U.N. ambassador Mike Waltz testifies at Senate hearing — full video

[0:00] And besides, the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations will come to order. [4:38] Thank you for everyone's cooperation. [4:40] We have a very brief business meeting to move some nominees, and thank you to the minority [4:48] for their cooperation. [4:49] We'll start with Ms. Kate Dillon of Maryland to be an Assistant Secretary of State Education [4:55] and Cultural Affairs. [4:56] Is there a motion to send to the floor that would recommend that she be confirmed? [5:00] Second. [5:01] Second. [5:02] Is there debate? [5:03] Senator Shaheen. [5:04] Yes. [5:05] I would like to express my reservations about Ms. Dillon. [5:08] Her responses to the questions at the hearing left me concerned over her willingness to work [5:13] with this committee. [5:14] She did not outline a plan to protect the ECA Bureau against unprecedented efforts by the [5:20] Office of OMB to undermine important programs. [5:23] And she was completely unresponsive when I followed up with her to understand who in each regional [5:28] bureau is responsible for functions once carried out by the Office of Global Women's Issues. [5:33] So I intend to oppose her nomination. [5:36] Thank you, Senator. [5:37] Is there further debate on the nomination? [5:39] Senator? [5:40] Yes. [5:42] If I might, I did not have a chance to meet with her individually, but my staff did, and [5:47] conveyed their alarm at the lack of relevant experience and qualifications. [5:52] This is a critical bureau for the State Department, a critical assistant secretary position. [5:58] And I will also oppose and hope that we will see a nominee who has the skills and relevant [6:04] ability to lead at a critical moment in our world and for this department. [6:08] Thank you, Senator Coons. [6:09] Is there further debate? [6:11] There being no further debate, the clerk will call the roll. [6:14] No. [6:31] No by proxy. [6:38] No by proxy. [6:40] No by proxy. [6:42] No by proxy. [6:44] No by proxy. [6:45] No by proxy. [6:46] Aye. [6:48] Clerk report her nomination will be sent to the floor with a do-pass recommendation. [6:54] We now have before us the proposed nomination of Mr. Adiwale Sadiq of New York to be the [7:02] United States Director of the African Development Bank for a term of five years. [7:05] Is there a motion to send them to the floor? [7:07] Move. [7:08] It's been moved and seconded that we send the nomination to the floor with a do-pass confirmation [7:17] recommendation. [7:18] Is there debate? [7:19] Senator Shaheen. [7:21] Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote for this nominee and I'm glad the administration has nominated [7:26] somebody to be the Executive Director of the African Development Bank, but I just want [7:30] to point out that the administration has also proposed zeroing out funding for the African [7:35] Development Bank, which I think is inconsistent with not only the nomination but the policy [7:42] that we should be pursuing. [7:44] So I hope that the nominee, Mr. Adiwale Sadiq, will address the administration's concerns with [7:50] the fund and not just walk away. [7:53] Thank you, Senator Shaheen. [7:54] Is there further debate? [7:55] Be no further debate. [7:56] Clerk, call the roll. [7:57] Aye. [8:35] Clerk, report. [8:36] As the motion is passed, the nominee will be referred to the floor with a do-pass recommendation. [8:45] We'll have before us Mr. Kevin Kim of Texas to be representative of the United States of [8:50] America to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations with the rank and status of ambassador. [8:55] Is there a motion been moved and seconded that we sit on the floor with a do-pass recommendation [9:02] and is there debate? [9:03] There be no debate. [9:06] Clerk will call the roll. [9:07] Aye. [9:11] Hacker is aye. [9:13] Also aye. [9:15] Aye. [9:18] Aye. [9:33] Aye. [9:35] Aye. [9:37] Aye. [9:39] Aye. [9:45] Aye. [9:56] Clerk, report. [9:57] Thank you very much. [9:58] The motion is passed. [9:59] The nomination will be sent to the floor with a do-pass recommendation. [10:01] Now, the ranking member and I have negotiated on three lists, and they are FSO lists. [10:11] Number PN893, PN894, PN895, consisting of a couple hundred or so people. [10:21] And we've gone through these. [10:23] We believe these are, we need, we really want to get these people moved. [10:27] There are important positions they'd be, they'd be sent to. [10:31] So with that, is there a motion to send the three lists to the floor with the recommendation [10:38] that these people be confirmed to their positions? [10:40] So moved. [10:41] Second. [10:42] It has been moved and seconded that these three lists be sent to the floor as indicated. [10:50] Is there debate? [10:51] Senator Shaheen. [10:52] Mr. Chairman, I think it's very positive progress that we are finally getting these [10:57] Foreign Service Officer lists, but it has taken way too long. [11:02] We are a year and a half into this administration. [11:05] We still have ambassadors in places around the world who we don't even have nominees for. [11:14] And I think it is well past time this committee receive and approve the Foreign Service Officer [11:20] Promotion Lists, and I hope we will send a very strong message to the State Department [11:25] that we expect to see these lists move much more expeditiously in the future. [11:31] Thank you very much, Senator Shaheen. [11:33] On the bright side, it isn't often we get to move. [11:36] That is the bright side. [11:37] We don't get, we don't often get to move a couple hundred like this. [11:41] So that is very significant progress. [11:43] So with that, is there further debate? [11:46] There being no further debate, the clerk will call the roll. [11:52] Aye. [11:53] Aye. [11:54] Aye. [11:55] Aye. [11:56] Aye. [11:57] Aye. [11:58] Aye. [11:59] Aye. [12:00] Aye. [12:01] Aye. [12:02] Aye. [12:03] Aye. [12:05] Aye. [12:07] Aye. [12:08] Aye. [12:09] Aye. [12:10] Aye. [12:12] Aye. [12:14] Aye. [12:15] Aye. [12:16] Aye. [12:17] Aye. [12:18] Aye. [12:19] Aye. [12:21] Aye. [12:22] Aye. [12:27] Aye. [12:28] Aye. [12:29] Aye. [12:30] Aye. [12:31] Aye. [12:32] Aye. [12:33] Aye. [12:34] Aye. [12:35] Aye. [12:36] Aye. [12:37] Aye. [12:38] Aye. [12:39] Aye. [12:40] Aye. [12:41] Aye. [12:42] Aye. [12:43] Aye. [12:44] Aye. [12:45] Aye. [12:46] Aye. [12:47] Aye. [12:48] Aye. [12:49] Aye. [12:50] Aye. [12:51] Aye. [12:52] We welcome two witnesses this morning to help us out on an issue that all of us, every member [13:00] of this committee, is interested in, and that is reforming the United Nations and assessing [13:06] the United States' efforts and priorities. [13:09] And we welcome Mike Waltz and Jeff Bartos to the committee. [13:14] And the way we're going to go through this is I'm going to make a few remarks. [13:20] I'm going to turn it over to the ranking member to make a few remarks. [13:25] We'll then turn it over to you, gentlemen, and I know you have some good information for [13:31] us. [13:32] We will then go back and forth on questions between the majority and the minority, and hopefully [13:39] make some progress here. [13:40] This is an incredibly important subject that all of us talk about from time to time. [13:47] And none of us seem to have much ability to do much about it, but on the other hand, [13:52] you do have a lot to do with that. [13:55] So both of you, thank you for being here today. [13:59] And it's almost seven months to the day that you were both confirmed by the Senate. [14:05] You've accomplished remarkable and unprecedented reforms across the UN, and I know you plan [14:09] to do even more this coming year. [14:12] You have a target-rich environment in front of you. [14:16] As you know, the United States has historically been the most generous donor to the United [14:19] Nations. [14:21] That is an understatement. [14:22] We have consistently paid 25 percent at minimum of the UN peacekeeping budget and 22 percent [14:28] of the UN regular budget. [14:30] This doesn't even include our voluntary contributions, which easily reach into the billions over the [14:34] last few decades. [14:37] That is a staggering amount of money. [14:40] Yet this massive, very generous contribution has given the American people very little return [14:44] on their investment. [14:45] The UN has become an inefficient and bloated bureaucracy that has departed from its original [14:51] mandate of maintaining international peace and security to instead focusing on politicized [14:57] mandates and woke ideology. [15:00] I'd like to say that was breaking news, but it is not. [15:02] It has been happening for some time. [15:05] Worse, many UN agencies have deep-rooted anti-American and anti-Israeli biases and even provide preferential [15:12] treatment to our adversaries. [15:14] This is not what the American people signed up for, and it's certainly not what they want [15:19] to pay for. [15:20] I'm glad that President Trump stood up for the American people and withdrew the United [15:24] States from organizations that do not serve our interests, like UNESCO and the ill-fated UN [15:30] Human Rights Council. [15:32] In both of your hearings last year, I told you that I believe you had two of the hardest [15:36] jobs in trying to reform the UN. [15:38] I'm pleased to see that you've taken that challenge in hand and are demanding radical [15:44] transparency, real accountability, and enacting actual reforms that will hopefully transform [15:50] a broken body into one that actually works for the American people. [15:53] In today's hearing, I hope the committee can discuss the unprecedented reforms you've achieved [15:58] over the last seven months and how you will capitalize on this momentum to further align [16:04] the UN with the administration's priorities. [16:07] With that, Senator Shaheen. [16:10] Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Ambassador Walls and Ambassador Bartos. [16:15] We're delighted to have you before the committee. [16:17] The war in Iran and the struggle over the Strait of Hormuz underscores a basic point. [16:25] American power is strongest when we are exercising it with allies. [16:29] From World War II through the Cold War, our major successes have come through broad, multilateral [16:35] coalitions because alliances multiply American power. [16:39] But, unfortunately, instead of working with NATO allies like France, Germany, and the United [16:45] Kingdom, the administration has been criticizing them for refusing to join the U.S. effort in [16:50] the Strait of Hormuz. [16:51] As a result, we are now operating without shared burden, political cover, or international legitimacy. [17:00] That's reflected in how the United States is voting at the United Nations, both in substance [17:05] and who we are lining up with. [17:07] Increasingly, the United States is voting with Russia, China, Belarus, and North Korea. [17:15] In February, on the fourth anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion, the United States [17:22] abstained from a General Assembly resolution reaffirming Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial [17:27] integrity. [17:29] That resolution passed 107 to 12, as I'm sure you know, and we were on the side of the 12. [17:36] More concerning, the United States advanced a proposal to strip out that language, and [17:41] although that effort failed, it was supported by Russia, Hungary, and Belarus. [17:46] Just weeks later, the United States opposed a resolution warning that attacks on Ukraine's [17:52] energy grid threatened nuclear safety. [17:55] A resolution backed by our allies across Europe, as well as partners like Canada and Australia. [18:01] However, the United States joined Russia and China in opposing it. [18:07] And sadly, it's not just limited to Ukraine. [18:09] The United States is becoming increasingly isolated from our partners in multilateral forums. [18:15] We're supporting resolutions, but we're not leading outcomes. [18:18] We vote for UN action, but we are not leading a sustained diplomatic effort to end, for example, [18:24] the war in Sudan as it enters its third year. [18:27] We are now voting against resolutions on gender, human rights, development, and climate that have [18:36] previously passed by consensus. [18:38] For example, in the recent vote on the annual conclusions of the UN's commission on the status of women, [18:44] a document that sets out recommendations to protect women's rights and expand economic and political opportunities for women, [18:51] only the United States – I'm going to say that one more time – only the United States voted against it. [18:59] That kind of isolation has consequences. [19:02] We have withdrawn from international organizations and, in some cases, stopped paying our dues to the United Nations. [19:08] Congress has made clear on a bipartisan basis that the United States should stay engaged. [19:15] And our allies are watching whether or not we do. [19:18] I just returned from a bipartisan delegation to Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. [19:23] What we heard consistently is that as the United States pulls back, China is stepping in more aggressively. [19:30] We see that dynamic at the United Nations. [19:34] China is now the second-largest contributor to the UN budget and the largest troop contributor among the permanent members of the Security Council. [19:42] Over the past decade, the number of Chinese personnel in the UN system has doubled, while U.S. representation has declined. [19:49] And Beijing is using this to shape outcomes and to advance its priorities. [19:54] So I'm not clear about what the strategy is here. [19:57] I don't understand how alienating our allies, stepping back at the UN, aligning with adversaries on key votes, advances U.S. interests. [20:06] I know both of you understand these dynamics. [20:10] I appreciate what you're doing at the UN and your efforts for reform. [20:15] I think all of us believe that the UN should be more effective and efficient. [20:19] But I just don't understand some of these moves, and I don't see how they help the United States. [20:25] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [20:26] Thank you, Senator Shaheen. [20:29] We'll now turn to our witnesses. [20:34] Ambassador Walts, we'll start with you. [20:36] And we welcome Julie. [20:37] Always glad to have you join us. [20:39] And I know you have some important matters to take up with us, Ambassador, so the floor is yours. [20:45] Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Shaheen, and members of the Committee. [20:51] I do appreciate the opportunity to appear