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



 
  STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2023

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The subcommittee met at 2:35 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher A. Coons, (Chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Coons, Leahy, Durbin, Van Hollen, Graham, 
Moran, and Hagerty.

                        U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE


           opening statement of senator christopher a. coons


    Senator Coons. I call this hearing of the State and Foreign 
Operations Subcommittee, the Senate Appropriations Committee to 
order. We have one witness today, the Secretary of State, 
Anthony Blinken.
    It is great to have you here, Mr. Secretary. We have a lot 
to cover, so I will be relatively brief.
    We have, many of us, just come from a moving, and a 
powerful service in memory of a former Secretary Madeleine 
Albright. An extraordinary person who lived a remarkable life 
and career, and whose impact on the Department, on the Senate, 
on our Nation, on the world rooted in her commitment to 
democracy, to advancing the role of women was profound.
    I intend to propose naming a portion of the Fulbright 
Fellows for her, as we did for one of her predecessors for whom 
she also worked, former Senator and secretary, Edmund Muskie. 
The National Democratic Institute where she long served as 
Board Chair is naming their Annual Democracy Award for 
Secretary Albright.
    And Mr. Secretary, we very much look forward to suggestions 
from you as to how the State Department may want to also honor 
her service, especially as a defender of democratic principles, 
and someone who advanced the role of women leaders around the 
world.
    I have just returned from a number of Nations, including 
Georgia where the President, in particular, cited the 
mentorship and the example of Secretary Albright.
    No Secretary of State has an easy job, but yours, in 
particular at this moment in our modern history, is 
exceptionally demanding. And you have done exceptionally well 
at it. We are grateful both for the way in which you have 
represented us in the world, and for your recent trip to Kyiv 
which we look forward to hearing about, but also for your 
responsiveness to the committees of the Senate. You have 
testified frequently, at great length, and been very 
accessible.
    And so I wanted to thank you both for your service more 
broadly, leading the State Department, and representing us in 
the world, but also for your engagement with this Committee.
    We face a number of challenges, more than I need to take 
the time to recite in detail. Russia's unprovoked, unjustified, 
and brutal invasion of Ukraine, with regional and global 
security implications that we need to confront, and will be 
felt for decades.
    A global food security crisis greatly exacerbated by the 
war in Ukraine, now threatening hundreds of millions with food 
insecurity, a global pandemic that has infected half a billion, 
killed a million Americans, caused immense economic damage, and 
that continues to pose threats to all of us as new variants may 
emerge, climate change which continues to accelerate and 
threatens the entire world.
    Iran and North Korea, both, whose non-proliferation, whose 
efforts at nuclear proliferation threaten their regions; China 
which continues to be a peer competitor, and expands its 
influence around the world in ways we need to confront; and a 
growing clash between the forces of democracy and 
authoritarianism, to say nothing of a record refugee crisis, 
and ongoing conflicts in Syria, Yemen, Ethiopia, South Sudan, 
Libya.
    On the positive side, Mr. Secretary, you and the President 
have rallied a NATO in defense of Ukraine, its people, and its 
sovereignty. This administration is embracing our alliances and 
building coalitions, not embracing isolationism. You have shown 
the world that, as Secretary Albright so often said, we are the 
indispensable Nation, and the critical role that we can and 
must play.
    We have provided hundreds of millions of U.S.-manufactured 
COVID vaccine doses which, unlike those provided by Russia and 
China, are effective against all the variants. You have 
reaffirmed, and the role that the United States must play in 
advancing democracy and human rights around the world, and 
shown strong leadership on tackling climate through a variety 
of means, including the Development Finance Corporation.
    You are tackling global challenges, like economic 
instability, and violent conflict with new tools, like the 
Global Fragility Act, and you are addressing deeply rooted 
staffing and diversity challenges at the State Department with 
new resources provided by Congress.
    We here in this Committee have worked hard to find a 
bipartisan path forward and to support and promote our national 
security diplomacy interests.
    I am thankful for my Ranking Member, Senator Graham, who 
has been a good partner over a number of Congresses to myself, 
and to the former chairman of the subcommittee, and the 
chairman of the full Committee. Yet we have genuinely struggled 
to get either the allocation that this subcommittee deserves, 
or to fully meet the objectives that this subcommittee has 
taken on.
    We faced huge challenges last year with an allocation of $4 
billion below the budget request, and we were able to soften 
that impact, really, only by rescinding $2 billion from the 
Afghanistan account. An option we will not have again this 
year.
    We have done nothing to address our UN arrears, we have not 
done enough to face the growing food security, and refugee 
crisis, and we have a great deal of work to do together. So as 
our NATO partners have, we need to demonstrate that we can pull 
together and work together in the way this subcommittee 
traditionally has.
    We look forward to hearing from you, Mr. Secretary, how you 
see this year unfolding, what your highest appropriations' 
priorities are, and how we can work together to achieve our 
Nation's goals. Senator Graham.


              opening statement of senator lindsey graham


    Senator Graham. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, welcome. You are a very hard worker, and I 
enjoy working with you where we can, and we have our 
differences.
    This subcommittee has had a good track record of trying to 
put money into programs that produce value for the American 
people, and make the world a safer place. The World Food 
Program is under siege so there is a lot of talk in the 
building about another supplemental. Count me in. I am willing 
to look at Ukraine in terms of what their needs are.
    So you are just going to have to come to reality here, that 
as the world changes this subcommittee has a role to play when 
it comes to the State Department. I want to thank those under 
your command.
    Mr. Secretary, you know, I have spent a lot of time in the 
military, a lot of us go to war-torn regions, but it is the 
diplomat, the foreign service officer, the USAID worker, they 
are in harm's way just as much as anybody. And the work they do 
on behalf of stability can sometimes create a peaceful world, 
better than dropping a bomb. And I think the military agrees 
with that. So the military is a big fan of this account, 
because without developmental assistance in showing up you are 
going to lose ground.
    I just got back from Japan, Taiwan, and Australia. They 
want to do more. There is a backlash brewing against China's 
misadventures. One of my colleagues, I think, had a discussion 
with you yesterday about: What is the big deal about Ukraine, 
it used to be part of the Soviet Union?
    I think we can find common ground here that that Putin has 
no legitimate claim on Ukraine, it is a sovereign nation. Back 
in the '90s they did the Budapest Memo, where Russia, the 
United States, and Great Britain guaranteed the sovereignty of 
Ukraine if they would turn their nukes over to Russia. That 
agreement has been stepped upon.
    I think most of us here believe that Putin wants to 
recreate the Old Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, Ukraine is 
just a warm-up act, Moldova; he will go until somebody stops 
him.
    So this is not about a buffer zone between Russia and NATO, 
it is about a man with an ambition that I think is going to 
destroy his country, and has killed thousands of innocent 
people. And I appreciate the flow of weapons. It has been on 
the increase. I hope we can do more, and I think we should do 
more.
    But I want you to understand, Mr. Secretary, most 
Republicans do not see Putin's endeavors as any way legitimate, 
and that we all understand, if we don't stop him in Ukraine he 
will keep going.
    Now, when it comes to China, Japan is going to increase 
their military spending, the Solomon Islands, I haven't heard 
about that much since World War II, China is in play there. 
Appreciate you sending some diplomatic presence there. 
Developmental Finance Corporation is a brilliant idea, I think. 
It is now time to have a DFC component for Asia to compete with 
the Belt, Road Initiative by China. And I would like to work 
with the Chairman and the Secretary in beefing up our 
developmental aid presence in Asia to combat China.
    Afghanistan is heartbreaking. We will talk about all of 
that. It seems to be that the Iranians are making a demand on 
the administration to change the designation of the Iranian 
Revolutionary Guard Corps, no longer to be a foreign terrorist 
organization. I hope you resist that demand, and we will have a 
discussion about that.
    But Putin gave a speech today to the Duma. He said he vows 
to accomplish the goals of the invasion. He will not be 
deterred.
    So as we meet in Ramstein where Defense Ministers of NATO, 
and the ``coalition of the willing'' talk about providing more 
aid to Ukraine; Putin is basically telling his people, through 
the Duma that he is committed to see this through.
    My commitment is this will be the end of Putin one way or 
the other. That when this is over the Russian people will see 
they have no future under his leadership, that we keep the 
sanctions on, that we increase sanctions at every turn, we 
provide the brave Ukrainians the ability to fight back and 
that, over time, the world isolate Putin.
    I met with the International Criminal Court Prosecutor, Mr. 
Khan, yesterday, I think he has a good plan for those who are 
committing war crimes in Ukraine wearing Russian uniforms. So 
to Putin, you are committed to the invasion. We are committed 
to Ukraine's freedom. We are going to win, and you are going to 
lose. Thank you.
    Senator Coons. Thank you Senator Graham. Chairman Leahy.


               opening statement of senator patrick leahy


    Senator Leahy. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am listening to 
the travel--I have been watching, and I have talked with 
Secretary Blinken again this morning about the amount of 
traveling he has done for us. And I must tell you, I worried 
greatly when you and Secretary Austin were going into Ukraine, 
because they announced it ahead of time.
    I suspect that was not the way you would like to have done 
it. But I am glad you went, and I am glad you got back safely. 
Senator Coons and Senator Graham have been traveling quite a 
bit lately. I went to Vermont, but I am going to be doing some 
of those trips later this year.
    I missed chairing this subcommittee, but I would note, Mr. 
Chairman, that over the years there are different chairs, 
myself, Senator Graham, Senator McConnell and I chaired this 
Committee. We got things done, always in a unified fashion, and 
I can think of no one more qualified, or better suited for the 
job than Senator Coons.
    And I am delighted that he is here. He cares passionately 
about it, not only in public, but in private he talks about 
these issues, and scurrying for diplomacy. I think the budget 
in this and the budget in the Department of State are extremely 
important in what we do in our non-military. I mean the 
military is obviously important, but we do in the non-military.
    I know that in some of our issues of foreign aid, I 
remember former Secretary Mattis said, if you want to cut these 
programs, foreign aid, and other things. And the State 
Department would say, if you want to cut those programs, buy 
more bullets because he is going to need them. And I agree.
    But the role you play with President Biden and Secretary 
Austin in marshalling the NATO countries, and all, to stand up 
united against Russia's unprovoked aggression, brutality in 
Ukraine, that is so important. And I know we spoke briefly, 
prior to leaving the funeral today, about how we have to stand 
up, and the fact that you were able to bring our NATO allies 
together. Sometimes they can be a disparate group, but they 
came together and this that is extremely important, and it 
shows a critical need for our country's leadership in NATO.
    I think if it was just a couple years ago, I don't think it 
would have happened that way, and here we are facing the 
greatest challenge to democracy since the '40s.
    Now, we are going to have another hearing on the global 
COVID and food security crisis. The pandemic continues to 
spread, it is mutating in scores of countries, the food 
security crisis has been greatly exacerbated by the 
skyrocketing commodity prices due to the war in Ukraine. COVID 
is important worldwide, because there is no place having a 
covert outbreak that is more than an airplane trip away from 
our shores.
    And we know that 161 million people are facing starvation, 
another 227 million are facing acute food insecurity. We are 
the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth; we have to step 
in on that. So I hope, Mr. Secretary, you can get the White 
House to ask for additional supplemental funds to address these 
global humanitarian emergencies. They have far-reaching 
economic security.
    I have got to step outside for a phone call, but I am going 
to be coming right back in to hear this.
    And Mr. Chairman I am so glad you are doing this.
    Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Chairman Leahy. And 
thank you for your very long, and very effective, and very 
engaged stewardship of this subcommittee over three decades. 
You have steered this subcommittee ably through some really 
hard budget times, political times, global environments, and I 
cannot possibly hope to succeed in living up to the record that 
you have established, of focus and excellence in delivering on 
our role in the world.
    Given the challenges we face, Mr. Secretary, if you can 
give us a broad overview, both of your insights from your trip 
to Kyiv, and the challenges facing the State Department, and 
your priorities for appropriations this year, we would be 
grateful.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY BLINKEN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
            STATE
    Secretary Blinken. Mr. Chairman, thank you very, very much, 
to you, to Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Graham. I am grateful 
for this opportunity to talk about the administration's 
proposed budget for the State Department.
    Let me just start by saying that later today we will 
welcome back to the United States Trevor Reed, who was 
wrongfully detained in Russia. We are deeply grateful to our 
allies and partners who helped in this effort to bring him 
home. And I especially want to thank Special Presidential Envoy 
for Hostage Affairs, Ambassador Roger Carstens, known well to 
all of you; Ambassador John Sullivan in Moscow, and others in 
our Government, including in this Congress, who worked 
relentlessly to bring Trevor home, and who continue to press 
for the release of Paul Whelan, and other U.S. citizens 
wrongfully detained abroad.
    As you have noticed, several of us just came from the 
ceremony honoring Madeleine Albright. And just to take a moment 
to honor her extraordinary service.
    She was a friend to me, a mentor to me, someone I sought 
counsel in. She had, I think as you all know, an incredible 
clarity of voice, a voice that I think we can all still hear, 
and an ability to really get to the essence of things. Few 
diplomats have so clearly embodied the ideals for which our 
country stands, or done more to project them around the world.
