[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                THE STATE OF AMERICAN DIPLOMACY IN 2023:
               GROWING CONFLICTS, BUDGET CHALLENGES, AND
                        GREAT POWER COMPETITION

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             March 23, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-6

                               __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
        
 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


       Available:  http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
                            docs.house.gov, 
                       or http://www.govinfo.gov
                       
                              __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
52-241 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
                     

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                   MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     	GREGORY MEEKS, New Yok, Ranking 
JOE WILSON, South Carolina               	Member
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania	 	BRAD SHERMAN, California
DARRELL ISSA, California		GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
ANN WAGNER, Missouri			WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
BRIAN MAST, Florida			DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
KEN BUCK, Colorado			AMI BERA, California
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee			JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee		DINA TITUS, Nevada
ANDY BARR, Kentucky			TED LIEU, California
RONNY JACKSON, Texas			SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
YOUNG KIM, California			DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida		COLIN ALLRED, Texas
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan			ANDY KIM, New Jersey
AMATA COLEMAN-RADEWAGEN, American	SARA JACOBS, California
    Samoa				KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas			SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK, 
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio			 	Florida	
JIM BAIRD, Indiana			GREG STANTON, Arizona
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida			MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TOM KEAN, JR., New Jersey		JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
MIKE LAWLER, New York			JONATHAN JACOBS, Illinois
CORY MILLS, Florida			SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
RICH MCCORMICK, Georgia			JIM COSTA, California
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas			JASON CROW, Colorado
JOHN JAMES, Michigan			BRAD SCHNEIDER. Illinois
KEITH SELF, Texas      
                    Brendan Shields, Staff Director
                    Sophia Lafargue, Staff Director


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                               WITNESSES

Blinken, Honorable Antony, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of 
  State..........................................................    10

                  INFORMATION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Information submitted for the record from member of congress Joe 
  Wilson.........................................................    30
Information submitted for the record from members of congress....    74

                                APPENDIX

Hearing Notice...................................................    78
Hearing Minutes..................................................    79
Hearing Attendance...............................................    80

    STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY

statement submitted for the record from Representative Connolly..    81

             ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Additional materials submitted for the record....................    83

            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Responses to questions submitted for the record..................    97

 
  THE STATE OF AMERICAN DIPLOMACY IN 2023: GROWING CONFLICTS, BUDGET 
                CHALLENGES, AND GREAT POWER COMPETITION

                          House of Representatives,
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:23 a.m., in 
room 210, House Visitor Center, Hon. Michael McCaul (chairman 
of the committee) presiding.
    Chairman McCaul. The Committee on Foreign Affairs will come 
to order.
    The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the State 
Department's Fiscal Year 2024 budget request and explore the 
myriad challenges facing the United States and its diplomats 
around the globe.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    Mr. Secretary, welcome, and we have no shortage of crises 
around the world for sure and there's a lot to talk about.
    I believe that we are in a very dangerous period in 
history, the likes of which we have not seen since my father's 
war, World War II.
    After the debacle in the fall of Afghanistan we had a 
hearing on that. We saw our adversaries respond. We saw 
weakness and we projected weakness, not strength. History 
proves when you project strength you get peace. But when you 
project weakness it does invite aggression and war.
    You only need to look back to Neville Chamberlain and 
Hitler, and, really, the course of the time has proven that 
axiom. So I think we need to start projecting more strength and 
deterrence.
    We saw not too long after the fall of Afghanistan on 
satellite imagery the Russian Federation moving toward Ukraine. 
It was never a question of if. It was a question of when with 
Mr. Putin, and I think from what he saw he decided it was the 
time and we saw the troop presence and then we saw the 
invasion.
    And then we see Chairman Xi. Chairman Xi is threatening 
Taiwan as we speak. They both met just recently, as you know, 
in Moscow.
    I know, you met with the foreign minister of China when you 
were at the Munich Security Conference right after the spy 
balloon went over the United States filming some of our most 
sensitive military nuclear sites.
    So this is an intense time and we are starting to see this 
alliance not--very similar, in my judgment, to what we saw in 
World War II. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.
    Now Mr. Putin is begging Iran for weapons. He has the 
Iranian drones in Crimea. I want to get the weapons in there to 
take out those Iranian drones but they do not have them because 
you won't give them to them--the longer-range artillery to win.
    I do not want to see them bleed over the winter and spring. 
I want to see victory, not a drawn-out conflict that has no 
resolution in sight.
    The threat of communist China cannot be overstated. They 
are the number-one threat long term to our national security. 
It's why I introduced and passed the CHIPS Act, to pull the 
supply chain of semiconductors out of Taiwan and China and make 
them here in the United States. But still 90 percent of that 
advanced semiconductor manufacturing takes place in Taiwan.
    So when people ask why is Taiwan important, imagine if 
China invaded Taiwan tomorrow and controlled 90 percent of the 
global supply. We would be in a world of hurt.
    I personally think Chairman Xi is going to try to influence 
the election. If he fails, then I think Plan B will be a 
blockade and an invasion that will be on a scale that will make 
Ukraine look like a very small thing. A massive cyber attack.
    Taiwan is not prepared. We have no joint military 
exercises. The weapons I signed off on 3 years ago have yet to 
go into country. I do not understand why this takes so long, 
and if we do not have the deterrence like we did not have the 
deterrence with Ukraine--I called for sanctions and weapons 
before the invasion.
    I think we should be doing the same thing with Taiwan. We 
need to arm them and prepare them to provide deterrence along 
with AUKUS and the Quad to deter the Chinese from an invasion, 
which I think, again, would be devastating.
    Iran is at 85 percent enrichment. You know, the bombs 
dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had 80 percent enrichment. 
They're already there, Mr. Secretary. Ninety percent, they say, 
is weapons grade.
    What are we doing to stop this and are we giving the 
Iranians a strong message that a nuclear Iran is not 
acceptable? We're seeing China come into the Middle East and 
negotiate agreements between Saudis and Iran.
    I haven't seen the Abraham Accords expanded at all under 
your tenure. But we have to make it clear to them what a 
nuclear Iran would mean and we have to support Israel in that 
fight.
    Meanwhile, your President, our President, rescinded the 
migrant protection protocols ``Remain in Mexico'' that the 
State Department was involved in which opened our borders up 
into a wide open invasion from the cartels. Now even your own 
Border Patrol admit have operational control of the border. 
That's my home State of Texas and I've been dealing with this 
issue as a Federal prosecutor to chairman of Homeland and now 
witnessing what I'm seeing is the worst I've ever seen.
    You and I have talked about fentanyl and I applaud your 
efforts to talk to the leadership in China about the precursors 
coming from China into Mexico that have killed a hundred 
thousand young people in this country just over the last year.
    To put that in perspective, that's more than who died in 
the Vietnam War and its an attack on our young people.
    So Mr. Secretary, you know, my time is limited. There's so 
many things I could talk about that I do not have time. But 
right now you are in a very important position in a very 
important time in history and the parallels to 1939--when I go 
to Poland they say it's Hitler invading Poland all over you.
    They see it that way. They have Auschwitz in their 
backyard. They remember the war crimes as we see war crimes 
taking place in Ukraine. As I went to Bucha, as you know, to 
see the mass grave sites and went to Kyiv to meet with 
President Zelensky, and I will be going to Asia.
    Those two threats, the European theater and Pacific that my 
father's generation liberated from tyranny in strong support of 
freedom and democracy are now at risk, now at threat.
    Now they want to change the maps from what the greatest 
generation liberated. We cannot allow that to happen, sir. I 
want to work with you.
    We're all Americans and I believe most members on this 
committee agree with that assessment. But I do have to point 
out my concerns and, I think, the weaknesses and we'll have 
more time to discuss that in our questioning.
    I want to just close with this, though. We had a Marine 
Sergeant, Vargas-Andrews, testified before this committee that 
he had the suicide bomber in his sights before the bomb went 
off.
    He met with his team. He met with his intelligence team. An 
intelligence bulleting went out describing the suicide bomber. 
They got the identification. They got the psy ops. They pushed 
it up the chain of command and the response was, I do not have 
authority to give you permission to engage against the threat.
    And the question was asked, well, who has the authority? I 
do not know. I'll have to get back to you. And guess what? 
Nobody got back to him. And then guess what? Just hours later 
the bomb went off, killing 13 servicemen and women, 140 
Afghanistans, and injuring 50 including Major Sergeant Anders 
Vargas, who lost his limb, his leg, who had 40 surgeries.
    We have the mother--the mother of the woman, the Marine 
sergeant who was killed in that deadly blast, and I'll never 
forget giving her a hug and she said, I'm devastated to know 
that this tragedy could have been prevented and my daughter 
could still be alive today but for the negligence of what 
happened in Afghanistan that day.
    And I want to recognize her, Christy Shamblin, the mother 
of Marine Sergeant Nicole Gee, who was killed at Abbey Gate. 
She is in this room today.
    And to--let me just say to her and all the veterans of that 
conflict you did not get wounded in vain. You did not die in 
vain. What you did was worth it because you protected America 
for 20 years from attacks. And I would ask, Christy Shamblin, 
if you could stand so you can be recognized.
    Now, I was told she was going to be here. There she is.
    [Applause.]
    Chairman McCaul. Let me just close by saying I will not 
rest, Christy, until we get answers, until people are held 
accountable for what happened to your daughter and the other 
servicemen and women and the Afghans. I will not rest until we 
get answers, and we will if we have to go all the way up the 
chain of command to do it.
    With that, I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Meeks.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me begin by thanking Secretary Blinken for appearing 
before the committee today to discuss the Biden 
Administration's proposed international affairs budget for 
Fiscal Year 2024.
    Let me also thank you, Mr. Secretary, for--we all the House 
Foreign Affairs Committee for your focus on diplomacy. That's 
what this committee is all about. The Arms--the HASC--the Arms 
Committee deals with defense and DoD and we know the 
significance and importance of diplomacy going alongside the 
Defense Department--with the Defense Department, and what the 
State Department and what we're here to discuss today has to 
deal with the responsibility that the Department of State has.
    And I am extremely glad to see that the Administration's 
budget request prioritized diplomacy and development, ensuring 
that we have the tools necessary to lead on the global stage 
and leverage the United States' soft power--soft power, which 
better positions the United States to address global 
challenges, deepen our alliances, and advance our U.S. 
interests.
    Fact of the matter, Mr. Secretary, had not President Biden 
led--when we talk about particularly Ukraine--led by having our 
allies join with us, if we had jumped out there by ourselves 
Putin would have been right. We would have been divided.
    NATO would not be strong. The EU would not be where it is 
all working collectively together to fight back the aggression 
of Vladimir Putin and Russia.
    It is that unity is what put us there where we are today 
with Ukraine, which at the time no one thought we would be here 
a year later with Ukraine still standing. But it is the 
leadership and the strength that the Biden Administration 
showed in holding our allies together.
    They were able to say that we're going to stay and continue 
to give Ukrainians what they need until they win and we're not 
going to make any decisions without the Ukrainians.
    And I think that is what is extremely important to make 
sure that we follow that model even as we deal with China, 
which is why I do think that the chairman's trip to South 
Korea, to Japan, and Taiwan similar to the trip that I did 
along with former Speaker Nancy Pelosi last year is important 
because we cannot just say we're going to go at China by 
ourselves.
    We need our allies and alliances together in the Indo-
Pacific and Europe and Africa and Central and South America, in 
fact, indeed, around the world.
    It has to be America leading other nations and not America 
alone. If you're leading you have to lead somebody and bringing 
our folks together is what you do at the State Department and 
the men and women of the State Department who do a job every 
day. In fact, I say they are unheralded heroes and sheroes that 
we sometimes forget about.
    So it is vital to our national security for the State 
Department to be adequately funded. It is also incumbent upon 
Congress to regularly pass authorization legislation for the 
State Department so that we can ensure that our diplomats have 
the tools they need to advance American interests around the 
world.
    You know, under my chairmanship in the last Congress I've 
worked on a bipartisan basis to accomplish this, passing State 
Department authorization bills into law in both 2021 and 2022.
    It was the first time in nearly two decades that such bills 
became law, and I know in working with Chairman McCaul we can 
continue that bipartisan work and make a State authorization as 
routine as the must pass NDAA is, and I hope we can make 
similar progress on authorizing foreign assistance and the U.S. 
Agency for International Development.
    I do not see moving these types of bills as optional or as 
favors to the department or USAID. Rather, it is its core--it 
is core to our job as authorizes.
    In discussions surrounding the budget I must admit that I 
am concerned by some of the extreme proposals emanating from 
the other side of the aisle that if implemented would threaten 
the United States' capacity to carry out bold diplomacy and the 
development work that has impacted so many lives.
    The across the board cuts that I hear coming from my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are arbitrary and 
counter to our most serious needs.
    Some of these same extreme voices who claim in one breath 
that the Biden Administration is not doing enough to counter 
China with another breath advocate cutting the diplomatic and 
development budget necessary to out compete China.
    Which is it? As President Biden famously said, ``Don't tell 
me what you value. Show me your budget and I'll tell you what 
you value.''
    If my colleagues truly want to address the rise of China, 
not to mention many other complex global challenges, cutting 
our diplomatic capacity and the funding of programs that 
strengthen American soft power is exactly the wrong way to do 
it.
    You know, China has surpassed the United States in the 
number of diplomatic posts worldwide to 280 posts compared to 
our 275 and from 2013 to 2018 China doubled its diplomacy 
budget.
    Moreover, this debate cannot focus only on China. United 
States must broaden our diplomatic footprint and expand our 
geopolitical presence and influence.
    Our relationships around the world will be pivotal to 
meeting the global challenges we face whether it is Putin 
renewed aggression in Ukraine, the root causes of migration in 
Central and South America, the existential threat of climate 
change, pandemics, democratic backsliding, or human rights 
abuses around the world.
    This committee has to consider all of that. That is our 
jurisdiction. The United States has a great role to play in 
shaping the world we live--we want to live in and we should 
utilize every opportunity to build coalitions of allies and 
partners who share our democratic values.
    That's who we are. If we once again adapt an America alone 
or America only foreign policy, our competitors and adversaries 
will fill that void by just opening it up for China or Russia.
    We have a choice to make and this committee should make 
clear where it stands. Do we want to strengthen American global 
leadership or are we going to allow the extreme wing of the 
party--of the Republican Party--to weaken our national 
security?
    Our State Department is vital to our national security. It 
makes Americans more secure and advances a more prosperous and 
stable world.
    That is why ensuring the department has the funding it 
needs is so crucial and I hope we can work in a bipartisan 
manner to not only give our diplomats the tools they need to 
succeed but ensure the best individuals are being hired and 
promoted at State to represent our great nation around the 
world.
    So I say that, Mr. Secretary, as you know, one of my top 
priorities has been to address inequities and disparities in 
career progression for officers belonging to historically 
excluded groups at the department and I am happy--I'm glad to 
see the steps that have been taken to address this issue.
    But I know we can even do more and I hope the department 
will continue to make progress in improving equity and 
diversity within the institution.
    On that note, let me thank you personally for the decision 
you announced yesterday to end the department's practice of 
issuing assignment restrictions as a condition on granting 
security clearances.
    Many of us have been concerned for a decade about this 
unnecessary practice, which has caused harm to the careers of 
many employees simply because of their racial, ethnic, or 
national origin.
    This was the right decision and I commend you for that. So, 
Secretary Blinken, let me again thank you for being here and I 
look forward to hearing your testimony and answers to what I 
know will be thoughtful questions from our members.
    And let me last say to all that are here and particularly 
those who have lost their lives in Afghanistan, those doing the 
evacuation and for the 20 years I would hope that this 
committee will look at the entire 20 years--the entire 20 
years--so that we can look and learn and make sure that 
mistakes that we have made we correct them, make sure that 
there's not one life of an American soldier and our allies 
because none of them, and I agree with the chairman on this, 
there's not a single life that was lost in vain.
    We thank the men and women of our services and those who 
served in Afghanistan for their bravery, for standing, and for 
fighting for the interests of the United States of America.
    We will never ever forget them. We will make sure that we 
work collectively together and I think this is one area that--
you know, we have several veterans still on our committee. 
There is no greater service to our country than those that put 
their lives on the line to defend our country and we should 
never, ever, ever forget those and the families that have lost 
their loved ones in the line of duty and supporting the United 
States of America.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Well said.
    Other members of the committee are reminded that opening 
statements may be submitted for the record.
    We're pleased today to have the 71st Secretary of State, 
Antony Blinken, before us today. Your full statement will be 
made part of the record and we ask that you keep your remarks 
to 5 minutes.
    I now recognize you, sir, the Secretary of State, for your 
opening statement.


STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANTONY BLINKEN, SECRETARY OF STATE, 
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE


