Rubio testifies at Senate hearing — NBC News

[0:24] And make sure you get his good side there. [0:27] Okay. [0:30] Well, Mr. Secretary, welcome to the subcommittee, which you're an alumni of. [0:36] I want to welcome our new member, Senator Hustedt from Ohio. [0:41] I'm glad to have him on board. [0:42] We lost Senator Mullen, who's at DHS, and I promised Mark Wayne we would stay focused on Haiti, one of his great passions. [0:53] Senator Schatz is on the way, so I thought I'd just go ahead. [0:57] There he is. [0:58] Great timing. [1:00] There will be seven-minute rounds. [1:03] Senator Collins and Maria will go first, then myself and Senator Schatz. [1:07] And based on seniority, order of appearance, appearance will go down to subcommittee. [1:14] And, again, seven-minute rounds. [1:18] Again, Mr. Secretary, welcome. [1:20] And I'll just start. [1:22] Anything you'd like to say? [1:23] Okay. [1:24] Do an opening statement now? [1:27] Nope. [1:27] It's going to be real quick, though. [1:29] Okay. [1:29] Okay. [1:31] This account is important to me. [1:32] I've been involved with this account since I've been pretty much in the Senate. [1:36] I'm a fairly hawkish guy, but the state foreign ops account, the 150 account, Mr. Secretary, is the lifeblood for the State Department. [1:46] The men and women in the State Department, under your charge and direction, are real heroes. [1:52] They're serving in some very dangerous places. [1:55] Very much like a military, diplomacy can be a dangerous calling. [1:59] To all the men and women of the Foreign Service, thank you. [2:02] Thank you very much for what you do, for showing up and representing our country and our values in some of the most difficult places. [2:11] So, to those who serve in the State Department, you have my gratitude and admiration. [2:16] As to the budget proposal, we'll see what number we come out with. [2:21] This soft power, to me, is still power. [2:25] There are limits to hard power. [2:27] And soft power, to me, has the potential to make us safer in very troubled parts of the world. [2:34] And I've learned one thing. [2:35] And if you can help feed a starving child, you're probably going to have a good relationship with the mother and the father. [2:44] And there are programs in this account that have been wasteful and missed the mark. [2:51] And a lot of them have been cleaned up. [2:52] And I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for looking at this account anew and making it more businesslike. [2:58] But there are some core functions of this account, global health and humanitarian aid, that are, again, national security in another form. [3:06] And I look forward to working with Senator Schatz, Coons, the whole crowd here. [3:11] We work together well. [3:12] And we have a common view that soft power is important. [3:16] With that, Senator Schatz. [3:18] Thank you, Chairman. [3:19] Thanks, Secretary, for being here. [3:21] A year ago at our fiscal 26 hearing, I told you I was willing to make hard tradeoffs on funding in order to do a couple of things. [3:29] First, we had to enact a bill reaffirming bipartisan support for foreign assistance, [3:34] following the evisceration of the enterprise under this administration. [3:38] Second, it was essential that we strengthen this committee's ability to oversee the implementation of that funding. [3:44] And that's how we ensure that it's used to protect Americans from infectious diseases, [3:49] to help American businesses better compete abroad and lower costs at home, [3:52] and to deter threats that make us less safe here at home. [3:56] But the narrow goal of enacting a bill earlier this year was to begin to turn the page [4:03] and work together to restore some of the vital work that has been abandoned. [4:07] Unfortunately, there are concerning signs that the administration is still not properly executing foreign assistance. [4:14] Mr. Secretary, in your opening statement, you said foreign assistance is, quote, [4:18] being brought under the strategic direction of the State Department where it belongs. [4:22] This was a policy choice that some of us were willing to undergo and some of us were brought into kicking and screaming, to be blunt. [4:33] But my request to you, Mr. Secretary, now that we're a year into this, is we're going to have to walk the list. [4:41] There are a bunch of things that we fought hard for in the bipartisan negotiations to enact legislation in this account. [4:50] And it makes it a little difficult to do it again if we feel that the statutory language that we passed on a bipartisan basis, [5:00] reflecting bipartisan priorities, GAVI, PEPFAR, among them, are still not being implemented. [5:09] And so my purpose here is to continue the conversation we had yesterday and continue the conversation we had two or three weeks ago [5:16] to get serious about. Neither of us are trying to generate a clip here. [5:21] We're trying to make sure that the law that we enacted is implemented. [5:26] And now that foreign assistance really has been brought under your purview, [5:30] I want you to assert that authority and actually execute on the law [5:35] and execute on what I know is your basic belief that foreign assistance, when done right, [5:42] really projects American power across the globe. [5:45] But I am not interested in what HHS, [5:47] I'm not interested in what someone at OMB thinks. [5:50] You're the secretary. [5:51] You've been granted extraordinary authority, not just as the secretary of state, [5:54] but as the national security advisor and one of the closest members of the cabinet [6:00] to the president of the United States. [6:02] And so I want you to assert your authority and to start implementing the law that we've already passed [6:07] because that's really the only way we're going to be able to pass a new SVOPs bill. [6:12] It is very hard for me to have swallowed a 13 percent cut and then argue for another bill [6:20] if the bill we already passed is not being followed. [6:22] And so I look forward to a constructive conversation, not necessarily lacking any difficulty, [6:27] but a constructive conversation about those areas in which I think your leadership is needed [6:33] to actually implement the bill that we've already passed. [6:36] Thank you very much. [6:44] Mr. Secretary. [6:46] Thank you. [6:46] And if you guys don't mind, I know you have a long night ahead. [6:49] Instead of giving you a seven-minute opening, maybe I'll give you a four-minute opening? [6:53] I don't think anybody would object to that. [6:55] Okay. [6:55] Because I know you've got a long night ahead of you. [6:57] Look, first of all, thank you for the, first of all, this opportunity, [7:00] but also for the constructive way in which we've engaged both with the committee and with your staff. [7:05] And we know we have more work to do and we look forward to making that work. [7:07] I think that you've touched upon it. [7:09] And look, like I said, this is always a work in progress. [7:11] But our goal was always to align foreign assistance generally with the strategic lever, [7:18] with the strategic interest of the United States and how we prioritize. [7:21] And we can go through some of that today, but I think we're on our way to doing it, [7:25] whether it's realigning so that more of our assistance is going into Asia and the Western Hemisphere [7:30] than it has historically in the past, whether it's entering into compacts with individual countries, [7:37] 32 of them now, that we can strengthen their domestic capacities and their national health systems, [7:42] whether it's our ability to arrange new agreements with, like, the Global Fund and others, OCHA, [7:47] to be able to more effectively deliver the donations, you know, the taxpayer dollars of the United States [7:55] to these entities. [7:56] I think all that's been very valuable. [7:59] Obviously, there's a process by which money is appropriated in this country [8:02] and that involves us, like, sharing with you a proposal. [8:06] Again, this is my experience having served here for 16 years. [8:09] I did not expect that you would take up our budget and our proposal and pass it as is. [8:15] I know that Congress is an important role to play in making determinations. [8:18] I take the point that the ranking member has made about the role that Congress plays once it passes that bill [8:25] and having compliance with those conditions. [8:27] We'll work through some of that with you today as well as after that, after our meeting today. [8:30] But what I wanted you to understand is, and I think this has been largely misunderstood, [8:34] the goal of moving these programs, with the exception of the Food for Peace program, [8:38] which has been moved over to the Agriculture Department, [8:40] because we think they're, given their links to America's agricultural sector, [8:44] they're in a better position to deliver on that. [8:46] I think the goals we had was to say, what is our foreign policy and our national interest, [8:50] and then ensure that foreign assistance is a part of that strategy, [8:55] not a standalone strategy of its own that was not in any way coordinated [8:59] or related to our broader foreign policy and national interest. [9:02] In addition, I always have, even in my time here, and I was a supporter of foreign assistance, [9:07] but I've always believed the best foreign assistance programs are the ones that end. [9:10] They end because the country that you're helping no longer needs it. [9:13] I think one of the examples I always cite is South Korea. [9:16] South Korea used to be an aid recipient, a massive aid recipient. [9:19] In fact, at one time, South Korea's economy was smaller than North Korea's. [9:22] Today, South Korea is not only not a recipient, [9:25] South Korea is the ninth largest economy in the world, and they are a donor state. [9:28] Now, obviously, not every nation state has the capability [9:31] to achieve what they did in that regard, [9:33] but I think every nation state has the ability to become more self-sufficient, [9:36] and frankly, many of them ask for that. [9:38] Many of them want that. [9:39] Many of them welcome that. [9:41] I know that in my travels and in my interactions with leaders around the world, [9:44] they did express concern and frustration that in the past, [9:47] our foreign aid came either with massive strings attached, [9:50] in the sense of you had, you know, focus on this or that, [9:53] or it came with, and also, because I know that every country doesn't have the capability to do that, [10:13] but a lot of countries expressed concern that oftentimes we were doing aid in their countries [10:17] through NGOs without coordinating with a government at all. [10:21] They had their own priorities. [10:22] They had their own systems they wanted improved, [10:24] and we were just doing what we thought they needed, not what they were asking for. [10:28] So I think that's helped in that regard. [10:29] So we can go through all some of these details today. [10:31] I'll stop here to save you the time. [10:32] I know, do you guys have a voterama tonight is the rumor? [10:36] Oh, tomorrow. [10:37] Oh, well, then I can go all night. [10:40] I'm kidding. [10:44] See, that's the one part of being in the Senate I don't miss. [10:48] Votoramas. [10:49] Thank you. [10:51] You're welcome to attend, if you like, for old times' sake. [10:54] I will watch on C-SPAN. [10:56] We would have fun in the cloakroom. [10:59] Senator Collins. [11:01] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [11:04] Secretary Rubio, it's wonderful to see you, [11:07] and I want to thank you for your service in this new post. [11:11] Mr. Secretary, before the military hostilities with Iran began, [11:18] did the Department of State and other parts of the government, [11:24] Department of Defense obviously, [11:27] make an assessment on the likelihood that Iran would close [11:33] or interfere with commercial traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, [11:40] especially since 20% of the world's oil goes through that narrow passageway. [11:48] Yes. [11:48] Not only was that a known risk factor, [11:50] but there were others, like the launches against neighboring countries [11:54] that they wanted to punish. [11:55] All of those factors were understood and weighed [11:58] when the president made his decision about whether or not to do it. [12:01] He felt it was imperative that Iran not be able to establish, [12:05] and I agreed, that Iran would not be able to establish a conventional shield [12:10] that they were building with massive number of drones and missiles, [12:13] and they were on their way to getting double what they had. [12:15] And if they reached the point where they had so many missiles [12:18] and so many drones, plus their naval capabilities that existed at the time, [12:23] Iran would then say to the world, [12:24] there's nothing you can do about our nuclear program [12:26] because if you do, we will overwhelm your defenses [12:28] with the sheer volume of launches that we have, [12:31] and then they could do whatever they wanted on their nuclear program. [12:34] That was an unacceptable risk. [12:35] It was a risk that we were running out of time to address. [12:38] That was weighed against the risks that you've just outlined, [12:40] not just the Straits, [12:41] but also the attacks against Kuwait and Bahrain and UAE [12:45] and Saudi Arabia and Qatar. [12:47] It was weighed against that, [12:48] and the president made a decision that [12:50] them not having a nuclear weapon above all else [12:53] had to be the priority. [12:54] Is our country working with our allies in the region [13:01] or with American oil producers, [13:06] Canadian oil producers, [13:08] to look to the future [13:12] on what could be done [13:13] to mitigate the consequences [13:16] of such a dependence [13:19] on this particular strait in the future? [13:23] It wasn't the first time that Iran has done this. [13:26] During the Iran-Iraq war, [13:29] we saw Iran try to take control of the strait. [13:33] So it's disturbing [13:37] that nothing was done [13:40] in the intervening years [13:41] to try to figure out [13:43] are there alternative routes [13:45] that could be used, [13:47] more pipelines, [13:49] other ways [13:50] so that Iran does not have [13:52] such an ability [13:54] to control the strait. [13:56] Well, there is an existing western pipeline. [13:58] It certainly doesn't have [13:58] sufficient capacity out of Saudi Arabia [14:00] to make up for what's happening [14:03] through the straits potentially. [14:05] But a couple points. [14:06] Yes, the answer is, [14:07] and I think the indications are [14:08] that in the aftermath [14:09] of what's happened [14:09] with the straits, [14:11] supply lines, [14:13] where the world is going [14:15] to be getting its energy [14:16] is going to diversify [14:17] away from at least [14:18] the straits traffic [14:19] through a variety of means. [14:20] The first is, [14:21] you are going to see, [14:21] I believe, [14:22] the construction of more infrastructure [14:23] that goes to the west [14:24] and even to the north [14:25] to avoid the straits. [14:26] It's a bit less efficient [14:27] because the straits [14:28] are a quicker shot. [14:29] But I do think you're starting [14:30] to see the alignment. [14:31] But those are long-term projects. [14:33] I can't exactly tell you [14:34] how long it takes [14:34] to build these pipelines. [14:36] It's not my area of expertise, [14:37] but I certainly know [14:38] it takes more than a month [14:38] or even a year. [14:40] The second, [14:40] I think you're going to see [14:41] that the existing global capacity [14:43] is going to shift. [14:44] For example, [14:44] there are now markets [14:45] that are increasingly [14:46] seeking to buy U.S. energy, [14:48] which we can supply [14:48] and which we can provide. [14:50] Historically, [14:50] it hasn't made any sense for them [14:51] because they could get it faster [14:53] from the straits, [14:54] but given what's happened, [14:55] you're seeing increasing interest. [14:57] And in fact, [14:58] I think you'll start [14:59] to see some real-time deliveries [15:02] from U.S. refiners [15:04] and producers [15:05] to the Pacific region. [15:08] That's beginning to happen, [15:09] and the Canadians [15:10] are stepping into that world as well. [15:13] Let me switch [15:14] to a different issue. [15:16] Last month, [15:17] I led a bipartisan letter [15:19] to you urging the department [15:21] to release the $600 million [15:24] appropriated in fiscal years 25 and 26 [15:29] for Gavi, [15:30] the Vaccine Alliance. [15:32] And I would ask unanimous consent [15:34] that that letter, [15:35] which many members [15:36] of this subcommittee signed, [15:38] be entered into the record. [15:42] Without objection. [15:43] Gavi, as you well know, [15:45] plays a critical role [15:46] in preventing the spread [15:48] of infectious diseases [15:50] around the globe [15:51] and helps to protect public health [15:54] in our country as well [15:56] by stopping outbreaks [15:58] before they reach our borders. [16:00] And that's particularly important [16:02] right now [16:03] as the world is responding [16:05] to the Ebola outbreak [16:07] in the DRC. [16:09] Can you update us [16:10] on the status [16:11] of the funding for Gavi [16:13] and when we can expect [16:15] to see it obligated, [16:17] consistent with clear [16:19] congressional intent? [16:20] Yeah. [16:20] And I think a number of you [16:21] are aware of the particulars, [16:22] but let me share publicly as well [16:24] so that people understand better. [16:26] On this account, [16:27] we took into account [16:28] at the president's directive, [16:30] HHS's view, [16:31] and it's particular about one thing, [16:32] and that is a certain preservative [16:34] that's used in vaccines. [16:35] We don't use them [16:35] in the vaccines [16:36] in the United States, [16:37] but they are used [16:38] in vaccines around the world. [16:39] And the ask of Gavi [16:40] was that they would stop [16:41] providing these vaccines [16:43] without preservatives. [16:44] But the problem Gavi has, [16:46] according to them, [16:47] is that they have purchased [16:48] stocks of these vaccines, [16:50] you know, [16:50] the millions of doses, [16:52] and they can't just [16:53] throw those away [16:54] because they have [16:54] this preservative in there. [16:56] And so what we're trying [16:56] to do is find, [16:57] and we have now reengaged [16:59] more heavily, [16:59] and I know some of you [17:00] have been personally involved [17:01] in this, [17:02] to try to get this thing resolved, [17:03] to try to figure out [17:04] an outcome in which [17:05] perhaps there's a phased [17:07] approach to it. [17:07] They did make us [17:08] a counteroffer. [17:09] I haven't personally seen it [17:10] in the last couple days [17:11] from Gavi, [17:11] but it is my hope [17:12] we can bring this [17:13] to a resolution [17:13] on the issue [17:14] of these preservatives. [17:16] You know, [17:16] they make the point, [17:16] Gavi, [17:17] is that in some of these [17:18] countries where these [17:18] are distributed, [17:19] they don't have [17:19] the same refrigeration system, [17:21] so they need to have [17:21] this preservative in there. [17:23] Perhaps there's a way [17:24] to phase our way [17:24] through that. [17:25] So we'll consult [17:26] with HHS on it as well, [17:27] but ultimately we would like [17:29] to see this problem solved, [17:30] and we think we can, [17:32] and we're certainly [17:34] going to try, [17:34] because we want it [17:35] to be solved. [17:36] But in the meantime, [17:38] the United States needs [17:40] to get that money [17:41] out there. [17:42] This is the first time [17:44] that the United States [17:45] has given up its seat [17:46] on the Gavi's board [17:48] in the partnership's history. [17:51] I don't think [17:52] that's a good outcome. [17:55] So I hope we can get [17:56] that money, [17:57] which is desperately needed. [17:59] And that was a consequence [17:59] of us missing [18:00] that dues payment. [18:01] So in my sense, [18:02] I'm pretty sure [18:03] that in any deal [18:03] we strike with them, [18:04] part of the deal [18:05] will be we get our seat back [18:06] and the money comes. [18:07] But we want to deal [18:08] with this central issue. [18:09] I think you're well aware [18:10] of it, [18:10] and I think we can get there, [18:11] but we've got to work [18:12] a little bit on it. [18:13] Thank you. [18:14] Mr. Chairman, [18:15] I know my time has expired, [18:17] so I'll submit [18:18] the rest of my questions [18:20] for the record. [18:22] I just want to point out [18:23] that there are proven [18:25] high-impact interventions [18:28] for pregnant women [18:31] in prenatal vitamins [18:33] made in the United States [18:35] and a food supplement, [18:37] RUTF, again, [18:39] made in the United States, [18:41] that dramatically improve [18:44] maternal and child health outcomes. [18:47] And it's something [18:48] that I'll be talking further. [18:50] about the public-private partnership [18:53] to get this kind of supplement [18:56] out to those who need it globally. [19:00] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [19:02] Senator Schatz. [19:03] Thank you, Chairman. [19:05] Secretary, [19:06] to follow up on Gavi, [19:08] my staff are on the emails [19:09] between your department, [19:11] HHS, and