Senate Hearing on the 2027 State Department Budget Featuring Secretary Rubio - 06/02/26

[6:11] The United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee will come to order. [6:15] It wasn't orderly to begin with, but it's orderly now, thanks to our good crew. [6:21] And we welcome here, as always, our Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, a distinguished alumni [6:27] of this committee. [6:28] And I know he's always glad to come back here and visit with us. [6:33] We – Marco, we haven't had this kind of excitement since you've been here last time. [6:38] I know you think this is the way it is every time, but it's not. [6:41] So in any event, we're glad to have you. [6:45] For the information of the committee, the Secretary has four hearings in these two days. [6:52] So we have negotiated a hard stop at 1230. [6:56] To that end, we'll use the usual array of the way we do things here, and that is, first [7:03] of all, I will make an opening statement, and then I'll yield to Senator Shaheen, and then [7:10] we'll turn the floor over to Senator Rubio. [7:12] Then we'll do a five-minute round of questions based on arrival time. [7:20] So with that, Secretary, it's good to see you here again. [7:25] Though you're not on the Hill often, a lot has changed, obviously, since the last time [7:31] you testified on the President's International Affairs budget last year. [7:34] The Department has undergone a major reorganization, making it operate more efficiently and more [7:40] in line with America's interests, as we discussed before you even took the job. [7:46] And that's been – being executed, I think, quite well. [7:50] At long last, foreign governments are being encouraged and, when necessary, pushed to live [7:55] up to their responsibilities to respond to the needs of their own citizens. [8:00] America will stand up by our allies and provide life-saving assistance to people in their hour [8:06] of need, but we are not the world's ATM. [8:10] And so the Department is testing new ways of providing strategic assistance and breaking [8:13] the cycle of dependence on aid. [8:16] Renewed emphasis on trade over aid will help the American people and lift up countries around [8:22] the world. [8:23] This is American generosity and ingenuity in action. [8:29] Through this budget, the Administration is holding UN organizations to account, badly, [8:33] badly overdue, and alongside Ambassador Waltz, making sure American values are leading in [8:39] international organizations. [8:42] You've made securing the Western Hemisphere a top policy and budget priority, and have successfully [8:47] reduced illegal immigration at the southern border to the lowest level in half a century. [8:53] That has not gone unnoticed. [8:55] You've helped curb the trafficking of illegal fentanyl into the United States, saving countless [9:00] lives. [9:01] The budget prioritizes countering China's unfair trade practices, expanding military and malign [9:06] influence operations around the world, which pose some of the greatest threats in modern [9:12] history to the American people. [9:13] At the same time, you've been working to ensure these efforts are strategic, targeted, [9:18] effective, and we appreciate that. [9:20] The Administration has also taken care to ensure taxpayer dollars don't go to those who are [9:26] able but unwilling to pay for their own defense. [9:29] Through concerted effort by you and your colleagues, our NATO allies have increased their defense [9:34] spending and have committed to reach the 5 percent by 2035. [9:39] This is a major change from the way you and I used to deal with this for the decade or more [9:44] before this. [9:45] Together, we need to create a next-generation NATO that is stronger, more interoperable, [9:51] and takes advantage of the industrial potential of American and European economies. [9:56] We also must continue to coordinate with our European partners as they take greater responsibility [10:01] for supporting Ukraine and work with our partners to deny Russia strategic gains. [10:07] The Administration has prioritized efforts to end conflicts in Africa, which undermine [10:13] decades of investment in economic growth and global health security. [10:18] All is not well there. [10:20] The latest Ebola outbreak in Eastern Congo now affecting the entire region highlights how [10:25] conflict and humanitarian crises abroad threaten the health and security of the American people [10:31] here at home. [10:32] I know the Department is working hard to protect us from this threat, and I look forward to hearing [10:36] how the budget supports these efforts. [10:38] And of course, the Administration has taken decisive action to protect American citizens from the [10:43] threat posed by Iranian nuclear capabilities and ambitions. [10:48] On behalf of the American people, thank you for your hard work on that. [10:52] You and I have been through this before, and we know how difficult it is. [10:55] Change is hard, but it is also necessary. [10:58] Your efforts to make the State Department more responsive to the needs of Americans will help [11:03] us all meet the challenges of the 21st century. [11:06] I look forward to discussing how the budget will further those efforts. [11:09] With that, I will turn it over to the distinguished ranking member, Senator Shaheen. [11:14] Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. [11:16] Good morning, Secretary Rubio. [11:20] Mr. Secretary, you were a senator. [11:23] You sat on this committee. [11:25] You sat on the Intelligence Committee. [11:28] You know, as well as anyone, that effective American foreign policy requires a strong partnership [11:34] with Congress. [11:36] Allies need to know that our commitments can stand the test of time, and that only happens [11:41] if Congress is brought into the discussion. [11:44] Congress cannot be a partner if it's kept in the dark. [11:48] I have a long list of unanswered requests sitting on your department's desk. [11:53] And Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask that these letters be submitted for the record. [11:58] They'll be submitted. [12:02] I've requested a briefing on changes to U.S. force posture in Europe. [12:07] And after 33 days, we still have no response. [12:10] We've requested a briefing from the Iran war on displacement. [12:16] After 90 days, we still have no response. [12:20] We've asked for a briefing on Ukraine on a number of issues. [12:24] After 180 days, we still have no response. [12:28] We've asked for a briefing on lifting Milorad Dodik's sanctions. [12:33] And after 225 days, we still have no response. [12:37] We've asked for a briefing for the U.S. Agency for Global Media. [12:42] No response after 344 days. [12:46] The Romanian visa program termination. [12:49] We've followed up five times over 435 days, and we've still gotten no response. [12:56] In January, when you were before this committee, I asked if you would report to this committee [13:01] once an audit system was in place to track Venezuelan oil revenues. [13:06] You said, and I quote, oh, absolutely, yeah, we are still waiting. [13:13] And when you do notify Congress, it's to inform us of decisions you have already made. [13:18] That is not consultation, as you well know. [13:21] That is not advice and consent. [13:24] Congress has been clear on a bipartisan basis. [13:28] We do not want to cede ground to China. [13:31] Yet this administration is closing consulates and cutting funding in the Indo-Pacific. [13:36] The same pattern extends to global health. [13:40] USAID supported Ebola detection and prevention activities in DRC and Uganda for years. [13:48] We can see in this poster, even Elon Musk admitted that one of the things we accidentally canceled, [13:57] very briefly, was Ebola prevention. [14:01] Well, those programs were dismantled, and today we have to screen for Ebola at Dulles Airport [14:09] rather than in the DRC and Uganda more than 7,000 miles away. [14:15] You're asking for a 44 percent reduction in the State Department budget. [14:19] That includes eliminating funding to the World Health Organization. [14:23] It includes eliminating all disease-specific funds in the middle of an Ebola crisis that's [14:29] affecting Americans. [14:31] Yet no one from your department can explain to us why this is a good idea. [14:36] You sent Congress one notification saying you needed $19 billion to close out USAID. [14:44] Then you sent another saying you needed some of that money to respond to disease outbreaks. [14:49] Congress has asked for an explanation, and we still have not received one. [14:54] The same pattern extends to our alliances. [14:57] I just returned from a bipartisan delegation to the Arctic. [15:01] We are on the verge of losing the very alliances that we have built for decades because the [15:07] President manufactured a crisis over Greenland. [15:10] And nowhere is that clearer than with Russia. [15:13] In 2017, you wrote, as a senator, that Vladimir Putin will never be a trusted ally or a reliable, [15:21] constructive partner. [15:23] But since taking office, you, the President, the Vice President, Steve Wyckoff, not one of [15:29] you has been to Ukraine. [15:32] And yet your envoys talk to Putin on a regular basis. [15:35] The President has invited him, given him the red carpet treatment on American soil. [15:41] But yet you won't come up here and brief Congress on any of it. [15:45] And decisions Congress has made on Russia have been systematically undermined. [15:50] Congress passed support for Ukraine. [15:52] The administration has slow walked it. [15:55] And instead of sanctioning Russia, the administration issued oil licenses that have sent billions to [16:01] Moscow. [16:03] Congress has asked what this approach has produced. [16:06] Russia has conducted five times more drone strikes on Ukraine since 2024. [16:15] More U.S. businesses are being directly targeted than at any point in this conflict. [16:20] And Russia is providing targeting intelligence to help Iran hit our facilities and personnel [16:25] in the Middle East while we're helping them fund this war. [16:30] When I talked to my constituents, they asked for economic relief at home, not regime change [16:36] in Havana or Caracas or Tehran. [16:40] Instead, you sent Congress a War Powers notification saying we are not in active hostilities with [16:45] Iran, while the U.S. was conducting strikes against Iran and Iran was bombing U.S. embassies [16:51] and bases throughout the Middle East. [16:54] That was not consultation. [16:56] It was an attempt to avoid answering to this committee and this Congress about this war. [17:03] Congress has asked basic questions about the war. [17:06] Why are roughly half of our Patriot intercepted stockpiles gone? [17:11] Why does the Strait of Hormuz remain closed? [17:13] Why is gas up $1.50? [17:15] Why did 13 American service members lose their lives in this war? [17:20] Congress deserves to know why, and Americans deserve to know why. [17:24] Mr. Secretary, you would not have stood for this kind of stonewalling by the administration [17:29] when you were a senator, and you certainly shouldn't stand for it as Secretary of State [17:34] and National Security Advisor. [17:37] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [17:38] Thank you, Senator. [17:39] We'll now proceed to a round of five-minute questions. [17:41] I'm sorry. [17:43] We'll try. [17:45] Did you want to do—we talked about that. [17:47] Do you want one? [17:49] We actually talked about that, but he thought that questioning might be easier. [17:52] Why don't you go ahead. [17:53] I have it in writing. [17:54] You want me to read it? [17:56] Give us your mission. [17:57] Okay. [17:58] Well, thank you for having me here. [17:59] There will be a lot to talk about today, and I just want to remind everybody, you know, [18:03] our foreign policy is one that's solely focused on the national interest of the United States [18:11] of America, on the defense of our country, both its military defense and our security, [18:15] but also our economic security and the vibrancy of our economy, our sovereignty, and our future. [18:20] We believe that America should lead the world, and I believe that we are, and we'll have [18:23] a very good story to tell about that. [18:25] American leadership, however, should always be on behalf of the American interests. [18:29] I say this because I think over a period of time in our foreign policy, we lost focus [18:33] on that. [18:34] The reality of it is that our foreign policy, first and foremost, must always be what is [18:38] in the national interest of the United States of America. [18:41] And determining the national interest oftentimes requires us to make pragmatic decisions. [18:47] In terms of foreign policy, the choices are not between a good choice and a bad choice. [18:51] It's between two less than ideal choices, and you're trying to figure out which one [18:54] of these two choices is the one that is best for the United States and least harmful to [18:58] our interests. [18:59] And that plays out every single day. [19:01] That said, we remain the world's sole global superpower, the most powerful country on earth. [19:06] We have the largest economy. [19:07] We have the most formidable and powerful military, ever known to man, by the way. [19:11] Our dollar remains the reserve currency of the world. [19:14] Our language is used extensively throughout the world to transact all sorts of business [19:19] and many of our engagements. [19:21] But all of this means very little if that power is not used to protect the people who built [19:25] it, the people who it is meant to protect. [19:27] I also remind everybody the United States government is not a charity. [19:30] We are not here to play social worker. [19:32] We are here to win. [19:33] We are here to win on behalf of the American people and on behalf of the national interests, [19:37] to win for our country, to win for the people of America, to win for the things [19:41] that are important for our future. [19:42] And that's what we exist to do. [19:44] The State Department exists to carry out the foreign policy of the United States, both in [19:47] diplomacy and in aid, in a way that furthers the national interest and helps the American [19:53] people. [19:54] And it's guided every decision that's been made since January of 2025. [19:57] I'll give you a perfect example is in our own Western Hemisphere, an area that this committee [20:01] and many of its members long argued, as I did, has long been neglected and not been [20:05] paid attention to. [20:07] We now have in this hemisphere a coalition of friendly countries, over a dozen, who have [20:11] a line to work on, not just the issues of security that we all have in common, but also economic [20:16] prosperity that go hand in hand. [20:17] It's an amazing story that basically, other than Nicaragua, other than Cuba, obviously other [20:23] than Venezuela, remains with some challenges. [20:26] And of course Brazil, although they're in the midst of an election cycle, and to some extent [20:30] the current government in Colombia as well, at least the president's been problematic. [20:33] But generally speaking, it is now a region filled with American allies, American friendly leaders, [20:39] and an American friendly direction. [20:40] Now obviously we have to operationalize that into action after 20 years of neglect, in which [20:44] China and other global powers have intruded in our Western Hemisphere, to the detriment [20:49] not just of American national interest, but to the detriment in our view of the people [20:53] of those countries as well. [20:55] So these are important achievements, and one that I'm very happy about. [21:00] I'm also happy about the way we've transformed foreign aid. [21:02] In any transition there will be, you know, bumps in the road, but largely speaking if you think [21:08] about how those programs that existed in the past were failing us, the old model had to [21:12] be replaced. [21:13] And the foreign assistance that remains is being brought under the strategic direction [21:16] of the State Department. [21:18] So we're not just providing money, we are also seeking outcomes. [21:21] It's not just how much money you spend on a program, it's whether you're getting outcomes [21:24] from it, but it's also being guided with our strategic view in mind. [21:29] And that means that we are able to provide aid, not just all over the world, but specifically [21:33] targeted at those most in needs. [21:35] And those places around the world, most important to the national interest of the United States. [21:40] That will remain our guiding principle. [21:41] That's been our guiding principle in our reforms. [21:44] So I would just, I mean, we can get into a lot of these details in our questions. [21:50] The bottom line is that all this and more is a reflection of this belief that I outlined [21:56] at the outset. [21:57] And that is that foreign policy cannot be separated from economic policy, from border policy, from [22:01] energy policy, from any of these other spheres that are critical to our national interests. [22:05] A country that cannot build ships, or produce medicine, or control immigration, or access [22:10] vital resources, cannot defend its people, cannot defend its interests, and cannot defend [22:15] its way of life. [22:16] So our foreign policy continues to be reoriented around the real foundations of national strength. [22:22] This budget is yet another step, I believe, in that direction. [22:24] Obviously, the appropriators here will have a huge say on the outcome of what that budget [22:28] ultimately looks like, as we don't anticipate that for the first time in modern history Congress [22:35] will just take up our budget and pass it. [22:37] We think it will go through some substantial reforms along the way, and we look forward to [22:40] engaging you like we did last year to produce what we think is a very good spending bill at [22:44] that time. [22:45] But anyways, I look forward to your questions. [22:46] I think this is what it says here. [22:47] I'm not sure if I really look forward to your questions. [22:50] I look forward to probably half your questions. [22:52] Thank you. [22:53] Thank you, Secretary Rubio. [22:57] We will now do a round of questions, five-minute questions, based on order of attendance. [23:04] And I'm going to start, and I'm going to say thank you for the work you've done with respect [23:08] to Ron. [23:10] All of us that have worked on this for years know how frustrating that is, how difficult it [23:14] is to work with this regime, who've sponsored terrorism, kidnapping, and killed thousands [23:19] of Americans for the last 47 years. [23:22] Thank you for doing something about it. [23:24] I know you and the President are doing all you can to ensure this comes to a close sooner [23:28] rather than later. [23:29] I wonder if you could give us at least a brief update on where we are. [23:33] Well, first let me remind everybody that while I've not been before this committee since [23:36] I believe February, when we briefed on the Venezuela operation, I have appeared on multiple [23:42] occasions here, both in my role as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State in both [23:46] all Senate briefings multiple times, Gang of Eight briefings, Gang of Sixteen briefings. [23:52] So we've talked about this topic with some of you in those settings in the past that you've [23:55] heard from us. [23:57] Let me just lay the predicate here, okay? [23:59] Iran's desire to build a nuclear weapon was going to be built, was going to be effectuated [24:05] behind a conventional shield. [24:07] They were going to build for themselves so many missiles, so many drones, so many conventional [24:13] weapons, including a Navy, that at that point there's nothing you could do about it. [24:18] What they tried to do is they were going to try to build a conventional shield and hide [24:21] behind that conventional shield and basically say to the world, if you come and do anything [24:25] about our nuclear program, we will overwhelm you with missiles, we will overwhelm you with [24:29] drones, and we will overwhelm you with our Navy, and you will not win. [24:33] You will not be able to do anything about it. [24:34] They were seeking that point of immunity, which is why the President chose to act, to deny [24:38] them that point of immunity. [24:40] Operation Epic Fury, some of you didn't like it, some of you did, was highly successful [24:45] in achieving its military objectives, which is dramatically reducing the defense industrial [24:50] base of Iran. [24:51] The ability to build these missiles and to build these drones, especially the missiles program, [24:56] substantially degraded. [24:57] A substantial percentage, and I'll leave the exact numbers to the Department of War because [25:01] I'm not a general, and I'm not here to speak as a military planner, but a substantial degradation [25:05] in the number of launchers that they have as well. [25:07] They still have a lot of drones because these are easy to make. [25:10] We all know it's not an Iran challenge, this is a global challenge, and it's playing out [25:14] every single day around the world. [25:15] I mean, Mexican cartels are using UAVs against each other. [25:19] We should imagine at some point may even use it against our own, against our interests. [25:24] So this is a pervasive problem around the world. [25:26] The economics of it is something we have to solve for, but nonetheless, even their drone [25:31] building capability has been eroded. [25:33] Today there is no Iranian Navy. [25:35] There is no such thing. [25:36] There's a bunch of Boston whalers with machine guns on them, but there is no Navy. [25:40] There is no Iranian Navy. [25:41] It lies at the bottom of the ocean and will soon, within a number of years, be prime fishing [25:46] spots because they'll turn into reefs. [25:48] So my whole point is that the Iranian conventional shield has been substantially eroded. [25:56] Now, in the aftermath of that, two things have happened. [25:59] The first is they entered into a ceasefire. [26:01] They agreed. [26:02] We agreed to stop. [26:03] But part of that agreement is that they would reopen the straits. [26:06] They did not. [26:07] At which point the president decided, and I think appropriately, we can't have a world [26:12] in which Iran, only Iranian ships get through the straits. [26:15] And so if they're going to shut down the straits for everybody, we're going to shut down the [26:19] straits for them. [26:20] And we have done that through a very effective blockade and, by the way, through the seizure [26:24] of sanctioned ships in the Indo-Pacific as well. [26:27] The cost to Iran every single day in lost revenue is in the hundreds of millions of dollars [26:33] that they are losing in lost revenue that they're not generating as a result of that. [26:37] Now, we are in talks. [26:39] And I say talks because talks with Iran are not like talks with Switzerland, okay? [26:43] They're very different. [26:44] They require the use of intermediaries, unfortunately. [26:47] But there is the prospect before us, which could happen today, it could happen tomorrow, [26:51] it could happen next week, that for the first time, certainly in my memory, they have agreed [26:58] to negotiate aspects of their nuclear program that just a month ago or just a year ago they [27:03] were refusing to even mention, much less enter into discussions about. [27:07] That is not a guarantee that ultimately it will lead to a deal that's acceptable to the [27:10] Senate or acceptable to the American people. [27:13] But we will be able to engage them in a process to truly test the proposition of how far they're [27:17] willing to go. [27:18] Complicating that process, unfortunately, is their internal regime is somewhat fractured [27:23] in the sense of it takes days to get responses from their system. [27:26] We can go into more depth in your follow-up questions. [27:30] But we're hopeful that something like that could happen in which the straits would reopen. [27:33] We would enter into a period of negotiations on very specific topics, delineated negotiations, [27:40] in the hope of reaching an outcome that's acceptable to us and something that they would be able [27:43] to do as well. [27:45] But if it doesn't work out, then obviously we still have a problem with respect to their [27:50] nuclear ambitions. [27:51] But what they won't have is the conventional shield behind any longer. [27:55] Thank you, Secretary. [27:58] I'm going to ask one more question. [28:00] Hopefully this will shorten as we go around. [28:02] There will be more questions, obviously, on that topic. [28:05] But I know you just got back from China not long ago. [28:08] Could you give us a quick update on the state of U.S.