    Secretary Blinken. Mr. Chairman, thank you very, very much. 
To you, to Ranking Member Meeks, to all the members of the 
committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you 
about the Administration's proposed Fiscal Year 1924 budget for 
the State Department and the Agency for International 
Development.
    Let me say at the outset that I join both of you--I join 
every member of this committee in saluting all of our veterans 
of Afghanistan, saluting those who lost their lives, gave their 
lives, so that their fellow citizens could enjoy a greater 
measure of security, and particularly the presence of Sergeant 
Gee's mother here today.
    I am humbled in your presence. I think of the 13. I think 
of the 2,402 Americans who lost their lives over 20 years in 
Afghanistan serving and protecting our country. I think of the 
20,000-plus wounded and I think of so many others who served 
and have injuries of a different kind including members of my 
State Department team.
    And I join you, Mr. Chairman, I join you, Ranking Member 
Meeks, I think I join every member of this committee in being 
determined that we look at--not only look but draw the lessons 
from 20 years, including the last year, in Afghanistan.
    We do meet at an inflection point. The post-cold war world 
is over. There is an intense competition underway to determine 
what comes next. The United States has a positive vision for 
that future, a world that is free, that is open and secure, and 
is prosperous.
    The budget that we put before you will, in our judgment, 
advance that vision and deliver on the issues that matter most 
to the American people by preparing us to meet two major sets 
of challenges that are distinct but also overlapping.
    The first set is posed by our strategic competitors, the 
immediate acute threat posed by Russia's autocracy and 
aggression, most destructively through this brutal war of 
aggression against Ukraine, and the long-term challenge from 
the People's Republic of China.
    The second set is posed by a series of shared global tests 
including the climate crisis, migration, food and energy 
insecurity, pandemics, all of which directly impact the lives 
and the livelihoods of Americans and people around the world.
    With this committee's leadership and support across two 
State Department authorization bills the United States is in a 
stronger geopolitical position than we were 2 years ago to 
address these challenges.
    We have drawn enormous power from the investments that we 
have made in our economic strength and technological edge here 
at home, including through the Infrastructure and Investment in 
Jobs Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, the Inflation Reduction 
Act.
    Our unmatched network of alliances and partnerships has 
grown stronger. In fact, they've never been stronger. We're 
expanding our presence in critical regions like the Indo-
Pacific.
    We are leading unprecedented coalitions including a number 
of new ones to confront aggression and to address humanitarian 
crises around the world. The President's Fiscal Year 1924 
budget, the request for the State Department and USAID meet 
this moment head on.
    The budget will sustain our security economic energy and 
humanitarian support for Ukraine to ensure that President 
Putin's war remains a strategic failure. The budget will also 
strengthen our efforts to out compete the PRC.
    President Biden is firmly committed to advancing a free and 
open Indo-Pacific which is why this proposal asks for an 18 
percent increase in our budget for that region over Fiscal Year 
1923.
    The budget contains both discretionary and mandatory 
proposals for new innovative investments to out compete China, 
including by enhancing our presence in the region, ensuring 
what we and our fellow democracies have to offer, including 
things like maritime security, disease surveillance, clean 
energy infrastructure, digital technology, is more attractive 
than the alternative being proposed to them.
    The budget will help us push back on advancing 
authoritarianism and democratic backsliding by strengthening 
democracies around the world, including for supporting 
independent media, countering corruption, defending free and 
fair elections, and it will allow us to pay our contributions 
to international organizations because the United States needs 
to be at the table wherever and whenever new international 
rules that affect the livelihoods of our people are debated and 
decided.
    The budget will allow us to continue leading the world in 
addressing some of these global challenges from food and energy 
insecurity to climate and health crises.
    And on that last point, we're celebrating the 20th 
anniversary of PEPFAR, I think one of the greatest achievements 
in American foreign policy over the last decades.
    It's helped save 25 million lives around the world. This 
budget will help us continue the fight against HIV/AIDS while 
advancing health security more broadly through a new Bureau of 
Global Health Security and Diplomacy, which I look forward to 
working with Congress to establish this year.
    The budget will advance our efforts to modernize the State 
Department including by expanding our training float, updating 
our technology, carrying out diversity, equity, inclusion 
accessibility initiatives, including to make our overseas 
missions more accessible.
    I'm grateful for the progress that we have already made 
together including Congress' support in updating the Secure 
Embassies Construction and Counterterrorism Act and 
Accountability Review Board to give us more flexibility to open 
new missions and to better manage the risks that our people 
face.
    We know there's more to do and we look forward to working 
with the Congress and this committee to accelerate 
modernization efforts so that the department can better 
attract, retain, as well as support our first-rate work force 
as they advance our interests in what is a very complex and 
fast-moving world.
    Finally, the budget will further a personal priority for me 
that I know is shared by the leadership and members of this 
committee and that is supporting Enduring Welcome, our whole of 
government effort to resettle our Afghan allies. Keeping our 
promises to those who serve the U.S. remains an unwavering 
priority. This budget will help us continue to make good on 
that commitment.
    Mr. Chairman, when I began this role I committed to working 
to really restore the partnership between the executive branch 
and Congress when it comes to our foreign policymaking.
    I'm determined to continue to work with you, the ranking 
member, the members of the committee to do that, and I very 
much look forward to the close coordination over the coming 
year.
    Grateful for the chance to appear before you today and to 
answer any questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Secretary Blinken follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Let me just say we had a very powerful, compelling hearing 
on the events in Afghanistan at the end when the Abbey Gate was 
compromised and the suicide bomber went off and people were 
killed, and I think the American people deserve answers and 
they want people to be held accountable. for that.
    We haven't had a public hearing specifically on Afghanistan 
until the one we had just 2 weeks ago and we heard testimony 
that, quite frankly, I was not even aware of, that the suicide 
bomber was--that we had him in our sights.
    The sniper had him and he could have been taken out and the 
threat could have been eliminated and lives could have been 
saved. This is why we have asked you for documents, and so I 
want to go through the document request we have made.
    On January 12th I sent to you this letter requesting 
documents related to the Afghanistan withdrawal. We did not get 
that--at that time did not get that production. So on January 
30th we requested three specific items to be delivered February 
7th, most importantly the dissent cable.
    As you know, 23 of our State Department officials at the 
embassy in Kabul took the extraordinary measure to raise their 
dissent to the policy, sir, that you and your Administration 
were effectuating.
    I think the American people need to see this. We need to 
know what their dissent was. Why were they objecting to your 
policy in the failed withdrawal from Afghanistan?
    Sent another letter on March the 3d and another one on 
March 20th. In fact, Chairman Meeks requested this dissent 
cable in a August 2021 letter that, again, no response.
    Yet, here we are today. I do--the other--the after action 
report I want to thank you for that production and I know the 
Ambassador's after action review is going to be presented in 3 
weeks.
    But we need this dissent cable and I think the American 
people deserve to see it to know what in the world was going on 
in those critical weeks, especially after the testimony of 
Sergeant Tyler Vargas-Andrews. He deserves to know. Christy 
Shamblin deserves to know what the dissent was.
    I have the subpoena. It's right here, and I'm prepared to 
serve this. Now we have had discussions and I think, you know, 
as a former Federal prosecutor you want to work things out.
    But when you cannot you have to go forward with a subpoena, 
an arrest warrant, an indictment. So, sir, I'm going to give 
you until the close of business on Monday to produce that 
dissent cable to this committee and this Congress so the 
American people can see what the employees at the embassy in 
Kabul were thinking of about your policy that they dissented 
from.
    Do you have any response?
    Secretary Blinken. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And, first, I want to make clear that we are working to 
provide all the information that this committee is looking for 
and that its oversight responsibilities give it the authority 
to secure, and as you noted we just produced the embassy action 
plan, thousands of pages that go along with that.
    We're committed to making available and sharing the 
substance of the after action review within the next 3 weeks 
and you heard that from the White House.
    And as to the dissent channel cable I appreciate everything 
you're saying and let me just put this very briefly in 
perspective for members of the committee who may not follow 
this.
    This tradition of having a dissent channel is one that is 
cherished in the department and goes back decades. It's a 
unique way for anyone in the department to speak truth to power 
as they see it without fear or favor and they do it by the 
regulations we established for these cables in a privileged and 
confidential way.
    It is vital to me that we preserve the integrity of that 
process and of that channel, that we not take any steps that 
could have a chilling effect on the willingness of others to 
come forward in the future to express dissenting views on the 
policies that are being pursued.
    I read every dissent channel cable that I get, I respond to 
every dissent channel cable that I get, and we factor into our 
thinking what we hear from colleagues who have a different 
view.
    By our regulations these cables may only be shared with 
senior officials in the department and, again, that's to 
protect the integrity of the process to make sure we do not 
have a chilling effect on those who might want to come forward, 
knowing that they will have their identities protected and that 
they can do so, again, without fear or favor.
    Having said that, I very much understand and appreciate 
that there's a real interest in the substance of that 
particular cable by this committee and in that spirit, 
following up on conversations that we have already had, again, 
we are prepared to make the relevant information in that cable 
available including through a briefing or some other mechanism.
    So I'm determined to have our team followup, and, Mr. 
Chairman, as we have discussed, we'll continue to work that in 
the coming days. I hope that we can reach an accommodation.
    I really do understand and appreciate the importance of the 
substance of that information being shared with the committee 
and I hope we can find a way to do it that meets both of our 
needs.
    Chairman McCaul. Well, I hope so, too.
    The subpoena specifically asked for the dissent cable. I 
know it's classified as well and I appreciate that, but I do 
want to mention your department cited then Secretary Henry 
Kissinger's refusal to produce a dissent cable to Congress in 
the 1970's as a precedent.
    I would argue you do not have an executive privilege on 
this cable, and then we reached out to the author of that 
dissent cable, Ambassador Tom Boyatt, earlier this week. He 
said the reason that Henry Kissinger refused to release the 
cable was because it was so damaging, so damning.
    Ambassador Boyatt is emphatic about the need for the State 
Department to produce dissent channel cables, and in a 
statement he provided to the committee he says that any claim 
providing by them to Congress that would have a chilling 
effect, as your staff has coined, is, and I quote him directly, 
``Bullshit.'' Not my words. It's the Ambassador.
    He writes, quote, ``congressional oversight enhances 
executive responsibility and enables us to learn from the 
inevitable mistakes,'' end of quote.
    So I believe this committee and the American people after 
what happened--for God sakes after what happened in that 
dreadful August need to see this cable and, sir, we need you to 
respond, and if you fail I am prepared to serve you with a 
subpoena.
    With that, I yield to the ranking member.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And let me just start off by saying that the chairman is 
correct that I did request on August 21st a copy of any and all 
dissent cables on Afghanistan dating back to 2017 and pledged 
to work with the department on timing and appropriate handling 
of the requested material.
    However, I hope that the chairman also agrees that we 
should take care to avoid a chilling effect on employees, as 
you stated. Safe space for dissent is important ongoing, even 
as I hope the department works to accommodate this 
congressional request because I think the substance that is in 
the cable is tremendously important for members of this 
committee to know and that we do it in a classified session.
    But I understand the protection of what you talk about as 
far as the members of the State Department so that they have 
their discretion.
    But let me go now also to say thank you, Mr. Secretary, 
because we did have hearings on Afghanistan in the 117th 
Congress and the fact of the matter is you were the first to 
testify before this committee right after the pullout. You were 
the very first Cabinet official to do so right before this 
committee, and we had several other hearings in regards to 
Afghanistan in the 117th Congress.
    But let me get to what we're here for today. The 
President's budget proposal lays out a strategic vision for the 
U.S. global engagement that would allow the United States to 
deepen our alliances, to tackle the most pressing global 
challenges, and effectively compete with our adversaries.
    Speaker McCarthy and the House Republican majority have put 
forward a different vision, one that would cede American 
leadership on the world stage and threaten U.S. national 
security by arbitrarily slashing the international affairs 
budget by up to 22 percent.
    Now, my colleague, Rosa DeLauro, had sent a letter to the 
agency requesting details on the projected impact of these cuts 
that the Republicans are proposing.
    Let me ask a few questions on that because the department 
is saying that making cuts as deep as 22 percent on the 
international affairs budget would, among other things, and I 
quote, ``Will it significantly scale back our efforts to 
counter aggressive and coercive tactics of the PRC and to 
implement the Indo-Pacific strategy?''
    Is that correct? Yes or no, sir.
    Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
    Mr. Meeks. Would it reduce efforts to deter the PRC's 
aggression and coercion, including through the Countering PRC 
Influence Fund and slow our ability to open new posts in the 
Pacific Islands?
    Secretary Blinken. Yes, it would.
    Mr. Meeks. Would it reduce assistance that is critical to 
enhancing military-to-military and to operability, training, 
cooperation, as well as fighting corruption and money 
laundering?
    Secretary Blinken. Yes.
    Mr. Meeks. Would the treaty base commitments such as 
payment of U.S. assessments to international organizations 
would also be jeopardized?
    Secretary Blinken. They would be.
    Mr. Meeks. You'd be required to impose a broad hiring 
freeze and, potentially, reductions in force while also rolling 
back training and professional development programs recently 
authorized in the State authorization bill on a bipartisan 
basis. Would that not be true?
    Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
    Mr. Meeks. And to halt investments and security upgrades at 
our most vulnerable posts, increasing the physical risks to the 
U.S. Government personnel overseas?
    Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
    Mr. Meeks. And to reduce support for ongoing programs that 
support an independent, democratic, politically stable, and 
economically viable Ukraine that can defend itself against 
external aggression. Would it not also do that, sir?
    Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
    Mr. Meeks. And to reverse gains made to combat infectious 
diseases including through the President's Emergency Plan for 
AIDS Relief, programs to prevent material and childhood deaths 
and funds to support health workers and global health security. 
Is that not also true, sir?
    Secretary Blinken. That is also true.
    Mr. Meeks. And the list goes on and on, does not it?
    So I see I only have--in my limited time remaining have I 
missed anything else, Mr. Secretary? What are your greatest 
concerns if these draconian cuts were imposed on the State 
Department?
    Secretary Blinken. I think across the board, when it comes 
to all of the priorities that I laid out in my opening 
statement to try to advance the security of the United States 
and American citizens around the world to strengthen even 
further our alliances and partnerships to deal with challenges 
coming from Russia and China, to deal effectively with the many 
transnational threats that are having a direct impact on the 
lives and livelihoods of Americans, to make sure that our own 
institution is as strong as it can be including from cyber 
threats, that our personnel are secure and safe even as we work 
to expand our footprint abroad across the board these cuts 
would have, in my judgment, devastating consequences and I'm 
happy as well to lay out in detail for members of this 
committee if it's helpful what we see those consequences being.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The chair recognizes gentleman from New 
Jersey, Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I have four questions, Mr. Secretary, and welcome to the 
committee again.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Mr. Smith. The zero draft WHO pandemic treaty that the 
Administration and others are pushing to get--put into effect 
at the WHO starts off with a harsh criticism of the United 
States and the international community by calling it a 
catastrophic failure of international--of the community in 
showing solidarity and equity in response to the Coronavirus 
pandemic.
    I've read the treaty. I'm concerned about it. Article 4 
pays lip service to sovereignty and then has language that 
says, however, activities within their jurisdiction or control 
do not cause damage to their peoples and countries.
    So, therefore, WHO would be empowered to step in, and we're 
talking about Tedros, a man who has been put into that position 
by the People's Republic of China. He was their candidate and, 
obviously, showed terrible, terrible judgment in the beginning 
and even to this day in recognizing the origins of the--of 
the--of COVID-19.
    Article 10 says that 20 percent--the United States would be 
obligated to provide 20 percent of our medical supplies, 
including tests, antiviral vaccines, and medications and the 
like to WHO for them. They say we want it. You have to give it 
by treaty obligation.
    The sovereignty issue is the biggest, in my opinion. You're 
pushing for it. Next year is probably when it may get adopted. 
Will it be sent to the Senate for ratification or are you 
planning on using the executive agreement, which I think is a 
terrible way to do things, in order to go to the Senate for 
ratification?
    Second, yesterday I chaired a hearing on Daniel Ortega's 
ever worsening dictatorship in Nicaragua and two--the day 
before, so that would be 2 days ago, EWTN journalist Owen 
Jensen asked John Kirby, ``Are you aware of any efforts the 
U.S. is making to free Bishop Alvarez?'' And as you know, he 
got 26 years in prison in what is Ortega's war on the Catholic 
Church.
    Well, the spokesman, John Kirby, said, ``I'm going to have 
to take the question and get back to you. I'm not tracking that 
particular case.''
    I hope that wasn't a revelation of priorities. If you could 
speak to the issue of what Ortega is doing. We need to look at 
every type of pressure we could bring to bear. He just had the 
foreign minister of Iran to his country, as you know, to 
Managua--to the capital. So I hope you would speak to that.
    Third, on Nigeria, I appeal again to you to redesignate 
them as a CPC country. As you know, the Commission on 
International Religious Freedom has called your decision 
inexplicable and it is the turning of the blind eye because 
more Christians have been killed in Nigeria and the government 
has done precious little to stop it, and over 17,000 churches 
destroyed.
    I've been to several of those churches and saw firebombed 
churches from Boko Haram and others. So that--and finally on 
China, when you meet and talk with your counterparts in the PRC 
and the President himself, do you raise names in particular, 
like Gao Xijiang and others, because it's very important that 
they be front and center.
    Secretary Blinken. Congressman, thank you very much. Good 
to see you again as well.
    First, I'll try and be brief. We are not engaged in 
negotiating a COVID treaty. What we're engaged in is trying to 
strengthen the global architecture for dealing with pandemics 
and do it in a way that, for example, makes sure that if 
there's a next time, and I think there inevitably will be a 
next time, that countries actually are committed to 
transparency, to sharing information, to giving access to 
international inspectors, that we have the tools to do that and 
the countries agreed to that.
    That's, of course, not what China did in this instance and 
we have all paid a price for that. At the same time, I think 
what we clearly demonstrated is over the course of the pandemic 
the United States was the leading and most generous country in 
making sure that vaccines can be made available to those who 
needed them.
    We did it through COVAX, we did it free of charge, we did 
it without political strings attached, and I can tell you, that 
has dramatically benefited our diplomacy and our standing in 
the world, especially in contrast to the way other countries 
have done this.
    But we're happy to work with you on this and I take the 
points that you've raised. Bishop Alvarez is very much on my 
mind and on the mind of the State Department. As you know, the 
Nicaraguans expelled more than 200 political prisoners.
    The good news, of course, is that they were freed from 
jail. The bad news is they cannot live in their own country and 
freely express themselves. I met with the leaders of the 
democratic opposition who were freed at the State Department, 
heard them and I--believe me, Bishop Alvarez should be released 
and we'll continue to work on that.
    When it comes to Nigeria, I very much appreciate what 
you've said. We are working day in and day out standing up for 
the rights of persecuted religious minorities around the world. 
I think the report speaks for itself and speaks to why we do 
certain designations, why we do not do others. I'm happy to 
followup with you offline.
    And then on China, yes, absolutely we name names. I name 
names. I've gone over repeatedly with my counterparts in China 
the names of people who are being, in our judgment, detained 
for political reasons and who should be freed.
    And at the same time, there are, of course, American 
citizens who remain unjustly detained. We are working on that 
every day.
    Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    The Secretary has till 1:30 p.m. so I'm going to hold 
members to their 5 minutes so we can get to all the members on 
the committee.
    The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Sherman.
    Mr. Sherman. The withdrawal from Afghanistan, of course, 
involved dissent. There were many people who said we should 
have left thousands of troops there.
    Of course, once Trump told the American people we were 
leaving the American people would not stand for that. There has 
never been a pristine casualty-free withdrawal in that 
situation, especially when you have hundreds of thousands of 
people who are desperate to flee their country.
    You saw that in our withdrawal from Vietnam and we saw that 
with the partition of India where hundreds of thousands of 
people moved or millions of people moved and hundreds of 
