[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE STATE OF AMERICAN DIPLOMACY IN 2024:
GLOBAL INSTABILITY, BUDGET CHALLENGES,
AND GREAT POWER COMPETITION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
May 22, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-103
__________
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
63-002 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey GREGORY MEEKS, New York, Ranking
JOE WILSON, South Carolina Member
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
DARRELL ISSA, California
ANN WAGNER, Missouri
BRIAN MAST, Florida
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee
ANDY BARR, Kentucky
RONNY JACKSON, Texas
YOUNG KIM, California
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,
American Samoa
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio
JIM BAIRD, Indiana
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
THOMAS KEAN, Jr., New Jersey
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York
CORY MILLS, Florida
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas
JOHN JAMES, Michigan
KEITH SELF, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
AMI BERA, California
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
DINA TITUS, Nevada
TED LIEU, California
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
COLIN ALLRED, Texas
ANDY KIM, New Jersey
SARA JACOBS, California
KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
Florida
GREG STANTON, Arizona
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
JIM COSTA, California
JASON CROW, Colorado
BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
Brenda Shields, Majority Staff Director
Sophia Lafargue, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
REPRESENTATIVES
Page
Opening Statement of Chairman Michael McCaul..................... 1
WITNESSES
Statement of Hon. Antony Blinken, Secretary of State, U.S.
Department of State............................................ 3
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 80
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 81
Hearing Attendance............................................... 82
Materials for the Record
Material for the record, submitted by Rep. Joaquin Castro........ 83
Questions for the Record
Questions submitted by Rep. Barr................................. 87
Questions submitted by Rep. Hill................................. 99
Questions submitted by Rep. Moran................................ 114
Questions submitted by Rep. Self................................. 120
Questions submitted by Rep. Meeks................................ 135
Questions submitted by Rep. Connolly............................. 139
Questions submitted by Rep. Keating.............................. 144
Questions submitted by Rep. Castro............................... 148
Questions submitted by Rep. Titus................................ 168
Questions submitted by Rep. Kamlager-Dove........................ 172
Questions submitted by Rep. Crow................................. 178
Questions submitted by Rep. Amo.................................. 188
Questions submitted by Rep. Costa................................ 194
THE STATE OF AMERICAN DIPLOMACY IN 2024: GLOBAL INSTABILITY, BUDGET
CHALLENGES, AND GREAT POWER COMPETITION
----------
Wednesday, May 22, 2024
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:57 p.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael McCaul
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman McCaul. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss
the State Department's Fiscal Year 2025 budget request and
explore the myriad of challenges facing the United States and
its diplomats around the globe.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL T. McCAUL
Chairman McCaul. Mr. Secretary, might I say first thank you
for being here today. As you know, we are living in dangerous
times. The world is on fire.
We are witnessing the largest land invasion in Europe since
World War II. The Middle East is on the brink of a full-scale
war and an increasingly aggressive China is testing our resolve
as they look to invade Taiwan.
The similarities between a war in Europe and increased
aggression in the Indo-Pacific are dangerously parallel to the
events leading up to World War II. Russia, China, and Iran are
all connected in their efforts to destroy freedom and
democracy.
Weakness invites aggression and our adversaries see that,
and it all began with the fall of Afghanistan. This deadly and
chaotic withdrawal was catastrophic and will remain a stain on
American foreign policy for generations.
Despite warnings from the DOD and the intelligence
community, the State Department, Mr. Secretary, failed in its
execution of the NEO despite the dissent cable from your own
staff on the ground warning of dire consequences of abandoning
Afghanistan.
Despite the President's promise to get everyone out we now
know over 1,000 Americans and almost 200,000 Afghan partners
were left behind.
Following the shameful withdrawal from Afghanistan this
administration projected weakness on the world stage. Shortly
after the withdrawal we saw the satellite imagery of the
Russian Federation amassing troops on the Ukrainian border.
Then we failed to provide the Ukrainians with the lethal
assistance they needed until after the invasion.
Out of fear of provoking the Russians this administration
slow walked weapons necessary for Ukraine to win, giving them
just enough to bleed out but not for victory.
If fear of provocation bound American foreign policy the
Nazis would never have been defeated. The Berlin Wall would
still stand. The world's evil empire would never have been said
and nuclear missiles would still be in Cuba.
American leadership must never be dictated by the whims of
despots. That's why I mandated the administration in the
supplemental bill send long-range ATACMS and other weapon
systems to Ukraine as soon as possible to ensure a victory.
When it comes to China we have failed to establish the
deterrence necessary to counter the malign threat of the CCP.
We now know that China is supporting the Russian defense
industrial base.
Failure to project strength on the world stage has only led
to an increasingly hostile China. Weapons I signed off on 5
years ago for Taiwan have yet to be delivered into that country
and I'm also disappointed that the President failed to certify
AUKUS ITAR exemptions on the April 19 deadline.
This trilateral partnership, as you know, is key to
deterring China, for Chairman Xi is watching and I believe he's
the only one satisfied with this administration's actions.
Finally, we are on the brink of a total destabilization in
the Middle East. Israel is in the fight for its very existence
from the terrorist threat of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, and
during their darkest hour what did this administration do?
They turned its back on our ally. President Biden's
decision to withhold weapons approved and appropriated by this
Congress is tantamount to an arms embargo.
This administration is preventing Israel from their final
key military objective of taking out the remaining battalions
in Rafah. We need to put maximum pressure on Iran and its
proxies. By not enforcing energy sanctions Iran now has over
$80 billion in oil revenue. We have appeased the Ayatollah and
funded his terror operations including their ability to attack
Israel directly, which they did for the first time in history.
By projecting weakness on the world stage this
administration has invited increased aggression. So why is it
after this administration came into office that we now have a
war in Ukraine, a war in the Middle East, and a potential war
in the Indo-Pacific? Why are we limiting our allies' ability to
win wars they didn't start?
Mr. Secretary, red lines are for our enemies, not for our
allies and our friends. You go back to Chamberlain, Churchill.
We know that appeasement only invites aggression, conflict, and
war, and Churchill proved that to us, and Ronald Reagan taught
us peace through strength.
I believe it's time that we return to the Ronald Reagan
doctrine of peace through strength. And with that, I yield the
balance my time.
Other members of the committee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record.
We are now pleased to have the seventy-first Secretary of
State Antony Blinken before us today. Sir, your full statement
will be made part of the record and I ask that you keep your
remarks to 5 minutes, and I will strongly encourage--I will
enforce the gavel with all members to 5 minutes so that all
members can participate in this extremely important hearing.
With that, I now recognize Secretary Blinken for his
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANTONY BLINKEN, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Secretary Blinken. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
to you, to Ranking Member Meeks, to all the members of the
committee, it is very good to be with you today.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify and I thank you
also for the partnership that we have had to advance American
leadership in the world, leadership that is so essential to
delivering on the priorities that matter to our people here at
home.
The need for U.S. global leadership and the need for
cooperation, collaboration with allies and partners, has never
been greater. We have the People's Republic of China that's
pursuing military, economic, geopolitical preeminence,
challenging our vision for a free, open, secure and prosperous
international order.
Russia is committing aggression not only against Ukraine
but against the principles at the heart of the United Nations
charter--territorial integrity, sovereignty, independence--that
are the building blocks for global peace and security.
In the Middle East we're standing with Israel and its
efforts to ensure that what happened on October 7th never
happens again as we do everything we can to bring to an end the
terrible human suffering in Gaza and prevent the conflict from
spreading.
U.S. leadership is needed to address humanitarian crises
elsewhere in the world including in Sudan, Haiti, other places,
where millions have been displaced and many have been killed
but also to address global issues that no country can solve
alone including food security, changing climate, transnational
corruption, the fentanyl crisis.
But with the support of Congress we can and we are
approaching these challenges from a position of strength.
Because of the actions we have taken the United States is
stronger economically, diplomatically, militarily than it was a
few years ago.
We have made historic investments here at home in our
competitiveness, our innovation, our infrastructure. We have
renewed alliances, built new ones, secured unprecedented
alignment with key partners in Europe and in Asia on the
challenges of our time.
We delivered essential aid to Ukraine. In fact, the United
States rallied 50 countries around the world to come to
Ukraine's defense to make sure it wouldn't be erased from the
map as Vladimir Putin sought.
We have rallied the international community to share the
burden. For every dollar that we sent in economic and
development assistance others have collectively invested three
more.
Now, many doubted whether bipartisan support for Ukraine
and other urgent national security priorities could endure. But
last month Congress demonstrated to the world that we will not
pull back when you passed President Biden's supplemental budget
request by an overwhelming margin.
Our investment abroad does not come at the expense of our
strength here at home. Far from it. Most of the supplemental,
as you know, is being spent here in the United States building
up our defense industrial base, supporting good American jobs.
We need to keep up the momentum and that requires a State
Department budget that will fully resource our response to the
challenges of this time. The President's Fiscal Year 1925
budget requesting $58.8 billion to the State Department and
USAID does that in two key ways.
First, it funds the essential missions of our department
and USAID. The budget will ensure that the United States
continues to be the partner of choice for countries to turn to
when they need to solve big problems that also affect our own
security and economic well being.
In an era of renewed great power competition we have to be
able to present the strongest possible offer, one that is
relevant and responsive to the country's needs and one that
advances our security and economic interests.
That's why, among other things, we're requesting $2 billion
for a new fund to build high-quality, sustainable
infrastructure around the world. Crucially, investments like
these create good jobs here in America. They expand markets for
our businesses overseas.
We are requesting resources for the World Bank. With $1
billion in U.S. funding we can unlock another $36 billion in
development fund capacity to direct to the top priorities of
emerging economies.
That's an enormous return on our own investment and
essential for competing with China around the world. The budget
also includes $1.7 billion for international organizations
including the United Nations, APEC, the Inter-American
Development Bank, to help shape them in ways that reflect our
interests and values.
We're asking for $500 million to give more people around
the world access to secure internet, digital technologies.
Doing so will support our own economy through the export of
technology products that are made here in the United States. It
will help ensure that we and our fellow democracies remain the
leaders and standard bearers when it comes to key technologies
like artificial intelligence.
The budget includes funding to address global issues that
affect the lives and livelihoods of the American people as well
as people around the world, especially the synthetic drug
crisis.
It also funds our response to irregular migration, global
food insecurity, public health, climate and energy security,
problems that may be taking place in other parts of the world,
but we know that what happens on the far end of the world will
come back to bite us if it's not addressed and addressed
effectively including with our engagement and leadership.
We're also asking Congress to fully fund the State
Department's educational and cultural exchanges. They're one of
the best, most cost effective tools that we have for advancing
our values and our interests around the world.
They support students, researchers, young professionals
from our communities who study and work abroad. We also need to
guard against attempts by our competitors to spread
disinformation and misinformation around the world.
Our Global Engagement Center is critical. It's a critical
tool for countering the threat of information manipulation by
China, by Russia, and others, and we urge you to extend its
sunset clause before it goes into effect in the coming months.
To out compete our rivals we need to invest in the
foundation of our strength abroad and that's our diplomatic
corps. That's the second pillar of the budget. The budget makes
a strong investment in expanding our overseas presence, opening
new posts in the Pacific Islands, the eastern Caribbean.
We will also continue our modernization of American
diplomacy. We have reorganized the department to make sure that
it can be fit for purpose for the challenges of this time.
Whether that comes to dealing with new technologies,
whether that comes to dealing with global health, climate,
dealing with China, we are making the necessary investments to
try to attract and retain the most talented workforce possible.
We're investing in our people in Washington, at our posts
overseas, with training with technology. We're promoting more
agility, innovation, and efficiency in our processes.
Last year's enacted budget, Mr. Chairman, represented a 5
percent cut from the year before and that challenges our
efforts to deliver the results that Congress and the American
people deserve.
So we urge you to support this budget which helps us
address the most pressing foreign policy priorities of our time
and lays the foundation for continued strong American
engagement and leadership in the years ahead.
With that, I thank you and happy to take any questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Blinken follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Let me ask first, we, as you know, have been conducting an
investigation into the Afghanistan withdrawal and will be
releasing a report of that in September.
Will you commit to appearing before this committee for a
hearing on Afghanistan. We have had the top brass of the
Pentagon do so and I think the Gold Star families deserve that
as well.
Secretary Blinken. Mr. Chairman, for the Gold Star
families, for the President, for me, for everyone involved, we
grieve with them the losses they suffered including over 20
years in Afghanistan. We honor their sacrifice and one of the
ways we do that, of course, is by taking part in oversight,
answering questions, giving the American people the answers
they deserve, and we have engaged in very good faith in this.
I think by our count we facilitated transcribed interviews
with 15 current or former officials----
Chairman McCaul. Mr. Secretary, my time is limited. But is
that a yes?
Secretary Blinken. Mr. Chairman, I've appeared before this
committee five times including one time dedicated solely to
Afghanistan but every time taking questions on Afghanistan.
That's more than any of my recent predecessors have done and--
--
Chairman McCaul. Well, we look forward to your testimony in
September.
Secretary Blinken. Well, we can have our teams talk about
that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. Okay. You testified before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee yesterday that you denounce the
International Criminal Court's arrest warrants against Israel's
leaders and committed to working with Congress on a bipartisan
basis to find an appropriate response.
I've been working with the speaker and the ranking member
and others in the Senate on potential proposed legislation to
address this issue.
Will you commit to working with this committee to find a
bipartisan bill that would place meaningful sanctions on the
International Criminal Court?
Secretary Blinken. Mr. Chairman, first, let me say again
that that decision was totally wrongheaded and any equivalence
that it implied between Hamas and Israel and its leaders was
shameful, and we commit to engaging on a bipartisan basis in
finding an appropriate response.
Chairman McCaul. Yes, and I completely agree with you on
that. Earlier this month the President stated on CNN that if
Israel conducted a major military operation in Rafah that,
quote, ``we're not going to supply the weapons and artillery.''
Is this still the Biden administration's policy and what
specific weapons do you plan to withhold beyond the 2,500-pound
bombs?
Secretary Blinken. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, no one has
done more than President Biden, no one will do more, to make
sure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself. He was
there days after the attack on October 7th, the first president
to go to Israel when it was at war and under attack.
In the time after that he made sure that we deployed
resources and assets to deter any further aggression against
Israel from other quarters which was very much a threat and, of
course----
Chairman McCaul. And we all know the history. Are you
planning to withhold more weapons if Rafah is invaded?
Secretary Blinken. I'm happy to get you that and, of
course, it's also important--it's also important to note that
when Iran conducted an unprecedented attack, a direct attack
for the first time on Israel from Iran the United--actively
took part----
Chairman McCaul. But if Israel invades Rafah will you
withhold more weapons?
Secretary Blinken. We actively took part for the first time
ever in Israel's defense and rallied a coalition of countries.
When it comes to Rafah----
Chairman McCaul. That doesn't answer my question. Are you
going to withhold more weapons----
Secretary Blinken. I'll come to your--yes, I'll come to
your question, Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to do that.
Chairman McCaul. Okay.
Secretary Blinken. When it comes to Rafah, we have made
known for a long time our concerns about a full-on military
assault of Rafah, the damage that could do to the civilian
population absent a clear and credible plan to protect it and
also to achieve the results that we and Israel both want, which
is to deal effectively and durably with Hamas.
And so in that context, particularly with regard to 2,000-
pound bombs which in a dense urban environment could do
terrible damage, we have been in discussions with Israel about
that particular weapon and those discussions continue. Those
were private discussions.
It's unfortunate that it leaked to the press. It did. But
those discussions continue and our concerns about a full-on
military assault in Rafah remain. We have other ways of dealing
with the challenge posed by Hamas that we believe can be more
effective and more durable.
Chairman McCaul. Okay. Let me just ask you this. We didn't
find out about the withholding of weapons until we saw the
President's interview on CNN. Congress was never notified of
this decision. We just marked up a bill out of committee that
requires advanced notification.
If you decide to withhold more weapons from Israel, which I
would say was the intent of Congress when we passed the
supplemental and when I approve these weapons, will you at
least give us advance notification?
Secretary Blinken. Mr. Chairman, we have gone out of our
way--we have gone well above and beyond in previewing for
Congress----
Chairman McCaul. I had no notification or did anyone in
this committee or Congress until we saw the President on CNN.
That's hardly an adequate way to notify Congress.
Last, Ukraine. We have a really bad situation going on, as
you know. This is a sanctuary zone that the Russians have
created and what they're doing is they're lining up all their
artillery and rockets and missiles just across the Ukraine
border that they then use to attack the Ukrainians.
However, your administration and Jake Sullivan have
restricted the arms use so that Ukraine cannot defend itself
and fire back at Russia. That's why I mandated the ATACMS in
the supplemental--the long-range, short-range and the HIMARS
that your administration is tying their hands behind their
back, Not unlike what you're trying to do in Israel.
Will you change this policy so Ukraine can fight without
one hand tied behind its back?
Secretary Blinken. Well, as you know, we have rallied 50
countries over the last 2 years to come to Ukraine's defense to
provide it with the weapons it needs to defend itself to push
back against Russian aggression.
When it comes to enabling, endorsing attacks outside of
Ukraine that's not something we have done but Ukraine will have
to make and will make its own decisions and I want to make sure
it gets the equipment that it needs to effectively----
Chairman McCaul. Well, you know, Congress got them the
equipment, and thank you for implementing that, but Congress
did not put restrictions on the use of these weapons.
It's Jake Sullivan and your administration that has put the
restrictions on these weapons, and I talked to them and this is
not--they cannot achieve victory with these restrictions that
you, not the Congress, have placed on them and I hope you'll
take that back to the national security adviser and the
National Security Council and change this policy decision that
is very dangerous and damaging to the Ukrainian people.
My time has expired. I now recognize Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here and
presenting your budget request, which I strongly support.
Dr. Afridi did more for America than any other foreigner in
the last 200 years. Yet, he remains in jail in Pakistan. All
Americans are dedicated to his release but some not dedicated
enough to agree with Pakistan for a Afridi-Siddiqui trade and I
would hope that you would urge the administration to make such
a trade.
I'm confident the Pakistanis would accept it. Obviously,
the Pakistanis should release him without conditions but it's
very hard to ask any other non-American to cooperate with the
United States when the person who did the most for us remains
in jail.
I hope you would also direct the U.S. Ambassador to Albania
to visit Camp Ashraf and demonstrate our continued concern for
those who fled Iran and then fled Iraq.
This is particularly relevant because President Raisi of
Iran died, and while some mourn his passing he was personally
responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iranians
including many who are the family members of those who are in
Camp Ashraf.
Thirty thousand people, apparently, have died in Gaza.
Perhaps half or more are civilians. Congress has provided you
with $9.1 billion in humanitarian aid.
But there's other things going on around the world. Three
hundred thousand died in Darfur two decades ago and now we see
a new genocide in Darfur for where tens of thousands have been
killed.
Looking at the rest of Sudan, 18 million people face acute
food insecurity. Six hundred thousand Tigrayans have died just
in the last few years and now millions of people face food
insecurity in Ethiopia.
In eastern Congo we see 7.1 million people displaced. One
point two million Rohingya are in camps in Bangladesh where
countries have not contributed enough for their food and,
therefore, the food World Food Programme has reduced rations by
30 percent.
The entire population of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh,
or Artsakh, has been ethnically cleansed and now lives as
refugees in Armenia.
Can you commit that--and hopefully this is a just a yes/no
answer--can you commit that when you allocate that $9.1 billion
of humanitarian aid you will do so on the basis of where is the
greatest need rather than which conflicts get the most
publicity?
Secretary Blinken. Yes.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. People think that the Middle East
is as bad as it can possibly be. That's not true. Iran has a
nuclear weapons program I'm sure my colleagues will ask you
about and I want to focus on Saudi Arabia.
Some think Bin Salman is going to be a good friend to the
United States but even they must take the examples from the
1970's where the shah was a friend of the United States and
every weapon system that he had was in the hands of the
ayatollahs by the end of that decade.
Saudi Arabia will want a nuclear cooperation agreement with
the United States. Can you commit to us that you will not send
up to Congress a nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia that does
not include the additional protocol and does not meet the gold
standard that we saw in the UAE nuclear cooperation agreement?
Secretary Blinken. Any nuclear cooperation agreement that
we reach will have to address all of our nonproliferation goals
and we want to make sure that, of course, we have gold standard
agreements with whomever we reach these agreements.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. Hamas had allied organizations. The
Palestinian Islamic Jihad is the better known but there is also
the Popular Resistance Committees, the third biggest terrorist
organization based in Gaza, which has not been designated a
foreign terrorist organization and I wonder if you can commit
to either designating them as either an FTO or otherwise as a
terrorist organization such as a specially designated global
terrorist, or at least come back to this committee in 30 days
and tell us why you haven't done so.
Secretary Blinken. I'm happy to come back to you. We're
always looking to see appropriate designations to use whatever
tools we can against terrorist organizations----
Mr. Sherman. They are proud participants in the killing of
1,200 Israelis on October 7th and they've killed Americans.
