. The refugees fleeing violence in Syria are only a fraction of the over 65 

million people displaced around the world today. This historic humanitarian crisis 

has had a destabilizing effect on some of our allies in the Middle East, such as Jordan and Turkey, and our closest allies in Europe, including Germany and France. 

If confirmed, how will you confront this humanitarian crisis? How, in your view, can 

the U.S. better work with partners to provide life-saving assistance to refugees? 

Answer. The United States must lead with its values; that includes working with 

our partners to alleviate such suffering, particularly in conflict zones where the 

most vulnerable are often targeted. Today, alleviating the world’s refugee crises 

must start in Syria. 

There are areas of the Syrian conflict in which we share an interest with other 

stakeholders, such as ensuring regional stability and preventing Syria from being 

used as a launching pad for international terrorism. The actions of both Iran and 

ISIS decrease stability and increase the number of Syrians fleeing their homes. If 

confirmed, I would work closely with our partners in the region to alleviate their 

suffering. 

Inclusive policies in the Middle East 

Question. Our interest in strong and stable democratic partners rests in part on 

other countries adopting fair and inclusive laws and social policies. How would you 

pursue this interest in the Middle East, where increasing social tensions led to the 

Arab Spring—or in Russia, where personal liberties are under attack and the gap 

between the haves and have-nots has widened? 

Answer. Throughout many countries in the Middle East, the positive openings for 

civil society represented in the Arab Spring were exploited by radical Islamist extremists. This has led some regimes in the region to feel they need to crack down 

to reestablish security and law and order. This is a vicious cycle we should avoid 

repeating. In the long run, the development of stable and peaceful societies in the 

Middle East depends upon the increasing enfranchisement of the population as a 

whole. 

Given the serious threat posed by organizations such as ISIS in the immediate 

term, however, we need to respect the concerns many government have about terrorism in the region. Doing so will also give us the opportunity to engage with them 

on being more open to individual liberties and civil society in ways that do not open 

the door to exploitation by jihadists. 

Combating anti-LGBT laws globally 

Question. Anti-LGBT laws in Russia are among the most draconian in the world— 

and those laws in turn have given rise to copy-cat laws elsewhere in the ex-Soviet 

space and beyond, even in Africa. How specifically would you seek to reverse this 

course, and thereby help ensure the sense of social and economic inclusion that is 

important to long-term stability? 

Answer. The United States needs to stand firmly for all human rights. This includes support for basic political freedoms such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, as well as non-discrimination against women, minorities, and 

LGBT persons. Indeed, the denial of basic political freedoms is often the backdrop 

against which discrimination against LGBT persons takes place. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

274 

In supporting all such human rights, we should be aware of cultural and historic 

differences and how they can be used to weaken U.S. influence. We need to stay 

true to our own values, while being tactically smart about how to advance those values throughout the world. 

Family planning and reproductive health and rights 

Question. The United States has been a global leader in advancing family planning worldwide for five decades. If women worldwide with unmet needs used modern methods, we would see 52 million fewer unintended pregnancies, resulting in 

600,000 fewer stillbirths, 6 million fewer miscarriages, and 15 million fewer unsafe 

abortions. Family planning is also one of the most cost-effective interventions, with 

every dollar spent on contraceptive services saving almost $ 1.50 in the cost of providing pregnancy-related and newborn health care. Will you pledge to continue, and 

build on, the bipartisan legacy of U.S. support for international family planning programs? Will you continue to support our critical contributions to UNFPA, which is 

currently raising awareness about child marriage and providing maternal care to 

thousands of Syrian refugees? 

Answer. The decision about how much funding goes to family planning, reproductive health and maternal health is made by Congress each year, and Congress has 

routinely supported these activities at robust levels. The U.S. government also has 

long-standing statutory prohibitions on taxpayer funding of abortion or coercion in 

family planning. In the event that an organization were to lose money under these 

statutory requirements, I imagine that funds for that organization could be redirected to other entities that can provide family planning, reproductive or maternal 

health. 

Saudi Arabia/Yemen 

Question. U.S. support for the Saudi-led military campaign against former President Saleh and Houthi rebels in Yemen has led to a devastating humanitarian crisis 

and a security vacuum that has empowered Al Qaeda and ISIS. Although the State 

Department and Pentagon have engaged with Saudi Arabia for over a year, assisting them with targeting and urging them to refrain from hitting specific civilian targets, our advice has not been heeded. It is clear that more targeting advice is not 

going to change behavior. Meanwhile, arguably the most lethal branch of Al Qaeda 

is increasing their recruitment in Yemen. Do you believe that it is in the U.S. national security interest to end this civil war that is allowing terrorist groups to 

thrive? Do you agree that the longer the war continues the more dependent the 

Houthis may become on Iran? Do you agree that civilian casualties in Yemen harm 

U.S. national security, given that Yemenis view this as a US-Saudi bombing campaign? Will you support conditioning our military aid Saudi Arabia upon ending attacks on civilian targets, facilitating humanitarian aid delivery, and doing more to 

combat ISIS and Al Qaeda in Yemen? 

Answer. The situation in Yemen is tragic. The war has inflicted a devastating toll 

on the country’s people. The United States certainly has an interest in a political 

settlement that ends the war as soon as possible, while safeguarding the vital interests of our regional allies. Iran’s destabilizing interference in Yemen and across the 

Middle East is a major U.S. concern. As we support our allies, it is critical that we 

continue pressing them to do everything possible to limit civilian casualties, reduce 

humanitarian suffering, and combat the growth of ISIS and Al Qaeda in Yemen. 

Tunisia 

Question. After the upheaval of the Arab Spring, one country—Tunisia—remains 

standing as an emerging democracy in the region. Do you believe it should be a national security priority of the United States to encourage democratic reform abroad, 

and support Tunisia’s transition to democracy as a model for the region? 

Answer. Tunisia’s ability to maintain its democratic path in the face of the region’s broader turmoil is a major accomplishment. The United States certainly has 

an interest in supporting Tunisia’s continued transition to democracy—especially in 

the context of the broader threat we face across the Middle East from the ideology 

of radical Islamic terrorism. 

Cyprus 

Question. Cyprus is a strategic partner of the United States in the Eastern Mediterranean. How will the new U.S. Administration further develop the bilateral ties 

between the United States and the Republic of Cyprus? How will it support the ongoing reunification negotiations? 

Answer. Strong bilateral ties with the Republic of Cyprus will help ensure future 

stability and prosperity in the region. A long-term solution for Cyprus is important 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

275 

for U.S. interests in the region. The United States should continue to support the 

efforts of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders to achieve a just resolution that 

is consistent with U.N. resolutions and heals the island’s divisions. If confirmed, I 

look forward to working closely with the U.N. and other key actors to support a solution. 

Dealing with nuclear-armed states 

Question. The United States and Russia possess the vast majority of the world’s 

nuclear weapons, but China, India, and Pakistan are increasing the size and diversity of their nuclear forces too. History shows that the risk of a military conflict involving nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan is high and the role of the United 

States—and the Secretary of State in particular—in deescalating any crisis that 

could go nuclear is absolutely critical. Will it be a priority of yours to prevent an 

escalation of the existing regional nuclear arms competition involving these countries? What steps will you encourage them to take to reduce nuclear risks and halt 

their nuclear build ups? How will you seek to build on the current U.S.-China dialogue on strategic and economic issues to reduce the risk of miscalculation in a crisis? 

Answer. The United States, along with the rest of the world, has a major interest 

in preventing a potentially catastrophic nuclear arms race in South Asia. Reducing 

that risk should be a top priority of U.S. diplomacy with the countries of the region. 

Developing mechanisms to prevents crises and avoid miscalculation should be one 

of the most important goals of the U.S. strategic dialogue with China. If confirmed, 

I look forward to participating in that dialogue and advancing those goals. 

Bahrain 

Question. Over the past year, Bahrain has dramatically escalated its crackdown 

against human rights defenders and peaceful opposition leaders. Bahrain’s rulers 

have imprisoned the country’s leading human rights defender for tweets, banned the 

country’s largest opposition political party, and jailed Shia clerics who have called 

for political reform and interfaith dialogue. The government has abandoned any pretense of reform, fulfilling only a handful of the 26 recommendations of the Bahrain 

Independent Commission on Inquiry (BICI) report that the King publicly committed 

to implementing ‘‘urgently’’ more than five years ago. As the home of the U.S. Fifth 

Fleet, the stability of Bahrain is critical to U.S. national security interests. But unless the Sunni monarchy moves to share power with its restive, Shia majority population, the country risks descending into open sectarian conflict that could destabilize the country and jeopardize the Fifth Fleet. As Secretary of State, how will you 

encourage Bahrain’s rulers to reverse course, and implement genuine political reform to stabilize the country and secure the U.S. Fifth Fleet in the years ahead? 

Answer. Bahrain has long been one of our most vital partners in the Gulf region; 

particularly in terms of the crucial support it provides the U.S. Fifth Fleet. Bahrain 

faces a number of challenges, not least the ongoing threat to its security and stability from an aggressive Iran. If confirmed, I will continue working with Bahrain’s 

leaders to strengthen our alliance and combat common threats, while also encouraging reforms that can enhance Bahrain’s long-term stability and security. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

276 

SECRETARY-DESIGNATE TILLERSON’S ANSWERS TO

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR KAINE

Non-Disclosure Agreement 

Question. Sen. Mr. Tillerson, when asked if you were subject to a confidentiality 

agreement that continues to be enforced that would limit his ability to answer questions, such as the ones on climate change. ‘‘To my knowledge I have no such confidentiality agreement in place, but I would have to consult with counsel.’’ 

Can you confirm whether such an agreement exists or not? If so, provide a copy. 

Answer. No such agreement exists. My understanding is that, whether memorialized in writing or not, I am required to maintain the confidence of any ExxonMobil 

trade secrets and other confidential or privileged business information that I may 

have obtained while an ExxonMobil officer, director, or employee. 

Diplomatic Security 

Question. Over approximately the past 20 years, U.S. personnel working in diplomatic missions overseas have faced increasing threats to their safety and security, 

including numerous attacks in high-risk location perhaps most notably, the 2012 attack on our facilities in Benghazi. These threats have been heightened in part due 

to policy decisions to keep staff in locations that previously would have been deemed 

too dangerous for U.S. personnel. In your opinion, what is the right balance between 

the security of our diplomats and effective engagement overseas? 

Answer. Nothing is more important than the safety and security of those serving 

in our diplomatic mission and their families. The right balance is something that 

will have to be assessed in each situation with full awareness of the best intelligence and on-the-ground expertise provided by trained professionals. If confirmed, 

I will rely not only upon Diplomatic Security’s expertise in these instances, but all 

agencies under Chief of Mission, including the military and intelligence communities. Engagement with the host country at every level can be effective only if our 

personnel feel safe to do their jobs and if we have a clear-eyed sense of the mission 

and the associated risks our people face, including their family members at accompanied posts. 

Question. While State has taken some steps to address security issues at residences and schools, among others, a 2015 GAO report found that State lacks full 

awareness of the vulnerabilities existing at these types of soft targets. What steps 

would you take to ensure that State is appropriately protecting U.S. personnel outside of official facilities? 

Answer. Protection of our people and their families overseas as they go about 

their daily lives is of the utmost importance. Embassy security standards are prescribed by law, and Congress has provided funding to protect soft targets. GAO has 

pointed out that too often, individual posts and the State Department itself are not 

adhering to their own timelines for assessing and updating residential standards. 

As a former manager and leader of a global enterprise, I find this unacceptable. If 

confirmed, I will take seriously my responsibility as leader of the State Department 

and as landlord for all government personnel under Chief of Mission, to assess and 

re-assess as conditions on the ground change the effectiveness of protection measures around the world, and strengthen where needed. 

Also, as many of those serving overseas send their children to schools within the 

local communities, I will make sure that each post has strong guidance to utilize 

the Overseas Schools Advisory Council and Overseas Security Advisory Council 

processes and convene local meetings of subject matter experts and leading American institutions in those host countries to be proactive in providing situational 

awareness to our shared communities of interest, both expat American citizens and 

our diplomatic community. Further, I will continue to seek approval from Congress 

for increased authority to provide advice, guidance and surplus safety supplies to 

potential soft targets. 

Question. In recent years, the State Department has been the victim of several 

cyber attacks. Ineffective protection of cyber assets can lead to disclosure of sensitive information and threaten national security. What steps would you take to prevent future cyber attacks against the State Department? 

Answer. Cyber awareness and training of all those who utilize State Department 

IT systems or handle sensitive information has increased in recent years, but it is 

not enough. Personnel must also recognize and take serious their personal responsibilities to protect against cyber intrusions. The Department must continue to have 

the technical expertise to stay ahead of threats and must coordinate across all U.S. 

government agencies at a senior level, especially those with whom State DepartFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

277 

ment systems share information. No agency can afford to be a weak link in that 

chain. If confirmed, I plan to make sure cyber security is elevated not only as an 

international policy priority but also as an operational imperative, with direct lines 

into the Secretary’s office to assure nobody can underestimate our seriousness. 

Europe 

Question. With Russian support, extreme right-wing parties are gaining prominence and democratic norms, such as transparency and tolerance, are increasingly 

under attack across Europe, in countries like Hungary. 

How will you defend western democracies from increasing Russian influence? 

Answer. It does appear that Russia has embarked on a widespread malign influence campaign to undermine support for western democracies using a variety of 

tools, including propaganda, disinformation, hacking, funding pro-Russian groups 

and parties, and exploiting Russia’s role as a major energy supplier. The best means 

of combating such efforts is to revitalize the Transatlantic partnership, particularly 

NATO, with a renewed sense of collective purpose and strategy to successfully meet 

the common challenges our democracies face—notjustfrom Russian interference and 

intimidation, but from massive flows of refugees and the scourge of radical Islamic 

terrorism. Renewed American leadership and strength will be critical to these efforts. In an effort to combat these efforts I will ensure that the department of State 

continues to drive and invigorate the U.S. efforts underway, through Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and with our partners including Freedom House and National 

endowment for Democracy and others. 

Question. Are you concerned about the shrinking of democratic space in Hungary 

and the increasing pressure on independent media and civil society? 

Answer. The erosion of democratic norms should always be of concern to the 

United States. Hungary is a valued NATO ally and a member of the EU Like much 

of Europe, the Hungarian people have faced major strains in recent years, particularly in the wake of the refugee crisis and the political and economic difficulties 

roiling the EU The United States, in cooperation with our European partners, has 

a significant stake in working to strengthen democratic norms in Hungary and 

across the NATO alliance. 

Question. Are you concerned about the problem of corruption in Hungary and will 

you insist that the U.S. use laws and tools available to combat corruption in Hungary? 

Answer. Eliminating corruption has to be a priority of the United States, not just 

in parts of Hungary but globally. Corruption undermines economic growth, while 

eroding public confidence in democracy and the rule of law. America should be using 

all its available tools to help democratic friends and allies like Hungary curb corruption. 

Question. What will you do to support a robust democracy in Hungary and to insist that Hungary meet its obligations under the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the EU? 

Answer. Hungary is an important NATO ally. The United States, together with 

our Transatlantic partners in both NATO and the ECT, have an important stake 

in supporting and strengthening Hungary’s democracy. Through vigorous bilateral 

and multilateral engagement, we will work to help strengthen democratic norms 

and adherence to OSCE obligations in Hungary and across Europe. 

ExxonMobil and Civil Societv 

Question. Over the last year, ExxonMobil (Exxon) has undertaken a targeted campaign against environmental organizations, journalists, and philanthropists that 

have challenged the company’s record on climate change. In the press and in court, 

Exxon is arguing that routine advocacy activities constitute an illegal conspiracy. 

The nature and scope of Exxon’s campaign against these civil society groups is highly unusual for any large corporation. 

Is this an appropriate approach for the U.S. to adopt in handling our critics on 

the global and national stage? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would foster dialogue with civil society groups, including 

those that may criticize U.S. foreign policy. During my tenure as Chairman and 

CEO, ExxonMobil’s approach to civil litigation was appropriate and consistent with 

accepted practices. 

Question. Why has the company chosen to go down this approach towards handling the charges being brought against the company as opposed to simply looking 

to win in court? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

278 

Answer. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil’s approach to civil 

litigation was appropriate and consistent with accepted practices. 

Question. Given the way your company has chosen to handle civil society criticism 

at ExxonMobil, how would you as Secretary of State defend civil society organizations’ freedoms to associate, assemble, and communicate privately? 

Answer. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil maintained an 

open dialogue with civil society groups. If confirmed, I would vigorously defend civil 

society organizations’ freedoms to associate, assemble, and communicate both publicly and privately. 

Question. Exxon has repeatedly pointed to House Science Committee Chairman 

Smith’s investigation as suggestive of wrongdoing on the part of these civil society 

organizations. 

Did you or anyone at ExxonMobil directly or indirectly request that Chairman 

Lamar Smith investigate and ultimately subpoena private communications of nongovernmental organizations who have criticized Exxon for deceiving the public about 

climate science? 

Answer. I did not do so personally. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, did anyone 

at ExxonMobil. 

Question. Is it fair to characterize your position that it is appropriate for Congress 

to investigate the private communications of organizations whose positions they do 

not agree with? 

Answer. I respect the authority of Congress and have no personal position regarding the scope of its investigative authority other than that it is governed by the U.S. 

Constitution. 

Question. The U.S. government under both Republican and Democratic leadership 

has for decades supported independent civil society and organizations that promote, 

document, and/or monitor issues related to transparency, justice, corruption, human 

rights, and the rule of law. Since 2010 alone, the U.S. has invested more $3 billion 

in strengthening civil society. In addition, the U.S. has often promoted laws, policies, and practices that foster a supportive environment for civil society and has coordinated efforts to push back against undue restrictions on non-governmental organizations, which leaders around the world, from Egypt to Ethiopia, often employ as 

they attempt to suppress organized oversight of governance. Vigorous civil societies, 

not merely development and relief organizations but also advocacy and legal groups, 

help to ensure governments can serve their people. Civic groups amplify isolated 

voices and both empower and leverage ordinary citizens’ ability to engage with and 

influence their governments. 