-China related? [28:11] Yeah, look, I mean, China and the United States are the two largest economies in the world, [28:15] the two most powerful militaries in the world. [28:17] The Chinese government and the U.S. government have to speak. [28:21] I mean, there's really – it's not a choice here. [28:24] We have to have some measure of communication, if for nothing else, in order to de-escalate [28:28] potential points of conflict that could lead to something broader. [28:31] There are obviously very significant irritants in our relationship with China. [28:36] Some of these are long-term problems that we know we're going to have to address. [28:39] And so what we're trying to do is manage a period of strategic stability. [28:42] While recognizing that there are areas of our relationship in which we are going to [28:46] have struggles, not just for years, but perhaps for decades, we recognize this. [28:51] But I think as much as anything else, we have to recognize that the United States and China [28:55] have to be able to have points of dialogue and speak to one another, as I said, for no [29:01] other reason than to be able to have a communication channel. [29:03] I think in our meetings it was abundantly clear which are the areas that we do not have [29:07] strong alignment or agreement on. [29:09] We understand that there are areas in which long-term we're going to have some real challenges, [29:13] whether it's supply chains. [29:15] Put it to you this way. [29:16] Let's leave China aside for a moment. [29:17] The United States, and I would argue the world, cannot depend on one country for 90 percent [29:22] of anything, especially 90 percent of things that are critical to our economies, from our [29:27] weapons systems to our pharmaceuticals. [29:29] We just can't live in a world in which we rely on anybody for 90 percent of what we get, [29:34] in one sole source that could be cut off at any time as leverage against us or punishment [29:39] or in a time of conflict. [29:41] And so we are actively searching and have plans in place, and we're implementing these to diversify [29:45] where we get critical minerals, where we get our supply chain, secure that supply chain. [29:50] And obviously the Chinese would like to retain their monopoly position in some of these. [29:55] This is going to be a long-term issue that we're going to have to continue to confront [29:58] and work on. [29:59] Work on that continues even while we are engaged in the ability to dialogue and speak to them, [30:04] because we have to. [30:05] It's responsible, and we truly have no choice but to be able to do that. [30:08] It's to their benefit and ours, and I would argue to the benefit of the world that these [30:11] two countries are able to speak to one another. [30:14] Thank you, Secretary. [30:15] And I think your comments about the supply chain and the critical minerals and everything [30:21] else that's in the bottleneck, these are things that are relatively new to us. [30:25] They've always been there, but COVID underscored that, and then, of course, the Ukraine War [30:29] brought it out even more. [30:31] And appreciate your remarks. [30:32] I think everybody at the status knows we are, as a nation, looking at that. [30:37] With that, Senator Shaheen. [30:39] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [30:41] Mr. Secretary, at this budget hearing last year, you testified that no one had died as [30:45] a result of foreign aid cuts. [30:48] Sadly, I think we're seeing in real time that that's not true today. [30:52] There are more than 1,000 cases, more than 200 Ebola-related deaths. [30:57] And as we know, one of the entities that is a critical global health tool is GAVE, particularly [31:07] during a disease outbreak. [31:10] It plays a role in distributing Ebola vaccines, and it has committed up to $40 million to develop [31:15] a vaccine for the current Ebola strain that has no vaccine right now. [31:20] So, how are you making sure that Secretary Kennedy, who has been sitting on those funds for months [31:27] now, is going to release them so that they can go to help develop a vaccine to address [31:33] the Ebola outbreak? [31:34] Yeah. [31:35] Well, a couple points on GAVE. [31:37] I would say that the President had asked that we allow Secretary Kennedy to play a leading [31:42] role on the GAVE decision because of his strongly-held views with regards to vaccine safety, and [31:47] he wanted them to conduct some reforms. [31:49] I actually talked to Senator Schatz about this last week as well, and so the State Department [31:54] is going to be re-engaging. [31:55] I'm not here to tell you we're going to yank this thing, and we're not going to listen to [31:58] his points of view. [31:59] But the State Department, a few weeks ago, made the decision that we were going to re-engage [32:04] on this issue of GAVE, respecting what HHS views on it are as well, and we want to take [32:10] their input. [32:11] But we'd like to get this issue resolved and an outcome that's acceptable, both to Congress, [32:16] and also to our goals on global health. [32:18] So it is an issue, as I said, I wouldn't use the word defer, but we have certainly allowed [32:23] him to play a leading role in determining what we're going to do next. [32:27] But right now, we're sort of at a stage where we are going to re-engage. [32:31] We need to drive this to an outcome. [32:33] I couldn't agree more, and so do you commit to using the $2 billion that Congress has appropriated [32:39] for global health to actually help fund global health security? [32:43] Well, we do fund global health security beyond GAVI, by the way, and we can talk about that. [32:48] We can talk about the compacts, I think 32, that we've now entered into with countries [32:51] all over the world. [32:53] We have a new agreement to the UN as well that they're very happy with. [32:58] The global fund, we've hit our cap. [33:01] We are at our 33 percent, and we've actually been able to attract additional donors from [33:06] around the world to contribute to it. [33:08] On this specific item, I would say, we intend to get this resolved. [33:12] We want to get this resolved. [33:13] It's an important part of our matrix. [33:15] We will follow up, and I hope you will share with this committee as soon as you get it resolved. [33:21] I want to go to Russian oil sanctions and general licenses because President Trump gave Russia [33:29] a lifeline, allowing it to sell oil globally through licenses issued by the Treasury Department. [33:37] While I think the administration should have known that the Iran war would make Russian [33:41] oil more desirable, they decided to remove the stigma on that oil and give an extra windfall [33:47] of cash to Putin. [33:49] So can you let us know whether you believe or whether you will support extending those licenses [33:59] when that license, when it comes back up mid-June? [34:02] Yeah. [34:03] A couple of points. [34:04] First of all, two things have happened. [34:07] One is actually the U.S., U.S. production, and U.S. playing a role in the global energy [34:14] supply has increased. [34:15] I think we had our largest amount of exports from the United States we've ever seen. [34:19] So we've also benefited from this, and our energy dominance has really come into play. [34:24] The Russian waivers were a decision. [34:26] These are the policy, the underlying policy remains on the sanctions. [34:30] What has changed is these time-limited extensions to sort of try to alleviate the global, right. [34:35] The problem we're facing, too, is there's a contagion potential, and that is that at some [34:39] point we can do strategic reserves. [34:42] We can do some of the other things that we've done to sort of alleviate global supply. [34:47] But at some point you have to ensure this is not so much for us at the end of the day. [34:51] Our economy is not in need of it. [34:52] But there are other economies around the world that have benefited from this. [34:55] So these are time-limited extensions that ultimately at some point will expire. [34:58] We've certainly benefited China and Russia's economy. [35:00] Well, China doesn't – I mean, China refines oil. [35:03] They import a lot, but they refine oil, and they – [35:05] But they also benefit from Russian oil. [35:08] But my question for you is can you commit not to extend the general license again when [35:13] it expires on June 17th? [35:15] Well, that ultimately is a decision that's made by Treasury. [35:17] But I will tell you it depends on the circumstances at the time. [35:20] We would like to end it as soon as we possibly can because the underlying policy of this country [35:24] has been to sanction their oil. [35:26] These are time-limited waivers for the purpose of opening up more global supply. [35:30] I understand that. [35:32] But if we continue to extend them, they're not time-limited. [35:34] I want to get a final question in on food for peace because, as you know, the closure [35:39] of the Strait of Hormuz has deepened the humanitarian needs in food insecure countries such as Sudan, [35:46] South Sudan. [35:48] And yet in your opening statement, you said that our aid targets those who are most in need. [35:54] But I think it's very concerning that the country selection process for food for peace, [35:59] which I understand is led by the Department of State, includes only two priority countries [36:05] from World Food Program hunger hotspots. [36:08] That's Haiti and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [36:11] So the question I have is why are we adding countries that aren't facing acute food insecurity [36:19] like El Salvador, Guatemala, and Rwanda? [36:22] Why are we not helping countries who are facing acute, well, famine in some cases, Sudan, Gaza, [36:31] Afghanistan, Nigeria, Syria, Somalia? [36:34] These are all countries that have humanitarian crises, and yet we're helping countries that [36:39] don't have acute food insecurity. [36:41] Yeah. [36:42] Well, so a couple points. [36:43] First of all, on Gaza we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars, including after the [36:47] ceasefire, in providing through the World Food Program and other entities, and we continue [36:52] to do so. [36:53] I think if we're not the world's largest donor, I'd be surprised because it's a massive amount [36:56] of money that we've provided through those mechanisms of various means. [36:59] On the point of Sudan in particular, the complication in Sudan, which I wish were different, and we're [37:04] very involved in this. [37:05] I mean, I had a meeting on Sudan yesterday. [37:07] The problem in Sudan has largely not been our unwillingness to provide funds. [37:11] We are willing to step forward, and we have the flexibility through what we've been [37:14] able to do with foreign aid to surge up that. [37:17] It's been distribution. [37:18] It's been the ability to get that. [37:20] So as an example, in these conversations we're having between the warring sides, one [37:23] of the things we're trying to identify is four safe spots where people can go receive [37:28] humanitarian assistance, where we can actually have the outside groups, the NGOs, the international [37:34] organizations that we contract with have the ability to go in and actually deliver the [37:38] food without having their trucks hijacked or blown up or their workers killed. [37:42] That's been the fundamental challenge in Sudan is distribution. [37:45] The distribution is being threatened because we don't have conditions on the ground that allow [37:49] for it. [37:50] And so to allocate money towards something that we can't distribute is unwise until we have [37:54] that in place. [37:55] That's deeply tied to the ability to have a peace deal, which I can tell you has been [37:58] very frustrating. [37:59] On the one hand, with Sudan, we had a donor conference in Berlin in April. [38:02] I don't want to interrupt you, Mr. Secretary, but I'm out of time. [38:07] And it doesn't explain why we are providing food for countries that are not insecure. [38:13] I appreciate the challenges in Sudan. [38:15] We have those challenges in many places. [38:17] But because we have dismantled the distribution network when we eliminated USAID, we've exacerbated [38:25] those challenges in countries around the world. [38:27] And we are not providing the help based on humanitarian needs. [38:31] And that's my concern. [38:32] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [38:35] Senator Ricketts. [38:36] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary of State. [38:39] Thank you for being here. [38:40] Really appreciate it. [38:41] Good to see you. [38:42] Communist China is trying to win the AI race. [38:46] And they will use it, for example, to dominate our military, if they're able to do that, [38:51] and so many other ways. [38:52] A world where Communist China is dominant in AI is very bad for the United States and for [38:58] the entire world. [39:00] That's why it's critical that us and our allies cannot lose this race. [39:06] Semiconductor supply chains, particularly semiconductor manufacturing equipment, SMEs, [39:10] are critical to winning this competition. [39:13] It's one area that Beijing is spending billions and billions of dollars to be able to produce [39:20] chips in China, and they've failed to be able to produce those high-end chips so far. [39:27] President Trump understands this better than anyone because the Trump administration was [39:30] the first to utilize export controls on SMEs to slow down Communist China's advanced [39:35] chip-making industry. [39:37] Since that time, key allies and partners have also imposed controls on SMEs to China. [39:42] However, their controls have not been as restrictive as U.S. controls, and this has allowed certain [39:47] foreign countries to backfill the Chinese market with critical dual-use tools. [39:52] Secretary Rubio, do you agree that export controls on SMEs are critical to maintaining our technological [40:00] advantage over Communist China? [40:01] It is. [40:02] It's actually where it's most critical is in the high-end, the areas that are not legacy, [40:07] that are broader and that allow for that. [40:10] I think on the broader point of AI, we share your view. [40:12] One of the initiatives that I think Jacob Helberg has done a great job with at the State Department [40:16] is PAC Silica, in which we've signed up all these countries around the world. [40:19] I think we're up to 13 or 14, including ourselves and others who hope to join as well, in which [40:24] we can create this global consortium for all of the elements of the AI supply needs. [40:31] It's not just the innovation, it's obviously access to the minerals and the critical elements [40:35] necessary in order to produce these chips and all the things that it will take to lead [40:38] the world in AI. [40:40] I think it is safe to say the United States right now is a global leader on AI. [40:44] I think it is also wise to say that that lead is not irreversible. [40:49] It has to be sustained, and there will be a real challenge in sustaining it. [40:55] And we're going to have to stay focused on it. [40:56] The good news is I do think we have a system of global alliances that view it the way we [41:01] do. [41:02] And we want to lead on it because it's not just about leading the technology in AI, it's [41:06] about also leading in the standards that will govern how AI is used. [41:10] I don't want to monopolize this conversation on this point, but it's one that I think the [41:14] Senate should think about because I know we're starting to think about it. [41:17] AI will have very positive impacts on our economy and societies. [41:22] It will also have some detriments. [41:25] There will be white-collar jobs in this country that will be impacted. [41:30] And I think we have to start thinking not simply about the impact that AI will have on [41:33] those jobs, but the societal pressures that that will create, not just in the United States, [41:38] but in economies all over the world. [41:40] Much like industrialization and automation did, it will make the worker more efficient and [41:46] more valuable. [41:47] But it will eliminate some jobs, and those jobs will have to be replaced with new jobs [41:51] or new skills. [41:52] That's not just an economic issue. [41:54] That is a political issue. [41:56] That over time could destabilize societies all over the world. [42:00] And so we have to start thinking about AI in those terms as well. [42:04] You mentioned our allies. [42:05] Shouldn't they have to follow the same sort of standards U.S. companies do when we're limiting [42:08] the amount of – limiting the semi-manufacturing equipment that's going to communist China? [42:11] And that's our hope, is that we can create people that – that we can create a coalition [42:16] of nations that understand the danger in this. [42:19] And they're running through the same – some are better than others, but they're running [42:22] through the same problems that we run into, and that is companies ultimately want to sell [42:27] to the markets. [42:28] And China's a large market. [42:30] But I agree. [42:31] And that's one of the goals behind Pax Silica, is to create unanimity and – or consensus [42:35] behind that thinking. [42:36] Well, Mr. Secretary, that's why I recently introduced the Match Act with Senators Kim, [42:40] Risch, and Schumer to level a playing field. [42:43] This bill would provide the State Department with the leverage in ongoing negotiations with [42:47] our allies to align those controls. [42:50] And if agreement cannot be reached, it would ensure that foreign companies cannot sell the [42:53] very choke point technologies that we have restricted. [42:57] So I hope you'll support that as we move forward on it. [43:02] One other thing I just want to hit before my time runs out here is that I was the co-sponsor [43:06] of a bill to create the U.S. Foundation for National Security and Counterterrorism. [43:11] This is a foundation that would be a public-private partnership. [43:14] It would help counter traffickers and insurgents operating in ungoverned spaces around the developing [43:18] world, such as Africa. [43:20] The State Department, however, has not – for over a year and a half now launched this foundation, [43:26] and I encourage you to work expeditiously to implement it. [43:29] I think this is something that, as we're talking about, especially the continent of Africa, [43:33] could be very helpful to making sure that we're not only helping conserve the environment [43:38] and helping animals. [43:39] It's bad for terrorists. [43:40] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [43:41] Thank you. [43:42] And look at that. [43:43] I kept it in my time. [43:45] Good job. [43:46] Can you do as well, Senator Murray? [43:47] I'll do my best. [43:48] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [43:49] Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us today. [43:52] Despite the differences that existed between Republicans and Democrats prior to this administration [43:57] on how to approach Iran's nuclear program, the theory was basically the same – that [44:01] we were going to impose significant harm on the Iranian economy in order to force them [44:08] to the table to negotiate. [44:11] What is happening now is fundamentally different. [44:14] This war and the administration's decision to blockade has now held the entire world economy [44:24] and the U.S. economy hostage to the ability to negotiate an agreement with Iran. [44:30] This is why the entire country is seized by the question of when there will be an agreement, [44:37] because apparently, until there is an agreement, the Strait of Hormuz remains closed. [44:43] There is a cost to the Iranian economy, but now there is a devastating cost to the U.S. economy. [44:51] It has been indecipherable, the information coming from the administration, [44:57] especially in the past several weeks, as we get signals that a deal is imminent. [45:02] The president said yesterday he's bored by the negotiations. [45:05] He doesn't care whether we get a deal. [45:09] I think it's really important for us to understand what your bottom lines are, [45:14] what you're asking for in this negotiation, what commitments you need Iran to make [45:21] in order for you to release the blockade, and we hope for them to release the blockade as well. [45:27] So give us a little insight into what your bottom lines are, [45:35] what is going to get the Strait reopened, because this is kind of the only question that matters for American consumers right now, [45:42] and every day we get wildly different signals from the president as to whether he even is engaged in this question as to whether the Strait is going to reopen. [45:52] Yeah, I think your question gets right to the heart of the matter, so I think that's a good question. [45:57] Let me first bifurcate two things. [45:59] The only reason there's a blockade, the only reason why there's a U.S. blockade is because Iran has closed – they're firing on commercial ships, [46:06] and they've mined large segments of Hormuz, international waters. [46:10] And so the blockade is only against Iranian ships, and it's very simple. [46:14] The notion is if no one's ships are going to get out, then Iran's ships aren't going to get out either. [46:19] We can't live in a world in which they get to close the Straits and tell everybody, pay us a toll or we'll blow you up, [46:23] but their ships get to go out unfettered. [46:25] So that's the reason why there's a blockade. [46:27] There wouldn't have been a blockade if Iran had agreed to do what they said they would do when the ceasefire kicked in, [46:32] which is they were going to open the Straits. [46:34] So let me just focus on the Straits for a moment. [46:36] Number one, what