They meet more than all the standards.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman's time has expired and I'm
going to recognize Mr. Smith for 5 minutes. Then we will recess
for 10 minutes. We have two votes on the floor.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Last Friday, Mr. Secretary I chaired my fourth
congressional hearing within the year on UNRWA, the U.N. Relief
Works Agency, and its decades-long complicity in the most
vicious forms of anti-Semitic hate with a focus on the so-
called independent review--U.N. review by Ms. Catherine
Colonna.
I've read her report very carefully and our witnesses
including the former general counsel, James Lindsay--he was the
general counsel for UNRWA and he admonished us in the strongest
terms do not give money to UNRWA. He used to be their guy. Now
he's not.
Hillel Neuer, who's the executive director of U.N. Watch,
testified and said the Colonna review was not independent, the
verdict was determined in advance, and he pointed out all of
the conflicts of interest of the people, the players.
It was very narrowly focused, too focused, just on October
7th and even there it whitewashed that the only thing that came
out of it that was any good was to say that UNRWA ``does not
vet employees for connections or sympathies with Hamas or
Islamic Jihad,'' quote/unquote.
Twenty-one years ago in 2003 I offered an amendment to
redirect the money away from UNRWA to other entities that could
be vetted to ensure non-anti-Semitism. This year my legislation
to stop UNRWA Act--Stop Support for UNRWA Act of 2024--was
passed by this committee.
It completely prohibits any U.S. contributions to UNRWA. It
made clear, however, that nothing in the Act may be construed
to preclude the provision of humanitarian assistance through
any agency or entity as long as you certify, Mr. Secretary,
that it doesn't promote, espouse, or affiliate with entities or
individuals that promote violence or terrorism or anti-Semitism
and does not employ individuals who promote, espouse, or are
affiliated with such entities or individuals.
Then in March the bipartisan foreign aid bill made it
absolutely clear no funds for UNRWA. Both sides of the aisle,
both House and Senate, and that's until March 25th, 2025.
My question is are U.S. taxpayer funds to UNRWA still
paused. Second--that's the other funds that were already in the
pipeline or may be coming in from other spigots--second, can
you assure the committee that the Biden administration's
investigation will be in depth, a top to bottom review?
From the moment your administration announced it and when
the U.N. announced it they said--they drew such a narrow look.
They're not going to see much.
They'll know that 12to 18 people committed atrocities but,
unfortunately, UNRWA has been a child abuse factory, turning
little wonderful kids who happen to be Palestinian into child
soldiers by inculcating in them a hatred toward Jews and to
Jerusalem and to the Jewish State.
So, please, about your report when is that coming and
hopefully it will be very comprehensive.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you. Just a few things on this.
First of all, we do support the implementation of the
recommendations in the Colonna report. We think those are
important and important before. But then second, there is a
separate investigation that's going on.
This is a U.N. internal report on the specific allegations,
as you know, about the participation of UNRWA employees in the
horrific events of October 7th.
We await those results and we will pull all of that
together along with our own hard look at this.
Second, we, of course, are abiding by the law in making
sure that funds----
Mr. Smith. No other funds are finding their way into----
Secretary Blinken. No other funds can or should be going to
UNRWA.
Mr. Smith. Is it planned in the near future?
Secretary Blinken. No, and we'll abide--now, I will tell
you we do have a difference in view because for all of the
manifest problems and deficiencies with UNRWA it's also been
playing an absolutely critical and, in many ways, at least in
the near term, irreplaceable role in terms of being able to
provide assistance for people who desperately need it.
It has an infrastructure that no one else has. It has
people that no one else has. So there needs to be a way to make
sure one way or another that that assistance gets to people who
desperately need it.
And so we can look at what can be done for the future, but
in the near term I got to tell you we still see that as
essential. But, no, we are not and will not provide the funding
pursuant to the law.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, sir.
Let me ask you, if I could, on child abduction--
international child abduction. I've written a major law on it
named after David Goldman.
When the president of China--of Japan was here I gave him a
letter asking him to get engaged. I would ask the
administration--I would ask the president--you know, we all
speak out on behalf of--he met with people, Japanese who have
been abducted to North Korea. But the big concern is what about
our own children who have been abducted, 500 of them, to Japan?
And, finally, the World Health Assembly is meeting. They're
violating their own rules of that procedure. Are you going to
submit the WHO pandemic treaty, which is rife with problems, to
the Senate for ratification?
Secretary Blinken. Thank you. On child abduction I'm, like
you, seized with this and for a long time. I applaud what
you're doing and your leadership on this, and when we have
countries that are not abiding by the Hague Convention or are
otherwise engaging in practices that are keeping children away
from their parents this is something we take action on and I
always welcome working with you on that.
Second, and very quickly, on the pandemic agreement the way
things stand right now I don't see that coming to a conclusion
in the near term.
There's just not consensus on it. It's something we
continue to work on but continue to work on making sure that we
uphold our own interests and values including on, for example,
intellectual property.
Chairman McCaul. The committee will take a short recess for
two votes on the floor.
[Recess.]
Chairman McCaul. The committee will reconvene. The chair
now recognizes Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to
thank the Secretary for his extraordinary efforts--the travel,
the stress, everything that has been involved not just with
yourself but your staff and the other members of the Cabinet.
They've been extraordinary.
I want to center on Ukraine for the focus of my attention,
a war that began in 2014, 6 years before Joe Biden became
president of the United States and one that as that war
escalated while he was president he put together a coalition--
unprecedented coalition of 56 different countries dealing with
a contact defense group working to--in conjunction with all our
allies and the NATO allies, in particular 32 NATO allies that
expanded under his watch as well.
I would like to talk about--recently I was just a few weeks
ago in Ukraine, spoke with President Zelensky, spoke with the
minister of defense there among others, and saw the impact of
the 6-month delay that occurred in this Congress.
As grateful as we are that we finally had a vote on it the
Speaker held this up for 6 months in spite of the fact there
were 311 Members of Congress in bipartisan fashion that voted
for that and it did have an effect. That's the one thing that
became clear from that visit and became clear afterwards.
That also is a concern that people had. Our NATO allies
that I'm in contact with all the time are concerned, not about
our current president but our former president who in spite of
the fact that about two-thirds of our NATO countries and NATO
allies have reached their threshold has said that if all of
them aren't by that time, including a country like Luxembourg,
then they'll be on their own. That's where the concern rests
today.
But the war has taken a terrible toll and taken terrible
concerns. There is somewhere in the vicinity of 120,000
documented war crimes by Russia.
The kidnapping of children still remains a very difficult
issue and chemical weapons have been documented as being used
as well, and the attacks on the infrastructure are enormous,
particularly in a major city--the second biggest city of
Kharkiv.
And along those lines, Mr. Secretary, I just want to see
what you can say in an open hearing in this regard. I know some
things will be classified but if you could give us some
indication, even if there's an openness and general discussion
on the issue.
I do believe when you look at what's happening in Kharkiv
myself that just something that's maybe five miles away where
they're lobbing these weapons, destroying the infrastructure of
the second biggest city, that this should be more of a clear
message from the United States with U.S. weapons that at least
they can retaliate in a defensive position in that kind of
proximity to go back at the source of that.
So could you share with us what you can? Is there an
openness to that discussion with the United States and with the
coalition that we have so that that can be more clear? Because
President Zelensky, members of their parliament, other
officials that I've spoken with, are concerned that they won't
be able to do that.
Secretary Blinken. Well, first of all, we are grateful that
the supplemental was approved and is not only approved but the
materials that are being paid for by the supplemental are now
getting there.
I wish it hadn't taken 6 months, really, just in the nick
of time. I was just there as well. I was in Ukraine about a
week ago, 10 days ago, and I also want to applaud the chairman
of the committee for the work that he did to make sure that we
got the supplemental through.
We are determined to make sure that not only does Ukraine
have what it needs to defend itself but we, obviously,
constantly have to look at what those needs are in any given
moment and how it can most effectively deal with this. So we're
always----
Mr. Keating. Are there just at least an openness to that
discussion because I had another question.
Secretary Blinken. We're always open to--we're always open
to conversations with our allies and partners about what their
needs are. We want to make sure that they have what they need
and what----
Mr. Keating. I'll convey to you at least my feeling, that
they should be able to do that and I hope that that discussion
can occur quickly.
Just quickly--I've got a few seconds left and it's tough--I
just wanted to deal with Georgia, for instance. There's a real
concern in Georgia now about backsliding that's going on now,
the controversy about the, you know, foreign agents press bill
in Georgia. Could you just comment on our efforts to try and
deal with that issue?
Secretary Blinken. Yes. We're very concerned about the
foreign agents law that was passed. I think it's right out of
Moscow's playbook, unfortunately, and I think it clearly
counters the desire of the overwhelming majority of Georgians
to move toward the EU and the EU integration.
So we are looking very hard at what we can do in response
to that and I anticipate we will take actions. The EU is
looking at the impact on the accession process for Georgia so I
would anticipate that there will be things to come because of
the impact that this law may have.
Mr. Keating. Due to the constraints at this time I'll have
to followup with some written questions.
Secretary Blinken. I'd be happy to----
Mr. Keating. Again, I thank you for your extraordinary
service and I yield back.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
The chair recognizes Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Secretary Blinken, earlier this week I was
grateful to achieve a phone call with the very dynamic and
dedicated daughters of the late Majd Kamalmaz who was
identified as having been murdered by the Assad regime.
Dr. Kamalmaz, an American psychologist, was kidnapped by
the Assad dictatorship in 2017 while visiting an elderly family
member. He was a devoted person to counseling people who have
suffered from extreme danger. He was the father of four
children.
Dr. Kamalmaz is a Syrian American. Can you explain the
refusal of the administration to say his name or condemn his
murder at the hands of the Assad regime? Will there be a
criminal investigation into his murder?
Secretary Blinken. I'm happy to pursue that with you and I
need to make sure that I know the full facts of this.
Mr. Wilson. And, hey, we're going to get them to you----
Secretary Blinken. Happy to pursue that.
Mr. Wilson [continuing]. Because Dr. Kamalmaz was a great
American, a Syrian American who was flat out murdered.
Additionally, as so accurately exposed by Chairman Mike McCaul,
the war criminal Putin is attacking Ukrainian citizens from
Russian territory.
It's just 30 miles to the second largest city of Kharkiv
with a population of 1.4 million, and I'm really grateful we
see with Congressman Bill Keating that our concern is
bipartisan. Hey, we want you to do good. We want to succeed.
War criminal Putin is murdering Ukrainian civilians as we
speak, sacrificing Ukrainian lives to satisfy the false
escalation narratives that has been repeatedly being--seen as
false. It's also immoral.
When will the administration allow Ukraine to use the
equipment to end the war and save lives? This is important. To
delay equipment could lead to the legacy of Biden-Blinken with
a never-ending war as has been warned by the Washington Post
even.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you, Congressman.
In every step along the way we have endeavored to make sure
that Ukraine has what it needs when it needs it, can use it
effectively, can maintain it effectively. As I said to
Congressman Keating, we're always open to listening to our
partners and as necessary making adjustments. So we'll
continue----
Mr. Wilson. And, hey, this is so clear. This is response to
an illegal invasion. This should be to deter mass murder that's
being conducted and to not allow the people of Ukraine to
respond properly is putting so many people at risk.
And then we have dictators with rule of gun invading
democracies with rule of law and our enemies are clear. War
criminal Putin claims Ukraine does not exist. The murderous
regime in Tehran and its puppets claim Israel does not exist
and the Chinese Communist Party says that Taiwan does not
exist.
Sadly, Taiwan has paid for defensive weapons which are
being delayed and there must be a deterrence to save millions
of lives of the people of Taiwan. It's crucial for anti-ship
missiles, air defense, and F-16 advances.
I particularly appreciate the people of Chinese heritage as
the only son of a--serving in Congress of a World War II Flying
Tiger who liberated China. And so we liberated China but now
the people of Taiwan are subject to a potential invasion and
the way to deter it is to provide the equipment. They paid for
the equipment.
We authorized funding for the equipment. What is your
commitment to expedite the delivery to deter a murderous
catastrophe?
Secretary Blinken. Thank you very much, Congressman.
We have notified more than $6 billion in foreign military
sales during this administration, 13 proposed sales in 1922
that I went forward with, another seven in 1923. That's by far
the largest single and 2-year notifications that we have made
of weapon sales.
The challenge that we have, as you know, in terms of moving
forward on them is with our production time lines and we are
doing everything we can for a whole variety of reasons
including Taiwan to make sure that those production lines are
moving more quickly, more efficiently, to be able to deliver on
the weapons that we're providing to those who need them for
their self-defense.
We're committed to Taiwan's defense. We're committed to
making sure that it has what it needs to defend itself
commensurate with the threat it faces. But the challenge that
we have, as I think many members of this committee know, is
with production and making sure that moves as quickly and
efficiently as possible.
Mr. Wilson. And time is of the essence. There must be
deterrence to avoid an invasion and that can be done if we
provide the equipment and with the prepositioned equipment that
we have around the world that there should be expedited to the
people of Taiwan to avoid what will be the most catastrophic
world incident after, sadly, the abandonment of the people of
Afghanistan with 13 dead Americans.
Secretary Blinken. Indeed, we have used----
Mr. Wilson. And so every effort must be made to prevent an
invasion. With that, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
The chair recognizes Mr. Bera.
I'm sorry. I recognize the ranking member, Mr. Meeks, for
an opening statement and questions.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing
me to make my opening statement. As you know, I was with
President Ruto and the Speaker. Thank you very much.
I'll begin by welcoming Secretary Blinken to the House
Foreign Affairs Committee, and I know there's much that has
already been talked about and much more that demands your
attention all over the world. I'd just say phew with your
travel schedule.
Mr. Secretary, I appreciate how generous you've always been
with your time and how responsive the department has been to
the request made by this committee during your tenure.
By my count this is your fifth appearance before this
committee, which is certainly way more than your immediate
predecessor. Since you've last testified before us the
geopolitical landscape has only grown in complexity, plagued by
continued rise in conflict, democratic backsliding, and
humanitarian catastrophes.
Hamas' October 7th terrorist attack, the most horrific and
brutal terrorist attack in Israel's history, has prompted a war
against Hamas that has now cost tens of thousands of lives
including innocent civilians, children, and women.
The people of Gaza now face famine like conditions, which
is why I commend the State Department and this administration's
tireless efforts to broker a cease-fire that would free the
hostages, which would include five Americans, and allow
humanitarian aid to reach the population.
I appreciate the administration's efforts to caution Israel
against launching a large-scale military operation in Rafah
without a credible plan for minimizing civilian casualties and
stabilizing a post-war Gaza and we look forward to hearing more
from you, Mr. Secretary, on the department's ongoing efforts to
address this crisis.
Gaza is one of many humanitarian crises around the world
and I know your department remains focused on alleviating human
suffering in places like Sudan where we see the largest number
of people facing extreme food shortages in the world.
The situation in Haiti has only grown more dire with Port-
au-Prince having devolved into lawlessness resulting from
horrific violence including systemic sexual violence
perpetrated by gangs.
And I'm grateful that President Ruto, who I just met with,
of Kenya is here in Washington, DC, this week as Kenya is not
only vital for sustained U.S. engagement with Africa, it is
also leading the multinational security support mission to
Haiti that is key to promoting stability as Haitians work to
restore democratic governance in their country.
And since your last testimony we have also seen Putin's
illegal war on Ukraine into a new deadly phase as Russian
forces pummel civilian infrastructure with warheads on a level
not seen since the beginning of the war and pushed to once
again take Kharkiv. Ukraine has fought desperately to hold
ground against Russian advances amid shortages in ammunition
and defense weapons--defensive weapons caused largely in part,
of course, by the efforts of extreme MAGA Republicans to block
the President's national security supplemental.
Thankfully, Democrats worked across the aisle to pass the
supplemental package and I look forward to hearing more on how
the State Department is working to quickly fulfill deliveries
of those arms shipments so that Ukraine can replenish its
stockpiles and continue its existential fight against Moscow.
And it's clear that the atrocities of the world--the
autocracies of the world are coordinating now more than ever to
challenge the free democratic world and undermine U.S.
interests and the international rules-based system that has for
decades promoted peace and prosperity.
Under President Biden and your leadership in the State
Department we have strengthened American leadership,
revitalized our alliances and our partnerships, as well as
forged new cooperative agreements like AUKUS to promote U.S.
national security, particularly in the Indo-Pacific.
This diplomacy will be pivotal to ensuring the Indo-Pacific
remains free, open, and secure, particularly as Beijing is
increasing its aggressive actions in the South and East China
Seas and the Taiwan Strait, using economic coercion to advance
its malign interests.
However, we cannot outcompete Beijing diplomatic--however,
we cannot outcompete Beijing diplomatically or economically if
we are not willing to make serious investments in our
diplomatic and development tools, which brings me to the reason
why you're here today, Mr. Secretary.
The Biden administration's Fiscal Year 1925 budget is clear
eyed about the complex challenges we face and is in stark
contrast to the America first isolationism of many of my
colleagues across the aisle who continue pushing for draconian
cuts to the State Department's budget.
For all the talk we hear from my Republican colleagues
about the need to outcompete China they seem unwilling to make
the requisite investments into our State, foreign, and
operations and related programs a budget that meets the moment.
So I conclude that with this. Our diplomatic and
development personnel in the State Department need Congress to
do its job and authorize a budget that makes investments
commensurate to their needs and modernizes the State Department
to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
We need to stand by the State Department. We need State
authorization bill passed on a regular basis for the heroes of
the State Department, the men--the American men and women who
are standing and I salute them as I salute our military. I
salute them for their courage, their bravery, and for being the
representative to the United States of America all over the
world.
And with that, I yield back and now I guess I can do my
questioning. Thank you.
So in the three and a half years the administration has
realized our alliances, as I've just stated, in a partnership
in the Indo-Pacific in ways that we could not have foreseen a
few years ago.
Before the Biden administration, the Quadrennial dialog--I
can't even pronounce it--quadrennial--quadrilateral dialog with
Japan----
Chairman McCaul. Say Quad.
Mr. Meeks. Say Quad--that's right.
With Japan, Australia, and India ever met at the leaders
level before the Biden administration, had the Quad--you have
Japan, Australia, and India--did they ever meet at the leaders
level?
Secretary Blinken. We elevated it to the leaders level.
That's correct.
Mr. Meeks. And has the AUKUS security partnership that the
administration launched with the U.K. and Australia been a game
changer in bolstering deterrence and keeping the peace in the
Indo-Pacific?
Secretary Blinken. It's moving in that direction.
Mr. Meeks. And regarding the trilateral partnership with
Japan and Korea are we cooperating with our two Northeast Asian
allies in ways that we had not before?
Secretary Blinken. That's correct.
Mr. Meeks. That is correct? And how many countries in the
Pacific Islands has the Biden administration expanded our
diplomatic footprint?
Secretary Blinken. We now have an additional two embassies
that have opened. We're looking at an additional two more. So
we have--we'll have representation in more than half of the
Pacific Island countries.
Mr. Meeks. So would you say this is building resiliency
against the PRC's malign influence in the Pacific Islands?
Secretary Blinken. Yes, I would.
Mr. Meeks. And how has our relationship with the
Philippines rebounded under the Biden administration?
Secretary Blinken. Well, I think we have seen an
extraordinary relationship develop over the last--especially
over the last year, both President Biden and President Marcos
working more closely together than ever and that partnership--
and by the way, you mentioned the trilateral relationship with
Japan and Korea. We also now have a trilateral partnership with
the Philippines and Japan where we're doing work together.
Mr. Meeks. And does this cooperation across Asia--does that
help ensure a free and open Indo-Pacific?
Secretary Blinken. Absolutely. We have got the most dynamic
fastest growing region in the world. We have more than 50
percent of global GDP in that region and, of course, the United
States is a Pacific power.
But being able to align so many different countries to have
all of us working together and in the same direction that
multiplies the impact of our diplomacy. It multiplies the
impact we're having on advancing our interests.
Mr. Meeks. Does it counter the PRC's undermining of rules-
based order?
Secretary Blinken. Absolutely, and the fact that we're able
to do it together makes the difference.
Mr. Meeks. And let me just ask this. Could the United
States of America have achieved this cooperation without the
State Department?
Secretary Blinken. Well, admittedly, I have a biased view
on this but the answer would be no.
Mr. Meeks. It's a great job that the State Department and
this administration is doing. Let me turn to the concerning
situation, of course, in Sudan. On May 14th the administration
sanctioned two RSF forces commanders for perpetrating violence
in Darfur and threatening the peace, security, and stability of
Sudan.
However, the RSF leader has not been sanctioned. The
current fight against the RSF and Sudanese Armed Forces for the
city of Al Fashir and Darfur risk escalating a humanitarian
catastrophe.
What's the State Department doing to demand accountability
in Sudan?
Secretary Blinken. Well, we're focused on a few things.