    We mourn her passing, which is softened only by knowing 
that her example is going to continue to guide our Department 
and our foreign policy for years to come. I look forward to 
finding ways to honor her in the Department.
    And Chairman Leahy left the room but I did want to say to 
him that this may be the last time that I have the privilege of 
speaking on a budget request before a Committee that that he 
leads, and let me just simply join in the chorus of people 
thanking Chairman Leahy for his extraordinary service, not just 
for the service, but for the way that he has served and 
continues to serve.
    Always championing the vital importance of investing in 
diplomacy and development, always insisting that human rights 
be at the heart of our foreign policy including, of course, by 
authoring a law requiring our government to withhold support 
for foreign security forces that commit gross human rights 
violations. And always being a partner to Secretaries of State 
eight administrations. The Department will always appreciate 
Chairman Leahy's support for our people, and for the work they 
do around the world.
    I read about a surprise tribute that Chairman Leahy 
received last week in Vermont's General Assembly. I was struck 
by something that he said, and I quote, ``I think Vermont is a 
place where you can develop your conscience. I think of the 
Senate as a place that should be the conscience of the Nation, 
and sometimes is.''
    So I would say for a long time, Senator Leahy has, in fact, 
been the conscience of this institution, when I served here I 
certainly felt that very strongly. Our Nation and the world are 
better for it.
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Graham, I have a statement 
that goes to the budget proposal, it goes to our modernization 
agenda, but in the interest of time, I am happy to submit it 
for the record so that we can get to a conversation, and to 
questions.
    [The statements follow:]
               Prepared Statement of Hon. Antony Blinken
    Chairman Leahy, Chairman Coons, and Ranking Member Graham, I'm 
grateful for the opportunity to speak with you about the 
Administration's proposed budget for the State Department.
    I just returned from Kyiv, where Secretary of Defense Austin and I 
demonstrated the United States' stalwart commitment to the government 
and people of Ukraine.
    Moscow's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine has brought into 
sharp focus the power and purpose of American diplomacy, and why it's 
more crucial than ever to our national security and the interests of 
the American people. Our diplomacy is rallying allies and partners 
around the world to join us in supporting Ukraine with security, 
economic, and humanitarian assistance, imposing greater costs on the 
Kremlin, strengthening our collective security and defense, and 
addressing the war's mounting global consequences, including the 
refugee and food crises.
    President Putin's war of choice has achieved the exact opposite of 
his objectives. Uniting, rather than dividing, Ukrainians. 
Strengthening, rather than weakening, NATO and the U.S.-EU partnership. 
Undercutting, rather than asserting, the Kremlin's claims of military 
might. And that's not only because of Ukraine's bravery and resilience. 
It's also because of effective U.S. diplomacy.
    We must continue to drive that diplomacy forward to seize the 
strategic opportunities and address risks presented by Russia's 
overreach, as countries reconsider their policies, priorities, and 
relationships. The budget request before you predated this crisis, but 
fully funding it is critical to ensuring Russia's war in Ukraine is a 
strategic failure for the Kremlin and serves as a powerful lesson to 
those who might consider following its path.
    As we focus on this urgent crisis, the State Department continues 
to carry out the missions traditionally associated with diplomacy, like 
responsibly managing great power competition with China, facilitating a 
halt to fighting in Yemen and Ethiopia, and pushing back against the 
rising tide of authoritarianism and the threat it poses to human 
rights.
    We also face evolving challenges that require us to develop new 
capabilities, such as the emergence and reemergence of infectious 
diseases, an accelerating climate crisis, and a digital revolution that 
holds both enormous promise and peril.
    Last fall, I set out a modernization agenda for the State 
Department and U.S. diplomacy to respond to these complex demands, 
built on five pillars. Deepening our expertise in areas that are 
critical to the future of America's national security. Continuing to 
attract, retain, and develop the world's best diplomats. Fostering 
greater innovation and feedback. Modernizing our technology, 
communications, and analytical capabilities. And reinvigorating in-
person diplomacy and public engagement--to get our diplomats beyond 
Embassy walls and engage the people we need to reach most.
    In no small part thanks to the significant fiscal year 2022 budget 
approved by Congress, we've been able to make real progress on this 
agenda, though much remains to be done.
    To give just a few examples, we've strengthened our capacity to 
shape the ongoing technological revolution, so it protects our 
interests, boosts our competitiveness, and upholds our values. With 
bipartisan Congressional support and encouragement, we recently 
launched a new bureau for cyberspace and digital policy, with 60 team 
members to start.
    We're also making headway on ensuring our diplomats reflect 
America's remarkable diversity, which is one of our nation's greatest 
strengths. Our Department's first ever Chief Diversity and Inclusion 
Officer, Ambassador Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, has spearheaded an 
effort to analyze the obstacles that prevent underrepresented groups 
from joining and advancing at State, and will soon release a four-year 
strategic plan to tackle these problems. We've expanded the Pickering 
and Rangel fellowship programs and paid internships at State--again 
with strong Congressional input and support.
    These efforts are showing results. We recently welcomed a new 
cohort of 179 exceptional Foreign Service professionals, putting the 
Department on track for its largest annual intake in a decade.
    My first 15 months in this job have only strengthened my conviction 
that these and other reforms are not just worthwhile, but essential to 
delivering for the American people.
    Today's meeting marks the 102nd time I've briefed Congress in 
meetings or calls, which is one of the ways I've worked to meet the 
commitment I made in my confirmation hearing to restore Congress's role 
as a partner both in our foreign policymaking and in revitalizing the 
State Department. These engagements have also helped further refine and 
strengthen our modernization agenda.
    Ensuring we can deliver on that agenda will require sustained 
funding, new authorities, and most importantly, partnership from 
Congress.
    If we want to deepen our capability in key areas like climate, 
public health, and multilateral diplomacy; expand on Secretary Powell's 
vision of a foreign service training float; strengthen global capacity 
to prevent, detect, and respond to future outbreaks; and equip our 
workforce with the training, tools, and technology that today's 
challenges demand--we need additional resources.
    If we want to be able to swiftly stand up new missions . . .  
deploy diplomats when and where they're needed . . .  and make those 
decisions based on risk management rather than risk aversion--we need 
to reform the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act and 
Accountability Review Board statute to enable greater flexibility, 
while meeting important security standards.
    If we want to rapidly scale up in response to crises like refugee 
surges and epidemics, while also avoiding costly overhead, we need more 
flexible domestic hiring authorities.
    This is not about advancing the goals of any one administration or 
party. It's about refocusing our mission and purpose on the forces that 
will affect Americans' lives, livelihoods, and security for decades to 
come.
    So I appreciate the opportunity to speak today about why this 
matters, and look forward to continuing to make this committee, and 
Congress as a whole, a partner in these efforts.
    Thank you.

   Prepared Statement of Office of Inspector General, United States 
                          Department of State
    Chairman Coons, Ranking Member Graham, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today 
for this hearing on the U.S. Department of State's fiscal year 2023 
budget.
    The Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the U.S. Department of 
State (Department) inspects embassies and diplomatic posts throughout 
the world to determine whether policy goals are being achieved and 
whether the interests of the United States are being represented and 
advanced effectively. OIG performs specialized security inspections and 
audits in support of the Department's mission to provide effective 
protection to our personnel, facilities, and sensitive information. OIG 
also audits Department operations and activities to ensure that they 
are as effective, efficient, and economical as possible. Finally, OIG 
investigates instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement that may 
constitute either criminal wrongdoing or violation of Department 
regulations. In short, OIG plays a crucial role in overseeing the funds 
Congress appropriates to the Department for its many programs and 
activities and we believe that our work can assist Subcommittee Members 
in making funding decisions.
    In this testimony, I will discuss the impact of our work and 
highlight some of our recent and ongoing projects, including our 
Afghanistan-related work. Finally, I will conclude by discussing some 
of the challenges we face in fulfilling our oversight mission in the 
current budget environment.
                          mission and results
    OIG's mandate requires us to oversee both Department and U.S. 
Agency for Global Media (USAGM) programs and operations, which include 
more than 80,000 employees and more than 270 overseas missions and 
domestic entities. We also provide oversight for the U.S. International 
Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico (USIBWC), a 
Federal agency that operates under the foreign policy guidance of the 
Department. In terms of dollars, we are responsible for the oversight 
of more than $81 billion in Department, USAGM, and foreign assistance 
resources.
    In pursuit of this mission, OIG provides valuable return on 
investment through its audits, evaluations, inspections, and 
investigations. In fiscal year 2021, OIG identified more than $700 
million in questioned costs and taxpayer funds that could be put to 
better use. Additionally, OIG's criminal, civil, and administrative 
investigations produced $17 million in monetary results (including 
fines, restitution, and recoveries) in the last fiscal year. Most 
recently, the contribution of our investigative efforts led to a nearly 
$1 million settlement in a false claims case involving a contractor 
that provided medical services at Department facilities in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.\1\
    Beyond the quantifiable, our work produces benefits that add 
enormous, if unmeasurable, value. First and foremost, our safety and 
security work is a source of immense pride. By helping the Department 
improve its security, OIG's work safeguards the lives of the thousands 
of people who work in or visit U.S. posts abroad and at home. For 
example, our recommendations frequently address inadequate compliance 
with emergency planning standards, facility safety and security 
deficiencies, and the lack of adherence to motor vehicle safety 
standards in the operation of official vehicles overseas.
    Finally, our investigative work consistently holds Department and 
USAGM employees, contractors, and grantees accountable. In fiscal year 
2021, OIG obtained 22 indictments or informations and 17 convictions. 
One conviction led to a former Department employee being sentenced to 1 
year in Federal prison for wire fraud. OIG special agents determined 
that, over the course of 3 years in his role as a budget analyst at 
Embassy Port-au-Prince, the employee embezzled more than $150,000.\2\ 
We also obtained nine debarments in fiscal year 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Department of Justice (DOJ), ``Medical Services Contractor Pays 
$930,000 to Settle False Claims Act Allegations Relating to Medical 
Services Contracts at State Department and Air Force Facilities in Iraq 
and Afghanistan,'' March 8, 2022.
    \2\ DOJ, ``Former State Department Employee Sentenced to Federal 
Prison for Embezzling more than $150,000 from Department of Defense,'' 
December 1, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           oversight efforts
    Our oversight work has identified persistent challenges that can be 
sorted into three categories: safety and security, stewardship, and 
staffing. Key findings in these areas are described below.
Safety and Security
    Safeguarding people, facilities, property, and information is a 
continual challenge for the Department. While the Department's efforts 
to promote security are commendable, our work continues to find issues 
that pose health and safety risks, including physical security and 
safety deficiencies at residences. Many of our reports and findings on 
the topic of security are sensitive but unclassified or classified, but 
I will share some of our efforts that are appropriate for this setting.
    One example of our work exposing a health and safety risk comes 
from the inspection of the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations' 
Office of Fire Protection, which oversees a fire safety program 
responsible for promoting safe living and working conditions for 
Department employees at overseas posts.\3\ Our inspectors found that 
the Department's annual process used to assess management controls 
within Department entities did not require chiefs of mission to attest 
or certify that their posts had an effective fire protection program. 
We concluded that the lack of assurances that missions are complying 
with requirements related to fire protection could increase the risk of 
fires and expose staff to unsafe facilities.
    Another example comes from a wire fraud case that led to a sentence 
of nearly 3 years in Federal prison and $200,000 in fines and 
restitution.\4\ In coordination with other law enforcement agencies, 
OIG special agents helped reveal that a Texas man had been selling 
substandard Chinese-made military helmets, body armor, and other 
products to the Department and other Federal agencies while falsely 
claiming that his company manufactured the goods in Texas. Some of the 
equipment had been used at Mission Iraq but was removed from service 
when concerns about its quality were exposed.
    In addition to the security of people and property, we often focus 
on information security, and our oversight of the Department's IT 
security program continues to identify numerous control weaknesses. The 
fiscal year 2021 Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) 
audit concluded again that the Department had not fully developed and 
implemented an effective organization-wide information security 
program.\5\ We reported that the Department is operating below an 
effective level in eight of the nine FISMA domains, making it 
vulnerable to cyberattacks and threats to its critical mission-related 
functions.
    Another issue of concern is the large number of outstanding 
recommendations addressed to the Bureau of Information Resource 
Management, the entity responsible for developing and administering the 
Department's computer and information security programs and policies. 
In a report issued in December 2021 that analyzed open OIG 
recommendations addressed to the bureau, we identified 90 
recommendations awaiting action, including some that have been open 
since 2014.\6\ As a result of the concerns described in the report,\7\ 
OIG recommended that the Under Secretary for Management verify that the 
bureau is developing plans of action and milestones to address each 
open recommendation.
    Information systems security officers are like frontline enforcers 
of Department information systems security policies that ensure the 
protection of the Department's computer infrastructure, networks, and 
data. Unfortunately, OIG has found widespread deficiencies in the 
performance of such duties. In a review of 51 OIG inspections issued 
from 2016 through 2019, we found nearly half identified repeated 
deficiencies related to reviews of user accounts, information systems 
audit logs, or proper configuration, operation, and system 
maintenance.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ OIG, Inspection of the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations' 
Office of Fire Protection (ISP-I-21-22, May 2021).
