[Senate Hearing 119-12]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-12
THE NOMINATION OF HON. MARCO RUBIO
TO BE U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JANUARY 15, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Available via http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
58-955 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho, Chairman
PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
DAVID MCCORMICK, Pennsylvania CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
STEVE DAINES, Montana CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee TIM KAINE, Virginia
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
RAND PAUL, Kentucky CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
TED CRUZ, Texas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
MIKE LEE, Utah CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
RICK SCOTT, Florida TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
JOHN CORNYN, Texas
Christopher M. Socha, Staff Director
Naz Durakoglu, Democratic Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
Scott, Hon. Rick, U.S. Senator From Florida...................... 2
Risch, Hon. James E., Chairman, U.S. Senator From Idaho.......... 3
Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, Ranking Member, U.S. Senator From New
Hampshire...................................................... 6
Rubio, Hon. Marco, U.S. Senator From Florida, nominated to be
U.S. Secretary of State, Department of State, Washington, DC... 8
Nominee Commitment Questions................................. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses to additional questions for the record submitted to
Senator Marco Rubio by:
Senator James E. Risch....................................... 97
Senator Jeanne Shaheen....................................... 107
Response to an additional question for the record submitted to
Senator Marco Rubio by Senator Bill Hagerty.................... 110
Responses to additional questions for the record submitted
to Senator Marco Rubio by Senator Christopher A. Coons......... 110
Response to an additional question for the record submitted
to Senator Marco Rubio by Senator John Barrasso................ 111
Responses to additional questions for the record submitted to
Senator Marco Rubio by:
Senator Christopher Murphy................................... 111
Senator Ted Cruz............................................. 112
Senator Tim Kaine............................................ 116
Senator Mike Lee............................................. 118
Senator Jeff Merkley......................................... 118
Senator Cory A. Booker....................................... 119
Senator Brian Schatz......................................... 120
Senator Chris Van Hollen..................................... 125
Response to an additional question for the record submitted
to Senator Marco Rubio by Senator Tammy Duckworth.............. 128
Responses to additional questions for the record submitted
to Senator Marco Rubio by Senator Jacky Rosen.................. 129
Letters in support of the nomination of Senator Marco Rubio,
submitted by Senator James E. Risch, from:
The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria,
January 6, 2025............................................ 131
Parents Defending Education Action, January 8, 2025.......... 138
The Global Business Alliance, January 14, 2025............... 140
NSSF, January 17, 2025....................................... 141
The U.S. Travel Association, January 20, 2025................ 142
(iii)
THE NOMINATION OF HON. MARCO RUBIO
TO BE U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2025
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James E.
Risch presiding.
Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Ricketts, McCormick,
Daines, Barrasso, Paul, Cruz, Lee, Scott, Curtis, Cornyn,
Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van
Hollen, Duckworth, and Rosen.
Senator Risch. The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee
will come to order.
This will be our first meeting, obviously, of the 119th
Congress. I want to welcome you all here. This is an
interesting meeting to start. In a moment I am going to have
Senator Scott introduce the nominee here, and we will proceed
after that.
Before we do I want to talk about some changes in the
committee not only for this hearing but also for hearings in
the future. I am significantly less tolerant than my
predecessors regarding demonstrations or communications or
disruptions during the committee.
This place is not a place for demonstrations or
communications with members of the committee. We have work to
do. We do the Government's work here. It is important and we
have a very, very limited clock every single time that we meet.
So as a result of that we are not going to tolerate any
type of disruptions, communications, or anything like that that
distract the committee.
Distractions will include not only noise, not only standing
up, not only holding up painted hands, painted signs. None of
that will be allowed. If you do that I am going to pause the
committee. I am going to ask our friends, first of all, my
faithful sergeant at arms here who is perhaps tougher than the
Capitol police but also the Capitol police to assist, and we
will pause briefly, and then take up our work.
If you are removed you will not be permitted back into one
of these public hearings for at least 12 months. And the
purpose of this is as I have stated, and it is important work.
It cannot be interrupted.
So with that, Senator Scott, please, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICK SCOTT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Scott of Florida. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and committee members, it is
an absolute honor to sit before you today to introduce my good
friend, fellow Senator from Florida and future Secretary of
State Marco Rubio.
I would also like to recognize his wonderful family who is
here today: His wife, Jeanette, daughter Daniella, sister
Barbara and Veronica, and nephew Orlando. And back home,
Amanda, Anthony and Dominic.
All of us here today know that Marco is an exceptional
nominee. He is the perfect person to carry out President
Trump's elected--President-elect Trump's policies and to
protect America's national security and to bring peace and
civility back to the Western Hemisphere.
The son of Cuban immigrants, Marco learned at a young age
about the suffering and oppression of socialism, and brings
valuable knowledge from his roles here on the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee.
In our State of Florida we hear often from those who came
to the United States to escape dangerous regimes and live the
American dream that Marco and many of us have had the
opportunity to live.
Every person we meet serves as a reminder of why the United
States must always stand for freedom and democracy. President
Trump's record in his first term was clear. He unapologetically
fought to protect freedom and democracy across Latin America
and ended the failed Obama era appeasement policies that had
created a vacuum for tyranny in the region.
After 4 years of Joe Biden, President Trump will have to
start that fight over, but he has an incredible asset with
Marco Rubio on his team.
Marco sees the values of our allies and democratic leaders
who will stand up to our adversaries and who will work with the
United States, deny footholds to Communist China, Iran, and
Russia, and fight alongside America to protect our shared
national security interests and create better trade relations.
While the Biden administration has abandoned America's
allies, President-elect Trump and Senator Rubio are clear eyed
and understand that where freedom and democracy exists America
has strong allies and trusted trade partners.
Marco has a strong record of holding the regimes in
communist China, Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua accountable for
their repression and tyranny. He will work with President Trump
to punish communist regimes for their crimes, make clear to our
enemies and partners alike around.
Most importantly, Marco will always put America's best
interests first.
Marco, congratulations. You have served the people of
Florida well. It has been an honor to work with you as Senator,
and I will continue working together with you on issues that
matter deeply to the people of Florida, to our nation.
You are well deserving of this role. You will do an
incredible job. I will end up being the senior Senator finally.
I am proud to support you and urge all my colleagues to do the
same.
Thank you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
CHAIRMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Risch. Well, thank you very much, Senator Scott.
First of all, let me say as we open this first hearing I am
pleased to be serving alongside my colleague Senator Shaheen.
She and I have worked together over a number of years.
We were Governors together and came in at the same time
together, and we have had actually some experience in this
regard on the Small Business Committee where we had the same
roles, and so we are used to each other, and we are going to do
our best to have hearings and work of this committee on a
bipartisan basis. We will not always agree, obviously, but we
will do our very best to disagree civilly and let the process
work as it should.
So with that, let us turn to the hearing today, and I want
to welcome my great friend, Marco Rubio, to this hearing.
Likewise, Marco and I go back a long ways. I look back at when
I got to the Senate 16 years ago. I came to this first hearing
and took my seat way down there at the end and spent 2 years
there, and then that afternoon went over the Intelligence
Committee, and again, took my seat way down on the end down
there.
Served a couple years, and then 2 years later the--by the
way, when I went into the Intelligence Committee I do not know
if I have ever told anyone this story before, but I walked in
there and got a little nervous because, you know, I am about to
learn all the deep, dark secrets of the United States of
America.
And I went in and sat down, and someone came up to me and
tapped me on the shoulder and said, Senator, you seem to have
brought an electronic device with you into this room.
This was in the SCIF over in our semi-secret room over in
the Hart building. And so I learned then that the Intelligence
Committee does know a lot so I gave up my electronic device.
Two years later, I was no longer on the end. Senator Rubio
came and joined me down at the end and sat at my left there,
and we went to the hearing in the morning to the Foreign
Relations Committee. That afternoon we went over to the
Intelligence Committee.
Again, there he was, sat down next to me on my left, and as
he sat down I said, by the way, I hope--I said to him, I hope
you do not have any electronic devices with you. And he says,
well, no, you doofus. There is a big sign out there that says
do not bring any----
[Laughter.]
Senator Risch. So I judged him to be a very astute person
at that point. In my defense, that sign was not there 2 years
earlier. They do not give you a course at what you can and
cannot bring in. So anyway that was my introduction to Marco
Rubio.
Since then we have worked together for a long time on
issues and have found ourselves almost always in violent
agreement on virtually every issue we dealt with both here in
the Foreign Relations Committee and on the Intelligence
Committee and work together closely as we were ranking member
on and chairman on those two committees.
Out of all the issues we have done, I can only think of one
issue that we disagreed on. It is a very, very small issue, a
very tiny issue. It deals with intelligence so, unfortunately,
we will not be able to discuss it here today but, Marco, I have
a small gift for you as you part here in your last hearing
here. I will give it--assuming you survive this hearing, I will
give it to you at the end of the hearing.
So welcome, and in a moment I am going to give you a chance
to make your opening statement. I am going to talk a little
bit, Jeanne is, and then we will get to you.
Unfortunately, we meet at a time when America faces threats
from nearly every corner of the world. It is no secret that
hostile powers from China to Russia, from North Korea to Iran,
have formed an authoritarian axis bent on weakening the United
States.
Sadly, the outgoing Administration has frequently made ill
informed decisions that have empowered these adversaries. From
the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal to its desperate efforts
to woo Iran, failure to deter Russian aggression, constant
concessions to China, and undermining support for Israel, our
allies question U.S. resolve, and our adversaries believe they
have a free hand.
Those days are over. China remains the most significant
long term risk to the United States. The Chinese government
steals American intellectual property, floods our streets with
fentanyl, and exploits our free markets for its own gain while
aggressively undermining American national security.
China is no longer satisfied to undermine the United States
on its own. Now it helps Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Chinese
support has enabled Russia to carry on its illegal war against
Ukraine, and China's massive purchases of Iranian oil are a
lifeline to that murderous regime's proxy wars.
The outgoing Administration's failure to push back on
China's aggression means that China is challenging America
everywhere from Africa to our hemisphere in Latin America.
Senator Rubio has been a strong advocate of tougher policies to
counter China's aggression and particularly in Latin America.
In the Middle East, Israel fights a multi-front war against
Iran after the brutal attack on October 7. Yet, the outgoing
administration has undermined support to Israel. This has only
prolonged the terrible situation in Israel and Gaza.
In spite of the outgoing Administration's policy, Israel's
fortitude has brought Tehran to its weakest point in decades.
President Trump and Marco both know that we need to support our
ally and return to a maximum pressure campaign against Iran.
At the same time Putin, with the support of the CCP,
continues his violent assault on Ukraine. Putin has escalated
this war over and over again, most recently by importing
thousands of North Korean soldiers.
I have said repeatedly since the beginning of the 2022 full
scale invasion we need to help Ukraine end this war quickly and
permanently.
I am confident that if anyone can end this war it is
President Trump, and Marco is the right man to help ensure it
is done in a way that guarantees security and stability for
Ukraine, the U.S., and our allies, and prevents Russia from
launching another war.
Unfortunately, the threats to American interests do not end
there. A genocide in Sudan, a much needed but still uncertain
regime change in Syria, human rights abuses, human
trafficking--the list of challenges facing America is long, and
because of that we must rein in and enforce accountability at
the United Nations whose agenda and wasteful practices
frequently do not align with those of the United States.
In Asia, it will be important to work with our allies in
Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines to boost their
military spending and bolster their ability to deter China.
We should work with Australia and the United Kingdom as
part of the AUKUS agreement to develop and advance military
capabilities to counter Chinese coercion in the Indo-Pacific,
and I hope the State Department will acknowledge the nuclear
arms race our adversaries are pursuing and make the changes
needed to confront this new reality.
Further, U.S. foreign assistance is not charity. American
taxpayer dollars should only be spent to advance U.S.
interests, and every penny should be scrutinized to ensure its
necessity and effectiveness in advancing our America's
interests.
Often enormous amounts of money are spread thinly around
the world and never really accomplish goals. This also needs to
stop.
A final word on the operations of the State Department
itself. The department must refocus itself on the core mission
of effective diplomacy. Every program, office, and policy at
State must effectively advance U.S. foreign policy goals, not
advance progressive ideology.
The outgoing Administration often undercut effective
foreign policy by inserting ideological and political
requirements into the fabric of personnel decisions and policy
execution.
Rather than making hires or promotions based on merit and
effectiveness, the department created new diversity, equity,
inclusion, and accessibility requirements that distracted from
this mission, undermined morale, and created an unfair and
opaque process for promotions and performance evaluations.
Fealty to progressive politics became the benchmark for
success. As we look around the United States that view is
diminishing very quickly amongst even large corporations,
amongst even large progressive leaning corporations.
Adherence to these goals was assured at the State
Department to a rigid enforcement structure that included
senior advisors for DEIA in nearly every bureau and Soviet
style anonymous reporting portals where employees were
encouraged to denounce colleagues who would not toe the company
line.
This must end on day one. We need a return to merit, and I
know Marco will right that ship.
Senator Rubio, this is a long laundry list of crises. You
have earned yourself one of the hardest jobs in America, but
after serving with you for so many years I am confident you are
the right person we need to take on these threats.
Thank you very much.
And to my good friend Senator Shaheen I yield the floor.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN,
RANKING MEMBER, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Risch.
Congratulations on your new role.
As you point out, while this may be our first Foreign
Relations Committee hearing together in these new roles it is
certainly not our first time working together.
We came in as Governors so we like to get things done. We
have also had the same role in 2017 on the Small Business
Committee. So I look forward to working with you and to our
opportunity for this committee to get a lot of work done.
I want to also congratulate the new members of the
committee, Republicans McCormick, Daines, Scott, Lee, Curtis,
and Cornyn, and on the Democratic side Jacky Rosen. Nice to
have you all on the committee.
One point that we have always agreed on, the Chairman and
I, is the need to work together so this committee can function
more effectively. That means holding hearings. It means
advancing bipartisan legislation. It means confirming career
Foreign Service officers quickly.
I believe it is in our national security interest to have
our embassies fully staffed and to confirm career ambassadors
with the requisite expertise, which is why it was important to
both of us to have Senator Rubio's hearing as soon as possible.
And Senator Rubio, welcome. You and I have also had a good
working relationship for many years. I believe you have the
skills and are well qualified to serve as Secretary of State.
But today, I want to find out a little more about what this
Administration is thinking about American foreign policy and
the State Department in particular. As I said, I believe this
committee has a responsibility to get your team out in the
field, and we hope you will send us qualified, experienced, and
well vetted nominees.
I know you already have an expert group of career Foreign
Service nominees before you that was not considered under the
last Congress. I hope we will see many of those nominees
resubmitted to this committee soon.
On policy, I want to start by hearing from you on Ukraine
and NATO. There is strong bipartisan support, as you know, in
the Senate for Ukraine. There is a clear understanding that we
cannot trust Putin, and I am concerned that if Vladimir Putin
wins in Ukraine he is not going to stop.
President Trump has repeatedly said that he plans to end
the Ukraine war within 24 hours of his inauguration. It has
been reported that his proposals would give away Ukrainian
territory to Vladimir Putin.
Now, I cannot speak on behalf of Ukraine, and President
Zelensky has said that he is open to a peace agreement. But I
am concerned both for the Ukrainian people who have sacrificed
so much about the message that abandoning Ukraine would send
not just to our allies but also to our adversaries, and not
just Russia but to China, North Korea, and Iran.
Our allies--Japan, South Korea, Taiwan--our partnerships
and alliances like AUKUS and NATO, are all looking very closely
and watching what we are going to do.
I believe these alliances are one of the United States'
greatest assets. And what happens in Ukraine also affects
emerging democratic nations, civil society movements from
Belarus to the Balkans to the Black Sea to Georgia.
It impacts us here at home as well, and I know that for so
many Americans this might seem like a distant war, but as we
know what happens in Ukraine does not stay in Ukraine. The war
has caused food and gas prices to go up. It has affected day to
day lives of Americans.
So, Senator Rubio, I know that in the past you have
supported Ukraine. You introduced legislation that would ban
U.S. recognition of territory annexed by Russia. We were both
co-sponsors of Chairman Risch's resolution recognizing Russian
genocide in Ukraine.
But the path forward is uncertain, and I hope today you
will lay out some of the Administration's plans for Ukraine.
I would also like to hear from you on the Middle East and
Syria in particular. In recent months we have seen the
dismantling of much of Iran's axis of resistance including the
fall of Assad, one of Iran's most brutal proxies.
One of our goals should be to get humanitarian assistance
immediately to the Syrian people who have suffered for so many
years and to capitalize on this historic opportunity to
sideline not only Iran but Russia as we help rebuild Syria.
I also want to underline that whether it is food insecurity
or sexual violence that accompanies war, and whether we are
talking about Sudan or Haiti or Afghanistan, Ukraine, or Gaza,
that it is women who often bear the brunt of these conflicts.
They should have a seat at the table when it comes to
resolving them, and that is not just a sentiment. It is also
backed up by data because we know that when women participate
in conflict negotiations peace is 35 percent more likely to
last at least 15 years.
That is why we passed the Women Peace and Security Act in
2017. It was signed into law by President Trump during his
first term, and I hope that in his second term we can build on
this effort.
It is one of the reasons I am pleased that we now have
three women on the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator
Duckworth and Senator Rosen. It is the first time since I have
been here that there has been three women on this committee,
and I am interested to hear your vision for the State
Department's Office of Global Women's Issues, and more broadly,
how the Administration will work to empower women and girls on
the global stage.
As Chairman Risch has said, the list of challenges facing
America is very long. And so, Senator Rubio, if you are
confirmed I hope we can work together to continue to promote
American interests that we have seen around the world the
importance of America's role in the world.
Thank you.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. Good remarks.
Senator Rubio, the floor is going to be yours, and I hope
you will introduce your beautiful family to start with, and we
will take it from there.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA,
NOMINATED TO BE U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Senator Rubio. Well, thank you, Chairman Risch, and I want
to thank the ranking member as well, Senator Shaheen, and thank
you, Senator Scott, for your introduction, and let me just say
it is a bit surreal to be on this side of the room, but you all
look very distinguished. I want you to know that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Risch. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. We know that.
Senator Rubio. In the 249 year history of our republic
there has only been 71 other Americans who have served in the
role in the position that President Trump has now nominated me
to occupy, and I want to thank him for his confidence, and it
is an incredible honor. It is also, as many of you have already
pointed out, an extraordinary responsibility.
Three of my children--Amanda, Anthony, and Dominic--could
not be here with us today or join us here in person. But I am
happy that my wife Jeanette is here and that my daughter
Daniella is here with me as well because I think as each of you
know well, it really is impossible to do our job in the Senate,
not to mention the job I have been nominated for without the
love and the support of our families.
I am also very pleased that my sisters Barbara and Veronica
and my nephew Orlando are joining me here today, and to me it
is a reminder that the path that brings me to this moment was
paved by those who are not here with us today.
My two parents who arrived here on May 27, 1956, from Cuba
and they had nothing but the dreams of a better life, and
because of them I had the privilege to be born a citizen of the
greatest nation in the history of mankind and to be raised in a
safe and stable home by parents who made their children's
future the very purpose of their lives.
I also want to acknowledge all the blessings that God has
bestowed upon me in my life. My faith is critical and something
I will lean and rely on heavily in the months that are ahead in
a tumultuous world where in my faith we are called to promote
the cause of peace and the common good, and that task has
gotten harder than it has ever been, and I will rely heavily on
my faith and pray for God's blessings that He will provide me
the strength, the wisdom, and the courage to do what is right
in these tenuous moments.
At the end of the Second World War the United States was,
in the words of the then Secretary of State, tasked with
creating an order, a world order, a free half, in his quote,
out of chaos, without blowing to pieces--without blowing the
whole of the world into pieces in the process, and in the
decades that followed that global order served us quite well.
Americans' incomes rose, and communities flourished.
Alliances emerged in the Indo-Pacific and Europe that led to
the emergence of stability and democracy and prosperity in
these regions.
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Senator Risch. Back to order.
Senator Rubio. Alliances emerged in the Indo-Pacific and in
Europe that led to the emergence of stability, democracy, and
prosperity, but it also prevented a cataclysmic world war, and
ultimately a wall in Berlin came down and with it an evil
empire.
Out of the triumphalism of the end of the long cold war
emerged a bipartisan consensus, and this consensus was that we
had reached the end of history, that all of the nations of the
world would now become members of the democratic western led
community, that a foreign policy that served the national
interest could now be replaced by one that served the liberal
world order, and that all mankind was now destined to abandon
national sovereignty and national identity and would instead
become one human family and citizens of the world.
This was not just a fantasy. We now know it was a dangerous
delusion. Here in America and in many of the advanced economies
across the world an almost religious commitment to free and
unfettered trade at the expense of our national economy shrunk
the middle class, left the working class in crisis, collapsed
our industrial capacity, and has pushed critical supply chains
into the hands of adversaries and of rivals.
An irrational zeal for maximum freedom of movement of
people has resulted in a historic mass migration crisis here in
America but also around the world.
It is one that threatens the stability of societies and of
governments. Across the West, governments now censor and even
prosecute domestic political opponents. Meanwhile, radical
jihadists openly march in the streets, and sadly, drive
vehicles into our people.
While America far too often continued to prioritize the
global order above our core national interests, other nations
continue to act the way countries always have.
Senator Risch. Pause.
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Senator Risch. Back to order.
Senator Rubio. I get bilingual protesters, which I think is
cool.
[Laughter.]
Senator Risch. As you know, that is a first here for us, at
least in recent times.
Senator Rubio. All right.
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Senator Risch. Back to order.
Senator Rubio. All right. So while America too often
prioritized the global order above our core national interest,
other nations continued to act the way nations have always
acted and always will in what they perceive to be their best
interest, and instead of folding into the post-cold war global
order, they have manipulated it to serve their interests at the
expense of ours.
We welcomed the Chinese Communist Party into the global
order, and they took advantage of all of its benefits, and they
ignored all of its obligations and responsibilities.
Instead, they have repressed and lied and cheated and
hacked and stolen their way into global superpower status, and
they have done so at our expense and at the expense of the
people of their own country.
In our very own hemisphere narco terrorists and dictators
and despots take advantage of open borders to drive mass
migration, to traffic in women and children, and to flood our
communities with deadly fentanyl and violent criminals.
In Moscow, in Tehran, in Pyongyang dictators, rogue states
now sow chaos and instability and align with and they fund
radical terror groups, and then they hide behind their veto
power at the United Nations Security Council or the threats of
nuclear war.
The post-war global order is not just obsolete. It is now a
weapon being used against us, and all this has led to a moment
in which we must now confront the single greatest risk of
geopolitical instability and of generational global crisis in
the lifetime of anyone alive and in this room today.
Eight decades later we are once again called to create a
free world out of the chaos, and this will not be easy, and it
will be impossible without a strong and a confident America
that engages in the world, putting our core national interests
once again above all else.
Just 4 years ago I believe we began to see the outlines and
the beginnings of what that would look like during President
Trump's first term. American strength was a deterrent to our
adversaries, and it gave us leverage in diplomacy. There were
no new wars. ISIS was eviscerated, Soleimani was dead, the
historic Abraham Accords were born, and Americans were safer as
a result.
Now President Trump returns to office with an unmistakable
mandate from the voters. They want a strong America, a strong
America engaged in the world, but guided by a clear objective
to promote peace abroad and security and prosperity here at
home.
That is the promise that President Trump was elected to
keep, and if I am confirmed, keeping that promise will be the
core mission of the United States Department of State.
Now, tragically horrifying atrocities and unimaginable
human suffering can be found on virtually every continent, and
I am certain that today I will be asked about the array of
programs and the activities the Department of State carries out
to address them.
We are a nation who was founded on the revolutionary truth
that all men are created equal and that our rights come not
from man or from government but from God, and so we will never
be indifferent to the suffering of our fellow man.
But ultimately, under President Trump, the top priority of
the United States Department of State will be the United
States. The direction he has given for the conduct of our
foreign policy is clear.
Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, every policy
we pursue, must be justified by the answer to one of three
questions--does it make America safer, does it make America
stronger, or does it make America more prosperous.
Under President Trump the dollars of hardworking American
taxpayers will always be spent wisely, and our power will
always be wielded prudently and toward what is best for America
and Americans before anything and everything else.
Prudence in the conduct of foreign policy is not an
abandonment of our values. It is the common sense understanding
that while we remain the wealthiest and the most powerful
nation on the Earth, our wealth has never been unlimited, and
our power has never been infinite, and placing our core
national interest above all else is not isolationism.
It is the common sense realization that a foreign policy
centered in our national interest is not some outdated relic.
Since the emergence of the modern nation state over two
centuries ago, countries acting based on what they perceive to
be their core national interest, that has been the norm, not
the exception, and for our country placing the interest of
America and Americans above all else has never been more
relevant or more necessary than it is right now. For in the end
how can America promote the cause of peace on Earth if it is
not first safe at home?
What good is America to our allies if it is not strong, and
how can America help end the suffering of God's children across
the world if it is not first prosperous here at home?
I thank you, and I hope I can earn your support, whether it
is because you believe I would do a good job or because you
want to get rid of me.
[Laughter.]
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Nominee Commitment Questions
Question. Do you agree to appear before this Committee and make
officials from the Department of State available to the Committee and
designated staff when invited?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you commit to keep this Committee fully and currently
informed about the activities under your purview?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you commit to engaging in meaningful consultation
while policies are being developed, not just providing notification
after the fact?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you commit to promptly responding to requests for
briefings and information requested by the Committee and its designated
staff?
Answer. Yes.
[The prepared statement of Senator Rubio follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Marco Rubio
Thank you, Chairman Risch. Thank you, Ranking Member Shaheen. And
thank you, Senator Scott for your introduction. In the 249-year history
of our republic, only 71 other Americans have served in the position
President Trump has nominated me to occupy. I thank him for his
confidence. It is both an incredible honor and an extraordinary
responsibility.
Three of my children--Amanda, Anthony, and Dominick--were not able
to join me here in person today. But I am happy that my wife Jeanette
and my daughter Daniella are here with me. Because as each of you know
well, it would be impossible to serve in the Senate or in the role I
have been nominated for now, without the love and the support of our
families.
I am also pleased my sisters Barbara and Veronica, and my nephew
Orlando are joining me. It is a reminder that the path that brings me
to this moment was paved by those who are not here with us. By two
parents, who arrived here on May 27th 1956 from Cuba with nothing but
the dream of a better life. Because of them, I had the privilege to be
born a citizen of the greatest nation in the history of the world. And
to be raised in a safe and stable home, by parents who made their
children's future the very purpose of their lives.
__________
At the end of World War II, the United States was, in the words of
then Secretary Acheson, tasked with creating a world order ``a free
half'' out of chaos ``without blowing the whole to pieces in the
process.''
In the decades that followed, the global order they created served
us well. For Americans, incomes rose and communities flourished.
Alliances emerged in the Indo-Pacific and Europe that led to the
emergence of stability, democracy, and prosperity in these regions, and
prevented a cataclysmic third world war. And ultimately a wall in
Berlin came down and with it, an ``evil empire.''
Out of the triumphalism of the end of long Cold War emerged a bi-
partisan consensus that we had reached ``the end of history.'' That all
the nations of earth would become members of the democratic Western led
community. That a foreign policy that served the national interest
could now be replaced by one that served the ``liberal world order.''
And that all mankind was now destined to abandon national identity, and
we would become ``one human family'' and ``citizens of the world.''
This wasn't just a fantasy; it was a dangerous delusion.
Here in America, and in many of the advanced economies across the
world, an almost religious commitment to free and unfettered trade at
the expense of our national economy, shrunk the middle class, left the
working class in crisis, collapsed industrial capacity, and pushed
critical supply chains into the hands of adversaries and rivals.
An irrational zeal for maximum freedom of movement of people has
resulted in a historic mass migration crisis here in America and around
the world that threatens the stability of societies and governments.
And across the West, governments now censor and even prosecute
domestic political opponents, while radical jihadists openly march in
the streets and drive vehicles into our people.
While America far too often continued to prioritize the ``global
order'' above our core national interests, other nations continued to
act the way countries always have and always will, in what they
perceive to be in their best interest.
And instead of folding into the post-Cold War global order, they
have manipulated it to serve their interest at the expense of ours.
We welcomed the Chinese Communist Party into this global order. And
they took advantage of all its benefits. But they ignored all its
obligations and responsibilities. Instead, they have lied, cheated,
hacked, and stolen their way to global superpower status, at our
expense.
In our very own hemisphere, despots and narco-terrorists take
advantage of open borders to drive mass migration, traffic women and
children, and flood our communities with fentanyl and violent
criminals.
And in Moscow, Tehran, and Pyongyang, dictators sow chaos and
instability and align with and fund radical terror groups. Then hide
behind their veto power at the United Nations and the threat of nuclear
war.
The postwar global order is not just obsolete; it is now a weapon
being used against us.
And all this has led us to a moment in which we must now confront
the single greatest risk of geopolitical instability and generational
global crisis in the lifetime of anyone alive here today.
Eight decades later, we are called to create a free world out of
chaos once again.
This will not be easy.
And it will be impossible without a strong and confident America
that engages in the world, putting our core national interests above
all else once again.
Just 4 years ago we saw the beginnings of what that would look
like. During President Trump's first term, American strength was a
deterrent to our adversaries and gave us leverage in diplomacy. There
were no new wars, ISIS was eviscerated, Soleimani was dead, the
historic Abraham Accords were born, and Americans were safer as a
result.
Now President Trump returns to office with an unmistakable mandate
from the voters. They want a strong America. Engaged in the world. But
guided by a clear objective, to promote peace abroad, and security and
prosperity here at home.
That is the promise President Trump was elected to keep.
And if I am confirmed, keeping that promise will be the core
mission of the United States Department of State.
__________
Tragically, horrifying atrocities and unimaginable human suffering
can be found on virtually every continent. And I am certain that today
I will be asked about the array of programs and activities the
Department of State carries out to address them.
As a nation founded on the revolutionary truth that ``all men are
created equal'' with rights that come not from man but from God, we
will never be indifferent to the suffering of our fellow man.
But ultimately, under President Trump, the top priority of the
United States Department of State must be and will be the United
States.
The direction he has given for the conduct of our foreign policy is
clear. Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy
we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions:
Does it make America safer?
Does it make America stronger?
Does it make America more prosperous?
Under President Trump, the dollars of hardworking American
taxpayers will always be spent wisely and our power will always be
yielded prudently, and toward what is best for America and Americans
above all else.
Prudence in the conduct of foreign policy is not an abandonment of
our values.
It is the commonsense understanding that while we remain the
wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth, our wealth has never been
unlimited and our power has never been infinite.
And placing our core national interests above all else is not
isolationism. It is the commonsense realization that a foreign policy
centered on our national interest is not some outdated relic.
Since the emergence of the modern nation-state over two centuries
ago, countries acting based on what they perceive as their core
national interest has been the norm not the exception. And for our
country, placing the interest of America and Americans above all else
has never been more relevant or more necessary than it is right now.
For in the end, how America can promote the cause of ``peace on
earth'' if it is not first safe at home?
What good to our allies is America if it is not strong?
And how can America help end the suffering of God's children across
the world, if it is not first prosperous here at home?
Senator Risch. Either way the result is the same.
Thank you, Senator Rubio. I have always been impressed with
your view, particularly on a 50,000 foot level, of the kind of
problems that we face in our lane and national security lane,
foreign relations and intelligence. So I appreciate those
remarks.
We are now going to start a round. I am going to allow 10
minute questions since this is a Cabinet level position. That
does not mean you have to use all 10 minutes, but the 10
minutes are there, and what I am going to do in this hearing,
and what I am going to do in future hearings, is I will call on
people based on seniority on the committee at the time the
gavel goes down, and if you come after that you will be put in
line after that, and we will go down the list like that.
In any event, with that, Senator Rubio, could you talk for
a minute about the Russian energy reliance? I think all of us
were impressed when the war started that the Europeans knew the
necessity of cutting the cord with Russia on their reliance on
Russian energy, which had developed since the Iron Curtain came
down, all of us believing that Russia would behave itself,
which turned out to be a very misplaced view.
And now with the war carrying on, it is going to end,
obviously, at some point in time. There are voices in Europe
saying, well, we can go back to using Russian energy.
My view is that that is not reasonable, and it is not
appropriate, and indeed, I think that the fallout from this war
is going to go on for generations. Your thoughts on the energy
relationship between Europe and Russia in the future?
Senator Rubio. Well, I am reminded, I believe back in 2018
then President Trump on two occasions, once at the United
Nations, and I think another time at a NATO conference,
pointed, for example, to Germany's reliance on Russian energy
as a real vulnerability, and he was snickered at.
I remember he was snickered at by the representatives of
Germany at the United Nations. He turned out to be 100 percent
correct. In fact, that reliance on Russian energy was a major
loss of deterrence.
Vladimir Putin, among his many calculations, one of the
calculations he took in going into Ukraine was that the
Europeans would complain, maybe they would hit him with a
couple sanctions. They would write some strongly worded nasty
letters about him, but ultimately would not be able to do
anything effectively because of how much they depended on
Russia, and in some cases continue to depend.
I believe France is the third leading payer into Russian
energy in the world, and I think a couple other countries in
Europe follow right behind.
So there is still a significant amount of dependence in
that regard, and that dependence on Russian energy is a
tremendous amount of leverage that Vladimir Putin holds on his
neighbors in Europe.
Now, there is some good news, I think. For example, I
watched with great interest the German engineering marvel where
they have been able to by the end of this year, after they
waived permitting requirements and within 9 months, were able
to open what is literally a floating LNG terminal to allow and
receive exports including from the United States and other
places.
So I do think you are seeing movement in Europe now to try
to detangle itself from that level of dependence, but it
remains a real vulnerability and a tremendous piece of leverage
for Putin against his neighbors and the broader world.
It is also a reminder, by the way, and I used to be guilty
of saying this quite a bit, that the Russian GDP was the size
of Italy's--you know, not very large.
I think one of the things we learned from this endeavor is
that it is not just the size of the GDP but what it is composed
of. And the Russian GDP, while smaller than some other
countries, is largely reliant on the production of raw
materials, on the energy, on food production, fertilizer, and
the like. And these are critical components of national
strength and a reminder of how important they are for us here
domestically as well.
Senator Risch. Thank you. I appreciate that.
I do think too we ought to acknowledge that the Europeans
did a job that was well beyond their expectations the first
winter as they struggled through. They did really well as far
as cutting the cord with Russia being as how hard they were
tied to that.
Let us talk about AUKUS for a minute. There has not been
much discussion about AUKUS, really, since the thing started. A
lot of us have been pressing the Administration to gear that
up. It has not been forthcoming.
I would like to hear your thoughts on AUKUS, the importance
thereof and getting this thing moving as it was intended.
Senator Rubio. Well, one of the things we will have to
endeavor to see, obviously, there is a tremendous amount of
this that relies on the Department of Defense and other
entities in Government.
To the extent the Secretary of State and the Department of
State is engaged it is something that I think you are going to
find very strong support for in this Administration because it
is one of not--I think it is almost a blueprint in many ways of
how we can create a consortium like partnership with nation
states that are allied to us to confront some of these global
challenges, be it in the defense realm, in the technology
realm, in the critical minerals realm, in the sensitive
technologies and critical technologies, for example, artificial
intelligence and advances in even quantum computing.
This, obviously, is more defense related, but it is one
example of how we can leverage the power of these partnerships
with allies--two, three countries in some cases, broader in
others--to reach outcomes and objectives such as creating a
geopolitical and strategic balance in the Indo-Pacific region
and beyond.
So we will have to look at that and to see what components
of whatever impediments exist can be removed by the action of
the Department of State. But it also reminds us that in many of
these very few of these global issues are entirely relying on
the Department of State, the Department of Energy, the
Department of Defense.
We have a host of other Government agencies--Commerce, in
many cases--who also play a critical role in expediting and
going through, for example, some of the lists of technologies
that perhaps are not being transferred because they have been
deemed as sensitive.
But in the case of our strong and close allies, that is the
point, right, is that you want to be able to find yourself in a
situation where you can accelerate partnership by making
available to key allies these sensitive technologies that we
would not want to see in the hands or developed by an adversary
or an aligned country.
Senator Risch. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Our view is aligned, particularly on the excluded
technology list. These are our closest and most trusted allies,
and unfortunately, the current administration has really been
difficult to work with as far as getting through that excluded
technology list, and I hope you will help expedite that.
Let me talk for a minute about the International Criminal
Court. Look, as you know, we have got real problems there. The
court originally was intended, at least from our point of view,
to be a court that focused on international crimes that were
committed by people from countries who did not have a robust
democracy nor a robust judicial system that held its own people
accountable for crimes.
The court has gone beyond that, obviously. They are not
only focusing on people who are not accountable elsewhere, but
they are also focusing on people who come from countries that
solve their own problems, like the United States of America and
like Israel.
The most recent obvious thing that flowed from that was the
indictment on the same day of Netanyahu plus a Hamas character.
Any court that is a court of law has to be able to
recognize good from bad, and when you try to indict two people
and show some type of moral equivalency in that regard, they
are just barking up the wrong tree and I think, unfortunately,
we are going to have to rein them up.
Your thoughts on that?
Senator Rubio. Well, I think it has done--the ICC has done
tremendous damage to its global credibility.