First, we have, as you know, our senior envoy, Tom Perriello,
who is out there every single day trying to drive forward on
getting an end to the war, getting a civilian transitional
government formed, unifying the professional armed forces,
getting unhindered humanitarian access to people who
desperately need it and, of course, returning to the democratic
transition that Sudan was on before it was disrupted by the
generals.
We think the best way forward is to resume the Jeddah
negotiations that Saudi Arabia had been hosting with all of the
key stakeholders, with the Saudis, with Egypt, with the UAE,
with the African Union, with IGAD, and also, yes, as
appropriate to impose costs on individuals or entities that are
escalating the conflict and committing atrocities. So we're
very much looking at that as well.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you. Let me also ask this. Is it critical
that Congress reauthorize the Global Engagement Center this
year?
Secretary Blinken. In my judgment, it is. In fact, I
addressed that in my opening statement. This is the one place
in government where we bring together all of our efforts to
counter Russian, Chinese, and other disinformation and
misinformation and it's been one of the most effective tools
I've seen both in exposing that disinformation and
misinformation, giving other countries the capacity themselves
to deal with it, and to take more effective collective action.
So as I mentioned in my opening statement, I very much hope
that it will be reauthorized because it sunsets a little bit
later this year and it's a critical tool. If we take that tool
away we are disarming ourselves in the fight against mis-and
disinformation coming from China, coming from Russia, coming
from others.
Mr. Meeks. My last question--is there any merit to the
allegations, some from the far right, that the GEC is censoring
conservative voices here in the United States?
Secretary Blinken. No, and, of course, we're always
prepared to work with Congress on any concerns as we have when
concerns was raised. We tried to make sure we provided all the
necessary information so that people have confidence and we'll
always continue to do that.
But those questions have been answered and I believe,
again, this tool is essential for us in order to deal with what
really is a new front in the global competition and that's the
information front. We have to be able to fight effectively on
that front.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for the
great work you're doing and please say thank you to all of the
employees of the State Department. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. The chair recognizes
Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary,
for being here.
Two of our allies have been attacked, unprovoked, right--
Ukraine by Russia, Israel by Hamas--and I'm trying to juxtapose
the situation here. I see that according to reports the
President wants Israel to outline what governance in Gaza will
look like after an invasion, how Israel will reduce civilian
harm in dense urban environments, and how to free as many
hostages as possible prior to sending capability to Israel.
On the other hand, I've got from the State Department here
the integrated country strategy, and I went through it. What I
see here is the mission and goal objective is to win the war,
which I fully support.
Nothing that I would like more than to see Vladimir Putin
run out of Ukraine on a rail and worse. Restore Ukraine's
sovereignty and territorial integrity, and we have essentially
given Ukraine over $100 billion and said, go fight Russia. Go
defeat Russia. Regain your territory. Fully supportive of
Ukraine winning that war.
But at the same time we have established a set of
conditions on Israel. Can you--how about this condition? We
have built at the cost to the American people--$320 million--a
port, right. Operations were started on Friday, halted on
Sunday because Hamas attacked the port, right.
Hamas attacks Kerem Shalom, the crossing there, which would
allow aid from Israel in and from the United States. So Israel
has to pay for the aid of the people that attacked it and has
to provide this information on a plan.
Can you tell me what the difference is? What's the
difference between Ukraine and Israel?
Secretary Blinken. In a sense, there isn't and as we have
made clear from the start, these are both close partners of the
United States.
Mr. Perry. Well, Mr. Secretary, with all due respect, if
there's no difference why do we have these conditions? They
have to come up with a plan of governance in the people that
attacked them. They've got to have a plan for the hostages.
I mean, Russians have thousands of Ukrainian hostages,
right, and have we--has the U.S. Government, has President
Biden, restricted Ukraine's use of weapons in urban areas to
reduce civilian casualties? Has that happened?
Secretary Blinken. So, first of all, Congressman, no one
has done more, will do more, to ensure there's----
Mr. Perry. I know you say that but it seems like----
Secretary Blinken. No, I don't normally say----
Mr. Perry. Look, I'm just--I'm just reporting what I'm
reading. I'm just going with the facts. You can say that all
day long but the fact is that others have done more and we're
doing more right now for Ukraine than we are for Israel.
President Biden is doing more for Ukraine than Israel. We
took, roughly, half of the money or more from the aid package
passed for Israel and gave it to Hamas, who's taking it from
the citizens in their country and using it to fight Israel. So
while you say--so please skip the narrative and just tell me
what the difference is between Ukraine and Israel. How come
conditions on one and no conditions on the other?
Secretary Blinken. These are not conditions. We give our--
to our close friends, our best friends, our best partners. One
of our obligations is to give them the best possible advice we
can and so when it comes to dealing with Hamas we're committed
to seeing that Hamas cannot govern Gaza again, cannot pose the
threat that it did that led to the October 7th attack.
We have been doing everything we can to support Israel's
efforts to defend itself and make sure that can't happen, and
when it comes to--when it comes to Rafah the concern that we
have had and that we have expressed as friends do and have an
obligation to do is that the effort to go in full force into
Rafah to remove the--to remove the remainder----
Mr. Perry. Where the enemy is. Where the enemy--it was just
reported, as you know, Mr. Secretary, 600 tunnels into Egypt,
into Israel, traversing weapons and military equipment to
attack Israel.
So when you say we're doing all we can we're providing
advice. With all due respect, sir, they need to win the war
against Hamas and eliminate them and anything that we're doing
that stands in their way of that is unacceptable including
supporting Hamas, which is what we're doing.
At the same time you're saying no one has done more, well,
no one has done more for Hamas either.
Secretary Blinken. I, to say the least, don't follow that.
Let me say that very quickly, one, we want to make sure that
the defeat of Hamas is an enduring defeat, and even if they go
into Rafah and remove the remaining battalions there'll be
thousands--thousands--of armed Hamas left. Absent a plan for
what comes after--and this is not a condition, it's simply our
advice--one of three things can happen. Either Hamas will
remain----
Mr. Perry. What is Ukraine's plan for Russia once they kick
Russia out of their country?
Secretary Blinken. I actually laid that out just about a
week ago in Ukraine and I'm happy to share that with you.
Mr. Perry. It's not in here, sir.
Secretary Blinken. I'm happy to--I'll share it with you. We
are----
Mr. Perry. Sir, there are two different standards. You must
admit that and we in Congress wonder why and the American
people wonder why.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. The chair recognizes
Mr. Bera.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, again, thank you
for being here and the hard work that you're doing. I'm tired
from all the travel that I do and I can only imagine. I'm going
to focus in on the Indo-Pacific.
The ranking member, I think, took a lot of my talking
points but I do want to emphasize the work that the
administration's done there from the early days of the
administration, really focusing in on a strong trilateral
relationship between the--between Korea, Japan, and the United
States, and it really is at the best place that I've seen it in
my 12 years.
So really want to applaud the administration from early two
by twos, State visits, and then the Camp David accords. I know
we are working on something very similar on a trilateral basis
so Congress, the General Assembly, can also emphasize the
importance of the trilateral with Japan, the Philippines, the
United States that, you know, was unveiled, you know, just last
month is incredibly important and I think we'll continue to see
that prosper.
The ranking member talked about the Quad coalition, again,
a very important strategic coalition. Elevating that to the
leaders level is extremely important. AUKUS is coming together
in a very strategic way.
So with the goal in mind of maintaining a peaceful,
prosperous, stable Indo-Pacific I think the administration gets
an A+. It has done a remarkable job and, again, we will
continue to work on that from the congressional perspective.
I recently had the chance to--you talked a little bit about
the Pacific Islands and reestablishing a diplomatic presence--
led a delegation to Fiji, Tonga, and Tuvalu and in Nuku'alofa
when we were there, and I think you were actually there
previously as well, just reestablishing an embassy there you
could sense the excitement of the Tongan individuals.
We have got a great diplomatic staff. It's small but very
enthusiastic and, again, small investments like that go a long
ways. The one thing that the Tongans raised was the lack of
being able to get visas.
There's a large vibrant Tongan-American administration. We
did raise that with the embassy staff back there. You know,
right now they've got to fly to Fiji but, again, hopefully in
the Fiscal Year 1925 budget we can continue to expand services
and do that.
I also want to applaud opening embassies in the Seychelles
and the Maldives--incredibly important areas. We see in the
Maldives, you know, obviously, a large exclusive economic zone.
We're watching, you know, this tete-a-tete between India
and China. But our being there, our having an embassy there,
our having an ambassador there is incredibly important.
My question would be if you can talk a little bit about the
Fiscal Year 1925 budget request with regards to the Pacific
Islands but also the Indian Ocean region and the embassies in
Tonga, the Solomon Islands, the Seychelles, Maldives, and
others.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
comments on the work we're doing.
Look, as you know, and your own engagement has demonstrated
this, when it comes to the Pacific Islands they, of course,
inhabit this vast, vast stretch of ocean between the United
States and our allies in Asia and so geographically it's
usually important.
We--the President has hosted, as you know, two White House
summits with all of the leaders from the Pacific Islands for
the first time coming to the White House and many of us have
been there repeatedly, and when it comes to our presence our
embassies, of course, are critical.
We now have embassies in eight of the 14 Pacific Islands.
We have two more that we hope and expect to open. We're looking
at Vanuatu, actually, within the balance of this year,
hopefully Kiribati after that.
We have the newly recognized Cook Islands and Niue which
our embassy in Wellington represents and, of course, we need
the resources to make sure that not only can we establish these
missions but the human resources can be there, too. You
mentioned that we have small operations, yes, small but mighty
but we want to make sure that they're properly resourced
because you have to cover a vast amount of territory.
There's something else that's important and you mentioned
it. The collaboration that we have built with key partners in
the region and particularly with Japan, with Korea, with
Australia, with New Zealand, that allows us to multiply our
efforts and to cover even more territory than we would if we
were doing it alone.
And so the coordination there, the work that we're doing
together, for example, to bring undersea cables to the islands,
doing that with Japan, with Taiwan, and others to connect
people that is all vital as well.
But it also requires resources in order to do that, to
generate the private sector investment in partnerships that we
need. All of that's reflected in the budget.
Mr. Bera. And, again, I applaud that, and when I was in
Tuvalu last month getting the Japanese to drop cables
incredibly important.
So with that, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
The chair recognizes Mr. Issa.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Secretary, thank you once again. I've got
more questions than time but hopefully we can get through some
of them fairly quickly.
We talked a little bit earlier. Currently, at my border--my
100 miles of the Mexican border--we have a massive amount of
immigrants coming not from South or Central America but from
disparate places and I'll just take one example.
The people coming there from China, over 20,000 of them in
the last month, they flew typically to Turkey, then to Mexico,
and then came into the United States.
Turkey does not allow Chinese to enter Turkey without a
visa. Mexico does not allow people to enter including Chinese
without a visa. However, they are currently entering because
they say, oh, just let us off the plane and we'll go to
America.
As our head diplomat with these two allies, one of them a
NATO ally, can you or will you attempt to tell them that under
international law if they don't have a visa to the United
States you do not want them to come to make a claim that they
could have or should have made before they got to our border?
Secretary Blinken. In short, yes. I think you've identified
a very important problem. You mentioned the case of China. We
have a record increase in the number of Chinese who are seeking
to get into the United States who presented themselves in one
way or another and there are other nationalized, too, that are
far afield from our own hemisphere.
Mr. Issa. I mentioned China mostly because as we both know
they won't take them back once they get here.
Secretary Blinken. So you've identified an important
problem and we have been acting on it. We have been working
with countries in the region to get requirements for visas so
that people can't simply come to those countries without a visa
and then use that as a platform to come into the United States.
We have reached agreements in a variety of ways with
Colombia, with Ecuador, with El Salvador, with Guatemala, with
Mexico, actually, as well as with Panama and we continue to
make sure that to the best of our ability those countries put
in place what's needed so that people from far afield can't
avail themselves of the opportunity to----
Mr. Issa. Excellent. Thank you, Secretary. As I said, I've
got a bunch here.
Secretary Blinken. Please.
Mr. Issa. Hopefully, what we passed out of the committee
this morning giving export controls for AI will be a tool that
will be used heavily out of Commerce and will benefit our war
against a number of countries and I'm going to just deal with
one for a moment.
When President Biden entered office there were about
300,000 barrels a day leaving Iran. Today there are reported to
be over 2 million barrels a day leaving Iran. They had about 70
ships. They now have about 400 ships. They are called ghost
ships.
I know that you do not run a military force but as our
chief diplomat and a member of the National Security Council
couldn't or shouldn't we be able to, essentially, capture those
ships on the high sea and take them out of commission to
ultimately enforce sanctions?
You're our number-one sanctions supporter but your
sanctions, now that they've circumvented SWIFT and the other
economic trades, have become somewhat muted. What should we do
in combination with the other entities?
Secretary Blinken. Yes, so I think there are a few things,
Congressman.
First, we have sanctioned in the oil/petroleum product
sector more than 200 Iranian entities or individuals who have
been engaged in that trade. We have done it across multiple
jurisdictions. Anyone who has a role in the production, the
sale, the shipment of these petrochemicals or petrol chemicals.
But we also identified, yes----
Mr. Issa. But, Mr. Secretary, in the limited time can you
get to the ships?
Secretary Blinken. Yes. So on the ships we have identified
to date through our laws 50 vessels that we have determined are
blocked property. In other words, people can't deal with them--
they can't go to a port, they can't get service--and we'll
continue on that effort to identify those vessels, block them.
We're also looking at getting countries to deflag these
vessels so, again, they won't be able to move around, travel
around, get the services they need.
The sanctions that we have imposed have made all of this a
lot more expensive for the Iranians. As they try to evade them,
get around them, they're not getting the revenues that they
anticipated getting from their massive efforts to sell oil.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Secretary, as I run out of time, let me just
ask one final followup on that. I believe if Ronald Reagan were
president or someone like him those ships would not be on the
high sea.
Do you have or would you accept the authority from Congress
if you don't have it to, in fact, seize those clandestine ships
as Ronald Reagan would have?
Remember, Ronald Reagan sunk two Iranian ships because of
what they were doing. I believe strongly that if you don't have
the authority the Congress on a bipartisan basis would give you
the authority to intervene, to capture those ships, to work
with the flagged nations to put all 400 out of commission. Will
you commit to work with us on that effort?
Secretary Blinken. Well, as I think you mentioned or one of
our colleagues mentioned, we don't actually have a military at
the State Department so that's not our business. Our focus is
on working with other countries and using our own authorities
in the areas that we can to go after anyone who's engaged in
shipping, supplying, transporting this--these products and
that's what we'll continue to do.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. The chair recognizes
Mr. Castro.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Secretary, for
your testimony today.
Before I start with my questions I wanted to say thank you
so much for your work, the work of Director Burns, our national
security adviser, and others who have worked hard to achieve a
cease-fire in the Israel/Palestine situation and also release
of the hostages. So thank you for your hard work on that.
I understand your position regarding jurisdiction and views
on the recent announcement by the International Criminal
Court's prosecutor to recommend warrants for the arrest of the
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister
Gallant as well as Hamas leaders.
You've also been a long-standing champion of both the U.N.
system and other international organizations. The United States
has also supported ICC investigations of Russian crimes in
Ukraine and of crimes committed in Sudan and the Central
African Republic.
So I wanted to ask you do you believe that the independence
of the International Criminal Court should be respected?
Secretary Blinken. I have to tell you, Congressman, that
the decision that the prosecutor made is both incredibly
wrongheaded and, in my judgment, undermines the credibility of
the court.
You're right that we have sought to find ways to work with
the court to support its efforts including in Ukraine, Sudan,
other places, but to have gone forward with these warrant
requests to do it in the way that it was done, first of all,
the court itself--and I had a long conversation with the----
Mr. Castro. But the court--but do you believe the court
should maintain its independence?
Secretary Blinken. Well, I think it should maintain its
independence but I also think it should act pursuant to its own
mandate and charter, and what's clear from the creation of the
court is it's supposed to be a court of last resort to act
where other countries cannot or will not.
Mr. Castro. No, and I think you all put out a strong
statement. I want to ask you----
Secretary Blinken. Israel has----
Mr. Castro. But at the same time----
Secretary Blinken [continuing]. On time investigations of
itself and it's demonstrated time and time again that it will
investigate alleged violations of the law. There are multiple--
--
Mr. Castro. At the same time--but, Secretary, let me ask
you, at the same time you would agree that there shouldn't be
any intimidation or coercion of the ICC?
Secretary Blinken. It's not a question of intimidating or
coercing. It's a question of seeing a wrongheaded decision but
also seeing what was genuinely a shameful--a shameful
comparison----
Mr. Castro. This court is going to have to exist well
beyond even what's going on now, right? I mean, there will be
other issues that it takes up with other nations in the future.
Secretary Blinken. It will have to determine what it does
and where it goes. But in this instance I can tell you that not
only was it wrongheaded but there was a shameful equivalence.
Mr. Castro. Let me ask you this. As you know, the previous
administration attempted to coerce the ICC by imposing
sanctions on its then prosecutor and their staff. In April 2021
you rescinded those sanctions and said that, quote, ``Concerns
about these cases would be better addressed through engagement
with all stakeholders in the ICC process rather than through
the imposition of sanctions.''
Do you continue to impose sanctions on the ICC as you did 3
years ago?
Secretary Blinken. When we lifted those sanctions it was,
first and foremost, to make sure that we can do everything
possible to protect our own service members including those who
served in Afghanistan and also to see if we could find a basis
for supporting the court's efforts in critical places and we
were able to do that.
But the actions that were taken really call into question
whether that's possible and, certainly, not possible in this
instance.
Mr. Castro. Sure. Let me get to one more question.
Last week Israeli minister of national security Itamar Ben-
Gvir stated that no humanitarian aid should be provided to
Gazans until the hostages are returned, stating that, quote,
``Want food for the children in Gaza? Then they should return
the hostages.''
I fully believe that Hamas' kidnapping of children was a
war crime and have said so repeatedly and publicly, and that
they should be unconditionally returned to their families. I
also believe that withholding food from children cannot be the
way to achieve that goal.
Would you agree with that?
Secretary Blinken. I fully and absolutely agree, and we
have been working every single day to try to make sure that the
children who so desperately need the food, the assistance, the
mothers, the fathers, everyone gets it and holding anyone
hostage in terms of food aid anywhere in the world is wrong.
Mr. Castro. Well, let me ask you this.
Given the senior role--given the senior role of Israeli
ministers expressing these views--these are people very high up
in the prime minister's cabinet--can you categorically say that
relevant authorities in the Israeli government are not
restricting humanitarian assistance to reach Gaza?
Secretary Blinken. Again, that's not the policy. As I've
said repeatedly, we have seen over these seven or 8 months now
a clear gap----
[Disturbance in the hearing room.]
Chairman McCaul. The committee will suspend while the
Capitol Police restore order.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. Mr. Secretary, you may continue.
Secretary Blinken. Yes, thank you. We are determined to do
everything possible to make sure that people who so desperately
need this aid get this aid, and when it comes to the policies
of the government we're focused on those. When individuals make
these statements we condemn them.
Mr. Castro. Sure, and I'm out of time. But I wanted to say
again thank you for the work that you all are--the hours,
everything you're doing. Thank you.
[Disturbance in the hearing room.]
Chairman McCaul. The committee will suspend while the
Capitol Police restore order. The committee will suspend.
The gentleman yields. The chair recognizes Mrs. Wagner.
Mrs. Wagner. I thank the chairman and I thank you,
Secretary Blinken, for your service. I know this is a tough, a
tough time for all of us.
Sir, this administration is waffling, first in Afghanistan
and today, shockingly to me, in Israel it has created
instability on a massive scale.
Secretary Blinken, the world, as we have all discussed
here, is on fire and conflicts have engulfed Europe and the
Middle East, emboldening every single dictator from Putin to Xi
to Khamenei to attack U.S. allies and interests.
The administration's decision to withhold weapon sales and
deliveries to Israel in a--during a time of war, sir, just
weeks after Iran launched unprecedented missiles, upwards of
350 cruise ballistic missiles, drones, attacked on Israel
directly from Iranian soil is nothing less than a betrayal of
our ally. It is foreign policy malpractice and I guarantee you
that Iran and Russia and China are watching the United States
turned its back on its most important Middle Eastern ally.
Secretary Blinken, on May 7th I sent you a letter asking
for a full accounting of the weapon sales and deliveries to
Israel. The administration is delaying and I want to focus
right now very specifically, sir, in particular on the delay of
the sale of 6,500 JDAMs.
I'm sure you're familiar with them. These are the high
precision GPS-oriented--you know, with the least amount of
collateral damage in an urban area you wanted JDAM and we have
sent out tons of them to Israel and everywhere else.
They also just happen to be made in the St. Louis
metropolitan area in St. Charles in my district and since I
have not yet received a response to this letter let me ask you
why this?
Why has the administration failed to move forward with a
notification process for the sale of 6,500 JDAMs to Israel and
when will the administration resume the notification process?