    \4\ DOJ, ``Texas Man Sentenced for Selling Chinese-Made Military 
Helmets and Body Armor to Federal Agencies,'' March 23, 2022.
    \5\ OIG, (SBU) Audit of the Department of State fiscal year 2021 
Information Security Program (AUD-IT-22-06, October 2021).
    \6\ As of March 31, 2022, OIG identified approximately 90 open 
recommendations addressed to the Bureau of Information Resource 
Management.
    \7\ OIG, Management Assistance Report: Support From the Under 
Secretary for Management Is Needed To Facilitate the Closure of Office 
of Inspector General Recommendations Addressed to the Bureau of 
Information Resource Management (AUD-AOQC- 22-07, December 2021).
    \8\ OIG, Management Assistance Report: Department Can Take Further 
Steps to Improve Executive Direction of Overseas Missions (ISP-21-14, 
June 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stewardship
    Efficiently and effectively managing its significant resources is 
another longstanding challenge for the Department. OIG's work 
demonstrates that the Department could enhance its stewardship of 
taxpayer resources by improving its ability to identify and address 
weaknesses in financial and property management and contract and grant 
oversight. Additionally, identifying and addressing weaknesses in its 
internal controls is an element of the Department's stewardship 
challenge.
    During one audit, we reported that the Department did not 
consistently use a general budget object code in accordance with 
requirements when recording expenses.\9\ Recording expense data to the 
appropriate code is essential for management officials to have complete 
and accurate data for assessing spending patterns. Until deficiencies 
in the use of the budget object codes are addressed, the Department 
will not have a full understanding of the specific purpose of its 
expenses or a method to easily identify how billions of dollars of 
funds were used.
    Property management deficiencies are likewise common, as we 
frequently report in our inspections of overseas posts. We often note 
problems with managing the acquisition, storage, distribution, and 
monitoring of fuel. In a recent review of our own reports addressing 
fuel management from fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2020, OIG 
identified systemic weaknesses in the Department's management of its 
overseas fuel stock and we assessed the Department's progress toward 
addressing common deficiencies.\10\ The resulting information report 
serves as a reference for posts seeking to strengthen fuel management 
practices and the Department expressed its intention to use the report 
in applicable training. Additionally, a recent referral prompted us to 
review gift vault access controls at the Office of Chief of 
Protocol.\11\ We determined stronger inventory controls were needed in 
order to ensure accountability of office staff and protect items stored 
in the gift vault, many of which are of significant value.
    Turning to contracts, in a series of audits published last fiscal 
year, we examined myriad management and oversight shortfalls related to 
contracts in support of overseas contingency operations. Because of the 
Department's frequent use of noncompetitive contracts for securing 
support services for its operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, we took a 
closer look at compliance with Federal regulation and acquisition 
policies when awarding such contracts. Our audit found that none of the 
awards we reviewed had been publicly justified, as required.\12\ We 
also had concerns that the Department did not fully take the required 
steps to ensure that fair and reasonable prices were paid on 
noncompetitive contract awards, a risk inherent in foregoing 
competition when awarding contracts.
    Further, we issued a management assistance report calling on the 
Department to reduce its use of ``bridge contracts,'' which are sole-
source, short-term awards to the incumbent contractor to avoid a lapse 
in service when there is a delay in awarding a follow-on contract.\13\ 
We found these types of contracts were frequently used in Afghanistan 
and Iraq over multiple years to noncompetitively extend contract 
services. Such a practice limits the Department's ability to realize 
potential cost savings by maximizing full and open competition. Another 
audit related to this body of work concluded that the Department, as a 
result of poor acquisition planning, noncompetitively awarded two 
contracts for essential services at Mission Iraq.\14\ Because Federal 
law does not permit poor planning as justification for the use of 
noncompetitive awards, we questioned the full value of the two 
contracts at a combined cost of $663 million.
    Likewise, proper oversight and management of grants and cooperative 
agreements continues to be a challenge for the Department. In an audit 
to determine whether recipients of certain Department grants and 
cooperative agreements complied with the cost-sharing requirements of 
their award agreements, we concluded that internal controls meant to 
ensure proper oversight of such awards needed improvement.\15\ For 
example, we found that monitoring plans were not tailored to awards, 
monitoring controls were not adjusted when the pandemic prevented site 
visits, and training for oversight staff did not provide adequate 
instruction regarding oversight of cost-share requirements. Such 
deficiencies led to unsupported or unallowable cost-share transactions 
for the Department.
    During an ongoing audit related to grants and cooperative 
agreements awarded by the Department for countering Iranian influence, 
we issued a Management Assistance Report concerning internal control 
deficiencies at the Global Engagement Center (GEC).\16\ These lapses 
resulted in a situation where third-party contractors were performing 
inherently governmental functions on a large percentage of the awards 
reviewed. GEC did not ensure that grants officer representatives were 
properly assigned and designated throughout each award's period of 
performance, which posed risks for award management and oversight. 
Finally, in an inspection of the Office to Monitor and Combat 
Trafficking in Persons, we highlighted instances where monitoring and 
grant oversight activity was not properly documented in award files, an 
issue frequently noted in our inspections of other entities.\17\
    Our work also highlights the Department's numerous difficulties 
related to internal controls. In a review of our own previous 
inspection reports, we found that 51 of the 52 reviewed contained 
findings that involved vulnerabilities in internal controls, which 
placed programs, personnel, resources, or sensitive information at 
risk.\18\ OIG found that missions did not effectively use the 
Department's annual statement of assurance process to identify and 
address these deficiencies. In a more specific example, a recent audit 
concluded that internal controls involving the process to prepare 
residences for occupancy at Embassy Cairo were not fully effective in 
safeguarding expenditures related to this process.\19\ Internal control 
weaknesses contributed to questionable expenditures and a potential for 
over reliance on overtime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ OIG, Audit of the Department of State's Use of ``Not Otherwise 
Classified'' Budget Object Codes (AUD-FM-22-21, February 2022).
    \10\ OIG, Information Report: Systemic Deficiencies Related to the 
Department of State's Fuel Management From fiscal year 2016 Through 
fiscal year 2020 (AUD-MERO-22-20, March 2022).
    \11\ OIG, Management Assistance Report: Office of the Chief of 
Protocol Gift Vault Access Controls (ESP-22-01, November 2021)
    \12\ OIG, Audit of Noncompetitive Contracts in Support of Overseas 
Contingency Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq (AUD-MERO- 22-03, 
October 2021).
    \13\ OIG, Management Assistance Report: Improved Guidance and 
Acquisition Planning is Needed to Reduce the Use of Bridge Contracts in 
Afghanistan and Iraq (AUD-MERO-21-37, July 2021).
    \14\ OIG, Audit of Acquisition Planning and Cost Controls While 
Transitioning Support Service Contracts in Iraq (AUD-MERO-21-43, 
September 2021).
    \15\ OIG, Audit of Compliance With Cost-Sharing Requirements for 
Selected Department of State Grants and Cooperative Agreements (AUD-
CGI-22-12, November 2021).
    \16\ OIG, Management Assistance Report: Internal Controls Are 
Needed To Safeguard Inherently Governmental Functions at the Global 
Engagement Center (AUD-MERO-22-19, February 2022).
    \17\ OIG, Inspection of the Office to Monitor and Combat 
Trafficking in Persons (ISP-I-22-01, October 2021).
    \18\ OIG, Management Assistance Report: Department Can Take Further 
Steps to Improve Executive Direction of Overseas Missions (ISP-21-14, 
June 2021).
    \19\ OIG, Audit of the Process To Prepare Residences for New 
Tenants at U.S. Embassy Cairo, Egypt (AUD-MERO-22-23, March 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staffing
    Our work reveals that many of the critical challenges facing the 
Department are caused or compounded by staffing gaps, frequent turnover 
in key positions, and inexperienced or undertrained staff. Moreover, 
instances of poor leadership, lack of coordination between and within 
Department bureaus and offices, and conflicting lines of authority 
have, at times, undermined the Department's effectiveness and 
negatively impacted employee morale.
    We took a closer look at some of these human resources issues 
during an audit conducted in the Bureau of Global Talent Management, 
which has the critical responsibility of recruiting, developing, 
assigning, and supporting the Department's workforce.\20\ We audited 
certain human resources services provided to eight other Department 
bureaus and found that over 90 percent of competitive hiring 
recruitment actions were not completed within required timeframes. Some 
of the bureau's difficulties were a result of its own staffing 
challenges, which hampered its ability to help other bureaus recruit, 
classify, and fill mission-critical Department positions.
    Another example of challenges related to staffing comes from our 
inspection of the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, a bureau 
encompassing a region with many crucial foreign policy priorities, 
including U.S.-China relations.\21\ There, we found that inefficient 
organizational structures, staffing constraints, large numbers of 
temporary staff that frequently turnover, and increasing workloads 
hindered operations in some offices.
    Our inspectors regularly measure senior officials' practices 
against the Department's leadership and management standards and note 
where leaders fall short. In one review, we noted numerous leadership 
failures in the Bureau of Consular Affairs contributed to a stunning 
lack of progress on a long running initiative to modernize and 
consolidate approximately 90 discrete consular legacy systems into a 
common technology framework.\22\ Even though the office responsible for 
the initiative has continually missed deployment dates, we found no 
evidence that leadership scrutinized the office or held staff 
accountable for missed deadlines. More worrisome, even though the 
modernization effort has cost millions of dollars and is critical to 
the bureau's ability to meet its mission in the future, leaders were 
unable to provide a clear, uniform definition of the initiative, what 
components it included, and which contracts supported it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ OIG, Review of the Bureau of Global Talent Management, Office 
of the Executive Director, Office of Technology Services' Information 
System Processes (ISP-I-21-29, July 2021).
    \21\ OIG, Inspection of East Asian and Pacific Affairs (ISP-I-22-
06, December 2021).
    \22\ OIG, Review of the Bureau of Consular Affairs' Consular-One 
Modernization Program--Significant Deployment Delays Continue (ISP-I-
22-03, November 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        afghanistan-related work
    In the wake of the Department's suspension of operations in 
Afghanistan last year, OIG devoted substantial time and directed 
significant resources to planning and coordinating oversight activities 
that focus on key aspects of the situation and its aftermath. Our plans 
include reviews of the Special Immigrant Visa program, the resettlement 
of Afghan evacuees, and Embassy Kabul emergency planning and evacuation 
efforts. The latter work will focus on whether the Embassy followed 
established Department guidance in preparation for the evacuation of 
U.S. Government personnel, private U.S. citizens, Afghans at risk, and 
others from Afghanistan prior to and following the suspension of 
operations. These projects are in progress, and we continue to closely 
coordinate our ongoing and planned work with other relevant OIGs.
    In January, we completed a project that reviewed open 
recommendations specific to Embassy Kabul and analyzed whether, in 
consideration of the suspension of operations, they should be closed, 
redirected, or remain open.\23\ The review allowed us to identify 
issues that had been rendered moot by the events of last August. We 
have also attempted to add value in ways that do not require new work 
to be performed. For example, we published a report on lessons learned 
for establishing remote missions when events dictate that Department 
operations must cease in another country.\24\ Although not directly 
related to Kabul, after the suspension of operations, we provided a 
copy to the Embassy Kabul management team to use as a reference when 
establishing the Afghanistan Affairs Unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ OIG, Information Report: Office of Inspector General's 
Analysis of Open Recommendations Specific to U.S. Embassy Kabul, 
Afghanistan (AUD-MERO-22-18, January 2022).
    \24\ OIG, Audit of Department of State Protocols for Establishing 
and Operating Remote Diplomatic Missions (AUD-MERO-21-33, July 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               resources
    We appreciate this Subcommittee's ongoing support of our work. In 
particular, we are grateful for the inclusion of supplemental funding 
for Ukraine-related oversight work in the fiscal year 2022 omnibus 
appropriations bill. The Subcommittee's timely foresight in recognizing 
the draw on OIG resources created by Ukraine-related events means that 
OIG will be able to initiate important oversight work without 
compromising other mission-critical oversight projects as would be 
necessary without the additional funds. We are in the process of 
planning Ukraine- related oversight projects and will be in contact 
with you and your staff as we progress.
    However, OIG's budget has remained relatively flat in recent years, 
jeopardizing our ability to sustain high-quality oversight work across 
the wide spectrum of programs and activities at the Department and 
USAGM. Increased IT costs (including costs associated with 
cybersecurity), unforeseen pandemic-related expenses, mandated work, 
and large-scale oversight projects like our oversight work on 
Afghanistan-related events, have resulted in an increasing and alarming 
strain on our budget and required us to delay some previously 
prioritized work.
    OIG has been grappling with these funding challenges while facing 
perhaps its greatest challenge--advancing OIG's oversight mission in 
the midst of a global pandemic. On this front, I am particularly proud 
to highlight OIG's remarkable adaptability. Despite 2 years of 
restrictions that made traveling overseas to conduct inspections and 
audits of embassies and posts nearly impossible, we continue to meet 
our unique oversight requirements under the Foreign Service Act by 
performing audit work remotely and by developing and deploying remote 
and hybrid inspection models. However, with an anticipated increase in 
travel costs in fiscal year 2023, OIG will be forced to decrease the 
amount and scope of work we complete in order to support the resumption 
of travel unless additional funding is provided.
