Marco Rubio faces off with lawmakers over Trump's budget request

[0:01] The United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee will come to order. [0:10] It wasn't orderly to begin with, but it's orderly now, thanks to our good crew. [0:15] And we welcome here, as always, our Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, a distinguished alumni of this committee. [0:23] And I know he's always glad to come back here and visit with us. [0:28] Marco, we haven't had this kind of excitement since you've been here last time. [0:32] I know you think this is the way it is every time, but it's not. [0:35] So, in any event, we're glad to have you. [0:39] For the information of the committee, the Secretary has four hearings in these two days, [0:46] so we have negotiated a hard stop at 1230. [0:50] To that end, we'll use the usual array of the way we do things here, [0:56] and that is, first of all, I will make an opening statement, [1:01] and then I'll yield to Senator Shaheen, and then we'll turn the floor over to Senator Rubio. [1:07] Then we'll do a five-minute round of questions based on arrival time. [1:15] So, with that, Secretary, it's good to see you here again. [1:19] Though you're not on the Hill often, a lot has changed, obviously, [1:24] since the last time you testified on the President's International Affairs budget last year. [1:29] The Department has undergone a major reorganization, [1:31] making it operate more efficiently and more in line with America's interests, [1:36] as we discussed before you even took the job, [1:39] and that's been being executed, I think, quite well. [1:44] At long last, foreign governments are being encouraged and, when necessary, [1:49] pushed to live up to their responsibilities to respond to the needs of their own citizens. [1:55] America will stand up by our allies and provide life-saving assistance to people in their hour of need, [2:01] but we are not the world's ATM. [2:04] And so the Department is testing new ways of providing strategic assistance [2:07] and breaking the cycle of dependence on aid. [2:10] Renewed emphasis on trade over aid will help the American people [2:14] and lift up countries around the world. [2:17] This is American generosity and ingenuity in action. [2:23] Through this budget, the Administration is holding UN organizations to account, [2:27] badly, badly overdue, and alongside Ambassador Walz, [2:30] making sure American values are leading in international organizations. [2:36] You've made securing the Western Hemisphere a top policy and budget priority [2:40] and have successfully reduced illegal immigration at the southern border [2:45] to the lowest level in half a century. [2:47] That has not gone unnoticed. [2:49] You've helped curb the trafficking of illegal fentanyl into the United States, [2:53] saving countless lives. [2:54] The budget prioritizes countering China's unfair trade practices, [2:58] expanding military and malign influence operations around the world, [3:03] which pose some of the greatest threats in modern history to the American people. [3:08] At the same time, you've been working to ensure these efforts are strategic, targeted, and effective, [3:13] and we appreciate that. [3:14] The Administration has also taken care to ensure taxpayer dollars [3:17] don't go to those who are able but unwilling to pay for their own defense. [3:23] Through concerted effort by you and your colleagues, [3:26] our NATO allies have increased their defense spending [3:29] and have committed to reach the 5 percent by 2035. [3:33] This is a major change from the way you and I used to deal with this [3:36] for the decade or more before this. [3:40] Together, we need to create a next-generation NATO [3:42] that is stronger, more interoperable, [3:45] and takes advantage of the industrial potential of American and European economies. [3:50] We also must continue to coordinate with our European partners [3:53] as they take greater responsibility for supporting Ukraine [3:58] and work with our partners to deny Russia strategic gains. [4:01] The Administration has prioritized efforts to end conflicts in Africa, [4:06] which undermine decades of investment in economic growth and global health security. [4:12] All is not well there. [4:14] The latest Ebola outbreak in eastern Congo, [4:16] now affecting the entire region, highlights how conflict [4:20] and humanitarian crises abroad threaten the health and security [4:24] of the American people here at home. [4:26] I know the Department is working hard to protect us from this threat, [4:29] and I look forward to hearing how the budget supports these efforts. [4:32] And, of course, the Administration has taken decisive action [4:35] to protect American citizens from the threat posed [4:38] by Iranian nuclear capabilities and ambitions. [4:43] On behalf of the American people, [4:44] thank you for your hard work on that. [4:46] You and I have been through this before, [4:48] and we know how difficult it is. [4:50] Change is hard, but it is also necessary. [4:53] Your efforts to make the State Department more responsive [4:55] to the needs of Americans will help us all meet the challenges of the 21st century. [5:00] I look forward to discussing how the budget will further those efforts. [5:03] With that, I will turn it over to the distinguished ranking member, Senator Shaheen. [5:09] Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. [5:10] Good morning, Secretary Rubio. [5:15] Mr. Secretary, you were a senator. [5:17] You sat on this committee. [5:19] You sat on the Intelligence Committee. [5:22] You know, as well as anyone, [5:24] that effective American foreign policy requires a strong partnership with Congress. [5:30] Allies need to know that our commitments can stand the test of time, [5:34] and that only happens if Congress is brought into the discussion. [5:38] Congress cannot be a partner if it's kept in the dark. [5:41] I have a long list of unanswered requests sitting on your department's desk. [5:48] And, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask that these letters be submitted for the record. [5:53] They'll be submitted. [5:57] I've requested a briefing on changes to U.S. force posture in Europe. [6:01] And after 33 days, we still have no response. [6:04] We've requested a briefing from the Iran war on displacement. [6:10] After 90 days, we still have no response. [6:12] We've asked for a briefing on Ukraine on a number of issues. [6:18] After 180 days, we still have no response. [6:22] We've asked for a briefing on lifting Milorad Dodik's sanctions. [6:27] And after 225 days, we still have no response. [6:32] We've asked for a briefing for the U.S. agency for global media. [6:35] No response after 344 days. [6:40] The Romanian visa program termination. [6:43] We've followed up five times over 435 days, and we've still gotten no response. [6:50] In January, when you were before this committee, [6:54] I asked if you would report to this committee once an audit system was in place to track Venezuelan oil revenues. [7:00] You said, and I quote, [7:02] Oh, absolutely. [7:04] Yeah, we are still waiting. [7:07] And when you do notify Congress, it's to inform us of decisions you have already made. [7:12] That is not consultation, as you well know. [7:16] That is not advice and consent. [7:18] Congress has been clear on a bipartisan basis. [7:22] We do not want to cede ground to China. [7:24] Yet, this administration is closing consulates and cutting funding in the Indo-Pacific. [7:31] The same pattern extends to global health. [7:34] USAID supported Ebola detection and prevention activities in DRC and Uganda for years. [7:42] And we can see in this poster, even Elon Musk admitted that one of the things we accidentally canceled, [7:51] very briefly, was Ebola prevention. [7:54] Well, those programs were dismantled. [8:00] And today, we have to screen for Ebola at Dulles Airport, [8:04] rather than in the DRC and Uganda, more than 7,000 miles away. [8:09] You're asking for a 44% reduction in the State Department budget. [8:13] That includes eliminating funding to the World Health Organization. [8:18] It includes eliminating all disease-specific funds in the middle of an Ebola crisis that's affecting Americans. [8:25] Yet, no one from your department can explain to us why this is a good idea. [8:31] You sent Congress one notification saying you needed $19 billion to close out USAID. [8:38] Then you sent another saying you needed some of that money to respond to disease outbreaks. [8:43] Congress has asked for an explanation, and we still have not received one. [8:48] The same pattern extends to our alliances. [8:51] I just returned from a bipartisan delegation to the Arctic. [8:55] We are on the verge of losing the very alliances that we have built for decades [9:01] because the president manufactured a crisis over Greenland. [9:05] And nowhere is that clearer than with Russia. [9:08] In 2017, you wrote, as a senator, that Vladimir Putin will never be a trusted ally or a reliable, constructive partner. [9:16] But since taking office, you, the president, the vice president, Steve Wyckoff, not one of you has been to Ukraine. [9:26] And yet, your envoys talk to Putin on a regular basis. [9:30] The president has invited him, given him the red carpet treatment on American soil. [9:35] But yet, you won't come up here and brief Congress on any of it. [9:39] And decisions Congress has made on Russia have been systematically undermined. [9:43] Congress passed support for Ukraine. [9:47] The administration has slow-walked it. [9:49] And instead of sanctioning Russia, the administration issued oil licenses that have sent billions to Moscow. [9:57] Congress has asked what this approach has produced. [10:01] Russia has conducted five times more drone strikes on Ukraine since 2024. [10:08] More U.S. businesses are being directly targeted than at any point in this conflict. [10:14] And Russia is providing targeting intelligence to help Iran hit our facilities and personnel in the Middle East, [10:21] while we're helping them fund this war. [10:25] When I talk to my constituents, they ask for economic relief at home, [10:29] not regime change in Havana or Caracas or Tehran. [10:33] Instead, you sent Congress a war powers notification saying we are not in active hostilities with Iran, [10:41] while the U.S. was conducting strikes against Iran and Iran was bombing U.S. embassies and bases throughout the Middle East. [10:47] That was not consultation. [10:50] It was an attempt to avoid answering to this committee and this Congress about this war. [10:57] Congress has asked basic questions about the war. [11:01] Why are roughly half of our Patriot interceptor stockpiles gone? [11:04] Why does the Strait of Hormuz remain closed? [11:07] Why is gas up $1.50? [11:10] Why did 13 American service members lose their lives in this war? [11:14] Congress deserves to know why, and Americans deserve to know why. [11:19] Mr. Secretary, you would not have stood for this kind of stonewalling by the administration when you were a senator. [11:25] And you certainly shouldn't stand for it as Secretary of State and National Security Advisor. [11:31] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [11:32] Thank you, Senator. [11:33] We'll now proceed to a round of five-minute questions. [11:37] I'm sorry. [11:38] We'll try. [11:39] Did you want to do it? [11:40] We talked about that. [11:42] Do you want one? [11:43] We actually talked about that, but he thought the questioning might be easier. [11:46] Why don't you go ahead? [11:47] I have it in writing. [11:48] You want me to read it? [11:50] Give us your best shot. [11:51] Okay. [11:51] Well, thank you for having me here. [11:53] There'll be a lot to talk about today, and I just want to remind everybody, you know, our foreign policy is one that's solely focused on the national interest of the United States of America, on the defense of our country, both its military defense and our security, but also our economic security and the vibrancy of our economy, our sovereignty, and our future. [12:13] We believe that America should lead the world, and I believe that we are, and we'll have a very good story to tell about that. [12:19] American leadership, however, should always be on behalf of the American interests. [12:24] I say this because I think over a period of time in our foreign policy, we lost focus on that. [12:28] The reality of it is that our foreign policy, first and foremost, must always be what is in the national interest of the United States of America, and determining the national interest oftentimes requires us to make pragmatic decisions. [12:41] Sometimes in foreign policy, the choices are not between a good choice and a bad choice. [12:45] It's between two less than ideal choices, and you're trying to figure out which one of these two choices is the one that is best for the United States and least harmful to our interests, and that plays out every single day. [12:55] That said, we remain the world's sole global superpower, the most powerful country on earth. [13:00] We have the largest economy. [13:01] We have the most formidable and powerful military, ever known to man, by the way. [13:05] Our dollar remains the reserve currency of the world. [13:08] Our language is used extensively throughout the world to transact all sorts of business and many of our engagements, but all of this means very little if that power is not used to protect the people who built it, the people who it is meant to protect. [13:22] I also remind everybody the United States government is not a charity. [13:24] We are not here to play social worker. [13:26] We are here to win. [13:27] We are here to win on behalf of the American people and on behalf of the national interest, to win for our country, to win for the people of America, to win for the things that are important for our future, and that's what we exist to do. [13:38] The State Department exists to carry out the foreign policy of the United States, both in diplomacy and in aid, in a way that furthers the national interest and helps the American people. [13:47] And it's guided every decision that's been made since January of 2025. [13:52] I'll give you a perfect example in our own Western Hemisphere, an area that this committee and many of its members long argued, as I did, has long been neglected and not been paid attention to. [14:00] We now have in this hemisphere a coalition of friendly countries, over a dozen, who have aligned to work on not just the issues of security that we all have in common, but also economic prosperity that go hand in hand. [14:12] It's an amazing story that basically, other than Nicaragua, other than Cuba, obviously other than Venezuela, remains with some challenges, and of course Brazil, although they're in the midst of an election cycle, and to some extent the current government in Colombia as well, at least the president's been problematic. [14:28] But generally speaking, it is now a region filled with American allies, American-friendly leaders, and an America-friendly direction. [14:34] Now, obviously, we have to operationalize that into action after 20 years of neglect, in which China and other global powers have intruded in our Western Hemisphere, to the detriment not just of American national interest, but to the detriment, in our view, of the people of those countries as well. [14:49] So these are important achievements, and one that I'm very happy about. [14:54] I'm also happy about the way we've transformed foreign aid. [14:56] In any transition, there will be, you know, bumps in the road, but largely speaking, if you think about how those programs that existed in the past were failing us, the old model had to be replaced. [15:07] And the foreign assistance that remains is being brought under the strategic direction of the State Department. [15:12] So we're not just providing money, we are also seeking outcomes. [15:15] It's not just how much money you spend on a program, it's whether you're getting outcomes from it, but it's also being guided with our strategic view in mind. [15:23] And that means that we are able to provide aid, not just all over the world, but specifically targeted at those most in needs, and those places around the world most important to the national interest of the United States. [15:34] That will remain our guiding principle. [15:36] That's been our guiding principle in our reforms. [15:38] So, you know, the, the, I would just, I mean, we can get into a lot of these details in our questions. [15:45] The bottom line is that all this and more is a reflection of this belief that I outlined at the outset. [15:50] And that is that foreign policy cannot be separated from economic policy, from border policy, from energy policy, from any of these other spheres that are critical to our national interest. [15:59] A country that cannot build ships, or produce medicine, or control immigration, or access vital resources, cannot defend its people, cannot defend its interests, and cannot defend its way of life. [16:10] So our foreign policy continues to be reoriented around the real foundations of national strength. [16:16] This budget is yet another step, I believe, in that direction. [16:19] Obviously, the appropriators here will have a huge say on the outcome of what that budget ultimately looks like, as we don't anticipate that for the first time in modern history, Congress will just take up our budget and pass it. [16:31] We think it'll go through some substantial reforms along the way, and we look forward to engaging you like we did last year to produce what we think is a very good spending bill at that time. [16:39] So anyways, I look forward to your questions, at least that's what it says here. [16:42] I'm not sure if I really look forward to your questions. [16:44] I look forward to probably half your questions. [16:46] Thank you. [16:48] Thank you, Secretary Rubio. [16:51] We will now do a round of questions, five-minute questions, based on order of attendance. [16:58] And I'm going to start, and I'm going to say thank you for the work you've done with respect to Iran. [17:04] All of us that have worked on this for years know how frustrating that is, how difficult it is to work with this regime, [17:10] who've sponsored terrorism, kidnapping, and killed thousands of Americans for the last 47 years. [17:16] Thank you for doing something about it. [17:18] I know you and the President are doing all you can to ensure this comes to a close sooner rather than later. [17:24] I wonder if you could give us at least a brief update on where we are. [17:27] Well, first, let me remind everybody that while I've not been before this committee since, I believe, February, [17:31] when we briefed on the Venezuela operation, I have appeared on multiple occasions here, [17:37] both in my role as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State in both all Senate briefings, [17:42] multiple times, Gang of Eight briefings, Gang of Sixteen briefings. [17:46] So we've talked about this topic with some of you in those settings in the past that you've heard from us. [17:51] Let me just lay the predicate here, okay? [17:53] Iran's desire to build a nuclear weapon was going to be built, [17:58] was going to be effectuated behind a conventional shield. [18:02] They were going to build for themselves so many missiles, so many drones, [18:06] so many conventional weapons, including a Navy, [18:10] that at that point there's nothing you could do about it. [18:12] What they tried to do is they were going to try to build a conventional shield [18:15] and hide behind that conventional shield and basically say to the world, [18:18] if you come and do anything about our nuclear program, we will overwhelm you with missiles, [18:22] we will overwhelm you with drones, and we will overwhelm you with our Navy, [18:26] and you will not win. [18:27] You will not be able to do anything about it. [18:29] They were seeking that point of immunity, which is why the president chose to act, [18:32] to deny them that point of immunity. [18:35] Operation Epic Fury, some of you didn't like it, some of you did, [18:38] was highly successful in achieving its military objectives, [18:41] which is dramatically reducing the defense industrial base of Iran, [18:45] the ability to build these missiles and to build these drones, [18:49] especially the missiles program, substantially degraded. [18:52] A substantial percentage, and I'll leave the exact numbers to the Department of War [18:55] because I'm not a general and I'm not here to speak as a military planner, [18:58] but a substantial degradation in the number of launchers that they have as well. [19:02] They still have a lot of drones because these are easy to make. [19:04] We all know it's not an Iran challenge. [19:06] This is a global challenge, and it's playing out every single day around the world. [19:09] I mean, Mexican cartels are using UAVs against each other. [19:14] We should imagine at some point they may even use it against our own, against our interest. [19:18] So this is a pervasive problem around the world. [19:21] The economics of it is something we have to solve for. [19:23] But nonetheless, even their drone-building capability has been eroded. [19:27] Today there is no Iranian Navy. [19:29] There is no such thing. [19:30] There's a bunch of Boston whalers with machine guns on them, but there is no Navy. [19:34] There is no Iranian Navy. [19:35] It lies at the bottom of the ocean, and we'll assume, within a number of years, [19:40] there's be prime fishing spots because they'll turn into reefs. [19:43] So my whole point is that the Iranian conventional shield has been substantially eroded. [19:51] Now, in the aftermath of that, two things have happened. [19:54] The first is they entered into a ceasefire. [19:56] They agreed. [19:56] We agreed to stop. [19:58] But part of that agreement is that they would reopen the Straits. [20:00] They did not, at which point the president decided, and I think appropriately, [20:05] we can't have a world in which Iran, only Iranian ships get through the Straits. [20:09] And so if they're going to shut down the Straits for everybody, we're going to shut down the Straits for them. [20:14] And we have done that through a very effective blockade, and, by the way, [20:18] through the seizure of sanctioned ships in the Indo-Pacific as well. [20:21] Now, the cost to Iran every single day in lost revenue is in the hundreds of millions of dollars [20:28] that they are losing in lost revenue that they're not generating as a result of that. [20:32] Now, we are in talks, and I say talks because talks with Iran are not like talks with Switzerland. [20:37] Okay? [20:37] They're very different. [20:39] They require the use of intermediaries, unfortunately. [20:41] But there is the prospect before us, which could happen today, it could happen tomorrow, [20:45] it could happen next week, that for the first time, certainly in my memory, [20:51] they have agreed to negotiate aspects of their nuclear program that just a month ago [20:56] or just a year ago they were refusing to even mention, much less enter into discussions about. [21:01] That is not a guarantee that ultimately it will lead to a deal that's acceptable to the Senate [21:05] or acceptable to the American people. [21:07] But we will be able to engage them in a process to truly test the proposition [21:11] of how far they're willing to go. [21:13] Complicating that process, unfortunately, is their internal regime is somewhat fractured [21:17] in the sense of it takes days to get responses from their system. [21:21] We can go into more depth in your follow-up questions. [21:24] But we're hopeful that something like that could happen in which the Straits would reopen, [21:28] we would enter into a period of negotiations on very specific topics, delineated negotiations, [21:34] in the hope of reaching an outcome that's acceptable to us [21:36] and something that they would be able to do as well. [21:39] If it doesn't work out, then obviously we still have a problem with respect to their nuclear ambitions. [21:45] But what they won't have is the conventional shield behind any longer. [21:50] Thank you, Secretary. [21:52] I'm going to ask one more question. [21:54] Hopefully this will shorten as we go around. [21:56] There will be more questions, obviously, on that topic. [21:58] But I know you just got back from China not long ago. [22:02] Could you give us a quick update on the state of U.S.-China related? [22:06] Yeah, look, I mean, China and the United States are the two largest economies in the world, [22:10] the two most powerful militaries in the world. [22:12] The Chinese government and the U.S. government have to speak. [22:16] I mean, there's really – it's not a choice here. [22:18] We have to have some measure of communication, if for nothing else, [22:21] in order to de-escalate potential points of conflict that could lead to something broader. [22:25] There are obviously very significant irritants in our relationship with China. [22:30] Some of these are long-term problems that we know we're going to have to address. [22:33] And so what we're trying to do is manage a period of strategic stability [22:37] while recognizing that there are areas of our relationship in which we are going to have struggles, [22:42] not just for years, but perhaps for decades. [22:44] We recognize this, but I think as much as anything else, [22:47] we have to recognize that the United States and China have to be able to have points of dialogue [22:52] and speak to one another, as I said, for no other reason than to be able to have a communication channel. [22:58] I think in our meetings it was abundantly clear which are the areas that we do not have strong alignment or agreement on. [23:03] We understand that there are areas in which long-term we're going to have some real challenges, [23:07] whether it's supply chains. [23:09] Put it to you this way. [23:10] Let's leave China aside for a moment. [23:11] The United States, and I would argue the world, cannot depend on one country for 90% of anything, [23:17] especially 90% of things that are critical to our economies, from our weapons systems to our pharmaceuticals. [23:24] We just can't live in a world in which we rely on anybody for 90% of what we get in one sole source [23:30] that could be cut off at any time as leverage against us or punishment or in a time of conflict. [23:34] And so we are actively searching and have plans in place, and we're implementing these to diversify where we get critical minerals, [23:41] where we get our supply chain, secure that supply chain. [23:44] And obviously the Chinese would like to retain their monopoly position in some of these. [23:49] This is going to be a long-term issue that we're going to have to continue to confront and work on. [23:52] Work on that continues, even while we are engaged in the ability to dialogue and speak to them, because we have to. [23:59] It's responsible, and we truly have no choice but to be able to do that. [24:02] It's to their benefit and ours, and I would argue to the benefit of the world, [24:05] that these two countries are able to speak to one another. [24:08] Thank you, Secretary. [24:09] And I think your comments about the supply chain and the critical minerals and everything else that's in the bottleneck, [24:17] these are things that are relatively new to us. [24:19] They've always been there, but COVID underscored that. [24:23] And then, of course, the Ukraine war brought it out even more. [24:25] And I appreciate your remarks. [24:27] I think everybody at the status knows we are, as a nation, looking at that. [24:31] With that, Senator Shaheen. [24:33] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [24:34] Mr. Secretary, at this budget hearing last year, you testified that no one had died as a result of foreign aid cuts. [24:42] Sadly, I think we're seeing in real time that that's not true today. [24:47] There are more than 1,000 cases and more than 200 Ebola-related deaths. [24:51] And as we know, one of the entities that is a critical global health tool is GAVE, particularly during a disease outbreak. [25:03] It plays a role in distributing Ebola vaccines, and it has committed up to $40 million to develop a vaccine for the current Ebola strain that has no vaccine right now. [25:15] So how are you making sure that Secretary Kennedy, who has been sitting on those funds for months now, [25:22] is going to release them so that they can go to help develop a vaccine to address the Ebola outbreak? [25:29] Yeah. Well, a couple points on GAVE, I would say that the President had asked that we allow Secretary Kennedy to play a leading role on the GAVE decision [25:38] because of his strongly held views with regards to vaccine safety, and he wanted them to conduct some reforms. [25:43] I actually talked to Senator Schatz about