First of all, it is going after a nonmember state on the
claims that I believe--in fact, I think just in the last 24
hours the Israeli high court filed an appeal before the ICC
even though it is not a member state, and I saw some of the
filings from the prosecutor Mr. Khan, who is involved in that
process, and he argues that they have the right to go after
nonmembers for their activities within the confines of member
states in this case.
And I think, first of all, the whole premise of his
prosecution is flawed. Beyond the process of it and the
precedent that it sets, which is a very dangerous precedent for
the United States of America, by the way, because this is a
test run.
This is a trial run to see can we go after a head of state
from a nation that is not a member. If we can go after them,
and we can get it done with regards to Israel, they will apply
that to the United States at some point and in fact there have
been threats to do so in the past.
But the premise of the prosecution itself is completely and
utterly flawed. As you said, they went ahead--I think they also
went after--did not travel around the world. He is not with us
any longer but he does not--did not travel around the world,
was at no risk of being apprehended.
Second of all, the moral equivalency piece of it was
offensive. Let me explain, and I think I do not need to explain
to this committee.
Hamas carried out an atrocious operation. They sent a bunch
of savages into Israel with the express and explicit purpose of
targeting civilians. They went into concerts. They went into
these music festivals.
They knew that there were no soldiers at the music
festival. They knew that these were teenagers and young
families that they went into this--into different communities
and the kibbutzes and the like, and they deliberately targeted
civilians, deliberately.
In fact, they kidnapped the ones they did not murder. The
families who they did not eviscerate, the people whose skulls
they did not crack open, they kidnapped, and to this day
continue to hold people, the innocents that they took. A
deliberate operation.
In the case of Israel responding to that attack has had to
go after Hamas. How can you coexist--how can any nation state
on the planet coexist side by side with a group of savages like
Hamas?
They have to defend their national security and their
national interest, as I pointed out in my opening statement.
And so there is no more--and they did not target civilians now,
sadly and unfortunately, and I am sure we will discuss it
further in some of the other questions that will come up here
today.
One of the horrible things about war, it is a terrible
thing about war, and it is why we should try to prevent it at
almost any cost is that innocent people are caught up in it,
and that is true of every conflict on the planet.
But there is a difference between those who in the conduct
of armed action deliberately target civilians and those who do
as much as they can to avoid civilians being caught up against
an enemy that does not wear a uniform, against an enemy that
hides in tunnels, against an enemy that hides behind women and
children and puts them at the forefront and uses them as human
shields.
That is who Hamas is. There is no moral equivalency, and I
think the ICC if they do not drop this will find its
credibility globally badly damaged, and I think the United
States should be very concerned because I believe this is a
test run for applying it to an American service member and
American leaders in the future.
Senator Risch. Well said. I could not agree with you more,
and certainly the court has badly damaged its reputation, and
it is going to have a long ways to go to recover from that.
So with that, Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Rubio, as I said in my opening statement, I hope
that this committee can better collaborate to swiftly confirm
career Foreign Service officers.
These are patriotic Americans who have served under both
Democratic and Republican administrations and they work to
advance U.S. national security interests. Delays and vacant
posts hurt America's interest.
I know you agree with that because we have had that
conversation. But will you commit to working with Chairman
Risch and me to prioritize the advancement and confirmation of
career State Department officials?
Senator Rubio. Well, the answer to that is yes, but I would
also point to this fact that I think we are going to begin by
prioritizing. We are going to look at what are the key issues
in the world.
There are obviously--every post in the world is important
or it should not exist, and then the question is which are the
ones we bring to you first, and those are the ones that I think
are most critical.
So, obviously, I think you will see our nominees for the
deputy posts, which are critically important, all the under
secretaries as well, and what I have endeavored to do as we
interview and identify people--and I believe I have met with
and interviewed most of the candidates for those top posts--is
I want to bring you people that are three things.
Number one, are aligned to the mission. I think that is
critically important, whether they be Foreign Service officers.
I am not talking about political alignment. I am talking about
alignment with the mission that we have outlined for American
foreign policy, which is one of the things that I think has
hurt the State Department under numerous Administrations, is
sometimes the mission or what is core mission of the department
has not been well defined. That is on us, and it is our
obligation to define that.
So, number one, aligned to the mission. Number two, the
capability to do the job, and I can tell you now that in my
entire service on this committee, which spans 14 years, we
always had fellows from the Department of State, I believe all
of whom are still in the service of our country, and I intend,
because I know them and I have worked with them, to utilize
their skill sets in the department, and in fact a couple who we
hope will be returning home soon from foreign postings to work
with us at the State Department closer to my office.
But the point is that we want to have people that are
highly capable, both those who we bring from what they call
political appointees, but also those that are promoted from
within the Foreign Service.
And then the third are people that we can get through the
committee, because time is of the essence. Now, you may not
agree with all their views, whether they be Foreign Service
officers or whether they be political, but I think it is
important.
And we are not going to exclude someone just because we
think that maybe they are going to have a rougher confirmation
process than someone else.
But I do think it is important that we have people in these
positions as quickly as possible, and having served for 14
years on that side of this room I understand that one of the
things we can do to help expedite that is to bring you people
that will do a good job, who are qualified for the job, are
mission aligned, but also that can move through this process
quickly enough so that they can be at post and begin to fulfill
their duties.
If I have to wait a year to get them in place, well, I am
not sure on some of these issues we face today we have a year
to wait.
Senator Shaheen. I certainly agree with that, and I
appreciate your focus on mission and qualifications because I
think the committee will be looking closely at that.
I want to go now to NATO because in 2023 Congress
overwhelmingly passed the bipartisan Kaine-Rubio provision
prohibiting any President from withdrawing the United States
from NATO without Senate approval or an act of Congress.
Will you commit to adhering to Senate approval or an act of
Congress as required under that law that you authored if
President Trump attempts to withdraw the U.S. from NATO?
Senator Rubio. Well, first, let me say that President Trump
has appointed an ambassador nominee for NATO, which clearly
indicates his role to engage in that.
Second is the law is what it is. Obviously, as you have
mentioned, I was a co-sponsor of the law, and so it is tough to
say I am not in support of a law that I hoped to pass and that
I think it is an important role for Congress to play because,
frankly, it is not just about the withdrawal piece of it.
It is the contributions we make toward--the power of the
purse still resides with the Congress. Now, maybe, if confirmed
moving toward the executive branch I will become--I will forget
that lesson a little bit.
I hope not but, ultimately, I still recognize and
understand that the power of the purse is with Congress, and it
is an incredibly important power.
Let me point on NATO one thing. I think there is a
misunderstanding about it. The NATO alliance is a very
important alliance. I believe that. I believe alliances can be
and has been very useful. Without the NATO alliance there is no
end to the cold war.
In fact, without the NATO alliance it is quite possible
that much of what today--at the time--today we know as Europe
would have fallen victim to aggression.
But what is important for the United States is not just to
have defense allies. It is to have capable defense allies,
allies who are capable of defending their region, and I think
there is a question to be asked.
I am not stating a public policy position. I am stating a
question to be asked, and that is should the role of the United
States and NATO in the 21st century be the primary defense role
or as a backstop to aggression, with countries in the region
assuming more of that responsibility by contributing more.
Now, look, in fairness--and I think the further east you
move in Europe, the more money you see spent on the military as
a percentage of GDP--but I think there has been broad
acknowledgement across Europe and across multiple
Administrations, both Republican and Democrat, that our NATO
partners--these are rich advanced economies--need to contribute
more to their own defense and ultimately to the NATO
partnership as well, and that is a demand that has been made by
multiple presidents across the years and we--and the fact that
that is true has been revealed by what has happened with
Ukraine.
Look at the ramp up in defense spending and the industrial
capacity of multiple countries in Europe as a result of an
armed conflict. Imagine if that capacity had been there before.
It quite possibly might have had a deterrent effect as well.
So I think it is important that we have alliances, but we
have to have alliances with strong and capable partners, and
not those who sort of have viewed the U.S. and the NATO defense
agreement as an excuse to spend less on defense and more on
some domestic needs.
We have domestic needs, too. These advanced, rich countries
in Western Europe have enormous safety net programs that they
fund. We have domestic needs as well. But they have been able
to divert or grow those programs because they do not have to
spend as much on defense as we do as a percentage of our
overall economy, and that dynamic needs to change, and I expect
that President Trump will continue to forcefully make that
point.
Senator Shaheen. And as you know, this committee and the
Senate NATO Observer Group which I co-chair has made that point
repeatedly, and we are now up to 23 of the 32 NATO nations who
are meeting their 2 percent of GDP, and we have a number of
them who are going beyond that, and it is appropriate.
And I think the sentiment on this committee would be to
agree with what you are saying. But to ensure that we continue
to have a strong NATO I think will be important not only to
European security but most important to our own security.
We talked about Ukraine. I appreciate your past leadership
in supporting Ukraine's fight for sovereignty. More recently
you voted against supplemental funding for Ukraine and against
forgiving loans for Ukraine in November, loans that would be
critical to Ukraine's economic stability.
So can you talk about how your views on Ukraine have
developed, and where you are now and what you think is
important for us to do in order to ensure that there is the
strongest possible negotiating position if Ukraine and Russia
do get to the negotiating table?
Senator Rubio. Sure.
First, let me point out, and although I will still speak to
my view of the process that I voted against that bill because I
said I would not vote for a bill unless it addressed the crisis
at our southern border as part of the overall arrangement. That
was not done, and so I voted against it.
That said, here is my view of the situation. Once this war
became what we now know it is, and that is a war of attrition,
a stalemate, a protracted conflict, the dynamic on that
situation has changed.
It has, and I believe, and I think that this echoes what
the President--let me first echo the President's words and what
he said in an interview about a year ago. He was asked about
the war in Ukraine. He says, I want the dying to stop. I want
people to stop dying. I want the killing to stop.
And frankly, I do not know how anyone could say they do
not. The destruction that Ukraine is undergoing is
extraordinary. It is going to take a generation to rebuild it.
Millions of Ukrainians no longer live in Ukraine, and the
disruption--that means how many of them are going to come back,
and what are they going to come back to. Even as I speak to you
now the Ukrainian infrastructure and their energy
infrastructure is being decimated in ways that are going to
cost hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild over the next
decades.
So this is an important conflict, and I think it should be
the official position of the United States that this war should
be brought to an end. And the question becomes what role can we
play, and I think the first is by making that abundantly clear.
And my differences with the Biden administration throughout
this process is they never clearly delineated what the end goal
of the conflict was. What exactly were we funding? What exactly
were we putting money toward?
And on many occasions it sounded like however much it takes
for however long it takes. That is not a realistic or prudent
position.
The truth of the matter is that in this conflict there is
no way Russia takes all of Ukraine. The Ukrainians are too
brave and fight too hard, and the country is too big. That is
not going to happen.
It is also unrealistic to believe that somehow a nation the
size of Ukraine, no matter how incompetent and no matter how
much damage the Russian Federation has suffered as a result of
this invasion--there is no way Ukraine is also going to push
these people all the way back to where they were on the eve of
the invasion just given the size dynamic.
I saw a quote recently, and I wish I could attribute to who
it was, but the quote was, and I think it was very wise, where
they said the problem that Ukraine is facing is not that they
are running out of money, it is that they are running out of
Ukrainians. There is a size differential here that is
important.
Now, what Vladimir Putin has done is unacceptable. There is
no doubt about it. But this war has to end. And I think it
should be the official policy of the United States that we want
to see it end.
Now, what that master plan looks like is going to be hard
work. This is not going to be an easy endeavor. But it is going
to require bold diplomacy, and my hope is that it could begin
with some ceasefire and we are going to have--there are going
to--in order to achieve objectives like the one that needs to
occur in Ukraine, it is important for everyone to be realistic.
There will have to be concessions made by the Russian
Federation but also by the Ukrainians, and the United States
should lend itself there. It is also important that there be
some balance on both sides.
In essence, it will be difficult to achieve this objective
of a ceasefire and ultimately a peace settlement unless both
sides have leverage.
Putin's goal now is to have maximum leverage so that he can
basically impose neutrality on Ukraine, retrofit, and come back
and do this again in 4 or 5 years, and that is not an outcome I
think any of us would favor.
By the same token, I think it is important that the
Ukrainians have leverage, but they also will have to make
concessions to reach this agreement. It is going to be very
difficult. This will not be easy.
Conflicts of this nature that have historical underpinnings
to it are going to require a lot of hard diplomacy and tough
work, but that is something that needs to happen. This conflict
needs to end.
Senator Shaheen. Well, I am out of time, but I appreciate
your last comment about the importance of leverage, and it is
important for the United States to do what we can to help
provide that leverage to Ukraine so that they can be in the
best negotiating position possible with Russia.
Thank you very much.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
Senator Ricketts.
Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, Senator Rubio, congratulations on your nomination to
this very, very difficult job. I want to thank you for your
previous service in the U.S. Senate and your willingness to
take on this job should you be confirmed.
And I also want to thank your family as well for their
support for you to be able to be a U.S. Senator and to apply
for this job as Secretary of State, and I want also to express
my gratitude to all the members of the State Department.
We have a lot of people who choose to serve our country
overseas, spend time away from their friends and family, and I
cannot think of a more noble calling. You are taking over a
department that is very, very important to us.
On Sunday, Jake Sullivan, President Biden's national
security advisor, said, quote, ``The American people are safer,
and the country is better off than we were 4 years ago.''
Let me repeat, ``The American people are safer, and the
country is better off than 4 years ago.'' I do not know who
believes that. I do not believe that.
I think the election results demonstrate the vast majority
of Americans do not believe that. We do not believe it at home.
Inflation has hurt average Americans' pocketbooks. Open border
policies have put Americans at risk, and I do not believe we
see it overseas.
In fact, Senator Rubio, should you be confirmed you are
being handed a job at a time when this country is in the most
danger we have been in since World War II. It is a very
dangerous time in the world and your opening remarks
demonstrate that you know that.
We are not better off, and we are not safer. President
Biden started this with the disastrous withdrawal from
Afghanistan that projected weakness and an incomprehension of
what it means to have a policy of deterrence.
Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine and started the largest war
in Europe since World War II after that withdrawal. I believe
it is because he saw weakness in this Biden administration.
It has been the President's fear of helping Ukraine that
has contributed to putting them in the untenable position they
are today, by slow rolling the weapons that Ukraine needs to be
able to defend themselves.
His incomprehensible and incoherent policy has caused him
to handcuff American liquid natural gas exports while delaying
tough sanctions on the Russian oil and gas industry which, as
you know, is the lifeblood of the Russian war machine.
The Middle East is equally disastrous. Instead of enforcing
sanctions on Iran, Biden naively tried to resurrect the Iran
nuclear deal, enabling the regime to generate $100 billion in
oil revenue.
And I want to point out that during the Trump
administration because of sanctions Iran's foreign reserves
fell from $122 billion to less than $14 billion. That hampered
their ability to be able to fund terrorist groups like Hamas,
Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
What the Biden administration has done is allowed the
Iranian regime to enrich enough weapons grade uranium to be a
week or two away from having a nuclear weapon. And since
October 7 President Biden has not supported Israel in the way
he has needed, and because of the previous mentioned money that
he has allowed the Iranians to have that has funded the
terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, our allies like
Israel have been attacked, and we have been attacked directly.
Thankfully, Israel has had the courage to stand up to these
terrorists and take matters into its own hand, and it has led
to the decimation of Hamas and Hezbollah. But no amount of
revisionist history can change the fact that this was despite
the lack of support from the Biden administration, not because
of the support from the Biden administration.
And of course, let us not forget North Korea and how
dangerous they have become and the fact that we are now seeing
North Korean troops in Europe. I thought 4 years ago that was
unthought by anybody, and of course, one of the most concerning
things is Biden's weakness has emboldened the greatest
adversary we have on the face of the Earth right now, which is
the People's Republic of China.
The People's Republic of China is the head of the stake of
this axis of dictators that are challenging the United States
today. They are challenging our freedom, our security, and the
very way of life we have.
Beijing has had a direct hand in each of the problems I
just mentioned. That is why addressing any one of them cannot
be done without making sure that we are thinking about how we
are deterring the People's Republic of China.
When everything is a priority, nothing is a priority, and
Senator Rubio, your top priority must be the People's Republic
of China.
Since the election in November--so this is all within the
last 2 months--the PRC has hacked our Treasury Department
including CFIUS, continued what has been described as the worst
telecom hack in U.S. history, sabotaged important undersea
communication cables in Asia and Europe, deployed ships to the
South China Sea to harass our allies like the Philippines in
their own territorial waters, simulated a naval backed blockade
of the Japanese islands for the first time, conducted the
largest naval drills in decades targeting Taiwan and the
broader Western Pacific, revealed new mobile piers suitable for
a Taiwan invasion, unveiled advanced aircraft and launched the
world's largest amphibious warship, and they have allowed Iran
to draw down and ship nearly 3 million barrels of oil from a
storage site in China.
It is obvious that Xi Jinping is positioning his chess
pieces in preparation for war. He has directed his military to
be prepared to take Taiwan by 2027, and folks, that is only 2
years away.
Now, it is true that does not mean that he will invade in
2027, and it is also true that it is not predetermined. But it
should be very concerning to all of us that he has given his
military that direction because time and time again dictators
tell people what they are going to do, and then they go out and
try and do it.
The only thing that dictators respond to is force,
strength. Peace through strength. This was something Ronald
Reagan understood a long time ago, and it is what we have to
get back to in the United States.
Xi Jinping has vowed to be the world dominating power by
2049. We should take him at his word. That is what he believes
he is going to try and do. It is time for us to go on the
offensive and abandon illusions about what kind of adversary we
are faced.
This is not a managed competition. This is a competition we
must win. It will take more than an all of government approach.
It will take an all of society approach to be able to win this.
As our lead diplomat, Senator Rubio, you are in a position
to set the tone, and that is why I cannot think of a better
pick to be the Secretary of State than you.
So, first of all, do you agree that the PRC is the biggest
threat that we face as the United States?
Senator Rubio. The Communist Party of China leads the PRC,
is the most potent and dangerous near peer adversary this
nation has ever confronted.
They have elements that the Soviet Union never possessed.
They are a technological adversary and competitor--an
industrial competitor, an economic competitor, a geopolitical
competitor, a scientific competitor now in every realm.
It is an extraordinary challenge. It is one that I believe
will define the 21st century. When they write the book about
the 21st century there is going to be some chapters in there
about Putin. There is going to be some chapters in there about
some of these other places.
But the bulk of that book about the 21st century will be
not just about China but about the relationship between China
and the United States and what direction it went, and I think
you are alluding to it in your statement. I know you may have
another question. I do not want to eat up all your time, but I
do want to say this.
The Chinese believe that the United States are a great
power in an inevitable decline and that they are in an
inevitable rise. Now, they are going to be--they already are--
they are going to be a rich and powerful country and we are
going to have to deal with them.
The danger is that because of our own actions in many cases
a dangerous imbalance has built up in that relationship. We
allowed them for years to pretend that they were some
developing country so we should allow them to continue to cheat
on trade and commerce. We should allow them to continue to
expand.
They lied about not militarizing and populating island
chains in the South China Sea and the like. We allowed them for
years before we got serious about it to conduct grotesque human
rights violations against Uyghur Muslims as an example, one of
the most horrifying things happening on the planet, and for
years no one talked about it.
Which, by the way, not just has a human rights component to
it. It allows them to use slave labor to produce goods at the
expense of the rest of the world.
Talk about not just a horrific humanitarian crisis but an
unfair trade practice as well. We have allowed them to get away
with things, and frankly, the Chinese did what any country in
the world would do given these opportunities. They took
advantage of it.
And so I think now we are dealing with the ramifications of
it. I agree 100 percent what you said, but I remind you and I
remind everyone--I guess I want to make this point--that much
of what we need to do to confront China is here at home.
It is not just abroad. It is also here at home. We have to
rebuild our domestic industrial capacity, and we have to make
sure that the United States is not reliant on any single other
nation for any of our critical supply chains.
Senator Ricketts. And with 4 seconds left how are you going
to explain that to your average American that we need this all
of society approach and to your point exactly that it needs to
begin here at home so that people from my State in Nebraska
will understand and get on board?
Senator Rubio. If we stay on the road we are on right now
in less than 10 years virtually everything that matters to us
in life will depend on whether China will allow us to have it
or not.
Everything from the blood pressure medicine we take to what
movies we get to watch and everything in between we will depend
on China for it. They have come to dominate the critical
mineral industry supplies throughout the world. Everywhere in
the world they have now established critical mineral rights.
Even those who want to see more electric cars, no matter
where you make them, those batteries are almost entirely
dependent on the ability of the Chinese and the willingness of
the Chinese Communist Party to produce it and export it to you.
So if we do not change course we are going to live in a
world where much of what matters to us on a daily basis, from
our security to our health, will be dependent on whether the
Chinese allow us to have it or not. That is an unacceptable
outcome.
Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Senator Rubio.
Senator Risch. Next is Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
Senator Rubio.
And I have enjoyed working with you on the Congressional
Executive Commission on China which engages in many issues
related to their treatment of folks, from the Tibetans to the
Uyghurs to their position regarding Hong Kong and Taiwan.
But let us talk about Taiwan. I had the chance to go to
Taiwan in the year 2000. It was the second Presidential
election there, and it was the first one where people were
becoming convinced that they actually might be able to hold a
democracy.
I believe they have earned the right to have a voice in
international affairs, and I also believe that they are at
great risk right now with mainland China, Xi's plan to be
aggressive militarily toward them as my colleague Senator
Ricketts just noted.
Will you support in your role as Secretary of State
Taiwan's right to have a voice in international affairs,
participate in international forums, and will you support the
porcupine strategy providing that we will supply them with
defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may
be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-
defense capability?
By the way, that phrase is from the 1979 Taiwan Relations
Act. It is in our current law.
Senator Rubio. Yes. Let me just point out that on the
Taiwan Relations Act, I believe in the year 2016, I was the
lead Republican sponsor in reauthorizing and reinvigorating it.
I think that the multiple consecutive presidential
administrations of both parties have made clear that the policy
of the United States toward Taiwan is encapsulated not just in
the Taiwan Relations Act but in the Six Assurances that
multiple Administrations, including the Trump administration
and now the Biden administration, have made clear are our
policies.
With regards to your second point about international
forums, ASEAN is a great example of one where that is being
tested. Last year, at their conference, the Chinese were able
to prevent participation by the--Taiwan--any mention of Taiwan
in the memorandum, and then this year they are working very
hard to make sure that no one associated with Taiwan is
anywhere near it.
So this is one more example of how they are being excluded.
I would also point to the Western Hemisphere. I know that
sounds like half a world away, but you understand this issue.
The majority of nations on Earth that continue to recognize
and have relations with Taiwan, the vast bulk of or the
plurality are within the Western Hemisphere. They have
undertaken a very aggressive action in just the last 7, 8 years
to get these countries to flip.
They got Panama to flip. Then they got Panama to convince
the Dominican Republic to flip. They have targeted multiple
other nations and Nicaragua most recently to flip.
So I think that is an important thing for us to keep in
mind and make a priority, and I also think it is important to
recognize allies in the region like Paraguay that have not
flipped and others who have stayed strong in that regard.
On the porcupine strategy, because I know it may sound
weird to people if anyone's watching this--I know what the
ratings are, but hopefully not high and--but let me just say
that when the porcupine strategy--what it really means is you
want to make the cost of invading Taiwan higher than the
benefit.
We want to discourage that by the Chinese believing that,
yes, could they ultimately win an invasion of Taiwan, but the
price would be too high to pay. It is basically deterrence, and
I think that is critical not just to defending Taiwan, to
preventing a cataclysmic military intervention in the Indo-
Pacific, and that is what it would be.
And I would make one more point, and again, I do not mean
to want to be alarmist about it, but if you listen to Xi
Jinping, and it is important when you listen to him--and I say,
listen, read--do not read the English translation that they put
out because the English translation is never right. You have to
read the real translation on what they actually said in their
native tongue.
What they are basically saying is that this is a
foundational and definitional issue for Xi Jinping personally,
and as a result I think we need to wrap our head around the
fact that unless something dramatic changes like an equilibrium
where they conclude that the costs of intervening in Taiwan are
too high, we are going to have to deal with this before the end
of this decade.
Senator Merkley. And so strongly support for the porcupine
strategy. Thank you. And I know people in Taiwan----
Senator Rubio. I just do not like saying porcupine, but
yes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Merkley. You know, when I went to Taiwan in
November and met with the president and other leaders, they are
extremely nervous right now, and part of the reason they are
nervous is they are concerned about how things play out in
Ukraine as possibly creating an incentive for China.
And I take your point about the current stalemate and the
fact that there is a range of objectives that are out of reach
for either side.
But I do feel like our partnership with NATO and our
continued supply of war materiel that enable Ukrainians to keep
fighting--until that resolution is done is extremely important
because if Ukraine collapses, it will say a lot to China about
whether we will stay the course in assisting Taiwan, not to
mention it will be a catastrophe for democracy and a
catastrophe for the Ukrainians. I do not know if you share that
view.
Senator Rubio. Well, I think, first of all, our goal, as
President Trump has stated, is he wants the dying to stop. He
wants the killing to stop.
So it is very difficult to reach an accord or an agreement
that begins with a ceasefire and ends with a peace agreement
unless both sides have some leverage.
Now, there is some leverage that exists beyond military
capabilities as well. We have a significant number of sanctions
on the Russian Federation, and they continue to grow and
expand, and other nations do as well, and that will have to be
part of this conversation in terms of bringing about a peaceful
resolution.
And then there is the question of the long term security
and stability of Ukraine beyond the--even if the conflict were
to end, there needs to be the capability of Ukraine to defend
itself.
And it is a point that I made back as far as 2014, when the
United States under the Obama administration chose not to
provide weapon capabilities, and I think we lost deterrence
during that period.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. I am going to keep rolling here
for a few other questions.
One of the things China is doing is deeply engaged in
transnational repression, which means threatening people here
in the United States, that they will disappear or kill or harm
their family members back in China if they exercise their free
rights here in our country.
And also they are seeking to repatriate Uyghurs who have
escaped China, and right now there are 48 Uyghurs that are in
Thailand, and Thailand is on the verge of repatriating them
back to China.
Will you lobby for Thailand to not send these Uyghurs back
to the horror they will face if they are returned?
Senator Rubio. Yes, and the good news is that Thailand is
actually a very strong U.S. partner, a strong historical ally
as well, and that is an area where I think diplomacy could
really achieve results because of how important that
relationship and how close it is.
I think it is also one more opportunity for us to remind
the world of what exactly we are talking about here. This is
not some obscure issue.
These are people who are basically being rounded up because
of their ethnicity and religion, and they are being put into
camps. They are being put into what they call reeducation
centers.
They are being stripped of their identity. Their children's
names are being changed. It is one of the most horrifying
things that has ever happened, and they are being put into
forced labor, literally slave labor, and----
Senator Merkley. I will say our work together on the Forced
Labor Prevention Act--Uyghur Forced Labor--was tremendous.
Thank you for championing that.
I am encouraging other nations, including Canada, Mexico,
and Europe, to follow the rebuttable presumption strategy we
put into that bill, because right now if our slave labor
products or China's slave labor products are rejected here they
are shipped to Canada, and we need to expand on that.
I want to turn to another point. Our companies face in
China often the requirement for partnerships or location or
what products they can produce or the theft of their
intellectual property.
Meanwhile, we are helping their economy by being a major
supplier of fossil gas, LNG, to China. Should we be
strengthening the Chinese economy by sending them LNG?
Senator Rubio. Well, I think that is a good point to raise
in that regard, because I will tell you that is one of the
things that is going to have to be discussed in the broader
relationship with China, and that is it is one of the things we
actually export to China.
They import a lot this way. One of the few things that we
export in great capacity is these long term contracts that are
tied up either directly to China or through third countries.
Because some of this, obviously, is exported to a third
country who in turn sends it to China either as a direct sale
or as a byproduct.
So I think that has to be on the table as a number of other
measures that we have and leverage as we engage the Chinese in
this geopolitical perspective.
I would go further and point out that the Chinese also
have, I believe, the world's largest surplus refining capacity.
They have invested very heavily in that as well, and that is
one more area where I think our energy policy will be critical
and bringing some geopolitical stability to our relationship
with them. I know you sponsored a bill to cut off the exports
with----
Senator Merkley. Thank you. I have 1 minute left. I focused
on China, but I want to turn to humanitarian issues.
I, by the way, fully supported Israel's ability to respond
to Hamas, but I am very concerned about how it has played out
in terms of the massive humanitarian conditions in Gaza. Will
you help lead the world in responding to those humanitarian
conditions?
And there is a proposal for a broad regional agreement that
would provide security to Israel, peace with all their Arab
neighbors, building on the Abraham Accords that in return would
create a framework to have concrete steps toward a Palestinian
state.
I believe that is our best bet to break the cycle of hate
and war that we have been trapped in my entire lifetime. How
will you pursue breaking this cycle of hate and war, and will
you support humanitarian support to Gaza?
Senator Rubio. So my first point is I am hopeful, and
again, I have been here so I do not know of any news that has
emerged in our time during this hearing.
But I am hopeful that there is an agreement in place that
will bring hostages back immediately and in exchange and in a
three phase plan that Secretary Blinken sort of has outlined
over the last 24 hours, and that credit to both the Biden
administration and the Trump transition worked side by side on
helping this become about, and I hope that comes about.
And part of that phrase--part of that deal, as I understand
it, is it has this very tenuous but important 6 week
transitional period where it is going to require international
cooperation to bring some level of stability in administration
and that could serve as--assuming it works that could serve as
a foundation to build upon.
I would also point to one more thing, and that is we do not
know yet for sure, but there are opportunities available now in
the Middle East that did not exist 90 days ago.
Whether it is what has happened in Lebanon, whether it is
what has happened in Syria, whether it is what hopefully will
happen with the ceasefire and the release of hostages after a
horrifying detention and unjustifiable actions by Hamas,
whether it is any of these things or all in combination, there
are now factors at play in the Middle East that I think we can
build upon and may open the door to extraordinary and historic
opportunities, not just to provide for Israel's security but
ultimately begin to confront some of these other factors.
But these things, again, are going to be hard work, and
they will require us to take advantage of those opportunities
as they exist.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Senator Ricketts [presiding]. Senator McCormick.
Senator McCormick. Senator Rubio, good to see you again. I
am looking forward to working with you closely on many of the
issues we are going to discuss today.
As a Senator you have been a strong voice for American
leadership, and I am really confident you will be a strong
Secretary of State on behalf of President Trump and the
American people for advancing America's interest. I believe you
are the right man for the job.
When we met privately we talked about a range of topics,
from China to Israel to the fate of the hostages in Gaza to
energy policy.
We also talked about something that hits home here in
Pennsylvania for my constituents, which is the fate of Marc
Fogel. As you and I discussed, Marc has been imprisoned by the
Russians since 2021.
I have had a chance to meet with his mom, 95 year old Mafa.
She was at the Butler rally with myself and President Trump in
the front row when he was shot.
We need to bring him home. It took far too long for the
State Department to designate Marc as wrongfully detained by
the Russian government, and was really a gut punch to many of
us in Pennsylvania that Marc was not included in the swap last
year.
So, Senator, will you commit to working with me and others
in our delegation to make Marc's return home a high priority?
Senator Rubio. Absolutely, and in fact I have been involved
already. I have met with those families as well. We have had
conversations about this, and there are two things I would
point to.
Number one, this is a ridiculous case. I mean, this is an
American that--clearly there was an order given at some level
that if you see an American, and you have anything you can
charge them with, let us charge them and let us collect these
because we can trade them in the future for something.
There is a global market for this now, and it is one of the
challenges of the 21st century. There is now an active global
market for detaining Americans wrongfully in Venezuela, in
Russia, in China, or somewhere else--Iran--and then using them
to trade for something they want in the future.
And so I think there needs to be greater awareness put out
about that reality. Although people are still going to travel,
and Americans are still a free people that have the ability to
travel, this is a real risk.
In this particular case this has nothing to do with
politics. No one can claim nor do they that he is a spy or that
he is involved in a national security threat.
And so this is a case that has to be elevated, and
hopefully, one that can be done through strong, private
diplomacy at a minimum as a goodwill gesture, because if they
are not willing to do this then the--not to mention the broader
challenges posed to us by what Putin is doing in Ukraine, then
I think the chances of improvement in U.S.-Russia relations are
impossible.
Not that this would solve that problem, but it is at a
minimum the kind of thing you would hope to see if anyone is
serious about improving relations, especially if we can get the
situation in Ukraine to a peaceful standing, and I hope that
this case will be one that we can reach a good result on.
Senator McCormick. Good. Thank you.
On the sad topic of hostages, as you know, Dena and I--my
wife--live in Squirrel Hill in Pittsburgh. We have been part of
a meeting with hostages in Israel and in the United States as
recently as last week.
Noa Argamani and Ronen and Orna Neutra, who lost their son,
sadly, Omer recently came to visit, and you know, President
Trump said recently all hell will be to pay if the hostages are
not released.
If confirmed, what emphasis would you put on releasing
those hostages in Gaza? Do you agree that a permanent ceasefire
in Gaza must include--absolutely must include the release of
those hostages?
Senator Rubio. Well, it must include it because if it does
not there will not be a ceasefire for long. I mean, the Israeli
commitment to bringing back their civilians--and that is what
these are.
These are civilians. These are not--these are people. These
are innocent people who were targeted and have been held in
horrifying conditions, the health and well being of which many
of them were not--we still do not know. But we believe that a
substantial number that are going to be released as part of
this first tranche.
And that is an important point as well, you know, in
regards to this agreement that has now been publicly reported
on. It is not everyone. I think there is a first tranche of
women, children, and people over a certain age, and then a
second tranche of releases of males that are of military age
who they claim are all combatants even though they are not.
They just happen to be of a certain age.
But without the hostage situation resolved, the situation
will not be resolved. It is the linchpin of what has happened
now.
Hamas has been severely degraded, but these people, that
include a number of American citizens, need to be home as soon
as possible and that will remain a priority in any engagement
that we are involved in with regards to not just a ceasefire
but some permanent peace process, moving forward.
Senator McCormick. Very good. Thank you.
Since October 7 there has been a disturbing rise in anti-
Semitism, pro-terrorist violence in our cities, on college
campuses. You and I had the opportunity to write an op-ed
together, and in that op-ed we called on foreign nationals who
support Hamas or other terrorist organizations to lose their
visas and to be sent back to their home countries.
As Secretary of State, of course, you will be responsible
for overseeing the issuance of visas. How will you enforce our
laws to ensure that we remove supporters of terrorist groups
from our country?
Senator Rubio. Listen, my view, and this is one of common
sense. If you apply for a visa to come into the United States,
and in the process of being looked at it comes to light that
you are a supporter of Hamas, we would not let you in.
If we knew you were a supporter of Hamas, we would not give
you a visa. So now that you got the visa, and you are inside
the U.S. and now we realize you are a supporter of Hamas, we
should remove your visa.
If you could not come in because you are a supporter of
Hamas, you should not be able to stay on a visa if you are a
supporter of Hamas. That is how I view it, and I think that is
just an issue of common sense and we intend to be very forceful
about that.
Senator McCormick. Good. Thank you.
You know, fentanyl is killing 4,000 Pennsylvanians each
year, over 200 Americans a day. President Trump campaigned on
this throughout the country in Pennsylvania as did I, on we
have to stop that flow of fentanyl.
And of course, violent criminal groups in Mexico, including
the Jalisco and Sinaloa cartels, terrorize our communities here
at home with this deadly fentanyl, and the Mexican people with
endless violence.
As secretary will you initiate the process to designate
these groups, these cartels, as foreign terrorist
organizations, and if so can you describe for the American
people the national security tools that that unlocks--that
designation unlocks to degrade the cartels?
Senator Rubio. Well, first of all, the designation of a
designated terrorist--foreign terrorist organization brings
with it a host of things that makes it illegal to cooperate or
work with them in any way or to be supportive of their
endeavors.
It cuts off access to all sorts of banking opportunities
and the like around the world where it is important to move
money around.
Now, that said, probably an imperfect tool when it comes to
these groups that you are discussing because these are
sophisticated criminal enterprises. They are terrorizing the
United States, but they are sophisticated criminal enterprises,
and they operate in the trafficking of people, drugs, and
migrants.
It is a horrifying effect. Sadly, they also have basically
operational control over huge swaths of the border regions
between Mexico and the United States.
That is just an unfortunate fact, and it is one we are
going to have to confront with our partners in Mexico is that
these sophisticated transnational terroristic organizations
have operational and functional control over huge swaths of
areas that border the United States of America.
And so whether that is the tool that we use, which may be
the appropriate one, or some new one that we come up with, it
is important for us not just to go after these groups but to
identify them and call them for what they are, and that is
terroristic in their nature because they are terrorizing
America with mass migration and with the flow of drugs.
Senator McCormick. What about military force?
Senator Rubio. Well, that is an option the President has at
his disposal. Obviously, it is not one that is in the purview
of the Department of State. I think President Trump is someone
that never publicly discusses his options and leaves himself
the flexibility to act.
I think there is a lot we can and will continue to do in
close partnership with our allies and Mexico. I think there is
more they can do as well to confront this challenge.
My preference would be--from the Department of State's
perspective, my preference would be that we can work with the
Mexicans on this issue cooperatively, because it is impacting
their nation as much as ours.