To this end, will you embrace longstanding U.S. support for independent civil society around the globe? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Do you commit, if confirmed, to promote and meet regularly with independent civil society leaders—even where governments are increasingly intolerant 

of such goups and/or have instituted funding and administrative restrictions? 

Answer. Yes. 

International Security 

Question. As the American Action Forum noted in November, Japan contributes 

50 percent and South Korea 41 percent of the costs to support the American military presence in each country. 

Would you agee that that this cost sharing for America’s bases is fair? 

Answer. Strong alliances are vital to both the United States and its allies. Cost 

sharing arrangements between the United States and Japan and South Korea are 

governed by Special Measures Agreements. Under these bilateral agreements, 

Japan and South Korea provide substantial support to U.S. forces. The Presidentelect has committed to working with U.S. allies to review these arrangements, as 

is done periodically, to ensure that the United States and its allies are each contributing their fair share of the costs and duties of these alliances. 

Question. Would you further agree that the United States shares common security 

interests with both Tokyo and Seoul? 

Answer. The United States, Japan, and South Korea share common interests on 

a multitude of regional and global issues, including managing security challenges 

associated with North Korea and addressing concerns surrounding China’s rise. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

279 

Common interests and values form the basis for the strong and long-standing U.S. 

alliances with both Japan and South Korea. 

Question. Would you also agree that forward-deploying U.S. forces with these 

bases is less costly than projecting them from the U.S. mainland? 

Answer. Forward deploying U.S. forces allows the United States to proactively 

deter aggression, reassure allies and partners, and rapidly respond to emerging crises or conflicts. In addition, forward deploying U.S. forces permits the United States 

to conduct security cooperation activities with U.S. allies and partners as well as 

maximize the time that U.S. forces spend operating in the region. Independent studies suggest that there could be some cost savings from bringing U.S. forces back to 

the United States, but these savings would have to be balanced against the geopolitical and operational disadvantages of withdrawing U.S. forces. 

Question. How would you interpret the President-elect’s remark last year in regards to our Asian alliances that ‘‘at some point, there is going to be a point at 

which we just can’t do this anymore.’’ 

Answer. President-elect Trump’s comment arose in the context of needing our allies, including Japan and South Korea, to do more to support and strengthen our 

alliances. Indeed, both Japan and South Korea have been taking on more responsibilities in recent years. Japan, under the leadership ofPrime Minister Abe, has 

sought to make more proactive contributions to regional and international security, 

which are welcomed by the United States. Leaders in South Korea have also been 

taking a more proactive role on the Korean peninsula and beyond, including supporting advanced missile defenses to better protect both the Korean people and allied forces on the peninsula. The United States must continue to encourage Japan, 

South Korea, and other allies to do more to strengthen our alliances to address 

mounting security challenges. 

Question. What is the President-elect proposing, and what is the threshold that 

he mentioned? 

Answer. The President-elect has made clear that the United States needs to examine the roles, missions, and cost-sharing arrangements in each of its alliances. 

It is natural for allies to examine these questions periodically to ensure that each 

ally is paying and doing its fair share. No threshold level of support should apply 

across the hoard. Instead, alliances should be evaluated independently to ensure 

that all parties are fairly cooperating in efforts to support and strengthen our 

shared alliances. 

Latin America 

Question. In 2016, Venezuela delivered the world’s worst economic performance in 

terms of GDP contraction and inflation. As the country has moved towards economic 

collapse, widespread shortages of essential medicines and basic food products have 

created an increasingly urgent humanitarian situation. This situation is complicated 

by an authoritarian government whose members are engaged in widespread corruption and, in the case of some officials, direct involvement in the drug trade. While 

final data is not available, the IMF projected that in 2016, the Venezuelan contracted 10 percent and inflation exceeded 750 percent; both figures are the highest 

in the world. 

If confirmed, what policy tools do you recommend the U.S. use to mitigate the 

growing humanitarian crisis, collapsing economy, and significant national security 

concerns present in Venezuela? 

Answer. The United States should continue to support legitimate dialogue to resolve the political crisis between the Maduro government and the opposition that 

now controls the National Assembly. We must continue to denounce the Maduro 

government’s undemocratic practices, callfor the release of political prisoners, and 

enforce sanctions against Venezuelan human rights violators and narcotics traffickers. We should deliver humanitarian aid to mitigate food insecurity and the 

shortage of medical supplies, as appropriate. U.S. assistance to Venezuela supports 

the defense of human rights, the promotion of civil society, and the strengthening 

of democratic institutions; however, Venezuela is currently subject to certain restrictions. Since 2005, Venezuela has ‘‘failed demonstrably’’ to adhere to its obligations 

under international counter-narcotics agreements. 

Question. The Obama Administration has worked with our Latin American partners, both bilaterally and at the Organization of American States. How will you 

work with other governments in the region to address the challenges in Venezuela? 

Answer. The growing political, economic, and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela is 

of great concern to the United States and our Latin American allies. We will engage 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

280 

partner nations in the region, like Colombia, which is directly impacted by a migration crisis from Venezuela, to improve the human rights and economic conditions 

in Venezuela. We will continue to strongly support the efforts of OAS Secretary 

General Almagro in invoking the Inter-American Democratic Charter to promote the 

normalization of the situation in Venezuela and restore democratic institutions. 

Question. In your role at Exxon, you have repeatedly expressed skepticism of U.S. 

sanctions. In the case, of Venezuela, the White House has carried out congressionally-mandated targeted sanctions against specific officials in the Venezuelan government that have been involved in human rights abuses and gross public corruption. 

If confirmed, will you advocate that the U.S. continue to hold Venezuelan government officials to account, especially given the acute levels of impunity in that country? 

Answer. Yes. I will enforce all congressionally-mandated sanctions including the 

measures in the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Extension 

Act of 2016. 

Question. During his tenure as former Commander of U.S. Southern Command, 

General John F. Kelly repeatedly spoke about the corrupting impact of illicit drug 

trafficking on democratic institutions and the rule of law in Central America. The 

United Nations International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) 

and the Organization of American States Support Mission Against Corruption and 

Impunity in Honduras (MACCIH) have played a critical role in stemming corruption 

and impunity in these countries. 

Given your affirmative response to question G.I. in the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee questionnaire and expressed commitment to supporting U.S. efforts globally to address corruption, if confirmed as Secretary of State, will you commit to 

maintaining continued U.S. political and financial support for CICIG and MACCIH? 

Answer. Yes, we will continue to support the important anti-corruption mission 

of the CICIG in Guatemala and MACCIH in Honduras. We will also provide foreign 

assistance to our Central American partners to help combat crime and impunity, 

promote public safety, and ensure that citizens of those countries have access to a 

functioning and fair justice system. 

Middle East 

Question. The war in Yemen began more than two years ago. Since that time, 

more than 7,000 people have been killed, 2.2 million children suffer from malnutrition, and at least 1,000 Yemeni children die every week from preventable diseases. 

As the Saudi-led coalition continues to bomb the country, including civilian targets 

such as schools, hospitals, and funerals, the stalemate has allowed extremist groups 

like al Qaeda and ISIS to take over large swaths of territory. 

♦ Should the U.S. continue to provide aerial refueling to Saudi jets to continue 

bombing, or pause that kind of military cooperation until a peace deal? 

♦ How would you work to bring about an end to this conflict? 

Answer. The conflict in Yemen is deeply concerning to the United States for humanitarian and strategic reasons. Iran is supporting the Shia Houthiforces as part 

of a drive to extend its influence over broad swaths of the Middle East. Taking advantage of the ensuing civil war and collapse of the internationally-recognized government’s authority, al-Qaeda and ISIS affiliates have taken control of territory 

elsewhere in Yemen. The United States should engage with Saudi Arabia and its 

other allies in the region to reduce the humanitarian toll of this conflict, improves 

stability, and prevent terrorists from targeting the American homeland. 

Question. President-elect Trump’s September 2016 meeting with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi raised a number of concerns. Following the meeting, 

Trump issued a statement describing his ‘‘strong support for Egypt’s war on terrorism,’’ and noting, ‘‘under the Trump Administration, the United States of America will be a loyal friend, not simply an ally, that Egypt can count on in the days 

and years ahead.’’ Given the repressive measures President al-Sisi has championed 

over the last three years—from attacks against civil society to the arbitrary detention of tens of thousands of people (including Americans like Aya Hijazi, a Virginian, who have been imprisoned on trumped up and bogus charges) and abuse 

while in prison—the absence of any mention of Egypt’s substantial human rights 

abuses and lack of democratic rule was deeply troubling. 

♦ Do you believe that the U.S. should continue to provide Egypt with minimally 

conditioned security assistance? 

♦ As Secretary of State, how would you work with Egypt’s leaders to refocus its 

energies on countering its real security threats and reforming its economy, 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

281 

while respecting freedom of the press, due process, civil society, and other fundamental freedoms? 

♦ What are the risks to Egypt’s stability if its leaders continue down the same 

path of repression and economic stagnation? 

♦ What will you do to secure the release of imprisoned American citizens such as 

Aya Hijazi? 

Answer. The situation in Egypt is perilous. Cairo faces an ISIS insurgency in the 

Sinai, continued terrorism in its population centers, and a civil war on its border 

in Libya. I will engage the government ofEgypt to ensure America’s key strategic 

and moral interests are met. This includes assisting Cairo in establishing peace and 

stability, and working with the al-Sisi government to ensure that basic standards 

of key freedoms are met, includingfreedom of the press. The United States and 

Egypt have been close partners for more than thirty years, andforeign assistance 

has been a key part of ensuring stability in both Egypt and the region. Lastly, I 

will consider detained Americans and American hostages a top priority for the State 

Department and work to secure their release. 

Question. Due to low oil prices, the IMF has projected a $500 billion decline in revenue for the Gulf countries in 2016, on top of the $390 billion lost in 2015. This 

massive shortfall has crippled Gulf economies, which are facing record budget deficits and introducing subsidy cuts and economic reforms in response. As a return to 

$100 per barrel oil is unlikely in the near-term, U.S. allies in the Gulf will have 

no choice but to walk back the longtime social compact of ‘‘no representation, but 

no taxation either’’ with their citizens. 

Question. With your background at Exxon, and now as Secretary of State, do you 

believe it is necessary for U.S. allies in the Gulf diversify their economies away from 

oil? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. What is the risk to their stability, and to U.S. military assets and cooperation with those allies, if they do not? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. I believe in general, however, that economic freedom and economic 

development are crucialfactors in political stability and that peace and stability are 

sorely needed in the region. 

Question. In the Syrian conflict, the U.S. finds itself allied with Syrian Kurds 

(YPG) who constitute the bulk of the U.S.-sponsored fighting force against ISIL in 

Syria. However, Turkey deems YPG to be a terrorist group, linked to Kurdistan 

Workers Party (PKK) and has backed Sunni Arab groups against YPG in northern 

Syria. Furthermore, relations between U.S.-backed Kurdish factions in Iraq and 

Syria remain tense at best. 

♦ How do you propose to bring these parties together, especially at a time when 

Russia and Turkey are drawing closer to each other? 

♦ Do you support YPG’s aspirations for a Kurdish homeland ’’Rojava’’ or YPG’s 

proposed federal plan for Syria? 

Answer. Both Turkey and the Syrian Kurdish forces are key partners in the fight 

against ISIS. We are committed to working with Turkish, Kurdish, and Arab stakeholders in Syria to ensure a stable future for the country where the humanitarian 

needs of its citizens, both parties’ key concerns, and the national security interests 

of the United States are addressed. We will engage both the Syrian Kurds and Turkey constantly both bilaterally and in multilateral forums to achieve this outcome. 

Question. In Dec. 2016, President-elect Trump voiced support for ‘‘safe zones’’ in 

Syria to help Syrians impacted by the ongoing conflict. He also said that he ‘‘will 

get the Gulf states to give us lots of money, and we’ll build and help build safe zones 

in Syria, so people can have a chance.’’ 

♦ Do you believe Gulf nations will support U.S. plans for safe zones if the Trump 

administration intends to join forces with Russia and the Assad regime? 

♦ Where will these ‘‘safe zones’’ be located and who will build them? 

♦ Assuming that Russia and Assad regime are onboard with this plan, who will 

defend these ‘‘safe zones’’? Do you intend on going to the U.N. and ask for a 

peacekeeping mission? 

Answer. The United States should work closely with its allies and partners in the 

Middle East to build a future for Syria that is stable politically and meets the basic 

human rights of its citizens. Of particular concern is the current humanitarian condition of displaced Syrians. The United States should engage with Turkey, Jordan, 

and other partners to establish areas along the Syrian border that are safe zones 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

282 

for refugees, where humanitarian aid can be offered. We will engage in multilateral 

forums to ensure that the stakeholders respect the imperative of these safe zones 

and work to alleviate humanitarian suffering. 

Question. Due to low oil prices, the IMF has projected a $500 billion decline in revenue for the Gulf countries in 2016, on top of the $390 billion lost in 2015. This 

massive shortfall has crippled Gulf economies, which are facing record budget deficits and introducing subsidy cuts and economic reforms in response. As a return to 

$100 per barrel oil is unlikely in the near-term, U.S. allies in the Gulf will have 

no choice but to walk back the longtime social compact of ‘‘no representation, but 

no taxation either’’ with their citizens. 

1With your background at Exxon, and now as Secretary of State, do you believe 

it is necessary for U.S. allies in the Gulf diversify their economies away from oil? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. What is the risk to their stability, and to U.S. military assets and cooperation with those allies, if they do not? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. I believe in general, however, that economic freedom and economic 

development are crucial factors in political stability and that peace and stability are 

sorely needed in the region. 

Question. Your predecessor spent long spells of time negotiating the nuclear 

agreement with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and the relationship they developed became a useful channel for resolving other crises. 

♦ Do you believe that we should continue to engage diplomatically with Iran even 

if we consider the relationship adversarial or would you recommend ceasing 

communication? 

♦ Will you be willing to meet with Foreign Minister Zarif? 

♦ Do you believe we should continue to uphold the Joint Comprehensive Plan of 

Action or look for a way to withdraw? 

Answer. The United States should closely examine, and at the very least rigorously enforce, the provisions of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). 

It should engage the MEA, the Joint Commission, and other international and multilateral organizations—as well as individual states—to ensure Iran does not cheat 

on its commitments. At the same time, the United States should work with its regional partners and allies to dismantle Iran’s sponsorship of terrorist groups and 

block Iranian aggression throughout the Middle East. 

Fragile States 

Question. Many of the conflicts we see around the world today are the result of 

weak and fragile states like Somalia, Iraq, and Syria, which are fueled by—and continue to breed—poverty and violence. In fact, 10 years ago 80% of our humanitarian 

assistance went to natural disasters, while today 80% goes to alleviating suffering 

in fragile and conflict-ridden states. On top of this, the number of people living in 

these states is expected to rise to nearly 2 billion people by 2030. 

How will you use your platform as Secretary of State to address the underlying 

causes of weak and fragile states to help prevent further instability and conflict? 

Answer. The Department of State and USAID already have programs that focus 

on the causes and potential remedies for weak and fragile states, including the 

Interagency Conflict Assessment Framework. This program provides guidance for 

implementing stabilization protocols. USAID programs, such as Provincial Reconstruction Teams, serve as a measure to support revitalization in fragile states. By 

continuing these programs, we will better understand the underlying causes of individual weak and fragile states, and utilize those results to craft better diplomatic 

and development policy. 

Question. We still have about 10,000 troops in Afghanistan and provide billions 

in security and development assistance. The U.S. has provided billions in security 

assistance to Pakistan since 9/11 but the country’s intelligence services continue to 

support terrorist groups. President-elect Trump rarely spoke about Afghanistan during the campaign, though in October 2015, he described the U.S. decision to invade 

the country in 2001 as a ‘‘terrible mistake.’’ ‘‘It’s a mess, it’s a mess and at this point 

we probably have to [leave U.S. troops in Afghanistan] because that thing will collapse in about two seconds after they leave,’’ he said. At the same time, he has questioned Washington’s commitment to NATO, which leads the mission in Afghanistan. 

♦ Can you describe the Trump administration’s long-term strategy in Afghanistan? 

♦ How do you see our interests in Afghanistan? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

283 

♦ Do you think that the U.S. should pursue a peace deal in the country? 

♦ What are our interests with respect to Pakistan? 

♦ How will you change the U.S. approach in order to change Pakistan’s behavior? 

Answer. The war in Afghanistan is the longest war in American history. Today, 

the United States should engage the government of Afghanistan President Ashraf 

Ghani and CEO Abdullah Abdullah to increase stability, reduce corruption, ensure 

a better standard of living for Afghans, particularly women and girls, and ensure 

that Afghanistan is never again used as a base for international terrorism. The 

United States should also engage with Islamabad to strengthen the civilian government and eliminate the safe havens that terrorist groups like the Haqqani network 

enjoy. The United States should work with both Afghanistan and Pakistan to encourage cooperation, build trust, and seek to ensure regional stability in a context 

of mutual respect and understanding of each country’ interests. 

Countering Violent Extremism 

Question. With young people increasingly the target of online recruitment by terrorist organizations, and youth populations in critical regions like Africa growing 

rapidly—now making up 60% of the unemployed on the continent—it is more important than ever to engage youth around the world in productive ways. For example, 

the State Department has partnered with Facebook to create opportunities for 

young people to help counter extremism online. 

What will you do as Secretary of State to prioritize youth engagement to help 

counter violent extremism? 

Answer. Over the past year, we have discovered that counter-radicalization is 

most effective when it leverages not only the resources of the U.S. government, but 

those of the private sector as well. As Secretary, I would direct the Department to 

work with partner organizations-including social media outlets like Facebook and 

Twitter, as well as private entities such as Google’s in-house ‘‘think tank, ‘‘ Jigsawto fully explore technologies and methods that can best engage youth and help steer 

them away from radicalization. 

Torture 

Question. During the campaign, President-elect Trump made several very troubling statements in support of waterboarding and other types of torture. 

Have you discussed with the president-elect his comments expressing support for 

targeting families of terrorists in lethal strike operations, and if so what have you 

advised and told him in that regard? 