Secretary Blinken. First, and I'll respond to your question
directly--first, when Iran launched that unprecedented attack
that you referred to on Israel for the first time ever the
United States actively participated in Israel's defense and we
brought----
Mrs. Wagner. I know. I know, and so did Jordan and so
Saudi--we know this.
Secretary Blinken. Yes, that's right, and what we noticed
Iran noticed and Israel noticed.
Mrs. Wagner. I don't need history. I want answers.
Limited time, sir. Please. My JDAMs.
Secretary Blinken. Yes. So there are a number of different
sale proposals that are in different places at different points
in the process and Congress----
Mrs. Wagner. This has been months and months and months,
sir, and we sent them to them in the past.
Secretary Blinken. Congress right now is still reviewing a
JDAM sale that it hasn't--that we sent forward that's not gone
forward.
Mrs. Wagner. What specific issues remain outstanding for
the review?
Secretary Blinken. We are--we follow the process and we
have gone out of our way to prenotify Congress and even----
Mrs. Wagner. What bureaus object to the sale?
Secretary Blinken. It's not a question of objecting. We
want to follow the process and make sure that we move forward.
Mrs. Wagner. Sir, please, because it has truly been months
and months and months. Will you commit to bringing your
personal engagement to ensure the process for this specific
case moves expeditiously?
Secretary Blinken. We're going to make sure that all of the
cases move appropriately and expeditiously including this one.
Mrs. Wagner. Well, this one sure has not, and have any
divisions within State conducted any economic analysis to
measure the impact of potential even job losses and furloughs
because of your decision to pause this pending arms sale and,
if not, why not?
Because you know what, sir? My constituents in St. Louis
greater metropolitan area they were--this whole region they
rely on these jobs to pay for their mortgages, their car
payments, the daycare costs, and they can't afford to lose
their jobs to support this partisan stall tactic.
Secretary Blinken. There is no pause.
Mrs. Wagner. They're sitting in a warehouse, 6,500 of them.
Secretary Blinken. There is no pause, and as I said in many
cases including this one we have previewed with Congress, which
we are not at all obligated to do, sales that we were
contemplating and had not yet decided on and there are things--
--
Mrs. Wagner. You have not come to us to tell us this. We
read about this in Axios, the Wall Street Journal, and CNN.
Arms sales to trusted partners like Israel, Taiwan, and NATO
allies are a critical component of our national security.
Secretary Blinken. They are.
Mrs. Wagner. Are you concerned that delaying sales to
Israel will diminish our credibility as the arsenal of
democracy?
Secretary Blinken. Again, we're following the process and,
again, I invite you to look at----
Mrs. Wagner. Well, the process has taken too darn long and
they've been sitting there for months and no one's explaining
what's holding them up but you all. They have been signed off
on.
I mean, the United States, sir, has obligations to our
friends and allies including Israel and our unshakeable
commitment to Israel's security is clearly laid out in the 2016
MOU that Congress has fully funded every year since it was
signed.
Secretary Blinken. And Joe Biden was the one who brought
that MOU.
Mrs. Wagner. And when we honor our obligations the world is
a safer place. But when the United States fails to keep its
promises and the commitments the U.S. is now failing to keep
its promise to Israel.
We are telling our enemies that we are unreliable and
irresolute partners. That is incredibly damaging to global
security and the administration needs to right this ship and
fully restore U.S. security assistance to Israel.
My time has expired and I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields.
The chair recognizes Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, as you know I represent Las Vegas and we
have an economy that's pretty uniquely dependent on tourism.
Just last year we had 359,000 jobs in tourism, $20 billion in
wages, and almost $80 billion in overall economic input.
But the excessive wait times for visas are really hurting
communities like mine at the different U.S. consular posts
around the world.
And just to put this in perspective, the World Cup is
coming to the Americas in 2026. It's expected to attract 8
million international visitors. Some, we think, will come to
Las Vegas from southern California. Tickets go on sale December
2025.
But in many countries the wait time for getting a visa
might make it already too late. In Mumbai the next available
interview is October 2025, just 2 months before tickets go on
sale.
In Bogota it's February 2026, nearly 2 months after they go
on sale and in Mexico City it's already too late. The available
interview is in August 2026, which is a month after the World
Cup is over.
Now, I know you all have been making progress lowering wait
times. You have a expanded interview waiver authority. But what
about the people who haven't been here before?
And I think this problem is not only hurting us
economically but it's part of our soft power and our cultural
diplomacy.
So could you talk a little bit about how we can address
this problem? Do you need additional resources? What the
situation is.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you. No, I very, very much agree
with you. We're intensely focused on this. In Fiscal Year 1923
we issued more nonimmigrant visas by over 20 percent than we
did before the pandemic, which is when we started to have real
challenges with both visas outside of the country, passports
inside of the country, and we have reduced now interview
times--the wait times for interviews--to prepandemic levels in
every category except one and the one is first time visitors to
the United States who are from nonvisa waiver countries.
So that's what we're intensely focused on now, making sure
that those wait times come down along with every other wait
time. The wait times that have come down, again, to prepandemic
levels include the categories that are most impactful on the
United States economy--students, temporary workers, maritime
crew renewals, et cetera.
But the focus now is on making sure that those who are
coming for the first time and are not coming from a visa waiver
country that those times come down.
Ms. Titus. Are you keeping in mind the World Cup that's
coming rapidly to our city?
Secretary Blinken. Very much. Very much so.
Ms. Titus. Well, we appreciate that. Thank you.
My other question has to do with the Global Engagement
Center. The Republicans on this committee seem to be confused
about what that does or, maybe more importantly, what it
doesn't do and that's been made pretty manifest in this flawed
so-called investigation that they're conducting.
Would you talk about the national security consequences of
failing to reauthorize the GEC?
Secretary Blinken. Yes, thank you.
As I mentioned, it's the only part of the U.S. Government
that is singularly dedicated to directing and coordinating our
efforts to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation
abroad, and I think if it were to be terminated--that is, if
the sunset was allowed to happen without being reauthorized--we
would have a policy and operational incoherence.
We'd have degraded public response to information
manipulation by China, by Russia, by Iran, by other foreign
actors, and a growing number of allies who rely on the GEC to
help them develop the tools to expose and to deal with
misinformation and disinformation also would be let down.
We have seen time and again now the effectiveness of this
organization in exposing that disinformation in other parts of
the world including in our hemisphere.
Ms. Titus. Could you give us an example of that so it's
really clear what the GEC does?
Secretary Blinken. Sure. I mean--so, for example, we have
seen that Russian websites that were producing and
disseminating disinformation and misinformation in the Western
Hemisphere, in Africa, they were exposed. They were removed.
We revealed a campaign by Russia targeting U.S. and Western
health initiatives in Africa trying to undermine the
credibility of those initiatives. They were exposed and we were
able to deal with that.
We revealed a campaign to launder Kremlin disinformation
through local media in the Western Hemisphere trying to gin up
arguments against Ukraine, against NATO, in our own hemisphere.
Exposed, and we were able to more effectively deal with that.
Similarly with China we have seen Chinese disinformation in
third countries about elections. We have done open source
mapping through the GEC of their efforts to use surveillance
and data collection in Xinjiang, which we have made available
to people.
So in a whole variety of ways we have been able to not only
expose this but also working with countries we now have 29
countries that use the GEC platform and hundreds of users to
not only expose but also help develop the tools themselves to
take action to remove and deal with disinformation.
But I want to emphasize this has nothing to do with the
United States. It's not focused on that.
Mrs. Wagner [presiding]. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Titus. I'm sorry. You took a little more extra time. So
could you finish?
Secretary Blinken. Not focused on this country at all. It
is entirely about misinformation and disinformation abroad
being perpetrated by adversaries like----
Mrs. Wagner. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
Mrs. Wagner. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Mast, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I want to talk about a few different areas of spending. My
colleague just brought up the Global Engagement Center. Now,
whether we're talking about GEC or State officially or USAID or
U.S. Agency for Global Media, the fact of the matter is you
guys put out solicitations, grants, sub grants, to the agencies
that--or to the entities that get grants, NGO's, you name it--
dollars spread across the globe, and this is the statement--
what I believe should be a statement of policy bipartisanly
between Republicans and Democrats in the House, those in the
Senate.
Until State, USAID, all those agencies, start giving us
notice of every one of those grants, sub grants,
solicitations--start giving us notice of every single one of
them we should not be giving you one more dollar and I think
the proof for why that is the case is in how--in far too many
circumstances you all really have no idea where the money is
going.
And I'm not saying it's easy to figure out where it's going
in every circumstance but that can't be the situation and I'm
going to reference a few different places.
You have NAS sitting behind you here. We had a hearing for
a couple hours here in this very room where we discussed just a
half million dollar grant to expand atheism in Nepal. It was
denied for a couple hours until we held up the actual
solicitation for the grant and then, of course, it was
acknowledged that it did actually take place.
And then we got a call a couple weeks later saying, oh, and
by the way, the agency that we gave it to they didn't even give
us all of the information on it in the slides. It's just one
example. I'm not going to hash it all out.
But it's one example of you all didn't know where the money
that you sent out there from the U.S. taxpayer was going. I was
reading over the last 24 hours the Special Investigation into
Afghanistan Reconstruction--the SIGAR report--and looking at
the amount of money that has gone directly to the Taliban.
It's not a mystery. It's not something to argue about. It
is a fact money going directly to the Taliban that's gone out
through all of these agencies that State works with and,
specifically, 144 partners were referenced in this SIGAR
report.
And when it talks about it it talks about the 144 partners
and the questions that they were asked, but of those partners
only 65 of them actually chose to answer to the inspector
general about where the dollars were going. The other 79 didn't
even feel like they had to answer questions about where the
U.S. taxpayer dollars were being spent.
We saw it from the Pentagon just in the last day that--on
this massive pier that was built that was worked on by you all,
that none of the aid has yet made it to the people of Gaza yet.
It's sitting in warehouses and other places.
Again, just to the point that there's not nearly enough
accountability and we should be receiving every grant, every
sub grant, every awardee, every solicitation that should be
sent through this body for review whether in a classified or
unclassified setting.
Now, I do have a couple of questions on that. I spoke about
the 79 grantees in part that did not respond to the SIGAR
report and I have a question about them.
Since that time, have you frozen any of the bank accounts
of those 79 entities?
Secretary Blinken. Congressman, we have looked very hard at
the SIGAR report. I think it's important to note that money
does not go directly to Taliban. It goes to the United Nations,
NGO's. We have dedicated about $2 billion so that the people in
Afghanistan----
Mr. Mast. No, no. Now you're literally telling lies to the
American people. These State dollars went directly to those
that were solicited to do it--these implementing partners as
it's referred to--and they paid directly money to the Taliban.
Sometimes they labeled it taxes. Sometimes they labeled it
value added taxes. Sometimes they labeled it a host of
different things.
But do not pretend that money did not go directly to the
Taliban.
Secretary Blinken. It did not go directly to the Taliban.
Let me--again, if you'll give me one chance to just lay this
out very quickly.
Mr. Mast. No.
Secretary Blinken. It went--well, Okay. I mean, I'm here to
answer questions. If you don't want----
Mr. Mast. Because anybody can go out there and read the
SIGAR report.
Secretary Blinken. I invite them to do that.
Mr. Mast. That's a----
Secretary Blinken. So I acknowledge that helping the Afghan
people, 10 million--.05 percent were----
Mr. Mast. The answer is no. Not looking to have you
filibuster the time for this. I do have some more questions.
Have you frozen any of the bank accounts of the 79 entities
that just chose to say, piss off, America--we don't feel like
answering your questions about where----
Secretary Blinken. We have just gotten the report and we'll
work on any consequences that need to followup on it.
Mr. Mast. So no, though? That's the answer? Nothing frozen
yet.
Any shuttered offices or deregistration from lists of
partners that you have worked with?
Secretary Blinken. Again, I think this report came forward
just a few days ago. We are, obviously, looking at it. We're
working at it and we'll see what steps need to be taken to deal
with it.
Mr. Mast. Good. Do look at that and do work on that. One
other question here and I will read a statement here from the
SIGAR. They did ask this question to affirm the accuracy and
completeness of the responses provided.
They requested that State attest to the questionnaire that
it was distributed to all implementing partners, that responses
were not altered, and attempts were not made to influence the
implementing partners and State refused to answer if that was
the case. Would you answer that?
Secretary Blinken. I'm certainly not aware of that. I'm
happy to look into it.
Mr. Mast. Thank you.
Mrs. Wagner. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Phillips, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome, Mr.
Secretary.
Let me start by defending you, the overwhelming majority of
those of us on this committee, in this entire Congress,
Americans, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, agnostics,
around the world, even Israelis and Palestinians, which is to
say we're all disgusted.
We all want peace. We do not want war. We want prosperity,
not misery, and to accuse any of us including you of being
butchers or ignorant is shameful, and I want to remind those
protesting you have that right because this is America but you
can't make peace with terrorists and we probably can't make
peace as long as Benjamin Netanyahu is the prime minister of
Israel.
I think those two things can be true at once. But I want to
remind everybody here that we're in this business to make
peace, not war, and that's what I want to focus on--not bombs
but peace and say too that one child being murdered is too
many, whether that's in a school here in the United States
because of sickening gun violence, whether it's a terrorist
attack in Tel Aviv, or whether it is a bomb in Gaza. One is too
many.
Mr. Secretary, where do we go from here? A lot of the
questions have been retrospective about holds and bombs and
missiles and support. Where do we go from here? Seventy-five
years of misery.
You have one of the hardest jobs in the world. I know where
your heart is. What happens next and what do we need to do to
finally end this nonsense, identify a path to peace and
prosperity and mutual security?
Secretary Blinken. I appreciate your comments, Congressman,
and I would say that I think there is a clear path and the
clear path goes with the following.
One is there's an extraordinary opportunity for Israel to
achieve what it has sought from the day of its founding and
that is acceptance by its neighbors to be--to have normal
relations with all the countries in the region starting with
Saudi Arabia, and we have been working intensively on that
normalization process and we are very close to being able to
complete the agreements necessary between us and Saudi Arabia.
But then it will require Israel to make decisions about
Gaza and ending the conflict there as well as creating a
credible pathway to a Palestinian State. If that happens then
Israel will get what it has long sought which is, again,
acceptance in the region.
It will have partners who will be looking out for it as we
saw on April 13 and April 14 when countries in the region
because of the United States came to its defense against this
unprecedented attack by Iran.
Its number-one threat and one that we face as well, Iran,
will be isolated and, of course, the resolution, finally, of
the Palestinian problem can be achieved in ways that guarantee
Israel's security.
The bottom line is you have, roughly, 5 million
Palestinians between the West Bank and Gaza, roughly, 7 million
Jews in Israel.
Neither is going away. The Palestinians aren't going
anywhere. The Jews are not going anywhere. There has to be an
accommodation. Absent that accommodation we are in for an
endless repeat of this cycle.
We will always do everything we can to make sure that
Israel can defend itself and defend Israel as necessary. But
this path forward is clear, it's compelling, and it answers
Israel's most profound needs. So I hope we can move down it.
Mr. Phillips. Is it fair to say that based on your
experience and the basic human condition that when humans have
something to protect they act defensively, not offensively?
Is one of the paths to peace that Israelis, we Americans,
Palestinians, the Arab world, should understand and recognize
the Gulf states that people need something to protect?
Secretary Blinken. Yes. When you have something to protect,
when you have something that you take pride in then, of course,
that's what you want to do.
Mr. Phillips. I'm the ranking member of the Middle East
Subcommittee, of course, with my dear friend Chairman Wilson.
We traveled to the Middle East last--in August.
Of course, a lot has changed since then. I've been to
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel twice. A lot has changed, of
course, but my question is relative to the PA.
You know, why is this not more of a focal point right now?
We can't make peace with Hamas. What do we need to do? What
does Israel need to do? What can we do to at least identify a
potentially principled leadership group to represent
Palestinians at a table knowing--absent that there is no path?
Secretary Blinken. Well, look, I agree with that. In the
category of you can't beat something with nothing one of the
answers to durably getting rid of Hamas and making sure it can
never come back again is to have a real alternative, one that
can actually advance the interests of the Palestinian people
and not destroy them as Hamas has done.
Mr. Phillips. And I only have a few seconds.
Is Abu Mazen the man or are there other able competent next
generation----
Secretary Blinken. We have a new--there is a new prime
minister. There is a new government. There's a new program to
get it reformed to deal with corruption. We have engaged with
the new prime minister.
He's a serious individual who's trying, but he also needs
the resources necessary so that the PA can deliver more
effectively for the people it represents.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you for sharing my sentiment. With
that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mrs. Wagner. The gentleman has yielded back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Burchett, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Chairlady.
Mr. Secretary, what do you think of Code Pink?
Secretary Blinken. I think that there are very passionate
people who are expressing deep-felt feelings. I may disagree
with their views. I respect the right of people to make known
their views. That's what this country is all about.
Of course, to do it in a peaceful way, to do it in ways
that don't disrupt the ability to have a conversation and
engagement. But I know that people are, for the most part,
motivated by deep felt feelings, beliefs, and passions.
Mr. Burchett. Well, I disagree with them when I'm crossing
the street and a lady tells me that they're going to kill my
wife and daughter. So I think you all need to rethink your
support of groups like that.
Do you believe the Afghanistan withdrawal was a success?
Secretary Blinken. I believe that the President did the
right thing in ending America's longest war.
Mr. Burchett. You know, Staff Sergeant Ron Knauss--his
family is a constituent of mine--was killed there and we were
given testimony, and then this has been told many times where
the Marine sniper had the suicide bomber in his sights twice
and were told that leadership, the State Department, both
canceled that--his ability to take out that suicide bomber and
13 brave American police----
Secretary Blinken. The State Department has nothing to do
with that. We don't give orders to the military. I know that--
--
Mr. Burchett. Do you advise the military?
Secretary Blinken. We don't advise the military. We don't
give orders to the military.
Mr. Burchett. Are you in contact with the military?
Secretary Blinken. Of course. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Burchett. All right.
Should we be paying taxes to the Taliban?
Secretary Blinken. We don't pay taxes to the Taliban. As I
think we were discussing with----
Mr. Burchett. Mr. Secretary, the Special Inspector General
for Afghanistan Reconstruction has found at least $10.9 million
of U.S. taxpayer money was paid to the Taliban in the form of
taxes since the withdrawal of 2021. Are you saying that they
are not telling the truth?
Secretary Blinken. So what happens is this--yes, what
happens is this, Congressman. We provided lifesaving
desperately needed assistance to NGO's and the United Nations,
which has spent in Afghanistan $2 billion. Of that, according
to the report, about $10 million or 0.5 percent----
Mr. Burchett. Ten million maybe not a lot to you, sir, but
I can guarantee to the people in Tennessee that's a heck of a
lot of money. That's a heck of a lot of money, and to brush it
off as a minuscule amount, I think, just shows how out of touch
you are with the American people.
Secretary Blinken. The question is what are----
Mr. Burchett. I didn't--that was a statement. That wasn't a
question. You provided aid to get Gaza, which was then stolen
by Hamas. How many terrorist groups are we funding or supplying
with aid?
Secretary Blinken. None.
Mr. Burchett. None? You're here to tell me that none of
this money is flowing into----
Secretary Blinken. We're not--we're not funding them. We're
not supplying them. When it comes to humanitarian assistance in
Gaza there have been instances where Hamas has seized the
assistance but it's not being done in--ask the Israelis--in a
in a systematic way.
To the extent that assistance is being diverted typically
it's because people are so desperate that they self-distribute
the convoys. There have been incidents where it's been Hamas. I
don't----
Mr. Burchett. Self-distribute--you mean they just----
Secretary Blinken. Yes, they come in----
Mr. Burchett. Hamas stops the convoy and steals it and then
it gets--and then----
Secretary Blinken. Hamas just--no, desperate people.
Desperate people, and then----
Mr. Burchett. And then the people--and their leadership in
Qatar or Qatar, whichever the case may be, end up billionaires.
Secretary Blinken. Yes, and that was actually Israel's
policy for a decade. In fact, the administration today--swears
today made clear that that was a big mistake.
Mr. Burchett. Let me ask you this. Why are you allowing--
I'm going to be a jerk here and reclaim my time.
Secretary Blinken. Please go ahead. Go ahead.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, brother. I appreciate that.
Why are you allowing Iran to sell so much dad gum oil?
Secretary Blinken. We are working every day to cut that
off. I mentioned earlier that we have sanctioned more than 200
entities and individuals. We have blocked more than 50 ships.
We continue to look for others. We're working to deflag the
ships and it's an effort that we're making.
Mr. Burchett. Well, President Biden has lessened the
sanctions on Iraq oil sales in February 2021. Since then it's
been estimated Iran has made an additional hundred billion
dollars from selling oil. They were a bankrupt country,
basically, when you all took over and now they're literally
rolling in it and they're exporting that terror with that
terrorism.
