Antony Blinken Testifies Before Appropriations Committee

For being with us today and back in the committee room that you’re very familiar with, and we thank you for your extraordinary effort on behalf of the United States. We know that you have been doing a lot of traveling, a lot of talking, promoting America diplomacy based on our values, and we thank you very much for all of your service. And we look forward to this hearing every year as we go over particularly the FY ’25 budget. I often speak about the importance of adhering to our values and our foreign policy. That’s because I believe our values are at the core of American power and key to achieving our foreign policy goals.

(00:40)
This country was founded on a unique basis in the words of our Declaration, of Independence, that all men are created equal, that they’re endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. And for two and a half centuries, we have sought to live up to these ideals at home and abroad. I think there would be bipartisan agreement that we do not always succeed, but our aspirations matter. Knowing where our north star is matters. I think we often find a common ground on how values and principles add strength to hard security decisions, but there are others that view the world strictly based on survival of the fittest world view.

(01:21)
They say rules are for suckers. And they ask the question, what are we getting from this? Or worse, what do I get from this? This approach not only sees foreign policy as transactional, it also says nations only get what they want by military force or corrupt dealings. But to not adhere to American values and foreign policy decisions is making a major strategic mistake. To be true to our founding principles, we need to support those people trying to defend human rights, those rights endowed to us by our creator. Sticking to our values leads to policies that encourage people to stand up to corruption, that champion the rule of law and fair play, that supports democracies, that saved lives, policies that advance America’s national security interests.

(02:09)
These issues should inform the way the United States engages with the other countries of the world. That is why the Leahy Law advocated by our former colleague from Vermont are so important to security cooperation in our foreign policies. Is why I’m proud that Congress has enacted and the executive branch has implemented the global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, as well as the recent enactment of the Combating Global Corruption. The department has at times opposed values-driven human rights proposals when they surface in Congress. We recognize there is a little competition between the executive branch and legislative branch.

(02:47)
But I think we all agree that we’re stronger when we work together. And when we can coordinate our activities and work in unity, it’s a lot better for our nation. And I think your training here as the staff director of this committee has served you very well. As I applaud your efforts to try to coordinate as strong as we can the actions of the legislative and executive branch in the best interest of our nation. Secretary Blinken, right now, we face many serious world crises. Some of these conflicts are in the headlines, the War in Ukraine, the Hamas attack on Israel, the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

(03:25)
Others get only passing mention like Haiti or Venezuela, Burma or Sudan. But whether they attract widespread attention or not, all of these crises are important, from reducing the spread of malicious disinformation to reducing the threat of nuclear war, from modernizing our diplomatic core to responsibly harnessing the power of AI, from fighting Putin in Ukraine to fighting the effects of climate change. The department, the state and the work of our diplomats do every day has never been more important. This committee understands the needs for a healthy and thriving American diplomatic presence around the world. I want to thanks Senator Risch for working with me on this year’s State Department authorization bill. This will be our fourth authorization bill in four years after a long hiatus.

(04:12)
I was glad that we had an opportunity to discuss that during last week’s hearing with Secretary Verma. We need to incentivize diversity initiatives and modernize the training and professional developments for our diplomats to deal with the 21st century challenges. This bill really underscores the importance we put on supporting the work of our State Department. Secretary Blinken, I want to thank you personally for all of you’ve done and the hard work you’ve done to promote the strength of our diplomacy in the State Department and its mission around the world. I know that you’ve traveled many miles and met with many world leaders, especially in the context of Putin’s war in Ukraine and the wake of Hamas’s attack in Israel.

(04:51)
I’d like to hear you articulate how this administration plans to confront the challenges we face today. Because despite everything that’s happening and the best efforts of our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, our foreign A budgets have been shrinking. What effect do you think this has had on your ability to advance American priorities, defend American interests, and project American values? What kind of trade-offs have you had to make as the State Department because of the shrinking budgets?

(05:19)
That is the purpose of this hearing to discuss the President’s FY ’25 budget and I look forward to that discussion. And with that, let me first recognize our very distinguished ranking member, Senator Risch.

Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for those remarks. Let me say that it appears we’re at the start of a new era in global affairs, one marked by growing instability, increasing competition and fraying economic relationships. This is a time for US leadership and resolve. The president’s annual budget, which is what we’re talking about here today, shows his priorities, and there are a couple of areas in his budget request where we agree. But the request lacks seriousness, I believe, and shows an inability to make tough choices. First, the budget’s biggest focus is on climate change. That focus doesn’t help Ukraine or Israel, or help our allies compete against China.

(06:12)
In fact, by rejecting low-carbon energy options like natural gas and pushing a green-only approach, the administration’s doing more to enable China than out-compete it. If the administration wants to out-compete China, then it should focus on China’s growing advantages in ports, airports, digital technologies, and other critical sectors rather than advancing ideological pet projects. Indeed, this proposed budget does contain a poison pill, which I suspect you probably already know, Secretary Blinken in the form of a quote, Green Climate Fund, which proposes to transfer US taxpayer money to China through the UN, about a billion dollars of it. The budget’s so-called out- compete china initiatives might enjoy my support if the department actually worked with this committee, but the request of the programs to be mandatory spending is inappropriate.

(07:10)
Mandatory programs are not subject to congressional oversight and that is why these requests have failed in the last three years. In fact, I would argue the department has perfected the art of hiding information from Congress, which you and I talked about yesterday to some degree. On Israel, Ukraine and China in Congo, it is impossible to get honest and clear information from the department. Instead, the president prioritizes funds for non-transparent initiatives like the partnership for global infrastructure, which focuses on climate and gender infrastructure. And the department’s funds are steered not by the department, but by the White House, which is accountable to no one.

(07:54)
On Iran, the administration’s policy is fatally flawed. Outreach and accommodation have failed and the lack of any serious strategy has come home to roost. Iran has doubled down on its support for terrorist and flooded Russia with drones and missiles. The Red Sea remains contested and dangerous and the US Navy has spent a billion dollars on missiles to defend vessels from Houthi attacks. Iran’s unprecedented attack against Israel shows Iran doubts this administration’s resolve to punish its behavior. I’m proud this committee passed the most significant Iran sanctions legislation we’ve seen in years, the End It Act, the Ship Act, the MAHSA Act, and legislation targeting Iranian drones are all law.

(08:40)
Is the administration actually going to enforce them? Recent history suggests it won’t. Rather than imposing costs on Iran, the administration is imposing costs on Israel. You must stop blaming Israel and let Israel remove Hamas from Gaza. That is the only way to move forward. In Europe, instability is growing and your budget request is tone deaf. Congress has asked for a Ukraine strategy, which I suspect will never be delivered. If you were serious, funds for Ukraine would be in the base budget. Instead, the urging to continue support through long-term policy with short-term emergency packages isn’t appropriate.

(09:19)
What you and I talked about yesterday again. In Haiti, I remain concerned about the logistics, feasibility and cost of the proposed multinational security support mission. Prior international interventions over a long, long period of time in Haiti have been dismal failures leaving the Haitian people worse off than before. We can’t use US taxpayer dollars to support an open-ended, poorly conceived mission in a country plagued by extreme gang violence and political instability without some kind of assurances that things are going to be different this time. In Africa, we’ve had coups in seven countries in the last three years.

(10:04)
Our people continue to get kicked out of countries there. In the worst instance, we are witnessing a devastating conflict in Sudan. Humanitarian needs are overwhelming and severe food and medicine shortages are causing near-famine conditions, yet it took 10 months to appoint a special envoy. Even then, the appointment is for 180 days and support for the office remains insufficient. And our partners have highlighted a lack of US engagement and leadership at meetings on Sudan. Mr. Secretary, during our first conversation, after your confirmation, we discussed the need for a coordination and assistance framework to help the United States get ahead of the next pandemic.

(10:40)
So I introduced legislation that you and the White House supported for which I’m appreciative. Despite that, this budget undermines effective coordination of US global health security. I also did not and will never agree to negotiations of the World Health Assembly that would trade away US intellectual property rights and give a deeply flawed World health Organization enhance authority and resources. These are challenging times for the United States and the world, but our policies across the board are not helping us. We need to do better. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Risch. Appreciate your comments. Our witness today is Antony Blinken, the 71st US Secretary of State. He was nominated by President Biden, confirmed by the United States Senate and has been our Secretary of State since January 27th, 2021. Over three decades and three presidential administrations, Mr. Blinken has helped shape US foreign policy to ensure it protects US interests and delivers results for the American people. He served as Deputy Secretary of State for President Obama from 2015 to 2017. And before that, as President Obama’s Principal Deputy National Security Advisor. In that role, Mr. Blinken chaired the Interagency Deputies Committee, the main forum for hammering out the administration’s foreign policy.

(12:04)
During the first term of the Obama administration, Mr. Blinken was National Security Advisor to then Vice President, Joe Biden. But perhaps the most impressive part of his background by far, is the fact that he served six year stint as the Democratic Staff Director to the United States Senate Farm Relations Committee. Then Senator Biden was chair of that committee from 2001 to 2003, and again from 2007 to 2009. 2007 was my first year in the United States Senate. And I was appointed to this committee in which then Staff Director Blinken was extremely helpful to this freshman member of the United States Senate. And I’m forever grateful for his help during the transition years.

(12:47)
Secretary Blinken, your entire statement will be made part of our record without objection. You may proceed as you wish and we look forward to a robust discussion.

Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much to you, ranking member Risch, all the members of the committee. It’s always good to be back before this committee. And as you said, I was on the other side of the dais behind where you are for six years. So I always appreciate the opportunity to be back here among colleagues. And thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

(13:18)
More importantly, thank you for the partnership that I think we’ve been able to manifest together to advance American leadership in the world, that is so essential for delivering on the priorities that matter to the people we represent. The need for US global leadership and for cooperation with allies and partners has never been greater. The people’s Republic of China, pursuing military-

His mother was six years old. Israelis killed his mother, was six years old. Blinken, you will be remembered as the butcher of Gaza. You will be remembered for murdering innocent Palestinians.

(13:48)
[inaudible 00:13:59] brutalize people here. Jesus [inaudible 00:14:09].

Will the officer please remove the person who’s making these comments.

[inaudible 00:14:19] outside.

(14:19)
The [inaudible 00:14:20].

If anyone is speaking, please be removed.

[inaudible 00:14:27]. Stop the genocide. Stop the genocide. [inaudible 00:14:44].

Mr. Secretary, you may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying, the people’s Republic of China-

He is a war criminal. He is a war criminal. The blood of 40,000 people is on your hands. The blood of 40,000 Palestinian is on your hands. He is a war criminal. He is a war criminal. Blinken is a war criminal. The blood of 40,000 people is on your hands. The blood of 40,000 people is on your hands. He is a war criminal. [inaudible 00:15:28].

Mr. Secretary, you may continue.

People’s Republic of China is pursuing military, economic and geopolitical preeminence, challenging our vision for a free, open, secure, and prosperous international order. Russia is committing aggression, not only against Ukraine, but against the principles at the heart of the United Nations charter sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence that are the building blocks for global peace and security. In the Middle East, we’re standing with Israel in its efforts to ensure that what happened on October 7th never happens again, as we do everything we can to bring an end to the terrible human suffering in Gaza, and prevent the conflict from spreading.

(16:11)
US leadership is needed to address humanitarian crises elsewhere around the world, including in Sudan and Haiti where millions have been displaced and many killed. And to address global issues that no country can solve alone, including food security, a changing climate, transnational corruption, the Fentanyl crisis. But with the support of Congress, we can and we are approaching these challenges from a position of strength. Because of the actions we’ve taken, the United States is stronger economically, diplomatically and militarily than we were three years ago. We’ve made historic investments at home in our own competitiveness, innovation, infrastructure.

(16:52)
We’ve renewed our alliances. We built new ones. We’ve secured unprecedented alignment with key partners in Europe, Asia and beyond. We’ve delivered essential American aid to Ukraine and we’ve rallied the international community to share the burden with us. For every dollar that we’ve sent in economic and development assistance, others collectively have invested three more. Now many doubted whether bipartisan support for Ukraine and other urgent national security priorities could endure. Last month, Congress demonstrated to the world that we will not pull back when you passed President Biden’s supplemental funding bill by an overwhelming margin. Our investment abroad does not come at the expense of our strength at home, far from it. Most of the supplemental is being spent here in the United States, building up our defense industrial base, creating and supporting thousands of American jobs. We need to keep up this momentum. That requires a State Department budget that we fully resource in order to meet the challenges of our time. The President’s FY ’25 budget-

[inaudible 00:17:55] genocide in Gaza. There have been seven mass graves outside of hospitals. This is sick. This is deranged. You are a war criminal. Shame on you.

You may continue.

Thank you. The President’s FY ’25 budget requesting $58.8 billion for the State Department USAID does this in two key ways. First, it funds the essential missions of our department and USAID. The budget will ensure the United States continues to be the partner of choice that countries turn to when they need to solve big problems. In an era of renewed great power of competition, we must present the strongest possible offer, one that’s relevant and responsive to country’s needs, and that advances our security and economic interests. That’s why we’re requesting $2 billion for a new fund to build high quality sustainable infrastructure around the world.

(18:49)
Crucially, investments like these create jobs for Americans, they expand markets for our businesses. We’re requesting resources for the World Bank. With $1 billion in US funding, we can unlock another $36 billion in development fund capacity to direct to the top priorities of emerging economies. That is an enormous return on our investment, and essential for competing with China around the world. The budget also includes $1.7 billion for international organizations, including the United Nations, APAC, the American Development Bank, to help shape them in ways that reflect our interests and our values.

(19:24)
We’re asking for $500 million to give more people around the world access to secure internet and digital technologies. Doing so will support our economy through the export of our technology products and it will help ensure that we and our fellow democracies remain the leaders and standard setters in key technologies like artificial intelligence. Our budget also includes funding to address global issues that affect the livelihoods of the American people, as well as people around the world, especially the synthetic drug crisis. It also funds our response to regular migration, global food insecurity, public health, climate and energy security. We’re also asking Congress to fully fund the state department’s educational and cultural exchanges.

(20:05)
These are one of the best, most cost-effective tools we have for advancing our values and our interests around the world. They support students, researchers, young professionals from our communities who study and work abroad. To out-compete our strategic rivals, we also need to invest in the foundations of our strength abroad, our diplomatic core, and that’s the second pillar of our budget. Our budget makes a strong investment in expanding our overseas presence, opening posts in the Pacific Islands, the Eastern Caribbean. It will also continue our modernization of our diplomacy. We’re organizing the department in new ways to meet these new challenges, working to attract and retain the best talent needed to take them on.