    OIG also has demonstrated remarkable ingenuity and resilience in 
the face of ever-evolving IT challenges. After years of operating 
within the Department's IT systems, OIG made the decision to migrate to 
an independent IT architecture in 2015, a congressionally supported 
initiative. We believed then, and continue to believe today, that an 
independent IT network is critical to OIG's independence, security, and 
ability to fulfill its mission. Since then, OIG has striven to be a 
model within the Federal government; in the annual FISMA report, we 
received one of the two highest ratings across all five risk 
categories, a major and rare accomplishment across the Federal 
Government, despite the significant IT challenges we faced related to 
the pandemic. Yet, with increasing IT and labor requirements, 
adequately providing the necessary maintenance, support, and 
cybersecurity for the network is a challenge in our current budget 
environment. Moreover, recent IT modernization and cybersecurity 
requirements, including Executive Order 14028, ``Improving the Nation's 
Cybersecurity,'' issued on May 12, 2021, place additional strain on 
existing labor resources and require adequate funding to accomplish.
    Beyond making the sustainment of current operations a challenge, a 
largely static budget also presents implications for our ability to 
take on important discretionary work, including work on big initiatives 
of congressional interest such as Afghanistan. OIG developed its 
Afghanistan- related oversight plans in close coordination with the 
broader IG community. OIG's Afghanistan-related projects will--when 
combined with the work being performed by other agencies' OIGs--provide 
a comprehensive, whole-of-government review of recent and ongoing 
developments related to Afghanistan. In order to fund the timely 
completion of this important work, OIG had to abandon or delay plans to 
conduct eight non-Afghanistan-related projects and shift an estimated 
$5.5 million in resources to the emerging Afghanistan priority.
    Unfortunately, without supplemental funding for this unexpected 
work, OIG does not have the means to undertake these Afghanistan-
related projects and complete the eight non- Afghanistan projects from 
which OIG diverted the required resources. Such work included Worldwide 
Protective Services (WPS) II Contracts, the Central America Regional 
Security Initiative, Counter-narcotics Assistance in East and Southeast 
Asia, Overseas Construction Contracts, the Department's COVID-19 
response, and Whistleblower Protection Notifications to Contractor and 
Grantee Employees. Due to increasing resource constraints, we are 
unfortunately having to delay or cancel projects that were designed to 
target high-risk areas and that could have led to significant 
improvements in the programs and activities we oversee. I want to take 
this opportunity to clearly communicate the nature of these difficult 
trade-off decisions so that Members may consider alternative approaches 
to funding OIG's operations going forward.
                               conclusion
    I am incredibly proud of the work done by my colleagues in OIG and 
the value we provide to the Department, USAGM, Congress, and U.S. 
taxpayers. We are a talented and committed team of professionals 
dedicated to helping the Department and USAGM successfully accomplish 
their respective missions through robust oversight and solution-
oriented recommendations. I want to thank my team for their resilience, 
ingenuity, integrity, and leadership.
    I also want to again thank Chairman Coons, Ranking Member Graham, 
and Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit 
testimony. I take my statutory requirement to keep Congress fully and 
currently informed seriously, and I appreciate your interest in our 
work.

    Senator Coons. Terrific. Thank you very much Mr. Secretary. 
I will begin what are 7-minute questions. We may get to a 
second round, but there is a vote scheduled for 3:30. So if 
Members intend to come back for a second round please make sure 
that my staff knows.
    Thank you for your tireless work on pulling together our 
allies in support of Ukraine. Ukraine faces a brutal invasion 
by Russia, and I would be interested, first, just in a few 
questions about a supplemental that we understand may be coming 
soon.
    Bridget Brink has been nominated to be the next U.S. 
Ambassador to Ukraine. Will you be resuming operations in Kyiv 
as well as in the rest of the country, and will the 
supplemental include funding to return U.S. Embassy personnel, 
and provide for their security; first? Second, in addition to 
military and humanitarian assistance do you think this 
supplemental will or should include funds for the global food 
security crisis, and the pandemic?
    And then last, I have just returned from Georgia, many of 
us have expressed concern about Moldova, and Georgia, which are 
also roughly in the position that Ukraine is, meaning not 
members of the EU, not members of NATO, countries that are 
receiving Ukrainian refugees, and where there is a real and 
present threat of Russian aggression against Moldova and 
Georgia.
    So if you would, Mr. Secretary; that is my opening set of 
questions.
    Secretary Blinken. Mr. Chairman thank you very, very much. 
So a few things; first of all with regard to the supplemental, 
that should be coming forward in the next couple of days, and 
it will include very robust assistance requests for Ukraine, 
for partners and allies, and as well as, of course, our ability 
to function in Ukraine.
    With regard to our diplomatic presence, we have diplomats 
going back to Ukraine this week, as we speak, to begin the 
process of looking to reopen the Embassy in Kyiv, and my 
anticipation is that they will start in Lviv, in western 
Ukraine, and look to reopen the Embassy as quickly, but also as 
safely as possible. And we look forward to working with you on 
that.
    A number of other countries that left with the onset of the 
Russian aggression are also coming back, reopening their 
missions, it was very important for Secretary Austin and I to 
go, to show the flag, but we want to be able to show the flag 
every day. But it is a process that we take very seriously in 
terms of making sure that we do it in a way that ensures the 
safety and security of our personnel, but I think this will 
play out over the next few weeks.
    We very much appreciate the Senate's prompt consideration 
of Bridget Brink to be Ambassador to Ukraine, she is 
extraordinarily qualified for this job. I think she is known to 
many Members of this Committee, and hopefully she will be 
confirmed quickly once she is sent formally to the Senate.
    I anticipate the supplemental will include a request for 
resources for food security, something that we can and should 
talk about. This is, as Chairman Leahy said, a very, very 
dramatic problem that already existed of course, and has been 
exacerbated by Russia's aggression, by the invasion.
    We have Ukrainian farmers, who, instead of being able to 
deal with their crops, they have been forced to fight or to 
flee for their--because of the Russian aggression. We have 
Russia blockading Black Sea ports, so that even though Ukraine 
is actually producing a lot of wheat, it can't get out of the 
country because of this blockade.
    And all of that is having an effect, not just in the 
immediate region, but literally around the world. And I know in 
all of your travels, you have heard this too, everywhere we go, 
everywhere I go I am hearing this. We have we have plans to 
address this, not just with the supplemental, we are trying to 
get countries to support the World food Program with additional 
funding, the Food and Agriculture Organization with more 
funding, they both have needs for resources.
    We are looking at countries that have large stockpiles of 
food to use those stockpiles, to not hold them back, to not put 
export restrictions on food. The President has incentivized the 
production of fertilizer here in the United States, and we are 
working in a variety of ways to try to address this.
    The last thing I will say on this, Mr. Chairman, is that we 
have the presidency of the UN Security Council in May. I intend 
to focus our month of the presidency on food security, and I 
will be spending some time there as well. And again, very much 
look forward to working with this Committee.
    Finally, on Moldova and Georgia, I share the concerns that 
you have expressed about the vulnerable position they are in. 
We are working very closely with both. I was in Moldova a few 
weeks ago, our Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees and 
Migration, Secretary Noyes, was just there as well. We have 
contributed, through a German pledging conference, an 
additional $100 million to help support Moldova.
    The request that you have before you would fund programs to 
do a number of things, including bolstering cybersecurity, 
economic stabilization and resilience, to counter 
disinformation where they are on the receiving end, to try to 
integrate their energy system to Europe. There is, I think a 
significant development in the connection of Moldova, as well 
as Ukraine to the European security grid, but there is work to 
do to make that work.
    We also need to get the UN agencies to be prepared for a 
potential huge influx of additional refugees to Moldova. They 
have already taken in a lot of people. It is a small country.
    Anyway, in the interest of time, there is more on Georgia. 
I could speak to that as well. But the point that you make is 
exactly right, we need to be looking out for these countries 
that are at risk, and in between we see, again, in Moldova, 
some things happening in Transnistria that we are looking at 
very, very carefully as well.
    Senator Coons. Thank you Mr. Secretary. To the United 
Nations, if I might, just a few points and then I will lead to 
the Ranking Member.
    First, we did not succeed last year in paying anything in 
our UN arrears. We have arrears now totaling a billion dollars, 
and in my view failing to pay what we could, and should, 
weakens our credibility, and frankly strengthens some of our 
global competitors, who would take advantage of that 
opportunity.
    I was just in Paris, and had the chance to meet with 
Director General Azoulay of UNESCO. I would be interested in 
your thoughts, on whether in our absence, our competitors have 
used that absence to expand their role.
    And then last, on the UN Human Rights Council, on March 4th 
the UN Human Rights Commission adopted a resolution opening a 
Commission of Inquiry for the human rights violations, the war 
crimes being committed in Ukraine. I would be interested in 
whether the administration supports an ICC or other war crimes 
investigation into a prosecution of Russian soldiers and 
leaders, and what assistance we could provide there, and how 
significant you think it is that Russia has been suspended now 
from the UN Human Rights Council, the first permanent member of 
the UN Security Council to be so suspended? And whether you 
would make a case for our renewing our participation in that 
Council?
    And with that I will yield to the Ranking Member, if you 
would take a minute and answer those.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you very much. I very much share 
your view that it is to our detriment to not be making good on 
our commitments to the United Nations in terms of the budget, 
in terms of dealing with arrears. It puts us in a position of 
disadvantage in a place that we should be in a position of 
advantage.
    And to your point some of some other countries are able to 
make the rhetorical case because of this, that U.S. leadership, 
U.S. influence can't be counted on, and it also, of course, 
contributes to some operational challenges. So we think that 
paying our dues, paying into the budget is vital both for the 
functioning of the UN, but also for our standing and our 
ability to carry the day, and carry the debate at the UN.
    I think we have some proof positive of this, by the way, in 
what you just referenced, because we are back on the Human 
Rights Council we were able to actually lead in the creation of 
this Commission of Inquiry for Ukraine. So it is something we 
are going to very much support, looking at the atrocities and 
human rights abuses that were committed by Russia in Ukraine.
    Similarly, we support and welcome the fact that the ICC has 
opened an investigation, we found ways to support the ICC in a 
number of instances in the past, including most recently with 
the prosecution of Janjaweed from Darfur that prosecution 
resulted, in no small measure, from information and evidence we 
were able to bring forward.
    Our main focus when it comes to Ukraine is on helping the 
Prosecutor General and her team that is investigating these war 
crimes allegations. We have experts who are working very 
closely with that team to make sure that they can do their jobs 
effectively.
    And finally, on UNESCO; this is, I think, a perfect example 
of a situation where our absence is clearly to our detriment 
because, among other things, UNESCO is in the business of 
setting standards, norms around the world for education, for 
the way new, emerging technologies like artificial intelligence 
are used, to cite just two examples.
    So when we are not at the table shaping that conversation, 
and so actually helping to shape those norms and standards, 
well, someone else is, and that someone else is probably China. 
So it really does not make a lot of sense for us to be absent 
from that body.
    Now, there is a very understandable concern expressed in 
the past because of the Palestinians seeking ignition, and that 
going forward, that Congress chose to act to make it difficult 
for us to continue our participation. We believe that having 
waiver authority would be important, and necessary. And I can 
say with authority that our partners in Israel feel the same 
way. They would support our rejoining UNESCO, and I think it is 
in the national interest to do that precisely because these 
debates are so important, and we should be at the table making 
sure that we shape them, not someone else.
    Senator Coons. Thank you Mr. Secretary.
    I will yield to the Ranking Member, Senator Graham.
    Senator Graham. If it is okay, I will let Senator Moran go 
first. He has a hearing to chair in about 5 minutes.
    Senator Moran. Someday I hope to chair a Committee again, 
but at the moment I am only the Ranking Member. But I 
appreciate your willingness, not only to promote me, but to 
allow me to go ahead of you. So Senator Graham, thank you.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you. I would join in my commendation 
for the chair of the full Committee, and the chair of this 
subcommittee, and I always appreciate the opportunities I have 
to work with them.
    Mr. Secretary, yesterday you told the Foreign Relations 
Committee that you believe our allies and partners are prepared 
to sustain and build upon the sanctions imposed. And I am a 
member of the NATO Observer Group, so I am talking about NATO, 
and I am talking about the circumstances that we all face in 
regard to the invasion, the evil invasion of Ukraine.
    From your conversations with our allies, and particularly 
Germany, who have pledged to increase their defense budgets, 
what do you--what do you see as happening next? Will this last 
longer than this particular circumstance? And you indicated 
that they would build it----build upon sanctions imposed, what 
do you anticipate that building to include?
    Secretary Blinken. Senator, thank you very much. And thank 
you for your leadership at this critical time on this issue.
    A couple of things; first, I think what we have seen to 
date is extraordinary, in terms of allies coming together both 
in support of Ukraine, but also in exerting pressure on Russia. 
We said before this Russian aggression took place, as we saw it 
coming we tried to head it off, but Putin went ahead, we said 
back in December that there would be massive consequences 
imposed on Russia if it went ahead with the aggression.