Gavi, [19:12] and all the questions [19:13] have been answered. [19:14] I know you're a busy guy, [19:15] and you've been, [19:16] I don't know how many hearings [19:17] you've had this week, [19:17] so you're probably not [19:18] totally up to speed. [19:19] But all those questions [19:20] have been answered, [19:21] and Gavi committed [19:22] to find a way forward. [19:24] But either way, [19:26] I just want to make [19:27] this extremely clear. [19:30] You and I have [19:31] a very good relationship, [19:32] even though we don't agree [19:33] on a lot of things. [19:35] The statute itself [19:38] gives you this authority, [19:40] not the Secretary of HHS, [19:42] not anybody else. [19:43] And the statute itself [19:45] requires, [19:47] does not authorize you, [19:49] does not permit you, [19:50] requires you to move this money. [19:53] And so I just, [19:55] we've had a lot of [19:56] sort of reassuring conversations, [19:58] and then another six weeks, [19:59] and another 10 weeks, [20:00] and another three months [20:01] pass by. [20:02] And I understand [20:03] that you're having to navigate [20:04] some pretty difficult terrain [20:06] internal to the administration. [20:08] But the statute is not unclear [20:11] about whose authority it is, [20:13] and what you are obliged to do. [20:15] And so can we get a time frame [20:17] for moving this money? [20:20] Well, the best way I can answer [20:22] is I want to get this solved. [20:24] I believe we will get it solved. [20:25] I'll be engaged [20:26] in getting it solved. [20:27] I don't know the time, [20:28] but I mean, shortly. [20:31] How's that? [20:31] I mean, like I said, [20:32] I know that some paper came in, [20:34] maybe it was yesterday [20:35] or the day before they made a, [20:36] I wouldn't want to call it [20:37] a counteroffer, [20:37] but a proposal on what they think [20:39] they could do to solve this problem. [20:40] I have not personally [20:41] had an opportunity to review it, [20:42] but I'm aware of it. [20:43] I was informed of it again [20:44] this morning. [20:44] The commitment I can make to you [20:46] is that this is a problem [20:46] I would like us to solve. [20:47] I do think that the HHS point [20:51] about this preservative [20:53] is not irrelevant and invalid [20:55] because we don't use it [20:56] in our country. [20:57] So I want to account [20:58] for that as well, [20:59] but we will get this solved. [21:01] We want to get this solved. [21:02] Thank you. [21:04] You have $2.5 billion [21:05] in unspent funds [21:07] we provided specifically [21:08] for the Global Fund [21:09] since fiscal 24. [21:11] It is in Title III [21:12] of the SVOPs bill [21:13] for each year. [21:14] Again, on the USAID stuff, [21:17] we had a disagreement [21:18] about the kind of [21:21] programmatic implementation, [21:23] but it was very hard [21:25] to argue that the government [21:27] itself didn't have the authority [21:28] to determine who was [21:30] a recipient of a grant. [21:31] This is different. [21:33] The Global Fund [21:33] is specified in the statute, [21:36] and you have an internal cap [21:43] on U.S. contributions. [21:45] It's not statutory, [21:46] but it says 33% for every $1. [21:49] You're going to get [21:49] two non-American dollars. [21:52] Again, not required by law, [21:53] not even necessarily permitted by law, [21:55] but even under that, [21:57] there's still $661 million [22:00] that you could move [22:01] tomorrow morning. [22:02] And this is not [22:03] a complicated situation [22:04] with a preservative [22:05] and a vaccine [22:06] and interagency. [22:08] This is entirely [22:09] your authority. [22:11] And the $661 million [22:12] that is available [22:14] to be moved, [22:16] those are data [22:18] that came from [22:19] your department. [22:20] And so I'm just wondering [22:21] when we can move this money [22:23] because it's so highly consequent. [22:24] Yeah. [22:25] We've pledged up [22:26] to the 33% cap, [22:27] which as you outlined [22:28] is an internal cap. [22:29] It's one that I believe [22:30] the previous administration [22:30] used some cap as well. [22:32] But I think just to be clear [22:35] on your question, [22:35] what you're saying [22:36] is that of the amount [22:37] that's pledged, [22:38] there's still $600 million [22:39] that has not moved. [22:40] $660 million has not moved. [22:41] Okay. [22:41] So I think that will move [22:43] shortly, very quickly. [22:44] I think you also understand [22:46] OMB will not allow us [22:47] to move additional funds [22:48] beyond the 33% cap. [22:50] And the purpose [22:50] for the 33% cap [22:51] is to encourage [22:52] more donations. [22:54] Basically, make it clear [22:55] to the world [22:55] that the more you give [22:56] the global fund [22:57] or the more the fund [22:57] can raise, [22:58] the more we will provide it. [23:00] By the way, [23:00] it's my understanding as well [23:02] under the Biden administration. [23:03] They too, [23:04] despite additional appropriations, [23:06] did not go above the cap [23:07] they had imposed. [23:08] But the goal of the cap [23:08] is not punitive. [23:09] It's to encourage [23:10] more donations [23:11] to match our amount. [23:13] But on your point, [23:14] I'll take it back [23:14] on the $600 million. [23:15] That might just be [23:16] an internal bookkeeping matter [23:18] that needs to move the money [23:19] to get us to our pledge. [23:21] And we'll give more [23:22] if they raise more. [23:23] Got it. [23:25] Let's talk about [23:25] the USA closeout. [23:27] There's $16 billion [23:28] in the USA account [23:30] tied to awards [23:31] that were terminated [23:32] from prior years. [23:34] But then there's [23:35] another $3 billion [23:36] in the bill [23:39] that President Trump [23:40] signed into law. [23:43] And so what's happening [23:44] within your department [23:44] is that $16 billion [23:46] is just sitting there. [23:48] The $3 billion [23:49] is being used [23:50] to cover so-called [23:50] closeout costs [23:51] for USAID. [23:53] And what they are saying [23:54] is they're going to assess, [23:56] determine, [23:57] the cost of closeout. [23:59] And then after that, [24:01] whatever's left over [24:02] could be provided. [24:05] And let me give you [24:06] the line items. [24:07] $250 million [24:08] to combat malaria, [24:10] $330 million [24:11] to combat HIV-AIDS, [24:12] $320 million [24:13] for maternal [24:14] and child health, [24:15] $135 million [24:16] for nutrition programs, [24:17] and $150 million [24:18] to counter TB. [24:20] You have $16 million [24:21] in a pile, [24:22] and then you have [24:23] $3 million [24:23] that was passed [24:25] and enacted [24:25] by President Trump [24:27] and all of us. [24:29] And none of it [24:30] is moving [24:30] until we assess [24:31] the closeout costs [24:32] and then we're saying, [24:33] well, whatever's left over [24:35] for contract closeouts, [24:37] that's available [24:38] from malaria [24:38] and TB [24:39] and all the rest of it. [24:41] I think that's inverted. [24:42] You should use [24:43] the $16 billion [24:44] from the canceled contracts [24:45] to close out [24:46] whatever you need [24:47] to close out. [24:48] And the $3 billion [24:48] that we enacted [24:49] for specific purposes [24:50] should be used [24:52] for those specific purposes. [24:53] So can I get your attention [24:54] on that matter? [24:55] Sure. [24:56] So a couple points. [24:56] As you now know, [24:57] the USAID, [24:58] I'm no longer [24:59] the acting director. [25:00] It's no longer [25:00] under our purview [25:01] and not even [25:02] through my personal engagement. [25:03] It's now basically [25:04] out of OMB [25:04] and they are sitting [25:06] on this closeout fund. [25:07] The closeout fund [25:07] isn't just for contracts. [25:09] Some of them [25:09] are tied up in litigation. [25:11] In essence, [25:11] some of that money [25:11] may be needed [25:12] because these people [25:13] have sued. [25:13] They want to get paid [25:14] for the contract. [25:15] They claim they were in breach [25:15] and courts are basically saying [25:17] we may rule in their favor [25:18] and in some cases might [25:19] and we have to have funds available. [25:21] So they're still estimating [25:22] what that closeout cost will be. [25:23] We have been able to go [25:24] and get some money for OMB. [25:26] For example, [25:26] I think after our conversation [25:28] we talked a little bit [25:28] about Ebola response. [25:30] OMB released, [25:31] I think the number is [25:32] $200 or $250 million [25:34] from that fund [25:35] for the Ebola response. [25:36] And theoretically, [25:37] the money that's not needed [25:38] for the closeout, [25:39] as I said, [25:40] may be given to the state [25:41] for programming. [25:41] As you can imagine, [25:43] we want it to be given [25:44] to the state for programming [25:45] because we have programming [25:45] we can put it towards [25:46] including the items [25:47] that you've outlined. [25:48] And that was the whole point. [25:49] I mean, [25:49] the whole point here [25:50] was to move aid [25:51] under the State Department. [25:52] Whether we like that or not, [25:53] that was your objective. [25:54] And so now that there's [25:55] this pile of money [25:56] that's still in USAID, [25:58] it strikes me as a little odd [25:59] that you can't control [26:00] those dollars. [26:01] That was the purpose [26:02] of enacting this kind [26:03] of new model. [26:04] The other thing I'd say [26:05] is first of all, [26:05] thank you for releasing [26:06] those Ebola dollars. [26:08] It also demonstrates [26:08] that you are perfectly capable [26:10] of getting money released [26:12] from those closeout funds [26:13] if you wish. [26:15] And I would say [26:15] Ebola is an urgent priority, [26:17] but so is malaria, [26:18] so is TB, [26:19] and so is HIV AIDS. [26:21] Thank you. [26:21] Mr. McConnell. [26:22] Welcome back [26:29] to your old place of work, [26:32] Mr. Secretary. [26:33] Hope you like your new job. [26:37] There are some days [26:37] I like this one better, [26:38] some days I like [26:39] the new one better. [26:40] It depends on, [26:40] like tomorrow [26:41] will not be one of those days. [26:42] You reported last month [26:44] that the issue [26:46] of arms sales to Taiwan, [26:49] quote, [26:51] did not feature prominently, [26:53] end quote, [26:53] in President Trump's [26:54] meeting with President Xi. [26:57] But you also acknowledge [27:00] China was, [27:01] quote, [27:01] upset, [27:02] end quote, [27:03] by the approval [27:04] of $11 billion [27:06] in sales [27:08] to Taiwan. [27:09] So last month, [27:12] the Acting Secretary [27:13] of the Navy [27:14] testified [27:14] that pausing delivery [27:18] of sales [27:19] to Taiwan [27:20] couldn't be a result [27:22] of munitions [27:23] expenditures [27:24] in CENTCOM [27:25] because, [27:26] quote, [27:26] we have plenty, [27:28] end quote. [27:29] But if it's not about [27:30] U.S. military needs, [27:32] I struggle [27:32] to see the rationale. [27:35] We pushed Taiwan [27:37] to spend billions [27:39] on U.S. weapons [27:40] only to balk [27:42] at actually delivering them. [27:47] As for yourself, [27:48] you've been clear-eyed [27:49] about the gravity [27:50] of Chinese ambitions [27:51] and the threat [27:53] they pose [27:54] to our interests. [27:56] You know why [27:56] the optics of this pause [27:58] aren't great. [28:00] What's the administration's [28:02] calculus [28:03] and what are you doing [28:04] to reassure Taiwan [28:06] and U.S. treaty allies [28:08] in the region [28:09] that can actually [28:11] count on our commitments? [28:13] Yeah, a couple points. [28:14] First, we don't consult [28:15] with the Chinese [28:16] on these sales. [28:17] They raise it constantly, [28:19] but we have not, [28:20] we don't consult with them, [28:21] and that's in keeping [28:22] with our longstanding policies [28:23] which have not changed. [28:24] The second point [28:25] I would make is [28:26] we just did [28:26] an $11 billion sale [28:27] in December. [28:28] And the reason why [28:29] we know the Chinese [28:30] were upset [28:30] is not just because [28:30] they told us, [28:31] it's because they fly [28:32] all kinds of planes, [28:33] they crossed the center line [28:34] multiple times, [28:35] very aggressive response [28:36] to it. [28:36] It was the single largest [28:37] arms sale to Taiwan, [28:39] I believe, in history, [28:40] just concluded in December. [28:41] I think the actual [28:42] cumulative amount [28:43] was larger than [28:44] the four years [28:44] of Biden combined [28:45] and certainly larger [28:46] than the six years [28:47] in which President Obama [28:48] gave no sales, [28:49] zero, [28:50] to six of his eight years [28:51] as president to Taiwan. [28:52] That said, [28:53] this current one [28:53] is not on a pause. [28:54] It's simply under a review. [28:55] It's a big amount of money. [28:56] It's $14 billion. [28:57] It has implications [28:58] on our defense industrial base [29:00] and whether, you know, [29:01] what the production line [29:02] will look like. [29:02] We have to balance [29:03] that with these other things. [29:04] So it's going through [29:05] the internal DOW review. [29:06] It's not, [29:07] I don't think [29:07] the right terminology [29:08] is paused. [29:09] I think the right terminology [29:10] is it continues [29:11] to be under review [29:12] as it's being processed. [29:13] But I just remind, [29:14] five months ago, [29:15] we did the single largest [29:16] sale to Taiwan [29:17] in history at $11 billion. [29:18] That's very substantial. [29:19] So, [29:20] and that just happened [29:22] under this administration [29:23] not very long ago. [29:27] Another issue [29:29] that's probably not real high [29:30] on your radar screen, [29:32] but something I've had [29:33] an interest in [29:34] for a long time [29:35] and never have been able [29:37] to figure out [29:38] how to make a difference. [29:39] And that's the democracy [29:41] in Burma. [29:42] At last year's budget hearing, [29:47] I asked you about [29:47] the administration's plan [29:49] to counter Chinese influence [29:52] in Burma. [29:53] A year later, [29:54] I still don't see [29:56] a coherent strategy on that. [29:59] The department repeatedly [30:01] declined to obligate funds [30:03] to implement the Burma Act, [30:05] and it softened its policy [30:08] toward Chinese-backed [30:11] military junta. [30:12] So, Mr. Secretary, [30:15] when Hong Kong's [30:16] pro-democracy advocates [30:17] were under attack, [30:18] you stood by them, [30:21] both on principle [30:22] and because friends [30:24] of democracy [30:24] tend to be [30:26] friends of America. [30:29] So does the State Department [30:30] have a preference [30:31] on whether Burma [30:32] is ruled by [30:33] a Chinese-backed junta [30:35] or by duly elected [30:38] civilian leaders? [30:40] Or is the policy [30:41] toward Burma [30:41] agnostic [30:42] toward values [30:44] and stable outcomes? [30:46] Yeah, I don't think [30:47] our policies [30:48] will ever be agnostic [30:49] anywhere in the world. [30:50] If we had our choice [30:50] and our preference, [30:51] we would much prefer [30:52] to deal with a democratically [30:53] elected government [30:54] that's friendly [30:54] to the United States [30:55] than one that isn't [30:57] and is under the control [30:58] of a foreign power. [30:59] The challenge in Burma [31:00] has been, obviously, [31:01] that the Chinese [31:02] hold a tremendous amount [31:03] of leverage [31:03] over that system there. [31:04] And we have tried to find [31:06] and continue to search [31:06] for creative ways [31:07] in which we can at least [31:08] have a relationship [31:09] with elements within Burma. [31:12] But it's been a hard [31:13] nut to crack, obviously, [31:14] because both the regime [31:16] that's in place [31:17] has been brutal [31:18] in the way that it's governed [31:19] and because the amount [31:20] of leverage and influence [31:21] that China has over them. [31:23] So we continue [31:23] to seek opportunities [31:24] to change that dynamic. [31:26] And maybe there's [31:26] in baby steps, [31:27] maybe that's in leaps. [31:28] You never know [31:28] when history provides [31:29] a unique opening [31:30] and an opportunity. [31:31] But to your fundamental question, [31:33] look, ideally, [31:34] and by the way, [31:35] dealing with democracies [31:36] is not always easy [31:37] because they change governments [31:38] and sometimes the person [31:39] who got elected [31:39] is a little less friendly [31:40] to us than the others. [31:42] But over time, [31:43] we have found [31:44] that our ability [31:44] to interact [31:45] with democratically elected [31:46] governments [31:46] is much more stable [31:47] and much more in our interest [31:50] than otherwise. [31:51] In some cases, [31:52] you don't get that option, [31:53] unfortunately. [31:53] And I'm not saying [31:54] that Burma's incapable [31:55] of democracy. [31:56] I'm just saying that [31:57] as the circumstances [31:58] there exist right now, [31:59] we are still searching [32:00] for creative, [32:02] innovative ways [32:02] in which we can [32:03] sort of find our way [32:04] to at least have [32:05] some relationship [32:06] with individuals [32:07] who have a chance [32:07] to make a difference there [32:08] and give them a chance [32:09] to make that difference. [32:12] I've got time [32:12] for one more. [32:13] I appreciate [32:14] the administration's efforts [32:15] to end Iran's [32:17] decades-long war [32:18] against America [32:19] and Israel. [32:22] But I worry [32:22] our public diplomacy [32:24] on this [32:24] has been self-defeating. [32:26] We had tools in place [32:29] since the Cold War [32:30] to reach freedom-loving people [32:32] under censorship. [32:35] They're hosted primarily [32:37] under the U.S. Agency [32:38] for Global Media. [32:41] But even as the president [32:42] has spoken directly [32:43] to the Iranian people, [32:46] the administration [32:46] has repeatedly allowed [32:48] USAGM [32:51] to withhold funding [32:53] from the international [32:54] broadcast entities [32:56] designed to help [32:58] its message reach audiences [33:01] who are under repression. [33:04] So I'd like to hear [33:05] your view [33:05] on the utility [33:06] of USAGM guarantee [33:08] organizations [33:09] like Radio Farta [33:11] and the Open Technology Fund. [33:15] What is the department [33:16] doing to leverage them [33:18] to communicate [33:18] with Iranian citizens? [33:23] And what role [33:24] should that agency [33:26] guarantee play [33:28] in countering censorship [33:29] and oppression [33:31] from the PRC [33:32] and China as well? [33:34] Well, and as you know, [33:36] that agency [33:36] is in the purview [33:37] of this committee [33:38] in terms of funding. [33:39] It runs ancillary to state, [33:40] but we don't necessarily [33:41] run it or control it. [33:42] It had somebody [33:43] that was involved [33:44] who had been appointed [33:45] by the White House. [33:46] That appointment [33:47] was removed [33:49] by a court decision [33:50] and all the decisions [33:51] they made [33:52] while they were there [33:52] were also reversed. [33:54] I do know in my role [33:55] as National Security Advisor [33:56] that we're now involved [33:58] in finding a restart [33:59] of how we can get [34:00] this program [34:01] because I do believe [34:01] it has utility and value. [34:03] I think in the 21st century, [34:04] one of the questions [34:05] we will ask ourselves [34:06] is not just do we want [34:07] to provide broadcasting [34:08] to these places, [34:09] but whether we should be [34:10] getting more [34:10] into the access business, [34:11] meaning using part [34:13] of that funding [34:13] and part of that programming, [34:15] not simply to have [34:15] a radio station [34:16] that broadcasts [34:17] or something, [34:18] but actually giving people [34:19] in that country [34:19] the tools [34:20] to circumvent censorship [34:21] and be able to access news [34:23] and information [34:24] from around the world [34:24] and more importantly, [34:25] to communicate [34:26] with one another. [34:27] One of the things [34:28] you will find [34:28] pretty consistently [34:29] in every totalitarian system [34:30] is they want to control [34:31] the ability of their citizens [34:33] to communicate [34:34] with one another. [34:35] It's why Russia [34:36] has started its own internet [34:37] and its own internal systems. [34:40] It's why China [34:41] does not allow [34:42] American social media platforms [34:43] to operate. [34:44] They have to control it. [34:45] It's the reason why Iran [34:46] shut down the internet [34:47] as one of the first things [34:48] they did when hostilities began [34:50] because they don't want [34:51] their people communicating [34:52] with one another. [34:53] So I do agree [34:53] it's a valuable tool [34:54] in our toolbox. [34:55] And in my other role [34:57] and capacity [34:58] it's one that I've given [34:59] emphasis to [34:59] and hopefully [35:00] we'll have something [35:01] to bring you [35:01] that both complies [35:02] with the court order [35:03] and I think furthers [35:03] our national interest. [35:06] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [35:08] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [35:09] Thank you, Mr. Secretary. [35:10] It's good to see you. [35:12] I