These sophisticated groups, these criminal organizations,
do not simply threaten America. They threaten the Mexican
political process.
In the last election you had multiple presidential
candidates and other candidates to other offices assassinated.
You have had journalists targeted and assassinated for speaking
out against these groups.
So these groups do not simply terrorize the United States.
They are terrorizing and in some ways undermining the Mexican
government and Mexican sovereignty and the health and well
being of the Mexican people.
And so my hope in a perfect world is that we could work in
close collaboration with Mexican authorities to take these
groups out.
Senator McCormick. Very good. Thank you.
Final question. The Chinese Communist Party, as you said in
your testimony, has waged a deliberate campaign of economic
warfare against the United States and our allies.
We need to restore, as President Trump has said,
reciprocity in that economic relationship and impose costs on
Beijing for hurting American workers.
How can the United States counter that campaign? How do you
think about the economic tools that the Administration can
apply to cut off the flow of American capital and technology
that supports China's geopolitical ambitions?
Senator Rubio. Well, and again, much of what comes to trade
and so forth in this Administration will be handled through the
Department of Commerce but we will certainly have an economic
under secretary and a whole entire bureau that will be
dedicated to what we can contribute to that endeavor. So I will
just share my views broadly on it.
Number one, I think it would make common sense to everybody
that if by and large a relationship in which their companies
can do whatever they want here, but we cannot do it there, is a
pretty unfair relationship, and it is something we have allowed
in the past for allied countries who were small, poor, and
developing. That cannot continue, in my view, and I think that
is the President's view.
The second is there is much that we need to be--that needs
to be done with regards here domestically. I think we, once
again, as a nation--this is not a Department of State issue but
once again as a nation, need to prioritize the importance of
our industrial capacity and our access to supply chains
domestically, especially in key and critical industries.
Maybe not every industry, but some key industries we should
either have a domestic capacity or an allied capacity that is
reliable and cannot be used against us in a moment of conflict
as leverage.
The third point I would make is we need to be actively
engaged in the world. As an example, the Chinese own
significant mineral rights and mining rights in Argentina, in
Chile, throughout Africa.
It is one of the reasons why the polar region and the
Arctic region has become so critical as well in that regard is
because they are scooping up all over the world these mineral
rights, port rights, et cetera, that place us at an enormous
disadvantage in the long term, and it is what I said in that
short answer is we are going to--if this trend continues, we
are going to wind up living in a world where much of what we
depend on for our security, our health, our safety, and our
economic prosperity will, largely, depend on whether the
Chinese allow us to have it or not. And that cannot be a world
that we leave for our children.
Senator McCormick. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Ricketts. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you.
Senator Rubio, I look forward to this hearing and to our
service together. Welcome to the other side of the dais, and
welcome to your wife Jeanette and your children and your
family. Thank you for your service.
I have three questions, broadly, of nominees: Do they have
the qualifications to appropriately serve, do they have a
policy alignment with our core national interests, and do they
have the integrity and character to serve.
We may have policy disagreements, but we have had multiple
areas of convergence. Over the time we have served here in the
Senate together--I had my folks go back and look--we have co-
sponsored nearly 60 bills together. So I hope we can continue
to find constructive ways to partner.
I have a number of questions to get through, so I will try
to move briskly. With regards to special envoys President elect
Trump has appointed a series of special envoys focused on a
wide range of areas and some of these I think can genuinely
complement, not undermine or distract, from State Department's
core efforts.
The special envoy for hostage affairs, for example, Adam
Boehler, I look forward to working with. As Senator McCormick
asked about, there is a number of key issues around hostage
taking of Americans.
There is a bipartisan bill Senator Risch and I have on this
that we hope to work with you on. Lieutenant General Keith
Kellogg, Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia, I think will be
central to achieving an outcome in Ukraine that is a lasting
and secure peace and prevents further Russian aggression.
But others like Ric Grenell for special missions and Massad
Boulos for the Arab world concern me in terms of the potential
for mission conflict or conflict of interest. How will you work
to ensure that State maintains its authority and encourage the
Administration to conduct a full vetting of any potential
conflicts of interest and to ensure there is clarity of
alignment with special envoys?
Senator Rubio. Sure, and thank you for the question because
I think it is a valid one.
With the exception of Mr. Boulos, who I do not know--I may
have met once but do not know--every one of the envoys that
have been named so far is someone that I have worked with in
the past and expect to work well with in the future.
To me, the expression of a special envoy is critically
important where it is most successful. It sits on a complex
issue with a defined goal and an expression of presidential
priorities.
So Sudan is an example of a special envoy, and Mr.
Perriello and the job he has done there, and this is in
addition to the fact that we have an ambassador, and we have
other presence--diplomatic presence there, that can be very
complementary.
So the way this will work, and how I anticipate it will
work, is these envoys work for the President in coordination
with us. These are all people, with the exception of one who I
am not disparaging--I just do not--I am not--do not know him
but I have worked with everyone else that you have mentioned--
are people that are going to be focused on this full like a
laser, and they will need to do so not simply in coordination
with the Department of State because of subject matter
expertise.
Let us say you reach an agreement, or you reach an outcome.
You are still going to need the technical support necessary to
pull this off, and we have an array of experts in the
Department of State that will help achieve that.
And it also--it will involve other elements of the U.S.
Government. So, as an example, if you are going to reach an
agreement on migration, say, in the Western Hemisphere that
also could entail the necessity to have a conversation about
trade policy and tariffs that will involve Commerce and others.
That is the only way this will work, and that is how I
anticipate it working.
Senator Coons. I have agreed to co-chair with Senator
Hagerty a commission on reform and modernization of the State
Department that Senator Cardin created with him. We cannot, in
my view, do more with less, given the challenges of the global
moment.
I think we need more investment in U.S. diplomacy and
development as instruments of national power, but we also need
to address efficiencies and make sure that we are streamlining
and focusing the department and supporting its work force, the
Foreign Service.
How will you work to make sure that the Trump
administration's efficiency mandate will strengthen and not
deplete core state functions?
Senator Rubio. Well, first of all, I think the work of this
new committee that is being set up as a result of the
legislation that passed will be critical.
My understanding is the impediment was that not all the
appointments have been made--maybe that has now changed--and we
eagerly await that because I do think that there are two things
that are very important.
The first is when we talk about efficiency, the efficiency
is not simply just saving money. The efficiency is improving
performance. A key part of the State Department is customer
service.
We provide consular affairs--passports, visas, all kinds of
work around the world--for Americans who are stranded or in
trouble or need to get somewhere. Improving that experience for
the consumer is one of the top priorities we need to have.
How can we leverage--and I think Secretary Blinken has
begun this work. We need to build on this. How can we infuse
technology, AI and the like, not simply to improve the customer
service aspects of the State Department but improve the
productivity.
If somehow through leveraging technology appropriately we
can get people at the State Department to achieve three times
the amount of work than they do now because it takes less time
to do these tasks or frees them up to do other tasks, that will
be an enormous win, and I hope that the commission will look at
those aspects of this as well.
Senator Coons. I think I understand--Senator, if I might
move to another question--that multilateral organizations
concern and frustrate many of us. Some of their actions have
been counter to American interests.
But when we have withdrawn from multilateral organizations
and in particular some U.N. entities, it is also giving an
opening to our adversaries. The previous Trump administration
withdrew from UNESCO, the Human Rights Council, the World
Health Organization, and I am concerned that if we do so
without thinking through the consequences, we may abandon our
chance to implement our agenda around human rights, around 5G
standards, around technical standards that matter for the 21st
century.
Do you support sustained U.S. participation in multilateral
organizations, and how will you work to strengthen our
leadership in those institutions in ways that prevent our
adversaries from advancing their competing agendas?
Senator Rubio. Well, I want to point back to what I said at
the opening, and that is our engagement in any international
agreement or any international arrangement or any international
organization has to be driven by the answer to one of three
questions: Will our involvement in this organization make us
safer, make us more prosperous, make us more secure.
It has to be justified by an American interest. It just
does. I mean, we are in an era where we need to really--it
should have always been that way, but now more than ever.
And so each of these will have different components to it.
I think there is a second component of funding, and that is
should the United States be funding organizations who in many
cases are pursuing and/or achieving outcomes that are contrary
to the national interest of the United States.
Each of these will require a serious examination as we work
through them and a justification to Congress about why we are
no longer funding it, or we are no longer participating.
I think you do point to one that I can tell you right now
is one that will be critical for us to be engaged in, and that
is the setting of standards. But the setting of standards, for
people to understand, is it is not simply from these
organizations. This also becomes practical.
So throughout Africa we are now seeing the deployment of
these Safe City programs by Huawei. Now, this is just a
commercial deal for Huawei.
This is the ability to ingrain itself in the
telecommunication of these countries and establish itself as
the leader in 5G, and now all of the other technologies that
depend on 5G--additive manufacturing, you know, the 3D
printing, and so forth, autonomous vehicles--they will all have
to be drawn to the standards set by Huawei.
That is not because an international organization set it
up. It is because they have established market dominance, and
it is a concern we have in multiple parts of the Global South
and the developing world. We need to be engaged that way as
well.
Senator Coons. I very much look forward to working with you
on deploying the full tool set that allows us to compete in the
Global South including the Development Finance Corporation,
something Senator Corker and I led on this committee and which
I know you see the potential for.
As I come to the end of my time, I have worked hard with
Senator Graham to get signed into law two different bills I
wanted to mention--the Global Fragility Act, which presses the
Department of Defense, Department of State, AID, to have a
common strategy in fragile states, and we really struggled to
effectively implement that, and much more recently the U.S.
Foundation for International Conservation Act, something that
Chairman McCaul and Senator Graham and Congressman Meeks and I
worked on.
It would create a public-private foundation to address
security and conservation in ungoverned and insecure spaces in
the Global South, in South America and Africa and Southeast
Asia.
Both of these bills address the root causes of instability
and facilitate cost effective uses of American dollars by
encouraging engagement with the private sector and
philanthropy.
Can I count on your support to work as the Secretary if
confirmed in the State Department to implement these two laws
more effectively in the coming years?
Senator Rubio. Well, on the conservation one, I believe it
just passed, right? Most recently----
Senator Coons. Just signed into law.
Senator Rubio. We are getting there just in time to help
you with it, and it is had strong bipartisan support.
On the Global Fragility this has been ongoing for quite a
bit of time, and we will have to go back and check on the
progress. I do not know. I know there is a 10 year plan and
there is the five countries that we have identified, and by the
way, no country likes to be identified as fragile, so we have
to be sensitive about how we do it.
But I think that is a component. We got to go back and see
where we are on that 10 year planning, because that is an
important way of leveraging both economic security and
development efforts in the whole of government.
And I think key to this is going to be not simply the
Department of State, but it is that steering committee that is
supposed to meet every 3 months at the National Security
Council that coordinates all this work is happening.
Look, laws are great, programs are great, but if someone is
not in charge of it, someone is not running it, and someone is
not measuring at the end of those periods of time whether it is
reaching its intended outcome, we are going to have a huge
problem.
But the goal of that legislation, as I recall, is and
believe still, is we want to get ahead of this before there--
before a--this is about preventing crisis which, frankly, is a
lot cheaper and a lot better than actually dealing with crisis
after the fact.
And so identifying places around the world that are in
danger of becoming chaotic, uncertain, insecure, and getting
ahead of it and helping them through a variety of means to
prevent that from happening, and preventing those crises from
happening is going to save us a lot of headaches, a lot of
danger, and a lot of money.
Senator Coons. In closing, I will just repeat something I
have heard from several of my colleagues. I think that our
global network of alliances and partners rooted in our shared
values--a commitment to democracy and human rights--is
essential to our national security, and how the war in Ukraine
ends, and whether a peace agreement there lasts and secures
Ukraine from ongoing Russian aggression is critical to our
credibility and security and to sustaining that network of
allies and partners.
I hope that is something you strongly agree with. I look
forward to working with you toward that end.
Senator Risch [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Coons.
Next up is going to be Senator Daines, and after that will
be Senator Murphy, and about that time it is going to be noon.
We are going to take a short, 5 minute break at noon. Not a
Senate 5 minutes but a for real 5 minute break at noon.
And those of you who have a seat here, I would suggest you
do not leave because it is going to be difficult to claim your
seat back if you are here as an observer.
So with that, Senator Daines, welcome to the committee.
Senator Daines. Chairman, thank you.
Marco, it is good to have you here. I have got a great view
here from the dais seeing your family behind you, seeing
Jeanette, Daniella, the rest of the Rubio family.
What a moment of great honor and celebration for the
Rubios, culminating on Monday when your family will celebrate
the 1 month anniversary of Anthony Rubio's touchdown as a
Florida Gator.
[Laughter.]
Senator Daines. So congratulations on every front, proud
dad.
Look, you are charged with one of the most important tasks
I think the Administration will have, and that is advancing
President Trump's agenda and representing the interests of the
United States around the world.
I cannot think of a better nominee for Secretary of State
to serve under President Trump than Marco Rubio. You will have
a lot of active conflicts we are working together on as we
think of what is going on in Ukraine, Israel, Sudan, ongoing
nuclear weapons program in Iran, the tyranny in Venezuela.
The New START Treaty has been completely disregarded by
Russia, not to mention what we have to think about strategy as
it relates to China.
I could continue to list the results that we saw from the
Trump administration with the Abraham Accords and really moving
forward here with significant, substantive advancements of
American interests abroad.
But look, this next Administration and the leadership of
President Trump and your service will be extremely
consequential. This posting could not be more important.
Marco, as you know, Iran is the world's leading sponsor of
terror. In 2024 Iran exported, roughly, 587 million barrels of
oil, an increase of over 10 percent over the prior year.
These illegal oil sales fund Hamas, the Hezbollah
terrorism, the Houthis, the nuclear arms programs, drone
technology that is being used right now by the Russians against
Ukraine. These oil sales are directly resulting in global
unrest, and they are costing innocent lives.
Senator, if confirmed what would be your goals and
strategies as you think about addressing Iran as an adversary?
Senator Rubio. You asked that question at a very
interesting moment. So Iran today--two points I want to make
about Iran and it is really important.
When we talk about Iran, I am talking about the radical
Shia clerics and not the people. The people of Iran are people
of an ancient civilization, an ancient culture with tremendous
pride and advances, who take great pride in their Persian
heritage and identity, and I do not know of any nation on Earth
in which there is a bigger difference between the people and
those who govern them than what exists in Iran, and that is a
fact that needs to be made repeatedly.
In no way is the clerics who run that country
representative of the people of that country and of its history
and of contributions it has made to humanity, and it is a point
I wish we would continue to make.
Iran and that regime is at its weakest point in recent
memory, maybe ever. Their air defenses have been badly damaged.
Their Shia Crescent that they were trying to create has been
badly damaged in Lebanon and Syria, where they have been
basically forced and driven out.
Their economy is in shambles. They are now on some days
having 6, 8, 12, 9 hour blackouts. They are on the verge of
potentially, if not having done so already, having to pull back
on the energy subsidies that they provide people in that
country that are incredibly popular, and it would be unpopular
to reverse.
So they are in a lot of trouble, and now what we need to be
wise about is the following. I imagine that within that regime,
and I am just saying this because of common sense, there are
two schools of thought.
There is one group that is saying now is the time where we
need to find ourselves an off ramp. Not we are going to turn
into really nice guys, but we are really in trouble here. We
need to find an off ramp and buy ourselves some time.
And then there is another group that is probably saying now
is the time to prove that we are a nuclear power or a nuclear
capable power, enrich from 60 to 90 and press go, and that is
how we are going to buy ourselves immunity from foreign action.
And this is a tenuous moment in that regard, but it is one
we need to acknowledge. My view of it is that we should be open
to any arrangement that allows us to have safety and stability
in the region, but one in which we are clear eyed.
Any concessions we make to the Iranian regime we should
anticipate that they will use, as they have used in the past,
to build their weapons systems and to try to restart their
sponsorship of Hezbollah and other related entities around the
region because they seek to become the dominant regional power.
That is their stated goal, and it has been clear by the
actions that they have taken. I think it is interesting that in
the year in which by--I think by October of this year, the
Europeans and the E3 countries of the U.K., France, and Germany
have to confront whether they are going to do the snapback
provisions or not because Iran is clearly in violation of the
agreement that we are no longer part of. In fact, IAEA
inspectors have not even been in the country since 2021, if I
am correct.
So I think early this week on Monday they engaged the
Europeans in talking about nuclear arrangements. So whether
that is indicative of the direction they are going or not, we
are going to find out.
What cannot be allowed under any circumstances is a nuclear
armed Iran. What cannot be allowed under any circumstances is
an Iran and an Iranian regime that has the resources and the
capability to restart and continue their sponsorship of
terrorism, and what cannot be allowed under any circumstances
is an Iran with a military capability of threatening and
destabilizing its neighbors and potentially reaching the
homeland as well both kinetically and directly and also through
their surrogate groups who have long planned contingencies for
attacks.
And let us not forget that this is a group--these are
individuals that have spent the last 5 years actively and
openly plotting the assassination of the President elect and of
multiple members of previous Administrations.
Think about this for a moment. When is the last time you
heard that a foreign government is actively, openly, and
admittedly seeking to assassinate the former Secretary of
State, the former and soon to be once again President of the
United States, and others, and that people have been arrested
for plotting that?
This is who we are dealing with, and anything that we do
with Iran needs to be clear eyed about who that regime is, but
also who the people of Iran really are, because they are not
their leaders.
Senator Daines. Marco, thank you.
Shortly after the election and prior to Thanksgiving I took
a quick trip over to Central Asia, as I discussed that with you
a bit, to Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. In fact, in the last 12
months I visited all five of the Central Asian countries.
In fact, I was bedded down, speaking of Iran, 20 miles from
the Iranian border in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan. They have the
fourth largest reserves of natural gas in the world. This is a
part of the world that is often neglected, but of such
strategic importance.
You have got Iran, you have got Afghanistan, Russia, and
certainly China as they talk about living in a submarine as
they look into multi-vector diplomacy and want to engage with
the United States as the Russians and Chinese are competing for
their favor.
One of the first trips that I made after the election, the
region was Central Asia. There had not been a U.S. Senator
there in 13 years--13 years--to Turkmenistan or Tajikistan.
Very important strategically.
One of the first goals of the caucus that Senator Gary
Peters and I created of Central Asia is to repeal the Jackson-
Vanik label on the region and extend permanent normal trade
relations with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
I realize you have a lot of priorities on your plate when
you will be confirmed as our secretary, but I would say
rescinding it would be a good faith indication--the Jackson-
Vanik requirements--that Central Asia needs right now to grow.
My question is would you work with me and Senator Peters to
have your team work with us to remove this designation?
Senator Rubio. Yes, and I believe the permanent removal
will require legislative action. I think Senator Murphy has a
bill on that as well. Yours is the three countries.
Look, I think this is a relic of an era that has passed.
There are some that argue that we should use it as leverage for
human rights concessions or leverage to get them to go stronger
in our way as opposed to Russia and the like.
But I think in some cases--and it is an absurd relic of the
past--I think it is Kazakhstan, who the Department of Commerce
has already said is a market economy. In fact, I think they
hosted the WTO ministerial just a couple years ago. So it
just--they have met the conditions.
Senator Daines. Yes, it is----
Senator Rubio. But we will work with you on this because I
think it is important.
Senator Daines. I think it is a neglected part of the
world, and I look forward to working with Senator Murphy on
this. You know, that C5+1, which is Central Asian countries
plus the United States, I hope we can work with President Trump
actually to think about maybe hosting some kind of a summit
there. Very strategic.
After the withdrawal from Afghanistan, we need more friends
in Central Asia, and I look forward to working on that.
In the time I have left, when I opened up my comments I
talked about all these conflicts around the world. Sometimes we
forget some of the most important relationships are right in
our backyard. I am thinking about Mexico.
With the nearshoring going on at the moment, a lot of
production coming now into more of our time zone and hemisphere
coming from China and so forth, Laredo, Texas, is now the
largest port in the United States. I think it is one of the
underreported facts in our country.
You talked about the cartels. They have command and
control, certainly, on the border at the moment. My question,
as you think about Mexico, and you have been so active on Latin
America, and you know, looking south of the United States, with
President Sheinbaum now just coming into office, what are your
thoughts around how do we become better engaged with Mexico to
help them with their issue as it relates to the cartels,
basically, which are running the country it seems at times?
Senator Rubio. Well, and I wish we had more than 30 seconds
to do it, because it is one of those issues that I think do not
get enough attention beyond the problems.
Look, Mexico's economy, in many ways, is a very vibrant one
and has made tremendous advances and continues to be a very
strong regional power.
They can become frustrating at times for us because they
have enshrined even in their constitution a sort of nonaligned,
noninterventionist foreign policy with regards to some of the
abuses.
And so it has been disappointing, for example, to see the
position they have taken with regards to Venezuela and others.
By the same token, our economic interests are so deeply
intertwined. I think there are three areas of friction. The
first is on trade and violations of trade agreements and so
forth that have been laid out, and some of the things that I
have seen even as a Senator from Florida in the agricultural
sector that are going to continue to be an irritant in our
relationship that we hope we can resolve.
The second is the security situation at the border, and I
think there is great interest and should be on the part of the
Mexicans to bring this migratory problem at the border under
control.
People forget an increasing number of cases, the people
crossing the border are not Mexican nationals. They are people
that are transiting through Mexico, and in fact, in southern
Mexico you have seen a significant uptick in resentment against
migration by Mexicans who are bearing the brunt of the costs of
becoming a key element of the migratory path.
And the third is the violence, and this violence at our
border has to be addressed. I think they pose a threat to the
United States most certainly. They are flooding us with the
fentanyl, the criminal activities occurring within the United
States facilitated by these groups who have become vertically
integrated.
These are not the Colombian cartels. These transnational
groups are now vertically integrated. They are the suppliers
all the way down to the street level and all the way up to the
production level.
They are vertically integrated criminal enterprises, but
they are also threatening the sovereignty and security of the
Mexican state, and as I pointed there are journalists and there
are politicians who have been assassinated for standing up to
these cartels, and it tells you the amount of leverage so they
have over the government as a result of it.
So it is in their interest as well as ours that we work
cooperatively to take these groups apart and not allow them to
continue the reign of terror, not just in the border region of
Mexico but spilling over into the United States.
Senator Daines. Thanks, Marco.
Senator Risch. Thank you very much.
For the edification of the committee I have just been
advised that there has been a ceasefire announced in Gaza.
Before we all celebrate, though, obviously we are all going
want to see how that executes.
With that, Senator Murphy, you are up, and then we are
going to take that short break.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That is,
indeed, good news.
Senator Rubio, I want to talk to you about a topic that I
think is going to be real trouble for you and for U.S. national
security interests, at least for the first few minutes of my
time, and that is the growing personal financial entanglement
of President Trump, his family, and Middle East governments. I
will give you an example of what I am talking about.
For nearly 8 years the Trump organization has been pursuing
a real estate deal to build a hotel complex in Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia.
During President Trump's first term, the Trump organization
actually voluntarily committed to refrain from pursuing real
estate deals with foreign companies, especially those that are
backed by foreign governments, and so the deal did not go
through, and then it remained stalled for the entirety of the
Biden administration.
And then, magically, 30 days after the November election,
Saudi Arabia's biggest construction company that is affiliated
with the government announced that the deal was going forward,
alongside an additional $200 million deal for a Trump property
in Oman.
Now, it used to be that somebody with these big financial
business interests would come into government and take actions
like setting up a blind trust or divestment in order to make
sure there was no connection between their personal financial
interests and the business they were conducting in government.
But President Trump has just done the opposite, right. Over
the last 8 years while he was in office and since he has been
out of office, he and his family have become more deeply
dependent on revenue from governments in the Middle East.
During his last presidency, Middle East interests sent
about $10 million to Trump properties. After he left office,
Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who was his primary Middle
East envoy, was handed $2 billion in investment by the Saudis,
even though a Saudi investment board said the investment was a
bad business decision. That investment actually comes up for
renewal in 2026--giving the Saudis massive leverage over the
Trump family.
And then to make matters worse, right after the election
the Trump organization said that in this term--the President
elect's second term--it would drop its previous prohibition on
doing new deals in the Middle East with private foreign
companies aligned with foreign governments.
So the Trump organization is going to be signing new
business deals in the Middle East with private companies that
have connections to foreign governments at the very moment that
you are going to be conducting sensitive diplomacy in these
countries.
That is just extraordinary. Never before in the history of
this country has a President been, I mean, literally, receiving
cash from foreign governments and from foreign companies that
are backed by foreign governments in the middle of their term.
If you or I had done this as Senators we would be in
violent violation of Senate ethics rules. That is not permitted
on the Foreign Relations Committee.
And so I guess my question to you is a pretty simple one.
Do you see how this fundamentally compromises your diplomatic
efforts?
Do you have an issue or will you raise an issue with the
President about his growing financial connection with the
governments that you are going to be negotiating with?
Senator Rubio. Well, first of all, I am neither authorized
nor in any position to give you sort of any insights into any
of these arrangements you have pointed out.
You know, you mentioned Jared Kushner as an example. He is
a private citizen. Happens to be a Floridian. I do not know
what if any engagement he has in the work that is going on now.
I can tell you what I know. Obviously, I am not in the
State Department yet, but I can tell you as an example the
President's envoy to that region, who is charged--Steve
Witkoff, who is charged with being an envoy toward reaching an
accommodation between the Israelis and the Saudis, has been
working cooperatively and together with the Biden
administration, and in fact I dare to say that all involved
deserve credit for the ceasefire that the chairman has just
announced. But Steve Witkoff has been a critical component of
it and he has been involved in it from day one.
I think the broader consideration about whether we want to
see a Saudi-Israeli mutual recognition and relationship would
be one of the most historic developments in the history of the
region for all the factors we have discussed here today.
And one of the impediments to it has been this conflict and
the ongoing conflict and the lack of a ceasefire. I also think
it is going to be important for the Saudis and others to be
participants in post-conflict stabilization efforts in Gaza and
beyond.
So all I can tell you is what I have said from the very
beginning from the opening statement, and that is our foreign
policy is going to be driven, as the President has made
abundantly clear, by whether some action is in the interest of
the United States and our national security, and that is what
it is going to be driven by and that is how all these policies
should be judged by, and that is certainly the job that I
believe I have been tasked with executing on.
Senator Murphy. Well, let me then simply ask you this
question. Do you believe that the President should refrain from
doing new business deals with Middle East governments during
his term in office?
Senator Rubio. Well, my understanding--again, I am speaking
out of turn, but the President does not manage that company.
His family members do, and they have a right to be in the
business.
I mean, that is the business that they are in. They are in
the real estate business. They have been for a very long time
both domestically and abroad. They have properties in multiple
countries.
So at the end of the day, I do not know--his family is
entitled to continue to operate their business. The fundamental
question is not whether his family is involved in business. The
fundamental question is whether that is in any way impacting
the conduct of our foreign policy in a way that is counter to
our national interest.
And the President has made abundantly clear that every
decision he makes and every decision we are to make at the
State Department should be driven by whether or not it serves
the core national interests of the United States, and that is
how I hope our policies will be judged by, not what business
his family is conducting while the President is here in
Washington working not on his business from the Oval Office.
Senator Murphy. You are correct. That is the fundamental
question, whether or not a policy is being pursued in U.S.
national security interests or due to the President's personal
financial interest.
That is the reason why as United States Senators we are not
allowed to have complicated existing financial arrangements
with foreign governments because you do not want to create the
impression that there is a conflict of motivation, and I just
wished that this President applied to this incoming
Administration the same rules that we hold ourselves to as
United States Senators.
Senator Rubio, in the time I have remaining I just want to
tackle two other topics, one that I know is of mutual concern
to you and I, and that is the need to confront China in
nonmilitary ways as they try to exert influence around the
world.
Last time President Trump was in office he was calling for
pretty massive cuts to the State Department's budget. But as
you know, China uses all sorts of nonkinetic tools like
misinformation, economic diplomacy, around the world to exert
influence.
I am hopeful that you are going to be an active voice to
try to make sure that you have the tools, including when it
comes to combating Russian and Chinese misinformation, to be
able to confront all of the ways, many of them asymmetric, that
China in particular but Russia as well presents challenges to
U.S. interests. Just wanted to get your commitment to make sure
to build that full comprehensive foreign policy toolkit.
Senator Rubio. Yes. Not only have I been someone concerned
about foreign disinformation, I have been the target of it from
multiple nation states, and I have learned over time that the
best way to confront disinformation is through a flood of free
speech that allows the counter points of view to be heard and
understood.
I think where we get ourselves into trouble, and we have
learned this now, and I think multiple U.S. companies are now
admitting, is when we get ourselves into a position of
determining what is true and what is not and then using the
tools of government to go after that, particularly when it
implicates domestic entities.
But yes, it is one of the tools that they have in their
toolbox. By the way, it is not just disinformation. It is flat
out influencing nation states' views of the United States writ
large by promoting conspiracy theories internally in other
countries that undermine us and that undermine our standing,
whether it is in Africa, and increasingly you see it in the
Western Hemisphere as well. And one of the best ways to combat
that is to be present, to be there, to show what we do, and to
brag about what we do.
One of the things that frustrates me the most is there are
literally programs with USAID where they do not allow us to
label it as made in America or a gift of the American people,
because it might offend someone locally.
I think it is important for the world to know what the
United States is doing to help their societies. We do not do a
good enough job of promoting what we have done historically and
continue to do to help our fellow man around the world.
Senator Murphy. China is spending $10 billion per year on
that propaganda and misinformation operation. They celebrate
when budgets get sent up to the Hill that propose big increases
in military spending and giant decreases in the kind of tools
that are available to you.
So I do look forward to working with you to make sure that
we have given you that full suite of tools necessary to
confront our adversaries.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Senator Murphy.
We will take this break now. I appreciate everyone getting
back here in 5 minutes, because we have still got a long ways
to go.
And so with that, we will be at ease for 5 minutes.
[Recess.]
Senator Risch. The committee will come to order.
We will continue on with our 10 minute rounds of questions,
and by my list the next person up is Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Rubio, congratulations. I am grateful for your
willingness to serve our nation in this new role. Thank you as
well for your family's commitment to continue with your service
here to this country.
I think President Trump made a wonderful choice in
nominating you to be Secretary of State. Your extensive foreign
policy experience and your deep understanding of international
relations I think makes you a perfect choice for the position.
While serving together in the Senate on this committee, I
have seen firsthand your dedication, your knowledge, and your
commitment to our nation's security.
Your strategic insights, your principled approach to
diplomacy, they are going to serve our nation well, and we do
face many challenges. We have talked about them in the past. So
you have my full and unwavering support.
I wanted to start with China because over the years we
worked closely together to counter the significant threat that
China poses to global security and to stability.
The Chinese Communist Party strategy extends far beyond
traditional military conflict. They are conducting an
aggressive campaign aimed at weakening American leadership and
reshaping the global order to serve their own interests.
Make no mistake, China is challenging our interests all
across various domains--diplomatic, economic, technologic. They
are playing the long game, and I think we have to respond with
equal resolve and a strategy.
It is essential that we fully recognize the scope of the
challenge and develop a strategy to safeguard American
interests and values on the world stage.
So could you talk a little bit about your approach in
addressing an increasingly aggressive China and how we and our
international partners can hold China accountable?
Senator Rubio. Well, as I pointed to earlier, it is an
important question because I think it is definitional to the
century. I really do. I think the 21st century will be defined
by what happens between the United States and China.
The Chinese have basically concluded that America is sort
of a tired, great power in decline, that they are on a path
over the next 20 or 30 years to naturally supplant us
irrespective of what happens, and I think their preference is
to not have any trade and/or armed conflict in the interim
because they think they might interrupt what they believe is a
natural progression. I do not share that view. I think they
have some significant domestic challenges.
Nonetheless, I do think what we cannot ignore is that the
current road that we are on right now is an unbalanced
relationship and that much of their growth and their progress
has come at our expense, not because they out competed us but
because they, frankly, have violated the rules that they have
benefited from but have lived by none of its obligations.
So I think the first begins with a recognition that China
is and will continue to be a rich and powerful country, and we
will have to deal with them. It is in the interest of global
peace and stability that we have to deal with them.
By the same token, we cannot find ourselves in a situation
in which we allow them to continue to flaunt the rules in order
to undermine us economically and/or industrially, nor can we
allow them to undermine our alliances and our presence in
different parts of the world.
For example, I think it is clear that on that path toward
what they view as their rightful place as the world's
preeminent power, they want to establish preeminence in the
Indo-Pacific. And that has historical ramifications because--or
historical underpinnings because they view these smaller
countries as tributary states that basically all roads lead
back to Beijing, and they view that.
Unfortunately for them their neighbors do not view
themselves as tributary states, and this is particularly true
in places like South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, but
also Vietnam and others, some of whom have historical
disagreements with China.
So the core of our strategy has to be twofold. Number one,
ensuring that there is a proper geopolitical balance between
the United States and China to avoid any sort of conflict that
could be deeply destabilizing and worse for the world, but at
the same time ensuring that it does not come at our expense,
that we do not find ourselves in a world in which we are
dependent on China, or any foreign power for that matter, for
the raw materials that we need for the ability to make
medicine, for the ability to fuel our economy, the ability to
feed ourselves or our people.
We cannot be a country that becomes dependent on foreign
powers, and so much of that involves not simply how we engage
in the world, but also what we do here domestically.
That is not the responsibility of the Department of State,
but it is important for us to point to that much of what has
happened with China and much of what is happening now is what
we are not doing, whether it is through our own industry and
the development of our industries or access to raw minerals and
raw resources that are critical to fueling and/or building a
modern economy.
Senator Barrasso. You talk about China playing by a
different set of rules, and they do the ones that we think of
as traditional rules, but the only--and I appreciate your
comments to Senator Ricketts about China and even the
definition of them as a developing nation.
I think it is a big problem. They cannot be allowed to
continue to play openly with a different set of rules in
addition to the hidden rules. I oppose China exploiting its
status as a, quote, ``developing nation'' within international
organizations. I think it helps them gain an additional unfair
advantage in what you described as this unbalanced
relationship.
China is not in any way a developing country. You just
mentioned they are a rich and powerful country. That is not a
developing country. It is the second largest economy in the
world.
Clearly, it has the financial resources and access to
capital to meet its own needs. So I think we need to end
China's preferential treatment and hold it accountable on the
global stage. I mean, we see it in the World Bank. We see it in
other locations.
Are there things that we can do and you can do as Secretary
of State to try to eliminate this unfair advantage that they
have? And it is an open unfair advantage.
Senator Rubio. Yes, absolutely. I think we need to, first
of all--and I mentioned this in my opening statement--we have
to acknowledge that many of the global institutions that were
created not just in the post-war era but the coast post-cold
war era have been weaponized against us, and I can use a number
of examples.
The first is, you think about the Security Council of the
United Nations, which was created ostensibly for the purpose of
preventing global conflict. Sadly, two of the greatest drivers
of instability in the world today hold a veto vote at the
Security Council. It has basically rendered the Security
Council almost irrelevant.
By the same token, I would say I am not against
multilateral organizations so long as that or any foreign
arrangement we have serves the national interest of the United
States.
I do not believe, and the President has made this
abundantly clear--President Trump--that under no circumstances
should any foreign entity or multilateral or international
organization have veto power over the national security
interests of the United States of America.
The second point that I would point to is that the Chinese
have very aggressively played this. They have figured out, and
it is not hard to figure out, that even the smallest nation
state has a vote at the United Nations General Assembly and
they have worked hard to not just court but entrap a handful of
votes around the world and including in our own hemisphere.
If you look at the Caribbean Basin in Grenada and places
like that where they go into these countries and they do not
just provide a million dollars to--a billion dollars to build a
stadium. They also give you $5 million or $6 million under the
table for your family and friends. They do that in place after
place. We have seen that practice as well in Africa.
So we need to understand that there has to be in many of
these parts of the world, look, we are not bribing anybody. We
are not going to do that, and it is certainly illegal for
American companies to do it.
But it is hard to engage these countries who in many cases
have legitimate needs when they say, the Chinese--we would
prefer to have your stuff.
We would prefer to have American investment, but you are
not offering any, and so we are left with the only alternative,
and that is to take the Chinese investment even though it comes
with strong strings attached that include things like debt
diplomacy or debt traps and expectations of diplomatic
cooperation at these international forums.
Senator Barrasso. My final question, because you used the
phrase we need to be able to fuel our economy, I want to talk a
little bit about that energy. Look, people who live in foreign
developing nations, they want to be able to fuel their economy
as well.
They need a stable energy source to grow their economy, to
improve lives. Many of the countries you have traveled to and I
have, we have seen what energy poverty can do to people to make
it harder for them.
You know, we have an ability to help these countries
develop a stable energy supply. But this current
Administration--the Biden administration--has put restrictions
in place on funding of certain energy resources such as coal,
natural gas. The United States should be working to promote an
all of the above energy strategy and help our friends and
allies have affordable energy as opposed to what is the
politically correct type of energy to be used.
So I believe we should be helping these countries with
energy, and are you committed to ensuring the State Department
is promoting all forms of energy projects across the globe
including oil, gas, coal. Affordable energy that will help
people raise their standards of living.