to you – appear before you today. [20:56] I think we've made a number of real strides in reforming this organization. [21:01] And I'll just say out the gate, we use this committee's name and you and the ranking member quite a bit as we are driving reform. [21:11] Your oversight strengthens our hand in New York. [21:15] And when we are – Ambassador Bartos and I and the team are pressing the UN to spend American dollars wisely, I remind them, the United States Senate, the American people are watching. [21:28] Last year, senators, the American people returned President Trump to the White House with a clear band-aid to put America first in our foreign policy. [21:38] That included a hard look at the United Nations and these international organizations. [21:44] And from the very beginning, Americans measured it by a simple test – that if the United States is going to be the largest funder, the biggest bill payer of their hard-earned money towards the UN, the UN must work for American interest. [22:01] Now, 80 years later, frankly, the UN has drifted. [22:06] Its budget has quadrupled in terms of assessed and voluntary giving over the last 25 years, [22:15] yet we have not seen a quadrupling of peace. [22:18] Wars rage. [22:19] Dictatorships are honored at human rights agencies. [22:22] The bureaucracy has grown and the results have lagged. [22:26] Meanwhile, the UN pushes costly ideological agendas from its 2030 agenda to the – by the Secretary-General's old admission – failing sustainable development goals instead of focusing on the basics, [22:41] instead of focusing on peace and security. [22:43] So, yes, Americans ask. [22:47] I think our family members, our constituents ask, is it worth it? [22:50] Is there money being well spent? [22:52] Honestly, I wondered the same thing when I first arrived at New York. [22:58] President Trump's answer was clear when he gave me – when he nominated me for this job. [23:05] The UN has tremendous potential, but it needs to do its job. [23:09] It needs to realize that potential. [23:11] So my charge, our mission's charge, is get the UN back to basics, end conflicts, keep the peace, and deliver life-saving assistance. [23:19] And to that end, we have had some notable successes. [23:22] On Gaza, when we came in, war was raging. [23:26] Dozens of hostages, including Americans, were in those god-awful tunnels, being forced to dig their own graves. [23:34] And aid was still at a standstill. [23:36] President Trump changed that. [23:37] He put forward a comprehensive 20-point peace plan. [23:40] It was celebrated by world leaders, including the Palestinian Authority at Sharm el-Sheikh. [23:47] And then we brought it to the Security Council and got it endorsed without opposition – 13 to 0. [23:54] That framework now does a number of things. [23:57] It anchors an international stabilization force. [24:00] It put in place local Palestinian governance. [24:03] And aid has been moving and exceeding the UN's own standards since that plan was put in place. [24:12] And now you have a World Bank-managed fund focused on reconstruction, funded largely by regional partners, not by American taxpayers. [24:21] So I know a number of you have asked kind of what's our approach and model going forward. [24:27] That is emblematic of the model. [24:30] American leadership, American diplomacy, but sharing the burden and getting actual results for the people that we represent. [24:38] We've also applied it in Haiti, building support for a gang suppression force that now the UN's providing the logistics for, cutting the cost for that effort by three-fourths. [24:51] Not U.S. troops, international troops restoring order and taking on the gangs. [24:56] In Sudan, we are pushing for humanitarian corridors. [25:00] We do think we are close to getting – to getting that deal across the finish line. [25:05] We are pressuring warlords, and we are not handing out blank checks. [25:09] On Western Sahara, a 50-year-long conflict, we are finally making some progress. [25:17] I've learned now as a diplomat I often question what's the point in all of these meetings. [25:22] But sometimes, as we just saw in Lebanon, as we've seen in Western Sahara, just getting all sides in the room is a victory in and of itself. [25:32] At the same time, we are closing and downsizing missions that have outlived their purpose from Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen and Colombia. [25:41] We have cut roughly 200 million. [25:43] We've reduced boots on the ground. [25:45] No more missions sitting around for 30 to 40 years. [25:48] And an important reform in that regard, led by Ambassador Bartos and his team, we've been paying for decades for these peacekeeping missions. [25:57] For 90,000 around the world, if they bring their equipment, they get paid, whether they use it or not. [26:03] So the incentive was use it as little as possible, incur as little maintenance as possible, and collect the most money. [26:11] Believe it or not, we had to drive that reform. [26:13] Now they have to use that equipment. [26:16] On the humanitarian side, we are using pooled funding to force these agencies to use the same warehouses, the same ships, the same planes, the same back offices. [26:26] On the development side, we are heavily engaging the private sector. [26:33] We have to do that. [26:34] Let's lower barriers to capital, drive foreign investment, and create jobs, not dependency. [26:39] And we're calling that trade over aid. [26:42] We are continuing to engage in these key bodies, these international regulatory bodies that set standards like the International Telecommunications Union, the World Intellectual Property Organization. [26:53] But we're fighting things that will be bad for our industry, like the carbon tax that was almost placed upon all global shipping that would have passed on a billion dollars. [27:03] A month. [27:04] And then finally, Senators, I'll just say, in terms of the UN itself, we drove, and it's through an elaborate and painful committee process that has to be done by consensus. [27:16] Imagine if everything in the Senate or the Congress had to be done by consensus, all 100, to get anything done. [27:22] That's the UN system. [27:23] Not 60, 100. [27:24] 190 nations joined us in cementing the UN's first budget cut in its history ever. [27:41] That will save over half a billion dollars in the overall budget and will save our dues over 100 million a year. [27:48] That will result in nearly 3,000 headquarters bureaucrats being cut. [27:52] That will result in 25 percent of peacekeepers around the world. [27:56] And this is allowing these peacekeeping unit commanders to send underperforming or some that are even accused of sexual exploitation and abuse to send them home and to clean house. [28:08] And that is just the beginning in terms of reform. [28:13] Finally, I'll say we still have a ways to go. [28:16] We know we have work ahead of us. [28:17] We have 80 years of bloat and growth ahead of us. [28:21] Case in point, the civil servants of the UN make 117 percent of what an equivalent American makes. [28:28] They get a 16 percent contribution to a pension fund that's over 100 billion dollars under management. [28:36] They get private school and secondary school paid for. [28:40] As a former congressman, I couldn't stand before our constituents and say that [28:46] that that money is being well spent. [28:50] So we are looking at pulling back a lot of those excessive benefit packages. [28:55] Again, we have our work cut out for us. [28:58] But we have a great team here. [29:01] Ambassador Bartos has the very unenviable job of doing nothing but reforming the UN. [29:09] And he has a great team of civil servants and foreign service officers behind him. [29:14] And with that, I'll conclude and just conclude with the president means it when he says there's so much potential. [29:24] You know, when we look at some of these conflicts that have sat around for 30, 40, 50 years with peacekeeping forces that cost nearly a billion dollars a year, [29:34] we have to tie them to a political process. [29:37] Our special envoys in the State Department and our great team there are driving those processes. [29:43] And then we're hooking those peacekeeping forces and missions to those processes so they can work themselves out of a job. [29:50] And we can share the burden with like-minded nations. [29:56] And that finally, as I say to my family members that ask about the UN all the time, we need one place in the world where everybody can come and talk. [30:04] And I want that to be right here in the United States, not in Brussels or Moscow or Beijing or anywhere else. [30:11] And with that, I'll conclude, and it's an honor to be with you. [30:15] Thank you, Ambassador. [30:16] Well said. [30:17] Mr. Bartosz, I understand you don't have any prepared remarks but are ready to be grilled by the Committee on Reform, which we are all interested in. [30:27] And so I'm going to start there. [30:31] And I think Ambassador Waltz opened up an area I think that's appropriate really to focus on, and that is I've always been a minimalist as far as the UN is concerned. [30:44] They started with a really, really good idea, a place where everybody could come together and debate. [30:49] It's a whole lot more than that today with the thousands and thousands of people that work there and the billions of dollars that are spent. [30:57] And I've told the Secretary General, I can't tell you how many times, to get back to basics. [31:03] If you look at the Charter of the UN, it was put together to stop conflicts, to stop wars, to stop countries from fighting each other. [31:11] And they're not even coming close. [31:13] I mean, you've got two very major conflicts going on right now with Iran and Ukraine. [31:20] And, of course, who knows how many of the smaller conflicts that are going on. [31:24] And the UN is really powerless to engage in that and really doesn't do much about it. [31:30] Whenever I ask the Secretary General about that, he goes on and on and on about their programs on DEI and food and medical things, things like that. [31:39] They're just spending our money. [31:40] We do that ourselves. [31:42] So I guess I'm a minimalist, but a minimalist approach, if you could just do that, would be a huge, huge benefit to mankind. [31:54] And so, Mr. Pardos, why don't you talk a little bit about the view of other people that you deal with at the UN as far as their view of how engaged the UN should be in what, like we always say, what's the proper role of government as far as America is concerned? [32:14] What's the proper role of the UN? [32:15] Mr. Pardos, floor is yours. [32:17] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [32:18] And good morning to you and to the whole committee. [32:21] Before I answer your question, I did not have prepared remarks, but I do want to say it's an honor to be here today with you. [32:27] This is a very important topic, and working with you and your team, your excellent team, and with the ranking member and her excellent team, we have our team here at the management reform section and throughout the mission. [32:39] We've worked really hard to keep close collaboration and coordination with this committee, and it has been – I have learned a ton working with not only the staff from the majority staff, but also the ranking member staff. [32:50] And so your guidance, and as I shared with you yesterday, we use the committee's name and your charge often in our negotiations. [32:59] Sometimes without permission. [33:00] Yes, sir. [33:01] Yes, sir, but effectively. [33:03] But effectively. [33:04] That's true. [33:05] But effectively. [33:06] As Ambassador Waltz said, the historic reforms that we were able to achieve in the main session of the fifth committee, the budget that we closed in December, with 193 votes, as the ambassador said, was a remarkable achievement. [33:20] And it was made possible, if you track it, from January 20th when the president was sworn in. [33:25] His vision and leadership drove that. [33:27] Our outstanding colleagues at the State Department took that reform mantle from noon on January 20th all the way through to today. [33:35] In September, Ambassador Waltz and Ambassador Lucetta and I joined the team right before UNGA. [33:40] Thank you for confirming us right before UNGA. [33:42] And so we hit the ground quite literally running, not knowing where anything was, but we got a lot done. [33:48] And in that sprint to the end, we were able to take the outstanding work of our career foreign service officers and civil servants in the management reform section, in particular, who've been chomping at the bit to drive reform for most of their careers. [34:02] And we were able to take that good work, make sure it fit with what we were trying to achieve to execute the president's agenda. [34:08] And that's why we saw the $570 million budget cut, first time in history of any budget cut, let alone 15%, as Ambassador Waltz said, almost 3,000 post cut. [34:18] U.S. leadership was indispensable in making that happen. [34:22] We were quite literally at the center of all of it. [34:24] And so while the press may cover that the U.S. is not doing this and the U.S. is not doing that, the reform effort, the president's vision and leadership, direction from Secretary Ruby and Ambassador Waltz, working with this committee, working with our colleagues in the House, that drove reform. [34:38] And it was U.S. leadership that brought everybody together. Our team worked. It's a crazy process. Our team worked 10, 20-hour days at the end of the budget process and 44 hours straight, calls, meetings, meetings, meetings. [34:53] Ambassador Waltz was the first perm rep from the United States to come down to the basement of the U.N. late at night during the Fifth Committee negotiations to put his mark on what we wanted to see, what the president expected. [35:05] And so that has been how we got it done. As Ambassador Waltz said, there is so much left to do. We've made a good, positive start towards reform. [35:14] But the U.N., and I'll just share with you briefly, coming back from my trip to Africa, I visited Manuska and Kenya back in February, talking to the U.N. about what they do well, which is the delivery of humanitarian aid at scale, in remote locations, [35:32] with a robust supply chain, at a reasonable, predictable price, day in, day out, and sadly, unfortunately, year in, year out. [35:39] Watching that happen on the ground is outstanding. And the message I have been trying to deliver to all U.N. leadership, from the secretary to the deputy secretary general, [35:48] all the way through the cabinet of