[Senate Hearing 117-60]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-60

                      REVIEW OF THE FY 2022 STATE 
                       DEPARTMENT BUDGET REQUEST

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             JUNE 8, 2021

                               __________


       Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                  Available via http://www.govinfo.gov

                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
45-439 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   

                 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS        

             ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman        
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire        MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut      MITT ROMNEY, Utah
TIM KAINE, Virginia                  ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 TODD YOUNG, Indiana
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 TED CRUZ, Texas
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland           MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
                                     BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
                 Jessica Lewis, Staff Director        
        Christopher M. Socha, Republican Staff Director        
                    John Dutton, Chief Clerk        



                              (ii)        


                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator From New Jersey..............     1

Risch, Hon. James E., U.S. Senator From Idaho....................     3

Blinken, Hon. Antony J., Secretary of State, U.S. Department of 
  State, 
  Washington, DC.................................................     6
    Prepared Statement...........................................     8

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions 
  Submitted by Senator Robert Menendez...........................    53

Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions 
  Submitted by Senator James E. Risch............................    60

Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions 
  Submitted by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin........................    73

Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions 
  Submitted by Senator Rob Portman...............................    74

Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions 
  Submitted by Senator Edward J. Markey..........................    75

Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions 
  Submitted by Senator Rand Paul.................................    76

Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions 
  Submitted by Senator Cory Booker...............................    76

The Committee Received No Response From Secretary of State Antony 
  J. Blinken for the Following Request by Senator Van Hollen.....    80

                                 (iii)

  

 
      REVIEW OF THE FY 2022 STATE DEPARTMENT BUDGET REQUEST

                              ----------                              

                                                  TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:22 p.m. in room 
SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, and via Webex, Hon. Robert 
Menendez, Chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van 
Hollen, Risch, Johnson, Romney, Portman, Young, Barrasso, Cruz, 
and Hagerty.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

    The Chairman. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee will come to order.
    Mr. Secretary, welcome. I am pleased to see you before the 
committee again. It is nice to see the Secretary engage on a 
regular basis, and we appreciate that. Even though we may not 
always agree on everything, I appreciate your proactively 
making yourself available to discuss the budget. It sends an 
important signal about the value of transparency and our two 
branches of Government working together on behalf of the 
American people.
    I am also pleased to note that after 4 years in which this 
committee, on a bipartisan basis, greeted the Foreign Affairs 
budget proposals with various tones of incredulity, today we 
have a serious budget proposal that, if enacted, would 
represent the largest increase to the regular international 
affairs budget in more than a decade.
    That is not to say that we will see eye to eye on all the 
specific components, to be sure, but we are looking forward to 
a robust and substantive discussion.
    After a year during which the international community has 
been shaken to its core by the COVID pandemic, it should be 
clear to everyone that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound 
of cure in both public health and in international affairs, and 
especially where the two intersect.
    I was pleased to see the Administration's recent 
announcement that we will be leading on the world stage by 
providing vaccines to countries desperately in need, although I 
believe we should prioritize countries who embrace fundamental 
democratic freedoms and rights.
    For the international community to work for Americans, for 
fundamental, universal values of human rights, democracy, and 
equitable prosperity, the United States must invest in and lead 
international institutions and stand up for international law. 
We must invest in smart economic development and free and fair 
trade. We must invest in meeting the challenges of climate 
change, and we must invest in our diplomacy and development 
professionals, for when we do not, we find that others with 
different interests and values have the space to act in ways 
that threaten to upend the global order and undermine our 
interests.
    The Administration's proposal to significantly increase the 
budget for State and USAID and other international programs 
reflects the investments we need to be successful in furthering 
our nation's interests and values, and I want to commend you 
for seeking to rebalance the budget away from overseas 
contingency operations and to restore base funding.
    Today's hearing is not just about numbers. It is about how 
we invest those numbers. So let me take a few minutes to 
highlight a few issues and areas of concern.
    Broadly in the Middle East, we need to rebalance a heavily 
military and arms sales-oriented policy to one that focuses 
more on strategic, diplomatic, and development investments. 
While not directly related to the budget, we certainly want to 
hear about the Administration's efforts to reach a 
comprehensive diplomatic agreement with Iran that goes far 
beyond the JCPOA. What is the definition of ``stronger''?
    In Europe, many of us were disappointed by the 
Administration's decision to waive sanctions on Nord Stream 2. 
As I know that when you leave us today you are heading to 
Europe, I look forward to hearing your perspective about how 
the U.S. can work to assure Ukraine of our commitment to its 
security; and critically, in advance of President Biden's 
meeting with Putin, I hope the Administration sends a very 
strong message to Moscow. Putin only understands strength.
    On Afghanistan, the security situation is increasingly 
dire, and we have to start thinking about our contingency 
planning. The committee needs to hear beyond big promises of 
commitment to the Afghan people what we are going to do.
    In Africa, the Administration faces a raft of diplomatic 
challenges. China and Russia continue to act in ways inimical 
to our interests and those of the majority of the people in 
Africa. Tensions between Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan over the 
Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam could destabilize the entire 
Horn of Africa. Al Shabaab poses a continuing threat, while in 
Mozambique another robust terrorist threat has emerged. Coups 
in Mali and Chad have undermined international counterterrorism 
and development efforts, and Nigeria requires a fundamental 
rethink of the framework of our overall engagement.
    In Latin America and the Caribbean, the COVID-19 pandemic 
is exacerbating social and political pressures, with serious 
implications for regional stability. We are also seeing a 
fraying of democratic consensus with deeply flawed elections 
and far-too-common attacks on the separation of powers, with 
the potential results of democratic decay all too apparent in 
the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela or the irregular 
migrations streaming from Central America.
    I also look forward to hearing what we are doing to get to 
the bottom of apparent attacks on U.S. personnel and family 
members that have left many with ongoing and debilitating 
injuries, and the steps that State is taking to ensure our 
personnel are protected.
    Beyond the immediate health impacts of the COVID pandemic, 
I also look forward to hearing from you how the United States 
will address secondary impacts of the pandemic, given that 36 
countries and 130 million people could now experience famine 
this year.
    I am also eager to understand how the Administration plans 
to address the needs of the 235 million people worldwide that 
require humanitarian assistance and protection, a near 40 
percent increase over 2020. Across the globe, authoritarian 
regimes and non-state actors have impeded humanitarian access 
to devastating effect, and how the Administration intends to 
address the horrific trend of sexual and gender-based violence 
in Tigray, Ethiopia, Burma, Xinjiang, and elsewhere, where 
governments use sexual violence as a weapon of war against 
religious and ethnic minorities.
    Finally, as the Senate continues with consideration of its 
China package, including the Strategic Competition Act this 
committee voted out on a bipartisan basis, I am interested in 
your views on how to resource and posture ourselves in the 
Indo-Pacific and successfully compete with China across all 
dimensions of power.
    It is a long list of concerns, Mr. Secretary. You well know 
that. It is hardly comprehensive, even. That is the world that 
we have, the challenges that we face as a nation. So we look 
forward to hearing your thoughts and ideas for how we meet this 
signal moment in our country and our planet's history, and the 
role you envision for the Department of State in helping our 
nation to do so.
    With that, the distinguished ranking member, Senator Risch.

               STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

    Senator Risch. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in 
the expression of frustration for the tremendous number of 
issues we have and the minimal time we really have to deal with 
them here, but it is what it is and we are just going to have 
to triage and deal with what is most important.
    Mr. Secretary, I understand that you are off to the G7 
summit immediately after this meeting, and so I would like to 
start on a positive note. There are some bright spots in the 
President's international affairs budget request. I was pleased 
with the emphasis on advancing U.S. global health security. 
Chairman Menendez and I continue to work on legislation to 
improve pandemic preparedness and response. It is a high 
priority for myself, and I think I speak for the Chairman in 
saying it is a high priority for him also. It is something that 
this committee really needs to do in light of the things that 
have happened over the last year and a half. I look forward to 
seeing how we can align this effort with the Department of 
State, which obviously plays and will play a large role as we 
go forward.
    Overall, the request is consistent with a troubling pattern 
where Congress is asked to provide more and more, and the 
Administration does not respond in kind, and we would like to 
see that improve. We see this plainly in the partisan American 
Rescue Plan, which provided $10 billion to help combat the 
COVID-19 pandemic overseas 3 months ago, and I still do not 
feel that I have an understanding of how this plan will put 
those resources to good use on the ground.
    The President also pledged to share 80 million surplus 
doses of U.S.-approved COVID-19 vaccines over a month ago, and 
just last week it provided a snapshot of where they will go. I 
do not feel I have a comfortable understanding of the 
information that should be provided with this.
    Also, I would really like to see how the Administration 
will ensure that U.S. financial contributions to COVAX, which 
are important, are not used to purchase and distribute the 
substandard Chinese vaccines. We have all seen how those have 
worked out in the field.
    The President has now asked for a 12 percent increase in 
foreign assistance spending for Fiscal Year 2022. Here again, 
Congress is asked to provide more money. We need more 
transparency and more accountability, of course.
    The challenges we face overseas are immense, but throwing 
good money at bad problems has not solved much in the past and 
will not solve anything today. Increasing foreign aid absent a 
clear strategy that emphasizes efficiency, effectiveness, and 
ultimately self-reliance will not advance U.S. strategic 
interests. Nor will a budget that proposes to throw hard-earned 
U.S. taxpayer dollars, or worse, our kids' and our grandkids' 
money, into wholly unaccountable international institutions, 
including the Green Climate Fund or U.N. agencies in dire need 
of reform, like the U.N. Human Rights Council and, of course, 
the World Health Organization, which itself admits that reform 
is needed.
    I believe that advancing an effective strategy to compete 
with the People's Republic of China must be the United States' 
top policy priority. I expect to hear today about how this 
budget addresses this strategic imperative, and we need to 
fortify U.S. engagement in the Indo-Pacific region. The 
Strategic Competition Act which recently passed out of this 
committee on a 21-1 vote provides a roadmap. I had hoped, and I 
think the Chairman had hoped, that we would get a standalone 
vote on this on the floor. When a bill comes out that is as 
important as that is and deals with the complexity that it did 
and comes out on a 21-1 vote, it really should get 
consideration. Instead, of course, it has been placed in the 
other bill, which obviously is uncertain where that will go.
    The bill that we had authorizes funds to provide strategic 
direction for countering Chinese influence. It mandates 
increases for diplomatic engagement, foreign assistance, and 
security assistance for the Indo-Pacific. Finally, it will help 
countries better organize infrastructure deals without falling 
into a Chinese debt trap or compromising their sovereignty.
    I am hoping that whatever happens with the large bill, if 
it does not pass, that we get a vote on our bill, this 
committee's bill.
    With regard to the Iran deal, I am deeply troubled by the 
direction negotiations are headed. This is no surprise to you, 
Mr. Secretary, as we have talked about it over and over again. 
While your negotiators are in touch with the committee, they 
are like their predecessors on the original JCPOA, totally 
unresponsive to congressional objections. These are not 
consultations, but simply notifications. Not one of the 
suggestions I have made has been accepted, either in the first 
JCPOA negotiations or in the ones that are ongoing now.
    It is clear that it is intended that we, the United States, 
rejoin the failed nuclear deal unchanged after the Iranian 
elections. Your promises to lengthen and strengthen them will 
come later, but the idea of follow-on agreements is unrealistic 
and, I would argue, delusional. I cannot understand why anyone 
would think that if the Iranians will not agree to the things 
we want them to agree to up front, why in the world would they 
agree to it after the fact when they get everything that they 
have asked for in the negotiations? The Iranians will never 
agree to return to discussions without the threat of continued 
sanctions.
    Additionally, the Administration's plan to pursue sanctions 
relief not consistent with the original nuclear deal are deeply 
concerning, especially as you consider rolling back terrorism 
and other sanctions not covered in the original deal.
    Moving to Israel, I applaud the Administration for refusing 
to bow to progressive demands of our closest friend and ally as 
they face down a terrorist organization. This is a matter of 
Iran-backed terrorism against Israel, a sovereign nation, and 
that is being done by a designated terrorist organization, 
Hamas, using its own people as human shields. I am disappointed 
that some of my colleagues in Congress would call this enduring 
partnership into question.
    At the same time, I am concerned that the Administration is 
rushing to normalize relations with the Palestinian Authority 
without gaining elimination of the pay-for-slay program and 
other Palestinian actions that glorify and actually reward 
violence and terrorism.
    On Afghanistan, I have long called for a responsible end to 
the war, but by doing so in a manner that keeps Americans safe. 
I believe that what appears to be a rush to a political 
decision to withdraw without consideration of our 
counterterrorism priorities will allow Afghanistan to serve as 
a future platform for terrorist attacks against the United 
States and our partners. I have concerns that the despicable 
attack on the girls' school in Kabul is a sign of more to come.
    I am also concerned by the President's submission to Putin 
and abandonment of our European allies by waiving sanctions on 
Nord Stream 2 AG. You testified in January that Nord Stream 2 
was a bad deal, yet this Administration is allowing it to be 
completed. I understand that you have some thoughts on that 
that you are going to tell us about today. This decision is 
really an affront to us. I totally do not understand how the 
President, within a very short time after being inaugurated, 
within hours, put a pen to a piece of paper, shut down the 
Keystone Pipeline, put Canadians and Americans out of work, and 
yet we do not have that same enthusiasm to shut down the Nord 
Stream pipeline.
    As the President heads to Europe I hope to see the 
emergence of a real strategy for dealing with Russia, not just 
more dialogue. Give Putin an inch and he will take a mile, and 
I agree with the Chairman wholeheartedly that all he 
understands is power.
    Lastly, in regards to the U.N. this fall, the United States 
will renegotiate the scales of assessment for U.N. 
peacekeeping. Currently, the U.N. is assessing the United 
States at a rate of 27.9 percent. As you know, this is not 
congruent with U.S. law. No country should pay more than 25 
percent, and in 1994 Congress enacted a bill that imposed a 25 
percent cap. I would hope the Administration would follow this 
law. It remains in effect today, and it must be used as the 
negotiating position.
    I look forward to hearing your testimony on these and other 
items that are a concern.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch.
    Your full statement will be included in the record, Mr. 
Secretary, and the floor is yours.

 STATEMENT OF HON. ANTONY J. BLINKEN, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S. 
              DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Secretary Blinken. Thank you very much. Chairman Menendez, 
Ranking Member Risch, and all the committee members here today, 
I very much appreciate this opportunity to talk about the 
proposed budget and how it will help us achieve our national 
security priorities and deliver results for the American 
people, which is our common responsibility and common cause.
    This is a critical moment for the United States and for our 
global leadership. We face major tests, including stopping 
COVID-19, rising to the challenge of climate change, supporting 
a global economic recovery that delivers for American workers 
and their families.
    We need to revitalize our alliances and partnerships, out-
compete China, and defend the international rules-based order 
against those who seek to undermine it; renew democratic values 
at home and abroad; and push back against malign activity by 
our adversaries.
    In a more competitive world, other countries are making 
historic investments in their foreign policy toolkit. We need 
to do the same thing. That is why, in this budget, we have 
requested $58.5 billion for the State Department and USAID for 
Fiscal Year 2022.
    Just to touch on some of the specifics, the budget will 
strengthen global health. The United States has been a leader 
in this field for decades in Africa and around the world. We 
are asking for $10 billion for global health programs, 
including nearly $1 billion for global health security to help 
us prevent, prepare for, and respond to future global health 
crises so we can stop outbreaks before they turn into pandemics 
that put our safety and prosperity in danger.
    The budget would accelerate the global response to climate 
change and the climate crisis by providing $2.5 billion for 
international climate programs, including $1.25 billion to the 
Green Climate Fund to help developing countries implement 
climate adaptation and emissions mitigation programs, which is 
directly in our interest.
    We would double down in this budget in the fight for 
democracy, which, as we all know, is under threat in too many 
places. People talk about a democratic recession around the 
world. Our budget request includes $2.8 billion in foreign 
assistance to advance human rights, to fight corruption, to 
stem the tide of democratic backsliding, to strengthen and 
defend democracies. For example, technical training for 
elections and support for independent media and civil society. 
We also request $300 million for the National Endowment for 
Democracy.
    The budget would support a comprehensive strategy to 
address the root causes of irregular migration from Central 
America. It would invest $861 million in the region as a first 
step toward a 4-year commitment of $4 billion to help prevent 
violence, reduce poverty, curtail endemic corruption, and 
expand jobs and educational opportunities.
    The budget would reestablish our humanitarian leadership, 
with a request of $10 billion in assistance to support 
refugees, victims of conflict, and other displaced people, and 
to rebuild our refugees admissions program.
    The budget would support our partners in the Middle East by 
fully funding our commitment to key countries, including Israel 
and Jordan, and by restoring humanitarian assistance to the 
Palestinian people.
    It includes a budget request of $3.6 billion to pay our 
assessed contributions in full to international organizations, 
initiatives, and peacekeeping efforts, including to restore our 
annual contributions to the World Health Organization.
    As China and other countries work hard to bend 
international organizations to their worldview, we need to do 
our best to ensure that these organizations instead remain 
grounded in the values, principles, and rules of the world that 
have made our shared progress possible for so many decades.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, to deliver in all 
these areas, this budget will reinvest in our most vital asset, 
and that is our people. It will provide new resources to 
recruit, train, and retain a first-rate, diverse global 
workforce, with nearly 500 additional Foreign and Civil Service 
positions, the largest increase for the State Department 
staffing in a decade. Critically, it would modernize our 
technology and cybersecurity; protect our embassies and 
consulates; and include a direct appropriation of $320 million 
for consular services worldwide, so we can continue to provide 
these vital services to Americans and those who seek to travel, 
study, or do business with the United States.
    Our national security depends not only on the strength of 
our armed forces, but on our ability to conduct effective 
diplomacy and development. That is how we solve global 
challenges, that is how we forge cooperation, advance our 
interests and values, protect our people, and prevent crises 
overseas from becoming emergencies here at home. That is why 
diplomacy and development are smart investments for American 
taxpayers.
    A final word, Mr. Chairman. A top priority for me as 
Secretary is to restore the traditional role of Congress as a 
partner in our foreign policymaking. That is the spirit that I 
bring to today's conversation, and I am grateful for this 
opportunity and the opportunity to have a dialogue and to 
answer your questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Secretary Blinken follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Secretary Antony J. Blinken

    Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Risch, and all committee members, 
thank you for this opportunity to talk about the Biden-Harris 
administration's proposed budget--and how it will help us achieve our 
national security priorities and deliver results for the American 
people.
    This is a critical moment for the United States and our global 
leadership. We face major tests, including stopping the COVID-19 
pandemic, rising to the challenge of the climate crisis, and supporting 
a global economic recovery that delivers for American workers and 
families. We must revitalize our alliances and partnerships; out-
compete China and defend the international rules-based order against 
those that seek to undermine it; renew democratic values at home and 
abroad; and push back against malign activity by our adversaries.
    In a more competitive world, other countries are making historic 
investments in their foreign policy toolkit. We must do the same. 
That's why, in this budget, we've requested $58.5 billion for the State 
Department and USAID for Fiscal Year 2022.
    Here are some specifics.
    This budget will strengthen global health. The United States has 
been a leader in the field for decades, in Africa and around the world. 
We're asking for $10 billion for global health programs, including 
nearly $1 billion for global health security, to help us prevent, 
prepare for, and respond to future global health crises so we can stop 
outbreaks before they turn into pandemics that put our safety and 
prosperity in danger.
    This budget will accelerate the global response to the climate 
crisis by providing $2.5 billion for international climate programs, 
including $1.25 billion to the Green Climate Fund, to help developing 
countries implement climate adaptation and emissions mitigation 
programs--which is directly in our own interest.
    It will double down on the fight for democracy, which is under 
threat in too many places. Our budget request includes $2.8 billion in 
foreign assistance to advance human rights, fight corruption, stem the 
tide of democratic backsliding, and strengthen and defend democracies--
for example, through technical training for elections and support for 
independent media and civil society. It also requests $300 million for 
the National Endowment for Democracy.
    This budget will support a comprehensive strategy to address the 
root causes of irregular migration from Central America. It will invest 
$861 million in the region, as a first step toward a 4-year commitment 
of $4 billion, to help prevent violence, reduce poverty, curtail 
endemic corruption, and expand job and educational opportunities.
    It will reestablish U.S. humanitarian leadership, with a request of 
$10 billion in assistance to support refugees, victims of conflict, and 
other displaced people, and to rebuild our refugees admissions program.
    It will support our partners in the Middle East by fully funding 
our commitments to key countries, including Israel and Jordan, and by 
restoring humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people.
    It includes a budget request of $3.6 billion to pay our assessed 
contributions in full to international organizations, initiatives, and 
peacekeeping efforts, including to restore our annual contributions to 
the World Health Organization. As China and others work hard to bend 
international organizations to their worldview, we must ensure that 
these organizations instead remain grounded in the values, principles, 
and rules of the world that have made our shared progress possible for 
decades.
    Finally, to deliver in all these areas, this budget will reinvest 
in our most vital asset--our people. It will provide new resources to 
recruit, train, and retain a first-rate, diverse global workforce, with 
nearly 500 additional Foreign and Civil Service positions--the largest 
increase for State Department staffing in a decade. And it will 
modernize our technology and cybersecurity; protect our embassies and 
consulates; and include a direct appropriation of $320 million for 
consular services worldwide, so we can continue to provide these vital 
services to Americans and those who seek to travel, study, or do 
business with the United States.
    Our national security depends not only on the strength of our armed 
forces but also our ability to conduct effective diplomacy and 
development. That's how we solve global challenges, forge cooperation, 
advance our interests and values, protect our people, and prevent 
crises overseas from turning into emergencies at home. And that's why 
diplomacy and development are smart investments for American taxpayers.
    A top priority for me as Secretary is to restore the traditional 
role of Congress as a partner in our foreign policy making. That's the 
spirit I bring to today's conversation, and I'm grateful for this 
chance to answer your questions.
    Thank you.

    The Chairman. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. We look 
forward to engaging in that.
    We will start a round of questions, and let me first start 
on the budget. I have been a robust defender of the State 
Department's budget in years in which we received budgets that 
clearly could not meet the mission of the State Department or 
the interests of the United States. So I am glad to see, as I 
said in my remarks, a budget that is real and that would be the 
single most significant increase in a decade, and in general, I 
support the effort. I may have some suggestions to make as we 
move forward in the refinement of elements of it, but I do want 
you to know I support it.
    Having said that, I would like to explore with you some 
regional issues for which this budget is ultimately going to be 
put to work.
    Is it fair to say that when we had the JCPOA, Iran 
continued to pursue ballistic missiles, Iran continued to 
destabilize the region, Iran continued to be the single most 
significant sponsor of terrorism in the world?
    Secretary Blinken. I think it is fair to say that, Mr. 
Chairman, although I think, unfortunately, those activities in 
those areas have only gotten worse.
    The Chairman. I agree, it has gotten worse. I agree with 
you on that.
    Is it fair to say that when we had the JCPOA, that Iran did 
not seek to change its ways in these areas and others, or seek 
to get greater relief from sanctions in order to change their 
ways on these various issues?
    Secretary Blinken. During the time the JCPOA was enforced, 
to the extent we were a participant in it, I think that is a 
fair assessment.
    The Chairman. Yes. So here is the concern that I and others 
have: the Iranians have gotten onto the fact that when they 
want relief, they accelerate their programs. Now, I was not a 
supporter of the JCPOA. I think everybody knows that. I also 
was not a supporter of President Trump arbitrarily and 
capriciously leaving the agreement without allies at the end of 
the day, or a strategy to achieve a goal. In fact, Iran has 
advanced its nuclear program since President Trump left the 
agreement. It has greater capacity. It has enriched more 
material. Of course, none of its other malign activity have 
stopped. They have gotten worse.
    So the question is if all we return to is a compliance for 
compliance basis, which is my takeaway from the conversations I 
have had with your negotiators, and if we have a history that 
Iran never sought to get more relief in return for dealing with 
its other malign activities, what is going to make us believe 
that, in fact, a return to compliance for compliance is going 
to produce anything stronger than what we had?
    Secretary Blinken. Two things, Mr. Chairman. Compliance for 
compliance, if we get there, and that remains a big if that we 
can come back to, has to be a first step, not a last step. I 
agree with that. We have an immediate challenge, which is that, 
to your point, Iran's nuclear program is galloping forward. It 
is enriching at higher levels, 20 percent, even 60 percent. In 
small cases it is using more advanced centrifuges. The breakout 
time that the agreement established, an agreement that on its 
terms was working as verified by our intelligence folks, as 
well as the international experts, pushed the breakout time to 
a year. We are now down, based on published reports, to a few 
months. If this continues, if they continue to enrich at the 
levels and in the ways that they are doing, it will get down 
eventually to a few weeks.
    So that is a concrete problem. We have an interest in 
putting that nuclear problem back in the box, because an Iran 
with a nuclear weapon or with the ability to produce the raw 
material on very short notice to get one is an Iran that is 
going to be an even worse actor in terms of its impunity in all 
of these other areas.
    Having said that, I agree with you that, again, this would 
need to be a first step, not a last step, and we would seek to 
build on it.
    The Chairman. What does ``stronger'' mean? Your 
Administration and you, yourself, in testimony before the 
committee has said we seek a ``longer'' --that I get--and 
``stronger,'' but what does ``stronger'' mean?
    Secretary Blinken. So, I think we have to look at specific 
aspects, whether there are areas where we can get even stronger 
commitments from Iran. Of course, if we do that, we can expect 
that Iran would ask for things in return. So we would have to 
gauge whether whatever improvements might be made in terms of 
stronger would be worth whatever Iran would seek.
    The longer piece, as you know very well, is important 
because a number of the provisions in the agreement sunset, 
although I would point out that the most critical provisions--
that is, the ability to enrich beyond 3.67 percent, the ability 
to have a stockpile of more than 300 kilograms of enriched 
uranium--these go until 2030. So there is still some time built 
in if we come back. I think we need to look at those.
    The Chairman. I hope, Mr. Secretary, that as we are 
assuaging our European colleagues and cohorts in this effort, 
that they are truly committed to the ``stronger'' part, because 
my experience with them is they want to solve the immediate 
problem, but getting them to follow on, on the longer-term 
problems is a much more difficult proposition.
    Let me turn to Russia. I am sure many other members will 
ask you this, but I want to give you an opportunity.
    I think many of us on a bipartisan basis were deeply 
concerned about the Administration's decision to waive 
sanctions on Nord Stream 2 AG and its CEO last week. As the 
President heads to his meeting with Putin, I will reiterate 
from my perspective; we know what Putin is. As the President 
himself has said, he is a murderer, he is KGB, and he only 
understands strength.
    I would have thought that one of the most significant ways 
to show strength is to ensure that the pipeline is killed. Now, 
you all from your analysis may come to a different conclusion, 
and I certainly understand the importance of Germany. If you 
want to give somebody a very strong blow, to send a message, 
Nord Stream would have been it.
    So why don't you share with us the thinking that went 
behind on the waiver?
    Secretary Blinken. Sure, and I appreciate that very much.
    First, as you know, construction on the pipeline began in 
2018. By the time we took office, it was over 90 percent 
complete, the physical construction of the pipeline. On May 19, 
under the legislation, we sanctioned 13 ships and 4 companies, 
the largest number of entities sanctioned under that 
legislation since it was put into effect. We also, to your 
point, issued a national interest waiver under the law with 
regard to the parent company, Nord Stream 2 AG, and its CEO. 
That waiver can be rescinded at any time.
    Why did we do that? The worst possible outcome from our 
perspective would be to have construction of the pipeline 
completed, our relationship with Germany poisoned, no incentive 
for Germany to come to the table to make good on working to 
mitigate the serious negative consequences of gas flowing 
through this pipeline.
    The Germans have now come to the table. We are actively 
engaged with them, and there are a few things that absolutely 
would need to happen by going forward, as you know and as we 
have had an opportunity to discuss. Ukraine needs to be made 
whole if this pipeline is going to go into operation. It will 
potentially lose transit fees as a result of the pipeline going 
around Ukraine. That needs to be dealt with.
    We must make sure that Russia cannot use gas or energy as a 
coercive tool in its relations with Ukraine or any other state 
in Europe. There are ways of doing that, making sure that there 
is backup so that if gas is denied, we can provide it. Other 
ways of strengthening and securing Ukraine, various snapback 
mechanisms so that if Russia acts in an inappropriate way, 
there is some automaticity in the actions that are taken by us 
and by Germany. So we are engaged with them on that.
    At the same time, as you know, even when the pipeline is 
physically complete, for it to go into operation, it still 
requires insurance, it still requires various permits, and we 
are looking very carefully at all of that.
    So what we need to do now is--and it is exactly what we are 
doing--engage with the Germans to see if we can deal with the 
negative consequences of this pipeline going into operation. 
There is a distinction between the physical completion of the 
pipeline, which in our judgment we simply could not stop. It 
was too late to stop the joining of those pipes. Its operation 
is another matter. What we can do for Ukraine and others is 
also another matter.
    Parenthetically--last point--the President spoke to 
President Zelensky today, invited him to the United States. We 
are in very active engagement as we go forward on this.
    The Chairman. Well, we are happy to see you did that, and 
we look forward to seeing what you do as it relates to the 
potential operational capacity. We don't care what you want. As 
a last point, I would commend your attention to a Washington 
Post op-ed that we did on Iran and a different pathway 
forward--a positive different pathway forward.
    Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
associate myself with your questions regarding that.
    Look, Mr. Secretary, I do not think there is anybody here 
who would suggest that the dealings you are going to have with 
Iran are not tough. They are tough. It is not easy.
    What is easy is to say no and push your chair away from the 
table if you cannot get them to where you need to be, and the 
JCPOA did not come anywhere close on that.
    One of the biggest problems I had was the tremendous amount 
of cash that was given to the Iranians. There is no doubt in my 
mind that part of that cash wound up paying for the munitions 
that were dropped on Israel in recent days. There is no doubt 
in my mind that part of that cash was paid to arm the Houthis 
in order to continue their attacks against Saudi Arabia. There 
is no doubt in my mind that part of that cash was used to 
construct and deliver missiles into Lebanon that we all know 
are there and aimed at Israel.
    This business of just handing cash over to these people is 
a bad, bad deal. I suggested last time that if indeed cash is 
allowed to flow into Iran, that it be put into some kind of a 
lock box or have some kind of oversight over it so that it 
cannot be used for the nefarious purposes that Iran wants to 
use it for. I suggested that last time and I was told, oh, no, 
they will not agree to that. Well, if they will not agree to 
that, you know where that money is going to go.
    I do not know how somebody could ask us to vote for it when 
we know that that money is going to be money that causes blood 
to flow. So I would hope you would take a look at that. As you 
know, there are billions in South Korea and other countries 
that the Iranians want freed up and that I have heard 
discussion would be freed up if indeed another JCPOA deal was 
reached, and I am very concerned about doing this again. We 
have seen exactly what happened, and that is going to happen 
again. It is troubling. It is really, really troubling when you 
give money to these kinds of people.
    So, I do not know, I have irreconcilable differences with 
the Administration on simply going back into the JCPOA that we 
were in before. It seems to me that we have gotten ourselves 
into a position, whether you agree or disagree with what the 
prior Administration did, it has gotten us to a position where 
they are deeply weakened compared to when the Administration 
took office. So I would hope you would take advantage of it and 
just say no.
    That is just the beginning. I mean, they are testing and in 
development of missiles in absolute violation of resolutions of 
the U.N. That should not be tolerated. Why sit at a table with 
people who are going to look you in the eye and say, look, we 
do not care what you say, we do not care what the U.N. says, we 
do not care what the rest of the world says, we are going to 
develop missiles and you can go pound sand? Then we hand them 
billions of dollars. It does not make sense.
    Well, in any event, I wish you well in it. I wish you would 
say no and keep the sanctions in place. We will be willing 
partners, at least this Senator will, as far as ratcheting up 
more of those sanctions against that country.
    Let me ask a specific question. On the money that I looked 
at in this budget that is going to other countries for 
addressing global warming, I am really lost as to what that is 
going to go for. It is really vague in there. Can you help me 
out, what it is going to be used for?
    Secretary Blinken. Sure. Thank you.
    Here is the challenge for us with dealing with global 
warming, dealing with climate change. We are taking significant 
steps to curb our emissions. Even if we do everything right, at 
least in the way that we see it, we are 15 percent of global 
emissions. So we do everything right, we still have 85 percent 
of the problem left, and other countries have to come along.
    Of course, we do not want to be the ones doing all of the 
work. We have to get others to do what they need to do, as 
well, to get----
    Senator Risch. Well, we cannot be, can we? I mean, if we 
are only 15 percent, we cannot finance the other 85.
    Secretary Blinken. It is not financing the other 85. There 
are some countries that need to take meaningful actions to curb 
emissions that will need assistance in developing and adapting 
technologies that can help them curb those emissions.
    So the Green Climate Fund, for example, is a way of helping 
countries without the means to do it to adapt technologies that 
will curb emissions and also build resilience against some of 
the challenges posed by climate change right now.
    Senator Risch. So is there a plan that we can look at in 
that regard and identify the countries that are going to get 
this money and how much they are going to get?
    Secretary Blinken. I believe there is, and I am happy to 
share that with you.
    Senator Risch. Please do. Go ahead.
    Secretary Blinken. I was going to say we will be happy to 
come back to you with the details on that.