(20:44)
Investing in our people in Washington and in our post overseas with training, with technology, promoting more agility, more innovation, more efficiency in our processes. Last year’s enacted budget level represented a 5% cut from the year before. That challenges our efforts to deliver results that Congress and the American people want to see. So I urge you to support this budget, which helps us address the most pressing foreign policy priorities in the coming year, and lays the foundation for strong leadership in the years ahead. In conclusion, I’d like to thank this committee for your recent confirmations of ambassadors and other senior officials.

(21:22)
Any undue delays in such confirmations undermine our national security and weaken our ability to deliver for the American people. I’m grateful for the partnership of this committee and for your time. Look forward to answering any questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member.

Thank you, Mr. secretary. I regret the interruptions during your testimony. Believe it was the New York Times editorial page pointed out, it takes as much courage to listen as to speak out. And I think you’re going to hear during the course of our discussion here today that we will have different views. And I think it’s critically important that we all have an opportunity to hear those views. And I regret the disruptions that took place. We will not tolerate disruption in this committee as I’ve made it very clear. We will now have a round of… we’re doing seven minutes?

Seven.

Seven minutes on questioning to our members. I would ask that they respect the seven minutes, that every member can get a chance to question before we run out of opportunity and time. Let me start with the budget restrictions that you have. Senator Coons was just here. I know he’ll be back. He does his best to get you the most robust budget we can. We all believe that the funds that we make available for diplomacy are great investments.

(22:38)
Our soft power is critically important in the USAID, and the list goes on and on and on. But you’ve got to make tough decisions. So I appreciate your help in the fact that we were able to enact the Combating Global Corruption Act that you helped make sure we got to the finish line. It does put additional responsibilities on your missions around the world, to have the capacity to identify areas of corruption that need attention. Tell me how this budget will be adequate to implement that policy and how you intend to implement that policy.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We’re determined to implement it and to support it with the necessary resources. We see, I think this committee sees corruption as being one of the most poisonous things that undermines democracies or countries that are attempting to become democracies around the world. It saps people’s faith in their governments, in their institutions. It takes resources away from the actual development of the country to line the pockets of people who are engaged in corruption, and around the world. We’ve seen time and again that as people come out to protest, often the instigating factor is a revulsion of corruption.

(24:08)
So our ability to be able with other countries, to help identify it, to root it out, but also to help countries develop the institutions and the processes necessary to guard against corruption in their institutions, in their governance, we think is a critical aspect of defending and promoting, and strengthening democracy. So we’re determined to implement what’s been given to us through the authorities in the act. I think the budget reflects the dedication of resources to do that.

(24:40)
But of course, everything we’re doing. Given the budget environment we’re in, comes with trade-offs and decisions that we have to make to balance the responsibilities we have, the needs we have with the resources that are made available. I don’t want to see it come at the expense of the effort to engage in this vital work.

So let me talk about one of your requests for funds for Haiti. 800 miles away, an area that is certainly not stable today. We have the president of Kenya, President Ruto, who’s here this week. So it’s an appropriate week for us to get more information about it. You have requested funds for the US to support that mission. Tell us how important those funds are and what is the expectations? There’s been concerns raised as to whether this is an investment that can lead to a positive result. Please help us understand that.

Haiti has been teetering on the precipice of all-out crisis and becoming an all-out failed state.

Is your mic on?

Oh, I’m sorry. Thank you. Haiti’s on the precipice of becoming an all-out failed state. And I take very seriously what the ranking member said, we’ve discussed this on a number of occasions. There have been in years past, numerous interventions in Haiti. Some have had some near-term effect in stabilizing things, but it’s certainly true that we haven’t seen a long-term stabilizing effect that’s allowed the country to genuinely move forward. So I understand some of the skepticism that exists about another mission in Haiti. But I think what we have going for us is this. First, a general revulsion of the people at the direction that the country has taken, including gangs that are dominating Port-au-Prince, and trying to undermine governance, a democratic trajectory that’s been disrupted by failing to have a government that actually has a clear mandate.

(26:50)
And all of that has also had the effect of interrupting development assistance, other forms of assistance that people so desperately need. There’s an opportunity now to do a few things. First, we have managed to move to a better trajectory politically to get back to a clearly mandated democratic government. We have a transitional presidential council that’s been established. All of its members are in Haiti, working. They have a mandate now to name an interim prime minister, an interim president, an electoral council, and a national security council, all of which will be in place to try to establish a clear pathway to elections to get Haiti back on its feet democratically.

(27:31)
Second, the power of the gangs needs to be ended once and for all, and in particular, the Haitian National Police who are outmanned and outgunned need to be given the resources and support they need to regain control. In the last few weeks, they’ve actually done a better job of that. They’ve taken back control of the airport and other critical infrastructure. In fact, today, commercial flights resumed in Haiti, and we anticipate that American carriers will begin flying again in the days ahead. But absent, a clear support structure for some period of time. It’s going to be very hard for the police to really fully establish that control.

(28:10)
So the United Nations has mandated and other countries have stepped up to fulfill the functions of a multinational security support mission for Haiti, the purpose of which is to bolster the police, the purpose of which is to engage in operational and static support for the police to reestablish security, to create confidence in the conditions for elections, mostly police. And Kenya in particular has stepped up to provide these forces with a number of other countries.

Mr. Secretary, I’ll give you a chance to expand on that probably a little later. I want to focus my last minute on the… give you a chance to give us a status of the Middle East, what’s happening in regards to the conversations with Israel and Hamas, in order to get an opportunity for the release of the hostages and a pathway towards a way forward for both the Palestinians and Israelis without the terrorist. The ICC ruling yesterday, I’d like to get your view on it.

(29:14)
I see as a step in the wrong direction. That’s going to make it more challenging for us to get the parties together. There’s always been an understanding, the ICC is there to deal with countries that don’t have a independent judiciary. Israel has a independent judiciary. They did not give the Israelis an opportunity. We thought there was that opportunity going to take place this week. I wanted to get your assessment as to how you see the current situations in light of what just happened at the ICC, as to we are on track to continue to negotiate in regards to the hostages and a pause in the hostilities.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look, we see the effort to get a ceasefire in the release of hostages as the best, most effective way forward. Both in getting hostages home, in creating an environment in which the people of Gaza can get more of the assistance they so desperately need, and a platform for which to build a more enduring solution that provides genuine security for Israel and meets the needs of the Palestinian people. There’s been an extensive effort made in recent months to get that agreement. I think we’ve come very, very close on a couple of occasions. Qatar, Egypt, others participating in the efforts to do this.

(30:31)
We remain at it every single day. I think that there’s still a possibility, but it’s challenged by a number of events. And I have to say, yes, the extremely wrongheaded decision by the ICC prosecutor yesterday, the shameful equivalence implied between Hamas and the leadership of Israel, I think that only complicates the prospects for getting such an agreement. We’ll continue to forge ahead to do that, but that decision, as you’ve said, on so many levels is totally wrongheaded. And we’ll be happy to work with Congress, with this committee on an appropriate response.

Senator Risch.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start there. Sometimes we don’t agree on stuff, but I got to tell you on the ICC, you got it exactly right. Your characterization of it being shameful equivalence that they have engaged in yesterday is actually stunning. As you know, in the last administration, the Trump people did an executive order to do sanctions on certain members of the ICC who were investigating us for things that happened in Afghanistan.

(31:57)
President Biden’s administration came in and dissolved that executive order as you know. For your information, you probably know about this, but there’s a number of us up here that are working on a legislative approach to this. That includes not only the Afghanistan question, but also includes the question of the ICC sticking its nose in the business of countries that have an independent legitimate democratic judicial system, and obviously they violated that yesterday. Can you support this? Obviously the devil’s in the details obviously in the legislation, but do you think you can support a legislative approach to this?

Senator Risch, in short, let’s look at it. We want to work with you on a bipartisan basis to find an appropriate response. I’m committed to doing that. As you say, the devil’s in the details. So let’s see what you’ve got and we can take it from there. But I think from our perspective,

Going back in lifting sanctions that were previously implemented, the intent, the purpose was to find the best way to protect our service members who served in Afghanistan and we believe that we did that. But given the events of yesterday, I think we have to look at the appropriate steps to take to deal with, again, what is a profoundly wrongheaded decision.

Well, thank you. As I said, your coinage of that as a shameful equivalence, I think, is a good starting point for all of us and it really, really deserves our attention. So, we’re going to spend some time on that and I hope we can work together on that. Let’s shift to China for a minute, obviously, the biggest problem we have. In April, you said China was the primary contributor to Russia’s military complex. And the US has strong evidence China’s providing drone and missile technology, satellite imagery, machine tools, and other items that aid Moscow’s defense buildup. Are you still of that frame of mind?

Yes.

In that regard, what plans do you have for this? Help me out here. Where are we headed with this? I think you got it right. What do we do about it?

Two things. First, just to be very clear what we’re talking about, we have not seen China provide actual weapons to Russia for use in Ukraine. North Korea is doing that. Iran is doing that. China is not. What we are seeing is China provide overwhelming support to Russia’s defense industrial base. 70% of the machine tools that Russia’s importing are coming from China, 90% of the microelectronics that Russia’s importing coming from China, and a lot of that goes to building up the defense industrial base. We’ve seen, as a result, Russia churning out tanks, artillery, ammunition at a record pace.

(34:55)
So two things. We have, first of all, identified this and called this out directly with China when I was there a few weeks ago with President Xi, as well as with the Foreign Minister Wang Yi. We’ve called it out publicly. We brought the information to allies and partners and it’s very clear that, particularly for the Europeans who see in Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, a larger threat to their own security, because if it doesn’t stop at Ukraine, it is very much likely to continue elsewhere in Europe. You can’t have China, on the one hand, professing to seek better relations with countries in Europe while on the other hand fueling the greatest security threat to Europe since the end of the Cold War. In my conversations with European leaders as we share this information with them, it’s clear that that’s exactly the way they see it and I’m confident they’re engaging China on that basis. What we’ve done and what we need to continue to do, one, is we’ve already sanctioned more than a hundred Chinese entities that we’ve identified that were engaged in providing dual use products, other things that are on sanctions lists. We will continue to do that and we are working to coordinate our efforts with European and other partners who are also aggrieved… In fact, in many ways even more aggrieved by this practice because it’s direct threat to them.

Well, thank you. When you’re sitting across the table from the Chinese and you call them out on this, what do they say? “Mind your own business”? What’s their position on this?

Oh, their position is that they’re engaged in a perfectly normal legal trade.

Well, and that brings me to something else that we know that they’re lusting over in a perfectly legal manner, and that is they want to be involved in the peace process for Ukraine and we all know why. They’re going to descend like locusts in a plague on Ukraine when this is over with and it’s going to be over with and Ukraine’s going to need a tremendous amount of rebuilding. They want to participate in that. Your thoughts on that?

Well, if that’s their intent, I don’t think they’re doing themselves any favor by helping to feed the Russian war machine, and I don’t think that will be looked kindly upon by Ukrainians. When the day comes when there is peace and a strong sovereign Ukraine is fully engaged in rebuilding from what Russia has done to it.

Have the Europeans expressed to you, as they have to a number of us, their concerns about a Chinese involvement in rebuilding Ukraine?

I have to say that’s not something that, I think, has come up that I recall in discussions, but I’m pretty confident that given the support that China is providing to Russia, it’s not something that will be looked kindly upon by the Ukrainians themselves.

In a few minutes I got left, I want to talk about my REPO Act. We got a lot of pushback on that when it started, but amazingly everyone’s come around, even our friends in Germany who originally said absolutely not are now at least got one foot on board. The Belgians, of course, who have most of the assets really have come up with some innovative ways to do this. What are you hearing on that?

Well, first of all, I applaud you for what you did with that and for the leadership on that. It’s made a big difference. Two things. Just today, the European Union has gone ahead and approved the use of the interest profits from the sovereign assets that are in Europe for Ukraine. Now, it’s a step, but it’s an important step.

And I don’t disagree with that. When I met with them, they talked about the difference between the principal and interest. I guess I’m not a banker, but once an interest is earned, in my judgment, it comes part of the principal. So, I don’t understand if they can use the principal or the interest or they can’t use the principal, but aside from that, their view when I talked to them was they can use the interest for a long, long time. It’s fine. It’s sits there forever, fine. Whatever the solution, I’m all in.

The EU’s done that. But to your point, Senator, I think there are other possibilities that we’re driving toward, including looking at ways to collateralize the principal and to use that as the basis for a loan, for a bond that would generate a lot more resources for Ukraine upfront.

Yep. Very good. My time’s up. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senator Murphy.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here before this committee. Thank you for your continued willingness to be in an open dialogue with the Senate and Senate Foreign Relations Committee on these important matters. Press reports suggest that the United States and Saudi Arabia are close to finalizing the bilateral elements of a regional security deal. The Saudis themselves called the existing draft semifinal. So, I wanted to ask you a couple questions about the status of these talks to the extent that you can tell us.

(40:01)
The first is this. It seems as if the administration has really put their foot on the accelerator to try to get the US-Saudi elements of this agreement wrapped up. But our committee’s understanding has always been that this would be in the context of an agreement that included Israel and critically would include real commitments for a Palestinian state. Unfortunately and regrettably right now, there’s not seem to be the willingness of the room inside the Israeli politic to make those commitments.

(40:38)
My first question is why the rush to get a deal done with Saudi Arabia when we don’t even know the shape of the commitments that Israel may ever be willing to make? And two, why do we have confidence that Saudi Arabia would ever live up to the commitments that it is making. In the national security world, a mutual defense or a security treaty is a sacred trust. This is a country that, four years ago, chopped to pieces an American resident journalist. This is a country that, two years ago, turned its back on us when we asked them to side with us at OPEC+ and instead chose Russia.

(41:24)
I’d ask you to answer those two questions. Why the rush, given that we don’t really understand the potential for the full agreement to come into effect and what gives you confidence that Saudi Arabia will live up to any of the commitments it’s making?

Thank you, Senator. A few things here. First, yes, we have sought to move forward in negotiating the bilateral US Saudi aspects of a normalization agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel. But even if we were to conclude those agreements, and I believe we actually can conclude them relatively quickly given all the work that’s been done, they could not go forward and the overall package could not go forward, absent other things that have to happen for normalization to proceed. In particular, the Saudis have been very clear that would require calm in Gaza and it would require a credible pathway to a Palestinian state. It may well be, as you’ve said, that in this moment Israel is not able or willing to proceed down that pathway.