Secretary Blinken. Well, if you look at their economic
situation I don't think that accords with the facts and the
fact of the matter is we haven't lifted a single sanction
against Iran and we continue to work to cutoff the oil and the
petrochemicals.
Mr. Burchett. Well, how can Iran be selling 1 million more
barrels of oil per day than in 2020?
Secretary Blinken. They're determined to do whatever they
can and we're working to make sure that wherever we can we can
deal with that.
Mr. Burchett. Well, I appreciate that. But the time for
Iranian appeasement is over, Mr. Secretary. The
administration's policy toward the Middle East have not only
made our allies in the Middle East less safe but it also has
made the U.S. homeland less safe. Iran is far richer now than
it was 4 years ago.
Nobody can argue with that. You can say all the--you know,
statistics don't lie, just statisticians, and I believe you're
following in their footsteps, and they are using this money to
sponsor terrorism.
Look around you, Mr. Secretary. Your plan is not working
again. Again, I go back to my original statement about
Afghanistan. A young man lost his life. Every night--every day
at my farm I drive out on the street named after Staff Sergeant
Ryan Knauss. His life was taken short--13 brave Americans
should be here today--by a failure on your all's part.
I yield back, Lady Chair.
Mrs. Wagner. The gentleman yield yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Connolly, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Connolly. I like Mr. Burkett but I don't think I've
heard such a radical alternative expression of reality in a
long time.
Mr. Burchett. It's Burchett.
Mr. Connolly. With respect to Afghanistan, Mr. Secretary,
remind us who negotiated a deal with the Taliban and excluded
the Afghan government from those negotiations and agreed to the
release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners, many of whom then took to
the battlefield that led to the fall of Kabul. Would you remind
us who negotiated that agreement and under whose presidency
that occurred?
Secretary Blinken. That was the previous administration.
Mr. Connolly. Again, Mr. Secretary, we have done this
before. Did that previous administration have a name?
Secretary Blinken. The Trump administration.
Mr. Connolly. The Trump administration. Thank you.
And with respect to Gaza, the idea that Hamas--and I have
no truck for Hamas. They are a terrorist organization that
committed repugnant acts and atrocities on October 7th. But
with respect to the blockage of, or interference with
truckloads of food, fuel, medicine, coming into Gaza who has
blocked the entrances into Gaza? Was it Hamas or was it the
IDF?
Secretary Blinken. I don't think either has blocked the
entrances into Gaza. The issue has been making sure that there
were more entrances so more aid could get in and we have been
working every single month with Israel--when it comes to
Hamas----
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Secretary--Mr. Secretary, in the previous
10 days 350 truckloads were allowed into Gaza. That's 35 a day.
They need 600. It isn't Hamas or Palestinian Authority that is
blocking those trucks. It's somebody else.
Secretary Blinken. Well, I'll give you an example. In the
last--just in the last couple of weeks because of the
operations around Rafah--the Rafah gate, one of the essential
gates, was closed down and we want to see that reopened.
Mr. Connolly. Right.
Secretary Blinken. Now, as it happens right now the
Egyptians are not moving forward with some assistance to go
through Rafah because they're concerned about the ability to
distribute the aid once it's on the other side of the gate
because of the combat operations.
So we're working to find a way to do that. Doing this in a
combat environment is incredibly challenging.
Mr. Connolly. Yes. Speaking of that, we now have sort of a
floating port with--that you promised----
Secretary Blinken. That's right.
Mr. Connolly [continuing]. And that is now up and operable.
But it was reported that none of the food that was offloaded
has been distributed to the Palestinians in need. Can you
enlighten us as to why not and what are we doing to correct
that?
Secretary Blinken. So two things. That port was designed to
be a complement to, not a substitute for, these land access
points. We have new ones in the north in Erez and Zikim.
We have the critical ones in the south but they've been
challenged by the recent operations, and when it comes to the
port we began to move things through the dock just a few days
ago. There was an initial attempt to deliver some of the things
that had been coming through the port.
Trucks went out and then, as I mentioned in another
conversation, desperate people went at the trucks in an effort
to get at the food before it could get to where it was supposed
to go in order to be distributed.
This is one of the reasons why it's so imperative that we
surge assistance because when people are so desperate and they
believe their only chance to get some food may be to go with
that one truck that they see that's what they'll do.
If you get a lot of assistance in people won't have that
worry anymore and, by the way, those who divert the assistance,
who steal it and then resell it, that won't be a profitable
business because the prices will come down if more assistance
is in.
Mr. Connolly. And for the record, Mr. Secretary, how would
you characterize communications between your office and the
White House and the Israeli government with respect to Rafah
and with respect to humanitarian aid?
Secretary Blinken. Virtually daily is how I would describe
it.
Mr. Connolly. Now, how would you characterize those
communications?
Secretary Blinken. It is an ongoing, constant discussion
and that's been from day one and our purpose has been to try to
maximize the assistance that gets to people and also to
maximize the protection of civilians who find themselves in a
horrific crossfire of Hamas' making.
Mr. Connolly. I think it's really important to emphasize
that because I think sometimes the President and you have been
subject to criticism as if you were not making those daily
communications and presumably they're pretty emphatic.
Secretary Blinken. Well, I'm--I won't characterize
diplomatic conversations except to say that we have intense
discussions, conversations, and as I said, for us it's
imperative that we see as much done as possible to protect and
help civilians who are being harmed.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, and thanks for doing that. I yield
back.
Mrs. Wagner. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Secretary Blinken, since 2021 Iran has generated, roughly,
$80 billion in revenue from its illicit oil sales in part due
to the administration's policy to chase another nuclear deal
and relaxed sanctions against the Iranian government.
The administration's gamble enabled Iranian oil exports to
hit a 5-year high, and according to multiple reports Iran's
funding to Hamas ballooned to $350 million in the months
leading up to October 7.
Does the administration--do you now admit that reversing
the maximum pressure campaign, the sanctions relief was a
mistake?
Secretary Blinken. There really hasn't been sanctions
relief. All of the sanctions programs are in effect. We have
applied sanctions more than 600 times against Iranian entities,
against Iranian individuals, 200 times in petrochemical sector.
Mr. Barr. Let me read from a report of the Associated Press
February 18th, 2021. Now, you say there was no sanctions
relief, and I'm quoting the article: ``The Biden administration
on Thursday rescinded former President Donald Trump's
restoration of U.N. sanctions on Iran, an announcement that
could help Washington move toward rejoining the 2015 nuclear
agreement aimed at reining in the Islamic Republic's nuclear
program.''
Are you suggesting that that report was false?
Secretary Blinken. Our own sanctions, those programs, none
of them have been lifted and, again, when it comes to the
nuclear agreement it was one of the worst mistakes that was
made to get out of that agreement because at least we had
Iran's nuclear program in a box. The breakout time to develop
fissile material was over 1 year.
Mr. Barr. I think----
Secretary Blinken. That's now come down to two or 3 weeks.
That's a real problem.
Mr. Barr. I think we can all see that--I think that we can
all see that allowing Iran to renew its oil exports was a
colossal error that helped finance this terrible attack against
our key ally on October 7th.
Let me move to the ICC prosecutor's decision to submit an
arrest warrant for Israel's prime minister and defense
minister. Obviously, that decision is as absurd as it is
outrageous and I credit the President first for calling it
outrageous.
The problem, though, Mr. Secretary, that I have is that on
May 12th you stated that the civilian casualty numbers reported
by Hamas make it, quote, ``reasonable to conclude that there
are instances where Israel has acted in ways that are not
consistent with international humanitarian law.'' Is that
correct? Is that what you said?
Secretary Blinken. That's what the report says, yes.
Mr. Barr. Well, so here's my concern is that your words may
very well have contributed to the ICC's attempt to prosecute
Prime Minister Netanyahu. Do you not see how your words could
very well be used against our own policy?
Secretary Blinken. No, because the report goes on to say
that those incidents which Israel itself acknowledges is
actually investigating and the court--the International Court--
the reason this is so wrongheaded, among other things, is that
it is engaging in a way that it was not supposed to do, which
is to be a court of last resort where another country is either
unwilling or unable to investigate itself and the report makes
clear that not only are we investigating instances where arms
may have been misused, so is Israel. A criminal investigation--
--
Mr. Barr. So do you disavow Hamas' own statistics? Do you
disavow those?
Secretary Blinken. What the----
Mr. Barr. Do you disavow the idea that Israel has acted in
a manner inconsistent with international law?
Secretary Blinken. As I said, given the totality of the
damage that's been done, given the fact that American weapons
have been used, it is reasonable to assess that there are
instances in which international humanitarian law was not
followed and, indeed, as I said----
Mr. Barr. Well, this is the problem that we have and maybe
this is why you all are making----
Secretary Blinken. Israel is investigating instances
itself.
Mr. Barr [continuing]. This is why maybe the administration
is holding arms from our ally that would enable them to finish
the job as they did. You did not put a hold and the
administration did not put a hold on bombs when the IDF went
into Gaza City, correct?
Secretary Blinken. That's correct.
Mr. Barr. And Gaza City is a dense urban environment just
as you described Rafah, correct?
Secretary Blinken. That's correct.
Mr. Barr. So what's the difference?
Secretary Blinken. We have seen and we have had concerns
about the way these large yield munitions have been used in
dense urban environments and we want to make sure----
Mr. Barr. Well, what I'm concerned about is that the
difference is that the domestic political environment in the
United States has changed.
Secretary Blinken. No, the----
Mr. Barr. But withholding these weapons from Israel is
sending a terrible signal to our enemies. Is the
administration's view that the only acceptable response is air
defense rather than preventing attacks before they happen?
Secretary Blinken. No, absolutely not and, in fact, we have
a better way to get at the enduring problem with Hamas and
that's what we have been discussing with Israel for many weeks
now, including in Rafah.
Mr. Barr. Well, Israel is facing threats from Iran,
Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Iranian terrorist proxies. They
need these weapons to deter--to deter--further attacks and we
need to come to their defense and not accuse them of violating
international law.
My time has expired but I hope that the administration will
reverse course and give our ally everything they need to
finally deradicalize Gaza including in Rafah. I yield.
Mr. Green [presiding]. The gentleman yields. I now
recognize Mr. Allred from Texas for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Allred. Hello, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for joining us
this afternoon.
I want to take the conversation back to Haiti, the first
post-colonial black republic and what was once a beacon of
abolition and self-determination and racial equality has,
unfortunately, fallen into tragic times.
What was once a proud country that had the strength and
determination to break free from French colonial rule over two
centuries ago now remains in limbo of political and economic
turmoil compounded by natural disasters.
I bring this up because for my constituents in Texas and
the folks that I represent we are seeing this also show up in
our backyard.
Since 2023 our law enforcement authorities have encountered
Haitian migrants nearly 146,000 times on the southwest border
seeking asylum. Homeland Security has actually had to revise
the CBP One app to include Haitian Creole since its launch to
deal with the volume.
I've seen this myself in my visits to our border, and with
the arrival of President Ruto and the Kenyan command staff
arriving in Haiti ahead of their multinational security support
force effort can you share how you see that Kenyan-led effort
going?
What's their mission? How are we supporting them and can we
support them as we continue to keep our other commitments
around the globe?
Secretary Blinken. Thank you. I think this is a vital
mission precisely because Haiti is really on a precipice, on a
precipice of becoming a failed State. But we have seen positive
developments in the last weeks that we need to build on.
One, we have a transitional Presidential council which is
starting to enable Haiti to get back on the democratic track
and to get to elections in which it will have a properly
mandated government.
Second, we have actually seen the Haitian National Police,
which is outmanned and outgunned by these gangs stand up in
more effective ways including regaining control of the airport.
Commercial flights have resumed.
We expect American carriers to start moving very soon as
well as other critical infrastructure. But this is critical. To
get back security control, to take it away from the gangs, the
police are trying. They need more help.
The purpose of this mission, which Kenya and a number of
other countries have stood up and volunteered to do, is
basically to provide operational as well as static support to
the Haitian National Police to counter the gangs, to
reestablish security, to create the conditions for elections,
to create the conditions for aid and development assistance to
actually get into Haiti.
It's time bound, it's focused on police, and it's really
focused on strengthening and bolstering the capacity of the
Haitian National Police to take this on for themselves and to
get that handoff. But they need some near-term support. That's
what the mission would do.
For us this is not us policing the world because there are
no Americans involved in this. Yes, the financing and the
funding it's critical that we play a lead role in that. But we
have a number of other countries that have contributed
significant sums to this and now we really need to make the
decision to be able to go forward with that funding.
Mr. Allred. And it's your belief that we can support this
multinational effort while also keeping our commitments to
Ukraine and Taiwan, our other allies?
Secretary Blinken. Yes. Given the sums involved,
absolutely, and DOD is providing some in kind support but we
also need some direct assistance that we're prepared to move
forward with.
Mr. Allred. Yes. I also wanted to ask you about recent
reports of Russia's Wagner forces working to expand their
operations in Haiti. Can you discuss that in this setting?
Secretary Blinken. In Haiti, did you say?
Mr. Allred. Yes, sir.
Secretary Blinken. So let me come back to you on that. I
haven't seen myself reports of Wagner. Unfortunately, we have
seen reports of Wagner or its successors in too many parts of
Africa making terrible trouble for people in those countries.
But I'll come back to you on that.
Mr. Allred. Okay. Well, I'm sure they're looking to take
advantage of every spot where they can. And we have seen
reports of international crime syndicates like the Colombian
cartel that are providing automatic weapons to the gangs, which
are now becoming more militias in Haiti.
How can we counteract that and what are we doing to address
that?
Secretary Blinken. So I think that's critical. It's
critical not only in Haiti but it's critical in other parts of
our hemisphere including in Mexico and we want to make sure
that these gangs do not get guns including guns coming from the
United States.
It's one reason why it was important that Congress
Federalize the crime of gun trafficking so that we have better
authorities to get at guns that are being illegally trafficked
in our own hemisphere including to Haiti.
And the points you made I want to come back to earlier is
that the challenging--more than challenging situation in Haiti
is a driver of irregular migration and it's clearly in our
interest to make sure that we're doing what we can to give
Haiti a better way forward so that we don't have that driver of
irregular migration.
Mr. Allred. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I wanted to
make sure that--you know, my constituents and folks in Texas
and here in the country understand that we have a stake in what
happens in Haiti as well and that our efforts to stabilize
Haiti benefit us and that this Kenyan-led effort deserves our
support that we can do it consistent with our other
commitments.
So thank you for your testimony.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
Mr. Green. The gentleman yields.
The chair recognizes Mrs. Kim from California for 5 minutes
of questioning.
Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Secretary Blinken. Thank
you very much for coming to our committee today. I want to
switch gears to Indo-Pacific.
Last month CCP orchestrated the passage of the draconian
Article 23 legislation in Hong Kong that is part of, as you
said, intensifying repression and could be applied outside of
its borders as part of China's ongoing campaign of
transnational repression.
Despite the State Department's determination and actions
taken to impose some visa restrictions there have been no Hong
Kong officials that were sanctioned since 2021 and it should be
noted that in 2020 it took the administration only 5 weeks
after passage of Hong Kong's National Security Law to issue
sanctions and Article 23 is much worse by all accounts.
So could you tell us why the administration hasn't
sanctioned officials in Hong Kong since 2021 despite
intensifying repression in the last year?
Secretary Blinken. So we have designated, first and
foremost, seven officials from the PRC for the actions that
have been taken in Hong Kong including exactly what you've just
cited and as well we are imposing visa restrictions on Hong
Kong officials for the actions that they've taken to undermine
freedom, to undermine autonomy, to undermine basic law.
Mrs. Kim of California. Secretary, I want you to know that
I have introduced Hong Kong sanctions act that list 49 Hong
Kong judges, prosecutors, officials, playing an active role in
persecuting dissidents in Hong Kong.
So if my office transmits the list of these individuals to
you can you assure me that you will evaluate whether these
individuals can be sanctioned under existing authorities?
Secretary Blinken. Yes.
Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you very much.
I also want to ask you if you have any plans to impose
targeted sanctions on perpetuator of that repression based on
Article 23 that we talked about earlier?
Secretary Blinken. Yes. We're looking across the board at
taking necessary actions including sanctions against
individuals who are undermining Hong Kong's basic autonomy and
we'll continue to do that. But I'm happy to look at the list
that you have.
Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you. Let me turn to Korean
Peninsula issue. Special Envoy Julie Turner was finally sworn
in by the State Department last October but, as you know, she
was confirmed by the Senate and it took months before she was
finally sworn in by your department.
So while I'm pleased that she's in the position and
carrying out the mandate as noted by the legislation that we
passed I'm concerned that the Special Envoy office is not given
the proper attention by the State Department leadership.
I've also heard some concerns from outside stakeholders
that the office relies on staff from the Korea desk and other
offices to carry out its mandate.
So can you tell us what you're doing to ensure that the
Special Envoy and the Office of Special Envoy and Human Rights
in North Korea is given all the tools it needs to fulfill that
mandate based on the legislation?
Secretary Blinken. Well, in fact, I think as we speak
Special Envoy Turner is in Korea right now, in South Korea
working on this critical portfolio and, yes, I'm going to make
sure that she continues to have the resources, the support that
she needs. And in all of our engagements with----
Mrs. Kim of California. Does she have a separate staff just
dedicated to this so she doesn't have to outsource staffing and
support from other offices within the bureau?
Secretary Blinken. We want to make sure that she has what
she needs. But, of course, it would help if we got our budget
passed and we were able to actually resource the department
including with the staff that we need across the department.
Mrs. Kim of California. Let me talk to you about Taiwan. As
you know, Taiwan is a critical public health partner to the
U.S. and plays an important role in the global health community
and, you know, I passed the legislation Taiwan WHO Act.
That was signed into law 2 years ago and it directs the
administration to support Taiwan's observer status in the World
Health Assembly.
As you know, WHA is convening next week and as of today
Taiwan has not been invited to be the observer at the 77th
World Health Assembly. So what is the status of the State
Department and your plan to implement this legislation and
ensure Taiwan has a seat at the table?
Secretary Blinken. I fully agree with the legislation and
we have been working to achieve the results that it seeks
including Taiwan's participation in the World Health Assembly
and organization as well as in a whole host of other
international organizations. The timing is----
Mrs. Kim of California. Why not this year? Is there still
time to invite Taiwan?
Secretary Blinken. We're going to work on it until the last
second if necessary. We have been going around trying to lobby
other countries to engage on this and, of course, we have taken
this to Beijing directly. It denies to people around the world
the benefits of the extraordinary knowledge and expertise that
Taiwan has and Taiwanese have.
Mrs. Kim of California. We are seeing Taiwan has been time
and time again how reliable a health partner it is. I think
it's critically important that you do more to make sure Taiwan
has a seat there.
Secretary Blinken. I agree with you.
Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you very much. My time's up.
I yield back.
Mrs. Wagner [presiding]. The gentleman's time--the
gentlelady's time has expired. The chair now recognizes the
gentleman from California, Mr. Lieu, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Thank you, Secretary Blinken, for your public service. I
want to start off by talking about an action that you took that
was very commendable. You eliminated the majority of assignment
restrictions and on a going forward basis you are eliminating
all of them.
So I just want to say thank you for trusting State
Department employees. I thank you for taking that courageous
action and thank you for your leadership.
I'd like to now ask some questions about Ukraine. Russia
invaded Ukraine for the second time in February 2022 and you
were one of the folks that, in my view, made a decision to win.
You went out there and tried to get air power to Ukraine. You
were fighting to get fighter jets to Ukraine.
As we saw things play out, unfortunately, the Pentagon
appeared to have opposed that. Turned out you were right
because now the Pentagon is, guess what, getting air power to
Ukraine.
What I'd like to know is does, in your view, the Pentagon
and the National Security Council support Ukraine pushing
Russia back to pre-invasion lines of 2022? Do they support
that?
Secretary Blinken. Yes, absolutely, and I think that the
challenge is this and it goes with every weapon system that's
come up over the last 2 years. It's not sufficient to provide
an F-16 or an Abrams tank.
We also have to make sure that the Ukrainians have the
training they need to operate them. We also need to make sure
they have the ability to maintain them.
So I think when the Pentagon is looking at these things it
wants to make sure that we can do it in a comprehensive way.
So, for example, F-16s, yes, I very much support that but--and
have supported that but there also have to be pilots to fly
them.
So we have engaged in a training program with other
countries to make sure that the pilots were there. I say that
only because I think it's--we can't look at these decisions
just through the--solely through the prism of do we provide a
tank, do we provide a plane, do we provide a particular weapon.
We need to know that they can be used with the proper training
and maintained.
Mr. Lieu. I totally agree with you. It's just that had the
Pentagon started earlier it would have been far better and, by
the way, the Pentagon actually didn't quite say that. They
actually said F-16s were unnecessary and I think they realized
that they were just wrong on that.
Now, in terms of not allowing Ukraine to strike Russia with
U.S. weapons I've heard what other people have asked. I'm not
going to ask you to reState what you've already said. I
listened very carefully to what you said.