[Editor's note.--The committee received no response from the 
witness for the information requested above.]

    Senator Risch. Thank you. I did not allow you to respond on 
the Iranian situation.
    Secretary Blinken. Yes, and we have had the opportunity to 
talk about this----
    Senator Risch. We have.
    Secretary Blinken. --a number of times.
    Senator Risch. Appreciate you.
    Secretary Blinken. First, all of the egregious actions, 
which we share condemnation of with you, that Iran is engaged 
in are happening under maximum pressure, and more. It has 
gotten worse, not better. So that effort did not solve the 
problem, a problem we all acknowledge.
    Whether we like it or not, and we do not like it, Iran has 
been engaged in these activities, including support for Hamas, 
including support for other terror groups, including support 
for proxies engaging in destabilizing activities across the 
board. It was doing that before the JCPOA; it continued to do 
that during the JCPOA; and it has gotten worse since we got out 
of the JCPOA.
    Our challenge now I think is threefold. One is we have the 
problem that its nuclear program--and now that it is not 
abiding by the constraints of the JCPOA--is literally galloping 
forward, and we talked about that a few minutes ago. The 
magnitude of their enrichment, enriching more at higher levels, 
is putting it in a position where the breakout time is 
inexorably getting down from a year to months, to eventually 
weeks, and that is a problem for us.
    Also, if this continues, what it is learning, what it is 
able to master in the time that it is doing this is going to be 
very hard to pull back. So we have that incentive. That is one 
piece.
    The second piece--and I agree with both you and the 
Chairman--that is a necessary step, put this back in the box, 
but an insufficient one, and we have to build on it. Not only 
in terms of the agreement itself, in terms of these other 
actions that Iran is taking that we all profoundly object to.
    We will retain all of the tools to do that, to push back on 
them for these actions. I think we will have greater 
cooperation and coordination from partners who over the last 
few years have been focused almost entirely on preserving the 
nuclear agreement, not actually working with us to help curb 
some of these other actions.
    So we have to be able to do all of that, and what I can 
tell you is we are determined to do that, but we need to put 
this nuclear problem back in the box that it was in and move on 
from there.
    Senator Risch. Well, my time is up. Thank you. Let me just 
conclude by saying that we both know, and the world knows, that 
there is another entity that is going to do something about 
this. Whatever the JCPOA says or does not say, whatever 
everybody else agrees to, there is another entity that has 
taken a solemn oath that they will never have--Iran will never 
have a nuclear weapon. I guess the biggest question would be 
what happens when you get the call? Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Cardin.
    Senator Cardin. Secretary Blinken, welcome. I see you have 
been very busy. It's a challenging world.
    I certainly agree with Senator Menendez, our Chairman, that 
we welcome the budget that has been submitted for our foreign 
policy issues. It certainly reflects the commitment that we 
have a value-based foreign policy.
    I was particularly pleased by your statements here about 
your commitment to good governance. The press statement for 
your FY 2022 budget says it includes a significant increase to 
resources to advance human rights and democratic values, fight 
corruption, stem the tide of democratic backsliding, and defend 
against authoritarianism.
    Then in the INL budget you have a particular focus on the 
anti-corruption activities.
    So you mentioned some of that during your opening 
statement, but I would like to drill down to one aspect of 
fighting corruption which I believe is desperately needed 
within the State Department, and that's the capacity in each of 
our missions to understand the circumstances in the host 
country to get the best intelligence information about their 
system and what can be done to fight corruption, and then 
impressing upon the host country our interest in helping them 
in dealing with anti-corruption measures.
    Do we have enough resources in this budget to be able to 
develop that type of capacity within the missions?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you, first of all, for putting a 
spotlight on that. Thank you for all of the work you have been 
doing over many years. I think of all of the bad things out 
there that we are dealing with, corruption in terms of the 
corrosive impact that it has on democracy has got to be very 
near the top of the list. Parenthetically, I think if we look 
at virtually any popular movement over the last decade or 15 
years, whether it is the Tunisian troop bender or whether it is 
Tahrir Square or whether it is the Maidan in Ukraine, whether 
it is the protests in Brazil, the common denominator each time 
is revulsion at corruption. Sometimes it is the reason. It is 
certainly a reason that we see people at some point just get 
fed up.
    So we are determined to make sure that we have the 
resources to do exactly what you are talking about in a couple 
of ways, and we would welcome working with you going forward to 
make sure that this is as sharp as possible.
    First, we need the human resources, the expertise in the 
Department and the ability to support and deploy that 
expertise, to your point, to our embassies. So people who have 
the training, have the background, have the skill set to work 
on these issues.
    I think part of our request that is so significant to me is 
the additional almost 500 positions, but this is not just 
asking for 500 positions in a vacuum. There are specific areas 
where we know we need to build up our capacity that we will 
look to use this and other flexibilities to address, and this 
expertise on economic matters, on corruption, is one of them. 
Technology is another. China is a third. Global health is a 
fourth. So we are very focused there.
    Second, we have to do this in close collaboration and 
coordination with the other expert agencies in our Government, 
and I think there is a real commitment to do that. The national 
security advisor, Jake Sullivan, brings all of us together and 
is very focused on this. So we have to do that.
    Third, I think you saw Vice President Harris just today 
announce the surging of experts to some countries in Central 
America to help them, to the extent they are willing to be 
helped, deal with endemic corruption. So we have some ability 
to surge expertise.
    The long and short of it is, though, I would very much 
welcome working with you on this to make sure that we do have 
what we need, and we are certainly very open to ideas for how 
we can do this more effectively, and then make sure we are 
resourced appropriately.
    Senator Cardin. I appreciate that. It also helps us, if we 
then have the information we need to impose sanctions, such as 
Global Magnitsky, by having that capacity in each of our 
missions.
    The Administration has talked about multinational 
approaches, and I certainly support multinational approaches. 
So let me talk about the sustainable development goals that 
were created in 2015. Goal 16 deals with good governance, which 
is the areas that we are talking about here and getting our 
international support for efforts to make significant 
improvements in governance.
    The prior Administration failed to support the U.N. Joint 
SDG Fund, which is the sole U.N. funding vehicle to energize 
private sector and other resources to support the SDGs. Given 
President Biden and your renewed commitment to American 
multilateralism and sustainable development, what steps will 
this Administration take in order to advance the SDG goals, 
particularly Goal 16?
    Secretary Blinken. I think we need to make sure that we are 
dedicating our appropriate share of resources to advance these 
goals. This is one of the reasons we want to try to make right 
by our commitments to international institutions and to various 
programs in those institutions that advance the interests of 
the United States. Parenthetically, when we do not do that, our 
influence and our ability to shape how these programs are 
carried out is diminished or lost. So we have an interest in 
making sure that the focus that these institutions bring to the 
problem is appropriate and effective.
    The long and short of it is we believe we need to fund our 
commitments and then be at the table, in the room, to help 
carry them out.
    Senator Cardin. I would just add in multinationalism, the 
Organization of American States, the OSCE, and other 
international organizations where the United States leadership 
can play a critical role to focus those organizations in 
addition to the United Nations in these values that are 
critically important to our national security, I would just 
urge you to work with us to see whether we can't be more 
effective in getting multinational focus on dealing with 
corruption.
    I want to add my view in regards to the Iran circumstances. 
I agree with Chairman Menendez. He and I had similar views on 
the JCPOA and President Trump's decision to leave the JCPOA. I 
would just make one point. The JCPOA was a lifetime prohibition 
about Iran being able to have a nuclear weapons program.
    Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
    Senator Cardin. So we had sunsets that now would be 
irrelevant to that lifetime commitment. So when you talk about 
whenever we get back into an agreement, it's got to make sure 
that there is a lifetime prohibition about Iran ever becoming a 
nuclear weapons state, and you have functioning agreements that 
you can identify to make sure they never get within a year of 
breakout.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Johnson.
    Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, I was part of the effort led by Senator Cruz 
and Senator Shaheen to impose sanctions to stop the building of 
the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and I have to admit honestly that I 
was surprised at how unbelievably effective those sanctions 
were, and it stopped it.
    When you came before this committee about 5 months ago, I 
thought you were completely on board with the continued halting 
of the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. I have to 
admit I am shocked that now the fact that yesterday and today 
you are conceding the fact that it is going to get built. That 
would have been really nice to know 5 months ago.
    When did your thinking change on that?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you, Senator. Again, as we 
discussed then, unfortunately, construction started on this bad 
idea in 2018, and when we last spoke the pipeline was well over 
90 percent complete as a physical----
    Senator Johnson. Yes, when we imposed sanctions and halted 
it last time. Why not continue to pause the sanctions? I am 
sorry, your explanation literally makes no sense. So now we are 
conceding the building, we are going to have it constructed, 
and now we are going to somehow impose serious consequences 
when Germany does not live up to providing the revenue relief 
for Ukraine when Russia does use it as a weapon?
    Secretary Blinken. As a practical matter, as we looked at 
this, we all agreed this pipeline is a bad idea. We have 
opposed it. The President has been clear about that for a long 
time. As a very practical matter, with inheriting a pipeline 
that was 95 percent complete----
    Senator Johnson. We stopped it the last time.
    Let us move on to Iran.
    Secretary Blinken. No, in fact, we did not, by definition.
    Senator Johnson. Let us move on to Iran. During the debate 
over the JCPOA, I offered an amendment to deem that a treaty. 
From my standpoint, that amendment should have passed 100 to 
zero. Had it passed 100 to zero, the JCPOA would have been, 
first, a far better agreement, and you would not be in a 
position where from one Administration to the next a President 
can just cancel another's executive agreement.
    Now you are engaged in further discussions with Iran. I 
have my doubts that you will end up with a better agreement. It 
is going to be worse. It will embolden Iran.
    First of all, what justification is there for something 
that is that significant--and again, if you take a look at the 
State Department's own manuals in terms of how it defines a 
treaty, I think it is quite clear that the original JCPOA was a 
treaty. Do you not think any agreement that you enter into with 
Iran should be deemed a treaty and should be ratified by the 
United States Senate?
    Secretary Blinken. Senator, as you know, numerous arms 
control and non-proliferation agreements reached by the United 
States were not treaties, and there are benefits--you are 
right--to enshrining something in a treaty. There are also 
downsides in terms of some of the constraints that it would 
actually place on us. It is also more complicated when you are 
dealing with a multi-party agreement, which was the case with 
the JCPOA. We had, of course, the European partners. We had the 
Russians, the Chinese, not to mention the Iranians. So looking 
at the history of arms control and non-proliferation 
agreements, looking at what would give us maximum flexibility, 
this was the most effective way forward.
    Senator Johnson. Okay. Well, I respectfully disagree.
    Real quick, I did send a letter together with Senator Scott 
inquiring as to why the State Department ended its 
investigation regarding the gain of function and the lab leak 
origination of the coronavirus. I think your response is due on 
June 10th. I am hoping you will respond and provide us the 
information we are requesting. Are you aware of that letter?
    Secretary Blinken. Yes. Thank you, Senator, I am. We will 
certainly respond to that in a timely fashion. Just for what it 
is worth to try to clear this up, because there has been, 
unfortunately, a lot of erroneous reporting on this, the study 
in question, the work in question was by the Trump 
administration. They hired a contractor within the State 
Department to do an internal inquiry into the origins of COVID-
19, with a focus on the lab leak scenario.
    That work was completed. It was not terminated.
    Senator Johnson. Okay. So just explain that. I want to move 
on to another issue, so just respond to my oversight request.
    Finally, I want to talk about the budget as it relates to 
what the Biden administration is proposing to spend I guess to 
fix Central America. My first trip down to Central America, it 
was interesting what the presidents of those countries talked 
about in terms of what they are dealing with. First it was 
corruption, and then impunity. Obviously, I understand 
corruption. Impunity, I thought that is odd; what are you 
talking about there?
    The fact of the matter is they are talking about the fact 
that the drug cartels are untouchable. By the way, the drug 
cartels in Central America, through our drug interdiction 
efforts, we stopped or we certainly redirected the flow through 
the Caribbean and up through Central America, destroying those 
societies in many respects.
    So I do not know what amount of money we can spend in 
Central America to really address the drug lords. I keep 
hearing the root cause of this problem is the violence in 
Central America. I would argue the root cause of the violence 
in Central America is America's insatiable demand for drugs.
    So the border crisis, the current crisis, is completely the 
result of the actions that President Biden took when he first 
entered office, ending the successful migrant protection 
policy, the agreements with those countries and, quite 
honestly, not completing the 250 miles of border wall that is 
bought and paid for. I listened to Vice President Harris 
talking about, oh, we are going to steer the border. I see no 
evidence of that.
    So tell me how you can expect a few hundred million, or I 
do not really know the exact amount you are really proposing 
over the next couple of years during this Administration, of 
pouring into Central America to try and fix the push factor 
when the push factor is caused by our insatiable demand for 
drugs, and the flow of migrants--by the way, the presence of 
those countries were pleading with me and on a bipartisan basis 
with other Senate colleagues, please fix your laws. This is not 
good for us to lose our future, to have this outflow of people 
we need to rebuild our economies.
    So please explain how these policies are going to result in 
anything and how that money is not going to be just completely 
wasted in Central America.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you. There are a number of things 
that we need to do, and do it at the same time. We have to 
have, and we are determined to have, and we will have, a secure 
border. We have to have rational immigration policies. We have 
to deal with these drivers.
    I think it is fair to say that folks do not just wake up in 
the morning in Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador and say, 
boy, it would be a lot of fun to just give up everything I 
know, my family, my language, my culture, my community, take 
this incredibly hazardous journey, put myself in the hands of 
coyotes, come to the United States, and the border is closed in 
any event, and that would be a great thing to do.
    We know that there are very, very serious things in their 
lives that are pushing them to take these chances, and these 
are things that I think we can help address.
    To your point, you are right, I think there are a number of 
factors involved, the corruption and lack of good governance, 
the impunity in terms of violence. The single biggest driver in 
most places in my estimation, though, is fundamentally a lack 
of opportunity, a lack of a job, a lack of a paycheck, being 
able to put money on the table, feed their families. This is a 
place where I think we can have a real impact, working 
primarily with the private sector, which has to be the engine 
for these kinds of investments. The Government can help and be 
a catalyst.
    We need to see that, of course. Governments need to do the 
work to put in place some of the laws and structures that make 
private investment more possible, so we are working on that as 
well.
    Senator, if we do not also deal with these drivers, it is 
just very hard to overcome the choice that people make to put 
their lives in someone else's hands to try to come here.
    We have to be able to do all of that, and that is where the 
President is going to go. I would be happy when the time 
comes--this is not just throwing money at the problem. There 
are and will be serious metrics, serious oversight, serious 
benchmarks to what we are trying to accomplish.
    The last thing I would mention on this, if I can, part of 
the challenge is that you have governments that we cannot work 
effectively with because of corruption and because of gross 
mismanagement. Well, we will be working with others, with the 
private sector, with civil society, with NGOs, with 
organizations that do this work, with local communities, as the 
case may be, to try to make sure that any funds that we ask our 
taxpayers to dedicate to this are used wisely and effectively 
and are not wasted, and I really welcome an opportunity to work 
with this committee on that.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    For the information of all members, there is a vote that 
started at 3:07. It is the Chair's intention to continue to 
work through and rotate as members come in and out, because we 
have time finite with the Secretary, and we have members who 
want to ask questions. So I am going to work through these 
votes.
    With that, Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here and for the hard 
work that you are doing to restore America's credibility in the 
international community.
    In New Hampshire we have a short border with Canada, but I 
have a number of constituents who have relatives in Canada, we 
have a number of businesses who do business in Canada. There is 
a lot of cross-border traffic, and the border closure has been 
a real hardship for so many of our citizens.
    My office heard from a man whose mother had passed away in 
January in New Brunswick. He wanted to go to the funeral 
because they could not delay it any later than May 31st. The 
Canadian Government told him in order to do that, he would have 
to quarantine for 5 days. He could not take the time off from 
work. He could not get a waiver.
    So I appreciate that this has been a joint agreement 
between Canada and the United States, but at this point, given 
the increasing vaccination rate on both sides of the border, I 
hope that you will commit to doing everything you can to get 
that border opened so that the hardship that my constituents 
and other constituents are experiencing will end and they can 
resume normal relationships with their families and business in 
the way that will benefit them.
    Secretary Blinken. I very much appreciate, Senator, those 
hardships for all of the border states with Canada. This is 
something that I have engaged my Canadian counterpart on 
multiple times. We are trying to work through these challenges, 
and I have gotten some relatively more positive feedback from 
him recently that I am happy to share with you.
    It is a work in progress. If there are specific instances 
or cases, please bring them to my attention, to our attention, 
so that I can also share them with our counterparts.
    To your point, I think we are, hopefully, getting to the 
point--we certainly are. Canada is a little bit behind where we 
are, but we are getting to a better point.
    Senator Shaheen. Well, good, I appreciate that, 
particularly as we are getting into the tourism season and 
there is a lot of cross-border traffic between Canada and the 
United States and it is critical to our states and others along 
the border.
    I want to follow up with the questions that have already 
been asked about Nord Stream 2 because, as you know, this is 
something that I have been very concerned about. I just 
returned from a trip to Kiev with my colleagues, Senators 
Murphy and Portman, who were also along, and one of the things 
we heard very loudly from our Ukrainian partners was just how 
devastating the loss of revenue will be once Russians stop 
using Ukraine as a transit route.
    Also, the concern about giving Russia another weapon to use 
against Europe, and the other potential ramifications of the 
fallout from completion of Nord Stream 2.
    You talked about trying to make the Ukrainians whole in 
terms of the transit fees, but can you also discuss what else 
we can do to support Ukraine if this pipeline becomes 
operational, and what the Germans might be willing to do in 
that regard?
    Secretary Blinken. Certainly. I think there are a number of 
things that we are looking at that we need to look at and, of 
course, need Germany and others to look at and ultimately take 
action on. One is the possibility of actually extending the 
existing transit agreement for many years into the future so 
that Ukraine would continue to benefit from the transit fees. 
If that does not work, I think finding ways to make Ukraine 
whole for the lost transit fees is something that the Europeans 
would need to step up to.
    The other side of the coin that you just alluded to is 
making sure that we have in place and Europe has in place 
appropriate reserves and appropriate means to counter any 
attempt by Russia to use gas or oil as a coercive political 
tool so that they cannot be subject to blackmail.
    There is another thing that is really important here which 
sometimes gets missed in the equation, which is Ukraine's own 
energy potential and efficiency potential is very, very much 
unrealized, and if Ukraine used energy more efficiently than it 
does, a lot of the leverage that Russia might acquire will be 
diminished significantly. So there is a lot of work to be done 
there.
    Finally, I think that when it comes to Russian misbehavior 
in general in that part of the world, we are looking to our 
allies and partners to commit up front to taking action, to 
taking steps in response so that we do not have to scramble if 
Russia does something bad to try to bring people on.
    All of that and more is on the table, and we are looking to 
Germany in particular to make good on some of these things.
    Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. As you have heard, this 
is a very important bipartisan issue for this committee and for 
Congress, and we will be watching closely and trying to be 
helpful in any way we can as we figure out how to negate the 
potential weapon that Russia could have against not just 
Ukraine, but all of Western Europe.
    I want to go back to Afghanistan. You alluded to some of 
the challenges there in your opening statement. We saw on May 8 
the bombing of a school in Kabul, a girls school, which 
resulted in about 80 deaths. Many were the school girls, and we 
know what the Taliban's position is on women and girls. We have 
seen the assassination, deliberate assassination efforts 
against women who are working.
    So, what steps is the State Department taking to provide 
for the safety of women and girls after our military has left 
the country? Do we have a focal point in the State Department 
for someone who is working on these issues who we can continue 
to talk with as we hear from the women leaders in Afghanistan 
who are so worried about what is going to happen?
    Secretary Blinken. First, just with regard to the attack 
that you referenced, I mean, we have witnessed horrible things 
happening every single day in places that we are all focused 
on. I have to say, that one in particular, I think it is hard 
to think of anything more horrific, the deliberate murder of 
these young girls in a school. That hit me profoundly, as well.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I would just point out that 
this committee and the Senate just passed a resolution 
condemning that attack, which I hope sends an important message 
not just to the Taliban, but to the women of Afghanistan.
    Secretary Blinken. Well, I think it is important, and it 
does, because here is what is important. First, even as we 
withdraw our forces from Afghanistan, and NATO withdraws its 
forces, we are not withdrawing from Afghanistan. We are 
determined to sustain a strong embassy and a strong diplomatic 
presence. We are working with other partner countries so that 
they do the same. We are trying to put in place what is 
necessary to sustain that, and we will look forward to actually 
sharing that with the committee in the weeks ahead.
    As a result, to continue most of the programs that we have 
had in place, we have committed over the years, as you know 
better than I do, nearly $800 million to programs for women and 
girls in Afghanistan. We plan to sustain that programming, and 
even more broadly economic development, humanitarian security 
force support. I acknowledge it is not going to be necessarily 
a simple proposition. It comes with real challenges. I believe 
that with the right embassy presence and the right team, we can 
sustain these programs, and we can provide appropriate 
oversight to make sure the money is being well spent. That is 
one piece.
    The other piece is a future Afghanistan that does not 
uphold these basic rights, including the gains made for women 
and girls, is going to be a pariah internationally. It is not 
going to have support from anyone, certainly not from the 
United States. That also, I think, is going to have to get 
factored into the thinking of future governance in Afghanistan.
    Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. I am out of time, but I 
certainly hope that is the case and that the United States will 
continue to lead the charge on getting support from the 
international community to hold the Taliban accountable for 
what they are doing.
    The Chairman. Senator Romney.
    Senator Romney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you. I appreciate the work 
that you are leading and applaud many of the initiatives that 
you described today and that you are carrying out.
    One thing you said today that I wanted to make a comment 
about, which is that looking at Central America to try to deal 
with some of the illegal immigration crisis that we are seeing 
at the border and attempting to deal with some of the root 
causes, as you described it, of illegal immigration, and some 
funding provided to the Central Americans to help deal with 
some of those root causes, I am concerned that a lot of that 
funding is going to end up in corrupt hands. I would also note 
that fighting crime and poverty there is quite a task because 
we have crime and poverty here that we have not been able to 
solve. How we are going to be able to solve them in someone 
else's country is beyond me.
    I also believe that the great majority of people who come 
here illegally come here for better opportunity, which is part 
of our free enterprise system, as opposed to the socialism they 
are living under, and for freedom from autocracies. So I would 
note that I think the best solutions to this crisis are 
completing the barrier, mandatory E-Verify. These are the kinds 
of things I think will make a difference.
    Let me go to another topic. I am concerned about what I 
read about Mexico and about the number of assassinations that 
have occurred in Mexico leading up to their elections. I mean, 
I do not have the sources of information that you have, 
obviously, but it read as if it was almost a failed state. We 
are not just talking about a few. I think the number was like 
over 80 people had been assassinated leading up to the 
elections.
    This is extraordinary. This is a country that is apparently 
being ridden with crime lords taking over the Government. How 
bad is it, and is there an effort that we can help support the 
Government in trying to bring stability to that country?
    Secretary Blinken. Senator, I very much share your concern 
about that, about insecurity in general, about this political 
violence as well in particular; and, of course, the violence 
being perpetrated by these drug gangs, transnational criminal 
organizations that are involved.
    One of the things that we have done is reengage with the 
Mexicans to restart and hopefully really reenergize the work 
that we had been doing together on security. So we have a high-
level dialogue on security issues that is now restarting, as 
well as one on economic issues.
    So I believe that we can be helpful to the Mexicans in 
getting a better grip on some of this violence. I acknowledge 
it is not easy at all, but necessary. There, too, I would 
welcome working with this committee on good ideas to try to 
advance that. The bottom line is we are reengaged with the 
Mexican Government on security issues to see if we can be 
helpful.
    Senator Romney. Thank you.
    Another topic, going across the world, in Taiwan, I am very 
concerned that what the Taiwanese are hearing from the Chinese 
is harming our interests there and the interests of freedom. 
According to the Ambassador from Taiwan, she indicated that she 
received social media that said that Americans have so much 
vaccine that we are using it to provide vaccines for our 
animals, our pets, our dogs and our cats, and that the lives of 
Taiwanese are not worth as much as an American dog.
    Clearly, it is in our interest in a very critical nation in 
the world to see vaccinations that we have available going to 
Taiwan. I am concerned, if COVAX is the source of providing 
those vaccines, that COVAX will be, if you will, pressured by 
China, will not give the Taiwanese what they need.
    Are we giving directly the vaccinations that Taiwan needs, 
and can we make the number large enough? I understand it was 
announced at 750,000 doses. If that is a Pfizer or Moderna 
dose, that is half that number in terms of vaccinated people. 
They need something much closer to 2 million.
    I just hope that you will bring extra attention to that 
issue.
    Secretary Blinken. Senator, in short, yes. We are making 
sure that vaccines do get to Taiwan. Just to be clear about 
what we are doing and how we are doing it, the President 
announced, as you know, that we would be pushing out between 
now and early July 80 million vaccine doses to include a 
combination of AstraZeneca, but also Pfizer and Moderna, and we 
are doing some of that in coordination with COVAX. Even in 
coordination with COVAX, we can direct where the vaccines go, 
and some of it just directly.
    The first 25 million doses is what we describe the 
allocation for those to include doses for Taiwan. There are 
another 55 million to follow between now and early July, and 
then beyond that, two things are very important. One is we will 
continue, after the 80 million, to provide excess doses in the 
months ahead as we have them, because we will have them.
    Parenthetically, the 80 million doses, we will be, by a 
factor of 5, the leading country in sharing vaccines with the 
world, by a factor of 5. China has sold a lot to other 
countries, but in terms of actually giving them to other 
countries, by a factor of 5.
    Equally important, we are working very hard right now on 
significantly increasing production capabilities so that we can 
make sure that more vaccines are produced more quickly and that 
we can be the leader in vaccinating the world. Of course, as 
you know, it is not just the right thing to do, it is 
profoundly in our interest, because as long as this virus is 
replicating somewhere, it is going to be mutating. If it is 
mutating, it could come back to bite us.
    So we have a strong incentive to get ahead of this, and I 
believe that with the work that we are doing, that the 
President is doing on this, we will be the leader in making 
sure that the world is vaccinated, including Taiwan.
    Senator Romney. I have very little time, and that means you 
have very little time for this answer. Coming back from Europe 
and that meeting with the G7, to what extent are you 
comfortable with or have confidence in the reaction of our 
other G7 members to the threat that is posed by China?
    Secretary Blinken. I think, Senator, quickly--and I am 
happy to go into more detail at another time--I think there is 
a rising appreciation for the challenges posed by China, 
including, for example, when it comes to technology and their 
various networks. We have spent a lot of time talking about 
that, about resilient supply chains. That concern is rising 
across the board.
    Now, there are differences among certain countries. I think 
the work the Senate is doing, including I believe this 
afternoon, is going to have a very meaningful impact, and we 
appreciate that.
    Senator Romney. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. Mr. Secretary, good to talk with you again 
following this morning's Appropriations Committee hearing.
    Just following up on what Senator Romney and you were just 
discussing, I think this is an important moment for bold 
vaccine diplomacy by the United States. We have long been a 
world leader in public health. We have, because of the efforts 
of this Administration and the previous one, developed the 
world-leading, most effective vaccines. Because of President 
Biden's relentless focus on vaccinating the American people, we 
are now on the threshold of 70 percent vaccination in a number 
of states, and I do think it is time for bold vaccine 
diplomacy.
    What more could we be doing in the Senate on a bipartisan 
basis to send a strong signal of support for taking decisive 
steps? I think the announcement last week was terrific. What I 
heard in both Taiwan and South Korea, as well as from other 
countries, was very encouraging. What else would be helpful for 
you to hear from Congress about this initiative?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you for putting a spotlight on 
that, because I could not agree more with you and Senator 
Romney on the importance of this, and also, honestly, the 
opportunity to show our leadership.
    So, I think the next most important step beyond the 
vaccines that we have available to share is increasing 
significantly production capacity in the United States, as well 
as in other parts of the world. If we stay on the current 
trajectory in terms of the vaccines produced and the pace at 
which they are being administered, we are not going to get to 
global herd immunity, roughly 70 percent, as you know very 
well, until 2024. That is unacceptable, or at least it should 
be.
    We do, I believe, especially if we manage to significantly 
increase production and then share that production, we can get 
there a lot faster. I think the President will be coming back 
to you on this in the relatively near future, things that we 
can do to boost production.
    Senator Coons. As you know, I had a hand in the BUILD Act 
and in standing up the DFC. I think it is a tool that, in 
partnership with some of our key allies, could be critical. 
While in South Korea, I had a number of conversations about 
vaccine partnership in terms of manufacturing. We would be 
excited to work with you on that.
    Let me move on to the questions that have been raised a 
number of times today about the Northern Triangle. I will add 
to that the Sahel, two areas of the world where we have 
significant fragility, a band of several states in West Africa, 
a grouping of three states in Central America where corruption, 
impunity, widespread insecurity, the impacts of climate change 
are having a dramatic impact.
    The Global Fragility Act is a bill that was signed into law 
that Senator Lindsay Graham and I worked hard on that provides 
a framework for accountability, for metrics, and for a State 
Department-led partnership between State, USAID, and DoD on 
dealing with fragility.
    How do you see the Global Fragility Act framework being 
relevant to places like the Sahel or the Northern Triangle, and 
how can that help focus the difficult work the Vice President 
is currently leading in terms of investing and stabilizing 
three countries that have a very troubled current status, but 
where successfully stabilizing them is essential to our 
security and stability as well?
    Secretary Blinken. A couple of things. First, thank you for 
mentioning the Sahel, and thank you for your work there as 
well. I think we have a deep concern about spreading 
instability in the Sahel. We have roughly 20 million people who 
are in need in that area--Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Niger, 
Mauritania--and that, of course, becomes a breeding ground for 
violent extremism, as we have seen.
    We are partnered with a number of other countries to act on 
countering violent extremism, on governance, on humanitarian. 
We are the largest humanitarian donor in the neighborhood, as 
you know. In March, we had an additional $80 million or so.
    To the more specific point, I think the Global Fragility 
Act is a very important vehicle for us to be able to advance 
this work. The budget request that we have before you includes 
$185 million to help implement the Global Fragility Act. There 
is $125 million for the Prevention and Stabilization Fund, I 
think $25 million above the Fiscal Year 2021 enacted budget; 
$60 million for the Complex Crises Fund, which I think is 
roughly $30 million above the Fiscal Year 2021 enacted.
    So the resources would support the actual implementation of 
the Act to try to do what you set out to do, which is to 
actually anticipate and prevent a conflict, because an ounce of 
prevention beats a pound of cure. Also, to support these 
inclusive, locally-driven political processes to try to 
stabilize some of these conflict-ridden places, working with 
our external partners to integrate our capabilities.
    So right now where we are is we are finalizing the 
selection of five priority countries or regions based on our 
assessment of the data, the opportunity for impact, and 
national security priorities, and we are doing that across the 
Administration with the relevant departments and agencies. Then 
as we get that settled, we want to come to you and consult on 
that, share our thinking, and then refine it and go to the 
President for final approval.
    Senator Coons. Wonderful. My last question I do not mean to 
seem churlish because you have just dedicated a huge amount of 
time to testifying in front of the House Foreign Affairs 
Committee, House Appropriations, Senate Appropriations, and the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In the context that many of 
us have worked in, your two predecessors appeared once, and we 
had enormous difficulty getting them back to testify in front 
of Foreign Relations or Appropriations and to engage around 
their budgets. That was at a time when they were proposing 
dramatic cuts in spending.
    I am very encouraged by the budget that the Administration 
is putting forward for the State Department, for AID, for a 
number of other critical international functions. Can we count 
on you to come back? Because you are such a good advocate for 
the State Department as someone who served for decades here in 
the Senate and in foreign policy. I just want to make sure that 
we are going to have another opportunity for you to engage with 
the Appropriations Committee and Foreign Relations Committee as 
we try to enact a robust budget that meets the needs of this 
moment.
    Secretary Blinken. I am committed to engaging this 
committee, as well as the Appropriations Committees, in a whole 
variety of ways, whether it is in hearings, in private 
conversations, in individual conversations. I made a commitment 
to the Chairman during the confirmation process that I would do 
that, and I will be held to that.
    Senator Coons. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    The Chairman. To the Secretary's credit, he has kept his 
word on that.
    Senator Portman is with us virtually, I understand.
    Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 
Secretary, for being here.
    I will get right down to my questions. As you know from 
Senator Shaheen's comments, I was on the congressional 
delegation recently to Lithuania, to Ukraine, and to Georgia. 
We spent quite a bit of time talking about the Belarus issues 
and Lithuania, including meeting with the opposition leader.
    I want to start by just saying it will not surprise you to 
hear that I strongly disagree with the Administration's 
position on Nord Stream 2, which is a reversal of a previous 
position, and waiving the congressionally mandated sanctions on 
Nord Stream 2 is going to have a detrimental impact on these 
other countries in the region, particularly Ukraine, where the 
pipeline apparently goes through Ukraine, where there is about 