this last week as well. [25:47] And so we're, the State Department's going to be re-engaging. [25:50] I'm not here to tell you we're going to yank this thing, and we're not going to listen to his points of view. [25:53] But the State Department will, is, a few weeks ago, made the decision that we were going to re-engage on this issue of GAVE, [26:00] respecting, you know, what HHS views on it are as well, and we want to take their input. [26:05] But we'd like to get this issue resolved and an outcome that's acceptable, both to Congress and also to our goals on global health. [26:13] So it is an issue, as I said, I wouldn't use the word defer, [26:15] but we have certainly allowed him to play a leading role in determining what we're going to do next. [26:21] But right now, we're sort of at a stage where we are going to re-engage the group. [26:25] We need to drive this to an outcome. [26:27] I couldn't agree more, and so do you commit to using the $2 billion that Congress has appropriated for global health [26:34] to actually help fund global health security? [26:38] Well, we do fund global health security beyond GAVE, by the way, and we can talk about that. [26:42] We can talk about the compacts, I think 32, that we've now entered into with countries all over the world. [26:47] We have a new agreement to the UN as well that they're very happy with. [26:52] The global fund, we've hit our cap. [26:56] We are at our 33%. [26:58] And we've actually been able to attract additional donors from around the world to contribute to it. [27:02] On this specific item, I would say, we intend to get this resolved. [27:06] We want to get this resolved. [27:07] It's an important part of our matrix. [27:09] We will follow up, and I hope you will share with this committee as soon as you get it resolved. [27:15] I want to go to Russian oil sanctions and general licenses, [27:20] because President Trump gave Russia a lifeline, [27:24] allowing it to sell oil globally through licenses issued by the Treasury Department. [27:29] While I think the administration should have known that the Iran war would make Russian oil more desirable, [27:37] they decided to remove the stigma on that oil and give an extra windfall of cash to Putin. [27:43] So can you let us know whether you believe or whether you will support extending those licenses, [27:53] that license when it comes back up mid-June? [27:56] Yeah, a couple points. [27:58] First of all, two things have happened. [28:02] One is actually the U.S., U.S. production, and U.S. playing a role in the global energy supply has increased. [28:09] I think we had our largest amount of exports from the United States we've ever seen, [28:13] so we've also benefited from this, and our energy dominance has really come into play. [28:17] The Russian waivers were a decision. [28:20] These are the policy, the underlying policy remains on the sanctions. [28:24] What has changed is these time-limited extensions to sort of try to alleviate the global. [28:29] Right, I understand. [28:29] The problem we're facing, too, is there's a contagion potential, [28:33] and that is that at some point we can do strategic reserves, [28:36] we can do some of the other things that we've done to sort of alleviate global supply, [28:41] but at some point you have to ensure, and this is not so much for us at the end of the day. [28:46] Our economy is not in need of it, but there are other economies around the world that have benefited from this, [28:50] so these are time-limited extensions that ultimately at some point will expire. [28:52] We've certainly benefited China and Russia's economy. [28:55] Well, China doesn't. [28:56] I mean, China refines oil. [28:57] They import a lot, but they refine oil, and they— [29:00] But they also benefit from Russian oil. [29:02] But my question for you is can you commit not to extend the general license again when it expires on June 17th? [29:09] Well, that ultimately is a decision that's made by Treasury, [29:12] but I will tell you it depends on the circumstances at the time. [29:14] We would like to end it as soon as we possibly can [29:16] because the underlying policy of this country has been to sanction their oil. [29:20] These are time-limited waivers for the purpose of opening up more global supply. [29:25] I understand that, but if we continue to extend them, they're not time-limited. [29:29] I want to get a final question in on Food for Peace because, as you know, [29:33] the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has deepened the humanitarian needs in food in secure countries, [29:39] such as Sudan, South Sudan, and yet in your opening statement, [29:44] you said that our aid targets those who are most in need. [29:48] But I think it's very concerning that the country selection process for Food for Peace, [29:53] which I understand is led by the Department of State, [29:56] includes only two priority countries from World Food Program hunger hotspots. [30:01] That's Haiti and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [30:06] So the question I have is why are we adding countries that aren't facing acute food insecurity, [30:13] like El Salvador, Guatemala, and Rwanda? [30:16] Why are we not helping countries who are facing acute, well, famine in some cases, [30:23] Sudan, Gaza, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Syria, Somalia? [30:27] These are all countries that are, have humanitarian crises, [30:32] and yet we're helping countries that don't have acute food insecurity. [30:35] Yeah. [30:36] So a couple points. [30:37] First of all, on Gaza, we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars, [30:41] including after the ceasefire, [30:42] and providing through the World Food Program and other entities, [30:46] and we continue to do so. [30:47] I think if we're not the world's largest donor, I'd be surprised [30:49] because it's a massive amount of money that we've provided [30:51] through those mechanisms of various means. [30:53] On the point of Sudan in particular, [30:56] the complication in Sudan, [30:57] which I wish were different, [30:58] and we're very involved in this. [30:59] I mean, we, I had a meeting on Sudan yesterday. [31:02] The problem in Sudan has largely not been our unwillingness to provide funds. [31:06] We are willing to step forward, [31:07] and we have the flexibility through what we've been able to do with foreign aid [31:10] to surge up that. [31:11] It's been distribution. [31:13] It's been the ability to get that. [31:14] So as an example, [31:15] in these conversations we're having between the warring sides, [31:17] one of the things we're trying to identify is four safe spots [31:21] where people can go receive humanitarian assistance, [31:24] where we can actually have the outside groups, [31:27] the NGOs, the international organizations that we contract with, [31:31] have the ability to go in and actually deliver the food [31:33] without having their trucks hijacked or blown up [31:35] or their workers killed. [31:36] That's been the fundamental challenge in Sudan is distribution. [31:40] The distribution is being threatened [31:41] because we don't have conditions on the ground that allow for it. [31:44] And so to allocate money towards something [31:45] that we can't distribute is unwise until we have that in place. [31:49] That's deeply tied to the ability to have a peace deal, [31:51] which I can tell you has been very frustrating. [31:53] On the one hand, with Sudan, [31:55] we had a donor conference in Berlin in April. [31:57] I don't want to interrupt you, Mr. Secretary, [31:59] but I'm out of time, [32:01] and it doesn't explain why we are providing food [32:04] for countries that are not insecure. [32:07] I appreciate the challenges in Sudan. [32:09] We have those challenges in many places, [32:11] but because we have dismantled the distribution network [32:14] when we eliminated USAID, [32:17] we've exacerbated those challenges in countries around the world, [32:21] and we are not providing the help based on humanitarian needs, [32:25] and that's my concern. [32:27] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [32:30] Senator Ricketts. [32:31] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, [32:32] and Mr. Secretary of State, [32:33] thank you for being here. [32:34] I really appreciate it. [32:35] Good to see you. [32:36] Communist China is trying to win the AI race, [32:39] and they will use it, for example, [32:42] to dominate our military if they're able to do that [32:45] in so many other ways. [32:46] A world where Communist China is dominant in AI [32:50] is very bad for the United States and for the entire world. [32:54] That's why it's critical that us and our allies [32:57] cannot lose this race. [33:00] Semiconductor supply chains, [33:01] particularly semiconductor manufacturing equipment, SMEs, [33:04] are critical to winning this competition. [33:07] It's one area that Beijing is spending billions and billions of dollars [33:12] to be able to produce chips in China, [33:16] and they've failed to be able to produce those high-end chips so far. [33:21] President Trump understands this better than anyone [33:23] because the Trump administration was the first to utilize export controls [33:27] on SMEs to slow down Communist China's advanced chip-making industry. [33:31] Since that time, key allies and partners have also imposed controls on SMEs to China. [33:37] However, their controls have not been as restrictive as U.S. controls, [33:40] and this has allowed certain foreign countries to backfill the Chinese market [33:44] with critical dual-use tools. [33:48] Secretary Rubio, do you agree that export controls on SMEs are critical [33:52] to maintaining our technological advantage over Communist China? [33:56] It is. [33:56] It's actually where it's most critical is in the high-end, [34:00] the areas that are not legacy, that are broader, and that allow for that. [34:04] I think on the broader point of AI, we share your view. [34:06] One of the initiatives that I think Jacob Helberg's done a great job with at the State Department [34:11] is Paxilica, in which we've signed up all these countries around the world. [34:14] I think we're up to 13 or 14, including ourselves and others who hope to join as well, [34:19] in which we can create this global consortium for all of the elements of the AI supply needs. [34:26] It's not just the innovation. [34:27] It's obviously access to the minerals and the critical elements necessary [34:30] in order to produce these chips and all the things that it will take to lead the world in AI. [34:34] I think it is safe to say the United States right now is a global leader on AI. [34:38] I think it is also wise to say that that lead is not irreversible. [34:44] It has to be sustained, and there will be a real challenge in sustaining it, [34:49] and we're going to have to stay focused on it. [34:51] The good news is I do think we have a system of global alliances that view it the way we do, [34:56] and we want to lead on it because it's not just about leading the technology in AI. [35:01] It's about also leading in the standards that will govern how AI is used. [35:05] I don't want to monopolize this conversation on this point, [35:07] but it's one that I think the Senate should think about because I know we're starting to think about it. [35:11] AI will have very positive impacts on our economy and societies. [35:16] It will also have some detriments. [35:19] There will be white-collar jobs in this country that will be impacted, [35:24] and I think we have to start thinking not simply about the impact that AI will have on those jobs, [35:28] but the societal pressures that that will create, not just in the United States, [35:32] but in economies all over the world. [35:34] Much like industrialization and automation did, [35:38] it will make the worker more efficient and more valuable, [35:41] but it will eliminate some jobs, [35:43] and those jobs will have to be replaced with new jobs or new skills. [35:46] That's not just an economic issue. [35:49] That is a political issue. [35:50] That, over time, could destabilize societies all over the world, [35:55] and so we have to start thinking about AI in those terms as well. [35:58] You mentioned our allies. [35:59] Shouldn't they have to follow the same sort of standards U.S. companies do [36:02] when we're limiting the amount of, [36:03] limiting the semi-manufacturing equipment that's going to communist China? [36:07] And that's our hope, is that we can create people that, [36:09] that we can create a coalition of nations that understand the danger in this, [36:13] and they're running through the same, some are better than others, [36:16] but they're running through the same problems that we run into, [36:19] and that is companies ultimately want to sell to the markets, [36:23] and China's a large market. [36:24] But I agree, and that's one of the goals behind Pax Silica, [36:27] is to create unanimity and our consensus behind that thinking. [36:30] Well, Mr. Secretary, that's why I recently introduced the Match Act [36:33] with Senators Kim, Risch, and Schumer to level a playing field. [36:37] This bill would provide the State Department with the leverage [36:40] in ongoing negotiations with our allies to align those controls, [36:43] and if an agreement cannot be reached, [36:45] it would ensure that foreign companies cannot sell [36:47] the very chokepoint technologies that we have restricted. [36:51] So I hope you'll support that as we move forward on it. [36:56] One other thing I just want to hit before my time runs out here [36:59] is that I was the co-sponsor of a bill [37:01] to create the U.S. Foundation for National Security and Counterterrorism. [37:05] This is a foundation that would be a public-private partnership. [37:08] It would help counter traffickers and insurgents [37:11] operating in ungoverned spaces around the developing world, such as Africa. [37:14] The State Department, however, has not, for over a year and a half now, launched this foundation, [37:20] and I encourage you to work expeditiously to implement it. [37:24] I think this is something that, as we're talking about, [37:26] especially the continent of Africa, [37:28] can be very helpful to making sure that we're not only helping conserve the environment [37:32] and helping animals, it's bad for terrorists. [37:34] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [37:35] Thank you. [37:36] And look at that, I kept it in my time. [37:38] Good job. [37:39] Can you do as well, Senator Murray? [37:40] I'll do my best. [37:42] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [37:43] Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us today. [37:46] Despite the differences that existed between Republicans and Democrats [37:50] prior to this administration on how to approach Iran's nuclear program, [37:54] the theory was basically the same, [37:55] that we're going to impose significant harm on the Iranian economy [38:00] in order to force them to the table to negotiate. [38:05] What is happening now is fundamentally different. [38:08] This war and the administration's decision to blockade [38:12] has now held the entire world economy and the U.S. economy hostage [38:20] to the ability to negotiate an agreement with Iran. [38:25] This is why the entire country is seized [38:28] by the question of when there will be an agreement, [38:31] because apparently, until there is an agreement, [38:35] the Strait of Hormuz remains closed. [38:38] There is a cost to the Iranian economy, [38:40] but now there is a devastating cost to the U.S. economy. [38:46] It has been indecipherable, [38:49] the information coming from the administration, [38:52] especially in the past several weeks, [38:54] as we get signals that a deal is imminent. [38:57] The president said yesterday he's bored by the negotiations. [39:00] He doesn't care whether we get a deal. [39:04] I think it's really important for us to understand [39:07] what your bottom lines are, [39:09] what you're asking for in this negotiation, [39:12] what commitments you need Iran to make [39:16] in order for you to release the blockade, [39:18] and we hope for them to release the blockade as well. [39:22] So give us a little insight into what your bottom lines are, [39:29] what is going to get the Strait reopened, [39:32] because this is kind of the only question [39:34] that matters for American consumers right now, [39:36] and every day we get wildly different signals [39:40] from the president as to whether he even is engaged [39:43] in this question as to whether the Strait [39:45] is going to reopen. [39:46] Yeah, I think your question gets right [39:48] to the heart of the matter, [39:49] so I think that's a good question. [39:51] Let me first bifurcate two things. [39:54] The only reason there's a blockade, [39:55] the only reason why there's a U.S. blockade [39:57] is because Iran has closed the Strait. [39:59] They're firing on commercial ships, [40:01] and they've mined large segments [40:03] of Hormuz international waters. [40:05] And so the blockade is only against Iranian ships, [40:07] and it's very simple. [40:08] The notion is if no one's ships are going to get out, [40:12] then Iran's ships aren't going to get out either. [40:14] We can't live in a world [40:15] in which they get to close the Straits and tell everybody, [40:17] pay us a toll or we'll blow you up, [40:18] but their ships get to go out unfettered. [40:20] So that's the reason why there's a blockade. [40:22] There wouldn't have been a blockade [40:24] if Iran had agreed to do what they said they would do [40:26] when the ceasefire kicked in, [40:27] which is they were going to open the Straits. [40:29] So let me just focus on the Straits for a moment. [40:31] Number one, what they're doing is unlawful and illegal. [40:33] There isn't a country on earth other than Iran, [40:36] and maybe Oman that flirted with it, [40:38] who's in favor of what Iran is doing in the Straits. [40:41] The Chinese are against it. [40:42] The Russians are against it. [40:43] Everyone is against it. [40:44] The whole world is against it. [40:45] So condition number one is they have to reopen the Straits, [40:48] and reopening the Straits means the following. [40:50] Ships can sail through international waters [40:52] the way they can do through other choke points [40:54] around the world without being fired upon, [40:56] without paying a toll. [40:57] That's condition number one. [40:59] But the Straits is closed [41:00] because of our decision to invade Iran. [41:04] This is a consequence of our military action, [41:06] so I guess I'm not interested in litigating that question. [41:09] We all know why the Straits is closed, [41:11] because you took military action against Iran, [41:13] and we knew ahead of time [41:15] that that would be their likely response. [41:17] The question is, how are we going to get it reopened? [41:19] Are you going to drive a bargain [41:21] that is so tough and so hard [41:23] that the Straits remains closed? [41:25] So how are we going to get it open? [41:28] The first thing, [41:28] that is a predicate to anything else happening. [41:30] The Straits have to be reopened. [41:32] So the way to think about it is this. [41:33] If Iran wants to be able to move its oil again [41:36] through the Straits, [41:37] they will have to reopen the Straits. [41:38] If they refuse to do so, [41:40] then we have other options available to us, [41:41] but we would prefer to negotiate the opening of this, [41:43] which means the following- [41:44] Okay, so tell us about the negotiations. [41:45] What do you need from them [41:46] in order to get the Straits reopened? [41:47] We need the Straits reopened tomorrow. [41:49] Well, what needs to happen is very simple. [41:50] They need to announce [41:51] that they will no longer fire on commercial ships [41:54] that are going through [41:54] or threaten to fire on ships, [41:56] because in many cases, [41:57] ships just won't move. [41:58] They won't go, [41:59] not because they got fired on, [42:00] but because of the risk of being fired upon. [42:02] And so they have to announce very clearly, [42:04] the Straits are now open. [42:05] We're not charging a toll. [42:07] We will help remove the mines [42:08] that they put in there, [42:09] and they will not fire on ships. [42:11] But the president says [42:12] they also need to make commitments [42:13] on their nuclear program. [42:14] That's what I'm asking. [42:15] Oh, I see what you're saying. [42:16] What commitments do they need to make [42:18] in order for the Straits to be reopened? [42:20] Well, the second thing [42:21] they have to agree to as part of this is, [42:23] so in addition to the Straits, [42:25] that's the predicate [42:25] that opens the door to phase two. [42:27] Phase two is they have to commit [42:28] to very specific negotiations [42:30] on highly enriched, [42:31] the disposition of the highly enriched uranium [42:34] that still is buried deep [42:35] in a mountain somewhere. [42:37] They have to agree on negotiating [42:40] severe and long-term limitations [42:44] and or cancellation of enrichment activity [42:46] in their country. [42:46] In the second phase of negotiations? [42:49] Well, obviously, [42:50] these are highly technical matters, [42:51] so I don't think you could work those out [42:52] in five days. [42:53] That would require a team of experts [42:55] to meet over a 30-, 60-, 90-day period [42:57] and work out the details, [42:58] but they have to commit [42:59] to their willingness to do that. [43:01] For example, [43:01] they have to commit to say, [43:02] we will dispose of the enriched uranium, [43:05] and the question now is, [43:06] what are the mechanisms [43:07] by which we do so? [43:08] That can be negotiated. [43:10] Final question. [43:10] In order to get to that second phase, [43:12] are you willing to release sanctions [43:15] or release frozen money [43:16] that the United States [43:18] is withholding from Iran? [43:19] Right now, [43:20] everything that's been discussed with them [43:21] is that any sanctions relief, [43:23] now remember, [43:24] where sanctions come, [43:25] there's international sanctions, [43:26] there's congressional sanctions, [43:27] there's executive sanctions, [43:28] so some we can release [43:29] and some we cannot, [43:30] but any sanctions relief [43:31] is condition-based, [43:33] which means it has to be in return [43:34] for the reason why those sanctions [43:36] were put in place in the first place, [43:37] which is their nuclear program. [43:39] So, yeah, look, [43:40] Iran is being sanctioned [43:41] because they enrich uranium. [43:42] Iran is being sanctioned [43:43] because they've highly enriched uranium. [43:45] Iran is being sanctioned [43:46] because of their nuclear activities. [43:47] If they agree to give up those things, [43:49] there will be sanctions relief [43:50] associated with their commitment [43:52] and compliance [43:53] that you will not get those sanctions relief [43:55] just in exchange for reopening the straits. [43:58] No, that's not been discussed. [44:00] That's not been offered. [44:03] Senator Hagerty. [44:04] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [44:05] And Secretary Rubio, [44:06] it's good to see you here. [44:07] I want to commend you [44:08] and the administration [44:08] for actually implementing a foreign policy [44:10] that advances America's interests. [44:12] Thank you. [44:13] If we could, [44:13] I'd like to start with the Philippines, [44:15] an area that we know very well. [44:17] It's a geographic center [44:18] of the Indo-Pacific region. [44:20] It's an area [44:21] that is along critical sea lanes [44:23] where a tremendous amount [44:25] of world trade [44:26] and energy commerce actually move. [44:29] A strong alliance [44:30] with the Philippines clearly [44:31] is in U.S. national security interest. [44:33] It leads and supports [44:34] our freedom of navigation. [44:36] It also helps us deliver regional stability [44:39] along the South China Sea, [44:40] a very critical area, [44:41] particularly in the face [44:42] of a very aggressive posture [44:43] that the Chinese have adopted. [44:45] I want to recognize my colleague, [44:47] Senator Kaine, [44:48] who's worked with me [44:49] to put in place [44:50] the Philippines Enhanced Resilience Act. [44:53] That's $500 million of FMF grants. [44:56] It's $1 billion of loan [44:58] and loan guarantees per year [44:59] to strengthen the Philippines [45:02] and the United States Alliance [45:03] to make us more interoperable [45:04] and more capable. [45:06] Mr. Secretary, [45:06] I'd just like to get your comments, [45:08] your vision, [45:09] on the role of the Philippines [45:10] and the United States Alliance. [45:11] Actually, I spoke to President Marcos [45:13] on Sunday [45:14] and have had multiple engagements [45:17] with them at a personal level. [45:18] We've had visits. [45:19] A couple of good points here. [45:20] The first is we've actually entered [45:21] into agreement with them [45:23] in which they're, [45:23] I believe it's an old U.S. military facility [45:25] inside the Philippines [45:26] that will now serve as sort of a, [45:28] I think it's a 4,000 acre. [45:30] I'm very familiar with the area. [45:31] Yeah, you know it. [45:32] And that we'll be able [45:33] to do a lot of our activities together [45:35] with regards to our joint interest [45:37] in developing on AI [45:38] and high tech [45:39] and diversifying [45:40] and helping diversify their economy. [45:41] The second is to continue [45:43] with our defense commitments [45:44] that we've made to them [45:44] and the ability to interoperate [45:46] joint exercises [45:47] which we've done now multiple times [45:49] over the last year. [45:50] Obviously, we're very concerned [45:51] with Scarborough. [45:52] We've seen in recent days [45:54] and we've demarched [45:55] and made a very clear note. [45:57] This issue came up [45:58] during the first meeting [46:00] with the Chinese. [46:01] It's come up in every engagement [46:02] I've had with the Chinese [46:03] and it's come up again now [46:05] very recently [46:05] through diplomatic channels [46:07] and that is we're very concerned [46:09] about recent activity [46:10] once again near Scarborough [46:12] and the buildup of infrastructure [46:15] that appears to be exerting, [46:17] you know, territorial claims [46:19] that we have long argued [46:20] are not valid. [46:21] This is one of those irritants [46:23] in the long term [46:23] that I think we'll continue [46:24] to have to manage. [46:25] But I view the Philippines [46:26] as a critical partner [46:27] and I think over the last, [46:29] I would say, couple of years [46:30] our relationship with them, [46:31] particularly under their new administration, [46:33] has dramatically improved [46:34] our ability to work [46:35] with the Philippines jointly [46:36] on a number of topics of interest. [46:39] Well, I want to commend you. [46:40] The 4,000 acre Luzon Corridor [46:42] is anchored by the Subic Bay Project, [46:44] which when I was ambassador to Japan, [46:46] worked very hard [46:46] to get that back for America [46:48] and I see that [46:49] as a tremendous opportunity [46:50] for us to deepen our economic ties [46:52] and of course that has, [46:53] as you mentioned earlier, [46:54] a tremendous national security. [46:55] Yeah, can I just add one point? [46:56] There is, you know, [46:57] some desire during their chairmanship [46:59] this year of ASEAN [47:01] to reach a sort of [47:03] code of conduct understanding. [47:04] In the Indo-Pacific [47:07] and while I understand that desire, [47:09] I just want you to know [47:10] and perhaps many of you can help us [47:11] in making this point, [47:13] a bad code of conduct agreement [47:15] is worse than no code of conduct agreement [47:18] at all [47:18] and I think that's very important [47:20] because they are under [47:21] withering constant pressure [47:22] in the region [47:23] to agree to a code of conduct [47:25] in the region [47:25] that I think would be detrimental, [47:27] would set a precedent [47:30] that I think is very dangerous [47:32] and so we'd love to see one [47:34] but it has to be a good one. [47:35] We don't think that's possible [47:36] under current conditions [47:36] and a bad one [47:37] is worse than none at all. [47:38] Your point's very well taken. [47:40] Look forward to working with your team, [47:41] Mr. Secretary, to advance that. [47:43] Can I turn to another issue of concern [47:44] and against joint concern? [47:45] Senator Cain and I both worked on this [47:47] and that is the actions [47:49] that have been taken by countries [47:51] that have been perceived [47:52] as their allies [47:52] against U.S. business interests [47:54] and against U.S. investments [47:55] in their country. [47:56] Particularly, I'd