Senator Rubio. Yes. In fact, it should be a centerpiece--
one of our centerpieces of economic diplomacy. We talked
earlier, I think it was Senator Coons had mentioned the work on
fragile states and the hope of preventing fragility so that
states do not collapse into some of the havens that you now see
where terrorism takes a hold and so forth.
And one of the things you can do to help a country become
more stable and then more prosperous is access to reliable and
affordable energy, and that is not simply for everyday life.
That is critical if you want to build a manufacturing
sector. It is going to be especially critical in a world in
which all these new technologies like AI are going to require a
tremendous amount of power generation that is going to draw
upon global energy resources to begin with.
So absolutely it needs to be at the centerpiece, and we
will work very closely with the Energy Department in ensuring
that it is a centerpiece of our foreign policy.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
And next up we have Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Marco, the President--excuse me, Senator Rubio, the
President made a great decision in choosing you. I am happy to
see you there. You are a thought leader in foreign policy.
I, however, do not think most Americans know how great of a
thought leader you are in NCAA, NFL, and high school football,
and I am a little disappointed that you are not going to be the
head of the NCAA right now.
Senator Rubio. Not yet.
[Laughter.]
Senator Booker. We sat in my office recently. I told you
about my concerns about Africa right now. Democrat and
Republican administrations have not prioritized the continent.
It is literally the fastest growing continent on Earth.
We now see the future. By 2050, one out of every four human
beings on the planet will be in the continent of Africa, and
because of the demographic issues we have around the globe from
Europe to the United States to even China, one out of every
three working people on the planet will be in Africa.
It is rich with arable land and critical minerals. It has
an economic potential that could create tremendous markets for
American companies and American businesses.
More than this, we know while it has incredible assets and
opportunities, a lack of focus on Africa could endanger the
whole planet. We know in the days of infectious diseases, for
example, an outbreak of an infectious disease anywhere is a
threat to public health everywhere.
More than that, we see the climate challenges, migration
patterns there threaten to destabilize the Middle East and
other areas. Egypt, for example, literally is hosting
millions--millions--of refugees in Egypt right now.
Now, my frustrations in my 12 years here is that we as a
nation have not really prioritized it. We do not have
ambassadors in some countries where China and Russia, who
understand the African opportunities, are investing heavily.
I have gone around the world and in my times in African
countries I often encounter people that say, hey, the Chinese
are here. Where are you? And it is not just ambassadorial
placements. Other critical positions in embassies just are not
being filled, and therefore we are being outplayed by the
Chinese and the Russians.
African countries and leaders have told me time and time
again, we prefer you. We would rather deal with you. We would
rather work with you. And we can see by legal immigration
patterns that their people would rather our way of life than
the Chinese or the Russians.
But we are simply being outplayed in ways that we can
counter if we had a real focus and a real strategy for engaging
Africa. And the impact of U.S. engagement is real, and the
backbone of our diplomacy is that diplomat abroad, is that
Secretary of State on down, people saying, this is a priority.
I said this to you in our office, and I want to make it
plain now that we are at a point in this country that what we
do in the Senate and in the White House and in the State
Department are planting seeds for the future.
We could reap a tremendous harvest in 10, 20 years
prioritizing and emphasizing our work in Africa. Not to do so
undermines the three points that you said at the beginning that
I agree--our foreign policy should be guided by what makes us
safe, strong, and prosperous, and the future in so many ways is
Africa.
Could you just talk to me a little bit about how you are
prioritizing it, how you understand the critical opportunities
and the dangers of not engaging at a higher level than either
the Biden administration, Trump administration, Clinton
administration, Bush administration have done?
Senator Rubio. Yes, and I will preface it by saying that,
obviously, I am not--been confirmed yet. The President is not
in office yet. There will be a national security strategy that
will frame much of what we do in foreign policy.
So what I am going to share with you, basically, here today
is as someone who will be at that table, some of the
impressions that I would share with regards to our historic
involvement in Africa and also some of our challenges, moving
forward.
So the first, and you have already highlighted all the
things about the growth that is going to happen. They will
double in population between now and 2020, 2035, or what have
you.
So it is extraordinary. That is not just an interesting
number. That is also markets. Those are also consumers. Those
are also places that I think provide an extraordinary
opportunity, properly positioned for America to become more
prosperous. Literally, more people that can afford to buy the
things Americans provide both in services and goods and vice
versa. So I think there is an extraordinary opportunity.
Where I think some of our situation in Africa has fallen
off has been--it has been, and rightfully so, heavily focused
on counterterrorism, and solely on counterterrorism in some
places, and that is valuable and important.
It is very difficult for a country to progress or move
forward if they are, in fact, a haven, you know, for--that is
open, and so, you know, the freaks come out at night and you
have got terrorist groups that are operating and undermining
that country.
So it is not that it is not important. I think we are also
learning from the Sahel how quickly the situation changes
despite significant counterterrorism contributions. Each of
those countries have pivoted to their great mistake, grave
error, toward the Africa Corps led by Russia.
These people are not any good at fighting counterterrorism,
and again, unreliable. And I think the moment will come when
they will realize that, and maybe there will be a new
opportunity to engage.
On the flip side of it, if you look at the littoral West
Africa, there are real opportunities there for--and in fact,
ongoing engagements, not just on counterterrorism but on
economic progress. I look in the north to Morocco, another
place where we have already seen substantial improvements
because of the Accords but also because phase two of that
relationship that continues to build.
You also talk about one thing that I do not think has been
talked about enough, and I think we hear the term--it is a 19th
century term--the impact that malaria has is not simply a
health crisis or a humanitarian crisis. It has deep economic
crisis--deep economic implications. It pulls kids out of school
for long periods of time and affects their lives. It literally
sets people and communities back, when humans and people are
the greatest resource of any country.
And the cost-benefit of an investment leveraging private
partnerships to deal with things like malaria pays
extraordinary dividends if appropriately done and channeled,
and that is something that I think could, as part of an overall
approach to Africa, include--be included in things that you
could argue are improving our prosperity, our security.
Senator Booker. Thank you, Senator Rubio. You have affirmed
a lot of this to me in our private talks. I just want to make
an emphasis publicly here that the disinformation in Africa,
and you have mentioned disinformation writ large, but you know,
for example, the Washington Post published an article in
October detailing how Russian propagandists targeted U.S. anti-
malaria programs in Burkina Faso, the Africa Center for
Strategic Studies reported--published in March 2024,
highlighted how Russia and China are leading sponsors of
disinformation campaigns in Africa that are showing incredible
success because we are not doing a coordinated campaign to
counter their misinformation.
And so I am looking forward to working with you. I hope
that you will prioritize this for the sake of America's future,
that you could be the Secretary of State that says we have a
vision for Africa, and we are backing it up, not just from the
Secretary of State's office but all the way down to making sure
key resources are invested in encountering disinformation as
well as making sure that we have personnel in there.
It is not a popular post, as you know, for many State
Department people. We have got to make it that way and let
people know that they are helping to define the future of not
just United States but humanity by focusing on Africa.
I cannot let my time expire without talking about the
biggest humanitarian crisis going on on the planet Earth right
now, what is happening in Sudan. It has been called by our
country a genocide. There is a famine being declared in areas
where you are seeing unbelievable levels of systemic sexual
violence going on.
I traveled to the Sudan border with Chad and saw a
humanitarian crises like I have never seen before, and I have
been around the world looking at humanitarian crises. We have a
great special envoy who you have already positively name
checked in this confirmation hearing.
It is so important and vital that that work continue and
that we work for diplomatic solutions. There are a lot of our
allies who have been implicated in fueling this crisis.
This is an opportunity to end this crisis by diplomacy to
bring about one of the most important peace processes there
are, and I am hoping that you and incoming President Trump will
prioritize that.
Senator Rubio. Yes. In an era in which the term genocide
has been misappropriated to almost a global slander--an
international slander--this is a real genocide.
By its very definition, this is a real genocide. This is
the ethnic targeting of specific groups for extermination, for
elimination, by groups, by the way, that are being funded by
nations that we have alliances and partnerships with in other
parts of the world, and we should express that clearly.
I think--and part of our engagement with the UAE, and it
will have to be a pragmatic engagement--I mean, they are
important players in what we hope to resolve in the Middle
East, and I think as part of that engagement we also need to
raise the fact that they are openly supporting an entity that
is carrying out a genocide.
And I think for those who are interested in going out and
actually protesting a real genocide this should be the one, and
I just do not see it. I do not see people mentioning it.
Senator Booker. Well, it is morally reprehensible that this
crisis gets virtually no attention in our country, especially
because of the role we should be playing.
And my time is over but I want to say this. No need to
respond. But the other place on the planet that gets no
attention that we are responsible for in our hemisphere is the
crisis in Haiti as well.
Senator Rubio. Correct.
Senator Booker. I know that you know this intimately, and
again, I just want to keep calling out these moral omissions of
our country often at least in the press of an inability to
focus our compassion, empathy, and understanding of our
interwoven destinies with places like Africa and places like
Haiti.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senator
Booker, for that. Those are things that needed to be said.
Having said that, you have underlined probably the most
difficult crises we have on the planet, and I think everybody
is ready to sign up on a path forward.
So far nobody has laid out that path forward. And you are
right, we have an obligation to at least try to design a path
forward, and when that happens I have no doubt that we will
pull together Republicans and Democrats as Americans to do
something about this.
But I will tell you, the--identifying who are the people
there that are the good guys that you can partner with is very,
very difficult, as you know.
Thank you. Thank you, Senator Rubio, for your comments in
that regard.
We will move now to Senator Paul.
Senator Paul. Senator Rubio, congratulations on your
nomination.
One of the questions that I have asked over time to
Secretaries of State as well as ambassadors and others from the
State Department is can you name for me instances where
sanctions have changed behavior for the better.
I am not going to ask you that question now. I am going to
wait till you come back to ask you. Those are a preview of what
I will ask you the next time.
But the reason I bring that up is that I think--hopefully
people think of sanctions as a way of trying to modulate
behavior. You want better behavior out of a country. A country
is doing something you do not like. You would like them to
change their behavior for better through sanctions.
And I think it rarely works, and I think we pile more on.
Now, some would say, well, sanctions are just to punish them,
and we just want to--you know, Russia invaded Ukraine. We are
just punishing them.
And so as punishment, they kind of work. I do not think
they are deterring Russia's behavior or changing it but really,
sanctions can have effect in a couple of ways.
I think the threat of a sanction, the same way the threat
of a tariff can have an effect on behavior, but once placed I
think a sanction or a tariff only has effect on someone's
behavior if you remove it.
Now, you mentioned earlier a little bit about discussing
ways to unwind some of the sanctions, ultimately, on Russia.
People mentioned, well, we never want to let them sell energy
again.
No, you have to let people enter back into the world. That
is how you are going to get behavioral changes, and it really
will have to be part of the peace. If there is going to be a
negotiated peace, the one aspect that makes us part of that war
are all the sanctions.
And so it really should be offered up of removing that and
going back to normalcy when we can find a resolution to the
war. I will give you an example of where I think often the
State Department loses its sight of its mission. Instead of
being the department of diplomacy, which I think it is supposed
to be, it becomes just an extension of the Department of War
and muscle, and we show how strong we are through the State
Department.
But really, when bellicose statements come from other parts
of the government, I see the State Department is the one that
shows up and tries to still have a conversation. In the past I
think because of remarks you had been banned from travel to
China.
The ambassador that has been nominated also has had
statements that make us question whether or not he will be
received in China if he becomes the Ambassador to China.
When Blinken and Yellen went to China recently, they
decided--and I am not arguing with the goal. The goal was to
get China not to sell dual use parts to Russia to use in the
war against Ukraine. A noble goal. I share the goal.
But they got to China, and they shamed them in public and
called them names, and told them they are terrible people, and
they should quit doing it. I would argue that there is another
way to try to get behavioral changes.
I would argue that the opposite of sanctions is trade, and
so we have a lot of sanctions on China. If I had been the one
going to China with a mission, I would have said to China very
quietly we may not be able to undo everything, but perhaps we
could undo one bit of sanctions that will enhance your economy
by X amount if you will agree to quit selling dual use parts to
Russia.
And I think that is just a different look on things, and I
do not think we are getting it very often. I guess my hope is
that you will think about a different way of doing business
other than just saying let us sanction everybody, and let us
call people names we do not like, because I do not think it
helps.
I think it actually makes the situation worse. That does
not mean we curl up in a ball and just say do whatever you
want, but there has to be some give and take. There has to be
something we take back.
And so I guess my general question to you would be we know
a lot about the stick. We know about sanctions and this and
that. Do you see any possibility of any carrot with China to
make relations better with China?
Senator Rubio. Well, let me first say, indeed, I have been
strongly worded in my views of China. Let me just point out
they have said mean things about me, too, and I am not sure
that they are fans of mine in that regard here.
My role now as the Secretary of State is to lead the
diplomatic wing of the country and that will involve engaging
them.
The fact of the matter is in a mature and prudent
conversation, and I would expect that they, at the end of the
day, are also mature and prudent practitioners of foreign
policy--they have got a billion people and nuclear weapons and
a large economy.
We have 400 million people, the largest economy in the
world, and a nuclear weapon, and it is in their interest, our
interest, and the interest of the world for two great powers to
be able to communicate.
In fact, despite everything I have said, I have
consistently throughout my career said that it is that
geopolitical balance between our countries that--or imbalance--
developing imbalance that is the greatest risk to global
security and prosperity, because that could quickly trigger not
just the trade and economic conflict but an armed one, which
could be catastrophic.
Never in the history of mankind have two powers like the
United States and China ever faced off in a global conflict,
and the outcome would be catastrophic, and we should want to
avoid it, and so should they.
So the bottom line is this. Yes, we are going to have to
deal with China. They are too big and too important in the
world, and they are going to have to deal with us, and my goal
is that it is dealt with in a way that furthers our national
interest.
What cannot continue to happen is that China continues to
assume all of the benefits of the international system and none
of its obligations--all the benefits of global trade and
commerce and none of its obligations.
Your point on sanctions are important. I think that one of
the things that has happened over time is we have adopted this
view that we are going to be involved in less armed conflicts,
which I think is a positive, generally speaking, right. Most
would agree.
The only other alternative left in the toolbox then is
economic sanctions, and while I do think that there are--you
can question whether it has an impact over the changing the
behavior of a country, it can achieve two things.
The first is it can deny a nation state the resources they
could use to fund more of that activity. Let there be no doubt.
If the Iranian regime had more money because of no sanctions,
they would have spent more money on Hezbollah and Hamas and
their missile program and the Houthis and others.
So I do think there is value in that regard, and the second
is, to be frank, leverage. When you sit down at a table--let us
say we talk about Ukraine and the need to end that conflict.
When you get and sit at the table, and the United States is
involved in those conversations, hopefully, to reach a peaceful
settlement of that conflict you are going to have to give, not
just get, and sanctions and the release of sanctions could be a
part of that, assuming that the conditions are appropriate.
So I do think sanctions also have a role to play in that
regard. But I would not diminish the part about denying
resources for governments and countries to carry out
nefarious--denying them the ability to have the resources to
carry out these nefarious activities.
Senator Paul. I think you are right, and the point is
probably valid with regard to Iran, probably not so much with
China. I do not think we have denied China resources, and I
think their resources extend beyond what we can do.
I think our sanctions are more, you know, prodding them but
not really damaging their economic prospects. With regard to
the concept of diplomacy and how we make things better or
attempt to make things better, I think if we have absolutes we
tend to not understand really the way diplomacy has to work
because it is about engagement. It is about hearing the other
side. It is not about accepting their position, but it is about
at least knowing what the position of what the position of the
other side is.
With regard to NATO and Ukraine, to a person the State
Department under the previous Administration is adamant, and so
are many Republicans, that there is absolutely no way we will
ever say that Ukraine could be a neutral country--that
absolutely they will be in it. It is our absolute prerogative
to invite anybody we want to into NATO.
We can say that, and we have the ability to do that, but
there are consequences to that, and one of the consequences is
that at least from the Russian perspective they see that as one
of the reasons why the war has developed there.
And so I think that if you are looking at peace, you have
to look at in the--first you have to get to a ceasefire before
you even get to real discussions. But if you had a ceasefire
between Russia and Ukraine, I think our sanctions need to be on
the table as far as negotiating the removal of them.
But I think also the idea of Ukraine being a neutral
country as far as a military alliance, if it is not on the
table, Ukraine does not have that much to offer. I mean, Russia
now occupies a good 15, 20 percent of the country. It has been
a big bloody war, and they have done it in a sort of World War
I fashion, but I do not think they are going anywhere.
It is at a stalemate. But the one thing Ukraine has to
offer is they will not become part of a military alliance
allied against Russia. Just not taking it off the table
enhances our ability to negotiate, enhances Ukraine's ability.
I think Zelensky's public words have been a little less
firm than they had been in the past. But instead I think we
have done the opposite with our diplomacy. Every day it is
Blinken, you know, beating the drums, beating the drums to
absolutely be in Ukraine.
Do you think that the concept of a neutral Ukraine not in
NATO can be part of the negotiations to end the war?
Senator Rubio. Well, obviously that is something that will
ultimately be part of any negotiation. I do agree with your
point that, we want to be real here for a second because I
think we have lost the art of reality in some of the foreign
policy.
These are not outcomes that are almost--rarely are they
ideal. Sadly, in many cases our choices in foreign policy are a
choice between a bad outcome and an even worse outcome, and
that has been true not in the modern era but throughout the
history of diplomacy and nation state relations.
In the case of conflicts such as these, they invariably
require concessions. I do not think it would be wise nor
appropriate before or even in office or even in any public
forum such as this to discuss the parameters of what those
potential concessions can be for either side.
Suffice it to say I do think, to be honest with the
committee and the full Senate, if you want to reach agreements
to end armed conflict where people are dying on a daily basis,
and enormous destruction is occurring, and a great potential
for escalation exists on a daily basis, if we want to be honest
about bringing that to an end true diplomacy will require
concessions from every party engaged in those conversations.
That is the nature of diplomacy, and it is best conducted
directly and in an appropriate forum and not in public, and
that can be done, by the way, without abandoning our core
principles as a nation or our feelings as a people about what
has happened and transpired in that conflict to date.
Senator Risch. Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Shaheen.
Senator Rubio, good to see you. It was great to sit down
with you and talk about some of these important issues
yesterday.
Let me just say at the outset that I appreciate your
response to Senator Booker's question about what is happening
in Sudan, specifically as the Biden administration just found
that the RSF under Hemedti is engaged in a genocide, and we
need to do everything we can to stop what is happening there.
You referred obliquely to some of our sort of Gulf partners
who have not done what they should be doing. One of them is the
UAE, and I have been very clear that the United States should
not be providing military assistance to the UAE, when the UAE
is, in turn, providing military assistance to a group like the
RSF that is committing a genocide in Sudan, and I am expecting
a briefing from the Biden administration by the end of this
week as to whether or not their commitments to President Biden
to stop doing that have been fulfilled.
I want to pick up on a couple of the issues we discussed
yesterday. One, as you know, Senator Sullivan and I are the co-
chairs of the bipartisan Foreign Service Caucus. We have passed
a number of pieces of legislation through the U.S. Congress,
most recently the Foreign Service Families Act.
As you know and we discussed yesterday, you know the
importance of supporting the men and women at the State
Department, including the Foreign Service, and I appreciate
your willingness to work with us and the caucus to continue to
make sure that they have what they need to do their jobs
effectively.
We also discussed the ongoing war in Ukraine and the
importance of supporting Ukrainian people against Putin's
aggression, and I just want to say for the record I support and
endorse everything that Senator Shaheen said on that score, so
I do not have to go into great detail.
I will say that we know that what happens in Ukraine does
not stay in Ukraine, and it is not just me saying that. That is
what we have heard repeatedly from leaders in Japan, leaders in
South Korea, and other partners of ours in the Indo-Pacific
region.
So I hope that we will continue to focus on that because
what we do know is that President Xi has one eye on what is
happening in Ukraine and another eye on what is happening in
Taiwan, and measuring everybody's response.
Like you, and we have worked on a bipartisan basis to try
to make sure that we meet the challenge of China, lots of
important pieces of legislation that have passed but none yet
to really rise to meeting those challenges--I do support the
Biden administration's ongoing efforts to restrict the flow of
very high end technologies--the highest end chips--to China
that can be used in their military.
We are going to have to work successfully with our allies
to do that, just like the Trump administration back in the day
worked on the Huawei issue. So my view is that we need to
expand that effort.
We also discussed the volatile situation in the Middle
East. You know, we often talk about the importance of shifting
our focus to China and the Indo-Pacific, but we always seem to
get dragged back into conflicts in the Middle East.
I want to start with Syria. Good riddance to the murderous
Assad regime. Obviously, we have a stake in what comes next in
Syria, given the fact that it is a very volatile part of the
world.
I support the very cautious engagement of the Biden
administration with HTS, but we should acknowledge their very
poisonous genealogy, beginning with al-Qaeda morphing into al-
Nusra.
The other issue, of course, in Syria is that when you have
got a situation like we see today, there are opportunities for
ISIS to get further back on its feet, to provide it more
oxygen, and as you know the tip of the spear in our fight
against ISIS has been our Syrian Kurdish partners, the SDF.
But at this moment President Erdogan of Turkiye has been
backing attacks of the so called Syrian National Army, which
Turkey largely controls against our partners the Syrian Kurds,
which opens the door to a revival of ISIS.
Because of the actions of the U.S. Government, Turkey has
so far paused that effort. Senator Graham and I have introduced
legislation to impose sanctions on Turkey should they renew
those attacks in a aggressive way.
We talked about this. I know that you recognize the
importance of that partnership with the Syrian Kurds, but just
a very straightforward question. Do you agree that we should
continue to support our partners, the SDF, in the fight against
ISIS?
Senator Rubio. Yes. Well, absolutely. Not only that but I
think we also need to recognize that there are implications to
abandoning partners who have a great sacrifice and threat--
actually jailed the ISIS fighters.
One of the reasons why we were able to dismantle ISIS is
because they were willing to host them in jails, a great
personal threat to them, and obviously that situation is very
tenuous.
I do not want to take up a lot of your time, but I do think
it is important to respond to this opportunity in Syria because
it could be an opportunity.
Look, the new people that are in charge there are not going
to pass an FBI background check. OK. We recognize that. These
are not people we know a lot about, and their history, as you
said, is not one that gives us comfort.
That said, it is in the national interest of the United
States, if possible, to have a Syria that is no longer a
playground for ISIS, that respects religious minorities ranging
from Alawis all the way to Christians, that protects the Kurds,
and at the same time is not a vehicle through which Iran can
spread its terrorism to Hezbollah and destabilize Lebanon, not
to mention what has happened in other parts.
Not only is it in the national interest of the United
States, it is in the national interest of virtually every
nation state in the Middle East to see that come about. That is
worth exploring.
There is an interesting dynamic at play, and Senator Paul
asked a moment ago about the impact of sanctions. I would argue
that the Caesar sanctions directly contributed to the downfall
of the Assad regime in many ways. We find ourselves in this
interesting situation now where because I think it was
reauthorized as part of NDAA we now have these sanctions in
place against a government that no longer exists.
But nonetheless, it is an opportunity for us to explore how
we could use that tool, the removal of it and others if in fact
the territory is fertile for these outcomes.
There are impediments to this that go beyond simply the new
people in charge, and one of them, as you pointed out, is
Erdogan and what his intentions are. Right now there is a very
tenuous ceasefire.
With regards to the Kurds, it is important for that to be
maintained. I think it is important to signal to Erdogan early,
including through this hearing, that they should not view a
transition in power in the U.S. as a window in which they could
take advantage of to sort of violate whatever agreements are in
place.
Right now what we want in Syria is stability so that we can
explore what opportunities exist to bring a different dynamic,
because it would have an impact on Lebanon, on Israel, on the
situation in Gaza, and on the broader Middle East, to walk away
from an opportunity that may not come back.
By the way, the Russians have been run out of there. The
Iranians have been run out of there. But they are pragmatic
foreign policy operators. If we do not explore these
opportunities, they will work their way back in there at some
point.
Senator Van Hollen. I agree with everything you just said
and look forward to working with you on that.
Let me turn to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which we
also discussed yesterday, and we all witnessed the horrific
October 7 Hamas terror attacks on Israel.
We have also witnessed the devastation and human rights
catastrophe in Gaza. Like you, I have met Israeli families who
lost loved ones on October 7. I have met with hostage families.
I have also met with Palestinian families who lost kids and
other innocents in this war.
So I am very pleased to see the announcement today of the
ceasefire and the return of hostages. Let us pray that it holds
and that it is implemented.
But of course, as we discussed yesterday, the question is
what happens next, and we all agree that Hamas can have no role
in the governance of Gaza or any other place.
We also know that for all its flaws and faults the
Palestinian Authority has recognized Israel's right to exist
for the last 30 years since the Oslo Accords. Their security
forces are trained by U.S. forces. They today are fighting
Palestinian militants in certain parts of the West Bank.
But at the same time their funds have been restricted by
the Netanyahu government today. These are funds that belong to
the PA. We have seen a record increase in the number of
settlements in the West Bank, and so the PA is not able to
deliver on what had been the hope of Oslo, which is self-
determination, security, and dignity for both Israelis and
Palestinians.
So you have said that the ideal way forward, recognizing
that we have been at this for a long time, is a two state
solution. There are members of the Netanyahu government that
today want to annex all of the West Bank.
So my question is do you agree that annexation would be
contrary to peace and security in the Middle East, and what is
your vision, going forward?
Senator Rubio. First, let me say that, yes, the idea would
be that there not be conflict and the people could live side by
side with one another without being in conflict, and the
ability to pursue prosperity.
Sadly and unfortunately, the conditions for that to exist
have not been in place for some substantial period of time. I
point to you as an example back in 2020 the Trump
administration offered $58 billion--about $50 billion or $58
billion--$58 billion to $50 billion in investment to the
Palestinians, and that included, I believe, $28 billion or $29
billion specifically for Gaza, and it was rejected.
That offer was made back in January 2020, and then it
pivoted over as a result of that rejection to what we now know
as the Abraham Accords.
Second, I would say that Israel is a small nation who, at
its narrowest point, is 9 miles wide. It has been historically
surrounded by enemies that seek their destruction--Hezbollah to
the north, Hamas to the west, Iran further north with nuclear
weapons--constantly. In fact, I would argue that if Israel had
not been firm and strong in its response in this endeavor most
recently, they may very well have faced an existential threat,
as they continue to in many ways.
Now, here is the good news, and it is not just about the
ceasefire today, although that is very important. The good news
is that potentially we have had a dynamic shift in the region
that has an historic opportunity if appropriately structured
and pursued that changes the dynamics of what might be
possible, and that--we have discussed Syria.
We have discussed events in Lebanon quite a bit as well,
the degrading of the Iranian capability, which I hope will
continue, and hopefully the ability to reach some agreement
between Israel and Saudi Arabia on normalization and being able
to engage both for their mutual security and also economic
prosperity.
The real open question for the Palestinians is who will
govern--who will govern in Gaza in the short term, and who will
ultimately govern. Will it be the Palestinian Authority or some
other entity?
Because it has to be someone. That was the initial goal for
Gaza when the Israelis withdrew from there, and they turned it
over, and they turned it over with greenhouses, and they turned
it over with all kinds of economic development.
Hamas won an election, they took over, and they destroyed
the place and built tunnels for terrorists to operate from.
So the key is not simply governance. It is who will govern.
You cannot turn it over to people who seek your destruction.
And so I do think this is a very complex issue, and I think
that is understating it. We all recognize it.
But I also believe that we should not underestimate the
potential opportunities that now exist, and it will take some
time to fully understand what those are, that perhaps open the
door to things that were not open in the future.
But from the Israeli perspective, which I fully understand,
it begins with their existence because you cannot coexist with
armed elements at your border who seek your destruction and
evisceration as a state. You just cannot. No nation--we would
not tolerate it, and they cannot either.
And it begins with having that level of security, and if
they do, then I think there are opportunities that will come
about as a result of it. Those opportunities historically have
not existed in recent times.
Perhaps we are living in an era where that will be--the
likelihood of it is higher because of recent events--unexpected
events in Syria and Lebanon and other places.
Senator Risch. Senator Scott.
Senator Scott of Florida. Thank you, Chairman.
So I was in Miami, or Hialeah, on Monday, and when there
was a video where you were recognizing Alina Garcia and Dariel
Fernandez and Tomas Regalado everybody applauded. They are so
excited about your being the Secretary of State. You are a
homegrown son, and so they are just all excited.
The other thing they were excited about is that they have
somebody that is going to care about Venezuela and Cuba and
Haiti and Nicaragua, all the problems, because you have been so
vocal.
So I guess, can you just go through sort of one by one and
say--just, what are our options? Not that you know exactly what
you are going to do, and a lot of these decisions will be made
by somebody else anyway.
Like, right now look at what is going on in Venezuela. The
Biden administration has allowed oil to flow. He, Maduro, stole
the election, completely violated what Biden told him he would
do. Maria Corina Machado probably is only alive because of your
hard work making sure that Donald Trump put a tweet out.
You look at Cuba now. We just--they just dropped the state
sponsor of terrorism, which makes no sense. We have got people
like Jose Daniel Ferrer in prison for a peaceful protest.
So give me some of your ideas of what is possible.
Senator Rubio. Let us take one, but let us start with Haiti
because in many ways it is globally complex, and I think the
chairman sort of alluded to this a moment ago.
There is a fundamental problem in Haiti in that there is no
legitimacy of authority, and I say this in recognition of the
fact that some of the national police forces in Haiti have been
extraordinarily brave.
Despite being outgunned and outmanned, these guys and gals
have stuck at their post and fought back against armed gangs.
You know, when the most powerful person in any nation state is
nicknamed Barbecue, that is not a good thing, and this guy,
obviously, is not named that for good reasons. He is not a
cook.
These are bad gang elements that are operating within Haiti
and have destabilized not just Haiti but threatened to
destabilize the Dominican Republic, not to mention the
migratory pressure that it places on the United States, on the
Bahamas, and on other places in the region.
There is no easy answer. The Kenyans are there, and I can
tell you I think they deserve a lot of credit for being willing
to take on that mission. In recent days missions from various
other countries have arrived, Salvador being among them, to
sort of contribute to that effort.
I do not think anyone can tell you they have a master plan
for how you fix that overnight. I do think it does begin with
stability and security. You have got to establish some baseline
security, and it is not going to come from a U.S. military
intervention.
So to the extent that we can encourage foreign partners,
and I would include foreign partners in the Western Hemisphere
who should be contributing to this effort to provide some level
of stability and security in Haiti so that you can explore the
opportunities to have a transitional government that has
legitimacy, that can ultimately lead to the conduct of
elections, and then have a governing body in that country that
can bring about a nation state that can begin to build some of
the things you need in order for permanency.
But it is going to take a long time, and I say this with
sadness in my heart. There have been good times, and there have
been bad times and worse times in Haiti but, sadly, there has
not really been a golden era in Haiti's history, and your heart
breaks for these people and for what they have gone through.
But you also as a policymaker in the United States,
recognize the implications this has had on our country, not
just in the migratory pressures it has placed on us, but as I
pointed out earlier, the threat it poses on a daily basis to
destabilizing the Dominican Republic.
You mentioned Nicaragua. It is a very weird situation, for
lack of a better term. The Sandinistas earlier--one of the
first things they did in the new year is they kicked out every
nun in the country. They have gone to war with the Catholic
Church, which was the last institution in the country capable
of standing up to them.
But now they have begun this process of amending their fake
constitution to basically create a family dynasty so that
Ortega and his wife will now be co-presidents. There is no
democracy. That has been completely wiped out.
They have literally put planeloads of opposition figures
and exported them here to the United States and around the
world. They literally arrested anyone who signed up to run for
president. They arrested every single--you signed up to run for
president they put you in jail.
So it is a big challenge, but our national interest is the
most challenged, number one, because of migratory pressure.
Number two, because the Nicaraguan regime is allowing people to
fly into Nicaragua visa free from anywhere in the world and
then transit to the United States.
They have become the point of entry for people from all
over the world, because if you come in without any visa they
charge you $1,000 or whatever the going rate is today, and from
there you get on the migratory route and into the United
States. They have been direct contributors to the migratory
crisis we face at our southern border.
And the third is the Nicaraguans have basically invited the
Russians to establish a military naval presence in Nicaragua in
our hemisphere. That poses a threat to our national security.
That needs to be addressed.
Venezuela, sadly, is not governed by government. It is
governed by a narco trafficking organization that has empowered
itself of a nation state, and we have seen, I believe, upwards
of 7 million to 8 million, 9 million Venezuelans have just left
the country. More are expected to leave.
I was in strong disagreement with the Biden administration
because they got played the way I knew they would get played.
They entered into negotiations with Maduro. He agreed to have
elections. The elections were completely fake.
They leveraged migration against us to get those
concessions, and now they have these general licenses where
companies like Chevron are actually providing billions of
dollars of money into the regime's coffers, and the regime kept
none of the promises that they made.
So all that needs to be reexplored because in Venezuela you
have the Russian presence. You have a very strong Iranian
presence. The Iranians in fact are exploring, are in fact
beginning to build drone factories for the manufacture of
Iranian drones in our own hemisphere, not to mention the long
practice of the Venezuelan regime of providing real but
illegitimate passports to operatives for Hezbollah in our own
hemisphere.
And last, and I leave it last to Cuba because it is one
that has been more enduring, the problem in Cuba, basically, is
that despite being a communist regime and Marxism not working
is that they have decided and they thought what they would do
is that they would create this holding company. It is called
GAESA.
It is a company that they own by the Cuban military and
that holding company owns everything that makes money in Cuba.
If it makes money in Cuba, they own it, and it generates
revenue for them.
The Miami Herald just did an expose on GAESA, and while you
have electrical blackouts, and you have all these other
problems economically in Cuba, GAESA is sitting on billions of
dollars that they have generated for their permanency.
We--in 2017 the Trump administration sanctioned GAESA.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration lifted some of those
sanctions and restrictions a couple of years ago, which
increased the amount of money they were able to generate
through things like manipulating remittances and the like.
And then yesterday, the Biden administration announced they
were rescinding all of the sanctions on GAESA, which basically
the sanctions were this. You can do business with an
independent individual Cuban, but you cannot--it is the regime
that does not allow it. You cannot do business with anything
owned by that government run entity, and yesterday they lifted
the sanctions on them.
Now, the new Administration is not bound by that decision,
but nonetheless, that is what is in place. Ultimately, the
reality--the moment of truth is arriving. Cuba is literally
collapsing, both generationally in terms of all the young
people leaving, but it is also collapsing economically.
They are now living on 20 and 21 hour rolling blackouts,
and some days longer because Marxism does not work, because
they are corrupt, and because they are inept, and they are
going to have a choice to make, those that are in charge there.
Do they open up to the world? Do they allow the individual
Cuban to have control over their economic and political
destiny, even though it threatens the security and stability of
the regime, or do they triple down and just say we would rather
be the owners and controllers of a fourth world country that is
falling apart and has lost 10 percent of its population in the
last 2 years, and that is a dynamic that they are facing right
now.
I hope that they will choose the path of empowering the
individual Cuban so then the individual Cuban has the ability
to deal with virtually every--the peoples of virtually every
other country in the hemisphere have been able to do at least
once in the last 60 years and some more than once, and that is
elect their leaders. Vote for their leaders.
When you think about what happened here today, the Cuban
people have no idea what it is like to have an authority figure
or someone in charge in power like I am as a U.S. Senator
sitting here having to answer questions from his colleagues,
and also having had people in the back screaming and protesting
against you.
You cannot do that to a Cuban official. You cannot question
their decisions. The Cuban people have never been able to
participate in a political process for over almost 70 years
now, and they are entitled to that as much as the people of
Colombia and Argentina and Paraguay and Peru and virtually
every other country in the region has enjoyed.
Senator Scott of Florida. So let us assume you have this
job. You are confirmed. You have the job for 4 years. What
would your definition of success be?
Senator Rubio. With regards to generally?
Senator Scott of Florida. Your job.
Senator Rubio. The alignment of our foreign policy to our
national interest has been defined. The security, prosperity of
the American people and that is--and by the way, I would define
that as success for the country.
What I would define as success for the State Department is
not just that alignment but making the State Department highly
relevant again.
Sadly, and I think I have shared this with you in some of
our meetings with many of my colleagues, what has happened over
the last 20 years under multiple Administrations is the
influence of the State Department has declined at the expense
of other agencies, and also at the expense of National Security
Councils, because it takes so long for the State Department to
take action.
And so increasingly you stop getting invited to the
meetings, and they stop putting you in charge of things because
it takes too long to get a result.
So we want the State Department to be relevant again, and
it should be because the State Department has a plethora of
talented people who are subject matter experts and who have
skills in diplomacy, and it is not being fully utilized because
increasingly on issue after issue we have seen the State
Department marginalized because of internal inertia, because of
the way the structure works.
So we have to be able to get--we have to be at that table
when decisions are being made, and the State Department has to
be a source of creative ideas and effective implementation.
So I would define making the State Department relevant
again in the setting of our foreign policy is critical, and I
think that is something that maybe is not as perceived by the
general public as it is by those of us who watch it on a daily
basis.
Senator Scott of Florida. Thank you.
Senator Risch. Thanks.
Senator Rosen.
Senator Rosen. Well, thank you, Chairman Risch, Ranking
Member Shaheen, for holding this hearing and for welcoming me
to the committee.