    The reason we were able to say that with confidence is 
because for many months we have been working with allies and 
partners to build those massive consequences, including 
unprecedented sanctions. And I think that many of us would not 
have fully expected that we would actually be able to carry 
that through.
    Thus far we have, and we are seeing, as a result of the 
pressure imposed on Russia, an economy in free fall. Most 
predictions suggest it will contract by 15 percent this year. 
We are seeing capital flight from the country to the extent 
that Putin is not able to prevent that. We are seeing an exodus 
of companies, more than 600 businesses, international 
businesses, with brand names, leaving Russia, denying Russian 
consumers the ability to get those products.
    And the export controls that we have been able to impose 
working with other countries mean that Russia will not be able 
to effectively modernize critical parts of its economy, and a 
system, including the defense sector.
    But to your point, it is vitally important that we sustain 
this effort. And that means making sure that as we have done to 
date, allies and partners come along as we do this. We are in 
constant contact with them. We will continue to roll out 
sanctions in the weeks ahead. This is not stopping as long as 
Russia is not stopping. And the European Union itself is 
continuing to do that.
    I think the next step is one of the things that they are 
looking at is an oil embargo on Russia. They are working on 
that. We are looking to see what they do. We will continue to 
focus on additional sectors of the Russian economy to make sure 
that we continue to ratchet up the pressure.
    I anticipate that this is going to go on for some time, and 
all the more reason why we have to make sure that we sustain 
what we have been able to put in place.
    Senator Moran. Mr. Secretary, thank you. I was on the 
border of Ukraine a few weeks, just a couple weeks ago. My 
takeaway then, as it was previously, and continues to be, and 
what I am looking for is reassurance. I want to make sure the 
United States, in my view, it would be immoral for us just to 
provide enough assistance for the Ukrainians to survive, and 
not win.
    And I also think that our help should include more than 
defending Ukraine, the offensive capabilities of Ukraine to 
attack those areas that are attacking them. Can you assure me 
that that is policy; that is what we are doing? Or would you 
want to dissuade me from my views?
    Secretary Blinken. A couple of things; first, thanks to the 
tremendous support, generosity of the American people, through 
this Congress, we have been able to date to provide the 
Ukrainians with exceptional support. And this is something that 
started well before the Russian aggression.
    The initial presidential drawdown took place back in Labor 
Day of last year, $60 million, then there was another 
significant drawdown of about $200 million around 
Christmastime. All that was done relatively quietly, the 
Russians had not yet committed their aggression, but we wanted 
to make sure that Ukrainians had in hand what they needed if 
Putin carried this forward.
    And when he did, the main reason that the Ukrainians have 
been so successful thus far in repelling the Russians is, of 
course, because of their own courage, remarkable. But it is 
also because they had in hand the tools they needed to do that, 
and in particular the Javelins, the Stingers, systems of that 
nature were critical in winning the battle for Kyiv.
    I can tell you that, broadly speaking, when it comes to 
anti-armor systems, and anti-air systems, for every Russian 
plane, and every Russian tank in Ukraine, we, and allies, and 
partners have been able to provide the Ukrainians to date with 
about systems for every plane and every tank.
    But to your point, the nature of the battle has now 
shifted, and what is happening in the East and Southern Ukraine 
is very different than what was happening around Kyiv in terms 
of what the Ukrainians need to be able to repel the Russian 
aggression. And so heavier artillery has been critical, and we 
are working assiduously, and others are, to get them that.
    Shore-to-ship weapons, and to deal with the challenges in 
the Black Sea are also vital, heavier armor, tanks, et cetera, 
all of that is in train.
    Secretary Austin was in Germany yesterday, as you probably 
saw. A pretty remarkable scene, 40 Defense Ministers sitting 
around a huge table, all working on coordinating the effort to 
get to the Ukrainians what they need. We spent three hours with 
President Zelenskyy, his Minister of Defense, his Chief of the 
Armed Forces, the Foreign Minister, et cetera, and a chunk of 
that time was spent on going in detail through Ukraine's needs 
going forward.
    So the short answer is, we are determined to get them what 
they need to deal with this Russian aggression, and to push the 
Russians out of the country. It is another matter as to whether 
the Ukrainians should take actions that go beyond their 
borders.
    My own view is that it is vital that they do whatever is 
necessary to defend against Russian aggression. And the tactics 
of this are their decisions, but what we are doing with all of 
these systems is making sure the Ukrainians have the means to 
defend themselves, that is what this is about, and making sure 
that they can do whatever is necessary to push the Russians out 
of the country.
    Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, I won't ask another question, 
but if I can complement, or at least support a decision that 
the Secretary has made. I encouraged you several weeks ago, a 
week or more ago, to return to Kyiv with our diplomatic 
Embassy, you are headed that direction, it sounds like it is 
going occur in stages, but I am supportive of the United States 
having its Embassy in Kyiv as quickly as it is safe for our 
personnel.
    And I want to thank you for a couple of folks, several of 
your folks, Nas, Courtney, Paul, Jeff, Consular Affairs folks 
who have been exceptionally helpful to us in our efforts to 
solve problems for Kansans-Americans around the globe. Thank 
you.
    Secretary Blinken. Senator, thank you for saying that. We 
very much appreciate it, and we look forward to continue to 
work with you.
    Senator Moran. Thank you.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Senator Coons. Chairman Leahy.
    Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And Secretary Blinken, I stepped out, but I heard your kind 
words outside. I didn't jump back in because I didn't want to 
interrupt you guys, enjoying it too much. But thank you, it was 
undeserved but greatly appreciated.
    And regarding Ukraine, that some have urged the U.S. to 
liquidate the Russian Central Bank's nearly--was it $100 
billion, I believe, in foreign exchange reserves that are 
frozen at the Federal Reserve, to use all those funds to help 
the people of Ukraine, does the Department have that capacity 
to identify the assets of Russia, and other oligarchs? And can 
they coordinate with the Treasury and Justice Departments in 
seizing and freezing such assets?
    Secretary Blinken. Mr. Chairman, we are working very 
closely with Treasury and Justice to look at both how we can 
effectively freeze, but also seize assets. And we have blocking 
sanctions, as you know, in place against a variety of 
individuals and institutions that effectively freezes their 
property in the United States.
    The question when it comes to the seizure piece, is do we 
have the relevant provisions in place, civil criminal 
forfeiture authorities, Justice is in the process of reviewing 
that. And I know that there are a number of ideas that I find 
compelling about finding ways to use these assets to support 
Ukraine. The short answer is, the Justice Department lawyers 
are looking at all of that.
    Senator Leahy. Of course it doesn't help that a lot of 
those assets are behind various walls, one after another, fake 
corporations, and things of that nature.
    Secretary Blinken. Yes. And I think it goes to the 
importance of having transparency, beneficial ownership, rules, 
et cetera.
    Senator Leahy. And I can't think of anything I have seen 
more shocking than the scenes of what the Russian soldiers are 
doing, machine gunning families as they are trying to run away 
from something, the children, innocent civilians have been 
murdered. And can that be investigated by the International 
Criminal Court? Should it be? And can we help?
    Secretary Blinken. We welcome the fact that the ICC has 
opened an investigation, one of the critical things they are 
doing is making sure that potential evidence of atrocities is 
being compiled effectively. As I mentioned, I think when you 
are out of the room Mr. Chairman, besides the ICC work, I think 
the critical focus that we have is on supporting the work of 
the Ukrainian Prosecutor General. And we have experts who are 
working every single day with that team to make sure that they 
have what they need to document, compile the evidence. And 
actually look at potential prosecutions.
    But those two efforts, as well as the Commission of Inquiry 
established by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, 
with our leadership, are three of the critical vehicles we see, 
going forward, to get accountability to deal with this.
    And to your point, some of the things we are seeing are, I 
think, beyond almost our collective imaginations. For example, 
there are very credible reports that the Russians have been, in 
retreat, booby-trapping things like people's washing machines, 
and toys, so that when people are able to return home and go 
about their lives they are killed or injured as a result of one 
of these booby traps.
    Senator Leahy. I look at some of the land mines, and 
cluster mines used this Javelin type----
    Secretary Blinken. That is right.
    Senator Leahy [continuing]. Mine that you won't even have 
to touch it, if you come near it and it's off.
    Secretary Blinken. That is exactly right. And Mr. Chairman, 
part of our request, and I think this will be in the 
supplemental, will be for some additional funds for demining 
because, unfortunately, we have to deal with that now as a 
result of what Russia has been doing.
    Senator Leahy. Thank you for mentioning it, because I know 
your request is $18 million below what was requested last year. 
I have a feeling you are going to need a lot more for 
humanitarian demining. And as you know, I have long sought to 
rid the world of landmines, but I think also what the 
prosecutors are getting, it is going to be extremely important 
for historians. You know, those who don't understand the 
mistakes of history, it is almost a cliche, but they are 
condemned to repeat them.
    The world is going to see this, because there is no 
question that it is crimes against humanity. And we are going 
to need, I think, the World Food Program, projects the unmet 
need of $10 billion. I would hopefully have a request to beef 
that up. And the President's budget request is about $8 billion 
above the fiscal year 2022 enacted level, but the war in 
Ukraine, the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and so on, this 
is not the moment--we should be investing more in the State 
Department, and other agencies, and more. I know this is 
something Chairman Coons has talked about at length, putting 
more in Foreign Ops, not less.
    Secretary Blinken. Yes.
    Senator Leahy. And lastly, and my time is running out, the 
Leahy Law, would you and your staff please talk with us, how 
that--the one that prohibits assistance, are units of foreign 
security forces that are committing gross violations of human 
rights, I think you have some money in your budget for Leahy 
Law vetting, but are you confident that that is being carried 
out as much as it should be?
    Secretary Blinken. Mr. Chairman, in my judgment it is, I 
think it is being consistently and effectively applied. We have 
million dollars in the budget this year to conduct the vetting. 
It is a critical part of what we do, and I think we have the 
resources, as well as the focus necessary, to carry that out in 
the way it was intended.
    Senator Leahy. And I would just mentioned, Mr. Chairman, 
your plane was delayed, but we had a meeting, some extensive 
meeting. I know Senator Durbin and I were there yesterday with 
the President, and others, about Cuba. Nobody condones the 
crackdown on the people who are peacefully protesting in there, 
but I also don't--I don't condone the total rollback of the 
policy that we had under the Obama administration.
    I hope that attention is given to finding a way that we can 
start having normal relations with Cuba for the good of their 
own people, and for us.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward 
to catching up with the President. I haven't talked to him 
since your meeting, but I look forward to hearing from him on 
the meeting.
    Senator Coons. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Senator Graham.
    Senator Graham. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I won't 
request a second round; we will try to make this as quick as 
possible, but there is a lot going on in the world, and let us 
start here at home.
    Mr. Secretary, do you believe if we repeal Title 42 
authority to deport illegal immigrants because of the threat of 
a COVID outbreak that we will have more illegal immigrants 
coming?
    Secretary Blinken. Senator, two things on that. First, as 
you know, Title 42 is a CDC authority.
    Senator Graham. Right.
    Secretary Blinken. Public health authority.
    Senator Graham. Right.
    Secretary Blinken. It is not an immigration policy----
    Senator Graham. Yes, that is right.
    Secretary Blinken [continuing]. Authority. The question is 
what practical effect would its repeal have? I think we are 
likely to see more people seeking to enter the country, but if 
they cannot present a credible claim of asylum they will be 
returned. That is the policy. That doesn't change. The order is 
not opening with the repeal of Title 42, if that is what 
happens.
    Senator Graham. I am just saying the border is completely 
broken. We have 1.2 main illegal crossings since October of 
last year, and there will be a tsunami more coming if we repeal 
Title 42. Will there be COVID money in the supplemental?
    Secretary Blinken. I can't speak to that at this point 
because I think the White House is still looking at that.
    Senator Graham. Okay.
    Secretary Blinken. One way or another, Senator, in my 
judgment we need COVID money.
    Senator Graham. Okay.
    Secretary Blinken. Internationally, whether that is in this 
supplemental or in some other vehicle, I don't know, but we 
need it.
    Senator Graham. Yes. I think we do need money for COVID 
internationally, I will agree with that. And I think if you 
want to stop, as Senator Leahy said, one country away from an 
outbreak, you would revisit Title 42. I would encourage you to 
do that.
    Let us go to Afghanistan. What is the state of play in 
Afghanistan for women right now?
    Secretary Blinken. The state of play is extremely mixed to 
negative, and the----
    Senator Graham. What is the upside for women?
    Secretary Blinken. The only upside that we have seen at 
all, is that somewhat, ironically, you might say there is, in 
the country at large, greater stability, and relative peace 
than there has been. That is about the only upside I can think 
of.
    Senator Graham. Okay.
    Secretary Blinken. The downside of course is that we have 
seen, including most recently, the Taliban fall back on its 
commitment that it had made to ensure that girls can go to 
school above the sixth grade. This is, among many things, 
something that is a deep, a deep concern.
    Senator Graham. Is our homeland more at risk now than it 
was before the withdrawal in Afghanistan, from al-Qaeda, and 
ISIS presence in Afghanistan?