(42:35)
But to the extent that the agreements are finalized in principle between the United States and Saudi Arabia, that in effect calls the question and Israel will have to decide whether it wants to proceed and take advantage of the opportunity to achieve something that it is sought from its founding, which is normal relations with the countries and its region. And we see the possibilities for the future in that agreement. We saw them starkly, powerfully on April 13th and April 14th when Iran engaged in an unprecedented attack and a direct attack by Iran in Israel. Countries come together, led by the United States, to defend Israel from that attack and defend it very successfully.

(43:21)
There’s an opportunity for Israel to become integrated in the region, to get the fundamental security it needs and wants, to have the relationships that it sought going back to its founding. But in order for that to actually go forward, there has to be an end to Gaza. There has to be a credible pathway to a Palestinian state. So, I think one advantage of completing the work, at least in principle with the Saudis, is that the question then becomes one that’s no longer theoretical or hypothetical, but one that needs to be answered, and we’ll see what the answer is.

(43:56)
Look, these agreements, like any agreements, whether it’s with Saudi Arabia or anyone else, you count on the other party to live up to the agreement. And if they don’t, there are consequences including the agreements being in effect abrogated. So, I think it’s profoundly in Saudi Arabia’s interests to fulfill the commitments that they would make in the context of these agreements. And by the way, none of this will go forward before Congress has its say.

Let me just express worry at the phrase credible pathway to a Palestinian state. A credible pathway to a Palestinian state is very different than a Palestinian state. We have had numerous credible pathways to Palestinian states that neither side has made real upon. This is a unique and perhaps final opportunity to actually cement a Palestinian state, which many of us believe is the necessary predicate to peace in the region and the long-term survival of a Jewish state in the Middle East. But look forward to continued conversations about this really important topic.

(45:08)
Wanted to touch one other subject with you. You’ve got $169 million in this request to counter fentanyl and other synthetic drug production around the world. Thank you for that commitment. Later this week, the Senate is going to vote on a bipartisan border security measure negotiated with Republicans that would dedicate $20 billion to border security, including substantial unprecedented new resources to stop fentanyl from coming into the country. This amount that you’ve requested, the underlying budget, stands on top of the commitments that you secured at the recent summit in San Francisco from the Chinese to do some really important dramatic things to stop the movement of precursor into Mexico and into the United States.

(45:54)
Just in the remaining 30 seconds to a minute, the importance of the achievement at the summit and how that dovetails with the requests that you’re making. You’ve made substantial progress on stopping the flow of fentanyl into the United States. You’re to be commended for that, but this money seems critical.

First of all, I commend the efforts being made here to dedicate these resources to what is arguably the number one challenge we face in terms of public health and in terms of the security of the American people. Number one, killer of Americans age 18 to 49, not heart attacks, not car accidents, not guns… Fentanyl. Synthetic opioid. So this has to be, and it is for us, a number one priority. It requires a lot of work at home. It also requires a lot of work around the world, given the global nature of the threat.

(46:40)
With regard to China, president Biden achieved important agreements with President Xi when they met at the end of last year outside of San Francisco. China moved ahead in publishing new regulations, in cracking down on some of the companies that were engaged in producing and then transferring the precursors, the ingredients that go into making fentanyl, as well as to establishing a working group with us so that we could track this.

(47:07)
Now, when I was just there a few weeks ago, I made the case that while this was a good start and important, more needs to happen in order for it to be truly effective in reducing the flows that are coming to Mexico with the precursors and then synthesized into Fentanyl and coming into the United States, including very public enforcements of the law with prosecutions and convictions, including scheduling some precursors that China has agreed to schedule but has not yet done, to make it their use more restrictive, and also going at the financial networks where we’ve seen connections between some Chinese entities and criminal cartels in our own hemisphere and working from their end to sever those.

(47:53)
So, we’ll be watching to see whether that happens. It’s a start, but a lot more needs to happen.

Thank you, Chair.

Senator Romney.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it’s good to see you and appreciate the extraordinary commitment that you have made over the last years to continue to foster American interests around the world. I’m sure we don’t agree on all the topics, but your devotion to American interests is noteworthy and certainly something that I applaud. I’m going to want to talk about China. China’s a disappointment. For those of us who follow in the Second World War and then followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, we’re hoping that China would align with us in some way and see more modernization and liberalization and democracy.

(48:43)
Unfortunately, it’s taken a different turn. Its ambition is to lead the world, dominate the world militarily, economically, geopolitically. On a piece of paper while we’re here, I just wrote down some of the tactics that I see that they’re employing in their grand strategy in no particular order. Monopolizing key industries, with TikTok being able to gather information about Americans, Confucius Institutes to be able to promote their policies in our campuses, inserting themselves through cyber systems and our critical infrastructure, buying ports around the world so that they can foster their naval commitments or naval ambition, putting in place graduate students in our universities, particularly in STEM subjects, to be able to steal technology, the Thousand Scholars program to do the same, inserting themselves into leadership positions and international organizations, purchasing farmland around our military installations, selling drones, Chinese drones to our police forces, spy cranes in the seaport we heard about more recently, monopolizing key raw materials around the world, stealing technology from our companies, spreading dissension in the US and through the west.

(50:00)
I mean, it’s an extraordinary list and it goes on. That is why the former chairman and I of this committee proposed and actually got signed into law a commitment to put together a group of people, Republican, Democrat, inside government, outside government, to develop a comprehensive strategy to deal with China’s ambition. Part of this legislation said that by last July, the administration would be required to submit to Congress in a classified form and with an unclassified summary the results of this strategic development.

(50:42)
Now, I’ve been offered the chance to review in camera what has been prepared. I’ve tried to schedule that and that has not been responded to by the department, but does the State Department intend to submit to the law as signed by the president to actually put in place and to submit to Congress the strategy in a classified form?

Senator, first of all, I agree wholeheartedly with the short litany of items that you listed in terms of what China’s doing to try to pursue its military, economic, diplomatic preeminence or dominance in the world. And across the board, we have worked in new and effective ways to deal with that, to push back against that, and I just [inaudible 00:51:38] very quickly before coming to your question. Two fundamental things have changed in our approach to China that allows us to approach it from a position of strength.

(51:46)
One, what’s happened here at home, the investments that we’ve made in ourselves with the leadership of Congress, particularly when it comes to infrastructure, when it comes to the CHIPS and Science Act, when it comes to the Inflation Reduction Act. In each of these ways, we put ourselves in a position to make sure that we are leading when it comes to the industries of the future. What I see around the world is people taking note of those investments and wanting to partner with us.

(52:14)
Second, we have aligned in ways that we have not before with key partners in Europe, in Asia, and beyond in the approach to China. And you see that now in convergence of the approach, the tools that we’re using both individually and collectively, whether it’s investment screening mechanisms, whether it’s controls on outbound investment to make sure that it’s not going to help industries in China that could come back and hurt us, export controls that we’re doing in a much more coordinated way, working across the board to deal with some of the economic non-market practices that China engages in that unfairly penalize not only our workers and companies, but workers and companies around the world. I can go on down the list, but we see that convergence in very powerful ways.

(53:04)
Now, on the strategy and advisory board. First, we applaud everything that you’ve done and your leadership on this for many years. We announced the public strategy back in the spring of ’22 and you are very gracious in actually being there when I put that out. But, yes, the NSCI know, and this is what the White House is made available, the classified strategy for foreign camera review. I’m going to make sure if there’s some problem, in scheduling that, that that happens. I’ll also go back to them about what more we can do. I know we’ve provided classified briefings to members and to staff on the approach that’s in the strategy, but let me come back to you on making sure that you can see and other members can see the full strategy in the classified setting.

Well, the law that was passed called not just for a classified setting, which is certainly appropriate, but also to submit to Congress in a public setting what the summary of those strategic moves would be. As I went through that long list of Chinese steps, those are the kinds of things I’m looking for. To say, “Look, our strategy is invest and align and compete,” sounds great. That may be an objective, but the tactical steps of what we’re going to do country by country, industry by industry, port by port, spyware by spyware, et cetera, that’s the kind of detail that really creates a comprehensive strategy that can be effective. I guess I’m concerned that as we go potentially from one administration to the next, whether that’s in one year or in five years, that we have a strategy that lasts.

(54:53)
Following the Second World War, George Kennan and others came together to develop a strategy that was very successful in confronting the Soviet Union. We’re looking to do the same thing here, but we haven’t seen anything of that nature yet. And in the law required that that be submitted to Congress in a public setting but also in a classified setting. I would ask that you honor that commitment made in law and provide that information both to Congress and to those of us that would want to attend a classified setting.

Thank you. And I’ll come back to you on that.

Thank you.

Senator Merkley?

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Mr. Secretary. I applaud your and the President’s efforts to condemn Hamas’s invasion on October 7th, to secure a ceasefire, and to secure the release of hostages. President Biden has also recognized, however, that the campaign carried out by the Netanyahu government in Gaza has included what the President’s called indiscriminate bombing resulted in a massive number of civilian casualties. The NSM-20 report concluded and I quote, “Given Israel’s significant reliance on US-made defense articles, it’s reasonable to assess that Israel has used US-provided weapons and inconsistent with international humanitarian law.” Given this assessment, why did the State Department conclude that Israel’s assurances that it was not using weapons in a manner inconsistent with international law are in fact credible and reliable?

Thank you, Senator. We’ve said two things from day one since October 7th. One, that Israel not only has the right, it has the obligation to defend itself, and to try to make sure that October 7th never happens again. The United States is committed to doing everything we can to support it in those efforts. We’ve also said that the way Israel does it matters, particularly with regard to civilian protection in Gaza and the provision of humanitarian assistance to Gazans who need it. We have been working every single day since then not only to provide Israel with what it needs, but also to do our best to help see that Palestinians get what they need in Gaza. We see the horrific suffering of children, women, and men who’ve been caught in a crossfire from Hamas’s making for eight months now, and we are working every day to try to alleviate that.

(57:27)
When it comes to the NSM and the use of our weapons, here’s what the report said. It said exactly as you quoted, “Given the totality of the damage that’s been done and given the fact that we are a major provider of weapons to Israel, it is reasonable to assess that in some instances Israel has acted in ways that are not consistent with international humanitarian law.” And indeed, we are investigating a number of instances, some of which are alluded to in the report, others that are not, to make those determinations. Israel itself is investigating hundreds of incidents to make its own determinations and indeed there are criminal investigations underway in Israel in this area.

(58:22)
It’s very difficult to make final determinations in the midst of a war when we do not have access on the ground and when you have a almost totally unique battlefield, where an enemy, a terrorist organization, Hamas, is hiding behind and underneath civilians and apartment buildings, in mosques, in schools, and firing at the Israeli forces. We’re determined to make every appropriate determination. We’re determined that there be no double standard. We have processes at the State Department, including our Conventional Arms Transfer policy, including our [inaudible 00:59:00] process that we’re engaged in.

Thank you for the explanation. I know that it’s so complicated that you could go on for a while, but I think you’ve pointed out the challenge and the fact that assessments are ongoing. I do feel it’s important that we approach these questions in NSM-20 with as much integrity as possible. On May 7th, President Biden announced his decision to pause the shipment of the 502,000 bombs, and the following day he drew a red line stating that, quote, “If Israel goes into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities.” And you, Mr. Secretary, reinforced this point when you said, “If Israel launches a major military operation into Rafah, then there are systems we’re not going to be supporting and supplying for that operation. We are already seeing significant action in Rafah. About a million people have fled the city. Is the president going to stand by his red line?

First, the president stands behind the proposition that we will always make sure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself. No one has done more, not only throughout his career, but over the last eight or so months to make sure that that’s the case and that will continue. At the same time, when it comes to Rafah, we’ve been very clear in many conversations with Israeli leadership over the past months about our deep concerns, about a major military operation in Rafah and the impact that that would have on civilians in Gaza. We insisted that if anything is to go forward, we see a clear, credible plan to get civilians out of harm’s way. But not only to get them out of harm’s way, to make sure that they’re provided for when they’re out of harm’s way.

(01:00:53)
Now, you mentioned we’ve seen a very large exodus of people from Rafah, but they are now in places where they don’t have the support that they need and that we believe is critical to provide. We also remain very concerned about any major military operation and the impact it would have on the remaining population, given the dense urban environment in Rafah and what we’ve seen in other places. And so the president’s been clear about this with Israel in public as well as in conversations with others about the fact that we will not support a major military operation.

Thank you. That’s helpful to understand. I wanted to turn to the issue of providing aid in the situation of the challenge of food and water and medical supplies and so forth. The NSM-20 report noted that action and inaction by Israel contributed significantly to a lack, sustained, and predictable delivery of needed assistance at scale and that the level reaching Palestinian civilians remains insufficient. Insufficient is a very polite way, given that we now have what Cindy McCain has described as full-blown famine in the North. We are all very aware of the highly stressed conditions in the south as well.

(01:02:20)
As a result of the restrictions that Israel has had in place, we have been urging them, you all have been urging them, and I applaud that, to open more gates, to have a more systematic inspection process. So far, more trucks per day can get in to make sure that, once the trucks are through the gate, that they can actually get to the warehouses without being attacked or so forth. You’ve also supported air deliveries by ourselves and by other nations. You’ve also built a dock. All these things are in response to the restriction of aid. Thus, I was somewhat puzzled that the report concludes we do not assess that Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport and delivery of US humanitarian assistance, because it seems like all those actions were taken, the urging of Israel to do more, and all the other air delivery and docks and so forth are all response to the restrictions preventing sufficient aid to get in and creating famine conditions affecting a couple million people.

If you could respond briefly.

Yes. First, Senator, there is no doubt that the people of Gaza, children, women, men, are experiencing an acute humanitarian crisis. Food, water, medicine, shelter, all of these things are in severe short supply and we’ve been working every single day as well since October 7th to try to make sure that they could get what they need. We have impressed upon Israel, time and again, the imperative of really bringing a determined focus to this, not making it an afterthought in the conduct of the war against Hamas but an absolute priority.

(01:04:15)
They’ve taken steps over these many months to open access points going back to October to have aid go in, but it has not been sufficient by far to meet the need. We saw much more significant progress over the last month or six weeks, particularly in the wake of a phone call between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu in early April, where we saw more access points opening. We saw land route from Jordan being activated. We saw openings in the north, which was critical, because aid to North Gaza was particularly deficient. That’s improved, but now we’ve seen, unfortunately, the reverse because of the actions in and around Rafah. We see the critical transit points in the south Rafah gate itself as well as Kerem Shalom until recently being stopped or disrupted, so the situation in the south now risks being even more egregious. But the restrictions that have been in place, in some cases, it’s because of concerns about dual use items and making sure that Israel could see and verify what was going in, given the history of dual use. In some instances, it’s because of the war conditions that make it incredibly difficult, but there are also things Israel can, should, and must do to further facilitate the distribution of aid, including much more effective de-confliction with those who are providing it so convoys that are bringing the aid in can go about their work safely and securely… That remains insufficient.