like to point [47:57] to the example of Vulcan Materials. [47:59] That's a situation [48:00] where a U.S. company [48:01] put billions of dollars [48:02] of investment [48:03] into the Yucatan Peninsula [48:06] both in port facilities [48:07] and in quarrying operations [48:09] only to be confiscated [48:11] by the Mexican government. [48:12] Then the Mexican government [48:13] came back in arrears, [48:14] by the way, [48:15] retroactively tried to justify [48:16] this taking [48:17] as some sort of environmental move. [48:20] Sadly, we had to fight pretty hard [48:22] the previous administration [48:23] to not allow this to happen [48:25] and I think it's going to take [48:27] more bipartisan effort. [48:28] Certainly, you'll have it [48:29] from here in Congress [48:30] to push back [48:31] on any government's effort [48:32] to try to confiscate [48:34] American corporate property. [48:36] What that will do [48:37] is have the effect [48:38] of minimizing or basically reducing [48:42] the incentive [48:43] or de-incentivizing [48:44] our foreign investment [48:45] in other countries [48:46] which again I think [48:47] hurts the mission [48:48] that you're on. [48:49] I'd love to get your perspective [48:50] on how the State Department [48:51] will stand up [48:52] for American investments overseas. [48:54] We do every day [48:55] and in fact, [48:56] one of the great benefits [48:57] of our reorganization [48:58] is that it has empowered [48:59] the regional bureaus. [49:01] You know, [49:01] you used to have [49:01] a set-aside economic bureaus [49:03] that would do these things [49:04] separately from the missions [49:05] in the field [49:06] and having been a former ambassador, [49:07] perhaps you experienced that. [49:09] We've now empowered [49:10] the regional bureaus [49:11] and through it by extension, [49:12] the embassies [49:12] to play a leading role [49:15] in economic diplomacy [49:16] and so I would argue [49:17] that virtually every engagement [49:19] I have with a foreign leader [49:20] involves some economic component [49:21] to it [49:21] and I would say [49:22] if you talk to our chargés [49:23] and our ambassadors [49:24] around the world, [49:25] I would say more than 50% [49:27] of their engagements now [49:28] have to do with economic matters [49:29] and they involve [49:30] one of two things, [49:31] either A, [49:32] finding creative opportunities. [49:34] In essence, [49:34] the host country [49:35] will say to them, [49:36] we have these areas, [49:37] these industries of investment [49:38] and the embassies [49:39] will take an active role [49:40] working with the bureau [49:41] to identify American companies [49:43] who could potentially go down there [49:44] and see if there's [49:44] an opportunity for them [49:45] and the second [49:46] is what you just pointed to [49:47] and that is protecting [49:48] existing American investments [49:50] because the point we make [49:52] with everyone we interact with [49:53] is you can't attract, [49:55] you can't ask [49:56] for American investment [49:57] into your countries [49:58] when you have a history [49:59] of expropriating, [50:01] of takings [50:01] and in some cases, [50:02] it's a local official [50:03] that's trying to extort [50:04] an American business [50:05] and say, [50:06] hey, I'm the sheriff [50:07] or I'm the local police officer. [50:09] If you don't pay us, [50:10] your workers won't show up [50:11] to work tomorrow. [50:12] We have problems like that [50:13] as well around the world [50:14] that involve the local level [50:16] and it's become a leading part [50:17] of our diplomacy [50:19] and it's happening [50:20] at the embassy level [50:21] which is where I think [50:22] it really needs to be led. [50:23] That's where your field generals are [50:24] and I applaud the sea change [50:26] and you know you've got support [50:27] on a bipartisan basis [50:28] here in the Congress [50:29] to move this forward. [50:30] Thank you, Mr. Secretary. [50:30] Thank you, Senator Hagerty. [50:31] Senator Keane. [50:32] Thank you, Mr. Chair [50:33] and thanks to Senator Hagerty [50:34] for mentioning our work together [50:35] in the Philippines and Mexico. [50:37] Mr. Secretary, [50:37] you won't be surprised [50:38] that I'm going to ask you [50:39] about the Western Hemisphere. [50:40] You and I traded the gavel [50:42] and the ranking [50:42] on the Western Hemisphere subcommittee [50:44] when you were on this committee [50:45] and that was good [50:47] productive work. [50:48] I want to ask you [50:48] about Operation Southern Spear, [50:51] the operation to strike boats [50:54] in the Pacific and the Caribbean [50:55] that dozens of operations [50:57] have now killed [50:58] more than 200 people. [50:59] Have you been involved [51:00] as Secretary of State [51:01] or National Security Advisor [51:03] in discussion [51:04] about the targeting criteria [51:05] that are used [51:07] to decide which boats [51:08] we should strike? [51:09] No, but not because [51:10] I've avoided it [51:11] but because those are [51:11] largely legal decisions, right? [51:13] But if you haven't been [51:15] involved in the discussion [51:16] as the National Security Advisor, [51:18] are you aware [51:19] of what the targeting criteria are? [51:21] Yeah, I mean, [51:21] they go through it. [51:22] So every strike has a legal officer [51:24] on the deck [51:25] that has to make a determination [51:26] about whether the call [51:27] is legal or not [51:28] and this is done [51:28] by the Department of War [51:29] the way it's been done [51:30] in other theaters [51:31] around the world. [51:32] Here's what I want [51:33] to ask you about. [51:33] So you're generally aware [51:34] of the targeting criteria. [51:36] I'm not allowed, [51:37] I know what the targeting criteria [51:39] are because of briefings [51:40] I've had in this committee [51:41] and the Armed Services Committee. [51:42] It's all been in classified [51:43] and I'm not allowed [51:45] to discuss the targeting criteria [51:46] because they've only been [51:47] shared and classified [51:48] but I don't think [51:50] I'm prohibited [51:50] from describing things [51:51] that aren't targeting criteria [51:53] so I'll give you [51:53] an obvious example. [51:55] Everyone on the boat [51:56] is right-handed. [51:58] That's not a targeting criteria. [52:00] It would be ridiculous. [52:01] Everyone on the boat is what? [52:02] Everybody on the boat [52:03] is right-handed. [52:04] That's not a targeting criteria. [52:06] It's obviously not [52:07] a targeting criteria. [52:08] It would be improper [52:09] for it to be [52:10] a targeting criteria. [52:11] Here's one [52:12] that's not so obvious [52:13] and that surprised me. [52:15] There's evidence [52:16] of narcotics on the boat. [52:19] That is not [52:19] a targeting criteria. [52:22] I have been briefed [52:23] on Southern Spears [52:23] since the first operation [52:24] on September 2 [52:25] and most recently [52:26] within the last couple weeks [52:27] and I've asked again and again [52:28] have the targeting criteria changed? [52:31] No, they have not. [52:32] What are their criteria? [52:33] Here's what they are. [52:34] I can't describe it here. [52:36] But the presence [52:37] of narcotics on the boat [52:39] has never been [52:40] a targeting criteria. [52:42] Would you have any [52:42] ability to explain? [52:44] And the administration [52:45] could have picked that [52:47] as a targeting criteria. [52:48] They chose items [52:50] that were targets [52:51] that authorized [52:52] the use of the U.S. military [52:53] to sink boats [52:54] and kill people [52:55] but they have not used [52:57] the presence of narcotics [52:58] on the boat [52:59] as one of the targeting criteria. [53:01] And I would suggest [53:02] to my colleagues [53:02] if you go look [53:03] at the individual files [53:04] of all the strikes [53:05] and I've looked [53:05] at the first 46, [53:07] they are consistent [53:08] with what I've just said [53:10] about something [53:12] that's not on the list [53:13] of targeting criteria. [53:14] Why would the administration [53:16] not include the presence [53:19] of narcotics [53:20] on the boat [53:20] as a targeting criteria [53:22] in Operation Southern Spear? [53:23] As you've just outlined, [53:24] I can't discuss [53:25] the specifics [53:26] of the targeting criteria [53:27] but I can tell you [53:28] the one thing [53:29] that is obvious [53:29] is that the targeting criteria [53:30] is not single source. [53:31] In essence, [53:32] there are multiple checks. [53:33] There are three elements [53:35] to the targeting criteria. [53:36] Right. [53:36] And all of it informed [53:38] and infused [53:38] by intelligence collection. [53:39] In essence, [53:40] they have to have true links. [53:41] I can tell you [53:42] they do walk away [53:42] from strikes. [53:43] There are multiple times [53:44] that I've been aware, [53:45] I'm not aware of every strike [53:46] because it's not reported [53:47] on a regular basis, [53:48] it's delegated. [53:49] But there have been strikes [53:50] that they've walked away from [53:51] because it doesn't meet [53:51] the criteria [53:52] or because there's doubts. [53:53] I'm not saying [53:54] that the strikes [53:54] that I've reviewed [53:55] don't meet [53:56] the targeting criteria [53:57] but I'm saying [53:58] how odd it is [53:59] especially since [54:00] the administration [54:01] always announced [54:02] this is against [54:03] narco traffickers. [54:04] We've attacked narco traffickers. [54:06] How odd it is [54:07] that the presence [54:09] of narcotics on a boat [54:10] is not one [54:11] of the targeting criteria. [54:12] And I would encourage [54:13] my colleagues [54:13] get the same briefing [54:15] I've gotten, [54:15] take a look at the strike files, [54:17] you'll be as surprised [54:18] as I am. [54:18] Here's the second question. [54:21] Again, [54:22] in your dual role, [54:23] Secretary of State [54:23] National Security Advisor. [54:25] The administration's [54:27] Operation Southern Spear, [54:28] we could agree [54:29] with it or not, [54:30] but the administration [54:31] presented a legal opinion [54:33] from the DOJ [54:34] that we could review. [54:35] Absolute resolve, [54:38] the effort against Maduro. [54:39] The administration [54:40] presented a legal rationale [54:42] that we could review. [54:43] Now we could review [54:44] both in classified, [54:45] they've not been made public. [54:47] We're 92 days [54:48] into a war against Iran [54:50] and the administration [54:51] will not let Congress [54:53] look at the OLC legal opinion [54:55] justifying the war. [54:57] Intel committee members, [54:58] SFRC members, [54:59] Armed Services Committee members, [55:01] rank and file members, [55:02] the administration [55:03] will not make it [55:05] available to us. [55:06] Now, you can imagine, [55:08] A, we're the Oversight Committee, [55:09] B, you're here asking [55:10] for a budget, [55:11] and in the Armed Services Committee [55:12] they're asking for [55:13] a trillion five, [55:15] an increase of 40% [55:17] of our last year's budget, [55:18] but won't let us see [55:19] the legal opinion. [55:20] And, Mr. Secretary, [55:22] you know what kind [55:23] of thinking we do. [55:24] If you've showed us [55:25] the legal rationale [55:26] for two wars [55:27] and you won't show us [55:28] the legal rationale [55:29] for the third, [55:30] hmm, [55:31] is there something [55:32] in the rationale [55:32] they don't want us to see? [55:34] Is there a dissenting opinion [55:35] that says it's not legal? [55:37] Are there conditions [55:38] like you can't strike [55:39] civilian infrastructure [55:40] like schools and bridges? [55:41] Are there factual assertions [55:43] like the war will be over [55:44] in two days [55:45] or Iran will never close [55:46] the Straits of Hormuz? [55:48] By not sharing [55:49] the legal opinion [55:50] with the Article I [55:51] oversight branch, [55:54] you give us the opinion [55:55] that there's something [55:56] in there you don't want us to see. [55:58] Could you use your influence [55:59] as the president's [56:01] chief national security advisor, [56:03] secretary of state, NSA, [56:05] to get the administration [56:06] to share the Iran war [56:08] legal opinion with Congress? [56:10] Well, look, [56:11] first of all, [56:11] obviously the Department of State [56:13] does not develop [56:13] the legal opinion. [56:15] That's the Office of Legal Counsel. [56:16] You're the chief national... [56:17] So I think what you're asking [56:18] is why haven't the Office [56:19] of Legal Counsel provided it? [56:20] They don't work [56:21] for the National Security Council. [56:22] They don't work for me. [56:23] I'm actually asking, [56:23] will you use your influence [56:24] as president's chief national security advisor? [56:25] Well, I will certainly inquire [56:26] as to why... [56:26] Here's what I'll do. [56:27] I can certainly inquire [56:28] as to why it has not been available. [56:29] I don't think there's a reason why... [56:31] I have not aware that... [56:34] In fact, my understanding [56:35] is they have provided documentation [56:36] to the committee and... [56:38] Not the opinion. [56:38] As part of the war... [56:39] Not the opinion. [56:39] Well, that's different. [56:40] And you wouldn't accept that... [56:42] All right, well, [56:43] let me take that back [56:43] and ask the Office of Legal Counsel. [56:45] But it certainly... [56:46] They provided the legal rationale [56:48] for the strike. [56:49] You're asking for the actual [56:50] written opinion the way it was... [56:51] Which they provided us [56:52] in Southern spirit [56:53] absolute resolve. [56:54] I'll take that back. [56:56] Thank you. [56:57] Senator Lee. [56:57] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [57:00] Thanks, Secretary Rubio. [57:01] for being... [57:02] You look like Ricketts. [57:02] I apologize. [57:03] This threw me off a sec. [57:04] Well, look, [57:05] all this beautiful, [57:06] and we can't help that. [57:10] But thanks for all of your efforts. [57:12] You are a very effective spokesperson [57:15] for not only President Trump [57:17] and the administration, [57:18] but for the United States, [57:19] and I'm grateful for that. [57:20] I was wondering at the outset [57:22] if you could talk to us [57:22] a little bit about [57:23] the fractured Iranian regime [57:25] and how that might be making [57:27] negotiations more difficult. [57:29] One of the things I've wondered, [57:30] for example, [57:32] are whether the diplomatic [57:33] Iranian channels [57:35] are sort of crosswise [57:37] at odds with [57:38] or working hand in glove [57:40] with the IRGC, [57:41] which is itself causing [57:42] a lot of these ceasefire violations, [57:44] or is it all sort of [57:46] coordinated chaos [57:47] to try to undermine [57:48] and tip the scales [57:51] in favor of Iran [57:53] in the negotiations? [57:53] Yeah, that's a great question. [57:56] Let me try to give this answer [57:58] to you in a way [57:59] that's not boring or wonky [58:00] because it's been a shift. [58:02] Obviously, [58:02] the original Supreme Leader, [58:05] the one that was there, [58:06] is no longer with us. [58:07] His son takes over. [58:08] Nobody hears from him [58:08] for a month. [58:09] By all reports, [58:10] open source reporting, [58:11] I think you've all seen it. [58:13] He was severely injured [58:14] in the same strike [58:14] and so forth. [58:16] Are you confident [58:17] he's still alive, by the way? [58:18] Yeah, I think there's [58:19] indications that, [58:19] in fact, [58:20] we've not heard from him publicly. [58:21] We haven't seen him publicly. [58:22] And I would imagine, [58:23] given what's happened [58:25] to multiple leaders [58:26] in that system, [58:27] being very public [58:28] is probably not something [58:29] that's recommended [58:30] for them internally. [58:31] But that said, [58:33] I think there are indications [58:34] out there [58:35] that he is increasingly engaging [58:37] at some level, [58:38] although all of his communications [58:39] have been in writing [58:40] and through intermediaries. [58:42] So the way to think about it [58:43] is the following. [58:44] You have the Supreme Leader [58:44] and understand that, [58:45] at the end of the day, [58:46] the Supreme Leader [58:46] in their system is, [58:47] there really is no analogy [58:48] to it in our system [58:50] or anybody else's system. [58:51] It is the theological office. [58:52] It is the, you know, [58:55] the head of the Islamic Republic [59:00] in the sense of [59:00] the ultimate decision maker. [59:03] And every major decision [59:05] has to be run by them. [59:06] They are advised by a council. [59:08] It's not clear [59:09] if it's six people [59:09] or eight people, [59:10] but there is a council [59:11] made up of both IRGC [59:12] and other elements [59:13] of the regime [59:14] that surround [59:15] that Supreme Leader. [59:16] And ultimately, [59:17] that council has to sign off [59:18] on anything. [59:19] And then there are the people [59:20] you see on TV, [59:22] like Arachi, [59:23] who's out there [59:23] every single day, [59:24] and Galibov, [59:25] who's the speaker [59:26] of the Majils, [59:27] who's been playing [59:28] a pretty prominent role. [59:29] And they are the ones [59:29] that they have sent [59:30] to negotiations [59:31] and so forth. [59:32] It is our view [59:33] of the system, [59:34] as we understand it [59:35] and as it's been expressed [59:36] to us both by the intermediaries [59:38] and by Iran directly, [59:40] that what Arachi [59:42] and Galibov bring [59:43] or take from us, [59:45] they then have to run [59:46] back to this council [59:47] and ultimately get guidance [59:49] from them. [59:50] And that process oftentimes [59:51] take three to five days [59:52] to get a response. [59:54] Now, some of it is logistical. [59:55] They're operating probably [59:56] using couriers [59:57] and things of this nature. [59:58] Part of it is internal fissures [1:00:00] on exactly what they should [1:00:01] agree to or not agree to. [1:00:03] I think the second point [1:00:04] that needs to be driven [1:00:04] in this regard [1:00:05] is that there is evidence [1:00:07] that there are communications [1:00:08] issues within the regime [1:00:09] as well. [1:00:10] So, for example, [1:00:11] it's pretty clear [1:00:13] that at the outset [1:00:14] of hostilities [1:00:15] in the conflict, [1:00:17] they had delegated decision-making [1:00:19] to field commanders. [1:00:21] And so oftentimes, [1:00:22] field commanders [1:00:23] had delegated authority [1:00:24] to act on a, [1:00:25] let's say, [1:00:26] a pre-operational planning [1:00:27] that I already put in place. [1:00:29] And so unlike our system [1:00:30] where perhaps you know [1:00:31] that the president [1:00:32] or the secretary of war [1:00:33] is directly making orders [1:00:34] and decisions [1:00:35] or the chairman [1:00:35] of the joint chiefs, [1:00:36] in their system, [1:00:37] a lot of decision-making [1:00:38] at the tactical level, [1:00:39] like which ships to hit [1:00:40] and so forth, [1:00:41] are being made [1:00:42] at the commander level. [1:00:44] So that's why [1:00:44] from the outset [1:00:45] it can look like [1:00:46] fire-ready aim, [1:00:47] but it's part of the design [1:00:48] of the system perhaps? [1:00:49] Well, I think it was [1:00:50] a design of the system [1:00:50] in the sense of regime survival [1:00:52] and the ability to operate [1:00:53] in case there was [1:00:54] decapitation strikes [1:00:55] or people were removed. [1:00:56] But let's go back [1:00:56] to the essence [1:00:57] of the negotiations. [1:00:57] What's complicated them [1:00:59] is you ultimately [1:01:00] are negotiating [1:01:01] with people [1:01:01] who then have to negotiate [1:01:02] within their own system [1:01:04] to see what they're [1:01:05] allowed to give [1:01:06] and what they're allowed [1:01:06] to agree to. [1:01:08] What is abundantly clear [1:01:09] is that Iran [1:01:10] is facing severe [1:01:11] internal economic... [1:01:11] All the problems [1:01:12] Iran had [1:01:13] before this conflict [1:01:15] not only are still there, [1:01:16] but they're worse. [1:01:17] All the things [1:01:18] that led to the protests, [1:01:19] all of these are worse [1:01:20] than they were before. [1:01:21] And I think there's [1:01:22] definitely elements [1:01:23] within that regime [1:01:24] that understand it. [1:01:25] And then there are [1:01:26] other elements of it [1:01:27] that are more immune to it [1:01:28] and perhaps more resistant [1:01:29] to making agreements. [1:01:31] And so what we are [1:01:32] working through is, [1:01:33] in many cases, [1:01:33] is delays in getting [1:01:35] the responses to people. [1:01:36] And this is why you see [1:01:36] reporting about [1:01:37] there might be a deal [1:01:38] in the next few days [1:01:39] because internally [1:01:40] it takes time [1:01:41] to get responses [1:01:42] from them, [1:01:42] sometimes upward [1:01:43] to five or six days. [1:01:44] Undoubtedly, [1:01:45] they're using that [1:01:46] to their advantage, [1:01:47] sort of like the car dealer [1:01:48] where the salesman [1:01:49] has to go talk [1:01:50] to his manager [1:01:51] and make you wait [1:01:51] and think about it [1:01:52] for a while. [1:01:52] Even more complicated [1:01:53] than that. [1:01:53] Even more complicated [1:01:54] than that. [1:01:55] One more question. [1:01:56] I think we could benefit [1:01:57] from hearing from you [1:02:00] about the need [1:02:01] to zero out funding [1:02:02] for a couple of entities, [1:02:03] including the National [1:02:04] Endowment for Democracy [1:02:05] and US ADF. [1:02:06] Can you tell us about that? [1:02:08] Well, look, [1:02:10] these programs, [1:02:11] I think, [1:02:11] have served a purpose [1:02:13] in the past [1:02:14] and obviously there's [1:02:14] a congressional role [1:02:15] to play here, right? [1:02:16] I mean, [1:02:16] at the end of the day, [1:02:17] these programs have had, [1:02:18] especially the National [1:02:19] Endowment for Democracy [1:02:20] has had support [1:02:21] in Congress in the past. [1:02:22] And look, [1:02:23] I was here for 16 years. [1:02:25] I understand that you're [1:02:26] going to pass [1:02:27] an appropriations bill [1:02:28] and the appropriations bill [1:02:29] is going to have things [1:02:30] in it that we don't have [1:02:30] in ours. [1:02:31] That's just the way it is. [1:02:32] And we understand it. [1:02:33] We'll make it work. [1:02:34] But we are concerned [1:02:35] or have been concerned [1:02:36] in the past [1:02:37] about organizations [1:02:38] that sort of have lost [1:02:38] their purpose [1:02:39] and what they're advancing. [1:02:40] And at the end of the day, [1:02:42] look, [1:02:42] we have a lot of resources. [1:02:44] The United States [1:02:44] is the richest country [1:02:45] in the world. [1:02:46] We have the largest [1:02:46] government budget [1:02:47] in the world. [1:02:48] But we don't have [1:02:48] unlimited resources. [1:02:50] We still have to be able [1:02:51] to strategically spend [1:02:53] our money. [1:02:53] And the State Department, [1:02:54] you know, [1:02:54] when I took over, [1:02:55] a lot of people are like, [1:02:56] oh, that's a mess. [1:02:57] The State Department's [1:02:57] not that big. [1:02:58] The majority of our employees [1:02:59] are local hires overseas. [1:03:02] We have, you know, [1:03:03] foreign service officers, [1:03:04] career civil servants. [1:03:05] But compared to some [1:03:07] of these other agencies [1:03:07] that are out there, [1:03:08] we're not that large. [1:03:09] And yet we have [1:03:09] a global footprint. [1:03:11] We're really, [1:03:11] other than the Department, [1:03:12] I would say beyond [1:03:13] the Department of War, [1:03:14] we're the only ones [1:03:14] that are present [1:03:15] almost everywhere [1:03:16] on the planet. [1:03:17] So we have limited resources [1:03:18] and we have to be able [1:03:19] to allocate those resources [1:03:21] in ways that are driven [1:03:24] by the core mission [1:03:25] of advancing [1:03:25] our national security. [1:03:26] And oftentimes [1:03:27] that will mean [1:03:28] that things we have paid [1:03:29] for in the past, [1:03:30] we can't continue to fund. [1:03:31] Because there are other things. [1:03:32] It might be good, [1:03:33] but there might be something else [1:03:34] that's more important [1:03:35] and even better. [1:03:37] Other cases, [1:03:37] we may still spend money [1:03:38] on a purpose, [1:03:39] but we want to be driven [1:03:40] not just by, [1:03:41] we don't want to be judged [1:03:42] just by how much money [1:03:42] we're spending on something. [1:03:44] We also want outcomes for it. [1:03:45] We want to show outcomes. [1:03:47] That's been the goal [1:03:48] behind these MOUs, [1:03:49] these compacts [1:03:50] with the 32 countries [1:03:51] that we've entered into [1:03:52] in a week plan, [1:03:53] is we're not just trying [1:03:54] to solve the disease problem [1:03:55] this year. [1:03:56] We're trying to build [1:03:56] the local capacity [1:03:57] so that five years from now [1:03:58] they won't need aid anymore [1:03:59] because their local systems [1:04:01] can handle it. [1:04:02] Saying five years, [1:04:03] some countries may take 10 years. [1:04:04] But nonetheless, [1:04:05] that's the goal [1:04:05] and it's been very well received. [1:04:07] Thank you. [1:04:08] Thank you, Senator Lee. [1:04:08] Senator Merkley. [1:04:10] Thank you, Mr. Chairman [1:04:11] and Mr. Secretary. [1:04:12] Good to see you. [1:04:14] As Senator Shaheen noted, [1:04:17] you've expressed [1:04:18] that no one died [1:04:19] as a result [1:04:19] of the sudden shutdown [1:04:20] of AID. [1:04:22] And I did ask you [1:04:24] last time you were here [1:04:25] about that [1:04:26] and I won't repeat all that, [1:04:28] but I want to note [1:04:29] that the folks [1:04:30] who study this [1:04:31] at the schools [1:04:32] of public health, [1:04:33] Harvard-Chin School, [1:04:34] the Boston University School [1:04:36] of Public Health [1:04:36] estimate that over 500,000 children [1:04:39] have died [1:04:39] from that sudden shutdown. [1:04:41] I want to kind of put [1:04:42] a note on that. [1:04:43] If you were to walk [1:04:44] across this country, [1:04:46] you'd see one dead child [1:04:47] equivalent every roughly 30 feet. [1:04:51] That's the level of carnage. [1:04:53] I know you disagree with that, [1:04:55] but many experts [1:04:56] who are in this field, [1:04:57] that is their estimate. [1:05:01] And I hope you'll ponder that [1:05:02] as we strive to rebuild [1:05:04] our programs related [1:05:07] to malaria, tuberculosis, [1:05:09] AIDS, HIV, nutrition, [1:05:11] and certainly infectious diseases [1:05:12] like Ebola. [1:05:14] I wanted to turn, though, [1:05:15] to Taiwan. [1:05:16] It's an area that you [1:05:17] and I worked on quite a bit [1:05:19] together when you were here, [1:05:21] including the Taiwan Relations [1:05:22] Reinforcement Act [1:05:23] and the Transnational Repression Policy Act [1:05:25] and the Hong Kong Economic [1:05:26] and Trade-Offs Certification Act. [1:05:29] And I'm very concerned [1:05:31] about the president's comments [1:05:33] on his recent trip. [1:05:36] He noted that arms sales [1:05:39] to Taiwan are a, quote, [1:05:41] very good negotiating chip. [1:05:44] And when he was asked [1:05:45] about how much he talked [1:05:46] about arms sales with China, [1:05:47] he said, [1:05:48] we discussed arms sales, quote, [1:05:50] in great detail. [1:05:51] The six assurances included [1:05:53] that arms sales to Taiwan [1:05:54] would never be a negotiating chip. [1:05:57] Our concern is that the president [1:06:01] now has kind of accentuated [1:06:03] the arms sales [1:06:05] by not approving, [1:06:07] not putting the stamp of approval [1:06:09] and completing the arms sale [1:06:11] that Congress has already funded. [1:06:14] And that this sets the stage [1:06:17] for China to very much proceed [1:06:23] to pursue more aggressively [1:06:26] their effort to incorporate Taiwan [1:06:29] into the broader framework of China, [1:06:32] including extinguishing Taiwan's democracy. [1:06:36] So I'd just like to hear your thoughts. [1:06:38] Hopefully there's a path here [1:06:39] that will reaccentuate our support [1:06:41] for Taiwan's democracy. [1:06:44] Thank you. [1:06:44] That's an important question. [1:06:45] So let me first say on Taiwan, [1:06:46] and I actually, [1:06:47] I think I made this point myself [1:06:49] either on the trip in China [1:06:51] or thereafter when we return. [1:06:52] There was, [1:06:52] there's been no change [1:06:53] to U.S. policy towards Taiwan. [1:06:56] I think there's, [1:06:57] obviously the Chinese side [1:06:58] would like to