they're doing is unlawful and illegal. [46:38] There isn't a country on Earth other than Iran, and maybe Oman that flirted with it, [46:43] who's in favor of what Iran is doing in the Straits. [46:46] The Chinese are against it. [46:47] The Russians are against it. [46:48] Everyone is against it. [46:49] The whole world is against it. [46:51] So condition number one is they have to reopen the Straits, and reopening the Straits means the following. [46:56] Ships can sail through international waters the way they can do through other choke points around the world [47:00] without being fired upon, without paying a toll. [47:03] That's condition number one. [47:04] But the strait is closed because of our decision to invade Iran. [47:09] This is a consequence of our military action. [47:12] So I guess I'm not interested in litigating that question. [47:15] We all know why the strait is closed, because you took military action against Iran, [47:19] and we knew ahead of time that that would be their likely response. [47:23] The question is, how are we going to get it reopened? [47:25] Are you going to drive a bargain that is so tough and so hard that the strait remains closed? [47:31] So how are we going to get it open? [47:33] The first thing, that is a predicate to anything else happening. [47:36] The straits have to be reopened. [47:37] So the way to think about it is this. [47:38] If Iran wants to be able to move its oil again through the strait, they will have to reopen the straits. [47:43] If they refuse to do so, then we have other options available to us, but we would prefer to negotiate the opening of this, which means the following. [47:49] Tell us about the negotiations. [47:50] What do you need from them in order to get the strait reopened? [47:52] We need the strait reopened tomorrow. [47:53] Well, what needs to happen is very simple. [47:55] They need to announce that they will no longer fire on commercial ships that are going through or threaten to fire on ships. [48:01] Because in many cases, ships just won't move. [48:03] They won't go, not because they got fired on, but because of the risk of being fired upon. [48:07] And so they have to announce very clearly the straits are now open. [48:11] We're not charging a toll. [48:12] We will help remove the mines that they put in there, and they will not fire on ships. [48:16] But the president says they also need to make commitments on their nuclear program. [48:20] That's what I'm asking. [48:21] Oh, I see what you're saying. [48:22] What commitments do they need to make in order for the strait to be reopened? [48:26] Well, the second thing they have to agree to as part of this is, so in addition to the straits, that's the predicate that opens the door to phase two. [48:32] Phase two is they have to commit to very specific negotiations on highly enriched, the disposition of the highly enriched uranium that still is buried deep in a mountain somewhere. [48:42] They have to agree on negotiating severe and long-term limitations and or cancellation of enrichment activity in their country. [48:52] In the second phase of negotiations? [48:54] Well, obviously, these are highly technical matters, so I don't think you could work those out in five days. [48:59] That would require a team of experts to meet over a 30-, 60-, 90-day period and work out the details. [49:04] But they have to commit to their willingness to do that. [49:06] For example, they have to commit to say, we will dispose of the enriched uranium. [49:11] And the question now is, what are the mechanisms by which we do so? [49:14] That can be negotiated. [49:15] Final question. [49:16] In order to get to that second phase, are you willing to release sanctions or release frozen money that the United States is withholding from Iran? [49:25] No. Right now, everything that's been discussed with them is that any sanctions relief – now, remember, sanctions come. [49:30] There's international sanctions. [49:31] There's congressional sanctions. [49:32] There's executive sanctions. [49:33] So some we can release and some we cannot. [49:35] But any sanctions relief is condition-based, which means it has to be in return for the reason [49:40] why those sanctions were put in place in the first place, which is their nuclear program. [49:44] So, yeah, look, Iran is being sanctioned because they enrich uranium. [49:47] Iran is being sanctioned because they've highly enriched uranium. [49:50] Iran is being sanctioned because of their nuclear activities. [49:52] If they agree to give up those things, there will be sanctions relief associated with their commitment and compliance with those agreements. [49:59] But you will not give sanctions relief just in exchange for reopening the strait? [50:03] No. [50:04] That's not been discussed. [50:05] That's not been offered. [50:06] Sir Hagerty. [50:09] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary Rubio. [50:11] It's good to see you here. [50:12] I want to commend you and the administration for actually implementing a foreign policy that advances America's interests. [50:17] Thank you. [50:18] If we could, I'd like to start with the Philippines, an area that we know very well. [50:23] It's a geographic center of the Indo-Pacific region. [50:25] region. It's an area that is along critical sea lanes where a tremendous [50:30] amount of world trade and energy commerce actually move. A strong alliance [50:35] with the Philippines clearly is in U.S. national security interest. It leads and [50:39] supports our freedom of navigation. It also helps us deliver regional [50:44] stability along the South China Sea, a very critical area, particularly in the [50:47] face of a very aggressive posture that the Chinese have adopted. I want to [50:51] recognize my colleague, Senator Cain, who's worked with me to put in place the [50:56] Philippines Enhanced Resilience Act. That's 500 million dollars of FMF [51:01] grants. It's a billion dollars of loan and loan guarantees per year to strengthen [51:06] the Philippines and the United States Alliance to make us more interoperable [51:10] and more capable. Mr. Secretary, I'd just like to get your comments, your vision on [51:14] the role of the Philippines in the United States Alliance. It's actually, I spoke to [51:18] President Marcos on Sunday and have had multiple engagements with them at a [51:23] personal level. We've had visits. A couple good points here. The first is we've [51:26] actually entered into agreement with them in which they're, I believe it's an [51:29] old U.S. military facility inside the Philippines that will now serve as sort [51:33] of a, I think it's a 4,000 acre. I'm very familiar with the area. Yeah, you know it. [51:38] And that we'll be able to do a lot of our activities together with regards to our [51:41] joint interests in developing on AI and high-tech and diversifying, helping [51:46] diversify their economy. The second is to continue with our defense commitments [51:49] that we've made to them and the ability to interoperate joint exercises which [51:53] we've done now multiple times over the last year. Obviously, we're very concerned [51:57] with Scarborough. We've seen in recent days and we've demarched and made a very [52:01] clear note. This issue came up during the first meeting with the Chinese. It's [52:07] come up in every engagement I've had with the Chinese and it's come up again now [52:10] very recently through diplomatic channels and that is we're very concerned about [52:14] recent activity once again near Scarborough and the buildup of [52:20] infrastructure that appears to be exerting, you know, territorial claims that we [52:25] have long argued are not valid. This is one of those irritants in the long term [52:29] that I think we'll continue to have to manage. But I view the Philippines as a [52:32] critical partner and I think over the last, I would say, couple of years our [52:36] relationship with them, particularly under their new administration, has [52:38] dramatically improved our ability to work with the Philippines jointly on a [52:42] number of topics of interest. Well I want to commend you the the 4,000 acre [52:46] Luzon corridor is anchored by the Subic Bay project which when I was ambassador [52:51] Japan worked very hard to get that back for America and I see that as a [52:54] tremendous opportunity for us to deepen our economic ties and of course that has [52:58] as you mentioned earlier tremendous national security. Yeah can I just add one [53:02] point there is you know some desire during their chairmanship this year of [53:06] ASEAN to reach a sort of code of conduct understanding in in the Indo-Pacific and [53:13] while I understand that desire I just want you to know and perhaps many of you [53:16] can help us in making this point a bad code of conduct agreement is worse than no [53:23] code of conduct agreement at all and I think that's very important because they [53:26] are under withering constant pressure in the region to agree to a code of [53:30] conduct in the region that I think would be detrimental would set a would set a [53:34] precedent that I think is very dangerous in the law so we'd love to see one but it [53:39] has to be a good one we don't think that's possible in the current conditions [53:42] and a bad one is worse than none at all. Your points very well taken look forward [53:45] to working with your team Mr. Secretary to advance that. Can I turn to another [53:49] issue of concern and against joint concern Senator Kane and I both worked on [53:52] this and that is the actions that have been taken by countries that have been [53:57] perceived as their allies against US business interest against US investments [54:01] in their country particularly I'd like to point to the example of Vulcan [54:04] materials that's a situation where US company put billions of dollars of [54:08] investment into the into the Yucatan Peninsula both in port facilities and in [54:13] quarrying operations only to be confiscated by the Mexican government then [54:18] the Mexican government came back in arrears by the way retroactively tried to [54:21] justify this taking as some sort of environmental move sadly we had to fight [54:27] pretty hard the previous administration to to not allow this to happen and I [54:32] think it's going to take more bipartisan effort certainly you'll have it from [54:35] here in Congress to push back on any government's effort to try to confiscate [54:40] American corporate property what that will do is have the effect of minimizing or [54:45] D base basically reducing the incentive or de-incentivizing our foreign [54:51] investment in other countries which again I think hurts the mission that you're on [54:54] I'd love to get your perspective on how the State Department will stand up for [54:58] American investments overseas we do every day and in fact one of the great [55:02] benefits of our reorganization is that it has empowered the regional bureaus you [55:06] know used to have a set-aside economic bureaus that would do these things [55:09] separately from the missions in the field and having been a former ambassador [55:13] perhaps you experienced that we've now empowered the regional bureaus and [55:16] through it by extension the embassies to play a leading role in economic diplomacy [55:22] and so I would argue that virtually every engagement I have with a foreign [55:25] leader involves some economic component to it and I would say if you talk to our [55:28] charges and our ambassadors around the world I would say more than 50% of their [55:33] engagements now have to do with economic matters and they involve one of two [55:36] things either a finding creative opportunities in essence the host country [55:40] will say to them we have these areas these industries of investment and the [55:44] embassies will take an active role working with the bureau to identify [55:47] American companies who could potentially go down there and see if there's an [55:50] opportunity for them and the second is what you just pointed to and that is [55:53] protecting existing American investments because the point we make with [55:57] everyone we interact with is you can't attract you can't ask for American [56:02] investment into your countries when you have a history of expropriating of [56:06] takings and in some cases it's a local official that's trying to extort an [56:10] American business and say hey I'm the sheriff or I'm the local police [56:14] officer if you don't pay us your workers won't show up to work tomorrow we have [56:18] problems like that as well around the world that involve the local level and [56:21] it's become a leading part of our diplomacy and it's happening at the [56:26] embassy level which is where I think it really needs to be led that's where your [56:29] field generals are and I applaud the sea change and you know you've got support on [56:33] a bipartisan basis here in the Congress to move this forward thank you mr. [56:36] secretary thank you senator Hagerty senator Kane thank you mr. chair and [56:38] thanks to senator Hagerty for mentioning our work together in Philippines and Mexico [56:42] mr. secretary you won't be surprised that I'm gonna ask you about the Western [56:45] Hemisphere you and I traded the gavel on the ranking on the Western Hemisphere [56:49] subcommittee when you were on this committee and that was good productive [56:53] work I want to ask you about operation southern spear the operation to strike [56:58] boats in the Pacific and the Caribbean that dozens of operations have now killed [57:03] more than 200 people have you been involved as Secretary of State or National [57:08] Security Advisor in discussion about the targeting criteria that are used to [57:12] decide which boats we should strike no but not because I've avoided it but [57:16] because those are largely legal decisions right but if you haven't been [57:20] involved in discussion as the National Security Advisor are you aware of what the [57:25] targeting criteria are yeah I mean they go through it so every strike has a [57:29] legal officer on the deck that has to make a determination about whether the [57:32] call is legal or not and this is done by the Department of War the way it's been [57:36] done in other theaters around the world here's here's what I want to ask you [57:39] about so you're generally aware of the targeting criteria I am NOT allowed I [57:43] know what the targeting criteria are because of briefings I've had in this [57:46] committee in the Armed Services Committee it's all been in classified and [57:49] I'm not allowed to discuss the targeting criteria because they've only been [57:53] shared and classified but I don't think I'm prohibited from describing things [57:57] that aren't targeting criteria so I'll give you an obvious example everyone on the [58:01] boat is right-handed that's not a targeting criteria it would be [58:06] ridiculous everyone on the boat is what everybody on the boat is right-handed [58:09] that's not a targeting criteria it's obviously not a targeting criteria it [58:14] would be improper for it to be a targeting criteria here's one that's not [58:18] so obvious and that surprised me there's evidence of narcotics on the [58:23] boat that is not a targeting criteria I have been briefed on Southern Spears since [58:29] the first operation on September 2 and most recently within the last couple [58:33] weeks and I've asked again and again have the targeting criteria changed no they [58:37] have not what are their criteria here's what they are I can't describe it here [58:40] but they're the presence of narcotics on the boat has never been a targeting [58:46] criteria would you have any ability to explain and the administration could have [58:52] picked that as a targeting criteria they they chose items that were targets that [58:57] authorized the use of the US military to sink boats and kill people but they have [59:01] not used the presence of narcotics on the boat as one of the targeting [59:06] criteria and I would suggest to my colleagues if you go look at the [59:09] individual files of all the strikes and I've looked at the first 46 they are [59:13] consistent with what I've just said about something that's not on the list of [59:19] targeting criteria why would the administration not include the presence of [59:25] narcotics on the boat as a targeting criteria operation southern spirit as you [59:29] just outlined I can't discuss the specifics of the targeting criteria but I can [59:33] tell you the one thing that is obvious is that the targeting criteria is not [59:36] single source in essence there are multiple checks there are well there are [59:39] three elements to the targeting criteria right and and and all of it informed and [59:43] infused by intelligence collection in essence they have to have true links I [59:47] can tell you they do walk away from strikes there are multiple times that I've been [59:50] aware I'm not aware of every strike because I'm not it's not reported on a [59:53] regular basis delegated but there have been strikes that they've walked away from [59:56] because it doesn't meet the criteria or because I'm not saying that the [1:00:00] strikes that I've reviewed don't meet the targeting criteria but I'm saying how odd it is [1:00:05] especially since the administration always announced we've this is against [1:00:09] narco traffickers we've attacked narco traffickers how odd it is that the [1:00:14] presence of narcotics on a boat is not one of the targeting criteria and I would [1:00:18] encourage my colleagues get the same briefing I've gotten take a look at the [1:00:21] strike files you'll be as surprised as I am here's the second question again in [1:00:28] your dual role secretary state national security advisor the administration's [1:00:32] operation southern spear we could agree with it or not but the administration [1:00:37] presented a legal opinion from the DOJ that we could review absolute resolve the [1:00:44] effort against Maduro the administration presented a legal rationale that we could [1:00:48] review now we could review both in classified they've not been made public [1:00:51] we're 92 days into a war against Iran and the administration will not let [1:00:58] Congress look at the OLC legal opinion justifying the war Intel committee [1:01:03] members SFRC members Armed Services Committee members rank-and-file members [1:01:08] the administration will not make it available to us now you can imagine a [1:01:13] we're the oversight committee be you're here asking for a budget and in the Armed [1:01:17] Services Committee they're asking for a trillion five an increase of 40% over [1:01:23] last year's budget but won't let us see the legal opinion and and mr. [1:01:26] secretary you know what kind of thinking we do if you've showed us the [1:01:31] legal rationale for two wars and you won't show us the legal rationale for the [1:01:35] third hmm is there something in the rationale they don't want us to see is [1:01:39] there a dissenting opinion that says it's not legal are there conditions like you [1:01:44] can't strike civilian infrastructure like schools and bridges are there factual [1:01:48] assertions like the war will be over in two days or Iran will never close the [1:01:52] Straits of Hormuz by not sharing the legal opinion with the article 1 oversight [1:01:57] branch you give us the opinion that there's something in there you don't [1:02:02] want us to see could you use your influence as the president's chief [1:02:06] national security adviser secretary of state NSA to get the administration to [1:02:12] share the Iran war legal opinion with Congress well look first of all second [1:02:17] obviously the Department of State does not develop deal of the legal opinion [1:02:20] that you're the legal count you're the chief name so I think what you're asking is [1:02:23] why haven't the office of legal counsel provided it they don't work for the [1:02:26] national security I'm actually don't work for me will you use your influences well [1:02:30] I will certainly inquire so what here's what I'll do I can certainly inquire as [1:02:34] to why it has not been available I don't think there's a reason why I I have not [1:02:38] aware that I'm in fact my understanding is they have provided documentation to the [1:02:42] committee and not not the opinion part of the war that's it and and and you [1:02:46] wouldn't accept that all right well let me take that back and ask the office of [1:02:50] legal counsel but it's certainly they provided the legal rationale for the [1:02:54] strike you're asking for the actual written opinion the way it was they [1:02:57] provided us in Southern Spear an absolute result I'll take that back thank [1:03:01] you sir Lee thank you mr. chairman thanks secretary Rubio for being you look [1:03:07] like Ricketts I apologize well look bald is beautiful and we can't help that but [1:03:15] thanks for all of your efforts you you are a very effective spokesperson for not [1:03:22] only president Trump and the administration but for the United States and I'm [1:03:25] grateful for that was wondering at the outset if you could talk to us a little [1:03:28] bit about the fractured Iranian regime and how that might be making negotiations [1:03:34] more difficult one of the things I've wondered for example are whether the [1:03:38] diplomatic Iranian channels are sort of crosswise at odds with or working hand [1:03:45] in glove with the IRGC which is itself causing a lot of these ceasefire [1:03:49] violations or is it is it all sort of coordinated chaos to try to undermine and [1:03:55] tip the scales in favor of Iran in the negotiations that's a great question let [1:04:03] me try to give this answer to you in a way that's not boring or wonky because [1:04:07] it's been a shift I mean the you know I this is the original supreme leader the [1:04:10] one that was there is no longer with us his son takes over nobody hears from him for a [1:04:14] month by all reports open source reporting I think you've all seen it he was [1:04:18] severely injured in the same strike and so forth are you confident he's still [1:04:22] alive by the way yeah I think there's indications that in fact we've not heard [1:04:26] from him publicly we haven't seen him publicly and I would imagine given what's [1:04:31] happened to multiple leaders in that system being very public is probably not [1:04:34] something that's recommended for them internally but that said I think there [1:04:39] are indications out there that he is increasingly engaging at some level although [1:04:44] all of his communications have been in writing and through intermediaries so you the [1:04:48] way to think about is the following you have the supreme leader and [1:04:50] understand that at the end of the day the supreme leader in their system is there [1:04:53] really is no analogy to it in our system or anybody else's system it is a [1:04:56] theological office it is it is a it was the you know the the head of of the [1:05:02] Islamic Republic in the sense of the ultimate decision maker and and every major [1:05:10] decision has to be run by them they are advised by a council it's not clear if it's [1:05:14] six people or eight people but there is a council made up of both IRGC and other [1:05:18] elements of the regime that surround that supreme leader and ultimately that council [1:05:23] has to