What I'm trying to understand is in the mix of weapons--
because the United Kingdom has clearly said Ukraine can use
U.K. weapons to strike inside of Russia. How much of these
weapons are U.S. and how much are supplied by other countries?
Is there a general percentage?
Secretary Blinken. I think it really depends on the
category of weapons. So you have to look--you'd have to
distinguish between munitions, between missiles, between tanks,
between armored vehicles. I can get you a breakdown, but it
varies according to the category----
Mr. Lieu. Thank you. If you could do that and I just urge
you personally to get the Pentagon and NSC to do what you did,
which is to make the decision to win.
Now, I'd like to ask something about an action completely
within the State Department's control and just trying to
understand the reasons why it hasn't happened yet.
Russia has supported terrorist groups and I believe when we
looked at it they meet the technical definition of a State
sponsor of terrorism. What is their policy reason or reasons
for why that designation has not happened yet?
Secretary Blinken. So I think there are a few things.
First, of course, we have unprecedented and a variety of
sanctions, export controls, you name it, on Russia--war crimes,
atrocities--and I think that frame that they're committing war
crimes and atrocities is the most accurate one and using the
authorities that we have in those areas we think is most
appropriate.
Aggression is not terrorism. These are distinct things.
Second, the concern, I think, with the SST designation besides
we don't think it actually fits what Russia is doing is it does
run the risk of undercutting some of the multilateral
cooperation and coordination we have had on sanctions.
It would be extremely difficult to reverse if we ever got
to a place where there were peace negotiations and that was
something that you wanted to put in play in order to get over
the goal line.
But the other real problem is it could interfere with the
efforts that we're making--very vigorous efforts we're
getting--to make sure that Russia pays for the terrible damage
it's done to Ukraine including the use of its sovereign assets
because those could be tied up in litigation if we have a State
sponsor of terrorism designation.
So there are a number of practical reasons why, again, we
don't think it's the best way to go for it. We think we have
the necessary authorities. We're using them.
They're more accurate in terms of describing what Russia is
doing, and we don't want to have unintended consequences,
second and third order effects that could actually make things
more complicated in achieving what we're trying to achieve.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Wagner. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Salazar, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Salazar. Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Wonderful
to have you here.
You know, I just want to make the observation of what a
great republic we have. You, the foreign minister of the most
important country in the world, you have to come to talk to the
representatives of the people and have to go through this very
torturous process, you know, and I'm sure that that is agony
for you.
But my constituents in Miami would love to have the foreign
minister of Venezuela or Cuba, right, or Nicaragua right in
front of us sitting in the same chair you are.
So, once again, thank you for being here, for your service,
and long live the United States for that beautiful system.
I just mentioned Cuba. A week ago your State Department
took Cuba out of a semi black list for countries that support
terrorism. Not the main one but the second one.
On Monday Cuban officials were at the Miami International
Airport that I represent reviewing how we do counterterrorism
Cuba. Those two facts are a clear indication, sir, that you
have all the intentions in the world to take Cuba out of the
list of terrorist countries even though Cuba supports Hamas and
harbors American fugitives.
So my question is simple. Have you begun the 6-month
process required by the export controls law to remove the
island from the list?
Secretary Blinken. Very quickly, first, just to clear up a
couple of things, if I can, though I will come to your question
as quickly as I can.
Ms. Salazar. Yes, but remember that my time is running and
I have four more countries. So tell me are you--did you start
the process required by the export controls to remove Cuba?
It's 6 months and you need to start the process by July 21st.
Secretary Blinken. We have an annual requirement to review
the not fully cooperating list. We did that and there were
changed circumstances including the fact that Colombia was no
longer seeking the extradition of the ELN members who were in
Cuba and that Cuba was harboring.
Ms. Salazar. But that's a little excuse, sir. Cuba has
fugitives from the United States. It supports--come on.
Secretary Blinken. They do for sure. But they were not--but
they're not being pursued for terrorism.
Ms. Salazar. All right. So then but my question is are you
going to take them off the main black list which is the
terrorist list for sponsor of terrorism?
Secretary Blinken. In the near term, no, there's no intent
to do that. But as necessary we'll review and we always have
to----
Ms. Salazar. But you have to--you have to review up until
July 21st according to the law. So are you planning to do that?
Secretary Blinken. I'm not seeing anything happening by
July 21st.
Ms. Salazar. So will you commit like you did last year and
you fulfilled your promise not to remove it from the list this
time from now until November 5th election time?
Secretary Blinken. Right now----
Ms. Salazar. Can you commit to that?
Secretary Blinken. All I can tell you is that right now in
terms of July that is not happening.
Ms. Salazar. July 21st.
Secretary Blinken. Yes, July 21st.
Ms. Salazar. Colombia--let's go to President Petro who has
threatened to change the Colombian constitution without going
through the Colombian congress, similar to what Hugo Chavez did
25 years ago.
Last month Petro broke relations with Israel and you know
that President Biden loves President Petro, and my question to
you is this. If Petro dares to break the Colombian constitution
just like Chavez did do you think that President Biden will
change the perception he has on President----
Secretary Blinken. I'm not going to comment on President
Biden's views or his----
Ms. Salazar. Will you change--will you change what you
think of Colombia?
Secretary Blinken. Let's see what actions are taken. We
look to see in any country--partner, ally, adversary--the
actions of the individuals.
Ms. Salazar. Mr. Secretary, President Petro has said that
he is going to change the constitution.
Secretary Blinken. I'm not going to----
Ms. Salazar. He has said it himself.
Secretary Blinken. I appreciate that but let's see what
actions are taken. I don't want to engage in hypothetical.
Ms. Salazar. And if he were to take that action of changing
the constitution and becoming another Chavez?
Secretary Blinken. I am not expert enough in Colombia's
constitution or its laws to know exactly what he is
contemplating and what that would do or not do.
Ms. Salazar. Contemplating on perpetuating--of staying in
power forever and ever, amen, just like Chavez did. That's what
he's planning to do.
Secretary Blinken. Presumably, that would be something we
would object to. But, again, I don't want to get into
hypotheticals. I just don't know the----
Ms. Salazar. By your answer you're giving him a green light
to do that and you know that.
Secretary Blinken. Hardly. Hardly.
Ms. Salazar. All right. Well, at least send the message
that the United States is going to be very aware of what he's
doing.
Let's go to Venezuela. You know that Maduro will steal the
Presidential election July 28, 2 months from now. He's going to
steal it. You and I know it.
I salute you and the White House for having reimposed oil
sanctions on the Maduro regime. We both want democracy in
Venezuela. What can we do from this chair to help you, sir?
Secretary Blinken. I think actually doing what you've been
doing which is----
Ms. Salazar. Which is?
Secretary Blinken [continuing]. Which is to keep the
pressure on to make clear that the things that Venezuela and
Maduro may want they cannot and he cannot achieve absent
actually moving down the path to free and fair elections and
doing what's necessary.
The unitary platform, which, as you know, reached an
agreement with Maduro we have looked to see whether that
agreement is being implemented and in critical aspects it's not
being implemented.
Ms. Salazar. Now Maduro is going like that on us. So let's
go to Argentina. Javier Milei is the most pro-American
president in the history of Argentina. He supports your agenda.
Ukraine, Israel, anti-China, Venezuela, Cuba, Taiwan, open
markets.
I just sent to President Biden a letter asking for
Argentina to be asked, to be joined, or to be put in the APEP.
Would you consider putting them in that signature economic plan
for Latin America?
Secretary Blinken. In short, yes. I was in Argentina just a
couple months ago with President Milei. I think----
Mrs. Wagner. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Secretary Blinken [continuing]. And we have had----
Ms. Salazar. We need more Mileis in Latin America, don't
you think, sir?
Secretary Blinken. I'm happy to look at your letter and
certainly happy to consider that.
Ms. Salazar. Wonderful.
Mrs. Wagner. The gentlelady's time has expired and I know
she's got other countries to get through, Mr. Secretary, so
she's going to send you those in writing.
The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize the gentlelady
from California, Ms. Jacobs, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
Secretary Blinken, for testifying today.
I first want to talk about Sudan where conditions are
getting more horrific by the day. The RSF and SAF continue to
encircle Al Fashir where more than 1.8 million displaced people
are trapped in what has been described as, quote, ``hell on
earth'' and is at imminent risk of famine.
The UAE, a top buyer of U.S. arms, has continued to fuel
this war by providing materiel support to the RSF despite
repeated urgings from the Biden administration including, I
know, your own entreaties.
It's time, in my opinion, to take stronger action which is
why I'm introducing legislation that prohibits the transfer of
U.S. arms to the UAE until the President can certify to
Congress that the UAE is no longer transferring arms to the
RSF.
Now I want to turn to Israel. Hamas' attack on October 7th
was despicable and inexcusable, and I've also been horrified by
the Israeli military's response which has reportedly killed
over 30,000 Palestinians.
So while I support President Biden's pause on the 2,000-
pound bomb sales I was also disappointed by NSM-20 report that
laid out compelling evidence of law of war violations but
stopped short of making a conclusive determination.
Meanwhile, we're seeing in recent reporting that in Rafah
the IDF has intensified air strikes, deployed ground troops,
and closed the Rafah border crossing.
The U.N. has reported that over 500 civilians have already
been killed and 450,000 Palestinians have been displaced.
President Biden rightly drew a red line for U.S. support on
a full-scale invasion of Rafah but I think it's unclear to the
public the difference between what we're seeing now and what
would be crossing that red line. So could you explain the
difference to us, please?
Secretary Blinken. What we're seeing now is an operation
principally designed to take control of the border area or at
least parts of the border area between Egypt and in Gaza in
order that the smuggling--the tunnels that are there are taken
out of action and I understand that objective.
At the same time, because it's been near Rafah and around
Rafah it has disrupted operations at the Rafah crossing which
have been critical to getting aid into people who so
desperately need it. It also, for a time, disrupted operations
at Kerem Shalom, although those have resumed.
So we're working intensely with Israel and Egypt right now
to try to get Rafah up and running again so that more can get
in. It's more challenging in a combat environment.
Ms. Jacobs. Yes. Well, thank you for that clarification and
I hope we hold firm to the red line that President Biden has
enumerated.
As you know, I'm the ranking member of the Africa
Subcommittee. I frequently travel to the continent and talk
about human rights issues, and I'll be honest I've been hearing
a lot from our African partners that the U.S. is not consistent
in living up to our values--that they don't feel like we're a
good partner because they perceive we're not holding Israel to
the same standards that we're holding them to.
In the NSM-20 report our own intelligence community
assessed that Israel could do more to avoid civilian harm.
Could you talk about specifically what we are urging Israel to
do to mitigate and avoid civilian harm that they aren't already
doing?
Secretary Blinken. There are very detailed processes,
procedures, lawyers, who engage, for example, in the targeting
decisions and we have looked at the--over many months at the
details of what on paper they're doing but we see a gap between
the stated intent of the policy and the actual results.
Now, it's also a fact that is not always recognized that
they're dealing in an environment and a terrain that is almost
unique because you have an enemy that hides behind and hides
underneath civilians in apartment buildings and hospitals and
mosques and schools and that makes what they're doing
incredibly challenging.
But from our perspective we think it's imperative that a
priority be placed on civilian protection and I'm making every
possible effort to try to ensure that even in that usually
challenged environment civilians are not harmed and, relatedly,
get the assistance they need to survive.
Ms. Jacobs. Yes. Well, I agree with you and I would hope
the department is leveraging the intel community's assessment
to urge Israel to do more because, frankly, not only human
lives but our international reputation depends on it.
Last, the NSM-20 report said that they didn't reach an
affirmative conclusion about Israel's use of U.S. weapons
because Israel's failure to share complete information. How are
we addressing this lack of transparency?
Secretary Blinken. There are two things in the report. One
goes to the use of any weapons provided by the United States
and there, as the report noted, based on the totality of the
damage done and the use of weapons it's reasonable to assess
that in some instances they acted in ways that were
inconsistent with international humanitarian law.
Those instances are all under investigation by us but also,
critically, by Israel itself. Separate from that is the
provision of humanitarian assistance and there it's been
important to get as much----
Mrs. Wagner. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Secretary Blinken [continuing]. Cooperation as possible on
getting more access.
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Wagner. The gentlelady yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Huizenga, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Secretary Blinken, appreciate your being here but I do have
to express some deep concerns. You and the administration are
holding munitions hostage from our ally Israel in what many
believe is an effort to score a few political points in swing
states like mine back home.
Meanwhile, as in actual hostages being held, some of whom
are American and documented to be Americans, that would be
perceived by many of us as a complete slap in the face to those
hostages who are yet being left behind.
Meanwhile, oil profits in Iran have skyrocketed under your
and the Biden tenure due to a lack of sanctions enforcement. I
sit on the Financial Services Committee. I'm part of those
sanctions, the creating of those.
In 2020 Iran was exporting 400,000 barrels per day of oil.
2023 that has reached 2 million barrels a day, and what has
changed and why have the ayatollahs decided to flip the switch
under the Biden administration is something that many of us
have been concerned about and are expressing, and meanwhile we
have a situation where the president of Iran went down in a
helicopter crash and one of your deputies at the U.N. and
yourself had expressed condolences over this.
I'm curious. Is the world a safer place because of your
efforts to offer respect to a leader who murdered, tortured,
and exterminated thousands of Iraqis--I'm sorry, Iranians--has
been behind every proxy war that we have been involved in,
which is responsible for American deaths? How is that bringing
any respect--how is that advancing your agenda on the world
stage?
Secretary Blinken. Our views of Mr. Raisi and the horrific
actions he took both as a judge and as a president in
repressing his own people, our policies toward Iran, including
working to impose sanctions on more than 600 individual
entities, 200 in the petrochemical sector, none of that has
changed or will change, as I mentioned earlier.
Mr. Huizenga. But why would you offer condolences and the
official condolences of the U.S. Government to somebody who has
murdered our troops?
Secretary Blinken. This is--when the leader of another
country dies, as in the past this has often been the case we
have expressed official condolences. But it doesn't go to our
feelings about that person or the actions that he's taken.
Mr. Huizenga. I wonder what my friend from Miami would
think about us offering condolences to many of those Latin
American leaders that we were just talking about. I think I
know the answer because I would agree with her.
Well, in the meantime I've introduced a resolution
condemning this inappropriate decision by your department and I
urge all my colleagues to sign on to that.
I'm going to transition to NATO here for a couple of
minutes. Just last week I did something that's rarely done here
in the U.S. Congress. I united foreign diplomats and a few
members on this committee who were in a bit of an uproar when I
dared to mention that certain countries are not pulling their
weight by meeting the 2 percent defense spending benchmark in
the NATO alliance.
It was, certainly, I think, fair game on my end. It seemed
a bit unexpected from them, especially when we see some
countries heading in the wrong direction with their defense
spending, literally going backward in this.
Do you believe your efforts will get the remaining eight
nations of Belgium, Canada, Spain, Luxembourg, Turkey,
Slovenia, and Portugal across the 2 percent threshold by the
agreed upon 2024 time line?
Secretary Blinken. I think by the end of this year,
Congressman, we'll probably have maybe 20 or 21 of the 32
allies that are across the 2 percent threshold. The others
should have clear plans to achieve that threshold. We have
gotten more countries to achieve----
Mr. Huizenga. Okay. What about those nations that are
offering no real timetable and instead are going backward?
Secretary Blinken. Yes, we want to see them offer a
timetable and make it clear how they're going to get to the 2
percent.
Mr. Huizenga. But how are--how are you getting those
conversations moving?
Secretary Blinken. We are--believe me, we're engaged with
them on a constant basis to get that done and President Biden
has been deeply engaged. I've been deeply engaged and we have
made significant progress in having well over now two-thirds of
the alliance that will meet the mark and we want to make sure
that we have clear plans from the others to do it.
Mr. Huizenga. I guess I'm still not hearing what you are
doing to make sure that those plans are being--come forward.
Are you demanding or requesting those plans to be presented?
Secretary Blinken. We are, certainly, requesting them, yes.
Absolutely.
Mr. Huizenga. And will you be sharing those with this
committee?
Secretary Blinken. As soon as we get, you know, information
from partners about what they plan to do and it's public
information we'll make it known.
Mr. Huizenga. Well, we have to--America is not safer abroad
right now. Whether it's our southern border or what's been
happening in the Middle East we need to make sure that we have
a strong front on that.
And with that, I yield back.
Mrs. Wagner. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Manning, for
5 minutes.
Ms. Manning. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for your very dedicated service to
our country and your tireless efforts to find a path forward in
the Middle East.
Secretary Blinken, what in the world happened with the
cease-fire negotiations between Israel and Hamas in Egypt? We
were told first that Israel put a very, very good offer on the
table with the approval of the U.S.
Next, Hamas claimed that they accepted that offer. They
blamed Israel for walking away. Then we recently met with the
Egyptian ambassador who blamed the failure of those talks on
Israel and today we heard reports that the Egyptians actually
changed the terms of the Israeli offer before relaying that
offer to Hamas.
We have hostage families desperate to see their loved ones.
We have no proof of life for the majority of hostages. We have
American families desperate for an agreement that will release
their loved ones and now we learn that Egypt, a country we give
millions of dollars in aid every year, failed to accurately and
honestly convey a good cease-fire offer and then put the blame
on Israel when the talks failed. What's really going on there?
Secretary Blinken. First of all, like you I've met with so
many of the hostage families repeatedly over these seven or 8
months and I am determined that we continue to do everything we
possibly can to get them home with their loved ones.
I know these people and it's personal. Beyond that, what I
can tell you is this. Both Egypt and Qatar have been
intensively involved in the efforts to get a cease-fire hostage
agreement.
The last degree--the last proposal that was before it, and
as I said, yes, it was a strong proposal by Israel that was put
forward, Hamas said it agreed to it. But it, Hamas, made
changes to the agreement that were unacceptable and at that
point----
Ms. Manning. So the Egyptians did not make changes to the
agreement?
Secretary Blinken. So all I can tell you is the Egyptians
have been an important partner in this effort along with the
Qataris and we're continuing to try to get this agreement. I
think it's the fastest way, of course, to get people home and
to change the equation.
Ms. Manning. But the Israelis did not walk away from that--
from the agreement?
Secretary Blinken. The Israelis--no, the Israelis did not
walk away and, again, Hamas is responsible for not--again, it
shouldn't have taken a negotiation to get to this point.
Ms. Manning. Okay.
Secretary Blinken. Hamas could have and should have given
up the hostages, given--put down its weapons, come out of
hiding, surrendered. All of this would have been over on day
one.
Ms. Manning. Thank you.
I have heard repeatedly that the U.S. wants to ensure that
October 7th never happens again and that we will do everything
necessary to make sure that Israel can defend itself, and
that's the term I keep hearing over and over.
Do you consider Israel's war against Hamas to be a
defensive war?
Secretary Blinken. Yes, in the sense that it needs to
ensure that Hamas cannot do what it did on October 7th again.
Ms. Manning. Okay. And do you consider Israel's fight
against Hezbollah to be a defensive fight?
Secretary Blinken. In terms of deterring it from attacking
Israel, in terms of making sure that people who have been
forced from their homes in northern Israel and Israel's lost
sovereignty over its own territory because people have been
forced from their homes, yes, dealing with that threat is
important.
Ms. Manning. Okay. Okay.
In contrast to my colleague, I was surprised that the NSM-
20 report clearly stated that there was no direct evidence that
Israel has violated international law and, yet, the report
suggested that the high number of casualties reported by Hamas
are akin to circumstantial evidence of violations, and I was
particularly surprised by that because our own military experts
have described Gaza as the most difficult battle space any
military has faced in modern warfare.
And isn't it reasonable to assume that that is a
significant factor for the high level of casualties?
Secretary Blinken. It's certainly a contributing factor and
the report makes that very clear. But I think we also have to
hold ourselves and Israel has to hold itself to the highest
possible standards when it comes to preventing civilian
casualties.
Ms. Manning. But there was no clear evidence of violation
found as reported in that report.
Secretary Blinken. Again, the individual instances these
are--many of them are being reviewed both by us and by Israel.
Ms. Manning. And they are being reviewed by the Israelis,
correct?
Secretary Blinken. By the Israelis. That's also correct.
Ms. Manning. Okay. I want to move on to another subject.
I was recently in Israel. I visited Kfar Aza and the site
of the Hamas massacre at the Nova music festival. I last night
saw important film created by Sheryl Sandberg documenting once
again the horrific sexual violence that was used by Hamas as a
weapon of war against Israeli women and girls of all ages.
Do you have any reason to doubt that Hamas uses sexual
violence--rape, mutilation, barbaric humiliation--against
Israelis as a weapon of war?
Secretary Blinken. No.
Ms. Manning. Why do you think so many international
organizations have been so slow to condemn that sexual violence
and so many people continue to deny that that sexual violence
against Israelis took place?
Secretary Blinken. It's a very good question. I don't have
an answer for you.
Ms. Manning. Could it be anti-Semitism?
Secretary Blinken. Again, I don't want to speculate but
it's a good question.