think you might have been [35:13] at the same briefing [35:14] that I attended [35:15] when Putin invaded Ukraine [35:18] and we were in the skiff [35:19] and we were asking [35:21] our experts [35:22] how long is this war [35:23] going to last? [35:24] And some of them [35:25] suggested two weeks. [35:27] Valiant people [35:28] but they're up against [35:29] one of the largest [35:30] militaries in the world. [35:32] Here we are [35:32] four, four and a half years later [35:34] and the Ukrainians [35:35] are still valiantly [35:36] successfully in many respects [35:38] fighting day in and day out. [35:40] I've never had any doubt [35:41] in my mind [35:42] whose side I was on [35:43] in terms of the war in Ukraine. [35:45] My mother was born in Lithuania. [35:48] I know the Russians [35:49] through the Tsar [35:50] and Soviets [35:51] and the history that I've read [35:52] and I know [35:53] what their ambitions are [35:54] and they're not consistent [35:55] with the values of this country. [35:57] I'm trying to figure out [35:58] now exactly where we are [36:00] as a nation [36:00] when it comes to the war [36:01] in Ukraine [36:02] and I think of some specifics. [36:05] The $400 million [36:06] that we appropriated [36:08] to help the Ukrainian people [36:10] fight this war [36:11] has bounced back and forth. [36:13] Is it finally resolved [36:14] or are we going to send this [36:14] to the Ukrainians? [36:16] The $400 million? [36:17] Yes. [36:17] That's going through [36:18] the interagency process right now. [36:20] In fact, I saw [36:20] maybe last Friday [36:22] something on it. [36:23] I think you'll see news [36:24] on that pretty soon. [36:25] Well, that's exactly [36:26] what Secretary Higspeth said [36:27] two weeks ago, [36:28] three weeks ago [36:29] and nothing's happened. [36:31] So here they are [36:32] fighting for their lives. [36:33] They're facing ballistic missiles. [36:35] They don't have [36:36] the defense that they need. [36:38] They're valiantly doing [36:39] everything they can [36:40] to save their people [36:41] and we are going [36:42] through some bureaucratic [36:43] malaise. [36:45] I'm not sure what. [36:47] Yeah. [36:47] It's just going through [36:48] the interagency process [36:49] and there are a couple [36:50] stops along the way [36:51] that unfortunately [36:52] got tied up a little bit. [36:53] But I've seen it [36:54] not as Secretary of State. [36:55] I've seen the interagency [36:56] as National Security Advisor [36:57] and it's something [36:58] that I think we'll have [36:59] news on fairly soon. [37:01] Will it be timely help? [37:03] Will it be help [37:03] that we can send them [37:04] quickly that they need? [37:06] Yeah, in particular, [37:06] I mean, the one thing [37:07] we always worry about [37:08] is in the winter [37:08] because winter will come again [37:10] and they had a pretty [37:10] brutal winter last year [37:11] and there's indications [37:12] it could be just as brutal [37:13] this year, [37:14] especially their inability [37:16] to generate energy. [37:17] So there is urgency [37:18] in trying to get this [37:19] resolved and delivered. [37:20] Well, let me also [37:21] ask you this question. [37:22] I realize [37:23] with the Straits of Hormuz [37:25] we found ourselves [37:26] buying oil from the Russians. [37:28] Was that the understanding? [37:30] So Treasury has lifted [37:31] on a short-term basis [37:33] the sanctions [37:34] on the sale [37:34] of some Russian oil, [37:36] primarily as a trade-off, [37:37] unfortunately, [37:38] but designed to get [37:39] more oil into the market [37:41] to try to stabilize [37:42] global prices. [37:43] But this is not [37:43] a permanent change [37:44] to our policy. [37:45] It's a time limit [37:46] and one that was [37:47] just recently extended [37:48] by, I believe, [37:48] by another 30 days. [37:49] Not that long ago, [37:51] we characterized Russia [37:52] as one of the four [37:53] hard targets in the world [37:54] for the United States. [37:55] Are they still? [37:57] They clearly still [37:57] remain the challenge. [37:58] And back to your point [37:59] that you made a moment ago, [38:00] I don't think there's [38:00] any doubt at this point. [38:02] In the minds of most observers [38:03] around the world, [38:04] and I would say [38:05] in the minds of some [38:06] inside of Russia, [38:07] that the invasion of Ukraine [38:08] has been a strategic [38:09] disaster for them. [38:10] They are not going [38:11] to achieve the objectives [38:12] they set out on day one [38:13] for certain, [38:14] and they may not even [38:15] be able to militarily [38:16] ever achieve the objectives [38:17] they're demanding now [38:18] in negotiations. [38:18] I would also say [38:20] that how we have viewed it [38:21] is this war [38:22] has no military solution. [38:23] It has to have [38:24] a negotiated settlement to it. [38:25] And that's the role [38:26] we've tried to play, [38:27] and it's been a difficult [38:27] role to play [38:28] because, frankly, [38:29] we're not an impartial mediator. [38:30] We sanctioned Russia [38:31] and we are providing [38:32] and have sold weapons [38:33] through the Pearl Program, [38:34] which has remained [38:35] unimpeded, [38:36] to the Ukrainians. [38:37] Unfortunately, [38:37] those talks have stalled [38:38] in recent months [38:40] for a variety of reasons. [38:41] The Ukrainians have actually [38:42] made some battlefield gains [38:43] in the last month as well. [38:45] The Russians are losing [38:46] 5,000, [38:47] not injured, [38:48] they're dying. [38:49] In fact, [38:49] it is the first conflict, [38:51] according to the Department of War, [38:52] it is one of the first conflicts ever [38:54] in which the death rate [38:55] is higher than the casualty rate [38:57] on the Russian side. [38:59] It's the first time ever [39:00] that you have more deaths [39:00] than casualties. [39:02] So you're right, [39:02] not only are the Ukrainians [39:03] bravely fighting, [39:04] they're effectively fighting. [39:05] So the role we want to play [39:07] is if there's a way [39:08] to negotiate this thing [39:09] to a peaceful, [39:09] because ultimately [39:10] the end of this [39:11] is going to be negotiated, [39:12] but it's been difficult [39:13] because the demands [39:14] that both sides have [39:16] in order to end it [39:16] have been far apart [39:17] to this point. [39:18] I'd like to take you [39:19] to what happened last night, [39:22] just 12 hours ago or so, [39:25] when the Russians [39:27] were attacking Ukraine [39:29] and Kiev again, [39:31] killing civilians, [39:33] while the Ukrainians [39:34] were attacking the Russians [39:36] in St. Petersburg. [39:37] And they have destroyed [39:40] some of their infrastructure [39:41] and oil-producing facilities. [39:44] It's especially embarrassing [39:45] to Putin because [39:46] this is the week [39:47] of the Russian Davos. [39:48] Are you familiar with that? [39:49] I am. [39:50] Why did we... [39:51] Never attended, [39:52] but I'm familiar with it. [39:52] Well, I'm asking [39:53] why the United States [39:54] would send an official delegation [39:56] to Vladimir Putin's [39:57] Russian Davos [39:58] to talk about [39:59] economic development [40:00] in Russia. [40:02] I'm not aware [40:03] of the delegation [40:03] that went. [40:05] I'm aware of the event. [40:06] I know they were hosting one, [40:07] but I don't think [40:08] it would have been [40:08] a high-level official. [40:10] I'm not sure [40:11] what level it is, [40:11] but to think [40:12] that we had anything official, [40:13] and it included [40:14] Steven Seagal, [40:16] the actor, [40:17] as one of the people [40:18] representing the United States. [40:19] Are you familiar with that? [40:21] I'm familiar with who he is. [40:22] I am too. [40:23] Yeah. [40:23] I'm not... [40:24] Look, at the... [40:25] Not a government official. [40:27] Back to your point, [40:28] because I think [40:28] the broader point is, [40:29] and you just raised it [40:30] a moment ago [40:30] about these attacks. [40:31] What's changed... [40:32] Russia's always been capable [40:34] of these long-range strikes [40:35] in the Kiev. [40:35] You've seen an increase [40:36] in intensity. [40:37] As a result, [40:38] you know, [40:38] of what you've pointed out [40:39] and the fact that [40:40] the Ukrainians [40:40] have been effective [40:41] against them. [40:42] That's been the one dynamic [40:43] that's changed [40:43] in the last few months, [40:44] is Ukraine has become [40:45] increasingly effective [40:46] at conducting long-range strikes [40:48] deep into Russia [40:50] and deep against [40:51] critical nodes [40:52] of the Russian economy. [40:53] And I think [40:54] one of the things [40:54] that reminds us [40:55] of why it's important [40:56] to try to bring this war [40:57] to an end if we can, [40:57] because the risk [40:58] of escalation is real, [41:00] more real [41:00] than it was two years ago. [41:02] We have a sanctions bill [41:03] here that might do that as well. [41:05] I'd like to close [41:06] with one personal note. [41:08] You joined me [41:08] when you were a member [41:09] of the Senate [41:10] in the Paul Simon Water [41:11] for the World effort [41:12] to bring clean drinking water [41:14] and sanitation [41:15] to some of the poorest [41:16] people on Earth. [41:17] We've reached 76 million [41:18] people with water, [41:20] 58 million with sanitation. [41:22] That program is still [41:22] on the books. [41:23] Are we going to fund it? [41:24] Yeah, we are. [41:25] And in fact, [41:25] there's about 100 million [41:26] in total that we'll be [41:27] spending again this year. [41:28] Great. [41:29] Thank you. [41:29] Thank you. [41:30] And on the sanctions bill, [41:31] we'll have to, [41:32] there's 36 seconds left. [41:33] I know we've been working [41:34] with you, [41:35] Senator Graham, [41:35] and perhaps others [41:36] on the Office of Legal Counsel. [41:39] You've been going back [41:40] and forth on some language. [41:41] So I think you'll get there [41:43] on your bill [41:44] in terms of what you need to have. [41:50] Thank you, [41:51] Senator Durbin. [41:52] We'll just pick up [41:53] on that point. [41:54] Number one, [41:54] I think you're doing [41:55] a great job for our country. [41:56] I'm glad you're there. [41:57] And you've been working [41:58] really hard, [41:59] and it's appreciated [42:00] by many of us up here. [42:01] you represent us well, [42:04] Secretary Rubio. [42:05] About, [42:07] do you agree [42:07] the blockade [42:08] has really hurt [42:09] the Iranian economy? [42:10] Yeah, [42:11] it's denying them [42:11] upwards of three [42:12] to four hundred million dollars [42:13] potentially a day [42:14] of revenue. [42:15] And the reason [42:16] it's hurt their economy [42:17] is because [42:18] their economy's [42:19] basically based around [42:21] oil and gas sales, [42:23] right? [42:24] Yeah, [42:24] largely. [42:24] I mean, [42:25] obviously, [42:25] that would be the core [42:26] of their ability [42:27] to generate revenue. [42:28] Do you agree [42:28] the soft underbelly [42:29] of the Russian economy [42:30] is oil and gas sales? [42:33] Of their economy? [42:34] Yeah. [42:34] Well, [42:34] again, [42:34] that's one of the commodities [42:35] that they have [42:36] some agricultural sales [42:37] as well, [42:37] but oil and gas [42:38] are clearly [42:39] the leading generation. [42:40] So the theory [42:40] of the bill [42:41] you just mentioned, [42:42] which is enormous [42:43] bipartisan support, [42:44] and we're very close, [42:45] is to give the president [42:46] the ability, [42:48] if he chooses to, [42:49] to put tariffs [42:49] and sanctions [42:50] on countries [42:51] that buy a cheap [42:52] Russian oil [42:53] and prop up their economy. [42:55] You support that concept, [42:56] right? [42:57] I support having [42:58] those tools available [42:58] for the president to use, [43:00] especially if what [43:00] we're trying to do [43:01] is reach a negotiated [43:02] agreement. [43:02] The more leverage [43:03] tools we have [43:04] at our disposal, [43:05] I think the bigger role [43:06] we can play [43:07] in breaking this about. [43:07] Thank you. [43:08] This will come from Congress [43:09] so it'll have our blessing. [43:10] It'll be, I think, [43:11] a better situation in court. [43:13] So like China [43:14] and India [43:14] are the two top. [43:16] China buys [43:17] the most oil [43:17] from Russia, [43:18] the most oil [43:19] from Iran. [43:19] So to our friends [43:21] in China, [43:23] if you would stop this, [43:24] we'd end both these wars. [43:26] So we hope to give you [43:27] that tool soon [43:28] to the president [43:29] and thank you [43:30] for all your help [43:31] to get it done there. [43:33] Do you agree [43:33] that under our law [43:34] that there is [43:35] an agreement [43:36] with Iran [43:36] that the Iran [43:38] Nuclear Agreement [43:38] Review Act [43:39] would apply [43:40] and it'd have to come [43:40] to the Congress? [43:41] Yeah. [43:42] The Inara [43:43] is a pretty tightly [43:44] written bill [43:45] and so it does [43:46] have very specific [43:47] requirements [43:48] about elements [43:48] of the nuclear program [43:49] that would have [43:50] to be noticed [43:50] to Congress. [43:51] Okay, good. [43:53] When it comes [43:53] to any deal [43:54] that may be entered [43:55] into with Iran [43:56] and I hope you can, [43:57] I want to get [43:58] a diplomatic solution. [44:00] Hezbollah is a terrorist [44:01] organization under U.S. law, [44:02] is that correct? [44:03] Hezbollah, yes, correct. [44:04] So in the future, [44:06] if Iran continues [44:07] to help Hezbollah, [44:08] will there be anything [44:09] in the deal [44:09] that would punish Iran [44:10] for doing that? [44:11] Well, that's what we want. [44:12] We certainly think [44:12] that in order to deal with, [44:13] look, the primary threat [44:14] here is the nuclear weapons [44:15] and that's what we want [44:16] to be able to fix [44:17] and that is that [44:18] they can never have [44:18] a nuclear weapon. [44:19] Obviously, their ability [44:20] to export terror [44:21] and finance it [44:22] in the region [44:22] is also deeply problematic [44:24] and we would most [44:25] certainly insist, [44:26] I mean, there could be [44:26] sanctions just on that. [44:27] Okay, thanks. [44:28] See, October 7th [44:29] had nothing to do [44:30] with their nuclear program. [44:31] It was generated [44:32] by proxies [44:33] and it killed [44:33] 1,200 Israelis [44:36] and it just shows you [44:37] the power of these proxies [44:39] and I think [44:40] any successful containment [44:41] of Iran [44:42] would have to [44:42] contain their proxies [44:44] like Hezbollah [44:45] so I'm glad to hear [44:46] that that certainly [44:47] will be part of the deal. [44:49] When it comes to [44:50] the deal itself, [44:53] the nuclear part [44:55] to make sure [44:56] they didn't have [44:56] a nuclear weapon, [44:58] do you agree [44:59] that without enrichment [45:00] you can't make bomb material? [45:04] If you don't have [45:04] the ability to enrich, [45:05] you can't make bomb material. [45:07] No, that's right. [45:08] Yeah. [45:08] Unless somebody's willing [45:09] to sell you 90% enrich your... [45:10] Right. [45:11] Well, that's not making it. [45:12] It's buying it. [45:13] Correct. [45:13] There are over 20 countries [45:15] that have peaceful [45:16] nuclear power programs [45:17] that don't enrich. [45:18] It's my view [45:19] that whatever deal [45:20] you do with Iran [45:21] they should not be allowed [45:22] to enrich at all [45:23] if they want peaceful [45:24] nuclear power [45:25] they can have [45:26] a one-two-three agreement. [45:27] Do you agree [45:27] with that concept? [45:28] Now do I agree [45:29] that we've offered it [45:30] to them in one [45:30] of the rounds [45:31] of previous negotiations [45:32] before Epic Fuhrer. [45:33] We actually offered [45:34] to give them access [45:35] to free fuel [45:36] that they didn't have [45:37] to enrich [45:37] which they declined [45:38] of course. [45:39] They want to enrich [45:40] to make a bomb [45:40] don't you think? [45:41] They want what? [45:42] They want to continue [45:43] to enrich [45:44] for one day [45:45] to make a bomb. [45:46] Well, if what they want [45:47] is a civilian nuclear program [45:49] which as you said [45:50] they can have [45:50] because other countries [45:51] have it [45:51] you don't have to enrich [45:52] and you certainly [45:52] don't have to enrich [45:53] buried deep in a mountain. [45:54] If the past [45:55] is any indication [45:56] of the future [45:56] they took what was [45:58] supposed to be [45:58] a limited civilian program [46:00] and were able [46:00] to make 900 pounds [46:02] of 60% highly enriched uranium. [46:05] Right? [46:06] Correct. [46:06] So... [46:07] Approximately. [46:07] Yeah. [46:08] Okay. [46:09] They cheat. [46:11] Is there anything [46:11] that would make you [46:12] believe in the future [46:12] they wouldn't cheat [46:13] if they could? [46:15] Well, that's why [46:15] any deal would have [46:16] to have strong [46:16] verifications. [46:17] And the JCPOA [46:20] allowed enrichment. [46:22] Do you agree with me [46:22] that if they had [46:23] no enrichment capability [46:25] it'd be hard to cheat [46:26] because you don't have [46:27] anything to cheat with? [46:28] Well, that's right. [46:29] Okay. [46:30] Good. [46:31] When it comes to Cuba [46:33] you know what you're [46:35] talking about. [46:36] and congratulations [46:38] on Venezuela [46:39] the role you've played [46:41] here to try to get [46:42] Venezuela from [46:43] communism [46:44] to a friend of America. [46:46] Tell us about [46:49] why we should care [46:51] as a nation [46:52] for the regime [46:54] and the communist regime [46:55] and Cuba [46:56] to fall. [46:58] Well, first let me [46:58] just say briefly [46:59] on Venezuela [46:59] I think we're better off [47:00] than we were [47:01] just five months ago. [47:02] This was five months ago. [47:03] We're not where we need to be. [47:04] A lot more work needs to happen [47:05] and needs to be done [47:06] and that includes [47:07] and needs to conclude [47:07] with free and fair elections [47:08] and the conditions [47:09] for that need to be created. [47:11] But we certainly feel [47:12] like Venezuela [47:13] no longer poses [47:14] the threat [47:14] to our national interest [47:15] that they did [47:15] just five months ago [47:16] when it was run [47:17] by someone [47:17] who openly cooperated [47:18] with narco-trafficking cartels [47:20] and in fact ran one himself. [47:22] In the case of Cuba [47:23] the proximity alone [47:24] makes it relevant. [47:25] But you have [47:26] a failed state [47:27] 90 miles from our shores [47:28] that hosts [47:29] both Russian [47:30] and Chinese [47:31] intelligence apparatus [47:32] within their country [47:33] that has a long history [47:34] of supporting violent [47:35] leftist Marxist groups [47:36] in the region [47:37] and anti-American groups [47:39] in the region as well [47:40] and have been [47:40] a destabilizing force [47:41] for 67 years. [47:43] But just the existence [47:43] of a failed state [47:44] that's friendly [47:45] to our adversaries [47:46] in our own hemisphere [47:47] is in and of itself [47:48] a national security situation. [47:50] Now, I would say this [47:51] about Cuba. [47:52] We want Cuba [47:52] to be a country [47:54] that can enjoy [47:54] the same things [47:55] they do in Jamaica, [47:56] the Dominican Republic, [47:57] the Bahamas, [47:58] most of the Caribbean, [47:59] all of the Caribbean bases [48:00] for the most part. [48:01] The problem they have [48:03] is that the country [48:03] is not even run [48:04] by a government. [48:05] The country is run [48:05] by a military conglomerate [48:06] named Gaisa [48:07] that controls 70% [48:08] of the GDP of the country [48:10] and all the money [48:11] they generate, [48:11] they're sitting on [48:12] $18 billion of assets. [48:14] Not a single penny [48:15] of the money [48:15] that that conglomerate [48:16] generates transfers [48:17] over to the national treasury. [48:18] That means it doesn't [48:19] build bridges, [48:20] it doesn't build roads, [48:21] it doesn't build schools, [48:22] it doesn't do any of it. [48:23] It all goes in. [48:24] And that's what we need [48:24] to tackle. [48:25] And those are the people [48:27] that have to agree [48:28] to normalize Cuba [48:29] to the world [48:30] and to its neighbors [48:31] in the United States. [48:31] Well, God bless your efforts [48:33] to do that. [48:33] I think Venezuela and Cuba [48:35] going from the communist column [48:36] to what you described [48:38] would be a great advancement [48:39] for our hemisphere [48:40] and the people [48:42] of those countries [48:43] as well as America. [48:43] Final question. [48:44] President Trump has said [48:46] that after the Iran nuclear deal, [48:48] he wants to expand [48:48] the Abraham Accords. [48:50] And I've been working, [48:50] I work with President Biden [48:52] and many people [48:53] on this panel here [48:55] to try to get Saudi Arabia [48:57] to recognize Israel [48:58] under Biden's watch. [48:59] And I just want to applaud [49:01] President Trump for saying [49:02] that would be the game changer [49:04] of all game changers. [49:05] Do you agree with that? [49:06] Can you articulate [49:07] to this committee [49:08] why expanding