Secretary of State Marco Rubio Testifies at U.S. House

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Marco Rubio before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the department's priorities. You're watching live coverage here on C-SPAN 3. [00:00:08] Speaker 2: And to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [00:00:28] Speaker ?: Welcome. [00:00:30] Speaker 2: The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the State Department's fiscal year 2027 budget requests and identify where we are achieving the greatest returns on our investment on behalf of the American taxpayers and how the department is realigning programs and bureaucracy to support the President's America First policy agenda. I will now recognize myself for a very brief opening statement. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate you being here today. I know that members are eager to get to their questions, so I'll be very brief. We appreciate your attendance. I can give you a foreshadowing of what you're about to experience. My Democrat colleagues are going to sit up here and say that they haven't heard from the administration. I'm going to thank you for the 30 times just in this Congress that the State Department has briefed the full committee, the subcommittee, roundtables, other times that you all have been here to brief us on a myriad of issues. I want to thank you for the over 20 briefings that you've given to Congress by yourself with General Kaine, Director Radcliffe, Secretary Hegseth, and others since the start of Operation Epic Fury. Some of my colleagues in here will say that we are in a war of choice with no real threat to the U.S. I want to say to you thank you for choosing to kill those who have been attacking and killing us for over 47 years, specifically attacking us over 350. 50 times in the 30 months prior to Operation Epic Fury. Under senile Joe Biden, they voted to, my colleagues over here, voted to say use any and all means to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. So I want to thank you for bringing the heat to Iran, even though most of my colleagues on the left now say that Iran poses no threat. They pretend as though they have never been attacking us. I also want to thank you for the work that you've done to reset the Western Hemisphere. While you've been focused on bettering our relationships in places like Panama, Cuba, Venezuela, throughout the Gulf of America, the Biden and Blinken administration focused on funding drag shows in Ecuador and transgender operas in Colombia. I would say your work is significantly better. So I want to thank you for the substantial change in putting America first in our foreign policy. And with that, I will recognize Ranking Member Meeks for whatever he has to say. [00:03:16] Speaker 3: Thank you, Secretary Rubio for being here today. You know, 18 months ago, you inherited the most powerful diplomatic institution in the world, built on three pillars that have defined American leadership since World War Two. I call them the three D's diplomacy, dialogue and development. And in just 18 months, the Trump administration has taken a wrecking ball to all three. This administration has involved and have invoked a worldview from years past that has left the United States isolated and struggling economically. What you see is a greatest hits album of failed ideas from the last century. Terrorists. spheres of influence, attacks on civil rights and immigration, ignoring science, and hoping for the best. Mr. Secretary, America cannot win the future by trying to relive the past. And your department is Exhibit A. We have seen the systematic dismantling of America's diplomatic corps. Over 100 ambassador posts sit vacant around the world. 1,300 career professionals, people with decades of expertise in energy, counterterrorism, and nuclear nonproliferation have been fired. Efforts to ensure U.S. diplomats represent the diversity of America have been squandered. While China increases its diplomatic presence globally, we have cut ours to the bone. America cannot win the future by retreating and ceding the field. On trade, this administration revived Smoot Hawley. And we all know how that ended. Trump's tariffs raised costs for American people, harmed small businesses, and alienated our allies. We cannot build a 21st century economy on 20th century failures. Mr. Secretary, after decades of forever war in the Middle East, President Trump promised the American people no new wars, only to send a new generation of troops back to the Middle East. We've traded dialogue for bombs yet again. And where does that leave us today? The Iranian regime still has its missiles, its drones, its proxies, and its nuclear material. There is an Ayatollah still in power, only he's younger, with the IRGC more entrenched and more hardline. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. It wasn't before you started this war. It wasn't before we lost 14 American troops, before American bombs killed 168 Iranian schoolgirls, before Americans were forced to spend over $100 billion on this war. You helped spin the perfect pretext for this war, and then failed to prepare American embassies and citizens when the bombs started falling. Those who have defended and enabled this war share direct responsibility for the economic pain American families are bearing as a result. Our allies knew this war was ill-advised, and that's why they are sitting on the sidelines, while Gulf energy infrastructure and American bases take incoming. Trump said America first. Now America's alone. In our hemisphere, talk of reasserting dominance has meant illegally abducting foreign leaders, installing one autocrat in place of another, bombing boats without due process, and blockading civilian populations. That is not American leadership. Those are not American values. That is behavior we built the rules-based order to prevent. The Trump administration's attack on foreign aid and development efforts remain equally destructive and regressive. This administration's policies have directly contributed to famine in South Sudan, and have undermined our ability to respond to the latest Ebola outbreak in real time. HIV rates are rising. Mr. Secretary, these cuts have resulted in the avoidable death of hundreds of thousands of children around the world. And we cannot protect Americans by ignoring science or forgetting what ignoring it cost us before. So, Mr. Secretary, on climate and energy, I think the story is the same. [00:08:22] Speaker 2: Ranking members' time has expired up. Other members of the committee are reminding that opening statements may be submitted for the record. We're pleased to have Secretary of State Marco Rubio before us today. Your full statements will be made a part of the record. I'll ask you to keep your spoken remarks to five minutes in order to allow time for member questions. I now recognize [00:08:38] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio for your opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member and all the members of the committee for having me. I have a written opening statement. I'll submit it. I'll try to cut the five minutes in half if I can. Let's just get right to the point. I think that you -- I would characterize the last 16, 17 months at the State Department as two things. A history of tremendous successes combined with ongoing and difficult challenges. And we will always have ongoing and difficult challenges in the world. Let me walk through them one by one. India and Pakistan were on the verge of an all-out war. The State Department and I personally were involved in de-escalating that conflict and bringing it to an end, a war between two nuclear powers. Thailand and Cambodia were involved in a war. Cambodia, a country we haven't normally had close relations with in a very long time. The U.S., the President personally played a pivotal role, not once, but twice, restoring ceasefires and ending that conflict. Obviously, the war in Gaza was brought to an end. Not only that, but all the hostages that remained were released, both the bodies and those who were alive. Armenia and Azerbaijan, that conflict ended. Not only did it end, but it ended with an agreement that I signed the MOU on yesterday, creating a new prosperity route, the trip route, which will provide extraordinary opportunities for both countries, especially for Armenia, while respecting their sovereignty, to really benefit from that. The Shield of the Americas was stood up. That means over 14 countries in the hemisphere, 14 countries in the hemisphere have signed up to partner with us on counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics and security matters. And we believe that that number will grow over the next few months as elections change leaderships in various countries. We held a rare earths ministerial that was attended by over 30 some odd countries from around the world, all who are signing up for an American-led effort to ensure that critical supplies of rare earth minerals around the world are available for our emerging economies and we don't remain overly dependent on China. We also announced the PAC Silica proposal, which is growing, but it's at 14 members now. These are 14 countries that are cooperating with one another to protect the supply chains critical to AI and AI development in the future. In Venezuela, we now have a functioning and open embassy. We have people traveling there for the first time. It's not where it needs to be, but it is a long ways from where it was five months ago and poses nearly, not nearly the threat it once posed to America's national security. We're not satisfied with where it is, but we've come a long way. We are certainly better off than we were five years, five months ago. On Nigeria, where we were all, many were very concerned about violence against Christians. We are now actively in counter-terrorism cooperation with the Nigerian government and Nigerian security forces, including a joint operation a couple of weeks ago that took out the number two leader of global ISIS operating from inside of the country. And that continues. The Pacific Islands, small Pacific Islands under constant pressure and threat from China have received more attention from this administration than they've received in the last 10 years combined and deliverables are coming along the way. The Quad, an important alliance in the Indo-Pacific between India, Japan, Australia. We've had multiple meetings of those of that group, including a meeting just last week in India and a follow up that's going to occur later this year, including a leaders meeting before the end of the year. As I speak to you now for the second consecutive day and for the first time in many, many years, the leaders of the legitimate government of Lebanon and leaders from the government of Israel are seated at the State Department for the second day in a row. And hopefully today we'll produce a joint statement and an action plan on a track for security in that country, independent from Hezbollah, independent from nefarious influence. They had similar meetings last week at the Pentagon at the military level. We have signed 32 health compacts. 32 countries have signed health compacts with the United States where our aid to those countries will not just be dollars distributed to an NGO who then will go into the country and impose programs. Instead, we are partnering with 32 countries, many of them in the African continent, in which we will empower their native and domestic health industries and national health systems so that they cannot -- not only are we treating the acute situations on the ground of people that are sick, we are helping them build the capacity and the capability to do this for themselves. This is what these countries want. They do not want to be perpetual aid recipients. They want to be able to be able to take care of their people one day and we are helping them as part of our aid to build that infrastructure. I could go on, but let me just say another point. We are better today than we have ever been at disaster relief. Today, the United States can respond to disasters around the world on a humanitarian basis faster and more effectively than they ever have because of our reorganization. And the proof is our response in Jamaica, our response to two typhoons in the Pacific, our ability to quickly deploy within 24 hours and bring aid directly coordinating with the governments to people is better than it has ever been because we cut out bureaucracy, we cut out the middleman, and we went right to the point. We still have challenges. On Sudan, remains a very frustrating situation. We remain deeply engaged with the Quad in these negotiations. As many of you are aware, unfortunately, Sudan has turned into a proxy war between multiple countries, and the divisions between the UAE and Saudi Arabia have truly complicated our ability to bring that to an end. What we are focused on there now is identifying two cities, or four cities, two on each side, that will serve as points of distribution for humanitarian aid. But the inability, the real frustrating thing about Sudan is that one side or the other will agree to something, but then they will not comply. But we remain focused on that, and we have people that work on that full-time. We even had a donor conference just about a month and a half ago where we had hundreds of millions of dollars in pledges for not just humanitarian aid but reconstruction. We're focused on that. It's an ongoing challenge. On DRC in Rwanda, they signed a peace agreement. Unfortunately, compliance has not been good. We've had to impose a few sanctions on the Rwandan side. We are starting to see some compliance. It's moving, not moving fast enough, but we're hoping to see compliance at some point in the middle part of next month and withdrawing the Rwandan troops from there. Of course, we still have the M23 problem that has to be addressed. So this is a host of issues we could go on. Obviously, the ongoing challenges of Iran remain, as I'm sure we'll speak about extensively in your questions today. So I apologize. That took four minutes and 55 seconds, but I tried to talk as fast as I could. Thank you. [00:14:54] Speaker 2: Thank you, Secretary Rubio. I now recognize Ranking Member Meeks for five minutes of questions. [00:14:59] Speaker 3: I'm going to ask you to answer my questions quickly because clearly the chairman wants to protect you. That's why he's cutting folks, cutting me off my opening statement. But, Secretary. You had five minutes. Yeah. Secretary, you have the honor of serving both the acting as acting National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. In these roles, you've played a central role in advising the president as commander in chief to launch a war against Iran. And the impacts of this choice have been significant on our allies and partners who immediately have targeted by retaliatory strikes, as well as for Americans here at home. Three months into this war, gas and food prices are up. Inflation is rising. American business owners and farmers are struggling from higher shipping and commodity costs. And yet the president said two weeks ago and I quote, I don't think about Americans financial situation. That's a quote that should alarm every American. Americans are also rightfully concerned that while they struggle with affordability due to the war in Iran, the president of the United States is busy day trading on it. He disclosed purchases of stocks and energy and defense companies in the first quarter of this year that were made just as those companies profits were soaring from the war in Iran. On March 23rd, the same day he reversed his threat to strike Iranian energy, infrastructure and energy stocks rose. He brought stocks then in Phillips 66 Exxon and Chevron. Secretary, I have a few questions. And again, given the amount of time that I have, I will ask you to give me yes and no answers. Did you warn President Trump before the war in Iran began that this conflict would drive up costs on gas, food, travel and shipments? Yeah, I'll warn you right now. I don't do yes or no answers. I only have five minutes. I know when you were the senator, you know about this business. I never did yes or no answers to people. [00:17:00] Speaker 4: And I know you're trying to go out so that you can run out my five minutes. That's a simple question. I'm not going to run out your five minutes. You're running out your five minutes. I don't do yes or no questions. You want to ask me a question, I'll answer your question. You're answering my question. It's my time. Did you? [00:17:12] Speaker 3: Did I? Yes or no? Did you warn President Trump before the Iran war began that this conflict would drive up costs on gas, food, travel and ship? The president. Yes or no? [00:17:25] Speaker 4: The president and the full administration was aware that there would be consequences to action, but the consequences of Iran having a nuclear weapon were worse. [00:17:31] Speaker 3: Did you warn that? Did you warn him? Did you warn him that launching a war on Iran could result in the regime placing a chokehold on the state of Hamos? [00:17:41] Speaker 4: All the risk factors were understood, but the most important risk factor was Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. I just want to know if you did your job. Did you warn him? [00:17:46] Speaker 3: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. If you did warn him, say yes. It's simple. [00:17:50] Speaker 4: Everyone was aware of what Iran might do in retaliation. [00:17:52] Speaker 3: Did you warn him? I'm asking you a second. Did you warn him? [00:17:54] Speaker 4: Everyone was aware of what Iran would do. [00:17:55] Speaker 3: Don't want to answer that. Let me ask you the next question. Did you warn the president that launching U.S. strikes against Iran would result in retaliatory attacks on U.S. allies, partners and Americans living or working in the Middle East? Yes or no? [00:18:11] Speaker 4: Everyone understood what Iran would do in response. Did you warn him? We were prepared for any response that they came out with. Okay. Just want to make sure. [00:18:16] Speaker 3: But they can't have a nuclear weapon. So you said you warned them. Did you warn the president that the personal stock purchases and companies profiting from the war that he launched [00:18:25] Speaker 4: could present a conflict of interest? I'm not aware of the president's stock purchases. I don't deal with that. And I don't even know what you're saying is true. Well, we know that what he's because it has made public what his stock purchases were. You say so. I don't read the president's financial disclosure, but I don't believe that. [00:18:40] Speaker 3: Well, I think then the president should be more transparent. Because these are basic questions that I'm asking you and to be transparent with the American people. This is what this is all about. The transparency. So, for example, when you go and look at some of your statements that you made in regards to Cuba. I only have 58 seconds left. And I'd love to get it. But you talked about. Guy, sir, it was controlling the military and what's taking place there and that they have the opportunity to benefit. While the Cuban people are suffering. So what we're seeing here now, the one person has benefited from this war. By his purchase of stocks. Him and his friends. They have made billions of dollars. While the American people are suffering. You've accused. And I agree. With reference to some folks what they're doing in Cuba and how they're making money. While people suffer. That's what's taking place in the United States of America. The Trump administration and his friends are making billions of dollars while the American people suffer. And they continue to suffer. [00:20:03] Speaker 5: Breaks my heart, but ranking members time has expired. Representative McCall is recognized. Name's chairman. Let me thank you for your service. Secretary. Yeah, I know you're wearing a lot of hats, a lot of responsibilities. I think you're doing an outstanding job. Let me just say since 1979, a dark veil of terror descended upon the Middle East. And we've had it ever since. And every president since that time has said that a nuclear Iran is not acceptable. And every Congress has said that. In fact, last Congress, when I was chairman of this committee, I passed a resolution that said that a nuclear Iran was unacceptable and that the U.S. must use any means necessary to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The vast majority of Democrats. The vast majority of Democrats voted for this. Almost all Republicans. It passed the House floor a resolution stating that that is not acceptable. We've had a lot of talk. We've had a lot of talk in these Congresses. And prior administrations, a lot of talk. But we haven't had a whole lot of action. Your administration, you, sir, and the president have taken action on this very dire, dangerous situation we find ourselves in with Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. I also want to applaud you for your efforts in this Western Hemisphere, a free Venezuela, a free people, possibly one day a free Cuba. And people don't realize Iran is in this hemisphere and Russia is in this hemisphere. China is in this hemisphere. This is all kind of tied together in a coherent foreign policy strategy that I see. So I want to give you the time, sir, to respond to that because, again, all talk and no action. [00:21:57] Speaker 4: But you, sir, have put this into action. Thank you. Well, let me just, before I address that, I want to -- the ranking member made accusations against the president, which I've never heard before, but, number one, are completely false. Not once. Just to be clear, not a single time, not even for a millisecond, has the president ever discussed his personal economics in relations to war or any public policy that he's made for that matter. And I've been in every one of his foreign policy meetings for the most part. As to your point, the -- what we need to understand is exactly what you just said. It's not just that we say they can't have a nuclear weapon. Everyone says they can't have a nuclear weapon. The Chinese say they can't have a nuclear weapon. The Russians agree they couldn't have a nuclear weapon. But at the point, you have to do something about it. What Iran was trying to do was build a conventional shield of drones and missiles and a navy and capabilities. At some point, they would say to the world, now we're going to get a nuclear weapon, and you can't do anything about it because we have so many weapons and so many drones and so many naval vessels that the price we will inflict on you for trying to do something about it makes us untouchable, makes us immune. And the president was not going to allow them to build a conventional shield behind which they can develop their nuclear program. Today, the Iranian navy sits at the bottom of the sea. They do not have a navy. It no longer exists. They have no air force either. Their missile launchers have been significantly degraded. Their defense industrial base has suffered upwards of 80 to 90 percent of attrition. It will take years for them to rebuild it. Those are facts. That is the reality. That was the purpose of Epic Fury. It achieved its purpose in degrading that conventional shield. And it has brought them to the negotiation table that hopefully will lead to the point where Iran will give up its enrichment ambitions, will turn over the highly enriched uranium, will stop sponsoring terrorism around the world. [00:23:35] Speaker 5: You know, and I think I think the goal should be the fulfillment of the Abraham Accords. We know why October 7th happened because Israel and Saudi were getting very, very close. And in Iran's perspective, dangerously close to normalization agreement. And what did Iran do? They lit up their proxies. They lit up their proxies to stop that from happening. I do foresee a free Iran. I do foresee a free Venezuela and a free Cuba. But you have to start somewhere. And I think we are taking the steps so that future generations will thank us for these actions. [00:24:14] Speaker 4: Look, and on the point of we would love to see a change in Iran and that they be governed by people, but that was not the goal of our mission. The goal of our mission was to take away their ability to threaten the region with an overwhelming number of missiles and drones that would basically make them immune to any sort of external pressure. And then they could break out to a nuclear weapon. That was the goal. It achieved that from a military perspective. The reality of it remains that it's not just us. The entire world says they can't have a nuclear weapon, but no one wanted to do anything about it. And I can tell you this, they are not going to have a nuclear weapons program at least as long as President Trump is in the White House. That's been made clear to everyone in the administration from the very top down. It was the motivation behind these actions. And it's the reason why we engaged the way we did. [00:24:55] Speaker 5: I want to thank you again in the last 10 seconds for your service. I would hope we could unify as a nation behind this. I would hope our allies would unify behind us on this because they've all said it as we've said it in the past, and yet it was all talk and no action. Representative's time has expired. Representative Keating is recognized. [00:25:13] Speaker 6: Chairman, for the record, I ask unanimous consent to submit the president's financial disclosure form, which will detail those dealings that were referred to by the ranking member. Without objection. Secretary, thank you for being here. In conjunction with your job, you're also the national security advisor with access to the most sensitive intelligence secrets our countries and other countries have in the world. But before this, you had these two positions, you had a distinguished career as a member chair for five years of the Senate Intelligence Committee up to last year. And you and Senator Warner are some of the most respected and knowledgeable people at that time and voices in the entire intelligence community, earning the trust of Democrats and Republicans alike, Senator and House members and other countries. So with all your intelligence committee experience, and now as Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, and all those years of experience, have you ever, specifically in the context of the intelligence community, heard the name Bill Pulte? [00:26:21] Speaker 4: In the context of intelligence? That's what I said. No. [00:26:25] Speaker 6: Never heard his name. Okay. Thank you for answering that. Never even heard his name. Given all your years of experience and your position now, never heard the name. For the record, Bill Pulte is a person Donald Trump has chosen for the acting director of national intelligence with no experience in the intelligence field, whose misuse, widely reported, of confidential information led to the prosecution of the president's political enemies. And is now the person in charge of the nation's most closely guarded intelligence when he couldn't even conduct himself appropriately as the federal housing finance director. Now, Secretary, have you ever heard of the name Ira Zahari? Who's that? You've never heard the name Ira Zahari? [00:27:12] Speaker 4: I mean, it doesn't ring a bell off the top. [00:27:15] Speaker 6: In the context of security? Well, let me tell you. Mr. Zahari pleaded guilty for breaking into the Capitol on January 6th through a broken window, wielding a metal rod as a weapon. And Donald Trump appointed him to a team at the Pentagon focused on irregular warfare and, of all things, counterterrorism. That's ironic, given that he participated in one of the most significant incidents of domestic terror in our country's history. I think it's shameful, the people that are being appointed. And I think it's also shameful, some of the people that have been retired, have been fired. Now, I want to move to Iran, because given your nuclear and intelligence background, which is extensive and appreciated and respected, I'm sure you're aware that Ukraine, the country at the time, with the third largest nuclear arsenal, peacefully turned over their nuclear weapons in conjunction with the Budapest memorandum, and in exchange for the U.S. commitment to defend Ukraine if it ever came under threat. The U.S. gave their word to Ukraine they would defend them. And I found this amazing in your opening remarks that you took us all over the world and you mentioned 15 different incidents where you have interceded, 15, the top 15. Not once did you mention Ukraine when you were prioritizing the achievement that's there. Now, let me go on. I tried to stay under five minutes. Let me go on. Oh, you tried to stay. Yeah, please. I can answer that. It's not funny. It's not funny, Secretary. Now, in Iran now, in Iran now, I reclaim my time. I reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman. You guys make these statements and no one can respond. He is interrupting me. Do something about it. I'm doing it. I'm asking you to reclaim those seconds back. No. Now, in Iran, what goes around comes around, Mr. Chairman. Now, in Iran, the Trump administration issues a general license to Russia, providing billions in oil profits every month, several billion every month, fueling Putin's war machine. You didn't mention that in your opening remarks. And then this is a war of aggression of Russia attacking Ukraine, which we gave our agreement. And this is to a country that's assisting us in Iran, Ukraine, and helping a country with a war machine that are aiding Iran against us and putting our service members in jeopardy. Look, we have an opportunity as members just today to vote on the Ukraine Support Act. I hope we do it. And I am confident that we have bipartisan support. But I hope this administration will act on its own. They can do things themselves that you didn't mention, like rescind these general licenses, complete a bilateral drone agreement with Ukraine, provide direct military assistance that has access to the Ukraine, implement comprehensive sanctions packages, and condemn the arrest. Representative Smith of New Jersey is recognized. And then thank you, Mr. Chairman, for picking up my time and squandering it. That's not how a chairman should act. Representative Smith, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [00:30:25] Speaker 7: Mr. Secretary, if you need a moment to respond to it. [00:30:27] Speaker 4: Well, I also didn't mention Cuba because I wrote that I literally hand wrote what I was going to say to you guys. And I told you I was a submit the written for the record. And I think everybody understands Cuba is a priority for me. Just on the Ukraine front, I'll address it now if it's okay with your time that I could do so. We've I think it's well documented that we've been very involved in trying to get the two sides to the table. We've invested a lot of time in it. Unfortunately, so to this point, neither side has been willing to make concessions, particularly on the Russian side, necessary in order to bring peace about. We remain ready to play any role we can in that context of bringing a peace about because we think the war in Ukraine, devastating war has no military solution. It can only be solved through a diplomatic route. And it's been unfruitful. It's I would characterize it as the ongoing challenges. That said, let's be clear. We are not to be fair and to be frank. We are not impartial mediators in that war. Okay, we don't provide weapons to Russia. We only provide weapons to Ukraine. We don't impose sanctions on Ukraine. We only impose sanctions on Russia. So we have clearly taken a side. We continue to sell weapons to Ukraine, by the way, through the Pearl program, unimpeded by the by what's happened in the Middle East or anywhere else. And look, we'd love to see that come to a negotiated settlement. As of right now, the prospects don't look great that either side is prepared to make the concessions necessary in order to reach an agreement. But we stand ready and we've engaged and invested a tremendous amount of high level time on that conflict over the last year. I think it's a source of frustration for the world. Hopefully this year will bring better news. I don't have any news for you on that front today, but we are ready. As I've expressed both sides repeatedly, we're ready to step in and play whatever positive role we can to bring that devastating and escalating war to an end. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. [00:32:04] Speaker 7: And just let me say, Claire and Sebastian Lai and all of us are deeply grateful to you and the president for everything you tried to do to get Jimmy Lai out. Obviously, it's an ongoing concern and I know you will continue to push for that. But I know you did everything was the ball was in Xi Jinping's court and he unfortunately erred on the side of continued incarceration of that great human rights defender. But thank you for that. Let me say on the Iran deal. I remember sitting right here and on the floor of the house talking about how egregiously flawed the deal was 10 years ago when the Ayatollah was able to get the language dealing with ballistic missiles out of it because he said it would be stupid his words. And then they built ballistic missiles like never before. On them never having, Iran never having a nuclear weapon. Let's not forget that the agreement was in effect until October of this past year. Other nations were still a part of it and yet they were building a capacity to create nuclear weapons and to use them. And the mad theory does not apply to them as we all know. Unlike Russia, Soviet Union in the past, even China, they don't want to be destroyed. With Iranians, there's a sense of martyrdom that I think is perverse. And so they don't are not guided by a mutual assured destruction theory that holds both sides in check. Let me just say to on on the Nigeria. Thank you for what you've done there with not just CPC, but the most recent taking out of some of the worst of the worst terrorists who are slaughtering Christians and the numbers continue. But I know you're engaging very, very aggressively there on the DRC Rwanda conflict. Thank you for sanctioning some of the top people who are committing atrocities. And that's just happened a couple of days ago yesterday for sure. That shows that commitment there. And on even the Armenian Azerbaijan. I've been working on Nagorno-Korabakh and Azerbaijan and Armenia for 30 years. They often called Nagorno-Korabakh the frozen conflict because nothing would ever happen. You guys stepped in. You stepped in and the president stepped in and got a peace treaty. I mean, I've met with Aliyev in Baku on two occasions. He was totally unwilling to admit to the human rights abuses that he was engaging in, especially as it relates to Nagorno-Korabakh and the Armenians. You come up with a solution. Thank you for that. And anything you want to speak to on the DRC Rwanda or any of these issues, appreciate everything you're doing for this country. There's a full plate of horrible things happening and we're so grateful you're at the house. [00:34:41] Speaker 4: Please. Oh, well, just on DRC Rwanda, I would say, just to elaborate on that a little further. As you know, we had an agreement signed and the compliance was not good in that regard. To be fair, and I know that some other people disagree with this assessment, but we believe it's pretty accurate on the Rwandan side. And so we initiated some sanctions, targeted sanctions on Rwanda. They've come to the table. They've made some commitments. They are complying with the commitments, maybe not at the rate or speed that we'd like them to, but there's been some compliance on pulling back of troops. What we'll watch very closely, of course, is we don't want to see Rwandan troops change uniform into M23 uniforms and claim that they've pulled out. We've got to watch that very carefully. And we also have to deal with the M23 issue there. But both DRC Rwanda and Sudan are two areas we remain very engaged in trying to find a solution to. [00:35:29] Speaker 2: Representative's time has expired. Representative Castro, you are recognized. [00:35:32] Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming in today and for your testimony. I want to start with Iran. I'm hopeful that the president and the administration are able to reach an agreement that ends the war and also reopens the Strait of Hormuz. If there's a deal subject to congressional review under Inara, I'll approach it with a fair mind, and I hope that all of us will as well. I just ask that you keep the committee briefed on the details of that agreement, and I believe that it's in America's interest that this war end. And I sincerely mean that. We are at war alongside Israel against Iran. Iran has struck Israeli nuclear facilities at Damona, and American service members are deployed throughout the region, as you know. Congress needs to understand the full risks of the conflict, including the nuclear risks. On May 4th, I wrote to you with 29 colleagues asking for details about these risks and Israeli nuclear weapons. On June 1st, your Bureau of Legislative Affairs responded and said, quote, "We refer you to the government of Israel for your questions about Israel's capabilities." I have to say, Mr. Secretary, that's a very bizarre response. 30 of us wrote to you and to the State Department asking our government for an answer, an assessment about a foreign nation's nuclear capabilities. In your opening statement, you referred to India and Pakistan as nuclear nations. We've also spoken in different sessions, both in closed and open sessions. You know as a U.S. Senator, former U.S. Senator, about the nuclear capabilities of other nations, Iran, China, Russia, France, the U.K., both adversaries and allies. And so I wanted to ask you the question today, will you tell us, the Congress and the American people, whether Israel, in fact, possesses nuclear weapons? [00:37:25] Speaker 4: You know that that's a question that we don't -- they've never acknowledged to have a nuclear program. People can have, as you know, an open source and other reporting suspicions about what they possess. If we're speaking frankly, I think most of the world assesses that they do. But we've never -- they've never acknowledged that publicly. And as a feature of our foreign policy for a variety of reasons, we don't discuss it in that way either. [00:37:45] Speaker 8: Well, I guess a few things. This is the first time, especially for an extended period, that we are at war with an ally, Israel, against Iran. And we have service members deployed. And we don't -- if they, in fact, possess nuclear weapons -- and you're right, in open source reporting that has come across -- we don't know what their red lines are for using those nuclear weapons. And so I guess I'm shocked that our government wouldn't make an effort to know, to understand, and then to give our oversight body the information that we need to make decisions about the war as well. [00:38:19] Speaker 4: Well, that's a fair observation. And I would answer that if perhaps you make that request and you're open to it being answered in a different setting other than a public letter. Classified setting? [00:38:28] Speaker 8: A classified setting? Yes. [00:38:30] Speaker 4: Both classified and sensitive. And if we could -- I think we would -- you would get a better response to your question if the context in which it was answered were framed differently than a public letter for a variety of reasons. If we're being mature and grown up here, I mean, foreign policy, and I know that you are, and from the tone of your question, it's clear that it's a serious question. These things require delicate balancing acts between different equities. But I think you can get probably a more fulsome answer if we were to be able to respond to that inquiry in a different context, if that makes sense. [00:39:02] Speaker 8: Mr. Secretary, I'll certainly take you up on that, and I appreciate your answer. Thank you for that. I have another question on Lebanon. The president and you are working to end this war with Iran, and according to reporting at least, one of the main sticking points is Israel's continuing military campaign in Lebanon against Hezbollah, which the president has called on Israel to stop. The president confirmed last night, in fact, that he, in fact, told Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to stop the war in Lebanon. My worry is that Israel's insistence on continuing this war against Hezbollah will jeopardize the president's efforts and the American government's efforts to reach an agreement with Iran. And so my question is, do you agree that Israel should stop its military campaign in Lebanon and support the president's negotiations for a peace agreement with Iran? [00:39:50] Speaker 4: I'd love to answer that question. It's going to take more than the 42 seconds, and I know I've seen already that people get pretty pissed off here when their time gets eaten up. But if I can answer that question, maybe the next person will let me continue, because that's a really important question. So let me just start by saying this. Let me walk you through this. We had an agreement. Hezbollah reached out two weeks ago and basically said about 10 days ago and basically said, we will not launch missiles into Israeli territory if they stop attacking into Beirut. That was the agreement, I think, 5 p.m. two Saturdays ago. At 6 p.m. they launched missiles. And then they came back and said, well, we made a mistake. We thought it started tomorrow, not Saturday. Then they went again and violated again on Sunday. [00:40:28] Speaker 8: But also, Israel has been bombing and launching throughout. Is that correct? [00:40:32] Speaker 4: Well, there's two separate things. Actually, Israel has not conducted massive operations in Beirut for some time. What you see them operating is in the south. And what we've always said, and it's part of the joint statement, we've always said is Israel has a right to act in its defense. So as an example -- Well, but so then why did the president have to tell Israel to stop anything? [00:40:49] Speaker 2: Time has expired. Representative Wilson is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [00:40:53] Speaker 9: Indeed, Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you and recognize that we appreciate the U.S.-Israel alliance. And we appreciate very much the response that's being done against 1,100 missile attacks that have come out of Lebanon, as you've just identified correctly. And they need to know that. And how they don't know that, I don't know. But any attacks that are done by Israel are in response, not initiated. With that in mind, you are serving at a historic time with success of dictators on the run. Dictator Assad of Syria has fled to Moscow. Dictator Maduro of Venezuela is incarcerated in Manhattan. Dictator Khomeini of Iran has been eliminated, joining the 40,000 Iranians he murdered this year. As Chairman myself of the Helsinki Commission Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe, you have achieved unprecedented unity in Latin America, supporting the liberation of Venezuela and soon Cuba. You have achieved historic unity across the Middle East of all countries, supporting American efforts, except for the Republic of Georgia, to oppose Iran and its nuclear capabilities. And in Europe, NATO and the EU are united as never before, promoting defense increases for peace through strength, to indeed promote Ukraine victory over war criminal Putin. With that in mind, another region is the South Caucasus, which is critical of the opportunity for the Trump route that you've achieved, with Prime Minister Prashian of Armenia and President Azerbaijan, President Aliyev of Azerbaijan. What a great achievement that is. With that in mind, though, the pro-Iranian regime and the Chinese Communist Party supported the Georgian Dream government, which is illegitimate, threatens American access. There was a rigged election in Georgia. With that in mind, they are facilitating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard and evading sanctions to Tehran. What do you believe should be done to address the rapidly expanding radicalization promoted by the Georgian Dream government in the Republic of Georgia? [00:43:00] Speaker 4: Let me -- if I may, I want to answer the Georgia question. Can I steal 30 seconds of your time to finish the answer to Representative Kester? So on Georgia, you're right, everything you've just outlined is our pre-existing concern. Since that time, they have made some steps indicating to us that they want to improve their relations with the United States. We've outlined to them what that would take and what that would require. We've received some positive responses. And so our hope is that we can see a change of trajectory within the case of Georgia from where it is today. We obviously understand all the things you've just laid out as being pre-existing problems for us. They've asked us what will it take to have a better relationship with the United States. We've responded and hopefully we can build on that basis and perhaps change the trajectory, not just of our relationship with Georgia, but of their behavior. Is it okay if I just take 30 seconds of your time? I apologize. So on the strikes that you're referring to, here's what happens in the South. I'm just going to speak colloquially as best I can. The Israelis see Hezbollah moving around, maybe even launching a missile from the South, and they action it in defense. They go after it in the southern portion. And that's what we're seeing in many cases is these defensive strikes. What they're increasingly doing is taking more territory in the South to deny them launching space. Because understand, these rockets are being launched into northern villages and cities in Israel, and populations can't even return to their homes as a result of it. In the case of what happened the other day, the following was happening. We had indications, multiple indications, that Israel may be considering conducting anti-Hezbollah strikes inside of Beirut. And at that moment we had reached out from the Lebanese authorities saying that Hezbollah had contacted them and said, if Israel doesn't strike Beirut, that they would stop launching missiles into Israeli territory. That's the message we got, and that's what the President pursued and said, okay, I had this outreach, if you won't do these strikes in Beirut, they'll stop launching against you in northern Israel. Unfortunately, within an hour or two of that conversation, they launched two waves of rockets from Hezbollah against Israel in Israeli territory. So it's an ongoing challenge. I think one of the reasons why we're engaged in these talks between Lebanon and Israel is understanding that Hezbollah is not just an enemy of Israel. Hezbollah is an enemy of Lebanon. They are an enemy of the Lebanese government. They have called for the overthrow of the Lebanese government. When Lebanon expelled the Iranian ambassador, he refused to leave. He said, I'm not leaving. You can't expel me. Hezbollah is protecting me. So Hezbollah is not just a challenge to Israel. It's a challenge to Lebanon, to the Lebanese state, and the Lebanese people. And we are hopeful that we can create a paradigm in which Lebanon's government and Israel can work together to disarm Hezbollah and allow the people of Lebanon to reclaim its country. But it's complex. This has been going on since OJ had isotoners in those commercials. And, Mr. Secretary, you're correct. [00:45:48] Speaker 9: I was with President Ayon in Beirut last year, and what you're doing should address it. I do want to point out, give Syria a chance. And that's been your success, Tom Barrack, the president, by giving Syria a chance. We need to delist Syria from the state sponsor of terrorism. And I urge that to be done. [00:46:06] Speaker 2: Thank you for being so generous for Representative Castro's question. Representative Titus is recognized. [00:46:12] Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I just want to talk about some of the conflicting comments that we've been hearing about the status of Iran's military. The president just made some comments on Fox News, where he said Iran's military, we sort of left it alone because we think that their military is somewhat moderate. We've taken different forms of leadership out, but we've actually left their military alone. People would be surprised to hear that. Well, I'm very surprised to hear it because we've had Secretary Hegseth say repeatedly that epic fury decimated Iran's military and rendered it combat ineffective for years to come. You've said the Iranian Navy is at the bottom of the sea and they have no air force either. Well, which is it? You're the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor. If you can't tell us if the military is decimated or not, is it at the bottom of the sea? Was it left alone? That's a major point I think Congress needs clarity on. Okay, thank you. [00:47:23] Speaker 4: Fair question. Let me address both of them. The first is on the military. I think there's a difference between the military's hardware and capabilities and the individuals involved in the military. As you know, the Iranians suffered tremendous losses in personnel, and that includes top leadership of the IRGC and other elements of their government. What the president is alluding to is that there are certain individuals in the Iranian regime who have indicated both directly and indirectly a willingness to approach the future perhaps a little different. Not ideal. Look, everybody talks about moderates in Iran. There are no moderates. There are radicals and super radicals. Okay? That's been our view of it. But there are some of them that believe that they actually need to do a deal because their economy is in shambles. And so I think what the president is alluding to is that there are some individuals involved in the negotiations and in elements of their government, including some in elements of their military that are more open to a deal than other. As far as the Navy is concerned, yeah, they have no Navy. What they have remaining is a bunch of small crafts. I would call them Boston whalers with machine guns. And these things are harassing ships. And these are the ones that go after. In some cases, they drop mines off the back of them or they try to harass shipping with swarms. They are unable to form swarms the way they once did. They are primarily now threatening shipping through the use of one-way attack drones. But their Navy, which you would consider a Navy with naval vessels that can actually conduct naval operations, is non-existent at this point. So is the war still on or is the war off? Well, Epic Fury has concluded. What you're seeing reports of including last night is the following. A ship will go through the route, particularly both the northern and southern route of Hormuz. Those ships will come under attack. The U.S. will respond to that attack by shooting down those drones that are trying to sink a commercial civilian vessel illegally and unlawfully. At that point, the Iranians will respond to that by targeting some facility in the region in retribution. On occasion, in order to protect our own forces, we don't just strike the drones. We strike the people who launch those drones. These are completely defensive in nature. But they are happening in response to an Iranian action. If they don't shoot at those ships, we don't shoot. But we have to respond. You have a civilian commercial vessel transiting the straits and they're being targeted by drones. And these aren't -- these drones are not like highly precise. They could hit any part of that ship and they could create including an ecological disaster. [00:49:39] Speaker 1: Well, apparently some kind of military exists that's shooting these drones off. And the military obviously isn't decimated if they can attack these ships with these drones. [00:49:51] Speaker 4: Yeah, they still retain a drone. [00:49:52] Speaker 1: And when you say what the president was alluding to, the president's not a person who's known for illusions. He just shouts it right out, whatever he's thinking. So I don't think he was alluding to anything, as you suggest. [00:50:05] Speaker 4: Well, drones are, as you know, a challenge in multiple battlefields around the world. It's going to be a tremendous challenge for warfighting in the future because they're cheap. [00:50:13] Speaker 1: Yeah, I know what drones are. I know you know what they are. [00:50:15] Speaker 4: But I'm saying that they're cheap and they're easy to -- [00:50:17] Speaker 1: Yes, I know. And we're using things that are very expensive to shoot them down. And that needs to change. [00:50:21] Speaker 4: That said, yes, they still have the capability. They can't launch as many as they used to. And they can't launch them in the swarms they used to launch them in. But they still retain that capability. [00:50:30] Speaker 1: Okay, okay. Well, let me just ask you a quick question about something that Ambassador Barrick said. Changing the subject a little bit. He compared Israel to Hezbollah, for one thing. That was a pretty concerning comparison. But also, he said Turkey should join the F-35 program. These comments are inconsistent with law and longstanding policy. And I'm just wondering what your position is as Secretary of State. Can Turkey get F-15s and -- I mean, F-35s or not? Yeah. We seem to be helping the bad guys and not the good guys. [00:51:08] Speaker 4: Well, as you -- I'm sure you're aware, Turkey actually was in the F-35 program. The reason why they can't get them is because they purchased the S-400 system from the Russians. That's right. They still have those. [00:51:17] Speaker 1: And they're still under mandatory sanctions because of that. Correct. [00:51:20] Speaker 4: So, as you know, that's governed by statute. Okay, or not? Well, right now, we don't have that choice because it's governed by statute. Both provisions of the NDA and the statute. [00:51:26] Speaker 1: Well, then upon us, our ambassador out there saying that. Why? The time has expired. [00:51:31] Speaker 10: Representative Perry is recognized. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I would give you an opportunity to answer the ranking member, even though he didn't pose it as a question. But I, as an individual, like many on the dais who have served in uniform, thank you for your actions regarding Iran and this administration's action. But if -- and if you want to answer it, yes or no, you're welcome to. Who started the war between Iran and America 47 years ago? [00:51:56] Speaker 4: Yeah, I don't -- these yes or no things I don't like. But I could just tell you, Iran has been at war against the United States since the minute the Islamic regime took over. [00:52:04] Speaker 10: Yeah. And I feel the same way. And again, thank you on behalf and to honor the thousands and ten thousands of Americans who have been murdered or maimed by Iran. Thank you for honoring them. Just moving on to questions. Did Pakistan's foreign minister personally deliver a message to you that Iran is prepared to demonstrate a nuclear weapon should the current escalation continue? That's been reported. And I just want to see if I can ferret that out a little bit. [00:52:31] Speaker 4: I've not seen that reporting. And I'm not aware of any such message. Okay. [00:52:34] Speaker 10: And if there were such a message, would that change anything in America's posture? Or not only the message, but the action. Would that change anything regarding our goals regarding Iran? [00:52:44] Speaker 4: Well, I think you're asking -- the hypothetical question is, if Iran threatened that they're going to test a nuclear device if talks fail, I think it would confirm everything we believe about them anyways. And I think the president then would have to pursue or at least have to consider various other options that are available to him in that context. But again, I've not heard that message relayed. I don't know the reporting you're referring to. You're talking about a press report? [00:53:05] Speaker 10: Yeah, I am talking about a press report. [00:53:07] Speaker 4: I would be surprised if that message had been relayed. I would be aware of it if it was. I would think so. [00:53:11] Speaker 10: That's why I'm asking. So that's enough on that. I know that the president -- look, he's an America first guy. He's concerned about every single American citizen, regardless of the party affiliation or their ideology and affordability. The president is concerned about those things. And I shudder to think what Iran would do if they could, armed with nuclear capability and ballistic missile capability, coupled with that, seeing what they're doing right now, extorting the world economy without those things. So with that in mind, it's been reported that the UAE is building a pipeline to the Gulf of Oman, which would bypass the Strait of Hormuz, essentially doubling their capacity, which would, of course, lower the price and the risk of global fuel transport or oil transport. Do you understand or do you recognize and know what the timeline -- proposed timeline for completion of that pipeline is? Yeah, I'm aware of those efforts. [00:54:08] Speaker 4: They actually pre-exist the conflict in terms of a desire to do so. These things -- I can't tell you specifically. I'm not a pipeline building expert, but I can tell you it certainly is going to take more than a week or a year. I mean, these are complex. I think the broader point, which your question touches on, is I do think you're going to see a reshifting of where the world gets its energy from in the aftermath of this conflict. You're already beginning to see some of it now. I think you're going to see the United States be a bigger energy provider to the Indo-Pacific. We have the capability to do so, but it's going to take some time to build that capability. So I think you're going to see more of that. And I think you're going to see the establishment of more of these alternative routes as a result of this. Remember, only about 20 percent of global oil goes through the Straits of Hormuz, but it is about 80 to 85 percent of the oil that goes to the Indo-Pacific. So in those particular countries, I think you're going to most definitely see them buying more from other places, including the United States. [00:55:00] Speaker 10: And that's going to lower the cost for everybody, which is great. Secretary, just moving on. You're of Cuban descent, of Colombian descent. Can you describe-- and Cuba has been a sore-- Are you really Colombian? I didn't know that. [00:55:12] Speaker ?: Yes. [00:55:12] Speaker 10: Oh, wow. Indeed. So Cuba has been sowing the seeds of discord in our hemisphere, inviting China, Russia, North Korea, all manner of communist, oligarch, bad actors into the hemisphere. If you can describe, generally speaking, what the policy headed-- where we're headed with Cuba as the United States of America. Where are we headed? And what do you envision being success, and how do we measure that? [00:55:38] Speaker 4: In 56 seconds, I will tell you what we want for the people of Cuba is to be able to live in a normal country. You're here. I want them to live in a country that looks like the Dominican Republic, like Jamaica, like the Bahamas, like any of these other places where people can own their own business. People can sort of-- people can vote for their own leaders. By the way, that's not my desire. That's the policy of the United States that's enshrined in statute. Here's the problem. And we're willing to do this through a diplomatic means. The problem we have is that country's not controlled by a government. That country's controlled by a military conglomerate that basically controls 70% of the nation's GDP, and none of the profits of that conglomerate goes into the public treasury. None of that money goes to rebuild bridges and roads, or to reinvest into their energy infrastructure. All of it goes to build more hotels for tourists that aren't coming, and to line the pockets of the people that are involved. So that has to change. My question-- I think we all can envision what we want Cuba to look like. And it doesn't have to happen overnight, okay? We understand they're not going to go from being what they are now to turning into Belgium or Switzerland in one day to the next. It takes time in these processes. I just don't believe, frankly, at this point, given everything we've seen, that the people in charge of that conglomerate and of that government are capable of making these reforms. At least not yet. Their mindset isn't there. Their incentives aren't there. They have spent, you know, 60-something years waiting us out and holding on. And I think they can still get away with it. And they can't. And they won't be able to. Time has expired. [00:57:00] Speaker 11: Representative Liu is recognized. Thank you, Secretary Rubio, for being here today. You have been at multiple meetings with President Trump. In a moment, I'm going to show you a video of one of these meetings. It is from last December. It's a Cabinet meeting. I'm going to ask you to focus on President Trump. And you will see that he is sleeping while you are talking. Oh, my God. Please show the video. [00:57:23] Speaker 4: The products they make and what American farmers grow and produce has a fair shot to be sold around the world. On issue after issue, that's been the case. You talk about foreign aid reforms. This is not our money. This is taxpayer money. [00:57:40] Speaker 11: Secretary Rubio, have you been at more than one meeting where President Trump has fallen asleep? That's false. [00:57:48] Speaker ?: That's false. [00:57:49] Speaker 4: I've never seen him fall asleep. On the contrary, the guy doesn't sleep, which is a big problem because he calls me at 2:00 in the morning. He calls me at 5:00 in the morning. And, you know, I like to sleep a little bit. Maybe not 12 hours, but at least 6:00. So, the other day, he was at the Oval Office until 12:30 PM. Secretary Rubio? At 12:30 AM. I don't know what you're talking about. [00:58:06] Speaker 11: Secretary Rubio, I'm going to show you in a moment a video that shows you just lied to Congress. Oh, okay. Secretary Rubio: So, this is a video of a cabinet meeting literally from last month where Donald Trump is sleeping while you are talking. Please show this video. [00:58:24] Speaker 4: The coalition of countries that line up behind the peace deal, behind the board of peace, and it's still -- every day is a challenge. But it's been driven personally by the president. It's the reason why we're involved in this whole Ukraine-Russia conflict. That's not our war. It's not the president's war. This war started -- it never would have happened if you'd been president. Secretary Rubio: But this war is going on, and the president is trying to end it. [00:58:44] Speaker 11: Secretary Rubio: You are literally talking about issues of war and peace, and Donald Trump is sleeping right next to you. Secretary Rubio: No, he's not. Secretary Rubio: If Donald Trump cannot stay awake at these important meetings where the cameras are rolling, imagine what he's like when the cameras are not there. So, I'm going to ask you, have you been at classified meetings where Donald Trump has fallen asleep or had trouble staying awake? [00:59:07] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: I've never been at any meeting. Secretary Rubio: And the things you're showing me now, he was not falling asleep. Secretary Rubio: And I think it's outrageous that I'm before the Foreign Affairs Committee of the United States House of Representatives asking questions about sleep. Secretary Rubio: You're lying to Congress, Secretary Rubio. [00:59:20] Speaker 11: Secretary Rubio: So, I'm going to show you another video in a moment. Secretary Rubio: Show me all the videos you want. Secretary Rubio: The president's inability -- the president's inability to stay awake on the job has caused other countries to perceive him differently. Secretary Rubio: They mock him. Secretary Rubio: They see he is weak and he is feeble. Secretary Rubio: This is a video of a French news channel talking about Donald Trump falling asleep at a Memorial Day ceremony. Secretary Rubio: Please show this video. [00:59:44] Speaker 12: Secretary Rubio: Well, mark a video that appears to show Donald Trump falling asleep at a Memorial Day ceremony this Monday has been circulating heavily online. Secretary Rubio: And internet users have a lot to say about it. Secretary Rubio: It's also reignited rumors about the state of the U.S. president's health. Secretary Rubio: Now, in the video, in social media, users say that Trump is fighting sleep whilst he listens to the speech given by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary Rubio: and that his eyes appear to be closed for a large portion of the ceremony. Secretary Rubio: Now, we need to remember here that this is a ceremony to honor and remember those U.S. military personnel who have died while serving in the armed forces. Secretary Rubio: And the idea that Trump was asleep at a somber ceremony like this, well, that has triggered outrage online. [01:00:29] Speaker 11: Secretary Rubio: Donald Trump's inability to stay awake on the job shows that there's something very wrong with his health or cognitive abilities. Secretary Rubio: And in fact, on a number of occasions, Donald Trump will contradict himself in literally the same meeting or interview. Secretary Rubio: In this video I'm about to show, it shows that Donald Trump says the Iranian military is both destroyed and not destroyed at the same time. Secretary Rubio: Something that Dina Titus alluded to. Secretary Rubio: Please show this video. [01:00:58] Speaker 13: Secretary Rubio: In terms of leadership, we've actually left the military alone. Secretary Rubio: People would be surprised to hear that. Secretary Rubio: Because mistakes have been made in wars where you wipe out everybody and then you have a country that for 40 years can never rebuild. Secretary Rubio: You look at what happened with Iraq. Secretary Rubio: Iran is in a very bad position. Secretary Rubio: They have no military, all they have is good talk and they have a fake press. [01:01:22] Speaker 11: Secretary Rubio: So Secretary Rubio, instead of holding North Korean style cabinet meetings where everyone goes around the room kissing Donald Trump's ass, Secretary Rubio: I'm going to ask you to come clean with American people and the White House as well. Secretary Rubio: There's something wrong with Donald Trump's health or cognitive abilities. Secretary Rubio: There's a reason he keeps going to the hospital and they keep giving him cognitive tests. Secretary Rubio: We have not seen the president in eight days. Secretary Rubio: The American people deserve the truth. Secretary Rubio: I yield back. [01:01:51] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: I don't even know how to respond to that other than to tell you that it's absurd and ridiculous. Secretary Rubio: And I can't believe we're in a foreign affairs committee meeting in front of the House in an important time in American foreign policy. Secretary Rubio: Just keep lying, Secretary Rubio. Secretary Rubio: Just keep lying. Secretary Rubio: Supposedly someone who thinks he's a medical expert when he's not. Secretary Rubio: The truth of the matter is