thousands died.
    As to Iran, the chairman is correct that Iran is very, very 
close to a nuclear weapon, and I'll simply point out that the 
prior president pulled out of the JCPOA without a plan to do 
anything to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon and so the 
Saudis seem to have taken action on the assumption that Iran 
was about to become a nuclear power.
    Mr. Secretary, I want to implore you on an issue that may 
not otherwise come up. You're focused on the great issues of 
war and peace, the things historians will write about, and that 
competes for your time with the basic operations of the State 
Department--passports and visas.
    The passport system is broken and has been since the 
beginning of COVID. Visas--f we did a better job on visas that 
would be the most important thing we could do with our public 
diplomacy program and winning hearts and minds.
    And when it comes to business, it's impossible to get 
people to invest in America if it's going to take them 6 months 
to do a business deal and I would hope that business visas 
would proceed at the speed of private sector business.
    So I want to implore you on that and move to a question. 
Last September Nord Stream pipelines were blown up. You're now 
in a formal setting. Can you assure the world that no agency of 
the U.S. Government blew up those pipelines or facilitated 
the----
    Secretary Blinken. Yes, I can.
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you. Putin has told us he wants to 
restore the Soviet Union. There are those who argue that we 
should have done nothing to help Ukraine, that what goes on in 
Ukraine stays in Ukraine and that we do not have an interest 
there.
    Obviously, if we had announced we were doing nothing Europe 
would have done nothing and Putin might well have been in Kyiv 
in a week or two. If that had happened, I think President Xi 
would be emboldened.
    But let's focus on Russia. If Russia had been able to take 
over the Ukraine in a matter of weeks would that have satiated 
Putin or encouraged him to go after Moldova, the Baltics, and 
Poland?
    Secretary Blinken. In my judgment, the latter.
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
    Turning to Ethiopia, the State Department released a 
summary determination indicating that while all parties were 
guilty of war crimes the Ethiopian military, the Eritrean 
military, and the Amhara forces committed crimes against 
humanity and that the Amhara forces committed ethnic cleansing.
    During testimony last year your assistant secretary, Molly 
Phee, committed that the United States will not support 
international loans or the restoration of AGOA to Ethiopia 
until the Ethiopian government fulfills its obligations under 
the peace agreement, including unrestricted humanitarian aid, 
protection for civilians, human rights monitoring, and the 
restoration of services, including the internet.
    Do you reaffirm that commitment?
    Secretary Blinken. I do, and, indeed, that's actually what 
we're seeing happening. I just came back from Ethiopia. Happy 
to address that in greater detail. But yes, the basic point. 
Yes.
    Mr. Sherman. I thank you, and the head of Save the Children 
has just returned from there and reports that things are 
getting better.
    Can you think of anything that would help President Xi 
expand his power more than if the United States were to cut our 
diplomatic efforts by 22 percent?
    Secretary Blinken. There may be some other things but that 
would certainly be on a top five list.
    Mr. Sherman. And, finally, what can we do to help the 
Rohingya who are so desperate they fled to Bangladesh? And some 
remain, of course, in Myanmar--Burma.
    Secretary Blinken. As you know, I made a genocide 
determination when it comes to the Rohingya last year. We are 
doing everything we possibly can to continue to get 
humanitarian assistance into Burma, despite the situation there 
including to help Rohingya.
    Of course, many Rohingya are refugees in other countries. 
We work to support them there. We work to make sure that 
countries do not engage in refoulement that would send them 
back.
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you. And, finally, I just want to 
implore you to try to open up the corridor to Kherson. Thank 
you.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Wilson.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And the chairman is correct. There is an alliance of war 
criminal Putin invading Ukraine, the CCP threatening Taiwan, 
the rogue regime planning to vaporize Israel and then vaporize 
the United States.
    Mr. Secretary, as--I agree with President Donald Trump that 
the surrender in Afghanistan was the most damaging foreign 
policy military decision in American history solely by the 
President of the United States, Mr. Biden.
    I want to submit for the record letters I've sent to the 
Administration requesting correspondence the President claims 
to have had from top military officials who he blamed for the 
decision to surrender.
    These letters remain unanswered. I look forward to your 
response as the State Department was in charge of the 
surrender.
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Wilson. Additionally, as the grateful father of Hunter 
Wilson, an Afghan veteran, I appreciate so much the Americans 
who have served to protect America since 9/11 and particularly 
always in mind the 13 who were murdered at Abbey Gate.
    With that in mind, Mr. Secretary, how many American 
citizens and licensed permanent residents are in Afghanistan 
today and are any of them currently being held hostage by the 
Taliban?
    Secretary Blinken. Congressman, there are several Americans 
who are being detained by the Taliban. We are working to secure 
their freedom. The families have asked that we protect their 
identities and do not speak publicly to their cases.
    Mr. Wilson. Now, those are being detained. How many other 
Americans are----
    Secretary Blinken. How many other Americans? There are 
approximately--let me put it this way. Since August 31st of 
last year we have helped about 975 American citizens who wished 
to leave Afghanistan do so.
    As we speak, Americans who identify themselves as American 
citizens who identify themselves to us who are in Afghanistan--
some of whom had been there since the withdrawal, some of whom 
went back to Afghanistan--there are about--that we're in 
contact with about 175. Forty-four of them are ready to leave 
and we are working to effectuate their departure.
    Mr. Wilson. Well, their security is just so important for 
the American people and I urge everything. But, again, it's 
just inexcusable, the surrender and the consequence of the 
invasion of Ukraine, the threats to Taiwan, the threats of 
vaporization of the people of Israel and America because of, 
sadly, the weakness that has been displayed.
    Additionally----
    Secretary Blinken. I see this very differently, 
Congressman. I see us ending America's longest war. I think 
that's a good thing for the United States. It freed up our 
ability to devote--focus and resources on Ukraine----
    Mr. Wilson. Well, I--Mr. Secretary----
    Secretary Blinken [continuing]. To deal with rise of China.
    Mr. Wilson. Mr. Secretary, we are in a global war on 
terrorism. It is not over, and by allowing safe havens in 
Afghanistan you're putting the American people at risk.
    It's my understanding there are now 27 terrorist 
organizations actively working. We already know Osama bin Laden 
operated out of a cave in Afghanistan. We do not need to 
learn--we do not need to learn that again.
    Secretary Blinken. Osama bin Laden was brought to justice 
more than a decade ago, as you know, we took out the leader in 
Afghanistan, the successor leader of al-Qaeda, Mr. Zawahiri.
    We took out a leading financier in Somalia who was helping 
to finance any return of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. We 
demonstrated the ability to continue to----
    Mr. Wilson. But it still does not address--you created----
    Secretary Blinken [continuing]. Go at those who would do us 
harm.
    Mr. Wilson. You've created a safe haven in Afghanistan. I 
mean, it's inconceivable, and President Trump was correct. 
Bagram should have never been abandoned.
    With that in mind, the Administration has been inexcusable 
in its delay providing weapon systems defensive to Ukraine. In 
fact, the long-range missiles that could be provided have been 
delayed. These could be so helpful because they could destroy 
the Iranian drones that are currently located illegally, 
obviously, in Crimea.
    And so what is being done to release the latest equipment 
to stop--let's stop a war. We can do that by providing proper 
defensive equipment.
    Secretary Blinken. Congressman, I share absolutely your 
commitment to make sure that we're getting the Ukrainians what 
they need when they need it to deal with the Russian 
aggression.
    That's what we have done going back before day one, 
including draw downs of equipment in September before the 
aggression, in December before the aggression, to make sure 
that they actually had in hand what they needed to repel it if 
it came, including Stingers and Javelin. So the fact--the 
allegation that we were not doing that is simply wrong.
    Second, every step along the way we have worked and led an 
international coalition of more than 50 countries, the 
Secretary of Defense putting together a remarkable process in 
Ramstein, Germany, to rally these countries to provide along 
with us----
    Mr. Wilson. Hey, as we conclude, I want to quote, of all 
things, the Washington Post, March 10. Had a lead editorial 
that the legacy of the President and you will be whether we 
have success and that is expelling Putin, a war criminal, from 
Ukraine. That is victory, expelling him and his murderers from 
Ukraine.
    With that, I yield back.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    The gentleman from Virginia is recognized, Mr. Connolly.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 
welcome, Secretary Blinken.
    Listening to my friends on the other side, especially the 
opening statement of the chairman, I'm reminded of the line in 
the ``Wizard of Oz,'' lions and tigers and bears, oh, my, 
because apparently you have singlehandedly left the world in a 
mess. There's no historic context.
    So I want to ask a series of questions to try to get my 
mind around the history behind things. So, for example, the 
chairman mentioned Iran is about to become a nuclear power. Oh, 
my. How could that happen?
    Well, Mr. Secretary, was there an agreement, I do not know, 
anywhere that actually pushed back the nuclear development in 
Iran and in fact was working in all respects in terms of 
metrics?
    Secretary Blinken. There was. It was called the JCPOA and 
it put Iran's nuclear program in a box as verified not only by 
international inspectors but by our own intelligence community.
    Mr. Connolly. Ahh, I remember that now and I seem to recall 
my friends on the other side of the aisle opposed it. And then 
what happened to that agreement that was working?
    Secretary Blinken. The previous Administration decided to 
leave the agreement.
    Mr. Connolly. I'm sorry, Mr. Secretary. Couldn't hear that.
    Secretary Blinken. Yes. The previous Administration decided 
to leave the agreement.
    Mr. Connolly. The Trump Administration?
    Secretary Blinken. That's correct.
    Mr. Connolly. Ahh, OK. My, my.
    Afghanistan--I mean, terrible thing that happened in August 
2021. But did it have any antecedent? For example, was there 
anybody who said, we're going to negotiate in Doha with the 
Taliban and we're going to actually exclude the government of 
Afghanistan we're allegedly supporting? Did that happen?
    Secretary Blinken. The previous Administration had a 
negotiated agreement with the Taliban that called for the 
withdrawal of all American forces from Afghanistan by May 31st 
of 2021, released 5,000 Taliban prisoners and----
    Mr. Connolly. Oh, those terrorists that Mr. Wilson was 
concerned about.
    Secretary Blinken. In addition, drew down our own forces 
over time to 2,500----
    Mr. Connolly. Oh, my goodness.
    Secretary Blinken [continuing]. When the present 
Administration took office.
    Mr. Connolly. And that was also--was that the Biden 
Administration?
    Secretary Blinken. As I said, that was the previous 
Administration.
    Mr. Connolly. Well, I'm sorry. Did that have a name?
    Secretary Blinken. The Trump Administration.
    Mr. Connolly. Trump Administration. Thank you. OK.
    Was there a president of the United States who said that he 
believed the word of, you know, a sociopath, Vladimir Putin, 
over his own intelligence community with respect to Russian 
interference in American elections? Did that happen?
    Secretary Blinken. I recall press accounts to that to that 
effect, yes.
    Mr. Connolly. And did that president have a name?
    Secretary Blinken. I believe that was President Trump.
    Mr. Connolly. Was there a president who denied Javelins, a 
critical part of the arsenal for Ukraine to defend itself 
before the war that began last February and March, over a 
political issue, trying to get dirt on a political opponent? 
Did that happen?
    Secretary Blinken. Based on press accounts and testimony 
before Congress I believe that it did, yes.
    Mr. Connolly. And who was that?
    Secretary Blinken. That was the previous president, 
President Trump.
    Mr. Connolly. President Trump. Was there a president who 
disparaged anyone that said it was obsolete and we probably do 
not really need it anymore? Any president ever say that in the 
history of--since the founding 73 years ago of NATO?
    Secretary Blinken. Based on public statements that I've 
read, yes, I believe that President Trump said that.
    Mr. Connolly. And from your point of view as the 
Secretary--current Secretary is NATO playing any kind of 
nonobsolete role in the current war in Europe?
    Secretary Blinken. NATO is playing an absolutely essential 
vital role in ensuring the security of Europe and deterring 
further aggression by Russia against Europe.
    Mr. Connolly. Most of us kind of find--you know, we're 
worried about the climate. Was there any kind of, I do not 
know, international agreement on the climate accord that had 
every nation on Earth as a member except for two?
    Secretary Blinken. That would be the Paris Agreement.
    Mr. Connolly. And what happened to that?
    Secretary Blinken. The United States at one point withdrew 
from the Paris Agreement. President Biden reengaged us in 
Paris.
    Mr. Connolly. And again, Mr. Blinken, did that President 
who withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord that had all 
countries on Earth but two, who--what was the name of that 
president who withdrew us from that?
    Secretary Blinken. Again, in this case the Trump 
Administration withdrew from that agreement.
    Mr. Connolly. Well, I just say there might be--we might all 
have cause to say lions, tigers, and bears, oh my, but it ain't 
about the Biden policies. It's about the previous 
Administration that left a mess and that cost lives because of 
the decisions made or not made with respect to relations across 
the board.
    I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    We appreciate that performance. It was quite entertaining. 
The chair now recognizes----
    Mr. Connolly. I would just say to the chairman with respect 
I did not mean for it to be entertaining.
    Chairman McCaul. Yes, right.
    Mr. Connolly. I meant for it to be----
    Chairman McCaul. The chair recognizes Mr. Perry----
    Mr. Connolly [continuing]. To be a statement of history.
    Mr. Meeks. It was factual. It was factual.
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. I thank the Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, we're honored by your presence. I just note 
from your resume you've been at this a long time. Just went 
from 1994 to the present. You've been at the State Department, 
National Security Council, Center for Strategic and 
International Studies, State--correction, you were director of 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Deputy Assistant to the 
President of the United States for national security, adviser 
to the Vice President, deputy national security adviser, deputy 
Secretary of State and of course, now the Secretary of State.
    So you got a lot of experience. Do you consider the Wuhan 
Institute of Virology as a civilian institution as it presents 
itself to be?
    Secretary Blinken. Congressmen, particularly in China, 
institutions that present themselves as civilian in practice 
are usually organs of the State and in any event even when they 
are on paper private answer to the State.
    Mr. Perry. So does that mean you----
    Secretary Blinken. In the particular instance of Wuhan, I 
cannot speak directly to it except to say that in a sense it 
does not matter because they answer to the State.
    Mr. Perry. Well, OK. So in 2005 when you were director of 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did you know that China 
was not in compliance with the chemical and bioweapons treaty 
obligations for which it was supposed to comply?
    Secretary Blinken. We have had concerns over many years 
about the compliance of a number countries including China.
    Mr. Perry. That's not the question I asked you. Were you 
aware that they were not in compliance. It is 2005. I mean, I 
just kind of went through your resume here a little bit. I 
mean, you were deeply in at that point. Were you aware? Did you 
know?
    Secretary Blinken. I would have to go back and look. That's 
almost 20 years ago. I cannot tell you at that particular point 
in time.
    Mr. Perry. Do you know now?
    Secretary Blinken. We have real concerns about the 
compliance----
    Mr. Perry. I know you have concerns. I'm asking if you 
know.
    Secretary Blinken. I'm telling you that we have--that we 
have real concerns about their compliance, the compliance----
    Mr. Perry. So are they in compliance or aren't they?
    Secretary Blinken. So this is something that we can take up 
in a different setting. But we have real concerns about 
compliance.
    Mr. Perry. Did you know about China's offensive biological 
weapons program and the CTP's Academy of Military Medical 
Sciences?
    Secretary Blinken. I cannot speak to individual 
institutions and I would have to go back and look to the----
    Mr. Perry. Sir, you're the Secretary of State. This is 
important stuff. You cannot tell if the CCP is currently 
complying with the bioweapons treaty obligations. You cannot 
tell us whether you know about China's offensive biological 
weapons program.
    Are you familiar with the fact that the Academy of Military 
Medical Sciences worked with the Wuhan Institute of Virology 
who received money from the United States of America, 
particularly the State Department, the Defense Department, the 
USAID, the NIH? Are you familiar with that?
    Secretary Blinken. As I said, Congressman, I'm familiar 
with the fact that as a practical matter there is little 
difference between purportedly private organizations and the 
State, and the fact that there was collaboration or would be 
collaboration between this particular institute and the State, 
including the Chinese military, is certainly no surprise.
    By the way, one of the reasons----
    Mr. Perry. OK. So----
    Secretary Blinken. One of the reasons it's particularly 
helpful that we actually have programs to give us----
    Mr. Perry. Are you familiar with the fact that----
    Secretary Blinken [continuing]. Eyes and ears into the 
Chinese CDC and into places like Wuhan----
    Mr. Perry. Sir----
    Secretary Blinken [continuing]. Precisely to have a better 
understanding of what's going on.
    Mr. Perry. I know you want to understand. I know you're 
concerned. Are you familiar with the fact that the Chinese 
Communist Party announced that they were collaborating on 
chimeric viruses and that the CCP declared Coronaviruses were 
the leading edge of genetic weapons warfare? Do you know that?
    Secretary Blinken. Again----
    Mr. Perry. You're the Secretary of State.
    Secretary Blinken. I'm happy to look at each of those 
statements, the documentation behind them. I cannot speak to 
the specifics. I can tell you that, again, we have had for a 
long time, continue to have, real concerns about compliance 
from China with biological weapon production and chemical 
weapon production.
    Mr. Perry. I know you have concerns, sir. Do you know 
that--during your time--during your time, sir, in all these 
lofty positions contracts, including ones with the State--the 
Department of State, DoD, USAID, et cetera, paid for research 
at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Academy of Military 
Medical Sciences, and there were reports that the CCP may have 
double billed the U.S., since we have declared that the CCP has 
an illicit bioweapons program should American taxpayers be 
funding this, No. 1?
    No. 2, should we trust that China will do the right thing 
in its part with this WHO-proposed convention?
    Secretary Blinken. We should not trust. We should verify 
that that's exactly what----
    Mr. Perry. What about paying? Should the American taxpayers 
pay for this?
    Secretary Blinken. I'm not sure what the this is, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Perry. The research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology 
in collaboration with the Academy of Military Medical Sciences 
for biological weapons.
    Secretary Blinken. We're not--we're not paying for that. As 
I said, in the past we have had programs where our scientists 
as well as our embassy have had the ability to have eyes and 
ears in some of these places precisely so that we would have a 
better understanding of what was going on and, in particular, 
to see if there were any safety or security concerns.
    There was one program that was before my time that ended in 
2019 that USAID was engaged in that--as I said, that program 
ended in 2019. It wasn't involved in so-called gain of function 
research.
    But as a general proposition the benefit of these programs 
is to give us greater visibility on what's going on in places 
that we otherwise do not have eyes and ears on.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.
    Mr. Keating?
    Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 
Secretary.
    There's not a hotspot, seems to me, in the world that you 
haven't been at since you assumed this office and I want to 
personally thank you for your personal commitment, your 
family's sacrifice--clearly, in the tradition of your late 
father--for all this work.
    I want to thank you, too, for your work trying to help Paul 
Whelan, who will be this month spending his 53d birthday in a 
Russian work camp, 4 years wrongfully detained by the Russian 
Federation and Vladimir Putin.
    So, Mr. Secretary, I'm holding in my hand a memo--a letter 
from the Russian Federation dated February 17th, 2022, and 
that's 7 days before Putin unleashed approximately 190,000 of 
his troops that were amassed on the Ukraine border with an 
effort to overtake Ukraine's capital, topple its government, 
set up a puppet government, and control Ukraine. I assume 
you're aware of this letter. It's an important letter because 
it makes clear what Putin's military demands were and they go 
far beyond Ukraine right in this memorandum, right in this 
letter.
    Putin made no bones about the fact what his military 
demands were as he was prepared to amass these troops. His 
demands were that he would take measures necessary if things 
did not change beyond Ukraine.
    In fact, he wanted to unwind the clock of history back to 
reinstituting Soviet like era boundaries and restrictions and 
he wanted to effectively disarm one-half of NATO, particularly 
the areas that are most vulnerable in the Baltic States.
    So here it is in black and white, and if we fail in 
assisting Ukraine to defend itself we know what's next and we 
know what the U.S. will honor in its Article 5 commitments 
should he do what he's threatened to do here if he did not have 
his demands met and that means if need be deploying American 
troops on the ground as we're required to, as President Biden 
has reaffirmed and President Obama has reaffirmed and President 
Bush has reaffirmed and every Republican and Democratic 
presidents after Bush has reaffirmed since this was relevant.
    And is it clear to you, Mr. Secretary, we will do 
everything we do--can do to honor those Article 5 concerns 
including, if necessary, troops on the ground?
    Secretary Blinken. The President has made that absolutely 
clear.
    Mr. Keating. I say that because there are voices in this 
country right now, including voices seeking to be commander in 
chief in this country, that say that a mere phone call to 
Vladimir Putin and an agreement to seize all that territory 
that was illegally garnered by Russia through war crimes, 
through horrors that are unspeakable, the type of things that 
we haven't seen in Europe since the 1930's, but merely cede 
that away and walk away from our obligation.
    And there are other voices, too, voices dismissing the 
actions that Putin has taken--illegal horrific actions--and 
merely calling them a territorial dispute that the U.S. has no 
play in.
    We have to be aware of what's next. We have to be aware 
where we stand in this terrible time in history. We do not 
stand alone, fortunately, because of the commitment of 