    Secretary Blinken. If you look at the--if you look at the 
presence and the threat, I would say there are three things 
that are going on. First, there is al-Qaeda itself, and I can 
go into more detail in another setting----
    Senator Graham. We will do it. It is just a general 
question. Is al-Qaeda and ISIS more free to roam now that we 
are out of Afghanistan than they were before we left?
    Secretary Blinken. ISIS-K is, as you know, is of course an 
enemy of the Taliban. And the issue there is not the will of 
the Taliban to take them on.
    Senator Graham. Yes.
    Secretary Blinken. It is their capacity. That is, right.
    Senator Graham. Right.
    Secretary Blinken. When it comes to al-Qaeda, and the Arab 
al-Qaeda Corps, there are a very, very small number of people 
in Afghanistan.
    Senator Graham. How do we know?
    Secretary Blinken. Based on the--again, without going into 
detail in this setting----
    Senator Graham. Well, Mr. Secretary, with all due respect, 
if you are a Shiite in Afghanistan, it had been a good week for 
you. There is no upside to the Taliban in charge, for women 
anywhere in Afghanistan, and I think our homeland is far more 
at risk now that we have no presence on the ground, no ability 
to detect what al-Qaeda, and ISIS-K are up to. So to me, that 
is an easy question to ask.
    President Biden said he had no regrets about leaving 
Afghanistan. Do you have any regrets?
    Secretary Blinken. I don't Senator, in the sense that----
    Senator Graham. Okay.
    Secretary Blinken [continuing]. This was America's longest 
war.
    Senator Graham. No. That is fair enough. Is the war over? 
Have we ended the war between us in radicalism by leaving 
Afghanistan?
    Secretary Blinken. As much as we--we went to Afghanistan, 
as you know well, for one reason which is to deal with the 
folks who attacked us on 9/11. We decimated al-Qaeda in its 
ability to continue attacks beyond Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden 
was brought to justice more than a decade ago. It was time to 
end, end the longest war.
    Senator Graham. Have you heard the assessment by the 
Secretary of Defense, and others that: How long would it be 
before an attack against America originating from Afghanistan 
would mature? And they said 2 years. Is that a successful 
withdrawal? That is what they said. I asked them.
    Secretary Blinken. And I don't want to, myself, put words 
in their mouths, but the question----
    Senator Graham. Anyway I just think it is----
    Secretary Blinken [continuing]. Goes to if the threat could 
potentially----
    Senator Graham. Yes. It is just ridiculous to say that we 
are safer by letting the Taliban take over Afghanistan, and 
that women have any upside.
    Let us go to the Ukraine. Are you pursuing Russia being a 
state sponsor of terrorism?
    Secretary Blinken. We are looking at that. And the question 
is----
    Senator Graham. What is hard about that?
    Secretary Blinken. The question is this, and this is 
something that the lawyers are looking at. There is no doubt in 
my mind, Senator----
    Senator Graham. Right.
    Secretary Blinken [continuing]. That the Russians are 
terrorizing the Ukrainian people.
    Senator Graham. Well, what about Syria?
    Secretary Blinken. The question is this, and again, this is 
something that the lawyers are looking at, to make sure that we 
actually meet the statutory requirements of that designation.
    Senator Graham. Well, if you need to change the law so that 
Russia fits in, you will have 100 votes. I don't know what more 
you would have to do as a country to be at state-sponsored 
terrorism. They have decimated the Ukraine--Ukraine, and they 
are all over Syria dropping barrel bombs on people. So you 
mentioned that you are looking at it. I would encourage you to 
look at it, and act upon it.
    Putin vowed today in the Duma that he would stay committed, 
even though there have been heavy losses to accomplishing the 
goal of the invasion. What would you like to say to him?
    Secretary Blinken. Very simply, end this aggression. End it 
now.
    Senator Graham. Well, it seems not to be working. What are 
the consequences to him if he keeps this up?
    Secretary Blinken. I think we have already seen devastating 
consequences for Russia. And let me say this first, in terms of 
his actual objectives, as stated in his own words.
    Senator Graham. Uh-huh.
    Secretary Blinken. He has already failed, because those 
objectives were to eliminate Ukraine as an independent and 
sovereign country, to subsume it back, in some fashion into 
Russia, we know already, as a result of the extraordinary 
courage of the Ukrainians, that that is not going to happen.
    And as I have said, there is going to be an independent and 
sovereign Ukraine around a lot longer than Vladimir Putin will 
be on scene. So it is already a strategic----
    Senator Graham. From your lips to God's ears. And I want to 
help you where I can in that endeavor. When it comes to winning 
in Ukraine, describe very briefly what winning looks like for 
Ukraine and the United States?
    Secretary Blinken. Winning is going to be defined by the 
Ukrainians, and we will support whatever they decide is in 
their interest.
    Senator Graham. Have they told you what winning looks like?
    Secretary Blinken. Right now for them, and I don't want to 
put words in their mouths, but I think their focus is, of 
course, on repelling the Russian aggression, and getting the 
Russians out of their country.
    Senator Graham. As said by Senator Moran, that our goal was 
to get Russia out of Ukraine. Is that our goal?
    Secretary Blinken. That is Ukraine's goal, and as a result 
that that is our goal as well.
    Senator Graham. Okay, great. If Russia uses banned chemical 
weapons in Ukraine, what will our response be?
    Secretary Blinken. The President has been clear, that there 
would be severe consequences for any use of weapon of mass 
destruction by Russia. We have been working, not only within 
our government, but with allies and partners across.
    Senator Graham. Can we put a parameter on what severe 
consequences would look like?
    Secretary Blinken. I am not going to telegraph in public, 
what we would do. I can tell you that a lot of work has gone 
into planning against every possible scenario. And again, in a 
different setting I am happy to get into that.
    Senator Graham. Okay. We will take that up. If Russia 
explodes a tactical nuclear device in Ukraine would you 
consider that an attack on NATO because the radiation would go 
well beyond Ukraine?
    Secretary Blinken. All of this, including the potential use 
of a nuclear device, attack with a nuclear device is part of 
the planning we are doing. And again, we can get into that in 
more detail in a different setting.
    Senator Graham. Well, just a couple more minutes. Do you 
think our policy regarding Russia and Ukraine has been 
successful?
    Secretary Blinken. To date, in my judgment?
    Senator Graham. Yes.
    Secretary Blinken. Yes. In the sense that we said this, 
Senator, before--when we saw the likelihood of a Russian 
aggression, many months ago----
    Senator Graham. So you think this is successful?
    Secretary Blinken. I would say two things. First, when we 
saw this as a possibility, we did two things, and we did both 
of them at the same time. We worked to see if we could head it 
off through diplomacy, and that----
    Senator Graham. And that didn't work.
    Secretary Blinken [continuing]. And at the same--that did 
not work.
    Senator Graham. Right.
    Secretary Blinken. But we also said at the same time that 
we would make sure that we, and the Ukrainians, and the world, 
were prepared if Russia went through this aggression; and we 
have been. Ukraine has done an extraordinary job in pushing the 
Russians back from Kyiv, the world has come together to support 
the Ukrainians as a result of American leadership in American 
engagement. The world has come together to impose massive 
consequences on Russia for its aggression, again as a result of 
the Russia's invasion.
    Senator Graham. Well, with all due respects I don't----
    Secretary Blinken. So I think in terms of what we set out 
to do, so far, this has been successful, but it has to be 
sustained.
    Senator Graham. I just take issue with the fact that we are 
being successful in Ukraine, one, they invaded and we told them 
not to, they did. They are killing people right and left, and 
you know we are slow getting weapons in. I hope it turns out 
well.
    But do you think our withdrawal from Afghanistan affected 
Putin's decision to invade at all?
    Secretary Blinken. I do not. Senator I think he looks at 
these things on their own terms when----
    Senator Graham. Why did he pick this year?
    Secretary Blinken [continuing]. When he went, well, he went 
into Georgia in 2008 we had more than 150,000 troops between 
Afghanistan and Iraq.
    Senator Graham. Yes.
    Secretary Blinken. That did not deter him. When he went 
into Ukraine in 2014----
    Senator Graham. But he hasn't dismembered the State of 
Georgia, he has occupied--you know, there is two provinces 
there, but why did he choose to invade Ukraine this year, you 
believe?
    Secretary Blinken. I think a number of factors came into 
play. I think he saw Ukraine moving inexorably to the west, to 
Europe, and he saw nothing that was going to interrupt that 
process, it was democratizing, it was strengthening its system. 
And having a successful democracy on Russia's borders was bad 
for Putin, and he had the ambition that he said in his own 
words----
    Senator Graham. Last year.
    Secretary Blinken [continuing]. Ending its sovereignty and 
independence, and this was all that----
    Senator Graham. He doesn't recognize Ukraine as a separate 
nation.
    Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
    Senator Graham. Yes. So it is not really about them being--
they have been moving toward democracy for a long time. I think 
he invaded this year because I thought he----because he thinks 
he can get away with it.
    So very quickly, 1 minute here. China, I just got back from 
the region. The people in Taiwan are very concerned about what 
happens in Ukraine. Do you agree that the outcome in Ukraine 
can influence what China does regarding Taiwan?
    Secretary Blinken. I do. I think China is looking at this 
very carefully, and the fact that it is seen, as a result of 
our leadership, 40 countries or more, come together in a 
variety of ways to impose these massive costs on Russia for its 
aggression, that would have to factor into its calculus about 
Taiwan going forward.
    Senator Graham. Are you, as administration, committed to 
following Putin to the ends of the earth in supporting war 
crimes investigations and prosecution against him, 
individually? Do you believe that we could ever forgive and 
forget when it comes to Putin? Do you believe it is the right 
policy for the international community to pursue him as a war 
criminal in perpetuity?
    Secretary Blinken. Senator, we are committed to doing 
everything we possibly can for as long as it takes to ensure 
that there is accountability for the crimes that have been 
committed.
    Senator Graham. That includes Putin himself?
    Secretary Blinken. That includes--whoever committed the 
crimes, whoever ordered the crimes.
    Senator Graham. Thank you.
    Senator Coons. Thank you Mr. Secretary. We both went about 
10 minutes. We will endeavor to encourage others to stick to 
about seven, but I appreciate your forbearance.
    I am going to ask Senator Durbin, who is next, if he would 
both question, and then preside if I have to run to vote during 
the next few minutes. You may uniquely, among the cabinet, be 
familiar with exactly how this all works, so thank you for your 
forbearance.
    Senator Durbin.
    Senator Durbin. Thanks Mr. Chairman I want to make a point 
of being here today, Mr. Secretary, after I witnessed on 
television last night the exchange between you and the junior 
senator from Kentucky.
    I hope that no one left that hearing, or believes today 
that his questioning represents the feeling of America. If 
Putin, or the Russians, or anyone take comfort in his 
questioning they are making a mistake. I think it should be 
clear, and you tried to make it as clear as you could, that we 
are not conceding any sphere of influence to Vladimir Putin, we 
are not conceding an anxious effort to understand what he is 
doing in Ukraine.
    I understand what he is doing in Ukraine, it is very clear 
what he is doing, he has launched a vicious, barbaric, 
genocidal attack on this nation, unprovoked by them, and 
unsustained by international law as we know it. And I did not 
want any friends and allies of the United States to think that 
the junior senator from Kentucky expresses our point of view.
    I cannot imagine the reverberations of that comment in the 
Baltics, for example. The Baltics were part of the Soviet Union 
because of the aggression of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, it 
had nothing to do with the people of those countries, asking to 
be part of any Soviet Union. And they survived to this day, a 
small, vibrant democracy that is loyal to the United States, 
because they are part of NATO, and they share our values. And 
we are not giving that up to Vladimir Putin under any 
circumstances. I hope what I have just said you agree with.
    Secretary Blinken. I do.
    Senator Durbin. Good. Let me talk to you about a sentiment 
that has been expressed by Senator Moran, and also by Senator 
Graham, and I share. And the sentiment is this: The earliest 
analysis of what would occur when the Russians invaded Ukraine 
suggested, and this is before the invasion, that Kyiv would 
last a matter of days, the bulk of the country a matter of 
weeks, but the resistance that would be formed against any 
Russian occupation could go on for months or years.
    And Putin would have learned under those circumstances that 
he had won a pyrrhic victory, if he even wanted to call it 
that. The reality of the situation is much different. Kyiv has 
not fallen, you were able to visit that city with the Secretary 
of Defense, the bulk of Ukraine is at least stable, though 
there are terrible examples of fighting going on at this point, 
and my concern is this, we are trying to scramble in the last 
53 days; is that correct, 54 days, to readjust our thinking 
about the future of Ukraine.
    We underestimated the courage and resiliency of the 
Ukrainian people, the determination they have shown to defend 
their own country. We perhaps overestimated the power of the 
Russian Military, and as a consequence we have to readjust to 
the fact that Ukrainians have won significant victories.
    My concern, as expressed by my Republican colleagues, is 
this, are we throwing a 10-foot rope to someone drowning 20-
foot offshore? Are we falling short of what they need for 
something decisive to happen in our interest and their 
interest? Are we doing enough from a diplomatic or military 
viewpoint, from your point of view?