a $3 billion fee that is badly needed in Ukraine these days and 
that is in our interest.
    One issue that has come to my attention that I had not 
fully realized is the threat they are feeling not just from 
their eastern border, where Russia has recently sent 110,000 
troops and left equipment there, by the way, and left most of 
those troops, but also on the northern border with Belarus, 
where Russia's military presence is increasing.
    So more and more pressure on them, and again something that 
is not perhaps fully understood is that the pipeline itself in 
a way was a way to encourage the safety of Ukraine in that 
Russia would be unlikely to want to destroy its own pipeline 
should it make a mistake and engage in further aggression 
towards Ukraine.
    So can you comment on why you changed your mind? I see that 
you have already talked about this today. I was not able to 
listen to all the testimony. How do you answer Ukraine when 
they say, among other things, that no one even bothered to talk 
to President Zelensky about it before this decision was made?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you very much, Senator. Yes, we 
did have an opportunity to talk about this a little bit before. 
Just to focus in on it again, first let me just say President 
Biden spoke to President Zelensky today. He invited him to 
Washington in the coming weeks, and they had a very good 
conversation.
    Also, for the record, we did share with our Ukrainian 
partners our intentions when it came to the pipeline, and maybe 
that information did not get directly to President Zelensky; it 
certainly should have.
    Senator Portman. Well, I think it certainly should have 
been communicated to him. By the way, I do appreciate the fact 
that that phone call was made. Thank you. I am sure you played 
a big role in that. Not as good as having Georgia and Ukraine 
present, at least for a 10- or 15-minute session with the NATO 
summit. That is what I think is really needed, because 
otherwise it just sends the wrong signal to Russia, and this is 
something that I know you understand well. These signals are 
important. It is the narrative and the disinformation that 
Russia will now engage in that makes it even more difficult for 
Ukraine.
    I will not ask you to go into your explanation. I will find 
it from the previous questions, but I must say I am 
disappointed. I know that you yourself had a strong view on 
this at one point, that Nord Stream 2 was not something that 
was in our interest.
    With regard to an ambassador to Ukraine, we have a good 
career team there, as you know. You were there recently, and 
thank you for making the trip. We need an ambassador. I assume 
you heard this from all the folks in the Government in Ukraine, 
as we did. I have been there with an ambassador and without an 
ambassador, and it is a big difference. As you know, we came 
very close to getting General Dayton through the process last 
time. Why have you all not nominated someone, and what is your 
plan on nominating an ambassador for Ukraine?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you, Senator. We are trying to 
move forward on that as quickly as possible, and we have a 
process that I am sure you are familiar with at the State 
Department in terms of putting forward ambassadors. We are in 
the midst of that process now, and I anticipate that that will 
happen in relatively short order.
    Let me just say, that is a priority for us and for the 
President. I want to make sure that we have the strongest 
possible person leading the strongest possible team in Ukraine.
    Senator Portman. Well, Mr. Secretary, when you nominate 
someone, I assume it will be a career person who has a good 
background, and I am glad you are looking to someone who has 
experience because it is a critical post. I will be one of 
those who will be very eager to help you get that through the 
process as quickly as possible.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Senator Portman. I think both the Chairman and the Ranking 
Member will agree with me.
    On the NATO MAP issue, in 2008 then-Senator Biden 
introduced a resolution calling for a NATO membership action 
plan for Ukraine and for Georgia. By the way, that was the same 
year, as you know, that NATO said they were going to have both 
Georgia and Ukraine come into NATO, just a question of when. 
That resolution passed the Senate easily. It had the support of 
a lot of members, including a senator named Obama and one named 
Clinton, and one named McCain, totally bipartisan.
    Does this Administration still support a membership action 
plan for Ukraine and Georgia?
    Secretary Blinken. We support Ukraine membership in NATO. 
It currently has all of the tools it needs, because since the 
membership action plan was created, a number of other very 
important tools were developed to help countries prepare for 
possible NATO membership, including an annual program that 
Ukraine benefits from. In our estimation, Ukraine has all the 
tools that it needs to continue to move forward in that 
direction, and we are working with it on virtually a daily 
basis.
    The MAP itself would have to be done in full consensus with 
other NATO members. I think there are some countries that are 
less supportive than others of that right now. Irrespective of 
that, Ukraine has the tools it needs to move forward toward 
being ready for membership in the future.
    The other piece of this, though, as you know, given all the 
time and investment you have made on this, as important as its 
preparations militarily and strategically is the preparation 
when it comes to having good governance and dealing with the 
aggression that is eating at Ukraine from within, and that is 
corruption and a system that works effectively to deal with it. 
So what we also need to see from Ukraine is continued progress 
on that level, as well.
    Senator Portman. No question there has been enormous 
progress made. We need look back only to 2014 when they began 
and the electoral changes, the judicial reforms, and others, 
some of the economic reforms, have been substantial. I agree, 
more needs to be done, and more has to be done, frankly, in 
order for NATO membership to be completed. I would hope, as I 
said earlier, about the narrative, that we are not backing off 
on membership action plan, understanding that you have to 
convince the other NATO members to go along.
    The United States tends to have a significant influence in 
NATO. We are their champion. We are the country they look to, 
and they are under enormous pressure right now. This build-up 
on the eastern border is something that mystifies everybody 
except that Russia must have some designs on continuing their 
aggression and holding on to Crimea and the Donbas. Then again, 
what is happening in Belarus is an additional very serious 
concern.
    My time is probably over, but the Global Engagement we 
talked about, and we look forward to following up with you 
about the Global Engagement Center in the budget request.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you, Senator.
    The Chairman. Senator Kaine.
    Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary. This has been very helpful.
    Because members have been putting down their views about 
the JCPOA, I am going to do the same thing. I was one of the 
largest proponents of the JCPOA on this committee, and I 
continue to be, and I believe it was disastrous for the Trump 
administration to back out of it.
    The first sentence of the first paragraph, as I recall, 
said that Iran reaffirms that it will never seek to purchase, 
acquire, or develop a nuclear weapon.
    Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
    Senator Kaine. An enforceable agreement.
    Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
    Senator Kaine. Signed before the entire global community, 
not only with allies of the United States, with adversaries of 
the United States, Russia and China.
    Permanent, enforceable, would give the U.S. grounds for, I 
think, defendable military action should Iran have violated it.
    Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
    Senator Kaine. The agreement contained many other 
provisions with respect to limitations on Iran's nuclear 
program.
    Now, many of those provisions were temporary. Some expired 
in 5 years, some expired in 10, some expired in 15, and some 
expired in 25. There was one other permanent part of the 
agreement. At year 8 in the agreement, the Iranian legislature 
was required to permanently embrace the additional protocol 
inspection requirements of the IAEA, which at the time and 
today was state-of-the-art in terms of inspection. So a 
permanent agreement never to purchase, acquire, develop nuclear 
weapons, and a permanent inspection regime that would enable us 
to determine if they were violating their agreement.
    What did we give up to get that? What did we give up? The 
Ranking Member said we gave them a lot of money. We gave them 
their money. Great work by Chairman Menendez and others in 
putting a sanctions regime in place had led us to be able to 
freeze money that was not our money. It was not American 
taxpayer dollars. It was Iranian money.
    So they got their own money back and in exchange agreed to 
permanently pledge to the entire world that they would never 
have a nuclear program.
    Why the Trump administration would want to tear up that 
agreement and allow Iran to go back to, okay, I guess we do not 
have to abide by our side of it anymore. I just am continuously 
flummoxed by it.
    So if you could return to compliance for compliance, it 
would not turn Iran into a good actor, but they would be a bad 
actor without a nuclear program rather than a bad actor rushing 
toward a nuclear program.
    I will never forget as a member of this committee going to 
Israel in January of 2015 with the then-Chairman, Republican 
Bob Corker, to sit in Prime Minister Netanyahu's office and ask 
about what Israel thought about our nuclear negotiations. The 
Prime Minister was completely against it.
    We had a meeting scheduled the next day with Tamir Pardo, 
the head of Mossad in Tel Aviv. The Prime Minister told us that 
meeting was canceled, that we were not going to be able to go 
do it. Our Republican committee chair had the backbone to look 
him in the face and say if you cancel that meeting, we are 
canceling all the rest of the meetings here in Israel, we will 
leave tomorrow, we will not have a single other meeting.
    Hastily, the meeting suddenly reappeared on the schedule, 
and we went to Tel Aviv and we sat down in the offices of 
Mossad with Tamir Pardo and others, and what they told us is, 
look, we do not like Iran, we do not know whether this is going 
to work, but what we do know is that the maximum pressure 
campaign is not working. We are hurting Iran's economy, but we 
are causing them to floor it in terms of developing a nuclear 
weapons program.
    So if you could return to compliance for compliance and get 
Iran once again to say we will never seek to purchase, acquire, 
or develop nuclear weapons ever, and we will permanently agree 
to the additional protocol of the IAEA, I would be strongly 
supportive, on one condition. There is a ``but'' to this long 
intro. Get American hostages out of Iran. I do not think doing 
the deal with American hostages still in Iran is a good idea, 
and I would say that would need to be a pre-condition for me, 
and I would hope that the Administration would take that 
seriously.
    We had a hearing this morning in Armed Services, Mr. 
Secretary, about the U.S.-China relationship, and obviously 
this has dominated much of the discussion too. I could not help 
bring up a wonderful quote of George Kennan in Foreign Affairs, 
1947, ``The Sources of Soviet Conduct.'' Here is his quote. He 
basically says the way that the U.S. needs to be strong in any 
bilateral competition of this kind is to be strong internally. 
``Exhibitions of indecision, disunity, and internal 
disintegration within this country have an exhilarating effect 
on the whole Communist movement. At each evidence of these 
tendencies, a thrill of hope and excitement goes through the 
Communist world. The most important thing we can do to be 
strong vis-a-vis China is to be strong internally.''
    They celebrate when they see us in chaos. They celebrate 
when they see an attack on the U.S. Capitol by domestic 
insurrectionists. They celebrate when they see the Congress of 
the United States fighting over whether we even want to analyze 
what happened in order to prevent it from happening again.
    So you have a big job to go out to the world and get good 
work done with respect to shoring up China, but we have a lot 
of work to do here to demonstrate unity of purpose and resolve. 
I think the bill that we are about to pass on the Senate floor, 
which is built largely on this committee's nearly unanimous 
work on a China bill a month or so ago, is a really good piece 
of this.
    The other thing we need to do with respect to China--and 
then here is my last question for you--is what they most fear 
about us is not our military, not even our economy. What they 
most fear about us is our network of allies, because they do 
not really have them. People understand China is predatory, 
self-interested, and they are not an ally or a partner in the 
traditional sense. They do not like NATO. They do not like the 
Quad. They do not like U.S.-India cooperation. They hated the 
idea of a Trans-Pacific partnership with the U.S. more engaged 
in Asia. They hate the network of alliances.
    So tell us about the Summit for Democracy and what the 
Biden administration and the State Department are going to do 
in planning this gathering of the global democracies to share 
best practices, to look in the mirror and be self-critical, and 
to try to improve and strengthen democratic ties. That will be 
the thing that will most rattle the cage of Chinese leadership.
    Secretary Blinken. Well, first, Senator, I do not think I 
have a word to add or to change based on what you just said. 
Actually, your description of planning for the summit is also 
right on. I think we are actively doing that. We look forward 
to hopefully the participation of members of this committee; 
but well before that, to sharing our thinking in more detail 
about what we are doing.
    To the point that you just made, I think this is an 
opportunity for countries, democratic countries, to come 
together to look at the different challenges to democracy that 
we are each facing, including internally, because there are a 
lot of common denominators that manifest themselves in 
different ways. We want to have that conversation, as well as 
looking at what we can do to strengthen, to shore up, to make 
more resilient democracies around the world, as well as have a 
common agenda on a number of the most critical issues, dealing 
with autocracies being right at the top of the list.
    I am looking forward to an opportunity in the relatively 
near future to starting to share some more detailed thinking 
and to get thinking from this committee about how we can make 
this--and, by the way, not just a one off, but part of an 
ongoing process and an ongoing dialogue among democracies to 
deal with the challenges we face.
    Senator Kaine. I am over my time. Thanks for your 
indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Hagerty.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, it is good to be with you again today.
    Mr. Secretary, I would like to applaud you for your support 
of the Abraham Accords. As recently as April of this year, you 
were at the Israeli Embassy here in the United States speaking 
in a very positive vein about what the Abraham Accords have 
done to bring peace and stability to a very important region of 
the world in the Middle East. I would also applaud our national 
security advisor, Jake Sullivan, who talked about this in late 
January, specifically saying that the Abraham Accords brought 
about greater security for the region, greater economic 
prosperity for the region, and it was in America's interest, 
and I agree with those statements.
    I was just in Israel, as I mentioned to you this morning, 
and I met with a number of Israeli business leaders while I was 
there. They have every interest in seeing the progress that was 
underway, that is underway, continue. I was encouraged by the 
fact that they are doing business right now. I met with two 
businessmen who are doing business in the UAE and trying to 
continue this momentum forward.
    I think that it is a very positive development that is 
undertaken. I think the momentum in that direction has been 
very positive. I look forward to your comments on how you would 
continue to move us down that lane.
    Secretary Blinken. Senator, I could not agree with you 
more. I think two things that we are working on. One is with 
those countries that are already a part of the Accord. That is, 
they are moving forward on normalization in one way or another 
with Israel. We are engaged with them as well as with Israel 
and looking to see how we can be supportive, how we can help 
move that process forward. If there are any moments when things 
get a little bit stuck, maybe we can help unstick things.
    To your point, I think people are extremely receptive, and 
this is going to have, I think, very concrete, positive 
manifestations in people's lives, in particular because of the 
increased business, trade, economic relationships, among other 
things.
    Second, though, is we are also looking to see if there are 
countries that are not yet part of the Accords that might be 
interested in joining. We are very actively looking at that and 
talking to countries that may have an interest and encouraging 
them in that direction.
    Senator Hagerty. I appreciate Senator Coon's comments in 
this regard, and I would join him to say we look forward to 
working with you and utilizing the tools that have already been 
developed with the Development Finance Corporation and others 
that we can utilize to continue to move down this path, because 
I think prosperity will breed peace, and I think the momentum 
is important there.
    Another side of this, though, is Iran. Those same people 
expressed to me a concern about our appeasement of Iran, and 
were we to continue to move in this direction, it is going to 
make it more difficult for us in the Middle East. I appreciate 
the reasons why the Europeans are there in Vienna trying to 
encourage this, but our partners and our allies in the Middle 
East are very concerned about our posture toward Iran.
    I mentioned this to you earlier this morning. To the extent 
that Iran were to receive sanctions relief, I am very concerned 
that those dollars not find their way back to proxies like 
Hamas and Hezbollah. I just witnessed the devastation on the 
ground of what that Iranian technology and Iranian funding can 
do and can deliver in terms of the havoc and death of civilians 
through that.
    I also am concerned about the aid to the Palestinian 
Authority. With Hamas' involvement in the Gaza Strip, the 
efforts to rebuild, the Israeli leaders that I met with were 
very clear to me that those funds find their way into tunnels. 
They described a water project that had been funded for the 
Gaza area. The pipes for the water project got converted into 
weaponry that landed in Israel.
    I think it is going to take a tremendous amount of 
diligence. I would prefer to not do this until Hamas, their 
grip on the area has been changed, and I am going to be very 
focused on, again, seeing that we be very good stewards of 
taxpayer dollars and not allow these dollars in any way or 
respect to get into the hands of terrorists again.
    Iran has, again, restated its willingness and desire to re-
arm Hamas and help them build their terrorism infrastructure. 
So I am extraordinarily concerned about any move that would put 
more financial capability into the hands of Iran.
    I would like to turn our discussion for a bit to the East 
Asia Pacific region. You and I have discussed this. I think 
that the Indo-Pacific strategy is absolutely critical to 
American safety and prosperity. The Biden administration's own 
plans underscore the fact that China is the only nation that is 
really capable of mounting resistance to America and becoming a 
greater and greater threat, not only to America, but to the 
world every day. The State Department plays a very important 
role in this region, and looking at the budget, the allocation 
of resources there, we put more resources in Africa, we put 
more resources in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs 
than we do in the East Asia Pacific region, and I just wanted 
to get your thoughts about the resourcing of the State 
Department in this area and where you see it going.
    Secretary Blinken. I very much appreciate that, and I 
appreciate as well all of the work that you have done, 
including in prior capacities in this area.
    Look, to your point, the Indo-Pacific is the front line of 
the competition with China. China dedicates about 50 percent of 
its assistance and 50 percent of its economic diplomacy to the 
Indo-Pacific. We have asked for in the budget resources to help 
contend with that, but this has to be a whole-of-government 
enterprise.
    We talked a little bit earlier, for example, about the DFC, 
something I know you know very well, and other instruments that 
we have to compete more effectively and that we are determined 
to bring to bear. I think we are looking at this politically; 
and, of course, I think it was very important that the 
President convened the first-ever leaders-level meeting of the 
Quad, and we are moving forward on that. We actually have 
working groups among the Quad countries--the United States, 
India, Australia, and Japan.
    Senator Hagerty. I applaud that effort.
    Secretary Blinken. Then at the same time there is, of 
course, the economic aspect to this, where things like the DFC 
and others come into play. There is the military and deterrent 
piece that is very important and that we are working on. In 
other words, we have to work this across the entire Government.
    Just to assure you in terms of our focus and our resources, 
we believe, as you do, that the Indo-Pacific is a critical 
destination for them.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you. I would just close with one 
comment. I was very encouraged by your report from the G7 that 
your counterparts are appreciating and understanding the threat 
from China, particularly from a technology standpoint, and you 
and I have talked about this before. The Clean Network 
Initiative I think is a great piece of work that has been 
undertaken. I want to continue to encourage you to undertake 
that effort, however you decide to name it. I think that it can 
have a terrific impact in terms of bringing our allies together 
to support a clean network around the world.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Markey.
    I am going to ask Senator Schatz, would you preside here so 
I can go vote? Thank you.
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good to see you again, Mr. Secretary. When you were here 
last, you committed to oversee an interagency process to 
determine whether the atrocities committed against the Rohingya 
minority in Burma constitutes genocide. Since then, the same 
military leaders who orchestrated atrocities against the 
Rohingya have seized power in a violent coup against the 
elected Government, and it is estimated that more than 800 
people have been killed in this ongoing crackdown.
    Could you update us on what the status of the genocide 
determination process is and when you expect to make a 
decision?
    Secretary Blinken. It is ongoing and actively ongoing. I 
cannot put a date to it. I need to actually check with my 
colleagues to see exactly when they expect to complete it, but 
I can tell you it is very much actively ongoing. At the same 
time we are doing other work, including supporting the work of 
the U.N. investigative mechanism to try to collect and preserve 
evidence that will be very important as well. I am happy to 
come back to you with a timeline.
    Senator Markey. Thank you. Again, I think the more that can 
be done on an expedited basis would be the better. Justice 
delayed is justice denied for these people, so I think it would 
be very helpful to know that the U.S. Government is on their 
side.
    The Burmese military junta continues to attack peaceful 
citizen protesters and denies its citizens basic human rights 
and democratic rule. The recent arrests of foreign journalists, 
including Americans Danny Fenster and Nathan Maung, highlight 
the urgency of cutting off this brutal regime's financial 
flows.
    Can you tell us what steps are being taken by the U.S. 
Government to secure the release of Danny Fenster and Nathan 
Maung?
    Secretary Blinken. Yes. We are very concerned with their 
detentions, journalists doing their jobs, Americans. We had 
actually consular access to Nathan Maung. We have not had that 
access to Daniel Fenster, which in and of itself is a violation 
of the Vienna Convention, among other things. So we are 
pressing in every way that we can not only to get the access in 
the first instance, but to get them released and get them home. 
It is challenging because, of course, our contacts and ability 
to engage the military regime are extremely limited, but we are 
working this through other countries, other partners as well.
    Senator Markey. So whether it is journalism being practiced 
in the United States or in Saudi Arabia or in Burma, I think it 
is absolutely imperative that the United States Government 
stand up to make sure that their names are known and that they 
know that they are going to have the United States Government 
on their side. So the more that can be done, I think the better 
for every journalist in the world sending that signal.
    In March, I called for the United States to take steps to 
sanction the Myanmar oil and gas enterprise, whose revenues are 
an estimated $1.5 billion annually and make up one of the 
largest remaining streams funding the junta. Will the United 
States take steps to cut off the flow of oil and gas revenues 
to the military junta? Some companies have suspended payments, 
but there is still no comprehensive regime in place to ensure 
these funds do not continue to support the military.
    Secretary Blinken. Yes, we are looking at the most 
effective means we can bring to bear to deny support to the 
regime. That includes, by the way, engaging other countries 
that have investments in enterprises that support the regime to 
consider ending those investments and that support. We will 
look at anything that can meaningfully do that. We also have to 
factor in the impact that any step would have on the people of 
Burma to make sure we are not doing harm to them in the 
process.
    Senator Markey. I think it is important for us not to do 
harm, but I have had extensive conversations with the Burmese 
activists, members of the national unity Government, and NGOs 
who argue strongly that we can cut off this funding to the 
military without major negative impacts to the people of Burma, 
who are already suffering so much. So I just urge you to use 
all the tools you have to cut off that funding. Oil revenues, 
unfortunately, in too many countries of the world is the stream 
that goes to the plutocrats, the autocrats that run these 
countries. The more that we deal with the oil and gas issues in 
all these countries I think the better off we are.
    I want to applaud you for prioritizing LGBTQI rights in the 
first 100 days. As we celebrate Pride Month all around the 
world, the Pride flag hangs across U.S. embassies, sending a 
message of tolerance and love. Back here in January, you said 
that you were going to swiftly appoint an LGBTQI envoy. Could 
you give us an update on what the status of that promise is?
    Secretary Blinken. The best update is to say stay tuned. We 
are actively working on that. We have to, as you know, run 
through a lot of traps when it comes to making vetting, et 
cetera. We are actively working on that, and I hope to have a 
name for you in the near future.
    Senator Markey. If I may, in terms of international law, it 
is legal for asylum seekers to present themselves at the United 
States border for processing. Could you clarify what the 
Administration's position is on that? Because the number of 
refugees and asylum seekers who need help is larger than ever, 
and it will probably increase. So what is that message to those 
who are seeking asylum in our country in terms of presenting 
themselves at our border?
    Secretary Blinken. You are correct, but I do not want to 
get out of my lane and make sure that I am deferring to my 
colleagues who are responsible for these issues, starting with 
the Department of Homeland Security and the secretary there. As 
a basic proposition, our entire practice and history up until 
recently had been that, yes, people have the right to present 
themselves for asylum and to have that request considered and 
acted on. I think one of the very significant challenges that 
we faced over the years is that we have not had the resources 
in place to deal with that effectively and efficiently. As a 
result, people presenting themselves for asylum would not have 
their case evaluated and adjudicated in a short period of time, 
and that led to a series of other problems and concerns.
    So one of the things I think that would need to be done in 
order to make good on the long tradition of having people 
present themselves for asylum is to make sure that there are 
actually resources in place to do that. For example, judges or 
others who are able to quickly assess and evaluate whether 
there is a legitimate claim, because if there is not, people 
need to return.
    Now, as a practical matter right now, the border is not 
open. We also have Title 42 that is in effect as a result of 
COVID. In the future we need to reform the system for asylum.
    Senator Markey. We do not want to change our policy on 
asylum. We want to make sure that the funding is there so that 
those who do present themselves are given the protections of 
American law.
    I cannot thank you enough, Mr. Secretary, for the great job 
you are doing. Thank you.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Schatz [presiding]. Senator Young.
    Senator Young. Welcome. Good to see you, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Secretary, where a department decides to allocate its 
resources suggests what its priorities are. We see this clearly 
in the State Department's allocation of foreign military 
financing. The Department requests $6.1 billion in FMF for the 
upcoming year, of which a mere $129 million is allocated for 
partners in East Asia and the Pacific at a time of increasing 
Chinese military aggression across the region.
    The China legislation that this chamber is currently 
considering for the U.S. Senate, and that I hope passes today, 
includes a provision from this committee which would more than 
double the availability of FMF to the Indo-Pacific over the 
next 5 years, more than $650 million in total. What would be 
your priorities for directing these funds, the $650 million? 
Then relatedly, more broadly, maybe you could speak to the 
State Department's priorities for increasing conventional 
military assistance; that is, foreign military funding, as well 
as training.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you very much. Let me just say, we 
welcome working with you on that going forward to make sure 
that we are directing and dedicating our resources in the most 
important places and as effectively as possible.
    I think we have to look at this in a couple of ways. One, 
in some instances, particularly in the Asia Pacific, we benefit 
from already extremely capable allies and partners, including 
allies and partners that have the means to further make 
necessary investments in their defense and in our collective 
security. So that is an important factor.
    Of course, as you know, with both Japan and Korea, we have 
been working very hard to extend the host nation support 
agreements that we have, as well as make available technology 
to them and to other partners. Similarly, we have a long track 
record of doing that with Australia.
    Having said that, I would actually welcome an opportunity 
to think with you about how we can most effectively direct that 
kind of assistance and support.
    Senator Young. I appreciate that. I will follow up with you 
and your team in that regard.
    Earlier this year, Mr. Secretary, the previous commander of 
INDOPACOM, the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, called for consistent 
arms sales to Taiwan and for the United States to help to 
encourage Taiwan on their investments, including investments 
which are critical to deterring China.
    What capabilities, Mr. Secretary, are most important for 
Taiwan to possess?
    Secretary Blinken. I think there are a few things. First 
and to your point, I think we have had about $18 billion in 
foreign military sales since 2017. So there is a strong 
foundation, and indeed a number of sales have gone forward just 
within the last weeks and months.
    One of the things I think we should focus on is helping 
Taiwan strengthen its asymmetric capabilities like reserve 
force reform. There is some focus countries often have on these 
large weapons systems. That can be important in defense, but 
the strategies, the asymmetric capabilities, these are I think 
increasingly important.
    Senator Young. How can we build and support a robust 
foreign military financing agreement with Taiwan so that we 
might give them greater flexibility in increasing their 
conventional capabilities?
    Secretary Blinken. I would certainly be interested in 
hearing where there are problems, constraints, challenges, and 
looking to see if there is more we can do and more effectively 
consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act and our commitment to 
make sure that Taiwan has the means to defend itself.
    Senator Young. I think we are going to have to make some 
difficult decisions there moving forward. I look forward to 
working with you.
    Related to difficult decisions and problem sets, let us 
pivot to Iran. I know many of my colleagues are deeply 
concerned about the Administration's hurry to reach a nuclear 
agreement with Iran, even as the regime provides material 
support to groups that just spent 2 weeks raining rockets into 
our ally, Israel. I hope you can appreciate the tension that 
some see or feel there.
    Why does the Department believe that relaxing sanctions and 
providing more resources for Iran to fund their proxy network 
would improve the security of the region?
    Secretary Blinken. Senator, I think what would improve the 
security of the region would be to start with making sure that 
Iran cannot continue to gallop forward with its nuclear 
program, which unfortunately it is doing since we pulled out of 
the agreement and it decided as a result not to abide by the 
constraints. As we were discussing a little bit earlier with 
our colleagues, what we have seen Iran do under maximum 
pressure is to significantly increase its capacity when it 
comes to its stockpile of enriched uranium, more than tenfold 
what it had during the agreement, when it comes to spinning 
more advanced centrifuges, enriching to 20 percent and in some 
cases to 60 percent. All of this means that Iran is now moving 
inexorably to a place where the breakout time to produce 
fissile material for a weapon will move from a year or more 
under the agreement to now probably a few months, and if this 
keeps going to a matter of weeks.
    As we were discussing earlier, that means that Iran is 
going to act with even greater impunity in all these other 
areas where we all agree we need to stop what it is doing.
    Beyond that, I would say that, unfortunately, Iran's 
support for terrorism, for groups like Hamas, destabilizing 
actions in the region, that was happening before the JCPOA, it 
was happening during the JCPOA, and it has accelerated since we 
pulled out of the JCPOA and Iran has lifted not only 
constraints on the nuclear side, but apparently constraints on 
its actions in other areas.
    Senator Young. I will just end with a couple of sentences, 
with the Chairman's indulgence here, because I am over my 
allotted time.
    I will just indicate that it remains unclear to me how the 
Administration intends to reach a longer and stronger nuclear 
deal. If you spoke to that today, I am unclear how you get 
there. I know the President campaigned on that, but I am 
unclear how we get there. I would also indicate that if any 
deal is struck between the Administration and our negotiators 
and the Iranians, that that needs--Senator Johnson has 
indicated that needs to be submitted to this body as a treaty 
so that we can give sanction to it so it might be more enduring 
as we look into the future. Thank you.
    Secretary Blinken. Thanks, Senator.
    The Chairman [presiding]. Senator Merkley.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank 
you, Mr. Secretary.
    The previous Administration and State Department under 
Secretary Pompeo found that China was engaged in genocide in 
its treatment of the Uyghur community, and under your 
leadership I believe the State Department has reaffirmed that 
China is engaged in genocide.
    Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
    Senator Merkley. So right now we have a bill on the floor, 
a competition bill with China, and lots of Chinese issues are 
getting attention, including this. The sanctions that are in 
Senator Rubio's and my Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act are 
in the underlying bill, and also attention to the fact that 
China is hosting the 2022 Olympic Games while engaged in 
genocide. The underlying bill has Senator Romney's amendment 
from committee. I think it had substantial bipartisan support, 
a sense of Congress that diplomats should not attend.
    So I just wanted to ask you today, do you support diplomats 
from the United States not attending the 2022 Olympics while 
China is engaged in genocide?
    Secretary Blinken. Senator, what we are doing right now is 
consulting closely with allies and partners to define the 
common concerns that we have about China, and ideally to 
establish a shared approach, which I think would be much more 
effective than everyone going off in their own direction. So we 
are in the process of those consultations, and I would be happy 
to share more as we move forward.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you. As you engage in those shared 
approaches, I just want to remind you--but I do not need to do 
it because I know you know this--that this has echoes of 1936 
when Hitler, when the Nazi regime hosted the Olympics in 
Germany while they were already engaged in egregious brutal 
treatment of Jewish Germans and other political opponents 
within Germany, and that was considered a massive propaganda 
victory for Hitler and distracted attention from that brutal 
treatment.
    That is the point about a diplomatic boycott. I think even 
if our allies end up not agreeing, I think the U.S. should take 
that stand, and I think the majority of the members of this 
committee--maybe it was universal in adopting Senator Romney's 
amendment. So I just want to encourage you to ponder that frame 
in that conversation with our allies. I think it is an 
important frame also for our stand on human rights more broadly 
and advocacy around the planet.
    On another China topic, they are financing some 200 to 240 
coal projects around the world at the same time that we are 
already in deep trouble. I was struck by the map that came out 
in the New York Times 2 weeks ago that showed the last 30 years 
compared to the previous 30 years, so 1990 through 2020 
compared to 1960 to 1990, in terms of both the temperature 
patterns average and the drought patterns. It was a dramatic, 
dramatic change between those two periods. We are already 
approaching 1 to 1.5 degrees Centigrade across parts of the 
United States.
    So I was concerned when the Administration greenlighted the 
Willow project. That is 160,000 estimated barrels per day, 
producing as early as 2024 on the North Slope, for an estimated 
30 years, so a massive extraction.
    I was concerned in part because when you extract that oil, 
it gets burned somewhere and it has a massive acceleration of 
the impacts. The big irony is they are having to freeze the 
permafrost, which I guess we will have to stop calling 
permafrost, in order to support the equipment to extract the 
oil which will accelerate the melting.
    I am also concerned on the diplomatic front, that if we 
engage in this type of extraction, new projects--and, by the 
way, the pipelines that are being greenlighted through this, 
hundreds of miles of pipeline, are considered to be essentially 
the pathway for other projects that will follow the Willow 
project. If we do that, how do we have the standing in the 
world to talk about Canadian tar sands, to talk about Chinese 
coal plants, and to lead this world in the biggest challenge 
humanity has faced, which is a fast pivot off fossil fuels?
    Secretary Blinken. Senator, I very much agree with the 
general proposition that leading by the power of our example is 
important. When it comes to climate, I cannot comment on 
domestic internal issues. It is not my brief, but let me say 
this. I think that we have made very significant commitments 
when it comes to curbing emissions going forward, and that in 
turn has helped us leverage much more meaningful commitments 
from other countries, which are absolutely essential if we are 
going to solve this problem, as you know better than I do. We 
are 15 percent of global emissions. So even if we do everything 
right at home, we have to bring the other 85 percent along, 
plus we should not be the only ones tackling this problem.
    So what I have seen at least internationally so far--this 
is all I can attest to--is that rejoining Paris, the summit 
convened by President Biden of world leaders just a couple of 
months ago, and the raised ambitions of our own efforts have 
had a meaningful impact of bringing others to raise their 
ambitions and to do more, and that is at least what I am seeing 
so far.
    Senator Merkley. Well, I do think there have been a lot of 
actions of the Administration that have been very helpful in 
that regard. I also feel this decision, and the Nord Stream 2 
decision, both involving more fossil fuel infrastructure, more 
extraction, slow down the pivot that is essential, and I do not 
think that humanity addresses this challenge without really 
fierce, determined American leadership.
    My final question. I condemn Hamas' use of the rockets 
against Israel, but I am also concerned about Israel 
undermining the possibility for peace by continuously 
establishing new settlements, expanding those settlements, and 