You know, I am joining this committee at a challenging time
for the global community, from conflicts with Iranian proxies
in the Middle East to Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine, growing
tensions with China, genocide in Sudan, and so much more, and I
look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to find bipartisan solutions to these problems.
And I also want to thank you, Senator Rubio, your family
that is here, and those who could not be here for working with
me over the last 6 years and your service to our nation, and I
would like to congratulate you again on your nomination.
And I am going to move on. I just want to make a quick
statement because ensuring the United States remains a
steadfast supporter of Israel I know is one of your top
priorities and one of mine, and throughout your time in the
Senate you have been one of Israel's most unwavering
supporters.
I want to thank you for supporting Israel. I look forward
to working with you to ensure that the U.S.-Israel security
partnership remains iron clad, and that our friendship remains
unconditional.
And I want to thank you for your response to Senator
McCormick's hostage question. We all hope, since we have been
in this hearing, that there is news maybe of an imminent
agreement being reached to free, I hope, all the hostages. We
hope to hear that confirmation soon.
But nevertheless, these issues must remain a top priority
for the committee, going forward. So I am going to just move
over to talking about Abraham Accords, speaking of going
forward, because despite the immense challenges that you have
addressed posed by October 7, the Abraham Accords have ushered
in new forms of cooperation between Israel and countries in the
Middle East and North Africa.
As one of the founders and co-chairs of the bipartisan
Senate Abraham Accords Caucus, I firmly believe the U.S. should
continue building on the accords by deepening people to people
ties--soft diplomacy, if you will--and widening the circle of
partnerships with Israel to new countries.
So, Senator Rubio, I know you have touched on this briefly,
but if confirmed, how will you support the growth of the
Abraham Accords to new countries generally and specifically
maybe try to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi
Arabia?
Senator Rubio. Thank you. I think those are important
points.
A couple things that have come up here as a result of
this--the first is, and I point to this again because we just
do not know. It is a new development.
But I think we should not underestimate or understate the
potential historic opportunities that exist right now with what
has happened very unexpectedly for most in Syria, what has
happened in Lebanon, what is--the weakening of Iran and of its
Shia crescent of destabilization in the region.
These are extraordinary opportunities that I think lend
themselves to an era of diminishing insecurity--not totally the
elimination of it but enough security that it opens the door
for agreement on other topics.
Critical to that is the potential of a Saudi normalization
with Israel, and I think that as part of broader context of the
Abraham Accords I think would be historic in nature, and I
think provide extraordinary benefits to the world and help
bring a level of stability and peace to an area that, frankly,
has not had it, one could say, for thousands of years, but
certainly in my lifetime.
You talk about what we could do to build on it. I think the
most important part of any arrangement of countries that enter
into these agreements that historically have been difficult is
there has to be a benefit to it.
They have to perceive that there is a benefit to it,
particularly among themselves. Like, what is the benefit to a
country? What benefits will Saudi Arabia derive from being in
recognition of Israel and vice versa, and I could think of a
variety of things, whether it is advances in their investments
in high tech and how Saudi Arabia wants to diversify its own
economy, the ability of cross investments and also, frankly, of
security because for the foreseeable future I think most
anticipate that there will be a mutual threat from Tehran.
It may not be openly stated as a military alliance, but it
is certainly security, certainly one that I think they both
have a mutual interest in, and which I think the U.S. could be
a very strong partner in providing those assurances as well.
So I do think there is a real opportunity to expand it, and
it will not be without irritants. There is no doubt about it.
There will not be without irritants, that we are still going to
have some issues with UAE or Saudi Arabia.
But we also have to be pragmatic enough to understand what
an enormous achievement it would be if in fact not just you get
a ceasefire, but that leads to the opening or the opportunity
of a Saudi-Israeli partnership and joint recognition. What that
would mean to the region is historic.
Senator Rosen. And you have talked about potential
opportunities, going forward, and we talk about maybe not just
with other countries, but how does the private sector get
involved in creating a normal--building and sustaining the
normalization in areas of water insecurity, power insecurity,
health care, technology.
We know that there are ways that we can do this. They have
been doing it. How does the private sector feed into this?
Senator Rubio. I think from an economic and development
perspective, they are the linchpin of it. I think one of the
things that could come about as a result of an agreement
between the Saudis and the Israelis is that companies and
institutions in both countries would now be open and able to
invest in and/or partner in the economies of each other.
So the Israelis, as an example, have made extraordinary
advances in agricultural production. Because of geographic
constraints they have had to be incredibly creative and
nonetheless have been able to--and I think the Saudis would
benefit from that greatly.
Likewise, I think that we know as a start up nation that
the technological capabilities and advances that the private
sector has made in Israel, and that, I think, would be of great
interest to the Saudis in partnership.
In reverse is I think some of the energy resources that
Saudi Arabia could provide, some of the financing for projects
that they work together on--the linchpin of all of these is
private sector engagement.
But without the governmental imprimatur or without the
government creating the pathways for that to be possible,
because of recognition, because of diplomatic relations, that
is what opens that--because those do not exist that has not
been able to happen. This would open the door for that, and I
think be transformative.
Senator Rosen. Thank you.
I want to continue a little bit on this theme because, of
course, a lot of this also has a nexus with combating anti-
Semitism, and of course, anti-Semitism domestically and abroad.
I proudly founded the first ever Senate bipartisan task
force to combating anti-Semitism. You and I have done a lot of
work there. You are a member of the task force, and we work
closely with the special envoy's office at the State
Department.
We know that global rates of anti-Semitism, they are
skyrocketing. It is critical the White House ensures the
special envoy in their office is sufficiently staffed,
supported, and resourced.
So I know we have talked about this in our meeting, and of
course, like I said, we worked on this before. Can I have your
commitment that you will work with the White House to do two
things, quickly nominate a qualified candidate to be special
envoy quickly and qualified? We really need to get somebody on
board.
Senator Rubio. Yes, and I think it needs to be someone
that, as we have discussed, also enjoys broad support across
different sectors. But the key, ultimately, there was a--I do
not know if it was a study or a survey or something that came
out yesterday, but it showed something that was really
disturbing.
I think it said 60 percent of people on Earth hold anti-
Semitic views, according to this poll, or in 60 percent of the
countries. But I think it said 60 percent.
Look, unfortunately, bigotry and hatred has been a part of
human nature from the very beginning, but anti-Semitism is a
unique danger. The suffering that it inflicted on the world
historically, but in the last century as unimaginable and can
never be allowed to be repeated, and it is something that we
should make sure we are constantly speaking out against and
identifying for what it is.
I think the U.S.'s role as a leader in speaking out in that
regard is indispensable, and we need to be forceful about it at
every--one of the things that is most troubling is what seemed
to me that one of the things that is undermining the legitimacy
of many of our international organisms is they have become
havens for anti-Semitic activity that oftentimes is disguised
as anti-Israel, but I believe is, frankly, anti-Semitic. And of
course, we have seen incidents of that in the United States as
well.
We cannot ignore what anti-Semitism has cost humanity in
the past, because if that lesson is forgotten it will very
quickly repeat itself in every--and potentially in every region
on the planet.
Senator Rosen. Thank you.
I want to just quickly a yes or no. We know--we have talked
a lot about how important deputies are in mission sets of
different things. We know that if we do not have a deputy envoy
in place they keep the wheels turning. They keep the
organization going for the--waiting for the special envoy to be
confirmed.
Do I have your commitment that we will quickly put in a
deputy envoy to make sure that the work can continue until----
Senator Rubio. Yes. We will work to do that as soon as
possible.
Senator Rosen. Thank you.
I wanted to--oh, I only have 56--56 minutes. I do not have
56 minutes. I have 56 seconds. That would be a little crazy.
I know that the first Trump administration created the
Women's Global Development Prosperity Initiative. It was the
first whole of government initiative to promote women's
economic empowerment, dedicated global resourcing for these
activities.
As secretary, will you commit to continuing to expand on
the WGDP initiative, and if so in what ways?
Senator Rubio. Yes, and that was a high priority of Ivanka
Trump, who is no longer going to be in government but was at
the time, and she worked on that very much, and I am--I was a
supporter of it then and look forward to being a supporter of
it now, if confirmed.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. And we got--that 56 minutes went
awfully fast. There you go.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Risch. You yield back all 8 seconds?
Senator Rosen. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Risch. Senator Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can barely see
you down there.
Senator Risch. I know. It is--I was there one time.
Senator Cornyn. They had to extend the dais so Senator
Curtis and I could actually sit with the big boys and girls
table.
So, Senator Rubio, it is great to see you. I have complete
confidence in your ability to lead the State Department. I
think it is a inspired choice, and you could not be better
prepared for that job.
I do want to ask you a few questions, some of which--I know
Senator Cruz is here as well. He and I share a concern about
Mexico. You have heard some concerns particularly about the
cartel activity, but I want to talk to you about water.
In 1944 there was a water treaty between the United States
and Mexico, and we have had chronic problems getting Mexico to
cooperate and release the water that has been absolutely
critical to the life and the livelihood of our agriculture
community in the Rio Grande Valley and elsewhere.
I have talked to Secretary Blinken about this. We have
written letters. We have done everything we know how to do. But
I would just like to get your commitment to work with us to try
to just simply get Mexico to live up to its requirements under
the treaty, and if they will not do it voluntarily, to look for
leverage and ways we can persuade them to do what they already
have a legal obligation to do which is to release water on a
timely basis.
Senator Rubio. Absolutely, and I think one of the reasons
why we need to do that is twofold. The first is because it has
real implications not just for the State of Texas, but broadly,
for the United States.
But the second is because I think this becomes part of a
pattern, and I would argue part of a pattern in a number of
international arrangements but in particular international
arrangements with Mexico in which you can strike any deal you
want or sign any document you want but if you are not willing
to prioritize its enforcement you are encouraging others to get
away with the same thing, and at the same time you are
undermining the willingness of people to commit to enter into
agreements in the future.
And this has become a--we have seen it with USMCA, frankly.
We have seen it with a variety of other commitments that have
been made by partners in other parts of the world, and we are
seeing it with this treaty.
Where there is a treaty, they have obligations under it,
and they do not seek to meet it, and it is part of the broader
challenge that I alluded to in my opening statement which is we
have entered this era where we have entered into all these
international arrangements, but oftentimes they have been
weaponized either through noncompliance or through a creative
reinterpretation, and that extends to trade all the way down to
treaties such as this.
Senator Cornyn. Speaking of Mexico, I know that in
different quarters we have had people suggest that the cartels
be identified as a foreign terrorist organization, and as I
have looked into that it feels like the right thing to do
because, of course, cartels are wreaking havoc and misery and
death and destruction not only here in the United States, but
also in Mexico.
But I worry a little bit about some of the unintended
consequences. For example, does that create some new category
of asylum, perhaps, for people who claim that they are victims
of cartel activity that otherwise would not exist. What is your
view about the designation?
Senator Rubio. Well, and I think this question was asked
earlier, so I will tell you what I said.
The first is that they most certainly are terroristic in
their nature. They terrorize Mexicans. They terrorize on the
U.S. side. They are involved in the trafficking of women and
children, of labor--both labor and sex trafficking--deadly
fentanyl and drugs writ large, as you can imagine, and I think,
you know, pose a grave danger to in the process of trafficking
people, trafficking terrorists into the United States.
So they are terroristic in nature. What I said was that
whether it is that designation or some new designation that we
create, it is important that they be identified for what they
are.
I also pointed to something you just alluded to in your
question, and that is they pose a grave risk to Mexican
sovereignty as well. We have seen multiple journalists and
politicians and candidates assassinated, murdered, in Mexico by
cartels, because either they are not the cartels' chosen
candidate, or they are a journalist that has spoken out against
the cartels, and you find yourself murdered.
And I do not think we should underestimate, and I hope the
Mexicans do not, the amount of leverage that they have created
over the Mexican government, and in some parts of Mexico they
are in fact have operational control over territories,
particularly near the U.S.-Mexican border.
So this is something that I hope we can hope work with
jointly and cooperatively with the Mexicans to address, because
it is in their interest as well as ours.
Ultimately, I do not think I speak out of turn when I say
that you can expect President Trump will do whatever it takes
to secure the United States of America and the American people
from the threat that they pose.
But it is my sincerest hope, and frankly, I think the most
productive outcome would be if we could do so in partnership
and cooperation with the government of Mexico, who I know
shares many of our concerns.
Senator Cornyn. Well, that certainly should be our first
choice. But I have the same confidence you have that President
Trump will send a very clear message and follow that up with
decisive action to persuade Mexico to do what it is in its best
interest, and because it is an intolerable situation right on
our southern border.
We cannot get a divorce. We got to make the marriage work
somehow, but it is a troubled marriage, to continue the
analogy.
Let me talk to you briefly about the Foreign Agent
Registration Act, which is within the jurisdiction of this
committee. This is something I have been concerned about for
some time, because we have lobbyists that work here in
Washington, DC, that actually represent foreign nations that
unbeknownst to Members of Congress, they are actually
advocating not on behalf of the American people and American
interests, but on behalf of the interests of foreign nations.
Now, there is a loophole called the Lobbyist Disclosure Act
which is, frankly, weak sauce when it comes to providing the
kind of transparency that we need. Any time somebody shows up
in your office and is advocating for something purporting to
represent American interests, but in fact is there motivated by
and being paid by a foreign interest to advocate their
interest, is that something that you would be willing to work
with us to further reform and refine?
Senator Rubio. Yes, and as you know from our time serving
together on the Intelligence Committee as well, it is something
we spend a lot of time talking and thinking about as well.
And I would raise two points. The first is, look, the
straight up, some foreign government hires a lobbyist. You know
that because they are registered, and we are aware of it.
The second is more nefarious, and that is that you hire
someone through a cutout, a third party, without aware of the
fact that they are in fact being paid by a foreign entity, and
sometimes dressed up as an American interest when in fact it is
furthering the interest of a foreign entity.
And then the third--and it is one that I do not think gets
talked about enough, and it is not covered by this law but
needs to be said--if some of the most effective and vociferous
lobbyists on behalf of Chinese interests in the United States
for a long time was your corporations who had a pretty good
deal going in China with regards to manufacturing and the like
and would come here and argue in favor of outcomes and policies
that favored China.
And by the way, China would weaponize this openly. They
would in fact, bring in CEOs of corporate America and encourage
them to go back and talk to your Member of Congress and tell
them they better not do that, because if they do, companies
like yours are not going to do very well in China, and that was
weaponized against us, too.
That is not illegal but it is most certainly troubling and
something we need to have our eyes open to as well as we move
forward.
Senator Cornyn. Well, that is a perfect segue into my last
question, and this has to do with outbound investment
transparency. As you know, the Senate has passed legislation
providing for a reporting requirement for American companies
who are investing in China.
It is not a prohibition. It is merely a disclosure
requirement. Because the unique circumstances that you are well
aware of that China provides there is no division between
civilians or the private sector and government.
Under Chinese law the private sector--so called private
sector is required to share any and all information that might
be of use to the People's Liberation Army or to the Chinese
intelligence agencies.
And it is not a stretch to say that due to the tactics of
people like--or strategies, really, of people like Deng
Xiaoping, who said hide your motives and bide your time, we
have seen massive U.S. investment in China, which has not only
helped them rebuild their economy, which is fine, but more
ominously rearm their military--modernize their military so
that they become a threat not only to their neighbors in the
region but to world peace.
We can all imagine a nightmare in which China decides to
take Taiwan, which President Xi said he is committed to do so.
I think it just makes sense for us to have more transparency so
that as policymakers we can then figure out what is the right
policy.
I could care less whether American companies want to build
more Burger Kings or Starbucks in China, but I do care if
American companies are investing in dual purpose technology or
in ways that would undermine the national security of the
United States.
Do you share that concern?
Senator Rubio. Absolutely, and in fact I shared it beyond
just simply what you have discussed. This was a few years ago
when the Thrift Savings Plan--the retirement 401(k), basically,
for Federal workers--was investing in funds they are going
directly to Chinese military use.
So you think about it. There were people serving in the
armed forces of the United States whose retirement funds were
being invested in companies that were building the weapons
designed to one day blow the ship that they served on in the
Indo-Pacific.
And in the case of other private sectors, you are right,
every sector is not created equal in terms of the threat they
pose to our country. But at a minimum we should have insight
into whether American investment dollars, be they institutional
or individual, are going through the funding of activities
designed to undermine the United States of America. That is a
core national security interest.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, and God speed.
Senator Risch. Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member
Shaheen. I welcome the opportunity to work with you in this
Congress.
Senator Rubio, congratulations on your nomination. If you
are watching the hearing, you probably notice Senators coming
in and out, and most people understand why that is, but for
those who do not we have a lot of other hearings, a lot of
other responsibilities.
We get in a queue and kind of know when our questioning
time is coming up. I decided that I would show up albeit 11
minutes late and stay, because this is so important to the
country and to me, but I think for those of you who have
watched this hearing that was gaveled in at 10:00 what you have
seen is a nominee who is extremely well prepared.
We are used to seeing nominees who know a lot about a
couple of things and sometimes who know very little about
virtually everything. But I think you have seen a hearing with
a nominee who, agree or disagree with the points he has made,
he is not talking out of a briefing book. He is not having to
thumb through a binder to decide how to answer a particular
question.
I have always been struck in working with Senator Rubio on
this committee since I came to the Senate in January 2013 that
he has a very well developed sense of the world and a passion
and interest in all corners of it.
I was particularly happy that he was nominated for two
reasons. One, we have worked together significantly on
legislation touching many different areas over the years, and
one was referred to by Senator Shaheen--legislation to send a
clear message that NATO and the U.S. participation in NATO is
not just simply an executive priority that could come and go
depending upon the Article 2 Commander in Chief, but it was
also something so important that Congress would say that the
membership of the United States in NATO is something that
Congress would want to weigh in on should there ever be a
decision by an executive that we should back out of NATO.
And I think sending that message from Congress has been a
very important thing that has led to a NATO that is expanding--
Finland and Sweden. Where the polling would have been de
minimis 10 years ago for joining NATO are now in, and I think a
strong message from Congress is part of that.
Obviously, the fear of Russia is a huge part of it, but a
strong message of congressional support is part of it. I am
particularly proud that the Virginia National Guard has now
struck a deal under the state partnership program where we are
partners with the military in Finland, a very capable military,
and the first exercises of the Virginia Guard with the Finnish
military will start next month. I am very excited about that.
The second reason I was particularly gratified to see
Senator Rubio nominated for this position is he cares about the
Americas. I cast my first vote in a presidential election in
1976.
I have not seen a single Administration, Democratic or
Republican, that has devoted enough attention to the Americas.
We devote attention to it in a time of crisis, and then move
our attention elsewhere.
It seems like Secretaries of State have often thought that
the world only has an East-West axis and not a North-South
axis, and Senator Booker addressed that with his questions
around the attention that should be paid by the United States
to Africa. I feel that very strongly about the Americas.
I do not have to ask Senator Rubio questions to gauge his
interest and attention level. Everyone who comes before the
committee tells us they are really interested in the Americas,
only to find that they end up spending all their time somewhere
else.
I do not have to ask that question of this nominee to know
that he has a passion about the nations that are our nearest
neighbors, a passion about the nations who are so connected to
us in our cultural roots and in our family ties.
And it is so important not just because China and other
nations are now getting into the area. I do not want to have a
new Monroe Doctrine that we only care about it to keep Europe
out of it. We only care about it to keep China out of it.
We ought to be paying attention because we are connected to
these nations, and things will go better for us if things go
better for them.
So to you, Senator Rubio, I am very, very happy that you
are nominated for this position.
Two comments, then a couple of--then one particular
question.
One, the status of career ambassadors. I think it is a norm
for every Administration to ask ambassadors to tender their
resignations, and it is certainly the norm for the political
ambassadors to be politely let go the day that the new
Administration comes into place, and I think that is an
expectation that everybody has. We get that.
For the career ambassadors that are in place, they have
been asked to tender their resignations to the incoming
Administration, and that is normal.
But I would hope that the Administration would consider, if
they are career, keeping them in place until their successors
are ready, because to swap out a career ambassador for a career
charge does not advance our ability in any way to operate in
nations.
There is a cachet that comes with being a confirmed
ambassador that really helps you with continuity and diplomacy
in these nations. So I know that that is a decision that the
President makes, but I hope as you have a conversation with the
national security and diplomacy team you might encourage the
Administration, yes, you are going to replace the politicals
with career charges, but do not replace the career ambassadors
unless or until you are ready to put somebody in place, which
we know can often take quite a while for the Administration to
even forward nominees, much less the time to get through the
committee process. That would be a comment.
And then second is more for colleagues, really, rather than
for Senator Rubio. One thing I have tried to be consistent on
in my service on this committee is fight against unilateral
executive application of military power unless it is in pure
instances of imminent self-defense--active self-defense or
self-defense against imminent hostilities, and I have been able
to get this committee to pass significant war powers
resolutions under three different Presidents now--President
Obama, a Democrat, President Biden, a Democrat, and President
Trump, a Republican.
And I just wanted to assure everybody that I am going to
continue to be a stickler that the nation should not be at war
without a vote of Congress, except in the instances of imminent
self-defense, and I will do that because I have done that under
Presidents of both parties, and I will continue.
Senator Rubio, now to the question, and you alluded to this
very briefly in one of the comments that you made about the
nation of Paraguay.
Not only do we not devote enough attention to the Americas,
but when we do, we devote attention to the headaches, and the
headaches abound in the Americas and elsewhere.
And so we have talked about Haiti, a problem. We have
talked about Venezuela, a problem. But so often we do not pay
attention to lift up, elevate, provide resources to, celebrate,
the nations in the Americas that are doing things right.
And so when I travel through the region--and I am sure you
have heard the same thing--I hear these nations that are doing
things right why will you not you pay attention to us? Ecuador
threw out a pro-China government, put a pro-U.S. Government.
All they wanted--all they wanted was a trade deal. We want
to be closer to the United States. We are the only nation on
the Pacific coast of the Americas that does not have a trade
deal with the United States.
This Administration--I have been critical about the Biden
administration--did not do anything to advance that cause. Talk
to us about some of the nations in the Americas that you think
are doing things right, and what we ought to do to help those
nations because we will be much more likely to spread the right
if there are other nations in the region that are doing better
and better and better than if we are just trying to lecture
people about how to improve.
Senator Rubio. Just as a general matter, one of the things
that has always struck me is that the region--and maybe this is
true in other parts of the world as well, but particularly in
the region--it is almost better to be America's adversary or
enemy than friend, because the impact of friendship or the
benefits of friendship are not tangibly clear to a lot of them,
and you know, I have seen that express time and again over
multiple years.
It is easy to pay attention to a headache. You are going to
sanction, you know, some country that is not--is acting in
anti-American ways, but the people that are sort of doing it
the right way or want to be cooperative they are ignored, and
the countries that are doing it the right way are ignored.
So I think there are a number of countries that right now
as we speak--and I always say this with caution because I may
not mention one country, and they say, well, they left us out--
but I just want to point to a few that I think are present and
clear for us.
You mentioned one with Ecuador. Ecuador was actually left
out of CAFTA because at the time the people in charge did not
want to be a part of anything with us.
They are facing some real security threats that are unique
to Ecuador's history, and they are facing these threats because
you have got violence and gangs coming over from the Colombian
border and then pushing up through Ecuador as a transit
country, but they bring with it the turf fights and the gangs
to the point where last year there was a real threat to the
stability of the government, where they took over television
stations and things of this--these armed elements did.
And there is a lot we can do and have done but can do. Not
a lot--we are not talking about a lot of money. We are not even
talking about money in many cases, just equipment to help them
at least to restore some sense of stability.
The other thing that Ecuador--these are just off topics,
but I think they are all relevant--Ecuador faces a very
significant challenge with illegal fishing off their coasts by
Chinese fishing fleets who violate their territorial waters on
an almost daily basis in massive quantities, and it is an
ecological crisis as well on top of it. That is a country that
can use our help tremendously.
I think about the Dominican Republic. People do not talk
about the Dominican Republic enough, and they face a real
challenge because of Haiti and the instability next door.
They were also one of the countries that emerged from COVID
the fastest, and not just--because the tourism returned quicker
there, and they really have been able to do some positive
things.
I think Argentina--I know people, some have not met the new
president of Argentina. This is a serious well trained
economist. If you sit down and talk to him for a few minutes,
he has real clear ideas about economic development and is doing
some really necessary things in terms of restructuring the
direction of Argentine economics in a way that I think is very
positive.
Senator Kaine. Can I just say to every other nation out
there that thinks you are a good guy, he was about to mention
you but my time has expired. But please focus on the good guys,
and let us help them do better and better and better and be
good examples in the region.
Thank you.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Senator Risch. Excellent point, Senator Kaine. Excellent
point.
Senator Curtis, welcome to the committee.
Senator Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. It
is great to be with you today. Great to be on this committee.
Senator Rubio, for the last 7 years, from a distance of
about 600 feet--that is what separates the House chamber and
the Senate chamber--I have watched and admired your work from a
distance, and on a few but very fortunate times I have had the
chance to actually be wind at your back on some of your work
supporting Taiwan and protecting Hong Kong dissidents as we
work together on some legislation.
Now, in a twist of events, I sit not far from where you
once sat, and there is another symbolic 600 feet between us,
between the State Department and the Senate, and I am excited
to work with you in your new role, and I would like to continue
to be wind at your back on a lot of issues and none more
important to me than China.
And if you remember really nothing else about our short
interchange today please know that that is very important to
me, and I hope to work with you on what I view as the
aggression of China and in many ways their global push for
military and economic supremacy I think is a threat in many
ways.
China is imposing its--what they call the ``China One''
principle on the world, which is very different than, you know,
from our China policy.
Can you kind of describe how we can push back on that, and
how we need to make sure we are shaping that conversation?
Senator Rubio. Yes, and the first is to understand that the
``One China'' policy is and the U.S. policy toward the issue of
Taiwan has been consistent and reaffirmed by every
Administration since 1979.
It is the combination of the Taiwan Relations Act with the
Six Assurances that make clear that the United States, we are
not going to pressure Taiwan in any arrangement. We are not
going to tell you when we are going to stop, if ever.
We make no commitment to not helping them in their national
defense. We are not going to force any outcomes, and frankly,
we are going to do everything, and we reject any effort to
coerce, intimidate and/or forcibly drive Taiwan to do whatever
China wants them to do. And that has been our position and that
will continue.
That was the position under President Trump's first
Administration. I anticipate it will continue to be in the
second Administration.
I think within that context it is important for us to find
every opportunity possible to allow Taiwan to engage in
international forums where important issues are discussed and
they are not represented.
Irrespective of what China claims about ``One China''
principle, they are not represented, and so the views there
need to be--need to be made. They need to have an opportunity
in these forums to be made clear.
But I think stability is critically important.
Here is the one thing I would point to here with regards to
stability. If the Chinese are in fact serious about stabilizing
U.S.-China relations and finding avenues of which we can
cooperated and avoid conflict then they will not do anything
rash or irrational when it comes to Taiwan or the Philippines,
for that matter.
The actions they are taking now are deeply destabilizing.
They are forcing us to take counter actions because we have
commitments to the Philippines, and we have commitments to
Taiwan that we intend to keep.
And so if they want to destabilize the relationship or they
want to help at least create some pathway for stabilization of
our relationship with them, even as we remain engaged in global
competition and in some cases more adversarial than others,
they really need to stop messing around with Taiwan and with
the Philippines, because it is forcing us to focus our
attention in ways we prefer not to have to.
Senator Curtis. As a matter of interest I actually lived in
Taiwan in August 1979, 3 months after that act that you
referred to, and I think you are very accurate.
I think for a minute about Europe, and there are some
countries it feels like in Europe because of their presence--
Poland, Czech Republic, and Baltics--that are more in tune with
this issue.
But as a whole it feels like some European nations are in
denial of some of the things you have just said. Could you talk
a little bit about how we work with our NATO friends over
there, and how we get them to appreciate this and actually play
a part in this?
Senator Rubio. Well, I think in the case of NATO I think I
would expand it to really talk about the European Union and the
EU, which I think is increasingly every single day coming to
the realization of the threat that China's mercantilist
policies and unfair trade policies are posing to them.
They are flooding the European market with their cheaper
electric cars, or attempting to do so. There is a dispute now
about the importation of aluminum on sector after sector. You
are seeing the EU confronting the reality.
By the same token, you know, like many countries around the
world including ours to some extent there is a quandary
involved. There is an intermeshing economic relations that you
cannot just walk away from. But you also recognize the long
term threat the Chinese practices are having on your economic
lives.
And so I think that is an area in which the Europeans are--
some more than others are increasingly aware and willing to be
more forceful. Italy has been willing to lean into it more than
perhaps some other countries in the region. Hopefully, that
will continue to change.
On the security front--look, an event in the Indo-Pacific.
Say--let us leave Taiwan out of it for a moment, and say it is
the Philippines. OK. In the last 48 hours there was this
massive--I do not even know how to describe it, but this
massive ship that the Chinese have built that is, like, headed
toward the Philippines and the Philippines feels threatened by
it, rightfully so.
We have seen this on a daily basis with the harassment and
so forth, but on a daily basis. If, God forbid, there is some
miscommunication or some inadvertent conflict emerges there,
and we have obligations to them, the impact that will have on
the entire globe--the impact that it will have on the entire
globe is enormous and that includes Europe.
So they have a selfish vested interest in seeking for the
Chinese to curb their behaviors. I would also point to the
Europeans that what the Russians have done with Ukraine would
not have been possible without the assistance of China.
Whether it is the sharing of technology or aid in evading
sanctions or selling their oil in secondary markets, the
Chinese have been hidden, but clear to everyone watching,
partners in the Russian endeavor, and the Europeans know this,
and they need to be continually reminded of it because it
reveals the nature of what we are dealing with.
Senator Curtis. That was actually my next question, so I am
going to skip that one. But thank you for addressing that.
I want to turn to Hong Kong. I mentioned I lived over in
that area, and I actually remember as a young man in the 1980s
shopping for a camera in Hong Kong.
As a businessman in the 2000s I tried to sell my product
over there in Hong Kong. I have been over there a number of
times as a tourist and just enjoyed that beautiful city, and
unfortunately, today none of that is possible. As a matter of
fact, I actually have a warrant for my arrest over there
because of the work in the House that I have done over there.
Can you talk a little bit about the role there? And what is
even worse is Hong Kong is now playing a role in facilitating
sanctions evasion and money laundering, and can you address
that issue?
Senator Rubio. Well, I think it is important to take 30
seconds down memory lane. Hong Kong was turned over by the U.K.
with a strong set of assurances that it would remain autonomous
and independent.
It would be governed by the Chinese, but independent. They
would have a democracy. There would be free enterprise. They
would be left alone. In essence, they would--you know, that is
the promises they made.
They have violated every--over time they have violated
every promise. They basically broke the deal, just like they
lied about all the island chains that said they were not going
to populate and militarize, and they have done so as well.
And so today we cannot consider Hong Kong to truly be
autonomous anymore. It is not. It is now under the full
control, especially on national security matters, of Chinese
authorities, and it should not be surprising to us that these
deeply rooted banking institutions that are in Hong Kong who
long have served as financial capital on the global scale are
now being used to the benefit of the Communist Party and to
evade global sanctions, and I think there has to be a growing
recognition of that.
I also think it is important to remind those sectors in
finance that are still involved there that the Chinese national
security now that has now been implemented in Hong Kong allows
them if they do not like what you are doing to basically trump
up any charges they want, go into your offices, raid the boxes,
see all of your files, threaten to jail you, and they have done
so in some cases.
So it is no longer a hospitable place for people to conduct
financial activity. So I think we just have to call it for what
it is. The notion that Hong Kong is now some autonomous entity
that operates within China's system but independent of it and
the decisions they make is a complete work of fiction.
Senator Curtis. Yes, and I hate to--one more quick
question, but I also want to point out before we go on how good
it could have been for Hong Kong and China had they kept that
agreement. I think that would have been a whole lot better for
China.
Last question as we run out of time. Obviously, there is a
lot of conversation about Panama in the news. Can you talk
about the Chinese influence in the Panama Canal, what Americans
should know?
Senator Rubio. Yes. Well, let me tell you I actually did
not print a lot--I mean, things to read, like, verbatim here,
but there is one that I thought was interesting that I wanted
to share, and I am not going to put it out there for everybody,
the whole thing, but maybe I will submit it for the record.
But I just--this thing with Panama and the canal is not
new. I visited there. It was 2016. I think I have consistently
seen people express concern about it, and it is encapsulized
here in quote after quote.
Let me tell you, the former U.S. Ambassador who served
under President Obama said, ``the Chinese see in Panama what we
saw in Panama throughout the 20th century, a maritime and
aviation logistics hub.''
The immediate past head of U.S. Southern Command, General
Laura Richardson, said, ``I was just in Panama about a month
ago, and flying along the Panama Canal and looking at the state
owned enterprises from the People's Republic of China on each
side of the Panama Canal they look like civilian companies or
state owned enterprises that could be used for dual use and
could be quickly changed over to a military capability.''
We see questions that were asked by the ranking member in
the House China Select Committee, where they asked a witness
and they agreed that in a time of conflict China could use its
presence on both ends of the canal as a choke point against the
United States in a conflict situation.
So the concerns about Panama have been expressed by people
on both sides of the aisle for at least the entire time that I
have been in the U.S. Senate, and they have only accelerated
further.
It is a very legitimate issue that we face there, and I
think there is a--I am not prepared to answer this question
because I have not looked at the legal research behind it yet,
but I am compelled to suspect that an argument can be made that
the terms under which that canal were turned over have been
violated because while technically sovereignty over the canal
has not been turned over to a foreign power, in reality a
foreign power today possesses through their companies, which we
know are not independent, the ability to turn the canal into a
choke point in a moment of conflict, and that is a direct
threat to the national interest and security of the United
States, and is particularly galling given the fact that we paid
for it, and that 5,000 Americans died making it.
That said, Panama is a great partner on a lot of other
issues, and I hope we can resolve this issue of the canal and
of its security and also continue to work with them
cooperatively on a host of issues we share in common including
what to do with migration.
Senator Curtis. Thank you.
Senator, I am out of time. Thank you so much. I yield.
Senator Risch. Thank you.
Senator Rubio, I think that you are right about doing an
analysis of the turnover documents, but I think even before
that we ought to do an analysis of the original documents that
went into place, because they were very strong documents giving
us control over a 5 mile wide on each side of the canal path
and was very specific.
So I think a legal analysis from beginning to end is
critical.
Senator Schatz.
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Ranking
Member.
Senator Rubio, nice to see you again. Thanks for taking the
time with me, and thank you for being willing to serve.
I want to start with the Pacific Islands. As you know, it
is an area of focus of mine and the Indo-Pacific is--look, we
have been through several Administrations, and they all say the
same thing. They all talk about the future being in the Indo-
Pacific and that it is the most important region in the world.
That continues to be true.
My concern is that specifically when people talk about the
Indo-Pacific they are mostly talking about China. They may be
talking about other East Asian countries, but there is very
little conversation about Pacific Island nations, and we have
got some auspicious things happening, but we have also got some
challenges in front of us.
The embassy in Kiribati has stalled. The Solomon Islands,
as you know, are sort of contemplating making themselves
available for PRC military forces.
So we passed the Compact of Free Association. It is a bit
of a mixed bag, and I would like to just hear your theory of
the case here about how to have some continuity.
Obviously, it is a new Administration. It is going to be a
new State Department. But I think some of the things that have
happened over the last 4 and even 8 years in terms of Pacific
Island relationships have been good for the United States of
America.
So give me your theory of the case, not generally Indo Asia
Pacific, but specifically these small island nations with whom
we want stronger ties.
Senator Rubio. Sure. So I think the first, obviously, is
the ability to engage bilaterally with each of these individual
nation states, you know, and that opportunity is already there.
I think we should continue to build on it, and it is important
and bears great fruit.
I think the second--and it is an open question, which I
certainly want the State Department to look at, and I think
policymakers on the Hill need to consider as well--is, you
know, we are dialogue partners in the Pacific Island forum. And
the question is whether we are fully utilizing that ability to
be at the table in that forum.
Now, you know that forum includes Australia and New
Zealand, which are bigger than some of these, but nonetheless
important elements of it. And look, I think our expectations of
the forum is--and they have had some internal friction with
some of the member states, you know, about how--who is going to
lead it and how the succession. So we hope they can work that
out.
But it is an existing forum, which I think could
potentially as a dialogue partner provide us the ability to not
just engage bilaterally with the individual nation states but
also collectively.
And we might not agree on a hundred million things, but
there might be some things we can do through that forum. At a
minimum, have a presence at it at a high enough level that
shows our level of commitment and interest has been elevated
even further, and then, ultimately, some real deliverables.
I do think that given--again, we keep saying they are small
but they--you know, they are important both because of
geographic location and their presence in international forums,
and I do think that whether it is the Millennium Challenge
Grant, whether it is through the successor to OPIC, there are
opportunities as well to leverage some private sector
engagement from the American side and the U.S. side or the
broader North American side on some of the--whether it is
energy needs or resiliency needs or other development projects
that they may have.
So I think we have to explore that both bilaterally with
individuals by ensuring that we have people there but also
explore whether we are fully utilizing the Pacific Island forum
as a dialogue partner to its full effect.