sign off on anything and then there are the people you see on TV like [1:05:27] Arachi who's out there every single day and Galiboff who's the speaker of the [1:05:32] Majils who's been playing a pretty prominent role and they are the ones that [1:05:35] they have sent to negotiations and so forth it is our view of the system as we [1:05:40] understand it as it's been expressed to us both by the intermediaries and by Iran [1:05:44] directly that what Arachi and Galiboff bring or take from us they then have to [1:05:52] run back to this council and ultimately get guidance from them and that process [1:05:56] oftentimes take three to five days to get a response now some of it is logistical [1:06:01] they're operating probably using couriers and things of this nature part of it is [1:06:04] internal fissures on exactly what they should agree to or not agree to I think [1:06:09] the second point that needs to be driven in this regard is that there is [1:06:12] evidence that there are communications issues within the regime as well so for [1:06:15] example it's pretty clear that at the outset of hostilities in the conflict [1:06:22] they had delegated decision-making to field commanders and so oftentimes field [1:06:28] commanders had delegated authority to act on a let's say a pre-operational [1:06:32] planning that I already put in place and so unlike our system where perhaps you [1:06:36] know that the president or the secretary of war is directly making orders and [1:06:40] decisions or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and their system a lot of [1:06:43] decision-making at the tactical level like which ships to hit and so forth [1:06:47] are being made at the commander level so that's why from the outset it can look [1:06:51] like fire ready aim but it's part of the design of the system perhaps well I [1:06:55] think it was a design of the system in the sense of regime survival and the [1:06:58] ability to operate in case there was decapitation strikes or people are removed [1:07:01] but let's go back to the essence of the negotiations what's complicated them is [1:07:04] you ultimately are negotiating with people who then have to negotiate within [1:07:08] their own system to see what they're allowed to give and where they're allowed [1:07:12] to agree to what is abundantly clear is that Iran is facing severe internal [1:07:17] icon all the problems Iran had before this conflict not only are still there but [1:07:22] they're worse all the things that led to the protests all of these are worse than [1:07:26] they were before and I think there's definitely elements within that regime that [1:07:30] understand it and and then there are other elements of it that are more immune to it [1:07:33] and perhaps more resistant to making agreements and so what we are working [1:07:37] through is is in many cases is delays and getting the responses to people and [1:07:41] this is why you see reporting about there might be a deal in the next few days [1:07:44] because internally it takes time to get responses from them sometimes upward to [1:07:49] five or six days undoubtedly they're using that to their advantage sort of like the [1:07:53] car dealer where the salesman has to go talk to his manager make you wait think [1:07:57] about it for a while even more complicated even more complicated than that one [1:08:01] more question I think we could benefit from hearing from you about the need to [1:08:06] zero out funding for a couple of entities including the National Endowment for [1:08:10] Democracy in US ADF can you tell us about that well look these programs I think [1:08:17] are have served a purpose in the past and obviously there's a congressional role to [1:08:21] play here right I mean at the end of the day these programs have had [1:08:24] especially the National Endowment for Democracy has had support in Congress in [1:08:27] the past and look I was here for 16 years I understand that you're going to pass an [1:08:32] appropriations bill and the appropriations bill is going to have [1:08:35] things in it that we don't have in ours that's just the way it is and we [1:08:38] understand that we'll make it work but we are concerned or have been [1:08:41] concerned in the past about organizations that sort of have lost their [1:08:44] purpose and what they're advancing and at the end of the day look we have a lot of [1:08:49] resources the United States is the richest country in the world we have the [1:08:52] largest government budget in the world but we don't have unlimited [1:08:54] resources we still have to be able to strategically spend our money and the [1:08:59] State Department you know when I took over a lot of people like oh that's a [1:09:02] mess State Department is not that big the majority of our employees are local [1:09:06] hires overseas we have you know foreign service officers career civil servants [1:09:11] but compared to some of these other agencies that are out there we're not [1:09:14] that large and yet we have a global footprint we're really other than [1:09:17] department I would say beyond the Department of War we're the only ones that [1:09:20] are present almost everywhere on the planet so we have limited resources [1:09:24] and we have to be able to allocate those resources in ways that are driven by the [1:09:30] core mission of advancing our national security and oftentimes that will mean [1:09:33] that things we have paid for in the past we can't continue to fund because [1:09:37] there are other things it might be good but there might be something else it's [1:09:40] more important and even better other cases we may still spend money on a [1:09:44] purpose but we want to be driven not just by we don't want to be judges by how [1:09:48] much money we're spending on something we also want outcomes for it we want to show [1:09:51] outcomes that's been the goal behind these MOUs these compacts with the 32 [1:09:56] countries that we've entered into and we plan is we're not just trying to solve [1:10:00] the disease problem this year we're trying to build the local capacity so [1:10:03] that five years from now they won't need aid anymore because their local [1:10:06] systems can handle it saying five years some countries may take ten years but [1:10:10] nonetheless that's the goal and it's been very well received thank you thank you [1:10:14] certainly Senator Merkley thank you mr. chairman and mr. secretary good good to see [1:10:19] you as senator Shaheen noted you've expressed that no one died as a result of [1:10:25] the sudden shutdown of AID and I did ask you last time you were here about that [1:10:31] and I won't repeat all that but I want to note that the folks who study this at [1:10:37] the schools of public health Harvard Chen School the Boston University School of [1:10:41] Public Health estimate that over 500,000 children have died from that sudden [1:10:46] shutdown I want to kind of put a note on that if you were to walk across this [1:10:50] country you'd see one dead child equivalent every roughly 30 feet that's [1:10:57] the level of carnage I know you disagree with that but many experts who are in [1:11:02] this field that is their their their estimate and I hope you'll ponder that [1:11:08] as we strive to rebuild our programs related to malaria tuberculosis AIDS HIV [1:11:15] nutrition and certainly infectious diseases like Ebola I wanted to turn [1:11:20] though to Taiwan it's an area that you and I worked on quite a bit together when [1:11:26] you were here including the Taiwan Relations Reinforcement Act and the [1:11:29] Transnational Repression Policy Act the Hong Kong economic and trade-offs [1:11:32] certification act and I'm very concerned about the president's comments on his [1:11:40] recent trip he noted that arms sales to Taiwan are a quote very good negotiating [1:11:48] ship and when he was asked about how much he talked about arms sales with China he [1:11:53] said we discussed arms sales quote in great detail the six assurances included [1:11:59] that arms sales to Taiwan would never be a negotiating ship all right concern is [1:12:04] that the president now has kind of accentuated the arms sales by not approving not putting the stamp of [1:12:15] approval and completing the arms sale that Congress has already funded and that [1:12:21] that that this sets a stage for China to to very much proceed to pursue more [1:12:31] aggressively their effort to incorporate Taiwan into the broader framework of [1:12:37] China including extinguishing Taiwan's democracy so I'd just like to hear [1:12:43] your thoughts hopefully there's a path here that will re accentuate our [1:12:46] support for Taiwan Taiwan's democracy thank you that's important question so [1:12:51] let me first say on Taiwan and I actually I think I made this point myself [1:12:54] either on the trip in China or thereafter when we return there was there's been no [1:12:58] change to US policy towards Taiwan I think there's obviously the Chinese side [1:13:04] would like to see a change in the verbiage but no change has been made in [1:13:07] that regard the second point I would make is I believe in December so I know in [1:13:12] December of this year we did approve an arm sales I think 11 billion dollars I [1:13:15] think it's the single largest arm sale ever it was a huge sale to Taiwan this was [1:13:19] just last December I think it's more than the totality of the four years under [1:13:24] the Biden administration and I would recall that there were a six year period [1:13:27] of time under the Obama administration where there were no sales to Taiwan there [1:13:32] is a second pending sale which I think is the one you're referring to it's the [1:13:35] 14 billion dollar one and that remains under review and but we just did one in [1:13:39] December so I don't think it's you know and I'm not saying you're saying this but I [1:13:43] don't think it's fair to say that the US is not providing I think we just had a [1:13:46] massive arm sales and it was so big and so noticeable that the Chinese became [1:13:50] very aggressive about it and some of the incursions they undertook as a result of [1:13:54] it and and as I said it was more in one sale than we did in the entirety of the [1:13:58] Biden administration if I'm if I'm correct and I think I am on that point so but [1:14:03] but the most important thing to understand is we want to see the status [1:14:07] quo preserved as is at this moment that's our policy that's what we've said [1:14:11] that's what we continue to say it's a very as you know a very delicate [1:14:15] relationship to balance but our policy on Taiwan is not changing it did not [1:14:19] change on this trip another issue that you and I worked on was the Uyghur [1:14:25] forced labor prevention Act and it's really been the most effective strategy [1:14:30] for saying that the products produced by slave labor will not be admitted into the [1:14:34] United States and we've turned down a lot of products from China but then [1:14:38] they're transshipped often just into Canada it would be a far more effective [1:14:42] policy if Mexico Canada and Europe were to join us is that a you can pursue in [1:14:49] your role it is and and as you said it's an enforcement challenge I think the [1:14:54] initial enforcement is easier because it was more straightforward I think the [1:14:57] transshipment issue makes it harder because it requires more paperwork more [1:15:00] due diligence and frankly in many cases some of it is obscured but I want to [1:15:04] make this point there's clearly humanitarian aspect to it there's clearly a humane [1:15:08] aspect to forced labor which is horrifying separate but related there's an [1:15:13] economic aspect to it it is also I mean unfair competition for our companies to [1:15:18] have to compete against someone who has free labor basically compelled and forced [1:15:22] labor so we've made the argument on two fronts not just as this immoral but it is [1:15:27] all and horrific but it's also an enormous economic disadvantage not just for [1:15:33] us but for companies all over the world as you can imagine depending on the [1:15:38] country some are more willing to lean in on these issues than others I think just [1:15:44] yesterday the light last week the foreign minister of China was visiting [1:15:49] Canada and where they sort of announced or at least you know put out the [1:15:54] prospect of how Canada can export more to China next year you know that was the [1:15:58] carrot what we don't know in those and I'm not blaming Canada I'm just saying in [1:16:02] general they do this all over the world there's a stick associated with it and I [1:16:05] would imagine that China is putting I know that they put tremendous amount of [1:16:08] pressures on countries around the world not to comply with restrictions like the [1:16:13] ones we put I agree we got Canada and Mexico to agree given our current trade [1:16:17] arrangements that would make it far more effective to date we have not been [1:16:20] successful at convincing them that they should do that because among other [1:16:24] things I think they fear retribution but but we certainly will continue to [1:16:28] raise it because we think it harms them [1:16:29] Senator Brasso thanks mr. chairman Mr. Secretary great to see you again you [1:16:34] opened by talking about American leadership and American interests and [1:16:38] later this month that the g7 is going to be meeting in France and then next month [1:16:42] NATO meeting in Turkey just overview what's the what are the priorities you're [1:16:49] going to go into those meetings with g7 g7 and NATO yeah coming up next month in [1:16:53] this well NATO will be a fun meeting let's start with a g7 one the the g7 forum [1:16:59] this year has largely been focused obviously because of the straits so when I [1:17:03] went to the foreign ministers meeting in March a lot of the conversations in [1:17:06] April were about the straits and the one point we've made is and though it's [1:17:09] interesting is a lot of the countries involved there even though it's not a [1:17:12] military forum per se the UK and France are members of it they've put together [1:17:16] this initiative which they say they will send mine sweepers and escort ships but [1:17:22] they will do so once hostilities has ended kind of a catch-22 on the one hand I [1:17:27] mean why do you need naval escorts if no one's shooting at the ships that said I [1:17:31] don't diminish the utility of it because I would imagine the first few ships to go [1:17:35] through are going to like to be escorted so I think that's going to be a key [1:17:39] feature of that conversation I think there's a shared interest in all these [1:17:42] countries on rare earth minerals and supply chains generally I think there is [1:17:47] a growing global consensus and we had a great maybe a few of you had attended [1:17:52] part of it we had a great ministerial here earlier this year on on rare earths and [1:17:58] supply chains that brought in dozens of countries and all the G7 countries were [1:18:02] represented at it and so I think that's going to be a feature here is how do we [1:18:06] create how do we diversify the global supply chain on anything from rare earths [1:18:10] to pharmaceuticals there's growing consensus so I think that point will be [1:18:14] quite dominant and then given the makeup of who's in the G7 the Russia Ukraine [1:18:18] conflict will always come up because obviously it directly impacts you know at [1:18:22] least three or four of those members who are on the continent so we will also and I don't know I don't know I don't [1:18:28] recall exactly who the French have invited but in addition to the G7 they'll [1:18:31] always invite two or three other countries to attend I believe Ukraine has [1:18:35] been invited if I'm not mistaken there's usually a couple other countries that [1:18:38] they'll invite that are not members of G7 but I think those issues will dominate [1:18:42] depending on where we are with the straits and then clearly the critical [1:18:45] minerals and supply chains has been a key focus of G7 actions the last point is I [1:18:50] think there's been an interest in and so and I think Canada deserves credit for this [1:18:55] that Canadians have really taken a lead and and we've been very supportive of [1:18:59] this and highlighting places like Haiti and and and as a result of these G7 [1:19:04] meetings we've actually had a number of countries in the G7 including Japan [1:19:07] step up and contribute to the to the to the effort there and the reason I [1:19:13] didn't mention NATO there's an article in The Hill Mr. Chairman I asked unanimous [1:19:16] consent that we put this in the record it says Sweden is now America's most [1:19:20] valuable tech ally you're talking about working together with other other [1:19:23] countries it goes on to say this is just last week Sweden joined NATO they've [1:19:27] now signed the bilateral defense cooperation agreement they said in March [1:19:31] Sweden became the first European member European Union member state to sign the [1:19:36] PAC silica declaration Washington's flagship initiative to secure global AI and [1:19:41] semiconductor supply chains and now the technology prosperity deal I want to know [1:19:46] how you know how you've accomplished so much and is this a model for US [1:19:49] relationships going forward with NATO yeah the interesting thing about Sweden [1:19:53] is because they and and Finland to this some to the equal extent is because they [1:19:58] were not members in NATO for many many years they had a self-sufficiency in their [1:20:02] defenses and so now that they've joined they've actually added to the equation I'm [1:20:06] not here to beat up on any specific country but generally speaking the [1:20:09] countries you added to NATO were countries that needed from NATO Sweden and [1:20:13] Finland have actually contributed because they brought their own defense [1:20:16] industry their own advanced technologies so they've been a great partner they've [1:20:19] been an extraordinary partner we were just there because we had the NATO [1:20:22] foreign ministers meeting in Sweden and it was phenomenal and I think that [1:20:25] Sweden is a great ally in a country that were continuing to find a lot of [1:20:29] synergy and cooperation with especially on the field of technology but also on [1:20:33] defense I mean they have their own defense industrial base which is an [1:20:36] impressive defense industrial base I wish every country in NATO had what they [1:20:39] have but I understand why Sweden has it the number of travels a number of [1:20:44] members have done in bipartisan ways we found out as we go around Europe that [1:20:47] most countries will say they've been too dependent on the United States for [1:20:51] military too dependent on Russia for energy and too dependent on China for [1:20:54] materials this administration has really made these nations step up to do [1:21:00] what they need to do in terms of putting the money forward in defense so I want to [1:21:03] know what the next concrete steps we can to in terms of making some of the [1:21:06] pledges of moving from 2% to 5% making sure that they deploy the military [1:21:11] capabilities yeah well I mean look some countries are on track to do that others [1:21:15] are not let me let me just speak about it in general terms there's a real [1:21:19] challenge on the one hand they've made these pledges that they're going to [1:21:21] increase their defense spending and their defense capability it actually has to be [1:21:25] on defense that's the first thing you can't say that pensions for former [1:21:29] soldiers and sailors as part of your 5% or your 3.5 I mean that that can't [1:21:34] happen but the bigger challenge that much of Europe faces many countries in NATO faces [1:21:40] their economies are not growing and in order to spend more money on defense [1:21:44] they're going to either have to raise taxes or cut social programs and part of [1:21:48] the reality of NATO whether we like to hear it or not is that many of the [1:21:51] countries in Europe were able to build these very robust social safety nets [1:21:55] because they didn't have to spend it on defense because NATO and the United [1:21:58] States were providing it for it so they're going to have to deal with that [1:22:00] reality the second point is and and this is not an anti NATO statement but but it is [1:22:06] the reality the United States has global obligations at the same time as I'm in [1:22:10] NATO I have to speak to the Indo-Pacific countries who are also worried about [1:22:13] what's our force posture they're going to be we obviously are involved in the [1:22:16] Middle East we have counterterrorism issues with regards to Africa we have [1:22:21] growing mill-to-mill cooperation in our own Western Hemisphere especially taking [1:22:25] on these transnational terrorist organizations and the like so we and we [1:22:29] don't have like unlimited military resources even though we have a very large [1:22:32] budget they're not unlimited and so we have to be able to allocate our [1:22:37] resources and our personnel in ways that make sense and it has to come at the [1:22:40] expense of something and so I think that's the reality that we have shared [1:22:44] with our NATO partners from the very beginning of this administration and I've [1:22:47] been consulting every step along the way but these countries will have to step up [1:22:51] they at a minimum have to be able to conventionally defend their own [1:22:54] sovereign national territory for the most part thank you mr. chairman [1:22:58] senator van holland you're next chairman and welcome mr. secretary this is your [1:23:06] first public hearing since President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu [1:23:12] launched an illegal war against Iran Netanyahu said he's been waiting 40 years [1:23:20] to do this turns out he finally found a president who was both stupid and [1:23:26] reckless enough to join him the war has killed 14 American service members wounded [1:23:31] hundreds more and killed thousands of civilians it's driving up the price of [1:23:36] gas food and much more Trump obviously doesn't care he called high gas prices [1:23:42] peanuts and said I don't think about Americans financial situation that's from [1:23:49] the president United States and all for what the president told us 91 days ago that [1:23:54] we had quote won the war in Iran last year he told the country Iran's key [1:24:00] enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated was that false [1:24:06] let's face it mr. secretary the Trump foreign policy has become a dumpster fire [1:24:13] this is the same president who's more interested in flattering Vladimir Putin [1:24:18] than in protecting Ukrainian sovereignty the president who lifted [1:24:22] restrictions on the transfer of sophisticated US chips to China but came [1:24:27] back from his trip there with nothing but ballroom envy tweeted about that the [1:24:31] other day this is the president who brought on Elon Musk to take a chainsaw [1:24:35] to AID which has enabled the current Ebola outbreak in the DRC we've also [1:24:41] witnessed corrupt crypto deals with the UAE royal family that have enriched the [1:24:45] Trump family at the expense of our national security we've seen an [1:24:49] administration engage in extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean hijack [1:24:53] Venezuelan oil threaten to invade Greenland and weaken the NATO alliance here at [1:24:59] home a Reagan appointed judge said that you and former Secretary Noem abused your [1:25:04] powers when you locked up and still seek to deport students for protesting the [1:25:09] destruction of Gaza the Reagan appointed judge said you did that quote primarily [1:25:14] on account of their First Amendment protected political speech speaking of [1:25:19] Gaza the so-called Board of Peace seems to have run around around meanwhile while [1:25:25] Senator Rubio once proclaimed that the US must quote work to ensure that refugees who flee [1:25:31] war torture and persecution are provided safe environments to live and thrive in now as [1:25:39] Secretary of State in this administration you have capped refugees at a record low of seventeen [1:25:45] thousand five hundred and white South Africans Afrikaners have comprised roughly ninety nine percent of those [1:25:55] slots Mr. Secretary a race-based refugee system the same time the president's [1:26:01] preventing Cuban political refugees from entering the United States even as you [1:26:05] opposed in the air oil blockade on that repressive regime the stated goal is to [1:26:11] change the government there but the only real change is humanitarian crisis [1:26:17] inflicted on millions of people not members of the regime and in that regard [1:26:22] Mr. Secretary I have a question for you regarding the designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of [1:26:29] terrorism on the very first week at least of this administration you reinstated the administration [1:26:36] reinstated that and in a recent January 26 EO you made statements suggesting connections to Hezbollah and [1:26:47] Hamas the previous administration did a thorough review with the intelligence community and community and [1:26:52] concluded that there was no evidence that Cuba was engaged in ongoing state [1:26:58] sponsor of terrorism did you find new evidence to support that conclusion well [1:27:03] first of all let me just say that was that your question but you made this long [1:27:06] statement of which I disagree most of it we won't have time to address every [1:27:09] point that you made so let's stick to Cuba specific because that's the question [1:27:12] that you asked Cuba has sponsored terrorism it's been supported groups for [1:27:15] example virtually every left-wing radical violent terrorist group in the [1:27:21] western hemisphere has at some point relied on support from Cuba the ELN the [1:27:25] FARC the FARC dissidents including them have been involved there we also know for [1:27:29] example that Cuba continues to host a pretty substantial collection intelligence [1:27:34] sites on behalf of the Chinese and the Russians but you look at the region and [1:27:38] you look at all of these leftist Marxist terrorist organizations all of them in many cases [1:27:42] Mr. Secretary I can move on I noticed you did not answer my question because my [1:27:46] question specifically related to whether there was new evidence new evidence to [1:27:50] support that conclusion I can just tell you why would I need new evidence because [1:27:54] you're claiming that they're a state sponsored terrorism suggesting they're [1:27:57] ongoing will be involved in that my final question to you Mr. Secretary relates to [1:28:02] the El Aska mox mosque complex there have been reports that the United States is [1:28:07] working with Israel to take away the kingdom of Jordan's custodianship over the El Aska mox [1:28:12] mosque complex in East Jerusalem can you confirm today that there's no I'm not [1:28:17] even aware of those reports there are reports so I was hoping you could get [1:28:20] like a media reporter there have been several media reports ah well you know [1:28:24] the media is always accurate no they're not and that's why I'm yeah I know I've [1:28:27] never even heard that that's the first time I even hear anybody discussed all [1:28:30] right well I'm glad to hear that but we have a great relationship with Jordan you [1:28:33] know we're very helpful I've just never heard that before you should I don't know [1:28:36] what article you're referring to just give it to me I'll look I'm happy to is it a [1:28:39] credible website I'm glad I'm glad to hear you say Mr. Secretary there's no [1:28:43] truth I've never heard that discussed by anybody you're up next oops I'm sorry [1:28:51] Senator Deans was here earlier I apologize sir [1:28:54] Senator Deans Chairman thank you Ranking Member Shaheen good to see you as well [1:28:58] one of the underreported successes of for your diplomacy and this [1:29:04] administration is what's happened to the peace agreement a landmark agreement [1:29:09] between Armenia and Azerbaijan I know Secretary you just were in the region [1:29:15] most recently a major step forward for a region long beset by conflict nearly 40 [1:29:23] years of a hot war and through your leadership and President Trump's [1:29:27] leadership you've brought true peace to an area of the world sandwiched in [1:29:32] between Russia and Iran it was creative thinking that led the establishment of the [1:29:40] Trump route for international peace and prosperity as a solution to some of the [1:29:44] stickier issues in that negotiation the program promises to be a boon not only [1:29:50] for Armenia and Azerbaijan but also many neighboring countries as Brzezinski once [1:29:57] said talk on the global chessboard his book that Central Asia is the wine bottle in [1:30:02] Azerbaijan's the cork you uncork the wine bottle suddenly about oil and gas and [1:30:09] critical minerals flowing back towards the west instead of to Russia to China and to Iran [1:30:16] mr. secretary can you tell us a little bit about how you plan to implement the trip [1:30:21] framework agreements and deliver a major economic benefit to both the United [1:30:26] States in a very historically troubled region thanks actually as you said I was [1:30:32] there last week was it Tuesday maybe we land we signed the the trip agreement [1:30:39] between the US and and Armenia and this is you described it as a corridor which I look I know [1:30:44] it's the anchor of a peace agreement with Armenia and Azerbaijan and that's critical but [1:30:48] it's much more than just the anchor of a peace agreement it really has the [1:30:52] opportunity to revolutionize Armenia's strategic location and become a central hub [1:30:57] for trade in the region it solves the issue of access that Azerbaijan cared about and it was an [1:31:02] irritant in their relationship but it does much more than that it has the ability to transform the [1:31:07] Armenian economy in a very powerful way here's the other thing that it's done you know for a long [1:31:11] period of time our relations with Armenia were quite stagnant and in many cases I would argue [1:31:17] almost non-existent it is also reinvigorated that relationship between our two countries and allow [1:31:23] us to explore opportunities in all sorts of other fields so we're involved in that very heavily now [1:31:27] we just literally just signed the agreement and it will allow us to drive and and and hopefully [1:31:33] incentivize US private sector investment in this corridor to the benefit of American companies [1:31:37] and American interests but also to the benefit of Armenia Azerbaijan and other regional countries [1:31:42] and I think you should talk to the chairman and the ranking member about putting it on the [1:31:46] agenda with you guys hey they're right there you can tell them but it's finance oh it's fine [1:31:50] you don't have jurisdiction over there it is my job and Mr. Secretary there finance well that's good [1:31:55] that's what I do too it's not my job but so yeah and our encouragement from our friends over in the [1:31:59] house will be helpful we'll work with you on that Mr. Secretary you know you should get it passed I [1:32:02] mean look it would be very helpful yeah it would be thank you absolutely first of all let me say [1:32:06] that I absolutely concur with the secretary and and Senator Daines with you and I've talked to [1:32:13] the president about this as you know and I have actually talked to the chairman of the finance [1:32:19] committee who I know relatively well and we actually have a plan for going forward you and I [1:32:26] are going to meet on that here very quickly I'm glad I have friends in high places Mr. Chairman thank you [1:32:29] but no you're absolutely right on that and it it there's there's it's just in the in the cube so [1:32:36] with that uh let us go to Senator Coons thank you Mr. Chairman ranking member Mr. Secretary National [1:32:43] Security Advisor good to see you again I know from our service here together that you agree that China [1:32:49] is the greatest national security threat that we face and one of the key reasons is their repeated [1:32:55] threats to take control of Taiwan by force if necessary and Taiwan is we both know is not just some [1:33:01] faraway island it produces 90% of the semiconductor chips critical to everything from F35s to iPhones and [1:33:08] its geography makes it indispensable both to global commerce and military power do you agree with that [1:33:16] Taiwan yeah it's very it's not just strategically important in terms of where it's located it also is the message [1:33:22] that it sends to the world if something were to happen to it agree that's why for decades really [1:33:27] with leadership from the Senate in a bipartisan way we've provided arms to deter the PRC's potential [1:33:33] military aggression in fact you introduced the Taiwan peace through strength act of 2023 in January [1:33:39] Congress pre-approved a 14 billion dollar arms package for Taiwan it's been six months we haven't [1:33:45] received a notification have you advised President Trump to proceed with this yeah it's under consider I don't [1:33:50] know if you were here a moment ago when I discussed we just did 11 billion in December which was I [1:33:55] think the largest sale in history it's certainly I think it was more than the accumulative amount [1:33:59] under the Biden administration and I recall during six years of the Obama administration there was zero [1:34:04] gone to Taiwan so some way you would argue that we're trying to make up ground why hold off on it [1:34:09] now well so the other 14 is being reviewed it's under review it hasn't been I think it's been noticed but [1:34:14] it hasn't been reviewed I mean it hasn't been approved yet so it's under review under the White House [1:34:18] Mr. Secretary my concern is that President Trump has said publicly that arms sales to Taipei are a great [1:34:24] negotiating chip with China and my concern at a time when the PRC has been far more aggressive than they were in [1:34:31] previous years centerline crossing circumnavigation of Australia aiding Iran Iran and Russia in their war goals [1:34:40] and aims frankly literally helping Iranians target US service members I respect the importance of our having an open [1:34:47] negotiation and relationship with the PRC but in the meetings you were in in Beijing did the president [1:34:54] offer to condition arms sales to Taiwan in order to placate Xi Jinping well look I'm not going to [1:34:59] discuss what was the president's words in a meeting or not suffice it to say that you know that specific [1:35:04] question you just asked that's not that's not the context in which the president has raised this in [1:35:08] the past when the president says it's a great negotiating what he's really saying is it's because China as you [1:35:14] can imagine always mentions this like this is a top priority for them they are constantly talking [1:35:18] about Taiwan arms sales but that in no way is what is holding up our decision making or the White House's [1:35:25] decision making it is something the president will have to decide on the timing of when and how that [1:35:30] is executed on it's been approved by Congress it's been noticed the money is available and as I said we [1:35:35] are just coming off the heels of a very large sale in December of last year so there are a variety of [1:35:41] reasons why these things don't happen immediately Mr. Secretary that there is more reason than ever [1:35:46] for the administration with congressional support to continue providing robust military capacity to [1:35:53] Taiwan given that the PRC is more and more regionally aggressive you also introduced and passed legislation [1:36:00] in 23 prohibiting any president from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO I assume this was because you [1:36:07] recognize that our alliances are a key advantage against Russia against China against other adversaries [1:36:13] do you still consider article 5 an unconditional commitment yeah so let me address that holistically if [1:36:20] it's okay because I think we have time to do it first of all you're right I have throughout my entire career in [1:36:26] the Senate and through much of my time now in this administration been a supporter of NATO I see its utility the key and I'm just being honest with you when we talk about this one of the key arguments that I would always use on behalf of the [1:36:38] NATO is the fact that it allow us basing rights that we could use in a contingency operation in a time of conflict and the time we just have had so when you have countries in this alliance because understand at the end of the day we are providing basically the defense backbone of an entire continent of rich countries these are not poor countries these are rich countries and the utility of NATO for us is that it provides these basing rights now we are living in a world in which some of these countries I point to Spain as an example [1:37:08] openly brag about how they denied us the use of these bases and so if the if the core rationale for us being in NATO if what we get out of NATO is the ability to use bases and then we have members of that alliance that are basically denying the use of those bases in a contingency it calls them to question the entire thing forgive me I have one more question I want to make sure we get to is it not true that some of the challenges [1:37:35] in our NATO relations have only come after President Trump threatened to seize territory from a trusted and reliable and I don't think that's fair I don't think that's fair I think he publicly said both I know but I don't use tariffs to coerce Denmark into giving up Greenland yeah but just to tell you look if you go back and study the history of it NATO tensions and debates within U.S. of whether we should be in NATO in the 1970s it was the reverse it was the administration trying to stay in NATO and Congress trying to get us out yes I have [1:38:05] happened to see a speech I don't know they were playing it after he passed away on c-span Jesse Jackson at the 1988 Democratic Convention calling for the United States to get out of NATO I was debates over NATO you were asked was Joe Biden oh Joe Biden didn't support that position then and I don't support that position but my point is that these debates about NATO have been ongoing for a long time there's about 1100 vetted vetted Afghan allies being held at camp as Salia income in Qatar [1:38:35] there's about 150 family members of currently serving active duty U.S. service members they've been stranded there for a year and a half and there is talk of sending them either back to Afghanistan into the waiting arms of the Taliban or into war-torn and now Ebola infected countries like the DRC these are people who they or their immediate family members served alongside U.S. soldiers at great risk can you commit to working with me and others in this body to support the relocation [1:39:05] United States especially those who are family members of currently serving U.S. soldiers yeah I can't first of all we're as you know we're under an executive order now after the National Guard attack here and so that happened last year so we can't admit any Afghans at this point into the country that said you just pointed to them being sent back to Afghanistan our goal we've worked on this and we'll work with you on it please is we have talked to multiple countries now I don't know of any single country that's going to take a thousand people [1:39:35] I want them to move to them to move to a safe location as you know we are operating under not just those restrictions but broader restrictions about immigration into the United States after 20 25 million people entered this country illegally over a four year period leading up to this administration but I'll work with you to find the right places for them to go we want that to happen the president just raised the refugee cap exclusively to allow Afrikaners into our country I would welcome a chance to work with you to find safe third countries for these Afghans and and I frankly think we ought to be revisiting [1:40:05] our refugee policy because the refugees who've come into our country in the past are the most vetted and often the highest contributing as you know my childhood church hosted a South Vietnamese family and seeing the five of them become great Americans entrepreneurs contributors it is refugees from oppression overseas whether from Cuba or Venezuela Vietnam or Afghanistan who have long contributed to the United States thank you Mr. Secretary Sarah Paul I'd like to revisit for a moment the [1:40:37] the boats that were blowing up the boats that were blowing up in the Caribbean and the Pacific that referred to as drug boats I think it's interesting that the three secret criteria we're using to blow up the boats doesn't include whether they have drugs on board I would like to add that the statistics from the Coast Guard also say that when we interdict alleged drug boats in the historic way the way we've always done it about one in four don't have drugs we make mistakes [1:41:07] and they don't have drugs on board I would also like to add that drugs is not a criteria for blowing up the boats the boats that are called drug boats but neither is arms so in order to blow them up we don't have to say that they're armed or have drugs I think a lot of people would have questions which I still do I am glad to hear today though that the administration and the negotiations are willing to trade sanctions relief for removal of enriched uranium [1:41:38] I've argued for a long time that sanctions in and of themselves rarely if ever are of any value I've yet to see any Chinese behavior that's changed because of sanctions I've yet to see any Russian behavior change because of sanctions I've really yet to see any Iranian behavior change because of sanctions however sanctions do have some leverage and ability to exact change if you remove them so the removal of sanctions actually might actually have some hope [1:42:08] there are there are many Republican critics have been vocal on the airways recently saying oh no we can never negotiate with them these are terrible people well you don't really negotiate with really friendly good people you're you know in a time of war you're going to have to negotiate with an adversary so I do commend and and supportive of the idea of this and the other thing is it's very verifiable you don't have to wait for verification you could say the trade sanctions end as soon as we get the 440 kilograms [1:42:38] of enriched uranium that has to be dug I guess some of it from under a mountain of rubble but at the same time be very verifiable but what I would argue and what I would advise is that you really you know why not offer everything offer all of the relief of virtually all of the sanctions if you get it now you can wait if that's what you want is the enriched uranium mount and a promise now the the the the rabid hawks will argue well we're not going to negotiate with terror [1:43:08] us we're not going to negotiate with bad people then they'll continue to have enriched uranium and they'll continue to enrich uranium so I do think that the argument that there hasn't been a military solution to this is largely proven by the fact that even though we've militarily obliterated their military all of that is true it says Freddie clay wrote in every every war must end that military victory doesn't always translate or lead to political resolution [1:43:38] you know what you want done you know what we want done is no more enriched uranium and you don't enrich uranium you give up on these hopes [1:43:45] um but I would say that as we are looking at trading sanctions you say there's some you can do on your own there's some that are congressional [1:43:53] I would be bringing in the leaders in the congress who can give up on these sanctions and hopefully try to get their voice saying yes if they will give up because if you give up like oh a few piddling ones that the [1:44:05] uh that won't change things that the white house says you're voting to do and you still have all these congressional sanctions [1:44:11] if you're on the other side of that equation you might say we're not giving up the one thing we think [1:44:15] is leverage uh the enriched uranium for maybe a little bit of sanctions relief so I would I would say [1:44:22] really go all in on it because it would be verifiable you don't have to wait and prove it you would have to [1:44:27] prove in the future whether enriching but I I think that is a good step forward but it's also important for [1:44:33] people to have a discussion of what diplomacy is and that diplomacy doesn't always have a bad name and [1:44:38] uh frankly I'm glad to hear that the administration is negotiating and I wish you luck and I'd love to [1:44:44] hear your response in general well first of all the president's made clear the priorities Iran can [1:44:48] never have a nuclear weapon and what do they need to have a nuclear weapon they need a couple things they [1:44:52] need the ability to enrich that has been substantially destroyed but could always be rebuilt over time [1:44:57] and the second is the ability and and highly enriched uranium that's 60 percent that could quickly be [1:45:02] enriched to 90 percent weapons grade the second point you make is about sanctions so so that's the goal here [1:45:08] and the sanctions first of all there's a combination of sanctions there's sanctions that block direct [1:45:13] sort of activities that generate revenue and that's problematic beyond the nuclear program because [1:45:18] they also use this revenue to fund sponsors to sponsor terrorism like hezbollah and others around [1:45:23] the region and then there's the frozen assets which are related to sanctions but these are iranian assets [1:45:28] that have been frozen that they don't have access to so what I would argue and again I don't want to get ahead [1:45:32] of myself because we're not engaged in this conversation with them yet but if you get into a situation in which [1:45:37] the reason why there are sanctions are because the nuclear program and so if they comply with what [1:45:42] we're demanding on the nuclear side of it you know zero enrichment get rid of the enriched uranium [1:45:48] they're complying with these things then I think that's the place where the frozen assets could be [1:45:51] discussed the more they give the more they would get