President Biden and yourself and others to put together a 
coalition that Putin thought was unattainable because it was 
necessary. We couldn't win by ourselves.
    So this coalition is in place and what we--what stands in 
our way is not just defending Ukraine's interest, not just 
defending NATO's interests, not just defending Europe's 
interest, but defending the U.S. self-interest, and that's the 
point of our involvement in Ukraine.
    And here it is in black and white, Putin's declaring 
exactly what it was. Let's not fail to acknowledge what he 
himself wants. And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Issa.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, well, we'll kind of look backward and 
forwards.
    Next month you'll mark your 61st birthday and----
    Secretary Blinken. Don't remind me.
    Mr. Issa. Well, you know, at my age, you know, I'm jealous.
    But, Mr. Secretary, you're one of the most qualified 
secretaries during my tenure. You have spent a very long time 
learning history and being prepared to not repeat it. So I'm 
going to give you just a couple of names--Saigon, Tehran, 
Benghazi, Tripoli, and Kabul.
    Each one of those to most people in the State Department 
represent a failure to smoothly withdraw, a failure to 
anticipate, and the like.
    Now, the chairman had a fairly lengthy discussion with you 
about what the committee wants and needs in order to do its 
oversight and in a very Kissinger like way you gave answers not 
to his questions but answers that were the ones that you came 
here prepared to give.
    Mr. Secretary, I have with me--you'll recognize it--this is 
what your discovery looks like often. This is actual discovery 
from the State Department.
    I might suggest to you after our mutual many years of doing 
this that your best choice is accommodation when appropriate, 
compliance when a subpoena comes, which means that this sort of 
redaction cannot and shall not be accepted by Congress once a 
subpoena is issued.
    I might also suggest that if you deliver something under 
the cloak of being secret or top secret that redaction is, by 
definition, inappropriate, that, in fact, if we view in camera 
redaction is inappropriate. If today you can make the 
commitment that when the accommodations to this and other 
committees, but particularly this committee--when the 
accommodation is that we receive information in some in camera 
form that it be delivered sooner, not later, and redacted only 
for actual claimed privileges--if you can make that commitment 
I think the chairman can rest assured that we will not be 
getting what I sometimes call a black cow eating a licorice at 
midnight.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate 
that.
    What I can commit to is this. I can commit, as I have 
committed to the chairman, to find a way to make sure that this 
committee gets the information that it rightly needs to conduct 
its oversight and I need to do that in a way that, of course, 
as I said in the case of the dissent channel cable protects the 
integrity of that process but making sure that you get the 
information.
    More broadly when it comes to documents, of course, we have 
national security considerations. There may be legal 
considerations. But I take the point that you're making. I want 
to make sure that you get the information and that information 
is not----
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Secretary, since you've sat behind the us, 
the senators, and you've been on the other side, you're well 
aware that this coequal body determines what it believes it 
needs to be seen, and with the exception of actual stated 
privileges the court, if we have to go that far, makes it very 
clear that, in fact, we determine, not you, what our 
legislative needs and need to know is.
    So I might suggest that although that answer, again, in a 
very Kissinger-esque, I appreciate it.
    Secretary Blinken. I'll take that as a compliment.
    Mr. Issa. It is. But please put the other hat on that you 
wore when you sat on this side of the dais and recognize that 
the accommodation of sooner rather than later in camera, if the 
chairman and the committee agree to it, allows us to then 
debate the smaller portion that might need to be made public or 
in some other way disseminated.
    I'd like to take an opportunity, because the world is 
listening, to speak past you for a moment, Mr. Secretary. The 
people who wrote the dissent cable are free to come to this 
committee, free to come to our staff and free to come to the 
chairman as legitimate whistleblowers to be fully protected, 
and if they come forward and produce their names then I submit 
to you that at that point the statement you made here today is 
moot--that, in fact, any member of the State Department who 
comes forward as a whistleblower on behalf of dissent of any 
sort leading up to the failed withdrawal from Kabul would be 
taken as a waiver of that history that we noted all the way 
back with the not late and in good health in New York, Henry 
Kissinger.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    The chair now recognizes Mr. Cicilline.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us 
today, and I think we all owe you and the men and women of the 
State Department a great deal for the work that you do every 
single day and I want to thank you personally for that.
    Over the past 2 years the Biden Administration has 
reestablished U.S. leadership on the global stage, deepening 
our strategic alliances and advancing our values and interests, 
and I really am grateful for Mr. Connolly's recitation. I was 
sitting here listening to some of my Republican colleagues and 
wondering did they miss the last 4 years.
    Did you, in fact, inherit an agreement by the prior 
Administration to withdraw from Afghanistan by a date certain 
and that also included the release of 5,000 Taliban fighters 
from prison?
    Secretary Blinken. That's correct.
    Mr. Cicilline. Did you, in fact, inherit a decision from 
the prior Administration to withdraw from the JCPOA that had 
kept Iran's nuclear program in check?
    Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
    Mr. Cicilline. And you inherited a departure from the Paris 
Climate Accord?
    Secretary Blinken. That's right.
    Mr. Cicilline. You also followed and Administration that 
undermined the importance of NATO?
    Secretary Blinken. Well, that's a question of judgment.
    Mr. Cicilline. The prior president, President Trump, made 
public statements about the obsolescence of NATO, correct?
    Secretary Blinken. I believe that's correct. Yes.
    Mr. Cicilline. And now they've proposed a budget that would 
decimate the development and diplomatic budget by up to 22 
percent. Is that correct?
    Secretary Blinken. We have shared our concerns about 
proposed cuts to the budget proposal.
    Mr. Cicilline. And I do not remember hearing from my 
Republican colleagues on this committee criticize any of those 
five events. And so it's rich to hear today this, as I think 
Mr. Connolly said, lions and tigers and bears, oh, my.
    So I want to ask you, Secretary Blinken, first, with 
respect to the U.S. obligations in multilateral organizations 
and peacekeeping entities, how do you assess the damage that is 
caused to U.S. credibility by our failing to stay current with 
our obligations and if Congress were to grant the requested 
funds and authorities, how would the U.S. be able to change the 
dynamics in these institutions in our favor and in the 
advancement of the national security interests of the United 
States?
    Secretary Blinken. Congressman, thank you for raising that.
    I think it's an important point because we find ourselves 
in a--almost contorted ourselves in that we are by far the 
largest contributor to most of the programs in these 
organizations and, yet, precisely because we find ourselves in 
some instances in arrears, our competitors, our adversaries 
point to that to say that we're actually not doing our part. 
We're not serious about those organizations.
    So it actually undermines our standing and undermines our 
diplomacy. It's something we constantly have to correct, and I 
think that could be easily rectified by simply making sure that 
we're current with our obligations.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
    Mr. Secretary, earlier this week I traveled to the United 
Nations in New York to attend the second ever Arria-formula 
meeting at the U.N. Security Council to focus on the specific 
vulnerabilities of LGBTQI+ persons and, particularly, we heard 
about an increase in violence and anti-LGBTQI+ rhetoric and 
legislation throughout the continent of Africa.
    Can you just speak to what you are doing, what the 
embassies are doing, in terms of staff and resources and 
coordination to confront these threats and what Congress can do 
to help in that effort?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you. This is a deep concern of 
ours. We have seen that marginalized groups, particularly the 
LGBTQI+ community in many countries, is under increased threat 
and increased siege. In fact, as you--I think you know, we put 
out just this week and I put out personally our annual Human 
Rights Report and one of the things that it documents is 
precisely that.
    So we're very much engaged around the world in a variety of 
ways in trying to make sure that we are advocating, 
encouraging. pressing countries to uphold the rights of all 
marginalized communities, including the LGBTQI+ community, and 
that they are in the first instance, of course, protecting and 
defending those rights and in the second instance not taking 
measures that would further undermine those rights.
    We do it in different ways in different places. We try to 
make sure that we're both sensitive to local considerations 
because we want to be as effective as we can be. So sometimes 
it's private. Sometimes it's public. Sometimes it's a 
combination of both.
    But our embassies are seized with this and this really goes 
to, I think, a core tenet of view that I believe many Americans 
share, which is that all democracies are strengthened by 
protecting vulnerable populations, whatever they may be.
    We're equally engaged on pushing back against the 
persecution of religious minorities around the world. We see 
that, too, as a huge problem.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Finally, Turkey's use of its existing F-16 fleet to 
challenge Greek sovereignty and its refusal to rule out using 
upgraded F-16s to do so and continue to violate Greek 
territorial airspace undermines NATO unity, and I know that's 
an important priority for you.
    Would you speak to what steps the Administration is taking 
to ensure that American weapons are not used to threaten allies 
and partners in Greece, Cyprus, and northern Syria?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you, Congressman.
    The focus of our efforts, whether it's with Turkey, whether 
it's with Greece, whether it's with any other NATO ally, is to 
make sure that they have the equipment and technology that they 
need to be fully interoperable with NATO, to make sure that 
they can do everything that they need to do as a NATO ally, 
while at the same time, of course, ensuring that to the extent 
there are any disputes between them that any equipment or 
technology we provide is not used in furtherance of those 
differences or those disputes.
    So that's, certainly, the case. We believe that Turkey 
should get the upgraded F-16s and the modernization package for 
their existing F-16s. We think it's important to NATO, 
important to the alliance.
    At the same time we are working assiduously to try to 
ensure that any tensions that exist between NATO allies, in 
this case Greece and Turkey, are abated and end and that they 
do not engage in either actions or rhetoric that would inflame 
the situation.
    So I was just in both Turkey and Greece. Of course, Turkey 
had the devastating mind-boggling earthquake. Shortly after I 
was in Greece we had the horrific train accident. Our hearts 
and our hands, actually, are going to try to help both 
countries in both situations.
    But, at the same time, we want to make sure----
    Mr. Mast [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Secretary Blinken [continuing]. Tensions in the eastern 
Mediterranean----
    Mr. Mast. The chair now recognizes the vice chair of the 
full committee, Mrs. Wagner.
    Mrs. Wagner. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you, 
Secretary Blinken, for your service and your time today.
    Mr. Secretary, yesterday the House passed the Taiwan 
Assurance Implementation Act. This is my bipartisan legislation 
I worked on with Mr. Connolly and others that requires the 
State Department to provide robust reporting on engagement with 
Taiwan and ask that the U.S. remove self-imposed barriers to 
engagement.
    I am urging my colleagues in the Senate to take up my 
legislation and send it to the President's desk so we can work 
toward tangible and sustained progress in the U.S.-Taiwan 
relationship.
    The United States must demonstrate resolute and unflinching 
support for this important democratic partner as it faces 
increased bullying and coercion by the People's Republic of 
China.
    In the meantime, I hope that you will help us understand 
how the State Department's budget will move this critical 
partnership in the right direction because I am worried, 
frankly, that State's current approach is overly concerned with 
avoiding even the slightest chance of offending Beijing.
    Mr. Secretary, I hope that we can all agree that our 
confrontation with China represents a generational challenge 
for the United States and its partners. However, I was 
concerned to see so little priority given to U.S. arms sales 
and other security assistance programs in the Indo-Pacific.
    If the Indo-Pacific is the decisive theater why is foreign 
military financing for East Asia and the Pacific third in 
priority with only 2 percent of the proposed funding going 
toward the region?
    Secretary Blinken. First of all, thank you, and I 
appreciate your focus on this. I look forward to reading what 
you've put forward.
    Let me mention just quickly, by the way, that at the 
beginning of this Administration we liberalized our contact 
guidance when it comes to our engagement with Taiwan precisely 
to make sure that U.S. engagement with Taiwan better reflects 
the broadening, deepening unofficial relations that we have and 
that guidance has been out for nearly 2 years.
    When it comes to the foreign military financing, sales, et 
cetera, just to focus on Taiwan for a second then we can 
broaden out, I have signed more of these agreements than any 
previous Secretary of State and in the last couple of years we 
have provided for an additional $5 billion in defense-related 
sales to Taiwan. This builds on a long record going back over 
many Administrations.
    Mrs. Wagner. But, yet, that foreign aid--the weapons are 
not making it to Taiwan.
    Secretary Blinken. Well, so you have--there you have an 
important point and the challenge that we're facing across the 
board lies not with my department even as we work to streamline 
everything that we're doing.
    And as I said, I signed out more of these than any previous 
secretary. We have real production challenges across the board, 
production challenges that have built up over many years as 
various lines have gone dormant, COVID, supply chain problems.
    All of these things have come to a head. That's exactly 
what the Defense Department and industry are working on right 
now and my anticipation is you're going to see significant 
progress on that.
    But it's not for want of trying to make sure that all of 
our partners----
    Mrs. Wagner. But time is of the essence, Mr. Secretary. It 
truly is, and a situation and the confrontation that could 
occur between China and Taiwan and our other partners is before 
us.
    In the most recent National Defense Authorization Act, 
Congress authorized up to $2 billion in this foreign military 
funding grants to Taiwan for each of fiscal years 2023 through 
2027, which would allow the United States and Taiwan to engage 
in joint long-term planning for the acquisition, deployment, 
and sustainment of critical capabilities.
    Why is Taiwan not a priority ask funding or attention in 
FMF?
    Secretary Blinken. Taiwan is a priority and, as you know, 
we have many different ways of doing this. So we appreciate the 
authority. We put together in the budget a new fund to look at 
emerging priorities for FMF. Taiwan would be included in that.
    At the same time, in the case of Taiwan the most effective 
way to date to make sure that they have what they need to 
defend themselves has been through the foreign military sales 
program. They increased their defense budget by 11 percent.
    They have the capabilities, the capacity, to make the 
acquisitions they need, and at the same time we have been 
working very closely with them in terms of the advice that 
we're providing to make sure that they have an effective 
deterrent and defense capacity.
    Sometimes that goes to significant weapon systems. 
Sometimes that goes to very different things that may not be 
the most expensive or flashiest----
    Mrs. Wagner. And I thank you for that, and I do have some 
additional questions that I will submit for the record. But I 
do submit to you our very bipartisan Taiwan Assurance 
Implementation Act that was passed the House last night I hope 
that the State Department under your leadership will take a 
very clear look at this. It is important as we move forward----
    Secretary Blinken. We will. We will.
    Mrs. Wagner [continuing]. And with the threat of China.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you. We will.
    Mrs. Wagner. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence 
and I yield back.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Vice Chair Wagner.
    The chair now recognizes Mr. Bera.
    Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to, first, acknowledge and thank Ms. Shamblin for 
being here. I know your family's from Roseville, which is 
approximate to my district in Sacramento County, and from what 
I've learned about Nicole she loved being a Marine.
    She loved serving our country. She loved serving humanity 
and, you know, when I think about what I love about the United 
States of America--so I do not think about this as a Democrat 
or a Republican--I think about what our values are, our values 
of freedom of democracy, the obligations that we have in terms 
of global security and protecting those values around the 
world.
    Mr. Secretary, I want to applaud you and the Administration 
in these first 2 years. You acknowledge that the world has 
changed.
    I mean, there are new threats out there and, you know, I 
applaud the coalition building that the Administration's done 
and keeping the coalition together and protecting and 
preserving the freedom of the Ukrainian people and the country 
there.
    I also want to applaud the trilateral alliance with Japan 
and Korea, which is at a very different place today than when 
you came into office, elevating the Quad coalition. And in this 
21st century security architecture it will take coalitions of 
like-valued countries that really do share those values, the 
values that Nicole held dearly, and the best way to serve her 
memory is to continue to preserve these American values.
    You're here to talk about the budget and, you know, 
obviously, an area that I spent a lot of time on is the 
competition in the Indo-Pacific. I appreciate the budget that 
you put forth in our competition with the People's Republic of 
China.
    In the proposal, there's $400 million in discretionary 
funding in the Counter PRC Influence Fund. But there's also 
over $11 billion of mandatory funding that is part of our 
effort to outcompete China.
    It's unusual to see a mandatory request in there and I 
think, you know, what staff informs me is we'll have to as a 
committee put forth authorizing legislation.
    But I'd like to give you a chance to talk about why the 
mandatory funding is so important to--for our efforts to 
compete China.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you. I very much appreciate that, 
and I think it reflects what I'm hearing from many members of 
this committee--Democrats and Republicans alike--which is a 
recognition that when it comes to China this is a generational 
challenge for us and, in our judgment, discretionary funding 
alone will not help us get the job done in terms of 
outcompeting China where we are in intense competition.
    We are providing in the budget and the plan that goes along 
with it new and innovative ways to try to provide viable 
alternatives at scale that discretionary funding alone cannot 
meet and when I say viable alternatives, I mean, things that 
countries around the world--potential partners, existing 
partners--need and are looking for and that the United States, 
hopefully, can help provide.
    We have got long--term projects that need funding up front 
to cover longer periods than discretionary funding allows, and 
the predictability and the insulation from annual fluctuations 
for this discrete set of programs, we think, would be 
incredibly valuable.
    It's a little bit modeled on what we see as the success of 
the CHIPS and Science Act where the State Department was given 
money over 5 years to work with other countries to secure 
semiconductor supply chains downstream and upstream as well as 
to try to make sure that countries that were developing 
information communications technology were doing so in secure 
ways with trusted vendors so that those networks were safe and 
secure.
    That's a good model and it's replicated more broadly in 
this budget request.
    Mr. Bera. And I think it's a model that sends the signal to 
not only the PRC but to the countries in the region. Certainly, 
the 7.1 billion for the COFA countries sends a strong signal to 
the Pacific Islands that America is there, we're committed, 
we're going to be there for the long haul and we have their 
back.
    And, again, this committee will have to work on authorizing 
language. I would hope that language reflects the concern with 
China and that we can do that and work with the Administration 
to make sure that that funding is there.
    You know, just in the brief time I have left, can you talk 
about the importance and of the trilateral relationship that--
you know, and the place where, you know, I applaud President 
Yoon for his leadership as well as Prime Minister Kishida.
    Secretary Blinken. Yes, I share that view, and I think for 
us to make sure that our two closest allies and partners in the 
region, Japan and Korea, not only are strengthening their 
relationships and partnerships with us but are doing so between 
themselves and among the three of us trilaterally further 
enhances not only our security but our ability to get lots of 
things done around the world.
    We bring to bear the strengths of our three countries, of 
course, dealing with challenges posed by China, North Korea 
but, again, in so many other areas including the provision of 
humanitarian assistance including having safe and secure 
maritime domains, working in outer space together.
    There are a multiplicity of things that we're doing through 
this trilateral coordination. President Biden brought the two 
leaders and we're doing that at every level.
    Mr. Mast. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize myself.
    Mr. Secretary, thanks for being here today. I'm going to 
start with the board behind me.
    We have a data base of individuals that are coming forward 
to talk about their experiences with Afghanistan. A couple of 
weeks ago we had Sergeant Vargas-Andrews--amputee injured in 
the withdrawal of Afghanistan. Nobody--nobody--in any agency 
and asked his story whatsoever, even though he was at the tip 
of the spear of what had happened in the withdrawal.
    And so we want to hear as we are doing oversight over what 
happened with the withdrawal of Afghanistan--we want to hear 
everybody's story, any story, whether they're an SIV, whether 
there's somebody still stuck in Afghanistan, whether they're a 
Marine, a soldier, somebody that was on the wall there that was 
brought in to assist with SIVs, State Department, somebody that 
sent the dissent cable.
    We want to hear from those individuals because it is 
important to us that as we do oversight over the withdrawal of 
Afghanistan that we hear everybody's story which has not 
happened to date.
    I want to start with a couple of questions, Mr. Secretary.
    Was Joe Biden inaugurated and sworn in as president on 
January 20, 2021?
    Secretary Blinken. Yes, he was.
    Mr. Mast. And were you confirmed by the Senate on January 
26th, 2021?
    Secretary Blinken. That's correct.
    Mr. Mast. And I do have a copy of your hearings. I want to 
reference one part of it with Senator Graham. On page 38 of it 
you aptly State that any withdrawal should be based upon 
conditions. You can agree with that?
    Secretary Blinken. That was certainly the preferred course. 
Yes.
    Mr. Mast. And moving backward in time, President Trump was 
in--rather, his team in Doha and secured an agreement with the 
Taliban?
    Secretary Blinken. That's correct.
    Mr. Mast. It's been brought up many times today?
    Secretary Blinken. That's correct.
    Mr. Mast. And that agreement--again, I have that directly 
in front of me--first sentence in it peace agreement, four 