Answer. I have not discussed the issue with the President-elect. The Presidentelect has stated that he understands that the United States is bound by laws and 

treaties, that he will not order military or other officials to disobey the law, and that 

he will seek the advice of those officials on such matters. 

Question. Do you agree that waterboarding is torture? 

Answer. Federal law provides that no individual in U.S. custody may be subjected 

to any interrogation technique or approach that is not authorized by and listed in 

the Army Field Manual. If confirmed, I would support the Administration in complying with that law and all other applicable law. 

Question. Do you think that core international prohibitions on torture and war 

crimes can be ‘‘changed’’? 

Answer. The United States is bound by treaties and domestic laws, including prohibitions on torture and war crimes, that are consistent with and demonstrates our 

values and principles. I do not support and cannot foresee that changing. Our role 

in the world has entailed a place of moral leadership in the scope of international 

affairs, and I am committed to continuing that historical role. 

Question. Do you acknowledge on the record that the U.S. government cannot unilaterally change what is prohibited under international law? 

Answer. As I have emphasized, the United States should hold itself accountable 

to our obligations, which includes complying with international legal obligations. We 

must also hold our allies, friends, and those who are not our friends accountable 

to their international legal obligations. 

The Executive Branch must always act in accordance with and subject to the U.S. 

Constitution and applicable laws. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

284 

SECRETARY-DESIGNATE TILLERSON’S ANSWERS TO

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MARKEY

Nuclear Issues 

Question. One of the responsibilities of the State Department is to negotiate 

peaceful nuclear cooperation agreements with foreign nations. In the past, many of 

these agreements have provided countries with so-called ‘‘advance consent’’ to 

produce separated plutonium by reprocessing U.S.-obligated spent fuel. Nonproliferation advocates have warned, however, that such agreements encourage the 

wider use of reprocessing, a technology that brings countries closer to a nuclear 

weapons capability and creates even more weapons-usable material in the world. 

Do you believe that the proliferation of reprocessing technology is positive for 

global efforts to curtail the spread of nuclear weapons? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would seek further briefings on the details of the State 

Department’s peaceful nuclear cooperation agreements. As a general matter, however, the United States has properly been concerned about the spread of certain 

technologies and capabilities that are critical to developing nuclear weapons. 

Question. Will you commit, if confirmed as Secretary, to refrain from signing nuclear cooperation agreements that include advance consent to reprocess U.S.-obligated spent fuel? If not, why not? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would seek further briefings on the details of U.S. peaceful 

nuclear cooperation agreements. But in general, I certainly share the longstanding 

U.S. concern about the spread of dangerous technologies that are critical for the development of nuclear weapons. As Secretary of State, concerns about proliferation 

would be a key factor in my approach to future negotiations on peaceful nuclear cooperation. 

Question. Another policy that would curtail the risk of nuclear proliferation globally would be to exclusively sign nuclear cooperation agreements in which foreign 

nations agree to forswear enrichment and reprocessing altogether. Agreements such 

as these have previously been referred to as the ‘‘gold standard’’ of nuclear nonproliferation. Will you commit, if confirmed, to only pursue ‘‘gold standard’’ nuclear 

cooperation agreements? If not, why not? 

Answer. If confirmed, it would certainly be my overall approach to press hard for 

‘‘gold standard’’ nuclear cooperation agreements. 

Question. In 2013, the Pentagon stated that the United States could maintain effective deterrence against threats to our homeland and our allies with a one-third 

reduction in our deployed nuclear arsenal. In other words, we have far more nuclear 

weapons than we need for deterrence. If confirmed as Secretary of State, will you 

pursue additional agreements with Russia that would lead to sensible reductions in 

both countries’ nuclear arsenals? If not, why not? 

Answer. While the next phase of U.S. arms control policy will be reviewed by the 

incoming Trump administration, I, in general, support efforts to negotiate a stable 

nuclear balance with Russia at the lowest possible numbers-while bearing in mind 

the growing arsenals of China and other nuclear powers, as well as the nuclear ambitions of dangerous states like North Korea and Iran. I believe that the United 

States must maintain a reliable and credible nuclear deterrent 

Question. Both Japan and China are currently pursuing plans for commercial 

scale spent-fuel reprocessing facilities that could produce thousands of pounds of nuclear-weapons usable plutonium every year. South Korea has also expressed interest 

in acquiring reprocessing technologies in the future. This economically irrational 

competition to stockpile vast quantities of bomb-usable material could trigger a nuclear arms race in East Asia. 

Do you agree that the pursuit of commercial-scale reprocessing by countries in 

East Asia is bad for nuclear nonproliferation? If not, why not? 

Answer. I share the concern regarding the proliferation dangers that could flow 

from ever-expanding stockpiles of fissile material in key regions of the world. 

Question. One means of preventing a nuclear arms race in East Asia would be 

to encourage Japan and China to agree to pause their plans to pursue commercialscale production of plutonium. Will you commit, if confirmed as Secretary, to pursue 

such a pause agreement? If not, why not? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. But as a general matter, I share the concern about the proliferation 

dangers associated with the spread of large-scale plutonium production and stockpiling. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

285 

Question. India and Pakistan’s nuclear competition continues unabated, and in 

some ways is accelerating. At the same time, the previous administration sought to 

include India as a participating government in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, despite 

clear NSG guidelines that only NPT member states should join. 

Do you agree with the Obama administration’s policy, or do you intend to maintain the standard articulated in the NSG guidelines? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would want to be briefed more fully on the issues involved, taking into account both our proliferation priorities as well as our strategic 

interest in strengthening our ties with India-the world’s largest democracy and one 

of Asia’s most powerful states. 

Question. What steps do you intend to take to reduce the dangerous nuclear competition between India and Pakistan, reduce the risk of nuclear war between them, 

and encourage both countries to take meaningful steps toward arms control and disarmament? 

Answer. India and Pakistan’s nuclear competition continues unabated, and in 

some ways is accelerating. If confirmed, U.S. concerns about South Asia’s escalating 

nuclear competition would be an important priority in our diplomacy with both 

India and Pakistan. 

Question. You said during your confirmation hearing that a ‘‘deal is a deal.’’ The 

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran is a deal that has led to unprecedented constraints on Iran’s nuclear program. Most importantly, it has increased 

the amount of time it would take for Iran to acquire enough fissile material for a 

single nuclear weapon from several months to a full year. Will you commit, if confirmed, to preserve and strengthen this agreement, so that Iran does not acquire 

the capability necessary to develop nuclear weapons? 

Answer. The incoming administration intends to conduct a deliberate review of 

the JCPOA in order to determine its approach. At a minimum, it will be critical to 

ensure that all provisions of the deal are strictly enforced to hold Iran accountable 

and deter any cheating. 

Question. In 1996, the United States signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban 

Treaty (CTBT). Unfortunately, in 1999, the Senate declined to ratify the treaty, and 

it was returned to the executive calendar of the Senate. When the Senate first took 

up the treaty, many Senators were concerned that the Stockpile Stewardship Program was inadequate to ensure the safety, security, and effectiveness of our arsenal, 

and that the International Monitoring System would be incapable of effectively 

verifying compliance with the terms of the treaty. More than 17 years later, both 

of these systems have been proven repeatedly. For that reason, former Secretary of 

State George Schultz has said that Senators ‘‘might have been right voting against 

[the CTBT] some years ago, but they would be right voting for it now, based on 

these new facts.’’ Writing with others, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft said, ‘‘Ratifying [the CTBT] will be to the international advantage of the 

United States.’’ Former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird noted that ‘‘[t]here are 

advantages to the United States in our international relations in ratifying the test 

ban treaty.’’ 

Do you disagree with General Scowcroft that ratifying the CTBT ‘‘will be to the 

international advantage of the United States?’’ If you disagree, please provide an 

explanation as to why. 

Answer. If confirmed, I would seek a fuller briefing in today’s context from experts 

on the CTBT and both the advantages and concerns associated with it. 

Question. Would you support terminating the United States’ unilateral moratorium on nuclear test explosions, which has now been observed by every presidential 

administration beginning with President George H. W. Bush? If yes, why? 

As a general matter, so long as the reliability and credibility of the U.S. nuclear 

deterrent is guaranteed, I would be supportive of the moratorium. 

Question. Will you commit, if confirmed as Secretary, to oppose any proposal to 

renounce the U.S. signature of the CTBT? If not, why not? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would seek a fuller briefing on any proposals concerning 

the CTBT. 

Question. Do you support the continued implementation of the New START accord 

with Russia? 

Answer. Yes, I support implementation of New START and working closely with 

Russia to ensure the treaty’s obligations and commitments are observed. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

286 

Global Health Policy 

Question. The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) was created 

in 2003 to advance the fight against global HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria 

ravaging sub-Saharan Africa. Nearly 14 years later, the program’s progress in HIV/ 

AIDS treatment and prevention speaks for itself- nearly 2 million babies who would 

have been infected by HIV were born free of the autoimmune disease, and more 

than I I million men, women and children have received access to HIV treatment. 

How do you intend to ensure that this transformative global health program continues to drive progress towards the end of HIV and AIDS around the world? 

Answer. PEPFAR has proven to be an extremely valuable and successful program. 

In order to ensure that we address the ongoing endemic of HIV/AIDS, if is important that we continue to support PEPFAR. It serves as a model for other global 

health programs we may decide to initiate. The best of these initiatives project 

America’s values, show our compassion, and alleviate suffering. 

Question. While incredible progress has been made on our global fight against infectious diseases, particularly HIV and Malaria, which have dedicated Presidential 

initiatives. Tuberculosis (TB) is as a growing and persistent threat that now kills 

4,900 people each day, more than malaria and HIV/AIDS combined. This airborne 

disease is now the leading global infectious disease killer—sickening over 10 million 

a year and killing 1.8 million. TB is curable, but there is growing drug resistance. 

Treating Multi-drug Resistant TB (MDR-TB) involves 250 injections and 15,000 pills 

over a 2-year period. If you survive the disease and the grueling treatment, the side 

effects often include permanent hearing loss. MDR-TB is a global health security 

threat—620 cases occurred in the United States from 2009 to 2014. Because of this, 

the Obama Administration issued a National Action Plan in 2015 to address the epidemic, but more resources are needed at USAID to fully implement the Plan. What 

will you do to get us on track to end the plague of TB once and for all and encourage 

more advancement in the science, treatment, and diagnosis of TB and its drug resistant forms? 

Answer. The global health programs focused on fighting diseases, including 

USAID’s Global Tuberculosis (TB) Program, have proven to be extremely valuable 

and successful. In order to ensure that we effectively address continuing crises and 

outbreaks, it is important to understand how success is achieved in various global 

health programs. Once we understand their success, we should follow their example, 

so that we can properly prevent, detect, and respond to future outbreaks. 

Question. In August of 2016, while Angola and the surrounding region were battling one of the worst outbreaks of yellow fever in recent history, approximately one 

million vials of yellow fever vaccine out of six million that international donors provided to help combat the outbreak were reportedly missing, likely due to corruption 

and mismanagement. Longstanding U.S. policy under both Democratic and Republican administrations has been committed to advancing health and combating disease outbreaks worldwide. If confirmed as Secretary of State, what steps would you 

take to ensure that U.S. medical assistance actually reaches the people it is intended to help? 

Answer. The global health programs focused on fighting diseases, including 

PEPFAR, PMI, and USAID’s Global Tuberculosis (TB) Program, as well as the Global Health Security Agenda, have proven to be extremely valuable and successful 

programs. In order to ensure that we effectively address emerging crises and outbreaks, such as yellow fever, it is important to understand how their success is 

achieved so that we can properly prevent, detect, and respond to future outbreaks. 

Our contribution to global health programs has been consequential in terms of saving lives and ending misery. These programs should continue. 

Question. Current law allows U.S. funds to support safe abortion services that are 

not undertaken as a method of family planning, such as for women who are the victims of rape or incest, or who face life-threatening pregnancies. 

Will you pledge to implement the law fully and ensure that women, including 

those raped by ISIS terrorists, and who depend on U.S. foreign assistance, will have 

access to safe abortion services if they wish to terminate their pregnancies? 

Answer. I will abide by the long-standing protections of the Helms amendment, 

which, as you noted, governs these types of decisions. 

Question. Will you pledge to ensure that women who depend on U.S. foreign assistance who face a life threatening pregnancy and will die without a safe termination procedure will have access to it? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

287 

Answer. If confirmed, I will seek to ensure that, consistent with the law and the 

scope of their programs and resources, organizations receiving U.S. foreign assistance funding to provide medical care deliver emergency care to any woman facing 

a life-threatening medical emergency. 

Question. In February of 2014, the Obama administration launched the five-year 

Global Health Security Agenda, a U.S.-led initiative with 88 partner countries seeking to prevent, detect, and respond to outbreaks, whether they be natural, accidental, or intentional. Within a month, the first Ebola case was reported in Liberia. 

Since then, the Agenda has had a great impact on the fight towards a healthier and 

secure world, including a multi-national voluntary assessment for member countries 

currently being coordinated by Finland. If confirmed as Secretary of State, how 

would you seek to advance the Agenda to 2019 and beyond? 

Answer. In the coming year, we have the opportunity to develop the Department 

of State-USAID Joint Strategic Plan. Utilizing input from both agencies, we will be 

able to assess current threats and looming global health challenges, as well as how 

programs from each agency may contribute to resolving threats and challenges. 

International law and institutions 

Question. Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has led the 

creation and expansion of a rules-based international order that has advanced our 

nation’s security and economic interests. 

Foundations of this system include the United Nations, the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and regional international development banks, and the 

World Trade Organization and related bodies. Many observers believe that this 

order is now under increasing strain as global conflicts challenge multilateral institutions, at the same time as some leaders, including the President-elect, have increasingly questioned the validity of longstanding alliances and international organizations. 

Do you believe that an international order based on common rules serves American interests? If not, why not? 

Answer. Yes, American interests are served by a rules-based international order 

that helps to facilitate security and prosperity and to promote liberty and human 

dignity. 

Question. If confirmed, will you work to strengthen those international institutions that have served U.S. interests well for so many decades? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. In June 2012, you wrote to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 

behalf of ExxonMobil to urge ratification of the United Nations Convention on the 

Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). That same month, General Mattis, President-elect 

Trump’s nominee for Defense Secretary, wrote to this committee and said that joining the Treaty would strengthen U.S. maritime transit rights in critical waterways, 

like the Straits of Hormuz, particularly with respect to Iran, which is not a member 

of the treaty. 

Do you still believe that international law, including this Treaty, advances broad 

U.S. economic and security interests? Will you proactively advocate for the Senate 

to ratify UNCLOS? Why or why not? 

Answer. The United States should only join treaties that advance U.S. national 

interests. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has been debated 

on several occasions by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and I will, if 

confirmed, examine UNCLOS to determine whether it is in the best interests of the 

United States to be a party. 

Human Rights 

Question. Globally, there are more victims of human trafficking today than at any 

other point in history. This scourge also affects the United States, with as many as 

17,500 persons brought into the United States every year, and more than 100,000 

trafficked within our borders. In addition, legalized indentured servitude exists in 

several countries around the world, notably in Qatar and Bahrain (where the 

United States maintains a naval base). 

Both human trafficking and indentured servitude are clearly antithetical to American values and human rights, and administrations of both parties have committed 

to combating this scourge, as required by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and 

related laws. If confirmed as Secretary of State, how would you uphold human 

rights and deepen U.S. efforts to address trafficking in persons and protection of 

workers in the global supply chain? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

288 

Answer. Should I be confirmed as Secretary, I will commit to combat the scourge 

of human trafficking consistent with the law and policy preferences of the Presidentelect. 

Question. Exxon Mobil operates in, and has many employees in, countries with 

significant human rights abuses. Through your interactions with foreign leaders as 

CEO of Exxon for over a decade, did you ever raise concerns about their human 

rights abuses? If yes, please provide specific examples. If no, why not? 

Answer. Yes. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, I did speak 

with foreign leaders about human rights and democracy concerns. As I expressed 

during my confirmation hearing on January 11, human rights violations, if left 

unaddressed, cause great upheaval in civil society. I believe that respect for human 

rights and the rule of law are essential foundations for a stable and functioning society. 

As an example, during my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil worked collaboratively with the Qatari government to improve living conditions for foreign 

workers in Qatar. 

Question. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community is 

often subject to some of the worst human rights violations around the globe. From 

Russia passing laws that ban the expression or assembly of those who support 

LGBT rights, to vehemently anti-LGBT rhetoric and actions in Indonesia, hate 

crimes against the international LGBT community are still all too prevalent. Seventy three countries have criminal laws against LGBT sexual activity and 10 nations punish homosexual activity by death. 

Do you agree that when the LGBT community or other minority groups are targeted for discrimination or abuse the United States should respond in a meaningful 

way? 

Answer. The United States needs to stand firmly for all human rights. This includes support for basic political freedoms such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, as well as nondiscrimination against women, minorities, and 

LGBT persons. Indeed, the denial of basic political freedoms is often the backdrop 

against which discrimination against LGBT persons takes place. 

Question. In July, President-elect Trump stated that he would do ‘‘everything in 

his power’’ to protect LGBT people. Do you commit to doing everything in your 

power to protect the international LGBT community? 

Answer. President-elect Trump stated in July that he would do everything in his 

power to protect all Americans against the threat of violence. If confirmed, my highest responsibility will be to protect the lives of Americans who are entrusted to me, 

the men and women of the Department of State and their families, particularly 

those who serve in dangerous posts overseas. 

Answer. Similarly, I am committed to seeking constructive, practical ways to ensure that all people in foreign countries are also protected against the threat of violence. 

Question. The international LGBT community is often the target of violence, from 

terrorist groups, gangs, and sometimes their government. What action do you plan 

to take that will reduce the violence against the LGBT community abroad? 

Answer. In seeking to formulate strategies to counter violence against persons 

overseas, I will be sure to consult with the bureaus and offices in the Department 

of State that are responsible for issues pertaining to criminal enterprises and terrorist organizations, as well as those bureaus and offices of the Department of State 

that are responsible for issues pertaining to governance and the rule of law. 

