Sec. Rubio testifies before Senate on State Department Budget

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