Senator Schatz. And you know that China engages in debt
trap diplomacy which can be effective for their needs, but it
is usually--you know, people get figured out eventually, and I
think one of the areas where we can provide something that
there is no other country that can provide is in the resilience
space.
In a severe weather context, we are really the only folks
that really know how to prepare for, respond to, and rebuild
from disaster.
So, you know, the United States Navy has always been
helpful in this context, but that is something we should
continue to focus on.
Staying in the Pacific, and I am glad you mentioned the
Philippines, you know, my theory of the case here is that--not
that China has decided that its risk appetite is higher, but
rather that the things that they are doing are not so risky at
all, and that is because we have not been in a position to
impose consequences.
I think one of the places where we have a good and growing
partnership, and obviously, bilateral economic and treaty
obligations is the Philippines, and in addition to the enhanced
defense cooperation agreement, and in addition to the Luzon
corridor economic partnerships, I am just wondering how you see
that growing democracy, one of our best allies on the planet,
how you see that as strategically important for the United
States.
Senator Rubio. Well, I think it is important. First of all,
it is always been strategically important for the United
States. Obviously, our military presence there diminished
greatly as a result of some of the decisions that were made
within the Philippines, but now you see a willingness to see us
return.
Look, we are not looking to militarize the Philippines, and
this is not--we should--I think it would be a mistake to solely
view it as a security arrangement.
There are long ties between the United States and the
Philippines that date back to 1899 and the Spanish-American
War, and so I think it is important to build on that as well.
I think there are real economic opportunities that we
should be exploring, and so it is one that we need to show a
commitment of. I will be frank--I think where this kind of fell
off was, and I am not getting involved in internal Filipino
politics but I am telling you during Duterte it was a little
tougher to work with them, and obviously, there is some issue
going on there internally as well. I will leave that to their
electorate and their politics to solve.
So I think to the extent that over the last few years you
have seen a reinvigoration of American interests, it is not
simply driven by the fact that the Chinese are harassing them.
It is also driven by the fact that there has been a more
welcoming attitude toward our posture and our position there,
and that is one that when that opportunity presents itself we
should embrace. But then we need it to show results so that it
becomes enduring. In essence, when your engagement with a
country leads to economic development, whether it is outbound
U.S. investment in the Philippines or what have you, then that
becomes enduring.
Then it makes it difficult no matter who is in charge to
walk away from the alliance because the alliance is more than
just military and a military presence. It also involves jobs
and businesses and investment and economic opportunity.
And we need to look for ways to emphasize that. I think it
would be a mistake to simply view it as a military or defense
alliance.
Senator Schatz. Absolutely. And coming from Hawaii it is
the people to people ties that is the foundation of the
relationship for sure.
I want to talk to you a little bit about our approach on
the Korean Peninsula, and I am going to say something rather
provocative. I think our North Korea policy is broken. I think
it is broken on a bipartisan basis.
I think CVID is a fantasy. I think that the
nonproliferation community wants to hold on to it for reasons
related to other countries and non-pro priorities.
But it is clear to me that it is not working. Ten years ago
you would have been laughed out of the room for suggesting that
North Korea was able to develop maneuverable, hypersonic
warheads, solid fuel ICBMs, submarine launched ballistic
missiles. But all of that has happened. Forty launches in 2024,
and more launches yesterday.
So I would just like you--I know you are a hawk. I know you
have been a strong supporter of sanctions. I never have opposed
a sanction against North Korea in my life. But I just think
that we need to look at this thing realistically and say
whatever it is that we have been doing, it is not working.
These guys keep getting more and more capable, and whatever
sacrifices they are making internally in terms of the suffering
of their people, they got the technical capacity. Like, I
remember 10 years ago being told, well, they can do this, but
they cannot do a nuclear tip. Oh, they can range Guam, but they
cannot range Hawaii. Oh, they can range Hawaii, but they cannot
range the continent.
They keep meeting and exceeding every technical mark that
we think they cannot make, and we are attached to a policy that
does not appear to be slowing them down in the least.
So is there an appetite for a rethinking of this, in my
view, totally failed policy?
Senator Rubio. Well, I think there has to be an appetite
for a very serious look at broader North Korean policies. And
so I think it would be difficult for me today to come here and
tell you this is going to be the official United States
position on it, moving forward, because I do think because of
the factors you have just pointed to, there are some things we
have to look at in a broader perspective.
Now, to his credit President Trump--and look, I will be
frank, I was one of the people very skeptical about it. But he
sort of reached out to Kim Jong-un, walked away from
negotiations twice.
Ultimately, did not reach something enduring, but here is
what he was able to achieve in that engagement is he stopped
testing the missiles. That did not stop the development of the
program, but at least it calmed the situation quite a bit.
I think what you are alluding to--and I am not saying this
is going to be the policy of the United States, because that
policy is set by the President and ideally set through a
process that involves a bunch of stakeholders rethinking and
being creative about it.
But I do think what you are pointing to is the following.
You have a 40 something year old dictator who has to figure out
how to hold onto power for the rest of his life.
He views nuclear weapons as his insurance policy to stay in
power. It means so much to him that no amount of sanctions has
deterred him from developing that capability, and in fact, has
not even kept him from having the resources to develop it.
Unfortunately, recent events now also have them engaged in
conflicts beyond the Korean Peninsula, in fact providing troops
and weaponry to the Russians in their effort in Ukraine.
And so all of this needs to be taken in conjunction in
looking at the policy and seeing what can we now do that
destabilizes that situation, that lowers the risk of an
inadvertent war, be it between South Korea and North Korea,
maybe including Japan at this point, and ultimately the United
States.
What can we do to prevent a crisis without encouraging
other nation states to pursue their own nuclear weapons
program? That is the solution we would like to get to, and I
just did not bring it in my folder today because we are not
ready to deal. But it is important, and it is----
Senator Schatz. Well, and you got to involve the committee,
and there are--you know, this is certainly multi agency,
multilateral. The President has to drive some of this.
But I think none of this is possible without an
acknowledgement of more than a decade of bipartisan failure in
this space. And so if we can at least start with the premise
that whatever we are doing right now is not working, we can
start to work on something else.
Thank you.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Senator Risch. Thank you.
Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I got to say,
boy, that sounds good, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Risch. Not as good as it sounds to me. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cruz. Well, congratulations, and I am looking
forward to the next 2 years working together.
Senator Risch. Thank you.
Senator Cruz. And to Senator Rubio let me say
congratulations to you as well. We are going to miss you on
this committee. We are going to miss you in the Senate. But you
are going to do an extraordinary job at Foggy Bottom, and I
will say if they capture you and tie you up in the basement, we
will send a team to pull you out.
You know, as I look back over the last 4 years of the
Biden-Harris administration there are a lot of policies that
have done a lot of damage--domestic policies, economic
policies. But I think all of those pale compared to the damage
that has been done to national security and foreign policy over
the last 4 years.
Over the last 4 years this Administration has
systematically undermined and abandoned our allies. And it has
systematically shown weakness and appeasement to our enemies,
and the consequence has been disastrous.
We have gone from 4 years ago, peace and prosperity to
today, a situation with wars across the globe and every enemy
of America stronger than they were when this Administration
came into office.
I am confident the incoming Administration is going to
change that direction. I am confident that President Trump and
the White House and you as Secretary of State are going to
shift us back to where we should be, which is standing by our
friends and allies and standing up to our enemies.
Do you agree with that assessment? Is that what you intend
to do as Secretary of State?
Senator Rubio. Well, let me say, first, the foreign policy
of the United States will be set by the President, and my job
is to advise on it and ultimately to execute.
I think the President has been abundantly clear, and that
is his policy is going to be driven about making America safer,
stronger, and more prosperous.
As I said in my opening statement, everything the State
Department does--every policy, every program, every dollar it
spends, every initiative it takes--has to answer three
questions: Does it make us safer, does it make us stronger, or
does it make us more prosperous.
And if the answer is not yes to one of those three you are
going to have a hard time moving that forward because that is
the priority of the President, and that is the priority that,
by the way, voters gave this President when they elected him.
You point to a number of things that I think are critically
important and I will phrase it a different way, but I think we
are saying the same thing.
We have lost deterrence in multiple theaters around the
world. So, as an example--and I use this as a small scale
example, but it is really an important one.
I think the year was 2020, 2019, the Wagner Group tried to
get cute and came after some Americans operating in Syria, and
fire from the sky rained down on them, and that group was
pushed back pretty hard.
That is deterrence. They threatened us, and they knew what
the response would be. I recall the consternation here and in
other places when Soleimani met his demise, but I can tell you
it impacted Iranian behavior for a substantial period of time.
No matter how tough they talked, it impacted their
behavior. I think it is important to reestablish deterrence,
and to the extent that that has been lost for a variety of
reasons, the lack of deterrence is an invitation to war.
The lack of deterrence is an invitation to hostility. It
prevents the very thing that we hope to achieve, which is peace
and stability in the world, and I do think we have lost
deterrence, and I think in some ways it has contributed to what
happened in Ukraine. An item I know that is very close to you,
and you have worked on, and we talked earlier today about is
energy dependence.
I recall President Trump at both a NATO summit and at the
United Nations, and I recall the United Nations one in
particular. President Trump said Germany is dependent--entirely
going to be left dependent on China--on Russia for its energy,
and they laughed at him. There were diplomats in the hall that
were snickering.
That is exactly what happened. It is one of the reasons why
Putin believed he could invade Europe is because Europe would
not push back because they depended on him so much for energy.
Now, Europe is to be congratulated. They have moved very
swiftly, particularly the Germans, to diversify their energy
resources. But one could argue that we may never have had that
invasion had that dependence not existed, because maybe he
would have thought the European response would have been more
forceful than he anticipated.
So I do think reestablishing deterrence and strength is
important because it prevents war, and it gives us leverage and
diplomacy, which where we hope to solve 99.9 percent of the
global disagreements, we hope to solve through diplomacy, not
through armed conflict.
Senator Cruz. I think that is very well said, and I want to
give several specific examples.
Number one, you and I are the only two Cuban-American
senators. You are about to leave me as a lonely sole member of
the Cuban-American Caucus. Thank you for that, Marco. And----
Senator Rubio. You know, if there are three Cubans it is--
they always call it a conspiracy. So----
Senator Cruz. Now I have no one to play dominoes with. But
look, issues of Cuba--both you and I share family stories of
parents who fled oppression and came here seeking freedom.
As you know, as you talked about earlier today, this week
the Administration delisted Cuba as a state sponsor of
terrorism. I think it was an absolutely shameful and reckless
decision. I think it was a political decision on the way out. I
think it was designed to hamstring the incoming Administration.
I am unequivocal that I think the Cuban government are evil
communist bastards. Given your new job, I suspect you might be
slightly less forceful in saying so and slightly more
diplomatic. But I know your heart on the question.
But let me ask you this. Do you believe Cuba is a state
sponsor of terrorism?
Senator Rubio. Without a question, and I will tell you why.
Number one, the FARC, which is--you know, elements of the FARC,
and for that matter in Colombia, these are narco terrorist
organizations and have been.
They started out as ideological organizations and now have
figured out they are Marxists but they want to make money
selling cocaine. So they have done that.
They have had the full support of the Cuban regime
throughout their entire existence. We know that Cuba has been
friendly toward Hamas and Hezbollah--openly friendly toward
Hamas and Hezbollah.
We know as well that the Cuban regime, for example, hosts
not one but two countries' espionage stations within their
national territory, 90 miles from the shores of the United
States, and that provide valuable insights and cooperate with
these elements.
We know that they have strong ties to Iran as well and the
terrorist elements associated with them, and we know for a fact
that there are fugitives of American justice--fugitives of
American justice including cop killers and others who are
actively hosted in Cuba and protected from the long arm of
American justice by the Cuban regime.
So there is zero doubt in my mind that they meet all the
qualifications for being a state sponsor of terrorism.
Senator Cruz. Well, it is clear you are going to be
confirmed to this position. You are going to be confirmed with
an overwhelming bipartisan vote. I think it is likely you will
be confirmed on January 20, on the first day the President is
sworn in.
When you are confirmed, I think it is also likely--I hope
on that very first day you will reverse that determination. You
may not feel prepared to make that commitment now, but is there
anything you want to say on that?
Senator Rubio. Well, I would just say--again, I do not want
to speak ahead of the Administration of these decisions. As I
said, the President sets our foreign policy, and my job is to
execute it. That is how our system of government works.
I would just remind anyone on this recent deal with Cuba
that just happened over the last 12 hours, nothing that was
agreed to is irreversible or binding on the new Administration.
And I think people know my feelings, and I think they know
what the President's feelings have been about these issues when
he was President previously, and nothing that the Biden
administration has agreed to in the last 12 or 18 hours binds
the next Administration, which starts on Monday.
Senator Cruz. Good.
Let us turn to Israel.
In the last 4 years this Administration has been the most
anti-Israel Administration we have ever seen. They have
systematically undermined the government of Israel,
particularly at a time of war.
The Biden State Department secretly asked other parts of
the Administration to suspend anti-terrorism sanctions so they
could pour unaccountable hundreds of millions of dollars into
the Hamas controlled Gaza Strip.
They refused to implement mandatory congressional sanctions
against Hamas terrorists for using human shields. They made
incredible efforts to secretly circumvent mandatory
congressional prohibitions on money going to the Palestinian
Authority because of the PA's support for pay to slay.
Even after October 7 they secretly poured millions and even
cash from American taxpayers into Hamas controlled areas.
Meanwhile, they secretly implemented boycotts of Jews living in
Judea and Samaria through the Development Finance Corporation
and binational science and technology foundations.
They secretly manufactured files used to impose crippling
financial sanctions on Israeli Jews and refused to provide
those files to Members of Congress. Those sanctions were
renewed just yesterday.
I have every confidence that President Trump and you will
reverse these policies broadly and specifically, but I would
like to ask you about some of them quickly.
Can you commit to ending anti-terrorism sanctions waivers
related to Palestinian terrorism and implementing sanctions
against those terrorists?
Senator Rubio. Yes.
Senator Cruz. Can you commit to ending discriminatory
policies including Biden administration's secret boycott
policies against Jews in Judea and Samaria?
Senator Rubio. Yes.
Senator Cruz. And can you commit to reversing the
discriminatory sanctions against Jews living in Judea and
Samaria?
Senator Rubio. Again, yes. I think that the policy of--
again without speaking out of turn, I am confident in saying
that President Trump's administration will continue to be
perhaps the most pro-Israel Administration in American history.
Senator Cruz. And the final question--you and I talked at
great length about the 1944 water treaty with Mexico. Mexico is
in violation of that treaty. It is doing enormous damage to
south Texas. Farmers and ranchers there are experiencing
drought.
As the Secretary of State, tell me what the State
Department can do to encourage and incentivize Mexico to comply
with the treaty and provide the water that they are obligated
to provide to the people of south Texas?
Senator Rubio. I think I raise it in every engagement. We
will be engaged with Mexican partners. We have to engage with
the Mexican government, and it is important to elevate it and
raise it at every one of those engagements.
And I do not just mean like sending a letter or somebody
sending an email or just mentioning it. I am saying make it a
priority, and it is a priority not just because it matters to
Texas. It is a priority because these international agreements
and arrangements only work if they are complied with, and if
they are not complied with, and it becomes habitual other
nations believe they can begin to violate them as well.
It undermines this entire commitment to multilateral
agreements and so forth. And I think it is in the crevices of
those agreements, whether they have been in place for a long
time and no one is paying attention anymore, or it just does
not matter enough and you ignore it because you do not want to
destabilize the rest of your relationship. But it encourages it
to happen more and more.
It is not the only irritant we have in our bilateral
relationship with them and in our agreements. I imagine they
have some with us as well. But it is one that needs to be
prioritized and raised consistently as a priority, not just as
an asterisk or a footnote.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, and you are going to do great.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Senator Cruz.
Senator Duckworth.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to say, Senator Rubio, I want to start off by
noting for the record that when I first got to the Senate, and
I was in my first year, and you had just run for President, and
I did not think you would know who I was, I was pregnant with
my daughter and trying to change Senate rules so that I could
bring her onto the floor so I could do my job and vote because
I cannot come through the normal back door to vote because
there are stairs there, and it is not accessible for
wheelchairs.
And I remember in the middle of that battle rolling through
the Senate floor to vote, and I heard ``Tammy Duckworth'' from
across the Senate chambers, and you came running down from the
top back of the Senate chambers to tell me, I am with you.
I will support you. You have the right to vote, and I will
support you being able to bring your daughter--your child--onto
the floor when she is born.
And I want to thank you for that kindness because you did
speak to your leadership about it, and it was a moment of true
bipartisanship but also as parents, and as someone who was new
to the Senate I was extremely grateful to you for that
kindness.
Senator Rubio. I think what I exactly said is what is the
big deal--this place is already full of babies.
[Laughter.]
Senator Duckworth. Exactly. Exactly.
So I want to touch on a topic we discussed last month.
Thank you for sitting down with me. I always appreciate the
opportunity to sit down with nominees.
I appreciate also your earlier response to Senator
McCormick about Americans detained abroad, and your commitment
to tackling this head on.
As you and I also discussed last month I appreciate your
attention and commitment to addressing the case of Illinoisans
in particular that we discussed as well. Thank you for that.
Another topic--you already touched on some of the issues in
the Indo-Pacific particularly around the PRC and the PR--DPRK.
I would like to dive back into the issue of ASEAN and ASEAN
nations.
Since coming to the Senate I make a point of visiting
Southeast Asia annually to reinforce our friends and partners
there and those that we want to become our friends and partners
there, that the United States and particularly those of us in
the Senate care deeply about these longstanding historic
relationships and making sure that those relationships live up
to their potential.
And as you know, respect for ASEAN centrality has been a
core part of our foreign policy in that region. In fact, the
first Trump administration's Indo-Pacific strategy correctly
emphasized ASEAN centrality as an important principle.
Unfortunately, not all of President Trump's nominees this
time seem to grasp the importance or in fact know what ASEAN
is. Yesterday I was distinctly unimpressed when questioning
Secretary of Defense nominee Hegseth, and he could not mention
a single nation in ASEAN.
Particularly shameful when we have at least two major, non-
NATO allies in the bloc, one of which Thailand is the longest
treaty alliance that the United States has at over 190 years
long.
What can you share with us today about how you would
approach ASEAN as a whole and with individual member states to
capitalize on some of the key opportunities and challenges
facing the region?
I know you have spoken about the Philippines, but can you
build on that?
Senator Rubio. Sure. On ASEAN the first thing is, the
group's utility begins by the fact that through its 10 members.
They have also, I believe, have five or maybe it is six free
trade agreements now with neighboring countries as well.
Look, though, we have to be very pragmatic in our approach
and how we prioritize it. I think the group will always
struggle to coordinate unanimity on the issue of their
relationship with China.
If you look at the continental--Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia--
because of their geographic presence, because of history, they
lean a little bit more in the Chinese direction, and other
countries do not.
I think it would be a mistake for us to sort of make it as
a condition of our engagement with ASEAN to say you must pick a
side, and you must pick a side now--are you with them or are
you with us.
I think what I can safely say is that the overwhelming and
vast majority of the nation states in ASEAN, if not maybe all,
do not want to live in a region in which China is the
predominant power and they are viewed as tributary states to
Beijing and welcome U.S. engagement in the region as both an
economic and defense counterweight.
So I think we need to view this as--I think it would be a
mistake to go in with sort of a cold war mentality of pick a
side and pick a side now.
I think the broader approach is to say they have a vested
interest in us being involved. We have a vested interest as an
Indo-Pacific nation in involving ourselves through this forum
and finding opportunities both holistically through the 10
nations and individually through whatever bilateral
opportunities present itself.
Earlier--you may not have been here, but I was asked a
question about Thailand, and there is a group of Uyghurs that
are in Thailand that they are saying may be deported.
And I said this is one of our strongest, longest
relationships in the region, and maybe one of the longest and
strongest in the world, and that is where these relationships
really come to bear.
Not to browbeat them in a public forum, but through strong
diplomacy and using the benefit of that relationship to go to
Thailand and see if we cannot get them to not deport these
people into the hands of Chinese authorities, knowing the
atrocities that have been committed.
So that is a value added to this relationship. That is a
bilateral relationship we have with Thailand. It is not the one
we are going to have with every country in the region, but I do
think the forum serves as a useful platform for us to be able
to engage the region and individually these countries.
Senator Duckworth. So you would agree with what the first
Trump administration emphasized, which is that ASEAN
centrality, and I think this is something that the new ASEAN
chair Malaysia under Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is saying
with the Madani concept, which is growing that cohesion within
ASEAN itself.
And in dealing with the organization while we continue to
pursue those bilateral relationships with a stronger ASEAN can
be cohesively as a unit allows them to better deal with
countries like Myanmar, for example, and allows us to better
have those relations with them and also for them cohesively to
try to stand up to outside forces.
Senator Rubio. One of the things that I think--and I think
you saw this in the first Trump term and we will probably see
again--is to the extent you see production sort of moving from
China to other countries some of these countries stand to
benefit from that, assuming they themselves are not the target
of some tariff or what have you.
But I think there are benefits there in that regard. I
would imagine that there are also some concerns they would
share with us about maybe some of our other policies, economic
or otherwise.
But I do think it is an opportunity that provides some real
economic development benefit opportunities for a number of the
countries in ASEAN. We would hope all of them, but certainly
some more than others because of alignment of interests.
What I do think is we have to be realistic, and I just want
to reiterate this because I think this because I think
sometimes we go into these things viewing them with the lens of
NATO or something else.
The key component to understand is we are probably never
going to have sort of a overwhelming majority consensus on the
role China is going to play. But I do think you could argue
that the vast majority of countries in this forum, if not all,
do not want to live in a region in which China is the
predominant, overwhelming power and they all are viewed as sort
of tributary states.
They are not interested in that, and they view the United
States as a very logical and welcome economic and defense
counterweight to that.
Senator Duckworth. And I do think that even the mainland
ASEAN nations that, as you in your words, lean more toward
China, have suffered if you look at what happens with water.
We talk a lot about Mexico and water into Texas but also
with the Mekong River in ASEAN with the 10 dams that China has
built up rivers now affecting water and also arable lands
further down the river, and initiatives like the Two Rivers
Initiative which marries the Mississippi River, which is two-
thirds of the border of my home State, along with the Mekong
River, is a way for us to build some of these relationships and
bring in American expertise.
A different place where we can also provide expertise is
international disability rights. We have been working with
ASEAN on developing disability rights and a cohesive approach
to it in ASEAN.
But I think on an international scale whether it is ASEAN
or Ukraine as they rebuild, I do think that disability
awareness, rebuilding Ukraine to become more accessible,
promoting disability rights around the world is something that
is a way that we can engage with the rest of the world as well.
I would love to hear from you on disability rights around
the world.
Senator Rubio. And I say this, you know, sadly, it is going
to be of critical importance to nations that are emerging from
conflict, where we know in modern conflict people are injured
in ways that are now survivable, but leave them for the rest of
their lives with permanent disabilities.
And so I think it is going to be--in the case--from a very
practical perspective, in the case of Ukraine it is going to be
valuable because there are people that have been injured in
that conflict that for the rest of their lives are going to
have to deal with that, and it is conducive.
The other thing we have discussed is our diplomatic
facilities around the world and whether they are--and
understand that the number one job--the reason why we have
embassies and consulates, yes, we represent U.S. interests in
that country, but its number one obligation is to support
Americans.
If you lose your passport, God forbid you go to jail,
whatever it may be, that we have a presence there that can
support Americans abroad, and it was stunning for me in our
conversation to learn that there are a number of these
locations around the world that are not accessible to Americans
with disabilities that needed to access them.
So it is something that we would have to look--we would be
interested in looking at as well to make sure that just from
our core obligation we are able to fulfill it.
Senator Duckworth. And also it keeps many of your own staff
members who may have disabilities from serving in some of these
overseas missions.
As you said, highly trained well qualified regional
experts, subject matter experts, may not be able to serve in
some of these embassies where they can--it is not accessible
for them.
So I thank you for bringing that up, and I will yield back
my 9 seconds, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Risch. Oh, thank you so much.
Senator Duckworth. You are welcome.
Senator Risch. You are generous. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Senator Duckworth. Those are important
points.
Last but not least, welcome back, Senator Lee, to the
committee, and I appreciate you have had your work cut out for
you today in your new role as chairman of your committee.
But the floor is yours.
Senator Lee. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Senator Rubio, for your willingness to serve in this
position.
I am going to make a bold prediction and say that you are
likely to be confirmed. That is my prediction. I cannot speak
for others but I believe that nonetheless, and it is a
bittersweet moment.
I am back on the committee after 12 years of being away
from it. You and I came to this committee and to the Senate the
same time, both in our late 30s, the youngest members of the
Senate at the time, although you had me by exactly 7 days--7
days older.
Notwithstanding the fact that you were the older between
us, you have got all of your hair and it is not a single gray
hair in there. But I have deeply enjoyed working with you as a
colleague and getting to know you as a friend.
We have kids that are about the same age, and I have
watched yours grow, and it has just been a delight getting to
know you, Jeanette, and your kids, and I hope that will
continue.
But I will miss having you here, not only as my Spanish
teacher, not only as my source of Bible insights and my source
of comedic material, but also for your great insights on
foreign policy, domestic policy and everything else we do here.
You have just been great to work with, and you will be missed
in the very likely event that you are confirmed.
Let us talk first about the Western Hemisphere, an issue
that I know is near and dear to your heart and mine, and we
will start with the Panama Canal.
President Trump has recently talked a little bit about the
fact that there are some questions arising about the status of
the Panama Canal. When we look to the treaty at issue, the
treaty concerning the permanent neutrality and operation of the
Panama Canal, we are reminded that some things maybe are not
quite as they should be there right now.
Given that the Chinese now control major ports at the entry
and the exit to the canal, it seems appropriate to say that
there is at least an open question--there is some doubt as to
whether the canal remains neutral.
Would you agree with that assessment?
Senator Rubio. Yes. Here is the challenge. Number one is,
look, I want to be clear about something. The Panamanian
government, particularly its current office holders, are very
friendly to the United States and very cooperative, and we want
that to continue.
And I want to bifurcate that from the broader issue of the
canal. Now, I am not--President Trump is not inventing this.
This is something that has existed now for at least a decade in
my service here.
I took a trip to Panama in 2017--when on that trip to
Panama in 2017 it was the central issue we discussed about the
canal, and that is that Chinese companies control port
facilities at both ends of the canal, the east and the west,
and the concerns among military officials and security
officials including in Panama at that point, that that could
one day be used as a choke point to impede commerce in a moment
of conflict.
That is going back to then but I earlier to the--before you
got here, and I do not want to have to dig through this folder
to find it again, but basically cited that the--how the
immediate past head of Southern Command, just retired General
Richardson, said she flew over the canal, looked down and saw
those Chinese port facilities, and said those look like dual
use facilities that in a moment of conflict could be weaponized
against us.
The bipartisan China Commission over in the House last year
had testimony and hearings on this issue, and members of both
parties expressed concern. The former Ambassador to Panama
under President Obama has expressed those concerns. This is a
legitimate issue that needs to be confronted.
The second point is the one you touched upon, and that is,
look, could an argument be made--and I am not prepared to
answer it yet because it is something we are going to have to
study very carefully, but I think I have an inkling of I know
where this is going to head--can an argument be made that the
Chinese basically have effective control of the canal anytime
they want, because if they order a Chinese company that
controls the ports to shut it down or impede our transit they
will have to do so.
There is no independent Chinese companies. They all exist
because they have been identified as national champions. They
are supported by the Chinese government, and if you do not do
what they want they find a new CEO, and you end up being
replaced and removed. So they are under the complete control of
their government.
This is a legitimate question, and one that Senator Risch
had some insight as well--he mentioned that in passing--that
needs to be looked at. This is not a joke. The Panama Canal
issue is a very serious one.
Senator Lee. And so the mere potentiality of that, the
ability to exercise that control even until such time as they
do do it, as they do shut it down, is a concern, is it not?
Senator Rubio. I listened 48 hours ago to FBI Director Wray
in one of his exit interviews he gave to the press, and he said
the Chinese are embedded in our utilities and critical
infrastructure.
Now, he did not say every single day they are shutting off
to power in the United States. He said that if there is a
conflict, they are embedded, and they could shut off the power
in key places.
We have all identified that as a threat. The fact that you
can do it--you do not have to do it every day. No one is
claiming that the Chinese are shutting down the canal every
day.
What the claim is, the very legitimate concern is, that if
these companies control both ends of that canal in a time of
conflict, and the Chinese tell them shut it down, and do not
let the U.S. go through there we got a big, big problem--a big
economic problem and a big national security and defense
problem.
The ability to do it alone is a threat. We should not
ignore it. It is not a joke. It is a legitimate issue, and it
needs to be solved.
Senator Lee. Excellent, and that feeds right into the next
thing I wanted to ask you about, which just involves areas of
dual use capabilities throughout the Western Hemisphere--you
know, ports, infrastructure, critical minerals, and so forth.
We have had policies from the Biden administration
involving the supercilious use of untargeted foreign aid and
sort of cultural coercion in order to persuade them to or in an
effort to coerce some of these countries to adopt policies that
are contrary to their established cultural norms--abortion
rights, LGBT policies and curriculum, and so forth.
That probably has not helped in this conflict, in this
still somewhat soft conflict in which many of these countries
are opening their doors to China. I cannot imagine that will
have helped.
How will your approach to Chinese incursion in the Western
Hemisphere be different from those of the current
Administration?
Senator Rubio. Well, there are a couple points. The first
is the Chinese incursion in the hemisphere involves, number
one, investment of dollars. Like, as an example, they go into
some country. They say, here is $5 million or $10 million to
build a stadium.
But in exchange you have to let us build out your three--
you know, your 5G network using Huawei, Safe Cities, and the
like, and by the way, here is a couple million dollars for you
and your friends as a bribe.
OK. That is their first level of engagement. They go in,
and they--and then some ways they create deals that you cannot
possibly pay back, so now you have got a debt that you cannot
pay back, and they have you trapped, and now they have got your
vote at the U.N. and your cooperation on X, Y and Z, and that
happened in Panama, by the way.
In 2016-2017 that was well understood that part of the
investments they made in Panama were conditioned upon Panama's
ability to convince the Dominican Republic and other countries
to flip their recognition away from Taiwan.
That happened. So that is number one. The second element of
their involvement is they go into a country, and a Chinese
company will buy up the lithium mines or access to the rare
earth minerals in these long term contracts.
And that exists in allied countries. The Argentines will
tell you there are a number of business deals that the Chinese
and Chinese companies have gotten a hold of in Argentina, that
even if they wanted to back away they cannot get out of the
deals because of the way they were structured. So that is
number two.
And then number three is their presence. The Chinese are
actively involved in military installations in the Western
Hemisphere on the island of Cuba, 90 miles from our shores,
only a few hundred miles from where Space Force operates and
NASA and Cape Canaveral, only a few miles from MacDill where we
have Central Command and Special Operations Command, only a few
miles from Southern Command, only a few miles from Eglin Air
Force Base and the test range we have out in the Gulf of
Mexico--all of these things.
This is real, and it is operating right off the coast of
the United States. They have a presence in our region. So we
have to acknowledge that this is happening, and then we have to
be present and have counters to each of these, and/or there has
to be consequences for each of these.
Fortunately, the United States has strong relationships in
multiple key countries in the region, and I think we have the
opportunity to build upon that in ways that can attract the
sort of investment that they would rather have than the Chinese
investment.
But right now it is not available. It is not happening.
There is no American alternative to what the Chinese are
offering.
So, hopefully, we can provide the openings for that.
Senator Lee. Indeed, and I appreciate your enthusiasm and
thoughtfulness in providing that answer.
Now, you touch on another issue when you reference the
significance of agreements made by prior Administrations.
Obviously, the Javier Milei administration in Argentina would
not have been as likely to enter into those arrangements as his
predecessor was.
The United States--we have to keep this in mind. The
Constitution, of course, allocates the treaty making and
binding power and spreads it out between two branches. The
President can enter into a treaty, can sign a treaty, but that
treaty is not ratified unless two-thirds of the Senate does it.
So it flips the usual legislative process because it is a
different type of legislation.
Would you agree with me that that type of arrangement,
which is submission of a treaty after the President has entered
into it--after the President has signed it--the submission of
that treaty to the Senate for ratification and the ultimate
ratification by the Senate is a necessary precondition for an
international agreement to be binding on the United States of
America?
Senator Rubio. To be binding beyond the Administration that
entered into it. This was the case of the JCPOA which was being
sold to people as a treaty, but it was not, and the reason why
it was a political agreement. It was basically a political
arrangement between the current Administration and the regime
in Iran, and that is why President Trump had the authority to
pull us out of it when he did.
I think what is important understand about treaties in
general--and we talked about treaties here today with Mexico
with a number of other treaties that people may not be aware
of--every treaty by definition, OK, is a surrender of
sovereignty at some level as a nation.
But you do it, and you enter into it. Why? Why do you enter
into a treaty even though you are surrendering some
sovereignty? Because you have concluded that that surrender and
the benefit of it to the national interest or the national
security far outweighs the surrender of sovereignty and the
consequences of it, and that is why it is so critical that the
Senate be involved in that deliberation.
Because an individual Administration may get that calculus
wrong, but when you have this overwhelming majority that
concludes that it too agrees that that surrender of sovereignty
is exceeded by the benefit of the treaty, now you know you
have--you have increased your chances to have something that is
good and makes sense.
And so, you know, I agree with your view of it, and I think
that is the way I would hope we would pursue arrangements in
the future if we enter into any.
Senator Lee. That is why it takes two-thirds. Thank you so
much, Senator Rubio.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Risch. Senator Rubio, we know you have an
appointment at the White House at 3 o'clock. Senator Shaheen
has one brief question for you. I have a couple of brief
remarks, and then we will get you on your way.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Rubio. I think that was
a very impressive display of your knowledge of the global
situation.
But the one area that you mentioned but we have not really
talked about is the Arctic, and given what is happening in the
Arctic and China's designs on the Arctic, can you just speak to
what you think our posture ought to be with respect to the
Arctic?
Senator Rubio. Well, we are an Arctic power. The Russians
are a legitimate Arctic power. The Chinese are not. Whether
they are a near Arctic power or--I do not know what the term
they came up with to give an excuse for them to be up there.
I think--frankly, I know you did not ask me this question,
but it is one I welcome the ability to talk about is some of
this discussion with Greenland, putting aside all the things
that are going on in the media.
I think we need to understand that Greenland has been
strategically important to the United States and to the West
for a very long time. In fact, in 1941 at the outbreak of World
War II, the United States was signed up as a protectorate even
though Denmark had been occupied.
You think back into the--I think Harry Truman tried to buy
Denmark. Harry Truman had made an effort to try to buy it for,
like, $100 million. He was rebuffed, and then the U.S. has
maintained through a mutual defense agreement there the
opportunity to have military bases, and they had them for a
while.
Why? The reason why is because of where it is located
geographically. Yes, the access to the minerals on Greenland
are critically important. But as more navigable space is
opening up in the Arctic, particularly this northern passage
that goes from Russia to China--Russia to Asia and could cut
transit times by as much as 40 percent, the Arctic is going to
become incredibly critical.
And so we have to have a presence there. We have to have a
presence there, not just saying, OK, we have a base--we have
200 people, or we have a flag flying.
We have to have the ability, for example, to have the ships
that can navigate on the naval level and keep those shipping
lanes open if, in fact, they are being threatened.
We have to have partners along the Arctic region that will
join us in ensuring that the Arctic region is open for free and
flow of navigation as these as these passages open up, because
global trade is in many ways going to be infused by it.
We have positions within the State Department that I think
in the past have been diminished or people just have not paid a
lot of attention to--I just had this conversation the other day
with Senator Murkowski--that all of a sudden I think people are
interested in serving in Arctic affairs and in Arctic posts
because this issue of Greenland has opened our eyes to the
broader geographic importance of the Arctic region, which long
has been a curiosity or something people have not talked about.
But I think now we have the opportunity to see it for what
it is, and that is if not the most important, one of the most
critical parts of the world over the next 50 to 100 years will
be whether there is going to be freedom of navigation in the
Arctic and what that will mean for global trade and commerce.
Senator Risch. Thank you.
I am going to order that Senator Rubio's responses--written
responses to the questions regarding his relationship with this
committee be filed for the record.
I am also going to order that the letters in support of
Senator Rubio's confirmation be entered in the record.
[Editor's note.--The information referred to above can be
found in the ``Additional Material Submitted for the Record''
section at the end of this document.]
Senator Risch. And finally, I want to say thank you,
Senator Rubio, for providing us with the benefit of your
testimony. Your responses and your knowledge was outstanding.
This committee takes oversight of U.S. foreign assistance
extremely seriously. You know well that transparency and
accountability are paramount.
To that end, I want to flag for you my work with the Office
of the Inspector General on the State Department's Bureau for
Global Health Security and Diplomacy, PEPFAR, and the Biden
administration's failure to uphold long standing United States
laws protecting life in global health assistance.
In addition to my request for an investigation I have been
holding over a billion dollars in U.S. foreign assistance since
September of last year and will continue to do so until I can
be sure that not one single American tax dollar will be used to
perform or promote abortions overseas as that is required by
U.S. law.
I look forward to working with you on this in addition to
the many issues that we discussed here today.