the leadership team at the U.N., is focus on what you're excellent at, Chairman, to your point. Minimalist. You're excellent at this. Do more of this. [35:58] There's a lot you're really not very good at, and there are some things that are quite destructive, not only to our interests, but to the interests of the West and to freedom and to sovereignty. [36:09] Stop doing the things that are destructive. Focus on what you're excellent at. Is it getting through? We'll see. We're seeing a lot more nations use the terminology that we started using about back-to-basics, focus, results on the ground. [36:22] Results on the ground. That was not a phrase you heard from other nations before we got there in September. Results on the ground. Delivering for the people that the U.N. is meant to serve. [36:31] That is what we're trying to focus on every day, and it's an honor to do this work. And again, thank you for having us here today. [36:36] Well, thank you so much, Ambassador. I – we don't get good news on this committee very often. [36:44] And when you hear that you guys were actually able to negotiate a $570 million cut, I mean, that is big news. You will not hear about this on the cable TV channels. That's – that's not what they want to report. [36:57] And so you're to be commended for that. And we certainly recognize it on this committee, and we're very appreciative. [37:05] $570 million is not loose change. And particularly when it comes to the fact that $100 million of it is U.S. taxpayer money. [37:13] 3,000 posts eliminated is not a small matter. When it comes to parking in New York City, you're going to be highly thought of as things change a little bit, particularly during the General Assembly. [37:28] But congratulations on that, and we want to encourage you to continue that approach of getting them to focus on what they do well, [37:40] and focus what their basic obligation is under the UN Charter, and that is to promote peace, create peace, and everybody work for peace. [37:52] And it just – it's incredibly frustrating to see these votes in the Security Council where you can't even condemn Russia for invading a country [38:02] and crossing boundaries and trying to take land when that is a direct violation of the very foundation of the United Nations and its Charter to do business. [38:13] And they can't even pass a resolution. Not only can't they do anything about it, they can't even condemn it. [38:19] And that is – that's just incredibly frustrating. And I – the – whenever the Secretary General comes to see me, I'm sure he has to take his blood pressure medication before he comes in, [38:31] because I drill that with him pretty hard. Anyway, with that, to the ranking members. Senator Shaheen. [38:38] Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to make a correction, though, to something that you said, [38:43] because you said that they – the General Assembly can't condemn Russia's action in Ukraine. [38:49] And actually, the United States voted with Russia against condemning the war in Ukraine. [38:55] The vote was 107 to 12, and we were one of the 12. So I – I share your frustration about a lot of the votes that the UN takes. [39:06] But that's one where we were on the wrong side, and we continue to be on the wrong side. [39:11] So I'm not going to ask you all to respond to that, because I don't – whatever you say, I'm not going to agree with. [39:17] I'll be very upfront. No matter what they say. [39:20] With respect to that vote against Ukraine in support of Russia. [39:25] It's complicated. It's complicated. No. [39:27] But I – I do want to follow up, Ambassador Bartos, on your comments about what the UN does well, [39:34] because I agree the humanitarian assistance is really important. [39:38] And our foreign assistance funding for the World Food Program has fallen by half since this administration took office in 2025, [39:48] from $4 billion to $2 billion. [39:50] And that included a decrease in U.S. commodity assistance from American farmers. [39:55] So corn, wheat, soybeans, other commodities were backlogged by the administration's foreign assistance review. [40:03] Now we know that the number of people in acute food crisis is projected to jump by 45 million for a total of 363 million people. [40:12] And that's really the result of the war in Iran and what it's doing to food – to fertilizer, to prices – increases for fuel and for food. [40:22] So I guess this is directed at both of you. [40:27] Can we count on the administration to utilize the available appropriated funds to provide funding to the World Food Program [40:34] and other UN humanitarian agencies to mitigate the impact of this crisis? [40:39] Ambassador Walsh. [40:40] Ambassador Walsh. [40:43] You can, Senator. And I'll just say just a few things in that regard. [40:48] The administration has taken a different approach, actually, that a number of our partners have asked for for quite some time, [40:56] and pooled funding, even though those funds have cut, as have all humanitarian aid budgets around the world, [41:05] as we all wrestle with our debt. [41:08] In fact, I think one of the things that's getting lost in the headlines is much of the increase from our European partners [41:14] and their defense funding has come from their humanitarian and development assistance funding. [41:20] They've moved one over the other. [41:22] A lot of consternation over USAID being pulled into the State Department. [41:26] The United Kingdom did that seven years ago. [41:29] Australia did it five years ago in order to align and make those dollars more efficient. [41:34] That's our goal as well. [41:36] I can't tell you how many times I've pulled up to a little baby ministry in the middle of Africa when I was operational [41:43] that maybe has ten people inside, and there's 18 UN cars outside with 18 drivers from 18 different agencies. [41:51] They are now using pulled vehicle fleets. [41:56] It's kind of UN Uber, I guess. [41:58] Pulled aviation, pulled human resources. [42:01] We are really pressing them hard, and we're actually getting a good response. [42:06] So while to the individual agencies may have been cut, we're putting it with the Office of the Coordinator for Humanitarian Affairs. [42:15] And, you know, case in point, the first tranche just went out to Sudan for $200 million. [42:22] I don't know if you have anything you wanted to add. [42:24] Yeah, I would just add to that, Senator. [42:26] The – when I was on the border of Sudan in the northeast part of the Central African Republic a couple months back, [42:35] meeting – had the privilege, but very, you know, very difficult meetings with Sudanese refugees who had recently fled the atrocities, [42:43] some of them walking as far as Khartoum to car, to a person. [42:48] When I met with the men – I met with the men and women separately – when I met with the men, most of whom were farmers, [42:54] their message to me to take back to Washington, to take back to New York, was we're excellent farmers. [43:00] We have fertile soil. [43:01] We know how to do this. [43:02] Please, please help us stop this conflict so we can go home and take care of ourselves. [43:08] Thank you for the – I mean, they were very clear. [43:10] Thank you for taking care of us. [43:11] Thank you for providing this food, medicine, shelter, for providing a safe – a safe harbor here. [43:16] But we want to go home. [43:18] And so it is the tie-in, and we're very conscious of it. [43:21] It's the tie-in between peace and security and this emergency response that we are – we're constantly – not only watching, [43:27] but we're constantly engaged with, not only in our mission, which we have some just outstanding humanitarian coordinators within our mission [43:34] who work in the ECOSOC and who work throughout the political section and NMR, [43:38] but also with our colleagues at the State Department who are constantly traveling to the region to try to get peace and security, [43:45] stability, so that we can get people back to farming. [43:49] But in the meantime, when I was there, every bag of food I saw had the American flag on it. [43:54] Every – of the RTUF, as it's called, the high calorie for children who are – who are a very serious caloric deficit provided by American companies. [44:04] So we're highly engaged. [44:06] I know our – more importantly, our colleagues at the State Department are highly engaged in making this whole system work. [44:12] Well, I appreciate that, and I think the members of this committee share the view that any time we can end the conflicts, [44:19] that that's the critical thing to do. [44:21] But in the meantime, we hope that people are not going to starve. [44:24] While they're waiting for that. [44:26] Thank you. [44:27] Well said. [44:28] Senator Ricketts. [44:30] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [44:32] Later this year, the United Nations will select a new Secretary General, [44:35] and this will mark a consequential moment for the future of the institution. [44:40] For the United States as the largest financial contributor, it's an opportunity to demand real reform. [44:46] We should support leadership that prioritizes accountability, transparency, and confronts anti-Semitism within the UN system, [44:53] and pushes back against adversaries like Communist China. [44:56] Concerningly, one of the candidates gaining traction for this role is Dr. Michelle Bachelet. [45:01] Her record raises serious doubts about whether she meets that standard. [45:06] As High Commissioner for Human Rights, Dr. Bachelet was given a platform to investigate credible reports that Communist China was detaining over 1 million Uyghurs in internment camps, [45:16] carrying out forced sterilizations, and using coerced labor. [45:21] Instead of clearly calling out those abuses, she conducted a tightly controlled visit, coordinated with Beijing, [45:28] and stopped short of labeling these actions genocide. [45:31] Now, while the report did have serious allegations of mass detention, sexual violence, and forced sterilizations, [45:38] a diplomat cited by Politico at the time claimed that sections, particularly with regard to the forced sterilizations, [45:45] were watered down right within hours of the final report being released. [45:51] She also has promoted the view that abortion is a fundamental human right. [45:59] These actions reflect a pattern of poor judgment, misplaced priorities, and a failure to uphold the UN's core mission. [46:08] This disqualifies her from leading the UN. [46:11] In fact, I recently co-signed a letter to Secretary Rubio urging the United States to use its veto to block her nomination. [46:19] Ambassador Waltz, based on her record, do you believe Dr. Bachelet would advance meaningful reform at the UN? [46:25] Thank you for the question, Senator, and I agree with you. [46:32] This is really and truly a turning point year for the UN in terms of new leadership. [46:39] It is two five-year terms, so we could be looking at the next Secretary General over the next decade. [46:47] And I'm not in a position today to publicly say who we will or we will not support. [46:56] But I'll tell you – [46:57] I didn't ask you who you would support. [46:58] Everything that's out there – [46:59] I asked you – I asked you – [47:00] Would she – [47:01] Or that who we will – who we will use our veto for. [47:02] Would she support reform? [47:03] But I could tell you I share your concerns, and I am sure I am safe in speaking for the Secretary. [47:10] He shares your concerns. [47:12] Just from a broader – kind of a broader perspective, the conventional wisdom up in New York is it's never been someone from Latin America, [47:21] and there's never been a woman, so therefore it must be a Latin American woman. [47:26] We have taken the position of we just need the best. [47:29] And this institution desperately needs strong, effective leadership. [47:35] And I can assure you reform, reform, reform along the lines of development aid, humanitarian aid, [47:40] and getting back to basics on peace and security will be at the top of our criteria. [47:45] Ambassador Bartosz and I are conducting those interviews and meetings right now as we speak. [47:49] But I want to underline – I share your concerns. [47:52] Okay. [47:53] Should the United States be prepared to use this leverage, including its Security Council position, [47:57] to block candidates like Dr. Bachelet who failed to meet the standard? [48:00] I think the United States will absolutely be prepared to ensure that the next Secretary General [48:07] is aligned with American values and interests. [48:10] Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian Territories, [48:14] has repeatedly used her position to advance extreme and inflammatory claims against Israel. [48:19] She has accused Israel of genocide, claiming it has a license to torture, [48:23] and using rhetoric that many have identified as anti-Semitic, [48:27] including language that distorts or trivializes the Holocaust. [48:31] She has also gone beyond rhetoric. [48:33] She directly targeted American companies, accusing dozens of U.S. firms of complicity in war crimes, [48:38] calling for investigations and potential prosecution. [48:41] That is why the United States rightly decided to sanction her. [48:44] But what is especially concerning is that since this has happened, she has continued to double down. [48:50] She has continued to accuse Israel of genocide and promote false narratives on the world stage. [48:54] She is doing so under the banner of the United Nations. [48:57] At some point, this is about whether the UN is willing to tolerate anti-Semitism and political targeting from within its own system. [49:04] Ambassador Bartos, do you believe the UN has taken any meaningful steps to address Francesca Albanese conduct? [49:11] No, Senator. [49:12] The UN – this is one of those examples, as I was sharing with the chairman, [49:16] of where the UN – if you'll pardon – I'm an educated guy, but this is very simple. [49:20] They're doing stupid things. [49:21] They're poisoning their brand. [49:23] It's self-sabotage. [49:24] And the message I've delivered to the leadership at the UN, [49:29] when I talk about and my observations about the outstanding work they do to deliver life-saving aid in these remote locations, [49:35] at scale, with a robust supply chain. [49:38] The contrast to that – and what I say to the UN leadership is how – and I'll clean my language up because we're in the U.S. Senate – [49:44] how the heck do you allow someone to put on your uniform, like this lunatic, Albanese, [49:49] put on your uniform and poison all the good work of the humanitarian