Senator Paul.

Secretary Blinken, on your recent trip to China, news

… news reports came back and said that you reserved your strongest language for China and its dealings with Russia, castigating Beijing for allowing the war to continue in Ukraine. The report went on to describe the exchange as such a blatant dressing down in the Chinese capital. Do you think publicly scolding China will make it more or less likely that they continue selling dual-use parts to Russia?

Senator, we’ve tried it both ways. We’ve had these conversations with China from some time in private, hoping to see a change, we haven’t seen that. And it’s important to call them out.

Really, I would argue that we have only tried it one way. We’ve got stick and almost the majority of people who work for you, everybody wants to use a stick. Nobody’s really considering that there is a carrot, so really for the last, let’s say, five years or more, your administration, the previous administration, not a lot different really, that you put impediments to trade, you add sanctions, and then you scold them. And I mean, there is a school of philosophy or a school of diplomacy that believes that public scolding, particularly in another country, can have the opposite effects, that actually you’ve either completely given up on this, nothing’s working, so why don’t we just read them the riot act. And that’s kind of what it looked like.

(01:07:14)
Yellen was also there recently and she’s described and told the Chinese government how it should run its economy, what sectors of its economy that they should or should not subsidize, and told them as well who they can conduct business with. And then she threatened to impose sanctions, more or less likely to actually get them to do. I mean, I think it’s a misunderstanding of diplomacy in general to think that you going and scolding the Chinese, Yellen going and scolding the Chinese, that somehow they’re going to like go. “Oh my goodness, we’ve been wrong all along. And because they’ve yelled at us and treated us like school children, we’re now going to change.”

(01:07:52)
I would think that the opposite might be true, that there might be a certain amount of child psychology to criticizing people, and that like a rebellious teenager, they actually might end up doing more.

(01:08:01)
In addition to threat of sanctions, in addition to the scolding, we now have the administration talking about more tariffs. So in June of 2019, then presidential candidate Joe Biden tweeted, “Trump doesn’t get the basics. He thinks his tariffs are being paid for by China. Any freshman econ student would tell you that the American people are paying his tariffs.” Remarkably accurate and true at that time, but now he’s become jumping on the Trump train. But the thing about tariffs, regardless of who pays them, American consumers will pay for these, tariffs are not good for the economic well-being of all Americans in general.

(01:08:41)
But the question would become when you add tariffs, you’re going to threaten sanctions, you’re going to scold them, now you’re going to add tariffs. More or less likely that they’ll do what you want? I think less likely everything. We’re doing, everything the previous administration did as well as this administration, is heading towards less tradement, disengagement from China. Part of diplomacy might be offering, “Well, I tell you what, what if you quit selling the dual-use parts to Russia, maybe we could consider removing some sanctions on trade and actually trade more with you.”

(01:09:14)
So the threat of sanctions, the threat of tariffs, actually have some effects if you’re willing to remove them. The history of sanctions is more, more, more. And then, “You’re not doing enough.” And people on the right here will say, “You got to do even more. We’re going to pass legislative sanctions.” Nobody talks about removing them, but that’s the only way you’d get behavior to change. And so I really think that it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what’s going on.

(01:09:38)
The final point I would like to make, and I’ll let you respond to this, is the Ukrainians still claim that victory includes the reclamation of all of its territory. Many NATO allies are beginning to question this. Czech President Peter Pavel, who once served as the chairman of NATO’s Military Committee, recently stated that he believes it’s naive to think that Ukraine will be able to regain the occupied territories from Russia.

(01:10:04)
The commander-in-general of the Ukrainian army, until he was fired by Zelensky, had the same sort of comments. I think that it’s not an unreasonable thing to believe that this war may well end in stalemate with people in place. Some say similar to the way Korea was. Nobody likes it, nobody wanted it, nobody agrees the Russians should be there, but they’re there and they have a bigger army and more might than their neighbor.

(01:10:26)
So if President Pavel is correct in his assessment that Ukraine’s war aims are naive, one of the few negotiating items Ukraine possesses is a promise to remain a neutral country, not aligned militarily. You have repeatedly ruled out Ukraine remaining outside of NATO. If you take this off the table, you’re taking off one of the things that actually is a negotiating item. My question to you is, are there any circumstances under which neutrality of Ukraine would be a negotiating item?

Thank you, Senator. Let me try to respond to both questions. First, if you want to look at hectoring or haranguing, I would invite you to look at the website of the Chinese Foreign Ministry on a daily basis in terms of what they say about us.

(01:11:13)
Second, I’m not going to apologize to anyone for standing up for American workers and American companies, because here’s what we’re dealing with. And by the way, of course you’re right. We always try and as a diplomat I always try, to engage our partners or adversaries, diplomatically, quietly to see if we can get the result. If we don’t, then we have to use every means at our disposal, including calling them out.

And yet, everything you have done is to add more sanctions.

Let me [inaudible 01:11:38] if I may, please, the rest of the question. So on this, what we’ve seen and what we’re seeing now, and this goes to the tariff question, is China very deliberately using overcapacity in critical sectors to export its way out of its current economic troubles and to do that in a way that undercuts, and indeed could gut our own workers and industries.

All of that is true, but my question to you is, is there an offer ever that you would undo things in exchange for behavior-

Of course. Of course, and that goes … Of course.

So you want to argue tariffs are good and sanctions are good. The offer would have to be to say to the government, quietly or otherwise, that we would be willing to go in the opposite direction.

Of course.

I hear no public discussion, not from Congress and not from anyone in the administration-

Senator, the-

… “We would undo this if this.”

Senator, on their own terms. It’s clear that if the conduct that we object to and that risks terrible damage to our workers, to our communities, to our companies, if they change that conduct, of course no more tariffs.

Did you specifically discuss not having tariffs or undoing sanctions in exchange for the Chinese to quit selling dual-use parts to Russia?

Sure. If their companies don’t engage in that practice, we’re not going to sanction them.

I didn’t hear any public statements of that. Did you make private statements to President Xi that you would undo trade sanctions and not put on tariffs in exchange for better behavior towards Russia?

By definition, if they don’t engage in the conduct that we object to, then we’re not going to be using those tariffs or using those sanctions. But unfortunately we-

But this sounds like me drawing this out of you doesn’t sound to me like this is the kind of diplomacy that’s occurring. If you want it to occur, you have to have a little different conception of you’ve got the stick. The whole problem with diplomacy in this country, not just your administration, but the previous, is all you see is the stick, all you see is more sanctions. And if I ask you to tell me what has China done to change its behavior based on your sanctions, to change their behavior for the better, I would say you can’t come up with anything China’s doing. Everything seems to be the wrong direction. That’s your interpretation, everything’s the wrong direction.

We’ve actually seen-

So the sanctions really are not having a value, unless you want to negotiate removing sanctions to get better behavior.

Senator Van Hollen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. And I want to start by applauding you and the president for your overall approach to foreign policy and national security. You’ve helped strengthen our alliances, stood up to Putin’s aggression, and confronted the challenges posed by China. And the President was right, absolutely right to travel to Israel in the immediate aftermath of the horrific Hamas terror attacks of October 7th to express our solidarity in word and in deed.

(01:14:22)
But like you, I’ve been very concerned with the way the Netanyahu government has conducted the war in Gaza. We understand the despicable tactics of Hamas, but we also understand that there’s a responsibility to make sure that a just war is fought justly. And I’ve been especially concerned about the restrictions placed on the delivery of humanitarian assistance to two million Palestinians who have nothing to do with Hamas. It only leads to unnecessary human suffering. And as you and Secretary Austin have pointed out, it also undermines our overall strategic objectives, and those of Israel.

(01:15:05)
And it also means that on top of everything else, Americans have spent over $300 million to build a temporary pier in Gaza to try to prevent more people from starving. That’s the right thing to do, but we had to do it because we couldn’t get the Netanyahu government to get more food and other aid through the many land crossings and get it delivered to people safely, without over 200 aid workers getting killed, including those killed in the attack on the World Central Kitchen.

(01:15:35)
That’s why virtually every international aid organization that has operated worldwide for decades say they’ve never experienced a worse manmade humanitarian disaster than that in Gaza. That’s why the president said at one point, “No excuses.” And yet in the recent National Security Memorandum 20 report, the administration cannot even bring itself to conclude what is painfully obvious to anybody paying attention, that for long periods of time between October 7th and today, the Netanyahu government has failed to comply with the international norms that require it to facilitate and not arbitrarily restrict or deny the delivery of humanitarian assistance to people in desperate need.

(01:16:22)
Mr. Secretary, that hurts our credibility around the world and it sets a dangerously low bar for what’s acceptable going forward. I listened to your exchange with Senator Merkley regarding the use of US weapons. This issue does not require additional investigation, we’ve seen this play out in real time. And while you concluded in a snapshot that Israel had improved and was doing better, the report required a backwards look and the administration decided to duck that. You and I have known each other for a long time. I have tremendous respect for you, but I thought that was important to say.

(01:17:02)
I know you and the president are trying 24/7 to bring an end to this conflict. I know you’re working 24/7 to bring back all the hostages and make sure that there are no more October 7s. But as the president and you and others have pointed out, in order to achieve a durable end to the conflict, we need to build a future that has security and dignity and hope for Israelis and Palestinians alike. That is why the president has tried to create some light at the end of this very dark tunnel by calling for recognition of Israel by Saudi Arabia and others, paired with a clear timeline for the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.

(01:17:50)
I listened to your discussion with Senator Murphy, I’ve lost count, Mr. Secretary, of exactly how many times you’ve actually traveled to Israel and the region. My staff tells me it’s about seven, is that right? So you, the National Security Advisor, Secretary of Defense, two aircraft carrier deployments, billions of dollars in military assistance, hundreds of millions to build a pier, our work, our very important work, to intercept the Iranian missiles launched at Israel.

(01:18:26)
So would you agree that it’s in our national security interests to have a plan in place to achieve a two-state solution within a clearly defined period of time, paired with normalization of relations with countries like Saudi Arabia?

Yes, I would.

And I want to raise this because for a long time the US policy has been in favor of two-state solution. I mean, formally announced during George W. Bush’s administration, so over two decades. And despite the fact that we say those words, we have never addressed our policy, to use our influence to make it happen. You would agree, would you not, that the continued expansion of illegal settlements and outposts in the West Bank makes it harder to achieve a two-state solution.

I would.

And yet if you look at Prime Minister Netanyahu’s extremist government, that as you know includes people like Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, since they came into power and while the war in Gaza has been raging, we’ve witnessed the largest land seizures in the West Bank in decades. In fact, during your visit in March, Finance Minister Smotrich, who also has a West Bank portfolio under the Minister of Defense, announced the single largest West Bank land grab. And the question is, what are we going to do if it conflicts with our national security interests to try to achieve a two-state solution?

(01:19:57)
I applaud the actions taken with respect to individual extremist settlers, but they are just part of a movement largely empowered by this current government. I don’t know if you had a chance, Mr. Secretary, to read the New York Times Magazine this weekend, Israel’s extremist takeover by two veteran journalists, including an Israeli investigative reporter. I urge you to look at it.

(01:20:20)
So my question is, if we agree about our national security interests, what are we going to do to make sure that we achieve the goal? Not only of normalization, I’ve heard the conversation, but that as you said, has to be paired with a Palestinian state and timeline. What is the plan to get there with a timeline that is meaningful?

Well, thank you, Senator. And look, I agree with the assessment. And it’s not only in our national security interests, which is my responsibility, it’s also, in our judgment, as Israel’s closest friend, in Israel’s profound interest. Because there really is a choice, and it’s very hard to see it in the midst of this conflict and certainly in the wake of October 7th. But the choice that’s increasingly clear is a choice between a path that leads to Israel normalizing its relations with virtually all of its neighbors, something it’s sought from its founding, to have countries that actually have its back when it comes to security and the primary threat that it faces and many of us face, which is from Iran. And to be, again, genuinely integrated into the region, versus a continuation of the course that we’re on and it’s on, which is endless cycles of violence, destruction, death, and insecurity.

(01:21:51)
But to move down that first path it requires not only the willingness of the countries in question to normalize relations, but it also requires that there be finally a resolution to the Palestinian question, the realization of a state. That is clearly what these countries need to see and want to see in order for this to happen. And that’s one of the things that we’ve been working on.

(01:22:17)
The bottom line is this, you’ve got five million Palestinians between the West Bank and Gaza. You’ve got about seven million Israeli Jews. Neither is going anywhere. The Palestinians are not going anywhere, the Jews are not going anywhere. There has to be an accommodation, and there has to be an accommodation that respects and fulfills the rights of everyone concerned. Has to be done in a way that has the necessary guarantees for Israel’s security, and we are and will be adamant about that.

Senator Ricketts.

That’s the only path forward to sustainable security.

Senator Ricketts.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. Last Sunday, the British Foreign Secretary Lord David Cameron was asked if the UK would follow President Biden’s lead on withholding weapons to Israel. He responded that when he last came under pressure to announce an arms embargo, quote, “A few days later there was a massive Iranian attack on Israel, so I don’t think it would’ve been a wise path.” He continued, “If I announce today, it might help me get through this television interview, but actually it would strengthen Hamas. It would weaken Israel. I think it probably makes a hostage deal less likely.” End quote.

(01:23:31)
Hamas hasn’t released a hostage since the end of November and shockingly this administration, starting in December, has been ratcheting up the pressure against Israel. Now according to Arab mediators dealing with Hamas, Hamas Gaza Chief Yahya Sinwar believes that he’s already won the war, whether or not he survives it. He’s indicated to mediators that time is on his side and that the longer he waits, the more international pressure builds on Israel and the more damage is done to the relationship between the United States and Israel.

(01:24:06)
Secretary Blinken, please explain why a bunch of 20-somethings on liberal college campuses are right, and the administration thinks they’re right by pursuing this policy. And Lord Cameron, who is the foreign minister of one of our closest allies, is wrong when he says that blocking weapons to Israel would strengthen Hamas’s hand.