Furthermore, I will be sure to evaluate existing programs and activities to make 

sure they are efficient and effective. 

Question. Can you please specify how the State Department, in its daily operations, will continue to protect the human rights of LGBT persons abroad? 

Answer. As I consider ways in which the Department of State can improve its engagement on issues involving the protection of human rights in foreign countries, 

I will be sure to consider criteria related to governance and the rule of law in these 

countries and what their short and long term impacts are on affected persons, consistent with the direction of the President-elect 

Question. A State Department employee was brutally killed in a stabbing attack 

this past summer in Bangladesh. This hate crime stemmed from the employee’s 

known leading role in the publication of Bangladesh’s first LGBT magazine. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

289 

Under your leadership, how will the State Department ensure that freedom of expression and speech for the LGBT community and other minorities are protected? 

Answer. The United States needs to stand firmly for all human rights. This includes support for basic political freedoms such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, as well as nondiscrimination against women, minorities, and 

LGBT persons. Indeed, the denial of basic political freedoms is often the backdrop 

against which discrimination against LGBT persons takes place. 

Question. How will you ensure that the rights of minority State Department employees abroad are protected? 

Answer. As I mentioned above, if confirmed, my highest responsibility will be to 

protect the lives of Americans who are entrusted to me, the men and women of the 

Department of State and their families, particularly those who serve in dangerous 

posts overseas. I will be sure to work with the governments of host nations in highconflict or unstable areas to ensure the safety of State Department personnel as 

well as the protection of their rights under the law. 

Question. In June 2013, Russia enacted what has become known as the ‘‘gay propaganda law,’’ targeting the LGBT community by limiting their freedom of speech 

and expression. Since then, the introduction and passage of Russian-style anti-propaganda laws across Eastern Europe and parts of Central Asia has increased. 

Given the United States commitment to democracy and freedom of speech, how 

will you, as Secretary of State, work with these countries to ensure that the most 

vulnerable populations are protected? 

Answer. The United States needs to stand firmly for all human rights. This includes support for basic political freedoms such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, as well as nondiscrimination against women, minorities, and 

LGBT persons. Indeed, the denial of basic political freedoms is often the backdrop 

against which discrimination against LGBT persons takes place. 

If confirmed, I will seek strategies for engagement with foreign countries to ensure the protection of vulnerable populations, for example, in the development of the 

rule of law and countering of destabilization. Further, I will seek information regarding regional trends in policy making, including legislative trends, and what is 

contributing to these trends, including the positions of various stakeholders that are 

involved in the passage of legislation of interest to vulnerable populations. 

Question. How will you work toward ultimate repeal of these exclusionary laws? 

Answer. As I formulate potential responses on the part of the Department of State 

to legislative trends in foreign countries, I will be sure to consider the interests and 

positions of the relevant stakeholders in these countries in order to make a wellinformed assessment of what would be practical opportunities for engagement with 

the governments of these foreign countries. 

Question. The United States is the only eligible country that has not ratified the 

U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United States helped to draft portions of the convention and signed it in 1995. Both the Bush and Obama administrations supported ratification of the 1989 convention, but to date it has not come 

to a vote in the Senate. The convention includes protections such as a ban on the 

use of child soldiers, the rights of children to stay in contact with their families 

across international borders, special rights as refugees, and the rights of parents to 

have a say in determining what is best for their child and protecting their child’s 

rights. 

Do you support this convention, and what are your plans to support efforts to defend the rights of children around the world, if you are confirmed as Secretary of 

State? 

Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress to advance the 

wellbeing of children around the world. 

OPEC 

Question. Last month, the Secretary General of OPEC raised the specter of further OPEC deals to manipulate oil markets. He continued that such deals would 

be ‘‘incomplete’’ without the United States. He reportedly continued that every country stands to benefit from more stable oil prices and that ‘‘we do not live in a world 

of energy-independent nations.’’ Part of the President-elect’s energy plan called for 

the United States to ‘‘become, and stay, totally independent of any need to import 

energy from the OPEC cartel or any nations hostile to our interests.’’ Do you agree 

that the United States should unequivocally reject any efforts by OPEC to collaborate to manipulate oil markets and take all measures within our power to reduce 

OPEC’s ability to artificially limit production or increase prices? If not, why not? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

290 

Answer. Yes. While it is very important for the United States to engage with 

other oil producing nations, I do not believe that we should collaborate with OPEC 

to manipulate oil markets. 

The Philippines 

Question. For decades the Philippines has been one of our key allies in the AsiaPacific region. Since taking office in June 2016, President Rodrigo Duterte has 

waged a brutal campaign of extrajudicial killings thinly disguised as enforcement 

of the country’s drug laws. Duterte has also curtailed our bilateral military cooperation and is reorienting Philippine foreign policy toward China and Russia. 

Do believe that extrajudicial killings, which President Duterte has admitted to 

committing personally, qualify as gross violations of human rights? How will you 

balance the strategic importance of our longstanding alliance with the Philippines 

and the United States’ long commitment to promoting and protecting human rights? 

Answer. Extrajudicial killings in the Philippines are a serious concern and require 

a robust U.S. response. 

Both the U.S. executive and legislative branches have taken action in response 

to concerns about extrajudicial killings. If confirmed, I would ensure that the State 

Department remains focused on improving the human rights situation in the Philippines and that U.S. assessments, such as the forthcoming Philippines country report on human rights practices, are unflinching in their description of human rights 

violations. I would also continue to review each arms transfer notification for the 

Philippine Police and Armed Forces on a case-by-case basis to ensure that we do 

not provide arms to units undermining these values. Our alliance with the Philippines is rooted in shared interests and values, which include concerns for human 

rights. Efforts to promote human rights are therefore vital to our long-term alliance 

because they ensure that the Philippine people know that we are willing to stand 

up not only for our shared interests, but also our shared values. 

China Taiwan and North Korea 

Question. North Korea will almost certainly be one of the toughest national security challenges for the new administration. Kim Jong-un has continued to develop 

nuclear weapons, and two weeks ago, he threatened to test a long-range rocket reportedly capable of reaching the continental United States. 

♦ Senator Nunn recently said, ‘‘the key to solving the North Korea nuclear problem without a war is working with China. So alienating China—you pay a price 

for that.’’ Referring to President-elect Trump’s decision to threaten to recognize 

Taiwanese independence, Senator Nunn said, ‘‘I don’t think it was a good 

move.’’ 

♦ Do you agree with Senator Nunn that the key to solving the North Korea nuclear problem without a war is working with China, not alienating it? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will seek Chinese cooperation in addressing the many 

challenges posed by North Korea. Nevertheless, we must be realistic about China’s 

willingness to cooperate on North Korea. The Obama Administration pursued improved relations with China, yet over eight years it gained little in the way of Chinese cooperation on North Korea. The United States should work to convince China 

that cooperation on North Korea is in its own national interest. 

Development 

Question. The United Nations has spearheaded development around the world 

with the Millennium Development Goals from 2000-2015, and now the Sustainable 

Development Goals from 2015-2030. There are 17 goals in the current push, ranging 

from elimination of poverty and hunger to gender equality to clean water and sanitation, responsible consumption and production, sustainable cities, climate action, 

and life on land and below water. Finally, the goals include a commitment to peace 

and justice and partnerships to achieve these (and the rest of) the 17 goals. Please 

describe how, if confirmed as Secretary of State, you would support each of these 

goals in detail and how you see the United States contributing or taking a lead on 

each goal. 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. Should I be confirmed, I commit to reviewing the goals. I look forward to consulting with Congress on this issue. 

Sanctions 

Question. While you were CEO of ExxonMobil please list and describe any actions 

the company, any of its affiliates, or ExxonMobil PAC took-directly or indirectly (e.g. 

through attorneys, lobbyists, any trade organization or advocacy group with which 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

291 

ExxonMobil has an association or to which ExxonMobil has contributed, or any 

other service providers) to: 

♦ influence our government (including any elected or appointed official, or any 

members of their staff) to remove or modify sanctions imposed by the United 

States against Russia subsequent to its violation the sovereignty and territorial 

integrity of Ukraine in 2014; 

♦ influence our government (including any elected or appointed official, or any 

members of their staff) to remove or modify sanctions imposed by the United 

States against Iran over its illicit nuclear activities; 

♦ influence our government (including any elected or appointed official, or any 

members of their staff) on any matters related to allegations that ExxonMobil 

concealed from investors and the public what it knew about climate change beginning in the 1970s; 

♦ influence our government (including any elected or appointed official, or any 

members of their staff) to approve permits related to cross-border liquid pipelines, including but not limited to the Keystone XL pipeline; 

♦ influence our government (including any elected or appointed official, or any 

members of their staff) to stop or modify the Bureau of Land Management’s 

Proposed Methane and Waste Prevention Rule to reduce the wasteful release 

of natural gas into the atmosphere from oil and gas operations on public lands; 

♦ influence our government (including any elected or appointed official, or any 

members of their staff) to stop or modify rules promulgated by the EPA that 

are designed to curb emissions by the oil and gas industry of methane, smogforming volatile organic compounds such as benzene, and toxic air pollutants; 

♦ influence our government (including any elected or appointed official, or any 

members of their staff) to stop or modify rules promulgated by the EPA to 

strengthen the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for groundlevel ozone that are designed to prevent hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks, and hundreds of premature deaths in children and adults; 

♦ influence our government (including any elected or appointed official, or any 

members of their staff) to stop or modify the Clean Water Rule promulgated by 

the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (which extends pollution protection to streams that about 117 million Americans rely on for their drinking 

water and affects oil spill prevention and response programs); 

♦ influence our government (including any elected or appointed official, or any 

members of their staff) on any matters related to whether the Security and Exchange Commission should require greater disclosure by public companies on 

public policy and sustainability matters; 

♦ influence our government (including any elected or appointed official, or any 

members of their staff) to keep the Department of Interior from raising royalty 

rates for oil and gas production on federal lands or strengthening its policies 

governing production verification; 

♦ influence our government (including any elected or appointed official, or any 

members of their staff) on any matters related to fuel economy standards, energy efficiency standards, renewable energy, or electric vehicles; and 

♦ With respect to each of the items above, please detail the specific actions taken 

along with the outcomes that ExxonMobil hoped to bring about as a result of 

such actions. Please also describeany communications you may have had yourself with government officials (or members of their staff) on each of the matters 

in question? 

Answer. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil engaged in lobbying activities on a wide range of matters affecting the company, including, for example, energy and environmental policy, appropriations, and taxes, as reflected in 

its public filings. Any more detailed information about these activities is in 

ExxonMobil files to which I no longer have access as a former employee of the company. 

Question. Should you be confirmed as Secretary of State, do you agree to recuse 

yourself from discussing with the President (or any of his staff, including any federal agency employee) or any member of his Cabinet (or any of their staff) any matters that relate to: 

♦ sanctions imposed by the United States against Russia subsequent to its violation the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine in 2014; 

♦ sanctions imposed by the United States against Iran over its illicit nuclear 

activitiesc.allegations that ExxonMobil concealed from investors and the public 

what it knew about climate change beginning in the 1970s; 

♦ permits related to cross-border liquid pipelines, including but not limited to the 

Keystone XL pipeline; 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

292 

♦ the Bureau of Land Management’s Proposed Methane and Waste Prevention 

Rule to reduce the wasteful release of natural gas into the atmosphere from oil 

and gas operations on public lands; 

♦ rules promulgated by the EPA that are designed to curb emissions by the oil 

and gas industry of methane, smog-forming volatile organic compounds such as 

benzene, and toxic air pollutants; 

♦ rules promulgated by the EPA to strengthen the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone that are designed to prevent hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks, and hundreds of premature deaths in 

children and adults; 

♦ the Clean Water Rule promulgated by the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (which extends pollution protection to streams that about 117 million 

Americans rely on for their drinking water and affects oil spill prevention and 

response programs); 

♦ whether the Security and Exchange Commission should require greater disclosure by public companies on public policy and sustainability matters royalty 

rates for oil and gas production on federal lands or strengthening the Department of Interior’s policies governing the verification of oil and gas production 

on public lands; and 

♦ fuel economy standards, energy efficiency standards, renewable energy, or electric vehicles 

Answer. I will abide by the recusal commitments I made in the Ethics Agreement 

that I submitted to the Committee on January 3, 2017, which was prepared in consultation with ethics officials at the Department of State and the Office of Government Ethics. That Ethics Agreement has been praised by Walter Shaub, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, as a ‘‘sterling model’’ for other nominees. 

In addition, as I testified at my hearing in response to a question from Senator 

Udall, I would expect to seek-and-follow the advice of State Department ethics counsel with respect to potential conflicts of interest and recuse myself accordingly. 

Question. In 2012, during an appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations, you 

said, ‘‘I’m not disputing that increasing C02 emissions in the atmosphere is going 

to have an impact. It’ll have a warming impact.’’ 

While you were CEO of ExxonMobil what actions did the company or any of its 

affiliates, ExxonMobil PAC, any trade organization or other advocacy group with 

which ExxonMobil had an association (or to which ExxonMobil contributed) take, directly or indirectly (e.g. through attorneys, lobbyists, or any other service providers) 

to persuade the public or elected officials that there was uncertainty among scientists as to whether climate change was happening or whether it was caused by 

human activity? 

Answer. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil engaged in public 

policy discussions concerning the risk of climate change. 

Question. With respect to the above, please detail the specific actions taken by 

ExxonMobil or its employees, along with the outcomes that ExxonMobil hoped to 

bring about as a result of such actions. Please also describe any communications you 

may have had related to such actions. 

Answer. As I am no longer an employee of ExxonMobil, I do not have access to 

records of’ communications from my tenure as Chairman and CEO. 

Question. While CEO of ExxonMobil, did you ever in any way direct, endorse, encourage any public relations campaign undertaken by a third party funded in whole 

or part by ExxonMobi1 that was designed to persuade the public that there was uncertainty among scientists as to whether climate change was happening or whether 

it was caused by human activity? 

Answer. Not to my knowledge. 

Question. While CEO of ExxonMobil, did you ever fail to take action to dissociate 

ExxonMobil from any public relations campaign undertaken by a third party funded 

in whole or part by ExxonMobil that was designed to persuade the public that there 

was uncertainty among scientists as to whether climate change was happening or 

whether it was caused by human activity? 

Answer. Not to my knowledge. 

Question. Do you intend to recuse yourself, for the entirety of your tenure as Secretary of State and without requesting a waiver, from any issue you may encounter 

as Secretary of State that could result in a disproportionate benefit to ExxonMobil 

and other oil and gas companies? If not, how do you intend to maintain impartiality 

and avoid a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest when you 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

293 

are faced with decisions as Secretary of State that will have a significant impact 

on ExxonMobil’s profits? 

Answer. I will abide by the recusal commitments I made in the Ethics Agreement 

that I submitted to the Committee on January 3, 2017, which was prepared in consultation with ethics officials at the Department of State and the Office of Government Ethics. That Ethics Agreement has been praised by Walter Shaub, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, as a ‘‘sterling model’’ for other nominees. 

In addition, as I testified at my confirmation hearing on January 11 in response 

to a question from Senator Udall, I would expect to seek-and-follow advice of State 

Department ethics counsel with respect to potential conflicts of interest and recuse 

myself accordingly. 

Tax Havens 

The following series of questions pertain to a list of tax haven countries identified 

by the Congressional Research Service. Hereinafter, it is referred to as the ‘‘CRS 

Tax Haven List.’’ 

CRS TAX HAVEN LIST 

Anguilla Antigua and Barbuda 

Aruba Bahamas o Barbados 

British Virgin Islands Cayman Islands 

Dominica Grenada 

Montserrat Netherlands Antilles 

St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia 

St. Vincent and Grenadines Turks and Caicos 

U.S. Virgin Islands Belize 

Costa Rica Panama 

Hong Kong Macau 

Singapore Andorra 

Channel Islands (Guernsey and Jersey) Cyprus 

Gibraltar Isle of Man 

Ireland Liechtenstein 

Luxembourg Malta 

Monaco San Marino 

Switzerland Maldives 

Mauritius Seychelles 

Bahrain Jordan 

Lebanon Bermuda 

Cook Islands Marshall Islands 

Samoa Nauru Niue 

Tonga Vanuatu 

Liberia 

Question. Do you hold assets in any of the countries on the CRS Tax Haven List? 

For each country, please provide a breakdown of your assets, including for each 

asset a description of the nature of the holding and its value. 

Answer. No. As disclosed on the Form 278e that I submitted to the Committee, 

I have investments in stocks and mutual funds held in U.S. brokerage accounts. 

Question. Are you the beneficiary of any trust that holds assets in any of the countries on the CRS Tax Haven List? For each country, please provide a breakdown 

of the assets held by the trust of which you are the beneficiary, including for each 

asset a description of the nature of the asset and its value. 

Answer. No, to the best of my knowledge. 

Question. Is any member of your immediate family the beneficiary of any trust 

that holds assets in any of the countries on the CRS Tax Haven List? For each country, please provide a breakdown of the assets held by the trust of which your immeFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

294 

diate family member is a beneficiary, including for each asset a description of the 

nature of the asset and its value. (Immediate family means a spouse, child, parent, 

brother, sister, grandparent, grandchild, step-parent, step-child, step-brother, or 

step-sister.) 

Answer. Not to the best of my knowledge. As disclosed on the Form 278e that I 

submitted to the Committee, however, certain family members are beneficiaries of 

trusts that hold investments in stocks and mutual funds, some of which may hold 

assets in the listed countries, but the investments are held in U.S. brokerage accounts. 

Question. For each of the countries on the CRS Tax Haven List, identify whether 

you serve or have served as a director or officer of a corporation domiciled in that 

country. Please describe the business purpose of the corporation, indicate the beginning and ending dates of your service, and the compensation you received in exchange for your service. 

Answer. To the best of my knowledge, the director and officer positions I held at 

companies are provided in my original December 16, 2016 response to the Senate 

Committee on Foreign Relations Questionnaire and my supplemental December 29, 

2016 response to Part A, Question 9. Information about where these companies were 

domiciled is in ExxonMobil files to which I no longer have access. In any such instances, I received no additional compensation for my service beyond my 

ExxonMobil salary. 