establishing roadways that split the West Bank into a number of 
smaller units that make a potential economy in a two-state 
solution extremely difficult.
    Is this a concern that you share, and did you raise this 
concern in your meeting with Benny Ganzt last week?
    Secretary Blinken. Yes and yes.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Barrasso.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, welcome back. I would like to follow up on 
some things I asked of you during the confirmation process, and 
the first is Nord Stream 2, the pipeline. There is strong 
bipartisan opposition on this committee and throughout the 
entire Senate to President Biden's deliberate failure to 
sanction all of the entities that are involved in the 
construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
    Protecting this Russian trap is not in the U.S. national 
security interest. It is a grave mistake. The pipeline 
threatens the energy security of our friends as well as our 
allies. We know that Russia uses energy as a geopolitical 
weapon to coerce, to manipulate. I know you have agreed to that 
during our confirmation hearing, and it does seem that 
President Biden is now allowing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to 
be added to Russia's energy arsenal.
    Putin has said essentially the same thing. On Friday he 
stated that Ukraine must now show good will if it wants Russian 
gas transiting through the country to continue. He said that 
Russia is going to further threaten to cut gas to Ukraine. They 
have done that over the Donbas conflict. This is even before 
Nord Stream 2 has been completed.
    So I think it is really critical that we act now. I think 
we have a misguided policy right now coming from your boss, the 
President. I think it is in our national security interest to 
impose sanctions on Nord Stream 2 now. Why is it not in our 
national security interest to impose those sanctions?
    Secretary Blinken. If the sanctions could, in our judgment, 
have been effective in actually stopping the physical 
completion of the pipeline, that would have been one thing. In 
our judgment, they would not have had that effect. We did, as 
you know, on May 19, sanction more entities than have ever been 
sanctioned under the PEESA legislation.
    As you know as well, the pipeline construction began in 
2018. By the time we took office, it was more than 90 percent 
complete. As we looked at this, it became clear to us that the 
actual joining of those last pipes was not going to be stopped 
by sanctioning the overall entity, Nord Stream 2 AG, or the 
CEO.
    Having said that, two things are very important. One, the 
waiver that we issued can be rescinded at any time. Second, 
what has to happen--there are two things that have to happen, 
and they are, I think, happening. Germany is coming to the 
table to talk about steps that would need to be taken if 
anything starts to flow through this pipeline to make sure that 
any damage done to Ukraine in fact is not done, is undone. As 
we discussed a little bit earlier, it involves several things. 
It involves making sure that Ukraine is whole when it comes to 
any transit fees that it might lose as a result of the pipeline 
actually going into operation. Second, ensuring that gas, or 
oil for that matter, cannot be used as a weapon of coercion, of 
blackmail, by Russia, and there are means to do that. Third, to 
make sure that countries are acting up front when Russia acts 
out to respond.
    I would also point out that when it comes to the operation 
of the pipeline, there are very significant remaining factors 
that have to be taken into account: insurance, permitting. We 
are looking very hard at those entities as well.
    So we need to see going forward what we can put in place to 
prevent, mitigate, and undo any damage that would be done if 
the pipeline actually begins operations. As a very practical 
matter, when it came to the last few meters of this pipeline, 
it was our judgment that sanctioning that entity would not have 
had any effect. The worst of all worlds would be a combination 
of pipeline physically completed, relationship with Germany 
poisoned, and no incentive for Germany to actually come to the 
table to engage in trying to mitigate the damage that could be 
done by the pipeline actually operating.
    Senator Barrasso. I would just point out, Mr. Secretary, 
that during your confirmation process, because you just talked 
about the last few meters, you reiterated your opposition to 
the Nord Stream 2 and you said, ``I am determined to do 
whatever we can to prevent that completion, the last hundred 
yards.'' So the fact that it was 90 percent complete when you 
came into office and the Administration came into office, your 
commitment to us was the last hundred yards.
    I want to move on to the World Health Organization. While 
President Biden and the Administration vowed to reform the 
World Health Organization, I think it threw away its leverage 
early on by rejoining the World Health Organization and giving 
it more than $200 million. The Administration could have 
insisted reforms be made. The annual World Health Assembly 
meeting on May 24 was another opportunity to demand action, yet 
it just reinforced the systemic problems and the inability of 
this organization to make real reforms. For example, China 
succeeded in that meeting in blocking Taiwan's participation at 
the World Health Assembly.
    Look, Taiwan only wanted to be an observer, and arguably 
Taiwan has one of the world's best records in combatting COVID-
19.
    In May you stated: ``There is no reasonable justification 
for Taiwan's continued exclusion''--we agree--``from the 
forum.'' In addition, the World Health Assembly voted to place 
Syria and Belarus in leadership positions at the World Health 
Organization.
    You claim the best way to reform the World Health 
Organization is from within. No reforms are being made. How 
will we be able to make any meaningful reforms at the World 
Health Organization if we cannot even prevent dictators like 
Assad, who slaughters his own people, from having a leadership 
role in what is the World Health Organization?
    Secretary Blinken. We have only just gotten reengaged with 
the World Health Organization. Unfortunately, this is not like 
flipping a switch. There is, you are right, work to be done, 
work that we are doing to push that body, that institution, to 
make the necessary reforms, and we are very intent on that.
    I think you saw with the initial phase one report that was 
done on the COVID origins the initial impulse might have been 
to say ``work done, job complete,'' but a number of us made 
very clear the absolute not only inadequacy of that report, but 
the fact that its methodology and the engagement by China in 
writing the report was totally insufficient and undermined its 
credibility, and now the head of the World Health Organization 
has basically agreed with that and they are pursuing phase two, 
which is vitally important to try to get to the bottom of what 
happened.
    Senator Barrasso. Let me just conclude. May 12, we had a 
committee hearing, bipartisan committee, titled ``COVID-19 
Pandemic and International Response.'' Gayle Smith, who is the 
State Department Coordinator for Global COVID Response and 
Health Security, was here. I specifically urged her to use the 
World Health Assembly annual meeting to push for reforms and 
get them implemented. That certainly did not occur, and I think 
it is fair to say the actions were unsuccessful.
    Secretary Blinken. We are working on pushing the 
organization to reform. As I said, it is not like flipping a 
switch, but we are very much focused on doing that, and we will 
come back to you as this moves along to see if we succeed in 
moving in the right direction.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you, Senator.
    The Chairman. Senator Schatz.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Secretary, for being here.
    I want to talk about climate. I know what you are doing in 
the big picture. I want to talk to you about climate within the 
Department, with the Foreign Service officers and throughout.
    I worry a bit that climate policy swings back and forth 
depending on who is President, and to the extent that it is 
possible, I think it is really important for the Department of 
State in particular to kind of embed in its work, in its 
training, in its day-to-day operations, in your bilateral 
conversations, not just at the Secretary level, but at the line 
level, conversations about collaboration on climate action, 
which is to say transitioning to a clean energy economy, but 
also climate mitigation strategies which, in the short run, I 
think are the best platform for bilateral good will building, 
particularly in Oceania and other places that are immediately 
facing those impacts.
    So can you talk to me a little bit about what the 
Department itself is doing, not at the foreign policy level, 
but at the line level?
    Secretary Blinken. Sure. A few things. First, we do have 
two things at the Department right now. Of course, we have the 
work that the former Secretary Kerry is doing as our special 
envoy on climate diplomacy around the world. We also have, 
critically, a very important bureau that I hope will soon get 
confirmed by the Senate, new leadership that is going to be 
very important.
    In our budget request, both in terms of the resources and 
in terms of the human resources, we know that we need to build 
up our capacity, our expertise, in a number of areas, and 
climate is one of those, and the request reflects the desire to 
do that.
    So I am hopeful that we get some of these resources to 
bring in more expertise to sharpen our training, to bring to 
bear technology so that we can advance the climate mission more 
effectively.
    Senator Schatz. You are looking at some changes in the 
curriculum for Foreign Service officers?
    Secretary Blinken. Yes.
    Senator Schatz. Okay, good.
    Let me talk to you about Oceania. I really appreciate the 
fact that you gave a message to the Pacific Island Conference 
of Leaders last week, and I know how meaningful it is to have 
the Secretary of State talk directly with leaders from Oceania 
and commit U.S. leadership to confront the climate crisis and 
support vaccine deployment.
    I introduced a bipartisan bill with Senator Murkowski to 
elevate all of Oceania in U.S. foreign policy, and the chairman 
and ranking member included a number of these provisions in the 
bill that we are hopefully adopting today on the Senate floor.
    Can you just talk to me about why it is important that the 
United States step up its engagement with all of Oceania and 
make it a central part of our Indo-Pacific strategy?
    Secretary Blinken. Well, I think, among other things, it is 
one area where we see China very actively engaged on a whole 
variety of levels. Whether it is strategic, whether it is 
economic, whether it is environmental, we want to make sure 
that we, in fact, are effectively engaged and certainly not 
ceding the train.
    We also have, as you know very well, in a number of these 
countries and territories, very significant climate challenges 
that they are going to be on the front lines of having to deal 
with, and we want to make sure that we can be effective in 
helping them deal with it.
    So there are a host of reasons why I think it makes sense 
to try to not only sustain, but increase our engagement. It is 
also one of the reasons I wanted to make sure early on that I 
had an opportunity to engage with these countries.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you. A little bit about the South and 
East China Sea. Everybody knows we are doing freedom of 
navigation operations to keep sea lanes and shipping lanes 
open. Everybody understands what China is doing, which is sort 
of using these so-called ``fishing fleets'' as proxies for the 
Chinese Government.
    I worry a little bit about their ability to control 
escalation, because they are using these proxies, and right now 
we have a rather binary choice between doing nothing and 
mobilizing the United States Navy. Now, if it gets kinetic, we 
win the engagement, but in a lot of ways, everybody loses that 
engagement.
    So I am wondering about the use of the United States Coast 
Guard or other partners, whether we can start to work in an 
intermediate space to be present in the East and South China 
Sea without mobilizing the entire United States Navy, which 
seems to me to be a little bit of a mismatch in raw power.
    Secretary Blinken. Well, a few things. First, with regard 
to the Navy, it is important to note that over the last years, 
starting back in 2010-2011, we shifted our resource deployment 
so that 60 percent of the Navy would be in the Asian Pacific, 
again a process that began back in 2010. That is significant 
because it is important, obviously, to have the deterrent 
capacity. It is important to have the capacity to engage in 
freedom of navigation operations, et cetera. So that is a 
foundational baseline.
    Having said that, I think there are a few things that are 
also very important. We have worked very hard just in the last 
few months with Australia, with France, with Germany, with 
Indonesia, with Japan, with Malaysia, with the Philippines, the 
U.K., Vietnam--that is, concerned countries in the region, as 
well as concerned countries outside of it--to join in speaking 
forcefully and engaging directly when we see China trying to 
abuse its actions, whether it is unlawful claims that it is 
making, the militarization of disputed features, provocations 
with its maritime militia.
    So we have a growing group of countries coming together 
that are focused on this. In addition, we have made very clear 
and reasserted our own defense commitments to countries--for 
example, the Senkaku in Japan. We have an agreement, as you 
know, with the Philippines. We have reaffirmed and reasserted 
those.
    We are certainly looking at other means that can help deal 
with some of the challenges. We talked a little bit earlier, as 
well. My own view--and this is not an administration position 
because it is not something that has come up with the President 
yet. My own view is that we also very much benefit from 
ratifying the Law of the Sea.
    Senator Schatz. That was my final question. So, thank you. 
You said that this morning. I appreciate that you think it 
would be useful to the United States to ratify the Law of the 
Sea Treaty, and I understand you have not talked to the 
President of the United States about this yet. Can you please 
talk to the President of the United States and get back to the 
committee?
    Secretary Blinken. Absolutely. I would say also that when 
he was chairman of this committee and/or ranking member, that 
was something that he supported. In fact, we held hearings back 
then. I think what is particularly significant is that the 
people who feel strongest about this in our Government are our 
colleagues who happen to wear uniforms.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you very much.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    I sat through several Law of the Sea hearings that I was 
asked to chair, and I have to be honest with you, unless we get 
over the ideological problems that some people have about 
entering into these agreements--we spent an enormous amount of 
time. I think it is incredibly important for a whole host of 
both security and economic reasons, but we have got to get some 
people to start rethinking what it is to engage in some of 
these treaties.
    Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, welcome. Thank you for being here.
    Not since the Jimmy Carter administration has an 
Administration had as many serious foreign policy blunders in 
such a short period of time. The Biden administration came in 
and the first week in office ended the ``remain in Mexico'' 
policy, which has prompted the worst illegal immigration crisis 
in 20 years.
    In the Middle East, the Biden administration inherited a 
flowering of peace with the historic Abraham Accords, and the 
Biden administration came in and began undermining our friend 
and ally, the state of Israel, sent over $250 million to the 
Palestinian Authority, which is in bed with Hamas, which 
announced even this week that they are continuing to fund the 
families of terrorists who murder innocent civilians, and they 
are now doing so, in effect, because money is fungible, with 
U.S. taxpayer dollars. As a result of those foreign policy 
blunders, what had been an historic peace became war in recent 
weeks in the Middle East.
    I think there is no area in which the foreign policy 
blunders have been greater than concerning Russia and Nord 
Stream 2. You are not surprised that I am making this point to 
you today.
    I think it is useful to pause for a moment and reflect on 
the successes we had as a nation concerning Russia and Nord 
Stream 2 and just how President Biden has given those away.
    In the summer and fall of 2019, I introduced in this 
committee bipartisan sanctions to stop the construction of Nord 
Stream 2, the natural gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. I 
did so along with Senator Shaheen. It was overwhelmingly 
bipartisan. Indeed, every Democrat on this committee supported 
it, and all but one Republican on this committee supported it.
    At the time, there was considerable Russian disinformation 
being pushed in Europe. The Russian disinformation said the 
pipeline is nearly complete. As they said later that year, the 
pipeline is 90 percent complete, you cannot stop it, the 
sanctions cannot work. The Russians pushed that relentlessly, 
relentlessly, relentlessly. We now know that disinformation was 
a lie.
    The Congress passed that bipartisan legislation into law. 
It was signed into law, if my memory serves me correctly, at 
7:00 p.m. on a Thursday. At 6:45 p.m., 15 minutes before the 
President signed those bipartisan sanctions into law, the 
company building the pipeline announced they were immediately 
halting construction. So the Russian disinformation was exactly 
that, it was a lie, and the sanctions worked.
    From that moment, for the next year, the pipeline laid 
dormant and fallow and there was no construction. The next 
year, in December of 2020, I introduced, along with Senator 
Shaheen, a second wave of bipartisan sanctions that passed into 
law, ratcheting up the punishment even more. Then, 
unfortunately, the Biden administration came in and turned this 
incredible bipartisan victory for America into a colossal 
failure. It started in November, shortly after the election in 
2020, when an individual, Nicholas Burns, who was identified as 
an advisor to then President-elect Biden, told a German 
newspaper that, ``the Americans must suspend sanctions in 
return for a temporary halt to Nord Stream 2.''
    Now, that message from the incoming Biden team was heard 
loud and clear, which is why the Moscow Times quoted the German 
foreign minister as saying of course we are very interested in 
discussing the Nord Stream 2 topic with the new Administration 
in Washington. That initial sign of weakness was heard, and in 
late December the Russians resumed construction. For a year it 
had been dormant. In late December they resumed construction in 
German waters.
    It was not yet done. The second wave of sanctions that we 
passed into law still gave them pause. They threatened to 
resume construction in deep sea Danish waters on January 15, 
but they did not dare. They did not dare because they believed 
the outgoing Trump administration would impose sanctions, and 
they recommenced construction of the pipeline in Danish waters 
on January 24, 5 days after President Biden was sworn into 
office. They did so because they were convinced that the Biden 
administration would not enforce the sanctions.
    You sat before this committee and promised you would use 
every tool you have to stop the pipeline. You sat in my office 
and promised--you and I discussed this at great length in my 
office. You promised you would use every tool you have to stop 
the pipeline. You put out a public statement in March that 
explicitly warned, ``Any entity involved in the Nord Stream 2 
pipeline risks U.S. sanctions and should immediately abandon 
work on the pipeline.''
    Then, unfortunately, the Biden administration decided to 
waive those sanctions for Nord Stream 2 AG, the umbrella group 
building the pipeline, and for its CEO. In doing so, the Biden 
administration all but ensured this pipeline will be completed 
because, I assume, you have made a decision to embrace Angela 
Merkel and, in doing so, to allow this pipeline to be completed 
even though it puts billions of dollars in the pockets of 
Vladimir Putin, it weakens Europe, it makes Europe more 
dependent on Russia for energy, and it hurts American jobs.
    Why did Joe Biden decide to waive the bipartisan sanctions 
and give what is in effect a multi-billion-dollar gift to 
Vladimir Putin?
    Secretary Blinken. Senator, it will not surprise you to 
know that I disagree with your assessment across the board. 
Just to focus on the pipeline, I think we are apparently not 
working from the same fact set because under your chronology, 
miraculously, the construction of the pipeline had been not 
only halted, but could not have been very far along, and then 
somehow suddenly----
    Senator Cruz. With respect, it was 90 percent complete in 
2019 when the sanctions went into effect. So the statement you 
made earlier that it was 90 percent complete, there was nothing 
you can do, that was true a year ago, and the sanctions worked.
    Secretary Blinken. Well, it was more than 90 percent 
complete based on the information we had when we came to 
office.
    Senator Cruz. That was true a year ago when the sanctions 
were passed.
    Secretary Blinken. What we saw and what we have seen is the 
companies finding workarounds, finding alternatives. As one 
company would drop out, another would drop in. The Russians 
were able to bring to bear----
    Senator Cruz. Prior to the Biden team suggesting sanctions 
would not be imposed, had they returned to building the 
pipeline?
    Secretary Blinken. We did not suggest the sanctions would 
not be imposed. I think----
    Senator Cruz. Was the quote from Nicholas Burns not 
accurate?
    Secretary Blinken. Mr. Burns was not a member of the 
Administration. There was no Administration at that point, but 
beyond that, had the----
    Senator Cruz. Was it purely coincidence that it began on 
January 24?
    Secretary Blinken. Had the Germans agreed to----
    The Chairman. The Secretary will suspend.
    The Senator used all 7 of his minutes before he asked this 
question. I have allowed you two interruptions. We are going to 
let the Secretary finish, and then I need to go to another 
member who has been waiting for some time.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator, had the idea, for example, of suspension for 
suspension--that is, the Germans and others suspend all work on 
the pipeline in return for a suspension of sanctions--that 
would have been, I think, a positive outcome, and that would 
have given us time to work to make sure that the pipeline could 
not be completed. It was our judgment, based on the facts that 
we had available to us, including from the intelligence 
community, that the construction was going to be completed, the 
physical construction, regardless of any step that we took in 
the last few months.
    As you know, we did sanction more entities under PEESA in 
this last round, May 19, than had ever been sanctioned before. 
We also need to preserve the ability to insist that Germany 
work with us if the pipeline is actually going to become 
operational, distinction between the physical completion of the 
pipeline and it becoming operational, to mitigate and try to 
undo the damage that we agree would be done potentially to 
Ukraine, potentially to others, and that is what the Germans 
are now doing.
    I think the worst possible outcome from our perspective 
would be physical completion of the pipeline, sanctions that 
did not stop it, a poisoned relationship with Germany and no 
incentive on Germany's part to actually work to undo or 
mitigate the damage that will be done to Ukraine. So that is 
what we are working on now.
    As I mentioned, perhaps before you came in, we do still 
also have some things that we are looking hard at because, as 
you know very well, there are permitting requirements, even 
with the physical completion of the pipeline, before it becomes 
operational. There are insurance requirements, and we are 
looking very hard at any entities that might be engaged in 
those efforts. At the same time, we need to make sure that if 
this does become operational at some point, that Ukraine is 
protected, others are protected. There are ways that we are 
able to do that, making sure that it is made whole on any lost 
transit fees, making sure that gas cannot be used as a tool of 
blackmail or coercion, so having a reserve that can come to its 
assistance if Russia tried to do that; other steps to 
automatically come back at Russia if it misbehaves.
    So we are putting all of that in place, and I just want to 
come back to another proposition that is important: the waiver 
can be rescinded at any time.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Van Hollen is recognized, and I am going to ask him 
to preside as I go vote. There is also, still pending, finally 
Senator Booker and Senator Murphy, and then we will be 
finished.
    Senator Van Hollen [presiding]. Mr. Secretary, it is good 
to see you again.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Senator Van Hollen. As I mentioned at this morning's 
Appropriations Committee hearing, I support the overall 
contours of the budget that you and the President have 
submitted. We need a strong Department of State. We need a 
strong Foreign Service to meet the challenges that we face 
around the world, and the budget you proposed contains 
resources to recruit, train, retain a first-rate, diverse 
workforce.
    I think you would also agree that one of the key tools both 
in recruitment and retention is how we treat our Foreign 
Service families serving overseas. Four years ago, Senator 
Sullivan and I founded the bipartisan Foreign Service Caucus 
here on the Hill, and based on our conversations with the 
American Foreign Service Association and others, we introduced 
legislation called the Foreign Service Families Act. It is a 
piece of legislation before this committee right now, and it 
essentially provides Foreign Service families serving overseas 
the same kind of amenities and benefits that many military 
families serving overseas have.
    I mentioned this to you in a phone call about 10 days ago. 
I am hoping that you can tell the committee today that you have 
had a chance to review the legislation and that it is supported 
by the Biden administration.
    Secretary Blinken. I strongly support the objectives and 
the goals of this and want to come back and talk to you about 
it. Mea culpa. Since we spoke I have not had the opportunity to 
focus on it directly, although I asked my team to do so. I 
think with the press of some events in the last few days, I 
have not had a chance to catch up with them. So if it is all 
right, let me come back to you on that.
    Certainly as described and in terms of the objectives, I 
could not agree more. By the way, now that I have had an 
opportunity to travel a little bit on the job, every place I go 
I spend time with our embassy and the embassy community, and I 
share your high regard and determination to support the 
families of the men and women who are part of our Foreign 
Service because, as we both know, they are serving too, but 
they do not get the same support necessarily as those who are 
actually direct employees of the Government.
    Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. If 
your team could just get back to us as soon as possible?
    Secretary Blinken. Sure.
    Senator Van Hollen. I talked to the Chairman about this 
legislation. I think we would like to move it, but obviously we 
would like input from the Secretary of State.
    Just to flag another topic, today Senator Toomey and I sent 
a letter to Secretary Yellen applauding the Administration for 
the sanctions it placed on 24 officials in China who had been 
complicit in the crackdown on Hong Kong, actions taken under 
the Hong Kong Accountability Act. We noted in that letter, 
though, that the law which passed unanimously last year 
requires that sanctions also be placed on any banks that 
facilitate those individuals, and we have asked the Secretary 
of the Treasury to report to us. Obviously, these are the kinds 
of decisions that involve the Secretary of State, the Secretary 
of the Treasury. I want to put that on your radar screen, 
because we are going to be pushing to make sure that we fully 
implement that law.
    Let me turn to Afghanistan, something you and I have talked 
about as well in the past, and I appreciate your support to 
expedite the visas for Afghan interpreters or Afghan staff who 
have worked most closely with U.S. forces and may therefore be 
targeted for assassination. That, of course, underscores the 
fragility of the situation as the United States withdraws its 
forces, and the risks.
    We all recognize that a negotiated political solution is 
the only way forward in Afghanistan. We have to bring all the 
parties together, including the Taliban, and I commend 
Ambassador Khalilzad for the good work he has done. My view is 
we need to strengthen his hand. We need to show all the parties 
involved that there is a real peace dividend if they go in that 
direction.
    So we have proposed, again, bipartisan legislation to 
create reconstruction opportunity zones. These are zones within 
Afghanistan and certain parts of Pakistan, the parts of 
Pakistan that were really controlled by the Pakistan Taliban 
years ago. It would allow the duty-free export from those 
regions to the United States for certain kinds of goods. It 
gives the President a lot of flexibility to shape the 
legislation. When I asked Ambassador Khalilzad about it, he 
said he thought this was a very, very worthwhile concept. He 
wanted to work on the details.
    I have mentioned this to you. I believe time is of the 
essence. I think we all remember when the Soviets withdrew from 
Afghanistan way back in the day. The United States had, of 
course, supported the Mujahideen. We disengaged. We know the 
sad end of that story. My view is we have to remain very 
engaged, and that means not just supporting the Afghan 
military, but making sure people have the tools to try to build 
a better future.
    This has been a proposal that has actually been supported 
by Democrat and Republican administrations in the past. It 
passed the House of Representatives overwhelmingly years and 
years ago. It floundered in the Senate for a variety of 
reasons. I think the time is now to get it done, and I do not 
know if you have had a chance since we spoke to take a look at 
it. We really need the Administration to support this idea in 
the interests of providing stability and more opportunities as 
the United States withdraws its forces.
    Secretary Blinken. Senator, I was seized with this idea 
after we spoke. Like Ambassador Khalilzad, I think conceptually 
it is a very good idea. Again, I asked my team not only to look 
at it themselves, but also to talk to other colleagues, other 
agencies that would have equities in this. So there again, I 
need to come back to you. I think, to your point, making it 
clear that there are real upsides, real opportunity for peace 
and to anyone who actually plays into that, as opposed to doing 
things that perpetuate war, is fundamental.
    I think with regard to Pakistan, for example, they say they 
are focused on so-called ``geo-economics,'' which is good, but 
I think we need to demonstrate that that can have some real 
meaning, and they would then factor that into their thinking 
about the steps they are willing to take to make sure that 
Afghanistan does not descend into civil war.
    So, it is a long way of saying that I really will come back 
to you on this because I think as an idea, as a concept, it is 
a very good one. We, of course, have to look at the details. I 
need to talk to colleagues in the other departments who have 
equities in this.
    Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. I do 
think time is of the essence here given the schedule. This is, 
in my view, an issue that requires a foreign policy/national 
security lens. That is the whole purpose of this action. It is 
a very limited approach, creating ROZs. So I hope that you will 
take the laboring oar in this effort.
    Thank you for your answer and your service.
    With that, let me recognize Senator Murphy.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen.
    I know this has been a very long day. This is the second 
committee that Senator Van Hollen and I have had a chance to 
talk to you, and I know you are at the end, so I will be very 
brief.
    Secretary Blinken. What are you doing tomorrow?
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Murphy. We can be right here. These three have only 
covered about one-fifth of the world.
    I wanted to just come back to the Iran nuclear deal for a 
moment. I think you answered this question in part in response 
to some comments from the Chair and the Ranking Member. In 
assessing the efficacy of the maximum pressure campaign, I 
think we have to have a reckoning with what we got.
    The Trump administration put on the table 12 demands. From 
what I can tell, none of them were met. The country that I pay 
the closest attention to, Yemen, saw an increased amount of 
activity from Iran with respect to their proxy forces there. 
Our forces in Iraq started getting shot at again by Iran's 
proxies there.
    I guess I sort of come to the conclusion, as we are 
weighing whether to continue forward with the Trump-era 
sanctions or waive or release them in exchange for a new 
commitment from Iran on its nuclear program, I think it is 
important for us to ask what we got for those sanctions. In 
fact, is there not evidence that Iran's behavior in many 
respects got worse, not better, during that time?
    Am I wrong about my assessment here? They broke out of the 
nuclear program, they started shooting at our troops again in 
Iraq, they upped their support for many of their proxies in the 
region, and they refused to come back to the table. It does not 
seem like we got a lot for the sanctions that were re-imposed 
and the new sanctions that were imposed during the Trump 
administration, which calls into question what we would get by 
keeping them in place for another 4 years.
    Secretary Blinken. Yes, I share that assessment. I think 
that is right, and it is, unfortunately, borne out by the 
facts.
    Senator Murphy. The second topic, and I am surprised 
Senator Portman did not bring it up because he normally does. 
We were together as part of this delegation in Ukraine. He and 
I, as you know, spent a lot of time working on standing up the 
capacity inside the State Department to combat misinformation. 
I know you have requested in your budget essentially flat 
funding for the Global Engagement Center. My read is that there 
are more potential partners that the Global Engagement Center 
could work with around the world than there is funding. The 
Global Engagement Center is not really doing direct counter-
propaganda work. They are going out and making sure that 
independent journalists and truth-tellers and folks who are 
rooting out propaganda have the support to do so. I know we are 
still looking for someone to head up that capacity at the State 
Department.
    What role do you envision GEC playing in our efforts to 
counteract Russian propaganda, but also non-state-actor 
propaganda, Chinese propaganda around the world?
    Secretary Blinken. Senator, I think it has a vital role to 
play and one that we want to see strengthened even further. It 
is, as you know very well, engaged in campaigns to educate, to 
expose, to mitigate disinformation and misinformation, and it 
is already, as it stands, really the premiere platform for 
information sharing. I think there are about 400 partners 
across 29 or so countries at this point that take advantage of 
it. It has worked very effectively, for example, to expose 
Russian websites that were removed from social media for 
propagating misinformation. Disinformation from the PRC as 
well, in third-country elections, it exposed that and put a 
light on that. It has done very good open-source mapping of 
some of the PRC's use of surveillance and data collection, for 
example in Xinjiang. So we are seeing it effective across the 
board.
    I think that the request that we made is appropriate and 
will enable it not only to sustain, but to actually grow its 
mission. Having said that, I would welcome working with you to 
make sure that it is properly resourced and operating as 
effectively as possible. Yes, we are working on bringing a new 
leader to the enterprise.
    Senator Murphy. Well, I know your personal commitment to 
this mission. I thank you for it. I would also commend to both 
the committee and to you making sure that we have the right 
integration between the counter-propaganda mission at State 
through the GEC and the counter-propaganda mission at the 
Department of Defense. In the prior Administration, I do not 
know that they were coordinating at the level that they should, 
something that we can do better on.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Blinken. Thanks, Senator.
    The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Murphy.
    We have now had 18 members of 22, so I think they have had 
great respect for your attendance, Mr. Secretary, and their 
interest.
    I just want to close on one or two comments.
    I know that Senator Kaine is very good at making the case 
for the JCPOA, and it is true that Iran signed and said that it 
would never have a nuclear weapon. However, if you allow its 
ballistic missile program to move forward and it develops a 
delivery system for that nuclear material, and if you lift 
sanctions--and, yes, they roll back for the moment, a year, 2 
years, 3 years. When they decide, if they decide, to cross the 
threshold that they have violated their agreement, the 
timeframe for them to develop the capacity for that nuclear 
weapon, without any limitations on ballistic missiles and with 
their knowledge already as it relates to enrichment, creates a 
difficult moment in which sanctions will have very little 
benefit at the end of the day. So I think that to be 
intellectually honest, we have to recognize that part of it as 
well.
    I have two final questions. One is on Turkey. It is amazing 
to me that what was a NATO ally--is a NATO ally--but we had 
great aspirations for. There are more journalists and lawyers 
arrested in Turkey today and in jails. Turkey is constantly 
violating, from my perspective, international law when it seeks 
to threaten Cyprus in its international exclusive economic 
zone, when it declares an economic zone going to Libya that is 
not recognized at all, but interferes with Greece's exclusive 
economic zone, when it engages in the aggression against 
Armenia through Azerbaijan, when it is playing a nefarious role 
in Libya.
    So what are we doing to counter Turkey under Erdogan? I say 
Turkey under Erdogan because it is not about the Turkish 
people, but it is certainly about its leader.
    Secretary Blinken. We share those concerns, and we have 
engaged Turkey directly on them, and I can say with confidence 
that when President Biden sees President Erdogan in about a 
week's time, these will be front and center on the agenda.
    Look, I think our differences with Turkey, including the 
ones that you have cited just now, are no secret. In many 
aspects it is not acting as the NATO ally it should be, not the 
least of which with the acquisition of the S400s from Russia.
    Beyond that, the actions that have been taken in the 
Eastern Mediterranean were deeply disturbing. I think we have 
been pleased to see it pull back from some of these efforts, 
including removing its ships from waters that Cyprus considers 
to be part of its exclusive economic zone and stopping the 
drilling action, so that is positive.
    We have serious concerns as well with human rights, the 
treatment of journalists, which you were very right to put the 
spotlight on.
    So the President is going to have an opportunity to engage 
with President Erdogan directly on all of these issues. I will 
say that we also, I think, have an interest in trying to keep 
Turkey anchored to the West and aligned on some other critical 
issues. We do have important and overlapping interests in 
various ways in Syria when it comes to counterterrorism, in 
Afghanistan dealing with some of Russia's and Iran's malign 
influence. We also have to confront directly these differences 
that you rightly spotlighted.
    The Chairman. Well, listen, I understand why we want it 
anchored in the West, but you cannot be anchored in the West 
and drifting in every direction further away on all the core 
principles that we believe in as a NATO ally, and also in all 
the other elements.
    Finally, I have to be honest with you, I was disappointed 
that the Administration greenlighted the 907 waiver renewal 
despite Azerbaijan's attack on Nagorno-Karabakh. Now, after 
they got the 907 waiver, interfering with the actual 
territorial sovereignty of Armenia in the border issue, not 
releasing the political prisoners--I mean, not the political 
prisoners, the actual prisoners of the conflict--in violation 
of international law. I mean, I think they can act with 
impunity. I think when we waived it, we gave them that green 
light.
    Secretary Blinken. We will have to continue taking a look 
at this. I was and have been working actively on this, 
particularly getting the return of the prisoners, getting 
engaged in an actual process discussion, negotiation over an 
actual resolution, working on those things. It was my hope that 
we would be able to get a little bit of traction there, but I 
think we will have to continue to look at this and re-look at 
this in the future.
    The Chairman. Well, I hope you will.
    With the thanks of the committee for your service and for 
your tremendous appearance here today--I mean, you have gone 
through several hours here. Obviously, your knowledge, 
intellect, and scope is pretty extraordinary. So we are 
grateful to have your insights, grateful for your service.
    This committee's hearing record will stay open until the 
close of business tomorrow.
    Again, with the thanks of the committee, this hearing is 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:19 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
                              ----------                              