    I would hate to be able to--I would hate to see the 
situation where we are seeing how proud we are of NATO coming 
together with all its strength, and at the end of the day a 
devastated Ukraine with refugees by the millions, and people in 
unmarked graves is what is left behind by Putin. That is hardly 
a NATO victory. Would you comment on that?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you, Senator. What Russia has done 
and continues to do to Ukraine every day, the brutalization of 
the country, and the parts where Russia is engaged, is a 
tragedy that in and of itself can't be undone; people have 
died, been killed in the most awful ways, that can't be undone. 
People have been displaced from their homes, 5 million 
refugees, 7 million displaced persons inside of Ukraine, 
including, by most estimates, three-quarters of the children of 
the country have been displaced at one point. Some are moving 
back; and even if they come--when they come home that is not 
going to fully erase the trauma that they have been through.
    So some of the--some of the damage that has been done is 
quite, literally, irreparable. Having said that, I believe that 
we are--the United States, many other countries coming together 
to make sure that--to the best of our ability--the Ukrainians 
have what is necessary to push back this Russian aggression.
    They have done that successfully in and around Kyiv. They 
are engaged now in a ferocious fight in Southern and Eastern 
Ukraine. And as I mentioned a few moments ago, Secretary Austin 
was just in Germany yesterday with 40 Ministers of Defense to 
make sure that we are all coming together to get the Ukrainians 
the kind of weaponry that they need in a battle that has 
changed in its nature, to continue to do what they need to do 
to push back this Russian aggression.
    We are focused like a laser on that, and on making sure 
that they have what they need. Some of that is coming from the 
United States, some of it is coming from many other countries 
that are engaged, and it is being done in an organized and 
coordinated fashion, and it is being done in full consultation 
with the Ukrainians. But as I said we have to continue to 
sustain that and follow through.
    Let me just cite one quick example though, of how this has 
evolved. It used to be that when you--the President made a 
drawdown order, it might take some weeks for--between the time 
the order was given, and the time the equipment in question got 
into the hands of those it was going to. This is now happening 
in many cases in as little as 72 hours. From the time the 
President did the drawdown to the time weapons are getting into 
the hands of Ukrainians to use them against the Russian 
aggression, 72 hours.
    We were just there as you noted, and talked with all of the 
folks on the ground who are helping to make sure and coordinate 
the security assistance getting in to the Ukrainians. It is a 
remarkable operation, and it is working in real time. We have 
to keep that going, and we have to make sure that they are 
getting what they need to deal with the actual threats that 
they face.
    Senator Durbin. The President has made it clear that a 
patch of Polish real estate is a tripwire. He said that over 
and over again. I assume there are other tripwires which you 
may not want to be as explicit with us in this Committee 
setting in describing. I hope that they will include the 
consideration of the genocide which is taking place there as 
well, if there is a point beyond which we cannot, with good 
moral conscience, justify or even look the other way, or wait 
for a day to resolve it.
    On the question of war criminals, I was surprised to learn 
that current American law does not give us any criminal 
authority to prosecute those who committed war crimes in other 
countries, nor does it give us any civil, anyone any civil 
authority over those same people. I have legislation to change 
that.
    We should make it clear to anyone that has been engaged in 
Putin's strategy, they will never find a comfortable, safe home 
in the United States. And I hope that I can bring that to your 
attention and that you will--your people will take a look it.
    Secretary Blinken. I look forward to looking at that, 
Senator. Thank you.
    Senator Durbin. If I could mention two or three other 
things, Senator Hagerty, I will wrap it up quickly, because I 
know you probably are waiting to vote as well.
    Afghanistan, Mark Frerichs, I wanted to make a point of 
making a record of our continuing concern about this Illinois 
resident, who is being held captive in Afghanistan; are you 
familiar with this situation?
    Secretary Blinken. I am more than familiar with it. It is 
something that I am intensely focused on.
    Senator Durbin. Thank you. We hope that we can bring him 
home.
    The Chinese bullying of Lithuania over their decision to 
recognize the Taiwanese office; are you aware of this 
situation?
    Secretary Blinken. Again, more than aware of it; extremely 
focused on it. We jumped in very quickly when that happened, to 
make sure that we could bolster Lithuania, including with 
economic assistance, creating greater opportunities for trade 
and investment. We have also rallied countries and partners in 
the European Union to do the same thing. The European Union has 
stood up against this kind of coercive action by China, to 
combat the bullying that it has tried to use. And Lithuania has 
been extraordinary in its resilience and fortitude against it. 
But yes, very focused on that as well.
    Senator Durbin. Is there a path forward in Haiti with the 
situation that we currently face?
    Secretary Blinken. It is a--it is long path forward, there 
are, as you know very well from the time you spent on this. 
There are two things that they rely on. First, we need to see 
the government, civil society, all actors come together to get 
us to elections, free and fair elections, that reestablish a 
fully legitimate Haitian Government and leadership. And that 
work is in progress. We are trying to facilitate that, and 
support that.
    But having said that, the problems are so deep-rooted, and 
so challenging that I think that the road is very long, the 
criminality, violence, the lack of basic law and order is a 
fundamental problem that we are working to address, including 
by supporting and strengthening the Haitian National Police, 
and getting other countries to do the same, that is very much a 
work in progress.
    The endemic poverty, and lack of economic opportunity, one 
of the challenges, Senator, is that, you know we have--we and 
other countries, over many years have devoted substantial 
resources to Haiti, but to date the honest truth is that it has 
not made a sustainable difference. We have to be, and we are, 
looking at: How can we do this more effectively, to help Haiti 
get to a place where it is sustainable.
    And of course, it has been on the receiving end of one 
horrific thing after another, including natural disasters that 
continue to set back what progress is made. So the short answer 
is: This is a long road, we are looking at and focused on 
trying to get the elections, and having a government that can 
fully represent the people.
    We are trying to work on basic security by bolstering the 
police, and dealing with the criminality, the gangs which are 
terrorizing parts of the country, but then there is a much 
longer project in helping Haiti to really stand on its feet in 
a self-sustaining way.
    Senator Durbin. Thank you I am going to send you a written 
question related to my efforts to secure the release of 
Philippine Senator Philippine Sen. Leila de Lima.
    Secretary Blinken. Yes.
    Senator Durbin. One of the critics of the Duterte Regime.
    Secretary Blinken. Yes.
    Senator Durbin. I would like to know your take on the 
current state of affairs there? I will save that because I see 
Senator Hagerty waiting, I know he has to vote. So Senator, 
please take it away.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Senator Durbin.
    And Secretary Blinken, it is good to see you again. I 
appreciated our interaction yesterday at the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, as we talked about the importance of the 
U.S.-Japan Alliance, the Quad, the Indo-Pacific, and I look 
forward to continue working with you on those issues.
    I would like to turn my discussion with you today, though, 
on something else that is related to the region but also it 
hits us right here at home. And that is China's refusal to stop 
the flow of fentanyl and its precursors into the Western 
Hemisphere.
    I have raised this issue with your assistant secretaries, 
with your deputy assistant secretaries, but I want to raise it 
with you today because it is that important. I feel like we 
need decisive action, and it is for the safety of Americans, it 
is for the safety of our children. We are both parents. I am 
sure you feel the same.
    Today in America, the number one cause of death for young 
people between the age of 18 and 45 is drug overdose, 100,000 
lives were lost last year to drug overdoses, and most of those 
drug overdoses were fentanyl-related. And the DEA continues to 
assess that fentanyl coming from China into Mexico is the major 
cause of this.
    It is it is something that I talked about with Mexican 
officials last May when I traveled to Mexico. They talked about 
the fact that Chinese entities are sending technicians, they 
are sending equipment, and setting up production in partnership 
with Mexican cartels there. And these cartels are multi-
billion-dollar industries that have basically taken control of 
the northern border of Mexico.
    I met with your counterpart, Foreign Minister Ebrard, and 
asked him what we could do to cooperate, what we could do to 
help. And he told me that they would greatly appreciate help 
with things in the nature of scanning technologies, anything 
that would help them determine whether fentanyl, or its 
precursors, or the machinery to produce it was coming into his 
country.
    I appreciated his concern there, and I think it is 
something that we ought to continue to focus on. You know, I 
was on the phone with White House Staff during the Buenos Aires 
G20, when President Trump directly asked President Xi to stop 
sending fentanyl to the United States.
    My sense is that we need to really double down on our 
pressure with China on this. If President Xi and the Chinese 
Communist Party can shut down a city the size of Shanghai, one 
of the three largest cities in the world, I think they could 
certainly shut down the flow of fentanyl and its precursors 
into our hemisphere.
    And I know you have many difficult conversations with your 
Chinese counterparts, but I would like to hear your thoughts on 
what our strategy might be, and encourage you to take on this 
difficult challenge too?
    Secretary Blinken. Senator, thank you for raising that. I 
very much share your concern I appreciate your focus on it, and 
the efforts you have been making. And I agree with you, this is 
a problem that needs intense focus and solutions. We have been 
working on this in a number of ways. We have been working to 
add some of the precursors to a prohibited list to make clear 
that you can't get fentanyl or variants in through the back 
door by using precursors that are, for one reason or another, 
not on a prohibited list.
    We have made some progress there. We are working with the 
Mexicans on exactly this question, to reestablished the 
security dialogue with them last year, and part of this is 
looking at the--of course the flow of drugs of any kind into 
the country. And what assistance do they need to more 
effectively police it.
    I am going to follow up on the specific suggestion that you 
referenced, to make sure that we are, if we haven't already 
done it, actually looking at that, and doubling up back with 
them on what it is they need to effectively police fentanyl. I 
can tell you this has come up in engagements between President 
Biden and President Xi. So it has been raised to that level as 
well,
    But I would also welcome working with you and your team on 
ways that we can effectively address this problem.
    Senator Hagerty. I appreciate that very much. And again in 
my conversations with Foreign Minister Ebrard that may have 
predated what you have been talking about. But he sincerely 
believed that there were technology solutions that we could 
help provide that would help them. I have seen some of those 
technology solutions deployed at our southern border.
    I went to our southern border earlier this month to see 
what is happening there, it is a travesty in terms of the flow 
of narcotics coming across the border. But again, I saw the 
technology that we are putting in place now that sense, in a 
very sophisticated manner, the illegal substances that, at 
least where they may be hidden. So I appreciate any efforts 
that you might make to work on that.
    I also wanted to take on, for just a moment longer, the 
topic of India, and our U.S.-India relations. The world's 
oldest democracy, of course, is the United States, but India is 
the world's biggest democracy. And I think they have you know--
I think what I see before us is something I am certain that is 
very frustrating in the short term, when we have our 
differences, and you deal with that every day.
    But in the long term, this strategic partnership that we 
have with India I think poses the opportunity to do more good 
in the 21st century, and have more consequence, more impact 
than anything that the CCP could do, coming from their 
perspective. And I believe that there is great, untapped 
potential there in terms of developing that partnership for the 
good of all.
    And I would look forward to hearing your views in terms of 
what concrete steps the United States and India could take 
together to deepen our strategic alliance.
    Secretary Blinken. Senator, I very much share your 
perspective. I think this partnership has the potential to be 
one of the most important and foundational partnerships that we 
have going forward, over the next decades. This has actually 
been, I think, a success story over multiple administrations, 
going back to the end of the Clinton administration, through 
the Bush administration, particularly with the Peaceful Nuclear 
Cooperation Agreement that, by the way, now President then 
Senator Biden helped shepherd through this institution; through 
the Trump administration as well, and prior to that, the Obama 
administration; and now through ours.
    President Biden spent a lot of time directly engaged with 
Prime Minister Modi and India's leadership. Of course, as you 
know very well, we have energized the Quad that brings India 
together with Australia, and Japan, and us. This has been a 
very important vehicle for strengthening our collaboration 
across a whole variety of fronts with India, I have spent a lot 
of time with my Indian counterpart, and very much agree with 
you.
    What is interesting, and we talked about this a little bit 
yesterday at the Foreign Relations Committee is, this is a 
moment of, I think, strategic inflection, by which I mean this: 
A number of countries are now re-looking at some of their 
relationships, and some of their interests, particularly when 
it comes to their relationships with Russia.
    And of course in the case of India, there is a relationship 
that goes back decades, and Russia for India was out of 
necessity, a partner of choice when we were not in a position 
to be a partner. Now, we are. And we are investing in that 
effort. I think there is a growing strategic convergence 
between the United States and India, and of course China is a 
big part of that.
    Senator Hagerty. Yes.
    Secretary Blinken. But I very much share your perspective, 
and this is a major area of focus for the administration, and 
for me, to make sure that we are doing everything we can to 
strengthen and to build on that partnership going forward.
    Senator Hagerty. I appreciate that very much, Mr. 
Secretary. And I would just add one more point of 
encouragement. On my recent trip to Japan I spoke with Prime 
Minister Abe, who developed a very good relationship with Prime 
Minister Modi, and I know you know Prime Minister Abe as well. 
And I would encourage you, as you talk with your Japanese 
counterparts, to engage them in finding good ways to work 
together with India, because they seem to be on the same track 
and the same mindset as we are. Thank you very much for your 
comments today.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Senator Hagerty. Appreciate your testimony.