workers that you have on the front lines, [49:55] risking their lives every day to help save total strangers? [49:58] Of course, fleeing hell to just a little bit better than hell. [50:01] That's what people are putting their lives on, and it's inspiring to see. [50:05] How can the same organization allow this lunatic to put on the uniform and poison all that good work? [50:11] And it's self-sabotage of the worst – in corporate America, Senator, where we both come from, [50:15] in corporate America, this business would be out of business for behavior like this. [50:19] And I've made that point. [50:20] Now, where we need to get better and stronger and smarter is I'm heading to Geneva next week, [50:25] and I'm going to be meeting with many of the PERM reps who can decide that it's time to fire this lunatic. [50:32] Am I going to be successful? [50:34] Sir, I look forward to reporting back on those conversations, but it's time to operationalize. [50:39] I think the Secretary's leadership, Ambassador Waltz's leadership, the President's leadership, [50:43] and our team's leadership on sanctioning this lunatic was absolutely the right thing to do. [50:47] It is now time to hold the UN accountable and make sure she's fired, [50:50] along with some other special rapporteurs who are poisoning the good work and the good name [50:55] and the good work of all those brave humanitarians who are out there in the field. [50:58] It has to happen, and it has to happen now. This self-sabotage has to stop. [51:03] Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that answer, and I agree with you 100%. [51:06] Please continue to do it because there's many of us who feel the UN is a deeply anti-Semitic organization, [51:10] and to the extent that you can start getting rid of the bad actors who contribute to propagating that, [51:16] I think you'll do the UN a huge favor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [51:20] Thank you, Mr. Bartosz. I concur with those statements, and I really concur with your analysis and approach to this thing [51:28] as to how when you have something that's decent, you have just this incredible poisonous thing going on. [51:37] I used the same analogy when it came to UNRWA. You had this organization called UNRWA within the United Nations [51:46] that was just absolutely poisoning the rest of what UN tries to do, so I hope you'll keep that up. [51:55] Senator Coons. [51:56] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ambassador Waltz and Representative Bartosz. [52:02] Julie, great to have you with us and appreciate your service at the United Nations. [52:07] And I do want to get to a question about the war in Iran and a concern I have, [52:12] and dedicate most of my time to talking about your good work in trying to advance UN reforms. [52:17] I am encouraged at the outset, Ambassador Waltz and Representative Bartosz, [52:22] to hear you say that you believe the UN is doing good and valuable work, [52:26] that there's entities like the WIPO and the ITU where we have to participate. [52:31] We have to push back on Chinese influence and competing views that would impact our role in the world, [52:38] our safety and our security, and that if they get back to basics, they can really contribute to the world, [52:43] to humanitarian relief, to peace and security. [52:45] And hearing from you, Mr. Bartosz, about your recent trip to three countries in Africa [52:49] to see peacekeeping, refugee support, humanitarian aid delivery was encouraging. [52:56] There's plenty we disagree about. [52:58] I want to focus on a few of the things we agree on and then a few concise questions if I could. [53:03] Ambassador, we're six weeks into a war in Iran. [53:08] We haven't had the secretaries of defense or of state or any other senior representative in front of us. [53:14] So you may be surprised. We agree on a lot that an unchecked Khamenei regime is a profound threat to us and our allies and our values, [53:24] that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptably dangerous, that it's in our interest that the Strait of Hormuz be free and open and internationally controlled. [53:33] But, you know, this far into this war, I'm gravely concerned that we still have an Ayatollah, the son of, [53:40] that we still haven't controlled their enriched uranium, that we still haven't reopened the Strait of Hormuz. [53:46] And the president announced today the deployment of thousands of more U.S. troops. [53:52] We may be on the verge of major combat operations on the ground in Iran. [53:57] I hope and pray that the ceasefire holds, that negotiations resume, that the blockade is effective, and that there is a better deal than the JCPOA achieved. [54:07] I suspect we both hope that. [54:09] But if the tempo of this war resumes again and we lose more American service members and we spend more of the American taxpayer dollar, [54:17] one of my core concerns has been the lack of any effort to consult and inform Congress or to seek our authorization. [54:25] We share an understanding that the president has not asked for a declaration of war, is that correct? [54:31] The president has not asked Congress for a declaration of war, no. [54:37] And we haven't declared war officially in decades, but we have, in the previous conflict in the Persian Gulf, [54:44] had hearing after hearing after hearing, and votes in Congress for an authorization of the use of military force. [54:50] We also, in a number of conflicts, have respected the War Powers Resolution 60-day termination clock, [54:56] which, if we were following that, would have about 15 days left. [55:00] My simple question is, are you aware of any plans to seek authorization from Congress if a full-scale ground war begins, [55:08] or if this conflict resumes, if the ceasefire stops? [55:12] And would you support Congress authorizing this conflict so that the warfighters who we are sending into this region [55:19] know that they have the support of the American people through their elected representatives? [55:25] Well, Senator, thank you for the question. [55:27] I certainly wouldn't and shouldn't get ahead of the president and his engagement with Congress, [55:33] and I certainly wouldn't presume that we will have, as you described, full-blown ground combat. [55:39] I think we've seen the president as we're seeing right now. [55:43] There is a whole slew of options in between where we are now and some type of ground combat, [55:53] and, you know, taking the leverage away from Iran. [55:57] They are trying to punish the world. [56:00] And with the closure of the Straits of Orbus, with attacking civilian shipping, [56:06] I can tell you in the UN we had a UN record, 135 nations join Bahrain, the GCC countries in the United States, [56:15] condemn Iran for its attacks on hotels and ports, resorts, and neighborhoods, [56:21] which was incredibly notable to see that kind of unity. [56:24] But I'm glad also that we agree that we cannot have a nuclear-armed Iran, [56:31] and I'm thankful the president is taking bold, decisive action now before it's a fait accompli. [56:36] Before I run out of time, Ambassador, I just – we were not briefed on an imminent threat. [56:41] We were not presented with information either in a classified setting or an open setting [56:45] that justified the idea that there was an imminent threat and we couldn't pursue negotiations. [56:50] And the absence of either that briefing or a clear request for Congress to engage in authorizing this conflict [56:57] has given me a great pause. [57:00] We share a view on the dangers of the region and of our increasingly aligning adversaries around the world – DPRK, Iran, Russia, China. [57:08] I am hopeful that you will be – that you'll convey the message back, that a prompt briefing on what was the imminent threat [57:15] that precipitated this conflict and an urgency around requesting authorization. [57:21] Instead, we will simply keep voting on war powers resolutions here that will send a divided message. [57:27] And I don't want us to send our young men and women into harm's way with a divided message from this Congress. [57:34] If I could beg 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman, I do just want to say I appreciate that you're making progress [57:40] in reducing the bloat and the personnel and the overreach and the expenditures at the UN. [57:45] I do hope you'll also listen to the ranking member's comment up front, which I agree with strongly. [57:51] We are better off when we are with our allies, when we are voting in the UN and when we are acting in the UN [57:58] in concert and partnership with the countries that share our values, standing up to those actions and statements that don't, [58:05] but also partnering with those that do. [58:08] And so whether it's the conflict in Ukraine and Russia's aggression, where we should be standing much more closely [58:13] and consistently with our partners and allies, the resolution of the war in Iran, [58:18] or the urgency of actually deploying and using the humanitarian funding that's been appropriated. [58:24] I look forward to working with you on making sure that we make the UN the effective and meaningful partnership for peace [58:33] that it can and should be. Thank you. [58:35] Thank you, Senator Kunz. [58:38] And it's good to hear your initial statements about the matters regarding Iran that we all agree in, [58:44] as far as not being able to have a nuclear weapon and that sort of thing. [58:47] Just so the record is totally clear, it is true that the administration did not go to the 535 members of Congress [58:59] and indicate the imminent threat, but a number of people were well advised of the imminent threat, [59:07] particularly those of us who work in the… [59:09] I have the highest level of classification access and have asked for it repeatedly and have gotten nothing. [59:14] As do I, and I have that. Thank you so much. [59:18] The inequality of access to information is at the core of the point I'm trying to make. [59:23] I understand that. [59:24] If you don't inform and brief Democrats and Republicans in the relevant senior roles, [59:28] I am the senior Democrat on defense appropriations. [59:31] I should know, and I have not been briefed. [59:34] Thank you so much, and we'll move from there to Senator Hagerty. [59:38] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank the gentleman here today for your willingness to serve. [59:42] I'm very heartened to see such strong leadership at the United Nations and delighted to have you here today. [59:48] I'd like to talk with you, Ambassador Walts, just a bit about our allies and their support of our efforts, [59:57] particularly our efforts in Iran. [59:58] And if I think about it, President Trump has been, I think, rather concerned about the response of some of our allies, [1:00:06] even allies who serve as permanent members on the UN Security Council. [1:00:11] I just wanted to get your thoughts on the dynamics on the UN Security Council, [1:00:17] how our allies are working well with us, and what you'd like to see more from our allies. [1:00:23] Well, thank you, Senator. [1:00:25] And while there's a lot of consternation, I would say, especially focused on our European partners and their positions, [1:00:35] which, frankly, I think most Americans find outrageous. [1:00:40] We're not asking to commit ground troops. [1:00:43] We're not asking to commit other forces. [1:00:47] I mean, simple overflight rights, simple use of bases that we have contributed to for many decades, [1:00:54] I don't think are unfair asks and certainly will affect the relationship going forward. [1:01:02] But here's the good news, and here's what I absolutely think will backfire, is backfiring, on Iran for the foreseeable future. [1:01:11] Our Gulf allies have never been more united. [1:01:15] They've had real issue with each other in Yemen, in Sudan, and in other places. [1:01:20] But right now, as they get bombarded, you know, Iran could have responded in all kinds of ways. [1:01:29] I think some people expected them to perhaps attack our bases in the Middle East. [1:01:35] But to launch the hundreds and thousands of drones and missiles into resorts and hotels [1:01:42] in civilian neighborhoods and civilian infrastructure is absolutely outrageous. [1:01:47] And I was very encouraged to see 135 countries align with Bahrain, align with the GCC, [1:01:54] and stand firm to condemn that in international law through the UN Security Council and going forward. [1:02:03] You know, many of these – it's a tough neighborhood. [1:02:06] Yeah. [1:02:07] Qatar, UAE, others – you know, Qatar had a free trade zone that Iran used. [1:02:11] They had banking services that Iran used. [1:02:13] Qatar shares a gas field. [1:02:15] They are solidly on our side in this conflict. [1:02:19] They've seen Iran for what it is, and they are all thanking us profusely at the highest levels that we've taken action, [1:02:27] if – before Iran could blackmail the world and the region with a nuclear weapon. [1:02:34] I think that the world has had the opportunity to see what Iran truly is, as you said. [1:02:38] And it's been heartening to see our allies in the Middle East step up. [1:02:41] It's also been quite disheartening, I would say, to see some of our allies – some of our longstanding allies, [1:02:46] who I would have thought would have been standing shoulder to shoulder with us, behave in such a feckless manner. [1:02:52] And I very much appreciate your leadership, and I hope showing a mirror to those members that have been our allies for a long time, [1:03:01] particularly those on the UN Security Council, that the United States is going to lead from a strong position, [1:03:06] and I hope they'll see the opportunity and be inspired to do the same. [1:03:10] Thank you. [1:03:11] And I just – I want to be clear, though, Senator. [1:03:13] Look, we share the same values. [1:03:16] We share the same goals. [1:03:18] We can be friends and family and have disagreements, but, you know, I wouldn't call it a divorce by any means. [1:03:27] But we do need our European allies. [1:03:29] Regardless of their political position, there's a real lack of military capability in many ways. [1:03:35] And that is being exposed right now as Iran tries to hold the world's economy hostage. [1:03:42] And we cannot have a situation, whether it's the Straits of Gibraltar, the Bering Straits, the Straits of Malacca, [1:03:48] where two parties have a conflict. [1:03:50] Regardless of what you think of the conflict, the one side uses international waterways to impose collective punishment on the rest of the world. [1:03:59] And so