              Additional Material Submitted for the Record


    Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions 
                  Submitted by Senator Robert Menendez

    Question. The Administration's decision to waive sanctions on Nord 
Stream 2 AG and its CEO last week was a mistake. I support our 
relationship with Germany, but the U.S. should not compromise on 
countering malign Kremlin influence, which is in the national security 
interest of the U.S., NATO, and our vital European partners like 
Ukraine. Now that you have waived sanctions on the company responsible 
for Nord Stream 2, do you assess that a viable path remains for 
stopping the pipeline?

    Answer. The Administration has been clear that we view the Nord 
Stream 2 pipeline as a Russian geopolitical project that is a bad deal 
for Germany, Ukraine, and European energy security. The pipeline was 
over 90 percent complete when the Administration took office and our 
assessment was that sanctions on Nord Stream 2 AG, its CEO, and its 
corporate officers would not stop the pipeline's construction. If 
construction is completed in the coming months, the process of testing, 
inspecting, certifying, and otherwise operationalizing the pipeline 
will take more time, and many technical and regulatory hurdles remain. 
Throughout this process, we will continue to oppose the pipeline and to 
work to strengthen the energy security of our allies and partners. We 
will also continue to examine entities involved in potentially 
sanctionable activity and engage them about the risks they face if they 
are involved in Nord Stream 2.

    Question. If the pipeline is completed, what are the remaining 
obstacles to it becoming operational? Can the U.S. exert pressure 
during that phase to ensure that does not become operational?

    Answer. If pipeline construction is completed in the coming months, 
the process of testing, inspecting, certifying, and otherwise 
operationalizing the pipeline will take additional time. Throughout 
this process, we will continue to oppose the pipeline and to strengthen 
the energy security of our allies and partners. We will also continue 
to examine entities involved in potentially sanctionable activity and 
warn them about the risks they face if they are involved with Nord 
Stream 2.

    Question. What does the Administration now expect from Germany 
after having made this significant concession to exercise the waiver? 
Will Berlin strengthen its support for Ukraine in the Normandy Format 
or provide additional assistance to Kyiv in its struggle against 
Kremlin aggression?

    Answer. The Administration's position remains clear--the Nord 
Stream 2 pipeline is a Russian geopolitical project that threatens 
European energy security and undermines the security of Ukraine and 
frontline Central and Eastern European allies and partners. The 
Administration waived certain sanctions in line with the President's 
commitment to rebuild relations with our European allies and partners 
and to create space for diplomacy with Germany. We have urged Germany 
to take significant, concrete steps to reduce the risks Nord Stream 2 
poses to Ukraine and European energy security. As we engage Germany 
diplomatically, we continue to consult closely with Ukraine and Central 
and Eastern European allies and partners.

    Question. What will the Administration do to bolster our 
relationship with Ukraine as it continues to face Russian threats?

    Answer. The United States will continue to work with our allies and 
partners to oppose Russia's occupation and attempted annexation of 
Crimea and support diplomatic efforts to end the conflict in eastern 
Ukraine. Sanctions on Russia will remain in place until Russia ends its 
occupation of Crimea and aggression in eastern Ukraine. We will work 
with Congress to continue providing security assistance, including 
lethal defensive weapons, that Ukraine needs to defend itself against 
Russia's aggression. The United States will continue to support 
Ukraine's chosen Euro-Atlantic path by providing assistance and pushing 
for progress on necessary reforms that will ensure a democratic, 
prosperous, and secure future for all Ukrainians.

    Question. Azerbaijan's aggression continues to threaten the 
Armenian people in the south Caucasus, as we saw again earlier this 
month with its violation of Armenian sovereign territory. The United 
States should be clear in pushing back on this illegal aggression, but 
it is very difficult to do that after the Administration greenlighted a 
Section 907 waiver renewal despite Azerbaijan's attack on Nagorno-
Karabakh last fall. How can the Administration credibly push back on 
Azerbaijan's illegal actions after demonstrating that Azerbaijan will 
not face consequences for its aggression?

    Answer. The Department will continue to take appropriate measures 
to ensure any security assistance from the United States to Azerbaijan 
under the waiver of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act will not 
hamper efforts to negotiate a peaceful settlement between Armenia and 
Azerbaijan and will not be used for any offensive purposes against 
Armenia. Continued engagement with Azerbaijan is important to advancing 
regional peace and stability. Most recently, United States officials, 
working with the Georgian Government, successfully negotiated the 
return of 15 Armenian soldiers held by Azerbaijan on June 12. We will 
continue to call on both Armenia and Azerbaijan to relocate their 
forces to the positions held prior to the May border incidents.

    Question. Is the Administration rethinking the ongoing provision of 
security assistance to Azerbaijan in light of its violation of Armenian 
territory?

    Answer. The USG continuously reviews and monitors U.S. foreign 
assistance provided to all countries, including Armenia and Azerbaijan, 
to ensure appropriate use of funds and alignment with U.S. foreign 
policy goals. I will make sure the Department continues to take 
appropriate measures to ensure any security assistance from the United 
States to Azerbaijan will not hamper efforts to negotiate a peaceful 
settlement between Armenia and Azerbaijan and will not be used for 
offensive purposes against Armenia.

    Question. What steps has State taken to press Azerbaijan to release 
the POWs and detainees and end the destruction of Armenian cultural 
heritage?

    Answer. We continue to call on the parties to respect their 
obligations under international law and ensure the humane treatment of 
all detainees as well as respect for cultural heritage. We continue to 
urge the parties to engage fully with the relevant humanitarian actors 
to complete the exchange process for all prisoners, detainees, and 
remains expeditiously. We have advocated extensively for the release of 
the remaining detainees both publicly and privately. Most recently, on 
June 12, United States officials, working with the Georgian Government, 
successfully negotiated the return of 15 Armenian soldiers held by 
Azerbaijan.

    Question. I appreciate that the State Department has criticized 
many of the Turkish Government's unacceptable actions, from the 
persecution of the LGBTI community to Erdogan's recent anti-Semitic 
comments. The Administration must be clear and consistent on pushing 
back on Turkey's malign activities across the board, from its 
obstruction of the Cyprus peace process to its support for Azerbaijan's 
aggression against the Armenian people to its destabilizing activities 
in Iraq, Syria, and Libya. How has State worked to address Turkey's 
malign activities in the Eastern Mediterranean, the South Caucasus, and 
the Middle East?

    Answer. The Biden administration has urged Turkey regularly and at 
senior levels to cease activities that undermine regional security. In 
areas of armed conflict such as Syria, Iraq, and Libya, we encourage 
Turkey to instead take actions that advance inclusive peace and 
stability. We have urged all foreign forces, fighters, and mercenaries 
to depart Libya. We have also held useful bilateral discussions with 
Berlin Process partners on how to begin to operationalize the departure 
of foreign fighters, as called for in U.N. Security Council Resolution 
2570. On Syria, we have urged Turkey to take steps to address human 
rights abuses committed by armed Syrian groups it supports. Regarding 
Cyprus, the United States has made clear that it continues to support a 
Cypriot-led comprehensive settlement to reunify the island as a 
bizonal, bicommunal federation, which would benefit all Cypriots as 
well as the wider region. The United States was deeply concerned by 
Turkey's actions last year that raised the risk of conflict between 
NATO Allies in the eastern Mediterranean, and we welcome the commitment 
by Turkey and Greece to continue exploratory talks. We reiterate that 
disagreements should be resolved through diplomacy rather than 
provocative military actions. The role played by third parties, 
including Turkey, in last year's fighting in the Nagorno-Karabakh 
conflict was deeply unhelpful. We encourage Turkey to support the 
ceasefire between Armenia and Azerbaijan and to help the sides work 
toward a sustainable, long-term political solution.

    Question. Beyond the 2010 U.S.-Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement, 
what are the Administration's specific near and medium term diplomatic 
and development objectives in Iraq, and how is U.S. Mission Iraq 
resourced to successfully achieve these objectives?

    Answer. The Administration's near- and medium-term goals in Iraq 
include supporting Prime Minister Kadhimi's efforts to hold free and 
fair elections, combat corruption and promote reform and economic 
cooperation, hold accountable those who perpetrated violence towards 
peaceful protesters, and work towards the final defeat of ISIS.
    The FY 2022 Diplomatic Programs request for Iraq is an increase of 
$44.9 million above FY 2021. The FY 2022 request for U.S. assistance to 
Iraq maintains progress by sustaining ongoing programs, including 
economic and development assistance. It will enable long-term security 
and stability as security sector assistance transfers from DoD to State 
authorities.

    Question. Given the shifting nature of U.S. activities in Iraq, 
does the Administration intend to advocate for Congress moving away 
from OCO funding as the basis for Iraq-related activities to create a 
more sustainable foundation for the bilateral relationship?

    Answer. The USG is focused on long-term security and economic 
development priorities in Iraq; the FY 2022 request does not seek 
assistance as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). The FY 2022 
President's budget proposes a more robust funding level within the 
Department's and USAID's ``enduring base'' appropriation, to resource 
ongoing programs and operations previously funded through OCO.

    Question. Colombia: For two decades, Colombia has been our closest 
partner in Latin America, and there has been strong bipartisan support 
for the strategic relationship that our countries have built. However, 
Colombia today faces immense challenges, including the need to continue 
implementing its 2016 peace accord, the enduring threats of drug 
trafficking and armed actors, the socioeconomic impact of a new surge 
of COVID-19 cases, and the impact of the Venezuelan refugee and 
migration crisis. On top of this, Colombia is now in its second month 
of protests and social unrest. There have been troubling incidents of 
human rights abuses by security forces and disturbing cases of 
civilians taking up arms against protesters. At $455 million, Colombia 
represents the Administration's largest country request for Latin 
America, underscoring the continued priority that the U.S. places on 
this strategic partnership. In that sense, Mr. Secretary, can you lay 
out the Biden administration's priorities for the U.S.-Colombia 
relationship, how the budget request helps address the major challenges 
I mentioned and the ongoing social unrest, and what assistance the U.S. 
will provide to Colombian efforts to address COVID-19?

    Answer. The U.S.-Colombia partnership is grounded in shared 
democratic values. We aim to support a secure, prosperous Colombia that 
can effectively respond to the needs of its citizens, defeat 
transnational criminal groups that threaten hemispheric security, 
generate economic opportunities for citizens in both our countries, 
combat climate change, and partner in promoting democratic governance 
and respect for human rights. Our assistance will help address citizen 
concerns over rural insecurity and lack of economic opportunity that 
are among the motivations for recent protests. President Biden 
announced Colombia's inclusion in an initial tranche of 14 million U.S. 
vaccine donations, and we will continue providing assistance and 
resources.

    Question. NATO is the most important alliance we have, but I am 
concerned that it remains in need of modernization. In advance of the 
June NATO Summit, what is your vision for ensuring that NATO is 
prepared for the 21st century, including with regard to strategic 
planning/capacity and burden sharing?

    Answer. I will continue to ensure Allies equitably share the 
responsibility of NATO's collective security. Allies recommitted to the 
Wales Defense Investment Pledge in its entirety at the June 14 Summit. 
I will urge Allies to view burden sharing in terms of capabilities, 
readiness, and force generation, not simply defense spending. I will 
continue consulting with Allies and with Congress to ensure NATO has 
sufficient, capable, and ready forces required to maintain a credible 
defense and deterrence posture and fulfill NATO missions and 
operations. I will ensure the revision of NATO's Strategic Concept 
proceeds from sound analysis of the evolving security environment to 
offer a clear approach to current and future threats and challenges.

    Question. Are there steps that we should consider within the 
context of NATO that would strengthen democratic institutions in member 
countries and address the rise of anti-democratic actions on the part 
of member states?

    Answer. NATO was founded on the principles of democracy, individual 
liberty, and the rule of law. NATO is stronger because it is an 
Alliance grounded in our democratic values, rather than transactions or 
coercion. No democracy is perfect. That is why the Biden administration 
is committed to democratic renewal at home and abroad, and why it is 
important for Allies to hold one another accountable for honoring 
democratic commitments. The Biden administration has made clear that 
democracy and human rights are central to U.S. foreign policy. We are 
closely watching the issue of judicial independence and freedom of 
expression in particular countries, as are the European Commission and 
other EU institutions.

    Question. Afghanistan: I remain concerned that troop withdrawal 
will bring terrible consequences for many Afghans. I have no doubt that 
the Taliban will escalate violence post-U.S. withdrawal to make some 
gains on the battlefield that could strengthen their hand further. The 
situation is going to get worse before it gets better. We should be 
doing everything we can to strengthen the hand of the Afghan 
Government. The school attack 3 weeks ago is a potent reminder--if one 
were needed--that the threat to women and girls and minorities remains 
acute and will likely grow. The department has said the right things in 
terms of the protection of women in Afghanistan, but I fail to see how 
this will work post-withdrawal. What is the State Department 
specifically doing to adapt its programs and policies for women and 
girls in light of withdrawal?

    Answer. The United States will continue to support the rights of 
Afghan women and girls through diplomacy and by maintaining significant 
humanitarian and development assistance. Ongoing U.S. programs support 
the meaningful participation of women in the peace process, strengthen 
respect for women's rights, create quality educational opportunities, 
assist women to join the workforce, and expand access to quality 
healthcare. While the future of Afghanistan is for Afghans themselves 
to decide, the United States has made clear that future development 
assistance and international legitimacy depend on their actions with 
respect to rights and fundamental freedoms, especially those of women, 
children, and members of minority groups.

    Question. The Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program remains a 
bureaucratically difficult, complex, and slow mechanism for assisting 
Afghans who supported the U.S. as interpreters and support staff. What 
steps have you taken to accelerate the approval process?