I think ultimately we will still face other [1:45:56] challenges related to Iran separate from the nuclear program like what they use their money on which is [1:46:01] to sponsor hezbollah and to sponsor hamas and to sponsor terrorism around the world but on the nuclear [1:46:06] question which was the president's been focused on now no nuclear weapon program the sanctions [1:46:12] that are directly related to the nuclear program the more they give theoretically the more they should [1:46:16] be willing to get what they're not going to get it as a down payment they're not going to get it as [1:46:20] a signing bonus and uh and I would also point out that negotiations on nuclear matters are highly [1:46:26] complex highly technical and so it will take some time to work through that as the sanctions by the way highly [1:46:32] technical and in many cases multi-faceted there are u.n sanctions there are u.s sanctions there [1:46:36] are u.s congressional sanctions so there's a lot to unravel there is benefit from the idea of um trading [1:46:48] sanctions relief for activity and if you don't ever trade them if you just have them on the book then [1:46:54] i think they're of little value in changing behavior thank you senator booker thank you very much [1:47:01] uh mr checker you and i talked a lot about africa and i raised concerns about a lot of the cuts [1:47:06] we're seeing globally an increase in tuberculosis an increase uh in malaria cases we see a continued [1:47:14] ongoing on the continent uh hiv crisis and the united states has pulled back from a lot of its [1:47:19] investments in those areas now with the crisis with ebola um we see that the challenges that have [1:47:26] been brought about as a result of our surveillance uh early detection and and the like so i'm just very [1:47:31] concerned about what the administration's strategy is because we're clearly seeing here [1:47:36] that what goes on in the continent of africa directly affects our public health as well well [1:47:41] well first of all i don't agree with that assessment i mean first of all it's not about [1:47:44] cutting back because the response here is not just how much money you spend it's what results [1:47:48] you're going to get now let's talk about ebola for a second ebola the outbreak in ebola was in a [1:47:53] war-torn isolated rural area in the drc that's where that began since that time our response has [1:47:59] been very quick very rapid well so you're saying you did not cut early detection periods i'm not [1:48:04] i'm saying that whatever you're pointing to as the cut is not the reason why there was an ebola [1:48:07] i'm not connecting the two i'm simply saying well you are connecting them i said that our cuts [1:48:11] senator ruby i'm not trying to get in an argument with you i would really like to actually have my [1:48:15] questions answered so very quickly we cut early detection uh when it comes to infectious diseases [1:48:21] on the continent factually this is not an opinion we made those cuts we cut early warning [1:48:28] systems on the continent it had nothing to do with the ebola outbreak so i i don't need to tell [1:48:34] you uh secretary rubio that we're living in a place where in an infectious disease crisis anywhere [1:48:40] is a threat to public health everywhere the united states has made major reductions in these areas that [1:48:44] have put us more at risk if you're talking about this clearly ebola crisis there's other things and [1:48:49] other cuts we've made and you see it factually even our own uh even our own uh um state department [1:48:55] personnel that i've talked to are saying we're less prepared for global outbreak than we were before [1:49:01] and my worry is specifically in a budget hearing is this budget makes even deeper cuts into the kind [1:49:07] of things that can prevent the next outbreak or as we've seen with with uh unfortunately with covid [1:49:13] have us more prepared yeah i don't agree with that assessment i don't know who told you that at [1:49:17] the state department so just let's move on my time is limited i know that's an important i don't [1:49:22] want to eat up your time but i need to answer that because i just don't agree with that [1:49:24] mr secretary you can't even agree on the facts that's not accurate i mean again you look at what [1:49:29] we've entered into it it's not accurate that we cut early detection because those have all been [1:49:35] repurposed and different arrangements that we now have with these countries as an example well i [1:49:39] would like for the record because we're not going to cover it in my short time if you're [1:49:42] telling me we are as prepared or more prepared before the trump administration came in i'd like to [1:49:48] see the fact i think when these reforms are finalized which we're on the verge of doing we're [1:49:51] actually going to be better prepared we are we are responding today faster not just to humanitarian [1:49:55] crisis but to outbreaks than we were before we are responding in some cases within 72 hours are able [1:50:00] to move funds to task which you weren't able to do in the old system and we're also building the [1:50:05] capacity of all mr secretary may i please reclaim my time to shift gears the strait of humus i was [1:50:11] listening to their conversations you had with some of my colleagues we've now seen the strait close for [1:50:16] months and you explained that we're going to see an opening of the strait and ultimately the exchange [1:50:24] we will get for that is after that fact we will release certain sanctions is that correct no that's [1:50:30] not what i said what i said was that we if they open the straits we will lift our blockade the straits [1:50:35] and the blockade are what are interrelated and so for the nuclear program in exchange for getting rid of [1:50:42] the fiscal material out of country i imagine is what you're the highly enriched uranium we would [1:50:47] release sanctions is that correct well it's not just that it's also their enrichment activity they [1:50:51] would have to you know they're about to make very severe and significant concessions on what they [1:50:55] intend to enrich and and already with the march relaxing of sanctions allowing iranians to sell oil to [1:51:04] the chinese estimates have been between 10 and 50 billion dollars they got from that relaxing of [1:51:10] sanctions how much money might we see in a deal in our relaxings of sanctions in order to get rid of [1:51:17] the highly enriched ukraine and stop their enrichment well let me just tell you on that portion the the [1:51:21] sanctions that were released on iran were were boats on the water and so that what that oil is already [1:51:26] out in the marketplace it was sold at market rates but the sanctions covered and to the extent [1:51:30] we've been able to enforce them we have the revenues of those sales so yeah the oil the iranian oil [1:51:35] was unsanctioned so that it could be sold but the revenue would have to flow back to blocked [1:51:39] accounts which our sanctions were able to go after we've also seized i believe six vessels in the [1:51:43] indo-pacific that involved iranian sanctioned oil on top of it so that wasn't necessarily a trade they [1:51:49] didn't get 50 billion dollars directly as a result of they might have gotten some of it they certainly [1:51:52] didn't get the majority of it they are now losing hundreds of millions of dollars a day in revenue [1:51:56] because of the blockade and the blockade is exists because of what they're doing in the straits [1:52:01] right and and i guess the the conclusion i have in my times expired is that [1:52:06] the strait of hummus was open before this unjustified war we're now scrambling to try to [1:52:14] find a way to get it back opened again not only is it causing economic havoc to our country and to [1:52:19] residents all around this nation families trying to make ends meet but you see on top of that the [1:52:25] iranians finding ways to leverage that as we allowed them to do with the chinese for tens of billions of [1:52:31] dollars and so my point is before we even get to a nuclear negotiation this regime is getting money [1:52:38] to rebuild purchase more drones cause more havoc and this is before we're even trying to get back [1:52:44] to but i don't know i apologize i don't understand how they're getting this what revenue are you [1:52:47] referring to well there's two sources of revenue we're seeing one is the revenue from the chinese [1:52:52] that's factually documented and number two the revenue that you're proposing that they should receive [1:52:57] by releasing all of their highly enriched uranium as well as in making a commitment about their [1:53:03] enrichment capacities yeah hold on and that was the exact deal that you guys vilified that the [1:53:10] president and you vilified president obama from having yeah here we have a worse situation [1:53:17] where our adversary and our enemy who's causing havoc in the region who is funding proxies and terrorists [1:53:25] has discovered thanks to you all the power of shutting down the strait of her moves no they [1:53:30] didn't they knew that a long time ago and they've done it clearly we all knew that a long time ago [1:53:34] that's why this and they intended to do this at some point should have never happened yeah but have [1:53:39] made our adversary in a stronger negotiating position we are the strongest nation on the planet [1:53:44] earth and we're in a stalemate with iran and now we're begging to get back into a deal that you [1:53:50] all trashed in the first place there's no one begging i don't clearly this is senator booker [1:53:55] senator booker your time's up senator rubio since he's gone i do want to address some of these points [1:53:59] because they go to the heart of the matter no one's begging for anything here the the iranians [1:54:02] might be begging because their economy is losing hundreds of millions of dollars a day that they [1:54:06] are losing understand iran had street protests going on before all of this started all of those [1:54:12] factors economic factors in iran are far worse today than they were six months ago when those protests [1:54:17] were happening they have hyperinflation their currency is completely devalued they're struggling to make [1:54:21] payroll for their government workers iran is in a very serious situation and if it was up to the [1:54:26] political class there and i understand everybody there is sort of radical in some way but if it [1:54:30] was up to the people that actually like go to elections and wear the suits and you see on tv they probably [1:54:34] make a deal tomorrow it's the the issue they're facing is that the supreme leader in the irgc corps [1:54:40] are a little bit more immune from those pressures until they can be convinced otherwise and i and i think [1:54:44] that's the direction that they're moving in because the reality they're i don't know where you're getting [1:54:48] this perception that iran is stronger iran has no navy left they've lost a substantial percentage of [1:54:52] their defense industrial base that iran has lost a substantial percentage of their missile launchers [1:54:57] and their economy is far worse today and i mean far worse today than it was six to nine months ago [1:55:02] and they are looking at hundreds of billions of dollars of reconstruction costs just to get to [1:55:07] where they were six you keep telling us how we're winning this war the president keeps saying well the [1:55:11] war is over completely annihilated the war is not over and yet the american people see how we're losing [1:55:17] at the pump and with their costs and yet this thing still hasn't been resolved every day he tweets [1:55:22] out oh we've obliterated them we've annihilated them they're going to surrender but yet we still find [1:55:27] ourselves spending billions of dollars a week yeah senator booker you've gone way over it it would [1:55:32] be nice if we had hearings where people thank you senator booker senator scott all right section rubio [1:55:39] so um first off it do you think it's important to americans that the uh aronia regime doesn't have [1:55:43] nuclear weapons and ability to destroy i i think it's important to the world yeah the whole world [1:55:49] i mean if they this question about the straits is a great example imagine the straits gives them [1:55:54] leverage imagine what nuclear weapons would give them leverage to do at that point they wouldn't [1:55:58] even have to announce that we're controlling this they would just say we control the straits [1:56:01] there's nothing you can do about it because our nuclear weapon will allow us to do it you will [1:56:05] have to pay us a toll for using an international waterway from now on and you can't do anything [1:56:09] to us militarily because we'll blow you up with a nuclear weapon that is the leverage that they [1:56:13] were trying to build if they ever got a nuclear weapon not only would they have a nuclear weapon [1:56:17] not only would they control the straits they would be able to act with impunity because you wouldn't [1:56:21] be able to touch them you wouldn't be able to do anything about them all right i want thank you for [1:56:25] what you're doing let's talk about latin america which is as you know important to a lot of people [1:56:28] in our state so thanks for what you've done with uh both venezuela and cuba uh uh the state let's do [1:56:35] venezuela first i think everybody every venezuelan i know is appreciative of what's happened with maduro [1:56:40] um and and i know you have a three three-step process uh to get to um uh to democracy there [1:56:47] can you talk about where you are i mean i know you've busted your butt to try to get [1:56:51] desi rodriguez to do the right thing we still unfortunately have prisoners not released we [1:56:55] still have oppression so can you just talk about the process you're going through yeah well first [1:56:59] of all i remind everybody what's today the second so it's literally been five months right like i know [1:57:04] it seems like it was 10 years ago but it's been five months and i think venezuela is in a better place [1:57:09] today and in a better trajectory today than it was five months ago now is it where it needs to be [1:57:13] is it where it needs to ultimately wind up the answer is of course no ultimately in order to truly [1:57:18] transition they have to have multi-party free and fair elections but the conditions for free and fair [1:57:23] elections are the following first of all you have to have a free and open media and while you've seen [1:57:27] independent journalists are now for the first time activated again that has to exist political [1:57:31] parties have to be given the space and time to organize um the electoral the the national electoral [1:57:37] council has to be reformed so that it has members in it that will actually accurately count the vote [1:57:42] you have to have certain conditions in place i'm not telling you that's five years from now but it's [1:57:46] been five months so i want to be relative to that i expect here's what i can tell you for the first time [1:57:51] certainly you know since 20 whenever you know in the pre-chavis era maybe ever and certainly since the [1:57:57] pre-chavis since the post-chavis era the oil wealth of the country is not being stolen the oil [1:58:03] wealth of the country is going directly to pay government workers buy medical equipment audited [1:58:08] by kpmg that's a significant advance that's not a permanent situation but that's a very valuable [1:58:13] one today you have seen reforms you have seen for example the infamous prison alakoy that has been [1:58:18] closed you you still have about 400 and something what we determined to believe to be political [1:58:23] prisoners but you've had many others that have been released including many high profile ones [1:58:27] you've seen a reform a systemic reform and individuals involved in their government [1:58:31] replaced by new people you know some we don't know well others we know a little bit about [1:58:35] but certainly better than the people whose place they took before you've seen a level of cooperation [1:58:40] on a couple of topics that i actually can't even discuss in the setting like this but be more than [1:58:44] happy to to talk to you about in the any of you about in the appropriate setting i think that's been a [1:58:49] positive by the way you've seen the retrieval the united states with the full cooperation of [1:58:55] venezuelans went in and retrieved highly enriched uranium they had highly enriched uranium in their [1:59:01] country because of an old reactor program not because of uh not because of nuclear weapons or [1:59:05] anything and they wanted it out of their country and we were able to go in and actually retrieve it [1:59:09] along with the uk mission that went in with us and get it we have a functioning embassy and we have [1:59:15] direct flights for the first time venezuelans are now able to go back not just visit relatives but [1:59:19] begin to engage in the economic life of the country all of that is to say it's been five months there is [1:59:25] a lot more to go this is not the direction we want venezuela to be but what i will say is that [1:59:30] the venezuela that's there now under the interim authorities does not pose the threat to the [1:59:35] united states that it posed five months ago uh when it was an open base of operation for iranian [1:59:41] operatives for cuban intelligence and for others who used it as a base of operation against the [1:59:45] national interest but we have a lot of work to do we are nowhere near where we want to get to there [1:59:50] can you give can you give the same same thing about cuba i mean cuba's a very different yeah i mean i think [1:59:55] the misnomer about cuba or the misunderstanding about cuba cuba is actually not controlled by the [2:00:00] government cuba's controlled by a military holding company named gaesa and gaesa virtually owns anything [2:00:06] and they're on the tourist sector they own mining they own the gas stations they own everything they [2:00:11] generate about 70 percent of cuba's gdp is under the control of this military company and they're sitting [2:00:18] on between 14 and 17 billion dollars in assets so you have people literally starving people literally [2:00:24] like power grid that hasn't been maintained in 10 years and yet you have this holding military [2:00:29] company sitting on these assets and by the way not a penny of the money in the military holding company [2:00:34] translates over to the public treasury so the fundamental challenge we have here is that cuba [2:00:39] needs to be in order for it not to continue to be a failed state which poses a threat to the united states [2:00:43] they need systemic and serious reform they need to have economic reforms and the question is [2:00:49] can they possibly reform given the people who are currently in charge both of gaesa [2:00:54] and of of their government and i think the answer is they can't i really don't believe this system [2:00:59] is capable of reform unless new people take over or a new mindset takes hold now we've engaged in [2:01:05] conversations with them we've offered them what i think needs to happen in order for their economy [2:01:09] to recover and that's the last point i would make is i think somebody raised this issue of oil [2:01:13] blockade cuba was having blackouts well before january 3rd of this year they were having blackouts for years [2:01:19] and they were having blackouts for two reasons number one no one will give you free oil except maduro [2:01:24] that's what's changed here what's changed here is they're no longer getting free oil from venezuela [2:01:28] and number two the main reason why they have oil energy blackouts is because they didn't invest a [2:01:33] single dollar back into their plants back into improving their plants and they could have bought [2:01:38] this equipment from any company in the world but they didn't invest in it instead they invested it [2:01:42] to build tourist hotels that now sit empty because there's no tourism into cuba so cuba's a little bit [2:01:48] more complicated than venezuela but it's a mess thanks for what you're doing thank you mr chairman secretary [2:01:56] rubio i trust you're familiar with then centcom commander and future secretary of defense jim [2:02:02] mattis's famous quote about the importance of um funding our foreign policy apparatus in 2013 in [2:02:10] response to a question from the now chairman of sask general mattis pointed out that if you don't find [2:02:15] and i quote him if you don't fund the state department fully then i need to buy more ammunition [2:02:21] ultimately end quote unfortunately despite his service in the first trump administration [2:02:26] the second time around you seem to have taken the message as a blueprint rather than as a warning [2:02:32] the budget that you're presenting today cuts the state department by about a third after you [2:02:37] previously tried to enact steep cuts and eliminations last year many of which were already rebuked by [2:02:42] congress on a bipartisan basis time and again this administration uses our military as a first tool [2:02:48] of choice manufacturing new crises and new conflicts that worsen the situation for folks abroad as well [2:02:53] as for american people back here at home and now you're here to justify a budget request that further [2:02:59] undermines our diplomatic apparatus the tools and professionals that are critical for not only [2:03:03] preventing crises before they begin but those who will be responsible for negotiating our way out of [2:03:08] trump's war of choice in iran and whatever night other nightmares he dreams up with so based on how [2:03:14] this administration has conducted itself with the last year our adversaries are learning that the united [2:03:18] states is not a reliable negotiator they're learning that we will quickly turn to using force before [2:03:23] working to alleviate crisis points and prevent war i'm very concerned that in turn that that in turn [2:03:28] increases the risk of our adversaries jumping to use force first increasing risk to american [2:03:33] citizens and american interests around the world we saw that instinct for the military option in the [2:03:38] caribbean and in venezuela and now we're seeing threats of it in cuba while we're still engaged in the [2:03:42] middle east where president trump is blowing a shocking amount of money and failing to uphold his solemn [2:03:47] duty to put our service members at risk only for the most serious and imminent national security [2:03:52] threats to american people mr secretary you also wear the hat of a national national security advisor [2:03:59] so with both that had an s secretary of state do you agree that this administration has spent more [2:04:04] on trump's war in iran than you are requesting today for this entire state department budget [2:04:09] request yeah i can't speak to the department of war would have to speak to you about the money [2:04:12] and what they calculate are the costs i just i can't give you an accurate answer on that because [2:04:16] that's not the thing that i look at i i would think you would have some over some some uh over some [2:04:24] insight