we are taking strong action in the Security Council. [1:04:03] And there's even discussion now, finally, of the UN labeling the IRGC a terrorist organization, which is exactly what it is. [1:04:12] I applaud that. I applaud that. [1:04:14] Gentlemen, in the short time I have left, I just want to raise one other issue. [1:04:18] It's a concern that we all have, and that is the United States is the largest funder of the United Nations. [1:04:23] And it's a very simple question. [1:04:25] I think we all ask ourselves, how effective is the UN? [1:04:27] Are we getting our money's worth? Are we getting an adequate return on our investment? [1:04:31] And I'll start with you, Mr. Bartos, and then Ambassador Walsh, if you would comment as well. [1:04:37] Senator, I think it's a mixed bag. It's a great question. [1:04:40] It's the question we ask ourselves every day, and our team has worked on. [1:04:43] Some of our colleagues, the career civil service and foreign service officers have worked on for a decade or more, [1:04:48] care deeply about the organization and making it fit for purpose and making it work. [1:04:52] And so I think on the humanitarian side, from what I got to see in the field, the UN is doing really good work. [1:04:58] And I think the American taxpayers, if any of them – any of my fellow Pennsylvanians and my fellow Floridians – I got both, I guess – if they were in the field in CAR or DRC or Kenya, [1:05:11] they'd be really proud of seeing those American flags helping these inspired, inspiring, courageous people who fled the atrocities to get to seek refuge. [1:05:21] And the UN is taking good care of them. So I think we can be proud of that. [1:05:24] And then, as Senator Ricketts pointed out, and he's absolutely right, and as we have tackled in this administration, [1:05:31] the pervasive, unconscionable bias against not only our ally Israel and against the West, [1:05:37] but blacklisting U.S. companies through some special rapporteur and so-called Human Rights Council. [1:05:42] It's unconscionable. It has to stop. And the UN has to stop doing stupid things. [1:05:47] And so that – we are not getting our money's worth there. And so it's really – on the peace and security, I think it's a mixed bag. [1:05:54] The Central African Republic, the mission that's called MINUSCA, that's trending in the right direction. [1:06:00] Some missions are not getting it done, and we'll see sun-setting of UNIFIL later this year because of U.S. leadership, [1:06:05] because of Ambassador Waltz's leadership and because of the team's leadership and the vision and leadership that the President [1:06:10] and the Secretary have asked us to execute on. So I think it's a mixed bag. [1:06:14] You know, God willing, have a couple more years to drive these reforms. [1:06:19] And I hope to report back to you, you know, before the end of 2028 that we've achieved a whole number of reforms. [1:06:25] So I think it's a mixed bag, and we're – we recognize we have a long way to go. [1:06:28] That's encouraging. [1:06:30] Thank you, Senator Hagerty. Senator Shaheen. [1:06:33] I just wanted to correct – my understanding is that our European partners have not denied us overflight rights, [1:06:40] that there was one flight that France denied over a paperwork issue, [1:06:45] but that they are giving us overflight use for the war in Iran. [1:06:53] Senator, I'm not absolutely certain of that. [1:06:56] At the very beginning – at the very beginning, I think there was absolute prohibition on overflights, [1:07:01] and they had domestic political issues at home to do that, but I think we can – [1:07:06] But that has changed. [1:07:07] Yeah, and I agree with that. That has softened, but it was a horrible mistake they made right at the beginning, [1:07:13] particularly as Ambassador Waltz indicated, where we'd actually paid for the basis that we wanted to land in, [1:07:24] and they were saying we – but that's an argument for another day. [1:07:28] So let's move on to Senator Murphy, who I know has some things to tell us. [1:07:32] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:07:36] We're having a discussion about the Iran war right now because, Mr. Ambassador, [1:07:40] you're the most senior member of the President's national security team to testify before this committee [1:07:45] on the most significant military engagement the United States has entered into in the region in decades. [1:07:51] Those of us on the Democratic side do find it amazing that we still have not had an open hearing on this committee [1:07:58] or the Armed Services Committee on this conflict. [1:08:01] The UN has historically been at the center of the development of the laws of war, [1:08:07] which have helped prevent millions of unnecessary civilian deaths in conflict. [1:08:13] The United States has traditionally been at the center of that process. [1:08:16] But President Trump has said that if Iran does not comply with his demands, [1:08:21] that he will end Iran's civilization with specific threats to target civilian infrastructure. [1:08:30] This looks to a lot of us into the world like a promise by the President of the United States to commit war crimes. [1:08:38] I'm sure you don't agree with that assessment, but we have never had a President before threaten to end an entire civilization [1:08:48] and double down on that claim if that country does not accede to the demands of the United States. [1:08:55] So what does the President mean when he says that if these negotiations don't work out, he will end Iran's civilization? [1:09:05] Well, Senator, I think that statement in the broader context, [1:09:12] he also talked about attacking infrastructure, bridges, power plants, [1:09:18] and we all know Iran has a long history of co-mingling both civilian and military, [1:09:23] of hiding weapons in hospitals and schools and using what could be just pure civilian infrastructure [1:09:30] to also power factories for drones, for missiles, and the IRGC controls nearly 50% of the economy. [1:09:39] I think it looks like, frankly – well, look, I focus on – [1:09:43] What does it mean to end – I guess, what does it mean to end a civilization? [1:09:46] But I think we have to look at the fact that you have a regime that literally chants death to America for the last 47 years, [1:09:55] and has acted on it, has killed thousands of Americans, has slaughtered its own people. [1:10:00] Do you know – I mean, how many machine gun bullets does it take over the course of a week to kill 40,000 of its own people? [1:10:08] Right, but does that – does that merit a threat to end a civilization? [1:10:11] I think it's – Senator, it was some tough talk. [1:10:13] And what are the results – [1:10:14] Certainly was. [1:10:15] Well, one of the results was we had the highest level engagement in the history of the Iranian regime [1:10:23] with the Vice President and Speaker of the Parliament less than a week later. [1:10:27] We had a ceasefire 48 hours later. [1:10:30] They clearly got the message, and they clearly came back to the table. [1:10:33] Yeah, and I guess it's an open question as to whether we should try to pursue our aims [1:10:39] by threatening another nation with mass civilian casualty. [1:10:43] I don't know that that's something that we should celebrate, [1:10:46] that we are able to cow nations to our demands by threatening to kill civilians. [1:10:50] Well, as a – as a – as a former military member, and I'm safe in speaking for our military, [1:10:55] they take every precaution possible to avoid civilian casualties. [1:11:02] But this regime responded, and again, if we focus on the results over the rhetoric, [1:11:07] they came to the table, they got the message, they put the ceasefire in place, [1:11:10] they haven't honored it with the Straits of Hormuz, and now we have talks ongoing. [1:11:16] Let me ask you about the strait, because obviously that is what is impacting our constituents in a significant way. [1:11:24] Did the administration anticipate that Iran would close the strait, or was that a surprise? [1:11:31] Oh, I can tell you, having formally worked in the Pentagon and been in the military for 27 years, [1:11:37] and the committees I sat on in Congress, that has been war-gamed over and over and over again by CENTCOM. [1:11:44] And as you know, the CENTCOM commander was the former Fifth Fleet commander out of Bahrain. [1:11:50] So it was anticipated? [1:11:52] Well, it was anticipated, to my knowledge – again, I'm sitting, you know, up at the UN – absolutely. [1:12:01] But at the same time, you know, the measures they took to sink nearly two dozen mine layers, [1:12:09] to go after those land-based missiles that they are using, to go after the drone – not just the drones, [1:12:17] but the manufacturing capability – was to drastically reduce that threat, [1:12:22] which is why I think you've seen now dozens of ships moving over the last few days. [1:12:26] And dozens of ships moving compared to hundreds of ships normally – [1:12:30] Well, sure. I mean, Iran, in violation of international law, declared now the Straits of Hormuz its own waters. [1:12:36] Last – [1:12:37] It's essentially punishing the entire world, and I think the president should be applauded for flipping the script, [1:12:43] because now their ships can't move. [1:12:45] Lastly, just one clarification on another war goal. [1:12:48] Is it a goal of the war to enact regime change? And if so, have you accomplished that goal? [1:12:55] The president has referred to the regime having change, and that being a successful byproduct of the war. [1:13:01] Senator, I think the president's made his – his goals quite clear from a military standpoint. [1:13:07] The vice president made it clear in Islamabad, open the sea lanes, no nuclear program, [1:13:13] end its decades of support for terrorism, and have a negotiated arrangement that's verifiable and enforceable. [1:13:21] So not regime change? [1:13:22] Well, if you – if the regime ends up changing in some fashion or form, [1:13:26] I'll tell you what, the regime's got to change its behavior. [1:13:28] It's unacceptable, and we cannot let it have a nuclear weapon. [1:13:31] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:13:32] Thank you. [1:13:34] Senator Lee. [1:13:36] Thanks so much to both of you for being here, and thanks for all you do on behalf of our country. [1:13:41] With respect to both of you, I just want to begin by thanking you for your tireless work [1:13:47] to improve things within the UN, and especially to advance American interests at the UN. [1:13:54] I can't imagine – actually, I can imagine, but I can only imagine – that you – how much work this has to have entailed to bring about that reform. [1:14:06] There's an immense difficulty involved in trying to reform this 193 member state organization, especially one as deeply flawed and often backwards as the UN is. [1:14:20] Organizations as large and bloated as the UN tend to resist change. [1:14:25] It's almost an organic response. [1:14:27] Yet through your efforts, the UN did something for the first time, something remarkable. [1:14:33] It cut outlays by $570 million. [1:14:36] Both of you and President Trump should be commended for your work to reform the UN. [1:14:43] But I want to zoom out on that for a second. [1:14:46] I don't want to merely make the UN more efficient, more streamlined, because if we lose sight of the ultimate goal, [1:14:55] then reform efforts can be a little bit like putting lipstick on a pig and then just calling it a reformed pig or something other than a pig. [1:15:03] The ultimate goal, in my view, has to be something that involves advancing U.S. interests, the interests of the United States of America. [1:15:12] And it's getting harder and harder, at least for me, to see how the United Nations does that. [1:15:19] The UN aggressively defends and demands a very rigid orthodoxy in terms of the type of multilateralism that the U.S. faces at the UN. [1:15:36] And it demands that we relinquish sovereignty, often to serve the interests of adversaries like China. [1:15:44] But in an age of great power competition like ours, multilateral institutions cannot find themselves, cannot allow themselves to become impartial to one great power over another great power. [1:16:00] Our adversaries flourish in a system we created because of how that system was designed and how it's evolved. [1:16:10] We see this from time to time at other multilateral institutions, but especially within the United Nations. [1:16:17] We cannot rely on the UN, and we cannot let the UN continue to be a drain on U.S. resources and efforts, especially if it's going to be undermining us. [1:16:25] Ambassador Walls, I'd like to start with you. I frequently hear that if the U.S. were to disengage at the UN, either completely or to whatever degree, then China would step in and fill the gap. [1:16:39] Some say that that's the reason that we've shoveled billions upon billions of dollars into the UN and continue to do so to the tune of tens of billions of dollars a year. [1:16:50] Even though these are efforts that don't really help us, don't advance U.S. interests. [1:16:57] Is our main objective at the UN, as you see it, is it to counterbalance adversaries like China, or does the U.S. materially benefit from the UN in other ways? [1:17:14] Senator, I think it's a fundamental question and one that we wrestle with every day, but I would say both. [1:17:23] For example, for our industries, it's kind of one of those things if we didn't invent it, somebody else would. [1:17:32] For our entrepreneurs and our businesses, we have to have their IP protected and treated a certain way when it leaves our shores and it's outside of U.S. jurisdiction, [1:17:43] so the World Intellectual Property Organization incredibly important. [1:17:46] I don't know about you when pilots are flying around the world. [1:17:49] I want them speaking English. [1:17:51] I want the air traffic controllers and mechanics trained to a certain standard of the International Civil Aviation Organization. [1:17:57] Things like spectrum, space, telecommunications, radio, undersea cables, international seabeds, how that's treated with the new mining efforts. [1:18:08] You know, essentially everything that's regulated here, and as painful as that is, is regulated internationally. [1:18:14] But now you have the EU, the Russians, the Chinese, and everyone else involved. [1:18:19] My argument is we have to get in there and fight, block and tackle and win for American industry and for the American people. [1:18:27] And to your point on how else we benefit, burden sharing is a key component of an American first approach. [1:18:33] We