parts, guarantees enforcement mechanisms that will prevent the 
use of soil of Afghanistan by any group or individual against 
the security of the United States and its allies, right?
    Secretary Blinken. Mmm-hmm.
    Mr. Mast. Right? Conditions?
    Secretary Blinken. Yes.
    Mr. Mast. So the President agreed there needed to be 
conditions. You agreed there needed to be conditions. Nearly 
every member of this committee so far today has asked about 
Afghanistan to include yourself bringing it up and I just want 
to ask right now will you give us a commitment that you will 
come back here to discuss specifically the withdrawal of 
Afghanistan?
    Secretary Blinken. Congressman, we will make sure, going 
forward, especially as the work of this committee and other 
committees continue on Afghanistan, that the State Department 
will be present and engaged.
    Mr. Mast. Will you come back and answer questions about the 
withdrawal of Afghanistan?
    Secretary Blinken. I'm not going to--I'm not going to 
prejudge that.
    I, as you know, testified on the----
    Mr. Mast. Do you think that you should answer questions on 
Afghanistan and will you?
    Secretary Blinken. We will--I will certainly answer 
questions on Afghanistan one way or another and whatever the 
appropriate----
    Mr. Mast. Will you come here in person and answer questions 
about Afghanistan?
    Secretary Blinken. I'm happy to take that up with the 
chairman and ranking member.
    Mr. Mast. I think you answered yourself. Will you come back 
here if invited to answer questions on Afghanistan?
    Secretary Blinken. I look forward to making sure that I and 
other members of the State Department provide the information 
needed by this committee on Afghanistan, going forward, for the 
work that you're doing.
    Mr. Mast. I hope you do a better job at that than you have 
done to date. I want to move to a couple other questions.
    On April 14th, 2021, President Biden announces the full 
withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Do you know the 
date that he announced for that--that he announced we would 
withdraw?
    Secretary Blinken. I believe you--did you just reference 
it?
    Mr. Mast. The dates that he announced that we would 
actually withdraw.
    Secretary Blinken. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Yes, by September 
1st.
    Mr. Mast. He announced by September 11.
    Secretary Blinken. Early September, yes.
    Mr. Mast. Not early September, by September 11. That's not 
just any date, correct?
    Secretary Blinken. I think it underscores the fact that the 
mission that we set out to accomplish----
    Mr. Mast. He announced we would withdraw on September 11, 
correct?
    Secretary Blinken. You're correct, and I think it 
underscores the fact----
    Mr. Mast. Let's not be bashful about that.
    Secretary Blinken. No, I'm--my recollection, again, had 
been early September. I think--I think you're correct. If 
September 11----
    Mr. Mast. He also said this. He said, ``I concluded it is 
time to end America's longest war.'' I concluded. He said it 
himself. Another quote from him, ``I called President Bush to 
inform him of my decision to withdraw from Afghanistan.''
    Was it President Biden's decision to withdraw?
    Secretary Blinken. It was. He is the Commander in Chief.
    Mr. Mast. Absolutely, and I thank you for acknowledging 
that.
    I want to move to just one other question here and this is 
specific to the withdrawal. On June 24 of that year it was 
announced again by President Biden that we would be drawing 
down to 650 troops specifically to provide security for 
diplomats after the main military force completes withdrawal. 
You understand that being the case?
    Secretary Blinken. Yes, that's correct?
    Mr. Mast. So here's my question. Of anybody that has ever 
spent five had minutes or 5 hours in Afghanistan what idiot 
would believe that is smart to remove the military force and 
leave the diplomats behind? And, obviously, it ended with them 
50 days later having to bring back 3,000 to 8,000 troops. So 
what idiot decided that?
    Secretary Blinken. Well, pursuant to the agreement reached 
by the previous Administration with the Taliban, the call for 
the withdrawal of all of our forces, all of them, by May 31st--
--
    Mr. Mast. What idiot decided to pull out the main fighting 
force before pulling out the diplomats, which resulted in 3,000 
to 8,000 additional troops being sent back into Afghanistan? 
What idiot decided that?
    Secretary Blinken. Again, Congressman, pursuant to the 
agreements that had been reached by the previous Administration 
we were to withdraw all of our forces----
    Mr. Mast. So you're not going to answer the question. Par 
for the course with you. Thank you for answering some of my 
questions today. I hope you answer more of them later.
    At this point I'm going to recognize Mr. Phillips.
    Mr. Phillips, are you here? Yes, Mr. Phillips is here.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. 
Secretary.
    I lost my father in the Vietnam War when I was 6 months old 
in 1969. Fifty-four years later, just last week, I was able to 
visit that country on the other side of the globe and actually 
go to the very dirt on which he took his last breaths, and you 
can all imagine it was one of the most extraordinary meaningful 
experiences of my entire life.
    And I returned to Washington last night and attended an 
event sponsored by TAPS that honors Gold Star families and to 
look at small children--American children--in the eyes who have 
lost loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I want to honor 
you, Mr. Mast, who gave so much of yourself in that effort.
    It's awfully difficult thing to do and all of us, every 
Gold Star family, child, brother, sister, mother, father, 
spends a lot of time wondering if it was worth it--if the loss 
of life was worth it.
    And I just want to thank you for being so dedicated, both 
personally and professionally, to doing your best to ensure 
that the community of Gold Star families does not expand and I 
would simply ask that my colleagues on this committee, both 
Democrats and Republicans, as we litigate the past and 
hopefully learn from our mistakes, because dammit, we sure make 
a lot of them, that we spend equal time and energy to ensure 
that 1 day children who've lost their moms and dads in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and other parts of the world can also return to a 
country that is seeing economic growth and prosperity and 
safety and security, in no small part because of our 
investments.
    And to that end, Mr. Secretary, I want to speak with you 
about flexibility that you need to take advantage of 
opportunities and windows when they arise.
    The Middle East and North Africa Opportunity Fund, which is 
proposed in the new budget, would allow you to respond to 
opportunities as they might emerge in that region of the world.
    So I'm just curious how you envision using such a program, 
how those decisions would be made between State and USAID and 
how you would prioritize that funding.
    Secretary Blinken. These--this funding in particular, these 
kinds of programs in general and the flexibilities that go 
along with them allow us to take advantage of opportunities 
that come up to use our democracy and development programs to 
further peace, to further security, to try to create virtuous 
cycles.
    I think, perhaps, it was the chairman before who referenced 
the Abraham Accords. We have been working assiduously both to 
help deep root the existing partnerships that have come from 
those accords as well as to expand the circle and part of that 
has been something that we put together last year that--it's 
called the Negev Forum--that brought together Israel, the 
United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Bahrain, Egypt, and that in so 
doing is focused on concrete projects among those countries to 
include the Palestinians that can effectively improve the lives 
of their citizens.
    So some of the funding that we have or are asking for would 
be to go to support those kinds of programs. We put together 
another program that actually brings, interestingly, Israel, 
the United Arab Emirates, and India together. It's not the 
Middle East, per se, but it draws it in.
    But across the board we are looking at programs and 
flexibilities that allow us to address the needs, the 
livelihoods, the security, the opportunity for people because 
when you provide that you take away one of the usual 
instigators for conflict, for instability, for things that, 
inevitably, one way or another draw us in and cause us to spend 
a lot more money in so doing.
    Mr. Phillips. Well, I have high hopes for that and I hope--
--
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Mr. Phillips [continuing]. I hope we can achieve it.
    My second question is relative to Special Immigrant Visas, 
SIVs in Afghanistan. I do not think I'm the only one on this 
committee or in this entire Congress who is receiving an 
extraordinary number of calls to our offices from people who 
are trying their best to fulfill our promise to those who 
supported our efforts in Afghanistan and are deeply dismayed 
and troubled by the challenge and the backlog in obtaining 
those SIVs.
    So what is State doing to affect that? Do you need more 
resources? Is there anything we can do? Because it is a great 
challenge for all of us and I think we are missing an important 
opportunity to fulfill a promise.
    Secretary Blinken. We're determined to do everything 
possible to get this right and we have dedicated the resources, 
the focus to it, to make sure that we're doing that.
    We have well over a hundred people at the department whose 
sole focus is this program as well as helping other Afghans at 
risk get out of Afghanistan.
    We have at present a process that you know very well, that 
members this committee know very well, that is pursuant to 
legislation over many years with a dozen or so requirements in 
terms of moving people through the SIV process and we have 
worked with Congress to streamline that, to try to make it work 
more effectively.
    We have at present a large number of people in the 
pipeline. Most of the people in the pipeline are at what we 
call the pre chief admission stage of this or at the chief 
admission stage. That's the point at which it's determined 
whether, in fact, they have met the requirements of the 
program.
    Typically, when you have people in the pipeline we found 
historically that, unfortunately, about half of them wash out, 
which is to say it turns out they're not eligible. Sometimes 
that's because they are genuinely not. In other instances 
people are trying to get in through that program.
    One of the big problems----
    Mr. Mast. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Secretary Blinken [continuing]. Is documentation. We can 
come back to----
    Mr. Mast. I thank Mr. Phillips for his words.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you for prioritizing them and I yield 
back.
    Mr. Mast. The chair now recognizes Mr. Buck for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Buck. I thank the Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here.
    During our freshman orientation years ago when I first got 
the Congress the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sort of 
informed us of the various--the history of war, I guess. It 
started on land. It went to land and water. Went from land to 
sea to air.
    We are now faced with a expanded area of warfare. We're 
going to be looking at, evidently, cyber war and space war. 
It's clear that before, during, and after Russia's illegal 
invasion of Ukraine they used cyber warfare to try to shut down 
government functions, including public utilities, to try to 
shut down the banking system, the health care system and other 
areas.
    It is clear that cyber war is a integral part of any of our 
adversaries' strategy. In addition, Facebook isn't allowed in 
China. The Communist Party has banned it. Western search 
engines like Google aren't allowed in China. The Communist 
Party has banned it.
    No Netflix in China. No Wall Street Journal in China, both 
being banned by the Communist Party. American businesses like 
Microsoft Word can only operate in China after implementing 
stringent restrictions that show the CCP's commitment to 
stifling outside ideas and to isolate information in China.
    America does not place similar restrictions on Chinese 
companies or force them to serve under such onerous conditions. 
Bytedance owns and operates--is owned and operated by the 
Communist Party and is the parent company of CapCut and TikTok, 
two entities that gather extensive information about American 
citizens, including minors. Evidence shows that TikTok and 
CapCut collect the names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP 
addresses, biometric data, facial recognition, defining 
physical characteristics, keystroke logging that can yield bank 
information as well as personal medical histories, search 
history and proclivities, the content of messages sent on 
mobile devices, purchasing information about what products 
online somebody has purchased, file names and types of 
information stored in a mobile device, text messages, images, 
videos, any device on a clipboard, users' activities on 
websites and apps.
    Mr. Secretary, my question ultimately will be about whether 
we should ban TikTok and CapJack in--I should pronounce it 
right I guess--CapCut--in the United States.
    It's clear to me and I think to most people that cyber 
warfare is an important part of any future conflict with China 
or war with China.
    China, particularly the CCP, is an adversary or enemy, 
depending on what language you want to use, of the United 
States. Communist China is gathering information on Americans 
that can be used in a cyber war.
    Communist China does not allow U.S. companies to operate 
online apps in China. Doesn't it make sense to ban TikTok and 
CapCut in the U.S. and do you support such a ban?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you very much, Congressman.
    I appreciate very much the focus that you're putting on 
this. Let me just say as a preliminary matter when it comes to 
TikTok, going back to July 2021 the State Department prohibited 
the use on our devices of TikTok.
    Mr. Buck. Thank you.
    Secretary Blinken. We prohibited embassy contractors, third 
party vendors, from using it to create or manage accounts and 
we have been coordinating with partners across the board on 
data security policies to make sure that they're aware of this 
problem.
    As to the larger question, look, my understanding is that 
what has been proposed--more than proposed, insisted on, is the 
divestment of TikTok of the--by the parent company, and whether 
that answers the mail is beyond my capacity to evaluate.
    But clearly, we, the Administration, and others are seized 
with the challenge that it poses and are taking action to 
address it.
    Mr. Buck. Well, you said the challenge it poses. Is it a 
threat to the United States security?
    Secretary Blinken. I believe that it is, yes.
    Mr. Buck. And shouldn't a threat to United States Security 
be banned? They do it to us. Why do not we do it to them?
    Secretary Blinken. It should be ended one way or another 
and there are different ways of doing that.
    Mr. Buck. That was--that is a very clear answer. I 
appreciate that very much.
    Mr. Secretary, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul [presiding]. The chair now recognizes Mr. 
Kim.
    Mr. Kim of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, thanks for coming before us. I guess I just 
wanted to ask you--start with a question about Ukraine. Last 
year, we passed in this body the lend lease efforts when it 
comes to Ukraine, but I'll be honest, I haven't really heard 
anything about this ever since.
    So I guess I just wanted to ask you has it been activated? 
Has it been used? How are we trying to integrate that into the 
efforts we're trying to deal with with Ukraine?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you very much, Congressman.
    I'm not aware that that particular authority has been 
deemed necessary to use to date. We have, as you know, thanks 
to the incredible support from Congress on a bipartisan basis 
and, in effect, the incredible support from the American people 
provided very significant security assistance to Ukraine.
    Not only that, we rallied other countries to do the same 
thing. We now have more than 50 partner countries. The security 
assistance will be provided mostly through draw downs from 
existing DoD accounts, has answered the needs of the Ukrainians 
as well as the work that our partners are doing. In addition, 
there are some direct sales and other things, but the main 
focus has been the draw down from DoD accounts.
    Mr. Kim of New Jersey. I appreciate that. If you do not 
mind, I'd love to be able to follow with your team as well as 
with the Pentagon just about, you know, what was the 
determination that this does not need to be used at this point.
    But I think you and I can agree, you know, we want to make 
sure that we're being as forward leaning as we can. This is 
such a critical year for Ukraine, so important that this does 
not drag on, because if it does drag on that's something that 
very much benefits Putin, very much benefits Russia, as they 
have that ability to kind of wait this out. We got to make sure 
that that coalition will is there.
    Secretary Blinken. I agree with you.
    Mr. Kim of New Jersey. I want to switch gears a little bit. 
I had a meeting recently with my constituents and they were 
raising their concerns about how Russia was suspending New 
Start, how we're seeing increased nuclear weapon development by 
China, and it feels like we're at this place where we're 
starting to slide here after progress over previous decades on 
nuclear nonproliferation, on drawing that down.
    But, you know, you and I were both dads of young kids and I 
just really worry that my kids are going to grow up in an era 
with just an even greater threat of nuclear weapons than the 
era that I grew up in.
    So I wanted to just get a sense from you how central is 
this in your prioritization as we're thinking about global 
competition?
    Secretary Blinken. I very much share your concern. I think 
we have seen backsliding when it comes to arms control and 
nonproliferation because a number of countries have chosen to 
move in the wrong direction.
    You mentioned Russia pulling out of New Start. I think that 
was a very regrettable and irresponsible decision. This was an 
agreement that benefited both of our countries in terms of its 
predictability, the visibility it gave us and, of course, the 
limitations.
    Now, the Russians say they're going to continue to abide by 
the limits but in the absence of the verification measures, 
obviously, that makes it more challenging to be sure.
    Across the board we have seen movements backward. However, 
at the same time we have been--the United States has been 
deeply engaged with the nonproliferation treaty countries and, 
in fact, at the last review conference I think we actually took 
steps to strengthen the nonproliferation regime. Same thing 
with the Biological Weapons Convention. Same thing with the 
Chemical Weapons Convention, and there remains----
    Mr. Kim of New Jersey. Is it----
    Secretary Blinken [continuing]. A strong core group of 
countries that want to make sure that those institutions and 
those agreements are upheld.
    Mr. Kim of New Jersey. We're no doubt seeing rising 
challenges when it comes to this competition, especially vis-a-
vis China and Russia. But you're at the table with them. Is 
there any appetite at all as we increase this--as this 
competition unfortunately continues to increase to try to take 
some of that nuclear weapon concern off the table? I mean, 
just----
    Secretary Blinken. There is certainly on our behalf. I've--
I and other colleagues have engaged our Chinese counterparts on 
this repeatedly saying that we should at the very least work on 
greater safety security visibility, risk reduction, and----
    Mr. Kim of New Jersey. Especially when it comes to the 
Chinese arsenal. I mean, they are rapidly increasing but their 
stocks are still significantly lower than where the United 
States and Russia are. So, you know, it feels like an 
opportunity here to really try to press on this and I urge you 
to do so.
    Secretary Blinken. And I agree with you and, certainly, of 
course, with Russians, despite the aggression in Ukraine, 
despite the other areas where we are in, obviously, on polar 
opposite sides of things.
    We have said all along that we believe it's imperative to 
try to sustain and even build on arms control agreements 
because it's in the interest of the world as well as the 
interests, of course, of the American people.
    Mr. Kim of New Jersey. I do not have any more time left but 
I do want to just followup with you after this about what we 
can do to make the visit of the South Korean president as 
successful as possible, going forward. I think that's so key, 
especially as we talked about regarding South Korea and Japan.
    Thanks so much, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Blinken. I welcome that. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The chair recognizes Mr. Burchett.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, many of the documents your department are 
providing are heavily redacted. Here's one of the documents you 
produced yesterday with no explanation for the redaction.
    I mean, that looks like the Kennedy assassination files or 
maybe a UFO file, honestly. I think it's a joke. Can you 
explain why it was redacted?
    Mr. Burchett. Congressman, I cannot speak to that specific 
document. I cannot even tell what the document is. I'm sure 
that we can--if there are any concerns about redactions raise 
them. We'll go over them, but I----
    Mr. Burchett. I'm raising them. I'm raising them.
    This one right here behind me on my right seems to be a 
talking points document with redacted answers. Can you give us 
any legitimate reason why the department redacted this 
information or refused to----
    Secretary Blinken. Again, without looking at the specific 
document I cannot get into that.
    Mr. Burchett. Your State department attorneys told the 
committee it should be grateful for having received any 
documents at all after a month--that it was exceptional for 
State to respond to any of chairman's letters before the 
committee's organizing meeting.
    Sir, that's an insult to Congress. It's an insult to 
transparency. It should be an insult to the media. I believe 
that Gold Star families and members Congress and the veterans 
deserve these answers.
    Do you think your attorney's statement was appropriate in 
any way, shape, form or fashion?
    Secretary Blinken. I'm not aware of the statement. I cannot 
speak to it. What I can tell you, though, is this.
    One, I'm determined to make sure that this committee, other 
committees of Congress, receive the information that they need, 
particularly to conduct oversight.
    Second, as a matter of long-standing practice it's at least 
my understanding that previously before committees in Congress 
had been organized the executive branch did not engage with 
those committees.
    Nonetheless, despite that, we began to work on requests 
that we knew were forthcoming before committees were organized 
in an effort to get ahead of things.
    Mr. Burchett. Sir, I would suggest to you what you need and 
what you say you need is in direct conflict with what Congress 
is asking for. You've also stated that the climate crisis is 
the center of your foreign policy and national security goals.
    With the war in Ukraine, fentanyl from China, tensions 
growing over Taiwan, of course, nuclear-armed North Korea and 
Iran, Mexican cartels, violence against Americans, and the 
Taliban controlling Afghanistan, is the climate crisis still 
your central policy?
    Secretary Blinken. I'm not aware of that particular 
statement. I welcome seeing it. I think the issues you've just 
listed, which go very much to the statement I made at the 
beginning of this hearing, reflect the priorities that we're 
focused on.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. Are there U.S.-sanctioned personnel in 
Ukraine? If so, why are they receiving our tax dollars?
    Secretary Blinken. I'm sorry. U.S.-sanctioned personnel in 
Ukraine?
    Mr. Burchett. Yes, sir.
    Secretary Blinken. I'm not aware of that. I welcome any 
information you have.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. Four billion U.S. tax dollars have gone 
to Ukrainian pensions. How is that any shape, form, or fashion 
justifiable?
    Secretary Blinken. The program, Congressman, of the 
assistance to Ukraine has on the ground right now in my--in our 
embassy about 47 personnel responsible solely for oversight.
    We just had a report by the inspector--the Inspector 
General's office--looking at the oversight of the taxpayers' 
funds in Ukraine. The report was very positive in terms of the 
processes that are in place and the work that's being done to 
make sure that money is being spent appropriately as well as 
wisely.
    At the same time, we have in place a process. For example, 
much of the funding that we provide--the taxpayers provide to 
Ukraine goes through a World Bank program that only disperses 
money upon receipts for authorized expenditures and we have 