Question. For each of the countries on the CRS Tax Haven List, identify whether 

you directed, approved, oversaw, or possessed ultimate responsibility for financial 

transactions in that country during your time as an executive at Exxon-Mobil. 

Please also identify in the case of each transaction whether you or any member of 

your immediate family received ownership interests in assets or became a beneficiary of a trust established to own assets in any country on the CRS Tax Haven 

List as part of such transactions. 

Answer. Information about any such financial transactions is in ExxonMobil files 

to which I no longer have access. 

Question. For each of the countries in the CRS Tax Haven List, identify whether 

ExxonMobil held assets in that country during your time as CEO of ExxonMobil. 

Please also identify in the case of each asset whether you or any member of your 

immediate family received ownership interests in assets or became a beneficiary of 

a trust established to own assets in any country on the CRS Tax Haven List during 

your time as an executive at ExxonMobil. 

Answer. As I am no longer an employee of ExxonMobil, I do not have access to 

the records required to identify whether ExxonMobil held assets in any of the countries on the list provided. To the best of my knowledge, neither I nor my immediate 

family members received interests in assets or became beneficiaries of trusts established to own assets in the listed countries. 

Question. In order to prevent the appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest, 

do you commit to waiving any rights you may have under bank secrecy laws that 

exist in the countries listed on the CRS Tax Haven List and publicly disclosing and 

explaining any ownership or beneficial interests that you or your immediate family 

acquire in accounts domiciled in any country listed on the CRS Tax Haven List during your term as Secretary of State? 

Answer. As noted, to the best of my knowledge, I hold no assets in any of the 

countries on the provided list. 

Charities 

Question. Please list any deductible or nondeductible charitable donations you 

made in the last three years, including, for each contribution, the name of the recipient and the amount. 

Answer. As I mentioned during my confirmation hearing on January 11, I intend 

to respect the longstanding tradition of privacy of individuals’ tax returns. From 

time to time, my wife and I have made contributions to domestic charitable organizations. Further information—including the amounts and recipients of our charitable giving—is personal to my wife and me, and I will maintain its confidentiality. 

Whistleblowers 

Question. During Mr. Trump’s campaign, there were reports that even volunteers 

were required to sign nondisclosure agreements. After his election, President-elect 

Trump’s team demanded lists of career officials who worked on climate science 

issues at the Energy Department and women’s and gender issues at the State DeFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

295 

partment. Any suggestion that the incoming administration is targeting career officials for retaliation simply because they worked on policies that the new President 

disagrees with threatens to create a chilling effect on employees who are simply trying to do their jobs. It is against the law to retaliate against career officials for following lawful policy directives. It is also against the law to interfere with career employees communicating with Congress. I have included a summary of these laws 

below: 

5 U.S.C. § 7211, provides that: The right of employees, individually or collectively, to petition Congress or a Member of Congress. or to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to a committee or Member thereof, 

may not be interfered with or denied. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), 

it is a violation of federal law to retaliate against whistleblowers. That law 

states: Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such 

authority . . . take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant for employment because of. . . . (A) any disclosure of information by an employee or applicant 

which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences— (i) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross 

waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger 

to public health or safety, any disclosure to the Special Counsel, or to the 

Inspector General of an agency or another employee designated by the head 

of the agency to receive such disclosures, of information which the employee 

or applicant reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule, or 

regulation ‘‘ In addition, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1505, it is against federal 

law to interfere with a Congressional inquiry: Whoever corruptly, or by 

threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, 

obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due 

and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding 

is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the 

due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry 

or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either 

House or any joint committee of the Congress. 

If you are confirmed, will you commit to protect the rights of all career employees 

of the State Department, including their right to speak with Congress? 

Answer. I commit to protecting applicable legal rights of all of the State Department’s employees if confirmed as Secretary of State. 

Question. Will you commit to communicate employees’ whistleblower rights via 

email to all State Department employees within a week of being sworn in support 

the State Department’s policies concerning protection for whistleblowers and, if confirmed, will work with the appropriate offices at the State Department to ensure 

that all employees are aware of their rights. 

Answer. I support the State Department’s policies concerning protection for whistleblowers and, if confirmed, will work with the appropriate offices at the State Department to ensure that all employees are aware of their rights. 

Nigeria 

Question. Nigeria is currently facing a crisis on multiple fronts: Boko Hararn continues to operate within the country, there are millions of displaced persons, and 

many of the people in the northwest face devastating famine that humanitarian 

agencies project could kill upwards of 75,000 children in the coming months. As Secretary of State, how would you help Nigeria handle these security threats while ensuring protection of human rights and providing humanitarian assistance to civilians who need it? 

Answer. The United States has a variety of national security interests in Nigeria. 

If confirmed, I would engage the Nigerian government about the imperative of defeating Boko Haram, extremist splinter groups, particularly those linked to ISIS, 

and providing safety from militants in the Niger Delta. The United States should 

also encourage the Nigerian government to improve its record on human rights in 

the country, including the delivery of humanitarian aid, and continue to improve its 

anti-corruption efforts under President Mohammedu Buhari’s leadership. 

Democratic Republic of the Congo 

Question. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) experienced significant unrest after the government failed to set a date for elections and President Kabila remained in office, despite a constitutional term limit, after the expiration of his elecFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

296 

toral mandate. International pressure (including U.S. sanctions) as well as internal 

pressure from opposition parties and citizens led to an agreement between Kabila’s 

administration and the opposition to establish a transitional administration, hold 

elections in 2017, and a pledge that Kabila will not seek another term, although 

dozens of Congolese protesters were killed by security forces in the weeks before the 

agreement was reached. If the elections proceed as planned, this will be the first 

peaceful transition of power since the DRC’s independence in 1960. However, significant implementation hurdles remain in order to ensure the successful implementation of the agreement. 

♦ If confirmed, would you support the continued use of sanctions against parties 

who obstruct the DRC’s democratic progress or who violate human rights? 

♦ What other steps would you take to press for a peaceful transition of power in 

the Democratic Republic of the Congo? 

Answer. The United States must lead with its values; many times, that includes 

facilitating peace negotiations and settlements. If confirmed, I would engage the 

government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo ORC) and other interested parties to encourage a peaceful political solution, with a guarantee of basic human 

rights and accountability for those who transgress such rights. Targeted sanctions 

might be part of achieving that solution, but sanctions are a tactic, not a strategy 

or a solution. Through robust dialogue with relevant actors, the United States could 

help the DRC achieve a stable political outcome, which would also translate into increased stability regionally and an improvement in human rights. 

Armenia 

Question. As a Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, the United States plays a 

critical role in maintaining stability in the South Caucasus region through its mediation of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. However, Azerbaijan continues to violate 

cease fire agreements. 

♦ What steps will you take to hold Azerbaijan accountable for its actions and any 

violations of the cease fire agreements and what steps would you take to ensure 

a lasting and durable resolution to this conflict? 

♦ The Republic of Armenia and Republic of Azerbaijan recently agreed to increase 

monitoring and introduce a neutral investigating mechanism to stop further violations. Azerbaijan has since blocked and delayed these measures and continues 

to target civilians in the region. What steps will you take to ensure the timely 

implementation of these measures? 

Answer. The frozen conflict in Nagorno Karabakh is a threat to stability in the 

region and U.S. national security interests. If confirmed, I will work with the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan to find a peaceful, long-term solution that allows for stability and prosperity in the region. The first step in this process must 

be to build trust by ensuring that all agreements between the parties are respected. 

Question. As a nation founded upon the principle of democratic self-determination, 

is it your view that U.S. policy should respect this right for all peoples, including 

those of Nagorno Karabakh? 

Answer. The frozen conflict in Nagorno Karabakh is a threat to stability in the 

region and U.S. national security interests. If confirmed, I will work with the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan to find a peaceful, long-term solution that allows for stability and prosperity in the region. The first step in this process must 

be to build trust by ensuring that all agreements between the parties are respected. 

Question. This year will mark the 102nd anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. 

The Genocide has been recognized by President Ronald Reagan and 26 countries. 

Pope Francis has also publicly affirmed the Armenian Genocide stating that it is 

an open wound that must be healed. 

♦ What steps will you take to end denial of the Armenian Genocide and reaffirm 

the proud chapter in U.S. diplomatic history that helped save the survivors of 

the first genocide of the twentieth century? 

♦ The Turkish government continues to keep laws on the books criminalizing the 

discussion of the Armenian Genocide. What steps will you take to ensure that 

all people in Turkey have the right to free speech and will be protected when 

speaking about the Armenian Genocide? 

♦ Outside of concerns regarding Turkey’s threats of retaliation, do you see any 

other reason that you might oppose a forthright American affirmation of the Armenian Genocide, a recognition that has been made by previous U.S. administrations? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

297 

♦ If the government of Turkey were to finally recognize the Armenian Genocide, 

would you recommend that the U.S. government also formally acknowledge this 

crime as genocide? 

Answer. The tragic atrocities of1915 remain a painful issue in the relationship between Armenia and Turkey, and it is in the U.S. interest to ensure peaceful and 

stable relations between the two countries. If confirmed, I will support a full accounting of the historical events and an open dialogue between Armenia and Turkey 

in the interest of regional stability. 

Question. The United States has spoken clearly about the need for Turkey to lift 

its more than 20-year blockade of Armenia and establish diplomatic relations with 

Armenia, both of which are also required under international treaties. Despite Turkey’s public commitment to normalize relations without preconditions as evidenced 

by the signing of the Protocols between Turkey and Armenia under international 

auspices in October of 2009, the Turkish government failed to do so. What steps 

would you take to ensure that Turkey ends its blockade of Armenia? 

Answer. It is in the interest of the United States to ensure a stable and peaceful 

relationship between Armenia and Turkey. If confirmed, I will support the normalized diplomatic, economic, and civil society relations between Armenia and Turkey 

in my ongoing discussions with the two parties. U.S.leadership and re-engagement 

in the region at large will help build the necessary trust to improve relations between Armenia and Turkey. 

Question. What specific policy priorities would you consider to expand trade and 

investment between the United States and Armenia? 

Answer. It is in the interest of the United States to promote mutually beneficial 

trade between the United States and Armenia. If confirmed, I will work closely with 

the U.S. Trade Representative and other relevant parts of the U.S. government to 

explore the possibilities to expand trade and investment between the United States 

and Armenia in a way that creates U.S. jobs and economic growth. 

Question. What measures will you take to safeguard Christian and other minority 

communities facing persecution in the Middle East and elsewhere? 

Answer. The persecution of Christians and other minority communities in the 

Middle East and elsewhere is a serious issue requiring immediate U.S. engagement 

and leadership. If confirmed, I will stress the importance of religious tolerance and 

the protection of religious minorities to our global partners. Religious tolerance promotes stability and should be an important element of our overall strategy for the 

Middle East as well as other regions. 

Question. Will you make additional assistance available to Armenia to help address the compelling humanitarian need of accommodating the third largest per capita influx of refugees in Europe fleeing from the continued unrest and violence in 

Syria? 

Answer. I recognize the tremendous challenges facing Armenia due to the influx 

of refugees. If confirmed, I will work with our European partners to ensure costeffective assistance to Armenia as part of a broader strategy for handling the Syrian 

refugee issue and protecting U.S. national security interests. 

Question. What steps will you take to ensure the return of the Armenian Church 

in Diyarbakir, which Turkey has seized? 

Answer. Religious freedom and the protection of private property are core American principles that contribute to peace and stability worldwide. If confirmed, I will 

work with our Turkish allies to ensure protection of religious minorities and their 

property rights, including the Armenian community in Turkey. 

Oceans and Fisheries 

Question. The United States imported more than $34 billion in seafood in 2015. 

Since 2010, the U.S. Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report has documented 65 countries with seafood-related human trafficking. Unfortunately, Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fishing is often associated with 

human trafficking. Enhancing the transparency and reporting of our seafood supply 

chain is an important step in reducing human rights abuses associated with seafood 

harvesting or reducing the likelihood of human traffickers benefiting from the U.S. 

market. How will you continue and expand efforts of the State Department to combat IUU fishing, reduce human trafficking associated with seafood harvesting and 

prevent IUU fish from entering U.S. markets? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

298 

Answer. As I have stated previously, should I be confirmed, I commit to ensure 

that the State Department does all that it can to assist in the fight against human 

trafficking, which includes activities concerning seafood-related human trafficking. 

Question. Over half of the tuna in the world are caught in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. The United States recently concluded updates to the Multilateral 

Treaty on Fisheries, also known as the South Pacific Tuna Treaty, which is vital 

to America Samoa, the U.S. tuna fishery in the Pacific and thus American interests 

in the Pacific region. Will you commit to providing support to get the treaty to the 

Senate, in addition to implementation language to allow for a swift enactment? 

Answer. I would need to be fully briefed on this issue in order to provide a complete response. I believe if the United States signs and Congress ratifies a treaty, 

we should take our obligations seriously and meet them to the fullest extent of our 

resources. Should I be confirmed, I commit to learning more about the updates to 

the Multilateral Treaty on Fisheries, also known as the South Pacific Tuna Treaty, 

and conferring with the President-elect. I will follow his guidance. 

Climate Change and Clean Energy 

Question. In response to my question at the hearing, you indicated that the 

United States should keep a ‘‘seat at the table’’ in the Paris Agreement. But you 

also said that you’d want to review the agreement to ensure it is in the U.S. interest, and consistent with the ‘‘America first’’ priorities of the President-elect. In order 

to ensure that the global effort to combat climate change is inclusive and effective, 

the State Department has insisted that any agreement be ‘‘applicable to all.’’ And 

to ensure that the agreement is politically credible both at home and abroad, the 

State Department has maintained that countries should have the latitude to define 

their own commitments and actions, but once they have put forward those commitments and actions, they should be transparent about their progress and accountable 

to the international community for meeting them. All of these principles are included in the Paris Agreement, and over 190 countries have made commitments 

under the Agreement. Do you believe that any of these elements of the Paris Agreement are not in the U.S. interest? If so, please explain. 

Answer. If confirmed, I expect that the State Department and other departments 

of the government will conduct a review of the Nationally Determined Contribution 

submitted by the Obama Administration as part of our review of the Paris Agreement and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change to determine whether the NDC and/or the international agreements advance U.S. national interests. 

Both the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement were negotiated by different presidential 

administrations and it is the obligation of the incoming administration to make its 

own determination regarding the ongoing viability of those agreements to determine 

whether they advance U.S. national interests. 

Question. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which 

was agreed by over 190 countries and unanimously approved by the Senate, commits all signatories including the United States, to work to stabilize greenhouse gas 

concentrations ‘‘at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference 

with the climate system.’’ In the Paris Agreement, signatories refined this goal by 

agreeing to work toward ‘‘Holding the increase in the global average temperature 

to well below 2 0 C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 0 C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would 

significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.’’ Do believe that the 

temperature targets set out in the Paris Agreement are the right ones for the international community to strive to achieve? If not, what should those targets be? 

Answer. If confirmed, I expect that the State Department and other departments 

of the government will conduct a review of the Paris Agreement and the U.N. 

Framework Convention on Climate Change. Whether the temperature goals set 

forth in those agreements are the correct goals, whether the agreements themselves 

are adequate to meeting those goals, and whether the agreements advance U.S. national interests will be part of that review. 

Question. Given the global support for the Paris Agreement, do you agree that 

withdrawing from it would cause broad diplomatic repercussions, as the Bush Administration experienced after withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol, would make it 

more difficult to secure countries’ cooperation on other U.S. foreign policy, national 

security, and trade priorities? What diplomatic costs and risks do you foresee if the 

United States were to withdraw from the Paris Agreement? 

Answer. The United States should join international agreements only if membership would advance U.S. national interests. While having good diplomatic relations 

is in the U.S. national interest it is only one factor that should be weighed. The 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

299 

decision to remain outside of the Kyoto Protocol, for example, did not to my knowledge diminish the United States’ ability to conduct its foreign policy as it wished, 

nor did it impact U.S. national security or trade in any manner. I expect that these 

and many other factors will be weighed in any decision regarding U.S. membership 

in the Paris Agreement. 

Question. Will the United States continue to provide technical assistance to developing nations to ensure they monitor their greenhouse gas emissions according to 

the highest standards possible to help ensure that we know whether they are meeting their commitments? 

Answer. The United States will continue to live up to its obligations under existing treaties and international agreements until such time as a decision is made regarding the future of U.S. membership in those agreements. 

Question. The United States, with the State Department playing a leading role, 

have helped to both spur clean energy markets and create the conditions for America’s companies to tap into the growing demand for their products. Would you continue to support State Department clean energy efforts that are helping open markets to American clean energy companies? 

Answer. The United States, as a leader in global energy, is a critical force in advancing energy efficiency and clean energy efforts around the world. American businesses are at the forefront of innovation in the clean energy and energy efficiency 

technologies and American workers are the best trained in the world. We have great 

competitive advantages in these areas, and, as you have stated, are able to support 

the livelihoods of millions of American workers as a result. As the demand for energy increases, further support for clean energy developments will be paramount. 

A key piece to guaranteeing a prosperous future for these American workers and 

companies is to make the country the most attractive place to do business in the 

world, and to continue to build upon strong trade relationships with global neighbors. The State Department’s Bureau of Energy Resources manages critical programs that allow us to capitalize on U.S. leadership in clean energy innovation and 

open markets for U.S. companies abroad by promoting market-based policies and facilitating the introduction of advanced and efficient clean energy technologies into 

markets worldwide. By working with the President to implement our national policy 

goals of supporting and protecting American interests, we will be able to both cultivate a positive environment for capital investment at home and create market opportunities abroad. In doing so, this becomes advantageous, not only to energy efficiency and clean energy technology development, but to the American economy as 

a whole. 

Question. The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) was developed based upon consultations with hundreds of State Department offices and 

posts worldwide. As a result, it represents the collective blueprint for U.S. foreign 

policy based upon the advice of diplomats around the world. Do you support the current QDDR’s focus on climate change as one of the four pillars of U.S. diplomacy 

and development? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will review the 2015 QDDR to assess State Department 

priorities for the incoming administration. 