we had a cognitively impaired president in office a few years ago. Secretary Rubio: That's a cognitively impaired president, but I don't like to talk about that because it weakens America. Secretary Rubio: This president we have, this is a guy that literally doesn't sleep. Secretary Rubio: He works day and night, long hours, every single day. Secretary Rubio: I don't know if you haven't seen him in eight days. Secretary Rubio: I saw him yesterday. Secretary Rubio: I didn't see him yesterday because I was in Congress the day before. Secretary Rubio: I talked to him at all hours of the day and night. Secretary Rubio: He works inhumane hours. Secretary Rubio: I've been on foreign trips with the president that he doesn't sleep in the whole flight. Secretary Rubio: And everyone else is sleeping on the plane and he's, you know, wandering in the hallways looking for someone to wake up and talk to the people. Secretary Rubio: So I don't know what you're referring to, but he has an incredible amount of energy. Secretary Rubio: I'm just telling you, you may not like his policies. Secretary Rubio: You may not like his policies. Secretary Rubio: You may not like the decisions he's made. Secretary Rubio: But I assure you, this is not a president that sleeps or is cognitively impaired in any way, shape or form. Secretary Rubio: And in fact, this is incredibly active, much more so in many cases than much younger people that are around him. Secretary Rubio: Those are facts. Secretary Rubio: I see it every day. Secretary Rubio: You're not going to agree because you have another narrative that you want to push. Secretary Rubio: But those are the facts. [01:03:07] Speaker 11: Secretary Rubio: I just showed you three videos of him sleeping. [01:03:09] Speaker 14: Secretary Rubio: Representative Ise is recognized. Secretary Rubio: Thanks for waking me up, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Rubio: Mr. Secretary, if you went, if you'd gone to sleep during those videos, I would not have blamed you. Secretary Rubio: I too have received those calls at all hours of the day and night. Secretary Rubio: I'm like you aware that the president works harder than any other person in here in Washington. Secretary Rubio: But moving moving along, a number of things have been said that I find just incredible. Secretary Rubio: First of all, the the the whole question on on whether or not we support Lebanon and whether or not we support Israel. Secretary Rubio: Is there any real contradiction between what Israel is trying to accomplish and what your aid to the Lebanese armed forces over decades is trying to accomplish? Secretary Rubio: Contradiction? Secretary Rubio: Is there any light between those two efforts? [01:04:01] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: They're aligned. Secretary Rubio: What we would like to see is a Lebanese armed forces with the strength and the capability to disarm Hezbollah and reclaim the entirety of the country. Secretary Rubio: You know, every the country should only have one armed forces. Secretary Rubio: It shouldn't have an armed political party, which is what Hezbollah is, and then the left, the Lebanese armed forces. Secretary Rubio: So that that and and the Lebanese want that, too. Secretary Rubio: And that's what we work very closely with them on. Secretary Rubio: And that's what our engagement with the Lebanese is about. [01:04:26] Speaker 14: Secretary Rubio: And Mr. Secretary, just for the record, in one of the last times I was in Israel, I asked Prime Minister Netanyahu if we should cut off aid, as some have said to Lebanon. Secretary Rubio: He said to Lebanese armed forces, he said, no, give them more, give them what they need to take back their country. Secretary Rubio: So I do believe that we couldn't be more aligned with the efforts of Israel and the present government of Lebanon. Secretary Rubio: Moving along, you did a great job of going around the world and outlining the mess that was left to you as you pick each of them up. Secretary Rubio: One that you didn't touch on that I'm concerned about is actually a democratic one, which is the Secretary Rubio: Democracy of South Korea has taken a strong bent to the left. Secretary Rubio: Opening up more avenues toward China. Secretary Rubio: And in fact, beginning to oppress many of our companies, including Meta, Coupon and others. Secretary Rubio: Can you tell us what can be done and what this committee should do with countries who, through democratic means, are beginning to become anti-US? Secretary Rubio: Right. [01:05:36] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: So there are a couple of points I would make. Secretary Rubio: The first is that, and this is the unique aspect of dealing with democracies. Secretary Rubio: And we see it in our hemisphere quite often. Secretary Rubio: Sometimes in a democratic country, they will elect leaders that are friendlier to US national interests, such as what we have now in Japan. Secretary Rubio: And sometimes they will elect leaders that have a different perspective. Secretary Rubio: We respect the sovereign choice of the people of that country. Secretary Rubio: That's a legitimate election. Secretary Rubio: That's who they chose. Secretary Rubio: In those instances in which a democracy and their elected leaders are taking positions Secretary Rubio: that run contrary to the national interest of the United States. Secretary Rubio: It doesn't mean we want to overthrow the government or get rid of the government because it's democratic government. Secretary Rubio: It simply means we have to engage them in the fact that they are doing things that are irritants to our national interests. Secretary Rubio: You point to some of our companies. Secretary Rubio: Our companies aren't just facing challenges and, you know, I would say targeting in South Korea. Secretary Rubio: They're facing it throughout Europe. Secretary Rubio: And the European Union, as an example, is targeting our technology companies and conducting what we believe is unfair. Secretary Rubio: So I think this becomes a feature of our engagement with South Korea, even as we have things that we're strategically aligned on. Secretary Rubio: These are areas we've expressed and I think have, frankly, impacted our ability to conclude a trade agreement with them because of some of their behavior towards American companies. [01:06:46] Speaker 14: Secretary Rubio: Iran obviously was going to dominate a part of today, and I'd like to close my questioning with a question for you. Secretary Rubio: In 1979, if my math is correct, you were eight years old when they took our embassy and then lied about it, claimed it was students doing it. Secretary Rubio: That's 47 years ago, as has been said many times. Secretary Rubio: Is it fair to say that President Trump, no matter what the people on the other side of the aisle want to say, is not in the 60th or 70th day of action. Secretary Rubio: But in fact, in the 47th year of an ongoing war with Iran that has spread to Yemen, to Lebanon, and even to South and Central America. Secretary Rubio: I think I would start. [01:07:34] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: Well, absolutely. Secretary Rubio: First of all, with Hezbollah. Secretary Rubio: Hezbollah is an agent of the Iranians and they've carried out terrorist operations around the world, including the recent anniversary of what they did in Argentina, the Jewish center. Secretary Rubio: But let's not forget those IEDs that were used to maim and kill our troops in Iraq were all innovated by Soleimani and the IRGC, which strongly supported that. Secretary Rubio: Let's not forget that we have these Iranian proxy militias operating inside of Iraq that as recently as two months ago kidnapped an American journalist. Secretary Rubio: And let's not forget that there are people that are both charged and convicted in the United States for participating in Iranian assassination plots against the President and against other former and current government leaders. Secretary Rubio: So we have been for we've been facing this from Iran for 47 years in a variety of ways. Secretary Rubio: Some more open than others. Secretary Rubio: Thank you. [01:08:24] Speaker 14: Secretary Rubio: Thank you. Secretary Rubio: And Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal article entitled South Korea takes a hard left turn against America be placed in the record. Secretary Rubio: So ordered. Secretary Rubio: Thank you. Secretary Rubio: I yield that objection. Secretary Rubio: Representative Jacobs. [01:08:36] Speaker 15: Representative Jacobs: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary, good to see you. Secretary Rubio: I'd like to talk about the war in Iran. Secretary Rubio: Yesterday in your Senate testimony, you told Senator Booker that the war in Iran is over. This is news to me. It's also news to my 2,500 constituents Marines, San Diego Marines in the Middle East off the coast of Iran. Secretary Rubio: The other of my constituents who are deployed there and the thousands more of my constituents who have 48 hour deployment notices whose families are still very concerned. Secretary Rubio: But, okay, I will take you at your word. If the war is over, I have a simple question. Who won? [01:09:11] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: First of all, Epic Fury is over, which is what you would consider the war. That operation is concluded. Secretary Rubio: So you agree it's a war then? Secretary Rubio: No, those are hostilities. They called it a war. Secretary Rubio: Okay. Secretary Rubio: I'm just responding to Senator Booker's question. [01:09:23] Speaker 15: Secretary Rubio: Mr. Secretary, you can change the name of the operation. It doesn't change the fact that the strait is still closed and my service members and all of our service members are still in harm's way. Secretary Rubio: No, no, but that's not what you asked me. Secretary Rubio: The war is not over. But I'm agreeing with you. Okay, fine. Secretary Rubio: We're taking you at your word. The war is over. Who won? [01:09:38] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: Well, first of all, you're not taking me at my word. It's a fact. Secretary Rubio: We're no longer conducting sustained strikes inside of Iran to degrade their military because Epic Fury is over. Secretary Rubio: The second point is on the question of who won, I can tell you this. Secretary Rubio: We defined victory, we defined victory as destroying their defense industrial base, significantly reducing the number of missile launchers that they possess, Secretary Rubio: significantly reducing their stockpile of drones and we achieved all of those in addition to destroying what they had left of an air force and wiping out their entire conventional navy. Secretary Rubio: Those are all gone. So I consider that victory and we did too. And that was the purpose of Epic Fury. [01:10:10] Speaker 15: Secretary Rubio: Okay, well, good. Based on the metrics that you just said, okay, there's actually our intelligence community has said that Iran is reconstituting its military industrial base faster than we had predicted. Secretary Rubio: And analysts assess it still holds roughly 70% of its missile stockpile and 70% of its mobile launchers. Secretary Rubio: The Strait of Hormuz was open before the war. It is now closed. We have lost 14 brave American service members over 400 are injured and the Iranian regime remains largely intact. Secretary Rubio: But now with a more hardline leader who has more incentive to try and get a nuclear weapon. So I guess I have to ask you again, Mr Secretary, does this actually look like winning or losing to you? [01:10:53] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: Well, first of all, I don't know what intelligence assessments you're referring to. We wouldn't discuss intelligence assessments if they were real. Secretary Rubio: These have been publicly reported. Secretary Rubio: Well, they're publicly reported. Someone committed a crime, and by the way, is also lying. And this happens all the time. People manipulate intelligence and analysis for purposes of furthering a narrative. On your point about the regime, the regime is actually deeply fractured, which is why it takes seven to 10 gays to get an answer from them for anything. Secretary Rubio: Fractured, but still intact. Secretary Rubio: Well, intact in the sense they can't even reach agreements that they can get back to us. So that's -- I don't know how intact that is. Secretary Rubio: What they have is people that are afraid to go into the streets. Their repressive operations have helped people back in addition to the fact they've cut off the Internet. But this is a country right now in this regime that is facing hyperinflation, a completely devalued currency, hundreds of billions of dollars in damage to their military infrastructure. Secretary Rubio: And frankly, they -- all of the pre-existing problems that Iran had in their economy, which is why people are protesting, are worse, not better. Secretary Rubio: Sure, but -- [01:11:49] Speaker 15: Secretary Rubio: And they have to deal with that, too. Secretary Rubio: Mr. Secretary, so you're saying we're winning because the Iranian economy has inflation, it's cost them millions of dollars a day in lost revenue, and because it's going to cost them billions of dollars to rebuild. Secretary Rubio: Well, we are having inflation. It's already cost us an estimated $100 billion. Gas prices are up with no end in sight. The average family is paying an extra $450 on gas and could pay an extra $2,000 by the end of the year. Secretary Rubio: The American people are not stupid, Mr. Secretary. We all know that this war is not over. Just last night, the U.S. and Iran exchanged fire again, this time over at Karg Island. We still have not reached a deal, despite the president's promise that a deal is right around the corner. The president even said today the blockade could last until Labor Day. It's now day 97 of the war that the president said he wanted to end quickly. So I have one last question for you. Secretary Rubio: Mr. Secretary, who won the 2020 presidential election? [01:12:42] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: I'm not here to answer a question. We're talking about 2020. This is a foreign affairs committee. [01:12:45] Speaker 15: Secretary Rubio: Okay, great. You can't answer the question, even though we all know that President Biden won. [01:12:49] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: No, I don't answer the question, because as Secretary of State, I do not participate in domestic political issues. Secretary Rubio: This is not about domestic political issues. [01:12:55] Speaker 15: Secretary Rubio: Oh, it certainly is. Secretary Rubio: This is about our democracy. [01:12:57] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: You're asking me to opine, just like I don't do campaign rallies. Secretary Rubio: It seems like you -- Secretary Rubio: I don't do it because as Secretary of State, we're not supposed to. That's been the long tradition of the department, and you should know that if you've been on this committee for any period of time. [01:13:07] Speaker 15: Secretary Rubio: Mr. Secretary, it seems like you have an issue admitting facts. You can't say that the president lost the 2020 election, just like you won't admit President Trump is losing this reckless war of choice, and just like you couldn't admit that the shoes the president bought you were too big. Secretary Rubio: You clearly don't know what winning means, and not because the facts are unclear to you. It's because telling the truth would cost you your job, and the American people are entitled to a Secretary of State who tells them the truth even when the president doesn't want to hear it, and my constituents, our service members, deserve better. Secretary Rubio: Mr. Chairman, I yield back. [01:13:39] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: I don't know what shoe she's talking about. What is she talking about? [01:13:43] Speaker 16: Secretary Rubio: I don't know. Representative Burchett, you're recognized. Representative Burchett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you'd like to answer any of that, I'll give you a minute. [01:13:49] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: I don't know about the shoes. I mean, he gave me some Florsheim shoes. They're actually pretty good. They fit fine. I don't know what she's talking about, and maybe that's what she's referring to. [01:13:56] Speaker 15: Secretary Rubio: Your shoes look very nice today, Mr. Secretary. [01:13:58] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: How can you see them? They're way down here. We're talking about shoes. Are you guys kidding me? I mean, is this the Foreign Affairs Committee, or is this like a circus? What is this? [01:14:08] Speaker 16: Secretary Rubio: I think it's a circus, but I appreciate you being here, Mr. Secretary. Secretary Rubio: The United States is NATO's largest financial contributor. Secretary Rubio: Why does NATO consistently ignore our call to share more of the defense burden in Europe? Secretary Rubio: And is it our national interest to continue participating in NATO? [01:14:26] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: Well, I can give you the why, okay? And the why is the following. Secretary Rubio: Especially in Western Europe, for the better part of 20 or 30 years, they have not had to spend on defense, Secretary Rubio: because the U.S. Security Shield has allowed them to instead spend their money on building up a very vast and robust social safety network. Secretary Rubio: In my time as a senator and before that as a state representative, you would hear often from constituents about how come they have this and that in Europe and we don't have it here? Secretary Rubio: Well, one of the reasons why is because these very rich countries were spending their money on social programs instead of defense because we were covering their defense. Secretary Rubio: That paradigm has to shift. It has to shift for two reasons. The first is these are very wealthy countries that should have the ability to spend more to build up their defenses and need to. Secretary Rubio: And this is not unique to President Trump. Multiple American presidents in both parties have complained about NATO burden sharing. Secretary Rubio: This is just the first president that actually is doing something about it. The second point is the United States has global obligations. Secretary Rubio: Just as I can leave a meeting with Europeans that want to talk about NATO and the next meeting will be with someone from the Indo-Pacific that would like to see a greater U.S. military presence in the Indo-Pacific. Secretary Rubio: And then you can talk to Gulf partners that want to make sure we're still committed to defending and being involved there. Secretary Rubio: And then you can go to Africa and talk to countries that want to see our cooperation on counterterrorism. And then you can go to the Western Hemisphere where they want us to do more with them as well and pay more attention. Secretary Rubio: So the U.S. has global obligations. And while we have vast resources, we do not have unlimited resources. We have to allocate them. And that will include constantly reexamining what our force posture looks like in Europe in comparison to other theaters and potential contingencies around the world. [01:16:02] Speaker 16: Secretary Rubio: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I also want to thank you in the White House for supporting the bill that I've been pushing to defund the Taliban. You're very kind to me to meet with me and I appreciate that very much and the president's support as well. As you know, we're the unit UN's largest financial contributor, but it consistently pushes liberal policies like abortion and gender ideology in spite of our opposition. Secretary Rubio: And every time there's a new council or whatever, and it's always our enemies that seem to be on there. Why is the U.S. still a member of the United Nations? [01:16:36] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: Of the United Nations? Secretary Rubio: Yes, sir. Secretary Rubio: Well, twofold, I would say. The first is the United Nations, of course, is a very frustrating thing for us primarily because it's been unable to intervene or play a constructive role in most of the major crises around the world. Secretary Rubio: It's lost its purpose. It's lost its mission. I think our UN mission is doing a very good job of driving substantial reforms at the UN and using our fees as leverage to achieve those reforms. Secretary Rubio: Last year, actually, we had some pretty substantial successes, some real reductions in the size, in the bloated budget of the UN. Secretary Rubio: And by the way, this is not just a U.S. position. Multiple countries agree with us that the UN had grown too large and it lost its core mission. Secretary Rubio: On the other hand, there have been instances, and we try to use the UN where possible, as a viable forum in which to solve problems. Secretary Rubio: It was helpful as a forum in the Security Council, for example, in standing up the new mission in Haiti in which the U.S. contribution is dramatically reduced Secretary Rubio: and partner nations around the world, because of the UN approval, are now able to step forward and provide not just money but actual troops for the gang suppression force. Secretary Rubio: Likewise, we have a hundred and, I don't know, I don't want to lose count, but 130-some-odd co-sponsors of a resolution. Secretary Rubio: The largest number of co-sponsors ever for a resolution in the Security Council condemning what's happening in the Straits of Hormuz and authorizing countries to potentially do something about it. Secretary Rubio: Unfortunately, it's facing a veto threat from China and Russia, so no vote has been scheduled on that yet. Secretary Rubio: And there are organizations in the UN that we've partnered with. Secretary Rubio: We've been able to partner with them on making contributions to humanitarian relief around the world, Secretary Rubio: and we actually have struck a pretty good deal with them in which we can ensure that that money is going to be spent in a way that furthers our national interest, Secretary Rubio: not go to fund the NGO industrial complex, but also provide critical aid to the areas that badly need it. Secretary Rubio: So there's been some utility with some of it, but the UN is in need of continued dramatic reform, Secretary Rubio: and we intend to continue to use our fees that they claim we owe as leverage for that. [01:18:35] Speaker 16: Secretary Rubio: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Rubio: One last thing. Secretary Rubio: Is there anything UN and NATO could do that would be mutually beneficial? Secretary Rubio: Any reforms? Secretary Rubio: I'm sorry? Secretary Rubio: Any reforms that the UN and NATO could do that would be mutually beneficial? [01:18:50] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: What would NATO? Secretary Rubio: I think there's a much deeper conversation that involves basing rights that have been denied to us by a handful of countries. Secretary Rubio: And I think this is just a -- it's going to feature prominently in the meeting in Turkey as it did last week in the meeting with the foreign ministers. Secretary Rubio: On the UN, I can provide you the list of the reforms we are asking for. Secretary Rubio: They've imposed last year more reforms than ever before, but there are a few more that need to happen. Secretary Rubio: And I can share that list with you and with the whole committee. Secretary Rubio: Representative Stanton is recognized. [01:19:14] Speaker 17: Secretary Stanton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Stanton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Stanton: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Stanton: Mr. Secretary, I do want to talk to you about the blurring of lines between Secretary Stanton: public service and private enrichment at the highest levels of this administration's foreign policy leadership. Secretary Stanton: President Trump has placed Secretary Stanton: Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner in charge of addressing some of the world's most intractable Secretary Stanton: conflicts, including the war between Russia and Ukraine and cleaning up the Secretary Stanton: President's self-made mess of war of choice in Iran. Secretary Stanton: Let me start with Mr. Witkoff, Trump's special envoy to the Middle East. Secretary Stanton: He co-founded the cryptocurrency venture firm World Liberty Financial alongside President Trump and President Trump's children. Secretary Stanton: Days before President Trump's inauguration, a firm controlled by a member of the Royal Family of the United Arab Emirates. Secretary Stanton: Shaykh Takhnun bought a 49% stake in the company. Secretary Stanton: That was a $500 million investment. Secretary Stanton: $31 million of that went straight to the Witkoff family. Secretary Stanton: Witkoff was still a financial stakeholder in World Liberty as he was simultaneously leading high-level U.S. Secretary Stanton: U.S. government negotiations in his role as Special Envoy. Secretary Stanton: One of those negotiations was over the export of America's most advanced AI chips to the UAE. Secretary Stanton: Negotiations personally attended by Shaykh Takhnun. Secretary Stanton: In the spring, another company chaired by Shaykh Takhnun, MGX, deposited $2 billion in World Liberty Financial's stablecoin, the single largest investment in the crypto company ever. Secretary Stanton: Weeks later, the chip deal was announced despite national security concerns. Secretary Rubio, do you believe that Mr. Witkoff has an unacceptable conflict of interest? [01:21:00] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: I have never seen any evidence that he's made any decisions or advocated for any position that's to his personal benefit. On the contrary, and again, I can't speak to all the things you're saying now because that's not -- Secretary Rubio: Mr. Witkoff is an employee of the White House and he undergoes the ethics vetting and the procedures for disclosure that are appropriate to them, not to the State Department. Secretary Rubio: But I would just add -- I want to be fair, okay? Secretary Rubio: I've never seen the guy ever say anything to me that makes me think this is personal rather than -- the only thing he's ever done is spend his own money. Secretary Rubio: Yeah. Secretary Rubio: I know he has spent his own money at great personal expense to fly around the world on his own airplane, not on the government bill. Secretary Rubio: He has -- you know, he has done it, but everything out of his own pocket. [01:21:39] Speaker 17: Secretary Rubio: Are you concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest in Mr. Witkoff? [01:21:42] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: I've never seen anything that leads me to have that concern. You know, again, you've cited a bunch of things. I'm just not aware of those because -- and -- but I'm just telling you my personal interactions with Mr. Witkoff are of a person who just thinks he's serving the country and is happy to do so, not out of any personal gain, but because he wants to serve the country. [01:21:57] Speaker 17: Secretary Rubio: As Secretary of State, who's in charge of the foreign affairs of the United States, have you spoken to President Trump about any concerns about conflict of interest? Secretary Rubio: I haven't had to. I've not seen any. Secretary Rubio: Let's talk about Jared Kushner. His private equity firm, Affinity Partners, has raised more than $6 billion since it was founded in 2021, including $1.2 billion just over the last year. Secretary Rubio: Mr. Secretary, are you aware of how much of that $6 billion has been raised from foreign nationals? [01:22:23] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: I don't know anything about it. [01:22:25] Speaker 17: Secretary Rubio: And the answer is 99%. These include sovereign wealth funds operated by Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar. Secretary Rubio: The Saudi sovereign wealth fund is the largest investor in Affinity Partners. Secretary Rubio: In fact, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman personally recommended that Saudi Arabia invest in Affinity Partners. Secretary Rubio: The Crown Prince has also personally urged President Trump in multiple phone calls to continue the ongoing war of choice in Iran. Secretary Rubio: Let's put it another way. The man who bankrolled Kushner's business venture is the same man who was lobbying for the war Kushner is tasked with ending. Secretary Rubio: Mr. Secretary, same question. Are you concerned about any conflict of interest by Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law? [01:23:05] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: Again, in Jared's case, Jared is a private citizen who's been advising and participating in this voluntarily. Secretary Rubio: He's not compensated for it or in any way. Secretary Rubio: But I've never seen from either Steve or Jared any -- on the contrary, all I've ever seen them do is put tremendous amount of time and energy into trying to solve problems like the amount of time they put into Gaza and the Board of Peace and all of that process. Secretary Rubio: Secretary, let me retain my time. Secretary Rubio: I believe they've done it out of the kindness and goodness of their heart. They think they're serving the country. [01:23:30] Speaker 17: Secretary Rubio: The goodness of their heart. Mr. Secretary, what Jared Kushner said on 60 Minutes on this very issue, when asked about it, he says, what people call conflict of interest, Steve and I call experience and trusted relationships that they have throughout the world. Reclaiming my time, let's recap. The two men tasked with resolving this country's most sensitive national security issues, including meeting with Iranian negotiators, are profiting off the same countries that they are engaging with. Secretary Rubio: One thing we know for sure, while the Ukraine peace talks are going nowhere and the war of Iran has no end in sight, Witkof and Kushner are making out like bandits. Meanwhile, a gallon of gas is still hovering about $4.67 in Phoenix, Arizona, that I represent, up nearly 40 percent from just 18 months ago. The American people are paying more for gas, for groceries, for everything. They're footing the bill while representatives of our government are cashing in. I yield back. Secretary Rubio: Representative Jackson is recognized. [01:24:26] Speaker 18: Secretary Rubio: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Secretary Rubio, for being here today. Thank you for your work to execute an America-first foreign policy that is making America safer, stronger, and more prosperous. From confronting the corruption of the Maduro regime to negotiations with Iran to stabilize the Middle East, you have played a critical, crucial part in spearheading the administration's peace through strength initiative. Secretary Rubio: Secretary Rubio, I want to reiterate what you wrote in your opening statement, that American leadership should always be on behalf of American interests. Thanks to President Trump's historic foreign policy initiatives, the USA has no longer sit idly by as other nations take advantage of American funds and military support. Secretary Rubio: My question. Global commerce and diplomacy rely on coordinated strategies with allies to combat illicit trade and support U.S. exporters. To support the Trump administration's efforts to enhance U.S. national security while advancing strategic American investments, I recently introduced the Strategic Export Controls and Border Security Enhancement Act. This bill would codify the State Department's Office of Export Controls and Border Security to strengthen the operational capabilities of allied countries to better protect U.S. critical technologies from diversion and misuse by our foreign adversaries. Secretary Rubio: Secretary Rubio: Secretary Rubio, how is this office being utilized to prevent the illicit trafficking of sensitive and dual use technologies? And how do you see this office being used to advance America first diplomacy moving forward? [01:25:55] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: Yeah, I think at the core of what you're trying to get to with your bill and we're trying to get through with our sources, with our resources is as follows. And that is that you will, you will say you can't sell a certain product or a certain product can't be exported because it provides, it would be the detriment of the national interest of the United States. Secretary Rubio: But there, but it's prohibited for one country, but it's not prohibited for some other country. They will then set up a company in the third country and use that to evade the sanctions. Secretary Rubio: In essence, you know, you will find a company, let's say it was a sanction against a transfer of technology to a Chinese company that's linked to their military. Secretary Rubio: But they will set, but they will then figure out a way to set up a company in a third country, in a country that's not barred for export. And they will use that vehicle and that route in order to be able to export a valuable technology. Secretary Rubio: And so what we're trying to get at through our efforts is identifying those countries where that is happening and those countries, those companies that are being used for that purpose. Secretary Rubio: And I think your bill, though I haven't read it, sounds like what it would do is it would codify this effort so that it exists beyond this administration. [01:26:54] Speaker 18: Secretary Rubio: Well, thank you. I appreciate that. And I'm anxious to partner with you from a legislative standpoint on that. Secretary Rubio: So if there's anything in the bill when you do see it that you would recommend, please let me know. Secretary Rubio: Under this administration, the Foreign Service has refocused its diplomatic core on merit and performance. The State Department has eliminated internal DEIA programs, slashed woke investments, and neutered NGOs that were working against U.S. national interest. Secretary Rubio: We finally have got it. We finally have got away from trying to force other governments to adopt the crazy woke social agenda of the failed Biden administration. The same agenda still being promoted by many of the progressive Democrats on this committee, unfortunately. And we are now ushering in a new era of American efficiency and strategic diplomacy. Secretary Rubio: Mr. Secretary, how can this committee continue to provide the State Department with the tools in the upcoming Foreign Service Act reauthorization to advance President Trump's American first agenda and continue this progress? [01:27:51] Speaker 4: Secretary Rubio: I mean, I think codifying these policies are important so that they exist for the long term. And I wanted to say one thing when it comes to the issues that people use the term diversity. The Foreign Service will always be diverse in comparison to maybe some other agencies. Secretary Rubio: Simply because foreign service and international diplomacy often attract people that are first generation or maybe even immigrants themselves. They have language skills. They have, you know, cultural skills or what have you that sort of attract them to diplomacy to begin with. I think you see it reflected in our ambassadorial posts around the world as well, the ones the president has nominated and so forth. I would also add something that's very unique to the State Department, which other agencies don't have. The majority of our employees, over 47,000 of our total employees, about 70,000, 47,000 are locally employed. These are nationals of other countries that work for us. And they're a key part of our missions. We couldn't carry out our mission function in many of these countries without these locally employed individuals that are not even American citizens. But they're valuable resources. They've been there for 15 or 20 years. And so in and of itself, I would say the State Department. But ultimately, we want to hire the best people for the job. And that's what we should always want. We want to hire the best people for the job, the ones who are most capable of doing the job. And I think we can do that and still have a very diverse workforce, but not because of the diversity, but because of their skill, their merit and their abilities. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, how do you go back? [01:29:13] Speaker 2: Representative Jackson is recognized. Thank you. [01:29:17] Speaker 19: Thank you very much. Thank you, Secretary Rubio. Great to see you again. Thank you for your forceful words in support of diversity, although there are some conflicting claims to what it means. Secretary Rubio, I stand before you not simply as a legislator, but as a witness to a moment in our nation's history. And we are threatening to sever the sacred connection between our national interest and our moral obligation. This is a budget hearing, of course, but more than numbers on a page. We have to wrestle with the meaning of what those numbers mean to the lives of real people in real places, whose very existence is bound in no small way to the decisions that we make in this room. I want to start by showing the American people what the dismantling of the diversity, equity and inclusion means. Under your leadership, we are abandoning the continent of Africa. Would you put this up, please? The question is not what can we afford, but what we are willing to become. Under your leadership, the U.S. effectively has closed 31 counselor operations across Africa and has 34 ambassadorships vacant. Under your leadership, we froze student refugee invalid visa processing to 26 African nations. Under your leadership, we have raised the tariffs on 30 emerging economies. Under your leadership, we have pulled out of the pandemic and healthcare aid for over 40 countries. Our diplomats used to operate in every region, culture and society on earth. A workforce that reflects the diversity of our country is not a political objective. It is indeed, as well as you know, a strategic advantage as you articulated. Africa and other developing nations are fast growing and young populations represent one of humanity's greatest opportunities for shared prosperity, climate resilience and democratic transformation. On global health, last year, the Trump administration cut off all funding to the World Health Organization. However, to prevent diseases from reaching our shores, the U.S. still needs the global outbreak and disease surveillance functions that the World Health Organization offers. Diseases, as you know, do not need passports or visas. In March, the Washington Post reported that the administration is proposing to spend more than $2 billion a year to recreate a system that you dismantle, such as laboratories, data sharing networks, and rapid response systems that you abandoned when you withdrew from this program. This is more than three times what we had contributed to the World Health Organization. That's waste fraud and abuse. How is reinventing the wheel at a significantly higher cost efficient for the American people? You know that. Let me just answer that. Since Eastern Congo and Uganda are currently experiencing the third largest outbreak since it was discovered half a century ago. Now, your response was to criticize the World Health Organization that you had retreated from. Your statement in the administration's action revealed a retreat from our responsibility, a shrinking of the vision of America, and a devastating abandonment of those who have long looked to the U.S. not as a savior, but as a partner in the difficult work of survival and dignity. Moving forward, we would have questions on how the Trump administration plans to address global health crisis, if that is something the United States still wishes to have leadership in. Prior to 2026, U.S. Global Health was a model for the world. Its initiatives helped contain more than 250 diseases across more than 40 countries. But DOGE and this administration have not told the truth. They told the American people these cuts were necessary. Because I can assure you there is nothing necessary about denying medicine when people are suffering. There is nothing justified in weakening initiatives like PEPFAR and the Global Fund. I'll give you some time. Which have stood as shining examples of what this country can achieve when it chooses compassion over indifference. As we look at the HIV crisis and specifically in Zambia, according to a draft memo that was shared with you, prepared for you by the State Department and African Bureau staff, something that you care about, you considered withholding life-saving assistance to 1.3 million people with HIV in Zambia to force the government to sign a deal, giving the U.S. more access to critical minerals. Do you consider it acceptable to use life-saving HIV/AIDS treatment as leverage for economic advantage? And in closing, over the Easter weekend, I was in Cuba doing an oversight to see, and your State Department refused to meet with members of Congress while they were out gallivanting and partying. In closing, I would like to ask you, will you invade Cuba? I yield back. [01:34:17] Speaker 4: Well, I have one second to answer. What do I do? I mean, you guys tell me your rules here. I tried to write down a lot of stuff you said there. Will you invade Cuba? [01:34:26] Speaker 2: Well, that's not the only thing you said. Mr. Secretary, I'm going to take my time to ask questions at this time and I'll give you some time to answer. [01:34:32] Speaker 4: Okay, because I do want to answer a lot of the points you raised. [01:34:35] Speaker 2: So, my questions are going to bear on this. I think there is a significant difference in the State Department today, and since you've taken the reins, versus the State Department under Secretary Blinken and under President Joe Biden. I'd like you to expand upon the changes that have been conducted. I think it's also incumbent for us to speak about things that just not everybody follows these things all day. I spoke about these things a little bit in my opener. The amount of attacks that have come against the United States of America by the hand of Iran. Not in 47 years. Just in the last 30 months prior to Epic Fury beginning. I referenced over 350 attacks, 200 wounded, multiple Americans dead to include Specialist Moffitt, Specialist Sanders, Specialist Rivers. We have been ongoingly attacked by Iran just recently. And the United States has largely done nothing about it. I think one of the things that's changed about us is that we are not going to be an America that gets attacked and pretends it never happened. Ignores it. Ignores it. Does nothing. That was a way of the past. So, Secretary Rubio, I'd love for you to discuss this and discuss the questions that were asked previously. And you have three minutes and 45 seconds to do so. [01:35:53] Speaker 4: Okay, good. And I actually think they dovetail because there's a couple points. First of all, it's just absolutely false that we've abandoned the continent of Africa. As I've highlighted multiple times here on the diplomacy front, we are deeply engaged in the DRC and Rwanda peace negotiations. In fact, if it wasn't for us, there wouldn't be any negotiations. We are deeply involved in the Quad effort with Sudan that involves the UAE on one side, Saudi Arabia on the other. And it's deeply complicated that we actually have helped host donor conferences. So, we are very involved in all of those issues. As I pointed out earlier, we've been working very cooperatively with the government in Nigeria to go after a common threat. Terrorists that want to aim at us but are threatening the nation state there now. And by the way, we're opening new areas of relationship like Equatorial Guinea, which is a country we really hadn't had much interaction with for many years. And now that's begun to flourish and hopefully we can build upon that. In the case of the consular services, we've consolidated consular operations all over the world. And one of the reasons why is you can do it more efficiently. There are areas where literally the number of either visas that are not accepted or even applicants do not justify having a full-time station. We've done this repeatedly, not just under this administration, but previous administrations have done that. And so consolidation of consular services is not unique to the African continent. We've seen it in Mexico where we're going to close one consulate because the cost benefit analysis doesn't add up. On the World Health Organization, they basically covered for China during the COVID pandemic, openly covered for China, refused to disclose the reality of what was happening soon enough and didn't put the blame quickly enough on where it belonged. But not just to blame. It didn't allow researchers to be able to begin the work. It took longer than it should have to develop a vaccine and other things because of their attitude towards that. And we have deep problems with the way the World Health Organization seems to play politics on behalf of some countries. And we've pointed that out. Now, let me talk about a couple other things you raised. The Global Fund. The Global Fund is very happy. You should call them. They're very happy with us. They put out multiple statements about the work we're doing with that. We are fully compliant. Can I challenge any of those assertions, Chairman? It's my time. No, but I'm just telling you, talk. The Global Fund, we are, for example, there's a 33% cap on what we give. The rest has to come from other donors. We are at that level right now. And if donors give more, we'll give more. We're committed to that. They're very happy with what we have worked out with the Global Fund. I think the other thing you didn't point out is we are not abandoning these countries or these programs. We're entering into compacts, 32 compacts, the majority of them in Africa, in which we go to a country and say, Look, rather than force a bunch of NGOs from Northern Virginia on you, we are going to work with you. We are going to give the money government to government. And we're going to work in cooperation with your government to build up your national health system. So not only can you care for the patients you have now, but ultimately you won't have this problem for five or ten years. And they want that. They welcome that. They do not want the ongoing dependency of aid. These countries clearly want to establish their own systems. [01:38:48] Speaker 2: Representative Jackson, you're not recognized. [01:38:50] Speaker 4: I know. But on Zambia, look, we're not threatening them with anything. They just don't want to sign a compact. But you do raise an interesting point, not specific to Zambia, but broadly. There are a lot of countries we give a bunch of money to. You sit there and you say, okay, we donate 50, 80 million dollars a year to this country. We do all the aid for that country. But all of the contracts, all of the rare earth minerals, all of the financial benefits, all of the commercial deals are with China. So explain to me how is that good for the American people that we are in a country that we take care of all of their problems, but then all the economic benefits flow to China or some other country. That has to be talked about. How can I justify to the American people that we flood a country with American aid, but all of the commercial benefits in that country go to China or someone else over us? That is a legitimate thing to discuss with every country in the world that we give a lot of aid to. That is the reason why aid should not be separated from policy, because it has to reflect our national interest. [01:39:47] Speaker 2: Thank you, Secretary Rubio. Representative Kamlager Dove. [01:39:51] Speaker 20: So, Mr. Secretary, five months ago, you essentially became the new overlord of Venezuela, taking control of the country's oil revenues and giving foreign companies access to its oil and minerals. But you have provided no real transparency about where the money is going and who is benefiting from this arrangement. I want to now talk a little bit about Mauricio Claver-Carone. So, Mr. Secretary, you've known Mr. Claver-Carone for many years, correct? [01:40:24] Speaker 4: I don't know how many years, but sure. Okay. [01:40:27] Speaker 20: We know that he was special envoy to Latin America. He's also a former lobbyist who supported your presidential campaign, I think, in 2016. And now he runs a private equity firm that is seeking $1 billion in investments in Latin America. Apparently, he is seen as your right-hand man on Venezuela. But he's not a federal employee, and he's not bound by rules about financial disclosures or conflict of interest. According to the Washington Post, he acts like a kingmaker in Venezuela, helping to determine which private companies get contracts and access. And that's concerning because in January, you gave confidential licenses for Venezuelan oil to a company that had been charged with bribery by the Department of Justice and employs a trader who gave $6 million to Trump's campaign. Some have said that Mauricio is the Jared Kushner of Latin America, but Mauricio has said that Jared Kushner is the Mauricio of the Middle East. So, who is Mauricio? And why is he riding on private jets to Caracas with executives from firms trying to get contracts? And why is he texting Delcy Rodriguez on the regular? Who is he working for? [01:41:48] Speaker 21: Okay. [01:41:49] Speaker 20: I'm going to allow you to respond. I'm setting this up because it looks unseemly that essentially you are taking Venezuelan oil money and sending it through a network of campaign donors, corrupt politicians and lobbyists. That's false. And we can't get any documentation on that. We don't have any receipts. So, the question is, is anyone from the administration directly or indirectly benefiting from the contracts being doled out in Venezuela? [01:42:17] Speaker 4: Is this where I get to answer? Yes. [01:42:19] Speaker ?: Okay. [01:42:19] Speaker 4: Perfect. Number one is the number of people. Mauricio is one of many people that are involved in what's happening in Venezuela. There's not a day that goes by that we don't have someone who's interested in what's happening in Venezuela for a variety of reasons. Nor is he the only person in the United States that directly contacts Delcy Rodriguez and others. There is a stampede of people that want to be involved in Venezuela. Mauricio is one of many, but by the way, not involved in Venezuela. I am not knowledgeable or know of any financial links he has to anybody in Venezuela. [01:42:44] Speaker 20: I'm going to reclaim my time, Mr. Secretary, but I'm glad that you said that because you have said these things. You have shared these talking points before. They're not talking points. They're the truth. But it is hard to take your word for it when this is the most corrupt administration in American history. That's your opinion. We're talking pardons for sale. We're talking about no-bid contracts to those on Trump's family and friends plan. We're talking about a $1.8 billion slush fund. And I think that's corruption. The American people think that's corruption. They want to know if you think that's corruption. [01:43:17] Speaker 4: Okay. Number two, this goes right to the point of transparency. You're absolutely wrong about the way the money flows. It's pretty straightforward. [01:43:24] Speaker 20: I'm going to have to reclaim my time again because the question about corruption -- Well, then, so what kind of process is this? They get to ask questions and you don't get to answer? It's my time. The question about corruption is really important. I don't know about you. When is it my time? So why am I here if I don't get to answer your questions or your defamatory statements? I'm reclaiming my time, Mr. Chair. [01:43:39] Speaker 4: But I want to reclaim -- do I get time? This is my time, Mr. Chair. Because you make these defamatory statements and no one can talk here. This is crazy. [01:43:45] Speaker 20: If you can't call out corruption in this country, then how can you call it out in another session? Well, I can't say anything because you won't let me speak. That is the question. It is about credibility and your credibility. And your credibility meter is on empty right now. This oil. See, these guys just get to talk and I don't get to answer? Who determines the barrels of oil that get sold? How many of them? But you won't let me answer your question. I have an answer for your question. Where is it going? I will let you. [01:44:08] Speaker 4: Oh, I get it. They have their time for me to answer your question. [01:44:10] Speaker 20: The onus is on you to prove that there is no corruption happening. Well, how do I prove it if you don't let me talk? That is your responsibility as the Secretary of State. And you know what? Normally, we would have access to that data. That's the transparency. You just don't know where to look. But you're not showing us any receipt. Well, then, show us. Do you commit? Do you commit to coming back here with whoever the person is who is monitoring the sales of the oil? Bring them before this committee. Can I reclaim my time? Show the receipts. Have the documentation. You don't have this time yet. I am talking about your credibility and evidence, not your talking points. Because talking points are never a replacement for transparency and documentation. I agree, but that's what you're saying. You're saying talking points without an answer. And we are five months into this and no audits. Zero visibility into the contracts that are awarded. 100% false. Zero transparency about where the money is going. Unfortunately, Representative's time is expired. [01:44:55] Speaker 2: Representative Salazar is recognized. Yes. [01:44:57] Speaker 20: And giving contracts with no transparency is exactly the reason why you shut down USAID. So practice what you preach. [01:45:04] Speaker 22: I yield my head. [01:45:05] Speaker 4: Oh, she gets to scream now, too? Scream and shout. [01:45:07] Speaker 22: Chairman, can we take down her words? I'll give you some time. I'll give you some of my time. Let me just... Okay. Oh, God. What kind of thing is this? [01:45:14] Speaker 4: What is this? You get asked questions for five minutes and you don't get time to answer? It's not a hearing. I think you said clown shit before. It's like a dunk tank. [01:45:21] Speaker 22: What is this? I don't have to tell you. I don't... I'll give you time. [01:45:25] Speaker 4: I've even used their time. How can I answer the question? They don't even give me time. I've had to use their time to answer your questions. Yes. All right, whatever. [01:45:32] Speaker 22: All right. So I don't need to tell you that in my community, the city that I represent, the city of Miami, you're one of the most illustrious representatives. And that we're very proud of you, not only the Cuban Americans, but the Hispanic Americans in my community. Why is she leaving? [01:45:46] Speaker 4: I'm going to answer her questions. [01:45:47] Speaker 22: I will... I can hear you from her background. [01:45:49] Speaker 4: Oh, she's... Oh, okay. I got it. Well, thank you for coming. [01:45:53] Speaker 22: All right. So we're going to talk about... I just want to give you time to answer and then talk about Venezuela and talk about Cuba. So let's go back to Venezuela. Let's start with that. I... You said that stabilization, recovery, and transition. Those are the three steps that the State Department was going to implement in Venezuela. I believe that transition is the free and fair elections. The Venezuelan has a very robust opposition forces. We have Maria Corina Machado. So the big question here is that in order to avoid any type of misunderstandings like the one that we were hearing from my illustrious colleague, is that we should have free and fair elections that will bring rule of law, and the rule of law will then be able to bring in a lot of investments from the United States with transparency. Why can we not start right now the process of sending the message that we are going to establish, let's say, next year, at the end of next year, a free and fair election sponsored with the United States or by the United States? [01:46:59] Speaker 4: Yeah, thank you. Well, it all ties together. So I'm going to try to use the... [01:47:02] Speaker 22: It all ties together. Correct. [01:47:04] Speaker 4: So let me first say about the oil stuff, which is a bunch... I don't even remember half the stuff that was being screamed at me because most of it entirely is false. Here's what happens. When there are sales of oil from Venezuela, they used to sell it at a discount because of sanctions and they had to do all kinds of evasive matters. Now they're able to sell it at market price to great benefits of the Venezuelan people. That money and those proceeds are deposited in a treasury-blocked account at Citibank. That account, by the way, is audited by KPMG. KPMG has been hired and paid for, paid by the Venezuelan government out of those funds to audit every single expenditure. There is a list that's been agreed to by both sides, the Venezuelan side and the U.S. side, on what the allowable expenditures are for. So, for example, they've used 250... I need to go to three other countries. [01:47:50] Speaker 22: So I'm not sure what the chairman wants to do, but I need to... Okay. I understand that you're answering her question. Oh, but this is a... [01:47:56] Speaker 4: But it's tied to your point because they'll be able to do the other ones quickly thereafter. Again, I know this is outrageous because I have to use your time to answer questions... [01:48:02] Speaker 22: That's correct, but I need to serve the community. I need to ask you about other countries. [01:48:06] Speaker 4: So then tell me... Bottom line is the money that's spent in Venezuela is audited by KPMG. It only goes to certain determined points, and it doesn't go to the individual benefit of anybody. Those are just false, outrageous statements. [01:48:17] Speaker 22: So when can we pivot to free and fair elections? [01:48:19] Speaker 4: So the second point is on the transition phase, which is the third phase. The second is stabilization and recovery. Part of the recovery phase is creating the conditions for a free and independent press. You need to have an independent press in order to have free and fair elections. We've seen an uptick in that activity. It's not 100% there, but it needs to continue to grow. You need to give space for the political parties to organize and to mobilize, because you can't participate in an election if you haven't had the time to do so. And you need a new electoral commission. We've said that repeatedly. And when are we starting? Well, we'd like to see it as soon as possible, but the reality... Just remember, it's been five months, not five years, not 50 months, five months. Five months is not a long time for a country that had gone through what that country went through. But clearly, we need to have a new electoral committee. And ultimately, Venezuela's future is free and fair, multi-party elections. [01:49:06] Speaker 22: Correct. Let's go to Cuba. We know that your office is talking to the Castro family, and you're sending the message that the game is over, that they need to open up the Democratic game. We know that. Right. So the question is, what's delaying that process? [01:49:21] Speaker 4: Well, it's not that it's delaying the process. We've had conversations. We have diplomatic engagements with the Cubans consistently over time, over multiple reasons, and for many reasons over the years. In fact, CENTCOM was just down at the fence line in Guantanamo, not CENTCOM, SouthCOM, over the weekend as well. Our message to them is very clear. If they want a path in which they can recover their country and save it... [01:49:40] Speaker 22: But we understand that they are not understanding that. Correct. What's next? So what can we do in order to make them understand that the game is over? [01:49:48] Speaker 4: Well, we're not going to allow them to benefit from the game that they've been playing, in which they're stealing money from the Cuban people to the benefit of this conglomerate at the expense of the people of Cuba. What we are offering to do is distribute $100 million in humanitarian aid... But they're not accepting. ...to a non-governmental organization. Well, now they say they've accepted it, but they're creating impediments. [01:50:05] Speaker 22: But it has to do through the Catholic Church, and they're not willing to do that here. [01:50:07] Speaker 4: And others, Samaritan's Purse. Of course, we have a whole host of... ...of organizations that are prepared to do it. Representative Costa is recognized. [01:50:13] Speaker 23: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary of State. Appreciate your presence. A lot of area to cover, but I'm concerned about America's presidents and the international arena that we live in today. Ronald Reagan once described America as being the shining city upon the hill, one that other countries sought to emulate. You're familiar with that quote. I'm worried that our smart power that underpins our global standing, gives us credibility, count, and coherence, is today in a democratic recession. That's my view. And I think American leadership is more important than ever before, and I think it's lacking. And do you agree that our smart power remains an important tool of our U.S. statecraft? [01:51:02] Speaker 4: Well, absolutely. [01:51:03] Speaker 23: Well, but we're vacating the field. Two-thirds of our ambassadorships or posts are empty. Our alliances, we hit our friends with tariffs, berate our partners for not supporting a war that they were not ever brought into in Iran, and only later walk back the plans to withdraw troops from our European allies. On foreign aid, we've scrapped USIAID and dismantled our global humanitarian networks, and in the vacuum, as you know, China has fulfilled -- come into that breach. I want to talk -- we have a deal -- this is, I think, a good example. You've not granted final approval on 14 billion arms deal for Taiwan, which I want to emphasize was a sale, not a gift. Do you think that protecting Taiwan is still important? It is. [01:51:52] Speaker 4: We gave them -- we had an $11 billion sale, the single largest in history, just in December. But it's not a gift. It's a sale. And why are we withholding -- In December. [01:52:00] Speaker 23: Why are we withholding the 14 billion? We're not withholding. [01:52:02] Speaker 4: It's just under review still. It has -- but we just executed one in December, which was more than Biden did in four years. All right. Let's move on. [01:52:08] Speaker 23: Let's move on to NATO. You know, the president's described it as a paper tiger, and he's made no hidden about his disparaging comments about our allies, which I think are dangerous. And it undermines the longest, the strongest alliance that we've had post-World War II. Do you think that NATO is a paper tiger? The big -- what, I'm sorry? Do you think NATO is a paper -- [01:52:31] Speaker 4: Oh, I think NATO's in need of deep reform. And part of the -- [01:52:34] Speaker 23: Well, but I mean, that reform's taking place. I mean, we can talk about it. And you ought to be able to take some credit for this. Look at Poland's up to 5.0, their GDP for defense. Poland's not the problem. Well, a lot of -- but we're working on this, and we're making progress. Would you not agree? [01:52:50] Speaker 4: I don't agree. I think we're making progress. You don't agree that we're making progress? Well, I agree we're making progress with some countries, but others are saying their 5% or even their 3.5% includes, for example, pensions to veterans. That's not defense spending. [01:53:02] Speaker 23: Well, of course not. But, I mean, I don't think that the confidence and the support that used to be a part of that transatlantic partnership is still there today. And you go to Europe, and I go to Europe, and we sense that, and the people that we talk to. Let's move over to Ukraine. I've spent a lot of time and engagement there. I know you have. You talked about it earlier today. Four years ago, it was seen about good versus evil, right? Russia's invasion of a country that was unprovoked. And there was strong bipartisan perception that that was the case. A year ago, the president indicated that Ukraine had no cards to play anymore. I think that President Putin, today, modern Russia is a syndicate masquerading as a country with a mob boss called Putin. He bombs hospitals, schools, churches, kidnaps over 20,000 Ukrainian children. And, yes, we have leverage, but we're backing out of our economic commitment there, our military commitment. And, but yet, we see these brave Ukrainian people standing up for their sovereignty, and actually taking a whole new page out of warfare in terms of something that we could learn from. When is the president and the administration going to use the leverage that we have over Russia? We have. [01:54:35] Speaker 4: And, unfortunately, the talks have not yet borne fruit, but I want to disagree on something. So we, we continue to sell weapons through the Pearl program, which has been a great success. That, that's an ongoing program with Ukraine. And we continue to have massive number of sanctions on Russia as we speak. The problem has been -- [01:54:51] Speaker 23: We've put sanctions on and off again. [01:54:53] Speaker 4: No, most of the sanctions are still on. The only one that's been waived for a limited period of time in order to provide more oil to the global market and stabilize prices is oil. And those are time-determinant. These are 60-day waivers. These are not -- [01:55:05] Speaker 23: Is the intention to re-engage in the, in the efforts to form a ceasefire and a peace agreement? [01:55:11] Speaker 4: Oh, we're prepared to do so. Unfortunately, you know, those efforts proved less than fruitful. You know, we spent a year on it last year, but we're prepared to do it as soon as they're prepared to do it. That offer, we've made it repeatedly. We're ready to go. We're prepared to play that role. [01:55:24] Speaker 2: I think more to be continued, but thank you very much for your time. Representative Huizenga is recognized. [01:55:29] Speaker 24: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Rubio, good to be with you. And while we're addressing all the important issues like your shoes, I just want to formally invite you to DJ my next event. I would recommend maybe DJ Overlord be your, be your new nickname. I apologize for many of my colleagues here because you're right. They are not giving you the opportunity to answer extremely important questions. I'm going to hit a number of issues very quickly. Elio, Coedoy Prison in Venezuela, I believe yesterday you were quoted as saying that it had been closed down. I've got some close friends, contacts there that believe that there are still 25 prisoners that are still there. So I don't ask you necessarily to address it, but I'd love for you to take a look at that and get back to us. [01:56:19] Speaker 4: Just to be clear, the interim government has said they intend to close it and we will hold them to their promise. [01:56:24] Speaker 24: Please do and make that as rapid as possible. Along the lines of where Dr. Jackson was talking, Ronnie Jackson, one way we've maintained our lead regarding the AI arms race is cutting off China's access to essential chip making tools made in America and by our allies. Unfortunately, the Netherlands and Japan continue to sell their critical tools while here in the US we maintain stricter controls. Those exemptions continue to be exploited by the allies today. Do you agree that export controls on chip making equipment play a critical role in constraining the CCP's AI and military ambitions and that allies should not be allowed to exploit exemptions to those controls? Correct. [01:57:05] Speaker 4: And that features prominently in all of our engagements with the countries you just mentioned. [01:57:09] Speaker 24: All right. Shifting gears. Last November, President Trump hosted all five Central Asian Presidents. I happen to chair the South and Central Asia Subcommittee for the C5+1 Summit. That was a historic movement. And what I would like to know is, do you recommend that Congress send a strong signal of the US's commitment to Central Asia by repealing the Cold War-era Jackson-Vanick Amendment, which only serves to chill US investment in the region? [01:57:36] Speaker 4: Absolutely. We want that repeal. We think it would be helpful. [01:57:39] Speaker 24: And what would be the positive steps? What are those next steps? [01:57:41] Speaker 4: I think it would signal that these impediments that have existed in the past and being able to deal with these countries commercially are being removed. So this came up in my confirmation hearing. And I don't know what the holdup has been because every committee I go to, they ask me why. Everybody seems to agree they want to get rid of it, but no one gets rid of it. So you should. And by the way, we intend to have a C5+1 meeting that I'll be attending at some point this year in the region. Wonderful. [01:58:04] Speaker 24: And they will be thrilled to have that. And then you recently, excuse me, you recently returned from visiting India. India is a critical economic and security partner for the US across the Indo-Pacific. Could you please share with the committee the outcomes of your recent visit and how the Trump administration is strengthening the partnership while simultaneously addressing longstanding market access issues? [01:58:26] Speaker 4: Well, India is an important strategic ally of the United States. We do a lot of things together, and there's tremendous opportunities to do more. The two points we focused on are, one, is the hopes that we can wrap up the negotiations on our trade agreement, which we think we're a few weeks away from being able to conclude. Obviously, I don't negotiate those. That's a USTR function. So I refer you to them as to the timing of it, but we think we're pretty close in getting that done, and both sides want to see it done. The other reason I was there was in addition to the bilateral meetings, we were able to host a meeting once again of the foreign ministers of the Quad, which is the cooperation between the United States, Australia, Japan, and India. And there are a number of things we're working on, and now we have actionable items that we're beginning to focus on. There'll be a new port facility in the region that we're going to work together on for one of the small Pacific islands. I think that is an important show. [01:59:13] Speaker 24: Can you name which one? [01:59:14] Speaker 4: Well, I think it's -- we're talking to Fiji right now about the ability to be involved with them. And then the second is -- I hope I didn't misspeak on that, but I believe that's the case. And on the second one that we are working together on -- [01:59:25] Speaker 24: Trust me, somebody in the media will hold you accountable. [01:59:28] Speaker 4: Well, we'll get the -- but the second one that I would tell you is that one of the things we've agreed to work on is domain awareness. Working together and pooling our resources so we can have domain awareness about what's happening out in the sea. Is there someone out there trying to impede traffic? Is there someone messing with undersea cables? Is there, you know, sanctioned ships that are moving through? This domain awareness is critically important. If we can pool the resources of these four countries, it would be a benefit to the region writ large. [01:59:55] Speaker 24: Thank you. And I'll just leave one last comment. It's been my observation going back to whether it's Russia, Iran, other places that have been bad actors. Sanctions are only as good as your willingness to enforce them. And we are finally seeing this administration, with your advocacy and others, and Treasury, to enforce those sanctions. Anthony Blinken sat there where you are not that long ago. And I had to remind him he had a problem on his hands because I'm vice chair of the Financial Services Committee. There's a number of Financial Services Committee members who are on this committee. We actually write the sanctions. And he basically would come in and say, don't worry your pretty little head about all these confusing sanctioning things. We got a handle on it. Representative's time is expired. You finally do. Thank you. Representative Almo. [02:00:42] Speaker 25: Secretary Rubio, welcome back. I want to start where we left off last year. You told me, quote, we're going to do more food aid than any country on the planet times 10. That was your promise. But the facts tell a different story. America might still be the world's largest food aid donor, but we certainly don't provide 10 times more food aid than our peers. In fact, under your watch, America's food aid contributions have been cut by more than half to roughly $2 billion. It should be very clear that America's strength has never come solely from our might. It comes from our alliances, our credibility, and our values. You didn't just eliminate programs. You created vacuums. Vacuums where violence and instability are rising, that extremist groups are filling, that competitors like China are exploiting, and vacuums that are making Americans less safe and less prosperous. And you hurt Americans here at home with your policy decisions. Shuttering USAID wiped out more than 23,000 American jobs while Donald Trump and his billionaire buddies got rich off of corrupt deals. Peanut farmers in Texas and sugar farmers in your home state of Florida lost market access because of your cuts. So, Secretary Rubio, before slashing food aid programs, did you conduct any analysis whatsoever on how many American jobs would be lost, how many farms would be hurt, and how much damage would be done to local economies and small businesses? [02:02:02] Speaker 4: Well, because we know all of those will still be part of the new programs we've created and are creating. But the second point I would make, American foreign aid programs are not a jobs program. Although they employ Americans, and we want it to be helpful to Americans, and that's why -- So you're okay hurting the farmers in your home state? Well, the World Food for Peace program, for example, now we've transferred it to U.S., the Agriculture Department. They're in a better position to -- [02:02:21] Speaker 25: Well, you're talking about a hypothetical future where you fix past mistakes, but farmers have been struggling over the last year. [02:02:25] Speaker 4: These aren't past mistakes. That's where it belonged in the first place, because it's helpful. The farmers have more direct input there than they would at the State Department. As to your point about us cutting aid, not only are we the large -- we're the large -- we donate more than the next four countries combined. We do more than anybody else. [02:02:38] Speaker 25: But we went down, and there are consequences. Look, from where I sit -- [02:02:41] Speaker 4: But why are we in charge of feeding everybody? [02:02:43] Speaker 25: This is not about charity. This is about our economy and values. I didn't say that you got to do it all, but you can't cut when you know, without analysis, that bad things are going to happen. [02:02:53] Speaker 4: We didn't -- we replaced. We have new programs that are actually working better. [02:02:56] Speaker 25: Well, Mr. Secretary, if I may, from where I sit, you, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, you got together, you made these cuts blindly. Because you did not say that you conducted any analysis. You just said we cut because we have a hypothetical future that we are trying to create, which is not a serious plan. And that's not regard for the economic damage to our farmers, to our small businesses here at home, who are feeling that pain. And, moreover, you've had lives lost. And I want to get to that point. I want to introduce you to Mary Sunday. She is behind me. And after your food aid cuts decimated the World Food Program's ability to feed the Kenyan refugee camp she lived in, Mary's seven-month-old daughter, Santina, died of malnutrition. This is the only photo Santina's parents have of their daughter. Before Santina died, you looked me in the eye, in this room, and you said, "No children are dying on my watch." She was a child. She had a name, a family, a future ahead. Now she's gone. She is one of over 500,000 children who died last year after your administration pulled the plug. Yesterday, I heard your testimony. You said you're seeking outcomes with foreign aid programs, but the outcome that I see is dead kids. So, Mr. Secretary, I want to ask you again, and with a real direct answer, please. Were you lying to Congress when you claimed no children were dying on your watch, or did you simply never bother to calculate the human cost of your decisions? [02:04:21] Speaker 4: That number you're throwing around is a false number. It's a false number. And not only that, you're equivocating the death of an individual's responsibility of the United States. [02:04:30] Speaker 25: There are 500,000 others. So, Mr. Secretary, the numbers are there. No, the numbers are not there. The numbers are an opinion of experts who got their contract cut. You have a narrative to share. Mr. Chairman, I want to enter into the record. These articles that show last year alone, over 155,000 children died from malnutrition. Over 126,000 children died from diarrheal diseases. Over 165,000 children died from pneumonia as a result of these cuts. So, here's the deal. You promised more food aid and said there were cuts. You promised America first and said American workers, who you said, aren't a priority for you. You said it's not a jobs program. They lost their jobs. You promised strength. Instead, we have lost influence, credibility, and trust. And you promised children weren't going to die. You said that to me right here. You promised peace as well. Instead, your illegal war of choice with Iran is driving up fuel prices and grocery costs while putting millions more at risk of hunger worldwide. This is not about charity. This is about value. So, whether it's negligence or ideology, the result under your watch is the same. Weaker alliances, higher costs, dead children, and less secure America. So, my time is expiring. So, I'm going to take these seconds to say, what are you going to do to clean up the mess that you created? [02:05:43] Speaker 2: Representative's time has expired. Representative Davidson is recognized. [02:05:48] Speaker 26: Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for your faithful service to our country. Your leadership as Secretary of State provides confidence at home and abroad. And I would like to highlight that your personal testimony at Charlie Kirk's memorial service and your remarks at this year's Munich Security Conference resonate with me and with many of my constituents. So, thank you. I only have time for a few quick topics. So, first, thank you for leading one of the most thoughtful national security strategies I've seen in the post-Cold War era. I thought last year's national security strategy was well done. And the national security strategy opposes, quote, "the cynical manipulation of our immigration system to build up voting blocks loyal to foreign interests within our country." The State Department has also made it clear that we object to the UN's efforts to advocate and facilitate replacement migration across the United States and broader across Western countries. Immigration was a driving issue behind President Trump and Republican electoral victories. And I commend your department for making this a priority. Could you please highlight your approach beginning at our own borders and extend it, especially through the Western Hemisphere, to addressing this as part of the national security strategy? In terms of migration? [02:07:00] Speaker ?: Yes. [02:07:00] Speaker 4: Look, mass migration is a national security threat to any country that experiences it. It's bad for the transit countries, too, by the way, because it fuels and feeds these transnational groups that traffic not just in human beings, they traffic in drugs, they traffic in weapons and anything else you can imagine. So I think one of the biggest threats specific to the Western Hemisphere would be true throughout the world is these transnational, they call them criminal groups, they're really transnational terrorist groups, that many of the things they do is traffic in human beings. So mass migration is not good for any country that has to absorb it, and Europe is now facing the consequences of that. But mass migration is also not good for the migrant, because they're abused along the way, and it's destructive and disruptive to all the countries in the region that have to experience it. So today we do not have a mass migration event, and every country along that route in Central America is grateful for it, because that's less money that they have to spend and less resources that are being taxed, and less of a burden that they're having to carry. [02:07:57] Speaker 26: Thank you for that, and frankly, thank you for demonstrating that we just needed leadership to apply the laws to secure our own borders with this administration. I'm a former infantry officer. The oath our military swears is similar to the oath we swear in the House or the Senate or for Cabinet members. It's just support and defend our Constitution. You know, generally we say, first define the mission, second authorize the mission, and then execute the mission. So I'd like to call your attention to the 2001 AUMF. It was, I think, the 01 AUMF and the 02 AUMF that I thought brought justice to Qasem Soleimani. As you highlighted previously in dialogue today, you know, the IEDs and efforts of the Quds Force killed many Americans in Iraq. And he's, you know, Iran has been the biggest state sponsor of terror. Unfortunately, the 01 AUMF, which still survives, doesn't, it calls, it authorizes a war on terror for al-Qaeda and their affiliates. Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, and numerous other proxy forces for Iran aren't affiliates of al-Qaeda. Would your administration support a modernization of an authorization of military force so that we could have a full authorization to provide full authority for our military to carry out these operations? [02:09:18] Speaker 4: Yeah, twofold. The first is we haven't asked for one. Obviously, anything that allows or provides congressional support for the president's efforts to take on Hezbollah, Hamas, the threats they post to the United States, and ultimately Iran, it would be a positive. But we haven't asked for it. We believe every operation that's been conducted is well within the law as it exists. [02:09:35] Speaker 26: Well, Article 1 gives Congress a duty to do something about authorizing force. And I've tried the whole 10 years I've been here to modernize it. So maybe next year will be the magic year. But I think it'd be due that we actually authorize these things, because our military needs it. They need to know that the American people have their backs. And particularly when you look at people like the Seditious Six making threats to our military, I don't want them to have a second thought ever about their cover for the authority for the things we ask them to engage in. Because frankly, the problem in the post-9/11 era hasn't been whether there's a just cause. It's been whether we've given our military everything they need to achieve it. They've been tactically brilliant and operationally brilliant. And I'd say that's true even in Iran. But they haven't strategically been able to succeed. And part of that's because the United States hasn't been united behind it. And I guess towards that end, you've stated missions here were clearly not united as a country in Iran. So briefly, you know, what authorization do you need to carry out further operations in Iran? [02:10:38] Speaker 4: Well, that's contemplated now. They're all within the president's powers, in our view, under the Constitution to address imminent and emerging threats against the interests of the United States. If those circumstances were to change, we would obviously engage Congress in that conversation. We would always welcome congressional support. We'd like congressional support. But that's not going to stand in the way of the president addressing an immediate threat to the United States or an emerging threat to the United States that requires him as commander-in-chief to protect our people and our country. [02:11:04] Speaker 26: Well, the cause is just. Representative Mfume is recognized. [02:11:09] Speaker 27: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, good afternoon. I was going to say good morning, but it's starting to run past us. We all obviously sit here in America in what has been known as the greatest deliberative body in this democracy and in a nation that is the strongest, the wealthiest, the most powerful, the most influential nation that the world has ever seen. America's military might has no rival. However, America's moral obligation continues to be called into question. And I want to talk a little differently about something that doesn't get the attention that it should get. And I want to associate myself with the remarks from my colleague from Rhode Island. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the United States. I want to associate myself with the President of the President of the United States. And we cannot let children die in mass because we think that a ceasefire has created a new reality. The reality is still the same on the ground there. So I would urgently ask that when you come back before the committee, that you try to address that, or even before then. Or if you want to share some information, please do, because time is of the essence. I yield back. [02:16:20] Speaker 28: Representative Lawler. Mr. Secretary, as chairman of this committee's Middle East and North Africa subcommittee, I've been monitoring closely the administration's operations in Iran and appreciate the many conversations that we have had. I commend both you and President Trump for your decisive actions against the regime and that of our military. Last summer, we significantly set back their nuclear objectives. And in the past few months, we have systemically decimated their military infrastructure, including their naval fleet and ballistic missiles program and drone capacity. And we eliminated the Ayatollah, the clerics, and much of the leadership of the IRGC. And now you are working to get the Strait of Hormuz reopened. And to my colleagues, I would say to you, imagine what this regime would do if it actually had a nuclear weapon and tried to extract and extort by shutting down the strait. They didn't just think of this as a result of this operation. This is something that they had been planning for years. We are working to diminish their nuclear capabilities for good and to expand the Abraham Accords across the Middle East and actually ensure peace, stability and economic prosperity. It is bold. It is innovative. And for the first time in 47 years, somebody actually followed through on the bipartisan threat that Iran could not have a nuclear weapon. So I applaud you for the work that you have done during your tenure. And I wanted to ask you a few questions. Specifically, would the president sign a deal that doesn't deal with the nuclear threat and Iran's enrichment capabilities? [02:18:12] Speaker 4: Well, that would be what the deal is about. So it would be impossible to sign a deal that doesn't deal with enrichment and the highly enriched uranium. [02:18:20] Speaker 28: Right. And would you say that Iran, for the first time, is finally willing to at least discuss these issues? [02:18:29] Speaker 4: Well, I can tell you a few months ago they refused to discuss the issues of both enrichment and the highly enriched uranium. I think now in some of the papers that have been exchanged back and forth, it's clearly addressed, but we still don't have final sign-off from their system as of this morning. [02:18:44] Speaker 28: And there have been reports that sanctions relief and release of frozen assets are on the table. As I understand it, you shut down those rumors yesterday in your testimony. Can you confirm that's the case? [02:18:56] Speaker 4: Well, first of all, there are sanctions that are specifically related to their nuclear program. Sanctions because they enrich. Sanctions because they have highly enriched uranium. And so none of this would be done at the front end. There's no signing bonuses here. But ultimately, it would all be conditions-based. The sanctions that are directly related to the nuclear program would be discussed if, in fact, they go through all the way on the things that we're asking them to do. But that would be part of the negotiation. It wouldn't be at the front end. [02:19:22] Speaker 28: Now, as you and I well know, during your time in the Senate, we worked together to pass the SHIP Act. And it was the Biden administration that not only released billions in frozen Iranian oil revenue, but it was the Biden administration that eased sanctions on the illicit oil trade between China and Iran. And that's what allowed the Iranian regime to finance terrorism: Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis. That's what allowed them to finance their ballistic missiles program. And it's what allowed them to finance their nuclear capabilities. So as you look at all of this, the bottom line is, from our perspective, we want the nuclear materials out. And so ultimately, no dust, no money. Correct? [02:20:08] Speaker 4: That's right. And to be clear about the new, we're talking about 60 percent highly enriched uranium. It has no peaceful purposes. The only reason to have 60 percent highly enriched uranium is to be one step away from turning it into 90 percent highly enriched uranium, which you would weaponize. So that has clearly been one of the things that has to be part of this agreement, the disposition of it. [02:20:27] Speaker 28: One thing I just want to say as part of any negotiation, please keep in mind the U.S. victims of terror compensation fund and make sure that our 9/11 families continue to be compensated on the sanctions for Iran's terrorist activities. You know, a number of my Democratic colleagues have pushed war powers resolutions. From your experience and position, does this grandstanding benefit the United States or does it benefit the Iranian regime? [02:20:57] Speaker 4: Well, you know, the Iranians have misunderstood it in the past. They think -- and I've seen others, not just the Iranians, but on different war powers resolutions -- they think that if this thing passes, that means the President will not be able to come after us, so he no longer has any leverage. I think you've seen -- I've seen reflections of that from them in the past. Obviously, look, Congress has its prerogatives. You'll vote on what you're going to vote on. You're asking me whether it's had an impact. I think if you see how it's reported on Iranian state television and things of that nature, it makes them think that somehow our hands are going to be tied and we won't be able to do anything to them, so why make a deal? [02:21:28] Speaker 29: Appreciate it. Representative McBride. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining us today. Like you, I attended the Munich Security Conference earlier this year. And in a meeting that I had with several European Prime Ministers and several of your colleagues within the administration, your colleagues recognized that NATO is both bigger and better funded today than it was 10 years ago. And I am fully willing to admit that that is a byproduct of several factors, including Putin's aggression, previous administrations, and indeed a byproduct of actions by this administration and this president's first term as well. But I want to focus in today on statements and actions that I believe go beyond pressuring and leverage and actually fundamentally undermine the foundation of NATO. On January 21st of this year, in the president's speech in Davos, he said, we, quote, never got anything from NATO. Two months later, the president said on Truth Social, speaking of NATO, they will do nothing for us. Mr. Secretary, do you share the president's assessment that we, quote, never got anything from NATO? [02:22:30] Speaker 4: Well, I think what the president was speaking to at that moment, and was what I'll speak to you about now, is one of the reasons why I've been such a strong supporter of NATO is because they allow us to use these bases. Because it allows us in a time of contingency, like the one in Germany and others. And for the first time, we see NATO countries denying us the use of their bases, which undermines the purpose of our involvement. [02:22:50] Speaker 29: Mr. Secretary, these statements, including the one we never got anything from NATO, happened before the war in Iran, which falls outside of the Article 5 invocation. It falls outside of a war of defense. Do you share the president's assessment that we, quote, never, never got anything from NATO? I share the president's assessment that on issues that are a priority to the United States. I'll take that as you disagree with his assessment that we got never got anything from NATO. Because, Mr. Secretary, let me reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, I'm asking very specifically about a specific quote. I'm not asking whether NATO can be better or reformed. I'm asking if we never got anything from NATO. And I want to specifically ask you, Mr. Secretary. Well, why are you asking me if I can't answer? You're not answering the question that I'm asking. You're answering a different question about whether NATO can be better or reformed. And so I'm going to move on, Mr. Secretary. Are you aware that the only time Article 5 has ever been invoked is after 9/11 in defense of the United States? Of course I'm aware of that. Okay. And are you aware that more than 1,000 Europeans died in the subsequent war on terror that was invoked after… [02:23:56] Speaker 4: They participated in the Middle East, correct. [02:23:58] Speaker 29: Yes. And I assume you're aware that the NATO ally that lost more service members per capita is Denmark? [02:24:05] Speaker 4: Well, Denmark, I thought it was that the UK had suffered more. More per capita. [02:24:11] Speaker 29: Okay. [02:24:12] Speaker 4: Got you. [02:24:13] Speaker 29: And I assume you're aware that Greenland is indeed part of Denmark. For now. [02:24:17] Speaker 4: Okay. [02:24:18] Speaker 29: Well, I want to focus in on Greenland. I joined the bipartisan bicameral trip to Copenhagen as the administration that you're a part of sought to seize Greenland. In the president's speech at Davos, he said, referring to Greenland, quote, "You need ownership to defend it." Mr. Secretary, does the United States need to own land within NATO to defend it? [02:24:40] Speaker 4: Well, the truth be told, we are actually involved in conversations with Greenland and Denmark on the use of Greenland for collective defense for all of us. It's a key part of missile defense. But we're involved in those talks right now. So I think we're in a good place on it now. But I don't want to put stuff out there in the public record that would undermine the conversations we're having with them on it. [02:25:01] Speaker 29: So, specifically, I'm not asking about whether we're going to do more within Greenland for our collective defense. I think all of us share that goal, including Denmark and Greenlandic people. But does the United States need to own land within NATO to defend it? That's what the president said. And that was the justification for those statements and the attempt to seize Greenland several months ago. [02:25:24] Speaker 4: The president's view is that it's a lot easier to defend it when you have control and complete control of it. We are obviously having conversations with both Denmark and Greenland. They are ongoing on a monthly basis now. I think we'll have pretty good news on it at some point. [02:25:35] Speaker 29: So, I take that as you disagree with the literal words of the president of the United States. And I want to put a finer point. I think he's right. If we owned it, it would be easier to defend it. That's not what he said. He said you need to own it to defend it. Which fundamentally undermines the central tenet of Article 5 of NATO. Which states that the parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against all of them. And if such an armed attack occurs, each of them will assist the party or parties attacked. So, sitting here with, I'm sure, many leaders across Europe within NATO and many leaders beyond, including Vladimir Putin, potentially watching the words and listening to the words that you are saying. Can you reassure our NATO allies and make it clear to Vladimir Putin that if a NATO ally is attacked and Article 5 is invoked, that we will defend them. [02:26:22] Speaker 4: The United States is still in the NATO alliance and will be there in Turkey to talk about all of these topics. The president himself will be attending the next NATO meeting of heads of state where all of these points will be made clear. We're still in NATO, but NATO needs significant changes and the president has made that clear. And he is very disappointed in NATO. [02:26:40] Speaker 2: Representative Self is recognized. [02:26:42] Speaker 30: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. I want to continue on NATO, but first of all, would you like 30 seconds to respond to the last questioning? [02:26:54] Speaker 4: Well, thank you. The bottom line is the United States. Look, with NATO, I've been a strong supporter personally in the Senate and otherwise in NATO, and I still see the utility in it. The problem with NATO, as I want to point out, is those bases that we have in the region is one of the reasons I used to argue why NATO was so important. Is it allowed the U.S. to project power and have power in case of contingencies? And we had a contingency and we had countries in NATO that said, no, you can't use our bases, particularly Spain. Now, I want to be fair, there were other countries that have been extraordinarily cooperative in what they've helped us to do, some publicly and some privately. But I think the president's irritation with NATO is that in a time of conflict and crisis where the United States had a need, you had members of this alliance who are constantly asking us to get to get involved in European matters like Ukraine and things of this nature, who in our time were actually telling us, no, your tankers can't use our air base. No, you can't use it to refuel. No, you can't use it for logistical support. What kind of alliance is that? I think the other thing that's concerning is that apart from NATO, you have this European effort to stand up some sort of a military force, some of which may trigger actions that would then lead to an Article V invocation. That's a separate topic, but one that also needs to be discussed. So I think the next meeting of NATO and Turkey in July is probably the most important meeting in NATO's history, because there are some things here that need to be cleared up and fixed. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. [02:28:17] Speaker 30: I chair the European subcommittee on this committee. I was in Europe for eight years on active duty to include European Command and NATO-shaped military headquarters. I want to point, you gave us a really masterful review of the global situation early in your spoken remarks. I want to ask you to comment on another part of Europe that we've not talked about that I consider very fragile, and that's the Balkans, particularly the Western Balkans. I just completed a trip through Bosnia, Herzegovina, Serbia, and Kosovo. I talked to government officials. I talked to opposition members, students, obviously the country teams, K4, NGOs, talked to everybody I could talk to. It's extremely fragile right now. Thank you for the ambassadors that were recently nominated for that region. I noticed that Kosovo did not have an ambassador nominated, and I would ask for your support there. We have four NATO allies that are also blocking Kosovo's entry into NATO. Obviously, we have the intractable issue between Serbia and Kosovo. Serbia considers Kosovo a province. Most of the world recognizes Kosovo as a sovereign nation. We have the change in the high rep coming in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This is an extremely fragile area of Europe, and I would ask for you to support Kosovo's membership in NATO with those four countries at the meeting in Turkey that you just mentioned. I'm looking for stability and balance in the Western Balkans. Our troop presence is very, very important in that region of the world in terms of the K4 particularly. And I know we're looking for a high rep, and I just ask for any comments you have on the Western Balkans. I consider them fragile. [02:30:03] Speaker 4: Well, as you know, the pre-existing high rep has resigned, and so there's a new candidate that we'll be supporting. He's an Italian gentleman that we think would do a good job of helping provide some stability to that position. Beyond that, we remain engaged on this topic, as you've pointed out, and have so done privately as well. The last thing we want to see is any sort of conflict in there, any sort of partition, division, things of this nature, and that would create further confidence. I can't speak to expansion of NATO. I'll be frank with you. Based on my last meetings with the foreign ministers, and obviously perhaps Secretary Hegseth has additional comments on this point, but at least what I perceived is that right now, generally speaking, NATO is so focused on some of these other issues that have been raised here today that expansion, particularly in the case of Kosovo but other topics, isn't really on the forefront of some of the agenda of these countries. But that doesn't mean it will never happen. It just means it's not really, given these other sort of friction points, it has not featured prominently in recent conversations with our NATO allies. [02:31:02] Speaker 30: Yes, Mr. Secretary, you look at the Western Balkans, there's kind of a hole there in terms of EU membership and NATO membership. So there is a lack of stability. With that, I have 30 seconds left. I'd like to yield to my colleague. [02:31:15] Speaker 22: Thank you very much, honorable Congressman Self. I just want to finish with what I was trying to ask you, Mr. Secretary. Let's go to Colombia. President Trump just endorsed Avelardo de la Esprilla. We have information, sir, that there are forces preparing a major election fraud coming up in three weeks. My question to you is very clear. We need to send a message to the Colombians that they need to have free and fair elections. So are we prepared to say that whomever participates in that type of fraud process during the presidential election, can we sanction them with OFAC sanctions, canceling United States visas for them or for their family members? [02:31:56] Speaker 4: I would say to you that we are going to be very forceful in ensuring that there is a free and fair election in Colombia and do everything within our power to ensure that that happens. Specifically OFAC, OFAC. [02:32:11] Speaker 31: Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member Meeks. Welcome, Secretary Rubio. I want to take a moment to echo the sentiments expressed by the Ranking Member and my Democratic colleagues about this administration. Under your leadership, we are going backwards. We're losing our moral standing. We're alienating our allies. Our status as the indispensable nation is in question. I had hoped that President Trump would have used you more. I had hoped he would have used diplomatic tools more instead of family dealmakers. A prime example of where we have lost ground is the destruction of USAID and the U.S. foreign assistance apparatus. Secretary Rubio, I agree with your stated intention to spend foreign aid effectively, efficiently, and aligned with American values. Your written testimony certainly paints a rosy picture of the State Department's progress in achieving those goals. I quote you when you say every dollar we spend today is 100 times more effective, efficient, and aligned with the American interests than it was when President Trump took office. We know such huckstering is not the reality. Last year, a new and untested organization called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation was set up by Israel and the United States within a few short months to take over distribution of emergency food assistance amid catastrophic food insecurity and famine in Gaza. GHF had no track record of providing humanitarian assistance and it relied on private subcontractors to transport the food to provide food distribution sites. And then you saw the reporting hundreds of Palestinians, including women and children, were killed just trying to get to those sites. Secretary Rubio, can you tell us, can you tell the world how many people were killed simply trying to access those sites? [02:34:11] Speaker 4: Well, since Hamas killed them, you should ask what Hamas's role was. IDF soldiers shot some of them. [02:34:15] Speaker 31: No, no, no. [02:34:16] Speaker 4: Yes, Secretary Rubio, I reclaimed my time because propaganda ain't going to work with me. [02:34:22] Speaker 31: Well, it isn't going to work with me either, and what you're saying is propaganda. Nearly 1,400 people were killed, and that was as of last March. Secretary Rubio, why did the State Department approve the $30 million to GHF at a time when other well-tested agencies were there and able to provide distribution? [02:34:41] Speaker 4: Well, because one of those were in cahoots with Hamas, and we saw an incredible amount of the aid flow into Hamas's hands. [02:34:47] Speaker 31: Reclaiming my time, the aid was held up at the border by Israel, and you know it. You've got to fix your rules here. [02:34:53] Speaker 4: You can't even answer a question. You're not following the rules. [02:34:55] Speaker 31: You're very familiar with how this works. No, I don't. [02:34:58] Speaker 4: I've never served in the House. This is a weird rule where you ask a question and I can't answer. [02:35:01] Speaker 31: Would you please add time to the clock? Nope. He's a comedy show over there. I'd say on the left. [02:35:09] Speaker 2: This is serious stuff. [02:35:10] Speaker 31: I agree. [02:35:11] Speaker 2: That's why I shouldn't have to answer a question about shoes. [02:35:13] Speaker 31: Mr. Rubio, according to public reporting, nine counter-terrorism, and anti-fraud safeguards were waived to approve this. I wonder who specifically made the decision. I wonder, were you aware of this decision? I'm not asking you a question. And was there any written justification? I don't want an answer. You know why? Because now GHF is closed. It was abysmal. It was a legacy of disaster. Nothing about our investment. Our investment, our taxpayers' investment, seems to have been affected. Or efficient. Or in the interest of the American people. I would call that waste, fraud, and abuse. Moving on. I'm a member of the Appropriations Committee. I'm concerned that you're flouting Congress's constitutional power of the purse when it comes to foreign aid. For FY25, Congress appropriated and the President signed into law more than $690 million for international basic education. I don't need to tell you that investing in basic education is critical for empowering children, creating economic opportunity. It's also had a long time bipartisan support. You supported, you personally, as a senator, supported authorizing legislation. The READ Act. How much of this funding has been spent so far? [02:36:34] Speaker 4: I don't have that figure in front of me, but I can tell you we're not going to fund puppet shows. Can you get it for us? Yeah, I'll get it for you, but I'll tell you the number of puppet shows and all these other stupid things they were spending money on is going to be zero. [02:36:44] Speaker 31: Well, you supported the legislation. [02:36:47] Speaker 4: I didn't support the legislation that had puppet shows. Let me end by this. [02:36:50] Speaker 31: Mr. Rubio, Mr. Secretary, the Trump administration will be remembered for rubble and rot. I had hoped you would have been able to distinguish yourself above that rot. I bet you hoped it too. Sadly, you have not. I yield back. [02:37:07] Speaker 2: Well, Representative Beard is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [02:37:13] Speaker 21: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here and giving us an update on the Department of State. We really appreciate that. You know, in your testimony, you stated that the foreign assistance is a key instrument in America's ability to build partnerships and trust with developing countries. And President Trump has put forth a clear plan about America first in all aspects of our policy and his policy. Our focal point that the State Department has spearheaded, which I am very excited about, is the American first global health strategy. The U.S. is a global leader in health innovation, particularly with pharmaceutical applications and biotechnology. African countries overwhelmingly have been the beneficiaries of American first bilateral global health agreements. 21 of the 32 signed agreements that you mentioned in your presentation have been with nations in Africa, resulting in 40% of African nations being partners of the United States that have taken a responsibility to invest in their people instead of asking for a blank check from America's taxpayers. So I'm proud as a representative of Indiana to see that the drastic increase in domestic investment is innovative for global health problems and biotechnology. So can you walk me through the process for sending America's medical and health innovation abroad to assist with global health threats? And additionally, what plans does the State Department have to expand those global? [02:38:48] Speaker 4: Yeah, and let me just say this goes right to the criticisms that I keep hearing from that side over there about us not spending the money because we got rid of a USAID program. USAID basically was a program that was a system that was completely devoid of our public policy, operated almost as an independent State Department. And oftentimes USAID was operating in contravention and contradiction of what the embassy was trying to accomplish in the host country. And one of the complaints you would get from many developing countries is that they would get flooded with NGOs that were picked for them. These NGOs would then operate in the country without even coordinating with the government, doing whatever they wanted and pursuing what they wanted. And in some cases it extended well beyond food and medicine and extended to political interference and all sorts of other activities in these countries that were undermining the national interest and the credibility of the United States. Now, these compacts in particular are promising and exciting because they are government to government arrangements. No longer do we put money into a bucket and says this is for vaccines or this is for medical care or this is for standing up clinics globally. We are doing it individually country by country. And the reason why that makes sense is because every country has unique needs. Some country may need more help in some area than in others. But at the core of this arrangement that we're making with countries is their desire and our goal to ultimately help them build their own national health systems. So that eventually they no longer are dependent on foreign aid in order to be able to conduct that. Some countries that may take five years, some countries that may take 15, it depends on which country. But that's the goal of the compact. And these countries are happy with the compact because for the first time ever, their government leaders have control over how the money is spent, where it's being spent, and it's being spent in a way that builds their domestic capacity inside of the country. That's a much better way to do it than to flood these countries with NGOs accountable to nobody run by, in many cases, through a USAID program that was undermining our foreign policy in that country in many instances. [02:40:42] Speaker 21: Well, I appreciate that answer very much. Well, I appreciate that answer very much. I was really shocked to see where some of the funds were going in Africa, for example, through those USAID and the USAID program. And I know that was not what was intended in the beginning. So thank you for taking care of that and making an effort to do that. Let me change to one other thing. During the Biden administration, the FSOs were evaluated in the service based on a meaningless criteria like DEI and woke politics. So this arguably drowned out the vital US interest, like beating back the Chinese encroachment and advancing new technologies abroad. I commend you for stripping the Department of DEI and other woke policies, and we should renew our focus on reinforcing our edge against China, and we certainly can use tech diplomacy to do that. So we have about 42 seconds. So can you -- would you mind sharing with me how to agree with the diplomats should be trained in emerging technologies like AI and telecommunications? [02:41:42] Speaker 4: Yeah, well, I think given the dramatic transformations happening in the world today, our diplomats of the future are going to have to be trained in multiple fields that previously we didn't. Not just in the role that technology broadly plays, but the rapidly evolving role that AI plays, and economics. I think economics have become a central core, have always been an important part of our diplomacy, but have become at the core of much of our diplomacy around the world now. So it's one of the areas where I think are -- in addition to knowing how to write nonpapers and all the other normal diplomatic things, I think it's going to be really important for foreign service officers in the future to have an understanding of economic factors. [02:42:17] Speaker 21: Thank you very much. I yield back. [02:42:19] Speaker 32: Representative Schneider is recognized. Thank you, Chair, and Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. I'm going to talk about areas on which we both agree, specifically addressing threats from Iran and seeking stability, prosperity, and peace for all the peoples of the Middle East, including our Arab Muslim allies and the Jewish Democratic State of Israel. Like you, I've spent much of the past two decades working to block and ultimately permanently close any path Iran might pursue to acquire nuclear weapons capability. And like you, I've argued that the international community must work together to eliminate Iran's conventional weapons threat, including ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and now drones. Like you, I've worked to thwart Iran's support for terrorist organizations around the world, including Hezbollah and Lebanon, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen, among others. And like you, I believe we should do all we can to empower the good people of Iran to free themselves from the evil regime that has oppressed them for more than 47 years. And now we can add the imperative to reestablish freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. I know you and this administration are working to reopen that strait. Mr. Secretary, assuming the arrangement has soon reached to reopen the strait, have you or anyone in the administration calculated or even estimated the economic impact on Iran's economy through the remainder of the year versus the baseline that was expected before the war? [02:43:35] Speaker 4: I'm sorry, but I want to understand your question. Are you saying if the straits are open, how much have they lost? [02:43:40] Speaker 32: If an agreement is achieved, do you have an expectation of what's going to happen in Iran's economy going forward? How much money will come in with the straits open? [02:43:48] Speaker 4: Well, I can tell you. So for example, with the blockade now, their inability to get ships out is costing them hundreds of millions. Post-blockade. Right. So if it's costing hundreds of millions a day now and not be able to get their ships out, that would be theoretically what they could gain back, except that they still face sanctions. Now, the sanctions haven't been enforced necessarily, but in many cases in previous administrations, but they still face sanctions. What you've seen happen now that has never happened before. [02:44:10] Speaker 32: Let me just, I just, for the sake of time, I appreciate that. Yeah, I understand. The administration is looking at give and take to get the straits open. Have you estimated how much of the cash that will flow into that economy? Oh, I got you. As you said, $100 million a day will make its way, ultimately, to ramp proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, or Palestinian. [02:44:26] Speaker 4: Well, obviously, we assume a lot of it, but they also have significant reconstruction costs. But let me be clear, and I don't think that's what you're asking me, the straits are not in exchange for sanctions relief. The straits are in exchange for the blockade. No, I understand. That's not what I'm asking. [02:44:40] Speaker 32: No, I just wanted to be clear on that point. But there will be economic inflows to the regime. [02:44:43] Speaker 4: Yeah. Unfortunately, that's the case, and that continues to be the case. That will have to change as well as part of this negotiation. [02:44:48] Speaker 32: And just because time is so tight, my request is, can you commit to giving this committee a classified briefing to share what the administration is doing to thwart the efforts to get money to Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas? [02:45:01] Speaker 4: Yes, and I think you'd also benefit from hearing from Treasury on that topic as well. [02:45:05] Speaker 32: We'll ask that for -- I'll ask the chairman to do that. Way back in May 8, 2018, the Trump administration laid out a fact sheet making the case why it was leaving the JCPOA. I'm going to just go through some of the points and ask you to confirm that the administration's red lines are still the same. The JCPOA failed to deal with the threat of Iran's missile program and did not include a strong enough mechanism for inspection and verification. End quote. Can you commit to this committee that any resulting deal will include a strong mechanism for inspections, ideally anytime, anywhere, inspections and verification of Iran's missile program? Missile program? [02:45:42] Speaker 4: Yes. Well, the missile program is being discussed partially because Epic Fury destroyed much of it, but it still needs to be discussed because it's a delivery system for these -- so that's been a part of the negotiations, correct? Okay. [02:45:53] Speaker 32: Again, quoting from the May 8 document, the JCPOA foolishly gave the Iranian regime a windfall of cash and access to international financial system for trade and investment, end quote. Can you commit to this committee that any resulting deal will not foolishly give the Iranian regime a windfall of cash and access to the international financial system for trade and investment? [02:46:10] Speaker 4: Yes, because they're not going to get any sanctions relief of any kind unless they get rid of enrichment and they get rid of the highly enriched uranium. [02:46:17] Speaker 32: Thank you. Third point, and I'm again quoting from the original document, the Iranian regime must never have an ICBM, cease developing any nuclear-capable missiles and stop proliferating ballistic missiles to others, end quote. Can you commit to this committee that any resulting deal will cause Iran to cease developing its nuclear-capable missiles and stop proliferating ballistic missiles to others? [02:46:37] Speaker 4: We consider delivery systems to be a part of them having a nuclear weapon, which we said they'll never have. Right. [02:46:42] Speaker 32: And just because you have 40 seconds. Again, quote, unquote, the Iranian regime must stop its threat to freedom of navigation, especially in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. That was in 2018. Can you commit to the committee that any deal will cause Iran to stop its threats of freedom of navigation, especially in the Gulf? No, I cannot commit to that. [02:46:59] Speaker 4: We won't even be able to enter negotiations until they do that. Okay. [02:47:03] Speaker 32: And finally, can you commit that any agreement, any agreement this administration enters into will ensure Iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon? [02:47:10] Speaker 4: That's the whole goal here, absolutely. Okay. [02:47:12] Speaker 32: In that vein, and most importantly, can you commit to this committee that any documented agreement related to Iran's nuclear program will be brought before Congress as required by ANARA, which I believe you voted for. We will comply with ANARA. [02:47:22] Speaker 4: All right. [02:47:23] Speaker 2: Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Schneider, for letting me answer your questions. Representative Barr. [02:47:29] Speaker 33: I was efficient. Mr. Secretary, thanks for the great job you're doing. Some Democrats are making the laughable claim that Iran is stronger today than they were before Epic Fury started because of the disruption in the Strait of Hormuz. You've seen the Trump derangement syndrome in the hearing today. Can you set the record straight on whether or not Iran is stronger today? [02:47:55] Speaker 4: Well, they have no Navy. They have no Air Force. They have no air defenses. They have substantial -- they have massive destruction to the defense industrial base. They've lost a substantial percentage of their missile launchers and of their drone launchers as well. They're not benefiting from the straits being closed because the blockade is keeping them from hundreds of millions of dollars a day in revenue. They've had their ships seized in the Indo-Pacific. Their leadership is fractured. They have hyperinflation. Their currency is worthless. And they're having trouble making payroll. I guess other than that, they're doing well. Thank you. [02:48:28] Speaker 33: Do you believe that keeping the credible threat of kinetic military force on the table and the President's willingness to use such force is important to your diplomatic leverage? [02:48:37] Speaker 4: Yes, because, unfortunately, we are dealing with a group of people that don't understand anything but that. [02:48:42] Speaker 33: And so the resolution that's on the floor in the U.S. House this week would do what to the U.S. leverage? [02:48:50] Speaker 4: I don't think technically it does anything. I think, perceptionally, it allows the Iranians to believe that somehow they don't have to make a deal because there's no threat of something bad happening to them if they don't. [02:48:59] Speaker 33: And just as a follow-up to my friend Congressman Schneider's line of questioning, can you describe the key differences between the terms of the deal that you all are negotiating with Iran today versus the terms of the JCPOA? [02:49:12] Speaker 4: What we're discussing now is what the negotiations will be about. And it will be about no enrichment, what they're going to do with their enrichment, and what they're going to do with the highly enriched uranium being removed and being disposed of. That wasn't a part of JCPOA. The other thing is that JCPOA was time-limited. In fact, the prohibition on certain enrichment would have been expiring this very year. This very year would have been expiring, so JCPOA right now would be expiring, and they would be able to be in a position to then ramp up and do whatever they wanted in compliance with the JCPOA. So there are major differences, even in the text of what we're discussing, the negotiations are going to be about. But ultimately, any deal we do will be a good deal or won't be a deal, and it will be better than JCPOA. [02:49:56] Speaker 33: Absolutely, and I think that's a key point, is that this idea that you could draw any analogy between what's happening now, where the administration has totally obliterated the nuclear capabilities of Iran, plus their conventional capabilities. You're negotiating from a position of strength that the Obama and Biden administration was not negotiating from a position of strength at all and provided upfront sanctions. We know what the result was. I want to shift to the Indo-Pacific real quick. As you know, the Taiwan Relations Act states that it is the policy of the United States to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character. Consistent with that policy, the Trump administration announced in December of '25 an $11 billion arms package for Taiwan, the largest ever, including HIMARS, howitzers, drones, javelin, anti-tank missiles. As a result, the Taiwan Legislature passed a $25 billion special defense budget that included funding for an even bigger arms deal for air and missile defense totaling $14 billion, a deal that is not final and a deal that is under review. As you know, one of the six assurances states that the U.S. will not consult with the PRC on arms sales to Taiwan. Now, you've heard this. Critics of the administration have alleged, the media has alleged as a result of the Beijing summit, that President Trump's recent meetings with Chinese leader Xi in Beijing not only paused Taiwan arms sales, that's their term, paused arms sales, but also violated the assurance that the U.S. will not consult with Taiwan arms sales. Do not consult with the PRC directly. Can you clear the air on this? [02:51:39] Speaker 4: First of all, the $11 million in December was the single largest arms sales ever to Taiwan. It was more than -- happened cumulatively under four years of President Biden. And, in fact, I recall that for six years, President Obama offered zero to Taiwan during his presidency. So it was such a big deal, by the way, that the Chinese reacted to it with really hyper activity in terms of military exercises around Taiwan. We don't consult with the Chinese on these arms sales. We're aware of their position. They talk about it all the time. And I don't need to tell you it wouldn't be breaking news that they're not in favor of these arms sales. They raise it. But they are not negotiated. And they're not consulted. That second deal, the $14 million one that's currently under review. And that would be not -- that would not be unusual for something -- So that's not a pause. [02:52:21] Speaker 33: That's not a pause. That's under review. And we've already done an $11 billion deal. Just did one in December. Right. So I think the mischaracterization of this as a pause doesn't reflect the administration's commitment that they've already made on the $11 billion deal. [02:52:38] Speaker 4: I yield back. Correct. [02:52:40] Speaker 34: Representative Barras recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary, for being here. I'll admit that I was hesitant and skeptical and did not support the actions that took place in Venezuela. But I also will admit that thus far it's working out better than I would have expected. And, you know, long-term stability, if we can create a better life for the Venezuelan people, is a good thing. If we can reduce that threat in our hemisphere, that's a good thing as well. To the line of questioning that Ms. Kamlager asked, I think it would go a long way. You mentioned that there's a KPMG audit of the Venezuelan funds, how the revenue is being used, how it's being reinvested in Venezuela. Would you publicly commit to providing that audit to this committee? And, again, I think it would go a long way to -- [02:53:28] Speaker 4: Well, it's an ongoing audit. So it's not a once-a-year audit. It's on every expenditure. Every single disbursement is audited by KPMG. I would also add one more point. There's a second layer of control here, and that is Citibank itself, because they hold the account. They also do the know-your-customer regulations on it, which, by the way, has slowed down the disbursement in ways that have been problematic. [02:53:48] Speaker 34: Could you commit to providing all that information to the committee so we can take a look at it? Yeah, yeah. [02:53:51] Speaker 4: No, absolutely. And that's why we're doing the audit. We want people to see that it's not being stolen or pilfered. We think that's part of this recovery is so critical. [02:53:57] Speaker 34: Again, I think that would go a long way to assuaging some of the concerns. I'm going to follow up. Mr. Barr is a co-chair with me on the Taiwan caucus, and some of his line of questioning. I was going to ask you yes and no questions, but I'll ask a series of questions. I think that go along with his line of questioning. Some of the comments that the president's made recently have created a little bit of ambiguity. But again, what you just suggested, nothing's changed in our relationship. In the Taiwan Relations Act states that the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services as may be necessary. The six assurances states that the United States does not agree to consult with the People's Republic of China regarding arms sales to Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act, the three joint communiques, the six assurances have guided our one China policy for decades. And again, I think in your previous statements, nothing has changed with our commitment to upholding the US one China policy. Is that correct? [02:55:03] Speaker 4: Our policy on Taiwan has not changed. [02:55:05] Speaker 34: Oh, great. Thank you. Switching over to something, you know, that the administration's put a lot of focus on is our critical minerals, rare earths, developing our own capacity. You know, I was supportive of the Middle Security Partnership. Now the FORGE Act, working with our allies, super important. You know, work with Congresswoman Kim on the Dominance Act, which passed out of this committee, which I believe will be coming to the floor on suspension, hopefully on Monday. I think this is a strong bipartisan piece of legislation that supports a lot of the goals of the administration. It does, you know, create redundancy and, you know, not a reliance on China. It does help build refining capacity. It helps reinvigorate a workforce. There's a bipartisan companionship, companion bill in the Senate. I do think this would go a long way to achieving national security goals for the United States and is a good piece of legislation. And certainly we'd want you to take a look at that. [02:56:10] Speaker 4: I will. And to be more consistent on this topic, on the critical minerals, literally every engagement we have, every country in the world is now discovering they have critical minerals and rare earths, even though they're not that rare. That's the mining part of it. The second part of it, as you know, is the processing and refining. We need to have that capability built, too. And we're trying to create these global alliances to do that so that we're not overdependent on these one source, you know, particularly China. [02:56:35] Speaker 34: Great. And third piece of questioning. I recently was in Korea meeting with the new Korean president. You know, lots of conversations taking place with the Koreans. One area we did talk about was, you know, our commitment to being the nuclear deterrent for the peninsula and so forth. Has anything changed there? [02:56:55] Speaker 4: No, our posture there remains the same. And in fact, we have new partnerships that we're trying to. Now, we're not trying to trigger a crisis there. We're not trying to trigger a war or anything problematic. But, you know, at the mill to mill level, we have very strong relations with Korea. [02:57:07] Speaker 34: Great. Also, you know, have been talking to Australians, you know, paying close attention to AUKUS. Again, our commitments to AUKUS, to that partnership, which is critical to our geopolitical security in the region. That commitment stays firm. [02:57:24] Speaker 4: Correct. And not only that, Australia is also part of the quad that we have with Japan and India. They were at our meeting last week. We have a lot we're working on together with them and seek to expand it. Great. [02:57:34] Speaker 34: And you mentioned that the quad expects to have a leaders summit. I know that's been delayed a couple times. Do we expect the leaders to be here? [02:57:41] Speaker 4: We're hoping to be able to do one this year. Maybe on the sidelines of another global gathering in the region, but nonetheless a meeting. Not a standalone, but as part of, you know, where they're all going to be at the same time. It would be easier. We're working on getting that scheduled. Great. [02:57:54] Speaker 35: Representative Fein. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I firmly believe God puts us where he wants us to be. And I'm grateful every day he's put you where you are. So thank you for all the hard work that you're doing. I want to read you a couple statements and see if you agree with them. I suspect that you will. The first statement is heaven forbid Iran were to ever obtain a nuclear weapon. Do you agree with that? I presume? [02:58:21] Speaker 4: Yeah, I would use even stronger language. [02:58:22] Speaker 35: Okay. Second one would be Iran must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. Do you agree with that? [02:58:28] Speaker 4: Baseline policy. [02:58:29] Speaker 35: Okay. And then the third is the Iranian regime must not gain nuclear weapons. Do you agree with them? These are statements. These are actual quotes from three members on the side of the aisle who today gave you a whole lot of grief about what you're doing and what the president is doing to make sure those statements don't come to pass. Representatives Meeks, Lou and Sherman. So my question to you is what changed? And why would people say they must never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and then when we're actually doing what is necessary to make sure they don't, all of the sudden there's a very different tone as they ask you questions. [02:59:12] Speaker 4: Yeah, I would say that the notion that they shouldn't have a nuclear weapon is widely held and not just widely held by members of Congress. It's widely held by countries around the world. In fact, I don't know a single country in the world that says it would be a good idea for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I think what's changed or where the difference comes in is, okay, what are you going to do about it? You ultimately have to do something about it. And when we saw that they were building up this conventional shield behind which they were going to hide their nuclear program and hold it immune from action, we had to address it. And that's what the president did with Epic Fury. So that was the difference. The difference is we actually did something about it, something that multiple administrations have held as their position. It was the Biden administration's position. It was the Obama administration's position. But this president actually did something about it. And, you know, many countries around the world aren't willing to do anything about it except complain or, you know, sign on to some letter somewhere. But we actually did something about it because if we had not done so in about a year, Iran would have had a conventional shield and they could have been able to threaten not just the region, but parts of Europe. And they would have said, if you come after us in our nuclear program, we will impose costs on you. You cannot bear. So now you have to let us have a nuclear weapon. We were never going to let them have that conventional shield. [03:00:19] Speaker 35: So what happens, in your opinion, if we did what they're asking? We stand down. We stop. We go back to the strongly worded letters and lots of talking, but we don't take the action. We just go, well, you know, we don't want them to have a nuclear weapon, but they're going to do what they're going to do. What do you think? What would your prediction be? [03:00:38] Speaker 4: I think the long term trajectory of Iran remains the same in that regard as their ambition is to ultimately have a nuclear weapon. That is ultimately their ambition. They probably view it not just as regime security the way that they do in North Korea. They view it as an ability to become the dominant power in the region. Once they possess a nuclear weapon, nothing stops them from sponsoring proxy groups all over the region to destabilize Jordan, Saudi Arabia, multiple Sunni countries, and of course wipe out Israel. [03:01:03] Speaker 35: So it would be fair to say then that standing in the way of what you're trying to do over there, what we're trying to do over there, effectively is emboldening and enabling Iran to get that nuclear weapon. [03:01:12] Speaker 4: Well, ultimately, anytime they don't fit, the only reason they would not go for a nuclear weapon is because they're forced not to. They're never going to do that voluntarily, and they've never agreed to anything voluntarily. Even the small concessions they made in JCPOA were in exchange for some benefit to them. So clearly this isn't a regime that only understands that they will only do these things if they were compelled to do so, either through an incentive or through a punitive matter. [03:01:35] Speaker 35: Okay. Changing topics to UNRWA for a minute. As you know, on October 7th, 2023, there were employees of the United Nations in the form of UNRWA who actually participated in the terrorist attack that killed 1,200 people. What are we going to do to make sure that the UN can never, ever again employ terrorists that are going to go and kill people? [03:01:58] Speaker 4: Well, obviously, we're not going to be working with UNRWA any longer. As you know, we've removed ourselves from that, and we refuse to engage them or be a part of the solution now in Gaza. There are plenty of other organizations that can play that role without having the sort of cooperation that they've had with Hamas elements, including the presence of Hamas elements within their ranks, as we've seen. And it's part of the thing that was being talked about earlier in Gaza. What they don't tell you is a significant percentage of the aid, even the non-UNRWA aid that was entering, was winding up in the hands of Hamas and they were reselling it in the black market and, of course, keeping it for themselves. That was not the purpose of the aid. What they're also not telling you is that multiple, one of the reasons why the World Food Program would not go in or could not go in is because their trucks were being hijacked and their truckers would not go because they were putting their lives in danger. And this was all being systemized, weaponized, and manipulated by Hamas to their benefit. [03:02:47] Speaker 35: Well, thank you again for everything you've done. Everyone in Florida is very proud of you and we're cheering for the work that you do every day. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Ocheski. [03:02:57] Speaker 36: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Secretary Rubio's earlier testimony referenced the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as a private citizen. But in President Trump's own words, Kushner is an envoy of peace alongside Steve Witkoff. So I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a political article from February 19th detailing the president's announcement, which makes clear Kushner is more than a private citizen. So ordered. Thank you. Secretary Rubio, as a senator back in 2023 referencing Hunter Biden, you said, quote, if his last name wasn't Biden, there's no way in the world that he would have made the millions of dollars he made. You also said we can't abandon common sense when someone profits from a family member in power. Is it fair to say that you agree that it's wrong for elected officials and their families to profit from positions of power? [03:03:44] Speaker 4: To use government service to make money. Yeah, of course. Great. I appreciate that. And I share that sentiment with you, sir. [03:03:50] Speaker 36: I want to revisit some of the details that were brought up earlier and put into the record about the president's own stock transactions, a form which he filed that shows he completed more than 3,700 stock transactions in just the first three months of this year alone. He was a president of the president of the president of the president of the president of the president of the United States. He put hundreds of thousands of dollars in Palantir stock shortly before he publicly praised the company on his social media site. As if the name drop enough wasn't enough, as if the name drop itself wasn't enough, he included the company's ticker symbol for good measure, hardly subtle to me. On March 23rd, after nearly a month of war with Iran, the president said talks were, quote, very good and productive and extended his deadline for a deal by five days. Oil prices dropped and energy stocks fell while Trump bought shares in companies like Exxon Mobil, shares in the United States. And other firms positioned to benefit if the war continued, which it did at the president's direction. He bought a dip that he created. Then there's Nvidia. The president bought as much as a million dollars in stock just one week before the Commerce Department formally approved the sale of Nvidia chips to China. One week. He bought up to $5 million more Nvidia stock in February, right before the company announced a major chip deal with Meta. It's pretty good luck if you ask me. If that's not bad enough, the president's son struck a multi-billion dollar crypto deal with a UAE state backed firm. After the deal, the administration reversed AI chip restrictions, approving transfers of sensitive technology to another UAE related entity chaired by the very same royal family figure involved with the deal with his son. That seems like hardly a coincidence to me. And indeed, it is self enrichment tied directly to the president's foreign policy agenda. And it's how the president's net worth has grown by over $4 billion since he started this term. As the president gets rich, his wars and tariffs are crushing hardworking American families. And I think the American people see through the BS this is the most corrupt administration in American history. So, Secretary Rubio, earlier today you said you didn't know the facts about the president's financial dealings. I'm happy to share them if you want to see it specifically. But having run through that, now that you do know, would you agree? And do you have concerns about the fact this administration is in fact profiting from their position of power? [03:06:10] Speaker 4: Well, first of all, what I said is the information you guys were putting up, including on this board. I don't first, that's not in my purview as in Department of State. And these are things you're producing. I don't know if they're accurate or not. But let me just say this, I've been in every foreign policy and national security meeting for the most part this administration has had not once, not a single time, have I ever seen even the hint or the indication that any of the decisions being made are for the financial gain of anyone in the administration. Those are my observations. That's what I can speak to. I have not once seen a directive on our foreign policy or our national security policy that in any way indicates that it's being done to the benefit of anyone personally. That's what I've seen as a firsthand witness. And that's what I can testify to today. [03:06:49] Speaker 36: Well, with all due respect, Mr. Secretary, I may have to get you a new pair of glasses because the facts are right in front of you. And it seems like malpractice for the secretary of state to not be able to see this president and his family enriching themselves by billions of dollars. So the only thing I can from my perspective. [03:07:04] Speaker 4: No one has ever said in a meeting, let's go do this because it's going to help me make money. Of course he's not going to say that. Of course he's not going to say that. Of course he's not going to say that. Of course he's not going to say that. Not even hint at it. Not even, on the contrary. [03:07:12] Speaker 36: You don't have to hint at it. The facts speak for themselves, sir. They're in the record. They're in the forms the president put forward himself. It's in the billions of dollars he has put in his pocket. It is the timing of the deals and the announcements. And the only thing I can see is, you know, my question to you as I conclude my time, Mr. Secretary, is what's changed in your perspective? Is it the party affiliation of the president or is it your own political ambitions? [03:07:32] Speaker 4: I already told you at the outset, people don't make, and I've seen the president say this, people should not be making money off of their government service. He said that repeatedly. I've heard him say that, but not once. I want to reiterate this. There has not been a single decision that's been made that I have witnessed or been a part of that in any way indicate to me or to any reasonable mind that this was linked to some financial agreement or arrangement. [03:07:51] Speaker 36: I think the facts clearly are differently, and I hope to take a look at them. And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Representative Kim. [03:07:58] Speaker 37: Thank you, Chairman Mast. Thank you, Secretary Rubio for joining us right here at the corner. Thank you for being with us today. Secretary Rubio, diversifying critical mineral supply chains away from China is a priority of both of us. I want to thank you and the department for your collaboration with my subcommittee on related legislation, which was already mentioned, Dominance Act, that we recently passed unanimously through this committee. The FY27 budget requests $5 billion for New America First Opportunity Fund, including $250 million for critical minerals. So can you expand on that request and clarify whether these funds are intended to support the and support Forge, Paxilica, the economic security zone in the Philippines that was announced on April 16 or other priorities? [03:08:55] Speaker 4: Yeah, all of the above. We want to have the flexibility to jump on these opportunities in a very nimble and effective way. We have a couple of things going on at the same time. The first is I would say that a feature of our bilateral engagement all over the world and every one of our embassies you travel to and many of you have traveled, you will see that critical minerals and supply chains feature prominently in all the diplomatic work that we're doing. And we're actually having countries approach us and say critical minerals should be a part of our agreement and our relationship because they want to see those resources used to the benefit of their people in a responsible way. The second thing is we hosted this ministerial we followed up on in which we brought together dozens of countries from around the world who are all agreeing to this compact that we're going to cooperate with one another not just for access to the minerals but for access to the refining and processing capability that turns those minerals into useful parts of our supply chain. The third on Paxilica is very focused on the specific supply chain critical to the growth in AI and what you'll need in order to power AI in the 21st century. And when you point to the Philippines that's a very creative opportunity in which there was this land that they control that that's in the government there has actually used to have a military presence on it by the United States. And now that's going to be turned over as an innovation zone for this entire ecosystem. And we want to have the we want to be nimble enough to be able to jump on these these opportunities sometimes present themselves outside the regular, you know, earmark process or the regular financing process appropriations process of Congress. We don't want good opportunities to passes by because our competitors around the world are much more nimble and able to move much quicker. And we've lost opportunities in the past because of that. [03:10:31] Speaker 37: Thank you very much. This is exactly why we appreciate working with the administration and the priorities in this breaking that critical mineral supply chain from China. So thank you. In February, the administration released its long anticipated maritime action plan that right, rightly focuses on reindustrializing American shipbuilding and reducing reliance on Chinese built ships. The plan notes, but does not focus on the need to work with our international partners to address the short term gaps in our shipping industry. My international counterparts have noted that absent a Ministry of Engineering Ministry, they are unsure whom to engage on the US for international shipbuilding matters. So Mr. Secretary, do you agree that the State Department should be the primary point of entry for these discussions? And if so, which office within the State Department should lead that? [03:11:30] Speaker 4: Well, I'm not prepared to claim that as belonging to us. But I certainly know that our Economic Bureau will play a key role in it. It may be it's better positioned in commerce. Potentially, the Department of War will have a role to play in this as well, because some of this involves shipbuilding shipbuilding for our Navy. I can say that in the case of Finland, we're entering into that agreement on the ice breakers, which will help, they'll help us. And they're very good at the construction of that. I know with South Korea, there's been a part of our agreement with them is the ability to not just build ships here in the United States, but they may be able to build a few in South Korea as well that would be helpful to us. So we are looking to this. Unfortunately, unfortunately, what has happened in the world is that the capacity of non, other than China, very few countries have invested heavily in their shipbuilding. for a long time, that's an industrial capacity that's been lost because they've been subsidizing their industry and producing it at such a high rate. So that's one more thing that we need to re-industrialize to the broader world and ultimately, hopefully, to the United States and our shipyards here as well. [03:12:26] Speaker 37: Thank you. Very quickly, on the Taiwan arms sales, it's already been addressed many times, but given the growing PRC threats against Taiwan, there is a strong bipartisan consensus here in Congress that Taiwan must receive the defensive system it has already purchased and paid for without undue delay. So can you provide an update on the current status of these deliveries and the administration's plan to expedite them? status of these deliveries and the administration's plan to expedite them? Well the first tranche was [03:12:54] Speaker 4: the single largest sale to Taiwan ever was the 11 billion dollars in December that was approved and is moving. The second is I think the 14 billion dollar one that is still under review and it's under review for a variety of reasons that don't necessarily just include Taiwan it includes the availability of the stocks in the short term we have to balance that with our own procurement process so it's a normal to review afford it's a large sale I mean it's not small it's a it would be the biggest one ever and I just remind everybody the 11 billion we did in December I believe was more than was sold to Taiwan the entire the entirety of the Biden presidency and that just [03:13:25] Speaker 38: happened five months ago. Representative Moskowitz. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Secretary for being here today and also thank you for staying until the end so all members can ask questions a lot of a lot of secretaries don't do that so thank you for for doing that. Tell me that was an option. Take that up with the chairman. I want to talk you went through a list of successes for the administration one of which was the shield of the Americas and I know I thank the administration for creating the shield of Americas and and sending Kristi Noem out of the country. I want to focus on Iran for a second. I think when we talk about success right success is Iran is no no longer pursuing nuclear weapons success is that the uranium they have is gone and it's fulfilling 30 or 40 years of U.S. policy right that's success do you agree with that. I mean ultimately we did it for a reason we don't want there to be a nuclear armed Iran. So you know look Iran can make whatever pledges they want it's not worth the paper it's written on but making sure the nuclear dust is out making sure the facilities that they have underground are gone that is success and I assume you would agree that any deal that you think the president should sign or not sign has to address those core issues. Absolutely so the [03:14:46] Speaker 4: removal of highly enriched uranium is an irreversible step you remove it or you destroy it it's not there anymore on enrichment those are limits but if you're not inspecting it they can always violate it and as long as they have the equipment and the know-how they could always violate it in the future as well so that would have to be you know that's the one that would have to be monitored but the enrichment you could verify immediately because you either have it or you don't. Yeah and for me I think you have [03:15:07] Speaker 38: to dismantle what's there and you have to get out what's there I think that's the most critical piece because you know Iran has survived multiple administrations that's our whole goal their whole goal is just run out the clock they've run out of clock previously and so the idea that they'll pledge to do something in the future I just don't think we can trust that once we pull away the military once we move on to another topic their pledge is kind of irrelevant getting what's there removed I think has to be the most important thing otherwise it's hard to convince I think the American people that it was worth the success we we talked a lot about critical minerals I think the administration is doing a really good job on critical minerals these rare minerals that we need for our military for you know technology but I don't think the American people understand how important it really is and what China is doing around the world I mean do you think the administration could do a slightly better job on educating the American people why this is so important and why they should care about that I think we all need to [03:16:04] Speaker 4: do a better job and we start I mean I started talking about this issue when I was in the U.S. Senate but frankly it's not that sexy you know I mean you have to explain it to people because they have to understand that there you can build the greatest car in the world you can build the greatest plane in the world you can build the greatest weapons system in the world and you can build the greatest technology and infrastructure in the world if it's missing one little thing one chip one element that you need to build it if it's missing that the whole thing doesn't work you can't do it I think back to the magnets that are critical to the cars and when the Chinese cut us off and the world off of those magnets that they were producing for cars no I wasn't even that conversant in the issue before it happened so I think there are vulnerabilities like that we've mapped out those vulnerabilities I would agree I think this is going to require a sustained public campaign to tell people when we talk about critical minerals what we're actually talking about [03:16:52] Speaker 38: and why it's important and I think that's right and I think people don't understand exactly the long game that China is playing and I think it's important for US foreign policy around the world Mr. Secretary you know the war in Gaza is all over my algorithm all over my feet every day but you know what's not on my algorithm or anyone else's algorithm here or the kids in college there's nothing about the Ukraine Russia war about the hundreds of thousands of people that are dead in that war or the 25,000 people that are kids that were kidnapped or all the kids that were killed in that war the the terrible images that exist in a real war why is it do you think and is it the Chinese again that you know the algorithm is full of what's going on in the Middle East but the Ukraine Russia war nothing no images no stories about the kids no stories about the hundreds of thousands of people that are dead yeah I can't speak [03:17:45] Speaker 4: to the algorithms and what the you know the the the systems are doing with regards to that I can tell you that in addition to what you've just mentioned I do think that this is my observation this war has now lasted longer than the second world war it's I don't want to use the term stalemate but clearly both sides are trading a kilometer for a kilometer an incredible death rate the Russians are losing 5,000 soldiers a week which is a crazy number and the Ukrainians are losing people too but not nearly as many are at the rate it's sort of a stalemated stagnated fight that now I think threatens to escalate because we're seeing these deep strikes into Russia and deep strikes and I don't want to cut you off Mr. Chairman I only [03:18:22] Speaker 38: have I mean Mr. Secretary I only have nine seconds at Cuba real quick thank you guys for indicting Roel Castro I wish it would have happened years ago the Cuban people deserve to be free the time has come I'd love just to give you a couple a minute or to talk about what you see uh for that island in the coming [03:18:38] Speaker 4: years and just to be clear we didn't indict Roel Castro a grand jury in South Florida indicted him and then the well America Americans yeah I know but I know what you meant I'm just saying I want to be clear it was done to a grand jury it wasn't I've spoken to this a few moments ago as well we'd like to see a better future in Cuba one in which the Cuban people have something that looks like the way other people every other country in the Caribbean lives uh the the impediment there unfortunately is this military conglomerate that controls 70 percent of their GDP and none of its revenue translates to the treasury and therefore doesn't translate to the benefit of the Cuban people so we're open to an arrangement that allows that process to begin they're the ones that have been recalcitrant in the meantime we're prepared to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Cuba so long as it's distributed by non-governmental organizations that are trusted like Samaritan's Purse Caritas through the Catholic Church the UN and others but it can't be stolen and wind up in the guys a dollar store so that can't happen [03:19:29] Speaker 2: representative Zinke [03:19:34] Speaker 39: thank you mr chairman and mr secretary always great to see you and uh just to change little topics where it isn't ukraine or venezuela or cuba or taiwan or one of the big ones uh congress passed the u.s foundation for international conservation in the 2025 nda it passed with wide bipartisan effort i think you probably voted for it but as you recall what it was was really an effort to have a public private partnership to remove anti-poaching and cut off the funds for terrorist organizations in Africa primarily and you know the list uh but i'm concerned obviously uh you know on it because per the law it said that state department was going to establish the board in consultation with congress before and the money's already been all been allotted there's a lot of money in there and i just recently came back from africa and it's happening every day that the anti the poaching activities are again funding the terrorist organizations were going out and what i'd like is a commitment uh from the state department to move forward on appointing the board because at the end of the day nothing can happen until the board meets to unleash the the the leverage private dollars which are i think two to one ratio that can't happen the program is at all standstill until the state department appoints the board in consultation with congress but the first step is with you could i have your commitment that [03:21:01] Speaker 4: you're going to prioritize this and i told others we're going to follow up but i believe there's a presidential appointment role in that board if i'm if i'm not mistaken about the uh so we'll have to check with white house and personnel as well but i'll get you an answer the board has been the [03:21:13] Speaker 39: impediment you're right and my my understanding is reading the lie it's the state department uh appoints yeah i no doubt in coordination with the white house but if you if you would prioritize it because i think this program is an incredibly important and effective program because it leverages private dollars like we haven't seen in africa and it is a problem and with that mr secretary uh let me yield to my colleague from florida miss alazar who would like to ask you some questions thank you thank you again [03:21:42] Speaker 22: for your service yes mr secretary i just want to continue with cuba to see if we can finish um your thoughts on it as you were saying guys i control 70 percent of uh the uh the everything their resources in cuba we know that the castor family is the the one in charge of that military mafia how is there any way that we could find another del c number two following the same example that we have in venezuela where we removed to maduro because the grand jury died at him and he was in the transnational criminal organization lists if that were to happen could we find a del c number two well first of all i think [03:22:19] Speaker 4: that um some of the models you want to look at is the way the czech republic or poland transitioned out and one of the things they did is they did preserve certain institutions in their society in order to provide stability and longevity to the project they were in you even in the midst that there are no institutions well i think you're asking me to identify as our specific individuals in the cuban government i think there are specific maybe technocrats that you could work with i think it's a little harder when you get higher up because of the ideological bent that some of them have and i agree [03:22:48] Speaker 22: with what you're saying people that that are not their their their hands are not full of blood could we consider the possibility in order to avoid civil wars and instability and chaos i think the united states is open to a [03:22:59] Speaker 4: negotiated situation that puts cuba on a path towards democracy prosperity freedom normalcy we would be open to that and we would work with whoever is open to doing it obviously it'll be challenging and that system is all i said i mean it's some of these people have committed 67 years to this viewpoint it isn't it's not going to be easy for them we know but have we identified we know that very well in our [03:23:20] Speaker 22: community but have we been able to identify someone that could feel that role well i wouldn't i wouldn't [03:23:25] Speaker 4: say that we've identified a specific individual that could play that role i think there are clearly people within the technocratic realm of the government that could play some role in all of this but ultimately if you're asking me is there a singular individual right now that we would trust and rely on to lead this transition from start to finish i can't give you that name right now i understand now we [03:23:43] Speaker 22: know that today raul turns 95 years old and 95 you're pretty old and making decisions is very hard we know that is his grandson is younger 41 years old don't you think that maybe we are i mean are you sending messages to the younger generation to convince raul in order to make it easier for that island like you said to become jamaica or or dominican republic taiwan singapore hong kong yeah i think that there are [03:24:10] Speaker 4: clearly individuals within the apparatus of power in that country that understand that what they have now is not sustainable needs to be fixed but they don't have power do they they cannot be even if they have power they don't know how to do it or they don't have enough power because so much of it has to be consensus built internally but there are clearly people that are aware that what they have now [03:24:27] Speaker 40: is not sustainable thank you mr secretary representative johnson thank you so much mr chairman mr secretary thank you for being here um i know that my colleagues have addressed the iran and affordability of energy prices with you um during this hearing already um being from texas obviously energy is a is a big issue in our state and and i've heard repeatedly on the um i just want you to know i've heard repeatedly on the campaign trail and then from just my constituents in general just how much the rise of gas prices is really hurting our economy and i just want to express my concern that the administration did not um properly analyze the effect of this war on gas prices the effect of this war on the economy the effect of this war on affordability and i hope that you will take that into consideration as you make your further decisions um because it's very concerning it's really hurting a lot of people at home i'd like to focus um my time with you on afghan allies i think i don't think that topic's been really brought up much today um the trump administration continues to treat our afghan allies and with dishonor in my in my opinion in my district mohammed nazir paktawali was who fought alongside u.s special forces in afghanistan died in ice custody after participating in the afghan evac program the united states brought him and his family here to this country um he was wrongfully detained and was as a 41 year old man was dead 21 i mean 24 hours later um i'm very concerned what what's happening with our afghan allies and what we're doing in this country under your leadership u.s state department dismantled the office of coordinator for afghan relocation efforts and halted the visa processing for afghan allies abandoned abandoning thousands of our allies that are here in my opinion it's dishonorable it's damaging america will face fights tomorrow and thanks to the trump administration's treachery to this community we may face them alone i don't know how this administration can expect citizens from other countries to rise up and stand with us at great personal peril to themselves based on a promise that will take care of them when they see how we have failed our promises to those from afghanistan since you've been forgotten what this country stands for i'd like to remind you of your own words from your own 2016 presidential campaign wherever freedom and human rights spread partners of our nation are born but whenever foreign policy comes unhinged from its moral purpose it weakens global stability and forms cracks in our national resolve i believe that this is what's happening with afghanistan sir what is your plan to deal with our afghan allies with the brave men and women that stood alongside our military that are here in this country is your plan to return them to the taliban no but that's [03:27:26] Speaker 4: not anyone's plan i think the plan is to find a third safe country where they can go to that they're comfortable and choosing voluntarily to go there and we're looking for more and more countries to step forward and assume it as you know the issues you raise are also tied into the broader migratory decisions that have been made by this administration we're operating under an executive order right now that does not allow any afghans into the country after the aftermath of the national guard attack against the national guard here in washington dc a year ago and then there are also other dhs determinations our role we continue to process the folks that are applying so that their paperwork is in order but ultimately we don't want them stranded forever and where they are we want them to be able to go to somewhere that's not afghanistan that they choose to want to go to and that are welcoming of them and we actively are engaging countries around the world or three or four that have already spoken to us about their willingness to do it