third party validators to include Deloitte, which is working 
directly with the Ministry of Finance.
    Mr. Burchett. I appreciate all that. But when we cannot 
fund Medicare and then we're funding Ukrainian pensions, I 
really think our priorities are out of whack.
    Let me move on, if I could. A constituent of mine, Staff 
Sergeant Ryan Knauss, he was actually the last person who was 
killed in Afghanistan. He was killed at Abbey Gate. Why cannot 
his family know the full story of his death?
    Secretary Blinken. Again----
    Mr. Burchett. Can somebody get with me on that because it's 
very aggravating to me. The family is--they're neighbors of 
mine.
    Secretary Blinken. I deeply appreciate that, Congressman. I 
would refer you to I think other departments that would be able 
to----
    Mr. Burchett. OK. Let me ask you one quick--more question. 
Are you aware of Chinese spy equipment on U.S. infrastructure, 
particularly in the Gulf of Mexico, and what's your plan to 
stop the Chinese spying on domestic infrastructure?
    Secretary Blinken. This is at the top of our priority list 
and making sure that any adversary competitor that would be 
engaged in undermining our cybersecurity that we're dealing 
with that effectively both in terms of our own government 
institutions, including my department, where we have elevated 
that as a priority, as well as partners around the world who, 
for example----
    Mr. Burchett. Well, what's your plan to stop it?
    Secretary Blinken. So we were deeply engaged with countries 
including Mexico to make sure, for example, that they do not 
take untrusted vendors into their communications networks in 
ways that could impact our security.
    Mr. Burchett. This is on U.S. infrastructure, not Mexican 
infrastructure.
    Secretary Blinken. Again, I'd refer you to Department of 
Homeland Security, to the other agencies that focus on this. 
I'd also welcome seeing the information that you have. I'm 
happy to followup on it.
    Mr. Burchett. Please have someone contact me.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you. I will do that. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The chair recognizes Ms. Manning.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 
Secretary, for being with us today and for your service to our 
country.
    Mr. Secretary, we are experiencing a frightening global 
rise in anti-Semitism, including violent attacks against Jews 
and Jewish institutions, the spreading of conspiracy theories 
online, the scapegoating of Jews for the pandemic, for a wide 
variety of problems, and greater peril for Jews around the 
world.
    The Pew Research Center just released a report with 
evidence of increased anti-Jewish hate and harassment in 94 
countries around the world and the ADL just released a report 
showing a dramatic increase in anti-Semitism, hatred, and 
violence across the U.S., including on college campuses.
    We have in our Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-
Semitism Ambassador Lipstadt, a highly qualified and highly 
motivated person who has embraced her job and traveled around 
the world.
    But we understand from her that her office is hampered by a 
lack of resources. They are having to use contract people 
rather than being able to hire their own staff.
    So I'm asking for a commitment from you to evaluate whether 
additional funding is needed for her office as we have 
requested--a number of us have requested in a letter to 
increase the resources for that office to work on this critical 
issue.
    Secretary Blinken. First of all, I share your deep concern 
about this both personally as well as professionally. Second, 
Ambassador Lipstadt is extraordinary. We're very fortunate to 
have her, the leading expert of her generation, on the question 
and she's doing a remarkable job.
    Third, yes, we'll certainly look to make sure that the 
resources are there for her to do her job as effectively as she 
can.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you for that. And we have a very active 
bipartisan Task Force to Combat anti-Semitism here in the 
house. We have engaged with the Second Gentleman and we are 
anxious to work with the Biden Administration's interagency 
task force to combat anti-Semitism and we hope that you will be 
engaged in that as well.
    I want to go to something that my colleague Mr. Phillips, 
raised. You detailed the--or he--you detailed the very 
important work that is being done to strengthen the Abraham 
Accords in response to one of his comments with the working 
groups that have come out of the Negev Summit, the 
opportunities for the Abraham Accord countries to work together 
on issues that are critical to building strong relationships 
and stronger economies for all of those countries that are 
participating.
    Of course, the one major player in the region that has not 
joined the Abraham Accords is Saudi Arabia and there were great 
hopes that bringing Saudi Arabia into the Accords would enhance 
the effectiveness of those Accords, create a security alliance 
to counter the malign activities of Iran and, as we all know, 
China recently brokered a rapprochement between Iran and Saudi 
Arabia.
    How do you view that new development and what impact do you 
think it will have on the future growth of the Abraham Accords?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you. First, as you know, Saudi 
Arabia and Iran have been talking for several years about 
seeing if they can restore their diplomatic relations. Those 
relations were cutoff, I think, back in 2016 when Saudi Arabia 
put to death a prominent Shi'a cleric, and then there was an 
attack on the Saudi embassy in Iran. No surprise diplomatic 
relations were suspended.
    So they've been talking in Oman. They've been talking in 
Baghdad. In terms of China's role, they, to the best of our 
understanding, in effect hosted the final session that led to 
the agreement. Nothing more, nothing less.
    Now, what I'll say is this. To the extent that that 
agreement, if implemented--and that's a question mark--if 
implemented actually does reduce some tensions and curbs some 
of the deeply objectionable Iranian behavior particularly, for 
example, attacks on Saudi Arabia, facilitating attacks by the 
Houthis on Saudi Arabia, where, by the way, we have 80,000 
American citizens, that would be a good thing and countries 
around the world to include China if they act responsibly and 
trying to help bring countries together to lessen tensions, 
reduce conflict, that's a good thing.
    As I said, I have some questions about whether this will be 
implemented. But if it is that will be a modest----
    Now, on the Abraham Accords, I do not think it affects 
them, which is to say that we are very focused both on 
deepening the Accords among the existing participants and 
broadening it. And, of course, Israel makes no secret that it 
hopes that Saudi Arabia would sign on at some point and 
that's--that remains an objective.
    President Biden's trip to Saudi Arabia, I think, helped 
further the relationship between Israel and Saudi Arabia and 
we'll look to see in the months ahead, hopefully, more progress 
on that. Again, that would be good for Israel. It would be good 
for Saudi Arabia.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I do have specific 
questions about your budget with regard to the use of the 
Middle East and North Africa Opportunity Fund.
    We will submit those to your office. Thank you, and I yield 
back.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your service.
    In the readouts from your February 18th meeting with a top 
Chinese diplomat Wang Yi it is noted that you raised the spy 
balloon as a violation of U.S. sovereignty in violation of 
international law. We thank you for that.
    But it's clear from our own State Department that the CCP 
never gave an explanation for the balloon in your meeting and 
that in this meeting, to their understanding, they said it, 
quote, ``paved the way for the resumption of future high-level 
dialog between the two sides, and the two countries can now 
talk beyond the balloon issue and come back to the negotiating 
table and other pressing issues.''
    That does not sound like you offered any deterrence 
whatsoever for future incursions into our airspace. Why is that 
a concern? Because this balloon flew over Malmstrom Air Force 
Base, our nuclear triad, Minot Air Force Base, Warren Air Force 
Base, Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, headquarter to 
STRATCOM, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Whiteman Air Force Base 
where our B-2s are, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, Fort Campbell 
in my State of Kentucky, Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee, Camp 
Frank D. Merrill, Georgia, Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina, 
Joint Base Charleston, South Carolina.
    Mr. Secretary, this spy balloon should have been shot down 
as soon as it entered the U.S. Air Defense Zone north of 
Alaska's Aleutian Islands on January 28th. Tell me specifically 
what your plan is to prevent further PRC incursions into the 
U.S. homeland.
    Secretary Blinken. We told our Chinese counterparts--I told 
them directly that the balloon flying over the United States--
the spy balloon flying over the United States was unacceptable 
and could not happen again and we're determined to make sure 
that it does not.
    Not only that, as you know, we were able to expose the 
entire program, a program that affected more than 40 countries 
across five continents. That resulted not just in us but many 
other countries going into China and making clear their 
opposition to what China was doing and it's unacceptability.
    So I think the fact that that program has been exposed for 
the world to see has clearly put the brakes on it.
    Mr. Barr. Well----
    Secretary Blinken. We will take whatever action is 
appropriate in any given circumstance to protect the security 
of the United States. In this particular circumstance, as 
colleagues have laid out, we made a determination, first of 
all, when the balloon--when it was clear the balloon was flying 
over sensitive sites we made a determination to, first of all, 
protect those sites with measures that were taken; second, to 
make sure that at the earliest opportunity in ways that does 
not endanger the population on the ground to shoot down that 
balloon and that's exactly what we did.
    Mr. Barr. Well, if I may interject, Secretary, I appreciate 
your dialog. But and as you noted there was no apology, not 
that we were expecting an apology, but the fact that we did not 
shoot it down before it entered our airspace over the Pacific, 
not over the Atlantic, was an invitation for further 
incursions.
    Talk is cheap. Deterrence requires force when our airspace 
and our sovereignty is at issue. Let me move on to another 
question.
    Secretary Blinken. I agree with you. Once something is in 
our airspace and in our sovereignty we need to take action.
    Mr. Barr. This week's summit between Putin--this weeks 
summit between Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping reinforced 
the no limits relationship between those two authoritarian 
regimes.
    In fact, Xi described the visit as a new chapter in 
strengthening relations between Beijing and Moscow. They are 
saying that this was portrayed in China as a bold initiative to 
create a new world order.
    In your meeting with China's top diplomat Wang you warned 
about the implications and consequences if China provided 
material support to Russia for its ongoing invasion of Ukraine.
    But on February 27th we finally received the required 
report from my ACCESS Act giving full unclassified assessment 
of China's support of Russia's illegal foreign invasion of 
Ukraine and that report said that Russian custom records 
indicated PRC firms have provided Russian entities with 
restricted and dual-use products, which can be used in Russia's 
prosecution of its war against Ukraine.
    Chinese State-owned defense companies have shipped 
navigation equipment, jamming technology, jet fighter parts to 
sanction government-owned defense companies.
    The New York Times--since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, 
China has sold more than $12 million in drones and drone parts 
to the country. And then according to trade and customs data, 
Chinese companies, including one connected to the government of 
Beijing, have sent Russian entities assault rifles and other 
equipment that can be used for military purposes.
    So my question is, you know, why are you then just saying 
on February 18th you're just warning of consequences for 
providing Russia material support when the State Department 
comes out 9 days later with an entire year's worth of 
unclassified evidence of China's material support to Russia?
    Secretary Blinken. Congressman, we're focused on lethal 
material support being provided by the Chinese State to the 
Russian----
    Mr. Barr. This looks like lethal support.
    Secretary Blinken. And we're also tracking the provision by 
private enterprises of dual-use technology that could be of 
concern. So this is--this is----
    Mr. Barr. I think we need to sanction China for their 
lethal support. It's not just buying the oil and buying the 
gas. We have documented trade records, custom records, 
providing lethal support now. We need to get tougher on the 
CCP. They are financing this war in Russia and they are 
providing lethal support according to this trade and customs 
data. We need action and I urge this Administration to follow 
suit.
    I yield back.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    The chair recognizes Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. I hope I got 
that right.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Secretary Blinken, thank you so much for being here. The 
political and economic climate in Haiti is deteriorating 
significantly in recent years. The situation is so severe that 
nearly 20,000 people in Port-au-Prince are facing famine, food 
insecurity, the first in our hemisphere record history.
    Insecurity is driving up the cost of delivering aid or 
making some areas completely inaccessible. Humanitarian actors, 
including Haitian-led NGO's, civil society, are working 
tirelessly to meet the needs of people. But a political 
solution is required to address the full scale of this crisis. 
In addition, from January to mid March, 531 people were killed 
and 300 injured by gang incidents.
    How does the budget request reflect the department's 
outlook on the political solution to the crisis in Haiti and if 
it does how does it prioritize it?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you. We have at least two if not 
more interconnected problems and you point to the two main 
ones. We need a political way forward in Haiti that produces a 
fully legitimate government that's able to do the business of 
the Haitian people.
    At the same time, given the absence of security, given the 
profound insecurity it's very hard for Haitians to move forward 
on a political track, never mind conduct elections, and the 
profound insecurity is driven primarily by the fact that gangs 
have authority over critical parts of Port-au-Prince, other 
major cities, gangs, who are doing in many cases the bidding of 
political and other elites, and at the same time are 
overwhelming, in many cases, the Haitian National Police.
    So we have been working on a number of things to try to 
reverse the situation. One, we're trying to break the nexus 
between some of these elites in the gangs with a very focused 
sanctions approach to go at those elites, and not just us. 
Canada, other countries, are focused on doing this with us.
    Second, we have been working to support, strengthen, 
buildup the Haitian National Police, again, with other 
countries, through training, through the provision of 
equipment, et cetera. That has been a challenging process. We 
continue to work on it and more needs to be done.
    Third, our diplomats are engaged with the Haitian 
government and key stakeholders in Haiti to try to move forward 
on the political track and to try to find some kind of 
agreement among them, including with the Montana Group, that 
would allow them to move forward with elections, assuming that 
the security situation improves.
    So we're working on all of those tracks. We have resources 
in the budget to help provide for that. It's primarily a 
function in this moment of our diplomacy and also diplomacy 
with other countries to get them engaged in supporting the 
Haitian people.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you. And also this week 
Ranking Member Gregory Meeks and I introduced the Haiti 
Criminal Collusion Transparency Act, which requires the 
Secretary of State to submit an annual report to Congress 
regarding the ties between criminal gangs and political 
economic elites in Haiti, imposing sanctions on political and 
economic elites involved in such criminal activity.
    How does the budget address the corruption and the 
collusion taking place in Haiti? In addition to that, have you 
seen any advancement when it comes to governance and a 
transition government?
    Secretary Blinken. So yes, I think you underscore the very 
important point that trying to break this nexus between 
political elites and the gangs is critical and that's exactly 
what our focus has been and it's primarily been with directly 
targeting those elites that are supporting gangs who are trying 
to use them to advance their own their own purposes, including 
denying them the ability to come to the United States, going 
after their assets here. Many of the people in question like to 
go back and forth.
    So I think that focus has some real potential. And as I 
said, our diplomats are deeply engaged, working both with the 
government, with stakeholders like the Montana Group, to see if 
we can help support an agreed way forward on getting to 
elections.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Since being elected to Congress 
I've led charge on many issues concerning the Republic of 
Haiti. In December, a few of my colleagues went on a CODEL to 
the U.N. where we had--were briefed on the dire situation in 
Haiti.
    It was during this briefing that there are many 
conversations about potential intervention. Does this budget 
have any--allow any money for the potential intervention to the 
Republic of Haiti?
    Secretary Blinken. So what we're looking at, and we're 
talking to a number of other countries to include Canada, is 
what would be necessary to, again, help strengthen the Haitian 
National Police and help improve the security environment so 
that the political process can move forward.
    There's been discussion of some kind of multinational force 
at the United Nations, something that we're actively--the 
discussion that we're actively participating in. The President 
will be going to Canada tonight, in fact, where we'll pursue 
conversations with the Canadian government about what we might 
do together, along with other countries, CARICOM countries, 
countries in the region, to support that.
    But we're looking at the best ways that we can find, again, 
to deal with the insecurity problem. First and foremost, that 
really goes to bolstering the HNP, the Haitian National Police, 
but we are looking at whether additional measures need to be 
taken. And if that's the case--and we're not there yet--we will 
make sure that they're properly resourced.
    Mrs. Cherfilus--McCormick. And my final question, which I 
will be submitting to your office, is about the gender-based 
violence that we're seeing skyrocketing in Haiti, and if the 
budget will be addressing that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Blinken. Happy to look at that. Thank you very 
much.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. Thank you, Chairman McCaul.
    Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for appearing here. I 
was encouraged to hear in your testimony that you want to 
restore Congress's pivotal role in foreign policy process. 
That's a goal that you and I share.
    But if that's a genuine goal or desire of yours, two things 
have to happen. First, it'd be great if you could appear before 
us more than once a year. That would be greatly appreciated. We 
enjoy the dialog. I know you and I've had some agreements where 
we have talked about things, of course, my nearshoring bill. 
Your department did a wonderful job providing some input on 
that.
    But, second, I think you should own some of the mistakes. I 
think it would give you incredible credibility if you did that, 
both mistakes made and mistakes being made.
    One of the worst decisions, and I want to take an 
opportunity to point this out, I think the State Department has 
made is abandoning the asylum cooperation agreements that were 
negotiated with Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras under the 
previous Administration.
    I think this was one of the first actions that you took in 
office back in February 21 and it's been one of the 
most damaging to our homeland security, and I speak as the 
chair of that committee.
    As you know, there are currently no legal mechanisms to 
return a migrant to a transitory country they pass through on 
their way to the United States.
    Despite a humanitarian crisis on our border with Mexico, 
you withdrew from essential agreements with our allies that 
were stemming the scourge of human trafficking and the flow of 
lethal drugs through Central America, and I think that's both 
shameful and preventable.
    The border chief just recently gave testimony to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and he identified the 
empowerment of the cartels by using mass waves of people to 
control five of our nine sectors on our Southwest border due to 
the loss of the ability one of the reasons to return people and 
the termination of these return agreements has been a complete 
and utter disaster, I believe, on many of the metrics that you 
in this budget process say you support. You said you were 
pursuing a free, secure--and I'm quoting--``free, secure, open 
and prosperous world.''
    But I want to tell you that we do not get a prosperous free 
world when you allow cartels to smuggle narcotics and traffic 
migrants across the Western Hemisphere and into our country.
    You've also allowed our relationships with Latin American 
countries to deteriorate. I look at the many, I would say, the 
metastasis of Cubazuela across Latin America, and for instance, 
just recently--here's an example--Mexico, with its increasingly 
becoming lawless, a puppet of the cartels almost.
    I mean, the Mexican military just recently illegally seized 
the private property of an American company, a company with 
significant presence in my district in Tennessee, and rather 
than working to stop those violent cartels and deadly fentanyl, 
taking American lives, Mexico is using its military and law 
enforcement to occupy private property of American citizens--
American businesses--and that's really unacceptable and it 
shows how the perpetual weakness that we sometimes portray in 
this Administration is emboldening the Mexican government's 
lawlessness.
    My first question to you is on fentanyl, and it's killed 
over 70,000 Americans just last year. The Mexican cartels 
primarily use Chinese-sourced precursor chemicals in what is 
the most surveilled society on the planet. They cannot tell us 
where that's coming from.
    I'd like to ask what steps in 2023 the department plans to 
take to counter the cartels' production and trafficking of 
fentanyl into the United States.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you. Thanks for that question. I 
really do appreciate it because I share not only a deep 
concern. This is an absolute top priority for us as I know it 
is for you.
    As you point out, fentanyl is the number-one killer of 
Americans aged 18 to 49. We see the devastating consequences of 
happening in community after community. We seized more fentanyl 
last year or enough fentanyl last year to kill every single 
American. So, yes, we are seized with this. Let me just----
    Mr. Green. And you understand--just I do not mean to 
interrupt.
    Secretary Blinken. Please go ahead.
    Mr. Green. You do understand that it's--those increased 
seizures are a neutralization attack from the cartels. I mean, 
they're flooding the crossing sites so your numbers are going 
to go up.
    The CBP is being thinned and put at those crossing sites 
because they have to because of those mass waves run by the 
cartels, and that's allowing more fentanyl to come in. I mean, 
the dollar price of fentanyl in my district, according to our 
sheriffs, went from $95 in January 21 to $28. So that 
means the supply--you get it.
    Secretary Blinken. Yes. No. No. I really do appreciate 
that.
    Let me just say very quickly this is hugely important and 
we want to work with you on this.
    We are engaged in a comprehensive approach. Obviously, what 
we're--the things that we're doing at home to reduce demand, 
increase treatment, provide antidotes, are usually important 
but while unnecessary, obviously, insufficient.
    We have the border itself. As you know from your work, at 
least according to DHS, about 90 percent--95 percent of the 
fentanyl coming into the United States from Mexico is coming 
from--through legal points of entry.
    We have technology that you, I know, are well aware of that 
can help us better detect the efforts to smuggle through points 