Question. At the last climate summit in Marrakech, China earned much goodwill 

from the Climate Vulnerable Forum of countries by supporting their post-Paris 

agenda, including their intent to transition their economies to 100 percent renewable energy. 

♦ Do you agree that by positioning itself as a committed partner and leader on 

climate change, China could expand its global influence, and strengthen its relationship with developing countries that want to see an ambitious global response to climate change? 

♦ Do you believe that this positioning would help China achieve its other global 

interests? 

♦ What would be the implications for our diplomacy if developing countries were 

to begin to see China as a more reliable partner and more committed leader 

than the United States in the global fight against climate change? 

♦ What do you foresee as the impact on the United States and U.S. companies 

if developing countries looked instead to China and Chinese companies for the 

financial assistance, new technologies, and cutting edge expertise that they 

need to respond to the challenges of climate change? 

Answer. The United States should join or remain a member of international 

agreements only if membership would advance U.S. national interests. While having 

good diplomatic relations with nations, including those in the Climate Vulnerable 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

300 

Forum, may be in the U.S. national interest it is only one factor that should be 

weighed. 

Question. You commented about electricity as a driver of economic growth. But 

those who still lack access are most often those in isolated rural areas where traditional power plants are not economically viable. What do you see as the advantages 

of decentralized renewable energy for developing nations and how will you support 

such efforts if confirmed? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will engage in a review of U.S. development efforts 

through USAID and other development mechanisms. The costs and benefits for decentralized renewable energy versus electricity produced by traditional means is 

necessarily an analysis that must be conducted on a country-by-country basis, if not 

on an even more local scale. 

Keystone XL Pipeline 

Question. The State Department assessed life-cycle emissions for various crude 

oils and found that tar sands crude is one of the dirtiest crudes on the planet from 

a greenhouse gas life-cycle perspective. Do you agree tar sands crude has significantly higher life-cycle emissions than reference crudes and most other crude oils? 

Answer. Secretary Kerry’s decision to deny a permit for the construction of the 

Keystone XL Pipeline will be reviewed if I am confirmed. The relative cleanliness 

of various crude oils and the impact on the American economy are two factors 

among many that will be considered. 

Question. The State Department conducted a comprehensive economic and environmental analysis of the project and determined that under the current market 

conditions and those projected for the next few years, the Keystone XL pipeline is 

key to getting tar sands crude to market. 

♦ Do you agree? If not, why? 

♦ The State Department also found the project would result in an additional 1.3– 

27.4 MMT C02e, equivalent to the emissions from as many as 5.7 million cars. 

Do you agree? If not, why? 

♦ Based on the climate change implications, spill potential, and other factors, the 

Obama Administration detennined Keystone XL is not in our nation’s best interest. Do you agree? If not, why? 

Answer. Secretary Kerry’s decision to deny a permit for the construction of the 

Keystone XL pipeline will be reviewed if I am confirmed. 

Question. If confirmed, do you commit to fully considering and articulating the environmental implications, based on the best-available science and in accordance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act, when determining how to proceed on the 

Keystone XL Pipeline and any other projects? 

Answer. All relevant factors, including the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, will be weighed when determining how to proceed with the Keystone XL Pipeline project and any other project. 

Conflicts of Interest Questions 

Question. The following series of questions reference certain documents, which are 

listed below for your convenience: 

♦ Your letter to Ms. Katherine D. McManus (Deputy Legal Adviser and Designated Agency Ethics Official, Office of Legal Adviser, Department of State) relating to ‘‘Ethics Undertakings’’ and dated January 3, 2017. This letter is referred to below as the ‘‘Ethics Agreement.’’ 

♦ The ‘‘Cancelation and Exchange Agreement’’ between you and Exxon Mobil Corporation that you entered into on January 3, 2017 and which relates to the 

cancelation of certain ties between you and the company. On January 4, 2317, 

ExxonMobil filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission 

which included this agreement as an exhibit. The Form 8-K Current Report 

which summarizes the agreement is referred to below as the ‘‘Current Report,’’ 

while the agreement itself (which is referred to in the Current Report as Exhibit 99.1) is referred to below as the ‘‘Cancelation and Exchange Agreement.’’ 

♦ The document referred to as the ‘‘Agreement Between Exxon Mobil and Northern Trust’’ is the trust agreement between Exxon Mobil Corporation and Northern Trust Company that is included as Exhibit A of the Cancelation and Exchange Agreement noted above. 

Question. Under the Cancelation and Exchange Agreement, Exxon Mobil Corporation agrees—in exchange for your surrender of certain restricted stock and restricted stock units—to make a cash payment to an irrevocable trust of which you 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

301 

are the beneficiary. According to the Current Report, your incentive compensation 

awards, as currently structured, ‘‘may not be accelerated for any reason except 

death.’’ Therefore, this arrangement which shares certain features in common with 

an acceleration seems to be a departure from ExxonMobil’s usual practice. 

Answer. As a threshold matter, the trust is structured to replicate as closely as 

possible the terms that would have applied to my unpaid restricted stock and restricted stock units while adhering to guidance from federal ethics authorities to 

comply with conflict-of-interest requirements. In particular, the trust is structured 

so that any payments to me under the trust arrangement will parallel the schedule 

that would have applied under an ordinary retirement without government service. 

Question. During your time at ExxonMobil, did the company have a formal policy 

or customary practice of prohibiting the acceleration of incentive compensation 

awards held by employees upon their separation from the company? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Does the arrangement detailed under the Cancelation and Exchange 

Agreement represent a departure from ExxonMobil’s policy or practice during the 

course of your employment at ExxonMobil? 

Answer. No. As noted, the trust is structured to replicate as closely as possible 

the terms that would have applied to my unpaid restricted stock and restricted 

stock units while adhering to guidance from federal ethics authorities to comply 

with conflict-of-interest requirements. 

Question. During your time at ExxonMobil, did the company ever make a similar 

arrangement or accommodation for an employee departing the company for a position in the government? 

Answer. The company has a longstanding practice of allowing individuals who retire with outstanding awards to retain those awards provided that they are age 55 

or older and worked more than 15 years at the company-conditions I satisfied. But, 

to my knowledge, the company never formed a trust arrangement to comply with 

conflict-of-interest rules, as the circumstances never arose. 

Question. During your time at Exxon-Mobil, did the company ever make a similar 

arrangement or accommodation for an employee departing the company for a nongovernment position? 

Answer. The company has a longstanding practice of allowing individuals who retire with outstanding awards to retain those awards provided that they are age 55 

or older and worked more than 15 years at the company-conditions I satisfied. But, 

to my knowledge, the company never formed a trust arrangement to comply with 

conflict-of-interest rules, as the circumstances never arose. 

Question. Your Ethics Agreement states that if you, ‘‘become employed or provide 

services to a company In the oil and gas industry or the oil and gas services industry,’’ then you will forfeit the remaining assets in the trust established for you by 

ExxonMobil in exchange for your surrender of your outstanding restricted stock and 

restricted stock units. However, the Agreement Between Exxon Mobil and Northern 

Trust provides that such surrender will occur in the event that you engage in ‘‘competitive employment in the oil and/or gas industry.’’ This suggests that you may be 

able return to ExxonMobil as an employee or provide services to ExxonMobil as a 

consultant without surrendering your right to certain benefits from the trust. 

Please explain the discrepancy between the Ethics Agreement and the Agreement 

Between Exxon Mobil and Northern Trust. 

Answer. My understanding is that I would forfeit the remaining assets in the 

trust if I become employed or provide services to a company in the oil and gas industry or the oil and gas services industry, including ExxonMobil. 

Question. Is it your understanding that the Agreement Between Exxon Mobil and 

Northern Trust provides that if you return to ExxonMobil either as an employee or 

consultant then you will surrender your right to receive any further payment or distribution from the trust? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Did the agreement governing the payout of your incentive compensation 

awards (restricted stock and restricted stock units) that was in place between you 

and ExxonMobil prior to the Cancellation and Exchange Agreement restrict you in 

any way from taking employment or providing services to a company in the oil and 

gas industry? Please explain the nature of any such restriction and whether it applied if you took employment or provided services to (a) any company in the oil and 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

302 

gas industry other than ExxonMobil, or (b) any company in the oil and gas industry 

including ExxonMobil. 

Answer. My awards were subject to ExxonMobil’s incentive compensation policy. 

It provided the Compensation Committee of the Board with discretion to demand 

forfeiture of any outstanding awards in the event the recipient engaged in detrimental activity, including employment with or engagement by a company that competes with ExxonMobil. 

Question. Did the agreement governing the payout of your incentive compensation 

awards (restricted stock and restricted stock units) that was in place between you 

and ExxonMobil prior to theCancellation and Exchange Agreement include a provision that would result in a reduction in the amount of your payout if you took employment or provided services to a company in the oil and gas industry? Please explain the nature of any such reduction in the amount of your payout and whether 

it would be triggered if you took employment or provided services to (a) any company in the oil and gas industry other than ExxonMobil, or (b) any company in the 

oil and gas industry including ExxonMobil. 

Answer. See my response to the preceding question. 

Question. If the Agreement Between Exxon Mobil and Northern Trust allows youwithout surrendering your right to receive any further payment or distribution from 

the trust-to do work for ExxonMobil but not for another company in the oil and gas 

industry (either as an employee or consultant), do you agree that the arrangement 

fails to fully eliminate your conflict of interest or the appearance that you may have 

a conflict of interest vis-a-vis ExxonMobil? 

Answer. My understanding is that I would forfeit the remaining assets in the 

trust if I become employed or provide services to a company in the oil and gas industry or the oil and gas services industry, including ExxonMobil. 

The arrangement fully eliminates any actual or apparent conflict of interest. Indeed, it was praised by Walter Shaub, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, as a ‘‘sterling model’’ for other nominees. 

Question. In agreeing to establish an irrevocable trust to save you from having 

to forfeit the value of the incentive compensation awards you obtained while employed at Exxon-Mobil, the company is doing you a favor-a favor that will benefit 

you and your family for many years. However, according to your Ethics Agreement, 

you have merely agreed not to recuse yourself from matters involving Exxon-Mobil 

for a period of one year (after which you reserve the right to participate in such 

matters, provided you obtain prior authorization). This could leave the public with 

the impression that you have a conflict of interest, particularly given that you have 

worked at ExxonMobil for virtually your entire career-more than 40 years. Therefore, if confirmed, would you be willing to recuse yourself from any matters in which 

you know that ExxonMobil is a party or represents a party for the full duration of 

your term as Secretary of State? If not, why not? 

Answer. I will abide by the recusal commitments I made in the Ethics Agreement 

that I submitted to the Committee on January 3, 2017, which was prepared in consultation with ethics officials at the Department of State and the Office of Government Ethics. That Ethics Agreement has been praised by Walter Shaub, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, as a ‘‘sterling model.’’or other nominees. 

In addition, as I testified at my hearing in response to a question from Senator 

Udall, I would expect to seek—and follow—the advice of State Department ethics 

counsel with respect to potential conflicts of interest and recuse myself accordingly. 

Question. In your Ethics Agreement, you state: ‘‘I have previously paid taxes owed 

by certain grantor trusts disclosed in my financial disclosure report. I am not a 

trustee of these trusts. 

Answer. Neither my spouse nor I, nor any minor child of mine, is a beneficiary 

of these trusts. Before I assume the duties of the position of Secretary, in order to 

resolve any potential conflicts of interest, I will take steps to ensure that I and my 

spouse are not responsible for the taxes owed by these trusts.’’ 

Question. Who are the beneficiaries of these trusts and why did you pay the 

taxes? 

Answer. My children are the beneficiaries of the trusts. My decision to pay the 

taxes in the past is personal and not relevant to this proceeding. 

Question. What are the potential conflicts of interest related to paying the taxes 

owed by these trusts that you are seeking to resolve? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

303 

Answer. Ethics officials from the Department of State and Office of Government 

Ethics stated that the assets of the trust would be imputed to me for conflicts purposes if my wife and I continued to pay the taxes on trust income. To avoid any 

potential conflicts of interest that might arise from the trust investments, my wife 

and I have decided to terminate our election to pay the taxes on income earned by 

the trusts. 

Question. Who will be responsible for paying the taxes on these trusts in the future? 

Answer. The trusts or the beneficiaries. 

Question. In your financial disclosure report, you have listed four family trusts in 

Section 6 (Other Assets and Income). These family trusts hold ExxonMobil stock 

and certain country-specific exchange-traded funds (for example, iShares MSCI 

Japan ETF, which is held by Family Trust #1). If you are confirmed as Secretary 

of State, these family trust investments in ExxonMobil and in financial instruments 

that provide concentrated exposure to foreign countries could give rise to an actual 

or apparent conflict of interest. Therefore, if you are confirmed as Secretary of State: 

Will each of the family trusts divest its holdings of ExxonMobil stock, stocks of 

other domestic and foreign companies, as well as any investments providing a concentration to a foreign country? 

Answer. Investment decisions will be made by the trustee. Ethics officials from 

the Department of State and Office of Government Ethics stated that divestiture is 

not necessary, as the assets of the trust would not be imputed to me for conflicts 

purposes if my wife and I terminated our election to pay the taxes on trust income. 

Question. Will each of the family trusts commit to holding only cash, cash equivalents, obligations of the United States, municipal bonds, and investment funds that 

quality for the exemption at 5 C.F.R. § 2640.201 (a) going forward? 

Answer. Investment decisions will be made by the trustee. Ethics officials from 

the Department of State and Office of Government Ethics stated that the assets of 

the trust would not be imputed to me for conflicts purposes if my wife and I terminated our election to pay the taxes on trust income. 

Question. If the family trusts will not divest their holdings in ExxonMobil stock 

stocks of other domestic and foreign companies, or investments providing a concentration to a foreign country; nor commit to holding only cash, cash equivalents, 

obligations of the United States, municipal bonds, and investment funds that quality for the exemption at 5 C.F.R. a 2640.201 (a) going forward; please explain how 

you intend to resolve the potential or actual conflict of interest. 

Answer. Ethics officials from the Department of State and Office of Government 

Ethics stated that the assets of the trust would not be imputed to me for conflicts 

purposes if my wife and I terminated our election to pay the taxes on trust income. 

Question. In your Ethics Agreement, you state that the Tillerson Foundation ‘‘will 

not make payments to any outside entities except as compensation for services or 

as unconditional, irrevocable gifts.’’ This could give rise to a conflict or the appearance of a conflict if the recipients of such payments or gifts have interests before 

the State Department. Please [? affirm ?] that the Tillerson Foundation will not pay 

compensation for services or make any gifts to persons, organizations, or entities 

that may have interests before the State Department. 

Answer. I will follow the advice of the responsible ethics officials at the Department of State and/or Office of Government Ethics. 

Question. In your Ethics Agreement, you note that you and your spouse own Bar 

RR Ranches, LLC, which is a ranch that specializes in the breeding, training, and 

showing of horses. 

Has Bar RR Ranches, LLC ever sold horses, provided services, or entered into another type of business transaction with any foreign government or entity? Please explain the nature of the transaction(s). 

Answer. Not to my knowledge. 

Question. The acceptance of gifts from foreign governments by a federal employee, 

including the ‘‘spouse’’ and the ‘‘dependent children’’ of a federal employee could give 

rise to a violation of the Emoluments Clause or the Foreign Gifts and Decorations 

Act. There is also the potential for an actual or perceived conflict of interest to arise 

in connection with Bar RR Ranches, LLC’s activities, should those activities involve 

transactions with foreign governments or entities. Will Bar RR Ranches, LLC refrain from doing business with foreign governments or entities going forward? If not, 

how do you intend to manage actual or perceived conflicts of interests or legal violaFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

304 

tions that may arise in connection with your or your family members’ ownership 

and/or management of Bar RR Ranches, LLC? 

Answer. I will follow the advice of the responsible ethics officials at the Department of State and/or Office of Government Ethics with respect to how best to ensure 

that no inappropriate transactions occur. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

305 

SECRETARY-DESIGNATE TILLERSON’S ANSWERS TO

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BOOKER

Afghanistan/Pakistan 

Question. U.S.-Pakistani relations remain turbulent but important. Pakistan is 

economically and politically unstable, but it has sustained over time. The military 

not only plays the key role in Pakistani security issues, but also politics. There is 

ongoing tension with India over Kashmir and in general. There are terrorist and 

overall security concerns in the FATA and Baluchistan in particular. Pakistan remains an important player in the future of Afghanistan, and it is a major nuclear 

weapons power. In addition, China pledged $42 million to Pakistan as part of 

China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. 

♦ How do you assess U.S.-Pakistani relations? How important a partner is Pakistan in South Asian regional affairs? 

♦ Are you concerned about the relationship between the Pakistani government 

and military? 

♦ Are you concerned about the security of Pakistani nuclear weapons? Is there 

anything the U.S. can or should do to help the Pakistani government to secure 

those weapons? 

♦ What can we be doing with the Pakistani government to deal with the regional 

terrorist threat? 

♦ How do you see Indian-Pakistani relations? Do you think war is imminent in 

Kashmir? Is there anything the U.S. can do to ease tensions in Kashmir? 

♦ Can we rely on Pakistan to help end the conflict in Afghanistan? Are they playing both sides in this conflict? 

♦ Pakistan is increasing its involvement with China. Should their relationship be 

a concern for the U.S.? 

Answer. Pakistan is an important regional partner for the United States. The 

United States should engage with the Pakistani military to encourage cooperation 

against mutual threats, like transnational terrorists in the FATA and the Haqqani 

network. At the same time, it should also engage the Pakistani civilian government 

to build its capability and control over all aspects of Pakistan’s national policy. 