Finally, I will note for the information of members of the
committee that the record will remain open until tomorrow,
Thursday, January 16 at 1 p.m. for members to submit questions
for the record.
Thank you. God bless you. We wish you well.
The committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:51 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Senator Marco Rubio by Senator James E. Risch
indo-pacific
Topic: Economic Engagement in the Indo-Pacific
Fair and reciprocal economic engagement with Indo-Pacific
partners can boost the U.S. economy and increase U.S. influence
at China's expense. President Trump achieved such an agreement
with Japan during his first term.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to pursuing beneficial
economic initiatives with complementary Indo-Pacific economies that
also support other U.S. policy goals? What would be your priorities in
this regard?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to pursuing beneficial
economic initiatives with complimentary Indo-Pacific economies that
also support other U.S. policy goals. President Trump's priorities of
working in the national interest to strengthen American national
security, build our alliances, expand the American economy, bolster the
American energy industry, and support American jobs and American
workers will guide our approach in this regard.
Topic: U.S. Allies and Partners
Deep security cooperation and alliance burden-sharing in the
Indo-Pacific is vital to U.S. interests and to deterring
China's aggression.
Question. Do you commit to prioritizing security access challenges
in the region if confirmed? What will be your priorities?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to prioritizing security access
challenges in the Indo-Pacific.
Question. Do you commit to further deepening security cooperation
with Taiwan in terms of both equipment and training, as required by the
Taiwan Enhanced Resilience Act?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to following the legal requirements
of the Taiwan Enhanced Resilience Act, which states that the Secretary
of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall use the
authorities to strengthen United States-Taiwan defense relationship,
and to support the acceleration of the modernization of Taiwan's
defense capabilities.
Question. Do you commit to deepened security cooperation with the
Philippines?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to further strengthening the U.S.-
Philippines alliance, to include security cooperation.
Topic: China in Europe
Question. Should China play any role in any peace process regarding
Ukraine or in the reconstruction of Ukraine?
Answer. China's material assistance has significantly enabled
Russia's ability to prosecute its war in Ukraine. The United States
will seek to end the war in Ukraine as expeditiously as possible.
Topic: China Reciprocity
Question. Do you commit to the following with respect to China: to
conduct an early review of and action on counterintelligence threats at
Mission China and other high-threat posts; to take necessary steps to
push back on the Chinese government's restrictions on U.S. use of the
diplomatic pouch; to push back on the PRC's restrictions on the
movement of U.S. diplomats and their interactions with different parts
of Chinese society; to directing your Assistant Secretary of East Asian
and Pacific Affairs, as well as senior management leadership, to
prioritize issues related to the Chinese government's harassment,
surveillance, and abuse of U.S. diplomats, including to ensure that
such incidents are reported properly by Mission China back to
Washington and receive attention from senior leadership; and to update
this committee on these matters regularly?
Answer. Yes.
Topic: State Department Personnel Footprint
Aligning State Department staffing with U.S. strategic
imperatives is vital. Today, that means aligning staffing to
support strategic competition--not just doing what the
Department has always done. For example, the committee heard
recently that while the U.S. has 33 officers total in the
Pacific Islands, it has 80 at the U.S. consulate in Casablanca,
Morocco alone.
Question. If confirmed, will you commit to initiating a rigorous
assessment of the State Department's footprint to ensure it is aligned
with the strategic imperatives of competing with China?
Answer. Yes.
Topic: China House
The Biden administration created China House to improve
coordination of China policy across the State Department, but
execution is not living up to this goal.
Question. Do you commit to undertaking a revamp of China House that
ensures the Department drives coordinated policy outcomes and that
Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, and their teams are
accountable for progress toward such policy outcomes?
Answer. Yes.
middle east and north africa
Topic: Iran Policy
There is growing agreement that the Obama-Biden approach to
Iran has ended in failure and directly contributed to the
assault against Israel and the crisis in the Middle East.
Israel's military operations--despite the Biden
Administration's hand-wringing--have severely degraded Iran and
present an opportunity to force the regime to make concessions.
Question. Do you believe we have an opportunity to further
constrain the regime? What are the major pillars of a new Iran
strategy?
Answer. The Iranian regime is at its weakest point in recent
memory, and perhaps ever. Their air defenses have been badly damaged
and their proxies have been decimated. The pillars of an effective Iran
strategy will include enforcement of sanctions coupled with meaningful
engagement with the international community to change the regime's
malign behavior.
Question. Many believe it is way too early to consider any
negotiated agreement with Tehran until they feel the full pressure of
US economic sanctions and military deterrence. What are your thoughts
on the timing of any negotiation with Tehran?
Answer. The United States should be open to any arrangement that
will lead to safety and stability for America's interests in the Middle
East, but one in which we remain clear-eyed about the threat the
Iranian regime poses to regional peace and security.
Topic: Syria Policy
Assad's ouster from Syria in December represents a
generational opportunity for Syrians to take back their
country, but reservations about the new regime's terrorist
history and radical ideology remain. The end of the Assad
regime also marks the end of the post-World War I
``settlement'' after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Syria
also represents a generational opportunity to engage with all
the countries in the region in an effort to ensure that the
people both Syria and its neighbors can live and prosper in
peace.
Question. What conditions will you be watching as Secretary of
State to ensure Syria does not become a terror haven that threatens
U.S. national security while supporting the aspirations of the Syrian
people?
Answer. The fall of the Assad regime has created a window of
opportunity for Syria to stabilize and leave behind the Assad family's
brutal legacy of sponsorship of terrorism and aggression against its
neighbors. However, any successor government or interim administration
in Damascus should be judged by its actions rather than its words.
Topic: Israel-Saudi Normalization
Despite the events of & October and the attack against
Israel, it remains in our interests to normalize relations
between Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Question. Do you see Israel-Saudi normalization as a viable pathway
to heal the region after the trauma of Hamas' October 7 terrorist
attack?
Answer. Achieving normal relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia
in particular would set the conditions for regional peace and
prosperity, not only in the Middle East, but in other parts of the
world. This will, in turn, reduce the threat of terrorism to the U.S.
homeland and to our and our allies' interests worldwide. Achieving
normalization of relations between Israel and its regional neighbors,
including Saudi Arabia, was a major strategic objective of the first
Trump administration and will continue to be a major priority in the
second Trump administration.
Topic: Houthi Threat
The Biden administration labelled the Saudis as a ``pariah'',
delisted the Houthis as a terror organization, and did all it
could to undercut Saudi military efforts in Yemen. Four years
later, the Red Sea is virtually closed to international
shipping and the US is actively bombing Yemen--clearly Biden's
approach did not work.
Question. Do you support re-designating the Houthis as a Foreign
Terror Organization?
Answer. Yes.
europe
Topic: Support for Ukraine
Question. Given the current dynamics on the battlefield in Ukraine,
do you believe that Putin has any incentive to come to the negotiating
table? If not, what can the US do to pressure Putin to talk and
increase President Trump's leverage at the negotiating table?
Answer. President Trump has been steadfast in his commitment to
seeking an end to the war. Ukraine's forces have imposed considerable
costs on the Russian military and people, thereby creating strong
incentives for Putin to come to the negotiating table.
Topic: Biden Failures in Ukraine
Question. Do you believe that Putin succeeded in successfully
frightening and deterring the Biden administration from providing the
decisive support to Ukraine and strong sanctions needed to bring the
war to a speedier conclusion?
Answer. The Biden administration's policies failed to deter the
Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Trump administration will not hesitate
to take necessary steps to restore and strengthen deterrence against
aggression.
Question. As Secretary of State, how would you restore American
deterrence and make Putin worry about what the United States is going
to do--rather than the other way around?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work to advance President Trump's
vision of peace through strength by restoring the credibility of
American deterrence. Putin should make no mistake about the resolve and
capability of the United States under the leadership of President
Trump.
Topic: NATO
Question. What is your plan to engage NATO Allies on increasing
burden sharing, investing in defense industrial capacity, and aligning
on global security issues beyond Europe, such as in the Middle East and
Indo-Pacific?
Answer. President Trump has made it clear that allies share burdens
and need a common vision of a robust security profile. If confirmed, I
will work with the President and with our allies across the globe to
advance those goals.
Topic: European Economic reliance on China
Question. How will you ensure Europe accelerates efforts to reduce
its economic overreliance on China while making sure Europeans don't
grant themselves an unfair advantage over American companies?
Answer. If confirmed, I will advocate that our European friends and
allies become more self-sufficient, and will advocate for the
President's policies concerning the need for a level economic playing
field.
sanctions
Topic: REPO Act
Last year, The Rebuilding Economic Prosperity for Ukrainians
(REPO) Act was signed into law. As a result, the G-7 will
provide Ukraine an additional $50 billion in assistance paid
for by interest earned off immobilized Russian sovereign assets
(i.e., interest earned on Putin's own money--not that [of] U.S.
or European taxpayers). $300 billion in Russian sovereign money
remains immobilized globally. Most of this money is in Europe.
The REPO Act authorizes the U.S. to confiscate and repurpose
the underlying assets for the benefit of Ukraine and directs
the U.S. to work with partners and allies to do the same.
Question. Will you commit to keep all options on the table and work
with our G-7 partners on the potential to confiscate the full $300
billion in immobilized Russian sovereign assets for Ukraine?
Answer. President Trump has consistently demonstrated both skill
and resolve in a wide variety of negotiations, including those dealing
with sanctions. If confirmed, I will support the President's efforts to
negotiate with Russia's leaders.
Topic: Ghost Fleets
Since the invasion of Ukraine, hundreds of illicit Russian
shadow fleet vessels sustain Russia's oil trade. These ships
are very old, not well maintained or staffed, engage in risky
navigation practices, and lack adequate insurance. This illicit
oil trade continues to fund the Russian war machine and poses a
significant risk of a major oil spill or collision at sea. A
similar shadow fleet also continues to fund the Iranian
regime's malign behavior and presents many of the same risks.
Question. What steps will you take to curtail the growth of these
shadow fleets?
Answer. The existence of the Russian and Iranian ``shadow'' fleets
demonstrates that the current policies and sanctions imposed by the
United States and other nations have not achieved their goals. If
confirmed, I will lead a review of all of our sanctions policies so as
to ensure that the President has the tools he needs to negotiate
agreements that will resolve the problems that led to the imposition of
sanctions in the first place, and I will, if confirmed, ensure that
Congress is kept fully informed of the conclusions of that review.
Topic: Office of Sanctions Coordinator
In December 2020, President Trump signed into law a provision
that I spearheaded which re-established an Office of Sanctions
Coordinator within the State Department. This office is
intended to coordinate in three main ways: 1) within the
Department itself; 2) across the executive branch and the
interagency; and 3) for foreign countries for questions
concerning U.S. sanctions policy.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to provide this office the
attention, support, and resources needed to ensure its success and the
fulfillment of its statutory mandate?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with this
Committee to ensure that the Office of Sanctions Coordinator at the
State Department has the attention, support, and resources it needs,
both within the Department and in the Interagency to fulfill its
statutory mandate.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to supporting the nomination
of a qualified sanctions professional with expertise in the sanctions
field to serve as the Senate-confirmed head of the office?
Answer. This is a question that I will be better able to address if
I am confirmed. Filling Senate-confirmed vacancies will be among my
highest priorities, if confirmed.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to work with my office and
this committee to ensure that this office succeeds and fulfills its
statutory mandate?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working with your office and this
committee to ensure that the office succeeds and fulfills its statutory
mandate.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to direct the State
Department to brief my office and this committee in a timely fashion
with respect to sanctions policy developments as they occur?
Answer. Yes. I respect Congress's important role in the development
of sanctions policy.
human rights and international organizations
Topic: UNRWA
Many in the Senate have long advocated for the reform of U.N.
Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), a bloated and misguided
organization that has outlived its mandate. Since October 7,
calls to reform and eliminate UNRWA have grown within Congress.
Question. Do you support the elimination of UNRWA? What does a
post-UNRWA environment look like to you?
Answer. UNRWA's role, however inadvertent, in enabling the
terrorist attacks and massacres of October 7, 2023 was unacceptable. It
is clear that a significant number of UNRWA employees and beneficiaries
were terrorists from Hamas and other militant groups who utilized UNRWA
resources and access as they planned and carried out an unprecedented
terrorist offensive against Israel in which dozens of Americans were
killed, tortured, or kidnapped. It is also clear that Hamas and other
terrorist organizations were able for many years to channel U.N.
resources into the building of their military and terrorist operational
capabilities. Never again should a U.N. agency be allowed to play such
a role.
Question. How can we ensure that any follow-on organization does
not follow in UNRWA's footsteps?
Answer. That UNRWA became a resource for Hamas and other terrorist
organizations in Gaza was the result of failed U.N. leadership. The
U.N. system must be reformed to hold derelict U.N. agency leaders
accountable for the consequences of their programs on the ground.
political military affairs
Topic: AUKUS
It has been over 3 years since AUKUS was announced and little
has been done to show substantive progress from it. AUKUS was
created to streamline cooperation among our closest allies and
partners, but onerous technology sharing restrictions continue
to limit our ability to seamlessly transfer and co-produce
advanced capabilities under Pillar II.
Question. If confirmed, will you create an anticipatory release
policy for the transfer of AUKUS Pillar II technologies that are not
covered by an exemption under the International Traffic in Arms
Regulations?
Answer. Given the challenges in the submarine industrial base,
Pillar II of Aukus may be the near term success objective. The U.S. and
its trilateral partners need to not self-constrain the development and
delivery of critical Pillar II technology where possible to reflect the
new Administration priorities.
Topic: Prioritizing Security Assistance
The preponderance of Foreign Military Financing (FMF) is
earmarked for Middle Eastern partners and what remains is
allocated in a piecemeal fashion to advance a variety of
foreign policy goals other than building the capacity of U.S.
allies and partners to counter Chinese aggression.
Question. If confirmed, will you prioritize allocating FMF to
states on the front line of resisting Chinese aggression in the Indo-
Pacific?
Answer. FMF and other security assistance programs should be
prioritized based on risk and reflect the priorities of the new
Administration.
Topic: FMS Reform
The Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and Direct Commercial System
(DCS) processes are poorly suited to meet the urgent challenges
of today's security environment. FMS and DCS are characterized
by lengthy delays, a lack of predictability and transparency
for both U.S. industry and our partners, and the unwillingness
of the USG to prioritize requirements according to threats.
Question. Do you believe the current FMS and DCS based arms
transfer process provides for the timely delivery of military
capabilities at a scale sufficient to enable allies to share the burden
of deterring China and other U.S. adversaries?
Answer. The Department is committed to a Security Assistance
processes that expedites assistance to allies and partners and provides
predictability and transparency where possible.
Question. If confirmed, will you commit to implementing a policy
that creates a time-based process for making licensing decisions of
Direct Commercial Sales cases and for technology release decisions of
Foreign Military Sales cases?
Answer. The Administration will pursue policies that provide
Security Assistance to partners in the most expeditious way possible to
reflect the new Administration's priorities.
Topic: Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)
The nuclear weapons landscape has deteriorated rapidly under
the Biden administration. Given the current two-peer nuclear
armed environment with Russia and China both accelerating their
nuclear buildup, it is imperative that our nuclear posture
adapt accordingly.
Question. Do you believe the Trump Administration needs to produce
a new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) or does the Biden Administration's
2022 NPR and its November 2024 Nuclear Weapons Employment Strategy
provide sufficient nuclear policy guidance for the incoming Trump
Administration?
Answer. The Trump Administration will require significant
modifications from the Biden Administration nuclear weapons policy and
strategy. This process may not require a year long Nuclear Posture
Review given near term and immediate steps that can be taken.
western hemisphere
Topic: Fentanyl
Fentanyl and other synthetic drugs are responsible for nearly
all fatal drug overdoses in our country. China remains the
primary source of precursor chemicals being used by Mexican
cartels to manufacture and traffic these deadly drugs into the
US.
Question. If confirmed, would you support imposing visa and
financial sanctions on any agency or instrumentality of a foreign state
that facilitates significant financial transactions for opioid and
illicit precursor traffickers?
Answer. Trafficking of illicit synthetic opioids, primarily
fentanyl, has wreaked havoc on America. If confirmed, I would work
shoulder to shoulder with the White House and my fellow Cabinet
officials to hold accountable the facilitators of the opioid crisis.
Topic: Venezuela
There have been more than a dozen failed attempts to restore
democratic order in Venezuela. The United States and Europe
have tried engagement and economic pressure, including
individual sanctions on hundreds of regime officials.
Question. Please describe your views on the conditions under which
there can be a successful transition to democratic order in Venezuela.
Answer. As I discussed during my hearing, the Biden administration
was mistaken to have allowed the Maduro regime to fool them. If
confirmed, I would treat Venezuela not as a country run by a government
but as one run by a narco-trafficking organization.
Topic: Cocaine Production in Colombia
Colombia remains the top producer of cocaine in the world.
Cocaine overdose deaths in America have skyrocketed, alongside
deaths related to fentanyl and synthetic opioids.
Unfortunately, the Colombian Government refuses to eradicate
the coca plant used to produce cocaine, and cocaine production
is at record highs in Colombia.
Question. If confirmed, would you support the provision of U.S.
technical assistance to Colombia for aerial eradication programs in
Colombia?
Answer. Under the Petro administration, coca and cocaine production
has skyrocketed, with much of it ended up in America's communities.
That is unacceptable. If confirmed, I commit to pursuing efforts to
reverse this trend.
africa
Topic: U.S. Credibility in Africa
The Biden Administration's Africa policy resembled a
marketing campaign targeting African elites, diaspora
communities, and its domestic base with flashy events and
promises. Instead of substantive engagement with clear
objectives, it pursued poorly conceived Presidential and
diplomatic initiatives and questionable development programs.
One example is a U.S.-backed railroad, marketed as countering
China but, as of now, primarily facilitating the PRC's mineral
extraction. U.S. credibility has faltered, leaving Africans
asking, `Where is the United States?' Meanwhile, strategic
competitors expand their influence.
Question. How will you steer U.S. policy in Africa differently if
confirmed?
Answer. As I highlighted in my hearing, there are a lot of
opportunities for the United States on the continent over the coming
years. A lot of challenges too. If confirmed, I commit to taking a
long-term, strategic approach toward Africa. The United States has many
friends in Africa. If confirmed, I will focus on building strategic
partnerships that serve both America's strategic interests and those of
our friends on the continent. Unless we do so, it will not be possible
to develop pragmatic solutions to problems, or to seize opportunities
to advance U.S. diplomatic and economic interests.
Topic: Sudan
The war in Sudan is among the world's most devastating
conflicts, posing a severe humanitarian crisis. Without U.S.
leadership, the conflict risks destabilizing the region,
enabling exploitation by malign foreign actors like Russia and
Iran, and causing the collapse of a nation central to the Red
Sea and Horn of Africa regions.
Question. If confirmed, how will you ensure the United States is
leading in resolving the Sudan conflict and stabilizing this critical
region?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review our diplomatic engagements in
Sudan and with other countries so as to ensure that the President is in
a position to lead the effort to bring the conflict to an end and reach
agreement on how best to work with our allies to alleviate this
humanitarian crisis.
Question. How will you structure the Department's engagement with
the belligerents, the Sudanese people, like-minded partners, and the
various proxy actors involved in this war?
Answer. If confirmed, I will order a full review on how best to
engage the belligerents, the Sudanese people, partners in the region,
and other relevant actors in an effort to bring this conflict to a
close.
Question. Will you commit to working with this Committee to ensure
the U.S. leads on ending the war in Sudan?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Committee
to ensure U.S. diplomacy is fully authorized, resourced, and postured
to not only alleviate the humanitarian crisis and end the war in Sudan,
but ensuring the U.S. leads in that effort.
Topic: Chinese Malign Influence
China's presence in Africa is well-established and continues
to expand across many countries. The United States has
approached countering China mainly through the lens of
competition, often without the requisite level of commitment
and resources needed to compete effectively and build enduring,
mutually beneficial partnerships that reflect American values.
Question. What steps will you take to enhance U.S. presence and
engagement in Africa, not merely as a response to competition but to
foster stable, effective, and strong partnerships that advance U.S.
interests and our African partners?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working with experts within the
Department and across the interagency to develop the most effective
engagement strategy that successfully counters China's maligned
influences, while offering an attractive alternative that advances the
U.S. interest on the continent by building strong partnerships with
responsible and capable African partners.
Topic: Somalia
Twenty years after the fall of the Siad Barre regime, and 12
years since the United States recognized the Federal Government
of Somalia (FGS) in Mogadishu, Somalia remains a failed state.
The US and other members of the international community--
bilaterally and through multilateral missions--are engaged
kinetically to defeat al-Shabaab, support the development of
functional state institutions, and meet the dire humanitarian
needs of large portions of the Somali population. The security
and governance conditions in Somalia are not uniform, varying
significantly across the Federal Member States.
Question. As Secretary of State, if confirmed, how will you
approach the US relationship with Somalia and its Federal Member
States, including Somaliland? Will you pursue a new strategy toward
Somalia?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working with experts within the
Department and across the interagency to assess our current approach
toward the government in Mogadishu and the governments of Somalia's
Federal Member States as well as Somaliland, and to develop a pragmatic
strategy for the Department's engagement going forward based on the
assessment's findings. This will ensure that the tremendous resources
that the American people have invested since the collapse of Somalia
more than three decades ago are deployed to best effect.
Topic: Countering Disinformation and American Public Diplomacy
In Sub-Saharan Africa, the United States faces serious
challenges to countering the narratives of global malign actors
and anti-West military juntas.
Question. Is the State Department adequately invested in public
diplomacy in Africa?
Answer. If confirmed, I will commit to ensuring that the Department
has adequate resources for all its responsibilities, including the
important work of public diplomacy.
Question. As Secretary of State, how will you ensure that we tell
the positive story of American partnership and investment, while also
countering dis- and mis-information and use public communications to
engage in strategic competition?
Answer. If confirmed, I will commit to working with the Department
and interagency to ensure we are effectively telling the American
narrative in Africa, while countering the disinformation efforts of the
PRC, Russia, and other malign actors without engaging in censorship.
Topic: Staffing Issues in AF Bureau
The Bureau for African Affairs is woefully and
disproportionately understaffed and under-supported, with
critical posts in Washington and at Embassies vacant.
Question. As Secretary of State, if confirmed, do you commit to
addressing the specific challenges faced in staffing the Bureau of
African Affairs and to working with this Committee to develop
legislative fixes as needed?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Committee
to ensure that the entire Department is adequately staffed to meet its
statutory requirements.
state management (& oversight)
Topic: DEIA
Over the past 4 years, the State Department has gone to the
extreme pushing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility
(DEIA). Frequently, the advancement of DEIA was done at the
expense of merit, with promotions and plum positions going to
those who could fall in line the fastest and the loudest on
DEIA. It is far past time for the State Department to drop DEIA
and return to merit for all personnel issues.
Question. Do you think the State Department should drop DEIA and
return to merit? What other policies will you pursue to address this
overreach?
Answer. DEIA is contrary to law. If confirmed, I will require that
all employees of the Department and related agencies work in an
environment free from discrimination; that they are fairly evaluated;
and that none of them are penalized for real or perceived infractions
of the Biden Administration's DEIA policies.
Topic: Embassy Construction and Risk Management
My Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of
2022 (SECCA 2022) was enacted more than 2 years ago as a way to
force the Department to re-balance its risk calculus, yet the
State Department has yet to fully implement it.
Question. Do you support fully implementing SECCA 2022 to reduce to
costs at embassies and consulates?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the implementation progress of
SECCA 2022 to ensure efficient costs at embassies and consulates. It is
important to ensure the efficient use of taxpayer resources.
Question. Will you promulgate guidance that requires all parts of
the Department, including the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, to
implement SECCA 2022?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review any pending guidance and seek
input from all Bureaus to determine any future guidance will make
America safer, stronger, and more prosperous.
Question. Do you support a greater risk tolerance within the
Department, especially in senior leadership, to better allow our
diplomats to get outside of embassy walls to advance U.S. national
interests?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review security and safety protocols
for senior leadership and diplomats to ensure it will make America
safer, stronger, and more prosperous.
Topic: Embassy Construction and Risk Management
The recently enacted State Department Authorization Act
included my legislation, the Embassy in a Box Act. This bill
requires that the Department reduce bureaucratic hurdles to
build new embassies in the South Pacific and Caribbean faster
in order to better compete with the Chinese in those regions.
Question. Do you fully support implementing my Embassy in a Box
Act? Would you promulgate guidance on doing so to the Department within
your first 90 days as Secretary?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review how the department can fully
implement the Embassy in a Box Act and take action within the first 90
days to make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous.
Topic: State Department Authorization
We have successfully passed a State Department authorization
bill for four straight years, following nearly two decades
without any authorizations. As Chairman, I welcome your input
on potential provisions for inclusion in this year's State
Department authorization. However, over the past 4 years, the
Department has sent requests far too late, often several months
into the process.
Question. Do you support the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's
responsibility to enact a State Department authorization? Do you pledge
to provide this committee with any State Department requests for
authorization no later than April 1, 2025?
Answer. Yes, I support enactment of a State Department
authorization. If confirmed, I will ensure timely requests for
authorization are sent to Congress.
Topic: Congressional Travel
As you personally know, Congressional Delegations (CODELs)
and Staff Delegations (STAFFDELs) serve a critical oversight
mission. However, in a departure from historic practices the
Department has repeatedly denied or pushed-back on CODELs and
STAFFDELs.
Question. Do you pledge to support fully CODELs and STAFFDELs that
seek to travel to U.S. missions?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to support fully any CODEL or STAFFDEL, with
exceptions only for simultaneous or overlapping visits by the President
or First Lady of the United States, the Vice President, or the
Secretaries of State or Defense?
Answer. Yes.
Topic: Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) at the State Department
The department has made a great amount of forward progress
leveraging innovative AI and data centric capabilities to
advance the mission, including through the modernization of the
Operations Center and tools such as StateChat.
Question. Will you continue to support and expand these efforts?
Answer. If I am confirmed, the assessment and use of innovative
technologies to help the State Department staff work more effectively
and modernize the State Department will be important to ensure the
Department operates the best way it can to support American diplomatic
and national security policy. An effective, modern, and equipped State
Department is critical for American national security and diplomatic
success.
Question. Will you support the adoption of modern commercial
software solutions to modernize critical operational platforms such as
Visa and Passport adjudication and to assist other department functions
in areas such as diplomatic security?
Answer. If I am confirmed, the assessment and use of innovative
technologies to modernize critical operational platforms such as Visa
and Passport adjudication and to assist other department function
areas, such as diplomatic security, will be an important priority. An
effective, modern, and equipped State Department is critical for
American national security and diplomatic success.
Question. Will you encourage the adoption of AI to advance our data
driven diplomacy efforts?
Answer. Yes.
foreign assistance
Topic: Global Health Security and International Pandemic Prevention,
Preparedness, and Response Act Implementation
Question. If confirmed, will you work to align policy and budget
coordination for global health security and diplomacy under the
Coordinator for Global Health Security and Diplomacy at the Department
of State, as envisioned by the Global Health Security and International
Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response Act?
Answer. If confirmed, I will do my best to comply with the law and
to align policy and budget priorities across-the-board.
Topic: Foreign Assistance Transparency and Accountability
You were the original champion of the Foreign Aid
Transparency and Accountability Act in the Senate.
Question. Do you stand by the argument that the American people
deserve to know who and what they are funding overseas?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree that, in addition to prime implementers,
sub-prime grantees and contractors should also be disclosed to the
American people?
Answer. Yes.
Topic: Abortion
Question. If confirmed, will you uphold all laws prohibiting the
provision of U.S. foreign assistance to perform or promote abortion, or
to lobby for or against the legalization of abortion, overseas?
Answer. Yes.
Topic: PEPFAR
Dysfunction between the two principal implementers of U.S.
global health assistance--the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC)--have long plagued U.S. global health
programs. That's why Congress placed responsibility for
coordinating the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
(PEPFAR) within the Department of State. PEPFAR is now
recognized as one of the most successful U.S. foreign
assistance programs and has saved millions of lives,
strengthened health systems and supply chains, and advanced key
U.S. diplomatic, economic, and security goals.
Question. Do you agree that the PEPFAR model, including the
coordinating role played by the Department of State, has been
successful?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work within the PEPFAR framework to
review its outcomes and to inform Congress of the Department's
findings.
Question. What is the future of PEPFAR? With an increasing number
of partner countries reaching epidemic control and taking greater
responsibility for managing their own epidemics, should U.S. country
teams be allowed to use PEPFAR funds to advance broader development
objectives, or should PEPFAR budgets be reduced while allocations for
other development objectives are adjusted?
Answer. If confirmed, I will address these questions after an
evaluation of PEPFAR outcomes and the process by which PEPFAR is
administered and coordinated.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Senator Marco Rubio by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
El Salvador
For over 33 months, the Bukele government has been operating
outside of normal constitutional order under a State of
Exception that has given the government an extraordinarily
broad range of security powers. The State of Exception has
resulted in tens of thousands of Salvadorans being arbitrarily
arrested without due process, countless allegations of torture
and disappearances, mass trials and a lack of access to
families and counsel for detainees.
Question. Do you believe democratic governance and human rights
issues should be a priority for U.S.-El Salvador relations, just as
such issues are a priority for relations with Venezuela, Cuba and
Nicaragua?
Question. Do you commit to publicly expressing concerns over
actions that undermine democratic governance and human rights in El
Salvador?
Question. Do you assess that El Salvador's State of Exception is a
sustainable solution to El Salvador's gang violence, and do you believe
it should be U.S. policy to support the continuation of the State of
Exception?
Answer. El Salvador is a key partner of the United States. The
Department's public and private engagements will be guided by the
U.S.'s interests, shared priorities, and areas of opportunity for
deepening cooperation. And if confirmed, I will evaluate the relevant
U.S. policies needed to advance security and stability in Central
America.
State Department Management
Question. Do you support maintaining the U.S. Agency for
International Development as a separate agency from the U.S. Department
of State?
Answer. Support for the mission of USAID cannot be separated from
the larger issue of faithful stewardship of the hard-earned tax dollars
of American taxpayers. Congress entrusts several Departments and
agencies with authority to administer funds it appropriates for foreign
assistance in a manner consistent with the President's policies and
priorities.
Question. Will you oppose any potential efforts to consolidate
USAID into the Department of State?
Answer. The Secretary of State is responsible for coordinating all
foreign assistance. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that foreign
assistance funds are spent wisely and in a manner that advances the
President's policies and priorities.
Question. Do you commit to consulting with the Committee at least
45 days in advance of any plans to institute a hiring freeze or make
other significant organizational changes?
Answer. If confirmed, I will consult, as appropriate, with the
relevant congressional committees.
Question. Do you agree to appear before the Committee in advance to
discuss any plans to change the footprint of the Department of State
workforce?
Answer. If confirmed, I will seek to keep all relevant
congressional committees appropriately informed.
Consular Affairs
With the Passport and Visa Processing Centers located in my
home State of New Hampshire, I have closely monitored recent
efforts, including through State Authorization, to improve
passport services, including the launching of the online
passport renewal program and the expansion of passport
agencies.
Question. What areas still require improvement, and how will you
prioritize enhancing visa services as well as passport services within
the Department's broader modernization efforts to improve services for
Americans and ensure previous backlogs and delays remain a thing of the
past?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my staff, especially in the
Bureau of Consular Affairs to identify ways to effectively modernize,
streamline, and enhance visa and passport services to improve services
for Americans and minimize unnecessary delays and backlogs.
Question. How, if at all, are changes expected to impact the
Consular Affairs Bureau's passport and visa workforce including
contractors?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my staff, especially in the
Bureau of Consular Affairs to identify what, if any, workforce changes
will help to effectively modernize, streamline, and enhance visa and
passport services and to improve services for Americans while
minimizing unnecessary delays and backlogs.
Syria
Question. Following the fall of the Assad regime, what is your
assessment of the key challenges to re-opening Embassy Damascus and how
long do you think it could take to re-open the Embassy on a permanent
basis?
Answer. If confirmed, I will instruct the State Department to
conduct a formal assessment to determine whether to reopen Embassy
Damascus and to develop options to do so as quickly as is advisable to
advance our national security interests.
Question. In the absence of a full embassy, what steps will you
take to ensure we have a strong and consistent diplomatic presence to
engage stakeholders in Syria?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the State Department uses
its Syria Regional Platform and other relevant platforms such as
Embassy Amman to engage Syrian stakeholders as needed to advance U.S.
interests in Syria.
Disinformation
As you know, the Global Engagement Center, which led and
coordinated U.S. efforts on countering foreign propaganda and
disinformation, was not reauthorized by the Continuing
Resolution Congress passed in December.
Question. Do you agree that the State Department should have a
dedicated effort, including experts, focused on identifying, exposing
and countering foreign information manipulation and interference?
Answer. In my testimony before the Committee, I highlighted how
I've been subjected to foreign disinformation campaigns. These efforts
are not only designed to disrupt our political landscape, tarnish
reputations, and create chaos, but they also seek to erode America's
credibility worldwide. The U.S. State Department plays a crucial role
in countering such propaganda and promoting the merits of America
abroad.
Question. What is your plan to ensure that these important
countering disinformation functions continue?
Answer. In my testimony before the Committee, I discussed how
efforts to combat misinformation and disinformation have sometimes led
to the censorship of individuals voicing their political views, both
domestically and internationally. The most effective strategy against
foreign propaganda campaigns that aim to undermine America's global
reputation is to proudly highlight our strengths. America has much to
boast about, and we should confidently share our narrative.
Question. Will you commit to update me on efforts to respond to
foreign information manipulation and interference within 60 days of
your swearing in as Secretary of State?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with this
Committee to advance a foreign policy that puts America and Americans
first; and I will ensure you remain apprised of all relevant
information.
Alliance Building
Question. What partnerships that the Biden administration
initiated, such as AUKUS or the Quad, will you seek to maintain and
build upon?
Answer. In my testimony to the Committee, I described AUKUS as a
model for forming consortium-like partnerships with allied nations to
tackle specific challenges. Similar to the Quad, this initiative is a
response to the increasingly assertive actions of the Chinese Communist
Party. These are pragmatic measures we can implement to bolster
America's position.
Question. What role will our alliances and partnerships play in
maintaining U.S. competitiveness, particularly if the Trump
administration levies tariffs or other actions in the trade and
technology domain?
Answer. For decades, the U.S. has outsourced jobs, technology, and
intellectual property to foreign countries. This shortsightedness has
devastated vital industries and once-prosperous communities,
simultaneously contributing to the ascendancy of the Chinese Communist
Party. We intend to collaborate with our allies and partners to foster
trade that advantages American citizens, safeguards our essential
supply chains, and repatriates jobs to the United States.
Western Balkans
Question. If confirmed, will you commit to maintaining and building
upon the U.S. approach to date regarding sanctions for significant
human rights violations and corruption in the Western Balkans, as well
as Russia's harmful foreign activities in the Western Balkans?
Answer. If confirmed, I would continue to support human rights and
good governance, including in the Western Balkans. Where appropriate, I
would support using sanctions and other tools of statecraft to advance
U.S. interests and principles.
Question. What would be your approach to supporting the Euro-
Atlantic accession processes for Albania, Bosnia, Moldova, Montenegro,
North Macedonia, Serbia and Kosovo?
Answer. If confirmed, I would welcome further alignment between the
nations listed and the United States. Albania, North Macedonia, and
Montenegro are NATO members and as such, U.S. treaty allies. Many of
these nations are also aspirants to EU membership. The United States
has been supportive of further European integration while EU accession
remains an EU-driven process at the discretion of EU member states.
Georgia
Question. If confirmed, will you commit to ensuring that support
for Georgian democracy will be at the heart of U.S. policy toward the
Republic of Georgia?
Answer. If confirmed, I will pursue a foreign policy toward Georgia
that is in our national interest and supportive of Georgian democracy.
Question. Will you commit to supporting additional sanctions
against individuals blocking Georgia's Euro Atlantic integration,
including those engaging in or supporting the activities of sanctioned
oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit that any and all sanctions will be
considered to advance the objectives of U.S. foreign policy, including
any additional sanctions that might be appropriate in the case of
Georgia.
Belarus
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to supporting a Special Envoy
for Belarus, as required by the Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense
Authorization Act?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit that any and all sanctions will be
considered to advance the objectives of U.S. foreign policy, including
any additional sanctions that might be appropriate in the case of
Georgia.
Question. How will you work to support the release of the more than
1,200 political prisoners in Belarus, especially those like Ihar Losik,
Viktar Babaryka, Siarhei Tsikhanouski, Maria Kalesnikava and Mikalai
Statkevich?
Answer. If confirmed, I affirm that adequate diplomatic efforts
will be devoted to securing the release of wrongfully detained
individuals, including any and all political prisoners in Belarus.
Fentanyl Trafficking
Question. How will you work with interagency partners and the
Mexican government to address this issue, and what specific additional
steps do you believe both our governments must take, including to
address fentanyl coming to the Western Hemisphere from the PRC?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I would seek to deepen cooperation with
the Government of Mexico and also work with my fellow Cabinet members
to ensure that our efforts to identify and punish traffickers are
coordinated and effective.
Women, Peace and Security
Question. What specific actions will you take to ensure the State
Department leads the interagency in meaningfully and fully implementing
the Women, Peace and Security Act with respect to peace processes and
humanitarian responses around the world?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with relevant Bureaus to ensure
meaningful implementation of the Women, Peace and Security Act.