of entry this fentanyl which is being deployed.
    Third, we are working with Mexico to try to disrupt the 
cartels, to try to disband the places where fentanyl is being 
manufactured. Mexico is usually security challenged. That is no 
secret. They have put increased resources into this. Their 
seizures of fentanyl are up.
    The forces they have deployed to deal with it are up. We 
put together last year a joint program to bring our resources 
together to deal with this in Mexico to include also bringing 
in other agencies that are critical.
    Let me just very quickly do two things. Third, because 
your--fourth, excuse me--the international beyond Mexico 
component of this is hugely important. That goes to China.
    One of the things that we know is happening is that legal 
precursors are being diverted into illicit use to manufacture 
synthetic opioids like fentanyl.
    So I have seized the G-20, the 20 leading economies in the 
world to include China, on this. We just had a foreign 
ministers meeting where for the first time fentanyl was put 
front and center on the agenda. We'll be establishing a working 
group to bring these countries and the private sector together 
to work on this.
    One of the things that we can do effectively, I believe, 
that we haven't done in the past, information sharing, 
labeling, ``know your customer'' so that companies that are 
unintentionally having their products diverted into illegal use 
will have a way of dealing more effectively with this.
    Now, one way or another we need to bring China into this.
    Mr. Green. Yes. Please. Yes.
    Secretary Blinken. My hope would be cooperatively. But in 
the absence of that, we have to look at other steps that we can 
take.
    Mr. Green. On a separate note--and I'll be very quick, Mr. 
Chairman--I'd like to connect with your office about some cyber 
stuff that sits in both, as I straddle being on this great 
committee with this great chairman, and serve in Homeland 
Security, I have some ideas I'd like to run by you. Thank you.
    Secretary Blinken. I would welcome that. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    The chair recognizes Ms. Dean.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and the 
ranking member for this hearing today.
    Welcome, Secretary Blinken. Mrs. Herrera, I did want to 
also offer my heartfelt sympathy and the heartbreak of our 
Nation on the loss of Marine Sergeant Nicole Gee. What a 
beautiful and powerful woman. We share your pride.
    I really thank the chairman for allowing you to express 
more information about what the State Department is doing about 
my colleagues' concern about fentanyl and the illicit use of 
the precursors as well as the transportation. As you point out, 
95 percent of the fentanyl pouring into this country is coming 
through legal ports of entry. Sadly, many times in the hands or 
behind the wheel is an American.
    So I did want to let you know that we have recently begun a 
bipartisan fentanyl prevention caucus. Love to work with you 
and the State Department on it. Representative Issa of this 
Committee, Representative Calvert, Joe Neguse and I are co-
chairing that----
    Secretary Blinken. Really welcome that.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you. I'd look forward to doing that.
    In the little time that I have I wanted to quote what I 
read last night in your testimony and what you said again 
today. We meet at an inflection point. There is an intense 
competition underway to determine what comes next.
    The United States has a positive vision for the future, a 
world that is free, secure, open, and prosperous, and I thank 
you and the Administration for that vision, for that mission. I 
wanted to say you also read--and remember this is about your 
budget request and I want to root my questions in your budget 
request to be as effective as we can be.
    You say the budget will help us push back on advancing 
authoritarianism and democratic backsliding. Two areas of the 
world of conflict that I want to talk about--they're quite 
different--are Ukraine and Israel. In both cases, the United 
States is the indispensable nation.
    As I have visited Israel or nations near Ukraine that is 
what everyone tells us. And it is not a haughty statement. It 
is a statement of truth. I'm proud of the Administration for 
bringing together more than 50 nations for Ukraine and my 
ambition, like I think so many others, is that we, this 
indispensable nation, bringing together a coalition bring an 
end to this war as quickly as possible--that it not be a 
sustained war.
    So tell us about the State Department budget request and 
what can that budget request do? What can the diplomatic 
efforts do and are doing right now to make sure we bring a 
quick end to the war in Ukraine?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    First, we did not want this war. We did everything possible 
to try to prevent it. I engaged in intense diplomacy with my 
Russian counterpart--our Russian counterparts.
    So did other members of the Administration. We tried to 
address concerns the Russians purportedly had about security, 
just as we insisted that they address ours.
    Unfortunately, it became apparent--and you do not have to 
take my word for it, President Putin says it directly--that 
this was never about concerns Russia had about its security 
coming from NATO or coming from Ukraine, of all things.
    It was always about Putin's belief that Ukraine is not an 
independent country, that it needs to be erased from the map 
and subsumed into Russia as part of the greater Russian Empire 
and that's exactly what he set out to do and that's exactly 
what we stopped.
    Ukraine's independence, its sovereignty, is clearly 
established. It's not going anywhere. Ukrainians are not going 
anywhere. But, of course, exactly where this settles and how it 
settles is hugely important, and in my judgment and in the 
judgment of the Administration, we desperately want to see 
peace as--although Ukrainians want it more than anyone. They're 
the ones who are subjected to this aggression every single day.
    But it needs to be a just and durable peace and by just I 
mean a peace that reflects the basic principles that underlie 
the international system and the United Nations Charter--
territorial integrity, sovereignty, independence--and it needs 
to be durable in the sense that we do not want this to settle 
in a place where it's easy for Russia to just rest, refit, and 
then reattack 6 months, a year, two or 3 years later.
    So those elements are critical. If we saw any indication 
that Russia was ready and prepared for meaningful diplomacy to 
end this aggression, we would jump on it.
    Unfortunately, what we have seen to date is the absolute 
absence of that evidence.
    Ms. Dean. Forgive me. Because my time is so short, I do 
want to ask you about Israel, another country that suffers with 
its own security from without and the threat of its erasure. 
But it also is struggling internally.
    I want to echo the words of President Biden in a comment to 
the New York Times last month: ``The genius of American 
democracy and Israeli democracy is that they are both built on 
strong institutions, checks and balances, and an independent 
judiciary.''
    As we know, there are troubling crises in Israel. What is 
it that the United States can do? And I know there was a 
conversation or conversations held yesterday to push back 
against what's going on to undermine institutions and to 
undermine an independent judiciary there at the peril of 
Israeli citizens, both Jews and Arabs, both Israelis and 
Palestinians? What are we doing to move forward with a two-
State solution? Is there any hope?
    Secretary Blinken. So, first, we see the extraordinary 
vibrancy of Israel's democracy every single day as they have 
this debate about the future of their judiciary and that's to 
Israel's credit.
    As Israel's closest friend and strongest supporter we talk 
about these issues all the time, and as President Biden said, I 
think, very aptly and very eloquently for both of us when we're 
looking at very significant reforms, I think we both found in 
our history that the best way to have a sustainable outcome 
that people support is to try to find consensus and consensus 
usually requires compromise on all sides.
    So our hope is that that's what they'll do. But it's not 
for us to tell them what to do or how they should do it. They 
have a strong democratic system----
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady's time has expired and I 
apologize----
    Ms. Dean. And if I could followup----
    Secretary Blinken. Be happy to.
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Secretary, we want to keep you on time 
for 1:30.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman McCaul. So the chair recognizes Mrs. Kim.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Chairman.
    Thank you, Secretary Blinken, for being here with us and 
it's good to see you.
    The Biden Administration has highlighted the Indo-Pacific 
as critical to U.S. national security and in the Biden National 
Security Strategy, the Indo-Pacific's importance is highlighted 
stating, quote, ``no region will be of more significance to the 
world and to everyday Americans than the Indo-Pacific,'' end 
quote.
    Yet, in the Fiscal Year 2024 diplomatic programs budget the 
East Asian and Pacific Affairs was the fourth largest bureau. 
So why is it that the department is saying that the Indo-
Pacific is the most important region but treating it as the 
fourth most important?
    Secretary Blinken. Well, I think one of the things--thank 
you, Congresswoman--I think you're exactly right, that for us 
this is the--in many ways the most dynamic, fastest growing 
region in the world.
    We know that it's generated about 75 percent of economic 
growth in recent years. Trading partners, investment partners, 
and obviously, strategically, hugely important and we are a 
Pacific nation ourselves.
    But precisely because of that we have infused the work that 
we are doing in the Indo-Pacific across all of our bureaus and 
so as a result of that we have in bureaus like European Affairs 
Bureau now expertise on the Indo-Pacific so that they can work, 
for example, with colleagues in Europe to make sure that we are 
coordinated and that we're approaching these issues in the same 
way together.
    Mrs. Kim of California. So I want to know what resources 
you intend to use and devote to supporting human rights like in 
Xinjiang and stopping the genocide of Uyghurs and other ethnic 
minorities by the CCP. That is an important area for me.
    Secretary Blinken. So this is--yes, I agree with you, and I 
think this is a central--again, a central focus of our 
diplomacy. We have put a spotlight on the genocide being 
committed against Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang, the 
abuses that are being committed.
    We, of course, have declared it such. We have rallied other 
countries to sanction China for the actions that it's taking 
there, which has resulted in reactions from Beijing against 
those countries including the use of economic coercion, which 
we're also combating.
    We have our own human rights report that I personally put 
out every single year including last week that, among other 
things, continues to highlight this and expose it so it 
becomes----
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you for continuing to 
highlight that. Thank you so much. And I want to talk about the 
very important issue too in Taiwan area.
    You know, last year I spearheaded and got signed into law 
the Arms Exports Delivery Solutions Act that calls upon the 
State Department to find ways to expedite arms sales to Taiwan, 
and in your budget you propose a budget increase for the Bureau 
of Political Military Affairs that oversees arms sales and 
foreign military sales.
    So what is the State Department's plan to use that proposed 
increase in budget to speed up the arms sales to Taiwan?
    I mean, we are thankful that the Biden Administration has 
stated that we will allow Taiwan to purchase more, but I think 
that just underscores the need to deliver what they already 
purchased and pay for.
    Secretary Blinken. Yes, I very much appreciate that and I 
also appreciate what you did. One of the things that we have 
worked on and that I've directed the Assistant Secretary of 
State for Political Military Affairs to do is to look at what 
we can do as our part of the process to streamline the work 
that we're doing on ourselves for a couple of reasons.
    One, as you've noted, because it's so critically important 
in the case of Taiwan to make sure that it has the means to 
deter and defend against a possible aggression.
    But beyond that, we also have countries now in different 
parts of the world that are rethinking long-standing 
relationships with other countries, particularly Russia, and 
are looking to see what direction they might move in. Part of 
that goes to making sure that they have the equipment they need 
to defend themselves and that often goes to us.
    So we're looking at this across the board. I will say that, 
first, if you look at what's going on, the longest pole in the 
tent when it comes to this is production.
    Now, there are process issues that are real and that we're 
working to streamline. But, principally, the longest pole in 
the tent by far is the actual production for a whole variety of 
reasons. So that's--there's a big focus on that.
    In our case----
    Mrs. Kim of California. I appreciate that. But I do have 
one important issue that I did want to bring up. But I do want 
to also thank you, but please find out what the delay is and 
then let's deliver what they already pay for it. That's what 
I'm talking about.
    Eyvin Hernandez is an LA-based attorney who was wrongfully 
detained in Venezuela in March 2022. Last year, I signed a 
letter led by Representatives Bass and Barragan calling on 
President Biden to take the necessary steps to bring Eyvin 
home. So can you provide me with an update on this wrongful 
detention and steps the--your Administration is taking to 
secure his release?
    Secretary Blinken. I share your determination to bring him 
home, to bring any wrongfully detained American home.
    I actually spoke with the family myself. I think it was in 
late January. We have a team that I think you know well that 
engages with the family on a very regular basis led by Roger 
Carstens.
    He and the head of our Venezuela affairs unit have been to 
Venezuela on multiple occasions to try to secure the release of 
those who are being wrongfully detained. As you know, we were 
able to bring home a number of Americans who had been 
wrongfully detained by Venezuela. We will continue that effort 
until we bring Eyvin and any others home.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you.
    Secretary Blinken. I thank you for keeping the spotlight on 
that.
    Chairman McCaul. The chair recognizes Ms. Jacobs.
    Ms. Jacobs. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. 
Secretary, for joining us. Great to see you.
    We have heard a lot of talk here today about Afghanistan. A 
key thing that came out of our last hearing on Afghanistan was 
the need for the State Department to actually be resourced to 
have the capacity that we needed to have to do the missions 
we're asking it to do and I think a big part of that is us in 
Congress having culpability for looking at how we have 
historically underfunded and under invested in the State 
Department and our development efforts, and as we move forward 
to look at strategic competition I think we need to make sure 
that we do not make the same mistake.
    So, Mr. Secretary, if you look at our investments in the 
State Department over, say, the past 10 years, how would you 
characterize them versus the need?
    Secretary Blinken. Well, it won't surprise you that the--
while we have made real progress, especially the last 2 years, 
which I'm grateful to Congress for on a bipartisan basis, we 
can always do more and we should always try to do more.
    Having said that, of course, we have to be responsible 
stewards of the taxpayers' money. The budget that we put 
forward, I think, is an accurate reflection of what we believe 
we need to not only sustain but strengthen all of these 
programs and we look forward to working with Congress hopefully 
to achieving it.
    Ms. Jacobs. Well, I appreciate that and I'm very supportive 
of the 14 percent increase that you all have asked for. If you 
look at the investments we have made over the past 10 years, 
how does that compare with that of China? Have they been 
increasing their investments in development and diplomacy?
    Secretary Blinken. Dramatically, and we have seen a 
dramatic investment by China in terms of both the resources 
that they put into this as well as their presence.
    One of the reasons that we are determined, for example, to 
build back or buildup our presence in the Pacific Islands is 
precisely because they're there and we are not. We have opened 
up in the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu. We're looking at Kiribas, 
Tonga. We need to be there.
    But across the board, we see this. But I also want to make 
something clear because it's important. When it comes, for 
example, to some of the investments that China is making in 
other countries, they have the ability in their system to 
direct State resources at it.
    Our system is different. What we can do and I think can do 
effectively is to serve as a catalyst primarily for the private 
sector to be more engaged in critical areas and that's what 
we're working on. We have tools like the Development Finance 
Corporation that are, I think, critical to doing that.
    One of the things that we'd like to see is lifting some of 
the existing restrictions on the DFC so that it can better 
deploy its equity investments, which we'll leverage 10 times, 
100 times, that from the private sector. That's our comparative 
advantage and we need to be able to seize it.
    Ms. Jacobs. Well, we are supportive of that as well. I was 
just hoping you could quickly talk to the committee about how 
the disparity in the way we have invested in diplomacy and the 
way China has invested in diplomacy is impacting our ability to 
strategically compete around the world.
    Secretary Blinken. Well, again, part of it goes to goes to 
our actual presence and we also very much appreciate some of 
the new authorities that we have for the State Department to 
establish new posts and also to find ways to manage risks that 
are--in a reasonable way including with the construction of new 
facilities.
    But it does go to--not just to the presence but it goes to 
what we were just talking about. It goes to the resourcing of 
these programs and I think we have to be smart and effective 
about it by which I mean, one, leveraging the private sector; 
two, leveraging partners and allies.
    One of the things that we have done, just to give you a 
quick example, the Mineral Security Partnership. We put 
together a coalition of countries so that we can pool our 
information and to some extent pool our resources to make sure 
that we and other like-mindeds and friendly countries are 
making investments around the world in critical minerals that 
we want to make sure no country has a monopoly on, given how 
important they are to a 21st century economy, including 
semiconductors.
    Ms. Jacobs. Yes. Well as the ranking member of the Africa 
Subcommittee, I can tell you firsthand I've heard from many of 
our partner countries that they've noticed the lack of American 
investment in the African continent and other places and are 
eager to see our presence grow.
    Just really quickly, I appreciated that you mentioned in 
your opening remarks about the Diplomatic Support and Security 
Act, my bill which we passed last term, which would relieve and 
incentivize the department to be less risk averse.
    Has the department communicated this specific congressional 
action to the overseas diplomatic corps?
    Secretary Blinken. To foreign--to the foreign diplomatic 
corps?
    Ms. Jacobs. To our diplomatic----
    Secretary Blinken. To our own diplomatic corps? Yes, very 
much so. One of the things we--in fact, I think I recently 
referred to these new authorities in a communication with our 
personnel.
    We have people around the world who want to make sure that 
we're leaning in and want to make sure that we have the ability 
to do that, while, of course, managing risk. appropriately. My 
top job, of course, is looking out for the security and safety 
of our people. But we also want to make sure that we're engaged 
and managing risks in a smart way.
    Ms. Jacobs. Well, I appreciate that and I look forward to 
working together to make sure that RSOs and others have what 
they need to be able to get our folks out and doing their job. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you very much.
    Chairman McCaul. The chair recognizes Ms. Salazar.
    Ms. Salazar. Wonderful to see you again.
    Secretary Blinken. Nice to see you.
    Ms. Salazar. Sure. I'm sure--I'm sure you are.
    So four countries in Latin America, and we'd love to--for 
you to--short answers because you know we have 5 minutes.
    Dominican Republican. Do you think that the actual 
government for the Dominican Republic is racist, yes or no?
    Secretary Blinken. The actual government of the Dominic 
Republic? No. We have concerns about the treatment of the 
Haitian population. But the government, no.
    Ms. Salazar. But then, Mr. Secretary, you have told the 
African Americans in this country not to travel to the island 
and that happened last November.
    Secretary Blinken. We had a security concern and my number-
one responsibility besides looking out for my own people is 
making sure looking out for Americans.
    We have worked with the government of the Dominican 
Republic repeatedly well in advance of putting that notice out 
to try to address the concerns that had been raised. But we got 
to a point where we felt it was important to make sure that 
people could look out for the----
    Ms. Salazar. For you put a travel ban and affect their 
economy, tourism specifically, it has to--you need to have some 
proof and Chairman McCaul and myself we have asked the State 
Department to provide that proof and you have not provided any.
    So having said that, you have the power to retract that 
ban. Are you planning to do that anytime soon?
    Secretary Blinken. We will do it on--based on the facts.
    Ms. Salazar. When?
    Secretary Blinken. I cannot----
    Ms. Salazar. That's what I'm saying. The fact--we have been 
asking for you to prove to us, Chairman McCall and myself, to 
provide the evidence that proves that the Dominican Republic 
government is affecting African Americans and you guys have not 
provided anything.
    Secretary Blinken. We'll look to see what information we 
have that we could share.
    Ms. Salazar. You do not have any because I've been asking 
you and you have not provided, meaning you, your department.
    Secretary Blinken. Again, these determinations are made and 
we worked with the government of the Dominican Republic to try 
to address them.
    Ms. Salazar. By when do you think that you will make a 
decision whether to keep the ban or to retract it?
    Secretary Blinken. It depends entirely on facts whether----
    Ms. Salazar. There are no facts?
    Secretary Blinken. Well, there are facts. The decision was 
made----
    Ms. Salazar. OK. Why do not we do something? Why do not you 
then provide to Chairman McCaul and myself the facts that prove 
to you, to the State Department, that the Dominican Republic is 
really affecting African Americans. Can we----
    Secretary Blinken. By the way, it's also not a travel ban. 
It's an alert. An alert means people should----
    Ms. Salazar. It has the same effect, my friend.
    Secretary Blinken. Well----
    Ms. Salazar. It's affecting a lot of people. It's affecting 
that government.
    Secretary Blinken. There were multiple--there were multiple 
cases of concern, which I'll make sure we share with you.
    Ms. Salazar. Please do. Could you please share that with 
us? Could you commit that we will be given proof?
    Secretary Blinken. We will share the cases of concerns that 
raised this issue.
    Ms. Salazar. Thank you. Let's go to Cuba.
    There are rumors that the United States is preparing to 
remove Cuba from their list of terrorist States. That would 
mean that the Cuban regime would then have a series of--more 
ability to borrow money, to gain oxygen for their repressive 
apparatus.
    Is the State Department planning to remove Cuba from the 
list of terrorist States, yes or no?
    Secretary Blinken. We are not planning to remove them from 
the list.
    Ms. Salazar. Good.
    Secretary Blinken. Let me just be very clear.
    Ms. Salazar. Yes?
    Secretary Blinken. As you know, there is no automatic or 
required review. There are a number of members who have been 
interested in this question. The law provides very clear 
criteria to rescind designations. There is an extremely high 
bar to do that.
    Ms. Salazar. OK. So do you think that up to this hour Cuba 
has met or not met that high bar?
    Secretary Blinken. As we speak, it clearly has not.
    Ms. Salazar. Good. So that means that we--you commit right 
now in public under oath that the State Department is not 
planning to remove Cuba from the list of terror States?
    Secretary Blinken. What I commit to is to the--if there is 