the Abraham Accords [49:10] to include Saudi Arabia? [49:12] What would that do [49:13] to the region [49:13] and why is that so important? [49:15] Well, I think it's self-evident, [49:16] but I would say [49:16] look at the benefits [49:17] it's already had [49:18] with regards to the Emirates, [49:19] the United Arab Emirates [49:20] and Israel [49:21] and the relationship [49:21] that they have. [49:22] If you can create [49:23] these strong economic [49:24] and people-to-people linkages [49:25] between these countries [49:26] and the recognition, [49:27] it creates tight bonds [49:28] that I think extend [49:29] beyond just defense. [49:31] It extends to economics [49:32] in ways that they're now [49:33] enjoying joint prosperity. [49:35] And it makes a lot of sense [49:36] from the economic standpoint [49:37] because what Israel has [49:39] and for example [49:39] in the technology sector [49:40] would be highly beneficial [49:41] to these countries [49:42] that would join [49:43] and likewise [49:44] the resources [49:44] these countries have [49:45] would be beneficial [49:46] to Israel. [49:47] So we do want to expand [49:48] the Abraham Accords. [49:49] Obviously it's difficult [49:50] to do at this moment [49:51] but we're laying [49:51] the groundwork for it. [49:52] It'll be a top priority [49:53] of this administration. [49:54] Go ahead. [49:55] Finally, [49:56] I just want to say [49:57] that Saudi Arabia [49:58] is different [49:58] than any other country. [49:59] It's the keeper [50:00] of the holy sites [50:01] of Islam. [50:02] It's the center of Islam [50:03] as we know it. [50:04] If they join folks, [50:06] a lot of other Muslim nations [50:10] will join. [50:11] North Africa [50:11] would be the biggest change [50:12] in our lifetime. [50:13] Let's work together [50:14] under Trump [50:15] like we did Biden [50:16] to make this happen. [50:17] Senator Murray. [50:21] Thank you, [50:21] Mr. Chairman. [50:23] Mr. Secretary, [50:24] you are not only [50:26] the Secretary of State, [50:27] you are also [50:27] the President's [50:28] National Security Advisor. [50:29] Those are both [50:31] full-time jobs [50:32] when we're at peace [50:33] let alone [50:34] as we have troops [50:35] deployed in multiple [50:36] conflicts around the world [50:38] and the President [50:39] is threatening [50:39] to invade Cuba. [50:41] So I want to just [50:42] ask you specifically [50:43] about Iran. [50:45] You were one [50:46] of just a handful [50:47] of top aides [50:48] with a seat at the table [50:49] when the President [50:50] ultimately did decide [50:52] to launch the Iran War. [50:54] Did you advise [50:55] the President [50:55] against the war? [50:57] I'll never tell anybody [50:58] what I advised [50:59] the President privately [51:00] but I will tell you [51:01] that the President [51:01] had before him [51:02] all the information [51:03] that he needed. [51:04] I agree with the decision [51:05] that he made [51:05] if that's what you're asking [51:06] because the President [51:07] of the United States [51:08] saw a threat [51:09] of Iran developing [51:10] a nuclear weapon [51:11] behind a conventional shield [51:12] that in about a year [51:13] would have been impenetrable [51:15] and we could not allow [51:16] them to develop [51:16] that immunity [51:17] and then they could [51:17] break out to a weapon. [51:19] So you won't tell us, [51:20] you know, [51:20] this is a question [51:21] that millions of Americans [51:23] are asking, [51:24] how on earth [51:25] did we get here? [51:25] So I wanted to know [51:27] what you did advise [51:28] the President. [51:29] Were you for or against [51:30] this war [51:31] or did you, [51:32] the Secretary of State [51:33] and National Security Advisor, [51:35] have no opinion? [51:36] No, I just told you [51:37] I support the President's decision. [51:39] I think he made [51:39] the right decision. [51:40] What I cannot tell you [51:41] and will never do [51:42] and you have to understand [51:42] nobody in my role [51:43] has ever done [51:44] is to go to you [51:45] and say, [51:45] oh, I was in a meeting [51:46] and I told the President [51:46] this or I just can't do that. [51:48] I won't do that. [51:49] It's unwise to do that [51:50] and it's unfair [51:50] but I am telling you [51:51] the President made [51:52] the right decision. [51:53] That's my view. [51:53] I believe in it strongly. [51:54] You do now, okay. [51:56] Let me just... [51:56] I did, I've always have. [51:58] I mean, in terms of my view [51:58] of the challenge [51:59] that it poses. [52:00] Okay, well, back in March [52:01] you said this war [52:02] would end in, quote, [52:03] weeks, not months [52:04] and here we are, [52:06] four months. [52:07] Hundreds of troops [52:07] injured or killed [52:08] and billions of dollars later. [52:11] Trump promised everybody [52:12] he was going to lower prices [52:14] and no new wars. [52:15] Now we have higher prices, [52:17] new war. [52:18] Trump promised the American people [52:20] this war would be fast [52:21] and decisive. [52:23] It has been slow. [52:24] and secret [52:25] and endless [52:26] and the majority [52:27] of Americans [52:28] do oppose this conflict. [52:30] What my constituents [52:31] are telling me [52:31] is they want child care, [52:33] they want health care [52:34] to be more affordable. [52:36] They don't want Trump [52:37] to have one and a half [52:38] trillion dollars more [52:39] for a defense budget [52:41] to start wars [52:42] around the globe. [52:43] I hear that constantly [52:44] from so many people. [52:46] You know, Secretary Rubio, [52:48] let me just say this. [52:49] Diplomacy and development tools [52:51] help keep us safe [52:53] here at home [52:53] by mitigating conflict, [52:55] by mitigating disease, [52:57] other global threats. [52:59] But the budget [53:00] that you are here to defend, [53:02] which would slash [53:03] this work to the bone [53:04] while sending war spending [53:06] through the roof [53:07] makes clear that diplomacy [53:09] is Trump's last priority. [53:11] And by the way, [53:12] it's not just the budget [53:13] or the unhinged rants [53:15] attacking allies [53:16] like Greenland and Canada [53:18] or threatening [53:18] to end civilizations [53:19] or Trump treating war [53:21] like a game, [53:22] the White House posting [53:23] literal video game edits [53:25] as if he weren't getting [53:26] American soldiers injured. [53:28] It's also the actions [53:29] that you've taken [53:30] over the past year [53:31] to gut the State Department, [53:33] deeply concerning, [53:34] dismantle foreign aid, [53:36] abdicate American leadership. [53:38] Under your leadership, [53:39] it is deeply concerning [53:40] that things like [53:41] the State left 500 tons [53:45] of food to rot in ports [53:47] and it had to be incinerated [53:48] or pushing out thousands [53:50] upon thousands [53:51] of dedicated public servants, [53:53] including families [53:54] who put country first here [53:56] and left their home [53:57] to serve around the world, [53:59] only to be sacked [54:00] with no rhyme, no reason. [54:02] I've heard from them. [54:04] Meanwhile, you are planning [54:05] to put Trump's face [54:06] on U.S. passports [54:07] as if that's going to help [54:09] our image when all that's happening [54:10] and the hack-and-slash job [54:13] that you have done [54:14] to foreign assistance [54:15] and you're asking for [54:16] in this budget [54:17] has not only shattered [54:19] America's global leadership, [54:21] it has led to millions [54:23] of preventable deaths. [54:25] Programs have been frozen, [54:27] grants have been cancelled, [54:29] life-saving work [54:30] utterly turned upside down. [54:32] I want to talk [54:32] about global health. [54:33] The stakes of life and death [54:35] are here under global health. [54:37] PEPFAR supported testing [54:39] reaching nearly 5 million [54:41] fewer people [54:42] than the year before. [54:44] In Zambia, [54:45] babies born to HIV-positive moms [54:48] used to be tested [54:49] within hours of birth [54:51] and treatment started [54:52] immediately for positive cases. [54:55] Now, babies are not being [54:56] even tested [54:57] until they're six weeks old. [54:59] So, you're not just [55:00] cutting resources [55:01] that I just referenced, [55:02] you're actually cutting [55:03] the United States [55:04] out of the conversation [55:06] on global health threats [55:08] and leaving all of us [55:10] less prepared. [55:11] We're in the middle [55:12] of a deadly Ebola epidemic. [55:15] We're seeing a worrisome [55:16] Hantavirus outbreak. [55:18] This administration [55:19] has halted funding [55:20] to the World Health Organization. [55:23] And you are currently [55:24] withholding nearly [55:26] $2 billion [55:27] in FY25 [55:29] global health funding [55:31] that was appropriated [55:32] with bipartisan support here, [55:34] signed into law [55:35] by President Trump [55:36] and expires [55:37] in less than four months. [55:39] Now, I know that Ebola funding [55:40] somehow miraculously [55:42] started moving [55:43] when we were seeing [55:44] bad headlines, [55:45] but what is moving right now, [55:47] Mr. Secretary, [55:48] is less than 2% [55:49] of what is available. [55:52] So, my point is [55:53] that the delay [55:54] in mobilizing those resources [55:56] has cost us valuable time [55:58] and let this disease [55:59] kill more people. [56:01] And the fact is, [56:01] we already had [56:02] these support systems [56:03] in place. [56:04] they were in place [56:05] until this administration [56:07] destroyed them. [56:09] And even as we stare down [56:10] a crisis caused [56:11] by this administration's [56:13] incompetence, [56:14] in my opinion, [56:15] you are here today [56:16] to defend a budget [56:17] that doubles down on that. [56:19] That is what is [56:20] really disturbing to me [56:21] with a 40% cut [56:23] to global health programs [56:24] in this budget. [56:26] So, to my point of view, [56:28] this budget doesn't [56:29] make America great again. [56:30] It makes the world sicker [56:32] and less safe. [56:33] And I'm just talking [56:34] about the cuts [56:35] that you're proposing [56:36] with this budget [56:36] because we can't ignore [56:38] the biggest line item [56:40] in the president's [56:41] overall budget [56:41] that's in front of us, [56:42] which is war. [56:43] One and a half trillion [56:45] dollars for war. [56:47] Not a cent for child care. [56:49] Not a cent to make [56:50] health care more affordable. [56:52] That's the budget [56:53] that you are here today [56:54] to defend. [56:55] And it spends [56:56] one and a half trillion [56:57] dollars on war [56:58] and slashes your department [56:59] to ribbons. [57:00] So, that is what [57:02] is concerning to me [57:03] as you come before [57:04] our committee today [57:05] to back this request up. [57:07] It just seems to me [57:08] we are cutting diplomacy [57:11] and paying defense contractors. [57:13] And I just believe [57:14] from my point of view, [57:15] and I know you disagree [57:16] with me, [57:17] but I just think [57:17] this is the wrong way [57:18] for our country to go. [57:20] Budget is a statement [57:21] of values. [57:22] I've said it many, many times. [57:23] And I think it is [57:24] in big question [57:25] where the values are [57:27] in this budget. [57:28] So, that's where I am. [57:30] Who's the chair right now? [57:32] Senator Bozeman. [57:33] Can I respond? [57:34] Because she touched [57:34] a lot of topics. [57:35] I don't know if I can get [57:35] all of them, you know, [57:36] but I'm going to get [57:37] most of them. [57:37] Yeah, sure. [57:37] Because I strongly disagree [57:38] with almost everything [57:39] that was said. [57:40] I figured you would. [57:41] I know. [57:43] A couple points. [57:44] First, let's talk [57:45] about the State Department. [57:45] The State Department [57:46] was actually one of [57:46] the least impacted [57:47] of all the agencies [57:48] in government. [57:49] I'm not talking [57:49] about least impacted. [57:50] You heard... [57:50] No, no, no. [57:51] But let's be frank. [57:52] We didn't, [57:52] not a single, for example, [57:53] overseas employee [57:54] was ripped from [57:55] the State Department. [57:57] The vast majority [57:58] of the reduction [58:00] in forces came [58:00] from the career [58:01] civil service, [58:02] not the foreign service, [58:03] and that's because [58:03] we got rid [58:03] of the functional bureaus [58:04] and put all the power [58:05] under the regional bureaus. [58:06] It's one of the best things [58:07] we've ever done [58:08] and I think is going [58:09] to prove to be very wise [58:10] and we already see [58:11] the impacts of it. [58:12] Let's walk through [58:13] some of the programs [58:14] you've pointed to. [58:14] So, for example, [58:16] our disaster response today [58:18] around the world [58:18] because we combined [58:19] those accounts is faster [58:20] than it's ever been [58:21] and more effective [58:22] than it's ever been. [58:23] These are not theories. [58:24] This is a reality. [58:25] We responded to hurricanes [58:26] in the Caribbean, [58:27] Jamaica and Cuba, [58:29] by the way, [58:29] $3 million in aid to Cuba, [58:31] faster at a record pace [58:33] than ever before. [58:33] We've responded [58:34] to two typhoons [58:35] in the Indo-Pacific [58:36] faster than we've ever responded [58:37] because we combined [58:38] and consolidated [58:39] those accounts [58:39] and we're able to move [58:40] very, very quickly [58:41] in that regard. [58:43] Beyond that, [58:43] you mentioned [58:44] the PEPFAR. [58:47] The reality of it is [58:48] first of all, [58:49] you have to combine it [58:50] with all these other programs [58:51] that we're involved in, [58:51] but if you look at the numbers [58:53] for the last, [58:53] I mean, [58:53] the third quarter [58:54] of 2026, [58:58] 2025, [58:59] the exact number [59:00] of people [59:00] that were receiving medications [59:01] were receiving medications [59:02] during that period of time. [59:04] The exact number, [59:05] and it's going to even improve [59:06] because we're adding innovation [59:07] to it. [59:07] There have been recent innovations [59:08] in AIDS treatment [59:09] and HIV treatments [59:10] that are even more effective [59:12] than some of the legacy programs [59:13] that are available. [59:14] It's very clear [59:14] why you are the secretary [59:16] because you're very good [59:17] at words. [59:18] No, [59:19] but I'm giving you, [59:19] I don't know, [59:20] how else can I answer you [59:22] other than words? [59:22] I will stand by my statement [59:23] against yours. [59:24] I just will. [59:26] What was that? [59:27] I'm sorry? [59:27] I will stand by [59:28] all of the facts [59:29] that I gave you. [59:30] Okay, [59:30] but I get a chance [59:31] to respond, right? [59:32] Well, [59:33] my time's out. [59:34] It's up to the chair. [59:35] You can respond. [59:36] Okay, [59:36] so on the other things [59:39] you're not talking about, [59:40] which I think are very valuable [59:41] to this, [59:41] are these global health compacts [59:42] that we're entering [59:43] with 32 countries, [59:44] 27 of them in Africa, [59:45] in which we're basically [59:46] going to the country [59:47] to say, [59:47] okay, [59:47] we used to give money [59:48] for clinics. [59:50] We used to give money [59:50] for health care. [59:51] We used to give money [59:51] for maternal care. [59:53] And we used to have it [59:53] in a bucket. [59:54] And it was maternal care globally, [59:55] and then we went out [59:56] and dished out contracts [59:57] for people to go [59:58] into individual countries. [59:59] Now we're entering [1:00:00] into contracts, [1:00:01] compacts, [1:00:02] agreements with the country, [1:00:03] and we're saying to them, [1:00:04] okay, [1:00:05] what are your needs? [1:00:05] And we're doing this [1:00:06] through the embassies. [1:00:07] What are your specific needs [1:00:08] in this country? [1:00:09] And entering into a compact, [1:00:10] not just to provide them aid [1:00:12] for these things [1:00:12] that they need, [1:00:13] but to help them strengthen [1:00:15] their national health care systems [1:00:16] so that long term, [1:00:18] they will be self-sustaining. [1:00:19] Now in some countries, [1:00:20] it may take 10 years [1:00:20] to get to that point. [1:00:21] Some it may take less. [1:00:23] But for the first time, [1:00:24] we are not just having [1:00:24] these buckets [1:00:25] that then are distributed [1:00:26] broadly around the world. [1:00:27] It is targeted [1:00:28] at the highest needs [1:00:29] of those countries [1:00:30] based on their own [1:00:31] domestic strategies [1:00:32] and allowing us [1:00:33] to become a value [1:00:34] added to their strategy [1:00:36] and to build their capacity. [1:00:37] That's something [1:00:38] that hasn't been talked about. [1:00:40] You look at what we've done [1:00:41] with OCHA, [1:00:42] where we've signed [1:00:43] the first humanitarian reset agreement [1:00:44] in Geneva. [1:00:46] And along with our anchor pledge [1:00:47] of 2 billion in support [1:00:48] for the 18-country-based [1:00:49] crisis-level pooled funds, [1:00:51] this is going to allow us [1:00:52] to respond in a more effective way [1:00:53] with the global fund. [1:00:54] We've entered into agreement [1:00:55] with the global fund. [1:00:56] They've put out repeated statements [1:00:57] thanking the United States [1:00:59] for the role [1:00:59] that we are playing [1:01:00] with the global fund. [1:01:01] And we're prepared to do more [1:01:02] if donors match [1:01:03] what we are providing. [1:01:05] We're prepared to do even more [1:01:06] in that regard. [1:01:07] The list goes on and on. [1:01:08] The point is, [1:01:09] this is not about, [1:01:10] first of all, [1:01:11] this is not about denying [1:01:12] or being punitive [1:01:13] towards the world. [1:01:14] This is about delivering aid, [1:01:15] but delivering it [1:01:16] in a more effective [1:01:17] and concise [1:01:18] and consolidated way [1:01:19] that actually gets more aid [1:01:21] to more people faster. [1:01:23] That is the goal, [1:01:23] and I think we're well [1:01:24] on our way to achieving it. [1:01:25] Now, as far as the budget [1:01:26] is concerned, [1:01:27] you know we operate [1:01:27] under an OMB guidance [1:01:29] that tells us [1:01:29] this is how much you have. [1:01:30] Tell us what you would do [1:01:31] if this is what you get. [1:01:32] We present this to you. [1:01:34] Having served here [1:01:34] for a long period of time, [1:01:35] I said this before you walked in, [1:01:37] so perhaps you missed this point, [1:01:39] is we always understand [1:01:40] that there's going to be [1:01:41] a congressional process [1:01:41] in which you're going to look [1:01:42] at our request [1:01:43] and generally ignore it, [1:01:45] but in many cases [1:01:45] add to it or reframe it, [1:01:47] and we're prepared [1:01:48] to work with you [1:01:48] as we did last year [1:01:49] in the passage [1:01:51] of an appropriations bill [1:01:52] which we would like [1:01:53] to see passed [1:01:53] because when you pass [1:01:54] appropriations bills, [1:01:55] it gives us, [1:01:56] you know, [1:01:56] the structure that we need [1:01:58] in order to carry out [1:01:59] these reforms. [1:02:01] Mr. Secretary, [1:02:03] I just will tell you, [1:02:05] I appreciate that you have [1:02:07] words to explain everything [1:02:08] from your point of view. [1:02:09] I'm talking from reality [1:02:10] on the ground [1:02:11] and from what I am seeing [1:02:12] and hearing [1:02:13] and I fear deeply [1:02:14] that we are losing our place [1:02:16] and our value globally. [1:02:18] So you and I have a disagreement. [1:02:20] Thank you. [1:02:20] Senator Moran. [1:02:23] Mr. Secretary, [1:02:24] so good to see you. [1:02:25] Thank you for your public service [1:02:27] here in the Senate [1:02:27] and in your current capacities. [1:02:30] You have been helpful [1:02:32] and I want to express my gratitude [1:02:33] in regard to Food for Peace. [1:02:36] We have worked hard [1:02:37] on trying to transition [1:02:39] from the State Department [1:02:40] to USDA. [1:02:41] Secretary Rollins [1:02:42] has been an advocate [1:02:43] and I'm grateful [1:02:45] for the cooperation [1:02:46] between both departments [1:02:47] to make sure [1:02:49] that an important [1:02:50] and highly successful [1:02:52] Food for Peace program [1:02:53] is continued [1:02:54] and improved [1:02:56] in its new home [1:02:58] at USDA. [1:03:00] In Senator Bozeman's farm bill, [1:03:02] Senator Bozeman [1:03:02] and Senator Klobuchar's farm bill, [1:03:04] we will hope [1:03:05] to make that transfer permanent. [1:03:08] We appreciate the transfer [1:03:09] that has been made [1:03:10] administratively. [1:03:12] Let me ask you [1:03:12] if there's just things [1:03:13] that I should know, [1:03:14] the committee should know [1:03:15] in regard to that transition. [1:03:17] Anything that is being [1:03:18] left behind? [1:03:19] Are there problems [1:03:20] in delivering the food aid? [1:03:23] What role does [1:03:24] the State Department [1:03:24] still play? [1:03:25] Well, I think the role [1:03:26] the State Department [1:03:27] will always play [1:03:27] is because our embassies [1:03:28] and in some cases [1:03:29] we do have [1:03:30] Department of Agriculture [1:03:31] people embedded [1:03:32] in our