    Senator Coons. Senator Van Hollen.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me 
start by congratulating you on assuming the chairmanship of the 
subcommittee first hearing. And look forward to working with 
you, and the Ranking Member.
    And I also want to commend the Chairman of the Full 
Committee, Senator Leahy, as others have done, for his 
incredible service.
    Mr. Secretary, good to see you. We had a chance to talk 
yesterday in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, so I am 
not going to retread that ground. But I do want to circle back 
on the sanctions issue now, because I think you, and the 
President, and the Secretary of Defense, the whole team have 
done a really good job in accelerating now the deployment of 
weapons. And also isolating Russia to the extent we can, at the 
UN and other places, and moving forward on sanctions.
    But as the sanctions go on, sustaining them is going to be 
key, and expanding them is going to be key. And leakage in the 
sanctions only helps Putin. And there are countries that right 
now, and other entities, that are violating the sanctions. As 
you indicated yesterday when I asked, we have not applied any 
secondary sanctions, so far. I think we have got to use the 
secondary sanctions authority the administration has, including 
against countries, and entities and countries that are not 
simply maintaining their current or pre-war imports of Russian 
oil and gas, and other commodities, but have increased them.
    And I would just urge you to do it, because I think you are 
going to see growing movement for mandatory sanctions in the 
Senate and the House if you don't use the existing authorities 
that you have got within the administration. I just want to 
make that really clear.
    Let me say something about the Czech Republic, and you and 
I, and others, just came from a beautiful memorial service for 
Secretary Albright. Of course she and her family came the 
United States from then Czechoslovakia when I think she was 
about 11 years old.
    I had a meeting with the Czech Foreign Minister yesterday 
and, yes, he indicated that they were willing and wanting to 
provide some of their Soviet-era helicopters Mi-24s to Ukraine, 
but wanted sort of a swift agreement for us to replace those 
with Vipers, and if not new Vipers, with some of the Vipers out 
of our inventory now. So I just want to encourage you to move 
forward on that as fast as possible.
    Secretary Blinken. And Senator, just on that.
    Senator Van Hollen. Yes.
    Secretary Blinken. The Defense Department is looking at 
that right now.
    Senator Van Hollen. Yes.
    Secretary Blinken. This is something that I think is very 
important across the board, which is a number of allies and 
partners have provided weapons from their stocks to the 
Ukrainians, in some cases that leaves a void that 
understandably they want to fill. One of the things that we 
will be coming forward with in the supplemental, are funds to 
help provide additional foreign military financing to partners, 
and allies. That is one vehicle by which they can make up any 
of the systems that they have shared with the Ukrainians that 
leave a void with them.
    At the same time, of course, we are looking at what we have 
on hand. The Pentagon is focused on this particular case, as 
well as a number of others.
    Senator Van Hollen. Great. No, I appreciate that. No, I 
know you are trying to overturn every stone, but anything we 
can do to accelerate that effort.
    Of course something else Secretary Albright was very 
involved in was trying to stop the bloodshed and atrocities in 
the Balkans at the time, and I also had a chance to meet with 
the Foreign Minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina yesterday, and I 
think Senator Shaheen raised this issue, and I just want to 
underscore it. I think we are worried about what will happen in 
November when, as I understand the process, the UN Security 
Council has to continue to authorize the presence of 
international forces, and if Putin exercises that sanction--
that veto it is a real problem.
    I know it is on your radar screen I think. I am pleased to 
see the actions the United States has taken with respect to a 
DODIC in the IRS, I hope we will encourage our European allies 
to work in that direction. As you said yesterday to try to 
accelerate the integration of Bosnia and Herzegovina into the 
European family.
    A couple other issues; Senator Menendez raised yesterday, 
the fact that Turkey had now, essentially, convicted Osman 
Kavala to a life sentence; you know, clearly a political 
prosecution, no legitimate basis for it, the administration did 
make a sort of a tepid statement, you know, showing 
unhappiness. But this combined with the fact that Turkey is 
continuing to move forward in their effort to ban the main 
Kurdish Party in Turkey from participating in the elections, 
seems to me something that the administration really needs to 
press hard on.
    In the case of the HDP you have got, just last Tuesday, 
April 19th, you know, they were challenging it in the court, 
this effort to ban them, but Turkey's top court accepted an 
indictment filed by the prosecutor seeking closure of the HDP. 
I mean this is just a blatant disregard for any standards of 
democracy. And so I just hope we will be very strong on it, and 
obviously we have a complicated relationship with Turkey, there 
are lots of pieces. But this, something you have been involved 
in for years trying to support our allies, the Syrian Kurds 
that, you know, Turkey continues to try to take them out 
whenever they can, so I think we have a lot of work to do on 
that front.
    Let me just close by asking you about the President's 
pledge during the campaign. And I think you reemphasized again 
when you were asked last October, about the Consulate in 
Jerusalem, to establish, you know, greater--reestablish that 
Consulate for our relations with the Palestinians. Can you give 
us an update on where that stands?
    Secretary Blinken. We are committed to reopening the 
consulate in Jerusalem for the Palestinians. It is something 
that we are working on with the Israeli Government. I was in 
Ramallah just a few weeks ago, and saw President Abbas. We 
talked about that, among other things.
    As you know, we reestablished support for the Palestinians 
a year ago, January, including significant humanitarian and 
economic assistance that had been previously held back. We have 
reengaged them across the board, and the consulate is a piece 
of that.
    It does, of course, require coordination with and support 
from Israel including, for example, providing privileges and 
immunities for the staff of the Consulate to be. So it is a 
work in progress, but it is something that we continue to work 
on.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. I appreciate your efforts. 
And thank you for going through a whole lot of issues very 
quickly.
    Secretary Blinken. All right.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have got to 
go vote I think.
    Senator Coons. Thank you. And Mr. Secretary, it is my 
understanding we have no other members seeking recognition.
    If I might; I just have two or three quick questions on 
some very specific programs that Senator Graham and I have 
worked together on over a number of years, both to get them 
authorized in law, and then to fund them. I have a lot of other 
questions I would be happy to ask, but we both have other 
things we need to get to.
    The Global Fragility Act, as you know, one of the things 
that Secretary Albright contributed to was the development of 
Plan Colombia. And the whole concept of a coordinated plan 
between diplomacy, development, and security came out of Plan 
Colombia. Senator Graham and I worked over several Congresses 
to, ultimately to get the Global Fragility Act signed into law. 
And I would welcome a chance to talk in more detail about the 
selection process, the path forward, the strategy to prevent 
conflict, and promote stability.
    I would be interested just in hearing briefly now from you, 
a timeline for the development of implementation plans, and the 
requests for funding were very modest relative to the scale of 
the problems. We have many other areas where we have requests 
that outstrip the budget of this Committee, I would just be 
interested in your view on the timeline for implementing these 
strategies, and what we might be able to do together to improve 
the focus, and investment in this area?
    Secretary Blinken. Mr. Chairman, the timeline for 
implementation of that is now, because just a few weeks ago the 
President signed off on our proposed focus, including the 
countries in question that we would focus on, and so this is 
something we are moving out on, and very much welcome working 
with you on, as we move forward in actually implementing it. 
But it is right on the--right on the front burner.
    Senator Coons. Thank you. The Development Finance 
Corporation, I am planning to have a hearing with Scott Nathan, 
the CEO, to discuss their fiscal request. But I just wanted 
your view of their performance to date, and their role in 
supporting the administration's priorities.
    Senator Graham asked about China, there are a number of 
other members that see its significant potential, whether it is 
in climate resiliency, and combating climate change, whether it 
is in the West Bank, or in developing better opportunities for 
economic development that might promote stability in other 
areas. What is your view of how they have performed?
    Secretary Blinken. And I am sorry could you just repeat 
that the last part of that?
    Senator Coons. Well, the Development Finance Corporation--
--
    Secretary Blinken. Yes.
    Senator Coons [continuing]. Has a, potentially, very broad 
range of areas of activity, each senator has their own view as 
to whether it should be principally countering China, or 
dealing with climate, or working in the Middle East, in the 
Israeli-Palestinian conflict or elsewhere. I would just be 
interested in your overall view as to whether they have 
achieved the potential that the Act that created the 
Development Finance Corporation imagined for.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you. First, I am a very strong 
supporter of the DFC. I think it is a very important and 
powerful tool, one that that I appreciate. And it gives us the 
ability to do a number of things. One of the things it gives us 
the ability to do is to more effectively offer an affirmative, 
positive alternative to China's development programs, including 
Belt and Road.
    We can make this a race to the top, not a race to the 
bottom, including by using DFC, not only of course with its own 
resources, but the fact that it has the ability to leverage 
significant private-sector resources.
    And so that is one area of focus for me, is making sure 
that we use this effectively as a way of actually advancing 
concrete projects that are, again, attractive and affirmative, 
and don't bring with them, for example, many of the burdens 
that we see countries take on when they are, for example, 
working with China. Debt, workers brought into--from China to 
actually build the projects instead of using local workers, no 
respect for the environment, for worker rights, corruption, et 
cetera. But we needed the tools to do that, the DFC is one of 
them.
    We also have to make sure, and this is an area of real 
focus, that we have, and the DFC can be engaged in viable 
projects. So the money may be there, we have got to make sure 
that the projects are there, and in a way that really brings 
the private sector in, so we are very focused on that.
    It also joins up with a couple of things. It joins up with 
Build Back Better World, which I think is a very important 
initiative that the President has undertaken. Again, to make 
sure that in critical areas, including energy, and climate, 
health, and technology we are investing in, engaged in projects 
that will be a race to the top for the countries that are--that 
we are doing them with.
    And DFC is one of the tools that we can bring to bear on 
making Build Back Better World effective. We have been 
identifying projects in different parts of the world that makes 
sense. I think we will be moving out on a number of them 
shortly.
    Now, having said that, I think we need to look at ways to 
maximize the potential of DFC. I am not convinced that we have 
gotten to that point yet. So we have a lot of focus on it. I 
actually, by statute, chair of the Board. The Deputy Secretary 
of State for Management and Resources, Brian McKeon, is 
intimately involved with DFC, and working on that on a regular 
basis.
    I would welcome, actually, sharing ideas with you about how 
we can use it even more effectively going forward.
    Senator Coons. Thank you. As of right now, the way that the 
equity provisions of it are scored, is causing me some--I 
respect and understand the concerns of long-standing staff on 
the Appropriations Committee about the secondary or follow-on 
consequences it might have if we were to change the treatment 
of the DFC Equity Authority.
    But I think we are under utilizing a very powerful tool, 
and I would welcome interacting with you, and with my other 
colleagues on this Committee, and the administration, on how we 
can make sure that the DFC and Build Back Better World fund 
together, are allowing us to really combat China's pernicious 
influence.
    In my first 6 years here as Chair of the Africa 
subcommittee, I saw it in country after country, all over the 
Continent. I was with former President Sirleaf of Liberia last 
night, and was reminded of my very first conversation with her 
a dozen years ago now, where she was asking for U.S. help 
rebuilding the Mount Coffee dam that had been destroyed in 
their civil war.
    And after several meetings she basically said, well, I 
guess the United States doesn't do this anymore, we will have 
to take Chinese funding. Ultimately our partners in Europe were 
able to provide funding for the restoration of that critical 
source of clean energy, and stability for Liberia. But there 
are dozens of countries around the world that would rather work 
with the United States than work with China, if we can just 
provide them with the source of funding. And I think DFC could 
be a critical part of the answer, to that, Secretary.
    Secretary Blinken. I couldn't agree with you more. And I 
think one of the things that we really have to work on with DFC 
and other vehicles is the speed with which we are able to 
engage on things, because what exactly what you described, I 
have heard again and again, that the process across different 
agencies, I am not--I am not just talking about DFC, is slow, 
laborious.
    Now, we have to do the right due diligence. That is vital. 
But I think there are ways to make what we do more efficient, 
quicker, more responsive to needs. And I agree with you the DFC 
is a major--can be a major part of that so we should work on 
making it work even more effectively.
    Senator Coons. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your 
testimony before the subcommittee today. I think the conflict 
in Ukraine, Russia's completely unjustified and unacceptable 
brutality against the civilians of Ukraine, its attempt to 
rebuild the Russian Empire, and the ways in which it is shaking 
the very foundations of peace in Europe, the rules-based 
international order, is the most pressing issue of the day.
    I am grateful that you and Secretary Austin have taken the 
initiative to engage with our allies, to deploy resources, to 
travel to Kyiv, personally, and to testify before this 
Committee today when you have just returned, at a moment when 
it is so critical. That we continue to work in close 
partnership to show the impact of American diplomacy, and to 
show the impact of the resources that we can and should provide 
to support our critical NATO allies, to support the Ukrainian 
people and their resistance, and to meet the pressing 
humanitarian needs of all impacted by this conflict.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    Senator Coons. Questions for the record will remain open--
they need to be submitted--excuse me--by 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, 
May 3. So the hearing record will remain open until that point.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]
    No questions were submitted.

                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

    Senator Coons. And again, Mr. Secretary, thank you for your 
testimony.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., Wednesday, April 27, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of 
the Chair.]