Thank you, Senator. Let me be clear about two things. First, no one has, no one will do more to defend Israel than President Biden. He was there days after October 7th. We deployed significant assets to the region to make sure that we could deter any further aggression and a widening of the war against Israel.

(01:24:44)
When Iran unleashed an unprecedented attack on Israel, the first attack, as you know, from Iran directly onto Israel, for the first time the United States actively participated in Israel’s defense. We brought together a coalition of countries to do the same thing. And what could have been a devastating attack by Iran was thwarted and thwarted very effectively. In terms of what we provided to Israel, again, no one has done more than Joe Biden, going back to when he was vice president, including getting the MOU that led to a 10-year agreement to provide Israel with the assistance that it needs to defend itself.

(01:25:16)
We have one weapon system that we have been holding back, pending discussions with Israel about how and where it would be used, because of the concerns that we’ve clearly expressed over many months about the possibility of a full-on military assault on Rafah, a dense urban environment, where using something like a 2,000-pound bomb could have terrible consequences for the civilians. This is something that needed to be discussed. It’s deeply unfortunate that that discussion leaked to the press when it was a private discussion between us and Israel. It did, and when the president was asked about it, he responded forthrightly.

(01:25:55)
But there’s no final decision and it remains subject to discussion. But when it comes to making sure that Israel has everything it needs to defend itself, no one has, no one will do more than President Biden.

So you agree with Lord Cameron’s assessment though that you’re strengthening Hamas’s hand by having this leak get out?

No. Again, leaks are an unfortunate part of the business that we’re all engaged in. It’s really regrettable, but it happens. But something that’s not a leak is the fact that we’ve been both public and proud about the fact that we have deep concerns about a major military operation in Rafah. And by the way, we’ve been working closely with the Israelis on other ways to achieve what we agree needs to be the result-

How is putting more pressure-

… which is ending Hama’s government over Gaza.

How is putting more pressure on Israel helping? How is that helping them win this conflict against what you described yourself as a terrorist organization and an enemy?

Not a question of putting pressure on them, it’s a question … When your close friend is going down a path that you think may be counter to its interests and potentially our own as well, then of course we have conversations with them. That’s what we’re supposed to do. That’s the nature of the relationship. We have a better way of dealing with the ongoing problem that Hamas represents in Gaza and in Rafah specifically.

So what kind of pressure are you putting on Hamas?

Oh, what kind of pressure are we putting on Hamas?

When’s the last time you called for Hamas to surrender?

Virtually every day.

Virtually every day you called-

Yeah, virtually every day. I have said, Senator, that the single quickest way to end this is for Hamas to surrender, to give up its weapons, to release the hostages, to stop hiding behind civilians. I’ve said that from day one and I continue to say it.

(01:27:36)
And I agree with you, one of the things that’s deeply regrettable is, not by us, but just across the board, the extent to which Hamas has disappeared from the conversation, as if they have nothing to do with anything when they could. And I think you’re 100% right, they could end this tomorrow by yes, giving up surrendering. We’ve called for that repeatedly. I wish more countries around the world were doing that.

Well, I agree with you 100% on what you just said there because you’re absolutely right. This all ends tomorrow if Hamas surrenders and then the civilians would be able to get the aid, there wouldn’t be any war there. I mean, Hamas is using the civilians as human shields. You told yourself about how they’re hiding in hospitals and schools and stuff to fight the Israelis.

(01:28:18)
Hamas is the problem here. Hamas is the one who started this on October 7th when they broke the ceasefire and committed the atrocities. They have to be rooted out. They have to be destroyed. We have to have Israel be successful. What do you think of Sinwar’s words when he said that he’s already won by this delay? I mean-

First of all, I haven’t seen those words. Second, I would take with more than a grain of salt anything that Mr. Sinwar says about anything. The fact of the matter is, he is under and Hamas is under unrelenting pressure. When you are a nihilist, as Sinwar is, it’s not entirely clear what effectively will move you. If he believes that there is victory in death, that’s a different thing, we can’t necessarily deal with that in the same terms.

Right. Well, here’s the deal. We need to make sure Israel is successful. Hamas started this war, wars are horrible. This is why you don’t start them. But now that it’s started, Israel has to be successful. During World War II we had to go into urban areas to be able to root out the Nazis. Israel must be allowed to be able to root out Hamas. Shortly after October 7th, Hamas said they would continue to commit these atrocities, continue to attack Israel. They cannot be allowed to survive. That’s why we needed to continue to support Israel.

(01:29:48)
And my concern here is that when you start putting conditions on our allies on how they have to win these conflicts, such as you’re also doing in Ukraine with saying, “Hey, you can’t go after long-range Russian stuff,” blah, blah, blah, when we start doing that, our allies around the world wonder if these so-called ironclad commitments are going to be ironclad in the future. We’ve got to support our allies to win. And when we send mixed messages, then our allies start questioning our commitment and that leads to a more dangerous world, Mr. Secretary.

(01:30:17)
So we’ve got to continue to support Israel. Please make sure you are doing that, and stop strengthening Hamas’s hand by somehow signaling that somehow we are showing any weakness. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, or Mr. [inaudible 01:30:30].

Thank you, Senator Ricketts. Secretary Blinken, thanks for your superb service and for being here today. I have three quick items, then I want to get back to. Israel-Gaza on the humanitarian dimension.

(01:30:41)
First, I really believe that Congress should lift its hold on the support to the multinational security force in Haiti, and I worry that the refusal to do that is really complicating our maybe small ability to push this in the right direction. If Congress does not release the hold on appropriated funds to fund this security force, what’s going to happen?

Well, if we don’t have those funds available, then it’s going to be very hard to move forward with the security force. And look, again, I understand and respect those who express concerns about the success given the history, but I think we have a very clearly defined and achievable mission for the security force, which is to bolster the police and put them in a position where they can reassert effective control.

It was hard work for you guys to get Kenya to agree to lead this. If we don’t come through on our financial commitment, isn’t it pretty likely that they’ll back out?

Well, they certainly will. And of course the Kenyan president-

And then who would take up the mantle if the US is not providing the support?

No, I think that’s exactly right. The Kenyan president will be in Washington this week for a state visit. It would be good if we could fully deliver on our commitment.

(01:31:50)
But second, I’d just say too, here’s an instance where I know some people have concerns about the United States being the quote, unquote, “policemen” of the world. Well, here’s a situation where Kenya and a number of other countries have stepped up and are willing to take this on, but they need support, and that’s the support we should provide.

Absolutely. Let me ask you a second one. This is very parochial. The State Department requested medical providers in Northern Virginia to snap together to provide medical services to Afghans coming into Dulles Airport. When Afghans came in the summer of 2021, they largely came in to Dulles. Three of the eight resettlement sites were in Virginia and we now have more Afghans than any other state from that initial wave. And we’re proud of it, our Afghans are doing great work. I’ve met some training to be shipbuilders. They worked with us in Kabul and now they’re training to be shipbuilders and help our industrial base.

(01:32:39)
But the healthcare providers that responded to the State Department haven’t been paid. They did all this medical service. It was about $630,000. It’s not that big an amount. We’ve been asking over and over and over again that they be paid. We sent a letter to the State Department that was by [inaudible 01:32:53] in January, haven’t gotten a response back. Will you work with me to make sure that these folks who jumped to attention when the State Department asked are treated fairly so that if you ask, they may do it again.

Yeah. Happy to work with you on this. We have looked into this and we have some further information that we can share with you, but the initial bottom line is that we had our procurement executive investigate this. We learned that the company in question acted apparently on its own, maybe had a very good motivation, but without any contractual agreement with the Department of State or with the Cherokee Nation in this case. So we need to-

Well, I want to follow up because the ones that I’m talking about are folks who are directly requested by the State Department.

Okay, I’m happy to follow up with you on that.

And then third, this is really for Senator Hagerty and me. We have a company, Vulcan, that’s a US-based firm that’s got presence in Virginia, Tennessee, and other US states. They own a port and land in Mexico. AMLO has tried to appropriate that land twice, even with police and military invasions of the property. I’d rather not get into that now, but I would love your commitment to work with me to make clear to the Mexican government that appropriating the private property of American companies would be very bad for this important relationship that we have with Mexico.

Yeah, I believe that’s subject to a proceeding and arbitration right now, but we certainly made the generic point to the government of Mexico, including to the president, that yes, seizure of private companies is not a good way to attract investment.

On Israel-Gaza, I think my colleagues, Senator Merkley and Senator Van Hollen, have dug into this, but I want to particularly focus on what I call pillar two of NSM-20, which is a certification that a nation receiving US military assistance is cooperating with US-supported humanitarian efforts. I think that pillar one, making a determination about whether Israel is or is not using these weapons in accord with international, is more complex.

(01:34:49)
But on the humanitarian side, look, World Central Kitchen aid workers killed, other UN aid workers killed, settlers attacking humanitarian aid convoys on the West Bank, throwing stuff off the truck, setting the aid on fire, setting the trucks on fire. The US having to spend hundreds of million dollars to build a pier in Gaza. Virginians from Fort Eustis are building that pier and deployed to do it. All of that to me says none of that would be happening if Israel was fully cooperating. It took too long to open Kerem Shalom, it took way too long to open Erez.

(01:35:25)
I think, my editorial opinion, you’ve already answered questions about this, certifying that on that record the humanitarian efforts of Israel to help Gazans who are non-combatants, who aren’t part of Hamas, is sufficient. I think that’s grading on a curve that if that’s sufficient, then anything’s sufficient. I don’t think it’s anywhere near sufficient. I don’t think it’s in the time zone of sufficient. I agree it’s more than was started.

(01:35:53)
I mean, at the beginning, members of the Israeli cabinet said it was going to be a complete siege against Gaza. I know that President Biden was able to get an agreement finally to open up the Erez crossing, but I think calling this state of affairs sufficient cooperation with US humanitarian effort, I just think that demeans the credibility of the administration. And I think you should have said, “You’re not getting a passing grade on this,” and then laid out what more needs to be done. The number of trucks going in. When Cindy McCain, the widow of a former member of this committee, talks about the famine that’s resulting, I mean, I just don’t see how the US can say that’s enough.

(01:36:35)
I mean, I credit my colleagues who are saying, “Let Israel defeat Hamas. Let Israel with our help knock down Iranian drones and missiles.” I’m all for that. But the punishment of non-combatant civilians, the killing of aid workers, the ransacking of humanitarian aid convoys with the idea of … for doing very little to stop it, how can that be sufficient?

Well, we have, as you know, Senator, from day one been working on this every single day. And that includes going back to October, getting the initial crossings open, including in October Rafah, then later Kerem Shalom.

In December, two months later.

In December, yes, so this is-

And Erez in March or April.

Erez, Crossing 96, the Jordanian route, et cetera. At the time of the report, the NSM … Which by the way, I applaud as, I think, an effective and helpful vehicle in terms of concentrating minds and focusing minds on this.

(01:37:38)
I think we’ve seen that the assurances that we received, that we received in March, the question was from the time we received those assurances to the time that the report was issued, did we judge them to be credible and reliable when it came to humanitarian assistance? And we saw during that period Israel take, overdue, but important steps to actually expand significantly the provision of humanitarian assistance. Now, the last week or two-

And on that statement, I don’t disagree. They took steps between March and May, but I think the steps were still woefully inadequate.

[inaudible 01:38:11]. And I think the report itself, if you read the report, as I know you did carefully, I think the report lays that out very clearly.

Well, I’m going to call on Senator Scott because he’s next, but I just think on the factual record, improvement since March, yes. I still think it falls so far below the hurdle that I don’t think that warranted a passing grade.

(01:38:29)
With that, I’m going to go to Senator Scott.

Thank you. Thank you for being with us this morning. I’ll take a very different tack than Senator Kaine on our support of our allies. I mean, one of the challenges I see around the world right now is that it seems like the world is on fire. In part because of the weakness of our administration, the Biden administration.

(01:38:52)
You think about the fact that China stares across the Taiwan Straits, or Kremlin sets its sights further

West or Iran comes out of the shadows and starts attacking our strongest ally in the Middle East, Israel. You think about the fact that in the Sahel terrorism seems to be spreading faster than ever before, and to me it just seems very clear that without question, the weakness of this administration emboldens our adversaries. And frankly, if there should be no daylight between Israel and America, it seems like there is a lot of daylight, the more decisions that are made from the administration to withhold shipments of weapons, the more challenges that we have. And frankly, if we’re concerned about saving innocent lives, seems like to me, we would provide the resources that make dumb bombs smart by having the precision technology that has been held up on tarmacs and frankly in shipping the weapons. So, I’d like to hear your thoughts on how it is in Israel’s best interest in our relationship with Israel and that best interest that we hold back, not just the shipments of the weapons, but the very precision technology that’s necessary to turn these bombs into clearly better weapons and reduces casualties.

Well, Senator, first and very quickly, it won’t surprise you that I disagree with your overall judgment.

I know, it doesn’t surprise me at all. You’re right.

When it comes to China and Taiwan, we’ve brought countries around the world together to stand up for maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, to make sure that China does not engage in any unilateral actions that change the status quo. And China’s hearing that from country after country in no small measure because of our own engagement, our own diplomacy. When it comes to Russia and Ukraine, we rallied-

Let’s have a little, just a dialogue on that. Here’s one of the things I’d say in response to that. It’s when you show weakness anywhere, it affects strength everywhere. When you have a botched Afghanistan challenge, when the president says that a small incursion in Ukraine might be acceptable when he says to Putin that, here’s a list of areas not to cyber attack. The weakness in posture, I think, emboldens our adversaries. And so while you may be able to name some specific things that have been done, hopefully to reduce the impact, from my perspective, most of the world really respects strength and that’s about all they respect.

They respect strength and they respect wisdom. And what I’m seeing and hearing around the world is that we’re demonstrating both. We’ve made major investments in ourselves that have put us in very good standing around the world, particularly in the competition with China, as well as with Russia in different ways. We’ve managed to rally 50 countries in Ukraine’s defense, prevented Russia from erasing Ukraine from the map, making sure that it has what it needs to defend itself, to stand up, and even push back the Russian aggression. When it comes to Iran, as you mentioned as well, and I mentioned this, I think, maybe Senator, before you were in the room, when Iran engaged in an unprecedented attack on Israel, the first time that Iran had directly attacked Israel, for the very first time the United States actively participated with our military in the defense of Israel. That had never happened before. We rallied other countries to Israel’s defense, we thwarted what could have been a devastating attack and I think the message was very clearly received in Iran, throughout the region, and around the world.

Let me ask you this question.

Please.