have gangs that have taken over Haiti right off the shores of Florida that are moving drugs and thugs all over the region, [1:18:39] the United States, Europe, and elsewhere. [1:18:41] I don't want American troops there like we saw President Clinton do in the 1990s. [1:18:45] Now we have an international force going in, and rather than paying a billion dollars a year, [1:18:50] as we were under the last administration, we're going to cut that bill by three quarters, [1:18:55] and hopefully at least arrest the problem so they can get some kind of political process moving forward. [1:19:01] I can cite you other places where we are pushing that burden sharing, that America first approach, [1:19:08] and that fight and block and tackle approach. [1:19:10] We just haven't done it in some of these organizations, and we need to be. [1:19:14] Thank you, Chairman. [1:19:16] Senator King. [1:19:17] Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to our witnesses. [1:19:20] Good work on the reform efforts and keep pushing on them. [1:19:25] They're very important to my constituents, to this committee. [1:19:29] I think a challenge that you have is pretty much everybody in America would agree with America first, [1:19:36] but most people in America would not agree with America alone. [1:19:40] And I think the interpretation of the actions of the administration, [1:19:44] a lot of people are wondering whether it's America first or America alone. [1:19:48] I would like to introduce for the record a list of organizations and treaties that the U.S. has withdrawn from during President Trump's first and second administrations. [1:19:58] It's a five-page list, if I might, Mr. Chair. [1:20:01] Folks see that. [1:20:03] They see the President trash-talking allies, talking about Canada as a 51st state or an invasion of Greenland connected to a NATO ally. [1:20:17] They look at a President willy-nilly imposing tariffs on allies, including allies with which we are in trade surplus, like Australia, not trade deficit. [1:20:28] And they raise the question, is this about America first or is this about America alone? [1:20:33] They look at the President's threats to withdraw from NATO and they ask the same question. [1:20:37] And I think those questions have been very sharpened by the war in Iran. [1:20:42] It's a war where the President has not sought congressional authorization as other Presidents have in the past. [1:20:49] It's a war where the President did not consult in advance with allies whose economies are being significantly affected by the war. [1:20:59] It's a war that the Administration has not yet presented, to my satisfaction to Congress, a clear rationale or a clear plan. [1:21:09] And the information that has been presented thus far has only been presented and classified, [1:21:14] so that we're not able to share fully with our constituents, even those who have kids deployed in the theater of war, what we know about it. [1:21:22] We're still awaiting the first sets of public hearings. [1:21:25] And, Mr. Secretary, it is unfair for you to be the first, you know, kind of principle before us, [1:21:31] because these are questions that aren't completely in your remit, and I get that. [1:21:36] But the issue of this war has really sharpened this question of, [1:21:41] is the Administration pursuing an America first policy or an America alone policy? [1:21:46] As you know, the war has cost 13 service members their lives. [1:21:51] Hundreds have been injured. [1:21:53] Innocent civilians have been killed, which is always the case even under the best of circumstances. [1:21:58] It's sad that you can't avoid that. [1:22:01] And the economic consequences to the United States are sharp. [1:22:04] My constituents are paying a dollar more for a gallon of gas than they were on February 27th. [1:22:09] Virginians buy eight million gallons of gas a day. [1:22:12] That's eight million dollars coming out of Virginians' pockets every day, [1:22:15] and this is spread throughout the country and throughout the world. [1:22:18] We're reading news about allies like Australia and how they're really suffering because they import oil [1:22:25] and what that escalating oil cost since February 27th has done to them. [1:22:30] Do we care about allies or are we pursuing an America alone strategy? [1:22:36] Now, to the Honorable Waltz, Representative, not Ambassador, you have an Ambassador's rank. [1:22:45] You know, you've talked about the President wanting to make sure that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. [1:22:51] And you know this, but just in case there are folks who are watching who don't know this, [1:22:58] the United States over the course of two years negotiated a deal with Iran, with our European allies, [1:23:06] and with adversaries, China and Russia. [1:23:10] And the first page of that agreement said as following, [1:23:14] Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons. [1:23:24] That was a forever promise. [1:23:26] There were some aspects of the deal that were 10-year promises or 15-year promises. [1:23:30] There were two forever promises. [1:23:32] One was accession to the additional protocol requiring intrusive inspections by the IAEA, [1:23:38] and the second one was this forever promise that Iran would never seek to acquire or develop nuclear weapons. [1:23:46] And Iran abided by that until the United States, under President Trump's leadership, tore up the deal unilaterally. [1:23:53] Our allies said it was working. [1:23:55] The International Atomic Energy Agency said it was working. [1:24:00] President Trump's first Secretaries of Defense and State, Madison Tillerson, urged him to stay in the deal, that it was working. [1:24:08] The President tore it up. [1:24:10] And what I find tragic is we have service members now losing their lives because the United States destroyed a diplomatic deal. [1:24:18] When you make diplomacy impossible, you make war inevitable. [1:24:24] So I'm just going to ask this one question. [1:24:26] At what point should the deep public unpopularity of a war be a factor that the nation's civilian decision-makers need to take into account to decide whether to continue it or not? [1:24:40] Senator, there's a lot in that question, and I'll tell you, one, NATO is far better because of the tough love it has received from this president and from this administration. [1:24:54] We've gone from 7 of 30 to 30 of 30. [1:24:56] I don't disagree. [1:24:57] In the last 10 years. [1:24:58] President Trump's invasion helps NATO get stronger, but President Trump gets better. [1:25:02] It might be some mean tweets. [1:25:03] It might be some tough love. [1:25:05] But they've gotten the message, and we now have every NATO ally meeting the minimum. [1:25:09] And then if you had said 10 years ago they would be going to 5 percent, you would have been laughed out of the room. [1:25:14] On the international organizations, yes, it's 66, but it's out of 400. [1:25:19] We have never taken a comprehensive review of where is all this money going and what are we getting for it. [1:25:25] And when we have organizations like the Pan American Institute of Geography or the Permanent Forum on the People of African Descent or the International Cotton Advisory Committee, [1:25:34] I think we ask those tough questions, and I want to direct those dollars that we've pulled out of into those… [1:25:39] Or commissions on women and human rights or Latin American economics. [1:25:42] Into those organizations that are directly affecting our businesses. [1:25:47] And then finally on Iran, I just looked at two polls this morning. [1:25:52] Seventy percent – and this is according to a widely used pollster – [1:25:59] Seventy-four percent agree that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and they have shown their true colors. [1:26:04] Rasmussen has it at 54 percent that says they can never have a nuclear weapon. [1:26:10] We had controlled it diplomatically. [1:26:12] But why do we need to risk American service lives because we tore up a diplomatic deal? [1:26:17] It's madness. [1:26:18] That diplomatic deal, Senator, would have had Iran flush with cash. [1:26:22] Its terrorist proxies flush with cash. [1:26:24] The missile components already expired. [1:26:27] The enrichment components expired last year. [1:26:29] The deal did not forbid us from going after any of those activities. [1:26:33] But this is incredibly important because the IAEA went to its board of governors and for the first time in decades said Iran was absolutely not in compliance. [1:26:40] There is no need to enrich – [1:26:41] After the U.S. tore up the deal. [1:26:42] There is no need to enrich – [1:26:43] After the U.S. tore up the deal. [1:26:44] There is no need to enrich to 60 percent. [1:26:45] No country in the world has 60 percent enriched – [1:26:47] And they wouldn't have had we not tore up the deal. [1:26:50] Unless they intend to get a weapon. [1:26:51] They did not do that until we tore up the deal. [1:26:53] We shouldn't have torn up a diplomatic deal. [1:26:55] They were cheating – but Senator, they were cheating on the deal – [1:26:57] After. [1:26:58] After. [1:26:59] Before the deal. [1:27:00] That was exposed in 2018. [1:27:01] You were only allowed to see certain sites with a month's advance notice. [1:27:04] Nope. [1:27:05] And they had a whole slew of hidden military sites that not only are allies, but the IAEA exposed. [1:27:11] They were absolutely – [1:27:12] I – [1:27:13] Senator Cain, I've been really generous. [1:27:15] Yes, you have been. [1:27:16] And I – [1:27:17] We've had this debate here a number of times. [1:27:19] Obviously, we haven't resolved the debate. [1:27:21] But I appreciate that. [1:27:22] And we're off subject, so I'd like to stay on the reform subject. [1:27:26] But thank you for those remarks. [1:27:29] Senator Scott. [1:27:31] Thank you, Chairman. [1:27:33] Today's hearing on reforming the United Nations could not come at a more important moment. [1:27:37] Across America, families are asking whether their tax dollars are working for them or against them. [1:27:41] As Secretary Rubio said, with every dime we spend, we must ask, does this make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous? [1:27:48] And we need to be able to look our constituents in the eye and say absolutely yes. [1:27:53] Today, I'm introducing two bills to do that. [1:27:55] The first is the Stop Support for UNRWA Act of 2026. [1:28:00] For decades, UNRWA has operated as a permanent refugee bureaucracy. [1:28:04] But since October 7th terrorist attacks, evidence has clearly shown that UNRWA employees actively supported Hamas, [1:28:10] have promoted anti-Semitic and extremist content in schools, and have even participated in atrocities against Israeli civilians. [1:28:18] This bill will make permanent what has rightly been U.S. policy since October 7th, an end of all funding to UNRWA, as well as any entities related to it, or any that may come after it. [1:28:29] This bill will revoke the privileges and immunities that UNRWA officials currently hold under the International Organization's Immunities Act, [1:28:36] so those who support terrorism can be held directly accountable in our courts rather than shielded by diplomatic status. [1:28:42] More broadly, this bill ensures that U.S. taxpayers will never again be forced to sponsor UN bodies, [1:28:47] chaired by governments that the State Department itself identifies as repeatedly supporting terrorism. [1:28:52] The American people should not have to hand over their hard-earned money to support organizations that funnel their resources to state sponsors of terror. [1:29:01] The second bill I am introducing today is the IGO Anti-Boycott Act. [1:29:05] In the 1970s Congress acted to stop the Arab League's attempt to economically isolate Israel. [1:29:11] They passed laws which made it clear to American companies that they would face financial consequences if they participated in this boycott. [1:29:19] And it worked. [1:29:20] Today, however, the same campaign of economic pressure now works through international bodies. [1:29:24] UN agencies and other IGOs that compile blacklists of Israeli companies and seek to delegitimize Israeli economically. [1:29:32] The principle is simple and vital. [1:29:35] We in Congress could never let the whim of an international body override the security and prosperity of the American people. [1:29:41] America's sovereignty means we will decide who we support, whom we trade with, and whom we defend. [1:29:47] My bills affirm that our commitment to our allies will never be supported into the agendas of unaccountable international organizations. [1:29:53] They say clearly that America stands for accountability, for freedom, for allies who share our belief in liberty, [1:29:59] not those who rip us off by taking our tax dollars to defend terrorists. [1:30:03] I want to thank Senators Hovind, Senators Tim Scott, Senators Ricketts, Hagerty, Barrasso, Britt, Budd, and Lee for their support. [1:30:10] Sir Representative Walts, I want to invite you to share any thoughts you have on these bills and on the broader question of how the United States can ensure its contributions to international organizations advance, not erode our values. [1:30:24] Thank you, Senators Scott, and I, for one, certainly appreciate your leadership on this. [1:30:30] Obviously, we'll have to look carefully at the text of it, but I certainly support it in concept. [1:30:36] The President, one of the first things he did coming out the gate was put an executive order in place of no funding to UNRWA. [1:30:44] Congress has voted for years, unfortunately off and on to not fund UNRWA, and I hope, you know, pending a hard look at it that your bill moves through the Senate. [1:30:55] Secretary Rubio has said UNRWA has been completely infiltrated by Hamas and has to go. [1:31:02] The good news is with the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, which sits under the Board of Peace, instituted and established through the UN Security Council, [1:31:14] they will start taking on those functions of both aid delivery, public services, and the most important, education. [1:31:22] We're working with a number of our Gulf Arab partners and Muslim-majority nations on education reform, curricular reform, so we don't have that next generation of Gazans, of Palestinians getting absolutely radicalized and pushed towards violence with Hamas' stated goal of eliminating Israel as a nation and the Jewish people. [1:31:47] So what are you most proud of that you've gotten accomplished since you've been there? [1:31:53] Well, I'll tell you getting the President's 20-point peace plan