The safety of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is of serious concern to me. The United 

States should convey its concerns over these weapons to the Pakistani civilian and 

military government directly, and continue to engage in programs that help safeguard Islamabad’s nuclear weapons. In addition, it should encourage bilateral and 

multilateral engagements between Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan to improve regional relations and defuse tension. This includes facilitating discussions and confidence-building measures between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir conflict All 

three of these states have an interest in a stable future in which none of their territory provides safe havens for terrorist groups.China has a constructive role to play 

in the region. China should also share our concerns regarding the sufficiency of 

PK+4 countries’ nuclear arsenals. The United States should engage Beijing directly 

to assist in building confidence and stability among the different states and encourage responsible developmental programs to improve living conditions and the quality of life for Pakistanis and others. 

Pakistan 

Question. Pakistan’s support for militants operating against U.S. troops and the 

government of Afghanistan, including the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani Network, has been documented and acknowledged by numerous U.S. officials including 

former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen. This past 

July, Pakistan’s Army Chief of Staff General Raheel Sharif’s directed Pakistani military commanders, intelligence agencies and law enforcement officials to take concrete measures to deny militants safe havens and use of Pakistani soil to launch 

terrorist attacks in Afghanistan. While there may be some room for optimism, Pakistan has not shown a consistent policy toward such militants in the past. How will 

you work with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan to eliminate cross-border terrorist activities and promote a peaceful and cooperative relationship between 

the two countries? 

Answer. The war in Afghanistan is the longest war in American history. Today, 

the United States should engage the government of Afghanistan President Ashraf 

Ghani and CEO Abdullah Abdullah to increase stability, reduce corruption, ensure 

a better standard of living for Afghans, especially women and girls, and ensure that 

Afghanistan is never again used as a base for international terrorism. The United 

States should also engage with Islamabad to strengthen the civilian government 

and eliminate the safe havens that terrorist groups like the Haqqani network enjoy. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

306 

It should encourage the military to take steps against those actors involved with 

providing assistance to terrorist groups like the Haqqani network, which remains 

a serious threat to Americans, Afghans, and Pakistanis alike. The United States 

should work with both Afghanistan and Pakistan to encourage cooperation, build 

trust, and seek to ensure regional stability in a context of mutual respect and understanding of each country’s interests. 

Question. As the Taliban have increasingly reasserted control over areas of the 

country, opportunities for women have been drastically affected. This past December, gunmen killed five female airport employees and their driver in Kandahar, an 

indication of the threats faced by women who choose to work outside their homes. 

Moreover, a recent report by the United States Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction indicates that women see a lack of security as the biggest 

challenge to their advancement. This was the case even for Capt. Niloofar Rahmani, 

the first female fixed-wing pilot in the Afghan Air Force, who recently requested 

asylum in the United States. Given your efforts to advance women participation in 

a number of countries in your role at ExxonMobil, how will you work to transform 

the views of conservative men on the role of women in Afghanistan and continue 

to push for opportunities for women’s advancement in all aspects of society? 

Answer. Should I be confirmed, I commit to examining the State Department’s 

current programs to determine if they are adequate. 

Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) 

Question. The BBG plays an important role in connecting people around the world 

and bringing transparency and accountability to government action. It works in 

some of the most repressive media environments around the world in support of 

freedom and democracy. How will you, if confirmed, continue to support the BBG’s 

work? 

Answer. Public broadcasting plays a critical role in communicating America’s values and ideals to the rest of the world. Under the provisions of the 2016 National 

Defense Authorization Act, significant changes have been mandated to the existing 

structure and functioning of U.S. public diplomacy. I look forward to working with 

Congress to ensure that the implementation of these changes helps the United 

States in its mission of engaging and informing foreign audiences, especially those 

in repressive nations around the world. 

Question. Cyprus is a reliable ally of the United States in a region increasingly 

faced with instability. The country has been a critical partner in eliminating chemical weapons from Syria and helping confront terrorist threats from ISIS and Iranian proxies. Cyprus has also become increasingly active in promoting energy security in the region, working closely with our ally Israel. Yet the country remains divided with a U.N. peacekeeping force securing the buffer between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Over the past year President Nicos Anastasiades and Turkish-Cypriot 

leader Mustafa Akinci have made significant progress in addressing the 43 year dispute dividing Cyprus. As the two leaders meet at the United Nations in Geneva for 

the Conference on Cyprus, how do you plan to build on this progress to ensure a 

peaceful and just resolution to the conflict and encourage Cyprus’s greater integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions? 

Answer. The United States has long supported efforts to end the division of Cyprus. 

The renewed commitment of leaders from both sides to achieve a just resolution 

offers one of the best chances in years to reach a settlement 

Through sustained diplomatic engagement, the United States—in cooperation 

with the U.N. and other key international partners should make every effort to support the parties in seizing this important opportunity to improve the lives of Greek 

and Turkish Cypriots alike, and heal the divisions of one of Europe’s longest-running conflicts. 

Democracy 

Question. Many of the conflicts we see around the world today are the result of 

weak and fragile states like Somalia, Iraq, and Syria, which are fueled by- and continue to breed-poverty and violence. In fact, 10 years ago 80% of our humanitarian 

assistance went to natural disasters, while today 80% goes to alleviating suffering 

in fragile and conflict-ridden states. On top of this, the number of people living in 

these states is expected to rise to nearly 2 billion people by 2030. How will you use 

your platform as Secretary of State to address the underlying causes of weak and 

fragile states to help prevent further instability and conflict? 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

307 

Answer. The Department of State and USAID already have programs that focus 

on the causes and potential remedies for weak and fragile states, including the 

Interagency Conflict Assessment Framework This program provides guidance for 

implementing stabilization protocols. USAID programs, such as Provincial Reconstruction Teams, serve as a measure to support revitalization in fragile states. By 

continuing these programs, we will better understand the underlying causes of individual weak and fragile states, and utilize those results to continually improve diplomatic and development policy. 

Development 

Question. America’s leadership in the world relies on ‘‘the three D’s’’—development, diplomacy, and defense. Together, these policy tools enable our government 

to address global concerns and to ensure our own national security. The integrity 

of this diverse approach requires a recognition of the value that coordinated, but 

distinct and independent, development and diplomacy agendas provide. 

Do you believe in the importance of development as a key pillar of America’s foreign policy approach to the world and are you committed to maintaining our development-centered engagements with the world? 

Answer. Development programs are key to projecting American compassion 

around the world. The Millennium Challenge Corporation serves as an example of 

this by reducing poverty through economic growth, encouraging good governance, 

and ensuring transparency. 

Question. How will you ensure that the State Department and the U.S. Agency 

for International Development (USAID) are provided with the necessary resources, 

political empowerment, and operating space to effectively support global stability 

and to advance U.S. moral and political leadership in the world? 

Answer. Through a complete and comprehensive review of our foreign-assistance 

programs, not only will taxpayer dollars be saved, but USAID and the State Department will be better positioned to support global stability and advance U.S. moral 

and political leadership in the world. Revising the Joint Strategic Plan between 

USAID and the State Department is one way of reaffirming and revisiting the collaboration and cooperation between USAID and State. Such efforts, as well as our 

ongoing initiatives in the various areas of foreign assistance, help advance our development, economic, and political interests. 

Funding to USAID 

Question. Diplomacy and development, in addition to defense, are key pillars of 

U.S. engagement overseas. Historically, the Department of State has spearheaded 

diplomatic efforts, while U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has 

led development efforts. The 2015 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review 

noted four strategic priorities: countering violent extremism, open democratic societies, inclusive economic growth and climate change. 

As Secretary of State, how will you ensure that U.S. diplomacy and development 

efforts address major global threats and challenges? 

Answer. In the coming year, we have the opportunity to rewrite the Department 

of State-USAID Joint Strategic Plan. Utilizing input from both agencies, we will be 

able to assess major global threats, as well as review how programs from each agency may contribute to resolving chronic challenges. 

Question. What do you see as key priorities for U.S. diplomacy and development 

efforts? 

Answer. The U.S. government’s top foreign-policy priority is defeating ISIS. In so 

doing, the United States will help alleviate the suffering ISIS has caused in the 

Middle East and beyond. Development is one aspect of U.S. policy in the Middle 

East conflicts. In Syria, USAID is supplying funding to the U.N. programs like the 

World Food Program, WASH, and UNICEF. These programs provide basic humanitarian assistance, including food, access to water, and education in refugee camps. 

Also, USAID is working with Coalition forces; international institutions like the 

U.N. and World Bank; Iraq’s national, provincial, and local governments; NGOs; 

and Iraqi community groups to implement development programs. 

Question. How do you see the Department of State working with USAID in furthering U.S. development priorities? 

Answer. By assessing the organizational and administrative structure between 

the Department of State and USAID, we will be able to prioritize development investments and programs, and eliminate redundancies in our efforts. In the coming 

year, we have the opportunity to rewrite the Department of State-USAID Joint 

Strategic Plan. Utilizing input from both agencies, we will be able to assess developFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

308 

ment priorities, as well as review how programs from each agency may contribute 

to resolving chronic challenges. 

Question. To what extent do you see the United States engaging in major reconstruction efforts following natural disasters (as in Haiti) or wars (as in Afghanistan)? 

Answer. Humanitarian assistance is a key component of U.S. foreign policy. For 

instance, USAID already has programs that address recovery, rebuilding, and resilience after major crises. Disaster assistance and resilience programs have alleviated 

suffering in crisis-ridden areas and have been prime examples of American compassion in the global context. 

USAID 

Question. USAID has made extraordinary advancements in monitoring, evaluation, and learning when it comes to investments and programing over the past decade. This investment has resulted in better programming that is achieving sustainable results. Much of this advancement has come with an increased capacity within 

the Agency’s internal budgeting, monitoring, and policy capacities. How will you empower USAID to expand its capacity to carry this critical work forward, and what 

plans do you have to better instill these practices within the State Department? 

Answer. In order for the State Department and USAID to carry forward their critical foreign-assistance work, it is important to measure the efficiency of their foreign-assistance and development programs and closely examine the administrative 

and management practices of both entities. By doing so, the State Department and 

USAID will be able to more effectively prioritize development investments and 

eliminate inefficiencies, including the duplication of effort. Making sure that our foreign-assistance mission is implemented in an accountable, transparent, and costsaving manner is one of my key administrative and management priorities. 

Climate Change 

Question. In response to a question from Chairman Corker, you said, ‘‘the increase 

in greenhouse gas emissions in Earth’s atmosphere is having an effect, ‘‘ but that 

‘‘Our ability to predict that effect is very limited.’’ In fact, scientists have been remarkably accurate in predicting what effects global temperature increases will 

bring, particularly over the last 26 years since the enactment of the Global Change 

Research Act of 1990 and a major, coordinated multi-national monitoring and modeling effort. Does ‘‘very limited’’ mean that you possess peer-reviewed studies or documentation supporting your assertion, and which contradict the massive global data 

collection, modeling and analytical efforts projecting grave consequences of increasing greenhouse gases for our economy, national security and the environment? What 

would have to change about our ability to predict the effect of increasing greenhouse 

gas emissions in Earth’s atmosphere for you to consider it to be adequate and not 

‘‘very limited?’’ Why or how is this projection from the most recent National Climate 

Assessment wrong or ‘‘very limited?’’ 

Answer. Although my background is as an engineer and scientist, I am not a climatologist. I concluded years ago that the risk of climate change does exist and that 

the consequences could be serious enough that action should be taken. That said, 

it is clear to me that climate modeling is a not an exact science and that past attempts to be predictive have been inconsistent. I am not alone in this belief. John 

Christy, a NASA-award-winning scientist who operates the temperature-sensing 

NASA satellite instruments, has presented testimony to the House of Representatives indicating that the models have predicted approximately twice as much warming as has actually occurred since the advent of satellite measures. 

Human Rights 

Question. ExxonMobil has revenue larger than GDPs of many countries. Can you 

give me a couple of examples of when ExxonMobil used it considerable clout to call 

out human rights violations, promote better governance in some of the developing 

countries in while ExxonMobil operated? When did it use its influence to promote 

better governance? 

Answer. During my tenure as Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil strengthened its 

commitment to human rights. For example, since 2002, ExxonMobil has been a 

member of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, and joined its 

steering committee in 2015. Through this role, ExxonMobil worked closely with governments, NGOs, and industry to promote human rights. 

ExxonMobil has conducted training in human rights for many years. In 2015, 

ExxonMobil implemented a new computer-based training module to further improve 

internal awareness of human rights as well as their importance to the company. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

309 

This training focused on employees working in areas with higher human rights 

risks. As of year-end 2015, more than 1,200 employees in over 40 countries had participated in the training. 

Specifically, at my request, ExxonMobil strengthened its oversight of and guidance provided to security personnel. I insisted that all armed and unarmed security 

personnel be provided with specific guidance on appropriate responses to security 

threats or other common situations that might arise. 

Humanitarian Issues 

Question. As you are likely aware, we currently have 65.3 million displaced people 

in the word today, and the vast majority of them are displaced due to conflict which 

often is protracted in nature. In comparison, in 2006, we had around 32 million displaced people with the vast majority displaced due to natural disasters which are 

often more cyclical in nature. 

Given this unprecedented level of displacement, and the fact that such displacement levels will continue and likely rise in the coming months, what are your views 

on U.S. involvement, investment, and leadership in humanitarian crises? What role 

should the U.S. be playing in the future? 

Answer. U.S. involvement, investment, and leadership in humanitarian crises is 

extremely important and should be continued. In order to properly and efficiently 

handle humanitarian crises in the future, the U.S. government must balance its humanitarian role with its role in development assistance. 

Question. What role will you take to support U.S. leadership by securing the necessary investments to respond to humanitarian crises around the world? 

Answer. The State Department and USAID will support U.S. leadership by mobilizing investment partnerships with private corporations, NGOs, and other enterprises to generate the necessary funds that enable solutions to humanitarian crises. 

LGBTQ RIGHTS AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS

Question. What steps will you take to ensure that the State Department [and 

USAID] maintain the structures and funding needed to address global women’s 

issues, from child marriage to gender-based violence to peace and security? Will you 

commit to ensuring sufficient financial resources and support for the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues (S/GWI), including an ambassador at the helm and 

USAID’s Office of Senior Coordinator on Gender Equality to continue their important work? 

Answer. As I stated in my hearing testimony, the issue of empowering women is 

personally important to me. I have seen firsthand the impact of empowering women, 

particularly regarding their participation in economic activities in the less-developed 

parts of the world. Investing in women and girls produces a multiplier effect— 

women reinvest a large portion of their income in their families and communities, 

which also furthers economic growth and stability. As I indicated, I believe women’s 

empowerment and advancement are an important part of our foreign aid efforts and 

I will support such programs, including efforts to advance women’s participation in 

peace, security, and the political process. I will support efforts to end violence 

against women and girls as well as to mitigate the impact of such violence. I look 

forward, if confirmed, to closely examining all aspects of these issues to determine 

if our funding levels and other resources are appropriate. 

Question. Secretaries Clinton and Kerry have elevated the protection of lesbian, 

gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) rights as part of the larger U.S. policy to support human rights abroad. In 2015, the U.S. and Chile hosted the firstever U.N. Security Council meeting on gay rights put a spotlight on the persecution 

of LGBTQ people by ISIS. That same year, Secretary of Kerry created the Special 

Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBT Persons to defend and promote the human 

rights of LGBTQ persons around the world. During your confirmation hearing, you 

said, ‘‘American values don’t accommodate violence or discrimination against anyone. That’s just—that’s part of that American values that we project.’’ Will you appoint a new special envoy to advance U.S. efforts to protect LGBTQ persons and 

as secretary how will you work to overturn laws that criminalize consensual samesex conduct in countries around the world? 

Answer. As Secretary of State, I would be charged with promoting American values on the world stage, and that means standing for universal human rights and 

fighting for the dignity of every person. The United States has an obligation to 

stand strongly for those who fight against discrimination worldwide. As I mentioned 

in my opening statement, the United States must continue to display a commitment 

to personal liberty, human dignity, and principled action in foreign policy. The State 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

310 

Department under my leadership will work aggressively to advance human rights 

for everyone. 

Question. At your hearing, you said that ‘‘American values don’t accommodate violence or discrimination against anyone.’’ There have been troubling instances in 

which U.S. contractors or their foreign subcontractors have either not proactively 

reached out to include specific populations in our programs because of their sexual 

orientation or gender identity, on one hand, or have excluded those populations for 

that reason, on the other. What steps will you take to ensure that sexual orientation 

and gender identity are not used as a disqualifier, and that contractors that do not 

comply with nondiscrimination in service delivery policies have their contracts rescinded? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will assure that U.S. contracting laws and procurement 

procedures are upheld, as well as contract terms themselves. All subcontractors, 

American or foreign, will have to adhere to any human rights and non-discrimination clauses routinely included in federal government contracts under the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR). 

CVE 

Question. On December 21, the Trump transition team asked State Department 

to list its workers who focus on gender equality and ending violence against women. 

On Dec. 23 Reuters reported that the President-elect’s transition team requested 

that the Departments of State and Homeland Security send the names of government officials working on programs to counter violent extremism or CVE, which include programs that seek to prevent violence by extremists of any stripe, including 

recruitment by militant Islamist groups within the United States and abroad. These 

measures seem aimed at identifying, isolating, and removing individuals working to 

advance these policies. Can you explain the nature and goal of these specific inquiries? 

Answer. I did not direct the work of the transition team. That said, it is important 

to have an accurate understanding of current programs, activities, and staff positions as they existed under the current President. It may be necessary to reorganize 

or restructure the State Department to better carry out the Trump Administration’s 

foreign policy goals, but no career employees would be penalized for having worked 

on matters that were political priorities of the previous Administration. Career employees pledge their loyalty to the U.S. Government, regardless of which political 

party is in power. 

Should I be confirmed, I commit to treating each and every member of the State 

Department fairly without prejudice or threat of recrimination. 

Question. With young people increasingly the target of online recruitment by terrorist organizations, and youth populations in critical regions like Africa growing 

rapidly—now making up 60% of the unemployed on the continent—it is more important than ever to engage youth around the world in productive ways. For example, 

the State Department has partnered with Facebook to create opportunities for 

young people to help counter extremism online. What will you do as Secretary of 

State to prioritize youth Ament to help counter violent extremism? 