Part of the challenge that I see there is there’s no doubt that the coalition that was available for the response, it was a strong one. I think part of that was because of the Abraham Accords. Normalizing relationships in the Middle East was actually impactful. So I thought to myself, “This is strong to see the countries coming together in a coalition in defense.” However, part of the challenge, of course, is that on October the 7th, the first thoughts that come out of the administration before they deleted it, was to tell Israel to pause, is a challenge. The second thing is that you don’t have to have a coalition defending Israel if there are no attacks from Iran. And so the fact of the matter is, the more we strengthen and embolden Iran by eliminating any of the hurdles, hurdles being the sanctions, being allowing their oil to flow easier, the November decision to provide $10 billion, the August decision to provide $6 billion, the fact of the matter is that the 35% of the Iranian economy is driven by sale of energy.

(01:43:51)
So the fact is that when we open that up, we’re actually strengthening our adversary, not making them weaker.

In fact, Senator, not a single sanction has been lifted on Iran and in fact, we’ve imposed sanctions on-

Relaxing the sanctions are-

… more than 500 Iranian-

… basically same thing.

… individuals and entities. No, we haven’t lifted a single sanction.

Well, I would say talk to Secretary Yellen about the conversation that we’ve had and that continues to be had, but the fact that we’re making it easier for Iran to sell their oil, which only increases their revenue, which then is used, 90% of it, to attack our allies.

Well, in the case of the $6 billion that you referenced-

Yes.

… Iran has not accessed any of that. That was a channel that was established by the previous administration to find a secure way to-

You are a really intelligent guy.

[inaudible 01:44:35]-

You’re really intelligent guy. The fact of the matter is that we all know that money is fungible. Let’s not pretend that we don’t know that. So you put a credit on a balance sheet, the bottom line is you should expect that credit to be used in any form or fashion that they decide to do so. So, do you think our not having the IAEA Board of Governors censure Iran was a good thing or not?

It depends entirely on what we’re trying to achieve and the best way to achieve it, more than unfortunately, one of the worst decisions made was to get out of the Iran nuclear agreement, which had put Iran’s nuclear program in a box. Now we’re dealing with a situation where the restraints that were imposed on Iran by that agreement, gone away. And Iran has been proceeding whole hog toward developing the fissile material that it needs to produce nuclear weapons on very short order. We had breakout time pushed back beyond a year, breakout time is now two to three weeks. So, one of the critical things is, and we’ve lost access that we’ve had, one of the critical things is to make sure that the IAEA has-

The chairman would-

… the access it needs.

… allow response.

Absolutely.

Thank you very much.

And whether, and what the most effective way at the IAEA is to get the access it has, and also to ensure that Iran is moving back on the steps that it’s taken to enrich its material.

I’ll just say this, that anyone who thinks that having a nuclear Iran is going to make them more peace filled, is ridiculous, number one. Number two, to suggest that somehow the JCPOA was the contract that stopped Iran from doing anything, in the midst of the JCPOA, they were already testing ballistic missiles. They had breached the JCPOA so many times that it was remarkable that we would even have a conversation-

But if you don’t have-

… about bringing that back into conversation.

[inaudible 01:46:34]. Materially, and making-

For us to have a conversation about the JCPOA and how bad it was, sure. To have a conversation about this effectiveness-

Let’s look-

… I think is remarkable.

Let’s look where we were and where we are as a result of getting out of the JCPOA.

Senator?

Here’s the [inaudible 01:46:47]-

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

… you’re not there.

I appreciate the chance. Mr. Secretary, welcome. I look forward to our hearing later today on the budget for the State Department. And I just was going to speak to one thing first before I move to some substantive questions. It’s been posited that the world’s on fire because of weakness, and I’m simply going to assert that the greatest strength that you and our president have shown is in building our alliances in the Indo-Pacific, the Quad, AUKUS, a strengthened and renewed partnership between Japan, Korea, and the United States. Really remarkable successes in stabilizing and strengthening the Indo-Pacific through alliances. In the response to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, an incredible global alliance of 50 different countries coming to Ukraine’s defense, providing financing, imposing and enforcing sanctions. Really remarkable. And in the defense of Israel against 300 missiles and drones fired by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UK, France, would not have joined us in the defense of Israel, but for President Biden’s leadership.

(01:47:49)
So I’m just simply going to assert that. Can I ask you whether it in any way weakens us to have country after country, year after year have no ambassador confirmed by the Senate? Is it important that we confirm nominees to serve as ambassadors?

Thank you, Senator. It does hurt us and it is imperative that we get ambassadors confirmed, and here’s why. We’re in, as we’ve talked about already today, in a global competition, notably with China. When we don’t have an ambassador in place, a Senate-confirmed ambassador, but Chinese have a fully accredited ambassador in place in any given country, their ambassador may get in to see the president and the prime minister on a given issue. Ours, no matter how good our charge may be, may not. And that puts us right there just in that one example at a competitive disadvantage.

As you know well, economic competition with China and with other actors is a key priority for this administration and for many of us. I recently had a chance to go to Angola and to see the impact of the Lobito Corridor. I’ll soon be traveling to the Philippines and get a chance to see the Luzon Corridor. How important is it that we utilize new tools like the Development Finance Corporation, and leverage multilateral resources to give our partners the opportunity to have more transparent, more sustainable, higher quality investment opportunities for key infrastructure?

Look, it’s vital that we provide a better choice. And we do that by doing a few things, using all the tools of government to be able to leverage private sector investment because our comparative advantage is bringing the private sector to these projects. We’re never going to out-compete China or anyone else on state dollars, dollar to dollar. That’s not how we do things. But, we can use these instruments to facilitate the private sector playing the role. And yes, it’s to marshal the resources of other countries in a coordinated way so that together, we can have a greater impact and have a better offer.

Exactly.

And we do it in a way that becomes a race to the top, whether it’s dealing with corruption, environmental standards, worker rights, making sure countries don’t get loaded down with debt, all of those things are part of the offer that we bring to this. And I know that when we’re able to make that offer, there’s no question the countries around the world prefer to work with us.

This week, President Ruto of Kenya is here for an important state visit. He’ll have a chance to meet with some congressional leaders, to obviously meet with our president. You are hosting him at the State Department. The US Chamber of Commerce is having, I think, a very positive meeting with the Secretary of Commerce. We have a very talented ambassador there who comes out of the private sector and has applied a lot of her insights and talents. This is just another reminder that we need to show up. We need to have confirmed ambassadors. We need to have robust and innovative financing tools. Kenya has really suffered through massive floods, record drought, and locusts. And one of the things I’m concerned about is food security and how food insecurity leads to instability, because hungry people move and hungry people engage in conflict and hungry people more than anything suffer.

(01:51:04)
And as Cindy McCain at the World Food Program and others have recently said publicly, 330 million people globally are food insecure, and something like 800 million people will go to bed tonight. Senator Graham and I have introduced a bill to create the foundation for food security that would use blended finance tools, risk insurance, first loss guarantees to help catalyze programs that many of us work together for many years, like Feed the Future, to have more of a transformational impact on national agricultural systems. Do you think this is a wise and appropriate investment?

I do, and obviously I need to look more at the specifics of the bill, but the basic idea, the basic approach I think is a very good one because it’s exactly as you’ve just said, it’s having that transformational impact. Look, we’re the lead provider of emergency food assistance to people around the world. We’re overwhelmingly the number one funder of the World Food Program, we provide about one third of its budget. I hear tremendous gratitude around the world for the work the United States does on an emergency basis. But, what I hear even more than that is a desire for the investments to be made that have a transformational impact so that countries have the productive capacity to effectively feed themselves and feed others. And so I think doing that, bringing public-private together in a focused way, can make a big difference. I’ll add one very quick thing.

(01:52:26)
Feed the Future that USAID runs is one of the most important programs that we have in the governments, making a difference in lives around the world. We’ve added to it something called the Vision for Adopted Crops and Soil, because one thing that we’ve understood, if you have nutritious and resilient seeds that can resist the ravages of climate change, extreme weather, et cetera, and we have them, we know what they are, we know how to make them, and you have the abilities we now do to actually monitor the quality of soil anywhere and to remediate where it’s necessary, you put those two things together and that’s the foundation for sustainable productive capacity. So, part of our budget is to make sure that that program, starting in Africa, but now also in our own hemisphere, including in Guatemala, is appropriately resourced.

I look forward to talking with you further this afternoon about how we could sustain Cary Fowler’s work and how we can continue to fund innovation and sustain the work of our diplomats and development professionals around the world. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Thank you. Senator Barrasso?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, welcome. Yesterday the State Department issued a statement mourning the death of the Iranian President. Now, I assume as Secretary, you share that sentiment?

We expressed official condolences as we’ve done when countries’ adversaries, enemies or not, have lost leaders, it changes nothing about the fact that Mr. Raisi was engaged in reprehensible conduct, including repressing his own people for many years as a judge, and then as president. It changes not a whit about our policy, but it’s something that we’ve done many times in the past, going back many administrations in many decades, and we do as a normal course of business.

Well, I don’t think it should be a normal course of business. I think it’s shocking that this administration would mourn the death of the butcher of Tehran. I don’t. He’s responsible for death, rape, torture, the sworn enemy of the free world. I think it’s terrible mistake, Mr. Secretary. I want to move on to another issue in terms of some of the evacuations and retreats that are happening around the world. Since the deadly withdrawal from Afghanistan in August of 2021, the administration has urgently evacuated Americans at several embassies across the globe. I hadn’t expected to hear about this in Wyoming, but I heard about it again in Wyoming just this past weekend, whether it’s in Burma, Belarus, Sudan, Haiti, there seems to be a dangerous growing trend of the US in retreat.

(01:54:54)
United States has been forced to draw down, evacuate, and close numerous diplomatic posts. It used to be rare to see images of US troops flying to the rescue to evacuate our embassies, but it’s becoming a more common site under this administration. In 2023, US troops and three helicopters airlifted 70 American employees from Sudan. 2024, in Haiti, US military airlifted over 30 stranded Americans. It appears the administration has become the administration of evacuations. During your leadership as Secretary of State, how many embassies have we had to close or evacuate?

Senator, we are operating and living in a very dangerous world. We have Americans all over the world. We have embassies all over the world. It’s important that wherever we can, we be represented and our diplomacy is able to move forward. As has been the case many times in the past, whether it was in Venezuela in 2019, whether it was in Yemen in 2015, in Libya in 2014, in Syria in 2012, in Libya again in 2011, in Lebanon in 2006, I could go down the list. Sometimes you run into crises where either an embassy has to shut down for some period of time, or you have Americans who are in harm’s way. And in the past, we have as a country not often engaged in the evacuation of Americans, but we see it as our responsibility when Americans are in harm’s way to try to do that. In the instances that you’ve cited, that’s exactly what we did.

(01:56:25)
You have a crisis. You have some kind of situation that runs the risk of putting at harm, either our own embassy employees or Americans who may be there. We’re going to make sure that job number one is protecting our people.

Do you see a unifying underlying factor for this terrible trend? And then how are you addressing that?

I don’t. I think each of these situations is distinct, and what I do see is a country that over the last three years has renewed its alliances, has revitalized its alliances, has created new ones, so that whether it’s with our core allies in Europe, in Asia, or beyond, we don’t have to face these situations alone. And I see American leadership that has brought these alliances and partnerships together in ways that were not the case in recent history. And that is a great source of strength for us as we have to deal with a very challenging world.

So the administration’s following the withdrawal from Afghanistan left behind weapons, ammunition, and equipment that ultimately armed the Taliban. Now, we’ve announced a withdrawal from Niger, State Department efforts to reestablish relations and engage in diplomacy there have failed. The government there is demanding that we leave. Our nation is withdrawing a thousand troops from two air bases where we conducted important counterterrorism missions for decades. Media reports already indicate that Russian troops have already been deployed to these air bases where American soldiers are located. Do you know how much American taxpayer money has the United States spent on building these bases and training the military there?

We’ve seen, as you know, Senator, in the case of Niger, a coup that took place. We sought to find a mutually acceptable way to keep our forces there so that they could pursue the counterterrorism mission that they were engaged in. We couldn’t reach such an agreement with the current government in Niger. And so we are pursuant to conversations with them pulling back the forces. If they’re not wanted there, then they won’t be there. We will make, as we have, other arrangements in other places to make sure that we can conduct the necessary missions to ensure our security.

Do you not see risk though, the American taxpayer-funded bases ultimately ending up in the hands of the Russians and now we’re seeing the Russia’s Wagner mercenary group providing military training and support, Burkina Faso, Mali, in addition to where you mentioned, how are we countering Russia’s newly created foothold in Africa?

Well, there’s two things. One, of course is the military element to this, and of course, I defer to the Pentagon on the specifics of that, including what they pull out as any forces leave. But second, I think we know that unless you have a comprehensive approach that works to try to shore up these countries economically, democratically, socially, the military piece is necessary, but it’s insufficient. And we have, thanks to the work of Congress, in countries adjacent to the Sahel, the Global Fragility Act, which gives us ten-year plans to help countries get on their feet in a sustainable way. And that creates partnerships that allow us to sustain as necessary a military presence.

(01:59:44)
But, you have very fragile countries in the Sahel, and yes, there’ve been a series of non-democratic transitions or coups in these countries, and that’s simply a fact of life. Now, I believe that we can bring much more to the table than the Russians can, for example. And when countries experience what the Russians bring to the table in terms of the exploitation of their resources, the brutalization of their people, actually more violence and more extremism and more terrorism, they tend to change their minds and have a different perspective on this. It’s unfortunate that some countries have to find out the hard way that is not the recipe to their security or their success.

Well, thank you. I would add that once they find out the hard way, it may be very difficult for them to extract themselves from the domination of the Russians and come back to us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Booker?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being with us today. I’ve appreciated your commentary on everything from the situation in Gaza to the situation in Haiti. I want to pick up where Senator Barrasso did on issues regarding Africa. I’ve been traveling across the continent and the thing that always affects me is the enormity of the potential, and I know we’re dealing with the crises of today. The truth of the matter is by 2050, as you know, one out of every four human beings on the planet will be on the African continent. One out of every three working age humans will be on the African continent. It is a continent with vast resources, vast human potential, and it is, in many ways, the investments we make today will help to deal with a lot of the challenges when it comes to democracy.