Ms. Manning. Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Wagner. The gentlelady's time has expired. The
gentlelady yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Waltz, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, I have a--I just have a simple question for
you. Is the world safer under your tenure, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Blinken. I think the world is an incredibly
dangerous place but we're able to deal with it more effectively
and in a more secure manner because we have rebuilt our
alliances, created new ones. We have more partners----
Mr. Waltz. How is our alliance with our Afghan partners and
allies. How's that going?
Secretary Blinken. The ones that--the many that we have
brought to the United States since withdrawing from
Afghanistan----
Mr. Waltz. Did deterrence fail Putin from invading Ukraine?
Secretary Blinken. Putin was prevented because of our
leadership in not erasing--preventing from erasing Ukraine from
the map.
Mr. Waltz. Should the invasion have happened?
Secretary Blinken. The--I'm sorry.
Mr. Waltz. Did deterrence fail? We had a whole panoply of
threatened sanctions, isolation, diplomatic isolation, but at
the end of the day he still invaded.
Secretary Blinken. He did indeed.
Mr. Waltz. Failed.
Secretary Blinken. And--no, on the contrary----
Mr. Waltz. Has deterrence failed Iran supporting terrorism
and its terrorist organizations and attacking Israel?
Secretary Blinken. Iran has supported--unfortunately,
horrifically, Iran has supported terrorism for decades.
Mr. Waltz. Mr. Secretary, I have here the disastrous
Afghanistan withdrawal, the invasion of Ukraine, the unholy
alliance between Russia and China, Hamas and Hezbollah attacks
on Israel, Houthi attacking international shipping, hostages in
Gaza, Iran flush with cash, the reemergence of ISIS-K now, six
thwarted attacks in Europe, increased Chinese aggression, and
the collapse of our influence in Central Africa in the Sahel.
We get 5 minutes for the million people I represent in a
public hearing and you're going to tell the American people
with this list they're safer?
Secretary Blinken. Let's go down that list. We ended
America's longest war.
Mr. Waltz. Please.
Secretary Blinken. We're better off for that. Russian
invasion of Ukraine--we repelled it by bringing 50 countries
together, getting the Ukrainians what they need to make sure
that it couldn't be erased from the map. The cooperation
between Russia and China, we have now aligned more countries in
the world to deal with China----
Mr. Waltz. Mr. Secretary, you're a smart man. You cannot--I
mean, at some point you have to look back--take a step back,
look in the mirror and say our policies are failing.
Secretary Blinken. No, I think just to the contrary----
Mr. Waltz. Deterrence is crumbling.
Secretary Blinken. I fully disagree with you.
Mr. Waltz. The American people do not feel safer----
Secretary Blinken. Totally disagree.
Mr. Waltz [continuing]. Around the world. Okay. Let me ask
you this. Do you agree with the National Security Adviser Jake
Sullivan who said publicly in October 2023 the Middle East is
quieter than it has been for decades?
Secretary Blinken. In that moment it was.
Mr. Waltz. And then he stated it again except you then
stated just a few months later, I would argue, that we have not
seen a situation as dangerous as the one we're facing now
across the region.
What did you get wrong? What did he get wrong?
Secretary Blinken. Well, I'd have to look at this. Well,
first of all, again, in that moment that was an accurate
statement. Second, we have been working very----
Mr. Waltz. Do you have your head in the sand?
Secretary Blinken. We have been--we have been very----
Mr. Waltz. Did Jake Sullivan have his head in the sand?
Secretary Blinken. Again----
Mr. Waltz. I mean, like, literally did he have his head in
the sand to say the region was the most--really a braggadocios
moment. It's pretty amazing then when you have to retract your
own kind of treaties in foreign affairs and change the language
after the entire region blows up. That's a bit embarrassing,
isn't it?
Secretary Blinken. On the contrary. I think what we have
seen as well is a very effective effort to prevent the conflict
that we have seen in Gaza from spreading as a result of
American leadership.
Mr. Waltz. But it's spreading. Hundreds of attacks on our
bases. Tell that to the three American Gold Star families. Let
me ask you this. Did the Iranian government offer condolences
to our Gold Star families on their death? Did they?
Secretary Blinken. I sincerely doubt it.
Mr. Waltz. I doubt it. But we offer it to the man behind
their murder, Raisi, right? Okay.
Let me ask you one more and this one is near and dear to my
heart, and I've engaged you privately. I've engaged you
publicly.
I've asked you about some--a particular SIV that is
literally hiding day in and day out, being hunted by the
Taliban, and I've gotten no response, Mr. Secretary, and that
man is being hunted down as we speak who stood and fought with
us.
Secretary Blinken. Can I--can I come back--let's take that
up. Can I come back to you on that because I want to make
sure----
Mr. Waltz. Please. I mean, I'm begging you in public for
this man because I'm waiting for the moment when his family
tells me he's dead.
Secretary Blinken. Let me make sure I come back to you on
that.
Mr. Waltz. But more broadly, your department has testified
they're processing a thousand a month--a thousand SIVs a month.
At that rate with 125,000 that we're looking at we're looking
at 12 years. Is that acceptable as these people are being
hunted down by the Taliban?
Secretary Blinken. We have issued--since withdrawing from
Afghanistan we issued 45,000 SIVs which is----
Mr. Waltz. Is 12 years acceptable to get our allies out?
Secretary Blinken. I want to do it--I want to do it faster.
I want to issue----
Mr. Waltz. It's a yes or no question. Is 12 years
acceptable?
Secretary Blinken. No, we ought to be able to do it faster.
But part of that is----
Mr. Waltz. I would just think that would be a simple no.
Secretary Blinken. Well, no--of course, we want to make
sure that we--I'd like to get everyone here tomorrow.
Mr. Waltz. Ten years?
Secretary Blinken. But you got to get people out of the
country. You have to----
Mr. Waltz. Five years?
Secretary Blinken. It's not a question of our processing
ability. It's the ability to get them out of country.
Mr. Waltz. But the veterans groups that are literally
exhausting their own savings as the Taliban receives aid--
portions of our aid, by the way--for these veterans groups,
some of which have exhausted their kids' 529 plans, their
savings plans, still trying to get these people out.
What expectation can we give them?
Mrs. Wagner. The gentleman's time has expired.
Secretary Blinken. The expectation is that we are working
every single day to do that. I hope the program, by the way,
gets extended through 1926 because we desperately need it. We
need more----
Mr. Waltz. We'll get the more numbers but if it takes 10
years to get there----
Mrs. Wagner. The gentleman's time has expired.
Secretary Blinken. And if you can increase the cap, too.
Mr. Waltz. We'll get it for you.
Mrs. Wagner. The chair now recognizes the----
Secretary Blinken. And we'll followup on----
Mr. Waltz. Okay. Thank you.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
Mrs. Wagner. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Florida Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you so much. Thank you so
much for being here, Secretary Blinken, I have a few questions
for you about what's going on in Haiti.
We have heard a lot of conversation during this hearing
about holding back funds, partisan stalling tactics, but as we
see right now with the MSS program the U.S. has pledged over
$300 million of which $80 million is being withheld by
Republicans who are sitting on this committee right now.
And it's unfortunate that I haven't heard of anyone on the
Republican side actually mention what's going on in Haiti where
we have more than 1.4 million people who are actually facing a
famine.
We have close to 400,000 people who have been displaced and
then we have gross acts of violence against women, girls, and
boys every single day.
And so my question to you really has to go down to, now,
what is going to be the cause or the impact of the delay of the
funding to Haiti's MSS program?
Secretary Blinken. Well, the delay of the funding would
mean that potentially the program can't go forward and that we
have, I think, a very important opportunity to turn things
around and help the Haitian people turn things around by giving
the Haitian National Police the support they need to fully and
finally regain control of Port-au-Prince, the capital city, to
deal more effectively with the gangs, to allow democracy to
move forward in terms of an election, to allow humanitarian
assistance and development aid to move forward, because in the
absence of having control over the basic transportation hubs
and infrastructure none of that can happen.
And we have countries that have stood up that are willing
to take on this mission of supporting the police in a time
limited fashion starting with Kenya, and President Ruto is here
right now.
But if we don't have that funding we won't be able to
support the program. And as I mentioned earlier, this is not
America policing the world because we don't have Americans on
the ground doing this. We have others who've stepped up to do
it.
But we need to give them the support that they need to do
this mission.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Well, talk a little about--I
think--talking about President Ruto I spoke to him today and he
spoke about Kenya's commitment to helping Haiti and making sure
that the Kenyan forces and other forces have everything they
need, which brings me to my next observation.
When I speak to the leaders of other countries who have
pledged their troops, who have pledged their dollars, they're
questioning our commitment to Haiti, who is our ally, which is
another concern that I have is that no one on the Republican
side talked about our commitment and responsibility to Haiti,
which is in our backyard and who is actually our ally also and
how we're making--I mean, their actions by holding back funds
is actually putting us in a position of weakness and we see
this playing out.
Have you heard concerns from other countries about the
ambivalence of the Republicans releasing the funds?
Secretary Blinken. Well, I don't think they talk about it
in terms of parties but they are concerned with our ability to
come forward with the funds that we committed to this effort
because we have a good number of countries who have come
forward to make their own pledges, about $100 million--close to
$100 million--and if they see that we're not moving forward
with ours they may pull back on theirs.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. And has it been clear what
they're asking for before they released the funding? Because--
--
Secretary Blinken. Yes. They'd like to make sure that the
funds that we committed including the funds that are currently
with Congress actually go forward.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. No, has the funds that--has the
funds that the Republicans are withholding--have they made
clear what they're looking for before they actually release the
funds?
Secretary Blinken. Well, I don't want to speak for anyone
else. That wouldn't be appropriate. But we have had many, many,
many briefings, discussions, conversations, going over the
plans.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. So, to my understanding, we had--
--
Secretary Blinken. And, of course, it's totally appropriate
for Congress to want to make sure that it sees and understands
the plans and what the program is and we have brought forward
that information.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. So, to my understanding, we have
had over 80 briefings on the situation in Haiti and what's
going to happen with the MSS----
Secretary Blinken. That sounds right.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick [continuing]. Goals and we have
outlined the safeguards and what's going on in Haiti. Is that
correct?
Secretary Blinken. That sounds right.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. So do you feel like 80 briefings
is sufficient for you to be confident to actually release the
funding?
Secretary Blinken. I would hope so.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. So would you infer that the real
reason they're holding back the funding is because of the
political games that they're playing?
Secretary Blinken. I don't want to infer and, again, I
think it's important that----
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. But a reasonable person could
infer that?
Secretary Blinken [continuing]. Again, we move forward with
this. Look, I understand----
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. So what is the timing? So if
they're holding back funding how much time do you think we have
before the funds have to be released?
Secretary Blinken. The timing is now. The mission is ready
to go forward. The Kenyans are ready to proceed. So the timing
is now. We really need to move forward on this in the coming
weeks.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. And so before I run out of time,
could you articulate the position--the administration's
position on Hope Health and how it could help Haiti especially
in this economic downturn?
Secretary Blinken. Yes. I think this is a vital program in
terms of giving an appropriate trade preference to the apparel
sector in Haiti, which is the leading sector.
We have already seen employment in that sector because of
the downturn and the crisis that Haiti has faced go from about
50,000 to 30,000 people. This is a huge opportunity to give
young people an opportunity.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. And with my last 5 seconds, could
you please--I'm sorry, for my last 3 seconds could you please
articulate how soon do you need the money to be released to
actually save Haitian lives?
Secretary Blinken. Really, in the coming days or weeks.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
Mrs. Wagner. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Secretary, I'm going to recognize one more Member of
Congress before we recess very briefly for a quick--we might be
able to get two in and then we're going to recess briefly for a
few very short votes.
My hope is to get everyone back here at 5:20. You know, we
have got about maybe 15 or more members that are really--have
waited a year to talk to you, sir. I'm hoping that you can
accommodate those that are willing to come back.
Secretary Blinken. Look, I want to do everything I can do
to accommodate people but as I told the chairman coming in I
have a hard stop at 5:30. So whatever we can do between now and
5:30----
Mrs. Wagner. Well----
Secretary Blinken. I know you have commitments to vote. I,
unfortunately, have commitments.
Mrs. Wagner. We'll get moving now and then if we could come
up with some kind of accommodation for those that aren't able
to ask questions we'll figure that out.
Secretary Blinken. Yes. Of course.
Mrs. Wagner. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
New Jersey, Mr. Kean, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kean. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary, thank you
for taking the time to be with us today.
Mr. Secretary, during your recent visit to Ukraine you
said, quote, ``We have not encouraged or enabled strikes
outside of Ukraine. But, ultimately, Ukraine has to make
decisions for itself about how it's going to conduct this
war,'' end quote.
When I met with President Zelensky here in the capital last
year and in Ukraine earlier this year a couple weeks back on a
bipartisan trip that I led to Kyiv in both instances and
throughout this course of this entire war President Zelensky
had been pushing for more long-range ATACMS, for the REPO Act,
and that every single time the Biden administration in these
instances and many others delayed and did not support those
endeavors.
I agree with you that Ukraine has a sovereign right to
conduct this war as they see fit. However, they will not be
able to do so if they are worried that this administration will
publicly rebuke them afterwards as you did when Ukraine struck
Russian oil refineries earlier this year.
They must know that America truly supports their need to
fight this war as they see fit. Will this administration
explicitly allow Ukraine to strike targets in Russian territory
and Russian air space?
Secretary Blinken. Congressman, as you may know, I was just
there about 10 days ago, spent a lot of time with President
Zelensky, other leaders, and I'm determined to make sure that
they have what they need to effectively defend themselves and
we're in an ongoing conversation about them in terms of what
that requires at any given time.
We have to date not endorsed or enabled strikes outside of
Ukrainian territory. We're always open to conversations with
them to see what they need and the decisions that they make
what we can do to support them.
Throughout this 2 years--more than 2 years now--we have
worked to get them what they need when they need it to be as
effective as possible in repelling the Russians.
Mr. Kean. Respectfully, this administration has with
frequency delayed the weapons that President Zelensky has
needed in a timely fashion to actually accomplish the mission
of defeating Putin's invasion--illegal invasion of Ukraine.
I urge you to reverse his dangerous policy. Russia has
fought this war with gloves off since day one and we cannot
continue to tie Ukraine's hands.
Has the administration indicated to Israel any limitations
on its use of U.S.-origin weapons against Hezbollah as it has
with Hamas in Rafah?
Secretary Blinken. Against Hezbollah? No.
Mr. Kean. Well, the administration has made it clear that
they do not want Israel to decisively win its war against
Hamas.
Secretary Blinken. Well, we do. We do. I think we very much
do.
Mr. Kean. Hamas started because they do not want Israel to
undertake a significant operation in Rafah.
Secretary Blinken. The question is whether that will be
effective and whether that will be enduring. We believe we have
a better way to deal with the problem we both agree has to be
dealt with and that is Hamas.
Mr. Kean. What is your--if I may.
Secretary Blinken. Please.
Mr. Kean. What is the administration's current policy
regarding the acceptable end State that is the evil that is
Hamas at the end of this war if you do not support a Rafah
operation?
Secretary Blinken. We do not want to see Hamas governing
Gaza. We do not want to see Hamas representing an ongoing
threat to Israel, the ability to repeat what happened on
October 7th, and we're united in that goal. The question is how
best--how most effectively to achieve it in a way that's
enduring.
Mr. Kean. By delaying Israel the weaponry necessary to
defeat the evil threat that is Hamas you are hurting the
situation, not helping it.
I yield back. Thank you.
Mrs. Wagner. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Stanton, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you, Madam Chair.
In about 2 weeks the people of Mexico will head to the
polls to elect a new president. The outcome will have wide-
ranging impacts in my home State of Arizona and the entire
United States.
Arizona, America, and Mexico's fates are intertwined not
just as geographic neighbors but as strategic partners in
tackling increased global migration, illicit fentanyl
trafficking, and water scarcity on both sides of the border.
There are incredible opportunities before us. Mexico
recently overtook China to become America's largest trading
partner. As President Biden and congressional leaders work to
bring advanced manufacturing back to the U.S. nearshoring
supply chain components in Mexico and Latin America becomes all
the more critical, particularly for national security.
Secretary Blinken, I have a few questions about the outcome
of the Mexican elections and how they might impact the U.S.-
Mexico relationship. I'd ask you to keep your answers brief for
timeliness.
First, a record number of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico
border has severely strained Arizona's State and local
resources. We have to reestablish operational control of the
southern border and Mexico needs to do a lot more to manage
U.S.-bound migration.
Mr. Secretary, how does the department intend to work with
the new Mexican government to limit migrants transiting through
the country?
Secretary Blinken. We're already working intensely with the
current government. That will continue under the next
government whatever it is.
We have seen a decrease in migrant encounters from Mexico
since December, going down from about 11,000 or 12,000 to 4,000
or 5,000. We will--I want to do even more and, by the way, I
think the bill that--currently before Congress would be an
important step in that direction.
Mr. Stanton. We hope that bill gets a hearing on our side
of the Capitol.
Illicit fentanyl is devastating American communities,
almost all of it produced by Mexican drug cartels with
precursor chemicals imported from China, a fact the current
president of Mexico has repeatedly refused to acknowledge.
Tough diplomacy brought China back to the negotiating table
last year on this critical issue. How will the department work
with the incoming Mexican administration to halt the import of
Chinese precursor chemicals?
Secretary Blinken. Again, we have been working intensely
with the current Mexican government on that. We have seen
increased collaboration in terms of trying to bust up the
criminal cartels, the enterprises on the Mexican side of the
border. We have seen enhancements to the border itself in terms
of screening technology to try to catch the fentanyl before it
gets across the border.
We have a whole of government approach for not only
engaging the Mexican law enforcement authorities but the
regulatory authorities and others to make sure that their own
companies are not engaged in the illicit diversion of these
chemical precursors and I have to say I think the cooperation
has increased significantly.
And, of course, we want to do even more and that will
continue--that needs to continue irrespective of the new
government.
Mr. Stanton. A secure global semiconductor supply chain is
essential to the success of domestic investments made under the
CHIPS Act. I've introduced H.R. 8414, the bipartisan
Semiconductor Supply Chain Security and Diversification Act, to
promote investment in a regional semiconductor ecosystem in
Latin America.
There are ample opportunities for the United States and
other foreign companies to nearshore operations in Mexico
particularly in the semiconductor supply chain.
However, I've heard from CEOs of major corporations
concerned about the threat of violence and extortion for
Mexican drug cartels which President Lopez Obrador has not
adequately confronted.
How will the State Department encourage the new Mexican
administration to counter the drug cartels, violent crime, and
reassure American businesses evaluating the viability of Mexico
as a nearshoring destination?
Secretary Blinken. We have made exactly that argument to
the current government, which is there's a tremendous
opportunity exactly as you've described to nearshore, to have
Mexico be a critical part of the supply chain.
But the business environment itself including the
regulatory environment and making sure that the private sector
can do what it needs to do is critical and, yes, the security
environment is critical as well.
Mr. Stanton. Finally, water security is critical to the
desert southwest and Mexico has been a key partner on the
Colorado River. While Mexico's recent commitment to additional
water conservation is helpful we simply cannot solve this
crisis without a long-term solution that ensures cuts are
shared among all basin users including our friends in Mexico.
Mr. Secretary, what steps is the U.S. taking to make sure
Mexico will share in the pain and conserve the water necessary
to protect the system in the long term?
Secretary Blinken. Yes, I fully agree with you on that and
we have been very much engaged on that. They're not meeting
their water delivery commitments to the United States under the
1944 treaty that we have as you know well and have been very
engaged on.
Delivering right now the amount of water at the 3-year mark
of their 5-year commitment is way below where it needs to be
and it's unlikely they can meet what they need to do by the end
of the 5-years.
We have engaged intensely on this including recently with
President Lopez Obrador, with the foreign minister. I saw her
just a couple of weeks ago on this, the officials--the State
officials and Tamaulipas and Chihuahua and we want to see this
get done. It's imperative that it happen.
They also, I think, have told us that their own elections
may be what's an impediment to getting this done. The elections
are June the 2d so let's see where we are after June the 2d.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I yield
back.
Mr. Lawler [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired. I
now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Secretary, do you agree with Senator Schumer's call for
regime change in Israel?
Secretary Blinken. No. Well, let me say this. I don't--I'm
not sure what call you're referring to but if there's a regime
change----
Mr. Lawler. Senator Schumer stood on the Senate floor--I'm
sure you saw the speech--and demanded regime change in Israel.
Secretary Blinken. That's not for----
Mr. Lawler. Do you agree with Senator Schumer?
Secretary Blinken. It's not for us to decide who Israel's
government is.
Mr. Lawler. So yes or no, do you agree?
Secretary Blinken. I didn't--that's not what I heard him
say. But, regardless, it's not for us to decide who Israel's
government is.
Mr. Lawler. Do you agree with Nancy Pelosi that Prime
Minister Netanyahu should resign?