see a change [1:06:59] in the verbiage, [1:07:00] but no change has been made [1:07:01] in that regard. [1:07:02] The second point I would make is, [1:07:04] I believe in December, [1:07:05] I know in December of this year, [1:07:07] we did approve an arms sale, [1:07:08] I think $11 billion. [1:07:09] I think it's the single largest [1:07:11] arms sale ever. [1:07:12] It was a huge sale to Taiwan. [1:07:13] This was just last December. [1:07:15] I think it's more than the totality [1:07:18] of the four years [1:07:18] under the Biden administration. [1:07:20] And I would recall [1:07:21] that there were a six-year period of time [1:07:22] under the Obama administration [1:07:23] where there were no sales to Taiwan. [1:07:26] There was a second pending sale, [1:07:27] which I think is the one [1:07:28] you're referring to. [1:07:29] It's the $14 billion one. [1:07:30] And that remains under review. [1:07:33] But we just did one in December. [1:07:35] So I don't think it's, [1:07:36] you know, [1:07:36] and I'm not saying you're saying this, [1:07:37] but I don't think it's fair to say [1:07:38] that the U.S. is not providing it. [1:07:40] We just had a massive arms sales [1:07:41] and it was so big [1:07:42] and so noticeable [1:07:44] that the Chinese became [1:07:45] very aggressive about it [1:07:46] and some of the incursions [1:07:47] they undertook as a result of it. [1:07:49] And as I said, [1:07:50] it was more in one sale [1:07:51] than we did in the entirety [1:07:52] of the Biden administration, [1:07:54] if I'm correct. [1:07:56] And I think I am on that point. [1:07:57] So, but the most important thing [1:07:59] to understand is [1:07:59] we want to see the status quo preserved, [1:08:03] as is at this moment. [1:08:04] That's our policy. [1:08:05] That's what we've said. [1:08:06] That's what we continue to say. [1:08:07] It's a very, as you know, [1:08:09] a very delicate relationship to balance. [1:08:11] But our policy on Taiwan [1:08:12] is not changing. [1:08:13] It did not change on this trip. [1:08:17] Another issue that you and I worked on [1:08:19] was the Uyghur Forest Labor Prevention Act. [1:08:22] And it's really been [1:08:22] the most effective strategy [1:08:24] for saying that the products [1:08:26] produced by slave labor [1:08:27] will not be admitted [1:08:28] into the United States. [1:08:30] And we've turned down [1:08:31] a lot of products from China. [1:08:32] But then they're trans-shipped, [1:08:34] often just into Canada. [1:08:36] It would be a far more effective policy [1:08:38] if Mexico, Canada, and Europe [1:08:40] were to join us. [1:08:42] Is that an objective you can pursue [1:08:44] in your role? [1:08:45] It is. [1:08:45] And as you said, [1:08:47] it's an enforcement challenge. [1:08:48] I think the initial enforcement [1:08:49] was easier [1:08:50] because it was more straightforward. [1:08:51] I think the trans-shipment issue [1:08:52] makes it harder [1:08:53] because it requires more paperwork, [1:08:54] more due diligence. [1:08:56] And frankly, in many cases, [1:08:57] some of it is obscured. [1:08:58] But I want to make this point. [1:08:59] There's clearly a humanitarian aspect [1:09:01] to it. [1:09:01] There's clearly a humane aspect [1:09:03] to forced labor, [1:09:04] which is horrifying. [1:09:06] Separate but related, [1:09:07] there's an economic aspect to it. [1:09:09] It is also, I mean, [1:09:10] unfair competition [1:09:11] for our companies [1:09:12] to have to compete against someone [1:09:13] who has free labor, [1:09:15] basically compelled [1:09:16] and forced labor. [1:09:17] So we've made the argument [1:09:18] on two fronts. [1:09:19] Not just is this immoral [1:09:20] and horrific, [1:09:22] but it's also an enormous [1:09:24] economic disadvantage, [1:09:27] not just for us, [1:09:28] but for companies [1:09:28] all over the world. [1:09:30] As you can imagine, [1:09:32] depending on the country, [1:09:33] some are more willing [1:09:34] to lean in on these issues [1:09:35] than others. [1:09:37] I think just yesterday, [1:09:39] or last week, [1:09:41] the foreign minister of China [1:09:43] was visiting Canada [1:09:44] and where they sort of announced [1:09:47] or at least, you know, [1:09:48] put out the prospect [1:09:49] of how Canada can export [1:09:51] more to China next year. [1:09:52] You know, that was the carrot. [1:09:54] What we don't know in those, [1:09:55] and I'm not blaming Canada, [1:09:56] I'm just saying in general, [1:09:57] they do this all over the world. [1:09:58] There's a stick associated with it. [1:09:59] And I would imagine [1:10:00] that China's putting, [1:10:01] I know that they put [1:10:02] tremendous amount of pressures [1:10:03] on countries around the world [1:10:04] not to comply with restrictions [1:10:07] like the ones we put. [1:10:08] I agree. [1:10:08] If we got Canada and Mexico [1:10:09] to agree, [1:10:10] given our current trade arrangements, [1:10:12] it would make it far more effective. [1:10:14] To date, [1:10:14] we have not been successful [1:10:15] at convincing them [1:10:16] that they should do that [1:10:17] because, among other things, [1:10:18] I think they fear retribution. [1:10:20] But we certainly will continue [1:10:22] to raise it [1:10:22] because we think it harms them. [1:10:25] Senator Brasso. [1:10:26] Thanks, Mr. Chairman. [1:10:27] Mr. Secretary, [1:10:27] great to see you again. [1:10:28] You opened by talking about [1:10:30] American leadership [1:10:31] and American interests. [1:10:32] And later this month, [1:10:33] the G7 is going to be meeting in France. [1:10:35] And then next month, [1:10:37] NATO meeting in Turkey. [1:10:40] Just overview, [1:10:42] what are the priorities [1:10:43] you're going to go [1:10:43] into those meetings with? [1:10:45] G7? [1:10:46] G7 and NATO, yeah. [1:10:47] Coming up next month. [1:10:48] Well, NATO will be a fun meeting. [1:10:51] Let's start with the G7 one. [1:10:52] The G7 forum this year [1:10:54] has largely been focused, [1:10:55] obviously because of the straits. [1:10:57] So when I went [1:10:57] to the foreign ministers' meeting [1:10:59] in March, [1:10:59] a lot of the conversations [1:11:00] in April were about the straits. [1:11:02] And the one point we've made is, [1:11:03] and what's interesting [1:11:04] is a lot of the countries [1:11:05] involved there, [1:11:05] even though it's not [1:11:06] a military forum per se, [1:11:08] the UK and France [1:11:09] are members of it, [1:11:10] they've put together [1:11:11] this initiative, [1:11:12] which they say [1:11:13] they will send mine sweepers [1:11:15] and escort ships, [1:11:16] but they will do so [1:11:17] once hostilities has ended. [1:11:19] Kind of a catch-22. [1:11:20] On the one hand, [1:11:21] I mean, [1:11:22] why do you need naval escorts [1:11:23] if no one's shooting [1:11:24] at the ships? [1:11:25] That said, [1:11:26] I don't diminish [1:11:26] the utility of it [1:11:27] because I would imagine [1:11:29] the first few ships [1:11:30] to go through [1:11:30] are going to like [1:11:31] to be escorted. [1:11:32] So I think that's going [1:11:33] to be a key feature [1:11:34] of that conversation. [1:11:35] I think there's [1:11:35] a shared interest [1:11:36] in all these countries [1:11:37] on rare earth minerals [1:11:39] and supply chains generally. [1:11:40] I think there is [1:11:41] a growing global consensus, [1:11:43] and we had a great, [1:11:45] maybe a few of you [1:11:46] had attended part of it, [1:11:46] we had a great ministerial [1:11:49] here earlier this year [1:11:51] on rare earths [1:11:52] and supply chains [1:11:53] that brought in [1:11:54] dozens of countries [1:11:55] and all the G7 countries [1:11:56] were represented at it. [1:11:58] And so I think [1:11:58] that's going to be [1:11:59] a feature here [1:11:59] is how do we create, [1:12:01] how do we diversify [1:12:02] the global supply chain [1:12:03] on anything from rare earths [1:12:05] to pharmaceuticals? [1:12:06] There's growing consensus, [1:12:08] so I think that point [1:12:08] will be quite dominant. [1:12:10] And then given the makeup [1:12:10] of who's in the G7, [1:12:12] the Russia-Ukraine conflict [1:12:13] will always come up [1:12:14] because obviously [1:12:15] it directly impacts, [1:12:17] you know, [1:12:17] at least three or four [1:12:17] of those members [1:12:18] who are on the continent. [1:12:19] So we will also, [1:12:21] and I don't know, [1:12:22] I don't recall exactly [1:12:23] who the French have invited, [1:12:24] but in addition to the G7, [1:12:26] they'll always invite [1:12:26] two or three other countries [1:12:27] to attend. [1:12:28] I believe Ukraine [1:12:29] has been invited, [1:12:30] if I'm not mistaken, [1:12:31] there's usually [1:12:31] a couple other countries [1:12:32] that they'll invite [1:12:33] that are not members of G7. [1:12:35] But I think those issues [1:12:36] will dominate depending [1:12:37] on where we are [1:12:37] with the Straits, [1:12:38] and then clearly [1:12:39] the critical minerals [1:12:40] and supply chains [1:12:41] has been a key focus [1:12:42] of G7 actions. [1:12:44] The last point is, [1:12:45] I think there's been [1:12:46] an interest in, [1:12:47] so, and I think [1:12:48] Canada deserves credit [1:12:49] for this, [1:12:50] that Canadians [1:12:51] have really taken a lead, [1:12:52] and we've been very [1:12:53] supportive of this, [1:12:54] in highlighting places [1:12:55] like Haiti. [1:12:57] And as a result [1:12:58] of these G7 meetings, [1:12:59] we've actually had [1:13:00] a number of countries [1:13:00] in the G7, [1:13:01] including Japan, [1:13:02] step up and contribute [1:13:03] to the effort there. [1:13:06] And the reason [1:13:07] I mentioned NATO, [1:13:08] there's an article [1:13:08] in The Hill, [1:13:09] and Mr. Chairman, [1:13:09] I ask unanimous consent [1:13:10] that we put this in the record. [1:13:12] It says, [1:13:12] Sweden is now America's [1:13:14] most valuable tech ally. [1:13:16] You're talking about [1:13:16] working together [1:13:17] with other countries. [1:13:18] It goes on to say, [1:13:19] this was just last week, [1:13:20] Sweden joined NATO. [1:13:21] They've now signed [1:13:22] the Bilateral Defense [1:13:23] Cooperation Agreement. [1:13:24] They said in March, [1:13:26] Sweden became [1:13:26] the first European member, [1:13:28] European Union member state [1:13:30] to sign the Pax Silica Declaration, [1:13:32] Washington's flagship initiative [1:13:34] to secure global AI [1:13:35] and semiconductor supply chains, [1:13:37] and now the technology [1:13:38] prosperity deal. [1:13:40] I want to know, [1:13:40] how have you accomplished [1:13:41] so much, [1:13:42] and is this a model [1:13:43] for U.S. relationships [1:13:44] going forward with NATO? [1:13:46] Yeah. [1:13:46] The interesting thing [1:13:47] about Sweden [1:13:48] is because they, [1:13:48] and Finland to the equal extent, [1:13:52] is because they were not [1:13:53] members of NATO [1:13:54] for many, many years, [1:13:55] they had a self-sufficiency [1:13:56] in their defenses. [1:13:57] And so now that they've joined, [1:13:59] they've actually added [1:14:00] to the equation. [1:14:00] I'm not here to beat up [1:14:01] on any specific country, [1:14:03] but generally speaking, [1:14:04] the countries you added to NATO [1:14:05] were countries that needed [1:14:06] from NATO. [1:14:07] Sweden and Finland [1:14:08] have actually contributed [1:14:08] because they brought [1:14:09] their own defense industry, [1:14:11] their own advanced technologies. [1:14:12] So they've been a great partner. [1:14:14] They've been an extraordinary partner. [1:14:15] We were just there [1:14:15] because we had the NATO [1:14:16] foreign ministers meeting [1:14:17] in Sweden, [1:14:18] and it was phenomenal. [1:14:19] And I think that Sweden [1:14:20] is a great ally [1:14:21] and a country that we're [1:14:22] continuing to find [1:14:23] a lot of synergy [1:14:23] and cooperation with, [1:14:25] especially on the field [1:14:26] of technology, [1:14:27] but also on defense. [1:14:28] I mean, [1:14:28] they have their own [1:14:28] defense industrial base, [1:14:30] which is an impressive [1:14:31] defense industrial base. [1:14:32] I wish every country [1:14:33] in NATO had what they have, [1:14:34] but I understand [1:14:35] why Sweden has it. [1:14:36] The number of travels [1:14:38] that a number of members [1:14:39] have done in bipartisan ways, [1:14:40] we found out as we go [1:14:41] around Europe [1:14:42] that most countries [1:14:42] will say they've been [1:14:43] too dependent [1:14:44] on the United States [1:14:45] for military, [1:14:46] too dependent [1:14:46] on Russia for energy, [1:14:47] and too dependent [1:14:48] on China for materials. [1:14:50] This administration [1:14:51] has really made [1:14:52] these nations step up [1:14:53] to do what they need to do [1:14:55] in terms of putting [1:14:56] the money forward [1:14:56] in defense. [1:14:57] So I want to know [1:14:58] what the next concrete steps [1:14:59] we can do [1:14:59] in terms of making [1:15:00] some of the pledges [1:15:01] of moving from 2% [1:15:03] to 5%, [1:15:03] making sure that they [1:15:05] deploy the military capabilities. [1:15:06] Yeah. [1:15:07] Well, I mean, look, [1:15:07] some countries are on track [1:15:09] to do that, [1:15:09] others are not. [1:15:10] Let me just speak [1:15:11] about it in general terms. [1:15:13] There's a real challenge. [1:15:14] On the one hand, [1:15:14] they've made these pledges [1:15:15] that they're going [1:15:16] to increase their defense spending [1:15:17] and their defense capability. [1:15:19] It actually has to be on defense. [1:15:20] That's the first thing. [1:15:21] You can't say that pensions [1:15:23] for former soldiers [1:15:24] and sailors [1:15:25] is part of your 5% [1:15:27] or your 3.5. [1:15:28] I mean, that can't happen. [1:15:29] But the bigger challenge [1:15:31] that much of Europe faces, [1:15:33] many countries in NATO faces, [1:15:34] their economies are not growing, [1:15:36] and in order to spend [1:15:37] more money on defense, [1:15:38] they're going to either [1:15:39] have to raise taxes [1:15:40] or cut social programs. [1:15:42] And part of the reality of NATO, [1:15:43] whether we like to hear it or not, [1:15:44] is that many of the countries [1:15:46] in Europe were able [1:15:46] to build these very robust [1:15:48] social safety nets [1:15:49] because they didn't have [1:15:50] to spend it on defense [1:15:51] because NATO and the United States [1:15:52] were providing it for it. [1:15:54] So they're going to have [1:15:54] to deal with that reality. [1:15:56] The second point is, [1:15:57] and this is not [1:15:57] an anti-NATO statement, [1:15:59] but it is the reality, [1:16:01] the United States [1:16:01] has global obligations. [1:16:03] At the same time [1:16:04] as I'm in NATO, [1:16:05] I have to speak [1:16:05] to the Indo-Pacific countries [1:16:06] who are also worried [1:16:07] about what's our force posture [1:16:09] they're going to be. [1:16:10] We obviously are involved [1:16:11] in the Middle East. [1:16:12] We have counterterrorism issues [1:16:13] with regards to Africa. [1:16:15] We have growing [1:16:16] mill-to-mill cooperation [1:16:17] in our own Western Hemisphere, [1:16:18] especially taking on [1:16:19] these transnational terrorist [1:16:21] organizations and the like. [1:16:23] So we, [1:16:23] and we don't have, like, [1:16:24] unlimited military resources, [1:16:26] even though we have [1:16:26] a very large budget. [1:16:28] They're not unlimited. [1:16:29] And so we have to be able [1:16:30] to allocate our resources [1:16:31] and our personnel [1:16:32] in ways that make sense. [1:16:33] And it has to come [1:16:34] at the expense of something. [1:16:36] And so I think [1:16:37] that's the reality [1:16:38] that we have shared [1:16:38] with our NATO partners [1:16:39] from the very beginning [1:16:40] of this administration [1:16:41] and have been consulting [1:16:42] every step along the way. [1:16:44] But these countries [1:16:44] will have to step up. [1:16:45] They, at a minimum, [1:16:46] have to be able [1:16:47] to conventionally defend [1:16:48] their own sovereign [1:16:49] national territory [1:16:50] for the most part. [1:16:52] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:16:54] Senator Van Hollen, [1:16:55] you're next. [1:16:57] Chairman, and welcome, [1:16:59] Mr. Secretary. [1:17:00] This is your first public hearing [1:17:02] since President Trump [1:17:04] and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu [1:17:07] launched an illegal war [1:17:09] against Iran. [1:17:11] Netanyahu said [1:17:13] he's been waiting 40 years [1:17:15] to do this. [1:17:16] Turns out he finally found [1:17:18] a president [1:17:18] who was both stupid [1:17:20] and reckless enough [1:17:21] to join him. [1:17:23] The war has killed [1:17:23] 14 American service members, [1:17:25] wounded hundreds more, [1:17:27] and killed thousands [1:17:28] of civilians. [1:17:29] It's driving up [1:17:30] the price of gas, [1:17:32] food, and much more. [1:17:34] Trump obviously doesn't care. [1:17:35] He called high gas prices [1:17:37] peanuts and said, [1:17:39] I don't think about [1:17:40] Americans' financial situation. [1:17:43] That's from the president [1:17:44] of the United States. [1:17:45] And all for what? [1:17:46] The president told us [1:17:47] 91 days ago [1:17:49] that we had, quote, [1:17:50] won the war in Iran. [1:17:52] Last year, he told the country, [1:17:54] Iran's key enrichment facilities [1:17:56] have been completely [1:17:57] and totally obliterated. [1:18:00] Was that false? [1:18:02] Let's face it, [1:18:03] Mr. Secretary, [1:18:04] the Trump foreign policy [1:18:05] has become a dumpster fire. [1:18:08] This is the same president [1:18:09] who's more interested [1:18:11] in flattering Vladimir Putin [1:18:12] than in protecting [1:18:14] Ukrainian sovereignty. [1:18:15] The president who lifted [1:18:17] restrictions on the transfer [1:18:18] of sophisticated U.S. chips [1:18:20] to China, [1:18:21] but came back from his trip there [1:18:23] with nothing but ballroom envy. [1:18:25] He tweeted about that [1:18:26] the other day. [1:18:27] This is the president [1:18:28] who brought on Elon Musk [1:18:29] to take a chainsaw to AID, [1:18:31] which has enabled [1:18:32] the current Ebola outbreak [1:18:33] in the DRC. [1:18:35] We've also witnessed [1:18:36] corrupt crypto deals [1:18:37] with the UAE royal family [1:18:39] that have enriched [1:18:39] the Trump family [1:18:40] at the expense [1:18:41] of our national security. [1:18:42] We've seen an administration [1:18:44] engage in extrajudicial killings [1:18:46] in the Caribbean, [1:18:47] hijack Venezuelan oil, [1:18:49] threaten to invade Greenland, [1:18:50] and weaken the NATO alliance. [1:18:53] Here at home, [1:18:54] a Reagan-appointed judge [1:18:55] said that you [1:18:56] and former Secretary Noem [1:18:57] abused your powers [1:18:59] when you locked up [1:19:00] and still seek [1:19:01] to deport students [1:19:02] for protesting [1:19:03] the destruction of Gaza. [1:19:05] The Reagan-appointed judge [1:19:06] said you did that, [1:19:08] quote, primarily on account [1:19:09] of their First Amendment [1:19:10] protected political speech. [1:19:13] Speaking of Gaza, [1:19:14] the so-called Board of Peace [1:19:15] seems to have run around. [1:19:17] Meanwhile, [1:19:19] while Senator Rubio [1:19:20] once proclaimed [1:19:22] that the U.S. must, [1:19:23] quote, [1:19:24] work to ensure [1:19:25] that refugees [1:19:25] who flee war, [1:19:27] torture, [1:19:27] and persecution [1:19:28] are provided [1:19:29] safe environments [1:19:30] to live and thrive in, [1:19:33] now as Secretary of State [1:19:34] in this administration, [1:19:36] you have capped refugees [1:19:38] at a record low [1:19:39] of 17,500, [1:19:41] and white South Africans, [1:19:44] Afrikaners, [1:19:45] have comprised [1:19:46] roughly 99% [1:19:48] of those slots, [1:19:50] Mr. Secretary, [1:19:51] a race-based refugee system. [1:19:54] At the same time, [1:19:55] the president's preventing [1:19:56] Cuban political refugees [1:19:57] from entering [1:19:58] the United States, [1:19:58] even as you've imposed [1:20:00] a near-oil blockade [1:20:01] on that repressive regime. [1:20:04] The stated goal [1:20:05] is to change [1:20:06] the government there, [1:20:08] but the only real change [1:20:10] is humanitarian crisis [1:20:12] inflicted on millions [1:20:13] of people, [1:20:14] not members of the regime. [1:20:15] And in that regard, [1:20:16] Mr. Secretary, [1:20:17] I have a question for you [1:20:18] regarding the designation [1:20:20] of Cuba [1:20:22] as a state sponsor [1:20:24] of terrorism. [1:20:24] On the very first week, [1:20:26] at least, [1:20:26] of this administration, [1:20:27] you reinstated, [1:20:30] the administration [1:20:31] reinstated that. [1:20:32] And in a recent [1:20:34] January 26 EO, [1:20:36] you made statements [1:20:39] suggesting connections [1:20:40] to Hezbollah and Hamas. [1:20:42] The previous administration [1:20:44] did a thorough review [1:20:45] with the intelligence community [1:20:46] and concluded [1:20:47] that there was no evidence [1:20:49] that Cuba was engaged [1:20:50] in ongoing state sponsor [1:20:52] of terrorism. [1:20:53] Did you find new evidence [1:20:55] to support that conclusion? [1:20:57] Well, first of all, [1:20:58] let me just say [1:20:58] that was, [1:20:59] that's your question, [1:20:59] but you made this long statement [1:21:00] of which I disagree. [1:21:01] Most of it, [1:21:02] we won't have time [1:21:03] to address every point [1:21:04] that you made. [1:21:04] So let's stick to Cuba specific [1:21:06] because that's the question [1:21:07] that you asked. [1:21:08] Cuba has sponsored terrorism [1:21:09] and supported groups. [1:21:10] For example, [1:21:11] virtually every left-wing, [1:21:13] radical, violent terrorist group [1:21:15] in the Western Hemisphere [1:21:16] has at some point relied [1:21:17] on support from Cuba. [1:21:19] The ELN, the FARC, [1:21:20] the FARC dissidents, [1:21:21] including them, [1:21:21] have been involved there. [1:21:22] We also know, for example, [1:21:24] that Cuba continues to host [1:21:26] a pretty substantial collection [1:21:27] intelligence sites [1:21:29] on behalf of the Chinese [1:21:30] and the Russians. [1:21:31] But you look at the region [1:21:32] and you look at all of these [1:21:33] leftist Marxist terrorist organizations, [1:21:35] all of them, [1:21:36] in many cases, [1:21:37] got their money from the Cubans. [1:21:37] Mr. Secretary, if I can move on. [1:21:38] I noticed you did not [1:21:39] answer my question [1:21:40] because my question [1:21:41] is specifically related [1:21:42] to whether there was new evidence, [1:21:44] new evidence to support [1:21:45] that conclusion. [1:21:46] I can just tell you- [1:21:46] Why would I need new evidence? [1:21:48] Because you're claiming [1:21:49] that they're a state-sponsored terrorism. [1:21:51] Suggesting they're [1:21:52] ongoingly involved in that. [1:21:54] My final question to you, [1:21:55] Mr. Secretary, [1:21:56] relates to the [1:21:57] El-Asqa-Mas complex. [1:21:59] There have been reports [1:22:00] that the United States [1:22:01] is working with Israel [1:22:02] to take away [1:22:03] the Kingdom of Jordan's [1:22:04] custodianship [1:22:05] over the El-Asqa-Mas complex [1:22:08] in East Jerusalem. [1:22:09] Can you confirm [1:22:10] today that there's no- [1:22:12] I'm not even aware [1:22:12] of those reports. [1:22:13] There are reports, [1:22:14] so I was hoping you could confirm. [1:22:15] Is that like a media report? [1:22:16] There have been [1:22:17] several media reports. [1:22:18] Ah, well, you know [1:22:18] the media's always accurate. [1:22:19] No, they're not. [1:22:20] And that's why I'm getting- [1:22:21] Yeah, no, I've never even heard that. [1:22:22] That's the first time [1:22:23] I even hear anybody discuss that. [1:22:24] All right. [1:22:24] Well, I'm glad to hear that, [1:22:25] Mr. Secretary. [1:22:25] But we have a great relationship [1:22:26] with Jordan, you know, [1:22:27] and we're very helpful. [1:22:28] I've just never heard that before. [1:22:30] You should- [1:22:30] I don't know what article [1:22:31] you're referring to. [1:22:31] Just give it to me. [1:22:32] I'll look at it. [1:22:33] I'm happy to. [1:22:33] Is it a credible website? [1:22:35] I'm glad to hear you say, [1:22:36] Mr. Secretary, [1:22:37] there's no truth to it. [1:22:37] I've never heard that [1:22:38] discussed by anybody. [1:22:39] You're up next. [1:22:45] Oops, I'm sorry. [1:22:46] Senator Deans was here earlier. [1:22:47] I apologize, Senator. [1:22:48] Senator Deans. [1:22:49] Chairman, thank you. [1:22:50] Reckon Member Shaheen, [1:22:51] good to see you as well. [1:22:54] One of the underreported successes [1:22:56] for your diplomacy [1:22:58] and this administration [1:23:00] is what's happened [1:23:01] through the peace agreement, [1:23:03] a landmark agreement [1:23:04] between Armenia and Azerbaijan. [1:23:06] I know, Mr. Secretary, [1:23:08] you just were in the region [1:23:10] most recently, [1:23:12] a major step forward [1:23:13] for a region long beset [1:23:15] by conflict, [1:23:16] nearly 40 years of a hot war. [1:23:19] And through your leadership [1:23:20] and President Trump's leadership, [1:23:23] you've brought true peace [1:23:24] to an area of the world [1:23:26] sandwiched in between Russia [1:23:28] and Iran. [1:23:30] It was creative thinking [1:23:31] that led the establishment [1:23:33] of the Trump route [1:23:35] for international peace [1:23:36] and prosperity [1:23:37] as a solution [1:23:38] to some of the stickier issues [1:23:40] in that negotiation. [1:23:42] The program promises [1:23:43] to be a boon, [1:23:44] not only for Armenia [1:23:46] and Azerbaijan, [1:23:48] but also many neighboring countries. [1:23:50] As Brzezinski once said, [1:23:51] talk on the global chessboard, [1:23:53] his book, [1:23:54] that Central Asia [1:23:55] is the wine bottle [1:23:57] and Azerbaijan's the cork. [1:23:59] You uncork the wine bottle, [1:24:02] suddenly you've got oil [1:24:03] and gas [1:24:04] and critical minerals [1:24:05] flowing back towards the West [1:24:07] instead of to Russia, [1:24:08] to China, [1:24:10] and to Iran. [1:24:12] Mr. Secretary, [1:24:12] can you tell us a little bit [1:24:13] about how you plan [1:24:14] to implement [1:24:15] the TRIP framework agreements [1:24:17] and deliver major economic benefit [1:24:20] to both the United States [1:24:21] in a very historically troubled region? [1:24:25] Thanks. [1:24:25] Actually, as you said, [1:24:27] I was there last week, [1:24:29] what was it, [1:24:30] Tuesday maybe? [1:24:31] We signed the TRIP agreement [1:24:33] between the U.S. [1:24:34] and Armenia, [1:24:35] and this is, [1:24:36] you described it as a corridor, [1:24:37] which I, look, [1:24:38] I know it's the anchor [1:24:39] of a peace agreement [1:24:40] with Armenia and Azerbaijan, [1:24:42] and that's critical, [1:24:43] but it's much more [1:24:44] than just the anchor [1:24:44] of a peace agreement. [1:24:45] It really has the opportunity [1:24:47] to revolutionize Armenia's [1:24:49] strategic location [1:24:51] and become a central hub [1:24:52] for trade in the region. [1:24:53] It solves the issue of access [1:24:55] that Azerbaijan cared about [1:24:56] and it was an irritant [1:24:57] in their relationship, [1:24:58] but it does much more than that. [1:25:00] It has the ability [1:25:00] to transform the Armenian economy [1:25:02] in a very powerful way. [1:25:04] Here's the other thing [1:25:04] that it's done. [1:25:05] For a long period of time, [1:25:07] our relations with Armenia [1:25:08] were quite stagnant, [1:25:10] and in many cases, [1:25:11] I would argue, [1:25:11] almost non-existent. [1:25:12] It has also reinvigorated [1:25:15] that relationship [1:25:15] between our two countries [1:25:17] and allow us to explore [1:25:18] opportunities [1:25:18] in all sorts of other fields. [1:25:20] So we're involved [1:25:21] in that very heavily now. [1:25:22] We just literally [1:25:22] just signed the agreement, [1:25:24] and it will allow us [1:25:25] to drive and hopefully [1:25:27] incentivize U.S. private sector [1:25:29] investment in this corridor [1:25:30] to the benefit [1:25:31] of American companies [1:25:32] and American interests, [1:25:33] but also to the benefit [1:25:34] of Armenia [1:25:34] and Azerbaijan [1:25:35] and other regional countries. [1:25:37] I would also argue, [1:25:38] by the way, [1:25:38] and just to point out, [1:25:39] and I don't mean this again. [1:25:40] I think this is pretty well understood [1:25:42] in the open source reporting. [1:25:43] The Russians are less than happy [1:25:45] about our engagement there. [1:25:47] I think there's evidence [1:25:48] that