(02:01:31)
And unfortunately, global competition with countries like China and Russia who do not share the world order’s rules clearly. And I was appreciating what you said to the Senator about what it is, how we’re trying to deal with the democratic threats. Obviously, the backsliding in Burkina Faso, in Niger, in Mali, all in the Sahel region has me very, very concerned and seeing the challenges that are now in Togo, Benin, Ghana in the north of those countries, including Nigeria, it’s very sobering to me when it comes to the challenges of democracy. I was very affirmed by your fiscal year 2025 budget request that includes $411 million for democracy rights and governance programs in Africa. It’s a sizable increase from the $284 million allocated in fiscal year 2023. Could you just talk to a little bit to how the administration is adjusting regional assistance programs and priorities in response to the Democratic backsliding that I’ve discussed and clearly others?

Thank you very much. And look exactly as you’ve said, Senator, and as I know you’ve been deeply engaged on, we see the extraordinary positive potential in Africa, not just the challenges of the moment. And for us, when we have a continent that’s going to have one out of every four people on Earth on that continent, when we see the fastest growing populations on earth, before COVID actually, the fastest growing economies, as you know, we want to make sure that we are supporting that positive illusion, and particularly making sure that young people with growing populations have positive outlets and positive opportunities. But you’re right, we also see this democratic backsliding, particularly in the Sahel, and that’s where we’ve had these recent coups. So we have to be, and our budget reflects this, committed to longer-term stability, opportunity, human development, making the investments in health and education, in economic empowerment, in democratic governance in these countries.

(02:03:43)
We’re working to do that. Obviously, in the countries that have been on the receiving end of coups, there’s some limits that we have to abide by when it comes to the assistance we can continue to ride, but we’re trying to make sure that when it comes to what’s vital, we’re providing it. But then on democracy more broadly, we just came from our third summit for democracy that Korea hosted, and this was not exclusive to Africa, but I think there’s a very positive affirmative agenda for the kinds of things that we can do and are doing to try to shore up democratic governance, to try to shore up the institutions, to try to combat corruption, which SAPs at-

Absolutely, and I’m encouraged by that, the focus on corruption. A lot of people are focusing just on elections. It seems that the administration’s making such a significant investment in anti-corruption efforts, as well as other things that make for a vibrant democracy. And I’m grateful for that. I just want to obviously, as you can imagine, talk about Sudan. It was perhaps one of the most… The enormity of what I saw when I was at the Chad-Sudan border is like nothing I’ve seen before. And I’ve traveled to refugee camps from the Syrian-Jordanian border, to even the camps at the border in Mexico right now. But I’ve just never seen a scale of human suffering like that. I’m grateful for Tom Perriello and the president’s appointment of a special envoy, but as a department providing that special envoy, the kind of budget they need or the authority over any Sudan program funds to support his work.

The short answer is I believe we are. And Tom Perriello has done an extraordinary job getting out of the gate fast and moving to do what we can to tackle this crisis. I agree with you. I think unfortunately, it’s something that’s not gotten the visibility that it deserves, given the amount of suffering that’s going on. You’ve got eight and a half million displaced people. You have 18 million people in desperate need of food aid, and of course, you have the violence and atrocities that are being committed by both sides against innocent civilians.

(02:05:52)
So, Senior Envoy Perriello is fully authorized, and by the way, reports directly to me and works in close collaboration with our assistant secretary for Africa to work to press for an end to the war, to make sure that we have unhindered access for humanitarian assistance, to stop the violence, to try to get a return to the Democratic transition, to get a unified civilian approach to this. We think the best vehicle for trying to move forward on that is through the JETA process or JETA negotiations.

And getting all the players, all the players.

And getting everyone around the table.

Same table.

Exactly.

I want to just jump in to my final minute. First of all, thank you for your comments on the ICC recent actions. I think you called it wrong-headed. I would completely agree with the administration’s comments on it. It seems to violate common sense that you have a negotiation going on and could really undermine the resolution of this when you have a terrorist leader like Sinwar being put in… Sort of equating them to a duly elected leader who actually has regular elections. But more importantly, we know that Sinwar is doing everything he can to isolate Israel, to put themselves on the same footing. The jurisdictional issues, the challenges we have right now with trying to bring this conflict to a resolution, it seems stunning to me that they would take this action. I want to just though ask you is how is the Biden administration working with Israeli, Egyptian humanitarian counterparts to implement a de-confliction mechanism to protect humanitarian workers and civilians?

(02:07:37)
Even if or when a ceasefire is reached, without really a mechanism, the suffering is going to continue. We need a humanitarian assistance at a large scale. One of the biggest concerns any caring American should have right now as the scale of the humanitarian crisis going on in Gaza. This is not counter to dealing with Hamas, but it is urgent right now at levels that have been mentioned by some of my colleagues who are just, the scale of the human suffering there is stunning, the lack of medical provisions, the lack of food. And so there has to be a more coordinated effort amongst the administration to work with Israel, Egypt and other humanitarian counterparts to make sure that ceasefire or not, we have the mechanisms to get aid there.

I would ask that you give a brief response.

Simply put, there is, Senator, an intensely coordinated effort to work to do just that. And we have a Senior Envoy, it had been Ambassador David Satterfield. Now, it’s Lise Grande, deeply experienced in these matters, working this every single day to do three things, to make sure that we have the aid that is getting in and the appropriate crossings, land, sea, air to get it in. Second, to make sure that once it gets in, it’s effectively distributed to the places and people who need it. And third, and related to that, having effective de-confliction so that the humanitarians who have to move things around aren’t endangered as we’ve seen.

(02:09:07)
And there, I think progress has been made on having this de-confliction and coordination at a sort of 10,000 foot level. But where we continue to have problems is at the tactical or unit level that is individual military units that have not adequately gotten the instructions that they need to have a convoy go through. So we’re working intensely to get clear protected corridors, clear times where there’s no doubt, no ambiguity about people moving humanitarian assistance to the people who need it, among other things, as well as better real-time communications between those who are providing the assistance and those who are on the ground engaged in combat.

Senator Young?

Mr. Secretary, it’s great to have you for the committee. I recognize that there are many pressing concerns that require your attention, your time these days. At the same time, I believe that we have the wherewithal, we have the resources to pursue our national interests globally, including in Burma, and that’s what I’d like to ask you about. It’s been concerning to read and hear reports of bureaucratic delays to American support to opponents of the Junta in Burma, support authorized and in fact required by Congress in the Burma Act. Secretary Blinken, you have broad authority and sufficient funds by my reckoning to distribute non-lethal aid to armed groups and to Burmese society, items like drones and communications equipment, for example, that could save countless innocent lives. Why has this aid not been fully allocated and dispersed?

Senator, I’d welcome coming back to you on that in detail because I’m not aware of particular delays. Certainly, our intent and my intent is to make sure that we’re taking advantage of the act and taking advantage it in a way that allows us to robustly support both the democratic opposition and ethnic groups, to bring them together in a unified program, to provide them the assistance that they need and the support that they need, even as we’re putting pressure on the regime through sanctions. So, if there’s specific things, I welcome learning them and working with you on that.

Okay. And I’m grateful for that. I will take you up on that myself, my team, and we’ll stay in touch with the committee. More broadly, one concern I have is that the department has perhaps made a legal determination that because some non-lethal assistance could conceivably be considered dual use, it couldn’t be provided. So, I would want to know if that were indeed the case, how we’d square that with the enormous military assistance that Russia and China have been

… giving the Junta.

(02:12:02)
Why don’t I move on to some AI discussions that have made news recently. Last week, US officials, including states acting special envoy for critical and emerging technology, met with Chinese officials to discuss international or artificial intelligence governance. Where do you see China’s goals for AI governance differing from our own, and how are we confronting the difference in our diplomacy?

So when it comes to AI and when it comes to China and AI, a couple of things worth citing. First, as you may have noted, we got the first resolution through the UN General Assembly with wide support, including even China on questions of AI governance, and in particular the importance of trying to use AI to advance sustainable development goals to meet needs of people around the world. And in that, certain basic principles about how AI should be used that very much reflect our views, and to the extent that we can get other countries signed on to those principles to maximize the benefits, minimize any of the potential harms of AI, that’s a good thing.

(02:13:19)
We’ve also gotten strong support around the world on how to think about the use of AI in autonomous weapons. I think those are very important guidelines that hopefully countries will be bound by, including China.

(02:13:33)
And then, more specifically, Senator, on China, we thought it’s important irrespective our profound differences across the board to at least be talking about how we each respectively see AI, particularly when it comes to questions of safety and security because we know the extent to which this can be used for grievous ill, not just for benefit.

(02:13:54)
And so this is a good way of at least getting a better understanding of how China is looking at this and sees this, sharing the way that we see it and seeing if, as in the past, we’ve had when it came, for example, to arms control during the Cold War, maybe there are avenues for getting agreements on use and not misuse of artificial intelligence. But right now this is just a very broad conversation about how we respectively see AI and its development.

I’ll just state and then move on with an additional question or two. I think it’s fine to talk and engage in these sorts of broad discussions and we may indeed come to terms on something we didn’t expect to come to. I think it’s equally as important to work with our closest allies and partners to see how we can harmonize our existing standards or evolving standards. And then since we share certain core values, that will give us leverage at the negotiating table.

You’re a hundred percent right and that is what we’ve done. We’ve been working through the G7 in particular to try to move out on basic principles and hopefully build out from there.

Relatedly, today, South Korea hosts the second AI safety summit after last year’s summit at Bletchley Park. What role do you see the safety summits playing in the overall AI governance debate?

Look, I think these summits can help establish norms, rules, understandings when it comes to safety that could prove invaluable. The more we can develop up a consensus around what these norms and standards and rules should be, the more we or like-minded countries are in the driver’s seat, the more effective we’re going to be in making sure that AI is used for good and we minimize its use for bad.

And for those who are watching trying to get clarity on the division of labor within our own government on this topic, what is the diplomatic role that you see the department taking in consultation with Commerce following Secretary Raimondo’s announcement of an international network of AI safety institutes?

We’re working in very close coordination with Commerce on this, and we both have leadership roles to play and we’ve organized our department accordingly. And as you know and I appreciate supported, we established for the first time a bureau in the department for cyber and digital policy as well as having an envoy for emerging technology. And we’ve got the talent at the department to make sure that we have the necessary expertise so that we can play the necessary diplomatic role around the world in trying to align other countries with our vision for the way forward on AI. But, of course, Commerce has an absolutely vital role to play, a lead role to play, particularly when it comes to engaging the private sector, and we’re fully partnered on that.

Well, I anticipate a lot of future conversation and focus from this committee as it relates to the harmonization of standards, standards development and ensuring that the standards that prevail and predominate around the world are standards that embed our values on privacy and openness and transparency and human rights and so forth. So thank you for your work in the early stages of what might be characterized as a revolution in AI technology. Chairman.

And can I just add one quick thing to this, Senator?

Yes.

I just want to really applaud your leadership broadly in this area, because the work that you’ve done, the leadership that you showed, particularly on the CHIPS and Science Act, has given us a much stronger hand to play around the world as the United States make sure that we continue to have the leading technology, the leading industries, and thus are in a stronger position to actually shape those norms, rules and understandings. A lot of that does go to CHIPS and science.

Thank you. Chairman.

We all thank Senator Young for his leadership. He’s educated all of us on AI. Senator Duckworth.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Blinken, before I start, I just want to acknowledge the medical and humanitarian workers who need to secure safe access to provide badly needed care. Israeli Americans, including Hersh Goldberg-Polin who remains hostages of Hamas, the over 100 other hostages who remain unaccounted for or trapped by terrorists in Gaza and the tens of thousands of lives, Palestinians, Israeli, American, Jordanian, Thai, the list is long and overwhelming already lost to the latest tragic conflict in the Middle East. My staff and I have relied heavily on the department’s close support and collaboration to advocate for Illinoisans and others in Gaza. And I expect we’ll need to continue to work closely together to provide assistance and ensure oversight and accountability of the situation. So I want to express my appreciation for all of the department staff for working around the clock with me and my team.

(02:18:55)
My first question has to do with ASEAN. It goes through something we’ve discussed here last year, the need for sustained, strong investments in our relationships with allies and partners in Southeast Asia. And I applaud the elevation of the U.S.-ASEAN relationship to a comprehensive strategic partnership last year and the increases in resources for the US mission to ASEAN. But as I said at the opening of the new U.S.-ASEAN Center in December, China continues to increase its engagement and gain in popularity in the region and there is so much more that we can do. And that includes showing up. High-level participation at ASEAN summits and ministerial meetings is no longer a nice-to-have option. It’s a must-do. I’m still hearing about Indonesia’s deep disappointment over last year’s ASEAN summit and I’m sure you are as well.

(02:19:43)
In this chair year for Laos, are we doing enough to support Embassy Vientiane and through them the host government in carrying out successful ASEAN meetings? And can you commit to high-level participation in the upcoming ministerial and ASEAN summit?

Thank you very much, Senator, and I, look, fully agree with you and I believe the answers to both questions are yes and yes. We’re determined to build on what has already been a deeply strengthened partnership and relationship between the United States and ASEAN, including the president hosting, as you know, a special summit with ASEAN here in Washington. My own engagement with ASEAN and going forward, our support both for Laos as it’s in the chair, to do what we can to help it succeed in its chairmanship and also, yes, be present.

Thank you. I also want to touch on internal reforms you’ve led at State every year and especially in an election year. The strength our republic depends on resilient institutions. So I want to commend the critical work of modernizing and strengthening the State Department itself.

(02:20:45)
Important progress has been made, but when it comes to physical accessibility at department facilities, it’s been my experience that there is still a lot of work to do. The lack of basic accommodations like ramps and working buttons to open heavy security doors are still serious obstacles to the full participation of persons with disabilities, whether they’re employees who need accommodations for themselves or for family members who would join them abroad or our counterparts and guests.

(02:21:09)
So in last year’s State authorization, I included a requirement for the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations to report on accessibility at overseas diplomatic missions and estimate the cost of making our facilities usable by persons with disabilities. Will that report be delivered on time next month? And do you have any insight into what has been learned through the assessment so far? And can you speak more broadly to what the department is doing to ensure employees receive the accommodations they need when they need them through a streamlined and common sense process?

In short, Senator, I’m committed to that. We’re committed to that. I want to come back to you on the timing of the report to make sure that it’s on time or if it’s not, why not? So I’ll come back to you on that.

(02:21:53)
We have a request for an additional 11 and a half million dollars in the budget for bolstering accessibility in the department and in our facilities. It’s something that I take very seriously and of course there is physical accessibility, which is critical.

(02:22:11)
We’re also doubling down on efforts with the technology to make sure that we have the right technology in the right hands. I think we’ve made real progress on that, but as always, more can and should be done.