    Answer. The Department of State takes seriously its commitment to 
assist Afghans at risk due to their prior service to the United States. 
In conjunction with interagency partners, the Department is 
participating in a robust NSC-led effort to streamline SIV processing, 
including through improved interagency information sharing and process 
improvements. The Department has also added additional staff at Embassy 
Kabul and in the U.S.-based offices that process Special Immigrant Visa 
(SIV) applications, including the office that processes chief of 
mission applications. We look forward to working closely with Congress 
on streamlining the SIV process.

    Question. I am also concerned about the humanitarian crisis that 
could result from increased violence. Does the Department have a plan 
and resources needed to deal with massive refugee flows in the region?

    Answer. We remain engaged in Afghanistan through our full 
diplomatic, economic, and assistance toolkit to support the peaceful, 
stable future the Afghan people want and deserve. We are actively 
engaged in contingency planning with international organizations and 
NGO partners in case of increased internal and cross-border 
displacement and will continue to assess resourcing requirements as the 
situation unfolds. Our humanitarian partners are committed to 
delivering needs-based assistance with impartiality, neutrality, and 
independence as long as they can safely do so. We are engaged in 
humanitarian diplomacy to coordinate an international response and 
encourage neighboring countries to continue accepting Afghans seeking 
international protection.

    Question. Multilateral/Humanitarian: The world is experiencing an 
unprecedented humanitarian and displacement crisis, with an estimated 
235 million people in need of humanitarian assistance this year alone. 
In Syria, Ethiopia, and countless other crises, authoritarian regimes 
and non-state actors are blocking food, medicine, and other 
humanitarian assistance to devastating effect. There is a pressing need 
for consistent, high level engagement by the United States both 
internationally and at the U.N. to address the efforts to block 
humanitarian assistance. In what specific ways is the Department 
pushing for consistent and high-level U.S. engagement internationally 
and at the U.N. to address the undermining of humanitarian access? What 
results have you seen from these efforts so far?

    Answer. I believe U.S. humanitarian leadership is more important 
than ever, particularly amid record-high humanitarian needs and 
obstruction of aid in crises such as Syria and Ethiopia. To promote 
accountability for such aid obstruction, we use many tools, including 
investigations and prosecutions at appropriate national and 
international tribunals, U.N. resolutions, and targeted sanctions. We 
continue working with partners, including the G7, to promote 
humanitarian access and generate resources to improve aid workers' 
security and safety. Much work remains, but we are putting bad actors 
on notice, including in the Security Council, and promoting reforms and 
tools that have helped improve humanitarian access.

    Question. The U.N. has warned that 36 countries could experience 
famine this year, pushing an additional 130 million people to the brink 
of starvation. That is equivalent to the populations of France and the 
United Kingdom combined. And we know that food insecurity leads to a 
number of other devastating and destabilizing conditions. How are you 
confronting this impending crisis?

    Answer. I recognize the grave threat food insecurity poses to 
national and international security, and to that end we are focused on 
addressing the three main drivers of hunger: conflict, climate change, 
and COVID-19 recovery. We chose to focus on conflict and food 
insecurity as the theme of our UNSC presidency in March. We are the 
largest donor to the World Food Program, the U.N. Food and Agriculture 
Organization, and to the International Fund for Agricultural 
Development, and are actively engaged in preparing high-level 
deliverables for the G20 and U.N. Food Systems and Nutrition for Growth 
Summits. Around the world, we are building sustainable, resilient, and 
climate-smart food systems critical to ending food insecurity.

    Question. Human Rights: It is almost impossible to go a week 
without reading a devastating new report about sexual and gender-based 
violence in conflict. Sexual violence is being used as a weapon of war 
in Tigray Ethiopia today, as it has been in Burma, Yemen, Syria, and 
the Democratic Republic of Congo. There are also alarming predictions 
about the repression and violence women and girls in Afghanistan will 
face should the Taliban reassert more control following the U.S. 
withdrawal. What can you tell this committee that you are doing to 
elevate this issue, treating it with the seriousness it deserves?

    Answer. Preventing and responding to gender-based violence, 
including in areas of conflict around the world, is a security and 
human rights priority for the United States. We have called on the 
Government of Ethiopia to take immediate action to prevent forces from 
committing sexual violence in the Tigray region and have demanded that 
perpetrators be brought to justice and will continue to pursue measures 
to hold them accountable. In Afghanistan, we have signaled that a 
future Afghan Government that does not respect women's rights should 
not expect international legitimacy, acceptance, or assistance and have 
advocated with all negotiation parties for an inclusive peace process 
that preserves the rights of all Afghans, including women.

    Question. What is the U.S. message to survivors of sexual violence 
as a weapon of war and how are you working both to hold perpetrators 
accountable and preventing additional such violence?

    Answer. Preventing sexual violence in conflict is a matter of 
international peace and security. Sexual violence fuels instability, 
forces people to flee their homes and countries, fractures societies, 
and is linked to and used in conjunction with other forms of gender-
based violence and abuse such as forced marriage, domestic violence, 
and human trafficking. The United States made explicit the link between 
security and sexual violence in conflict when we drafted UNSCR 1820 in 
2008; and we continue to be a leader in supporting solutions to prevent 
and respond to all forms of gender-based violence, including sexual 
violence in conflict, investing in foreign assistance and leading 
international diplomacy efforts.

    Question. Since taking up your position, what have you done to 
ensure we are working to hold our allies and adversaries to the same 
standard on human rights? What shifts in our foreign policy must we 
make to uphold this standard?

    Answer. As President Biden stated, we raise issues of human rights 
with both our allies and adversaries ``because that is what we are and 
that is who we are.'' Human rights, democracy, and equality are at the 
heart of our diplomacy. We have reengaged with allies, civil society, 
and multilateral organizations, including the UNHRC to advance these 
goals. We continue to engage in the Universal Periodic Review process, 
through which we provide recommendations regarding countries' human 
rights records, whether ally or adversary. We are already making 
strides in shifting our foreign policy by being unafraid and 
unapologetic about raising human rights concerns bilaterally and 
multilaterally.

    Question. We are seeing unprecedented assaults against the 
fundamental rights of free expression and free press around the globe, 
with egregious violations recently against journalists in Belarus and 
Burma, including the detention of an American journalist by the junta 
there. I am proud to lead a bipartisan resolution that reaffirms 
freedom of the press as a priority of the United States in promoting 
democracy, human rights, and good governance. What are you doing to 
show authoritarian regimes that they cannot trample on the rights of 
journalists without consequence?

    Answer. The Administration is committed to promoting respect for 
freedom of expression and accountability for those who abuse 
journalists' rights. In response to the Lukashenka regime's forced 
diversion of a flight to arrest a journalist and continued repression 
in Belarus, I announced visa restrictions for 46 individuals and Office 
of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions on 16 individuals and five 
entities. In Burma, we have pressed the military regime to immediately 
release U.S. citizen and journalist Daniel Fenster and others unjustly 
detained, cease all violence, and lift restrictions on journalists and 
media. Finally, I announced the Khashoggi Ban in February, which 
promotes accountability for governments who threaten and attack 
journalists and perceived dissidents overseas.

    Question. Ethiopia continues to spiral out of control. Despite our 
best diplomatic efforts, the conflict in Tigray, insecurity in other 
regions of the country, and the erosion of political space persists. 
Has the State Department come to conclusions about whether war crimes 
or crimes against humanity have taken place? What measures is the 
Administration prepared to take, in addition to previously announced 
visa restrictions, to encourage Prime Minister Abiy to change course?

    Answer. The Department is reviewing information relevant for a 
determination as to whether atrocity crimes have been committed, and we 
expect to complete that process soon. In addition to implementing visa 
restrictions, the Department has restricted economic and security 
assistance to Ethiopia and imposed defense trade controls, and we are 
considering all options, including financial sanctions, to end violence 
across the country and find a political solution to the conflict.

    Question. Somalia: Our long-standing effort to stabilize Somalia 
has met with limited success.
    What is your plan to revitalize our Somalia policy to advance our 
strategic goals in that country?

    Answer. The United States has an interest in a peaceful Somalia 
that is not a terrorist safe haven or source of regional instability. A 
holistic approach is needed to ensure sustainable gains--instability 
and lack of adequate governance cannot be addressed by military means 
alone. The State Department is working closely with interagency 
partners to develop a strategy that can effectively manage near-term 
security threats while addressing the political, governance, and 
economic issues at the root of Somalia's instability. Close 
coordination and cooperation with the Somalis and international 
stakeholders, including the U.N., EU, AU, Somalia's neighbors, Turkey, 
and the Gulf states, will be vital to ensuring an effective approach.

    Question. The President requested an additional $800 million for 
global health security programs and activities in FY 2022. One of the 
most important lessons of COVID-19 is that leadership matters, 
especially in the global arena. How should we engage with our partners 
to strengthen global health security and ensure we are prepared for the 
next pandemic?

    Answer. The United States is fully committed to working with 
partners to reform and strengthen the international health architecture 
in order to spur concrete, effective action to meaningfully improve 
global health. We will build on WHO and existing institutions, but also 
take into account the ways in which the world has changed and will 
continue to change. We will address four key areas of work: 
strengthening and modernizing existing organizations and systems and 
identifying the need for new organizations and systems; ensuring 
compliance with existing international agreements and identifying the 
need for new tools; ensuring adequate, sustainable, and innovative 
financing; and ensuring transparent, accountable, and measurable 
oversight.

    Question. Thanks to the leadership of President Biden, the COVID-19 
epidemic in the U.S. is beginning to subside, however the disease 
continues to surge worldwide. Most people around the world are still 
waiting for vaccinations, especially in Africa. I applaud the 
Administration's recent announcements about vaccine donations, but it's 
clear our efforts alone will not achieve the levels of coverage the 
world needs. What initiatives is the Administration planning to lead at 
the G-7 meeting for collective action to end the pandemic?

    Answer. The leaders of the Group of Seven (G7) set an agenda for 
global action to end the pandemic and prepare for the future by driving 
an intensified international effort to vaccinate the world by getting 
as many safe and effective vaccines to as many people as possible as 
fast as possible. G7 commitments since the start of the pandemic 
provide for a total of over two billion vaccine doses, with the 
commitments since February 2021 providing for one billion doses over 
the next year. The G7 will seek to create the appropriate frameworks to 
strengthen our collective defenses against threats to global health by: 
increasing and coordinating on global manufacturing capacity; improving 
early warning systems; and supporting efforts to shorten the cycle for 
the development of safe and effective vaccines, treatments, and tests 
from 300 to 100 days.

    Question. The American Rescue plan provided $10 billion, but with 
the urgency and tremendous needs of the crisis continuing to grow, will 
that be enough to bring the pandemic under control?

    Answer. The FY 2022 request will build on American Rescue Plan Act 
funding and other resources that Congress has provided for pandemic 
response and global health security. Beyond these specific resources 
for global health security, the Department and USAID are adapting 
existing programs and funding resources to address the primary, 
secondary, and tertiary impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic across all 
sectors and programming areas.

    Question. Mozambique: Many of us are rightly concerned with the 
growing jihadist crisis in northern Mozambique, and the resultant 
humanitarian emergency. However military action alone is an inadequate 
response. The President's budget proposes no increase for Development 
Assistance to Mozambique, but a substantial increase in International 
Military Education and Training. What is the Department's plan to 
address the full scope of the situation in northern Mozambique, and how 
will the proposed funding levels in the FY22 request allow you to 
implement that plan?

    Answer. The ISIS threat and the humanitarian crisis are grave. The 
United States is working with the Mozambican Government and 
international partners on an integrated response that enhances security 
and addresses local grievances that contribute to the root causes of 
the violence.
    The United States helps Mozambique counter ISIS along four lines of 
effort, including socio-economic support, security assistance, 
strategic communications, and international engagement, while providing 
immediate humanitarian assistance. The proposed funding levels allow 
the Department to enhance its whole-of-government approach to respond 
to the crisis and empower the Mozambican Government to confront ISIS-
Mozambique.

    Question. In the past few weeks, ransomware created by Russia-
linked criminal groups forced the shutdown of a critical fuel pipeline 
along the Eastern Seaboard and meatpacking plants across the country. 
As you know, these were only the latest in a series of major cyber 
incidents. Recently, hacking groups linked to the Chinese and Russian 
governments compromised hundreds of thousands of American businesses 
and state and federal agencies, including the Departments of State, 
Energy, Commerce, Justice, and Homeland Security. Clearly, 
cybersecurity is a critical international issue, and the threat to 
Americans and our allies is only growing. What is the State Department 
doing to prioritize and address this threat? How does this budget 
reflect those priorities?

    Answer. We must protect U.S. security and prosperity and push back 
hard against those that seek to exploit and undermine the open nature 
of cyberspace. The Department engages with international partners to 
advance a framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace and 
hold states accountable when they transgress it. We are also committed 
to strengthening global cooperation and capacity to fight cybercrime, 
including ransomware, and advancing accessions to the Budapest 
Convention. Our FY 2021 budget reflects $5.998 million to promote 
stability in cyberspace, along with $7 million in Economic Support 
Funds (ESF). We doubled funds to combat global cybercrime from $10 
million in FY 2021 International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement 
(INCLE) funds to $20 million INCLE requested in the FY 2022 budget.

    Question. The National Security Commission on Artificial 
Intelligence recently observed that ``there is currently no clear lead 
for emerging technology policy or diplomacy within the State 
Department, which hinders the Department's ability to make strategic 
technology policy decisions. It also creates confusion for allies and 
partners, who regularly express uncertainty regarding which senior 
official should be their primary point of contact for issues related to 
key topics such as AI, 5G, quantum computing, biotechnology, or new 
emerging technologies.''
    What do you plan to do about this?

    Answer. I agree that we must elevate technology diplomacy and 
organize the Department for the new era. That is why I asked my two 
deputies to lead a review of our cyber and emerging technology policy 
and structure. I understand they have been in close consultations with 
Congress throughout this process. The review is in the final stages and 
I will move quickly to implement its recommendations. In the meantime, 
we have incorporated emerging tech concerns and opportunities into our 
core diplomatic work. For instance, we have established a Trade and 
Technology Council with the EU, and we are working in multilateral fora 
and bilaterally to advance principles to harness emerging technologies 
consistent with our values and interests.

    Question. Will the United States provide Taiwan with additional 
vaccines beyond the 750,000 already promised?

    Answer. On June 19, the United States donated 2.5 million doses of 
Moderna vaccines to Taiwan through AIT and the Taipei Economic and 
Cultural Representative Office (TECRO). We have had a close partnership 
with Taiwan on global health issues and have been working together 
throughout the pandemic. Taiwan was there to help the United States in 
the earliest days of the pandemic, providing PPE and other life-saving 
materials. We remain grateful for its generosity and proud that we are 
able to support Taiwan in this moment of need. Scientific teams and 
legal experts from both Taiwan and the United States worked together to 
ensure the prompt delivery of these safe and effective vaccine doses to 
Taiwan.
                                 ______
                                 

    Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions 
                  Submitted by Senator James E. Risch

    Question. Last week, the Administration rightly sanctioned several 
individuals from Bulgaria for extensive corruption-related activities 
harmful to U.S. interests. Just a couple weeks before that, the 
Administration waived sanctions against former Stasi agent, longtime 
Putin crony, and NS2 CEO, Matthias Warnig. One of the reasons for your 
determination that the waivers are in the national interest of the 
United States was that it will ``provide space for diplomatic 
engagement with Germany.'' The Biden administration has claimed to be 
elevating the importance of anti-corruption efforts to U.S. national 
security. This is admirable, but how can you claim to be credible on 
combatting corruption by waiving sanctions on arguably one of the most 
corrupt energy projects in the world, Nord Stream 2?

    Answer. My decision to waive certain sanctions in the case of Nord 
Stream 2 is in line with the President's commitment to rebuild 
relations with our European allies and partners and reflects a desire 
to make something positive out of the difficult situation the 
Administration inherited. Rather than risk damaging relations through 
further sanctions, we are using the space provided by these waivers to 
engage Germany diplomatically to take steps to reduce the risks Nord 
Stream 2 poses to Ukraine and European energy security.

    Question. Last week, the Administration rightly sanctioned several 
individuals from Bulgaria for extensive corruption-related activities 
harmful to U.S. interests. Just a couple weeks before that, the 
Administration waived sanctions against former Stasi agent, longtime 
Putin crony, and NS2 CEO, Matthias Warnig. One of the reasons for your 
determination that the waivers are in the national interest of the 
United States was that it will ``provide space for diplomatic 
engagement with Germany.'' What is your plan for this diplomatic 
engagement, and what requirements will Germany/NS2AG have to meet in 
order to ensure the waiver is not revoked?

    Answer. I will not go into details about ongoing diplomatic 
discussions, but we have made clear to Germany that we expect it to 
take serious, concrete steps to address the risks an operational Nord 
Stream 2 would pose to Ukraine and European energy security. We also 
continue to consult intensively with Ukraine and frontline Central and 
Eastern European allies and partners, in order to ensure that our 
discussions with Germany reflect their priorities and perspectives.

    Question. How do you justify sanctioning people for engaging in 
malign and corrupt activities in Bulgaria--an EU member state with whom 
we presumably would also like to cooperate--while waiving sanctions on 
a German national engaged in arguably much more strategically damaging 
and corrupt activities related to Nord Stream 2?

    Answer. My decision to waive sanctions against Nord Stream 2 AG, 
its corporate officers, and its German-national CEO Matthias Warnig is 
in line with the President's commitment to rebuild relations with our 
European allies and partners, including Germany. The strength of these 
relationships will lay the foundation for many of our foreign policy 
priorities, such as the economic recovery; efforts to combat COVID-19; 
and pushing back on Russia, the PRC, and authoritarianism around the 
globe. The decision also comes with a clear message to Berlin that the 
Administration expects it to take serious, concrete steps to address 
the risks that a completed pipeline would pose to Ukraine and European 
energy security.

    Question. Under what circumstances would you revoke these waivers?

    Answer. Like all national interest waivers, these waivers can be 
rescinded if a determination is made that they are no longer in the 
national interest.

    Question. Should Nord Stream 2 reach completion, how will you work 
to mitigate the strategic vulnerabilities it will create in Ukraine and 
Central and Eastern Europe?

    Answer. While the Administration continues to oppose Nord Stream 2, 
the waivers we issued were intended to create the space for diplomatic 
engagement with Germany to address the risks a completed Nord Stream 2 
pipeline would pose to Ukraine and European energy security. Those 
conversations are ongoing, and we have made it clear that we expect 
Germany to take serious, concrete action to address those risks. We 
also continue to consult extensively with Ukraine and other Central and 
Eastern European allies and partners regarding our opposition to Nord 
Stream 2 and in order to ensure our conversations with Germany take 
their priorities and perspectives into account.

    Question. Administration officials, including you, cite the fact 
that NS2 construction was 95 percent complete when it took office to 
justify waiving sanctions against NS2 and giving a pass to Russia's 
premier malign influence project in Europe, but construction on NS2 was 
also 95 percent complete in December 2019, when Congressionally-
mandated sanctions and robust enforcement by the Trump administration 
halted pipe laying. Based on what evidence or assessment did the 
Administration decide that robust enforcement of U.S. sanctions law 
would no longer be effective in stopping or significantly delaying Nord 
Stream 2?

    Answer. While the Administration continues to oppose Nord Stream 2, 
the pipeline was more than 90 percent complete when we took office, and 
we assessed that sanctions on Nord Stream 2, its CEO, and its corporate 
officers would not stop the construction of the pipeline. The waivers 
we issued are in line with the President's commitment to rebuild 
relations with our European allies and were intended to create the 
space for diplomatic engagement with Germany to address the risks a 
completed Nord Stream 2 pipeline would pose to Ukraine and European 
energy security. Those conversations are ongoing, and we have made it 
clear that we expect Germany to take serious, concrete action to 
address those risks.

    Question. Looking back on your pledge in your confirmation hearing 
to ``do whatever we can,'' to stop Nord Stream 2, does the 
Administration also intend to waive the mandatory PEESA sanctions on 
post-construction certification and testing? What about the mandatory 
sanctions on NS2 AG under CAATSA section 228, a topic on which Ranking 
Member McCaul and I sent you a letter last week? Note: Two of the 
companies sanctioned under the 5/17 PEESA report had already been 
sanctioned or had very close ties to entities sanctioned already under 
Obama-era Ukraine sanctions codified under CAATSA. According to Section 
228 of CAATSA, mandatory secondary sanctions must be applied to any 
foreign person who engages in a significant transaction with a 
previously-sanctioned entity. Since, by the Administration's own 
admission, NS2 AG did business with previously sanctioned entities, NS2 
AG itself should be subject to mandatory secondary sanctions.

    Answer. Throughout the process of testing, inspecting, certifying, 
and otherwise operationalizing the pipeline, we will continue to oppose 
this project and work to strengthen the energy security of our allies 
and partners. The language in 7503(a)(1)(B)(ii) of Protecting Europe's 
Energy Security Act (PEESA) targets persons that ``facilitated 
deceptive or structured transactions to provide those vessels 
[identified in the Department's report to Congress] for the 
construction of such a project.'' As the Department noted in its 
response to your letter, this is a different standard than the one laid 
out in CAATSA section 228. This latter authority is delegated to the 
Department of the Treasury, which may be consulted further on section 
228 implementation.

    Question. The budget includes a request for $1 billion for global 
health security, ``to prevent, detect, and respond to future biological 
threats and pandemics.'' How will these resources be managed and 
prioritized? Will the Department play a direct role in coordination, or 
will funds simply be transferred to USAID and CDC?

    Answer. The nearly $1 billion requested for global health security 
for FY 2022 is essential to reinforce U.S. leadership on global health 
security and includes: $355 million for USAID global health security 
programming worldwide; $90 million to replenish USAID's ``Emergency 
Reserve Fund,'' which was the initial funding source to address COVID-
19; $300 million for multilateral contributions to support COVID-19 
vaccine and other countermeasures research and development (R&D) and 
delivery; $250 million for a global health security financing 
mechanism; and $20 million to address administrative and staffing 
needs. We collaborate closely with other departments and agencies to 
coordinate the execution of the U.S. global health security strategy 
overseas.

    Question. Last week, the Administration announced initial COVID-19 
vaccine donations to COVAX and direct bilateral donations to certain 
countries, rolling out 25 million immediately.
    What, exactly, is the U.S. COVID-19 vaccine diplomacy strategy?

    Answer. First, we are donating vaccines to the world, including 580 
million doses through COVAX and bilaterally. Our principles for sharing 
U.S. vaccines include maximizing the number of vaccines available 
equitably for the greatest number of countries and for those most at-
risk within countries; preparing for surges and prioritizing healthcare 
workers and other vulnerable populations based on public health data 
and acknowledged best practices; and helping our neighbors and other 
countries in need. Second, we are scaling vaccine production for the 
world, working with U.S. vaccine manufacturers to increase vaccine 
supply for the rest of the world. Third, we are working with partners 
and investing in local vaccine production.

    Question. Now that the World Health Organization has provided 
emergency use authorization for Sinovac and Sinopharm--both of which 
have low efficacy rates--how does the Administration plan to ensure 
that U.S. contributions to COVAX are not used to underwrite the 
purchase and distribution of substandard Chinese COVID-19 vaccines?

    Answer. The United States encourages the rapid international 
distribution of vaccines that meet the robust regulatory standards for 
authorization by the WHO to assess safety, efficacy, and good 
manufacturing practices. We will continue to advance our position that 
any regulatory process to evaluate COVID-19 vaccines needs scientific 
rigor and that information and data be shared fully and transparently. 
We are also working in close coordination with COVAX to allocate the 
more than 500 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines that will be donated 
by the United States.

    Question. Would it be appropriate to shift from financial 
contributions to in-kind donations of surplus U.S. vaccines?

    Answer. We will continue to donate surplus supply as it is 
delivered to us, and simultaneously this summer, we will begin 
executing on the donation of 500 million Pfizer doses that we are 
providing to Gavi for distribution through COVAX. Our actions are 
serving as a catalyst for other countries to contribute doses and 
funding for the benefit of the rest of the world.

    Question. What needs to happen for the United States to roll out 
the remainder of the 80 million vaccines by the end of June?

    Answer. We will have allocated all 80 million doses in the coming 
days with shipments going out as soon as countries are ready to receive 
the doses. The Administration will move as expeditiously as possible, 
coordinating with COVAX and other countries as well as working through 
logistical details, regulatory requirements, and other legal 
considerations to ensure safe and secure transfer of doses. We 
anticipate an increasing number of shipments every week as we ramp up 
these efforts. Already, doses have landed in Mexico, Canada, and 
Taiwan.

    Question. What are next steps after that for the United States 
donating or exporting vaccines to other countries around the world?

    Answer. We will continue to donate surplus supply as it is 
delivered to us and simultaneously will begin executing on the 500 
million Pfizer doses we are providing to Gavi for distribution through 
COVAX. We will work with the G7 and other partners to coordinate 
multilateral efforts to combat the pandemic. We will also advance our 
health and health security efforts to prevent, detect, and respond to 
COVID-19 and other biological threats; increase vaccination; detect 
outbreaks and variants; respond to surges; and recover economically. We 
will do so in a way that strengthens our global public health 
institutions and ability to come together as an international community 
to defeat this pandemic and the next.

    Question. Certain countries--including important U.S. allies like 
the Philippines--have purchased Pfizer and Moderna vaccines from the 
United States. When are these vaccines going to be made available to 
these countries?

    Answer. Driven by aggressive USG actions and investments, in 
partnership with U.S. vaccine manufacturers, to accelerate domestic 
manufacturing and expand domestic production lines, the United States 
has vastly increased vaccine supply for the rest of the world in a way 
that also creates jobs here at home. Pfizer and Moderna have already 
increased their capacity to produce vaccines for the world and are 
exporting to partners across the globe. We will continue to take 
additional steps to help vaccinate the world and end this pandemic 
globally, including by sharing doses from our own vaccine supply in 
addition to supporting increasing vaccine supply which enables 
commercial procurements such as by the Philippines.

    Question. Do you commit to advocating for the quickest possible 
delivery of purchased vaccines for U.S. allies and partners like the 
Philippines?

    Answer. In addition to sharing doses from our own vaccine supply, 
we are scaling vaccine production for the world, working with U.S. 
vaccine manufacturers to vastly increase vaccine supply for the rest of 
the world in a way that also creates jobs here at home. Driven by the 
aggressive actions that have been taken to accelerate manufacturing and 
production lines in the United States, Pfizer and Moderna have already 
increased their capacity to produce vaccines for the world. We will 
continue to take additional steps to help vaccinate the world and end 
this pandemic globally.

    Question. According to a May 26 CNN report, Biden administration 
officials reportedly shut down a State Department investigation into 
the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ned Price said last week that was 
inaccurate and that the investigators had completed their work and 
finished a report.
    Which is true?

    Answer. Under the previous Administration, the Bureau for Arms 
Control and Verification (AVC) commissioned an internal inquiry into 
COVID origins, and that work has concluded. The team responsible for 
the inquiry never drafted a report, but did provide a briefing of their 
work to Department staff. All relevant parts of the Department, 
including AVC, continue to work with the interagency on this matter as 
needed and directed. Additionally, President Biden has committed to 
keep working with like-minded partners around the world to press China 
to participate in a full, transparent, evidence-based international 
investigation and to provide access to all relevant data and evidence.

    Question. Should the Department play a more significant role in 
coordinating U.S. partnerships with foreign entities engaged in 
research and development (R&D) of pathogens--particularly gain-of-
function research--to ensure that all such research is aligned with the 
national security interests of the United States?

    Answer. The Department of State plays a significant role in the 
interagency processes that address oversight policies for research that 
might pose national security concerns. These oversight policies require 
careful consideration of risks and benefits, as well as consideration 
of our international obligations. I am committed to working with the 
interagency and the Administration to make sure that the Department of 
State continues to play a role in the interagency, leading to informed 
decisions in the best interest of the United States.

    Question. What role should the Department play and what are you 
going to do to ensure a more robust interagency role for the State 
Department on this issue going forward?

    Answer. The State Department has a role in interagency policy 
discussions about preventing the misuse of scientific advances that 
could pose a threat to national security, including advances in the 
life sciences. We ensure that policy development takes into account 
both our international obligations and the international implications 
of policy choices, then we work with our allies and partners to 
encourage others to adopt similar policies. I am committed to working 
with the interagency and the Administration to ensure the Department of 
State maintains our robust role in shaping, implementing, and 
communicating federal policies that protect our national security.

    Question. Should the United States engage in highly risky 
research--such as gain-of-function research--in cooperation with 
countries that do not have adequate biosecurity standards, that have 
violated or failed to uphold the International Health Regulations, or 
where the United States cannot certify that such country is in 
compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention?

    Answer. Factors that bear on the risk of accident or misuse should 
be carefully reviewed in considering whether to conduct, fund, or 
otherwise cooperate in such research. Federal funding and oversight 
policies help guide these decisions for research that might pose 
particular concerns. I am committed to working with the interagency and 
the Administration to make sure that federal policy choices are in line 
with our international obligations and in the national security 
interests of the United States.

    Question. Have you asked the Department to conduct an analysis of 
whether any funding or foreign assistance--including State Department 
funds implemented by USAID--has supported entities in China that 
conduct gain-of-function research or research that presents a dual use 
concern?

    Answer. The Department of State does not fund gain-of-function 
research, and the United States has policies in place to prevent misuse 
of life sciences advances. I am not aware of Department of State 
funding for the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), and I refer you to 
other departments and agencies for any questions about their 
assistance.