because you are on national security well i've seen the testimony that uh secretary hexeth and [2:04:28] others have conducted in front of the the their their oversight committees but i just can't i don't [2:04:33] want to give you an answer that's not accurate okay well this week let me let me let me put out some [2:04:37] numbers that i have this week the costs of president trump's illegal war of choice against iran are likely to [2:04:42] balloon past 35 billion dollars by the rate from the ods own may calculations and surpass your fy [2:04:48] 2027 budget request of 35.1 billion for the state department and related programs that's an [2:04:54] astonishing figure worth repeating in just 14 weeks 14 weeks president trump will have blown [2:05:00] through as much if not more money in iran than he thinks congress should spend on u.s diplomacy for [2:05:05] the entirety of the next fiscal year this administration's distorted priorities have unfortunately revealed [2:05:12] some stark lessons for our allies and partners as well the united states use of force first will [2:05:16] make them less secure as they'll be caught in the crossfire left scrambling to protect themselves and [2:05:20] their people mr secretary do you agree that under operation epic fury our allies and partners in [2:05:25] the region have expressed concern about their security and the threats are followed from this [2:05:29] administration's uncoordinated actions no i think our allies in the region have been very cooperative [2:05:34] some obviously very aggressively cooperative like the uae as an example kuwait's been fantastic [2:05:40] obviously no country likes to have their oil and their energy infrastructure hit but i think it's [2:05:44] a reminder to them of the threat that iran poses and the one lesson when this is all said and done [2:05:48] is uh it's reminded them of you know despite all the friendly talk that you've seen in the past [2:05:53] how dangerous iran is to their own interests how the billions of dollars iran has spent despite [2:05:57] sanctions iran found the money to build drones and rockets and luckily we've taken a lot of them [2:06:02] out but they still have some and they still have the ability my question is about our allies in [2:06:05] region expressing concerns because you see public reporting in early may revealed that saudi arabia [2:06:11] denied u.s basing and overflight related to trump's ill-conceived plan to escort ships through the [2:06:15] straits of her moves and they're still not supportive of this risky tanker escort plan and the strait is [2:06:20] still worse off today than it was before trump initiated this war and that doesn't even touch on [2:06:25] wider global lessons being learned by our allies and partners yeah we don't face from the shangri-la [2:06:30] dialogue where i heard from folks across the indo-pacific and especially in southeast asia [2:06:34] who are being hit hard by the same rising energy costs that are devastating american communities [2:06:38] and frankly this administration insists on using military force as a first resort instead of a [2:06:42] last resort no matter the deadly cause of self-defeating impacts your budget request here would sadly [2:06:48] perpetuate that trend and undermine the roles and responsibilities that you should be fulfilling [2:06:51] a secretary of state thank you mr chairman i yield back okay i didn't get to answer any of that [2:06:56] response question well she didn't answer your question she didn't want me to answer can i answer [2:07:00] anyway you made okay well but she made a bunch of points i get to answer them right [2:07:04] first of all i don't understand this thing but let me tell you we were just here maybe you weren't [2:07:08] here we were just talking about it we did a peace deal with azerbaijan and armenia we just signed the [2:07:12] trip agreement to yesterday actually or last week we signed it last night i officialized it that that [2:07:17] that was diplomacy that's right but the administration is still blown through when do i get to talk to you [2:07:22] do i get to talk to you this entire budget that you're requesting senator duckworth uh i'm going to [2:07:27] let senator rubio reply to the statements that you made at his request yeah that's but we want we've got a hard [2:07:34] stop at 12 30. okay but i know but you said a lot of stuff i get to answer some of it all right so [2:07:37] the first is the the second is india pakistan we ended that war we were involved in helping broker [2:07:42] that thailand cambodia that's diplomacy we've been very engaged in as in fact as i sit here now speaking [2:07:48] to you i've got the lebanese government and the israeli government meeting at the state department [2:07:52] starting at 8 30 this morning for the fourth time after engaging last week at the military level [2:07:58] so we're carrying out now you know i we're carrying out diplomacy all over the world constantly and very [2:08:02] successfully in many cases now let me make one more point that you raise about the budget request [2:08:07] guys we understand how this process works okay you guys understand i know because i've been here all [2:08:11] time we we omb produces sort of timelines for every agency we put forward a budget we say this is the [2:08:16] money we've been allocated this is how we would spend it there is a congressional process which i'm [2:08:21] sure you're aware of and in my time here 16 years that i was here i don't ever recall us once ever [2:08:26] taking the president's budget and passing it into law i'm not walking away from the budget we can make it [2:08:30] work if that's the budget you give us but i have a sense i have a suspicion right senator schatz that [2:08:36] we're not that we're going to have to work with you got shots that we're going to have to well you [2:08:39] know that we're going to have to uh that we're going to have to work with you guys on a budget request [2:08:44] that meets your priorities and ours that's how it works you guys are the appropriators we have to work [2:08:49] within the con we will tell you what we care about we will tell you how we're going to spend the money [2:08:52] but ultimately you will provide a suspending bill and we will work through those parameters but we have [2:08:57] given you what we can live with we can make it work but if you wanted you know if you're obviously [2:09:01] going to have changes here in congress but this stuff about diplomacy and the money spent on the [2:09:05] war diplomacy has always cost less money we don't buy missiles we don't buy rockets we don't buy [2:09:11] large airplanes and aircraft carriers but we've been very effective and i can give you list after list [2:09:15] of places that we have had an impact in either de-escalating crisis before it started or ending active [2:09:21] wars and i'm very proud of the work that we've done in that regard some of which haven't even been [2:09:25] publicly discussed in some cases because they weren't high profile and my last point we remain [2:09:29] heavily engaged in areas that may not at the core of our national interest but nonetheless are related [2:09:34] to our national interest you look you think about sudan for a moment and the quad this has been a very [2:09:39] frustrating situation to put together but we helped convene a donor conference that got pledges for when [2:09:44] that is is resolved we put a lot of time and energy in a situation that now unfortunately has turned into a [2:09:49] proxy in the middle east because of the uae and the saudis on opposite sides of it in libya where our [2:09:54] work in libya now has it's still divided but they for the first time ever have a joint budget for [2:10:00] the first time ever are cooperating on energy deals that are going to be beneficial to the people of [2:10:04] libya so i just don't think it's fair to say we're not actively involved in diplomacy on last year's [2:10:09] budget and spending because we are and we have been and to great success thank you senator uh curtis [2:10:14] thank you mr chairman clock setter thank you for resetting the clock uh mr secretary thank you for [2:10:21] being here um and i'm always truly impressed with your ability to navigate around the globe [2:10:26] uh so articulately and explain uh the positions um like you previously i chair the western hemisphere [2:10:32] subcommittee one of the focuses that i've had is on taiwan and taiwan's relationship in the western [2:10:38] hemisphere uh we actually had our first subcommittee hearing on uh taiwan's allies in the western hemisphere [2:10:45] and as you well know honduras switched diplomatic recognition away from taiwan in 2023 in exchange for [2:10:51] a lot of promises from china no surprise those those promises have not been fulfilled and the current [2:10:57] president during his campaign talked about returning back to taiwan and restoring that relationship [2:11:03] with with uh taiwan in your budget you have a hundred 245 million dollars for the countering prc [2:11:11] influence fund and i'd like to note senator van holland and i have a bill that would actually [2:11:16] carve off a portion of that specifically for taiwan and countering the prc influence there so um i guess [2:11:24] my question is what can the u.s do potentially with counter you with that fund countering prc influence fund [2:11:31] for taiwan particularly as it relates to honduras kick-starting that uh relationship developing joint [2:11:38] set of economic priorities for taiwan and the western hemisphere anything else we can use that fund [2:11:43] forward yeah well first of all the reason why these countries switched recognition primarily was [2:11:46] because you know the chinese would go in and they would say if you switch recognition we are going [2:11:51] to provide you this loan this and in some cases worse than loans you maybe there was even cases of [2:11:56] bribery and things of this nature but we're going to provide you you know a free this and free that [2:12:01] we're going to build an auditorium for you we're going to build a bridge we're going to build a port [2:12:04] and they haven't kept many of those promises so i think the first thing is to just point to the [2:12:08] back and switch yeah in many cases these things are not uh provided the other angle of it is if [2:12:13] it's loans they create these debt traps which is an argument we make all over the world but [2:12:17] particularly in the hemisphere but the broader goal of this fund is not just simply taiwan related [2:12:22] although that's the reason why the that's an action they took as a result of this leverage that [2:12:26] was established on them but more broader in many cases these countries are trying to develop their [2:12:32] telecommunication system they're trying to build roads they're trying to develop whatever it may be [2:12:36] and frankly the only companies that show up are the chinese companies and they show up with lower [2:12:43] costs a financing mechanism etc etc now there's a track record of not completing these projects [2:12:49] there's a track record of flooding the country with chinese workers that come and do the work [2:12:53] so i think part of this fund is designed to create alternatives to that to give these [2:12:58] these countries alternatives to the chinese or other foreign malign influence that might be [2:13:03] occurring in their country part of that is attracting u.s commercial ventures to do it but part of [2:13:08] it is is is is providing the resources so these countries can go out and do this without being [2:13:13] subject to or vulnerable to this sort of leverage tactic that's used against them thank you let me [2:13:20] switch to china for just a minute uh your budget notes the merging of the foreign service institute [2:13:25] where a lot of the state language training takes place with the human resource bureau [2:13:29] and i'm hoping i'm hoping that can improve the language capacity but here in the senate i've [2:13:34] picked up the uyghur policy act which you led when you were here uh part of the bill that i'm [2:13:40] especially supportive of is the provision that's uh supporting the uyghur language training for [2:13:46] forest service officers is is not only important but required and that we have foreign service officers [2:13:52] in asia and china that can speak that language uh i think it's absolutely vital that our diplomats [2:13:58] be able to understand the people in their own language as to the abuses that are going on there [2:14:02] given your previous experience on this bill and the department's focus on the ccp's repression [2:14:09] do you still support this provision and can you just speak to how important this is yeah well i think [2:14:14] obviously the uyghur language is not a widespread language around the world but it's incredibly valuable [2:14:18] in an important part of the world and so i i think we want to see a language proficiency that's [2:14:23] generally been a challenge writ large um over a period of time and one of the goals of the [2:14:29] consolidation is to be able to drive language school more effectively and more quickly to afford [2:14:34] service officers before they're deployed um obviously proficiency in certain languages are very [2:14:39] difficult they take long longer periods some languages are harder to learn than others [2:14:43] um especially if the base of the language is you know like just to give an example it's easy to [2:14:48] learn italian if you speak spanish it's much harder to learn mandarin you know and uh and or the uyghur [2:14:54] language for that matter so but language is a priority for us and uh and it's one that uh by the [2:14:59] way in our recruitment tools is one of the things we also look for is whether uh potential candidates [2:15:05] already bring an existing second or third language which is a huge benefit yes and just very quickly um [2:15:11] you want to clarify use this opportunity the president had a tweet about speaking with hezbollah yesterday [2:15:16] do you want to clarify uh for people what happened and yeah i think that you'd like well we we we [2:15:23] received uh communications via the the lebanese government and the speaker over there on behalf [2:15:28] of hezbollah as early as sunday about uh that they would restrain from attacking israeli territory if [2:15:34] israel did not take strikes new strikes in beirut and so it came from hezbollah but through lebanese [2:15:42] authorities i think that clarification is important thank you for being here today i yield [2:15:47] thank you senator rosen uh thank you chairman rish ranking member shaheen thank you secretary rubio [2:15:53] for being here um secretary rubio i applaud the administration for facilitating a ceasefire [2:15:59] last year between israel and gaza that will keep israel safe and from further hamas attacks and [2:16:04] and the suffering of palestinian civilians but i have serious questions about transparency about the [2:16:11] funding for the so-called board of peace in light of recent reporting that suggests donor funds have been [2:16:16] deposited into a private jp morgan account with no independent transparency mechanisms in place as [2:16:24] a member of the board of peace executive board and secretary of state you should be in a position to [2:16:30] provide us with some answers and you as a former senator know our role here trying to get answers [2:16:35] and my team's been asking for a contact with the board of peace for several months just to do our due [2:16:40] diligence but we've received no response can you tell me exactly who my team should be reaching out [2:16:46] to please well i can now because the board of peace has finally hired some staff it's going to be a very [2:16:50] lean operation they're working out of the institute of peace building so for some period of time they [2:16:55] really were not it was just a very lean operation do you have a name for my i do i just don't have it on [2:16:59] me but i will get that to you but they've they've i think they just hired staff like in the last two [2:17:04] weeks we will follow up with you thank you um i have a few other questions can you tell me how much [2:17:08] money is in the world bank administered board of peace fund do you have a don't have the answer [2:17:12] because there's not u.s dollars that have flowed these are donor funds so can you tell me how much [2:17:16] how much money is in the jp morgan account yeah but again those are not u.s government accounts those [2:17:20] are that who has oversight well that's the that's the key here that the ultimately the oversight over [2:17:27] the funds of the board of peace will be will be done and especially when it comes to u.s dollars [2:17:31] will be done by you and congress we have not committed those funds there yet although we've [2:17:35] made a pledge until the they've stood up the board of peace administratively this will have oversight [2:17:39] ability well on the u.s dollars on the u.s dollars can the money in the jp morgan account be used to [2:17:45] compensate the president or his family or anyone directly no one's talking about the president and [2:17:49] you said you just hired some folks and it's going to be laying about how many full-time personnel do you [2:17:53] expect i don't i think they ultimately want to get up to 15 or 20 full-time i think they've started at [2:17:58] five if i'm not mistaken i could be wrong but those are the numbers i recall so is the 50 million in [2:18:02] u.s taxpayer money that your department wants to give to the board of peace is that going to be used [2:18:07] to cover this but i think that 50 million was reversed we ended up not doing that as a result of the [2:18:12] way it was constructed the board of peace is now built out as an international not non-governmental [2:18:17] organization we will follow up with you on that once you give us a contact after this thank you [2:18:22] so secretary rubio during your confirmation and budget hearings last year you committed to me [2:18:26] you would support women and girls programming at the state department but under your leadership [2:18:31] you've terminated dozens of awards supporting women and girls you shuttered the office of global [2:18:35] women's issues gee we you fired the entire staff you said repeatedly that regional bureaus will now be [2:18:41] responsible for programs to support women and girls but my staff has asked every single regional bureau [2:18:47] if they have a plan to do this and not a single bureau can provide me with an answer and so [2:18:54] secretary rubio i'm just so disappointed i want to believe that you know you didn't lie to us lie to [2:18:59] me and so i want to give you an opportunity to explain how women's issues have been integrated well i [2:19:05] don't know do we have an outline i don't know who's telling you that at the regional bureaus because [2:19:08] that's not accurate every regional now some regional bureaus have a larger mandate on women's issues [2:19:12] than others as an example like in europe it's probably less intense can you tell me on your team we can reach [2:19:17] out to them to find out because we're not getting they're telling us they don't know well that the [2:19:22] regional bureaus tell you they don't know not only does every regional bureau have someone in charge [2:19:25] of women's issues or at least inside of that portfolio but most of our embassies especially in [2:19:29] some of these key places are advocating can i call you yeah of course conversation because somehow [2:19:34] there's a community because we didn't eliminate the program we simply felt that there's there's a [2:19:38] difference between the women's issues for example that you would face in africa versus what you may be [2:19:41] facing in some part of asia new program that you've been that you've stood up in the last [2:19:46] uh since the uh gwe office was closed do you know of any first of all many almost every single one of [2:19:51] our programs that we do now our humanitarian response to crisis our our food programs that we [2:19:56] distributed they all of them have a women's component to it primarily because in these societies women's [2:20:01] are the first ones affected please so we can get some clarification yeah we'll follow up and i'll give you [2:20:05] the right people but each of these bureaus has someone or more than one case the last one here is um there is a [2:20:11] international women of courage program you and the first lady have champion are you going to commit [2:20:15] to maintaining that the which one i'm sorry the women of courage program you and the first lady have [2:20:21] championed that yeah well we had an award ceremony last year so i don't know if one is scheduled for [2:20:25] this year yet thank you uh with the remainder of my time i'd like to remind the american people that as [2:20:32] the secretary of state your main duty as america's chief diplomat is to maintain our relations with [2:20:38] foreign nations this is why i was shocked to see that you were at a party with president [2:20:42] trump in miami instead of accompanying vice president vance to pakistan for negotiations [2:20:47] what party was i at i was at a party publicly reported and there's photos there but what party [2:20:53] no no no no but you're going to say that i'm going to answer it i'm going to answer that question [2:20:57] that's an absurd statement i was not at a party my paragraph all right he can answer people are [2:21:01] going to slander me i'm going to answer with cough and jared kushner both of whom were never confirmed [2:21:07] by this body to be america's diplomats accompanied the vice president in negotiations [2:21:11] even iran's foreign minister was not there yet you were not was there excuse me and you were not [2:21:18] i just feel that's embarrassing for us and it's embarrassing for you so mr secretary congress [2:21:23] represents the american people we have the power to confirm who represents america abroad we confirmed [2:21:29] you to be our secretary of state we confirmed you to be in the negotiations that are happening [2:21:34] and it's just unthinkable to me that you are not you are missing high stakes negotiations or that [2:21:39] you're not involved it's sad senator rosen your time thank you your time's up uh secretary ruby [2:21:46] you're 100 inaccurate and 100 wrong here's why number one the vice president of the united states was [2:21:51] there and he wasn't confirmed by us and he was elected by the american people okay he is the second in [2:21:55] line of the presidency of the united states he was president president mr whitkoff is the president's [2:22:00] envoy for negotiation for peace deals mr kushner is a private citizen that serves as [2:22:04] an advisor on these functions they were the team that we sent to pakistan i was not at a party [2:22:09] where i was is next to the president because in the midst of those negotiations i was in [2:22:13] communications with them and in fact i think there is media reporting from that evening on how [2:22:18] multiple occasions i went into a back room i came back out and spoke to the president and was [2:22:22] constantly updating him on that evening i spoke to mr kushner and our negotiating team and mr [2:22:28] whitkoff on at least six occasions including twice on a secure line