Thank you. Mr. Secretary, staffing and retention continue to be challenges, so I’d like to use the rest of my time to speak in more detail about that, including what you’ve done to address the perennial challenge of employment for foreign service employees.

(02:22:36)
Late last year, I helped introduce the Readiness Act to support federal employees who are relocating to join their spouse on an official assignment. It would require federal government agencies to make the maximum effort to retain them by simply allowing telework or transfer or as a last resort, a period of leave without pay status.

(02:22:54)
Would you say that current policies at State support this type of common sense flexibility so that a civil servant isn’t needlessly faced with the choice of either stay with their family on an overseas deployment when the spouse is being sent to represent our nation overseas or keep their job and continued with their public service career?

We’re very much working in that direction, and I think we’ve made progress. Again, still more to do. We also have the Foreign Service Families Act, excuse me, that we’re working to implement to create greater flexibilities, greater opportunities for family members. We have more and more people who are now serving as eligible family members. We have greater flexibilities for people to make sure that they are able to continue their employment as a spouse or partner when they’re overseas. And I think that’s part of an ongoing effort to improve those opportunities and to support families, because we know that if we want to not only attract but retain the best people in the department, we have to make sure that we’re also providing the support they need for their families. Otherwise, they’ll do something else, go somewhere else.

Thank you. Can you speak to the importance of being able to pay competitive rates to local nationals who work at the embassies? I’ve heard this at many of our embassies as I’ve traveled, and it’s not limited to a particular region. I heard it in Europe, I’ve heard it in Asia where it is often very hard to maintain quality local staff because they can’t be paid at a rate that is competitive even though they want to stay with us and they’re very loyal. Can you speak to the challenges in your budget?

Yes, that’s correct. And I think it’s important to start with this. Literally the heart of our enterprise, the State Department, are locally employed staff. About two-thirds of the State Department employees are locally engaged staff. Our embassies can’t function without them. And not only do they fill vital functions in the embassies, they’re also the most extraordinary connectivity between our embassies and the countries in which we’re engaged.

(02:25:08)
In so many countries, the local staff has borne the brunt of global inflation, and trying to keep pace with that in countries around the world that are not doing as well as the United States has been a challenge. And you’re right, it’s in many regions, it’s not in any one place. We’ve taken steps to address this.

(02:25:28)
First, for a number of people to try to deal with the impact of that and then just coming out of COVID, which was so devastating for so many, one-time increases in their compensation. Second, we’ve looked at the way we assess compensation and we’ve tried to bring in more criteria so that we better take into account what the actual cost of living is in a given country, not simply a sort of equation to someone in a similarly situated job. So that’s now coming into effect. We have worked to budget in, including in this budget a guaranteed 2% increase every year so people can see that they will have sustained support. And of course there are other one-time measures that we’re looking at to help people.

(02:26:12)
But the bottom line is we have to do this, we need to do this if we’re going to sustain our missions, and the budget reflects that.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Cruz.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, you have presided over the worst foreign policy disaster of modern times. When Joe Biden became president, he inherited peace and prosperity in the world. We now have two simultaneous wars waging; the worst war in Europe since World War II and the worst war in the Middle East in 50 years. Both, I believe, were caused by this administration’s consistent weakness. And indeed your foreign policy is precisely backwards from what a rational American foreign policy should be.

(02:27:04)
To our friends and allies, this administration has consistently undermined, weakened and attacked them. And to our enemies, this administration has shown constant appeasement and indeed has owed billions of dollars to the enemies of America who want to kill us.

(02:27:26)
Senator Barrasso asked you about Ebrahim Raisi, your State Department put out a statement sending condolences for his death. Mr. Secretary, is the world better today now that Raisi is dead?

Given the horrible acts that he engaged in both as a judge and as president, to the extent he can no longer engage in them, yes, the Iranian people are probably better off.

You didn’t say that in your statement, did you?

I believe that we did. And certainly our spokesperson-

Today, the United Nations is flying their flag at half-staff to mourn the death. Would you agree that it is utterly disgraceful for the United Nations to be mourning the death of the “Butcher of Tehran”?

We’re certainly not mourning his death. As I said, we expressed-

Would you agree it’s disgraceful for the UN to be?

I’ll look at what they’ve done. We certainly would not do that.

What they’ve done is flown the flag at half-staff. Is that disgraceful?

We wouldn’t do that and we would certainly find that-

And I would note that’s the absence of American leadership. All right, let’s shift. The Washington Post on May 11th wrote an article, I’m going to read the opening paragraph. “The Biden administration working urgently to stave off a full-scale Israeli invasion of Rafah is offering Israel valuable assistance in an effort to persuade it to hold back, including sensitive intelligence to help the Israeli military pinpoint the location of Hamas leaders and find the group’s hidden tunnels according to four people familiar with the U.S. offers.” Is that paragraph accurate?

Exactly the opposite. First of all, no one has done more to defend Israel than Joe Biden.

Is that paragraph accurate?

No. Let me finish if I may, please. He was there right after.

I’m not interested in a campaign speech. I have limited time. Is the paragraph in The Washington Post accurate?

As you read it, no. To the contrary, we’re providing everything we possibly can to Israel to help them find and deal with-

So the four sources that briefed The Post and by the way, briefed multiple other media outlets, they were lying?

Absolutely.

All right. Did the administration offer to provide the locations of senior Hamas leaders to Israel if they didn’t invade Rafah?

That’s again totally misleading and wrong. Here’s what we’ve said and here’s what we’re doing. We have said that there is a better way to deal with the challenge that-

I’m not interested in a speech.

If you don’t want to hear my answer-

Did you offer the location of senior Hamas officials if they didn’t invade Rafah? That’s a yes or no.

No. If we had the locations, of course we’d provide them irrespective.

So this statement, you’re saying The Post got it totally wrong, it is utterly false and anyone who said to the contrary was lying and perjuring themselves if they were under oath.

That statement is incorrect. We have done and we’ll continue to do everything we can to, if we can do it, develop the information and share the information. I wish we had it.

Does the administration have intelligence on the locations of Hamas officials that you have not shared with Israel?

No.

Does the administration have the locations of Hamas terror tunnels that you have not shared with Israel?

No.

Okay. So then your position is that this story is an utter and complete lie?

As you’ve read it to me, Senator, it is not accurate. It does not reflect the facts.

And we’re not interested in playing word games. I’ve asked you very directly.

I have not-

So you’re saying there’s not a single Hamas leader that you know about, that you or the administration has offered, we’ll tell you where they are if you don’t invade Rafah?

That is correct.

What have you offered them not to invade Rafah?

We’ve offered them nothing not to invade Rafah except a plan to deal more effectively with Rafah. The deal-

Okay, so your testimony under oath is you’ve offered them nothing not to invade Rafah. I find that very hard to believe, but I just want to understand what your testimony is.

I’ll be very clear. We have told them, we’ve been engaged in a long conversation with them about the most effective way to deal with the problem we agree must be dealt with-

They’re quite aware you disagree with their plan to kill the Hamas terrorists because you and the president have vocally said it.

That is absolutely wrong.

To be clear, your State Department on the morning of October 7th sent out a tweet telling Israel not to engage in military retaliation. I called you out at three in the morning and you deleted that tweet. The next day, you personally, on October 8th sent a tweet saying you’d spoken with the Turkish foreign minister and Israel should not retaliate. From the very beginning, the Biden administration is consistently at every stage told Israel, and by the way, when I called your tweet out, you deleted it again. At every stage you have been telling Israel do not kill the terrorists. And that has been from day one.

Senator, I was in Israel five days after October 7th. I’ve been there seven times since. No one, starting with President Biden, has done more to make sure they have what they need to defend themselves from Hamas to deal with the threat that Hamas poses-

With all due respect, that is ludicrous. That is ludicrous. Why have you cut off weapons to Israel then?

We have not cut off weapons to Israel. In fact, as you know well, starting many years ago, President Biden was at the heart of the MOU that led to Israel having a ten-year guarantee supply of assistance, which-

When you became Secretary of State, how much oil was Iran selling a day?

I’ll have to come back to you on any numbers. I don’t have the numbers.

You don’t know. It doesn’t surprise me you don’t know. It was about 300,000. How much oil is Iran selling today?

We’ve applied sanctions against more than-

How much oil is Iran selling today?

… 200 entities that are engaged in petrochemicals or [inaudible 02:32:50]. You can tell me, I’m sure you know.

Don’t filibuster.

I’m not filibustering. Go ahead, please tell me.

How much oil are they selling today? Do you know?

You tell me. You tell me.

Apparently you don’t know. So you don’t know how much they were selling. It was 300,000. Today they’re selling about two million barrels a day. Let me ask you-

And given the sanctions, given the export controls, given the other controls we put on the cost of doing that, the evasion that they have to engage in which we’re trying to cut off-

They’ve made about $80 billion. Let me ask you another question. I’m running out of time so I’m not interested in speeches. Let me ask you this. How many ghost fleet ships did Iran have in November, 2020?

We have sanctioned more than 200 of those.

It’s a question. How many did they have?

The total number? I can’t tell you what it had in 2021. I’ll come back to you with that. But we had-

The number was about 70. How many do they have today?

We blocked about 50 of them.

Okay, let’s see how effective you are. How many did they have today?

As I said, we blocked about 50.

How many do they have today?

You tell me. I’m sure you know.

They have about over 400. Look, this administration desperately wants a new Iran deal. You have been showering cash on Iran from day one. And understand, the $6 billion you were asked about is the tip of the iceberg. By refusing to enforce oil sanctions, we have seen Iran’s oil sales go from 300,000 barrels a day when you got into office to over two million barrels a day today. That’s $80 billion. 90% of Hamas’s funding comes from Iran. In a very real sense, this administration, you and President Biden funded the October 7th attacks by flowing a hundred billion dollars to a homicidal, genocidal regime that funded those attacks.

That statement is profoundly wrong.

Why?

I’m not even going to humor it. I think it’s a disgraceful statement.

Why?

We have gone at Iran repeatedly with more than 600 sanctions applied against different persons-

Then why are they selling two million barrels a day as compared to 300,000?

They are working hard to do what they can to get around the sanctions. The cost of doing that business-

So just the prior administration had tools you didn’t have? They were more effective or maybe they just weren’t desperate to cut a deal with Iran.

… has gone up dramatically. And we continue every single day to go at them.

You are refusing to address the facts.

I’m not.

Then why are they selling two million barrels a day?

Because they’re determined to try to do that. We’re determined to cut them off.

They weren’t determined when Trump was president.

They were determined. And of course, unfortunately we also had their nuclear program in a box. No fissile material being produced-

Okay, you’re not answering the question. You’re filibustering another topic.

I’m not filibustering.

Senator Cruz, you get the last word. You get the last word.

You funded our enemies and you undermine our friends and the world is much, much more dangerous as a result. And Americans are at greater jeopardy because of it.

In fact, we brought more countries together. We have stronger allies, stronger partnerships, stronger engagement from countries around the world to deal with a very dangerous world than we had. We were alone. We aren’t anymore. And America’s leading those efforts.

Remember the Abraham Accords?

I do.

Let me just break you two apart for a second if I might.

(02:35:56)
Secretary Blinken, thank you very much for your patience with our committee. I want to complete this hearing where I started and that is a thank you to you for restoring America’s global leadership and President Biden.

(02:36:10)
What you’ve done to strengthen the transatlantic partnership is incredible. I saw that firsthand at the Munich Security Conference as our allies recognize the importance of the Biden administration and our Secretary of State in restoring confidence that America’s word meant something, where it was unclear four years prior to that. That was indispensable in our campaign to help Ukraine defend its sovereignty. That transatlantic partnership that was restored by the Biden administration was absolutely essential.

(02:36:50)
The leadership globally goes well beyond just the transatlantic partnership. I was pleased to represent the United States at COP28. Saw what happened when I was in Bonn, Germany when President Trump withdrew America’s participation in the climate summits and talks. America’s leadership made a huge difference and a very positive commitment to deal with the threat against our globe on climate. And I applaud the Biden administration and the State Department for the work that it did in making that conference so successful.

(02:37:34)
And let me just talk a moment about Iran. Iran’s threat is real, but the way that the Biden administration and you have answered that by, after the attack on October 7th, showing America’s strength in the region to prevent an escalation of the conflict that I think we all thought was going to happen any day, that was extraordinary leadership. And as you pointed out in this hearing, and I just really want to underscore that, your challenges to contain Iran was made so much more difficult by the withdrawal from the Nuclear Agreement, where we lost our eyes on the ground to see what was going on in Iran and limits on Iranian enrichment while Iranian was in compliance with the agreement. All that made the challenges so much more severe.

(02:38:32)
But I think you’re right on the right path for Israel that recognizes that yes, there is no future for Israel or the Palestinians with Hamas. And we have facilitated working with Israel to make sure that threat is eliminated. But the security for Israel will not be solved on the battlefield. The only way there’s going to be lasting peace in the Middle East if there is a genuine path forward for the Palestinians and Israelis to live side by side in peace, recognizing each other’s security. And that means moving forward with normalization so that we can get the normalization of the countries in the region. And by the way, you showed, as you pointed out in April, that the security against Iranian threat can be much more effective with the partnerships in the region working with Israel than just the military response to Iranian terrorist- supported actions.

(02:39:32)
So I just really want to go on record to thank you for your extraordinary service to our country and to applaud the Biden administration for restoring America’s leadership. That certainly worked in our national security interests and has made such a valuable contribution to so many countries that need America’s support in order to defend against attacks through their own democratic institutions. And your service has made a huge difference in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, can I just say, first of all, I’m grateful for those words, but as might be said, right back at you. I’m not sure if I’ll have the opportunity to appear before this committee for the pendency of this Congress, but I just want to say that your chairmanship of the committee, your leadership of the committee, but even beyond that, your leadership in Congress and as a senator has been both exemplary and exceptional.

(02:40:32)
Exemplary in making sure that our values, to the best of our ability, remain at the heart of our foreign policy and our engagement around the world, but also in helping to provide some of the most critical tools that we have to actually ensure that that can happen. And I deeply appreciate the collaboration we’ve had as you’ve been chairman and I’ve been in this role. You are an immense credit not only to this institution, but to the country that we both love. And I thank you.

Well, thank you. I started my career in the Senate being helped by you and we’ll continue to work together to my last year in the United States Senate. So thank you very much.

(02:41:16)
The record of the committee will remain open until the close of business on Thursday. For questions that may be submitted, we would ask that you would try to get those responses back as quickly as possible. And with that, the hearing will be adjourned.