    Question. Will you commit to conducting a thorough review and 
providing documentation to this committee?

    Answer. I am committed to reviewing current policy and funding 
priorities for any programs the Department of State may have for joint 
research projects with China and will share that information with 
Congress as appropriate.

    Question. Directed-Energy Attacks on U.S. Diplomats and Personnel: 
I am deeply concerned by the troubling reports about the number of 
State Department and other federal employees impacted by the suspected 
directed-energy attacks known as ``Havana syndrome.'' The Department 
has an obligation to do more both to protect its people and hold 
accountable those responsible. Unfortunately, the information provided 
by the Department to this committee has been inadequate thus far--even 
on the most basic issues. How many State Department personnel have been 
impacted overall?

    Answer. The Department has no higher priority than the safety and 
security of USG personnel and their accompanying family members. The 
Department has received reports of unexplained health incidents from 
various regions around the globe. We are working closely with the 
interagency to standardize reporting and information-sharing to ensure 
a consistent approach to identifying and caring for those affected. We 
stand ready to provide you further information on the impact of these 
incidents.

    Question. How many of those affected were overseas and how many 
were domestic?

    Answer. The USG has received both overseas and domestic reports of 
unexplained health incidents. We are working closely with the 
interagency to standardize reporting and information-sharing to ensure 
a consistent approach to identifying and caring for those affected. We 
stand ready to provide you further information on the impact of these 
incidents in a classified setting.

    Question. What new policies or procedures the Department is putting 
in place to help ensure our diplomats get the care and protection they 
deserve?

    Answer. As our understanding of unexplained health incidents (UHI) 
evolves, we also adapt and improve our policies to better protect and 
care for our workforce. We established the role of care coordinator to 
assist those under chief of mission security responsibility who have 
been affected by a possible UHI. On June 1, State launched a pilot 
baseline testing program to improve our ability to measure the effects 
of a UHI. We implemented an interagency-approved triage tool, including 
an initial field assessment, to determine if an individual suffered a 
UHI. On care, we are discussing appropriate extended care facilities 
with the interagency community and private sector. We are ready to 
discuss our countermeasures in a classified setting.

    Question. Should Cuba be removed from the List of State Sponsors of 
Terrorism without credibly explaining the targeted attacks on U.S. 
diplomats in Havana?

    Answer. The Administration has committed to carefully reviewing 
decisions made in the prior Administration, including the decision to 
designate Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. I commit to a careful 
and thorough review of all material related to the decision to 
designate Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.
    Our top priority is the safety and security of our people. The 
Department is working to determine what happened to our personnel and 
their families and to ensure their well-being and health. That 
investigation is ongoing and is a high priority. The Department will 
continue to work with Congress on this very important issue.

    Question. It has come to our attention that a number of those 
impacted may have worked in policy areas or countries of particular 
interest to Russia such as Nord Stream 2, cyber, certain political-
military issues, and other areas. Can you confirm these reports, or has 
the Department conducted any other survey of the regional and policy 
distribution of those affected?

    Answer. The Department is fully invested in an interagency process 
seeking to determine the culpability and mechanism for these incidents. 
To date, no conclusions have been made, including about policy areas 
and geography of affected employees, but we commit to keeping Congress 
abreast of developments related to unexplained health incidents 
impacting U.S. personnel overseas.

    Question. Are China and Russia reducing the role of nuclear weapons 
in their strategies?

    Answer. No. That is why this Administration will seek to engage 
both countries in meaningful dialogue; head off costly arms races; and 
pursue new arms control arrangements while ensuring our strategic 
deterrent remains safe, secure, and effective and that our extended 
deterrence commitments to our allies remain strong and credible.

    Question. Doesn't ``reducing the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. 
strategy''--as described in President Biden's interim national security 
guidance--embolden China and Russia, and cause our allies to further 
doubt our commitment to them to and to extended deterrence?

    Answer. The Administration's Interim National Security Strategic 
Guidance states that as the United States seeks to reduce the role of 
nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, we will do so, 
``while ensuring our strategic deterrent remains safe, secure, and 
effective and that our extended deterrence commitments to our allies 
remain strong and credible.'' We will consult with our allies and 
partners as we undertake a review of U.S. nuclear posture and policy to 
inform our pursuit of the objectives outlined in the interim guidance.

    Question. Do you support the Department supporting Japan in 
developing long-range precision strike capabilities?

    Answer. In a worsening security environment, the United States and 
Japan will continue to closely coordinate on how to deter effectively 
and, if necessary, respond to growing threats to the U.S.-Japan 
Alliance and regional security in the Indo-Pacific. Long-range 
precision fires are one component among many contributing to the 
alliance's offensive and defensive capabilities. I would defer to the 
DoD for a more detailed analysis on specific roles, missions, and 
capabilities within the U.S.-Japan Alliance.

    Question. What is your stance regarding U.S. leadership in 
mediating an end to the conflict in the Anglophone regions of Cameroon 
and do you classify it as an armed conflict at this stage of the 
crisis? Should the U.S. dedicate greater targeted financial and 
diplomatic resources to help mediate the conflict?

    Answer. The United States has an important role to play in pushing 
for a resolution to the crisis. We support the Swiss Government's 
efforts and other meaningful initiatives that could advance peace on 
the ground, including local initiatives. We have not reached a 
determination as to whether there is a non-international armed conflict 
in Cameroon. My decision recently, following cuts in security 
assistance, to implement a visa restriction policy on individuals 
believed to be responsible for, or complicit in, undermining peace in 
Cameroon, reflects our commitment to resolve the Anglophone crisis. We 
will continue to consider all potential diplomatic tools to advance 
dialogue and end the violence.

    Question. What role should the United States and the U.N. play in 
verifying the withdrawal of Eritrean troops from Ethiopia?

    Answer. An immediate end to hostilities and the withdrawal of 
Eritrean forces are the critical steps to resolving humanitarian access 
and human rights concerns in Tigray. A mechanism through which the 
international community can verify that such a withdrawal has occurred 
will ultimately be required. The United States and the U.N. are among 
those entities that could potentially play a constructive role in 
helping to craft and implement such a mechanism. We are consulting with 
a broad range of international partners on this issue.

    Question. If South Sudan's leadership continues to fail in 
delivering on the current peace agreement, should the United States 
begin looking at making all of its foreign assistance to the country 
conditional to implementing that accord or key components of the 
agreement?

    Answer. The lack of implementation of the Revitalized Agreement on 
the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) is unacceptable. 
The Department is considering options for leveraging U.S. foreign 
assistance to best support implementation of the R-ARCSS.

    Question. Of the $272.6 million increase for the global workforce, 
how much of that--both in dollar figure and as a percentage of the 
total--is going towards positions in the Indo-Pacific region?

    Answer. The FY 2022 request includes $121.6 million in Diplomatic 
Engagement funding for the global workforce, of which $23.1 million, or 
15 percent, supports new positions for the Department's continued 
efforts to counter the PRC's concerning influence and advance 
democratic values within the context of the Indo-Pacific Strategy.

    Question. What is the precise number of the additional U.S. direct 
hires that would be funded by the proposed increase for the 
``Diplomatic Engagement'' account that would be in roles in the Indo-
Pacific region or in relevant roles at Main State?

    Answer. The Department requested 48 additional Diplomatic 
Engagement U.S. direct hire positions to support roles in the Indo-
Pacific region or in relevant roles at Main State. The positions are 
requested for the Bureaus of East Asian and Pacific Affairs (EAP), 
South and Central Asian Affairs (SCA), and the Global Engagement Center 
(GEC).

    Question. Of those increases in functional bureaus, how many would 
be in roles with direct responsibility for China-related issues, and 
what are the job descriptions of those jobs?

    Answer. There are 128 functional bureau position increases in the 
Department's FY 2022 request. Of these, three positions focus solely on 
China issues. One new position will support the Global Engagement 
Center's China Division programs countering PRC disinformation and 
propaganda. Two new Bureau of Intelligence and Research positions will 
focus on economic, finance, trade, and other China-related research and 
analysis.

    Question. How many of the new positions for the Indo-Pacific will 
be economic officers? Please provide by a post-by-post breakdown of 
where these officers will go within the region. Please provide specific 
descriptions of what their roles will be.

    Answer. Of the 48 new positions requested for the Indo-Pacific, 20 
will be economic officers. The 20 positions are listed in the table 
below.




    Question. The last time you testified before this committee, I 
asked you to discuss the Biden administration's Indo-Pacific strategy, 
including objectives, what specific policy and funding priorities the 
Department would focus on, and what initiatives you would keep versus 
discard from the prior Administration. At that time, you indicated the 
Department was in the middle of a policy review. What are the answers 
to those questions? What is the status of the policy review? Please be 
specific.

    Answer. The Biden-Harris administration is committed to a free and 
open Indo-Pacific region. As part of an ongoing policy review process, 
the NSC initiated several interagency discussions to update and further 
enhance the U.S. Strategic Framework for the Indo-Pacific. As the 
process moves forward, we will work with Congress to ensure members are 
informed of the progress and conclusions. Even as the review is taking 
place, the Department of State is working to revitalize ties with our 
allies and partners, advance inclusive economic policies that support 
all U.S. citizens, and promote democratic resilience and respect for 
human rights. With Congress's support, we are investing in the 
capabilities of our allies and partners and strengthening effective 
regional organizations in order to defend the international rules-based 
order and prevail in strategic competition with China. We are also 
working with partners to address shared challenges such as 
transnational crime, climate change, pandemic recovery, and the threat 
posed by the DPRK's nuclear program.

    Question. Is the Indo-Pacific region the top priority region in 
President Biden's foreign policy? If not, why not and what is the 
region considered most important to U.S. interests?

    Answer. The Indo-Pacific is the most dynamic and fastest-growing 
region on earth, making it a leading priority for U.S. foreign policy 
at the front lines of strategic competition with China. The United 
States is committed to working closely with allies and partners to 
advance our shared prosperity, security, and values in the Indo-Pacific 
and around the world.

    Question. The United States has only a handful of free trade 
agreements with Indo-Pacific partners.
    Will you commit to prioritizing a robust trade agenda with Indo-
Pacific economic partners?

    Answer. Trade policy in the Indo-Pacific is a key part of the 
Biden-Harris administration's effort to build back better. The 
Administration's approach to trade is focused on supporting U.S. 
working families, defending our values, and protecting the long-term 
prosperity and security of the United States. As President Biden has 
said, the United States is focused on making investments in U.S. 
workers and U.S. competitiveness before he signs new trade agreements, 
including in the Indo-Pacific. The United States is working with allies 
and partners in the Indo-Pacific region to identify ways to address 
specific trade issues such as infrastructure, the digital economy, and 
energy.

    Question. What has the Department already done in this area?

    Answer. The United States has engaged bilaterally with the Republic 
of Korea, Australia, Japan, and Singapore to promote full and faithful 
implementation of our existing trade agreements. Regionally, we work 
actively with APEC member economies to facilitate trade and investment 
and look to improve economic ties with ASEAN. We seek to build the 
capacity of countries to help them participate in comprehensive, high 
standard bilateral or multilateral trade agreements that remove 
barriers and unfair practices. We are also focused on securing, 
diversifying, and strengthening resilient and scalable U.S. supply 
chains to ensure we are prepared not only to defeat COVID-19, but to 
reduce the likelihood that future crises or global challenges can 
impede our supply chains.

    Question. What is the total amount of Foreign Military Financing 
(FMF) going to the Indo-Pacific region?

    Answer. The President's FY 2022 Congressional Budget Justification 
requests $164 million in FMF for the Indo-Pacific region. This reflects 
an increase of 29.8 percent from FY 2020 allocations, the most recently 
completed fiscal year. FMF for the region amounts to nearly half of our 
global discretionary FMF and typically includes earmarks for Maldives, 
Mongolia, Vietnam, and Indonesia. The Administration's FMF requests and 
Congressional appropriations are significantly constrained by enduring 
commitments, particularly to countries outside the Indo-Pacific region 
(e.g., roughly 88 percent of the global FMF account is earmarked for 
the NEA region), which leaves the Department with limited flexibility 
in discretionary FMF funds.

    Question. What's the percentage of total FMF?

    Answer. The President's FY 2022 Congressional Budget Justification 
requests $164 million in FMF for the Indo-Pacific region. The request 
for the region consists of the $129 million under East Asia and the 
Pacific, as well as $35 million in the South and Central Asia Regional 
line. This amounts to approximately 2.6 percent of the overall global 
FMF account. Given Congressional earmarks and other commitments, the 
Indo-Pacific typically receives nearly half of the global discretionary 
FMF budget annually.

    Question. What is the Administration providing to the Middle East 
and Europe in FMF, both in terms of absolute numbers and a percentage 
of total budget?

    Answer. The Administration requested a total of $6,175,524,000 in 
FY 2022 FMF funds, of which $299,000,000 will support partner countries 
in the European and Eurasian region (4.8 percent of the total FMF 
requested budget) and $5,459,000,000 will support partner countries in 
the Near East region (88 percent of the total FMF requested budget).

    Question. Over the last several months, the Administration has 
notified Congress of intent to use funds from the Countering Chinese 
Influence Fund--now helpfully renamed the Countering PRC Malign 
Influence Fund. Some of these funds are being used for projects and 
programs that have very little to do with China--if anything at all. 
The Department is essentially dipping into this pot of money to fund 
things it wants to do anyway. Do you commit that this fund will only be 
used for projects and programs that bear a direct nexus to acts by the 
Chinese Communist Party that undermine U.S. and partner country 
interests?

    Answer. I commit that all approved Countering Chinese Influence 
Fund (CCIF) projects and programs will bear a direct nexus to 
countering malign PRC influence. The PRC's use of coercive and 
corrupting tools of influence to undermine and interfere in countries 
is a major concern for the United States and our partners around the 
world. To ensure alignment with the CCIF's purpose and the 
Administration's strategic goals, projects funded from the CCIF must 
demonstrate that countering malign PRC influence is the explicit or 
primary goal of the program and be located in countries and/or sectors 
that are highly vulnerable to malign PRC influence.

    Question. Do you commit to providing a comprehensive accounting of 
all funds obligated under this line item to Congress upon request or at 
the end of the fiscal year?

    Answer. I commit to engage in a full review of the Countering 
Chinese Influence Fund (CCIF) to ensure the funds are used 
strategically in a manner that advances U.S. economic, diplomatic, 
military, and technological leadership in our strategic competition 
with China and in support of a stable and open international system. I 
also commit to providing you with a comprehensive accounting of funding 
and program detail information at your request or at the end of the 
fiscal year.

    Question. In January, I asked you about the interest of the 
People's Liberation Army in overseas bases and logistics facilities. 
Deputy Sherman recently raised the issue of China's activities at Ream 
Naval Base on her trip to Cambodia, and General Townsend of U.S. 
AFRICOM said in early May that China is looking at options all over 
Africa, including on its West Coast.

    Answer. Beyond the PRC's first overseas base in Djibouti, Beijing 
is very likely planning to establish additional military installations, 
including bases and logistics hubs, all of which would present a direct 
challenge to our global interests and those of our allies and partners. 
We are working closely across the interagency and with our partners and 
allies to address this issue.

    Question. Please describe the Biden administration's policy towards 
Turkey.

    Answer. U.S. strategic interests overlap with Turkey's in many 
ways, including countering terrorism, ending the conflict in Syria, and 
deterring malign influence in the region. Turkey makes crucial 
contributions to NATO missions, vocally supports Ukrainian and Georgian 
sovereignty and territorial integrity, and works to prevent the 
Russian-backed Assad regime from precipitating additional humanitarian 
crises on Europe's doorstep. The United States has a strong interest in 
keeping Turkey anchored to the Euro-Atlantic community. The 
Administration will continue to call out actions inconsistent with 
Turkey's NATO commitments and will continue to raise human rights 
concerns while seeking cooperation on areas of shared interest.

    Question. Are you working to solve the S-400 problem?

    Answer. The Administration continues to urge Turkey not to retain 
the S-400 system and to refrain from purchasing additional Russian 
materiel. Turkey's S-400 acquisition runs directly counter to the 
commitments all Allies made at the 2016 NATO Summit in Warsaw to reduce 
dependencies on Russian equipment. As the Biden administration has made 
clear to Turkey, any new purchase of Russian military equipment would 
risk triggering CAATSA sanctions separate from and in addition to those 
imposed in December 2020.
    We continue to press for resolution of the S-400 issue at senior 
levels, including during the June 14 meeting between Presidents Biden 
and Erdogan.

    Question. Have you offered Turkey and President Erdogan any options 
to help them exit this morass [S-400]? If so, please delineate them.

    Answer. U.S. administrations have offered Turkey numerous options 
to resolve the S-400 issue both before and after Turkey began taking 
delivery of the system in July 2019. The United States offered Turkey 
the PATRIOT air defense system in 2009 and 2019, and competed for 
Turkey's 2013 tender for a long-range air/missile defense system. Each 
offer included a broad range of co-production and co-development 
opportunities as well as the most competitive delivery schedules 
possible, which Turkey declined. We continue to press Turkey for a 
solution that protects U.S. national security interests and meets the 
requirements of relevant legislation.

    Question. Russian President Putin recently said that with the 
impending success of Nord Stream 2, ``we are ready to continue 
implementing similar high-tech projects with our European and other 
partners. We expect the logic of mutual benefit to inevitably have the 
upper hand over various types of artificial barriers of the current 
political situation.'' Will your State Department work to fight the 
proliferation of these kinds of Russian malign influence projects?

    Answer. The Department of State works closely with other agencies 
on a whole-of-government basis that combines diplomatic, intelligence, 
financial, and law enforcement lines of effort to expose and impose 
costs for Russian malign influence. We also work with likeminded allies 
and international partners to counter Russian malign influence through 
a variety of multilateral and bilateral avenues. Denial, disruption, 
and exposure of Russia's malign tactics impose a cost on targeted 
individuals and entities which carry out these efforts. This includes 
both official Government actors, namely the Russian intelligence 
services and unofficial proxies. I will continue to support these 
ongoing interagency efforts.

    Question. Since the U.S. has not fully opposed Nord Stream 2 like 
it indicated it would, how do you anticipate our partners will react to 
future verbal opposition to Russian projects that may arise?

    Answer. The Administration's position remains clear--the Nord 
Stream 2 pipeline is a Russian geopolitical project that threatens 
European energy security and undermines the security of Ukraine and 
frontline Central and Eastern European allies and partners. Our goal 
remains to ensure Russia cannot use energy as a coercive tool against 
Ukraine or anyone else in the region, and we continue to engage 
diplomatically with Germany on steps it can take to address our 
concerns about the risks the pipeline poses to Ukraine and European 
energy security. We also consult regularly with Central and Eastern 
European allies and partners regarding our opposition to the pipeline 
and ways we--and Germany--can support European energy security.

    Question. Russia Strategy: Please detail the U.S. Government's 
policy and strategy towards Russia. In your response, please be sure to 
address arms control, international organizations, disinformation, 
Russian military adventurism, Wagner Group, sanctions, U.S. Embassy 
posture in Russia, European-U.S. unity of message on Russia, and the 
Kremlin's abuse of its citizenry.

    Answer. We seek a stable and predictable relationship with Russia. 
At the same time, we will hold it accountable for disregarding 
international laws, norms, and agreements, including those related to 
arms control and nonproliferation, and for reckless and adversarial 
actions like its invasion and occupation of parts of Ukraine and 
Georgia. Cooperation with our allies enhances our ability to deter and 
disrupt Moscow's threats, defend human rights, effectively apply 
sanctions, and highlight the increasing isolation caused by the Putin 
regime's aggression and domestic repression. We also engage directly 
with Russia to advance and protect U.S. interests, including at the 
U.N., in the Arctic Council, and via our Strategic Stability Dialogue.

    Question. The Biden administration is proposing a legislative 
change that would allow the United States to join, or rejoin, 
international organizations where the PLO is a member. As you know, the 
PA and PLO continue to incentivize and celebrate violence against 
Israelis through the egregious ``pay to slay'' program. In 2019 alone, 
the Palestinians spent $151 million dollars to support imprisoned 
terrorists and their families. What concessions have you been able to 
extract from the PA and PLO on their pay for slay program before 
suggesting this kind of diplomatic outreach?

    Answer. This Administration is committed to encouraging the 
Palestinian Authority to reform the prisoner and martyr payment system 
in a manner that is consistent with U.S. interests and addresses the 
concerns reflected in U.S. law. This has been a longstanding priority 
of prior administrations and remains a top U.S. priority that I fully 
support.

    Question. Mexican transnational criminal organizations are 
producing increased quantities of fentanyl and cartels, such as the 
Sinaloa and the New Generation Jalisco Cartel, are the primary 
trafficking groups responsible for smuggling fentanyl into the U.S. 
from Mexico. Please describe how the budget request would ensure that 
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement programs are focusing on 
meaningfully reducing the flow of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids 
from Mexico.

    Answer. Among the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law 
Enforcement Affairs' (INL) highest priorities is disrupting the 
production and trafficking of synthetic drugs, including fentanyl. The 
Department supports Mexico's recent steps to regulate fentanyl 
precursor chemicals. The FY 2022 budget request ensures INL will 
continue to build the capacity of Mexico to better disrupt 
transnational criminal organizations, including through improving 
investigations into precursor chemical diversion. The Department will 
continue to deepen security cooperation with Mexico and will prioritize 
developing meaningful solutions to address the synthetic drug threat at 
the cabinet-level security dialogue that Vice President Harris 
announced during the June 8 meeting with Mexican President Lopez 
Obrador.

    Question. In March 2020, the United States and Colombia announced a 
joint action plan to reduce coca cultivation and cocaine production by 
50 percent by the end of 2023. The plan would make full use of all 
available tools, including rural development, interdiction, as well as 
manual and aerial eradication. Can you explain how the budget request 
would advance this objective?

    Answer. Through the FY 2022 International Narcotics Control and Law 
Enforcement (INCLE) budget request for Colombia, INL programming will 
complement the Colombian Government's counternarcotics strategy by 
providing assistance consistent with its five pillars: 1) dismantling 
criminal organizations; 2) reducing drug supply; 3) decreasing drug 
demand; 4) combating money laundering; and 5) increasing state presence 
in rural areas where narcotics trafficking thrives. Integrated 
implementation of these pillars will decrease the availability of 
cocaine, reduce cocaine-related overdoses in the United States, and 
stem migration caused by narcotrafficking-related violence in drug-
transit countries.

    Question. In what ways can the U.S. better leverage existing 
bilateral extradition treaties with Mexico and the countries in 
Northern Central America to combat human smuggling and trafficking 
throughout the region?

    Answer. Our bilateral extradition treaties with Mexico and the 
countries in northern Central America are powerful tools for combatting 
crime, including human trafficking and migrant smuggling. I will 
continue to evaluate the implementation of these treaties and look 
forward to consulting closely with Congress on these issues.

    Question. What conditions need to be met on the ground in 
Venezuela, and what specific actions does Maduro need to take, before 
the U.S. can support negotiations between the Maduro regime and Guaido 
Government? Do you commit to not supporting negotiations until these 
conditions are met and actions are taken?

    Answer. The United States continues to support a negotiated 
solution to the Venezuelan crisis that leads to free and fair 
presidential and parliamentary elections and a return of the rule of 
law and democracy in Venezuela.
    Any solution to the Venezuelan crisis must come from the Venezuelan 
people themselves through Venezuelan-led, comprehensive negotiations 
that include participation from all stakeholders; allow for the 
unconditional release of political prisoners; are time-bound; and allow 
for all Venezuelans to express themselves politically through credible, 
inclusive, and transparent local, parliamentary, and presidential 
elections.

    Question. The budget proposes a 72 percent increase in funding for 
the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and seeks to remove all 
conditions upon such contributions. This includes the ``Kemp-Kasten 
amendment,'' in place since 1985, which prohibits U.S. funding for any 
organization or program that ``supports or participates in the 
management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary 
sterilization.'' Meanwhile, the UNFPA continues to support the 
management of China's program of coercive abortion and involuntary 
sterilization, publicly celebrates China's handling of the COVID-19 
crisis (which has been characterized by the suppression of human 
rights), and remains silent on efforts to ``erase the unique identity 
of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims'' in Xinjiang. How will the 
Administration ensure that U.S. contributions to UNFPA adhere to long-
standing U.S. law and will not be used to support heinous human rights 
violations against women and girls, including the Chinese Government's 
program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization and 
genocidal campaign against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in 
Xinjiang?

    Answer. I take all legislative restrictions very seriously, 
including those related to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA). UNFPA 
keeps the United States contribution in a segregated account and does 
not fund abortion. In addition, there is a dollar to dollar reduction 
to the U.S. contribution for every dollar UNFPA spends in China with 
other donor support. UNFPA has consistently advocated for and promoted 
fulfilment of the basic right of all couples and individuals in China 
and globally to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing, and 
timing of their children. UNFPA does not support or promote abortion as 
a method of family planning in China or anywhere. UNFPA does not 
operate in Xinjiang.

    Question. The budget request includes $300 million to pay a portion 
of the U.N. peacekeeping ``arrears'' that have accrued over the last 4 
years. These arrears are a result of a disagreement between the U.N. 
and the United States on the ``scales of assessment''--a complicated 
formula used by the U.N. to determine the amount member states are 
expected to contribute for the general and peacekeeping budgets. Per 
U.S. law, the United States will only pay up to 25 percent of the U.N. 
peacekeeping budget. However, the U.N. ``assesses'' the United States 
at a rate of up to 27.9 percent. This fall, the scales of assessment 
will be renegotiated. Will you pledge to withhold payment of U.S. 
peacekeeping arrears until the U.N. establishes a 25 percent cap on 
contributions by any single nation?

    Answer. In preparation for the triennial scales of assessment 
negotiations, we are reviewing various options to reach an agreement in 
the U.N. General Assembly to lower U.S. assessment rates and ensure 
that other countries pay their fair share. I welcome the opportunity to 
work with Congress to take the steps necessary to allow the United 
States to meet our financial obligations. U.S. influence at the U.N.--
including the influence we need to push back against China and others 
and to lead reform efforts--is greatest when we pay our bills in full 
and on time.

    Question. Would you agree that paying back peacekeeping arrears 
before securing the 25 percent assessment rate would be giving away any 
leverage in the negotiations?

    Answer. U.S. influence at the U.N. is greatest when we pay our 
bills in full and on time--both the influence we need to push back 
against China and others and to lead reform efforts, including reform 
efforts to ensure that U.N. peacekeeping funds are used as effectively 
as possible. When we do not live up to our financial obligations--both 
on the U.N. regular budget and the peacekeeping budget--it undermines 
U.S. credibility and leadership at the U.N. and gives China and others 
an easy talking point to promote their authoritarian views and 
policies.

    Question. The budget includes programming for democracy, human 
rights, freedom, and the rule of law which we welcome. It also 
references the Administration's plan for a Summit of Democracy.
    What definition of democracy will be you using for inviting 
countries to participate?

    Answer. Invitations to the White House-led Summit for Democracy 
will be offered to governments with a demonstrated democratic 
trajectory and political will to advance democracy, as well as 
commitment to the goals and objectives of the summit, including 
implementing meaningful Summit commitments. Participating governments, 
including our own, will be expected to deliver on both domestic and 
international commitments that advance democracy, fight corruption, and 
protect human rights.

    Question. Can you please tell us more details of this Summit and 
its goals?

    Answer. The White House-led Summit for Democracy will reinforce the 
United States' commitment to placing democracy and human rights at the 
center of our foreign policy. It will have three principal themes: 
defending against authoritarianism, addressing and fighting corruption, 
and advancing human rights. The summit will include both well-
established and emerging democracies as well as representatives from 
the private sector and civil society. Participating governments will be 
expected to deliver on both domestic and international commitments that 
advance democracy, fight corruption, and protect human rights.

    Question. The United States is the global leader in responding to 
humanitarian crises around the world. Yet, from Northern Yemen to 
Tigray, humanitarian workers are increasingly under attack. Access is 
being constrained by armed actors and bureaucratic processes. 
Organizations are harassed. Convoys are attacked. Warehouses are burned 
and looted. While it is in the interest of the United States to 
continue providing humanitarian aid, it is not in our interest to see 
that aid used as a weapon against the innocent men, women, and children 
it is meant to support. The budget proposes to increase disaster 
assistance and food aid. How do you intend to ensure that it actually 
reaches its intended beneficiaries, and is not used as a weapon by 
armed actors and governments against perceived opponents?

    Answer. The United States will continue to work with experienced 
multilateral, international, and local humanitarian organizations; use 
tried-and-tested modalities; and leverage new technologies to improve 
the delivery, monitoring, and effectiveness of humanitarian assistance 
even in highly insecure environments. We will also continue to press 
for accountability for those who commit violations or abuses of 
applicable law, including international humanitarian law, especially 
violations involving violence against protected humanitarian workers 
and the vulnerable civilian populations they serve; attacks against 
protected humanitarian and healthcare facilities and other civilian 
infrastructure; or deliberately efforts to delay, divert, destroy or 
weaponize aid.

    Question. How do you propose to expand humanitarian access in 
Tigray and Northern Yemen, for example?

    Answer. I believe this Administration's commitment to diplomacy and 
multilateralism can re-energize the U.N. and member-states to exert 
pressure on all parties to expand humanitarian access in conflicts like 
Tigray and Yemen. Quelling further violence, including attacks on aid 
workers and on healthcare facilities and establishing immediate and 
unimpeded access for humanitarian organizations are the first basic 
steps to creating the conditions for a sustainable political 
settlement, even in the most intractable conflicts.