to be such a review it will be based on the law and based on 
the criteria in the law established by Congress and, as I said, 
it's a very high bar.
    Ms. Salazar. Good. So then I interpret that you are not 
thinking of doing that in the near future. Thank you.
    Now, let's go to Argentina. You know that there is a 
Chinese military satellite station in Argentina. Chinese 
military satellite station--that sounds really scary, you know, 
because I'm sure that the Chinese are not looking at the stars. 
All right.
    So last month, your assistant secretary told me that he had 
never heard of it and we're talking about the size of 500 
football fields in Patagonia. So in 2019--I mean, a few years 
ago, the Pentagon said that that base was a threat. No kidding. 
It's the Chinese military satellite station in our hemisphere. 
Do you know anything about it?
    Secretary Blinken. I'm happy to followup with you on that 
and, of course, I wasn't----
    Ms. Salazar. What do you mean? You got----
    Secretary Blinken. Of course, I was not here in 2019. So 
I'm not aware of what was----
    Ms. Salazar. No, I understand. But you are now the head of 
the State Department and we're talking about a satellite 
station right there next to us in this same hemisphere.
    Secretary Blinken. So we're focused around the world, 
including in our own hemisphere, on any concerns that we have 
about the placement of----
    Ms. Salazar. Sir, I'm asking you have you spoken with the 
Argentinians. Because you know something? The Argentinians 
cannot even walk into that. Could you imagine having a Chinese 
military satellite station in Argentina and the Argentinian 
government cannot even visit it? What do you think the Chinese 
are doing?
    Secretary Blinken. I welcome following up with you.
    Ms. Salazar. Cupcakes? So what can we do above this?
    Secretary Blinken. I welcome following up with you. Thank 
you.
    Ms. Salazar. Say that again, sir.
    Secretary Blinken. I welcome following up with you on that.
    Ms. Salazar. Please do. Thank you, sir. I think my time has 
expired to your benefit. Thanks.
    Chairman McCaul. Let me say we're--the Secretary has to 
1:30. I think maybe a little bit longer, with the other hearing 
at 2 that you have.
    But I would ask, we cannot get UC from the minority to 
limit questions to 3 minutes. So but I would ask that everybody 
try to be as brief as possible so I can get to all the members.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Stanton.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. There are 
several topics I'd like to cover in the short amount of time 
but let me start with a simple thank you.
    Brittany Griner is an important part of the Arizona 
community, someone I know well. She's a friend of mine and I 
want to thank the President, the team at the State Department, 
the SPIHA team, as well as you personally, Mr. Secretary, for 
your commitment to securing her return to the United States.
    My staff worked closely with your team throughout the 
process and I cannot say enough about SPIHA's professionalism 
and commitment to returning wrongfully detained Americans and I 
am truly in awe. And as we both know, there are many more 
wrongfully detained Americans abroad, including Paul Whelan, 
and I'm fully committed to supporting you and SPIHA to giving 
you the tools to work toward the return of our fellow citizens.
    My first question is about Afghanistan. Mr. Secretary, I'm 
sure you know better than anyone that one of the most important 
things our Nation needs and you need personally when carrying 
out our diplomatic mission is credibility.
    When we issue a guarantee we better deliver, and we have an 
obligation to take care of those who helped protect our 
Nation's security. Two weeks ago, this committee heard about 
the continued struggles facing our Afghan allies, including 
those who worked alongside American forces and risked their own 
lives to keep Americans safe.
    I've been working with a group of about 50 Afghan women 
called the Female Tactical Platoon that was embedded with our 
cultural support teams and other units and they've run into 
many problems in trying to secure their status here in the 
United States.
    The clock is ticking. If we do not secure their permanent 
legal status soon not only will we have fallen short on our 
commitment to do what's right but I fear it will be remembered 
by the next group of people we ask to help us.
    Can we count on your personal involvement, working with 
Congress and other parts of the Administration, to secure the 
legal status of our Afghan allies?
    Secretary Blinken. Yes, and I very much support the Afghan 
Adjustment Act. We need to--we need to do that.
    Mr. Stanton. Mr. Secretary, I want to turn now to fentanyl. 
Many people think of this as strictly a law enforcement issue. 
But as you know there's an important diplomatic connection 
because our ability to fight the epidemic in our own country 
relies on our cooperation from other countries.
    Much of the chemicals used to make fentanyl that comes 
across our border originate in China. Cooperation on that issue 
with China began to deteriorate in 2019 under the previous 
Administration and it has continued on that path since.
    There have been challenges with Mexico as well. President 
Lopez Obrador dropped all drug enforcement cooperation with the 
United States during the last Administration and he continues 
to be a difficult partner.
    Drug trafficking and the violence wrought by drug cartels 
is an important issue to me not only as a member of this 
committee but as a representative from Arizona and I believe 
there is an important need for diplomatic efforts to see a 
meaningful impact.
    Mr. Secretary, how is the State Department using diplomatic 
pressure to regain Mexico and China's cooperation in stopping 
the flow of drugs?
    Secretary Blinken. With regard to Mexico, because this is 
at the very top of our agenda for all the reasons that we have 
already discussed in terms of the number-one threat that it 
poses to Americans, last year we agreed with Mexico to develop 
a joint synthetic drug action plan to expand cooperation with 
Mexico to deal with the problem of fentanyl production and 
transit from Mexico, bringing in not just law enforcement, 
which is obviously critical, but things like the health and 
trade and regulatory agencies because when it comes to 
illegal--legal precursors going to illicit use it's important 
to bring them in as well.
    We have stood that up. We have seen in Mexico over the last 
year a record number of seizures when it comes to fentanyl. We 
have seen a record number of disruptions of the places where 
fentanyl is produced.
    But it also goes to the point that there is a sea of this 
stuff, and as you know very well--as members of the committee 
know very well, you can produce it in a room the size of the 
corner of this hearing room.
    So it's a massive effort. But the Mexicans are engaged in 
that because we have restored our diplomacy and engagement with 
them. They're putting more police resources into it as well.
    I mentioned earlier the importance of the technology that's 
being deployed to the ports of entry at the border where 95 
percent of the fentanyl is coming into the United States 
through those legal ports of entry. The technology that we have 
to screen for it is effective and we need to get more of it out 
there as soon as possible. I know we're working on it.
    And then, more broadly, internationally. As I mentioned 
earlier, for the first time I was able to get on the agenda of 
the G-20, the 20 largest economies in the world, including 
China, fentanyl and synthetic opioids as an issue that we need 
to work together.
    We'll be establishing a working group in the G-20 on this, 
and in my own engagements with China this has been very much at 
the top of the agenda. We need their cooperation one way or 
another on this. I hope that they will come to actually 
cooperating.
    If not, we'll have to look at other actions that we can 
take to elicit more cooperation, particularly when it comes to 
the diversion of licit precursors into illicit use.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The chair recognizes Mr. Huizenga.
    Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Blinken, over here. Before I get into my 
questioning, I am compelled to say something about Afghanistan. 
I actually represent one of those Marines who was injured at 
Abbey Gate.
    We owe these veterans and their families a deep explanation 
about what had happened there. I, too, agree that we have not 
satisfactorily and this Administration has not satisfactorily 
addressed that. I concur with what the chairman had said on 
that.
    Now I want to turn to the border. Lots of focus on the 
southern border. I want to talk about the northern border, and 
those of us from Michigan, the eastern border--quite frankly, 
the Great Lakes.
    Recently, myself and my democratic colleague Brian Higgins 
led a number of colleagues in on a letter regarding Great 
Lakes--from the Great Lakes Task Force requesting President 
Biden urged his Canadian counterparts to increase their share 
of funding into a lot of the efforts that have gone into Great 
Lakes.
    Quality--there is a Great Lakes Water Quality agreement and 
1954 convention on the Great Lakes fisheries, which obligate 
both Canada and the United States to provide funding for the 
Great Lakes.
    Fiscal year 2024 the United States has through the Great 
Lakes Restoration Initiative an authorized level of $425 
million. By comparison, the government of Canada committed just 
$32.97 million, just under $33 million, between 19--I'm sorry, 
between 2017 and 2022 combined. So that's 5 years they've done 
$33 billion.
    The letter is requesting that the President pursue this 
with his counterpart, Justin Trudeau, and I want to know if you 
have an expectation that the President will fulfill that 
request and also I need to know about you and your commitment 
to doing that.
    Secretary Blinken. Yes and yes, and I can tell you that we 
have been discussing this with the Canadians and your timing, 
Congressman, couldn't be better because as you probably know 
we're actually leaving this evening----
    Mr. Huizenga. Yes.
    Secretary Blinken [continuing]. For Canada----
    Mr. Huizenga. Yes.
    Secretary Blinken [continuing]. And I can assure you that 
will be on the agenda.
    Mr. Huizenga. I'm very aware. I actually happened to--I 
might be new to the committee but I'm not new to the issues. 
I've been chair of the U.S.-Canada Interparliamentary Group for 
a number of terms now.
    I also want to--sticking to our friends in the north but 
expand that a little bit. I want to talk about the Arctic and 
the Arctic Council.
    The Arctic Council came into being in 1996. It's the eight 
countries that touch the Arctic Circle and above--U.S., Canada, 
Russia, Norway, Denmark through Greenland, Finland, Sweden, and 
Iceland.
    There is something in the Ottawa Declaration that States 
explicitly, quote, ``The Arctic Council should not deal with 
matters related to military security,'' close quote.
    Yet, Russia has increased military presence and operations 
in the Arctic and responding actions by the militaries of other 
Arctic States are one source of competition and tension that 
has come to the Arctic.
    According to the BBC, Russia under Putin envisions a toll 
road of sorts to transit across the Northern Sea route that 
would transit goods and energy from Asia ports to ports in 
Europe. As part of that he has militarized and nuclearized the 
Arctic to ensure his chips.
    Requiring access would have to rely on Russia's icebreaking 
escort and we have seen more aggressive military behavior by 
Russia in that area. Additionally, also according to the BBC, 
in February 2023 Canada's military has said it discovered 
evidence of Chinese surveillance efforts in the Arctic. These 
were buoys that they believe China had dropped in there.
    Is it time to, one, reexamine what that partner agencies 
and those partners in the Arctic, those allies, how we interact 
with them? And then as you know, you know, after the Russian 
invasion that the work of was sort of paused. I'm wanting to 
know what the State Department and this Administration plans to 
do to address those issues.
    Secretary Blinken. Yes. I really, really appreciate that. I 
actually took part in an Arctic Council meeting my first year 
on this job. We are committed to and we have a strategy that we 
put out last October, which if you haven't seen I commend to 
you and happy to further discussion on that.
    Look, our goal--shared goal--is to do whatever we can with 
the other countries to try to preserve the Arctic as a 
peaceful, stable, prosperous, and cooperative place. But if 
there are challenges to that, to its peaceful nature, 
obviously, we need to deal with it and we're operating in a 
different environment.
    Mr. Huizenga. Understandably, we have to dance a kabuki 
dance a bit with Russia because they are part of that Arctic 
Council. However, China has to be fourth--at the forefront of 
the discussion of what is happening in the Arctic as well.
    My time is expiring but I look forward to continuing my 
conversation.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The chair recognizes Mr. Jackson.
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you, Secretary Blinken, for 
your candor and your time and your knowledge of the issues.
    In your written statements you talked about the growing 
conflicts, budget challenges, and great power competition. We 
have spent the last three and a half hours--roughly, two and a 
half hours talking--three and a half hours talking about the 
East and the West and curiously missing is the North and the 
South dynamics.
    The world has changed greatly. Africans are one-eighth of 
the human race and we spent less than 1 percent of our 
questions talking about our relationship, going forward.
    Could you please share with us your thoughts that we may be 
missing on the importance of Africa in the New World?
    Secretary Blinken. I very much appreciate that. In fact, 
I'm just back, as you may know, from Ethiopia and Niger, my 
third trip to Sub-Saharan Africa as Secretary, other 
colleagues, including the vice president, who is almost quite 
literally on her way, and as you know, to reflect the 
importance of Africa where in 20 years, I think, we're going to 
have one in four people on this planet will be African.
    We put out a strategy for Sub-Saharan Africa last year and, 
of course, we have the Africa Leaders Summit where the 
President convened and brought together the leaders of more 
than 40 countries.
    We have made significant commitments and joint plans coming 
out of that summit. We have named a very senior diplomat, who 
was retired but is very well known, Johnnie Carson, to oversee 
the implementation of the agreements and commitments that were 
made at the summit.
    And we are in many ways across many issue areas really 
digging into building up and building out of these partnerships 
and that goes to a whole host of issues, some of them 
particularly urgent when it comes, for example, to food 
insecurity where we're not only working to address immediate 
needs, the real focus that we're trying to bring to this, and 
this is what I've heard from African colleagues throughout, is 
the strong desire for investments in their own sustainable 
production capacity.
    And so we're engaging not only the government but the 
private sector in that. I think the potential is enormous in 
many parts of Africa not only to be able to feed itself but 
actually to feed other countries with sustainable production.
    We're digging into trade and investment. Obviously, we have 
some existing vehicles like AGOA. That's set to expire in 2025. 
I think it's had a dramatic positive impact on the ability of 
African countries to trade, including with the United States, 
and we're looking--we'll look to work with Congress on that.
    At the same time, there's a free trade area of Africa that 
is now standing up. That's a hugely important thing because we 
have had this abnormal situation where in the absence of these 
connections among African countries, African countries were 
doing more trade with countries outside of Africa than they 
were doing with each other.
    That will help right the balance and also create greater 
opportunities for investment from the United States because 
you'll have markets that are tied together.
    We're working on that with infrastructure--the 
infrastructure investments that we're making including with the 
Global Partnership on Infrastructure Investment, many of whose 
projects will be focused in Africa, are going to do that and to 
connect countries together.
    We have the Millennium Challenge Corporation that's 
invested in, I think, very significant ways to help, again, 
African trade and investment move forward. Just as I said, in 
Ethiopia we have had work there, but in Niger, one of the 
poorest countries in Africa, actually the MCC Compacts are 
making a huge difference, for example, paving more than 300 
kilometers of roads, working to connect Benin and Niger so that 
there's more of a common ability to trade and more of a common 
market between them.
    There's a lot to be said about this. I really welcome 
following up, particularly the work of the Africa Leaders 
Summit.
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Yes. And two other parts of that 
is one is the 43 out of the 54 African leaders were in Russia 
this past week and so when you talk about new alliances and 
competition for the new market they are actively seeking that 
relationship.
    But the last question I'd like to put on to you is that for 
the--well, it's probably just a statement--that I think we lose 
credibility in the eyes of the world community when we let 
Haiti be so close and yet we're so far and distant from them--
that to have the most powerful nation with the poorest nation 
right at our border, right at our footstool.
    We are an ally of Haiti. They've been a creditor to us. 
They helped us in past wars in Savannah. I would like to know 
that we can unilaterally move in like we have done in other 
countries without a host of cooperation would help Haiti gain 
their independence and truly cement their democracy.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The chair recognizes Mr. Hill.
    Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Secretary, thank you 
for being here. Grateful for your participation.
    I want to talk on Syria. It's the 12th anniversary of the 
start of the Syrian civil war. The crimes against humanity and 
war crimes committed by the Assad regime, Russia, and Iran are 
well known and indisputable, and I'm deeply concerned that the 
Administration has not been even more robust in countering the 
creeping normalization in the diplomatic community to the Assad 
regime.
    Mr. Secretary, does the Biden Administration support 
normalizing relations with Assad?
    Secretary Blinken. We do not.
    Mr. Hill. Have you issued a demarche to those countries 
that you think are romancing diplomatic relations?
    Secretary Blinken. We have and I have personally.
    Mr. Hill. I'm concerned about the UAE, Bahrain, Algeria, 
Oman, Egypt. Visited for the first time since 2011. So have 
they all been spoken to?
    Secretary Blinken. They have including by me directly.
    Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    I think this is very, very important. I think we send the 
wrong message. Let me stick on Syria as the topic and talk 
about H.R. 6265, the CAPTAGON Act, which was included in last 
year's National Defense Authorization Committee. It requires an 
interagency strategy to be developed with the State Department 
in the lead to target, disrupt, degrade Assad's production and 
trafficking of captagon. You're familiar with this?
    Secretary Blinken. I am. In fact, we're working on that 
strategy and we'll submit a report on it.
    Mr. Hill. Do you believe Syria meets the definition of 
being a major illicit drug-producing country or major drug 
transit country under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961?
    Secretary Blinken. I'd need to come back to you on the 
exact definition. But what I can safely say is that the regime 
Hezbollah are clearly a threat to stability, public health, 
rule of law by way of the trafficking, notably of captagon. So 
this is something we're deeply concerned about. I cannot tell 
you without looking at it----
    Mr. Hill. I understand that.
    Well, Senator Marshall and Representative Boyle and I wrote 
you last July about this urging you to take a position on that.
    We never got an answer from you in writing but we did get 
your answer in September when the President did not add Syria 
as a major drug producing or drug transit country. I encourage 
that to be done this year. I think we are overwhelmed with 
captagon poisoning people throughout the Gulf States, another 
reason why I do not understand diplomatic relations by the Gulf 
with Syria.
    We have 150 examples of captagon seizures in the region 
between January 2022 and the date of our letter and 200 more 
between January and the date of the Presidential determination.
    I'd like to submit that letter, Mr. Chairman, for the 
record.
    Secretary Blinken. And also happy to come back to you on 
that, Congressman.
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Hill. Thank you. And just recently, February 2023, in 
UAE 4.5 million captagon pills interdicted. So I think this is 
of concern. I hope you'll look forward to working with you on 
that strategy. Do you have a date when that strategy might be 
available?
    Secretary Blinken. I cannot give you a date. I can tell you 
we're actively working on it and we'll submit it, and I'll come 
back to your office with----
    Mr. Hill. Come back to my office, if you would, say, 
between now and 1st of May and let me know where you stand on 
this. That would be very helpful.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Mr. Hill. Let me yield the gentleman, Mr. James, the 
balance of my time, and I yield to him.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Hill.
    Before I start, I want to thank the Administration for 
extending humanitarian parole for Ukrainians. I have a large 
Ukrainian community in my district and I applaud this. Thank 
you, Mr. Secretary.
    My first question--in 2016, the Obama Administration 
recognized the genocide occurring against Iraqi Christians and 
other minorities. The Trump Administration followed by fighting 
to preserve the full religious rights of all individuals, 
including Christians, to practice their cultural and beliefs.
    I implore you, sir, to make sure that the Biden 
Administration ensures that the rights and freedoms of Iraqi 
minorities are protected. Will you raise, please, the issue of 
religious persecution of the Iraqi Christians with Prime 
Minister Al Sudani at your next available opportunity?
    Secretary Blinken. Yes, I will, and I could not agree with 
you more and this is something that I was seized with. You 
mentioned the Obama Administration's determination. This is 
something I worked on then and we will absolutely keep a focus 
on.
    Mr. James. Thank you, sir.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you for raising it.
    Mr. James. Second question. As chair of the Africa 
Subcommittee I believe that Africa has many, many opportunities 
not just for the people on the continent but for the world and 
particularly America.
    On the continent, however, the Chinese Communist Party is 
deploying exploitation and political influence campaigns to 
access key natural resources that would threaten both our 
supply chains and national security.
    I am deeply concerned about the items particularly produced 
by slave labor in our supply chain. Would you, sir, be open to 
working with me on legislation to create a 21st century 
national strategy to strengthen our domestic industrial base 
and restore our critical minerals, one, and two, a bill to 
remove slavery from our supply chain, Mr. Secretary?
    Secretary Blinken. Yes and yes. We have a number of 
initiatives that are already moving forward. We happily both 
share that with you and listen to your thoughts both on--
certainly, on the supply chain piece, and second, when it comes 
to slavery and modern slavery we want to eliminate that 
whenever and wherever it is occurring. We'd welcome working 
with you on that.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield.
    Chairman McCaul. The Secretary has to appear before the 
Appropriations Committee and so we want----
    Secretary Blinken. Much less important than this committee.
    Chairman McCaul. No, if you want to stay----
    Secretary Blinken. Nonetheless.
    Chairman McCaul. OK. All right. All right. Just thought I'd 
make the offer. So I apologize to the members that we did not 
get to but you may submit your questions in writing for the 
Secretary and he will respond.
    So pursuant to committee rules, all members may have 5 days 
to submit statements, questions, materials for the record.
    Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:38 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                APPENDIX
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     MATERIALS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED FROM REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             RESPONSES TO QUESTINS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]