Secretary Blinken. Again, it's not for us to say. These are
decisions for the Israelis to make.
Mr. Lawler. Do you agree with the Hamas ministry of
health's death toll?
Secretary Blinken. The precise figures we can't validate.
The general number of dead, wounded, injured, we know it's--the
toll is terrible and the Israelis acknowledged that themselves.
Mr. Lawler. So we don't have an actual count?
Secretary Blinken. A precise number, no. It's almost
impossible to get a precise number in the midst of a war. We
have----
Mr. Lawler. So on the decisions that the administration has
made with respect to providing Israel lethal aid what are you
using as a metrics to make the determination?
Secretary Blinken. Well, we have our--we have our
evaluations. We have our assessments that are not simply what
the Hamas ministry is putting out but our own intelligence
information from a variety of sources--resources, media----
Mr. Lawler. So do you reject--do you reject the Hamas
Ministry of Health's numbers?
Secretary Blinken. In terms of the precision of the numbers
I can't validate those numbers. But, generally speaking, the
rough number of total----
Mr. Lawler. Is the position of the State Department that
they're not accurate?
Secretary Blinken. Again, are they accurate to the person?
Of course, we can't validate that. It's impossible to do that.
Mr. Lawler. The United Nations recently revised down the
death toll by almost 50 percent. Do you believe that to be
accurate?
Secretary Blinken. Again, those--with absolute precision we
can't say. But, listen, if it's 14,000 children or 7,000
children it's still 7,000 children too many.
Mr. Lawler. Do you blame Israel or Hamas for that?
Secretary Blinken. I blame--Hamas has created this--the
crossfire that so many of these people are caught up in.
Mr. Lawler. Okay. You agree they use their own innocent
civilians as human shields, correct?
Secretary Blinken. I do, but I also believe that Israel
must maximize every possible effort to protect civilians and
try to----
Mr. Lawler. Well, didn't the State Department put out a
report saying that they are?
Secretary Blinken. We put out a report that went through
this in some detail both in terms of the use of weapons and
also humanitarian----
Mr. Lawler. And what did your report find? Is Israel using
maximum care or no?
Secretary Blinken. Our report found that based on the
totality of damage that's been done it's reasonable to assess
that in some instances Israel has acted in ways that are not in
accordance with international humanitarian law.
Those instances are under review and investigation by us
but also, critically, by Israel and that's the important point
as well. It has the ability to self-police and we have to hold
ourselves, whether it's Israel, the United States, or any other
democracy, to the highest possible standards in war, even one--
a war that was brought to them by a vicious terrorist group and
one that engages in practices like hiding behind civilians.
Even there they and we have an obligation to do everything
possible to make sure that to the best of our ability civilians
are not harmed.
Mr. Lawler. And do you think that they are doing that to
the best of their abilities?
Secretary Blinken. I think that there's a gap between the
intent that's stated to do that and some of the results that we
have seen and we want to make sure that that gap is closed.
Mr. Lawler. So do you believe Israel is committing a
genocide?
Secretary Blinken. No.
Mr. Lawler. Why did the State Department mourn the death of
President Raisi?
Secretary Blinken. We have offered official condolences in
the past when the countries lose their leaders. That doesn't
change in any way the fact that Mr. Raisi horrifically
repressed his own people as a judge and then as a president of
the country. It doesn't change any of our policy toward Iran.
Mr. Lawler. Do you agree--you agree Iran is the greatest
State sponsor of terror, correct?
Secretary Blinken. If it's not No. 1 it's certainly near--
very near the top of the list.
Mr. Lawler. Okay. And do you agree that they fund Hamas
about, roughly, 93 percent of their budget?
Secretary Blinken. Hamas has been significantly funded by
Iran. Of course, Hamas has also been funded by other sources.
But Iran, yes, is a significant funder.
Mr. Lawler. Do you believe that Iran and its proxies Hamas
want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth?
Secretary Blinken. I do.
Mr. Lawler. You agree that's their stated goal?
Secretary Blinken. That's their stated goal. You're right.
Mr. Lawler. Okay. So you know that's their stated goal. No.
1, why would we recognize the death of the Butcher of Tehran
and, No. 2, why are you withholding weapons and making it
harder for Israel to defend itself knowing full well as you
just testified that Iran and Hamas want to wipe Israel off the
face of the earth?
Secretary Blinken. Yes, and we have done everything that we
can do to make sure that Israel has the means to deal
effectively with Hamas including making sure October 7th never
happens again. The question is what is the best way to get an
enduring resolution to the problem of Hamas. We have different
views on----
Mr. Lawler. Well, the best way to do it is for Hamas to
surrender and release the hostages, is it not?
Secretary Blinken. Yes. Absolutely.
Mr. Lawler. Okay. So this administration has been an abject
disaster when it comes to Iran. Since Joe Biden took office
Iranian petroleum sales are up $88 billion. It's why I fought
to get my bill, the SHIP Act and the Iran-China Energy
Sanctions Act passed.
Are you prepared to enact these into law as part of the
administration and what steps have been taken since this bill
was passed weeks ago to start enacting the SHIP Act?
Secretary Blinken. We have found and deemed as blocked more
than 50 ships. We'll continue to identify others. We are
working to deflag ships so that they can't move and get
services from port to port to get at the fleet that is
conducting the illicit trade in oil and petrochemical products.
Mr. Lawler. And you agree China is the biggest purchaser of
Iranian petroleum?
Secretary Blinken. China is certainly, again, either at the
top of the list or near it, yes.
Mr. Lawler. Thank you. My time has expired.
I now recognize Madeleine Dean for 5 minutes.
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary
Blinken, for being here today, for your years of faithful
service, for your testimony, for your budget request that I
support.
I wanted to just start with Ukraine. So much of the focus
has been on what's the needs of today--what does Ukraine need
today--and I was just there in February with other members. But
I want to clear up something by way of a simple comparison and
contrast. There's been a lot of criticism today about Israel
and the pause by the administration on the single shipment
1,800-, 2,000-pound dumb bombs.
Did that pause--does that pause put Israel at any risk of
not being able to defend itself? Of being short of the military
equipment it requires?
Secretary Blinken. No, it does not.
Ms. Dean. Not at all?
Secretary Blinken. No.
Ms. Dean. Israel has what it needs?
Secretary Blinken. Yes.
Ms. Dean. By contrast, as I said, I went to Ukraine in
February. Right after we passed the supplemental I could see in
President Zelensky's eyes, in the generals' and military
members' eyes that look of we're off the edge of desperation.
Did the majority's 6-month waiting to get the supplemental
across did that jeopardize Ukraine's ability to defend itself?
Secretary Blinken. Well, I think the--whatever the reason
the 6-month delay in getting the supplemental did have real
consequences on the battlefield in terms of creating an
environment in which Russia could do more damage to Ukraine.
Now, happily, the supplemental is there. It was approved on
an overwhelming bipartisan basis. That's a very good thing, and
we're working every single day to move that assistance out to
the Ukrainians who need it.
Ms. Dean. Absolutely, and I thank you for your leadership.
I thank the Chairman McCaul for his leadership in pushing the
supplemental across.
I'd like to look to the future, and you from day one and
the administration from day one has said, for example, in
Ukraine what does the future look like and rebuilding.
President Zelensky in our meeting thanked us for the REPO
Act, for the freezing of Russian assets with a future of using
those assets for rebuilding. We met with the American Chamber.
They see the extraordinary need and opportunity.
You said in your remarks in Kyiv just last week, I think it
was, quote, ``There is one more crucial step we can take,
making Russia pay for Ukraine's recovery and reconstruction.
What Putin destroyed Russia should and must pay to rebuild.
It's what international law demands. It's what the Ukrainian
people deserve. Our Congress has given us the power to seize
Russian assets in the United States. We intend to use it,'' end
quote.
Secretary Blinken. Yes.
Ms. Dean. What steps has the State Department taken toward
making Russia pay for reconstruction in Ukraine? What plans
does State have to use those authorities granted to it? How are
you working with partner nations to unlock more money? And
Zelensky talked--the president spoke directly about this that
we are a model in use of the REPO Act but we have $5 billion or
$6 billion whereas Europe sitting on hundreds of billions. Can
you tell us----
Secretary Blinken. That's exactly right.
First of all, I applaud the REPO Act and appreciate the
leadership in getting that done. Second, we have been using
that and using our diplomacy to rally other countries,
particularly the countries where these assets are located.
They're the ones who ultimately have to agree to this to enable
their use.
Now we have had, I think, one initial important step
forward just a couple of days ago. The European Union has now
agreed that the interest generated by the sovereign assets in
Europe can be used and given to Ukraine to support and to
rebuild.
But what we'd like to see happen now is to find a way to in
one way or another in effect use the principal and one of the
things that we're looking at, and I hope that by the G-7
meeting that the President will attend we can get--make
progress on that, is to in effect use the principal as
collateral for a loan, a bond, that would generate significant
moneys now for Ukraine to help it get started on the rebuild.
Ms. Dean. I certainly hope so also. The principal must be
used. Russia must pay for the rebuilding of Ukraine.
And I know my colleague Ms. Manning asked you about the
hostages and I wear this--it was given to me by a hostage
family. We all have met with many of the hostage families. I
think of them every single day. I can't understand how the
world has not come around and said, Hamas, you must release all
of the hostages living and dead.
What's the clearest statement of where we stand with the
hostage negotiations now?
Secretary Blinken. Like you I am determined every single
day to get them back home, to get them with their families. And
I know the families. I've met with them many times here in the
United States and Israel as has President Biden and we have
come close, I think, to reaching agreements that would get a
cease-fire and the hostages released and, hopefully, start a
process that moves to a more enduring peace and security for
Israel, for the Palestinians.
But in the most recent go around on this Hamas did not say
yes to what I thought was a very generous and appropriate
proposal coming from Israel. So we continue to be at it. CIA
Director Bill Burns, myself, other White House officials,
working on this, working with Qatar and Egypt, we continue to
have officials who are talking about this and we will continue
to make the hardest possible run at it.
But in this moment, unfortunately, we do not have the
agreement that we should.
Ms. Dean. I thank you for your work. Godspeed and bring
home the hostages. Thank you.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
Mr. Davidson [presiding]. I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Secretary, I just want to pick up where Mr. Waltz left
off. I couldn't have said that better. So I'm going to focus on
different parts of the world.
America is less free, less safe, more burdened by debt
under, frankly, your leadership and this administration's.
That's really, unfortunately, the macro trend since the end of
the cold war.
We really haven't managed it well and part of the reason is
China has really responded to the end of the cold war just
fine. They have really focused on China's national security and
they've managed to be at peace.
The United States has focused everywhere else in the world
but China. I think a lot of my other colleagues have addressed
Pacific concerns but I want us to focus right here in our own
hemisphere.
Do you still believe that the Monroe Doctrine has any
relevance for the direction of security in our own hemisphere?
Secretary Blinken. I'll have to come back to you on that in
terms of refreshing my memory on the details of the Monroe
Doctrine. What I can tell you is two things. One, in terms of
China we're in a much stronger position than we were 2 years--
--
Mr. Davidson. Let me focus not on China--like I said, on
our own hemisphere. So let me just--here's the Cliff Notes.
Should we pay more attention to our own hemisphere than to
other parts of the world?
Secretary Blinken. We're paying intense----
Mr. Davidson. Does the border with the United States and
Mexico matter?
Secretary Blinken. It does and I hope to----
Mr. Davidson. Does the border with Guatemala and Mexico
matter?
Secretary Blinken [continuing]. The bill before Congress
now will be voted on because that would improve----
Mr. Davidson. Does China's expansion into South America
matter to the United States?
Secretary Blinken. It does, and we're intensely focused----
Mr. Davidson. Because we used to care. We used to care when
other countries came in to this sphere more than we cared where
they went over in their own parts of the world.
Secretary Blinken. We have been more focused on this
hemisphere than any previous administration I can think of
including, by the way, the administrations I participated in.
Mr. Davidson. Look, I will commend you on using fishing
rights off of Ecuador to push China out of that region. I can
say, hey, there's been a win. Maybe not much more than that.
But we haven't done much to counter China's influence all
over this hemisphere, and notably with the cartel is there any
illicit finance going into Mexico?
Secretary Blinken. Oh, certainly. Illicit finance going
into Mexico, yes.
Mr. Davidson. What are we doing about it?
Secretary Blinken. We're engaged with the Mexicans
virtually every single day----
Mr. Davidson. Have we sanctioned any financial institution?
Secretary Blinken. We have sanctioned people and we have
also--beyond sanctioning people we have worked to give Mexico
the assets, the authorities, the capacities they need to help
take down these cartels, to disrupt the financing.
Mr. Davidson. How is that turning out? Are we taking down
the cartels?
Secretary Blinken. Actually, we have seen significant
progress over the last 3 years, yes, in taking down cartels and
disrupting drug supplies, seizing more fentanyl over the last
couple of years than ever before.
Mr. Davidson. Okay. So here's the thing. The cartels--the
cartels under the Trump administration were trafficking humans
across the border and The New York Times say that they--the
Trump administration they were making around $500 million a
year.
One and a half years in, so that's at the midway point from
here back, the Biden administration they said that the cartels
were making over $13 billion a year smuggling people across the
border.
Is that helping rein in the cartels by what you're doing to
stop the cartels? Why wouldn't you reverse the remain in Mexico
policy?
Secretary Blinken. Well, again, I would commend to the
Congress the bill that is before it that I think----
Mr. Davidson. No. No. No. That doesn't reverse the policy.
That just funds more illegals everywhere in the country and it
actually puts a cap on the future administration for getting
them out.
Let me turn to the influence that is going on in Guatemala.
You were recently there and just before your visit members of
the Guatemalan Congress were threatened by our embassy there
that they would lose their U.S. visas and their kids who are
studying here would lose their visas to study in America if
they didn't support removal of Guatemala's attorney general.
Do you think the United States should be manipulating
members of a foreign Congress in this manner?
Secretary Blinken. It's not a question of manipulating
members of a foreign Congress. It's the fact that in the recent
election in Guatemala there was a very strong attempt made to
prevent the democratically--elected president of Guatemala from
taking office.
There was an attempt to disrupt the inauguration of that
president, and if we stand for democracy anywhere we have to
stand for it everywhere including in Guatemala.
Mr. Davidson. So is the State Department's opposition to
the attorney general at all related to her recent
investigations to determine if the Biden administration is
complicit in the trafficking of children into the United
States? Nothing to do with that? Correlation, not causation?
Secretary Blinken. That is absurd.
Mr. Davidson. Good to hear. One question about NATO. NATO
is front and center for the war in Ukraine. Back when CIA
Director Burns said this in February 2008, quote, ``Ukrainian
entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the
Russian elite, not just Putin.
In my more than two and a half years of conversations with
key Russian players, from knuckle draggers in the dark recesses
of the Kremlin to Putin's sharpest liberal critics, I have yet
to find anyone who views Ukraine and NATO as anything other
than a direct challenge to Russia's interest. Today's Russia
will respond.''
Do you believe Mr. Burns' assessment was accurate?
Secretary Blinken. What year was that? I'm sorry.
Mr. Davidson. 2008.
Secretary Blinken. It may have been at the time. I think we
have seen--everything we have seen since from Russia and from
Mr. Putin certainly argues in the other direction.
Mr. Davidson. No, it says that it's really important to
them. They literally invaded. I mean, if you look--you left
Afghanistan on August 31st, 2021.
On September 1st you entered into a strategic partnership
with Ukraine to support their membership in NATO and then you
continued to--you continued to escalate and Vladimir Putin
invaded there.
That doesn't excuse his invasion but it's clearly a red
line. I wish I had more time. I yield my time back and I now
recognize the gentleman, Mr. Costa, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I don't
want to retread ground that we have already covered, although I
do find it somewhat hypocritical to be Monday morning
quarterbacking our situation in Ukraine when in fact a majority
of our colleagues on the other side delayed for 5 months that
assistance that Ukraine could have used at the time that would
have, I think, prevented the current offensive that we see
Russia taking place.
Since you just came back from Ukraine I'd like you to
highlight in the next 6 months--I mean, I think we have done,
to be fair, micromanaging in the West Wing that was
unnecessary.
I mean, we pushed a lot of things whether they be ATACMS,
whether they be the F-16s, only to see the administration
finally agree but months later. We can't continue that.
What are your assessment on what we're going to be able to
do in the next 6 months in terms of the ATACMS, in terms of F-
16 pilots, the most recent request today by President Zelensky
to move this in an expeditious way as possible?
Secretary Blinken. Well, thank you and, look, all along we
have been working to make sure that the Ukrainians have what
they need when they need it and can use it effectively, and as
I've mentioned before the challenge with any given weapon
system is making sure not only that they get the weapon but
that they have people trained and know how to use it, that they
have the ability to maintain it.
Mr. Costa. These Ukrainians are the MacGyvers of the--let's
be clear about that.
Secretary Blinken. They are. They are, but we want to make
sure that they have the ability to do that including the
training is also very critical. But the ATACMS are there and
they are having an effect and will continue as we go along.
Mr. Costa. And in terms of the self-defense with Kharkiv
right now, I mean, it is nonsense to believe that they're
attacking from Russian soil and that we can's prevent that in
terms of a defensive means to protect these people. Putin is a
war criminal.
He's is bombing hospitals and kidnapping children and
schools. We have got to allow the Ukrainians to defend
themselves.
Secretary Blinken. And, again, Ukraine is going to make the
decisions it needs to make to defend itself. I want to make
sure that they have everything they need to do that.
Mr. Costa. And the self-defense protection for cities like
Kharkiv and Odessa there are batteries of Iron Domes out there
that they could--that have been identified. Are we doing
everything we can to provide them with that support?
Secretary Blinken. I have been looking under every couch,
every cushion, to help find Patriot systems, other air defense
systems, to get to the Ukrainians and we continue to do that
every day. We need more air defenses. There's no question about
that.
Mr. Costa. Well, I want to continue to work with you on
that effort.
Let me move to another part of the neighborhood, Armenia.
What Azerbaijan has done is unconscionable with the natives of
Nagorno-Karabakh.
We have increased humanitarian assistance from $15 million
to $65 million but I think that Armenia has requested an
additional $200 million in assistance and the congressional
Armenian Caucus has sent you a letter to that effect. Where are
we on that?
Secretary Blinken. So we're looking at a series of requests
from Armenia to see what we can do to strengthen even more our
support and cooperation with Armenia. I met with Prime Minister
Pashinyan just a few weeks ago in Brussels with the head of the
European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, precisely to look at
what more we and the EU can do to support Armenia and we'll be
moving forward, I think, on a number of--in a number of
different areas.
Prime Minister Pashinyan has done an extraordinary job
leading his country in very, very difficult times. We want to
make sure that we're getting people the support they need
including those who have left Nagorno-Karabakh.
Mr. Costa. But I don't think we have used our leverage with
Azerbaijan. I mean, this defense agreement that we have with
them--when they have violated so many of their agreements with
Armenia I think it's reprehensible what Azerbaijan has done.
Secretary Blinken. I think the best thing that can happen
is they have made progress--Armenia and Azerbaijan--on a peace
agreement and if that agreement can be reached I think that's
the thing that stands both Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the whole
region in the best stead. So we would want to support----
Mr. Costa. Mr. Secretary, you and I are, I guess, different
on this. I don't trust Azerbaijan.
Secretary Blinken. Well, always--as someone once said,
trust but verify.
Mr. Costa. Well, I agree.
Let me just close. I think that in terms of America's
challenges that we face in the world this is a seminal moment
that we're living in in world history. Has been for the last
several years, and the decisions that we make today historians
will look back 20 years from now. Hopefully, we'll make more
good decisions than poor decisions.
What are your priorities in terms of the decisions we're
making in the next 6 months to make sure that we make more good
ones than poor ones during this seminal moment with the
challenges of Russia and China and this difficult world we're
living in?
Secretary Blinken. We want to make sure, and our budget
reflects this, that we can continue what's been very successful
in terms of dealing with the challenges posed by China and that
is making the necessary investments in ourselves, aligning even
more closely with our allies and partners because the combined
weight that we bring to dealing with challenges posed by China
when we're together is much greater than any one of us doing
alone.
We have had real success with that. We need to continue
doing that. We need to continue the support for Ukraine so that
it can deal effectively with the aggression coming from Russia
as well as help set Ukraine up for success--long-term success.
Mr. Costa. To win.
Secretary Blinken. To win, and win also means having a
successful country, one that is militarily, economically, and
democratically strong and that can resist further aggression.
Mr. Costa. And, I might add, we need to work together in a
bipartisan fashion.
Secretary Blinken. We would welcome that as always.
Mr. Costa. Thank you.
Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
Mr. Davidson. The gentleman's time has expired.
I thank the Secretary for valuable testimony and members
for their questions. Members of the committee, particularly
those who couldn't stay here, may have some additional
questions for the Secretary. We ask you to respond to these in
writing.
Pursuant to committee rules all members may have 5 days to
submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the
record subject to the length limitations.
Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:27 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]