from from the phone they had [2:22:32] access to over there so you don't know what you're talking about he has a floor i know your staff [2:22:36] wrote up this cute statement for your tick tock video but it's not true and it's not real that's [2:22:41] not what happened okay i'm the national security advisor and secretary of state i was co-located [2:22:46] with the president in the midst of a high stakes negotiation so that i could immediately inform him [2:22:50] about events occurring halfway around the world i was where i needed to be at that moment because we had [2:22:55] a very capable team on the ground in pakistan led by the vice president led by the vice president of the [2:23:00] united states thank you senator cornyn secretary rubio um i've heard some of my colleagues here on [2:23:10] this committee suggest that the u.s started a war with the iranian regime 92 days ago i happen to [2:23:16] believe that the iranian regime started a war against the west and israel and has been at war with us [2:23:25] since 1979 what's your view well if you go back to 1979 and the taking hostages and build it out from [2:23:32] there i don't know the numbers if we could even add them up it's incalculable thousands of people [2:23:37] around the world including many americans have been killed because of direct iranian action director [2:23:42] all the ieds those roadside bombs that maimed and killed our soldiers were all the man all the [2:23:47] mastermind work of the irgc for decades the irgc sponsors terrorist attacks all over the planet in [2:23:53] fact they were involved for example in the bombing of a jewish center in argentina in 1993 or 1994. [2:23:59] they're they're consistently they it's now we have people convicted convicted in the united states [2:24:05] of america and one was arrested yesterday iranian agents plotting the assassination of american [2:24:09] political leaders including the president of the united states they've been waging non-stop not to [2:24:14] mention their massive sponsorship of hamas of hezbollah and all the activities those groups have [2:24:19] undertaken so you're absolutely right that the that the iranian system has been waging war on the on [2:24:24] the west but why is anybody in the united states and specific for over three decades but why is [2:24:29] anyone surprised they openly chant openly chant death to america death to israel they openly say israel [2:24:35] is the little satan but we're the big satan so i think at some point when people say this repeatedly [2:24:40] you believe their rhetoric and their actions back their rhetoric this is a very dangerous regime [2:24:44] and the notion that they would ever possess nuclear weapons that people that are willing to [2:24:48] conduct those kinds of terrorist acts would ever possess a nuclear weapon is unthinkable [2:24:53] unbearable and unacceptable and it's not going to happen under president trump so ever since 19 [2:24:59] well since the iranian nuclear program started and they basically blocked the iea and others from [2:25:06] doing the inspections that would be required in order to monitor their use of enriched uranium [2:25:13] we've had presidents democrat and republican say that a iranian nuclear weapon was unacceptable but it [2:25:21] took president trump to actually do something about it it shocks me to hear some of our colleagues [2:25:32] suggest that there was not an imminent threat from an iranian nuclear weapon you and i both sat in the [2:25:39] same skiff on the senate intelligence committee we won't talk about the details of course but we knew [2:25:44] that they continued to enrich to the point where they could produce a nuclear weapon within a specified time [2:25:50] there's some debate about how long that breakout would take but the idea that an iranian nuclear [2:25:57] program did not present an imminent threat to the united states to me is just ludicrous and uh i think [2:26:03] it defies all evidence to the contrary but do you think if they had acquired a nuclear weapon that that [2:26:09] would change the ability of the united states and our allies like israel to deal with this uh nuclear armed [2:26:16] iran i think if iran ever acquired a nuclear weapon they would they could very well use it because [2:26:21] given the theological nature of their decision making but but just as problematic as they would [2:26:26] have immunity at that point your options on what you could do about them would be quite limited and [2:26:31] their ability to hold the world hostage they'd be like north korea for example they'd be north korea but [2:26:36] worse they'd be better funded uh they would have they would at that point decide that they own the [2:26:41] straits of hormuz forever and everyone has to pay them a toll and nuclear weapons you can't do anything [2:26:45] about it um they would be able to act with impunity they would sponsor hezbollah they would sponsor how [2:26:50] much they would hyper scale their efforts of global terrorism and completely try to drive us out of [2:26:56] the region and ultimately destroy the state of israel that that's what their goal would be and you [2:27:00] wouldn't be able to do anything about it because they have a nuclear weapon and would threaten to [2:27:03] blow people up if you tried to move against them notwithstanding the importance of denying [2:27:08] uh iran a nuclear weapon i do uh i do applaud the president's attempt to try to use some diplomacy [2:27:16] here in order to deny them access to the enriched uranium and and their other uh weapons that they [2:27:23] use against israel and the west but tell me why do you think anything that the iranian regime agrees to [2:27:31] that they will comply with what what evidence is there that they will agree to anything that [2:27:37] they ultimately will stick with well again and that's why any deal with them has to you have to [2:27:41] enter into it with clearly verifiable steps so as an example simply putting something on a [2:27:46] simply putting something on a piece of paper is not satisfactory you have to actually commit to [2:27:50] doing it then you have to actually do it and so that's our view of it our view of it is that [2:27:55] any concessions that are made and i don't even call them concessions per se but any arrangements [2:27:59] that are made with iran have to come after not just they agree to certain things but they actually [2:28:03] do certain things let's be clear about this because i don't think this is talked about enough [2:28:06] if what iran wants is nuclear energy for their country there are mechanisms to do it there are [2:28:11] countries all over the world that enrich that that are able that have nuclear energy but they don't [2:28:16] enrich they certainly don't enrich the 60 percent they don't do it hidden in a mountain deep buried [2:28:22] underground somewhere if what they want is nuclear energy they can have it there are mechanisms for [2:28:26] them the problem with iran is not that they want nuclear energy the problem with iran is that [2:28:30] everything they do is consistent with the activities of a nation that seeks to develop a nuclear weapons [2:28:35] capability thank you senator senator shots thank you chairman secretary thank you for being here [2:28:41] tomorrow i'm going to have you in the the appropriations committee and we'll walk the list [2:28:46] that um that we talked about a couple of weeks ago in a conference call so i won't cover that [2:28:51] i want you to sort of answer the china watchers who saw that visit to china and saw [2:28:59] that nvidia is now going to sell h200s i understand that's not our highest technology but it's better than [2:29:05] what china has and that's why people are worried and that i mean it's pretty plain that the president [2:29:12] violated one of the six assurances i understand that the ambassador and you and others have sort of [2:29:20] followed up to kind of smooth the edges but i mean it's pretty clear he says we discussed arm sales in [2:29:27] great detail it depends on china it's a very good negotiating chip for us so what do you say to china [2:29:36] watchers who say they got some pretty good deliverables and we didn't get much i i don't see [2:29:44] the the trip there were some deliverables you know the purchase of additional boeing aircraft which [2:29:48] of course is beneficial to the chinese as well but helps our company some of the agricultural [2:29:51] concessions but the trip was largely for the most part about the fact that the two largest most [2:29:56] powerful countries in the world have to have direct interaction with one another and this was an [2:30:01] opportunity to do it he will reciprocate by visiting the united states later next year separate from [2:30:06] that and i i don't know if you were here at the outset in my opening statement or maybe it was [2:30:09] in response to one of the questions i think two things are clear number one is that we're entering [2:30:14] into a period of strategic stability that i think serves the interest of both countries because the [2:30:19] last thing we want is a largely destabilizing event in the indo-pacific but the second is that there are [2:30:24] clear differences of priorities there are clear irritants in that relationship that are long-standing [2:30:29] and that are going to be long term as in so so critical minerals dependencies things of this nature [2:30:36] so it's one of those relationships that's going to require very deft diplomacy and mature decision [2:30:41] making sure and and this is this is why i like our engagement like that makes sense to to me but [2:30:47] it seems to me that if the main objective is to kind of touch gloves and initiate uh conversations [2:30:54] then why give away any of the things that they're already seeking in exchange for essentially nothing you [2:31:00] mean you're basically saying it's better to talk than not to it's better to engage than not to it's [2:31:04] better to be in a period of stability than not i agree with all that i just don't understand why we [2:31:10] would want to sell sell them our second best chips and why we would start to at least complicate the [2:31:16] question of our assurances um regarding taiwan i'm going to move over we're staying in the asia pacific [2:31:22] region um the marshals the philippines and tuvalu have declared a national emergency on their energy [2:31:28] situation south korea says its energy crisis is a war like situation you've been around a long time [2:31:36] on this committee and now as secretary it is always the case that something in the middle east undermines [2:31:41] our ability to project power in the asia pacific region but it's not just a question of opportunity [2:31:48] cost and attentional challenges now we're talking about our allies in the asia pacific region really [2:31:55] uh taking it on the chin with energy costs because of the strait of hormuz what do we say to them just [2:32:01] hang in there yeah no a couple points it's one of the steps that we've taken and some of the things [2:32:06] that we've done around the world whether it's the release of strategic reserves whether it's not [2:32:10] popular but you know we've got questions about here earlier today but making available for a limited [2:32:16] period of time both iranian oil on the water though they don't enjoy the revenue of it and and some of [2:32:21] the russian oil on the water as well um the third point though that this points to is a much deeper [2:32:26] one and that is that while the straits of hormuz provides about 20 of the global oil supply it is [2:32:32] probably 80 or 90 of the supply in the indo-pacific given the geography and so forth so one of the [2:32:38] things that i think is going to come about as a result of all this in the long term is more [2:32:41] diversification and where they're going to get their energy from including from the united states [2:32:45] potentially certainly with japan and some other countries in the region will benefit you know that [2:32:49] the the sort of project it takes time it all takes time i understood that's like cold comfort if [2:32:54] you're if you're running a country and your your gasoline and your fertilizer and all your input [2:32:59] prices just skyrocketed because of because of president trump's decision to go to war with a [2:33:06] country clear across the world but see i don't and i understand your point but i also think in all these [2:33:11] questions we're getting a lot of questions about us i don't think it's fair because ultimately the people [2:33:16] have closed the straits of hormuz or iran and they're doing so in violation of every international [2:33:19] law you can imagine even the chinese are against it everyone is we have i think a record number 140 [2:33:25] co-sponsors at the united nations on this resolution that hasn't come up for a vote yet to condemn what [2:33:30] they're doing and nobody's defending what iran is doing i think what we're saying is this was not just [2:33:35] predictable it was predicted this was what everybody said you don't have to be some expert in foreign [2:33:42] policy you don't need to get into a skiff you could literally put into this put this into an llm and [2:33:47] say what'll happen if we take kinetic action against iran and the first thing that would pop out is [2:33:51] well they'll probably close the strait of hormuz so it's really shocking to me the degree to which this [2:33:57] administration expresses shock that the thing that everybody said was going to happen ended up happening [2:34:02] but but here's the point i would make on that in that the reverse of that is so that the [2:34:06] the alternative is to say well then we have to go ahead and let iran develop a nuclear weapon or [2:34:10] they'll close the straits of hormuz i mean at some point you have to take action on this situation [2:34:15] understanding there'll be a reaction to it but it cannot be iran will always have the ability to [2:34:19] threaten the straits you don't need much sophistication to if you threaten commercial vessels and [2:34:23] shooting them they're going to stop moving drop you know dropping mines by the way it's not just iran [2:34:27] that can do it the houthis could do it in the red sea and they're not nearly as as large as iran is [2:34:33] i think this is a more fundamental challenge and that is are we now forever limited doing it do we just [2:34:38] have to have let iran go ahead and develop a nuclear weapon because of their threat to close the [2:34:42] straits of hormuz we that's an untenable situation but i'll see him tomorrow so don't worry yeah okay [2:34:52] that's good uh tomorrow's approach we we i know you've we're supposed to have a hard stop at 12 30 [2:34:58] but no we'll do it senator cruz has been uh uh patient i hope you'll give us only because it's him [2:35:03] one more bite of the apple thank you mr chairman i will say mr secretary since you left the senate i've been [2:35:11] obliged to serve cuban coffee in my meetings because you left me as the only cuban american [2:35:15] left behind so uh come by if you want a cafecito uh let me start by saying that president trump's [2:35:23] decision to strike iran was the most consequential decision of his second term as president and i [2:35:30] want to commend you i want to commend the president the entire administration on the extraordinary [2:35:34] success we have seen in less than 40 days uh the united states has utterly and completely destroyed [2:35:42] the military and nuclear infrastructure that that the iranian regime spent nearly 50 years building [2:35:49] every day that passes increases american leverage iran is weaker poorer and more isolated than it's been [2:35:55] in in decades the president has laid out four red lines for any resolution to this military conflict [2:36:04] number one that there be zero enrichment by iran number two that they hand over all of their enriched [2:36:11] uranium number three that they stop funding terrorism worldwide and number four that they open the [2:36:17] strait of hormuz i agree with all through all four of those red lines do you agree with those red lines [2:36:24] and how achievable do you believe they are in the coming weeks and months yeah you stated the the poor [2:36:32] positions of presidents take it accurately and the entire administration is supportive of it because [2:36:37] that's what we're we take our directives from the president and and personally during my time in the senate [2:36:42] these would be consistent with my thinking i would only reverse it in the following order the straits [2:36:46] of hormuz not it would have to come first because what they're doing there is unlawful and illegal to [2:36:51] begin with that has to open immediately and that has to open immediately in exchange not for anything else [2:36:57] other than us lifting the blockade we have a blockade on iranian oil leaving and the reason why we [2:37:01] have a blockade on iranian oil leaving is because they close the straits if they open the straits and by [2:37:06] open the straits understand what we're saying it's saying you're not going to threaten to shoot at [2:37:10] commercial vessels of civilians and and and create you know ecological disaster that's what they're [2:37:14] doing it's unlawful it's illegal it's outrageous every country in the world condemns it if they [2:37:19] end that we lift the blockade then we enter into the into the second phase which is the nuclear question [2:37:25] on enrichment they don't have to and they don't need to enrich if what they want is a nuclear energy [2:37:29] program they can have one without enrichment and it was somebody other it's a few questions ago i forgot [2:37:34] who it was said that what we're working on is similar jcpoa it is not jcpoa would have expired this year [2:37:40] and it allowed them to keep all the enrichment equipment that they needed and and and clearly [2:37:44] that equipment could get them to 60 and 90 because they've done 60 as a result of it so it would have [2:37:49] to deal with that question and it would have to deal with a highly enriched uranium that they currently [2:37:53] are in possession of there's no reason to have the only reason to have 60 and rich uranium is to [2:37:58] turn it into 90 enriched uranium and put it into a weapon so those remain and on the sponsor of terrorism [2:38:03] absolutely to the point where i would argue for example it's one of the interesting things that's [2:38:07] happening i know senator shein has a great interest in lebanon it's one of the most ironic situations [2:38:12] in the world the lebanese government and the israeli government could do a peace deal tomorrow israel [2:38:17] has no territorial claims in lebanon and hezbollah is in particular in fact hezbollah has called for the [2:38:22] overthrow of the current lebanese government the impediment in lebanon is the fact that hezbollah has [2:38:27] embedded itself into that country and is the reason for all the suffering that's happening there right now [2:38:32] and all the suffering that's historically happened entirely funded entirely controlled by iran there [2:38:38] is no hezbollah without iran there is no hezbollah without iran i mean there might be a political [2:38:42] movement with ideology but they don't have a bunch of rockets they don't have a bunch of weapons without [2:38:47] iran they are a complete total proxy of iran and that's the kind of activity that needs to be i want [2:38:52] to come back to hezbollah in a moment just just focusing for a second on on iran itself [2:38:57] um for some time i have urged the administration i've urged israel to arm the protesters in iran [2:39:05] i i don't think it is fair to expect the iranian people to stand up protesters to stand up with rocks [2:39:13] against soldiers with machine guns are we arming the protesters and and should we be yeah i'm not [2:39:19] aware of any program to arm civilians in iran to overthrow their government i mean there may be other [2:39:24] countries doing it or other elements but certainly not the u.s government all right let's let's go back [2:39:29] to hezbollah so so you spoke with the lebanese president uh joseph aoun uh over the weekend [2:39:37] you know the state department sent out an email to journalists shortly after your call in in which [2:39:42] the state department spokesperson said quote iran wants to prolong the conflict in lebanon [2:39:49] so it can claim credit for saving the day um i have to admit that didn't strike me as [2:39:55] accurate i i i don't think iran wants to to keep the conflict going in in in lebanon i think they [2:40:01] desperately want israel to stop killing hezbollah do you agree with that yeah i think the the the [2:40:07] point was trying to make is that we are trying to view the lebanon israel israeli talks as separate [2:40:13] and distinct from iran and what iran wants to do is mix it all together because hezbollah is not [2:40:18] legitimate there's a government in lebanon that's who we're dealing with and hezbollah is not their equal [2:40:23] in terms of who we're going to be dealing with or who needs to be in charge so the point we're [2:40:27] trying to make is that is what iran is trying to stymie they are trying to stymie any effort in which [2:40:32] israel and lebanon can work together and prolong it so that if an arrangement is reached at some [2:40:37] point in the future they can claim credit for having forced it through leverage and and that's [2:40:42] why you see for example hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire about a week ago and then immediately violated [2:40:47] the next within hours you would agree every hezbollah terrorist that the idf kills makes america safer [2:40:54] well hezbollah is a danger to the united states there's no doubt about it i think the question [2:40:57] is how do you do that and how do you achieve the objective of demilitarizing and defanging hezbollah [2:41:03] while at the same time strengthening the legitimate government of lebanon and particularly the [2:41:07] president and others that's been the challenge there for a very long time that remains the challenge now [2:41:12] of course the capabilities of the laugh are are not where they need to be but there are also elements [2:41:19] within the laugh that are not who they need to be because they have they facilitate in some cases and [2:41:23] cooperate with hezbollah so it's a very tricky situation but i point you back to two things [2:41:27] that have happened in the last few months number one the lebanese government expelled the iranian [2:41:32] ambassador because of hezbollah the iranian ambassador says i'm not leaving and you can't make me [2:41:38] okay that's number one the second thing that's happened is just a week ago hezbollah openly called [2:41:43] went on said they openly called for the overthrow of the lebanese government so no one here should be [2:41:48] under any hezbollah is not just an enemy of israel and an enemy of america hezbollah is an enemy of lebanon [2:41:53] and of the lebanese people thank you thank you thank you senator cruz senator ruby you've been [2:41:58] very generous with your time we appreciate that uh i uh for the information members the record [2:42:04] will remain open until the close of business tomorrow june 3rd with that the committee is adjourned