Answer. Over the past year, we have discovered that counter-radicalization is 

most effective when it leverages not only the resources of the U.S. government, but 

those of the private sector as well. As Secretary, I would direct the State Department to work with partner organizations—including social media outlets like 

Facebook and Twitter, as well as private entities such as Google’s in-house ‘‘think 

tank,‘‘—to fully explore technologies and methods that can best engage youth and 

help steer them away from radicalization. 

Transparency and Accountability 

Question. During the hearing on your confirmation you said to me, ‘‘We want to 

ensure at all times, to confirm the secretary of state and the State Department is 

fully transparent with the public.’’ However, you did not commit to regular interactions with the press and bringing a press corps on your travels abroad as has long 

been customary, which appears at odds with your statement on transparency. Can 

you elaborate on your thinking on these issues and reassure journalists that your 

department, if confirmed, would be as open with the press and public as your statement suggests you aspire to be? 

Answer. As I indicated both in my opening statement and during testimony, in 

response to Senator Booker’s question, opening a public trust through accountability 

and transparency includes communicating with the public, while engaging with its 

representation in Congress and the press. If confirmed, I will be sure to interact 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

311 

with the press appropriately, based upon long-standing precedents of the State Department and my predecessors in dealing both with American reporters and the foreign press. 

Western Hemisphere 

Question. According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a university 

with which ExxonMobil has worked on energy and climate research, estimated that 

President-elect Trump’s wall would cost $31 million a mile. A 1,000 mile wall would 

cost taxpayers over $31 billion. The Congressional Research Service concluded that 

the primary fence in San Diego did not have a ‘‘discernible impact’’ on illegal immigration in that sector. The Cato Institute found that introducing secondary fencing 

and more agents in San Diego only shifted the flow of immigrants to other sectors 

rather than reduce immigration. Do you believe that the wall that Trump has proposed is an effective use of taxpayer money and will result in lowered border crossings? 

Answer. The President-elect has called for the construction of a wall on the southern border. I will work with the President-elect, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other federal partners to ensure that we secure our southern border. 

Wildlife Trafficking 

Question. The United States has been a global conservation leader in combating 

transnational wildlife crime and saving imperiled species. Wildlife trafficking is a 

lucrative enterprise worth tens of billions of dollars and has undermined the rule 

of law of our allies and trading partners at the range, transit and source countries. 

The involvement of criminal syndicates, African armed militias, and terrorist organizations is particularly alarming. The enactment of Eliminate, Neutralize, and Disrupt (END) Wildlife Trafficking Act last October illustrates the high-profile attention and broad bipartisan support the United States Congress has given to this 

issue. Mr. Tillerson, will you work with this Congress and concerned countries 

across the globe to further the international community’s effort to tackle the pernicious poaching and trafficking crisis? 

Answer. The global spread of wildlife trafficking has implications for conservation, 

crime, and national security. Public Law No. 114-231, Eliminate, Neutralize, and 

Disrupt Wildlife Trafficking Act of 2016, which was passed unanimously by Congress and signed into law by the President this past October, provides new tools to 

help the United States and partner countries to address this crisis. I will work with 

Congress on the implementation of this law and related laws. I will also work with 

partner countries to further efforts to combat poaching and wildlife trafficking. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(313) 

Annex I.—Correspondence Between the Securities 

and Exchange Commission and ExxonMobil, 

January 2006 

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY SENATOR

MERKLEY AND CHAIRMAN CORKER

1. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Letter to ExxonMobil 

Regarding Disclosures Relating to Countries Identified as State 

Sponsors of Terrorism, January 6, 2006 

2. ExxonMobil’s Response to the Securities and Exchange Commission 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(315) 

1. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S LETTER TO

EXXONMOBIL REGARDING DISCLOSURES RELATING TO CONTACT

WITH COUNTRIES IDENTIFIED AS STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM, 

JANUARY 6, 2006 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-28.eps
316 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-29.eps
317 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-30.eps
FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(319) 

2. EXXONMOBIL’S RESPONSE TO THE SECURITIES

AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-33B.eps
320 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-33.eps
321 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-34.eps
322 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-35.eps
323 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-36.eps
324 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-37.eps
325 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-38.eps
326 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-39.eps
(327) 

Annex II.—Material Submitted by 

Senator Rubio 

1. Syrian and Russian Forces Targeting Hospitals As a Strategy 

of War, Amnesty International 

2. U.S. Blames Russia After U.N. Aid Convoy in Syria Targeted 

by Air Attack, The Guardian 

3. Attack, Deceive, Destroy: Putin at War in Syria, The Atlantic 

Council 

4. Letters and Other Material Submitted by Advocacy Groups Regarding the Crisis in Syria 

5. Partial List of Political Dissidents, Journalists, and Critics of 

Vladimir Putin Who Were Suspiciously Murdered or Died 

Under Highly Suspicious Circumstances 

6. International Leaders on Russian War Crimes in Syria 

7. Letter to President-Elect Donald J. Trump from Several European Leaders 

8. Letter to Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Cardin from 

Vladimir V. Kara-Mursa 

9. Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Saudi Arabia.— 

U.S. Department of State, 2015 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(329) 

1. SYRIAN AND RUSSIAN FORCES TARGETING

HOSPITALS AS A STRATEGY OF WAR

Amnesty International 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


rubio-1.eps
330 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


rubio-2.eps
331 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


rubio-3.eps
332 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


rubio-4.eps
333 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


rubio-5.eps
334 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


rubio-6.eps
(335) 

2. U.S. BLAMES RUSSIA AFTER U.N. AID CONVOY

IN SYRIA TARGETED BY AIR ATTACK

The Guardian 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioB-1.eps
336 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioB-2.eps
337 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioB-3.eps
FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(339) 

3. ATTACK, DECEIVE, DESTROY

PUTIN AT WAR IN SYRIA

The Atlantic Council 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-1.eps
340 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-2.eps
341 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-3.eps
342 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-4.eps
343 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-5.eps
344 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-6.eps
345 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-7.eps
346 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-8.eps
347 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-9.eps
348 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-10.eps
349 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-11.eps
350 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-12.eps
351 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-13.eps
352 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-14.eps
353 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-15.eps
354 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-16.eps
355 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-17.eps
356 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-18.eps
357 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-19.eps
358 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-20.eps
359 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-21.eps
360 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-22.eps
361 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-23.eps
362 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-24.eps
363 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-25.eps
364 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-26.eps
365 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioC-27.eps
FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(367) 

4. LETTERS AND OTHER MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY

ADVOCACY GROUPS REGARDING THE CRISIS IN SYRIA

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-1.eps
368 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-2.eps
369 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-3.eps
370 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-4.eps
371 

DOCUMENTED INCIDENTS IN WHICH THERE IS

‘‘HIGH LIKELIHOOD’’ OF RUSSIAN RESPONSIBILITY

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-5.eps
372 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-6.eps
373 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-7.eps
374 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-8.eps
375 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-9.eps
376 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-10.eps
377 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-11.eps
378 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-12.eps
379 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-13.eps
380 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-14.eps
381 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-15.eps
382 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-16.eps
383 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-17.eps
384 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-18.eps
385 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-19.eps
386 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-20.eps
387 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-21.eps
388 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-22.eps
389 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-23.eps
390 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-24.eps
391 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-25.eps
392 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-26.eps
393 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-27.eps
394 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-28.eps
395 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-29.eps
396 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-30.eps
397 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-31.eps
398 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-32.eps
399 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-33.eps
400 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-34.eps
401 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-35.eps
402 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-36.eps
403 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-37.eps
404 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-38.eps
405 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioD-39.eps
FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(407) 

5. PARTIAL LIST OF POLITICAL DISSIDENTS, JOURNALISTS, AND CRITICS OF VLADIMIR PUTIN WHO WERE SUSPICIOUSLY MURDERED OR

DIED UNDER HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioG-1.eps
FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(409) 

6. INTERNATIONAL LEADERS ON RUSSIAN WAR CRIMES IN SYRIA

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioH-1.eps
FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(411) 

7. LETTER TO PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD J. TRUMP

FROM SEVERAL EUROPEAN LEADERS

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioE-1.eps
412 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioE-2.eps
(413) 

8. LETTER TO CHAIRMAN CORKER AND RANKING MEMBER

CARDIN FROM VLADIMIR V. KARA-MURSA

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioF-1.eps
414 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


RubioF-2.eps
(415) 

9. COUNTRY REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES IN SAUDI

ARABIA.—U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 2015 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-1.eps
416 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-2.eps
417 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-3.eps
418 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-4.eps
419 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-5.eps
420 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-6.eps
421 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-7.eps
422 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-8.eps
423 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-9.eps
424 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-10.eps
425 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-11.eps
426 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-12.eps
427 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-13.eps
428 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-14.eps
429 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-15.eps
430 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-15.eps
431 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-16.eps
432 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-17.eps
433 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-18.eps
434 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-19.eps
435 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-21.eps
436 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-22.eps
437 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-23.eps
438 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-24.eps
439 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-25.eps
440 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-26.eps
441 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-27.eps
442 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-28.eps
443 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-29.eps
444 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-30.eps
445 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-31.eps
446 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-32.eps
447 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-33.eps
448 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-34.eps
449 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-35.eps
450 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-36.eps
451 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-37.eps
452 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-38.eps
453 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-39.eps
454 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-40.eps
455 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-41.eps
456 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-42.eps
457 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-43.eps
458 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-44.eps
459 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-45.eps
460 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-46.eps
461 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-47.eps
462 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-48.eps
463 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-49.eps
464 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-50.eps
465 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-51.eps
466 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Saud-52.eps
(467) 

Annex III.—Material Submitted by 

Senator Young 

1. U.S. and European Union Sanctions on Russia for Activities 

Related to Ukraine; A Comparison, Congressional Research 

Service 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(469) 

1. U.S. AND EUROPEAN UNION SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA FOR ACTIVITIES RELATED TO UKRAINE; A COMPARISON, Congressional Research Service 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Young-1.eps
470 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Young-2.eps
471 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Young-3.eps
472 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Young-4.eps
473 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Young-5.eps
FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(475) 

Annex IV.—Material Submitted by 

Senator Cardin 

1. Communication From Publish What You Pay, A British Charity, Advocating for Transparency in the financial Activities of 

the Fossil Fuel Industry 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(477) 

1. COMMUNICATION FROM PUBLISH WHAT YOU PAY, A BRITISH

CHARITY, ADVOCATING FOR TRANSPARENCY IN THE FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES OF THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Cardin-1.eps
478 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Cardin-2.eps
479 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Cardin-3.eps
480 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Cardin-4.eps
481 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Cardin-5.eps
482 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Cardin-6.eps
(483) 

Annex V.—Material Submitted by 

Senator Shaheen 

1. More of the Kremlin’s Opponents Are Ending Up Dead, New 

York Times, September 20, 2016 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(485) 

1. MORE OF THE KREMLIN’S OPPONENTS ARE ENDING UP DEAD, The 

New York Times, September 20, 2016 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Kremlin-1.eps
486 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Kremlin-2.eps
487 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Kremlin-3.eps
488 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Kremlin-4.eps
489 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Kremlin-5.eps
FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(491) 

Annex VI.—Material Submitted by 

Senator Kaine 

1. Global Climate Change, The Op-Ed Series [Published by 

ExxonMobil, 2000] 

2. In-House Communication from Roger W. Cohen to A.M. 

Natkin, Office of Science and Technology, Exxon Corporation 

[1982] 

3. Report Submitted to the Members of the Senate Committee on 

Foreign Relations by Senator Richard G. Lugar, Ranking Member 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(493) 

1. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, THE OP-ED SERIES

[PUBLISHED BY EXXONMOBIL, 2000] 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Ex2000-1.eps
494 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Ex2000-2.eps
495 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Ex2000-3.eps
496 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Ex2000-4.eps
497 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Ex2000-5.eps
498 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Ex2000-6.eps
(499) 

2. IN-HOUSE COMMUNICATION FROM ROGER W. COHEN TO A.M. 

NATKIN, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, EXXON CORPORATION [1982] 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Ex1982-1.eps
500 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Ex1982-2.eps
501 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Ex1982-3.eps
502 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Ex1982-4.eps
(503) 

3. REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS BY SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR, 

RANKING MEMBER

The complete hearing can be accessed through the Superintendent of Documents, 

U.S. Government Publishing Office, by following the link below: 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-110SPRT44727/pdf/CPRT110SPRT44727.pdf 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


110-49.eps
FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(505) 

Annex VII.—Material Submitted by 

Senator Merkley 

1. Under Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil Forged Its Own Path Abroad, 

New York Times, December 13, 2016 

2. Ukraine Crisis Drives a Quiet Lobbying Boom in U.S., 

Bloomberg News, May 23, 2014 

3. Tillerson Visited White House Often Over Russia Sanctions, 

Bloomberg News, December 12 and 13, 2016 

4. Rex Tillerson’s Company, Exxon, Has Billions at Stake Over 

Sanctions on Russia, New York Times, December 12, 2016 

5. Rex Tillerson is No Fan of Russia Sanctions Bill, CBS News, 

December 18, 2016 

6. ExxonMobil Helped Defeat Russia Sanctions Bill, Politico, December 18, 2016 

7. ExxonMobil and Iran Did Business Under Secretary of State 

Nominee Tillerson, USA Today, January 6, 2006 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(507) 

1. UNDER REX TILLERSON, EXXONMOBIL FORGED ITS OWN PATH

ABROAD, New York Times, December 13, 2016 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-1.eps
508 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-2.eps
509 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-3.eps
510 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-4.eps
511 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-5.eps
512 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-6.eps
513 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-7.eps
FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(515) 

2. UKRAINE CRISIS DRIVES A QUIET LOBBYING BOOM IN U.S., 

Bloomberg News, May 23, 2014 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-8.eps
516 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-9.eps
517 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-10.eps
FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(519) 

3. TILLERSON VISITED WHITE HOUSE OFTEN OVER RUSSIA

SANCTIONS, Bloomberg News, December 12 and 13, 2016 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-11.eps
520 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-12.eps
521 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-13.eps
FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(523) 

4. REX TILLERSON’S COMPANY, EXXON, HAS BILLIONS AT STAKE

OVER SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA, New York Times, December 12, 2016 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-14.eps
524 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-15.eps
525 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-16.eps
526 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-17.eps
527 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-18.eps
FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(529) 

5. REX TILLERSON IS NO FAN OF RUSSIA SANCTIONS BILL, CBS 

News, December 15, 2016 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-19.eps
530 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-20.eps
531 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-20B.eps
FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(533) 

6. EXXONMOBIL HELPED DEFEAT RUSSIA SANCTIONS BILL, Politico, 

December 18, 2016 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Politico-1.eps
534 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Politico-2.eps
535 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Politico-3.eps
536 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Politico-4.eps
(537) 

7. EXXONMOBIL AND IRAN DID BUSINESS UNDER SECRETARY OF

STATE NOMINEE TILLERSON, USA Today, January 6, 2006 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Snip-1.eps
538 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Snip-2.eps
(539) 

Annex VIII.—Material Submitted by Senators 

Cardin, Menendez, and Merkley 

1. Lobbying Disclosure Forms Filed by ExxonMobil, Selected 

Quarters, 2010–2016 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(541) 

1. LOBBYING DISCLOSURE FORMS FILED BY EXXONMOBIL, SELECTED

QUARTERS, 2010–2016 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-40.eps
542 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-41.eps
543 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-42.eps
544 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


Merkley-43.eps
545 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-1.eps
546 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-2.eps
547 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-3.eps
548 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-4.eps
549 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-5.eps
550 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-6.eps
551 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-7.eps
552 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-8.eps
553 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-9.eps
554 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-10.eps
555 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-11.eps
556 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-12.eps
557 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-13.eps
558 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-14.eps
559 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-15.eps
560 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-16.eps
561 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-17.eps
562 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-18.eps
563 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-19.eps
564 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-20.eps
565 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-21.eps
566 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-22.eps
567 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-23.eps
568 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


CardinL-24.eps
569 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


S.2828-1.eps
570 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


S.2828-2.eps
571 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


S.2828-3.eps
572 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


S.2828-4.eps
573 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


S.2828-5.eps
574 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


S.2828-6.eps
575 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


S.2828-7.eps
576 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2799-1.eps
577 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2799-2.eps
578 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2799-3.eps
579 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2799-4.eps
580 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2799-5.eps
581 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2799-6.eps
582 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2799-7.eps
583 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2799-8.eps
584 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2799-9.eps
585 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2799-10.eps
586 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2799-12.eps
587 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2799-13.eps
588 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2799-14.eps
589 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2799-15.eps
590 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2799-16.eps
591 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2799-17.eps
592 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2799-18.eps
593 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2799-19.eps
594 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2799-20.eps
595 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2799-21.eps
596 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2799-22.eps
597 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2799-23.eps
598 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2277-1.eps
599 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2277-3.eps
600 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2277-5.eps
601 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2277-6.eps
602 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2277-7.eps
603 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2277-8.eps
604 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2277-9.eps
605 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2277-10.eps
606 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2277-11.eps
607 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2277-12.eps
608 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2277-13.eps
609 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2277-14.eps
610 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2277-15.eps
611 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2277-16.eps
612 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2277-17.eps
613 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2277-18.eps
614 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2277-19.eps
615 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


M2277-20.eps
616 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-1.eps
617 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-2.eps
618 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-3.eps
619 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-4.eps
620 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-5.eps
621 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-6.eps
622 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-7.eps
623 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-8.eps
624 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-9.eps
625 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-10.eps
626 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-11.eps
627 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-12.eps
628 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-13.eps
629 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-14.eps
630 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-15.eps
631 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-16.eps
632 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-17.eps
633 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-18.eps
634 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-19.eps
635 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-20.eps
636 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-21.eps
637 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-22.eps
638 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-23.eps
639 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-24.eps
640 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-25.eps
641 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


HR5094-26.eps
FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

(643) 

2. DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY THE TRI-STATE COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT EXPRESSING CONCERN OVER THE NOMINATION OF REX W. TILLERSON TO BE U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


ExTri-1.eps
644 

Æ 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER


ExTri-2.eps