they would like [1:25:48] the current president [1:25:49] to lose his election [1:25:50] as a result of this [1:25:51] growing relationship [1:25:54] with the United States. [1:25:55] To be clear, [1:25:56] we're not there to infringe [1:25:56] on Armenian sovereignty. [1:25:58] We're not asking them [1:25:58] not to be friends [1:25:59] with other countries. [1:26:00] We just want to be able [1:26:01] to have a relationship [1:26:01] with them that's built [1:26:03] not just on peace, [1:26:04] peace is important, [1:26:05] but that's just the beginning. [1:26:06] It's the economic opportunities [1:26:08] that it provides. [1:26:09] There are American companies [1:26:10] and American workers [1:26:11] that will benefit from it, [1:26:12] but the Armenian people [1:26:13] will be the ultimate beneficiaries [1:26:15] of this corridor opening. [1:26:16] It's remarkable, [1:26:17] and we were there together, [1:26:18] in fact, [1:26:18] last August [1:26:19] at the White House [1:26:19] when President Aliyev, [1:26:21] Azerbaijan, [1:26:21] Prime Minister Pashian, [1:26:22] Armenia came [1:26:23] to sign that agreement [1:26:24] with President Trump's leadership [1:26:26] to think a Shiite Muslim country, [1:26:29] Azerbaijan, [1:26:30] and Armenia, [1:26:31] one of the oldest Christian countries [1:26:32] in the world [1:26:33] came together [1:26:34] to sign a peace agreement [1:26:36] was truly a breakthrough, [1:26:37] and so it's an underreported story [1:26:39] in my opinion, [1:26:39] Mr. Secretary. [1:26:40] I think we need [1:26:41] to get the story out. [1:26:41] This is a critical geopolitical problem [1:26:44] that has been definitely remedied [1:26:47] by the leadership [1:26:47] of this administration. [1:26:47] Yeah, I mean, [1:26:48] the key center, Danes, [1:26:49] is going to be execution. [1:26:50] Like, you can sign an agreement, [1:26:51] you can have the things in place. [1:26:53] We now have to make sure [1:26:54] we are focused on driving it [1:26:55] and ensuring that to the extent [1:26:57] American companies can contribute [1:26:58] to the infrastructure, [1:27:00] to the railway, [1:27:00] to the highway, [1:27:01] to everything that needs to happen [1:27:02] in order for that corridor to open, [1:27:04] and then the spin-off effect [1:27:05] of it as well. [1:27:07] We don't need to dominate it. [1:27:08] We're not asking [1:27:08] for an American monopoly economic, [1:27:10] but we do want our companies [1:27:11] to get a fair shake in there, [1:27:13] and, by the way, [1:27:14] partnering with Armenian companies [1:27:15] in many cases [1:27:16] so it becomes mutually beneficial. [1:27:17] Secretary Rubio, [1:27:17] before my time runs out, [1:27:18] I want to bring up [1:27:19] one very important final point. [1:27:21] As you well know, [1:27:22] I've been spending a lot of time [1:27:23] over the past few years [1:27:23] working with our friends [1:27:24] in Central Asia, [1:27:25] across the Caspian there, [1:27:26] with the five Central Asian countries. [1:27:28] Things are progressing well [1:27:29] thanks to your engagement [1:27:31] and encouragement [1:27:31] and President Trump's. [1:27:33] And we're seeing a lot of fruit [1:27:34] from last year's C5-plus-1 summit [1:27:36] that was right here in Washington. [1:27:37] That being said, [1:27:39] there is still a major hurdle [1:27:40] to strengthen our ties. [1:27:42] One of the key irritants [1:27:43] to our friends in Azerbaijan [1:27:45] and in Central Asia [1:27:47] is the infamous Jackson-Vanuk [1:27:49] trade restrictions. [1:27:50] These are Soviet-era relic restrictions. [1:27:52] In fact, [1:27:53] Senator Murphy and I [1:27:54] are the co-leads [1:27:56] on the repeal. [1:27:58] It's long past due [1:28:00] that we get this changed. [1:28:02] Mr. Secretary, [1:28:03] is removing these restrictions [1:28:05] a priority for you [1:28:06] and your department [1:28:07] and removing them [1:28:08] have a significant impact [1:28:09] on our relations [1:28:10] with Central Asia? [1:28:11] Yeah, it's a detriment. [1:28:12] We'd like to see it removed. [1:28:14] And I think you should talk [1:28:15] to the chairman [1:28:16] and the ranking member [1:28:17] about putting it [1:28:17] on the agenda with you guys. [1:28:18] They're right there. [1:28:19] You can tell them. [1:28:20] It's finance. [1:28:21] Oh, it's finance. [1:28:21] You don't have jurisdiction over that? [1:28:23] It's my job. [1:28:24] And Mr. Secretary... [1:28:25] It's finance. [1:28:26] Well, that's good. [1:28:27] That's what I do, too. [1:28:28] It's not my job. [1:28:29] And our encouragement [1:28:30] from our friends over in the House [1:28:31] will be helpful. [1:28:31] We'll work with you on that, [1:28:32] Mr. Secretary. [1:28:32] You should get it passed. [1:28:33] I mean, look, [1:28:34] it would be very helpful. [1:28:34] Yeah, it would be. [1:28:35] Thank you. [1:28:35] Absolutely. [1:28:37] First of all, [1:28:37] let me say that I absolutely concur [1:28:39] with the secretary [1:28:42] and Senator Daines with you. [1:28:44] And I've talked to the president [1:28:45] about this, as you know. [1:28:48] And I have actually talked [1:28:50] to the chairman [1:28:50] of the finance committee [1:28:51] who I know relatively well. [1:28:54] And we actually have a plan [1:28:56] for going forward. [1:28:57] You and I are going to meet [1:28:58] on that here very quickly. [1:28:59] I'm glad I have friends [1:28:59] in high places, Mr. Chairman. [1:29:00] Thank you. [1:29:01] But no, you're absolutely right on that. [1:29:03] And it there's it's just in the queue. [1:29:07] So with that, [1:29:09] let us go to Senator Coons. [1:29:11] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, [1:29:12] ranking member, [1:29:13] Mr. Secretary, [1:29:14] National Security Advisor. [1:29:15] Good to see you again. [1:29:16] And I know from our service here together [1:29:19] that you agree that China [1:29:20] is the greatest national security threat [1:29:23] that we face. [1:29:24] And one of the key reasons [1:29:25] is their repeated threats [1:29:27] to take control of Taiwan [1:29:29] by force if necessary. [1:29:31] And Taiwan is we both know [1:29:32] is not just some faraway island. [1:29:34] It produces 90 percent [1:29:35] of the semiconductor chips [1:29:37] critical to everything [1:29:38] from F-35s to iPhones. [1:29:40] And its geography [1:29:41] makes it indispensable [1:29:43] both to global commerce [1:29:44] and military power. [1:29:46] Do you agree with that? [1:29:48] Taiwan? [1:29:49] Yeah, it's very it's not [1:29:50] just strategically important [1:29:51] in terms of where it's located. [1:29:52] It also is the message [1:29:53] that it sends to the world [1:29:55] if something were to happen to it. [1:29:56] Agreed. [1:29:56] That's why for decades, [1:29:58] really with leadership [1:29:59] from the Senate [1:30:00] in a bipartisan way, [1:30:01] we've provided arms [1:30:02] to deter the PRC's [1:30:04] potential military aggression. [1:30:05] In fact, you introduced [1:30:06] the Taiwan Peace [1:30:07] Through Strength Act of 2023. [1:30:10] In January, [1:30:11] Congress pre-approved [1:30:12] a $14 billion arms package [1:30:14] for Taiwan. [1:30:15] It's been six months. [1:30:17] We haven't received [1:30:17] a notification. [1:30:18] Have you advised [1:30:19] President Trump [1:30:20] to proceed with this? [1:30:20] Yeah, it's under consideration. [1:30:21] I don't know if you were here [1:30:22] a moment ago when I discussed. [1:30:24] We just did $11 billion [1:30:25] in December, [1:30:26] which was, I think, [1:30:26] the largest sale in history. [1:30:29] I think it was more [1:30:30] than the accumulative amount [1:30:31] under the Biden administration. [1:30:33] And I recall, [1:30:33] during six years [1:30:34] of the Obama administration, [1:30:35] there was zero gone to Taiwan. [1:30:37] So some way you would argue [1:30:38] that we're trying [1:30:38] to make up ground. [1:30:39] So why hold off on it now? [1:30:41] Well, so the other 14 [1:30:42] is being reviewed. [1:30:43] It's under review. [1:30:43] It hasn't been, [1:30:44] I think it's been noticed, [1:30:45] but it hasn't been reviewed. [1:30:47] I mean, it hasn't been approved yet. [1:30:48] It's under review [1:30:49] under the White House. [1:30:50] Mr. Secretary, [1:30:51] my concern is that [1:30:51] President Trump [1:30:52] has said publicly [1:30:53] that arms sales to Taipei [1:30:55] are a great negotiating chip [1:30:57] with China. [1:30:58] And my concern, [1:30:59] at a time when the PRC [1:31:00] has been far more aggressive [1:31:02] than they were [1:31:02] in previous years, [1:31:04] centerline crossing, [1:31:05] circumnavigation of Australia, [1:31:07] aiding Iran and Russia [1:31:10] in their war goals and aims, [1:31:12] frankly, literally helping Iranians [1:31:14] target U.S. service members. [1:31:16] I respect the importance [1:31:18] of our having an open negotiation [1:31:19] and relationship with the PRC. [1:31:22] But in the meetings [1:31:23] you were in in Beijing, [1:31:25] did the president offer [1:31:26] to condition arms sales to Taiwan [1:31:28] in order to placate Xi Jinping? [1:31:30] Well, look, [1:31:30] I'm not going to discuss [1:31:31] what was the president's words [1:31:32] in a meeting or not. [1:31:33] It's suffice it to say that, [1:31:34] you know, [1:31:35] that specific question [1:31:36] you just asked, [1:31:36] that's not the context [1:31:38] in which the president [1:31:39] has raised this in the past. [1:31:40] When the president says [1:31:42] it's a great negotiating thing, [1:31:42] what he's really saying is [1:31:43] it's because China, [1:31:45] as you can imagine, [1:31:46] always mentions this. [1:31:47] Like, this is a top priority [1:31:49] for them. [1:31:49] They are constantly talking [1:31:50] about Taiwan arms sales. [1:31:52] But that in no way [1:31:53] is what is holding up [1:31:55] our decision making [1:31:56] or the White House's [1:31:57] decision making. [1:31:57] It is something the president [1:31:58] will have to decide [1:31:59] on the timing of when [1:32:00] and how that is executed on. [1:32:02] It's been approved [1:32:03] by Congress. [1:32:03] It's been noticed. [1:32:04] The money is available. [1:32:05] And as I said, [1:32:06] we are just coming off [1:32:07] the heels of a very large sale [1:32:08] in December of last year. [1:32:10] So there are a variety [1:32:12] of reasons why these things [1:32:13] don't happen immediately. [1:32:14] Well, I'll just assert, [1:32:15] Mr. Secretary, [1:32:16] that there is more reason [1:32:17] than ever for the administration [1:32:19] with congressional support [1:32:21] to continue providing [1:32:22] robust military capacity [1:32:25] to Taiwan, [1:32:26] given that the PRC [1:32:27] is more and more [1:32:28] regionally aggressive. [1:32:29] You also introduced [1:32:30] and passed legislation [1:32:32] in 23 prohibiting [1:32:33] any president [1:32:34] from unilaterally withdrawing [1:32:35] from NATO. [1:32:36] I assume this was because [1:32:38] you recognize [1:32:39] that our alliances [1:32:40] are a key advantage [1:32:41] against Russia, [1:32:43] against China, [1:32:43] against other adversaries. [1:32:45] Do you still consider [1:32:46] Article 5 [1:32:47] an unconditional commitment? [1:32:50] Yeah. [1:32:50] So let me address [1:32:51] that holistically [1:32:52] if it's okay [1:32:52] because I think [1:32:53] we have time to do it. [1:32:54] First of all, [1:32:55] you're right. [1:32:56] I have throughout [1:32:56] my entire career [1:32:57] in the Senate [1:32:58] and through much [1:32:59] of my time now [1:32:59] in this administration [1:33:00] been a supporter [1:33:02] of NATO. [1:33:03] I see its utility. [1:33:05] The key, [1:33:05] and I'm just being honest [1:33:06] with you when we talk [1:33:06] about this, [1:33:07] one of the key arguments [1:33:08] that I would always use [1:33:09] on behalf of NATO [1:33:10] is the fact [1:33:11] that it allows [1:33:12] us basing rights [1:33:13] that we could use [1:33:14] in a contingency operation [1:33:15] in a time of conflict, [1:33:17] in a time we've made... [1:33:17] As we just have. [1:33:18] ...that we just have had. [1:33:20] So when you have [1:33:21] countries in this alliance, [1:33:23] because understand, [1:33:23] at the end of the day, [1:33:24] we are providing [1:33:24] basically the defense [1:33:26] backbone of an entire continent [1:33:28] of rich countries. [1:33:29] These are not poor countries. [1:33:30] These are rich countries. [1:33:32] And the utility of NATO [1:33:33] for us is that [1:33:34] it provides these basing rights. [1:33:36] Now we are living [1:33:37] in a world [1:33:37] in which some of these countries, [1:33:38] I point to Spain [1:33:39] as an example, [1:33:40] openly brag [1:33:41] about how they've denied [1:33:42] us the use of these bases. [1:33:44] And so if the core rationale [1:33:46] for us being in NATO, [1:33:48] if what we get out of NATO [1:33:49] is the ability to use bases, [1:33:51] and then we have members [1:33:52] of that alliance [1:33:53] that are basically denying [1:33:54] the use of those bases [1:33:55] in a contingency, [1:33:57] it calls them [1:33:58] to question the entire thing. [1:34:00] Forgive me, [1:34:00] I have one more question [1:34:01] I want to make sure we get to. [1:34:03] Is it not true [1:34:04] that some of the challenges [1:34:06] in our NATO relations [1:34:07] have only come [1:34:08] after President Trump [1:34:10] threatened to seize territory [1:34:13] from a trusted [1:34:14] and reliable [1:34:15] and contributing partner? [1:34:17] I don't think that's fair. [1:34:18] I think he publicly said both. [1:34:19] I know, but I don't think... [1:34:20] He would use tariffs [1:34:21] to coerce Denmark [1:34:22] into giving up Greenland. [1:34:23] Yeah, but just to tell you, [1:34:24] look, if you go back [1:34:25] and study the history of it, [1:34:26] NATO tensions [1:34:28] and debates within the U.S. [1:34:29] of whether we should be in NATO, [1:34:31] in the 1970s, [1:34:32] it was the reverse. [1:34:32] It was the administration [1:34:33] trying to stay in NATO [1:34:34] and Congress trying to get us out. [1:34:36] Yes. [1:34:36] I happened to see a speech, [1:34:38] I don't know, [1:34:38] they were playing it [1:34:38] after he passed away [1:34:39] on C-SPAN, [1:34:40] Jesse Jackson [1:34:41] at the 1988 Democratic Convention [1:34:43] calling for the United States [1:34:44] to get out of NATO. [1:34:45] I was there. [1:34:46] So these debates over NATO, [1:34:46] you were asked? [1:34:47] As was Joe Biden. [1:34:48] Oh. [1:34:48] Joe Biden didn't support [1:34:49] that position then, [1:34:50] and I don't support [1:34:51] that position. [1:34:51] But my point is [1:34:52] that these debates about NATO [1:34:53] have been ongoing [1:34:54] for a long time. [1:34:55] There's about 1,100 vetted Afghan allies [1:35:01] being held at Camp Saleh in Qatar, [1:35:04] and that includes 400 children [1:35:06] and 150 family members [1:35:08] of currently serving [1:35:10] active-duty U.S. service members. [1:35:12] They've been stranded there [1:35:13] for a year and a half, [1:35:14] and there is talk [1:35:15] of sending them [1:35:16] either back to Afghanistan, [1:35:18] into the waiting arms [1:35:19] of the Taliban, [1:35:19] or into war-torn [1:35:20] and now Ebola-infected countries [1:35:22] like the DRC. [1:35:24] These are people [1:35:24] who they or their immediate [1:35:26] family members [1:35:27] served alongside U.S. soldiers [1:35:28] at great risk. [1:35:30] Can you commit to working [1:35:31] with me and others [1:35:32] in this body [1:35:32] to support the relocation [1:35:34] of these vetted individuals [1:35:36] to the United States, [1:35:37] especially those [1:35:38] who are family members [1:35:39] of currently serving U.S. soldiers? [1:35:41] Yeah. [1:35:41] I can't. [1:35:42] First of all, [1:35:42] as you know, [1:35:43] we're under an executive order now [1:35:44] after the National Guard attack here [1:35:46] and so that happened last year. [1:35:48] So we can't admit any Afghans [1:35:50] at this point into the country. [1:35:51] That said, [1:35:52] you just pointed to them [1:35:53] being sent back to Afghanistan. [1:35:54] Our goal, [1:35:55] we've worked on this, [1:35:56] and we'll work with you on it [1:35:57] is we have talked [1:35:58] to multiple countries. [1:35:59] Now, I don't know [1:35:59] of any single country [1:36:00] that's going to take 1,000 people, [1:36:02] but we've talked [1:36:02] to multiple countries [1:36:03] about taking several hundred [1:36:04] of these people [1:36:05] and allowing them to move [1:36:07] to a safe location. [1:36:08] As you know, [1:36:09] we are operating under [1:36:10] not just those restrictions [1:36:11] but broader restrictions [1:36:12] about immigration [1:36:13] into the United States [1:36:14] after 20, 25 million people [1:36:15] entered this country [1:36:16] illegally [1:36:16] over a four-year period [1:36:18] leading up to this administration. [1:36:19] But I'll work with you [1:36:20] to find the right places [1:36:21] for them to go. [1:36:22] We want that to happen. [1:36:23] The president just raised [1:36:24] the refugee cap exclusively [1:36:26] to allow Afrikaners [1:36:27] into our country. [1:36:29] I would welcome a chance [1:36:30] to work with you [1:36:31] to find safe third countries [1:36:32] for these Afghans. [1:36:34] And I frankly think [1:36:35] we ought to be revisiting [1:36:36] our refugee policy [1:36:38] because the refugees [1:36:39] who've come into our country [1:36:40] in the past [1:36:41] are the most vetted [1:36:42] and often the highest contributing. [1:36:44] As you know, [1:36:45] my childhood church [1:36:47] hosted a South Vietnamese family [1:36:49] and seeing the five of them [1:36:50] become great Americans, [1:36:52] entrepreneurs, contributors, [1:36:54] it is refugees [1:36:55] from oppression overseas, [1:36:57] whether from Cuba [1:36:57] or Venezuela, [1:36:59] Vietnam or Afghanistan [1:37:00] who have long contributed [1:37:01] to the United States. [1:37:02] Thank you, Mr. Secretary. [1:37:05] Senator Paul. [1:37:06] I'd like to revisit [1:37:07] for a moment [1:37:08] the boats that were blowing up [1:37:10] in the Caribbean [1:37:11] and the Pacific [1:37:12] that referred to [1:37:14] as drug boats. [1:37:15] I think it's interesting [1:37:16] that the three secret criteria [1:37:18] we're using [1:37:19] to blow up the boats [1:37:20] doesn't include [1:37:20] whether they have drugs on board. [1:37:22] I would like to add [1:37:24] that the statistics [1:37:25] from the Coast Guard [1:37:26] also say that [1:37:26] when we interdict [1:37:28] alleged drug boats [1:37:30] in the historic way, [1:37:31] the way we've always done it, [1:37:32] about one in four [1:37:33] don't have drugs. [1:37:34] We make mistakes. [1:37:35] We see something suspicious [1:37:36] about the boat, [1:37:37] we stop them [1:37:38] and they don't have drugs on board. [1:37:40] I would also like to add [1:37:42] that drugs is not a criteria [1:37:43] for blowing up the boats, [1:37:45] the boats that are called drug boats, [1:37:46] but neither is arms. [1:37:48] So in order to blow them up, [1:37:50] we don't have to say [1:37:51] that they're armed [1:37:51] or have drugs. [1:37:52] And I think a lot of people [1:37:53] would have questions, [1:37:54] which I still do. [1:37:56] I am glad to hear today, though, [1:37:58] that the administration [1:38:01] and the negotiations [1:38:02] are willing to trade sanctions relief [1:38:04] for removal of enriched uranium. [1:38:07] I've said for a long time [1:38:10] and argued for a long time [1:38:11] that sanctions in and of themselves [1:38:13] rarely, if ever, [1:38:14] are of any value. [1:38:16] I've yet to see any Chinese behavior [1:38:18] that's changed because of sanctions. [1:38:20] I've yet to see any Russian behavior [1:38:22] changed because of sanctions. [1:38:23] I've really yet to see [1:38:24] any Iranian behavior [1:38:26] changed because of sanctions. [1:38:28] However, sanctions do have [1:38:29] some leverage and ability [1:38:31] to exact change [1:38:32] if you remove them. [1:38:34] So the removal of sanctions [1:38:35] actually might actually have some hope. [1:38:37] So I support the administration [1:38:39] in this. [1:38:40] Now, there are many Republican critics [1:38:41] who have been vocal [1:38:42] on the airwaves recently saying, [1:38:45] oh, no, we can never negotiate with them. [1:38:46] These are terrible people. [1:38:48] Well, you don't really negotiate [1:38:49] with really friendly, good people. [1:38:51] You're, you know, [1:38:52] in a time of war, [1:38:53] you're going to have to negotiate [1:38:53] with an adversary. [1:38:55] So I do commend [1:38:57] and supportive of the idea of this. [1:39:00] And the other thing is [1:39:01] it's very verifiable. [1:39:03] You don't have to wait [1:39:04] for verification. [1:39:05] You could say the trade sanctions [1:39:07] end as soon as we get [1:39:08] the 440 kilograms [1:39:09] of enriched uranium. [1:39:11] That has to be dug, [1:39:12] I guess, some of it [1:39:13] from under a mountain of rubble. [1:39:15] But at the same time, [1:39:16] be very verifiable. [1:39:17] But what I would argue [1:39:19] and what I would advise [1:39:20] is that you really, you know, [1:39:23] why not offer everything? [1:39:25] Offer all of the relief [1:39:26] of virtually all of the sanctions [1:39:28] if you get it. [1:39:29] Now, you can wait [1:39:30] if that's what you want [1:39:31] is the enriched uranium out [1:39:32] and a promise. [1:39:34] Now, the rabid hawks [1:39:36] will argue, [1:39:37] well, we're not going [1:39:38] to negotiate with terrorists. [1:39:40] We're not going to negotiate [1:39:41] with bad people. [1:39:42] Then they'll continue [1:39:44] to have enriched uranium [1:39:45] and they'll continue [1:39:45] to enrich uranium. [1:39:47] So I do think that [1:39:48] the military [1:39:55] obliterated their military. [1:39:58] All of that is true. [1:39:59] It's as Fred Ickley wrote [1:40:02] in Every War Must End [1:40:04] that military victory [1:40:06] doesn't always translate [1:40:07] or lead to political resolution [1:40:09] or to things [1:40:10] that you want done. [1:40:11] You know, [1:40:12] what we really want done [1:40:13] is no more enriched uranium [1:40:14] and you don't enrich uranium [1:40:15] and you give up [1:40:16] on these hopes. [1:40:17] But I would say [1:40:19] that as we are looking [1:40:20] at trading sanctions, [1:40:21] you say there are some [1:40:22] you can do on your own, [1:40:23] there are some [1:40:23] that are congressional. [1:40:25] I would be bringing in [1:40:26] the leaders in the Congress [1:40:27] who can give up [1:40:28] on these sanctions [1:40:29] and hopefully try [1:40:30] to get their voice saying yes [1:40:32] if they will give up. [1:40:33] Because if you give up [1:40:34] like oh a few piddling ones [1:40:35] that won't change things [1:40:38] that the White House [1:40:39] says you're voting to do [1:40:40] and you still have [1:40:41] all these congressional sanctions. [1:40:42] If you're on the other side [1:40:44] of that equation [1:40:44] you might say [1:40:45] we're not giving up [1:40:46] the one thing [1:40:47] we think is leverage [1:40:48] the enriched uranium [1:40:50] for maybe a little bit [1:40:51] of sanctions relief. [1:40:52] So I would say [1:40:54] really go all in on it [1:40:55] because it would be verifiable. [1:40:57] You don't have to [1:40:57] wait and prove it. [1:40:58] You would have to prove [1:40:59] in the future [1:40:59] whether they're enriching. [1:41:00] But I think that is [1:41:02] a good step forward [1:41:03] but it's also important [1:41:05] for people to have a discussion [1:41:06] of what diplomacy is [1:41:07] and that diplomacy [1:41:08] doesn't always have a bad name [1:41:10] and frankly I'm glad to hear [1:41:12] that the administration [1:41:12] is negotiating [1:41:13] and I wish you luck [1:41:14] and I'd love to hear [1:41:16] your response in general. [1:41:17] Well first of all [1:41:18] the President's made clear [1:41:18] the priorities [1:41:19] Iran can never have [1:41:20] a nuclear weapon. [1:41:21] And what do they need [1:41:22] to have a nuclear weapon? [1:41:23] They need a couple things. [1:41:24] They need the ability [1:41:24] to enrich [1:41:25] that has been substantially destroyed [1:41:26] but could always be rebuilt [1:41:28] over time. [1:41:28] And the second is the ability [1:41:30] and highly enriched uranium [1:41:32] that's 60% [1:41:33] that could quickly be enriched [1:41:34] to 90% weapons grade. [1:41:36] The second point you make [1:41:37] is about sanctions. [1:41:38] So that's the goal here. [1:41:40] And the sanctions [1:41:41] first of all [1:41:42] there's a combination of sanctions. [1:41:44] There's sanctions [1:41:44] that block direct sort of activities [1:41:46] that generate revenue [1:41:47] and that's problematic [1:41:48] beyond the nuclear program [1:41:50] because they also use [1:41:51] this revenue to fund sponsors [1:41:52] to sponsor terrorism [1:41:53] like Hezbollah [1:41:54] and others around the region. [1:41:55] And then there's [1:41:56] the frozen assets [1:41:57] which are related to sanctions [1:41:58] but these are Iranian assets [1:41:59] that have been frozen [1:42:00] that they don't have access to. [1:42:02] So what I would argue [1:42:03] and again I don't want [1:42:03] to get ahead of myself [1:42:04] because we're not engaged [1:42:05] in this conversation [1:42:06] with them yet [1:42:07] but if you get into a situation [1:42:08] in which the reason [1:42:09] why there are sanctions [1:42:10] are because the nuclear program [1:42:11] and so if they comply [1:42:13] with what we're demanding [1:42:14] on the nuclear side of it [1:42:16] you know zero enrichment [1:42:17] get rid of the enriched uranium [1:42:19] they're complying [1:42:20] with these things [1:42:21] then I think that's the place [1:42:22] where the frozen assets [1:42:23] could be discussed [1:42:24] the more they give [1:42:24] the more they would get. [1:42:25] I think ultimately [1:42:26] we will still face [1:42:28] other challenges [1:42:29] related to Iran [1:42:29] separate from the nuclear program [1:42:31] like what they use [1:42:32] their money on [1:42:32] which is to sponsor Hezbollah [1:42:34] and to sponsor Hamas [1:42:35] and to sponsor terrorism [1:42:36] around the world [1:42:37] but on the nuclear question [1:42:38] which was the president [1:42:39] has been focused on now [1:42:40] no nuclear weapon program [1:42:42] the sanctions [1:42:43] that are directly related [1:42:44] to the nuclear program [1:42:45] the more they give [1:42:46] theoretically [1:42:47] the more they should be [1:42:48] willing to get. [1:42:48] What they're not going [1:42:49] to get it is a down payment. [1:42:50] They're not going to get it [1:42:51] as a signing bonus [1:42:52] and I would also point out [1:42:55] that negotiations [1:42:56] on nuclear matters [1:42:57] are highly complex [1:42:58] highly technical [1:42:59] and so it will take [1:43:01] some time to work [1:43:01] through that [1:43:02] as the sanctions [1:43:03] by the way [1:43:03] highly technical [1:43:04] and in many cases [1:43:05] multifaceted [1:43:06] there are UN sanctions [1:43:07] there are US sanctions [1:43:08] there are US [1:43:08] congressional sanctions [1:43:09] so there's a lot [1:43:10] to unravel there. [1:43:16] There's benefit [1:43:17] from the idea [1:43:18] of trading sanctions [1:43:20] relief for activity [1:43:21] and if you don't [1:43:23] ever trade them [1:43:24] if you just have them [1:43:24] on the book [1:43:25] then I think they're [1:43:26] of little value [1:43:27] in changing behavior. [1:43:28] Thank you. [1:43:29] Senator Booker. [1:43:30] Thank you very much. [1:43:33] Mr. Secretary [1:43:34] you and I talked [1:43:34] a lot about Africa [1:43:35] and I raised concerns [1:43:36] about a lot of the cuts. [1:43:39] We're seeing globally [1:43:40] an increase in tuberculosis [1:43:41] an increase in malaria cases [1:43:44] we see a continued [1:43:45] ongoing on the continent [1:43:47] HIV crisis [1:43:48] and the United States [1:43:50] has pulled back [1:43:50] from a lot of its investments [1:43:51] in those areas. [1:43:52] Now with the crisis [1:43:53] with Ebola [1:43:54] we see the challenges [1:43:57] that have been brought [1:43:58] about as a result [1:43:59] of our surveillance [1:43:59] early detection [1:44:01] and the like. [1:44:02] So I'm just very concerned [1:44:03] about what the administration's [1:44:05] strategy is [1:44:06] because we're clearly [1:44:06] seeing here [1:44:07] that what goes on [1:44:09] in the continent of Africa [1:44:10] directly affects [1:44:11] our public health [1:44:12] as