obviously they're not going to take you know a thousand but we might be able to get 300 here 400 here places where they feel comfortable going to and that are assuming and welcoming to them we're not returning them to the taliban we understand that would not be the outcome we [03:28:27] Speaker 40: want to see right i do think that the the position of the united states to now uh by bringing these families to our country after they honorably served our country um alongside our men and women and now to say now get out we don't want you anymore uh based on one isolated incident is morally reprehensible it does a disservice to them and it's wrong and it's bad policy uh mr chairman i'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter the record on april 21st the new york times article trump has said to be in talks to send afghanis afghans who aided with u.s forces to the congo um mr secretary is it the policy of this [03:29:03] Speaker 4: government to send these afghan uh folks to the congo that's just one country the policy united states is to find multiple countries and they would be able to choose which one they want to go to of the options that they're presented that was based on a leak of a internal document that was just one country that expressed interest but there are multiple others that have as well and so what are [03:29:22] Speaker 40: they going to be forced to go to the country they don't want to go to the congo what if they don't want to go to afghanistan what is their option no we don't want to force any that's why i'm saying we [03:29:29] Speaker 4: want to have multiple countries so they can choose here are the five or six countries that will let you go which one of them do you want to go to it's not to force them to give them options about places they [03:29:37] Speaker 41: can relocate representative biggs thank you mr chairman and secretary rubio thank you for your service this country finally has a secretary of state who puts america first and i'm very proud to stand with you in february of 2025 the state department eliminated nearly 60 billion dollars from over 4 000 ongoing grants and another 54 54 billion dollars in multi-year usaid awards money that was on autopilot flying out the door every single year with zero accountability to the american people programs that spent 70 000 on a dei musical in ireland 2.5 million dollars on electric vehicles in vietnam and 6 million dollars on tourism development in egypt that is waste and that is fraud and that is abuse of the american taxpayer dollars plain and simple i'm proud to stand with an administration that had the backbone to do what washington has refused to do for decades what has been eliminated is very significant it is historic and it is just the start the savings from usaid cuts have already sparked serious proposals to redirect billions towards something that actually matters like repairing veterans homes i'm talking about long-term veterans homes like those in south carolina and throughout this country that is what america first looks like not sesame street in iraq not transgender opera in colombia but secretary rubio i would i would like to know what is still in that remaining portfolio that should not be there what programs are still drawing a check that wouldn't survive 10 seconds of scrutiny in front of a working family in my district like the third district of south carolina and how do we complete the mission of putting america first in every single line item of this budget because i can tell you the people in my district are not going to accept it they are tired of hearing well we got most of it what is your commitment mr secretary to finishing the job [03:31:59] Speaker 4: yeah well it's happening already so usa id no longer functions opera there is a usa id but it's largely now operating as a wrap up and wind down operation so that's what's happening in usa id we took all the programs that were worth preserving and all the programs that were worth doing and they're all under the state department now so you have the state department is conducting foreign aid and foreign assistance within the context of the criteria that we've created and those are outlined in this year's budget request and then there are legacy programs that we did not bring over the state that are still at usaid some of which may not be operating any longer but are tied up in litigation they claim that they're owed money they got a judge trying to get us to pay them or if not there's wind down costs and unwrapping those programs they're not active programs but some of them are under active litigation because the ngo is suing the government and a judge is saying well you you uh you may have to pay them so make sure you preserve the money until i rule on it so those may take years to clear out they're not active programs but they're involved in litigation but those are under the usa id portfolio not under state and i no longer am the acting official at usa id and and that's being run through the office of management and budget well thank you so [03:33:06] Speaker 41: much um i appreciate the work and the efforts that you're doing and i know our taxpayers in my district do and with [03:33:13] Speaker 2: that mr chairman i yield back secretary rubio they've called our votes but we have this last row of individuals to your left do you think we have time to work through them yeah we can't i have to go to [03:33:23] Speaker 4: the senate in a little while but representative i'll talk fast thank you representative moylan [03:33:30] Speaker 42: thank you mr chairman uh secretary thank you very much uh we've been talking regularly i appreciate all your interest into the indopacom and last time we were out here uh at the hearing we spoke about the importance of establishing a passport issuance office in guam and as you know residents in guam must have their passports issued from honolulu which creates a huge barriers in emergency situations so i want to thank you again your staff for working with us on this issue and i can can you briefly say um uh touch on where we're at with this process of establishing the passport issuance office in guam please we are on [03:34:04] Speaker 4: the status of it yes i think we're working on trying to do it we'd like to do it i think there's uh we may have news for you on that in a in a couple weeks uh as we're going through our review of our visa offices around the world and it's part of our consolidation efforts is to free up resources for other places where it may be more useful so um i think we'll have news for you in a couple weeks if [03:34:23] Speaker 42: you could spare with us it's quite exciting thank you secretary and last year i introduced a bipartisan clean pacific act with rec case raderegan and king hines to establish pacific islands counter narcotics initiative to assist partner nations with counter drug interdiction efforts this year's budget request can uh continues uh contains strong support for incle uh and outlines their strategic priority uh disrupting u.s inbound illicit drug flows especially fentanyl meth and cocaine and expanding u.s advantage and access in regions critical to the national security like indopeca can you speak how the state department is working with partner nations in the pacific to combat [03:35:05] Speaker 4: narcotic trafficking in the region absolutely and our department of war partners and our dhs partners are also involved in that effort and it involves two things number one is allowing us in some cases to cooperate with them to work alongside them in this work and the other is building their domestic capacity so they can have better awareness some of it is domain awareness radar systems and other cases we're providing that to them the intelligence that they need to action the third is training and equipping which obviously is a key part of being able to take on these groups that the challenge with these transnational groups is that in some cases they have more money and better weapons than the actual host government it's been a problem in place after place but as you've seen more recently guatemala's now entered in agreement with us we're cooperating very closely with ecuador el salvador has been there from the beginning uh we're hopeful that we can increase our cooperation under the new administration in honduras so i think we've made good progress in [03:35:54] Speaker 42: that regard thank you mr secretary and how do you believe guam and the other territories can leverage their strategic location for promoting foreign policy interests in the indo-pacific well a couple [03:36:05] Speaker 4: points obviously number one as many of these uh as a domain awareness just from a geographic perspective the ability to be there allows you from the military side to be able to station forces but also allows you to do more activities regarding the safety of navigation the freedom of navigation domain awareness to control to support that the safety and under of undersea cables that are increasingly under threat from being disrupted i mean there's a whole host of areas illegal fishing there's a whole host of things of cooperation that we could reach and that the pacific islands are geographically prime located to really help us and and we've given them more attention we've been more engaged at a bilateral level [03:36:44] Speaker 42: than we've ever been with pacific islands thank you mr secretary final question the recent years we've seen malign influence grow in the indo-pacific and threatening the stability of the region how is the state department responding to the increased ccp-related funding [03:36:59] Speaker 4: in police training across the pacific again it's a topic that we're raising with our partners but first on awareness it's not just in the pacific i've seen we've seen extrajudicial extraterritorial efforts on the part of the ccp in multiple places around the world and so in all of our diplomatic engagements we raise these issues with these countries the the opening of a police stations the the sending of individuals to harass chinese nationals that are abroad uh who they view as a threat or what have you it's become a feature of much of our engagement in many countries around the world mr secretary and mr [03:37:32] Speaker 42: chairman like to oh you my last minutes to uh rep salazar please [03:37:41] Speaker 22: she's got this thing rigged her time that's great yeah it's it's five minutes and i know i know i understand so uh okay so let's go let's continue then with the cuba issue and with the venezuela i was asking you earlier today that uh venezuelans have um a desire to have free and fair elections so we know that we are in the country that we've liberated them but the big question is is it and you answered me partially i just wanted to give you the opportunity to finish um why can't we just establish and send the signal to the delci group and to all the maduro um cooperate people that were cooperating with the maduro regime that are still in power because of delci why can't we just send a clear message that elections will be coming let's say december of 27 beginning of 28 in that way i think the rule of law will start they will have the impression that the rules law will be established yeah i think that [03:38:38] Speaker 4: impression has been clear i mean the the venezuela that everyone wants for the future is not possible without free and fair elections they have to understand that it's been a feature of all of our engagements with them and it continues to be i'm not sure it would serve that purpose to announce a date certain you know in a public forum because the conditions have to be in place it's not just about saying i'm going to call elections in december or january it's about is there a free press is our political party's able to organize and operate that has to happen and we agree mr secretary [03:39:04] Speaker 2: time's expired all right your time's expired mr chair uh we do want to get through multiple members [03:39:10] Speaker 43: mr miller so if you could go as quickly as you can thank you you spoke about the 60 enriched uranium uh iran also has significant amounts of 20 enriched uranium uh the more difficult part is to go from five percent to twenty percent uh what what is your view in negotiations of the twenty percent uranium well [03:39:28] Speaker 4: i've i've used the term uh highly and sixty percent because that's the one that clearly i mean even twenty percent you could argue not that i claim that they are but you could argue they're being used for medical isotopes and things of this nature but sixty percent there's no reason for the only way you get to sixty is because you're on your way to ninety but the term we actually use in the talks and in everything we're on is highly enriched uranium so it would be correct that would cover the 20 correct very good [03:39:51] Speaker 43: thank you uh well listen i want to congratulate you uh for the for the impressive job you're doing for the american uh people uh my only critique would be that we need to hear more from uh marco rubio uh president trump is obviously in a class by himself but uh you're the best communicator in the administration on complex uh foreign policy issues i was in the room with you in munich so i know you wear a lot of hats there's a lot of memes about you but please continue to be uh as vocal up front as you can uh question i have about is expeditionary diplomacy i had the privilege of serving as a state department officer in iraq during the iraq surge i had twice passed a 100 classes and had uh offers bfso but i actually came in as a 3161 hire at the time because uh the state department did not have a capability for expeditionary counterinsurgency this is something i've been working on with uh former ambassador ryan crocker to both uh develop this capability look at something like a state department reserve corps and also as a legacy of benghazi there has been because the politics around it there has been sort of this mindset set in that we can't take any casualties uh among state department uh officers we need to have uh people in the state department that can push out and can serve and i wish if you could speak uh to the american people and to state department officers about what your view is about a more [03:41:09] Speaker 4: experiential function it's a concept we're very interested in and i know you're interested in it as well and just so i can put it in simple terms it's basically the ability to deploy diplomats in a place where we may not have an embassy and we may not have all the trappings obviously diplomatic security and others get concerned because in their mindset the risk factor should be zero they don't want anyone being harmed but i think the i think the point you're raising is there are some instances in which you will take some risks people know they're signing up for a risky proposition but it's a high reward for the country if in fact they're successful so we're interested in the concept we obviously have to work through our system to make sure we can align it and create something that's functional and i'd love to work with you on it because i see the promise in the concept for sure and it's a concept that's [03:41:48] Speaker 43: existed in the past and thank you just finally being mindful of our time considerations i think you guys have done an amazing job of needed reforms and bringing usaid under the province of state department and certainly dewocifying uh some of the nonsense that was going on uh we still do have a lot of great state department officers out there that are very proud uh to serve our country and under your leadership i do talk to some of them uh from time to time and they have do have some worry and some questions about the overall direction of the institution so i'd just like to uh give the ability in in the uh the context of this budget request you're making uh to uh congress to sort of sum up your thoughts of the vision of our current state department officers for the future yeah i think for the futures we're trying to [03:42:32] Speaker 4: empower our regional well we're trying to empower our embassies through our regional bureaus around the world we want them to be the the the center focus of how we conduct foreign policy because they're on the ground too often in the past foreign policy was mixed between our diplomacy was mixed between the regional bureaus and then you had these functional bureaus that had a worldwide mandate on a topic and they ended up crashing into each other now what we want is to truly empower our ambassadors and the people in the field in these embassies that are on the ground every single day we want decisions to be driven from the bottom up not from the top down some of our best ideas come from the cables that are coming out of the field and back to us and we want regional bureaus that are empowered as well uh to be able to coordinate all this when when the lines cross between different countries in the same region we're also encouraging greater regional integration so for example our western hemisphere ambassadors are now all having a are about to start a monthly conference call so that they're all coordinating with each other and on regional affairs these are the kinds of things that we're trying to encourage but ultimately what we want is a state department whose foreign policy is driven by the national interest and understands that first and foremost you have to define what's in the national interest and you have to pursue it in a pragmatic and effective way that's what we want our diplomacy to be about and i think some of that some of that mission had been lost and that's why multiple secretaries of states before me had tried or wanted to reorganize the state department and weren't able to do it i'm glad we did and i think it's going to get stronger every year [03:43:51] Speaker 43: under this new organizational scheme thank you very much mr chair yieldback representative luna [03:43:56] Speaker 44: secretary rubio thank you for being here today um i was wondering if you could let me know if you are familiar with the name of neville roarsingham um yeah he's a i think an american millionaire [03:44:07] Speaker 4: living in china who's funding all of these left-wing radical loons correct when you were on senate [03:44:14] Speaker 44: intelligence you had actually sent a letter um encouraging the department of justice to look into him for a far violation for those people who will see this clip later on the internet can you [03:44:23] Speaker 4: just briefly explain what far is it's the foreign agent registration act and it means if you're operating on behalf of a foreign country you have to register and declare yourself as such to provide [03:44:33] Speaker 44: some context for those looking at this mr singham's in total given 1.3 million to an organization called code point code pink as well as over 278 million to various non-profits since 2017. um secretary rubio it's in my opinion observing what's been happening on both sides really contributing to the political divide in this country that many countries are engaging in influencer operations to include psychological operations on the american people um with the intent to undermine not just our foreign policy from the administration's perspective but also to pit us against one another would you concur with that statement there's no doubt absolutely um are you aware of any countries in particular that are currently engaging in this well i don't think there's any doubt that we see evidence of [03:45:14] Speaker 4: it from the ccp we've historically seen some of it as well from russia historically in the past in a different way i think you're starting to see some of it from cuba and i think some of these are linked with one another in fact that group that you just mentioned actually traveled to cuba stayed at a very fancy and expensive hotel that is sanctioned and uh i think are now being looked at by the appropriate officials to see if they violated u.s law in the trips that they're taking but there's no doubt that when you have printed signs 24 hours after nicolas maduro was arrested and extradited to the united states uh that's not an organic movement someone's paying for that i think one of those organizations would [03:45:50] Speaker 44: be the national network on cuba which is a pro-communist anti-american organization um comprised of dozens of member organizations to include code pink the communist party usa democrat socialists of america socialist worker parties and various organizations to include armed queers of salt lake city which tyler robinson the individual who murdered our friend charlie kirk has loose ties to an association with at the time of the assassination um i just want to point out that from my perspective and in talking with you personally i can see that you are very much of the mind mindset of peace through strength but also pursuing peace first before you hit people with a big stick so i appreciate that perspective because refreshing and not common in washington dc but with that being said i heard a lot of talk today on russia specifically i understand that peace talks are very much so alive and well and that the united states for the first time ever at least with this administration and you having the sec uh head of the secret um as the secretary of state um have been instrumental in those talks um i would like to though ask you for the first time in 20 years recently um we had the russian duma come here to meet with members of congress what is the end result when congress fails to open up dialogue and at least maintains communications with another superpower like russia well i think there's two things to [03:47:05] Speaker 4: discuss one is the war which we'd like to see in the negotiated summit and separate from that is a bilateral relationship with a country that possesses if not the largest the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world at a minimum we have to have relations and conversations with russians we just do whether we like what they're doing or not because given their those factors that i just pointed to i've had multiple conversations with the foreign minister lavrov and we have to because that's mature diplomacy and it's important it's the same with china we have to have communication with them and there are issues in our bilateral relations that have nothing to do with ukraine so now i think our relations with them will be friendlier and easier to pursue once the war in ukraine is wrapped up and we've made that point in this engagement but i think what we've learned and certainly i think has been affirmed to us in the last year and a half is you're much better off having someone to talk to on the other side than not and this is a president who's willing to meet with and talk to anybody he doesn't view talks and engaging a foreign counterpart as a concession the way it's been treated in the past sometimes it leads to something sometimes it leads to nothing sometimes that vehicle of communication proves uh incredibly [03:48:09] Speaker 44: valuable in a potential conflict or crisis i'd like to end by saying this i completely agree with you i think that it is our job and responsibility in congress to maintain open dialogue and discussion but i do think that you guys will be successful in this peace deal and so i want to be the first to congratulate you on that because i think that sometimes in this instance having the courage to step up and do the right thing and lead by example is a big thing so with that chairman i yield the rest of my time [03:48:31] Speaker 45: representative miller thank you mr chairman mr secretary it's good to see you uh you were the first person i worked for when i started in politics and this is very unique for me but first and foremost i just want to say thank you for the job that you've been doing uh people back home they comment on you know your stability your bearing and how you represent our country on the world stage uh you know thank you for doing that and look you're sitting here today and for several hours and our colleagues on the left the vast majority of them they want to get a political stunt they don't want to hear your answers and that's why they wouldn't let you and afford you the ability to speak because they know that you would school them in every which way possible and actually tell them that two plus two equals four and for a lot of them that's hard to understand so i respect your ability uh but look you have been you know asked a ton of tough questions you know this is your time if you would like it i know you have spoken a lot today but if there is anything that you would like to correct the record on by any of our colleagues on the left or even on the right that may have misspoken i'd like to give you this time if you would like it and just one last thing uh when you're done with all of this you know if you could come to cleveland ohio i know it's not where you're from but the cleveland browns could use a really good coach and so with all the different hats you've been wearing uh maybe you could take us to a super bowl but at that point i leave the rest to you well i don't claim i can lead that that to [03:49:49] Speaker 4: super bowl or but i wish them luck in cleveland on that look i thank you for the opportunity i think we've covered almost everything and thank you for giving me the opportunity to do that unfortunately i have to be in the senate here in just a few minutes and they get really mad if you're late but i just want to touch off by saying look every element of our foreign policy and everything we do including aid is now synergized and it's about the national interest and i do think it's important to point out and continue to point out we are the most generous country in the world by far we give way more money than anybody else does to all these things other countries who are very rich powerful countries should step up too if they want to join in helping there's no evidence that that's the case we've seen a little bit of an increase among some countries but it's not just us the canadians the uk other european countries have cut back in their expenditures as well on foreign aid uh not timed with us it just happens to be they have those domestic uh considerations to take into account this is the most generous country in the world this year alone there will be millions of people on the world that will receive food and medicine and medical care and and uh in a way that that that that furthers our national interest but is also good for them and we do that more than anyone on the planet foreign aid and what this country does to help people the world is something we should be proud of but it has to be done the right way we can't be spending money on things that don't further the national interest and we can't be spending money on things that waste the taxpayer dollars and we can't be spending money on social experiments around the world that further the aims of an ideological movement in the united states that's not what foreign aid is ever supposed to have been about and that's what we're going to get it back to on foreign policy we're going to be pragmatic but we're going to be principled at the same time we have to understand that when it comes to foreign policy oftentimes you're not given the choice between the clearly good one and the clearly bad one sometimes you're given two bad choices and you're trying to figure out which one of these two bad choices is the least harmful to the country in the end at the end of the day foreign relations between countries is about one thing the national interest i expect that every time i meet with a foreign minister of another country that foreign minister is going to push for what is in the interest of their country i need to push with what's in the interest of ours not what's in the interest of the world not so what in the interest of what's in the interest of ours in those cases where our foreign uh where our national interests align that's where cooperation happens that's where alliances are formed in those instances where our interests don't align that's where you hope that diplomacy and cooperation can find a way through but in the end our foreign policy must always be about what is best for america before anything else this is not a novel concept it is a classic concept and one that was lost for a long time in american foreign policy and i'm happy and honored to be a part of trying to restore [03:52:21] Speaker 46: it thank you mr secretary mr chairman you're back final member representative mckenzie thank you thank you mr chairman thank you secretary rubio for joining us today i have the pleasure of representing allentown pennsylvania it's home to one of the largest syrian american populations in the country and obviously there have been a number of atrocities in that country during the ongoing conflict there some of them targeting the christian population on june 22nd of last year the mar elias bombing happened at a church and we are coming up on that one year anniversary i'd like to just ask you very briefly if you can give us an update on what's going on in syria what we're doing to achieve stability in that country uh with the leadership that is now in place and also any updates on religious minority [03:53:09] Speaker 4: protections well we talked a lot today about venezuela and other places syria is far more complicated first of all assad deliberately divided groups in that country against each other and some of those frictions and some of those resentments exist that wasn't always the case in syria it's one of the few places in the middle east where you actually had sunni shia christian druz and other communities living in kurds living alongside one another but assad and especially during the civil war period pitted these groups against each other so in many cases when you're seeing these atrocities what you're seeing is some unit of some fighting group from one side going after and seeking retribution against a group in another and it's a real challenge i think you've seen a a diminution in this but nonetheless it exists and it's already happened too much the second is uh you know the core here and our goal is to have a nationalistic government in damascus that seeks not to expand power or not to turn syria into a base of operations for a foreign power but to build a syrian state that's inclusive of all of the elements in it that's what we have engaged with the interim government they're on that's what we've been and we've given them and tried to give them every opportunity possible to succeed we've had some successes as an example when we had uh some fighting break out especially in the northeast and we had these isis prisons this is an underreported story but we had these isis prisoners there they agreed and were very cooperative in getting those prisoners transferred out of syria and into iraqi prisons before there would be a jailbreak that could threaten them and also threaten the region i think we've seen significant progress in the relationship between kurds and and uh and the central government there's more work to be done but some of that tension has now been downplayed down in the south there's more complexity of course uh there are different jews elements and bedouin elements that have been more difficult to deal with but we're trying to give the syrian government there that's in place every opportunity to succeed and obviously there's a trust but verify component to this i will say this and i want to be everything we've asked them to do they have tried to do or have done including counterterrorism cooperation but they have some capability gaps they still have individuals within their armed forces quote unquote that are members of radical groups and have certain ideologies and don't necessarily neatly disciplined i think they're working through that but there's a challenge again because of capacity so this is a long-term project one that i think is going to exist long after this administration i hope the next administration will pick up the baton but i remind everybody that just two years ago syria was a operating base for the iranian regime and all of its proxies and had syria stumbled on the table for them it's interestingly enough in the midst of epic fear and everything that's happening in the region the one country that didn't see any of this you saw it in lebanon you saw it in iraq you didn't see it in syria and i think that alone is a sign of why what's happening there has been good [03:55:58] Speaker 46: but not good enough we have a long ways to go well thank you appreciate that detailed answer and your continued focus on syria and improving stability in the country uh the syrians i know uh and the syrian americans say that they don't see those differences along religious lines uh that is as you pointed out divisions that were created by somebody else uh so what we can do to heal those uh divisions protect religious minorities in the country and ultimately get back to a stable and safe syria for all those [03:56:26] Speaker 4: individuals we agree 100 the future that the government in place now claims to want is impossible unless every element of syrian society is incorporated in power sharing and has a voice and influence over its own future and of course isn't being killed thank you again and look forward to [03:56:42] Speaker 2: working with you as we move forward i yield back mr secretary i thank you for your valuable testimony today members may have some more questions for you uh they will have five days to submit statements questions and extraneous materials for the record subject to length limitations and without objection this committee stands adjourned [03:57:23] Speaker 35: you're watching c-span 3 democracy unfiltered C-SPAN brings