stamped into international law, seeing the entire world, including many of our European partners, stand with him, celebrate the plan, Sharm el-Sheikh, then getting that through the Council 13-0. [1:32:13] You know, as I told the Council members, you had two choices, you have Hamas continuing to rule Gaza, you had the IDF in terms of occupation of Gaza, or let's work together and try this new path. [1:32:27] And I have to tell you, too, seeing those hostages come out, having their families come and visit Jeff and I and hug us when they never thought, I don't think anybody thought we'd see every single living and deceased hostage come out of those tunnels. [1:32:46] It was – and I think the President, his team, Special Envoy Whitcoff, Jared Kushner, the Secretary, deserve enormous credit from history for saving those lives. [1:32:58] There is not a single hostage in those tunnels for the first time in a decade. [1:33:02] And that's something that I would hope we could all celebrate. [1:33:05] All right. Thank both of you for your hard work. [1:33:07] Thank you, Senator. [1:33:08] Senator Van Horn. [1:33:12] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:33:14] Welcome both of you. [1:33:15] Mr. Ambassador, your response to the Senator with respect to UNRWA is completely inconsistent with U.S. intelligence community reports. [1:33:26] So I would urge you to review those reports. [1:33:30] I know that sometimes some in this administration don't pay attention to them, but I would urge you to do that. [1:33:36] We can agree that the UN would benefit from reform. [1:33:42] I hope you will also agree that we should work collectively to uphold international law, including international humanitarian law and the Geneva Convention, [1:33:52] all of which the United States helped shape in the aftermath of World War II. [1:33:57] Would you agree with me on that? [1:33:58] Absolutely, Senator, of course. [1:34:01] Good. [1:34:03] Now, we need to enforce that. [1:34:05] And when you were a member of the House, you said that President Biden needed to make clear that, quote, Putin is an absolute war criminal, unquote. [1:34:15] Do you stand by your statement that Putin was an absolute war criminal? [1:34:20] I'll tell you, Senator, statements I made as a member of Congress, very different than what I make now as an ambassador to the UN working for President Trump and representing the United States. [1:34:30] So are you retracting – [1:34:31] So I certainly – I support President Trump in everything he is doing in trying to end this awful conflict. [1:34:39] I just find it very interesting, Mr. Ambassador, that you called upon the former President Biden in no uncertain terms to condemn Putin as a war criminal. [1:34:47] And you won't call upon President Trump to do the same thing. [1:34:51] As you know, he has refused to do what you called upon President Biden to do. [1:34:55] Let me move on. [1:34:56] As you know, Senator, it's quite difficult to mediate the end of the war if you take such maximalist approaches. [1:35:02] And now being a diplomat and a mediator and fulfilling his goals, working for him and his agenda, is very different than when you're elected a senator or a congressman. [1:35:11] It's interesting, though, I have to say, Mr. Ambassador, it was a simple question. [1:35:14] I guess you are – you're not asking this President to do what you asked the last President to do. [1:35:20] Would you agree that we should enforce and that there be consequences for war crimes? [1:35:28] And let me ask you a different way. [1:35:32] Would you agree it would be a violation of international law to blow up a bunch of civilian infrastructure in Iran because Iran did not agree to open the Strait of Hormuz? [1:35:42] That would be a violation of international humanitarian law if we actually did. [1:35:46] Actually, that's – that is incorrect. [1:35:50] It is. [1:35:51] There are – we have a long history. [1:35:53] We could show – look at video after video of the bridges that we bombed in World War II and Vietnam and conflict after conflict, power plants in Serbia under the Clinton administration. [1:36:03] Mr. Ambassador, this was not my question. [1:36:05] And this is particularly a regime – [1:36:06] My question was – [1:36:07] That has dual use. [1:36:08] Mr. – Well, I'm going to have to – [1:36:09] That lends military with civilian uses. [1:36:10] Mr. Ambassador, that was not my question. [1:36:13] I think President Trump threatened to hit civilian infrastructure if Iran did not open the Strait of Hormuz. [1:36:20] We all know international law. [1:36:21] We know there are some exceptions to the general rule that you shouldn't hit civilian infrastructure. [1:36:25] The enemy is occupying it. [1:36:27] But my question was different. [1:36:29] You don't think it's a violation of international law to blow up a bunch of civilian infrastructure because the government of Iran refused to open the Strait of Hormuz? [1:36:36] You don't think that would be a violation? [1:36:37] I think President Trump, the American people – [1:36:38] Do you think that would be a violation of international law? [1:36:40] I think they expected to use every bit of leverage that he – that he has. [1:36:43] I'm asking you if you – [1:36:44] And if you have – if you have military units using bridges to go down to the Straits of Hormuz to attack international shipping and launch missiles into resorts and airports and ports across the straits – [1:36:56] So – [1:36:57] And that's absolutely a valid use. [1:36:58] So, Mr. Ambassador, essentially what you're saying – [1:36:59] So, Mr. Ambassador, essentially what you're saying – [1:37:00] And I got to tell you, as a veteran who – who had to pull these triggers – [1:37:03] Mr. Ambassador – [1:37:04] I think the President's absolutely in the right – [1:37:05] Mr. Ambassador – [1:37:06] I know you all like to talk rather than answer questions, but let me ask you this. [1:37:10] Your testimony is that if you have an authoritarian regime anywhere in the world, that because of their authoritarian regime, if they don't obey the U.S. demands, you can wipe out their civilian infrastructure. [1:37:20] Let me ask you this. [1:37:21] Would it be a violation of the international law to destroy a civilization? [1:37:25] Would that be a violation of international humanitarian law? [1:37:28] Mr. Ambassador – I think what you're talking about, Senator, is a mean tweet that got – with a regime that's genocidal, chants death to America. [1:37:37] And you're going to talk about some tough language that actually the result of it was diplomacy. [1:37:42] The result of it was the highest meeting in the history of the United States and the Iranian regime. [1:37:48] It was a return to the ceasefire. So, you know, once again, we're focused on what he says, and I'm focused on what he does. [1:37:53] And maybe we should return to the time when the Strait of Hormuz was open before we started the war that closed the Strait of Hormuz and got a more radical and more extremist regime. [1:38:03] One could only imagine what they would do with an nuclear weapon. [1:38:05] Let me just say – let me just ask you this. I'm going to submit some questions for the record on Sudan, but I do have one simple question. [1:38:13] Do you – did you see that Senator – Secretary Rubio had confirmed in earlier testimony that the RSF was committing genocide in Sudan? [1:38:23] I did not see that, but we have a number of actions in the UN Security Council sanctioning the leadership of the RSF. [1:38:34] Do you agree that our partner, the UAE, should not be sending weapons to the RSF, which the U.S. government has concluded is committing genocide? [1:38:45] Do you think they should stop that? [1:38:46] There are – I would submit there are outside entities providing weapons and funding to both sides of that conflict. [1:38:54] Special advisor – Senior Advisor Boulos has led the effort to pull the Quad countries together, [1:39:00] and we are getting incredibly close to at least having humanitarian corridors to provide life-saving aid, which the UN will take a leading role in. [1:39:10] If that happens, we then want to move that through the Security Council, which would be not nearly enough progress, [1:39:17] but would certainly be a better situation than we're in now. [1:39:19] Are there any other parties to the conflict where the U.S. government has concluded they're committing genocide other than the RSF? [1:39:25] Not to my knowledge. [1:39:26] So I would think that, given those facts as established by our own government, that we should get the UAE to stop sending weapons to the RSF. [1:39:37] Would you agree? [1:39:38] I would agree that we should get all sides to stop sending weapons into that conflict. [1:39:43] Thank you. [1:39:44] Thank you. [1:39:45] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:39:46] Thank you. [1:39:47] Senator Barrasso is up next. [1:39:49] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:40:05] Ambassador Walls, great to see you again. [1:40:08] Great to see you again, Mr. Martin. [1:40:10] Thank you, sir. [1:40:11] I'm talking about something that's going on. [1:40:12] About a week ago, the UN's Economic and Social Council held elections. [1:40:16] They elected some of the world's most notorious human rights abusers to rolls on committees [1:40:23] that are charged with protecting human rights and civil society. [1:40:26] The Islamic Republic of Iran, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, is now going [1:40:31] to help shape policy on women's rights and counterterrorism. [1:40:34] And that's what we saw happen a week ago. [1:40:36] China, Cuba, and Nicaragua is going to decide which human rights groups receive accreditation [1:40:41] at the United Nations. [1:40:42] And the United States, you're the only member to object. [1:40:46] Are there specific reforms that you would support to prevent these serial human rights [1:40:51] abusers from securing these kinds of UN roles in the future? [1:40:57] Thank you for the question, Senator. [1:41:00] And it's one of the constant evaluations that we're having. [1:41:04] Are some of these organizations just so unredeemable that it's not worth another dollar of hard-earned [1:41:11] taxpayer dollars, good money after bad? [1:41:13] Like the Human Rights Council, that opens nearly every one of its meetings, condemning Israel, [1:41:20] that has these so-called special rapporteurs, these experts, that have a boycott list of [1:41:27] American companies doing business there. [1:41:30] And why this is so insidious is then they take these lists to these international organizations [1:41:37] like the ICC and the International Court of Justice and try to debank them. [1:41:43] They even had things like a George Floyd commission. [1:41:48] So you have these serial human rights abusers staffing committees to come pass judgment [1:41:53] on our judicial system. [1:41:55] So in that case, the president made the determination, we'll walk away. [1:42:00] In other cases, we're getting in there and blocking and tackling. [1:42:03] The situation with Iran that you just mentioned is incredibly unfortunate, [1:42:06] especially that we had a number of European allies support the nomination, [1:42:10] which was outrageous. [1:42:12] But the United States stood and fought it, and we actually supported other candidates [1:42:16] for other organizations, like the Commission on the Status of Women, [1:42:19] to ensure Iran, which serially abuses women, killed the young girl, Masa Amini, [1:42:26] for daring to not wear a hijab. [1:42:29] We were able to support other candidates and defeat them. [1:42:33] So in some, we're going to fight, block and tackle, and win. [1:42:36] We don't win them all. [1:42:37] And some, it's just not worth it. [1:42:39] We're going to walk away. [1:42:40] I wanted to move on to climate agreements in the United Nations. [1:42:43] I think President Trump did exactly the right thing. [1:42:45] One of the first acts of the administration was to restore fiscal sanity and energy reality. [1:42:50] And he officially ended our participation in the Paris Climate Agreement. [1:42:54] We stopped a dangerous practice. [1:42:56] We're no longer subsidizing our competitors' economies while we're hampering our own. [1:43:01] On January 7th, the President went even further, directing our withdrawal from several international organizations. [1:43:07] So we're no longer going to be the world's ATM machine for their radical climate policy. [1:43:12] So how can the U.S. ensure that future agreements with the UN actually strengthen our energy policy and national security, [1:43:19] instead of what the UN seems to want to do is undermine us? [1:43:22] Well, case in point, regardless of where you are on the debate of climate on either side of the aisle, [1:43:28] I would hope we would all agree we don't need seven UN agencies with their own headquarters, staff, executive boards focused on the climate issue. [1:43:37] We were very proud in the month that the United States was president of the Security Council to have Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, [1:43:44] who's right there to preside over the Council, and talk to the world on that stage about energy addition, not transition, [1:43:53] with the demands of AI, both he has said, I have said, we can't win the AI race on wind and solar. [1:43:59] It's just physically impossible. [1:44:01] We can't – when we look at where Ambassador Bartos just visited in places in Africa, they just need to eat. [1:44:09] And in fact, because of these ridiculous policies pushed by the UN, these people are dependent on burning wood because these renewables don't work, [1:44:21] don't provide enough energy, and because they've been dissuaded from using things like coal and clean gas. [1:44:27] So it is something where we have a lot of work to do. [1:44:31] These policies in terms of ESG and these discriminatory policies emanate from these UN bodies. [1:44:38] We were able to defeat what would have been the world's first global carbon tax, [1:44:43] which would have levied a billion dollars a month on global shipping that's powered by fossil fuel. [1:44:48] It was insane. [1:44:49] And so, again, some you walk away, some you fight and win. [1:44:53] But rest assured, you have fighters here. [1:44:57] I was going to turn to the other fighter, Ambassador Bartos, specifically with the status of China's being a developing nation. [1:45:06] And, you know, the world's second largest economy, second largest contributor to the UN. [1:45:11] In September, they announced that they would no longer be seeking special treatment given the developing