well. [1:44:13] Well first of all [1:44:13] I don't agree [1:44:14] with that assessment. [1:44:15] I mean first of all [1:44:15] it's not about cutting back [1:44:16] the response here [1:44:18] is not just how much money [1:44:19] you spend [1:44:19] it's what results [1:44:20] you're going to get. [1:44:20] Now let's talk about Ebola [1:44:21] for a second. [1:44:22] Ebola the outbreak [1:44:23] and Ebola was in a [1:44:24] war-torn isolated [1:44:27] rural area in the DRC. [1:44:29] That's where that began. [1:44:30] Since that time [1:44:30] our response has been [1:44:31] very quick [1:44:32] very rapid. [1:44:33] Well so you're saying [1:44:33] you did not cut [1:44:34] early detection periods. [1:44:36] I'm not talking about [1:44:36] I'm saying that [1:44:36] whatever you're pointing [1:44:37] to as a cut [1:44:38] is not the reason [1:44:38] why there was an Ebola outbreak. [1:44:39] I'm not connecting the two [1:44:40] I'm simply saying [1:44:41] Well you are connecting them [1:44:42] you said that our cuts [1:44:42] Senator Ruby [1:44:43] I'm not trying to get [1:44:43] in an argument with you [1:44:44] I would really like to [1:44:46] actually have my questions [1:44:47] answered. [1:44:47] So very quickly [1:44:48] we cut [1:44:49] early detection [1:44:50] when it comes to [1:44:52] infectious diseases [1:44:53] on the continent [1:44:54] factually [1:44:55] this is not an opinion [1:44:56] we made those cuts [1:44:58] we cut early warning systems [1:45:00] on the continent [1:45:01] It had nothing to do [1:45:02] with the Ebola outbreak. [1:45:03] So I don't need to tell you [1:45:06] Secretary Rubio that [1:45:08] we're living in a place [1:45:09] where an infectious disease [1:45:11] crisis anywhere [1:45:11] is a threat to public health [1:45:12] everywhere. [1:45:13] The United States [1:45:14] has made major reductions [1:45:15] in these areas [1:45:16] that have put us more at risk. [1:45:17] If you're talking about this [1:45:19] clearly Ebola crisis [1:45:20] there's other things [1:45:21] and other cuts we've made [1:45:22] and you see it factually [1:45:23] even our own [1:45:24] even our own [1:45:25] State Department personnel [1:45:27] that I've talked to [1:45:28] are saying we're less prepared [1:45:30] for a global outbreak [1:45:31] than we were before [1:45:32] and my worry is [1:45:34] specifically in a budget hearing [1:45:35] is this budget [1:45:36] makes even deeper cuts [1:45:38] into the kind of things [1:45:39] that can prevent [1:45:39] the next outbreak [1:45:40] or as we've seen [1:45:42] with unfortunately [1:45:43] with COVID [1:45:44] have us more prepared. [1:45:46] Yeah I don't agree [1:45:47] with that assessment [1:45:47] I don't know who told you [1:45:48] that at the State Department [1:45:49] so let's move on [1:45:51] my time is limited. [1:45:52] I know that's an important question [1:45:53] I don't want to eat up your time [1:45:54] but I need to answer that [1:45:55] because I just don't agree [1:45:56] with that. [1:45:56] Mr. Secretary [1:45:56] you can't even agree [1:45:57] on the facts. [1:45:58] Because that's not accurate [1:46:00] I mean again [1:46:00] you look at what we've entered [1:46:01] into with these countries [1:46:02] It's not accurate [1:46:03] that we cut early detection [1:46:05] Because those have all [1:46:06] been repurposed [1:46:07] in different arrangements [1:46:08] that we now have [1:46:09] with these countries [1:46:09] as an example [1:46:10] Well I would like [1:46:11] for the record [1:46:11] because we're not going [1:46:12] to cover it in my short time [1:46:13] if you're telling me [1:46:15] we are as prepared [1:46:16] or more prepared [1:46:17] before the Trump [1:46:18] administration came in [1:46:18] I'd like to see the facts [1:46:20] I think when these reforms [1:46:21] are finalized [1:46:21] which we're on the verge [1:46:22] of doing [1:46:22] we're actually going [1:46:23] to be better prepared [1:46:23] We are responding today [1:46:25] faster [1:46:26] not just to humanitarian crisis [1:46:27] but to outbreaks [1:46:28] than we were before [1:46:29] We are responding [1:46:30] in some cases [1:46:30] within 72 hours [1:46:31] are able to move funds [1:46:33] to task [1:46:34] which you weren't able [1:46:34] to do in the old system [1:46:35] and we're also building [1:46:37] the capacity [1:46:37] Mr. Secretary [1:46:38] with all [1:46:38] Mr. Secretary [1:46:39] may I please reclaim [1:46:40] my time to shift gears [1:46:41] The Strait of Hormuz [1:46:42] I was listening [1:46:43] to the conversations [1:46:43] you had with some [1:46:44] of my colleagues [1:46:45] we've now seen [1:46:47] the Strait close [1:46:47] for months [1:46:48] and you explained [1:46:50] that we're going [1:46:51] to see an opening [1:46:52] of the Strait [1:46:53] and ultimately [1:46:54] the exchange [1:46:55] we will get for that [1:46:56] is after that fact [1:46:58] we will release [1:46:59] certain sanctions [1:47:00] is that correct? [1:47:01] No [1:47:01] that's not what I said [1:47:02] what I said was [1:47:03] if they open the Strait [1:47:05] we will lift our blockade [1:47:06] the Strait's [1:47:07] and the blockade [1:47:07] are what are interrelated [1:47:08] and so for the nuclear program [1:47:10] in exchange for [1:47:12] getting rid of [1:47:14] the fiscal material [1:47:15] out of country [1:47:15] I imagine [1:47:16] is what your [1:47:17] the highly enriched uranium [1:47:18] we would release sanctions [1:47:19] is that correct? [1:47:20] Well it's not just that [1:47:21] it's also their [1:47:21] enrichment activity [1:47:22] they would have to [1:47:23] you know [1:47:23] they would have to make [1:47:24] very severe [1:47:25] and significant concessions [1:47:26] on what they intend [1:47:27] to enrich [1:47:28] and already with the [1:47:30] March relaxing [1:47:31] of sanctions [1:47:32] allowing Iranians [1:47:35] to sell oil [1:47:35] to the Chinese [1:47:36] estimates have been [1:47:37] between 10 and 50 billion [1:47:39] dollars they got [1:47:40] from that relaxing [1:47:41] of sanctions [1:47:42] how much money [1:47:43] might we see [1:47:45] in a deal [1:47:45] in our relaxings [1:47:47] of sanctions [1:47:47] in order to get rid [1:47:48] of the highly enriched [1:47:49] uranium [1:47:49] and stop their enrichment [1:47:50] Well let me just tell you [1:47:51] on that portion [1:47:52] the sanctions [1:47:53] that were released [1:47:53] on Iran [1:47:54] were boats on the water [1:47:55] and so that oil [1:47:57] was already out [1:47:58] in the marketplace [1:47:58] it was sold [1:47:59] at market rates [1:48:00] but the sanctions [1:48:00] covered [1:48:01] and to the extent [1:48:02] we've been able [1:48:02] to enforce them [1:48:03] we have the revenues [1:48:04] of those sales [1:48:05] so yeah [1:48:05] the oil [1:48:06] the Iranian oil [1:48:07] was unsanctioned [1:48:08] so that it could be sold [1:48:09] but the revenue [1:48:09] would have to flow back [1:48:10] to block the counts [1:48:11] which our sanctions [1:48:12] were able to go after [1:48:13] we've also seized [1:48:14] I believe six vessels [1:48:15] in the Indo-Pacific [1:48:16] that involved [1:48:16] Iranian sanctioned oil [1:48:17] on top of it [1:48:18] so that wasn't necessarily [1:48:19] a trade [1:48:20] they didn't get [1:48:21] 50 billion dollars [1:48:21] directly as a result [1:48:22] of they might have [1:48:23] gotten some of it [1:48:23] they certainly didn't get [1:48:24] the majority of it [1:48:25] they are now losing [1:48:26] hundreds of millions [1:48:27] of dollars a day [1:48:27] in revenue [1:48:28] because of the blockade [1:48:29] and the blockade [1:48:30] exists because of [1:48:32] what they're doing [1:48:32] in the straits [1:48:33] right [1:48:33] and I guess [1:48:34] the conclusion [1:48:35] I have in my times [1:48:36] expired [1:48:37] is that [1:48:37] the strait of Hormuz [1:48:39] was open [1:48:40] before this unjustified war [1:48:42] we're now scrambling [1:48:44] to try to find a way [1:48:46] to get it back opened again [1:48:47] not only is it causing [1:48:48] economic havoc [1:48:49] to our country [1:48:50] and to residents [1:48:51] all around this nation [1:48:52] families trying [1:48:53] to make ends meet [1:48:54] but you see [1:48:55] on top of that [1:48:56] the Iranians [1:48:58] finding ways [1:48:58] to leverage that [1:48:59] as we allowed them [1:49:00] to do with the Chinese [1:49:01] for tens of billions [1:49:02] of dollars [1:49:03] and so my point is [1:49:04] before we even get [1:49:05] to a nuclear negotiation [1:49:07] this regime [1:49:08] is getting money [1:49:09] to rebuild [1:49:10] purchase more drones [1:49:12] cause more havoc [1:49:13] and this is before [1:49:14] we're even trying [1:49:15] to get back to [1:49:16] I apologize [1:49:17] I don't understand [1:49:18] how they're getting this [1:49:18] what revenue [1:49:19] are you referring to [1:49:20] well there's two sources [1:49:21] of revenue we're seeing [1:49:22] one is the revenue [1:49:23] from the Chinese [1:49:23] that's factually documented [1:49:25] and number two [1:49:25] the revenue [1:49:26] that you're proposing [1:49:27] that they should receive [1:49:28] by releasing all of [1:49:30] their highly enriched uranium [1:49:31] as well as [1:49:32] in making a commitment [1:49:34] about their enrichment [1:49:35] capacities [1:49:35] hold on [1:49:36] and that was [1:49:37] the exact deal [1:49:38] that you guys vilified [1:49:41] that the president [1:49:42] and you vilified [1:49:43] President Obama [1:49:45] from having [1:49:45] yeah [1:49:46] here we have [1:49:47] a worse situation [1:49:48] where our adversary [1:49:50] and our enemy [1:49:51] who's causing havoc [1:49:53] in the region [1:49:54] who is funding [1:49:55] proxies and terrorists [1:49:56] has discovered [1:49:58] thanks to you all [1:49:59] the power of shutting [1:50:00] down the Strait of Hormuz [1:50:01] no they didn't [1:50:02] they knew that [1:50:03] a long time ago [1:50:03] and they've done it before [1:50:04] clearly we all knew that [1:50:05] a long time ago [1:50:06] that's why this [1:50:06] and they intended to do this [1:50:08] at some point in the future [1:50:09] should have never happened [1:50:09] yeah but [1:50:10] we have made our adversary [1:50:11] in a stronger negotiating position [1:50:13] we are the strongest nation [1:50:15] on the planet earth [1:50:16] and we're in a stalemate [1:50:17] with Iran [1:50:17] and now [1:50:19] we're begging to get back [1:50:20] into a deal [1:50:21] that you all trashed [1:50:23] in the first place [1:50:23] there's no one begging [1:50:24] clearly this is a shame [1:50:26] Senator Booker [1:50:26] Senator Booker [1:50:27] your time's up [1:50:27] Senator Rubio [1:50:28] since he's gone over [1:50:29] you can respond [1:50:30] it's because they go [1:50:31] to the heart of the matter [1:50:31] no one's begging [1:50:32] for anything here [1:50:33] the Iranians might be begging [1:50:34] because their economy's losing [1:50:36] hundreds of millions [1:50:36] of dollars a day [1:50:37] that they are losing [1:50:38] understand Iran had street [1:50:40] protests going on [1:50:41] before all of this started [1:50:42] all of those factors [1:50:44] economic factors in Iran [1:50:45] are far worse today [1:50:46] than they were [1:50:47] six months ago [1:50:48] when those protests [1:50:48] were happening [1:50:49] they have hyperinflation [1:50:50] their currency's [1:50:51] completely devalued [1:50:52] they're struggling [1:50:53] to make payroll [1:50:53] for their government workers [1:50:55] Iran is in a [1:50:55] very serious situation [1:50:57] and if it was up [1:50:58] to the political class [1:50:59] there and I understand [1:50:59] everybody there [1:51:00] is sort of radical [1:51:01] in some way [1:51:01] but if it was up [1:51:02] to the people [1:51:03] that actually like [1:51:03] go to elections [1:51:04] and wear the suits [1:51:05] and you see on TV [1:51:05] they'd probably make [1:51:06] a deal tomorrow [1:51:07] the issue they're facing [1:51:09] is that the supreme leader [1:51:10] in the IRGC corps [1:51:11] are a little bit more [1:51:12] immune from those pressures [1:51:13] until they can be [1:51:14] convinced otherwise [1:51:15] and I think that's [1:51:16] the direction [1:51:17] that they're moving in [1:51:17] because the reality [1:51:18] I don't know where [1:51:19] you're getting this [1:51:20] perception that Iran [1:51:20] is stronger [1:51:21] Iran has no navy left [1:51:22] they've lost a [1:51:23] substantial percentage [1:51:24] of their defense [1:51:25] industrial base [1:51:25] that Iran has lost [1:51:27] a substantial percentage [1:51:28] of their missile launchers [1:51:28] and their economy [1:51:29] is far worse today [1:51:31] and I mean far worse today [1:51:32] than it was six to nine [1:51:33] months ago [1:51:34] and they are looking [1:51:34] at hundreds of billions [1:51:36] of dollars of reconstruction [1:51:37] costs just to get [1:51:38] to where they were [1:51:39] Mr Rubio you keep telling us [1:51:40] how we're winning this war [1:51:41] the president keeps saying [1:51:42] well the war is over [1:51:43] completely annihilated [1:51:44] the war is not over [1:51:45] and yet the American people [1:51:47] see how we're losing [1:51:48] at the pump [1:51:49] and with their costs [1:51:50] and yet this thing [1:51:51] still hasn't been resolved [1:51:52] every day he tweets out [1:51:54] oh we've obliterated them [1:51:55] we've annihilated them [1:51:56] they're going to surrender [1:51:57] but yet we still find [1:51:58] ourselves spending [1:51:59] billions of dollars a week [1:52:00] on a war abroad [1:52:02] you've gone way over [1:52:03] it would be nice [1:52:04] if we had hearings [1:52:05] where people [1:52:06] thank you senator booker [1:52:07] senator scott [1:52:08] all right [1:52:09] section rubio [1:52:10] so first off [1:52:11] do you think it's important [1:52:13] to americans [1:52:13] that the Iranian regime [1:52:15] doesn't have nuclear weapons [1:52:16] and ability to destroy [1:52:17] I think it's important [1:52:18] to the world [1:52:18] the whole world [1:52:21] I mean if [1:52:21] this question about [1:52:23] the straits is a great example [1:52:24] imagine [1:52:24] the straits gives them leverage [1:52:26] imagine when nuclear weapons [1:52:27] would give them leverage to do [1:52:28] at that point [1:52:29] they wouldn't even have to announce [1:52:30] that we're controlling this [1:52:31] they would just say [1:52:32] we control the straits [1:52:32] there's nothing you can do about it [1:52:34] because our nuclear weapon [1:52:35] will allow us to do it [1:52:36] you will have to pay us a toll [1:52:38] for using an international waterway [1:52:39] from now on [1:52:40] and you can't do anything to us [1:52:41] militarily because we'll blow you up [1:52:42] with a nuclear weapon [1:52:43] that is the leverage [1:52:44] that they were trying to build [1:52:45] if they ever got a nuclear weapon [1:52:47] not only would they have a nuclear weapon [1:52:49] not only would they control the straits [1:52:50] they would be able to act [1:52:51] with impunity [1:52:52] because you wouldn't be able [1:52:53] to touch them [1:52:53] you wouldn't be able to do anything [1:52:54] about them [1:52:56] I want to thank you for what you're doing [1:52:57] let's talk about Latin America [1:52:58] which is as you know important [1:52:59] to a lot of people in our state [1:53:00] so thanks for what you've done [1:53:03] with both Venezuela and Cuba [1:53:04] let's do Venezuela first [1:53:07] I think everybody [1:53:08] every Venezuelan I know [1:53:10] is appreciative of what's happened [1:53:11] with Maduro [1:53:11] and I know you have a three-step process [1:53:15] to get to democracy there [1:53:18] can you talk about where you are [1:53:19] I mean I know you've busted your butt [1:53:21] to try to get Desi Rodriguez [1:53:23] to do the right thing [1:53:24] we still unfortunately have prisoners [1:53:26] not released [1:53:27] we still have oppression [1:53:28] so can you just talk about [1:53:29] the process you're going through [1:53:30] yeah well first of all [1:53:31] I remind everybody [1:53:31] it's today the second [1:53:32] so it's literally been five months [1:53:34] right [1:53:35] like I know it seems like [1:53:36] it was ten years ago [1:53:37] but it's been five months [1:53:38] and I think Venezuela [1:53:39] is in a better place today [1:53:40] and in a better trajectory today [1:53:42] than it was five months ago [1:53:43] now is it where it needs to be [1:53:44] is it where it needs to ultimately [1:53:46] wind up [1:53:46] the answer is of course no [1:53:47] ultimately [1:53:48] in order to truly transition [1:53:50] they have to have multi-party [1:53:51] free and fair elections [1:53:52] but the conditions for free [1:53:54] and fair elections [1:53:55] are the following [1:53:55] first of all you have to have [1:53:56] a free and open media [1:53:57] and while you've seen [1:53:58] independent journalists are now [1:53:59] for the first time [1:54:00] activated again [1:54:01] that has to exist [1:54:02] political parties have to be [1:54:03] given the space and time [1:54:04] to organize [1:54:05] the electoral [1:54:06] the national electoral council [1:54:09] has to be reformed [1:54:10] so that it has members in it [1:54:11] that will actually accurately [1:54:12] count the vote [1:54:13] you have to have certain [1:54:14] conditions in place [1:54:15] I'm not telling you [1:54:16] that's five years from now [1:54:17] but it's been five months [1:54:18] so I want to be relative [1:54:19] to that expect [1:54:20] here's what I can tell you [1:54:21] for the first time [1:54:22] certainly you know [1:54:23] since 20 whenever [1:54:24] you know in the pre-chavez era [1:54:26] maybe ever [1:54:27] and certainly since the pre-chavez [1:54:29] since the post-chavez era [1:54:30] the oil wealth of the country [1:54:33] is not being stolen [1:54:34] the oil wealth of the country [1:54:36] is going directly [1:54:37] to pay government workers [1:54:38] buy medical equipment [1:54:39] audited by KPMG [1:54:41] that's a significant advance [1:54:42] that's not a permanent situation [1:54:43] but that's a very valuable one today [1:54:45] you have seen reforms [1:54:46] you have seen for example [1:54:48] the infamous prison [1:54:49] in Alacoida it's been closed [1:54:51] you still have about 400 and something [1:54:53] what we determined to believe [1:54:54] to be political prisoners [1:54:55] but you've had many others [1:54:56] that have been released [1:54:57] including many high profile ones [1:54:59] you've seen a reform [1:55:00] a systemic reform [1:55:01] in individuals involved [1:55:02] in their government [1:55:03] replaced by new people [1:55:04] you know some we don't know well [1:55:06] others we know a little bit about [1:55:07] but certainly better than the people [1:55:08] whose place they took before [1:55:10] you've seen a level of cooperation [1:55:11] on a couple of topics [1:55:13] that I actually can't even discuss [1:55:14] in the setting like this [1:55:15] but be more than happy to talk to you about [1:55:18] any of you about [1:55:19] in the appropriate setting [1:55:20] I think that's been a positive [1:55:23] by the way you've seen the retrieval [1:55:25] the United States [1:55:26] with the full cooperation [1:55:27] of the Venezuelans [1:55:28] went in and retrieved [1:55:29] highly enriched uranium [1:55:31] they had highly enriched uranium [1:55:32] in their country [1:55:33] because of an old reactor program [1:55:34] not because of a [1:55:36] not because of nuclear weapons [1:55:37] or anything and they wanted it [1:55:38] out of their country [1:55:39] and we were able to go in [1:55:40] and actually retrieve it [1:55:41] along with the UK mission [1:55:42] that went in with us [1:55:43] and get it we have a functioning embassy [1:55:46] and we have direct flights [1:55:47] for the first time [1:55:48] Venezuelans are now able to go back [1:55:50] not just visit relatives [1:55:51] but begin to engage in the economic life [1:55:53] of the country [1:55:54] all of that is to say [1:55:55] it's been five months [1:55:56] there is a lot more to go [1:55:57] this is not the direction [1:55:59] we want Venezuela to be [1:56:00] but what I will say is that [1:56:02] the Venezuela that's there now [1:56:04] under the interim authorities [1:56:06] does not pose the threat [1:56:07] to the United States [1:56:08] that it posed five months ago [1:56:10] when it was an open base of operation [1:56:12] for Iranian operatives [1:56:13] for Cuban intelligence [1:56:14] and for others [1:56:15] who used it as a base of operation [1:56:17] against the national interest [1:56:18] but we have a lot of work to do [1:56:19] we are nowhere near [1:56:20] where we want to get to there [1:56:21] can you give it [1:56:22] can you give the same [1:56:23] same thing about Cuba [1:56:25] I mean [1:56:25] Cuba's a very different [1:56:26] yeah I mean [1:56:27] I think the misnomer about Cuba [1:56:28] or the misunderstanding about Cuba [1:56:30] Cuba's actually not controlled [1:56:31] by the government [1:56:32] Cuba's controlled [1:56:33] by a military holding company [1:56:35] named Gaisa [1:56:36] and Gaisa virtually owns anything [1:56:38] and they own the tourist sector [1:56:39] they own mining [1:56:40] they own the gas stations [1:56:41] they own everything [1:56:42] they generate about 70% of Cuba's GDP [1:56:47] is under the control [1:56:47] of this military company [1:56:49] and they're sitting on between 14 [1:56:51] and 17 billion dollars in assets [1:56:53] so you have people literally starving [1:56:55] people literally like power grid [1:56:57] that hasn't been maintained in 10 years [1:56:59] and yet you have this holding military company [1:57:01] sitting on these assets [1:57:02] and by the way not a penny [1:57:04] of the money in the military holding company [1:57:06] translates over to the public treasury [1:57:08] so the fundamental challenge we have here [1:57:10] is that Cuba needs to be [1:57:11] in order for it not to continue [1:57:12] to be a failed state [1:57:13] which poses a threat [1:57:14] to the United States [1:57:15] they need systemic and serious reform [1:57:18] they need to have economic reforms [1:57:19] and the question is [1:57:21] can they possibly reform [1:57:23] given the people who are currently in charge [1:57:25] both of Gaisa and of their government [1:57:27] and I think the answer is they can [1:57:29] I really don't believe this system is capable [1:57:31] of reform unless new people take over [1:57:34] or a new mindset takes hold [1:57:36] now we've engaged in conversations with them [1:57:37] we've offered them what I think needs to happen [1:57:40] in order for their economy to recover [1:57:41] and that's the last point I would make [1:57:42] because I think somebody raised this issue of oil blockade [1:57:45] Cuba was having blackouts [1:57:47] well before January 3rd of this year [1:57:50] they were having blackouts for years [1:57:51] and they were having blackouts for two reasons [1:57:53] number one [1:57:54] no one will give you free oil except Maduro [1:57:56] that's what's changed here [1:57:57] what's changed here is they're no longer getting free oil [1:57:58] from Venezuela [1:58:00] and number two the main reason why they have oil [1:58:02] energy blackouts is because they didn't invest a single dollar [1:58:05] back into their plants [1:58:07] back into improving their plants [1:58:09] and they could have bought this equipment from any company in the world [1:58:12] but they didn't invest in it [1:58:13] instead they invested it to build tourist hotels [1:58:15] that now sit empty [1:58:17] because there's no tourism into Cuba [1:58:18] so Cuba's a little bit more complicated than Venezuela [1:58:21] but it's a mess [1:58:22] thanks for what you're doing [1:58:27] thank you Mr. Chairman [1:58:28] Secretary Rubio [1:58:28] I trust you're familiar with then CENTCOM commander [1:58:32] and future Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis' famous quote [1:58:35] about the importance of funding a foreign policy apparatus [1:58:40] in 2013 in response to a question from the now chairman of SASC [1:58:44] General Mattis pointed out that if you don't find [1:58:47] and I quote him [1:58:48] if you don't fund the State Department fully [1:58:50] then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately end quote [1:58:54] unfortunately despite his service in the first Trump administration [1:58:59] the second time around [1:59:00] you seem to have taken the message as a blueprint [1:59:02] rather than as a warning [1:59:04] the budget that you're presenting today [1:59:06] cuts the State Department by about a third [1:59:08] after you previously tried to enact steep cuts [1:59:11] and eliminations last year [1:59:12] many of which were already rebuked by Congress [1:59:14] on a bipartisan basis [1:59:16] time and again this administration uses our military [1:59:18] as a first tool of choice [1:59:21] manufacturing new crises and new conflicts [1:59:23] that worsen the situation for folks abroad [1:59:25] as well as for American people back here at home [1:59:27] and now you're here to justify a budget request [1:59:30] that further undermines our diplomatic apparatus [1:59:33] the tools and professionals that are critical [1:59:35] for not only preventing crises before they begin [1:59:37] but those who will be responsible for negotiating [1:59:39] our way out of Trump's war of choice in Iran [1:59:41] and whatever night other nightmares he dreams up with [1:59:45] so based on how this administration has conducted itself [1:59:47] with the last year our adversaries are learning [1:59:49] that the United States is not a reliable negotiator [1:59:52] they're learning that we will quickly turn to using force [1:59:54] before working to alleviate crisis points and prevent war [1:59:57] I'm very concerned that in turn that that in turn [2:00:00] increases the risk of our adversaries jumping to use force first [2:00:03] increasing risk to American citizens [2:00:05] and American interests around the world [2:00:07] we saw that instinct for the military option [2:00:09] in the Caribbean and in Venezuela [2:00:11] and now we're seeing threats of it in Cuba [2:00:13] while we're still engaged in the Middle East [2:00:14] where President Trump is blowing a shocking amount of money [2:00:17] and failing to uphold his solemn duty [2:00:19] to put our service members at risk [2:00:21] only for the most serious and imminent national security [2:00:23] threats to American people [2:00:25] Mr. Secretary you also wear the hat of a national [2:00:28] our national security advisor [2:00:31] so with both that hat and as Secretary of State [2:00:33] do you agree that this administration has spent more [2:00:36] on Trump's war in Iran than you are requesting today [2:00:38] for this entire State Department budget request [2:00:40] yeah I can't speak to the Department of War [2:00:42] would have to speak to you about the money [2:00:44] and what they calculate are the costs [2:00:46] I just I can't give you an accurate answer on that [2:00:48] because that's not the thing that I look at [2:00:49] I would think you would have some oversight [2:00:51] some insight because you are on national security [2:00:57] well I've seen the testimony that Secretary Hexeth [2:01:00] and others have conducted in front of their oversight committees [2:01:03] but I just can't I don't want to give you an answer that's not accurate [2:01:06] okay well this week let me let me let me put out some numbers that I have [2:01:10] this week the costs of President Trump's illegal war of choice against Iran [2:01:13] are likely to balloon past 35 billion dollars [2:01:16] by the rate from DOD's own May calculations [2:01:19] and surpass your FY 2027 budget request of 35.1 billion [2:01:23] for the State Department and related programs [2:01:25] that's an astonishing figure worth repeating [2:01:28] in just 14 weeks 14 weeks President Trump will have blown through as much [2:01:32] if not more money in Iran than he thinks Congress should spend on U.S. diplomacy [2:01:36] for the entirety of the next fiscal year [2:01:40] this administration's distorted priorities have unfortunately revealed [2:01:43] some stark lessons for our allies and partners as well [2:01:46] the United States use of force first will make them less secure [2:01:48] as they'll be caught in the crossfire [2:01:50] left scrambling to protect themselves and their people [2:01:52] Mr. Secretary do you agree that under Operation Epic Fury [2:01:55] our allies and partners in the region have expressed concern [2:01:58] about their security and the threats are followed [2:02:01] from this administration's uncoordinated actions [2:02:03] no I think our