    Question. Is the manipulation and/or denial of life-saving aid to 
vulnerable populations a crime against humanity and, if so, how do you 
intend to hold those who bear the greatest responsibility accountable?

    Answer. We condemn in the strongest terms obstruction of 
humanitarian assistance, and we are deeply concerned by humanitarian 
crises globally, including the deteriorating food security situation in 
Ethiopia and in Yemen. As a general matter, we note that intentional 
starvation of civilians as a method of combat may constitute a war 
crime or a constituent act of crimes against humanity under certain 
circumstances. We continue to urge the Government of Ethiopia to hold 
all those responsible for abuses and violations of human rights 
accountable. We will also explore all tools available, including the 
application of our visa restriction policy and other diplomatic tools, 
as appropriate, for any individuals responsible for restricting aid.
                                 ______
                                 

    Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions 
                Submitted by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin

    Question. Supporting Global Basic Education: According to UNESCO, 
the COVID-19 pandemic has interrupted learning for about 90 percent of 
the world's student population, and 24 million students around the 
globe may never return to school as a result of the pandemic. 
Furthermore, it's projected that the economic downturn caused by COVID-
19 could lead to an education financing gap of $77 billion in low- and 
middle-income countries over the next 2 years. I introduced the Global 
Learning Loss Assessment Act with Senator Boozman to encourage the U.S. 
to play an active role in mitigating this educational crisis before 
it's too late.
    Given these trends, why does the President's Budget Request include 
a 28 percent decrease in global basic education funding compared to the 
level enacted in FY21?

    Answer. As the largest bilateral donor to basic education in the 
world, the USG is uniquely positioned to respond to the COVID-19 
pandemic quickly and efficiently, building on the strong foundation set 
by the USG Strategy on International Basic Education. The 
Administration's FY 2022 request of $888.6 million for basic and higher 
education is the highest President's Budget Request for education since 
FY 2012. In response to the pandemic, the USG will continue to partner 
with bilateral and multilateral partners, the private sector, and 
external stakeholders to leverage resources to help partner countries 
mitigate the loss of instructional time, prepare for heightened 
uncertainty, and equip education actors and institutions to be 
increasingly resilient.

    Question. How will the State Department and related agencies 
support global education to prevent a lost generation of learners, 
knowing that basic education has many long-term, wide-reaching benefits 
including economic prosperity and security?

    Answer. In response to the pandemic, the USG is working with 
partner countries to mitigate the loss of instructional time and equip 
education actors and institutions to be increasingly resilient. To do 
so, USG programs are addressing barriers to school participation, 
ensuring safe return to learning opportunities, especially for the most 
marginalized, and building more resilient and equitable education 
systems with the capacity to better manage future shocks and prevent 
development backsliding. Despite numerous challenges, the USG reached 
more than 25.5 million learners through international basic education 
programs designed to improve measurable learning outcomes and expand 
access to high-quality education for all in FY 2020.

    Question. Multilateral Institutions in the Western Hemisphere: U.S. 
leadership in multilateral institutions is essential, especially within 
our own Hemisphere. They improve U.S. relations with our neighbors, and 
enable us to counter the influence of malign actors in the region. I 
introduced the Organization of American States Legislative Engagement 
Act with Senator Wicker to strengthen the participation of elected 
national legislators in the activities of the OAS. It became law 
earlier this year, and I look forward to working with you to implement 
this legislation. My colleagues and I have also been supportive of new 
general capital increase for the Inter-American Development Bank, 
though I am concerned that China appears to be the country whose 
companies are securing more contracts for infrastructure projects than 
any other country, while contributing a pittance, less than half a 
percent of the funding. Can you commit to a robust funding level for 
multilateral institutions in our Hemisphere, including the OAS and the 
IDB?

    Answer. I am committed to a robust funding level for multilateral 
institutions in our Hemisphere, including the Organization of American 
States (OAS) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). The IDB is 
the largest multilateral lender in the region and a critical 
organization through which we support the region's sustainable 
infrastructure, high-standard investment, and transparent economic 
development. The OAS remains the premier multilateral organization in 
the Western Hemisphere committed to advancing our regional commitment 
to the promotion and defense of democracy in accordance with the 
principles articulated in the Inter-American Democratic Charter.

    Question. How do you intend to compete more vigorously with China 
and others in placing qualified Americans into senior positions in 
multilateral institutions?

    Answer. The Department is establishing a new office in the Bureau 
of International Organization Affairs--the office of Multilateral 
Strategy and Personnel (IO/MSP)--focused on U.N. elections, 
multilateral appointments and competitive positions, and upholding the 
foundational principles and values of the U.N. and multilateral system. 
The Department is employing a multifaceted approach that includes 
recruiting qualified and diverse candidates, consulting with them 
throughout a transparent application process, and advocating for their 
selection where appropriate. I have prioritized robust strategies to 
work with the interagency as well as our allies and partners to secure 
increased numbers of qualified, independent U.S. citizens and 
likeminded candidates, as appropriate, employed in multilateral 
institutions.
                                 ______
                                 

    Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions 
                    Submitted by Senator Rob Portman

    Question. In our meeting with President Zelensky, he asked if the 
Global Engagement Center could assist in setting up their newly formed 
Center for Combatting Disinformation Center in Ukraine. Do I have your 
commitment that you will look into this request?

    Answer. Yes, the Global Engagement Center (GEC) is already looking 
into the request. One of the GEC's core responsibilities is to partner 
and coordinate with likeminded governments on efforts to counter 
foreign propaganda and disinformation. The GEC recently met with the 
head of the Ukrainian Center for Combatting Disinformation, and they 
discussed ways to build off the good work of both organizations and how 
they can collaborate with one another. The Department and the GEC look 
forward to working with Ukraine's Center for Combatting Disinformation.

    Question. As we talk about the GEC, I am curious as to when you are 
going to name a new Special Coordinator. The previous Coordinator, Lea 
Gabrielle stayed on an extra month to help with a transition, and there 
is still no one named. This is not a Senate confirmed position, but we 
need a person with great knowledge of the issues to be able to work in 
a bipartisan manner. Do you know when this appointment will be 
announced?

    Answer. I am committed to having a diverse and qualified leadership 
team in place, including the Special Coordinator position at the GEC. I 
am working with the White House and within the Department to identify 
and select such candidates as quickly as possible.

    Question. I understand in your budget request that you are not 
asking for an increase in GEC funding. Last year's appropriation was 
$60 million and Senator Murphy and I have asked for $150 million this 
year. Is this accurate? And if so, why aren't you asking for more 
funding to support the mission? Our adversaries are spending tens of 
billions of dollars annually on promoting disinformation and as we 
learned on our recent CODEL, in many cases our allies and partners are 
asking us directly for this assistance. The GEC is tasked as the 
interagency lead, and from our discussions, it is clear that the $60 
million dollar appropriation is not enough to meet the challenge. Do 
you support an increase in GEC funding?

    Answer. The GEC's FY 2022 budget represents a $5.1 million (8.5 
percent) increase over FY 2021 and includes 17 new positions. I am 
happy to work with you and your colleagues in continuing to strengthen 
the GEC and our full range of public diplomacy programs. I recognize 
that authoritarian regimes continue to use disinformation campaigns, 
strategic corruption, and other coercive tools to enhance their malign 
influence and to interfere in democracies. The GEC's efforts are an 
important part of the work we must undertake with allies to counter 
disinformation, define an affirmative and democratic global information 
space, and ultimately sustain an information environment of truthful 
communication.

    Question. COVID-19 Vaccines: While the United States is turning the 
corner on our fight against COVID, other areas of the world are 
experiencing surges that are creating desperate situations in many 
countries for many people. India and Nepal are two such examples. I was 
heartened to see that the United States is investing heavily in COVAX 
and dedicating our excess supply of vaccines to countries in desperate 
need. However, there does not appear to be a strategy or guidelines for 
the distribution of these vaccines. What is the process for deciding 
what vaccines go where? Will this process be made public? There is a 
lot of confusion in communities around the United States, including in 
Ohio, due to a lack of clarity on this issue from the Administration.

    Answer. Our principles for sharing U.S. vaccines include maximizing 
the number of vaccines available for the greatest number of countries 
and for those most at-risk within countries; preparing for surges and 
prioritizing healthcare workers and other vulnerable populations based 
on public health data and acknowledged best practice; and helping 
countries in need and our neighbors. We also seek to ensure vaccines 
are delivered in a way that is efficient, equitable, and follows the 
latest science and public health data. Our doses do not come with 
strings attached. The singular objective is to get these doses to those 
in need and save lives.
                                 ______
                                 

    Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions 
                 Submitted by Senator Edward J. Markey

    Question. Chinese exit bans continue to impact Massachusetts 
residents, Cynthia and Victor Liu, and their mother, Sandra Han. The 
issue was recently raised in diplomatic engagements with our Chinese 
counterparts. What was the response from Chinese officials, and are 
there plans for President Biden to raise the issue directly in his 
talks with President Xi?

    Answer. The United States continues to raise wrongful detentions 
and coercive exit bans with the PRC at every opportunity, including 
during Secretary Blinken's June 11 phone call with Chinese Communist 
Party Politburo Member and Director of the Office of the Foreign 
Affairs Commission Yang Jiechi. That will continue. Additionally, the 
State Department's travel advisory for China warns that the PRC uses 
wrongful detentions and coercive exit bans for a number of 
inappropriate purposes, including to pressure family members to return 
to the PRC from abroad and to gain bargaining leverage over foreign 
governments. This is unacceptable and we call on Beijing to provide a 
fair and transparent process any time restrictions on liberty are 
imposed on U.S. citizens.

    Question. Paul Overby is also a Massachusetts resident last seen in 
Afghanistan in 2014. As the U.S. leaves Afghanistan it's critical Paul 
not be left behind. Will you prioritize hostage affairs in negotiations 
to bring him home before our troops leave? Will you additionally commit 
to connect directly with his wife as soon as is possible?

    Answer. Recovering Paul Overby is a top priority for me, and the 
Biden-Harris administration and it remains a priority in our 
negotiations. Working closely with the Special Presidential Envoy for 
Hostage Affairs Ambassador Roger Carstens, Ambassador Khalilzad 
continues to raise the recovery of our hostages in Afghanistan, to 
include Mr. Overby, during his discussions with the Taliban. I will 
continue to do everything possible to see to it that Mr. Overby is 
returned to his family using every appropriate tool at our disposal, 
including a reward of up to $5 million for information leading to the 
safe return of Mr. Overby. The Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage 
Affairs and team routinely update Mr. Overby's wife.
                                 ______
                                 

    Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions 
                     Submitted by Senator Rand Paul

    Question. After almost 20 years, we have lost over 7,000 killed, 
suffered over 50,000 wounded, and spent over $6.4 trillion, in Iraq and 
Afghanistan alone. And that doesn't even account for our total human 
and monetary costs in the greater Middle East over the same period of 
time. President Biden claims that we will end this seemingly endless 
war in Afghanistan, and I am grateful that he is planning on keeping 
President Trump's plan to leave the war. However, the FY 2022 budget 
request should reflect the cost savings that leaving Afghanistan will 
afford us. Estimates based on Department of Defense data indicate that 
as much as $50 billion will be freed by withdrawing troops from 
Afghanistan. Although the State Department and the Administration did 
not request funding for Overseas Contingency Operations, funding for 
traditional OCO was moved to the DoD base budget. The request for the 
State Department and DoD has increased, and is rapidly rising, even 
when it should have dropped off. President Biden requested $58.5 
billion for the State Department and USAID, an increase of $5.5 billion 
or 10 percent over the FY 2021 enacted level. He also requested $715 
billion for the DoD for FY 2022, a $10 billion increase from FY 2021, 
despite his commitment to end the War in Afghanistan. Where did these 
cost savings go? Well according to the Defense Budget Request, they 
didn't really go anywhere at all, they moved to the DoD budget, under 
``Direct War Requirements'' and ``Enduring Requirements,'' which 
together totals roughly $42.1 billion. Where did the net cost savings 
go for ending the War in Afghanistan? Why is the cost of the War in 
Afghanistan going to cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars, 
and nearly as much money as when we had troops on the ground?

    Answer. The Department of State defers to the Department of Defense 
(DoD) for all issues related to DoD's FY 2022 Budget Request. The 
Department will have increased operating costs in Afghanistan as 
Embassy Kabul assumes a number of enabling functions from DoD as the 
U.S. military draws down its resources. These enabling functions are 
essential for our continued diplomatic presence in Afghanistan. A 
Congressional Notification was recently approved to reprogram funding 
within the Department to prepare for DoD's drawdown, ensure the safety 
of chief of mission employees, and allow critical diplomatic engagement 
with the Afghan National Government and local partners.
                                 ______
                                 

    Responses of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Questions 
                    Submitted by Senator Cory Booker

    Question. Diversity and Additional Human Resources: During your 
confirmation process, we discussed two major issues related to 
personnel. First, we discussed the need to ramp up our diplomatic 
capabilities and presence due to the increasingly complex policy 
challenges we face. Second, we discussed the value of our diplomatic 
corps deployed abroad reflecting Americans by increasing diversity 
among our Foreign Service corps.
    The budget makes good on both of those promises by including 
funding for 255 additional Foreign Service personnel and 230 additional 
Civil Service personnel, and also includes $49 million to ``broaden 
recruitment, diversity, and inclusion programs'' across the State 
Department.
    How will you deploy these additional human resources across our 
missions to put diplomacy first while being better positioned to use 
our capabilities to better compete with our near peer competitors?

    Answer. The Department of State is committed to using its staffing 
resources to revitalize the foreign policy workforce. This includes 
supporting department-wide program requests to broaden recruitment, 
diversity, and inclusion programs. New Civil Service and Foreign 
Service (FS) positions to include FS political, economic, public 
diplomacy, and management positions will further implement the Indo-
Pacific strategy, counter concerning Chinese influence, expand U.S. 
economic outreach and commercial diplomacy worldwide, broaden public 
diplomacy engagement, defend U.S. interests, address regional security, 
and engage with the U.N. and other organizations.

    Question. One avenue to increase access to careers at the State 
Department is through internships. However, as we discussed, State 
Department internships are mostly unpaid, which is a barrier to entry 
for minority and low-income students and young professionals. In 
addition to Ambassador Abercrombie's work to increase diversity at the 
State Department, I hope you will consider the State paid internship 
legislation that Senator Scott and I have put forward.

    Answer. I support a paid internship program at the Department of 
State. It is among my highest priorities to enhance diversity, equity, 
and inclusion in our workforce. Paid internships would help address a 
key barrier to entry for many who are interested in a career with the 
State Department by mitigating the costs associated with foregoing 
income during an internship, as well as travel and living expenses in a 
major metropolitan area. A paid internship program would support 
Department efforts to reach a broader range of candidates, including 
those historically underrepresented, and increase access to the 
valuable opportunity of experiencing national security service and 
career options. I continue to support pursuing such legislative efforts 
in both chambers, especially those that provide the flexibility to add 
this program to supplement existing internship programs, and special 
hiring authority to have such interns join as employees for key 
purposes.

    Question. Conflict-Related Sexual Violence: Conflicts around the 
world are having a devastating and distinct impact on women and girls. 
There is heightened awareness of the need to address sexual violence in 
conflict resolution processes and to ensure that perpetrators of sexual 
violence do not benefit from de facto or de jure amnesties. However, 
significant gaps in prevention, accountability, reparations, and 
protection of victims and witnesses of conflict-related sexual violence 
persist. Does the United States recognize the need to prioritize 
gender-based violence and a protection response as being up there with 
the need to provide other lifesaving responses such as food, water, and 
shelter?

    Answer. The United States is committed to preventing and responding 
to gender-based violence (GBV), particularly the protection and 
empowerment of women and girls, as a human rights imperative. In the 
context of humanitarian response, addressing GBV is a life-saving 
priority and is integral to advancing broader U.S. foreign policy and 
development priorities. The United States implements its commitments to 
GBV prevention and response through whole-of-government strategies. In 
addition, the United States remains committed to Safe from the Start, a 
United States initiative launched in 2013 to increase leadership, 
accountability, and resources available for lifesaving GBV prevention 
and response, and ensure quality services for survivors from the very 
onset of emergencies.

    Question. If so, what is the Department doing to ensure access to 
care, both physical and psychological? What is being done to push for 
investigations and accountability?

    Answer. Justice and accountability for gender-based violence (GBV) 
remains a Departmental priority, and we continue to press for justice 
that is survivor-centered and respects the unique needs of survivors of 
these crimes. Since 2013, the United States has channeled more than 
$136 million through Safe from the Start to systematically prevent and 
respond to GBV at the onset of emergencies, and a significant amount 
more to fund core and specialized GBV prevention and response through 
other mechanisms. In addition, the United States remains actively 
engaged with states, donors, and IO and NGO partners through various 
bodies, such as the Call to Action on Protection from Gender-based 
Violence in Emergencies, in continuing to develop policies and 
responses that better address the unique needs of displaced women and 
girls.

    Question. Outside of funding and programming, what diplomatic 
levers can be brought to bear on this critical issue particularly in 
areas such as Ethiopia and Myanmar?

    Answer. For Ethiopia, the Department has already approved visa 
restrictions for certain individuals who are responsible for or 
complicit in undermining resolution of the crisis in Tigray. We have 
also restricted security and economic assistance to and imposed defense 
trade controls on Ethiopia due to human rights concerns, and we are 
exploring all diplomatic tools available.
    On Burma, we will continue to use all appropriate tools available 
to exert pressure on the military junta, deny the regime international 
credibility, and expose the junta's horrific brutality, including by 
promoting justice and accountability for human rights abuses and 
atrocities.

    Question. Autocracy vs. Democracy: The Chinese Government's efforts 
to tighten control at home and expand authoritarian tactics abroad 
present a threat to global democracy. The world has watched as 
President Xi Jinping has intensified repression in China by repressing 
dissent in Hong Kong and imprisoning over a million Uyghurs and other 
ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang province.
    We have also witnessed increasingly aggressive efforts by the 
Chinese Government to export repression beyond its borders through the 
spread of global censorship, the harassment of dissidents outside 
mainland China, and attempts to undermine the effectiveness of 
international institutions such as the United Nations and its 
constituent bodies.
    How does the State Department propose to counter growing Chinese 
efforts to promote its state-centered authoritarian type of Government 
in weak and backsliding democracies around the world?

    Answer. Alliances and partnerships serve as force-multipliers for 
the United States. We are speaking out and working with our allies and 
partners, and as members of the G20, U.N., and wider international 
community, to uphold the rules-based international system and 
international law. Together with our allies and partners, we are 
calling out the PRC for the atrocities it is committing in Xinjiang and 
for dismantling the rights, freedoms, and high degree of autonomy for 
Hong Kong enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic 
Law. We are also imposing costs on those responsible for human rights 
violations in China, even as we work to bolster democratic resilience 
at home.

    Question. What policies and programs are the Department pursuing 
with this budget that will help increase global transparency about 
Chinese efforts to influence, censor, and undermine access to free 
media in countries around the world?

    Answer. We are strengthening our public diplomacy programs, 
including the Global Engagement Center's (GEC) efforts, to counter 
disinformation and define and sustain a global information environment 
in which audiences around the world can freely access, contribute to, 
make informed judgments about, and trust transparent and truthful 
communication. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) 
programs aim to address the weak governance, corruption, and poor human 
rights conditions that make countries susceptible to PRC manipulation 
by empowering local civil society with the skills and resources 
necessary to advance good governance, human rights, and anti-corruption 
goals. In addition, the Countering PRC Malign Influence Fund is funding 
projects to counter the PRC's use of coercive and corrupting tools of 
influence.

    Question. What efforts is the Department undertaking to reassert 
the United States as the leader on the global stage, particularly at 
the United Nations? Concurrently, how does the Department propose to 
counter Chinese obstructionism on the Security Council and other bodies 
as the United States seeks to promote human rights and universal 
freedoms?

    Answer. The United States is using our reengagement to reassert 
U.S. leadership across the U.N. system. We are working with likeminded 
partners on the UNSC to ensure that the UNSC delivers on its mandate of 
maintaining international peace and security and remains impartial and 
aligned with U.N. values and principles, including by pushing back 
against the PRC when necessary. Through our reengagement, we are also 
promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms by working 
to ensure the UNHRC shines a spotlight on countries with the worst 
human rights records and serves as a forum for those fighting injustice 
and tyranny.

    Question. I'm pleased to see that the State Department is working 
with Treasury to make effective use of the Global Magnitsky Act to go 
after corrupt actors. Beyond this, what other tools does the Department 
have at its disposal to support the new national security strategy?

    Answer. The Department implements a multifaceted approach to combat 
corruption, including promoting implementation of the U.N. Convention 
against Corruption (UNCAC), the only global anticorruption treaty and 
leading international framework that supports our efforts to prevent 
and combat corruption. The Department plays a key role in the promotion 
of internationally recognized standards to prevent and combat 
corruption, engages in bilateral diplomacy to promote reform, provides 
foreign assistance to strengthen criminal justice systems and other 
institutions, and implements visa restrictions to promote 
accountability for corrupt actors.

    Question. We have seen an increase in the use of sanctions to 
further U.S. priorities and democratic norms. Do you believe State and 
Treasury have the resources to manage the increasing use of sanctions 
as a major tool in our toolkit?

    Answer. Sanctions can be an effective way to drive behavior change 
and to respond to activities that threaten U.S. national security. The 
Department of State has multiple offices charged with developing, 
managing, and supporting sanctions policy and implementation, including 
offices in the bureaus of Economic and Business Affairs; 
Counterterrorism; International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs; 
International Security and Nonproliferation; and Democracy, Human 
Rights and Labor; among others. These bureaus, which work closely on 
sanctions policy with State's regional bureaus, will continue robust 
implementation of sanctions policies and programs as part of broader 
foreign policy efforts.

    Question. Many corrupt foreign leaders hide their money in offshore 
accounts. What is the Department's view on making the existence of 
these accounts and their corrupt owners public when the U.S. Government 
becomes aware of them?

    Answer. The President's recent National Security Study Memorandum, 
which establishes the fight against corruption as a core U.S. national 
security interest, emphasizes the need to curb illicit finance by 
reducing offshore financial secrecy, seizing stolen assets, and making 
it more difficult for those who steal to hide behind anonymity. The 
Department's programmatic and diplomatic efforts to promote beneficial 
ownership transparency and prevent money laundering can reinforce this 
priority and evolve as the strategy takes shape. Working with 
interagency partners, I will continue to use all tools at my disposal 
to support efforts to increase transparency around beneficial ownership 
and use of offshore accounts, while remaining mindful of U.S. law 
enforcement interests.

    Question. What is the Department doing to bolster the capacity of 
international institutions and multilateral bodies to establish global 
anti-corruption norms, promote financial transparency, and strengthen 
the frameworks of financial institutions to prevent corruption?

    Answer. The Department plays a key role in the development and 
promotion of recognized international standards and commitments, 
including those in the U.N. Convention Against Corruption, which is the 
leading international framework supporting our global efforts to 
prevent and combat corruption. We provide foreign assistance to support 
the role of multilateral bodies in establishing anticorruption norms 
and promoting their implementation; strengthen justice sector and other 
oversight institutions in promoting debt transparency and 
sustainability; and promote public transparency, accountability, and 
integrity. We also advocate incorporation of these important values 
during multilateral and bilateral meetings.

    Question. I was pleased to see the highest in a decade budget 
request for humanitarian assistance, reflecting the increased needs 
caused by climate change, conflict, and migration. To be able to 
provide humanitarian assistance, our partners need to be able to access 
those in need. Yet, in conflict after conflict, in every region of the 
world, they are denied access to vulnerable populations in need of 
assistance. According to some estimates, crisis-affected populations in 
more than 60 countries around the world are not getting the 
humanitarian assistance they need because of access constraints. In 
2019, Senator Young and I worked with CSIS to establish a task force on 
humanitarian access. One of the conclusions of our task force was that 
the U.S. Government must prioritize aid funding, training, data 
sharing, and new technologies to help aid workers overcome access 
challenges to reach the most vulnerable. What is the Department doing 
to ensure that humanitarian access is being treated as the foreign 
policy and national security priority it is?

    Answer. In addition to the access challenges endemic to insecure 
environments, since early 2020 humanitarian aid organizations have had 
to adjust to additional access restrictions and risks posed by the 
COVID-19 pandemic. With USG support, these organizations have been able 
to provide essential assistance and protection by using new 
technologies, scaling up cash and voucher assistance, and shifting more 
responsibilities to local staff. In FY 2020, the United States provided 
$10.5 billion in humanitarian assistance, and thanks to Congress's 
generous support, we will increase that programming this year. We will 
also prioritize access to COVID-19 vaccines for the most vulnerable, 
marginalized, and hard-to-reach populations and encourage other donors 
to do the same.

    Question. What leverage does the Department have to force non-
compliant actors to grant access? What tools are you missing that could 
make the U.S. Government more effective at getting humanitarian aid to 
those in need?

    Answer. I believe there is an imperative to provide assistance to 
those in need. If direct bilateral diplomacy with non-compliant actors 
does not yield immediate results, pressure by like-minded states can be 
brought to bear, including through measures imposed by the UNSC. Other 
tools include promoting accountability for human rights abuses and 
violations of international humanitarian law, and in cases of extreme 
need, providing assistance to vulnerable populations without the 
consent of non-compliant actors.
                                 ______
                                 

 The Committee Received No Response From Secretary of State Antony J. 
        Blinken for the Following Request by Senator Van Hollen

Secretary Blinken,

    Mr. Hamza Ulucay is a former foreign national State Department 
employee who served at the U.S. Consulate in Adana for nearly 40 years. 
He was detained by Turkish officials as a consequence of his service to 
the U.S. Government. I appreciate the U.S. Department of State's hard 
work to help secure Mr. Ulucay's release and ongoing efforts to ensure 
that he receives proper representation in the legal battles he 
continues to fight against the baseless charges by the Turkish 
Government. However, I am troubled that Mr. Ulucay has been deemed 
ineligible for a pension for his federal service. On May 23, 2020, I 
sent a letter marked as ``time-sensitive'' regarding Mr. Ulucay's 
situation to the Department of State. I want to know the legal basis 
for the decision to deny Mr. Ulucay a federal pension. Moreover, I ask 
that you explore all means to provide extraordinary relief, if 
necessary, to support this individual who has been a loyal employee of 
the U.S. Government for decades, and has been subjected to unfounded 
prosecution by the Turkish Government because of that service. My staff 
received confirmation from the Department that this letter was 
received. However, since then, and despite numerous attempts by my 
staff to receive updates, I have not received a response. I am 
including the letter below for your reference.
    Given Mr. Ulucay's precarious situation, please review this matter 
and provide a response as expeditiously as possible.
                             text of letter
Dear Acting Assistant Secretary Durakoglu:

    I am writing on behalf of Mr. Hamza Ulucay regarding the terms of 
his separation from employment with the U.S. Department of State.
    I am grateful to the Department for all that it has done to support 
Mr. Ulucay during his unjust detention by the Turkish Government and to 
secure his probationary release. As you may know, I had the opportunity 
to meet Mr. Ulucay in 1988 when I was a staff member on the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. Ulucay was extremely helpful to me 
then, as I know he has been to the U.S. Consulate in Adana since 1980. 
I was pleased when he was honored as Foreign Service National of the 
Year in 1992. I am a proud cosponsor of S. 1075--the Defending United 
States Citizens and Diplomatic Staff from Political Prosecutions Act of 
2019, which supports his release and those of the other Turkish 
nationals being held unjustly.
    I appreciate the Department's extension of Mr. Ulucay's employment 
for 1 year past the required retirement age. I understand that Mr. 
Ulucay is also eligible for a special immigrant visa, but that he has 
not yet been able to avail himself of the opportunity due to travel 
restrictions imposed upon him by the Turkish Government. I know that 
the Department's support has been very much appreciated by Mr. Ulucay 
and his family.
    I was troubled, however, to learn that Mr. Ulucay has been deemed 
ineligible for a pension from his federal service. I understand that 
U.S. missions abroad have a vast array of local conditions in which 
they must adapt and operate, and that many depend on local retirement 
systems to support Foreign Service nationals after employment with the 
U.S. Government. However, I find it disturbing that the Department of 
State, despite recognizing that Mr. Ulucay is confronting his current 
situation as a direct consequence of his service to the U.S. 
Government, would leave him with two horrible options--to remain in 
Turkey on a meager pension from the Turkish social security system and 
at continued risk of retribution and retaliation by the Turkish 
Government, or, when and if the travel ban imposed upon him by Turkish 
officials is lifted, to immigrate to the U.S. as a retiree with no 
means to support himself and his family.
    I respectfully ask that the Department of State clarify the grounds 
on which Mr. Ulucay was deemed ineligible for benefits through the CSRS 
program, providing the relevant legal citations and employment records. 
I understand that foreign nationals employed at posts abroad and 
appointed after December 31, 1987 are ineligible for CSRS benefits 
under 5 U.S.C. 8331(1). However, Mr. Ulucay began his employment at the 
U.S. Consulate in Adana in 1980. I hope that you will work with me to 
resolve this situation.
    Given Mr. Ulucay's precarious situation, I ask that you review this 
matter as expeditiously as possible. If you have any questions and to 
direct correspondence, please contact Ms. Catherine Provost of my staff 
at catherine_
[email protected].
    Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
            Sincerely,
                                          Chris Van Hollen,
                                             United States Senator.
cc: The Honorable Antony Blinken, U.S. Secretary of State

    [No Response Received]

                                  [all]