embassies. [1:03:33] I think ultimately [1:03:34] our embassies [1:03:34] will always serve [1:03:35] as a key liaison point [1:03:36] with host countries [1:03:37] that are recipients [1:03:38] or maybe in need [1:03:39] of recipients. [1:03:40] So I always think [1:03:40] there may be some issues [1:03:41] in terms of bringing [1:03:42] in the aid [1:03:43] or bringing in [1:03:43] the Food for Peace [1:03:45] assistance [1:03:46] into those countries [1:03:47] that we would have [1:03:48] to navigate [1:03:48] with a host country. [1:03:49] But by and large, [1:03:50] we felt that the transfer [1:03:51] made sense. [1:03:51] It had long been advocated [1:03:52] for by many [1:03:53] representing agricultural states [1:03:55] because truly, [1:03:56] at the end of the day, [1:03:57] the Food for Peace program [1:03:58] is an American agricultural [1:03:59] program to benefit the world [1:04:00] to use what we've been [1:04:01] blessed with as part [1:04:02] of a tool [1:04:03] of our foreign policy. [1:04:04] We just felt [1:04:04] it would be better executed. [1:04:06] We agreed. [1:04:06] It would be better executed [1:04:07] through the Department [1:04:08] of Agriculture. [1:04:08] So we commit [1:04:09] to doing everything [1:04:10] we can on our end [1:04:11] to facilitate the transition [1:04:12] and then facilitate [1:04:13] implementation. [1:04:14] So, Secretary, [1:04:15] that I assume [1:04:16] would include [1:04:16] that if Food for Peace [1:04:18] funds are appropriated [1:04:19] in this appropriations [1:04:20] process for fiscal year 27. [1:04:23] We won't keep it. [1:04:24] You won't keep it. [1:04:25] You'll assure us [1:04:25] that it will be utilized [1:04:27] in Food for Peace [1:04:27] at USDA. [1:04:29] Yes. [1:04:30] Because we're committed [1:04:31] to this as part [1:04:32] of our reform. [1:04:33] It was your yes [1:04:33] to we won't keep it? [1:04:35] Yeah, no, [1:04:35] I know that's what [1:04:35] you're worried about. [1:04:36] We don't have any intention [1:04:37] of keeping it, [1:04:37] but I guess you're arguing [1:04:39] that you may need [1:04:40] to do it that way [1:04:40] because of the way [1:04:41] you're currently structured [1:04:42] in your process here. [1:04:43] I would guess [1:04:43] this appropriations subcommittee, [1:04:45] not agricultural appropriations [1:04:46] subcommittee, [1:04:46] will appropriate [1:04:47] for Food for Peace, [1:04:48] which then needs [1:04:49] to be made certain again [1:04:50] in the new year [1:04:51] that that is utilized. [1:04:53] I imagine [1:04:53] once the transition [1:04:54] is complete, [1:04:55] that would also [1:04:56] shift the jurisdiction here? [1:04:57] That is true. [1:04:58] Okay. [1:05:00] Let me ask you [1:05:01] a question [1:05:02] about oil sanctions waiver. [1:05:05] I'm concerned [1:05:07] about the decisions [1:05:08] that have been made [1:05:08] on three occasions [1:05:09] to issue waivers [1:05:12] for Russian oil sales. [1:05:15] President Trump [1:05:16] was right [1:05:17] to impose [1:05:17] those sanctions [1:05:18] last fall, [1:05:19] but the waivers [1:05:20] provide Moscow [1:05:21] with badly needed revenue [1:05:22] and I think [1:05:25] make little difference [1:05:26] to American consumers [1:05:27] in the price of gas. [1:05:29] But if Russia [1:05:31] is struggling [1:05:32] to make gains [1:05:33] on the battlefield, [1:05:34] I don't want them [1:05:35] to have additional [1:05:36] revenue assets [1:05:38] to further their cause. [1:05:40] You indicated earlier [1:05:41] that it's a difficult [1:05:42] thing to negotiate [1:05:43] to bring these [1:05:44] two parties together. [1:05:46] It's really important [1:05:46] for Ukraine [1:05:47] to have the resources [1:05:49] necessary to stay [1:05:50] in the battle [1:05:51] if the ultimate outcome [1:05:52] is a negotiated settlement. [1:05:54] No, I acknowledge [1:05:55] the trade-off [1:05:55] between what you're arguing, [1:05:57] which is that [1:05:57] these are short-term waivers. [1:05:58] These will not be permanent. [1:05:59] The permanent policy [1:06:00] of the United States [1:06:00] remains that those [1:06:01] sanctions are in place. [1:06:03] And the reason [1:06:03] for the short-term waivers, [1:06:05] frankly, is the trade-off [1:06:06] and that is that [1:06:06] there are some countries [1:06:07] around the world, [1:06:08] depending on where [1:06:08] they're located, [1:06:09] that are deeply dependent [1:06:10] on the straits. [1:06:10] We are not. [1:06:11] But many countries [1:06:13] around the world, [1:06:13] particularly in the Indo-Pacific, [1:06:15] are deeply dependent [1:06:15] on the straits [1:06:16] and have no other way [1:06:17] to get fuel [1:06:18] if, in fact, [1:06:19] those shipments [1:06:19] are not getting through. [1:06:20] And so this was [1:06:21] a short-term sort of decision [1:06:23] to make more oil available [1:06:24] in the global market [1:06:25] to be able to address [1:06:26] the needs [1:06:27] that some of those countries [1:06:28] are facing [1:06:28] and to sort of stabilize [1:06:30] global oil prices [1:06:31] akin to the releases [1:06:33] from the strategic reserves [1:06:34] that you've seen [1:06:34] from a couple of places. [1:06:35] But that is not [1:06:36] a permanent change [1:06:37] to our policy. [1:06:38] They've been renewed [1:06:38] a couple of times [1:06:39] at least, [1:06:40] and I hope that [1:06:41] non-permanent means [1:06:42] that they will shortly [1:06:43] come to a conclusion. [1:06:44] Yeah, if I'm not mistaken, [1:06:45] I think the first one [1:06:46] was 45 days. [1:06:47] I don't recall [1:06:48] the second one [1:06:48] was 30 or 45 days. [1:06:50] But as I said, [1:06:50] the policy of the United States, [1:06:51] the baseline policy, [1:06:52] remains what it was before. [1:06:54] At some point, [1:06:54] those waivers will end [1:06:55] unless something dramatic [1:06:57] happens to end [1:06:57] the war in Ukraine. [1:06:58] Mr. Secretary, [1:07:00] in your team [1:07:01] of State Department officials [1:07:03] are ambassadors [1:07:05] that represent [1:07:06] the United States, [1:07:07] represent the State Department, [1:07:08] but are a nation [1:07:08] around the globe. [1:07:10] What's the status [1:07:10] of the nominations [1:07:13] to fill vacancies [1:07:14] in your world of... [1:07:16] Yeah, not good enough. [1:07:17] I mean, I'd like [1:07:17] to have more ambassadors, [1:07:18] to be frank. [1:07:19] I'd like to get them. [1:07:20] And there's a couple [1:07:20] reasons why that happens. [1:07:21] I mean, first of all, [1:07:22] we have some... [1:07:23] Just to understand, [1:07:23] even if there's not [1:07:24] an ambassador, [1:07:24] the person in charge [1:07:25] is usually [1:07:26] a highly capable [1:07:27] career person, [1:07:28] but I understand [1:07:29] the need for ambassadors. [1:07:30] I really do. [1:07:31] So I think we've had [1:07:32] three complexities here. [1:07:33] The first is [1:07:34] the pace of confirmations. [1:07:37] I don't entirely lay it [1:07:38] on the Senate, [1:07:38] but I think we've gotten [1:07:39] about 100 confirmations [1:07:41] total for the department. [1:07:42] I think there are a few more [1:07:44] on the way this week [1:07:44] or next week, [1:07:45] so that's good. [1:07:46] That's number one. [1:07:47] The second is, frankly, [1:07:48] the pace of nominations. [1:07:51] We've had some people [1:07:52] that have expressed [1:07:53] an interest. [1:07:53] They start going [1:07:54] through the vetting process [1:07:55] and then decide [1:07:55] they don't want to do it, [1:07:56] and so they pull out [1:07:57] for a variety of reasons. [1:07:59] It's a pretty intensive [1:07:59] situation, [1:08:00] so attracting people [1:08:01] on the non-career side [1:08:03] has been problematic [1:08:04] in some places, [1:08:05] although we've gotten [1:08:06] good candidates [1:08:07] in the pipeline, [1:08:08] but it sometimes takes [1:08:09] months for them [1:08:10] to clear through [1:08:10] the paperwork. [1:08:11] And then the third is, [1:08:12] we're finally working [1:08:13] through this process [1:08:14] on the career front, [1:08:14] is the D committee [1:08:15] and the recommendations [1:08:16] that are starting [1:08:17] to percolate up. [1:08:18] So I think we're going [1:08:18] to have another class [1:08:19] of about 30-some-odd [1:08:20] career nominees [1:08:22] that we're going [1:08:23] to be bringing [1:08:23] to the Senate shortly. [1:08:25] I think those should [1:08:25] be able to pass [1:08:26] fairly quickly, [1:08:27] but we agree. [1:08:28] I'd like to see [1:08:28] those numbers look [1:08:29] dramatically different [1:08:30] in the second half [1:08:31] of this year. [1:08:31] Mr. Secretary, [1:08:31] let me ask you one more [1:08:31] question before my 52 seconds [1:08:33] departs. [1:08:34] I returned recently [1:08:36] from a trip with a couple [1:08:38] of my colleagues [1:08:38] at a visit to China. [1:08:42] We talked about many things [1:08:43] in China, [1:08:43] but I just want to raise one. [1:08:45] Is there any evidence [1:08:46] that the precursor chemicals [1:08:47] that are coming to Mexico [1:08:49] or to the United States, [1:08:51] that China is serious [1:08:52] about diminishing [1:08:54] and ending that practice? [1:08:57] I would say that, [1:08:58] remember, [1:08:59] many of the supply chain, [1:09:01] put it to you this way, [1:09:02] many of the critical [1:09:02] mineral supply chain [1:09:03] that have been denied [1:09:05] to parts of the world, [1:09:06] including the United States, [1:09:08] were theoretical threats [1:09:10] two or three years ago. [1:09:11] We used to talk about it [1:09:12] and say, [1:09:12] my gosh, [1:09:13] if these guys ever denied us this, [1:09:14] we'd have trouble. [1:09:15] And then it actually happened. [1:09:16] They actually have done it [1:09:17] and they've done it. [1:09:18] So I think you have to assume [1:09:19] that critical dependency [1:09:21] on any single source [1:09:22] around the world [1:09:23] is dangerous [1:09:23] because it can be disrupted [1:09:25] by a pandemic [1:09:26] or it can be disrupted [1:09:27] as a strategic counter response [1:09:29] to something you do [1:09:30] that they don't like. [1:09:32] So I would just put to you this way, [1:09:34] it is an unacceptable risk [1:09:35] that we run today [1:09:36] where 88% of the active ingredients [1:09:37] in our pharmaceuticals [1:09:38] are so sourced from one place. [1:09:41] And it is among, [1:09:41] when we talk about supply chains, [1:09:43] one of our most critical priorities [1:09:44] is to diversify [1:09:45] where we are getting that, [1:09:47] including increasing [1:09:48] domestic production [1:09:48] because the threat [1:09:50] may be theoretical today. [1:09:51] I think we have to assume [1:09:52] it will not be theoretical one day, [1:09:54] especially in a moment [1:09:55] of crisis or conflict. [1:09:57] Thank you, Secretary. [1:09:59] Senator Shaheen. [1:10:02] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:10:04] Good afternoon, [1:10:05] Secretary Rubio. [1:10:06] We're glad that you're here. [1:10:08] I just want to go [1:10:09] follow up a little bit [1:10:11] on the questions [1:10:12] about ambassadorial positions [1:10:15] because the fact is [1:10:17] it's not the Foreign Relations Committee [1:10:18] and the Senate [1:10:19] that are holding up those nominees. [1:10:20] It's the fact that [1:10:22] the nominees [1:10:23] are not being submitted to us [1:10:24] and that those nominees [1:10:27] who start to go through the process [1:10:30] often aren't willing [1:10:31] to comply with the ethics requirements [1:10:33] that require that they divest [1:10:35] of their outside holdings. [1:10:37] Right now, [1:10:38] the United States [1:10:39] has more than 100 [1:10:40] vacant ambassador posts. [1:10:43] I'm sure you're aware of that. [1:10:45] China has 20. [1:10:46] In Africa alone, [1:10:48] 37 of our 51 embassies [1:10:50] have no ambassador [1:10:51] and China's filling that vacuum. [1:10:54] And you just sent over 20 nominees [1:10:57] of whom only four are career people. [1:11:01] So the problem is not in the Congress. [1:11:04] The problem is in the administration. [1:11:06] And I hope that you will begin [1:11:08] to take up that slack [1:11:10] by appointing more career ambassadors. [1:11:12] I want to go, though, [1:11:14] to back to the question [1:11:16] about Ukraine [1:11:17] because you've rightly recognized [1:11:19] that peace talks have stalled. [1:11:21] But I think it's important [1:11:23] to point out [1:11:24] that those negotiations [1:11:25] have failed [1:11:26] because Russia, [1:11:28] not Ukraine, [1:11:29] strung along the administration [1:11:31] in its efforts [1:11:32] to bring a peace deal. [1:11:33] And the only way [1:11:34] to end this war [1:11:35] on any kind of lasting terms [1:11:38] is for President Trump [1:11:40] and the administration [1:11:41] to finally put some real pressure [1:11:43] on Vladimir Putin and Russia. [1:11:46] Late last year, [1:11:47] the Russian Central Bank [1:11:48] warned that the Russian economy [1:11:50] was slowing sharply. [1:11:52] Russia was in debt [1:11:53] and it was making contingency plans [1:11:55] to fund its war effort in Ukraine. [1:11:59] This is the time, [1:12:01] Mr. Secretary, [1:12:03] for us to increase pressure on Russia. [1:12:05] And what have we done [1:12:07] instead of that? [1:12:08] We've done exactly [1:12:09] what Senator Moran said. [1:12:11] We've lifted the general license [1:12:13] and are allowing the Russians [1:12:16] to make $4 billion a month [1:12:19] because of the lifting [1:12:22] of those sanctions on its oil. [1:12:25] Now, I want to also go back [1:12:27] to the discussion you had [1:12:28] with Senator Schatz [1:12:29] where you talked about [1:12:30] the $19 billion [1:12:31] in closeout for USAID [1:12:33] because you rightly pointed out [1:12:36] that one of the challenges [1:12:37] in Ukraine [1:12:38] is energy costs. [1:12:40] And $1.7 billion [1:12:43] of that $19 billion [1:12:45] is funding from the AEECA account, [1:12:50] which is an account [1:12:51] for all non-security, [1:12:53] non-health-related issues [1:12:55] for Europe. [1:12:56] You, as Secretary, [1:12:59] could choose [1:12:59] to spend those dollars [1:13:01] to provide them to Ukraine [1:13:03] to help address energy issues [1:13:05] and other issues [1:13:06] and other issues [1:13:06] that Ukraine is having [1:13:08] with this war, [1:13:10] in particular, [1:13:12] the fact that they're [1:13:12] in desperate need [1:13:13] of interceptors [1:13:14] because of the attacks [1:13:16] by Russia. [1:13:17] And you can see, [1:13:18] I know you're aware of this, [1:13:19] but for the audience, [1:13:20] I think it's important [1:13:21] to note the increased attacks [1:13:24] coming into Ukraine [1:13:27] from Russia, [1:13:28] particularly drone attacks. [1:13:30] So are you willing to spend [1:13:33] some of those $1.7 billion [1:13:35] to address some of the concerns [1:13:39] that you point out [1:13:40] and we agree that Ukraine has [1:13:42] in fighting this war? [1:13:43] Yeah, we did last year, too, [1:13:45] and I anticipate we'll do so again. [1:13:46] But on the point of the chart [1:13:47] that you're using there, [1:13:48] it's important to point, [1:13:49] the reason why those strikes [1:13:50] began to increase [1:13:51] is because of their inability [1:13:52] to make sufficient gains [1:13:54] on the front lines. [1:13:54] And so the only way Russia [1:13:55] can impose costs [1:13:56] on Ukraine [1:13:57] is to punish them deeply. [1:13:59] Which is why now is the time [1:14:00] to put pressure on Russia [1:14:02] because Russia's feeling it. [1:14:03] So let's put pressure on them, [1:14:05] let's get them [1:14:06] to the negotiating table, [1:14:07] and let's get a just [1:14:08] and lasting peace [1:14:09] in Ukraine. [1:14:10] And that's not going to happen [1:14:12] as long as we're [1:14:13] pussyfooting around [1:14:14] with Vladimir Putin [1:14:16] and letting him get away [1:14:17] with stringing [1:14:18] the president along. [1:14:19] I would disagree [1:14:20] with that assessment [1:14:20] of how we treated it. [1:14:21] In fact, the president, [1:14:22] this president, [1:14:23] imposed additional sanctions [1:14:24] on Russia [1:14:25] last year. [1:14:26] It remains one of the most [1:14:28] sanctioned countries [1:14:28] on the planet [1:14:29] by the United States. [1:14:30] Even on the oil [1:14:31] that you say [1:14:31] in the short-term extension [1:14:33] was given [1:14:34] or the short-term waiver [1:14:35] was given, [1:14:35] that oil was still being sold. [1:14:37] They just weren't making [1:14:38] the money they're making now [1:14:39] because they couldn't sell it [1:14:40] at market rate. [1:14:40] They had to sell it [1:14:41] at a discount [1:14:42] because they were selling [1:14:43] it under the shadow fleet. [1:14:44] And if we went [1:14:45] after the shadow fleet, [1:14:46] we would do a much better job [1:14:48] of putting pressure [1:14:49] on Russia's economy. [1:14:51] So my question, though, [1:14:52] is to go back [1:14:53] to the $1.7 billion, [1:14:56] are you willing [1:14:56] to spend some [1:14:57] of those dollars [1:14:58] to help address [1:14:59] the urgent challenges [1:15:00] that Ukraine is facing? [1:15:01] Well, on all the humanitarian side, [1:15:03] including the energy side, [1:15:04] we've done so in the past. [1:15:05] I anticipate [1:15:05] we would do so in the future [1:15:06] because we don't want [1:15:07] to see calamity there. [1:15:08] On the broader issues [1:15:09] that you've pointed to, [1:15:10] I want to reiterate, [1:15:11] Ukraine remains a purchaser [1:15:14] under the Pearl Program, [1:15:15] which is paid for [1:15:15] through Europe. [1:15:16] We continue to participate [1:15:17] in the Pearl Program [1:15:18] that provides them [1:15:19] the munitions [1:15:20] they want to purchase [1:15:20] and buy with European money. [1:15:22] I'm aware of that, [1:15:23] Mr. Secretary, [1:15:24] but the fact is, [1:15:27] as Senator Durbin pointed out, [1:15:30] we have not put [1:15:31] the kind of pressure [1:15:32] on Russia [1:15:33] that would force them [1:15:35] to come to the negotiating table. [1:15:36] And that's the question [1:15:37] that I'm raising. [1:15:39] And unless, [1:15:40] I mean, maybe, [1:15:40] I hope I understood you [1:15:42] to say you were going [1:15:43] to support [1:15:44] the Graham-Blumenthal [1:15:46] sanctions bill. [1:15:47] Did I understand [1:15:48] that correctly? [1:15:49] It's not for me [1:15:50] to support it [1:15:50] or not support it. [1:15:51] What I said was that the White- [1:15:52] You as a representative [1:15:52] of the administration- [1:15:53] Well, I will follow [1:15:54] the administration's decision [1:15:56] and the president's on it. [1:15:57] What I have informed everybody [1:15:58] is that the White House [1:15:59] Office of Legal Counsel, [1:16:01] along with the interagency, [1:16:02] has been working [1:16:02] with Senator Graham's office [1:16:04] on the details of that bill [1:16:05] and providing feedback [1:16:06] on things that would be [1:16:07] acceptable to us. [1:16:08] The president has indicated [1:16:09] and has allowed them to do so. [1:16:10] So obviously, [1:16:11] that sows an intent. [1:16:12] Well, I understand. [1:16:13] We have been working [1:16:14] on that bill as well [1:16:15] with Senator Graham [1:16:17] and Blumenthal. [1:16:18] And my understanding [1:16:19] is that we are still waiting [1:16:21] after months [1:16:22] for the White House [1:16:23] to make a decision [1:16:24] on whether this is something [1:16:25] they're going to support. [1:16:26] Well, as recently [1:16:27] as yesterday, [1:16:28] there was comments [1:16:28] that came back [1:16:29] from one of our agencies. [1:16:30] I believe it was Treasury [1:16:31] on the bill [1:16:32] that I think Senator Graham [1:16:33] will be incorporating. [1:16:34] And I know we've been [1:16:34] talking to him. [1:16:35] We just spoke about it [1:16:36] a few moments ago [1:16:36] before we came out here [1:16:37] on the specific bill. [1:16:38] And on the broader topic of, [1:16:40] look, at the end of the day, [1:16:41] I think we haven't- [1:16:42] all of our sanctions [1:16:43] are on Russia [1:16:44] and all of the aid [1:16:45] that we've provided [1:16:46] has been on the Ukrainian side. [1:16:47] So as I reiterate [1:16:48] what I said earlier, [1:16:49] we are not an impartial mediator here. [1:16:51] We clearly are supporting [1:16:52] one side over another. [1:16:53] Now, you may not agree [1:16:54] because you may think [1:16:54] we need to be putting [1:16:55] more pressure on Russia. [1:16:56] I clearly think [1:16:57] we need to be putting [1:16:58] more pressure on Russia. [1:16:58] Well, I think Russia [1:16:59] is under an incredible [1:17:00] amount of pressure. [1:17:01] And I think there is [1:17:01] bipartisan agreement [1:17:02] in this Senate [1:17:03] that we should be [1:17:04] putting more pressure on Russia. [1:17:05] But ultimately, [1:17:06] what we want- [1:17:06] And that the Graham-Blumenthal [1:17:07] sanctions bill [1:17:08] would do that [1:17:09] in a way that would force [1:17:10] Russia to come to the table [1:17:12] and finally fulfill the promise [1:17:14] that President Trump made [1:17:15] to end this war on day one. [1:17:17] That's what he said [1:17:18] when he was running [1:17:19] for president. [1:17:21] And here we are, [1:17:22] almost a year and a half [1:17:24] into this administration, [1:17:25] and he has let Russia [1:17:27] and Putin off the hook. [1:17:29] I disagree with that statement. [1:17:30] You and I are going to have [1:17:31] to disagree on that. [1:17:32] We are, [1:17:32] because I can tell you [1:17:33] that at the highest levels [1:17:34] of our administration, [1:17:36] at the highest levels, [1:17:36] we've committed [1:17:37] an extraordinary amount of time [1:17:38] to the Ukrainian situation [1:17:40] and trying to resolve [1:17:41] that conflict meeting [1:17:42] after meeting [1:17:43] all over the world, [1:17:44] many of which I attended myself [1:17:45] to trying to bring [1:17:46] and bridge the differences [1:17:47] between the two sides. [1:17:49] We've not been successful to date, [1:17:50] but not for lack of trying. [1:17:52] And we continue [1:17:52] to be prepared to pay that role. [1:17:54] Mr. Secretary, [1:17:54] you rightly imposed sanctions [1:17:57] on Luke Oil and Rosneft, [1:18:00] and you've lifted those. [1:18:02] You've lifted those, [1:18:03] and you've given Russia [1:18:04] the ability to continue [1:18:06] to fund their war in Ukraine. [1:18:08] Well, we have not lifted [1:18:09] the sanctions. [1:18:09] The sanctions remain in place. [1:18:10] What's been granted [1:18:11] is a license [1:18:12] for a short-term period of time [1:18:13] because of global oil demand. [1:18:15] Yeah, we're arguing semantics here. [1:18:17] Well, I acknowledge [1:18:18] there's a trade-off [1:18:19] in the broader foreign policy. [1:18:20] If the license is lifted [1:18:20] and they're able to make the money, [1:18:22] then they're not being hurt [1:18:24] by the sanctions [1:18:25] that were put in place. [1:18:26] Well, there are plenty [1:18:27] of other sanctions [1:18:27] that are hurting them, [1:18:28] but I will tell you [1:18:29] that in that case, [1:18:30] I have acknowledged [1:18:31] that there was a trade-off here [1:18:32] between the destabilization [1:18:34] of the availability of oil [1:18:36] for countries [1:18:36] in the Indo-Pacific in particular [1:18:37] and the decision [1:18:38] that was made [1:18:39] in the short-term [1:18:40] on this specific oil. [1:18:41] Except that the cost [1:18:42] of a barrel of oil [1:18:43] was $100 [1:18:44] when you lifted [1:18:45] those sanctions, [1:18:46] and it's still over $100. [1:18:48] It would have been much higher [1:18:49] more oil than I've been available. [1:18:51] But it's not just the cost, [1:18:51] it's the availability. [1:18:52] It's not just the cost, [1:18:53] it's the availability. [1:18:54] Thank you. [1:18:55] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:18:56] Thank you. [1:18:57] We appreciate you being here. [1:18:59] I appreciate the tremendous job [1:19:01] that you're doing [1:19:02] on the world stage [1:19:03] as Secretary [1:19:04] and then all the other jobs [1:19:06] that the administration [1:19:07] has you doing [1:19:08] in a number of different areas. [1:19:11] I've just got a couple things. [1:19:12] I think most of my questions [1:19:13] have been answered, [1:19:14] but I want to talk to you [1:19:16] about the U.S. Foundation [1:19:17] for Natural Security [1:19:18] and Counterterrorism. [1:19:20] You're very aware [1:19:21] that was done [1:19:22] when you were here. [1:19:23] And this committee [1:19:25] had a tremendous amount [1:19:27] to do with getting that passed. [1:19:28] And I guess my question is [1:19:31] is that it's so important [1:19:34] for a number [1:19:34] of different reasons. [1:19:35] One reason is [1:19:36] that this area [1:19:37] is tremendously mineral-rich [1:19:39] in things [1:19:39] and certainly building [1:19:41] the relationships [1:19:41] that we need there [1:19:42] is so, so very important. [1:19:44] But what I'd like for you [1:19:45] to do is we're kind of stuck, [1:19:47] you know, [1:19:48] in the sense [1:19:48] of not getting organized. [1:19:50] If you could commit somebody [1:19:51] to work with us [1:19:53] to kind of figure out [1:19:56] how we need to go forward [1:19:57] organizationally [1:19:58] so we can go ahead [1:19:59] and get that up and running, [1:20:01] let me tell you something. [1:20:03] I've had four hearings [1:20:04] in two days [1:20:05] and in all four hearings [1:20:06] this one has come up. [1:20:06] So I assure you [1:20:07] that we're watching it [1:20:08] very closely. [1:20:09] Look, I think the issue [1:20:10] there has been the appointment [1:20:10] of the board members. [1:20:12] You're aware of that. [1:20:13] I think there was [1:20:13] an initial list [1:20:14] that was produced [1:20:14] by the personnel office [1:20:16] at the White House [1:20:16] that vets all these appointments. [1:20:18] There were, [1:20:19] maybe the suggestions [1:20:20] that came from Congress, [1:20:21] there was some trade-off on that. [1:20:22] So I think, [1:20:23] and I commit [1:20:24] that we're going to engage [1:20:25] the personnel office [1:20:26] at the White House [1:20:27] to produce new names [1:20:28] maybe suggested by Congress [1:20:29] so we can get that board [1:20:30] stood up once and for all. [1:20:31] So I don't have to keep [1:20:32] answering questions [1:20:33] about the board. [1:20:33] No, I understand. [1:20:34] But I think that illustrates [1:20:35] that it has wide support [1:20:37] in Congress. [1:20:39] Understood. [1:20:40] Yeah, I was here [1:20:40] when it passed. [1:20:40] Great public-private partnership. [1:20:42] It took a long time [1:20:43] to get done. [1:20:44] Understood. [1:20:45] We appreciate that. [1:20:45] The other thing [1:20:46] I'd like to talk to you about [1:20:47] is the Fulbright [1:20:48] scholarship program. [1:20:50] I'm always amazed [1:20:52] in traveling. [1:20:53] You know, [1:20:53] you sit down [1:20:54] and you visit with the, [1:20:56] everybody from the Prime Minister [1:20:57] on down, [1:20:58] and it's amazing [1:20:59] the number of people [1:21:00] that have gone through [1:21:01] that program, [1:21:02] specifically that program, [1:21:04] but many other programs [1:21:05] where they've come [1:21:06] and studied in the United States, [1:21:08] very, very familiar [1:21:09] with our culture, [1:21:10] and almost, again, [1:21:13] it's so, so very helpful [1:21:14] that you've got [1:21:15] that frame of reference [1:21:16] as you start visiting with them. [1:21:19] So, what we'd like to do [1:21:21] is continue to, you know, [1:21:25] expand those [1:21:26] or at least, you know, [1:21:27] continue as we're doing now [1:21:29] as we go forward [1:21:30] and support those programs. [1:21:32] So, can you talk a little bit [1:21:34] about the importance of those [1:21:36] and how we can be helpful? [1:21:38] I think you've pointed [1:21:40] to the reason why, [1:21:41] and that is, [1:21:41] I think you see that [1:21:42] in multiple realms, [1:21:43] not just in Fulbright, [1:21:44] but any time [1:21:44] that some foreign leader [1:21:45] or somebody that's prominent [1:21:46] in a government system [1:21:47] or in a country [1:21:48] has had experiences [1:21:50] in the United States, [1:21:51] whether it's studying [1:21:51] at our universities [1:21:52] or attending one [1:21:53] of our military academies [1:21:54] or a national defense college [1:21:56] or training of some sort, [1:21:59] it proves to generally be positive. [1:22:02] Not always, [1:22:03] but generally to be positive, [1:22:04] and it creates an interlink [1:22:05] that's very powerful [1:22:06] and very positive. [1:22:07] So, I think identifying [1:22:08] future leaders [1:22:09] of other countries [1:22:09] early on while they're young, [1:22:11] allowing them to have exposure [1:22:12] to U.S. culture, society, [1:22:13] and the way we do business here, [1:22:15] I think, generally speaking, [1:22:16] is a positive [1:22:17] and something that we want [1:22:18] to be able to continue [1:22:19] to do within, you know, [1:22:20] the constraints [1:22:20] that we face budgetary [1:22:22] and otherwise. [1:22:22] But generally speaking, [1:22:23] you had no argument from me [1:22:24] that interacting with people [1:22:26] that have had these experiences [1:22:27] through Fulbright [1:22:28] and other opportunities [1:22:29] is a net positive. [1:22:30] Very good. [1:22:32] Senator Coons. [1:22:33] Thank you very much. [1:22:34] Thank you, Chairman Graham, [1:22:35] and thank you, Secretary. [1:22:37] I'm just going to continue this. [1:22:39] One of many things [1:22:41] that Senator Graham, [1:22:42] Senator Bozeman, [1:22:42] Senator Moran, [1:22:43] and I have worked on [1:22:44] over many years [1:22:45] is the U.S. Foundation [1:22:46] for National Security [1:22:47] and Counterterrorism. [1:22:48] Or to put it simply, [1:22:49] good for animals, [1:22:50] bad for terrorists. [1:22:51] That's Lindsay's description of it. [1:22:53] A year and a half ago [1:22:54] in your confirmation hearing, [1:22:56] I asked if we could count on you [1:22:58] to be helpful [1:22:58] in swiftly implementing it. [1:23:01] And you did sign the incorporation. [1:23:03] But we've been waiting [1:23:03] for a year and a half [1:23:05] for the board. [1:23:06] Can we move this quickly [1:23:07] so you can stop [1:23:08] being asked questions [1:23:09] and all forward to you? [1:23:10] We want to, and we will. [1:23:11] I'll go back to personnel [1:23:12] because they vet every nominee [1:23:13] for every position. [1:23:15] And I think there was an early list [1:23:16] that somehow fell off. [1:23:18] There was an early list [1:23:18] and then there was a second list. [1:23:20] And we have been waiting [1:23:21] four months since then. [1:23:23] And there is significant [1:23:24] private sector support [1:23:25] for this initiative [1:23:27] that is waiting [1:23:27] and beginning to lose confidence [1:23:29] because of just how long [1:23:31] it's taken. [1:23:32] This is a very small piece [1:23:33] of everything I want [1:23:34] to address with you, [1:23:35] but it'd be great [1:23:35] to have your commitment [1:23:36] to follow up on. [1:23:37] I've heard it consistently now [1:23:38] for four committee hearings. [1:23:40] From Republicans [1:23:41] and Democrats, House and Senate. [1:23:41] And everybody that works for me [1:23:42] that's here [1:23:42] is hearing the same thing. [1:23:43] So I got it. [1:23:44] We've got to get this thing [1:23:45] moved forward. [1:23:46] And I'm going to do everything [1:23:47] and obviously in my role [1:23:48] at the White House [1:23:49] to make sure that we can [1:23:50] expedite these appointments. [1:23:51] Thank you. [1:23:52] And I just want to associate myself [1:23:54] with Senator Collins' comments [1:23:55] about RUTF [1:23:56] and the bipartisan comments [1:23:58] about Gavi [1:23:58] and the urgency [1:23:59] of releasing those funds [1:24:00] if I can be helpful [1:24:02] in any way [1:24:02] in facilitating, resolving that. [1:24:05] I know that's an HHS issue, [1:24:06] but at the end of the day, [1:24:07] it's in your hands. [1:24:09] I'd love to talk to you briefly [1:24:10] about NATO and true posture. [1:24:12] I asked you yesterday [1:24:12] about the importance [1:24:13] of Article 5 [1:24:14] and NATO being one of our most [1:24:16] central security commitments. [1:24:18] There have been [1:24:19] some really striking changes [1:24:21] that I met with a whole series [1:24:23] of parliamentarians [1:24:24] from a number of Eastern [1:24:25] and Northern European countries [1:24:27] yesterday. [1:24:28] On May 1, [1:24:29] President Trump announced [1:24:30] the abrupt withdrawal [1:24:31] of 5,000 troops from Germany. [1:24:33] May 14, [1:24:34] the cancellation [1:24:34] of a rotational brigade [1:24:35] of 4,000 to Poland. [1:24:37] May 19, [1:24:38] the President then [1:24:39] reportedly reversed [1:24:40] that decision [1:24:41] about the Poland deployment, [1:24:42] but we don't have [1:24:43] any further details. [1:24:44] And I just learned yesterday [1:24:46] about there being no plan [1:24:48] to replace the 1,000 troops [1:24:50] in Lithuania [1:24:51] who just finished [1:24:52] one of those [1:24:52] heel-to-toe deployments. [1:24:54] As you may know, [1:24:55] four Americans were killed [1:24:56] in Lithuania [1:24:56] in a training accident. [1:24:58] I was at Dover Air Force Base [1:24:59] along with senior leaders [1:25:00] in the administration [1:25:01] and a bipartisan group [1:25:03] of members of Congress [1:25:04] to receive their remains [1:25:05] and was really stunned. [1:25:07] The people of Lithuania [1:25:08] formed a human chain [1:25:11] from where they left [1:25:12] to the airport, [1:25:13] miles and miles, [1:25:15] to celebrate their service. [1:25:16] We have great [1:25:17] and close allies [1:25:18] in NATO. [1:25:19] But because of some comments [1:25:20] that have been made [1:25:21] by the President [1:25:22] and others about Greenland [1:25:23] and Denmark, [1:25:24] because of some [1:25:25] of these troop rotations, [1:25:26] they really lack confidence [1:25:28] in us. [1:25:29] As you know, [1:25:30] there's a provision [1:25:30] in last year's NDAA [1:25:31] that prohibits [1:25:32] the administration [1:25:33] from lowering [1:25:34] the number of troops [1:25:35] below 76,000. [1:25:37] And with these latest [1:25:38] troop realignments, [1:25:39] we're getting dangerously [1:25:40] close to that. [1:25:42] Will you commit [1:25:42] to following the law [1:25:43] and sustaining [1:25:44] U.S. troop levels [1:25:45] in Europe [1:25:45] at a minimum [1:25:46] of the statutory required? [1:25:48] And do you understand [1:25:49] how comments [1:25:51] about Spain [1:25:52] not pulling its weight [1:25:53] really don't meet [1:25:55] the reality [1:25:55] that the overwhelming [1:25:57] majority [1:25:57] of our NATO allies, [1:25:59] largely because of [1:26:01] bipartisan [1:26:01] and sustained pressure [1:26:02] on them, [1:26:03] have led them [1:26:03] to significantly step up. [1:26:05] As you just said [1:26:06] a few minutes ago, [1:26:07] they're funding [1:26:08] all of the weaponry [1:26:09] going into Ukraine now. [1:26:11] Can we stop [1:26:12] scaring our NATO allies [1:26:13] and sustain [1:26:14] a regular troop presence [1:26:16] in compliance with law? [1:26:17] So a couple, [1:26:18] you know that on the issue [1:26:19] of troop deployments [1:26:21] and numbers around the world, [1:26:22] that is not a Department [1:26:22] of State function, [1:26:23] that is a Department of War [1:26:24] Yes, but I'm the leading [1:26:25] Democrat on defense [1:26:26] and I got nothing [1:26:27] out of Secretary Hickson. [1:26:28] But I can speak [1:26:30] to a few of these [1:26:30] because of my other role [1:26:31] and I get to see some of this. [1:26:32] I'm not here to testify [1:26:33] to National Security Advisor. [1:26:34] I was told by the lawyers [1:26:35] to say that. [1:26:35] All right. [1:26:36] So, but I can speak to it [1:26:39] because I'm aware of it. [1:26:40] A couple points. [1:26:41] On some of these rotations [1:26:42] that have occurred, [1:26:43] like for example, [1:26:43] the one in Germany, [1:26:44] I know it got a lot of headlines, [1:26:45] but frankly, [1:26:46] the Germans themselves [1:26:47] were not that exercised about it. [1:26:49] They are aware [1:26:49] that all it did [1:26:50] is take us back [1:26:50] to 2022 numbers. [1:26:52] So they knew [1:26:52] this was not a surprise to them. [1:26:54] This was ongoing [1:26:54] and it was planned. [1:26:55] What was a surprise [1:26:56] is that it hit the media [1:26:57] before they had been [1:26:58] informed of it formally, [1:26:59] but they were aware [1:27:00] of that front. [1:27:01] In the case of Poland, [1:27:02] as you rightly pointed out, [1:27:02] there was this short-term [1:27:04] rotational withdrawal, [1:27:05] but the president [1:27:06] wanted to make it clear [1:27:07] that our relations [1:27:07] with Poland are very solid [1:27:08] and therefore made [1:27:09] the announcement [1:27:10] the following day [1:27:11] as I was arriving [1:27:12] at the foreign minister's [1:27:13] meeting of NATO in NATO. [1:27:15] What I will tell you [1:27:16] and I can say, [1:27:16] but I can't speak [1:27:17] with specificity [1:27:18] because it's not our department, [1:27:19] is we are constantly [1:27:21] reevaluating our force posture [1:27:22] all over the world [1:27:23] because just as NATO [1:27:24] wants us to have [1:27:25] X number of troops in Europe, [1:27:27] the Indo-Pacific wants [1:27:28] to make sure [1:27:28] we're not going to leave [1:27:29] South Korea [1:27:30] and we're not going [1:27:30] to leave Japan. [1:27:31] And our partners in Africa [1:27:32] now, for example, [1:27:33] in Nigeria and other places [1:27:34] want to know [1:27:34] that we're committed [1:27:35] to the counterterrorism mission. [1:27:37] And our allies [1:27:37] in the Middle East [1:27:38] want to know [1:27:38] that now we're not going [1:27:39] to leave them [1:27:39] because some base [1:27:40] got hit by a drone. [1:27:41] And in the Western Hemisphere, [1:27:42] we have growing cooperation [1:27:44] and a desire. [1:27:44] So the Pentagon [1:27:46] and the Department of War [1:27:46] have to constantly [1:27:47] take extraordinary, [1:27:49] but still limited resources [1:27:50] and allocate them [1:27:51] around the world. [1:27:52] I can't speak in detail [1:27:53] to those alignments. [1:27:54] What I can tell you [1:27:55] is that everything [1:27:56] we are doing [1:27:57] is none of it [1:27:58] is being done [1:27:58] as a shock [1:27:59] or surprise [1:28:00] to our allies in NATO. [1:28:01] They are informed [1:28:02] every step of the way. [1:28:03] Let me, [1:28:04] I have several other questions [1:28:05] to get to. [1:28:05] I'll simply share with you [1:28:07] that a defense minister [1:28:08] and several senior parliamentarians [1:28:10] from several NATO allies [1:28:11] said to me yesterday [1:28:12] they were stunned [1:28:14] and unaware [1:28:14] of the impending [1:28:15] departure of a unit [1:28:17] in Lithuania [1:28:18] without a follow-on unit [1:28:19] and of the decisions [1:28:20] and announcements [1:28:21] about Poland. [1:28:22] Let's just agree [1:28:23] that NATO's critical [1:28:24] and we're going to work harder [1:28:25] to make sure they understand. [1:28:27] I also want to associate myself [1:28:28] with the comments [1:28:29] about pressure on Russia. [1:28:31] Finally getting to yes [1:28:32] on this sanctions bill [1:28:33] and this is me [1:28:35] and Secretary Hegseth [1:28:36] delivering the interceptors [1:28:38] that Zelenskyy is begging us for [1:28:40] would put that pressure on. [1:28:43] Let me ask you two more things [1:28:44] about Venezuela [1:28:44] and about the global health compacts [1:28:47] and the SIVs [1:28:48] and I'll be quick. [1:28:49] I was encouraged [1:28:50] to hear you say [1:28:51] that we need to make progress [1:28:52] towards elections in Venezuela. [1:28:54] I couldn't agree more. [1:28:55] I recently joined a group [1:28:57] a bipartisan group of senators [1:28:58] in meeting with Maria Machado. [1:29:00] Can you give us any sense [1:29:01] of a concrete timeline [1:29:03] or plan [1:29:03] for when some of the 400 [1:29:05] political prisoners [1:29:06] will be released [1:29:07] for when there will be reforms [1:29:08] to the Supreme Tribunal of Justice [1:29:10] the Electoral Council [1:29:12] and when we can expect elections? [1:29:14] Well all of those are topics [1:29:15] we discuss with Venezuela [1:29:16] every single day. [1:29:17] As you know [1:29:17] and I outlined this [1:29:18] when we and I appeared [1:29:19] before the Foreign Relations Committee [1:29:21] back in February [1:29:21] after that operation [1:29:22] it's a three phase process [1:29:24] stabilization [1:29:25] we didn't want to see civil war [1:29:27] we didn't want to see mass migration [1:29:28] I think that's largely been achieved [1:29:29] there's a little bit more work [1:29:30] to be done there [1:29:31] recovery [1:29:32] and part of that recovery [1:29:33] is building the institutions [1:29:34] that make it possible [1:29:35] to have an election. [1:29:36] It's not just the electoral council [1:29:38] which is critical [1:29:39] but it's not just that [1:29:40] you have to have independent media [1:29:41] that can operate [1:29:42] and while we've seen signs [1:29:43] that that's happening [1:29:44] that needs to be sustained [1:29:45] political parties [1:29:46] and individuals involved in them [1:29:47] to be able to at some point [1:29:48] either to return [1:29:49] or those who are already [1:29:50] in the country [1:29:51] have to be able to organize [1:29:52] they have to be able to open offices [1:29:53] field candidates [1:29:54] start to do all the work [1:29:55] that it takes [1:29:56] to create the conditions [1:29:57] for an election [1:29:58] that's critically important as well [1:29:59] and that one we're following [1:30:01] it's one of the reasons [1:30:01] why these direct flights [1:30:02] into Venezuela [1:30:03] were so important [1:30:04] because now people can go [1:30:05] and interact directly [1:30:06] even if they're not yet [1:30:07] living full time in Venezuela [1:30:08] but we have more work to do [1:30:10] we raise this [1:30:11] I just remind everybody [1:30:12] this only [1:30:13] Maduro was [1:30:14] was grabbed five months ago [1:30:16] not five years ago [1:30:17] we've come a long way [1:30:18] in five months [1:30:19] Mr. Secretary [1:30:19] I know you are passionate [1:30:21] about democracy [1:30:22] I just hope that we will move [1:30:24] past this current interim period [1:30:26] and towards democracy [1:30:27] and free and fair elections [1:30:29] and achieve the possibilities [1:30:30] of Venezuela [1:30:31] and not leave the unfortunate image [1:30:34] of putting extraction [1:30:35] and oil and gold [1:30:37] and emeralds first [1:30:38] and the people of Venezuela second [1:30:40] and I'd love to work with you [1:30:41] on that [1:30:41] two other points quickly [1:30:43] the 32 global health compacts [1:30:45] that you referenced [1:30:46] we have no implementation plans [1:30:48] and seeing the details [1:30:50] of how they're being implemented [1:30:51] would be very helpful [1:30:52] as you know [1:30:53] I've long been close [1:30:54] to the Kenyan government [1:30:55] and the Kenyan people [1:30:55] we're asking them [1:30:57] to take on Ebola treatment [1:30:58] which is getting a very rough reception [1:31:00] there's also real tension [1:31:02] in some of the data details [1:31:04] around these health impacts [1:31:05] and there is evidence [1:31:07] there's data from state [1:31:09] that there's less treatment [1:31:11] less testing [1:31:12] and less prevention [1:31:13] overall [1:31:14] and I need to better understand [1:31:16] the role of the CDC [1:31:17] and how these health compacts [1:31:19] are going to actually achieve [1:31:20] your laudable goal [1:31:22] of more aid [1:31:23] to more people faster [1:31:24] can we work on these details? [1:31:26] yeah of course [1:31:27] but on the implementation [1:31:28] remember you reach a compact [1:31:29] and now the implementation [1:31:30] is part of the compact [1:31:31] you have to work on that [1:31:32] in collaboration [1:31:33] with the host government [1:31:35] right [1:31:35] so as those plans [1:31:36] become available [1:31:37] as those plans become finalized [1:31:38] you'll have insight [1:31:39] into those [1:31:39] you'll be able to see that [1:31:40] in the case [1:31:41] just to correct one point [1:31:42] we're not actually [1:31:43] in Kenya [1:31:44] to set up treatment [1:31:45] for Americans [1:31:45] I think the one [1:31:46] that's been very controversial [1:31:47] is a misunderstanding [1:31:48] there is a facility [1:31:49] that the Kenyans [1:31:50] are allowing us to open [1:31:51] if there are any Americans [1:31:52] that are exposed [1:31:53] potentially exposed [1:31:55] they will be transferred [1:31:56] to this facility [1:31:57] for observation [1:31:58] if they test positive [1:31:59] at any time [1:32:00] while in that facility [1:32:00] we will remove them [1:32:01] from Kenya [1:32:02] and send them [1:32:03] to the nearest treatment facility [1:32:04] either in Europe [1:32:05] or in the United States [1:32:07] to be treated for Ebola [1:32:08] but what's been controversial [1:32:10] is no one wants to see [1:32:11] that people are coming [1:32:12] into their country [1:32:13] there's never been a case [1:32:13] of Ebola in Kenya [1:32:14] they don't have the domestic [1:32:16] capacity to deal with it [1:32:17] and there is alarm [1:32:18] that I would love to work [1:32:19] with you on to address [1:32:20] I'll follow up with you [1:32:21] about your offer yesterday [1:32:22] to work on SIVs [1:32:24] we have thousands still [1:32:25] stuck in Pakistan [1:32:26] who were cleared [1:32:27] who have chief of mission [1:32:28] clearance [1:32:29] and you have the ability [1:32:30] under the EO [1:32:31] in partnership [1:32:32] with the Homeland Security [1:32:35] Secretary [1:32:35] to allow those [1:32:37] who were vetted [1:32:37] to come to the United States [1:32:39] on a case-by-case basis [1:32:40] on a case-by-case basis [1:32:41] and I urge you [1:32:42] to use that [1:32:42] to get folks [1:32:43] out of Afghanistan [1:32:44] and Pakistan [1:32:45] as well as Qatar [1:32:46] to save countries [1:32:47] including the United States [1:32:48] thank you Mr. Secretary [1:32:50] thank you Mr. Chairman [1:32:52] Secretary Rubio [1:32:53] appreciate you being here [1:32:55] it's always good [1:32:55] to have you back [1:32:56] in this chamber [1:32:57] and thank you [1:32:57] for the job [1:32:58] that you're doing [1:32:58] for our country [1:32:59] and it's good [1:33:01] to see you [1:33:02] on the world stage [1:33:03] I want to begin [1:33:04] by thanking [1:33:06] the brave service members [1:33:07] of the U.S. military [1:33:08] who participated [1:33:09] in the recent operations [1:33:11] in Iran [1:33:12] I want to honor [1:33:13] the memory [1:33:13] of the 13 service members [1:33:15] who lost their life [1:33:16] including three Alabamians [1:33:18] Major Alex Kleiner [1:33:21] Major Ariana Savino [1:33:23] and Technical Sergeant [1:33:25] Ashley Pruitt [1:33:26] I know that all of Alabama [1:33:28] in our country [1:33:28] stands with me [1:33:29] to honor their bravery [1:33:30] and their ultimate sacrifice [1:33:32] during the Operation Epic Fury [1:33:35] the United States [1:33:36] carried out [1:33:37] a coordinated campaign [1:33:39] of unprecedented scale [1:33:40] and success [1:33:41] prior to those operations [1:33:43] we know that Iran [1:33:44] refused to meaningfully [1:33:46] come to the table [1:33:47] with regards to [1:33:47] negotiations [1:33:48] with their nuclear enrichment [1:33:50] their terrorist proxies [1:33:53] and their missile capabilities [1:33:55] I am immensely grateful [1:33:57] to President Trump [1:33:58] for finally doing something [1:33:59] about that 47 years [1:34:01] of terror needed to come [1:34:03] to an end [1:34:04] and because of his [1:34:05] decisive actions [1:34:06] we have an opportunity [1:34:07] to actually see that achieved [1:34:09] I believe that because [1:34:11] of these actions [1:34:12] we are in a stronger [1:34:13] negotiating posture [1:34:14] in this moment in time [1:34:16] but I believe that [1:34:17] any agreement [1:34:18] that we come to [1:34:19] needs to have [1:34:21] very clear red lines [1:34:23] when it comes to [1:34:23] nuclear enrichment [1:34:24] when it comes to [1:34:25] capabilities and weaponization [1:34:27] and also Iran's network [1:34:29] of terrorist proxies [1:34:31] can you talk to me [1:34:32] about how this administration's [1:34:34] maximum pressure strategy [1:34:36] and approach [1:34:36] towards Iran [1:34:37] has actually weakened Iran [1:34:39] and its terrorist proxies [1:34:41] and ultimately made [1:34:42] the United States [1:34:43] more safe and secure [1:34:44] I would start with [1:34:45] what the purpose [1:34:46] of Epic Fury was [1:34:47] and that is to deny them [1:34:48] the conventional shield [1:34:49] of missiles and drones [1:34:50] and naval vessels [1:34:51] and air defenses [1:34:53] that would have allowed them [1:34:54] to act with impunity [1:34:54] including on a nuclear weapon [1:34:56] but beyond that [1:34:56] and today Iran [1:34:58] has no navy [1:34:59] it has no air force [1:35:00] its air defenses [1:35:01] are severely degraded [1:35:02] which gives us freedom [1:35:03] of operation in the future [1:35:04] if that contingency arises [1:35:06] they've lost a substantial [1:35:08] percentage of their missile [1:35:09] launchers [1:35:10] not just of their missiles [1:35:11] but of their missile launchers [1:35:12] and most importantly [1:35:13] they've lost a substantial [1:35:14] percentage of their [1:35:15] defense industrial base [1:35:16] they also don't have [1:35:17] the money to rebuild [1:35:18] that industrial base [1:35:19] rapidly because [1:35:21] they don't have the funds [1:35:22] because they're being [1:35:23] denied those funds [1:35:24] through a combination [1:35:24] of three things [1:35:25] sanctions [1:35:25] enforcement of those sanctions [1:35:27] we are enforcing sanctions [1:35:28] we had a bunch of sanctions [1:35:29] on the book [1:35:30] some of which were not [1:35:30] being enforced [1:35:31] in fact for the first time [1:35:33] that I can recall [1:35:34] the U.S. has actually [1:35:35] seized Iranian oil vessels [1:35:36] in the Indo-Pacific [1:35:37] five or six of them [1:35:38] and denied them the revenue [1:35:40] from those vessels [1:35:41] although they have many more [1:35:41] that are still out there [1:35:42] now where we stand today [1:35:44] unfortunately is [1:35:45] they have decided [1:35:46] to mine the Straits of Hormuz [1:35:47] and shoot drones [1:35:48] at ships that move [1:35:49] without their permission [1:35:49] or paying a toll [1:35:50] the only ships [1:35:52] they will allow [1:35:53] to move through freely [1:35:54] are their ships [1:35:55] there is no way [1:35:55] that they are going [1:35:56] to illegally [1:35:57] unlawfully [1:35:57] try to close the Straits [1:36:00] of Hormuz [1:36:00] the way they are doing [1:36:01] and not pay a price for it [1:36:02] there's no way [1:36:03] that they can benefit [1:36:04] from oil sales [1:36:04] but nobody else can [1:36:05] so we imposed [1:36:06] as a countermeasure [1:36:07] a blockade against [1:36:08] those ships [1:36:09] and that is the only thing [1:36:09] we are blockading [1:36:10] you have seen [1:36:11] over the last few nights [1:36:12] kinetic action occurring [1:36:14] and I will describe [1:36:14] what those largely entail [1:36:15] that is some commercial ship [1:36:17] that didn't pay a toll [1:36:18] and starts to move [1:36:19] that ship comes under attack [1:36:20] by a drone [1:36:21] we shoot down the drone [1:36:22] in some cases [1:36:23] not only do we shoot down [1:36:24] the drone [1:36:25] but we hit the launcher [1:36:26] of the drone [1:36:27] so they can't hit the ship [1:36:28] a second time [1:36:28] the Iranians then respond [1:36:30] by launching two missiles [1:36:32] or three at some base [1:36:33] in the region [1:36:34] as their response [1:36:35] and that's what you've seen [1:36:36] play out three of the last [1:36:37] four nights [1:36:38] with regards to this [1:36:39] now where we'd like to get to [1:36:41] is where they agree [1:36:42] they're going to open [1:36:42] the Straits like they were [1:36:43] supposed to [1:36:43] when the ceasefire [1:36:44] was agreed to [1:36:45] we would lift a blockade [1:36:47] and they would agree [1:36:48] as part of all of this [1:36:49] that they are prepared [1:36:50] to sit down [1:36:51] and negotiate an agreement [1:36:52] that disposes of the [1:36:54] highly enriched uranium [1:36:55] that limits [1:36:56] and or prohibits [1:36:57] their enrichment program [1:36:59] and in return [1:37:00] they would be able [1:37:02] to have some [1:37:03] not all [1:37:03] but some [1:37:04] of the sanctions [1:37:05] that they are facing [1:37:06] for their nuclear program [1:37:08] potentially waived or reduced [1:37:09] but that would be only [1:37:10] depending on what they give [1:37:11] they have to give [1:37:12] and of course [1:37:12] these things all have [1:37:13] to be verifiable [1:37:14] the highly enriched uranium [1:37:15] you can verify [1:37:16] because when it's removed [1:37:16] it's removed [1:37:17] the enrichment monitoring [1:37:19] is the one [1:37:19] that's going to be critical [1:37:20] for any deal [1:37:21] to be successful [1:37:21] but they are weakened [1:37:23] in the sense of [1:37:23] they're losing [1:37:24] three to four hundred million [1:37:25] dollars a day in revenue [1:37:26] they have hyperinflation [1:37:27] their currency is worthless [1:37:28] they're struggling [1:37:29] to meet payroll [1:37:30] in their own services [1:37:31] in the country [1:37:32] and their regime [1:37:33] is badly fractured [1:37:34] internally [1:37:34] to the point [1:37:34] where it takes [1:37:35] seven to ten days [1:37:36] to get an answer [1:37:37] to a proposal [1:37:37] and I think that is excellent [1:37:39] when we're talking [1:37:40] about an interim agreement [1:37:41] though [1:37:41] if we look at relieving [1:37:43] any kind of financial pressure [1:37:45] that they're under [1:37:46] how are we [1:37:47] number one [1:37:47] are we looking at that [1:37:48] or we're going to keep it [1:37:48] the way it is [1:37:49] and if so [1:37:50] can we ensure [1:37:50] that it's not going to go [1:37:51] to missiles or capability [1:37:52] or terrorism [1:37:53] what's been offered [1:37:54] to them [1:37:54] there's no down payment [1:37:55] or bonus [1:37:55] for entering into negotiations [1:37:57] what's been offered [1:37:58] to them is [1:37:58] everything that they ask for [1:38:00] will be commensurate [1:38:01] to what they're willing [1:38:01] to give [1:38:02] as part of the broader [1:38:03] negotiation for a deal [1:38:05] it is not part [1:38:06] the only thing they get [1:38:07] for opening the straits [1:38:08] is the lifting of our blockade [1:38:09] and then when you talked [1:38:10] about uranium [1:38:11] and enriched uranium [1:38:12] are we talking about [1:38:13] removal of [1:38:14] all forms of uranium [1:38:16] or just enriched uranium [1:38:18] what we're focused on [1:38:18] I think most people [1:38:19] are focused on [1:38:20] is the highly enriched uranium [1:38:21] which is anything that is [1:38:22] like the 60% for example [1:38:24] that we know they still possess [1:38:26] that can quickly be turned [1:38:28] into 90% [1:38:28] that's the term [1:38:30] highly enriched uranium [1:38:31] there's some 20% enriched [1:38:32] as well [1:38:33] but the bulk of what [1:38:35] the world is concerned about [1:38:36] is the 60% [1:38:37] speaking of the maximum [1:38:39] pressure strategy [1:38:40] you recently announced [1:38:42] new sanctions [1:38:42] as you discussed earlier [1:38:43] on Cuba's military [1:38:45] industrial enterprise [1:38:46] and its leaders [1:38:47] and its state-owned [1:38:48] natural resource companies [1:38:50] Cuba's communist regime [1:38:52] has been a long-time threat [1:38:54] to our entire hemisphere [1:38:55] a destabilizing force [1:38:57] as you put it earlier [1:38:58] in your remarks [1:38:59] public reporting states [1:39:00] that Cuba has purchased [1:39:02] attack drones from Russia [1:39:03] and from China [1:39:04] and also host intelligence officers [1:39:07] from Iran, China and Russia [1:39:10] I appreciate President Trump's [1:39:12] decisive actions [1:39:13] with regards to protecting [1:39:14] US national security [1:39:16] and these sanctions [1:39:16] and your continued efforts [1:39:18] to address the threats [1:39:19] that are posed by China [1:39:20] can you speak briefly [1:39:23] as to why this maximum pressure [1:39:25] campaign is so important [1:39:27] and how it can ultimately [1:39:28] provide for a new Cuba [1:39:30] one that provides freedom [1:39:32] and prosperity [1:39:33] both to the people of Cuba [1:39:34] and a safer hemisphere [1:39:36] well what's unique [1:39:36] about these sanctions [1:39:37] that they're against [1:39:38] a conglomerate [1:39:39] that generates revenue [1:39:40] in Cuba [1:39:41] and none of it [1:39:42] not a single penny of it [1:39:43] goes to benefit [1:39:43] the Cuban people [1:39:44] none of it [1:39:45] because it's not part [1:39:45] of the treasury [1:39:46] for example [1:39:46] the government of Cuba [1:39:47] cannot go and audit [1:39:49] where Gaisa is spending [1:39:50] its money [1:39:51] or how much money [1:39:51] they've made [1:39:52] it is almost a government [1:39:53] within a government [1:39:53] a state within a state [1:39:54] and that's what we are targeting [1:39:56] because instead of that [1:39:57] going to this conglomerate [1:39:58] that's what the Cuban people [1:39:59] should be allowed to do [1:40:00] they should be allowed [1:40:01] to own their small [1:40:02] independent businesses [1:40:03] they should be allowed [1:40:04] to be in business [1:40:04] in that regard [1:40:05] and not allow this state [1:40:06] within a state [1:40:07] to continue to empower itself [1:40:08] at their expense [1:40:09] this is a country [1:40:10] that literally [1:40:11] you know [1:40:12] doesn't invest [1:40:14] in their own energy plants [1:40:16] and never has [1:40:16] meanwhile they're sitting [1:40:17] on 18 billion dollars [1:40:18] in this conglomerate [1:40:20] of assets [1:40:21] that they should be using [1:40:22] to benefit the Cuban people [1:40:23] and they are not [1:40:24] so those sanctions [1:40:25] are targeted [1:40:25] at this conglomerate [1:40:26] excellent [1:40:27] thank you so much [1:40:28] and thank you Mr. Chairman [1:40:29] oh thank you very much [1:40:34] Mr. Chairman [1:40:35] Mr. Secretary [1:40:36] good to see you [1:40:36] two days in a row [1:40:38] how about tomorrow [1:40:39] we'll make it three [1:40:40] no you guys [1:40:41] I'm almost losing my voice [1:40:45] after I did four hours [1:40:46] in the house [1:40:46] yesterday we were talking [1:40:48] about Taiwan [1:40:49] and you stressed [1:40:50] there was no change [1:40:51] in policy [1:40:52] and I think [1:40:53] I can characterize [1:40:54] but I want to check [1:40:56] that we're [1:40:56] the administration [1:40:57] is 100% supportive [1:40:59] of Taiwan's [1:40:59] Democratic Republic [1:41:00] and of their expanded [1:41:02] participation [1:41:03] in international organizations [1:41:04] yeah and we've actually [1:41:07] advocated for them [1:41:07] to have a seat [1:41:08] at different forums [1:41:09] in which they've been [1:41:10] denied in the past [1:41:11] sometimes to some success [1:41:12] sometimes to not success [1:41:13] thank you [1:41:13] I really want to emphasize [1:41:14] that message [1:41:15] to those who are [1:41:17] fighting for [1:41:18] to sustain their republic [1:41:19] in Taiwan [1:41:20] I was listening to the tale [1:41:21] of the two blockades [1:41:23] the deal now [1:41:24] on the first stage [1:41:25] is they lift their blockade [1:41:27] we lift our blockade [1:41:28] and that takes us [1:41:29] kind of back [1:41:30] to the status quo [1:41:31] and then we engage [1:41:31] in these other issues [1:41:32] but I believe [1:41:33] what I've heard you [1:41:35] or others say [1:41:35] is that Iran is saying [1:41:36] hey that's not enough [1:41:38] for us [1:41:38] we want you to lift [1:41:39] some of the sanctions [1:41:40] that we're under [1:41:41] we want to unfreeze [1:41:43] some of the funds [1:41:44] that have been frozen [1:41:45] by the United States [1:41:46] and I've also heard [1:41:47] on the United States side [1:41:48] that we want [1:41:50] to make sure [1:41:52] that they end [1:41:52] their support [1:41:53] for proxies [1:41:53] which of course [1:41:54] we all want to see [1:41:55] but is that part of [1:41:56] are there things [1:41:57] other than [1:41:58] freeing up [1:41:59] the Strait of Hormuz [1:42:00] that are our requirements [1:42:03] for lifting our blockade [1:42:04] of their ports [1:42:04] no so [1:42:05] the only reason [1:42:06] there is a blockade [1:42:07] is because of what [1:42:08] they've done [1:42:08] in the straits [1:42:09] right [1:42:09] the fact that [1:42:10] they are telling [1:42:11] the whole world [1:42:11] we will not let [1:42:12] your ships through [1:42:13] unless you pay us a toll [1:42:14] and we can never [1:42:14] accept that [1:42:15] we can never accept [1:42:16] the tolling system [1:42:17] in the straits [1:42:18] if we accept that [1:42:19] in the straits [1:42:19] it will be replicated [1:42:20] in multiple places [1:42:22] around the world [1:42:22] it'll become a new [1:42:23] status quo [1:42:23] everyone will want [1:42:24] to do one [1:42:24] so but the only reason [1:42:26] there's a blockade [1:42:27] is because [1:42:27] they have [1:42:28] they've mined the straits [1:42:29] and are shooting drones [1:42:30] at ships [1:42:31] so they need to stop [1:42:32] doing that [1:42:33] they need to cooperate [1:42:33] with the removal [1:42:34] of the mines [1:42:35] and if they do that [1:42:35] then the straits [1:42:36] then the blockade [1:42:37] comes off [1:42:38] going on to the second [1:42:38] part about the [1:42:39] the nuclear materials [1:42:40] in the end [1:42:42] I picture that [1:42:44] they're going to agree [1:42:44] not to enrich [1:42:45] for a period of time [1:42:46] they're going to agree [1:42:46] to enrich to very low levels [1:42:48] after that [1:42:48] sufficient for medical [1:42:50] research or so forth [1:42:51] they're going to put [1:42:52] their [1:42:52] more highly [1:42:54] enriched uranium [1:42:55] in some custody [1:42:57] that we can verify [1:42:58] and that starts [1:43:00] to look a whole lot [1:43:01] like the JCPOA [1:43:03] what's different [1:43:04] about what you're [1:43:05] trying to achieve [1:43:06] or the U.S. is trying [1:43:07] to achieve [1:43:07] in terms of the nuclear [1:43:08] materials [1:43:09] well two things [1:43:10] first of all [1:43:10] that is not our position [1:43:11] that they get to enrich [1:43:12] for some period of time [1:43:13] or get to enrich [1:43:14] you know at a certain level [1:43:15] that certainly may be [1:43:16] what their position [1:43:17] they'll argue for [1:43:17] but that's not our position [1:43:18] our position is [1:43:19] if what they want [1:43:20] is a civil nuclear program [1:43:21] they can have it [1:43:22] without enrichment [1:43:22] and they can certainly [1:43:23] have it without enrichment [1:43:24] buried deep in a mountain [1:43:25] somewhere [1:43:26] I mean if this was [1:43:27] civil nuclear [1:43:27] why do you need to bury [1:43:29] it in a mountain [1:43:29] so that's our position [1:43:31] that's the position [1:43:32] we stated at the outset [1:43:33] and I