allies in the region have been very cooperative [2:02:06] some obviously very aggressively cooperative like the UAE as an example [2:02:10] Kuwait's been fantastic obviously no country likes to have their oil [2:02:13] and their energy infrastructure hit but I think it's a reminder to them [2:02:16] of the threat that Iran poses and the one lesson when this is all said and done [2:02:20] is it's reminded them of you know despite all the friendly talk that you've seen in the past [2:02:24] how dangerous Iran is to their own interests [2:02:26] how the billions of dollars Iran has spent despite sanctions [2:02:30] Iran found the money to build drones and rockets [2:02:32] and luckily we've taken a lot of them out but they still have some [2:02:35] and they still have the ability to watch [2:02:36] My question is about our allies in the region expressing concerns [2:02:38] because you see public reporting in early May [2:02:41] revealed that Saudi Arabia denied U.S. basing and overflight [2:02:44] related to Trump's ill-conceived plan to escort ships through the Straits of Hormuz [2:02:48] and they're still not supportive of this risky tanker escort plan [2:02:51] and the strait is still worse off today than it was before Trump initiated this war [2:02:55] and that doesn't even touch on the wider global lessons being learned [2:02:58] by our allies and partners [2:02:59] Yeah we don't face any [2:03:00] I just came home from the Shangri-La dialogue [2:03:02] where I heard from folks across the Indo-Pacific [2:03:04] and especially in Southeast Asia [2:03:05] who are being hit hard by the same rising energy costs [2:03:07] that are devastating American communities [2:03:09] and frankly this administration insists on using military force [2:03:12] as a first resort instead of a last resort [2:03:15] no matter the deadly cause of self-defeating impacts [2:03:18] your budget request here would sadly perpetuate that trend [2:03:20] and undermine the roles and responsibilities [2:03:22] that you should be fulfilling as Secretary of State [2:03:24] Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back [2:03:26] Okay, I didn't get to answer any of that [2:03:27] I didn't ask you a question [2:03:29] Well she didn't answer my question [2:03:30] She didn't want me to answer? [2:03:31] Can I answer anyway? [2:03:32] No, I didn't ask you a question [2:03:33] Okay, well but she made a bunch of points [2:03:34] I get to answer them, right? [2:03:36] First of all, I don't understand this thing [2:03:37] but let me tell you [2:03:38] we were just here, maybe you weren't here [2:03:39] we were just talking about it [2:03:40] we did a peace deal with Azerbaijan and Armenia [2:03:43] we just signed the trip agreement yesterday actually [2:03:46] or last week we signed it [2:03:47] last night I officialized it [2:03:48] that that was diplomacy [2:03:50] That's great, but the Trump administration [2:03:51] is still blown through [2:03:52] when do I get to talk to you? [2:03:53] Do I get to talk to you? [2:03:54] this entire budget that you're requesting? [2:03:57] Senator Duckworth, I'm going to let [2:03:59] Senator Rubio reply to the statements [2:04:01] that you made at his request [2:04:03] Yeah, that's not right [2:04:04] But we want, we've got a hard stop at 1230 [2:04:06] Okay, but I know, but you said a lot of stuff [2:04:08] I get to answer some of it [2:04:09] All right, so the first is [2:04:10] the second is India, Pakistan [2:04:12] we ended that war [2:04:13] we were involved in helping broker that [2:04:14] Thailand, Cambodia, that's diplomacy [2:04:17] We've been very engaged and in fact [2:04:19] as I sit here now speaking to you [2:04:20] I've got the Lebanese government [2:04:22] and the Israeli government meeting at the State Department [2:04:24] starting at 830 this morning [2:04:25] for the fourth time after engaging last week [2:04:28] at the military level [2:04:29] So we're carrying out now, you know [2:04:31] we're carrying out diplomacy all over the world [2:04:33] constantly and very successfully in many cases [2:04:36] Now let me make one more point that you raise [2:04:38] about the budget request [2:04:39] Guys, we understand how this process works [2:04:40] Okay, you guys understand [2:04:41] I know because I've been here all the time [2:04:43] We, OMB produces sort of timelines for every agency [2:04:46] We put forward a budget [2:04:47] We say this is the money we've been allocated [2:04:49] This is how we would spend it [2:04:51] There is a congressional process [2:04:52] which I'm sure you're aware of [2:04:53] And in my time here, 16 years that I was here [2:04:56] I don't ever recall us once ever [2:04:57] taking the President's budget [2:04:58] and passing it into law [2:05:00] I'm not walking away from the budget [2:05:01] We can make it work [2:05:02] if that's the budget you give us [2:05:04] But I have a sense [2:05:05] I have a suspicion [2:05:06] Right, Senator Schatz [2:05:07] that we're not, that we're gonna have to work with you [2:05:09] got shots [2:05:10] That we're gonna have to, well, you know [2:05:12] That we're gonna have to, uh [2:05:13] That we're gonna have to work with you guys [2:05:15] on a budget request [2:05:15] that meets your priorities and ours [2:05:17] That's how it works [2:05:18] You guys are the appropriators [2:05:20] We have to work within the con [2:05:21] We will tell you what we care about [2:05:22] We will tell you how we're gonna spend the money [2:05:24] But ultimately you will provide a suspending bill [2:05:26] And we will work through those parameters [2:05:28] But we have given you what we can live with [2:05:30] We can make it work [2:05:31] But if you wanted, you know [2:05:32] You're obviously gonna have changes here in Congress [2:05:35] But this stuff about diplomacy [2:05:36] and the money spent on the war [2:05:37] Diplomacy's always cost less money [2:05:39] We don't buy missiles [2:05:40] We don't buy rockets [2:05:41] We don't buy large airplanes and aircraft carriers [2:05:44] But we've been very effective [2:05:45] And I can give you list after list of places [2:05:48] That where we have had an impact [2:05:49] In either de-escalating crisis before it started [2:05:51] Or ending active wars [2:05:53] And I'm very proud of the work [2:05:54] That we've done in that regard [2:05:55] Some of which haven't even been publicly discussed [2:05:57] In some cases [2:05:58] Because they weren't high profile [2:05:59] And my last point [2:06:00] We remain heavily engaged in areas [2:06:02] That may not be at the core of our national interest [2:06:04] But nonetheless are related to our national interest [2:06:07] You look, you think about Sudan for a moment [2:06:09] And the Quad [2:06:09] This has been a very frustrating situation [2:06:11] To put together [2:06:12] But we helped convene a donor conference [2:06:14] That got pledges for when that is resolved [2:06:17] We've put a lot of time and energy [2:06:19] In a situation that now unfortunately [2:06:20] Has turned into a proxy in the Middle East [2:06:22] Because of the UAE and the Saudis [2:06:23] On opposite sides of it [2:06:25] In Libya [2:06:26] Where our work in Libya now has [2:06:27] It's still divided [2:06:29] But they for the first time ever [2:06:30] Have a joint budget [2:06:31] For the first time ever [2:06:33] Are cooperating on energy deals [2:06:34] That are gonna be beneficial to the people of Libya [2:06:36] So I just don't think it's fair to say [2:06:38] We're not actively involved in diplomacy [2:06:40] On last year's budget and spending [2:06:41] Because we are [2:06:42] And we have been [2:06:43] And to great success [2:06:44] Thank you [2:06:44] Senator Curtis [2:06:47] Thank you Mr. Chairman [2:06:48] Clocksetter [2:06:49] Thank you for resetting the clock [2:06:51] Mr. Secretary [2:06:52] Thank you for being here [2:06:54] And I'm always truly impressed [2:06:56] With your ability to navigate around the globe [2:06:58] So articulately [2:06:59] And explain the positions [2:07:02] Like you previously [2:07:03] I chair the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee [2:07:05] One of the focuses that I've had [2:07:06] On Taiwan [2:07:07] And Taiwan's relationship [2:07:08] In the Western Hemisphere [2:07:10] We actually had our first subcommittee hearing [2:07:13] On Taiwan's allies in the Western Hemisphere [2:07:17] And as you well know [2:07:18] Honduras switched diplomatic recognition [2:07:20] Away from Taiwan in 2023 [2:07:22] In exchange for a lot of promises from China [2:07:24] No surprise [2:07:25] Those promises have not been fulfilled [2:07:28] And the current president [2:07:29] During his campaign [2:07:30] Talked about returning back to Taiwan [2:07:33] And restoring that relationship [2:07:35] With Taiwan [2:07:37] In your budget [2:07:38] You have $245 million [2:07:40] For the countering PRC influence fund [2:07:43] And I'd like to note [2:07:45] Senator Van Hollen and I [2:07:46] Have a bill that would actually [2:07:47] Carve off a portion of that [2:07:49] Specifically for Taiwan [2:07:51] And countering the PRC influence there [2:07:53] So I guess my question is [2:07:57] What can the U.S. do [2:07:58] Potentially with countering [2:08:00] With that fund [2:08:01] Countering PRC influence fund [2:08:02] For Taiwan [2:08:04] Particularly as it relates to Honduras [2:08:06] Kickstarting that relationship [2:08:08] Developing joint set of economic priorities [2:08:11] For Taiwan in the Western Hemisphere [2:08:13] Anything else we can use that fund for [2:08:14] Yeah well first of all [2:08:15] The reason why these countries [2:08:16] Switched recognition primarily [2:08:18] Was because [2:08:18] You know the Chinese would go in [2:08:20] And they would say [2:08:21] If you switch recognition [2:08:22] We are going to provide you this loan [2:08:24] This and in some cases [2:08:26] Worseson loans [2:08:27] Maybe there was even cases of bribery [2:08:28] And things of this nature [2:08:29] But we're going to provide you [2:08:30] You know a free this [2:08:32] And a free that [2:08:32] We're going to build an auditorium for you [2:08:34] We're going to build a bridge [2:08:35] We're going to build a port [2:08:36] And they haven't kept many of those promises [2:08:38] So I think the first thing [2:08:39] Is to just point to the fact [2:08:40] That in many cases [2:08:41] These things are not provided [2:08:43] The other angle of it [2:08:44] Is if it's loans [2:08:45] They create these debt traps [2:08:46] Which is an argument [2:08:47] We make all over the world [2:08:48] But particularly in the hemisphere [2:08:49] But the broader goal of this fund [2:08:52] Is not just simply Taiwan related [2:08:54] Although that's the reason why [2:08:55] That's an action they took [2:08:56] As a result of this leverage [2:08:58] That was established on them [2:08:59] But more broader [2:09:00] In many cases [2:09:02] These countries are trying to develop [2:09:03] Their telecommunications system [2:09:05] They're trying to build roads [2:09:06] They're trying to develop [2:09:07] Whatever it may be [2:09:08] And frankly the only companies [2:09:10] That show up [2:09:11] Are the Chinese companies [2:09:12] And they show up with [2:09:14] Lower cost [2:09:15] A financing mechanism [2:09:16] Et cetera, et cetera [2:09:17] Now there's a track record [2:09:19] Of not completing these projects [2:09:20] There's a track record [2:09:21] Of flooding the country [2:09:23] With Chinese workers [2:09:24] That come and do the work [2:09:25] So I think part of this fund [2:09:26] Is designed to create alternatives [2:09:28] To that [2:09:28] To give these countries alternatives [2:09:30] To the Chinese [2:09:32] Or other foreign malign influence [2:09:34] That might be occurring [2:09:35] In their country [2:09:36] Part of that is attracting [2:09:37] U.S. commercial ventures [2:09:38] To do it [2:09:39] But part of it is providing [2:09:41] The resources [2:09:42] So these countries can go out [2:09:44] And do this [2:09:44] Without being subject to [2:09:46] Or vulnerable to [2:09:47] This sort of leverage tactic [2:09:49] That's used against them [2:09:49] Thank you [2:09:51] Let me switch to China [2:09:52] For just a minute [2:09:53] Your budget notes [2:09:54] The merging of the [2:09:55] Foreign Service Institute [2:09:56] Where a lot of the state [2:09:58] Language training takes place [2:09:59] With the Human Resource Bureau [2:10:01] And I'm hoping [2:10:02] I'm hoping that can improve [2:10:04] The language capacity [2:10:05] But here in the Senate [2:10:06] I've picked up [2:10:06] The Uyghur Policy Act [2:10:08] Which you led [2:10:09] When you were here [2:10:10] Part of the bill [2:10:11] That I'm especially supportive of [2:10:13] Is the provision [2:10:14] That's supporting [2:10:15] The Uyghur language training [2:10:17] For forest service officers [2:10:19] Is not only important [2:10:21] But required [2:10:21] And that we have [2:10:22] Foreign service officers [2:10:23] In Asia and China [2:10:24] That can speak that language [2:10:26] I think it's absolutely vital [2:10:28] That our diplomats [2:10:29] Be able to understand [2:10:31] The people in their own language [2:10:32] As to the abuses [2:10:33] That are going on there [2:10:34] Given your previous experience [2:10:35] On this bill [2:10:36] And the department's focus [2:10:38] On the CCP's repression [2:10:40] Do you still support [2:10:41] This provision [2:10:42] And can you just speak [2:10:43] To how important this is [2:10:44] Yeah [2:10:45] Well I think obviously [2:10:46] The Uyghur language [2:10:47] Is not a widespread language [2:10:48] Around the world [2:10:48] But it's incredibly valuable [2:10:50] In an important part of the world [2:10:51] And so I think we want to see [2:10:53] A language proficiency [2:10:54] That's generally been a challenge [2:10:56] Rit large [2:10:57] Over a period of time [2:10:59] And one of the goals [2:11:00] Of the consolidation [2:11:01] Is to be able to drive [2:11:02] Language school more effectively [2:11:04] And more quickly [2:11:05] To afford service officers [2:11:07] Before they're deployed [2:11:08] Obviously proficiency [2:11:09] In certain languages [2:11:10] Are very difficult [2:11:11] They take longer periods [2:11:12] Some languages are harder [2:11:13] To learn than others [2:11:14] Especially if the base [2:11:16] Of the language [2:11:17] Is you know like [2:11:18] Just to give an example [2:11:19] It's easy to learn Italian [2:11:20] If you speak Spanish [2:11:21] It's much harder [2:11:22] To learn Mandarin [2:11:23] You know [2:11:24] And or the Uyghur language [2:11:26] For that matter [2:11:26] So but language [2:11:27] Is a priority for us [2:11:29] And it's one that [2:11:30] By the way [2:11:31] In our recruitment tools [2:11:32] Is one of the things [2:11:33] We also look for [2:11:34] Is whether potential candidates [2:11:37] Already bring an existing [2:11:38] Second or third language [2:11:39] Which is a huge benefit [2:11:41] Yes and just very quickly [2:11:42] Do you want to clarify [2:11:44] Use this opportunity [2:11:44] The president had a tweet [2:11:46] About speaking with [2:11:47] Hezbollah yesterday [2:11:48] Do you want to clarify [2:11:48] For people what happened [2:11:51] And anything that you'd like [2:11:53] Well we received communications [2:11:56] Via the Lebanese government [2:11:58] And the speaker over there [2:11:59] On behalf of Hezbollah [2:12:00] As early as Sunday [2:12:01] About that they would [2:12:03] Restrain from attacking [2:12:05] Israeli territory [2:12:06] If Israel did not take [2:12:07] Strikes new strikes [2:12:08] In Beirut [2:12:09] And so it came from Hezbollah [2:12:12] But through Lebanese authorities [2:12:14] I think that clarification [2:12:16] Is important [2:12:16] Thank you for being here today [2:12:17] I yield [2:12:18] Thank you [2:12:19] Senator Rosen [2:12:19] Thank you Chairman Risch [2:12:21] Ranking Member Shaheen [2:12:22] Thank you Secretary Rubio [2:12:24] For being here [2:12:25] Secretary Rubio [2:12:28] I applaud the administration [2:12:29] For facilitating a ceasefire [2:12:31] Last year between Israel [2:12:32] And Gaza [2:12:33] That will keep Israel safe [2:12:34] And from further Hamas attacks [2:12:36] And the suffering [2:12:37] Of Palestinian civilians [2:12:38] But I have serious questions [2:12:40] About transparency [2:12:43] About the funding [2:12:43] For the so-called [2:12:44] Board of Peace [2:12:45] In light of recent reporting [2:12:46] That suggests donor funds [2:12:48] Have been deposited [2:12:49] Into a private [2:12:50] JP Morgan account [2:12:51] With no independent [2:12:53] Transparency mechanisms [2:12:54] In place [2:12:55] As a member [2:12:56] Of the Board of Peace [2:12:57] Executive Board [2:12:58] And Secretary of State [2:13:00] You should be in a position [2:13:01] To provide us with some answers [2:13:03] And you as a former senator [2:13:05] Know our role here [2:13:06] Trying to get answers [2:13:07] And my team's been asking [2:13:08] For a contact [2:13:09] With the Board of Peace [2:13:10] For several months [2:13:10] Just to do our due diligence [2:13:12] But we've received no response [2:13:14] Can you tell me exactly [2:13:16] Who my team should be [2:13:17] Reaching out to please [2:13:18] Well I can now [2:13:19] Because the Board of Peace [2:13:20] Has finally hired some staff [2:13:21] It's going to be [2:13:22] A very lean operation [2:13:23] They're working out [2:13:24] Of the Institute of Peace [2:13:24] Building [2:13:25] So for some period of time [2:13:26] They really were not [2:13:27] It was just a very lean operation [2:13:28] So do you have a name [2:13:29] For my team [2:13:30] I do [2:13:30] I just don't have it on me [2:13:31] But I will get that to you [2:13:32] That's fine [2:13:32] We will [2:13:32] But I think they just hired staff [2:13:34] Like in the last two weeks [2:13:35] We will follow up with you [2:13:36] Thank you [2:13:37] I have a few other questions [2:13:39] Can you tell me how much money [2:13:40] Is in the World Bank [2:13:41] Administered Board of Peace fund [2:13:42] Do you have a [2:13:43] I don't have the answer [2:13:44] Because there's not U.S. dollars [2:13:45] That have flowed [2:13:45] These are donor funds [2:13:46] So can you tell me [2:13:47] How much money is in the J.P. Morgan account [2:13:50] Yeah but again [2:13:50] Those are not U.S. government accounts [2:13:52] Those are [2:13:52] Who has oversight [2:13:54] Well that's the key here [2:13:56] Ultimately [2:13:57] The oversight over the funds [2:13:59] Of the Board of Peace [2:14:00] Will be done [2:14:01] And especially when it comes to U.S. dollars [2:14:03] Will be done by you and Congress [2:14:04] We have not committed those funds there yet [2:14:06] Although we've made a pledge [2:14:07] Until they've stood up [2:14:09] The Board of Peace administratively [2:14:10] Congress will have oversightability [2:14:11] Well on the U.S. dollars [2:14:13] On the U.S. dollars [2:14:14] Can the money in the J.P. Morgan account [2:14:16] Be used to compensate the president [2:14:17] Or his family [2:14:18] Or anyone directly [2:14:19] No one's talking about doing that [2:14:20] And you said you just hired some folks [2:14:22] And it's going to be lean [2:14:23] About how many full-time personnel [2:14:25] Do you expect [2:14:25] I don't [2:14:25] I think they ultimately want to get up to 15 [2:14:27] Or 20 full-time [2:14:28] I think they've started at 5 [2:14:29] If I'm not mistaken [2:14:30] I could be wrong [2:14:31] But those are the numbers I recall [2:14:32] So is the 50 million in U.S. taxpayer money [2:14:35] That your department wants to give [2:14:37] To the Board of Peace [2:14:38] Is that going to be used to cover the story [2:14:39] But I think that 50 million was reversed [2:14:41] We ended up not doing that [2:14:42] As a result of the way it was constructed [2:14:44] The Board of Peace is now built out [2:14:46] As an international [2:14:47] Non-governmental organization [2:14:49] We will follow up with you on that [2:14:51] Once you give us a contact after this [2:14:52] Thank you [2:14:53] So Secretary Rubio [2:14:54] During your confirmation [2:14:55] And budget hearings last year [2:14:57] You committed to me [2:14:57] You would support women and girls [2:14:59] Programming at the State Department [2:15:01] But under your leadership [2:15:02] You've terminated dozens of awards [2:15:04] Supporting women and girls [2:15:05] You shuttered the Office of Global Women's Issues [2:15:08] You fired the entire staff [2:15:10] You said repeatedly that regional bureaus [2:15:13] Will now be responsible for programs [2:15:14] To support women and girls [2:15:16] But my staff has asked every single regional bureau [2:15:19] If they have a plan to do this [2:15:20] And not a single bureau [2:15:22] Can provide me with an answer [2:15:24] And so Secretary Rubio [2:15:27] I'm just so disappointed [2:15:28] I want to believe that [2:15:29] You know you didn't lie to us [2:15:30] Lie to me [2:15:31] And so I want to give you an opportunity [2:15:33] To explain how women's issues [2:15:34] Have been integrated into the [2:15:36] Well I don't know [2:15:37] Do we have an outline [2:15:38] I don't know who's telling you that [2:15:39] At the regional bureaus [2:15:39] Because that's not accurate [2:15:40] Every regional [2:15:41] Now some regional bureaus [2:15:42] Have a larger mandate [2:15:43] On women's issues than others [2:15:44] As a new example [2:15:45] Like in Europe [2:15:45] It's probably less intense [2:15:47] Than in Africa [2:15:47] Can you tell me who on your team [2:15:48] We can reach out to then [2:15:49] To find out [2:15:50] Because we're not getting [2:15:50] They're telling us [2:15:51] They don't know [2:15:52] Well the regional bureaus [2:15:54] Tell you they don't know [2:15:54] Not only does every regional bureau [2:15:56] Have someone in charge of women's issues [2:15:57] Or at least inside of that portfolio [2:15:59] But most of our embassies [2:16:00] Especially in some of these key places [2:16:02] Are advocating this [2:16:03] Can I call you [2:16:04] Yeah of course [2:16:04] Have a conversation [2:16:05] Because somehow there's a [2:16:06] Yeah because we didn't eliminate the program [2:16:08] We simply felt that [2:16:09] There's a difference [2:16:10] Between the women's issues [2:16:11] For example [2:16:11] That you would face in Africa [2:16:12] Versus what you may be facing [2:16:13] In some part of Asia [2:16:14] Could you name a single new program [2:16:15] That you've stood up [2:16:16] In the last [2:16:17] Since the G.W. office was closed [2:16:20] Do you know of any [2:16:20] Well first of all [2:16:21] Many [2:16:21] Almost every single one [2:16:22] Of our programs [2:16:23] That we do now [2:16:24] Our humanitarian response [2:16:25] To crisis [2:16:25] Our food programs [2:16:27] That we distributed [2:16:28] All of them [2:16:29] Have a women's component to it [2:16:30] Primarily because [2:16:31] In these societies [2:16:32] Women's are the first ones affected [2:16:33] Please so we can get some clarification [2:16:35] Yeah we'll follow up [2:16:36] And I'll give you the right people [2:16:37] But each of these bureaus [2:16:38] Has someone [2:16:39] Or more than one case [2:16:40] The last one here is [2:16:42] There is a [2:16:43] International women of courage program [2:16:44] You and the first lady have championed [2:16:46] Are you going to commit to [2:16:47] Maintaining that [2:16:48] The which one I'm sorry [2:16:49] The women of courage program [2:16:51] You and the first lady have championed that [2:16:53] Yeah well we had an award ceremony last year [2:16:56] So [2:16:56] I don't know if one is scheduled [2:16:57] For this year yet [2:16:58] Thank you [2:16:59] With the remainder of my time [2:17:01] I'd like to remind the American people [2:17:03] That as the secretary of state [2:17:04] Your main duty [2:17:06] As America's chief diplomat [2:17:07] Is to maintain our relations [2:17:09] With foreign nations [2:17:10] This is why I was shocked [2:17:12] To see that you were at a party [2:17:13] With President Trump in Miami [2:17:14] Instead of accompanying [2:17:16] Vice President Vance [2:17:16] To Pakistan [2:17:17] For negotiations [2:17:18] What party was I at? [2:17:22] I was at a party? [2:17:23] It's publicly reported [2:17:24] And there's photos there [2:17:24] But what party? [2:17:25] No no no no [2:17:26] But you're going to say that [2:17:26] I'm going to answer it [2:17:27] I'm going to answer that question [2:17:28] Because that's an absurd statement [2:17:29] I was not at a party [2:17:30] If I finish my paragraph [2:17:31] He can answer [2:17:32] In fact [2:17:32] People are going to slander me [2:17:34] I'm going to answer it [2:17:34] In fact [2:17:34] Pete Witkoff [2:17:35] And Jared Kushner [2:17:36] Both of whom were never confirmed [2:17:38] By this body [2:17:39] To be America's diplomats [2:17:41] Accompanied the vice president [2:17:42] In the negotiations [2:17:43] Even Iran's foreign minister [2:17:44] Was not there [2:17:45] Yet you were not [2:17:47] Was there [2:17:48] Excuse me [2:17:48] And you were not [2:17:49] I just feel that's embarrassing [2:17:51] For us [2:17:51] And it's embarrassing for you [2:17:52] So Mr. Secretary [2:17:54] Congress represents [2:17:55] The American people [2:17:56] We have the power [2:17:57] To confirm who represents [2:17:58] America abroad [2:17:59] We confirmed you [2:18:01] To be our secretary of state [2:18:02] We confirmed you [2:18:03] To be in the negotiations [2:18:05] That are happening [2:18:05] And it's just unthinkable [2:18:07] To me [2:18:07] That you are not [2:18:08] You are missing [2:18:09] High stakes negotiations [2:18:10] Or that you're not involved [2:18:12] It's sad [2:18:13] Senator Rosen [2:18:13] Your time [2:18:14] Thank you [2:18:14] Your time's up [2:18:15] So let me [2:18:16] Secretary Rubio [2:18:18] You're 100% inaccurate [2:18:19] And 100% wrong [2:18:20] Here's why [2:18:20] Number one [2:18:21] The vice president [2:18:22] Of the United States [2:18:22] Was there [2:18:23] And he wasn't confirmed [2:18:24] By us [2:18:24] And he was elected [2:18:24] By the American people [2:18:25] Okay [2:18:26] He is the second in line [2:18:27] Of the presidents [2:18:28] Of the United States [2:18:28] He was present [2:18:29] Mr. Witkoff [2:18:31] Is the president's envoy [2:18:32] For negotiation [2:18:33] For peace deals [2:18:33] Mr. Kushner [2:18:34] Is a private citizen [2:18:35] That serves as an advisor [2:18:36] On these functions [2:18:37] They were the team [2:18:38] That we sent to Pakistan [2:18:39] I was not at a party [2:18:40] Where I was [2:18:41] Is next to the president [2:18:42] Because in the midst [2:18:43] Of those negotiations [2:18:44] I was in communications [2:18:45] With them [2:18:46] And in fact [2:18:46] I think there is media [2:18:47] Reporting from that evening [2:18:48] On how multiple occasions [2:18:50] I went into a back room [2:18:51] I came back out [2:18:52] And spoke to the president [2:18:53] And was constantly updating him [2:18:55] On that evening [2:18:56] I spoke to [2:18:57] Mr. Kushner [2:18:58] And our negotiating team [2:18:59] And Mr. Witkoff [2:19:00] On at least six occasions [2:19:01] Including twice [2:19:02] On a secure line [2:19:02] From the phone [2:19:03] They had access to [2:19:04] Over there [2:19:04] So you don't know [2:19:05] What you're talking about [2:19:06] You're just making this stuff up [2:19:07] Senator Rosen [2:19:07] He has a floor [2:19:07] I know your staff [2:19:08] Wrote up this cute statement [2:19:09] For your TikTok video [2:19:10] But it's not true [2:19:11] And it's not real [2:19:12] That's not what happened [2:19:13] Okay [2:19:14] I'm the national security advisor [2:19:15] And secretary of state [2:19:16] I was co-located [2:19:17] With the president [2:19:18] In the midst of [2:19:18] A high stakes negotiation [2:19:19] So that I could [2:19:20] Immediately inform him [2:19:21] About events occurring [2:19:22] Halfway around the world [2:19:24] I was where I needed [2:19:25] To be at that moment [2:19:26] Because we had a very [2:19:27] Capable team [2:19:27] On the ground [2:19:28] In Pakistan [2:19:28] Led by the vice president [2:19:30] Led by the vice president [2:19:31] Of the United States [2:19:32] Thank you [2:19:33] Senator Cornyn [2:19:35] Secretary Rubio [2:19:38] I've heard some of [2:19:40] My colleagues here [2:19:41] On this committee [2:19:42] Suggest that the U.S. [2:19:43] Started a war [2:19:44] With the Iranian regime [2:19:46] 92 days ago [2:19:47] I happen to believe [2:19:48] That the Iranian regime [2:19:49] Started a war [2:19:51] Against the west [2:19:52] And Israel [2:19:53] And has been at war [2:19:56] With us since 1979 [2:19:58] What's your view [2:19:59] Well if you go back [2:20:01] Back to 1979 [2:20:02] And the taking