countries in the World Trade Organization agreements. [1:45:19] But how can the U.S. use China's World Trade Organization announcement to instigate a change of their designation from being a developing country? [1:45:27] Because clearly they're not. [1:45:28] Thank you for the question, Senator. [1:45:31] It's great to see you. [1:45:32] I never miss an opportunity when I engage with the UN officials to mention that the developing – the large developing nation with a space program called China. [1:45:42] And they always chuckle. [1:45:44] They – leadership understands how absurd it is. [1:45:49] And it is something that we are focused on. [1:45:52] And the abuse that China is able to use by that designation in the system and to, if you will, get taxpayer dollars from many contributing countries to go to development aid in that country is absolutely unacceptable. [1:46:06] And it's something that, as we negotiate budgets, not only that we have a budget negotiation coming up on peacekeeping, but we then have – we'll have the main session in the fall right after the General Assembly. [1:46:16] And it's something that our team is focused on. [1:46:18] Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:46:19] Thank you very much. [1:46:20] Senator Rosen. [1:46:21] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:46:22] And I want to thank Senator Barrasso before he leaves for bringing up human rights and women's rights. [1:46:27] They're really important. [1:46:28] Especially I want to talk – I'm going to talk about women and girls, so thank you for that lead-in. [1:46:32] Ambassador Walls. [1:46:34] I'm concerned that the administration is retreating from and even attacking efforts to support women and girls globally, despite Secretary Rubio's commitment to the contrary. [1:46:46] The U.S. has withdrawn the only UN agency strictly focused on women and women's health issues. [1:46:51] UN Women and the UN Population Fund, as well as the UN Secretary General's Office of Sexual Violence and Conflict. [1:46:59] Sexual Violence Against Women in Conflict. [1:47:03] And the U.S. was recently the only no vote on the annual guiding document for the UN Commission on the Status of Women. [1:47:12] So, Ambassador Walls, how and where is the administration carrying out support for women and girls globally as they are often victimized in conflict? [1:47:24] And through just other governmental factors in their country? [1:47:29] And they're really suffering. [1:47:33] Senator, thank you for the question. [1:47:35] I would say two things. [1:47:37] One, as a Green Beret, I served all over the world and I have seen over and over again in societies where women thrive, in business and politics and civil society, from the village level to the municipal level to the national level, that is a better society for it. [1:47:54] And you have far less extremism because of it. [1:47:58] The famous words of Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Malalav Yousafzai, the thing the extremists fear the most is a girl with a book. [1:48:04] So, and I was a co-chair of the Women's Peace and Security Caucus in the House. [1:48:13] The second point is I would not conflate, to the extent we can, funding to an organization compared to importance of the issue. [1:48:24] Secretary Rubio is committed to it. [1:48:26] I'm committed to it for the reasons that I just laid out for you. [1:48:29] But as we look through these organizations, many of them are duplicative. [1:48:33] Many of them were symbolic. [1:48:35] Many of them weren't really delivering the results that I think American people would expect. [1:48:39] So, despite some of the titles, where we do – where we are supporting is our funding that I talked about earlier in UNICEF, [1:48:46] in World Food Program, in International Organization for Migration that do support women and girls in crisis situations. [1:48:53] That's really important. [1:48:54] Perhaps we could meet offline. [1:48:55] I just met with UNICEF. [1:48:56] They have a lot of issues. [1:48:58] They're really trying to uplift children and take care of children, some of these other programs. [1:49:02] And so maybe we could talk about some of these programs. [1:49:05] And I've met with their leadership as well. [1:49:06] And just of note, we have the First Lady as the first First Lady ever to preside over the Security Council talking about AI and education, what have you. [1:49:14] And that's right, I have limited time. [1:49:15] So let me get to my two minutes because I see Senator Cruz over there. [1:49:18] And I do agree with you that when women lead, we do have less extremism, and that is a good way that we fight terrorism. [1:49:26] It really is counterterrorism to support women and children. [1:49:30] But the administration has also vastly expanded the global gag rule to include not just reproductive health, but also gender-based and LGBT policies and programs that apply to multinational corporations or organizations, excuse me, for the first time. [1:49:45] And it's likely, again, to have a huge impact on women and girls and other vulnerable communities. [1:49:51] So are you telling impacted organizations about the policy? [1:49:55] What's the status for waivers for international organizations so they can continue their work without – with non-U.S. funds? [1:50:03] And – [1:50:05] I'll just say very quickly, and I'm happy to hand it over to Ambassador Bartos. [1:50:08] Thank you. [1:50:09] We are engaging on the implementation as we speak. [1:50:12] Our chief legal advisor for the State Department was just up in New York. [1:50:17] The Undersecretary for Foreign Assistance is heading to Geneva to sit down with these agencies on the implementation. [1:50:25] It is go forward, not existing awards, not existing grants. [1:50:29] But as we implement new grants together, the lawyers are working through effective implementation. [1:50:34] But I can tell you we are committed to getting life-saving aid to people in need and also to reform development aid so it's creating jobs and not dependency. [1:50:44] Thank you. [1:50:46] Did you want to add something to that? [1:50:48] Well, it's a great question, Senator, and it's something I can just report to you, and it's good to see you, that our team up in New York – [1:50:54] I have personally met with the legal counselor over at the UN, and the Undersecretary General is in charge of the budget. [1:51:00] Working very closely with our colleagues at the State Department, we have taken a whole-of-mission approach and working very collaboratively with the State Department to not only address this issue, [1:51:08] to make sure that we are a very effective – the word they use up in New York, the interlocutor – I never heard that word before I got to New York, [1:51:15] but that's the word they use, effective interlocutor to make sure that these concerns are heard and that we're finding solutions as we roll out the program. [1:51:21] And I think we do have to remember, as we fight terrorism around the world, so as a co-chair of the Counterterrorism Subcommittee here, [1:51:28] it is important that we look at marginalized communities, how they're being attacked, how they're being used as pawns oftentimes, [1:51:39] and how they may be subject to the will of our adversaries in order just for their survival or for their family's survival. [1:51:46] This leads – lets places like China and our adversaries to have maybe more influence. [1:51:52] So protecting these vulnerable communities, protecting women, protecting children – this is a way, to your point, to stop terrorism or China or other folks from getting into communities [1:52:05] and working against America's best interest. [1:52:08] And so there is a diplomatic mission there to protect those human rights. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:52:13] Senator Cruz. [1:52:14] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:52:17] Ambassador Waltz, a few minutes ago, Senator Van Hollen was berating you about the military conflict in Iran [1:52:25] and was asserting that the President's threat to attack civilian power plants was a war crime. [1:52:32] It has long been said that you can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts. [1:52:37] And what Senator Van Hollen said was both factually and legally incorrect. [1:52:42] The Pentagon has a manual on the law of war. [1:52:46] Here's what the Pentagon's manual on the law of war says on the question Senator Van Hollen was raising. [1:52:52] Quote, [1:52:53] Electric power stations are generally recognized to be of sufficient importance to a State's capacity to meet its wartime needs of communication, transport, and industry, so as usually to qualify as military objectives during armed conflicts. [1:53:11] It further notes, quote, [1:53:13] Economic objects associated with military operations or with war supporting a war sustaining industries have been regarded as military objectives. [1:53:27] Is that consistent with your longstanding experience both with military conflict and with the laws of war? [1:53:33] Of course. [1:53:34] That is consistent both as legitimate military tactics and targets, in my experience as a veteran, and also now sitting in the world's flawed but premier international legal body. [1:53:49] Let's turn to a different topic. [1:53:51] Within the State Department, the USAID OIG has traditionally taken a leading role in tracking the terrorist diversion of American assistance. [1:54:01] When it comes to aid flowing into Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, that task can only be described as incredibly daunting. [1:54:08] The Biden administration poured unaccountable billions of dollars into Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, and they deliberately obfuscated where it was going and to whom it was going. [1:54:22] We have only begun to see the outlines of that scandal. [1:54:26] A recent report in the Washington Free Beacon revealed that numerous UN agencies have been stonewalling the OIG's efforts to track their ties to terrorism and how they spent American aid. [1:54:38] They are even refusing to disclose whether they used American money to directly pay the salaries of Hamas terrorists. [1:54:48] The OIG sent letters to six separate UN agencies asking them to name all of the employees, quote, who worked on U.S. government funding awards and to provide their contact information. [1:54:59] The agencies were unresponsive. [1:55:02] How concerned are you about these dynamics, and what should we be doing about them? [1:55:06] I share your concern, Senator. [1:55:11] It's one of the reasons that UNRWA in particular should be defunded. [1:55:17] I think we should put it in law that it is permanently defunded, and why an American-led, not only Board of Peace, but the Civil-Military Coordination Center, our kind of headquarters coordination center, [1:55:34] that is in Israel right now is so vital and so effective, and I was able to visit it in December. [1:55:42] It's pulling together the Israelis, the Egyptians, all the humanitarian aid agencies, and de-conflicting and ensuring that as we provide that aid into Gaza, and much of it is absolutely needed, that it doesn't get diverted like we've seen for decades and decades. [1:56:00] Just think of the hundreds of kilometers, the hundreds of miles of tunnels, concrete and steel. [1:56:06] These things were – I mean, they had factories underground. [1:56:10] They had just used those to improve the lives of their people. [1:56:13] One could only imagine. [1:56:14] So it's one of the reasons, amongst many, Hamas has to go, and it's one of the reasons that this structure that we've set up under American leadership, [1:56:25] from the International Stabilization Force to the Civil-Military Coordination Center, I think is the best chance we've had, perhaps ever, to finally resolve this conflict. [1:56:35] All right, one final topic. [1:56:36] Sure. [1:56:37] As you have said, and I believe this view is widely shared on the committee, China poses the greatest geopolitical threat to the United States over the long term. [1:56:46] That threat is global, it is systematic, and it includes a sustained effort by the Chinese Communist Party to shape and in many cases dominate international organizations. [1:56:56] China has taken over international organizations, made them unaccountable, and used them to advance Chinese interest against the United States and our allies. [1:57:05] This pattern has been repeated over and over again across dozens of international organizations. [1:57:10] Can you speak more broadly about China's systemic effort to shape international organizations, [1:57:17] and what specific steps are we taking to counteract the Chinese Communist Party's efforts to do so? [1:57:22] I think the biggest near-term step we should and are doing is to make sure we have American or like-minded allies in some of those key international organizations [1:57:36] that most Americans have never heard of, but absolutely affect their everyday lives. [1:57:41] Again, whether it is governing AI, governing intellectual property, governing how we export our crops and where they go, [1:57:51] kind of the world's FDA, for lack of a better term, we have to have American leadership there. [1:57:57] We are aggressively running qualified people. To the extent we can't have an American, we have like-minded individuals [1:58:04] like the Singaporean businessman that now runs WIPO, where we hope to focus going forward, [1:58:10] and where China is incredibly active, is literally funding interns and junior officers into these organizations [1:58:16] and then kind of growing them up from within. And, of course, with that comes then the demand that the organization uses DeepSeek or uses Huawei. [1:58:26] We've seen this pattern, whether it's airports in Africa or organizations that govern our daily lives in the global economy. [1:58:35] But I can assure you, we are in there. They are the second largest funder. But we are the largest. We establish these organizations. [1:58:45] And we have to get in there and lead. Thank you. [1:58:57] It looks like we've gotten participation by everybody who's going to ask questions. So, a sincere thank you to both of you for all that you do [1:59:08] and for the benefit of your testimony today. For the information of our members, the record for this hearing will remain open [1:59:17] until the close of business tomorrow, the 16th of April. We ask the witnesses to respond as promptly as possible. [1:59:24] Your responses will also be made part of the record for this hearing. With the thanks of the committee and its members, the hearing now stands adjourned.