think one of the [1:43:34] main differences [1:43:35] is JCPOA [1:43:36] and actually the limitations [1:43:37] on the enrichment [1:43:37] to 3.67 [1:43:38] would have been expiring [1:43:40] this year [1:43:40] JCPOA would have been [1:43:42] expiring right now [1:43:43] we're not interested [1:43:44] in something that expires [1:43:45] in five or six years [1:43:46] we want it to be [1:43:47] a long term [1:43:47] and permanent prohibition [1:43:48] because they don't need [1:43:49] to enrich [1:43:50] and of course [1:43:51] the other big difference [1:43:51] is the removal [1:43:52] of the highly enriched uranium [1:43:53] which was a factor [1:43:54] that we think [1:43:55] is critical in all this [1:43:56] so I know you said [1:43:59] permanent [1:44:01] but I've also heard [1:44:02] the US is looking [1:44:03] for a couple decades [1:44:04] yeah look again [1:44:06] that's going to be [1:44:07] part of the negotiation [1:44:07] but let me just say [1:44:08] I'm just putting [1:44:09] a number out there [1:44:10] okay [1:44:10] I'm not saying [1:44:10] that this is where [1:44:11] the deal is going to land [1:44:12] or that they've agreed [1:44:12] to this [1:44:13] but if we could get [1:44:14] 20 years of zero [1:44:15] enrichment [1:44:15] that's substantially better [1:44:16] than JCPOA was [1:44:18] and the world [1:44:19] continues to [1:44:20] we'll negotiate [1:44:21] in the future [1:44:21] I take that [1:44:22] okay [1:44:22] I want to switch [1:44:23] to some concerns [1:44:25] about the vision [1:44:28] that Bibi Netanyahu [1:44:29] has been expressing [1:44:31] support for [1:44:32] of a greater Israel [1:44:34] in an August 25 interview [1:44:38] he said he is [1:44:40] on a quote [1:44:41] historic and spiritual mission [1:44:43] unquote [1:44:44] and is quote [1:44:45] very unquote [1:44:46] attached to the vision [1:44:49] of greater Israel [1:44:50] and when gifted [1:44:51] an amulet [1:44:51] described as [1:44:52] a map of the promised land [1:44:53] and asked if he connected [1:44:54] to the vision [1:44:55] of greater Israel [1:44:55] he replied [1:44:56] very much [1:44:57] meanwhile he has [1:44:59] finance minister [1:45:00] Smotrich [1:45:00] who says [1:45:02] there will be [1:45:03] expansion in Gaza [1:45:04] that will extend [1:45:04] our borders [1:45:05] in Lebanon [1:45:06] to the Latani [1:45:07] in Syria [1:45:08] Mount Hermon [1:45:09] parts of the north [1:45:11] south [1:45:11] and east [1:45:12] this vision [1:45:14] of Bibi Netanyahu [1:45:16] driving [1:45:17] and a vision [1:45:18] of greater Israel [1:45:19] is that a position [1:45:21] that our State Department [1:45:22] supports [1:45:23] apart from just the state [1:45:25] though [1:45:25] I would just say [1:45:25] the administration [1:45:26] that what you've just described [1:45:27] and again I'm just going off [1:45:28] your words [1:45:29] is not the policy [1:45:30] of the United States [1:45:30] we have advocated repeatedly [1:45:32] and made very clear [1:45:33] that we want the status quo [1:45:35] meaning [1:45:35] that there not be [1:45:36] additional actions [1:45:37] taken in the West Bank [1:45:38] that can destabilize [1:45:39] the broader situation [1:45:40] Israel has actually [1:45:41] acknowledged [1:45:41] that they have no territorial claims [1:45:43] in Lebanon [1:45:44] they're prepared to do so [1:45:45] I hope in writing [1:45:45] as early as today [1:45:46] but they've repeatedly stated that [1:45:48] we've also been very involved [1:45:49] with them in Syria [1:45:50] and in southern Syria [1:45:51] where they argue [1:45:52] that they need to establish [1:45:53] a security corridor [1:45:54] because they're afraid [1:45:55] that that will be used [1:45:56] by Iranian elements [1:45:57] to target them [1:45:58] and that's why we've gotten involved [1:45:59] with the Syrian authorities [1:46:00] to find a solution there [1:46:02] where the Israelis [1:46:03] don't have to fear that [1:46:04] from existing [1:46:04] and in the case of Gaza [1:46:06] the 20 point plan [1:46:07] that governs [1:46:07] and ceases fire [1:46:08] is pretty clear [1:46:09] and that is that [1:46:09] Gaza is to be governed [1:46:10] by an autocratic entity [1:46:12] that's being formed [1:46:13] as we speak [1:46:14] that has police officers [1:46:16] that we're trying to train now [1:46:17] and an international [1:46:17] stabilization force [1:46:19] that creates the conditions [1:46:20] for investment [1:46:21] so that you can actually [1:46:22] build an economy there [1:46:22] and people don't have [1:46:23] to live in rubble [1:46:24] the way they do now [1:46:25] in many cases [1:46:25] that's our policy [1:46:26] that's what we're pursuing [1:46:27] I can't speak to the statements [1:46:29] people are making [1:46:29] internally in their politics [1:46:31] let me ask a little bit [1:46:32] specifically about the West Bank [1:46:33] we have seen [1:46:35] that settlers have been [1:46:36] very aggressive [1:46:37] in trying to separate [1:46:38] Palestinian villagers [1:46:39] from the source of water [1:46:40] from their orchards [1:46:43] their vineyards [1:46:44] often the Israeli defense force [1:46:49] has been more protective [1:46:52] of the settlers aggression [1:46:53] than restraining [1:46:54] and when I talked [1:46:56] with Bibi Netanyahu [1:46:58] a couple years ago [1:46:59] he said [1:47:00] our strategy is enclaves [1:47:02] Palestinians put into enclaves [1:47:05] are we exercising [1:47:07] our influence [1:47:08] to try to discourage [1:47:09] the aggressive [1:47:10] settler action [1:47:12] against Palestinian villages [1:47:13] well we've raised it repeatedly [1:47:14] and in fact [1:47:15] I've told them [1:47:16] that this is an impediment [1:47:17] as I said [1:47:17] to some of the other things [1:47:18] we're trying to work on [1:47:19] which we believe [1:47:19] are in Israel's interest [1:47:20] and in fact [1:47:21] and to somewhat [1:47:22] to their [1:47:22] I mean I would say [1:47:23] a little bit to their credit [1:47:23] they have stood up [1:47:24] special units [1:47:25] of some of their forces [1:47:26] to take on [1:47:27] some of these elements [1:47:28] that include [1:47:28] everything from settlers [1:47:29] but it also includes [1:47:30] for example [1:47:30] some gangs [1:47:31] that come over [1:47:32] from Tel Aviv [1:47:32] of youngsters [1:47:33] that carry out [1:47:34] some of these acts [1:47:35] of violence [1:47:35] and this needs to be addressed [1:47:37] these images are negative [1:47:38] they're not positive [1:47:39] and it's already [1:47:40] a tinderbox over there [1:47:41] the last thing we need [1:47:42] is to throw one more match [1:47:43] into that fire [1:47:44] and that's the point [1:47:44] we've made to them [1:47:45] repeatedly on the West Bank [1:47:46] I appreciate you making [1:47:47] that point [1:47:47] and I encourage us [1:47:49] to press that very hard [1:47:51] because it's a very [1:47:52] unjust situation [1:47:53] and then I wanted to [1:47:55] ask for you to press [1:47:56] for reporters [1:47:57] to be allowed into Gaza [1:47:59] I think the lack [1:48:00] of any storm [1:48:01] of transparency [1:48:03] makes it difficult [1:48:04] for the world [1:48:05] to see what's going on [1:48:06] either to support [1:48:07] anyone's arguments [1:48:08] about the conditions [1:48:09] the international agencies [1:48:12] report [1:48:13] that it remains [1:48:14] a challenge [1:48:15] on nutrition [1:48:15] it remains a challenge [1:48:16] on medicine [1:48:18] and hospital capability [1:48:20] and I think [1:48:22] that it would [1:48:22] be very helpful [1:48:24] to actually have [1:48:26] some transparency [1:48:27] in Gaza [1:48:28] is that something [1:48:29] you might be able [1:48:30] to add? [1:48:30] I'll take that back [1:48:31] obviously [1:48:31] I'm not [1:48:31] to be frank [1:48:32] I'm not exactly [1:48:33] aware of how many [1:48:34] journalists are operating [1:48:35] inside [1:48:35] I have seen news reports [1:48:36] from different outlets [1:48:37] that are from inside [1:48:38] of Gaza [1:48:38] but I don't know [1:48:39] how many have not [1:48:40] been allowed in [1:48:41] I think virtually [1:48:42] no international reporters [1:48:43] have been allowed in [1:48:44] and many of the [1:48:45] Palestinian reporters [1:48:46] have been killed [1:48:48] so there's been [1:48:49] you know [1:48:50] people getting on [1:48:51] their cell phones [1:48:52] and taking videos [1:48:53] and sharing that [1:48:54] as a source of information [1:48:55] but I think [1:48:57] it's important [1:48:57] to have credible [1:48:58] international journalists [1:48:59] present [1:49:00] understood [1:49:01] I'll check back [1:49:02] on the numbers [1:49:02] of who's actually [1:49:03] been allowed [1:49:03] or who's actually [1:49:04] operating inside now [1:49:05] thank you very much [1:49:08] Mr. Chairman [1:49:09] Secretary Rubio [1:49:10] thank you for your service [1:49:11] both at the state [1:49:12] and federal level [1:49:13] and I want to [1:49:15] you know [1:49:16] as I'm out traveling [1:49:17] Ohio [1:49:17] I talk to people [1:49:19] they mention [1:49:21] high fuel prices [1:49:22] but they also mentioned [1:49:23] they don't want Iran [1:49:24] to have a nuclear weapon [1:49:25] sounds pretty similar [1:49:26] to what you've articulated [1:49:27] what the president's [1:49:29] articulated as a goal [1:49:30] for ending the conflict [1:49:32] with Iran [1:49:32] the question is [1:49:34] those actors [1:49:38] on the other side [1:49:39] who are we negotiating with [1:49:40] and do you believe [1:49:41] that they are negotiating [1:49:42] in good faith [1:49:42] I wouldn't use the term [1:49:44] good faith [1:49:44] I think let's just [1:49:45] leave that aside [1:49:46] for a second [1:49:46] when it comes to [1:49:47] the Iranian regime [1:49:48] because of our long history [1:49:49] with them [1:49:50] and everything they've done [1:49:50] during that time [1:49:51] here's the best way [1:49:52] I would describe it [1:49:53] there are the people [1:49:53] you see on television [1:49:54] like their foreign minister [1:49:56] Arachi [1:49:57] the [1:49:58] Goluboff [1:49:58] who's the speaker [1:49:59] of the Magils there [1:50:01] and a couple other folks [1:50:02] and these are the ones [1:50:03] that are out there [1:50:03] not just doing TV interviews [1:50:04] but going to the negotiations [1:50:06] they are not decision makers [1:50:07] they are implementers [1:50:08] any offers they make us [1:50:10] or any offers they take back [1:50:11] in any sort of talks [1:50:12] have to be run through [1:50:13] some system internally [1:50:15] that ultimately relies [1:50:16] on the sign off [1:50:17] of the supreme leader [1:50:18] but a council [1:50:19] that surrounds him [1:50:19] and one of the impediments [1:50:21] and why you see this [1:50:22] is taking the time [1:50:23] that it's taken [1:50:23] is every time we communicate [1:50:25] to them [1:50:25] let's say a counter offer [1:50:27] or change in language [1:50:28] on some of the documents [1:50:29] that have been worked on [1:50:29] it can take anywhere [1:50:31] from 4 to 7 to 10 days [1:50:32] to get a response [1:50:33] because they have to work [1:50:34] it through the intricacies [1:50:35] of their system [1:50:36] and I think that's one [1:50:37] of the things [1:50:37] that has not been talked [1:50:38] about enough [1:50:39] is that in the aftermath [1:50:41] of Epic Fury [1:50:42] one of the things [1:50:42] that has happened [1:50:43] is that their system [1:50:44] internally has been fractured [1:50:46] you have a supreme leader [1:50:46] that still hasn't been seen [1:50:47] publicly [1:50:48] who communicates [1:50:49] only still through [1:50:50] written communications [1:50:51] that are released [1:50:52] through the Iranian system [1:50:54] and by the way [1:50:55] you've also seen reflections [1:50:56] of the official [1:50:58] Iranian media outlets [1:51:00] putting out [1:51:01] contradictory statements [1:51:02] to what ultimately [1:51:03] either we know [1:51:03] the regime is doing [1:51:04] or the regime is agreed to [1:51:06] or the regime is saying [1:51:06] somewhere else [1:51:07] so that's proven [1:51:09] to be a challenge [1:51:10] but ultimately [1:51:11] in the system [1:51:12] that they have [1:51:13] any decisions [1:51:14] to agree to anything [1:51:15] or even agree [1:51:16] to enter negotiations [1:51:17] would need to be approved [1:51:18] by the supreme leader [1:51:19] and the counsel [1:51:20] that surrounds him [1:51:21] and I think the impediment [1:51:22] in time has been [1:51:23] how long it takes [1:51:23] for these individuals [1:51:24] that are the negotiators [1:51:25] to communicate with them [1:51:27] and get sign off [1:51:28] okay thank you [1:51:30] and we have security partners [1:51:32] in the Middle East [1:51:34] who've been attacked [1:51:34] by Iran [1:51:35] and it's easier [1:51:37] for people to be critics [1:51:38] of approaches [1:51:39] to policy and negotiations [1:51:41] are any of our security partners [1:51:44] suggesting a different approach [1:51:45] than what is currently [1:51:47] being undertaken [1:51:47] no by and large [1:51:48] we have found [1:51:49] you know support [1:51:50] and I say by and large [1:51:51] in unanimity [1:51:51] I think every one [1:51:52] of the countries [1:51:53] if you were to poll them [1:51:54] would say [1:51:54] there's a chance [1:51:55] to get the straits open [1:51:56] by lifting the blockade [1:51:57] and enter into a serious [1:51:59] constrained [1:52:00] meaning well defined [1:52:01] ahead of time [1:52:01] negotiation [1:52:02] on the highly enriched uranium [1:52:04] and enrichment [1:52:05] I think they would [1:52:06] that's an outcome [1:52:07] they would like to see [1:52:08] and have encouraged us [1:52:09] to pursue [1:52:09] they understand our red lines [1:52:10] of course [1:52:11] and we're not going to get [1:52:11] involved in negotiations [1:52:12] that aren't going to be fruitful [1:52:13] and we're certainly not going [1:52:15] to sign on to a bad deal [1:52:16] but generally they've been [1:52:17] supportive of the efforts [1:52:18] we've been undertaking [1:52:18] great thank you [1:52:20] I want to shift to something [1:52:22] that I feel very passionate about [1:52:24] and that is [1:52:25] doing more made in America [1:52:27] a domestic supply chain [1:52:30] for our critical minerals [1:52:33] for the things [1:52:34] that are essential [1:52:34] for our economic [1:52:35] and national security [1:52:36] and whether that's [1:52:39] pharmaceuticals [1:52:40] bullets [1:52:40] bombs [1:52:41] you know [1:52:41] batteries I should say [1:52:43] military equipment [1:52:44] chips [1:52:44] other technology [1:52:45] and having that [1:52:48] secure domestic supply chain [1:52:50] seems to me [1:52:51] to be [1:52:52] pretty important [1:52:53] not just for our [1:52:54] national security [1:52:55] and economic security [1:52:56] but also for our [1:52:57] strength in negotiating [1:52:58] with foreign nations [1:53:00] if we had [1:53:02] a secure [1:53:03] domestic supply chain [1:53:04] for the things [1:53:05] that were essential [1:53:06] for that economic [1:53:06] and national security [1:53:07] how much different [1:53:09] would the conversation [1:53:09] have been with China [1:53:11] regarding Taiwan [1:53:12] not just us [1:53:13] the whole world [1:53:13] I mean we have [1:53:14] a very different [1:53:15] it's an incredible [1:53:15] point of leverage [1:53:16] and it's truly [1:53:18] due to negligence [1:53:18] in some cases [1:53:19] some of the things [1:53:20] we rely on [1:53:20] from China [1:53:21] are things we invented [1:53:22] and we basically [1:53:24] turned it over to them [1:53:25] because businesses [1:53:27] in America [1:53:27] either sold the capacity [1:53:28] to them [1:53:29] or made a decision [1:53:30] that we could get it [1:53:30] cheaper from China [1:53:31] so why keep making it here [1:53:32] and we've allowed [1:53:33] these dependencies [1:53:34] to build [1:53:34] and we've mapped out [1:53:35] all of these dependencies [1:53:36] internally [1:53:37] through the interagency [1:53:38] and we know what they are [1:53:39] we are capable [1:53:40] of reversing [1:53:41] many of these [1:53:42] but it will take [1:53:42] a little bit of time [1:53:43] but we have a plan [1:53:44] to do so [1:53:45] but we've also [1:53:46] globalized this [1:53:46] it's not just about America [1:53:48] if you talk to the Japanese [1:53:49] the South Koreans [1:53:50] all of Europe [1:53:51] and many advancing countries [1:53:52] around the world [1:53:53] they share the same concern [1:53:54] which is why we held [1:53:55] the critical minerals [1:53:56] ministerial [1:53:58] earlier this year [1:53:58] where foreign ministers [1:53:59] came from over 30 countries [1:54:01] many of whom [1:54:01] signed on to this MOU [1:54:02] to cooperate collectively [1:54:04] not on just sources [1:54:05] and access [1:54:06] to rare earth minerals [1:54:07] but also the ability [1:54:09] to process and refine them [1:54:10] into usable product [1:54:11] so we've tried to [1:54:12] internationalize it [1:54:13] and globalize it that way [1:54:14] the second thing [1:54:15] is the pack silica [1:54:16] in which 14 countries [1:54:17] are bound together [1:54:18] to very specifically focus [1:54:19] not just on critical minerals [1:54:22] and supply chains [1:54:22] but the critical minerals [1:54:24] and supply chains [1:54:24] necessary to win the AI race [1:54:26] for the future [1:54:27] and so that's been [1:54:29] ourselves and 13 other countries [1:54:31] have signed on to that [1:54:32] been very successful [1:54:33] been spearheaded [1:54:34] by Jacob Hellberg [1:54:35] at the State Department [1:54:36] and it's an effort [1:54:37] I think is going to grow [1:54:38] in addition to that [1:54:40] virtually [1:54:40] and I say this to you [1:54:41] virtually every [1:54:42] foreign engagement [1:54:44] that I have [1:54:44] with a foreign minister [1:54:45] or when I visit [1:54:46] another country [1:54:46] they give you a little paper [1:54:47] and you read it [1:54:48] these are the five topics [1:54:49] we want to touch upon [1:54:50] and every single one of those [1:54:52] critical minerals [1:54:53] is a part of it [1:54:54] either because they have [1:54:55] critical minerals [1:54:56] or they want to partner [1:54:57] with us on critical minerals [1:54:58] or they're having access issues [1:54:59] to critical minerals [1:55:00] so it has featured [1:55:01] prominently [1:55:03] in our foreign policy [1:55:04] well I would [1:55:05] I would just say this [1:55:05] I believe that [1:55:06] the Trump administration [1:55:07] can do a great service [1:55:09] to the nation [1:55:10] the world [1:55:11] to if they fix one thing [1:55:13] in combination with your work [1:55:16] and Ambassador Greer [1:55:17] and Secretary Lutnik [1:55:18] it's to [1:55:20] within our time frame [1:55:21] capabilities [1:55:21] to get a domestic [1:55:23] or secure supply [1:55:25] of those [1:55:26] of that supply chain [1:55:28] because it is [1:55:30] everything to those [1:55:31] to our national economic security [1:55:34] I finally just will make [1:55:36] a point for you [1:55:37] so you know [1:55:37] I represent the north coast [1:55:38] I know there's the east coast [1:55:39] and the west coast [1:55:40] and the gulf coast [1:55:41] but as a Great Lakes state [1:55:43] I will take note [1:55:45] of the fact [1:55:46] that in the international [1:55:47] commission's account [1:55:48] there was a reduction [1:55:51] a significant reduction [1:55:53] in commitment [1:55:54] to the Great Lakes [1:55:55] fishery commission [1:55:56] and Great Lakes [1:55:58] is very important [1:55:58] to make sure [1:56:00] we don't have invasive species [1:56:01] and things like [1:56:01] so I just ask [1:56:03] that you take a look at that [1:56:04] and we'll work with you [1:56:06] on those particular issues [1:56:07] very important [1:56:08] to our midwestern states [1:56:10] thank you [1:56:11] thank you [1:56:12] you seem to really enjoy this [1:56:15] I'm amazed [1:56:17] two hours [1:56:18] and just [1:56:18] two hours [1:56:20] and not a stutter [1:56:22] or stumble [1:56:22] I don't know [1:56:24] what you get for it [1:56:25] I'll be invited back [1:56:26] next year [1:56:27] you did a great job [1:56:30] Mr. Secretary [1:56:31] I'm proud of you [1:56:32] you really represented [1:56:33] your department well [1:56:34] questions for record [1:56:37] can be submitted [1:56:38] by close of business [1:56:39] Friday June the 12th [1:56:40] ask the department [1:56:41] of state's OIG [1:56:42] written testimony [1:56:43] on their FY27 budget [1:56:45] request be made [1:56:46] part of their record [1:56:48] thank you very much [1:56:50] well done [1:56:50] Mr. Secretary [1:56:51] the hearing is adjourned [1:56:52] I want the journalist [1:57:15] we're gonna take a white house [1:57:17] from the audience [1:57:18] but it's up [1:57:18] I can't just [1:57:20] do one more time [1:57:20] thank you [1:57:21] shout out to your hands [1:57:22] we areifi [1:57:23] 11 [1:57:23] we have one [1:57:23] we have ela [1:57:24] 4 [1:57:25] people have класс [1:57:25] we have a huge [1:57:26] 1 [1:57:27] we have a huge [1:57:28] metro [1:57:28] TU that is [1:57:30] 4 [1:57:35] is [1:57:36] 2 [1:57:36] sessions [1:57:38] and [1:57:39] also [1:57:41] is [1:57:42] our [1:57:42] working [1:57:43] to