hostages [2:20:03] And build it out from there [2:20:04] I don't know the numbers [2:20:06] If we could even add them up [2:20:07] It's incalculable [2:20:07] Thousands of people [2:20:08] Around the world [2:20:09] Including many Americans [2:20:10] Have been killed [2:20:11] Because of direct [2:20:12] Iranian action [2:20:12] Direct [2:20:13] All the IEDs [2:20:14] Those roadside bombs [2:20:16] That maimed and killed [2:20:17] Our soldiers [2:20:17] Were all the [2:20:18] Mastermind work [2:20:20] Of the IRGC [2:20:21] For decades [2:20:22] The IRGC sponsors [2:20:23] Terrorist attacks [2:20:24] All over the planet [2:20:25] In fact they were involved [2:20:26] For example [2:20:26] In the bombing of a Jewish [2:20:27] Center in Argentina [2:20:29] In 1993 or 1994 [2:20:31] Consistently [2:20:32] It's now [2:20:33] We have people convicted [2:20:35] Convicted [2:20:35] In the United States of America [2:20:37] And one was arrested yesterday [2:20:38] Iranian agents [2:20:39] Plotting the assassination [2:20:40] Of American political leaders [2:20:42] Including the president [2:20:42] Of the United States [2:20:43] They've been waging nonstop [2:20:45] Not to mention [2:20:46] Their massive sponsorship [2:20:47] Of Hamas [2:20:48] Of Hezbollah [2:20:49] And all the activities [2:20:50] Those groups have undertaken [2:20:51] So you're absolutely right [2:20:52] That the Iranian system [2:20:54] Has been waging war [2:20:56] On the West [2:20:56] But why is anybody [2:20:57] In the United States [2:20:58] In specific [2:20:59] For over three decades [2:21:00] But why is anyone surprised [2:21:01] They openly chant [2:21:03] Openly chant [2:21:04] Death to America [2:21:05] Death to Israel [2:21:06] They openly say [2:21:06] Israel's the little Satan [2:21:08] But we're the big Satan [2:21:09] So I think at some point [2:21:10] When people say this repeatedly [2:21:12] You believe their rhetoric [2:21:13] And their actions [2:21:13] Back their rhetoric [2:21:14] This is a very dangerous regime [2:21:16] And the notion [2:21:17] That they would ever possess [2:21:18] Nuclear weapons [2:21:18] That people that are willing [2:21:20] To conduct those kinds [2:21:21] Of terrorist acts [2:21:22] Would ever possess [2:21:22] A nuclear weapon [2:21:23] Is unthinkable [2:21:24] Unbearable [2:21:25] And unacceptable [2:21:26] And it's not going to happen [2:21:27] Under President Trump [2:21:28] So ever since 19 [2:21:30] Well since the Iranian [2:21:32] Nuclear program started [2:21:34] And they basically blocked [2:21:35] The IAEA [2:21:36] And others from doing [2:21:38] The inspections [2:21:38] That would be required [2:21:39] In order to monitor [2:21:40] Their use of enriched uranium [2:21:43] We've had presidents [2:21:46] Democrat and Republican [2:21:47] Say that an Iranian nuclear weapon [2:21:51] Was unacceptable [2:21:51] But it took President Trump [2:21:53] To actually do something about it [2:21:55] It shocks me to hear some of our colleagues suggest [2:22:04] That there was not an imminent threat [2:22:07] From an Iranian nuclear weapon [2:22:09] You and I both sat in the same skiff [2:22:11] On the Senate Intelligence Committee [2:22:13] We won't talk about the details of course [2:22:15] But we knew that they continued to enrich [2:22:17] To the point where they could produce [2:22:19] A nuclear weapon within a specified time [2:22:22] There's some debate about how long [2:22:23] That breakout would take [2:22:25] But the idea that an Iranian nuclear program [2:22:29] Did not present an imminent threat [2:22:31] To the United States [2:22:32] To me is just ludicrous [2:22:33] And I think it defies all evidence [2:22:36] To the contrary [2:22:37] But do you think if they had acquired [2:22:39] A nuclear weapon [2:22:41] That that would change [2:22:42] The ability of the United States [2:22:44] And our allies like Israel [2:22:45] To deal with this nuclear armed Iran [2:22:48] I think if Iran ever acquired [2:22:50] A nuclear weapon [2:22:51] They could very well use it [2:22:52] Because given the theological nature [2:22:54] Of their decision making [2:22:55] But just as problematic [2:22:57] Is they would have immunity [2:22:59] At that point [2:23:00] Your options on what you could do [2:23:01] About them would be quite limited [2:23:02] And their ability to hold [2:23:04] The world hostage [2:23:04] They'd be like North Korea [2:23:05] For example [2:23:06] They'd be North Korea [2:23:07] But worse [2:23:08] They'd be better funded [2:23:09] They would at that point [2:23:11] Decide that they own [2:23:13] The Straits of Hormuz forever [2:23:14] And everyone has to pay them a toll [2:23:15] And nuclear weapons [2:23:16] You can't do anything about it [2:23:17] They would be able to act with impunity [2:23:19] They would sponsor Hezbollah [2:23:21] They would sponsor [2:23:21] They would hyper scale [2:23:23] Their efforts of global terrorism [2:23:26] And completely try to drive us [2:23:27] Out of the region [2:23:28] And ultimately destroy [2:23:29] The state of Israel [2:23:30] That's what their goal would be [2:23:31] And you wouldn't be able [2:23:32] To do anything about it [2:23:33] Because they have a nuclear weapon [2:23:34] And would threaten to blow people up [2:23:35] If you tried to move against them [2:23:37] Notwithstanding the importance [2:23:39] Of denying Iran a nuclear weapon [2:23:42] I do I do applaud the president's attempt [2:23:46] To try to use some diplomacy here [2:23:48] In order to deny them access [2:23:50] To the enriched uranium [2:23:52] And there are other [2:23:53] Weapons that they use [2:23:55] Against Israel and the west [2:23:57] But tell me why do you think [2:24:00] Anything that the Iranian regime agrees to [2:24:02] That they will comply with [2:24:04] What evidence is there [2:24:06] That they will agree to anything [2:24:07] That they ultimately will stick with [2:24:10] Well again [2:24:11] And that's why any deal with them [2:24:12] Has to [2:24:12] You have to enter into it [2:24:13] With clearly verifiable steps [2:24:15] So as an example [2:24:16] Simply putting something on a [2:24:17] Simply putting something on a piece of paper [2:24:19] Is not satisfactory [2:24:20] You have to actually commit to doing it [2:24:22] And then you have to actually do it [2:24:23] And so that's our view of it [2:24:25] Our view of it is that [2:24:26] Any concessions that are made [2:24:28] And I don't even call them concessions per se [2:24:29] But any arrangements that are made with Iran [2:24:31] Have to come after [2:24:32] Not just they agree to certain things [2:24:33] But they actually do certain things [2:24:35] And let's be clear about this [2:24:36] Because I don't think this is talked about enough [2:24:38] If what Iran wants is nuclear energy [2:24:40] For their country [2:24:41] There are mechanisms to do it [2:24:42] There are countries all over the world [2:24:44] That have nuclear energy [2:24:47] But they don't enrich [2:24:48] They certainly don't enrich the 60% [2:24:50] And they don't do it hidden in a mountain [2:24:52] Deep buried underground somewhere [2:24:54] If what they want is nuclear energy [2:24:56] They can have it [2:24:56] There are mechanisms for them [2:24:57] The problem with Iran [2:24:59] Is not that they want nuclear energy [2:25:00] The problem with Iran [2:25:01] Is that everything they do [2:25:02] Is consistent with the activities [2:25:04] Of a nation that seeks to develop [2:25:06] A nuclear weapons capability [2:25:07] Thank you, Senator [2:25:09] Senator Schatz [2:25:10] Thank you, Chairman [2:25:11] Secretary, thank you for being here [2:25:13] Tomorrow I'm going to have you [2:25:14] In the Appropriations Committee [2:25:16] And we'll walk the list [2:25:18] That we talked about [2:25:19] A couple of weeks ago [2:25:20] In a conference call [2:25:21] So I won't cover that [2:25:22] I want you to [2:25:23] Sort of answer the China watchers [2:25:26] Who saw that visit to China [2:25:28] And saw that [2:25:31] NVIDIA is now going to sell [2:25:32] H200s [2:25:33] I understand that's not our highest technology [2:25:35] But it's better than what China has [2:25:37] And that's why people are worried [2:25:39] And that [2:25:41] I mean [2:25:41] It's pretty plain [2:25:43] That the president [2:25:44] Violated one of the six assurances [2:25:46] I understand that [2:25:48] The ambassador [2:25:50] And you and others [2:25:51] Have sort of followed up [2:25:52] To kind of smooth the edges [2:25:54] But I mean [2:25:55] It's pretty clear [2:25:56] He says [2:25:58] We discussed arms sales [2:25:59] In great detail [2:26:00] It depends on China [2:26:02] It's a very good negotiating chip [2:26:04] For us [2:26:05] So what do you say [2:26:07] To China watchers [2:26:08] Who say [2:26:09] They got some pretty good deliverables [2:26:11] And we didn't get much [2:26:13] I don't see [2:26:15] The trip [2:26:16] There were some deliverables [2:26:17] You know [2:26:17] The purchase of additional [2:26:18] Boeing aircraft [2:26:19] Which of course is beneficial [2:26:20] To the Chinese as well [2:26:21] But helps our company [2:26:22] Some of the agricultural concessions [2:26:23] But the trip was largely [2:26:25] For the most part [2:26:26] About the fact [2:26:27] That the two largest [2:26:28] Most powerful countries [2:26:28] In the world [2:26:29] Have to have direct interaction [2:26:31] With one another [2:26:31] And this was an opportunity [2:26:33] To do it [2:26:33] He will reciprocate [2:26:34] By visiting the United States [2:26:36] Later next year [2:26:36] Separate from that [2:26:38] And I don't know if you were here [2:26:39] At the outset [2:26:39] In my opening statement [2:26:40] Or maybe it was in response [2:26:41] To one of the questions [2:26:42] I think two things are clear [2:26:44] Number one is [2:26:45] That we're entering [2:26:46] Into a period of strategic stability [2:26:48] That I think serves [2:26:49] The interest of both countries [2:26:50] Because the last thing we want [2:26:51] Is a largely destabilizing event [2:26:53] In the Indo-Pacific [2:26:54] But the second is [2:26:55] That there are clear [2:26:56] Differences of priorities [2:26:57] There are clear irritants [2:26:59] In that relationship [2:27:00] That are longstanding [2:27:01] And that are going to be long term [2:27:02] So critical minerals [2:27:05] Dependencies [2:27:06] Things of this nature [2:27:07] So it's one of those relationships [2:27:09] That's going to require [2:27:10] Very deft diplomacy [2:27:11] And mature decision making [2:27:13] Sure [2:27:13] And this is why [2:27:15] I like our engagement [2:27:16] Like that makes sense [2:27:17] To me [2:27:18] But it seems to me [2:27:19] That if the main objective [2:27:20] Is to kind of touch gloves [2:27:21] And initiate conversations [2:27:24] Then why give away [2:27:26] Any of the things [2:27:27] That they're already seeking [2:27:30] In exchange for [2:27:31] Essentially nothing [2:27:31] I mean you're basically saying [2:27:33] It's better to talk than not to [2:27:34] It's better to engage than not to [2:27:36] It's better to be [2:27:36] In a period of stability than not [2:27:39] I agree with all that [2:27:40] I just don't understand [2:27:41] Why we would want to sell them [2:27:43] Our second best chips [2:27:44] And why we would start [2:27:46] To at least complicate [2:27:47] The question of our assurances [2:27:49] Regarding Taiwan [2:27:51] I'm going to move over [2:27:52] We're going to stay [2:27:53] In the Asia-Pacific region [2:27:54] The Marshalls [2:27:56] The Marshalls [2:27:56] The Philippines [2:27:57] And Tuvalu [2:27:58] Have declared [2:27:58] A national emergency [2:27:59] On their energy situation [2:28:00] South Korea says [2:28:02] Its energy crisis [2:28:03] Is a war-like situation [2:28:05] You've been around [2:28:07] A long time [2:28:07] On this committee [2:28:08] And now as secretary [2:28:09] It is always the case [2:28:11] That something [2:28:11] In the Middle East [2:28:12] Undermines our ability [2:28:13] To project power [2:28:14] In the Asia-Pacific region [2:28:16] But it's not just a question [2:28:18] Of opportunity cost [2:28:20] And attentional challenges [2:28:22] Now we're talking about [2:28:23] Our allies in the Asia-Pacific region [2:28:26] Really taking it on the chin [2:28:29] With energy costs [2:28:30] Because of the Strait of Hormuz [2:28:31] What do we say to them [2:28:32] Just hang in there [2:28:33] Yeah, no [2:28:34] A couple points [2:28:35] It's one of the steps [2:28:36] That we've taken [2:28:37] And some of the things [2:28:37] That we've done around the world [2:28:38] Whether it's the release [2:28:39] Of strategic reserves [2:28:40] Whether it's not popular [2:28:42] But you know [2:28:43] We've got questions about [2:28:44] Here earlier today [2:28:45] But making available [2:28:46] For a limited period of time [2:28:48] Both Iranian oil on the water [2:28:50] Though they don't enjoy [2:28:51] The revenue of it [2:28:51] And some of the Russian oil [2:28:53] On the water as well [2:28:54] The third point though [2:28:56] That this points to [2:28:57] Is a much deeper one [2:28:58] And that is that [2:28:59] While the Strait of Hormuz [2:29:00] Provides about 20% [2:29:01] Of the global oil supply [2:29:03] It is probably 80% [2:29:04] Or 90% of the supply [2:29:05] In the Indo-Pacific [2:29:06] Given the geography [2:29:08] And so forth [2:29:08] So one of the things [2:29:09] That I think [2:29:10] Is going to come about [2:29:11] As a result of all this [2:29:12] In the long term [2:29:12] Is more diversification [2:29:14] And where they're going to [2:29:14] Get their energy from [2:29:15] Including from [2:29:16] The United States [2:29:16] Potentially [2:29:17] Certainly with Japan [2:29:18] And some other countries [2:29:19] In the region [2:29:19] Will benefit from that [2:29:20] But you know [2:29:20] That the sort of project [2:29:21] It takes time [2:29:22] It all takes time [2:29:23] I understood [2:29:24] That's like cold comfort [2:29:25] If you're running a country [2:29:27] And your gasoline [2:29:28] And your fertilizer [2:29:30] And all your input prices [2:29:31] Just skyrocketed [2:29:32] Because of [2:29:33] Because of [2:29:35] President Trump's decision [2:29:36] To go to war [2:29:38] With a country [2:29:38] Clear across the world [2:29:39] But see I don't [2:29:40] And I understand your point [2:29:41] But I also think [2:29:42] In all these questions [2:29:43] We're getting a lot of questions [2:29:44] About us [2:29:44] I don't think it's fair [2:29:45] Because ultimately [2:29:46] The people who've closed [2:29:48] The Straits of Hormuz [2:29:48] Are Iran [2:29:49] And they're doing so [2:29:49] In violation of every [2:29:51] International law [2:29:51] You can imagine [2:29:52] The Chinese are against it [2:29:53] Everyone is [2:29:54] We have [2:29:54] I think a record number [2:29:56] 140 co-sponsors [2:29:57] At the United Nations [2:29:58] On this resolution [2:29:59] That hasn't come up [2:30:00] For a vote yet [2:30:00] To condemn what they're doing [2:30:02] And to reopen the straits [2:30:03] Defending what Iran is doing [2:30:04] I think what we're saying [2:30:05] Is this was not just predictable [2:30:07] It was predicted [2:30:09] This was what everybody said [2:30:11] You don't have to be some [2:30:12] Expert in foreign policy [2:30:14] You don't need to get into a skiff [2:30:15] You could literally put into this [2:30:17] Put this into an LLM [2:30:18] And say what will happen [2:30:19] If we take kinetic action [2:30:20] Against Iran [2:30:21] And the first thing [2:30:22] That would pop out [2:30:23] Is well they'll probably [2:30:23] Close the strait of Hormuz [2:30:25] So it's really shocking to me [2:30:27] The degree to which [2:30:28] This administration [2:30:29] Expresses shock [2:30:30] That the thing [2:30:31] That everybody said [2:30:32] Was going to happen [2:30:32] Ended up happening [2:30:34] But here's the point [2:30:35] I would make on that [2:30:36] And that the reverse of that [2:30:37] Is so that the alternative [2:30:38] Is to say well [2:30:39] Then we have to go ahead [2:30:40] And let Iran develop [2:30:41] A nuclear weapon [2:30:42] Or they'll close the straits [2:30:43] Of Hormuz [2:30:43] I mean at some point [2:30:44] You have to take action [2:30:45] On this situation [2:30:46] Understanding there'll be [2:30:47] A reaction to it [2:30:48] But it cannot be [2:30:49] Iran will always have [2:30:50] The ability to threaten [2:30:51] The straits [2:30:51] You don't need much [2:30:52] Sophistication to [2:30:53] If you threaten [2:30:53] Commercial vessels [2:30:54] And shooting them [2:30:55] They're going to stop moving [2:30:56] Drop [2:30:56] Dropping mines [2:30:57] By the way [2:30:58] It's not just Iran [2:30:59] That can do it [2:31:00] The Houthis could do it [2:31:01] In the Red Sea [2:31:01] And they're not [2:31:02] Nearly as large [2:31:03] As Iran is [2:31:04] I think this is [2:31:05] A more fundamental challenge [2:31:06] And that is [2:31:07] Are we now forever [2:31:08] Limited doing it [2:31:09] Do we just have to have [2:31:10] Let Iran go ahead [2:31:11] And develop a nuclear weapon [2:31:12] Because of their threat [2:31:12] To close the straits [2:31:14] Of Hormuz [2:31:14] That's an untenable situation [2:31:16] But I'll see him tomorrow [2:31:22] So don't worry [2:31:23] You didn't [2:31:23] Yeah okay [2:31:24] That's good [2:31:24] Tomorrow's approach [2:31:26] I know you [2:31:27] We're supposed to have [2:31:28] A hard stop at 1230 [2:31:29] No we'll do it [2:31:30] Senator Cruz has been patient [2:31:33] I hope you'll give us [2:31:34] Only because it's him [2:31:34] One more bite of the apple [2:31:36] Thank you Mr. Chairman [2:31:38] I will say Mr. Secretary [2:31:40] Since you left the Senate [2:31:42] I've been obliged to serve [2:31:43] Cuban coffee in my meetings [2:31:45] Because you left me [2:31:45] As the only Cuban American [2:31:47] Left behind [2:31:47] So come by if you want [2:31:49] A cafecito [2:31:50] Let me start by saying [2:31:54] That President Trump's [2:31:55] Decision to strike Iran [2:31:56] Was the most consequential [2:31:58] Decision of his second [2:31:59] Term as president [2:32:00] And I want to commend you [2:32:02] I want to commend the president [2:32:03] And the entire administration [2:32:04] On the extraordinary success [2:32:06] We have seen [2:32:08] In less than 40 days [2:32:10] The United States [2:32:11] Has utterly and completely [2:32:13] Destroyed the military [2:32:14] And nuclear infrastructure [2:32:15] That the Iranian regime [2:32:17] Spent nearly 50 years building [2:32:19] Every day that passes [2:32:21] Increases American leverage [2:32:23] Iran is weaker [2:32:24] Poorer and more isolated [2:32:26] Than it's been in decades [2:32:28] The president has laid out [2:32:31] Four red lines [2:32:32] For any resolution [2:32:33] To this military conflict [2:32:35] Number one [2:32:36] That there be [2:32:37] Zero enrichment by Iran [2:32:39] Number two [2:32:40] That they hand over [2:32:41] All of their enriched uranium [2:32:43] Number three [2:32:44] That they stop funding [2:32:46] Terrorism worldwide [2:32:47] And number four [2:32:48] That they open [2:32:49] The Strait of Hormuz [2:32:50] I agree with all [2:32:51] All four of those red lines [2:32:53] Do you agree with those red lines [2:32:56] And how achievable [2:32:58] Do you believe they are [2:33:00] In the coming weeks and months [2:33:01] Yeah [2:33:02] You stated the poor positions [2:33:04] The presidents take it accurately [2:33:06] And the entire administration [2:33:07] Is supportive of it [2:33:08] Because that's what we're [2:33:09] We take our directives [2:33:11] From the president [2:33:12] And personally [2:33:13] During my time in the senate [2:33:14] These will be consistent [2:33:15] With my thinking [2:33:15] I would only reverse it [2:33:16] In the following order [2:33:17] The Strait of Hormuz [2:33:18] Not [2:33:20] It would have to come first [2:33:21] Because what they're doing [2:33:22] There is unlawful [2:33:22] And illegal to begin with [2:33:23] That has to open immediately [2:33:24] And that has to open immediately [2:33:26] In exchange [2:33:27] Not for anything else [2:33:28] Other than us lifting the blockade [2:33:30] We have a blockade [2:33:31] On Iranian oil leaving [2:33:32] And the reason why we have [2:33:33] A blockade on Iranian oil leaving [2:33:34] Is because they closed the straits [2:33:35] If they open the straits [2:33:37] And by open the straits [2:33:38] Understand what we're saying [2:33:39] It's saying [2:33:40] You're not going to threaten [2:33:41] To shoot at commercial vessels [2:33:42] Of civilians [2:33:43] And create ecological disaster [2:33:45] That's what they're doing [2:33:46] It's unlawful [2:33:47] It's illegal [2:33:47] It's outrageous [2:33:48] Every country in the world [2:33:49] Condemns it [2:33:50] If they end that [2:33:51] We lift the blockade [2:33:53] Then we enter into the second phase [2:33:55] Which is the nuclear question [2:33:57] On enrichment [2:33:57] They don't need to enrich [2:33:59] If what they want is a nuclear energy program [2:34:01] They can have one without enrichment [2:34:03] And it was [2:34:04] Somebody a few questions ago [2:34:05] I forgot who it was [2:34:06] Said that what we're working on [2:34:08] Is similar to JCPOA [2:34:09] It is not [2:34:09] JCPOA would have expired this year [2:34:11] And it allowed them to keep [2:34:12] All the enrichment equipment [2:34:14] That they needed [2:34:14] And clearly that equipment [2:34:16] Could get them to 60 and 90 percent [2:34:18] Because they've done it to 60 percent [2:34:19] As a result of it [2:34:20] So it would have to deal with that question [2:34:22] And it would have to deal with [2:34:23] The highly enriched uranium [2:34:24] That they currently are in possession of [2:34:26] There's no reason to have [2:34:27] The only reason to have 60 percent [2:34:28] Enriched uranium [2:34:29] Is to turn it into 90 percent [2:34:31] Enriched uranium [2:34:31] And put it into a weapon [2:34:32] So those remain [2:34:33] And on the sponsor of terrorism [2:34:34] Absolutely [2:34:35] To the point where I would argue [2:34:37] For example [2:34:37] It's one of the interesting things [2:34:39] That's happening [2:34:39] And I know Senator Shaheen [2:34:40] Has a great interest in Lebanon [2:34:41] It's one of the most ironic situations [2:34:44] In the world [2:34:44] The Lebanese government [2:34:46] And the Israeli government [2:34:47] Could do a peace deal tomorrow [2:34:48] Israel has no territorial claims [2:34:50] In Lebanon [2:34:51] And Hezbollah is in particular [2:34:52] In fact Hezbollah has called [2:34:53] For the overthrow of the current [2:34:54] Lebanese government [2:34:55] The impediment in Lebanon [2:34:57] Is the fact that Hezbollah [2:34:58] Has embedded itself into that country [2:35:00] And is the reason for all the suffering [2:35:02] That's happening there right now [2:35:03] And all the suffering [2:35:04] That's historically happened [2:35:05] Entirely funded [2:35:07] Entirely controlled by Iran [2:35:09] There is no Hezbollah without Iran [2:35:11] There is no Hezbollah without Iran [2:35:12] I mean there might be a political movement [2:35:14] With ideology [2:35:15] But they don't have a bunch of rockets [2:35:16] They don't have a bunch of weapons [2:35:18] Without Iran [2:35:19] They are a complete total proxy of Iran [2:35:21] And that's the kind of activity [2:35:23] That needs to be [2:35:23] I want to come back to Hezbollah [2:35:25] In a moment [2:35:25] Just focusing for a second [2:35:27] On Iran itself [2:35:29] For some time [2:35:31] I have urged the administration [2:35:33] I've urged Israel [2:35:34] To arm the protesters in Iran [2:35:36] I don't think [2:35:38] It is fair to expect [2:35:40] The Iranian people [2:35:41] To stand up [2:35:42] Protesters to stand up [2:35:44] With rocks [2:35:44] Against soldiers [2:35:45] With machine guns [2:35:46] Are we arming the protesters [2:35:48] And should we be? [2:35:50] Yeah I'm not aware [2:35:51] Of any program [2:35:52] To arm civilians in Iran [2:35:53] To overthrow their government [2:35:55] I mean there may be other countries [2:35:56] Doing it or other elements [2:35:57] But certainly not the U.S. government [2:35:58] All right [2:35:59] Let's go back to Hezbollah [2:36:02] So you spoke with the Lebanese president [2:36:04] Joseph Aoun [2:36:05] Over the weekend [2:36:07] You know [2:36:09] The State Department sent out an email [2:36:11] To journalists [2:36:12] Shortly after your call [2:36:13] In which the State Department [2:36:15] Spokesperson said [2:36:16] Quote [2:36:17] Iran wants to prolong the conflict [2:36:19] In Lebanon [2:36:19] So it can claim credit [2:36:22] For saving the day [2:36:23] I have to admit [2:36:24] That didn't strike me [2:36:25] As accurate [2:36:27] I don't think Iran wants [2:36:29] To keep the conflict going [2:36:31] In Lebanon [2:36:32] I think they desperately want [2:36:33] Israel to stop killing Hezbollah [2:36:35] Do you agree with that? [2:36:36] Yeah I think [2:36:37] The point I was trying to make [2:36:39] Is that [2:36:40] We are trying to view [2:36:41] The Lebanon [2:36:42] Israeli talks [2:36:44] As separate and distinct [2:36:45] From Iran [2:36:46] And what Iran wants to do [2:36:47] Is mix it all together [2:36:48] Because Hezbollah is not legitimate [2:36:50] There's a government in Lebanon [2:36:51] That's who we're dealing with [2:36:52] And Hezbollah is not their equal [2:36:54] In terms of who we're going to be dealing with [2:36:56] Or who needs to be in charge [2:36:57] So the point we're trying to make [2:36:59] Is that is what Iran is trying to stymie [2:37:01] They are trying to stymie [2:37:02] Any effort in which Israel and Lebanon [2:37:04] Can work together [2:37:05] And prolong it [2:37:06] So that if an arrangement [2:37:07] Is reached at some point in the future [2:37:09] They can claim credit [2:37:10] For having forced it through leverage [2:37:12] And that's why you see [2:37:14] For example [2:37:14] Hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire [2:37:16] About a week ago [2:37:17] And then immediately violated [2:37:18] The next [2:37:19] Within hours [2:37:20] You would agree [2:37:21] Every Hezbollah terrorist [2:37:22] That the IDF kills [2:37:24] Makes America safer [2:37:25] Well Hezbollah is a danger [2:37:26] To the United States [2:37:27] There's no doubt about it [2:37:28] I think the question is [2:37:29] How do you do that [2:37:29] And how do you achieve the objective [2:37:31] Of demilitarizing [2:37:32] And defanging Hezbollah [2:37:34] While at the same time [2:37:35] Strengthening [2:37:36] The legitimate government of Lebanon [2:37:38] And particularly the president [2:37:39] And others [2:37:40] That's been the challenge there [2:37:41] For a very long time [2:37:42] That remains the challenge now [2:37:43] Of course [2:37:44] The capabilities of the Laf [2:37:46] Are not where they need to be [2:37:49] But there are also elements [2:37:50] Within the Laf [2:37:51] That are not who they need to be [2:37:52] Because they have [2:37:53] They facilitate in some cases [2:37:55] And cooperate with Hezbollah [2:37:56] So it's a very tricky situation [2:37:57] But I point you back [2:37:58] To two things that have happened [2:37:59] In the last few months [2:38:00] Number one [2:38:01] The Lebanese government [2:38:02] Expelled the Iranian ambassador [2:38:04] Because of Hezbollah [2:38:06] The Iranian ambassador says [2:38:07] I'm not leaving [2:38:08] And you can't make me [2:38:09] Okay [2:38:10] That's number one [2:38:11] The second thing that's happened [2:38:12] Is just a week ago [2:38:13] Hezbollah openly called [2:38:15] Went on [2:38:15] They openly called [2:38:16] For the overthrow [2:38:17] Of the Lebanese government [2:38:18] So no one here [2:38:19] Should be under any [2:38:20] Hezbollah is not just [2:38:21] An enemy of Israel [2:38:22] And an enemy of America [2:38:23] Hezbollah is an enemy of Lebanon [2:38:24] And of the Lebanese people [2:38:26] Thank you [2:38:27] Thank you [2:38:27] Thank you Senator Cruz [2:38:28] Senator Rubio [2:38:29] You've been very generous [2:38:30] With your time [2:38:31] We appreciate that [2:38:32] I [2:38:33] For the information [2:38:34] Of the members [2:38:35] The record will remain open [2:38:36] Until the close of business [2:38:37] Tomorrow June 3rd [2:38:38] With that [2:38:39] The committee is adjourned [2:38:41] Coming back to us [2:38:43] You [2:38:43] I [2:38:45] You [2:38:46] I [2:38:48] I [2:38:48] I [2:38:49] I [2:38:51] I [2:38:52] I [2:38:53] I [2:38:54] I [2:38:54] I [2:38:56] I [2:38:57] I [2:38:57] I [2:38:59] I [2:39:00] I [2:39:01] I [2:39:02] I [2:39:03] I [2:39:03] I [2:39:04] I [2:39:05] I [2:39:05] I [2:39:08] I [2:39:08] I [2:39:09] I [2:39:10] I [2:39:10] I [2:39:10] I