Iran
As a co-sponsor of S. Res. 599, I have been very concerned
about 2,500 Iranian dissidents located in Ashraf-3 in Albania.
The Iranian regime is using coercion and threats against the
Albanian government--including what appear to have been cyber-
attacks--to influence the treatment of the residents of Ashraf-
3.
Question. If confirmed, will you work with the Albanian government
to ensure that it fulfills all its obligations as the host to the
community at Ashraf-3?
Answer. Yes.
Peace Through Strength
President-elect Trump has often spoken about his vision for a
`peace through strength' policy when it comes to U.S. foreign
policy and national security. In the 2024 Republican Party
platform, a return to `peace through strength' included calls
to ``strengthen alliances'' and ``strengthen Economic,
Military, and Diplomatic capabilities.'' If confirmed as
Secretary of State, you will be charged with formulating and
executing the Administration's foreign policy goals and leading
America's premier foreign affairs agency.
Question. How do you see the State Department and America's
civilian development and diplomacy tools contributing to a
comprehensive approach to advancing `peace through strength'?
Answer. The U.S. State Department plays a pivotal role in ensuring
the safety and security of American citizens. By bolstering diplomatic
ties with allies and partners, we unlock opportunities for greater
economic and security collaboration. This increased cooperation
fortifies our domestic defense commitments. For instance, safeguarding
essential supply chains from manipulation by adversaries necessitates a
unified approach with our international counterparts.
Question. If confirmed, how will you work alongside America's other
national security agencies to ensure your Department is empowered and
equipped to successfully execute U.S. foreign policy and deliver for
the American people?
Answer. Over my 14-year tenure in the Senate, particularly while
serving on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I gained a
profound insight into the vital roles our national security agencies
play in safeguarding our Nation. The U.S. State Department stands at a
unique crossroads of defense and intelligence, being actively present
in over 170 countries. Under President Trump's leadership, the State
Department, like all other agencies, will prioritize America's
interests foremost.
__________
Response to an Additional Question for the Record Submitted
to Senator Marco Rubio by Senator Bill Hagerty
Question. Do you commit that you and your Department will fully
support the work of, and closely cooperate with, the bipartisan
Commission on Reform and Modernization of the Department of State
(``Commission'')?
Answer. There's a broad sense that the State Department as an
institution, and its key components, the Foreign Service and Civil
service, need reform. The last major reforms were legislative reforms
reflected in the Foreign Service Act of 1980. If confirmed, I look
forward to working closely with this Committee to advance a foreign
policy that puts America and Americans first; and I will ensure you
remain apprised of all relevant information. As Secretary of State
working with the Commission, we can deliver significant reforms over
the next 4 years.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Senator Marco Rubio by Senator Christopher A. Coons
Question. The State Department has facilitated the successful
evacuation of thousands of Afghans, including many who worked closely
with the United States, since the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in
2021. These evacuation efforts are critical in ensuring that Afghans
who have supported U.S. forces and other allies and partners in the
country are not harmed for their affiliations with the United States.
If confirmed, will you support continuing the State Department's
efforts to evacuate Afghans who have been thoroughly vetted?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review this program to ensure careful
and thorough vetting, and take steps to ensure that Afghan partners who
supported our forces and diplomatic missions in Afghanistan are not
harmed for their affiliations with the United States.
Question. You have been a leading voice in Congress for the Uyghurs
and other ethnic minorities in China, and an outspoken critic of
China's genocide and persecution of these populations. Specifically,
you have been outspoken on the case of Gulshan Abbas, the sister of
international Uyghur advocate, Rushan Abbas. Gulshan remains in Chinese
prison and has been for over 6 years now. Another case of concern is
Ekpar Asat, a Uyghur entrepreneur who has been imprisoned for almost 9
years now, and whom I represent through the Tom Lantos Commission's
Defending Freedoms Project. If confirmed, will you work to secure the
release of both Gulshan and Ekpar, as well as other Uyghurs and ethnic
minorities that have been detained?
Answer. If confirmed, I will maintain the Department's commitment
to advocating for the Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in China. My
commitment to advancing the case for the release of Gulshan Abbas and
Ekpar Asat remains. I will also commit to ensuring that the appropriate
Bureaus keep Congress fully informed about the Department's efforts in
these and other cases.
Question. We have worked together to address the rise of wrongful
detention of American nationals overseas. Senator Risch and I recently
passed portions of our Countering Wrongful Detention Act, which
contains measures to deter wrongful detention and better support
wrongful detainees and their families. If confirmed, will you continue
efforts to address this practice, and to return home wrongfully
detained Americans overseas, including U.S. citizen Ryan Corbett who
remains unjustly held by the Taliban?
Answer. This Committee has done significant work to address the
rise of wrongful detentions. The safety and security of all Americans
is my highest priority. If confirmed, I will commit to implementing the
Countering Wrongful Detention Act. I will continue efforts to deter the
unjust detention of Americans, support the families, and bring home all
our hostages and wrongful detainees held abroad, to include Ryan
Corbett.
Question. U.S. leadership on malaria through the President's
Malaria Initiative and contributions to the Global Fund have
contributed to remarkable progress against the disease, while promoting
security and economic growth in Africa. Though malaria elimination is
within our sights, the disease continues to infect around 245 million
individuals and kill approximately 600,000 each year, the majority of
them young children. However, with advances in vaccines and other
innovations, the Trump administration has the potential to eradicate
malaria--or at least come very close. Will you support USAID's efforts
and ensure continued U.S. leadership in the global effort to eradicate
malaria?
Answer. The United States is a global leader in efforts to
eradicate malaria. If confirmed, I will work closely with the
Administration's global public health team, including its members at
USAID, to review and coordinate our humanitarian efforts around the
world, including the effort to eradicate malaria.
__________
Response to an Additional Question for the Record Submitted
to Senator Marco Rubio by Senator John Barrasso
Like you, I understand the importance of promoting America's
ideals, values and priorities across the globe. Central to this
mission is our commitment to international religious freedom,
human rights and democracy.
Question. If confirmed, what is your strategy to holding countries
accountable for failing to protect the rights of their citizens,
whether it be religious freedom or human rights?
Answer. I am grateful that Congress requires the Office of
International Religious Freedom and the Assistant Secretary for
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor to provide annual country reports on
religious freedom and other fundamental human rights. I will work
closely with them and with the relevant regional Bureaus to raise these
issues at every appropriate opportunity.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Senator Marco Rubio by Senator Christopher Murphy
Question. Numerous countries, including both partners and
adversaries, have steadily increased their use of transnational
repression to silence critics outside of their borders through cyber-
attacks, physical intimidation, and retaliation against family members.
Disturbingly, these campaigns are increasingly occurring within the
United States, representing a disturbing attack on our sovereignty. As
Secretary, how would [you] confront the threat of transnational
repression from foreign governments?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with fellow cabinet members to
ensure that the State Department is actively engaged in the Interagency
effort to share information about the sources and methods of these
threats to our internal security. If confirmed, I will also make clear
to both partners and adversaries that the United States will not
tolerate such violations of our sovereignty.
Question. What additional tools do you believe the Department needs
to counter transnational repression and deter adversaries who have
embraced new methods for silencing those who oppose them?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with fellow cabinet members to
ensure that the Department is working effectively with its counterparts
and, if confirmed, will commit to working with them to ensure that
Congress is fully briefed concerning utilization of and coordination of
existing resources.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Senator Marco Rubio by Senator Ted Cruz
Iranian Drone Attacks Against U.S. Citizens
The State Department is required to submit periodic reports
identifying Iranian persons who have used unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs) against Americans (Div. K, P.L. 118-50). On
September 4, 2024 the State Department submitted the first
report required by that legislation, covering the period from
October 2023 to July 2024. The report said ``The State
Department does not possess evidence that any Iranian persons
were directly involved in the act of launching UAVs in these
attacks.'' The choice to interpret the statute as requesting
identification of those ``directly involved'' appears to have
been made to avoid having to identify Iranian persons.
The Iranian regime is the primary source of drone attacks in
the region. Since October 2023 Iran has facilitated more than
170 proxy militia drone and rocket attacks on U.S.
servicemembers in the Middle East, including the Tower 22 drone
attack in Jordan by that killed three U.S. Soldiers and injured
many others.
Question. Is it your assessment that the Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps (IRGC) is involved in launching UAV attacks against
American citizens?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you believe that the IRGC bears responsibility for
proxy militia drone and rocket attacks against U.S. citizens?
Answer. Yes.
Hamas and Human Shields
At your hearing, you extensively condemned Hamas, including
for its use of human shields. To counter that strategy, in 2018
I authored and secured into law congressionally mandatory
sanctions against Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists for using
human shields, which were renewed in the 2024 supplemental
(P.L. 118-50, Division O, Sec. 4). The Biden administration has
not submitted those required reports or imposed the required
sanctions.
Question. Do you believe that Hamas uses human shields?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Will you commit to fully enforcing sanctions against
Hamas for the use of human shields?
Answer. Yes.
China's Ongoing Genocide of Uyghurs
At the beginning of the Biden administration, State
Department officials refused to acknowledge that the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP) was engaged in a genocide against the
Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang that was ongoing, in
part because the Biden administration already knew it would be
reliant on supply lines that run through Xinjiang for their
Green Agenda.
Question. Do you believe that the Chinese Communist Party is
engaged in a genocide against the Uyghurs and other religious
minorities in Xinjiang that is ongoing?
Answer. Yes.
China and COVID-19 Cover-Up
The oppression and opacity of the CCP significantly
contributed to the outbreak and spread of COVID-19. China
couldn't have gotten away with the cover-up on its own.
Instead, China used the World Health Organization (WHO), where
it had systematically seized power, to facilitate the cover-up.
President Trump decided in July 2020 to withdraw from the WHO
for those reasons, and the Biden administration overturned this
decision upon taking office and rejoined. That pattern has been
repeated again and again, across dozens of international
organizations. As you alluded to at your hearing, China has
taken them over, made them unaccountable, and used them to
advance Chinese interests against the U.S. and our allies.
Additionally, in many cases, the Trump administration withdrew
from those organizations and the Biden administration rejoined
them.
Question. Do you believe that the CCP was culpable for the outbreak
and spread of the COVID-19 pandemic?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Please give your assessment of the extent to which the
Wuhan Institute of Virology was involved in the COVID-19 pandemic.
Answer. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is responsible for the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Question. Do you assess that the World Health Organization helped
China cover up the origins of COVID-19?
Answer. The World Health Organization failed to hold China
accountable for its role in the outbreak and spread of COVID-19
pandemic.
Iran's Nuclear Arsenal
The Trump administration put Iran's nuclear program in a box.
President Trump withdrew from the catastrophic Obama-Iran
nuclear deal in 2018, imposed maximum pressure in 2019, and
invoked the U.N. snapback mechanism to re-impose international
sanctions in 2020. For that entire time Iran was deterred from
making significant advances on their nuclear program. They did
not even enrich uranium above 5 percent or cascade advanced
centrifuges.
Starting in November 2020, the Iranian regime gambled--
unfortunately, correctly--that it could start rushing to a
nuclear arsenal, and the incoming Biden administration would
let them. In December the regime approved a new law calling for
major nuclear advances. In January they started enriching to 20
percent at Fordow, the underground enrichment bunker built into
a mountain that the Obama-Iran nuclear deal left open. How did
the incoming Biden administration respond? In February--
immediately after being inaugurated--they rushed to the U.N. to
rescind President Trump's snapback, again allowing
international sanctions to expire. For the next 4 years, they
continually dismantled pressure on the regime and refused to
impose sanctions. The Iranian regime has now achieved a nuclear
breakout time of zero.
Question. Do you intend to go the United Nations and again trigger
snapback sanctions, either by doing so unilaterally or with the help of
our allies?
Answer. I believe it is in our national security interest for the
U.N. Security Council to snap back the sanctions that were suspended
under the JCPOA, by whatever mechanism brings greatest pressure to bear
on the Iranian regime's nuclear program. If confirmed, I will execute
the President's guidance and work with our allies to ensure the
snapback takes place.
Iran's NPT Standing
Since 2007, it has nearly always been the position of the
United States that Iran is not a member in good standing within
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
Even pursuant to the grievous Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA), Iran would not have returned to being a member
in good standing until the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) reached a ``Broader Conclusion'' (BC) verifying the
exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program. As
traditionally understood, Article IV of the NPT entitles member
states to the benefits of peaceful civil-nuclear technology to
the extent that they are members in good standing with the NPT.
In the first Trump administration, Special Representative of
the President for Nuclear Nonproliferation Jeffrey L. Eberhardt
confirmed to the SFRC in writing that ``Iran's standing as a
non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the NPT cannot be described
as `good.' ''
Question. Do you agree with that assessment that Iran is not a
member in good standing with NPT?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you believe that Iran should be entitled to the use of
civilian nuclear technology even if they are not a member in good
standing of the NPT? If so, why? If not, why not?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you consider Iran to be entitled to benefit from
nuclear technology pursuant to Article IV the NPT? If yes, please
explain why. If no, please explain why.
Answer. Iran's obligations under the NPT are of serious concern to
the Administration. Its lack of transparency and access by IAEA
inspectors requires a rigorous review of the available intelligence to
ensure Iran's civilian nuclear ambitions are not diverted or cover for
a covert nuclear program.
Taiwan's Symbols of Sovereignty
In 2015, the State Department issued guidelines that
prohibited all symbols of Taiwan's sovereignty on U.S. soil,
including military uniforms displaying the Taiwanese flag or
the name ``Republic of China.'' This policy was a response to
an incident where the Taipei Economic and Cultural
Representative Office (TECRO) raised the Taiwanese flag at its
Twin Oaks facility in Washington, DC. At the request of the
Chinese Embassy, the Obama Administration issued a memo to
prohibit TECRO employees from entering State Department
facilities, prohibit Twin Oaks from raising the flag of Taiwan,
and restrict any display of the flag of Taiwan on U.S.
Government property.
The Trump administration left the Obama-era policy in place
for far too long but ultimately ended it in January 2021 when
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued guidance lifting ``self-
imposed'' restrictions on the U.S.-Taiwan relationship,
including allowing the display of Taiwan's symbols of
sovereignty on U.S. soil. While Secretary Antony Blinken
committed to leaving that policy in place ``for the time
being'' during his confirmation process, the State Department
reversed it.
I fought against that Obama-era policy, and have pushed
legislation, reversing that policy--language that has been
repeatedly advanced by this Committee. It is the repeated,
explicit policy coming out of this Committee to reverse that
policy.
Question. Will you commit to reverting to the Trump-era policy of
allowing our Taiwanese allies to display their symbols of sovereignty
on U.S. soil?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working with this Committee to
strengthen and bolster our unofficial ties with Taiwan.
Question. What more can be done to bolster and insulate Taiwan
diplomatically?
Answer. The United States should work with Taiwan's diplomatic
allies, particularly in the Western hemisphere and the Pacific, to
ensure its diplomatic relations remain intact. The United States should
also work with these diplomatic allies of Taiwan to be able to mitigate
China's malign influence.
Nord Stream 2
Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if he didn't think he
could activate Nord Stream 2 as an alternative to Ukraine's gas
infrastructure. He would not have thought he could activate
Nord Stream 2 if the Biden administration had not waived
congressionally mandated sanctions on the pipeline, enabling
construction to be physically completed. After Russia's further
invasion of Ukraine, the Biden administration imposed
sanctions. Those sanctions need to be maintained and the
pipeline needs to be kept permanently offline. In your
testimony, you also spoke about how Putin weaponizes energy.
Question. Will you commit to maintaining existing sanctions on Nord
Stream 2?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit that any and all sanctions will be
considered to advance the objectives of U.S. foreign policy, including
the preservation of existing sanctions and any additional sanctions on
Nord Stream 2.
Question. Please provide your assessment of the role of Nord Stream
2 in Putin's strategic calculations to invade Ukraine.
Answer. Prior to the invasion of Ukraine, European reliance on
Russian natural gas offered Putin's regime a source of leverage. Nord
Stream 2 was aimed to weaken the economic and strategic position of
transit countries in Eastern Europe, notably Ukraine. Following the
invasion, we have seen European nations take steps to reduce their
economic reliance on Russian energy, diminishing Russia's ability to
continue to use energy dependence as a tool of intimidation.
Question. Please provide your assessment of any negative
consequences to U.S. national security if Nord Stream 2 were to be
reactivated.
Answer. U.S. LNG exports to Europe are important to both Europe's
energy security and to U.S. economic relations with European allies.
The reactivation of Nord Stream 2 would have deleterious economic and
political ramifications for the United States and our European allies
UNRWA
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) has for
decades provided material support for Hamas and other terrorist
groups in Gaza, including personnel, facilities, and physical
materials that have been used to further their terrorist
activity. We know that the Biden administration has funneled
hundreds of billions of dollars into the Gaza Strip largely
through UNRWA. Hamas diverted much of this funding to build the
infrastructure necessary for carrying out the horrific October
7 attacks against Israel. Since the start of the Hamas war more
evidence of UNRWA's support for terrorism has emerged. Congress
prohibited the Biden administration from funding UNRWA, but
administration officials circumvented that prohibition by using
UNRWA infrastructure. Now it appears as if the U.N. will play a
critical role in rebuilding Gaza, and they may use or even
bolster UNRWA. All of that is completely unacceptable.
Question. Will you commit to fully terminating any cooperation that
the U.S. has with UNRWA?
Answer. During his first term, President-elect Trump rightly ended
U.S. funding for UNRWA, and, if confirmed, I look forward to working
with the administration to take similar actions.
Question. What will you do to ensure UNRWA plays no part in
rebuilding Gaza, and is indeed defunded and terminated?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with our allies and partners in
the region to ensure entities that aided Hamas play no role in the
rebuilding of Gaza.
Egypt/Muslim Brotherhood
The Biden administration has withheld millions of dollars in
assistance for security and counterterrorism from our Egyptian
allies, allegedly on human rights concerns. What we don't know
is exactly why they are doing it and exactly what the Biden
administration is asking for.
Under the Obama Administration, the United States repeatedly,
inexplicably boosted the Muslim Brotherhood, which openly
advocated terrorism against the United States. Those extremists
were boosted at the expense of moderate Arab allies, and they
consistently misled the public about their goals. In 2022, the
Biden administration blocked $130 million in aid to Egypt.
Question. How do you perceive the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Answer. In many countries, extremists associated with the Muslim
Brotherhood have sought to impose a radical Islamist order. Too often,
these extremists have employed or supported terrorism that constitutes
a serious threat to our allies and our security interests. The clearest
example is Hamas, which grew out of the Palestinian branch of the
Muslim Brotherhood.
Question. Will you commit to ensuring that the State Department
under the Trump administration provides ample transparency in its
foreign assistance aid to allies and friends--whether it decides to cut
it or not?
Answer. Yes.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Senator Marco Rubio by Senator Tim Kaine
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to refer all U.S. citizens'
property and financial claims against Honduras to the United States
Department of Justice Foreign Claims Settlement Commission for review
and adjudication?
Answer. I view the protection of U.S. investments as a core
function of the diplomacy mission of the Department of State. If
confirmed, I will closely monitor these cases.
Question. The State Department has trouble responding to large
scale evacuations and other crises. The Special Inspector General for
Afghanistan noted the unitality of establishing a Diplomatic Reserve
Corps as recommended by the report Blueprints for a More Modern
Diplomacy. The Blinken State Department recommended establishing such a
reserve as has the American Academy of Diplomacy. Will you support
legislation to establish such a reserve?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with this Committee
and appropriate bureaus within the Department to ensure America's
diplomatic corps has the size and skills to advance our national
interests.
Question. On December 2023, you joined other Members of Congress,
including me, in supporting democracy in Guatemala as certain sectors
of Guatemalan society, led by the country's Attorney General, attempted
to prevent the democratically elected President, Bernardo Arevalo, from
taking office. These sectors falsely claim that President Arevalo's
election was illegitimate. At the same time, led by Guatemala's
Attorney General, these individuals have filed a dozen spurious
lawsuits against Arevalo in an attempt to oust him from office. What is
your plan to support Guatemala's democratically elected President--one
of only a handful of leaders in the region who has maintained a
diplomatic relationship with Taiwan, and who has committed to fighting
corruption, countering migration and strengthening respect for human
rights?
Answer. If confirmed, I would pursue a balanced approach toward the
government of Guatemala, deepening cooperation where appropriate and
pursuing reforms where possible and needed.
Question. Latin America has one of the highest rates of violence
against journalists in the world. I would like to work together on this
concerning sign of democratic backsliding in the Western Hemisphere.
Press freedom is a fundamental pillar of democratic societies and rule
of law. How will you dedicate diplomatic efforts and assistance
resources to combatting repression against journalists in the region?
Answer. As I noted during my hearing, journalists in our hemisphere
are under threat from the same violent criminal organizations that
actively harm American citizens. If confirmed, I will evaluate the
opportunities and challenges for combating repression against
journalists in the region.
Question. The genocide and ongoing conflict in Sudan require
consistent and high-level attention to resolve the humanitarian crisis
and contribute to a durable peace. Partners of the United States,
including the UAE and Egypt specifically, have fueled the conflict and
contributed to the humanitarian crisis. Will you urge President-elect
Trump to prioritize the expeditious appointment of a qualified Special
Envoy for Sudan? Do you commit to engaging the UAE and Egypt to cease
their actions that are worsening the crisis?
Answer. As I stressed in my hearing, this is a real genocide that
needs more public attention. In addition, the ongoing Sudan conflict
and its associated humanitarian crisis pose a threat to our allies and
partners in Africa and the Red Sea region. If confirmed, I will review
our diplomatic activities and organization concerning Sudan to ensure
U.S. diplomacy is optimally postured to work with all relevant actors
to alleviate the humanitarian crisis and bring the conflict to an end.
This includes ensuring we have qualified personnel working both to
address the urgent humanitarian crisis and to stop the fighting.
Question. The State Department plays a critical role in war powers
issues, including the implementation of the War Powers Resolution of
1973. What procedures will the Department follow under your leadership
to ensure that Congress receives appropriate and timely reports under
the War Powers Resolution?
Answer. If confirmed, I will seek the views of Members of Congress
on use of force issues, as appropriate, and ensure that Congress is
kept apprised of U.S. military operations, consistent with Executive
Branch precedent.
Question. How will the Trump Administration understand the meaning
of ``introduction of U.S. armed forces into hostilities'' for the
purposes of the War Powers Resolution of 1973? How will the Trump
Administration define ``self-defense'' for the purposes of Article II
of the Constitution?
Answer. If confirmed, I will consult with the Office of the Legal
Adviser and the Department of Justice in the interpretation of these
terms.
Question. With respect to the U.S. conflict with the Houthis, will
the Trump administration assess that U.S. armed forces have been
introduced into hostilities for the purposes of the War Powers
Resolution?
Answer. If confirmed, I will consult closely with the Office of the
Legal Adviser and regional experts to ensure U.S. positions on this
issue are consistent with the law and advance U.S. foreign policy
interests.
Question. Under what circumstances do you believe it is appropriate
to use military force without public, democratic debate?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you and other
Members of Congress to ensure that U.S. military and use of force
questions are informed by the views of Congress and the general public.
Question. Do you commit to waiting for specific statutory
authorization from the Congress before supporting hostilities in Mexico
or elsewhere, consistent with the War Powers Resolution and the
Constitution's Declare War Clause?
Answer. If confirmed, I would assess these issues with the input
from the Department's experts in the Office of the Legal Adviser and
the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs.
Question. Do you recognize that there are legal constraints on a
President's authority to use military force? What are those limits? Do
you agree that congressional authorization is required as a
constitutional or statutory matter prior to the use of military force?
Answer. If confirmed, I will consult closely with the Office of the
Legal Adviser and the Department of Justice to ensure that U.S.
military force is employed in a manner that is consistent with the law.
Question. Under what circumstances and in what manner will you
engage with Congress prior to supporting the use of military force?
Answer. If confirmed, I will seek the views of Members of Congress
on use of force issues, as appropriate, and ensure that Congress is
kept apprised of U.S. military operations, consistent with Executive
Branch precedent.
Question. Does international law play a role in determining when
the United States can go to war, and if so what is it?
Answer. The Office of the Legal Adviser and other interagency
lawyers from the Department of Defense and Department of Justice play a
central role in advising on the international legal implications of the
employment of U.S. military force. If confirmed, I look forward to
working closely with these legal experts on the international legal
issues associated with the use of force.
Question. Do you commit to consulting with Congress prior to
pursuing, or recommending that the Trump Administration pursue strikes
or hostilities against another nation?
Answer. If confirmed, I will seek the views of Members of Congress
on use of force issues, as appropriate, and ensure that Congress is
kept apprised of U.S. military operations, consistent with Executive
Branch precedent.
Question. Do you commit to coming to Congress for authorization
before relying on any interpretation of an existing authorization for
use of military force (AUMF) that would apply it to a nation not
explicitly named in that authorization?
Answer. If confirmed, I will seek the views of Members of Congress
on use of force issues, as appropriate, and ensure that Congress is
kept apprised of U.S. military operations, consistent with Executive
Branch precedent.
Question. Will you commit to working with Congress to repeal and
reform outdated AUMFs in order to end US forever wars?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing, together with
legal experts from the Office of the Legal Adviser, existing statutory
authorizations for the use of force.
Question. Do you believe airstrikes, offensive action, or other
kinetic action against Mexico--essentially, starting a war on our
southern border--are serious and realistic options? Under what legal
authority would this use of military force be conducted? What manner of
consultation would you conduct with the Government of Mexico? How do
you assess this type of severely destabilizing military action in
Mexican territory impact migration?
Answer. If confirmed, I would assess these issues with the input
from the Department's experts in the Office of the Legal Adviser and
the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, in addition to other
Department and interagency stakeholders.
Question. Following the announcement of a ceasefire between Israel
and Hamas, how will the Trump administration work to prevent the
outbreak of a broader conflict in the Middle East?
Answer. As President Trump has said, the best way to prevent
further war in the Middle East, or any other region, is to implement a
policy of peace through strength that makes clear to any would-be
adversaries that they will pay a high price for attacking us.
Question. Do you agree that it is not in the U.S. interest to
engage in another war in the Middle East? Do you agree that it is not
in the U.S. interest to engage in military actions that further
destabilize an already volatile region?
Answer. As I have noted, the United States does not seek further
war in the Middle East or any other region. Indeed, President Trump has
done more than any other world leader to advance the cause of peace in
that region. But the best way to avoid further war is to ensure our
adversaries know the Trump Administration will do what is necessary to
defend Americans and American interests from attack.
Question. Do you agree that American participation in another war
in the Middle East cannot happen in the absence of an authorization for
use of military force by Congress, following an open debate during
which the American public can be informed of the benefits, risks and
consequences of such conflict?
Answer. As I have noted, if confirmed, I will seek the views of
Members of Congress on use of force issues, as appropriate, and ensure
that Congress is kept apprised of U.S. military operations, consistent
with Executive Branch precedent.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Senator Marco Rubio by Senator Mike Lee
Question. As a general rule, in cases where a treaty does not
prescribe withdrawal mechanisms, does the President have the
flexibility to withdraw us from treaties unilaterally? In other words,
what is the role of the Senate in treaty withdrawal?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing with experts in
the Office of the Legal Adviser the full set of legal implications,
including separation of powers issues involving Congress, in connection
with the potential withdrawal by the United States from any existing
treaty obligations.
Question. In the case of NATO, the threat of the U.S. no longer
being in the alliance is what may compel upward movement in allied
defense spending. Can the President credibly level a threat to withdraw
from the alliance?
Answer. Presidents from both political parties have argued that the
U.S. has shouldered the burden of Europe's defense for too long. As I
stated in my testimony before the Committee, the United States does not
possess infinite resources. Like any other country, we must judiciously
allocate our finite resources in ways that serve the best interests of
Americans. And in turn, so must our European allies.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Senator Marco Rubio by Senator Jeff Merkley
Question. Pro-democracy activists have been imprisoned and
sentenced in Hong Kong, and the Hong Kong government--which operates
these Economic and Trade Offices in the U.S. (HKETOs)--has taken brazen
steps of placing bounties on the heads of activists in the United
States, including a U.S. citizen. Hong Kong is not a foreign government
and, especially in light of these threats, should not have diplomatic
personnel and privileges separate from the PRC. As Secretary of State,
how will you hold key Chinese and Hong Kong accountable officials for
their repression in Hong Kong?
Answer. Hong Kong remains an area of concern because of the ongoing
repression. If confirmed, I commit to look for ways to hold the
requisite Chinese and Hong Kong officials accountable for their
repression in Hong Kong.
Question. The PRC's attempts to silence Uyghur dissidents overseas
continues. This includes the case of Dr. Gulshan Abbas, who has been
unjustly detained by the Chinese government in Xinjiang since 2018 due
to her American citizen sister's (Rushan Abbas) advocacy for Uyghur
human rights here in the United States. If confirmed, what steps will
you take to secure the release of Dr. Abbas--an unjustly detained
family member of American citizens--and others like her, and what will
you do to hold China accountable for such transnational repression
tactics aimed at intimidating and silencing American citizens?
Answer. If confirmed, I will press Beijing about its transnational
repression tactics and push back against its method of intimating and
silencing American citizens about the subject of Uyghur human rights.
Question. New START, the last bilateral arms control agreement
between the U.S. and Russia, is set to expire in 2026. Given Vladimir
Putin's increasingly inflammatory nuclear rhetoric--including Russia's
suspension of New START implementation--Chinese nuclear expansion, and
our own efforts at nuclear modernization, how do you plan to engage
partners as well as adversaries on nuclear arms control and prevent the
outbreak of another nuclear arms race?
Answer. Given Russia's non-compliance with the New Start Treaty and
the Chinese nuclear breakout, any new arms control treaty must address
the new tri-polar nuclear world. If confirmed, I will only pursue arms
control agreements that enhance security and are both verifiable and
enforceable.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Senator Marco Rubio by Senator Cory A. Booker
Question. Elizabeth Tsurkov Case: If confirmed, you will enter
office with a major power vacuum in the Middle East. President Biden
affirmed a plan to remove US forces from Iraq this year, but Syria has
fallen in the meanwhile. A Jewish Princeton doctoral candidate--
Elizabeth Tsurkov--has been held by the Iranian-backed terrorist group
Kataib Hezbollah for almost 2 years. This group, and several others
that have targeted American military personnel and civilians, receive
financial support from the Iraqi government. What would you do to free
Elizabeth Tsurkov while maintaining regional stability?
Answer. The safety and security of all American citizens, to
include our men and women in uniform, is my highest priority. My heart
goes out to the Turskov family. Since Ms. Turskov is not an American
citizen, the U.S. government's ability to assist in returning Elizabeth
to her loved ones is limited. If confirmed, the Department will
continue to engage the Iraqi authorities, as appropriate, to support
their efforts to locate and return Elizabeth Turskov.
Question. Dr. Gubad Ibadoghlu Case: As you know, Dr. Gubad
Ibadoghlu, a well-known academic and anti-corruption expert who has
taught and conducted research at several U.S. universities, was
detained by the Azerbaijan government in July 2023. The charges against
him have been resoundingly condemned by numerous international
institutions and human rights organizations as fabricated and
politically motivated. During his detention, his health has
deteriorated and he has not received adequate medical treatment. If
confirmed, do you commit to raising his case with the government of
Azerbaijan?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to seeking input from several
bureaus and offices that oversee regional and human rights issues and
will work closely with them to determine how and under what
circumstances we should raise our concerns about Dr. Idaboglu's case.
Question. Dr. Gubad Ibadoghlu Case: Do you commit to urging the
Azerbaijani authorities to consider the possibility of resettling Dr.
Ibadoghlu to another country on humanitarian grounds so that he may
reunite with his family and receive proper medical treatment?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to seeking input from several
bureaus and offices that oversee regional and human rights issues and
will work closely with them to determine how and under what
circumstances we should raise our concerns about Dr. Idaboglu's case.
Question. Paid Internship Program: I'm proud to have been part of a
bipartisan effort to create a Paid Internship Program at the State
Department. This program has enabled the State Department to recruit
civil service employees and Foreign Service Officers from a wider
variety of backgrounds, expanding the pool of talent from which the
Department recruits. The Foreign Service now attracts young people who
could not participate when interns were unpaid, or when funding did not
include housing or travel assistance to Washington, DC, and abroad.
It's critical that an American's economic situation does not disqualify
them from serving their country. If confirmed, do you commit to
supporting the continuation and expansion of this paid internship
program?
Answer. If confirmed, I will commit to supporting opportunities to
ensure the most talented American interns can contribute to making
America safer, stronger, and more prosperous.
Question. Paid Internship Program: Will the paid internships
include stipends for housing and travel assistance, both domestically
and abroad, for interns whose permanent address is not located near the
location of the internship?
Answer. If confirmed, I will commit to supporting opportunities to
ensure the most talented American interns can contribute to making
America safer, stronger, and more prosperous.
Question. International Exchange Programs: At a time when China is
significantly outpacing the U.S.'s investment in public diplomacy,
building strong ties and mutual understanding between the United States
and underrepresented communities across the world is more important
than ever. Department of State international exchange programs provide
unique engagement opportunities with emerging leaders from the United
States and citizens of other countries that many Americans aren't
regularly exposed to. These programs pay invaluable dividends for U.S.
interests abroad. For example, the Young African Leaders Initiative
(YALI) provides emerging African leaders opportunities to visit the
United States and study business, civic engagement, or public
management. After completing their 6-week professional experience at
U.S. institutions, 98 percent of 2024 Mandela Washington Fellows
reported an increased understanding of U.S. culture and values.
International exchange programs are a key tool in America's foreign
policy toolbox because participants return to their home communities
with a deeper understanding of our values. As Secretary of State, do
you commit to robustly supporting the State Department's invaluable
international exchange programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will commit to supporting exchange programs
used by the Department to make America safer, stronger, and more
prosperous.
Question. International Exchange Programs: How do you plan to take
advantage of strategic relationships built through exchange programs to
deepen the United States' diplomatic ties with African countries?
Answer. If confirmed, I will commit to ensuring that any strategic
relationships built through exchange programs are effectively used by
the Department to make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Senator Marco Rubio by Senator Brian Schatz
The Compacts of Free Association (COFA) govern the
relationships between the United States and the Republic of the
Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Republic
of Palau, collectively known as the Freely Associated States
(FAS). In 2023, after several years of negotiations, the United
States signed agreements with the FAS to extend the economic
provisions of the Compacts. The U.S. Congress overwhelmingly
passed the bipartisan Compact of Association Amendments Act in
March 2024, which approved these important new agreements. Our
alliance with these nations in this strategic part of the
Pacific is vital to U.S. national interests.
Question. Do you commit to working with the FAS countries and
across the U.S interagency on implementation and finding opportunities
to continue to strengthen U.S. partnership with our trusted allies?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working with the FAS countries
and across the U.S. interagency to strengthen U.S. partnership with the
COFA States.
World War II-era unexploded ordinance (UXO) continues to be a
challenge in the South Pacific, especially in the Solomon
Islands, Papua New Guinea, and the Republic of Kiribati.
Removing these remnants of war not only helps improve the
safety and economic opportunity for Pacific Islanders, but also
provides an opportunity for the United States to further
strengthen ties that serve our foreign policy and national
security interests in the region. The State Department recently
increased funding for UXO removal in the Pacific Islands, but
the scale of the problem is immense and many of these programs
are in their infancy.
Question. Do you support efforts to increase UXO removal efforts in
the Pacific?
Answer. Removal of World War II-era unexploded ordinances remains
an important challenge in the South Pacific and an important part of
the partnership between the United States and a number of countries in
the South Pacific.
The United States is the largest funder of humanitarian aid
in the world.
Question. Do you believe that U.S. humanitarian aid supports U.S.
diplomatic interests?
Answer. As I noted in my testimony before the Committee, we will
evaluate every activity to determine whether it makes America stronger,
safer, and more prosperous.
Question. Should the United States remain a leader in providing
humanitarian aid to people suffering from both natural disasters and
the impacts of war around the world?
Answer. As I noted in my testimony before the Committee, we will
evaluate every activity to determine whether it makes America stronger,
safer, and more prosperous. I should also note that people of the
United States are also suffering from natural disasters and the impact
of transnational crime and malign actors within the United States. If
confirmed I will work with the President and other Cabinet members to
make a careful review of our priorities, both at home and abroad.
Humanitarian access is essential for delivering lifesaving
aid, yet it is increasingly restricted by conflict parties and
their backers in places like Sudan, Syria, and Yemen where
state and non-state actors impose bureaucratic and
administrative impediments on the NGO community to block,
limit, or otherwise control humanitarian assistance, contrary
to various domestic and international laws, policies and
practices. U.S. diplomatic leadership can reduce these
barriers, as seen in prior negotiations that re-opened cross
border access points into Syria and unlocked visas for
humanitarian workers to get to Sudan. Without such humanitarian
diplomatic support, humanitarian organizations--including those
funded by the U.S. Government, will likely be unable to reach
millions of people in need.
Question. How do you plan to use diplomatic and political channels
to ensure humanitarian organizations have safe, unfettered access to
conflict affected populations based off an independent evaluation of
their needs, even in areas controlled by adversarial governments or
non-state actors?
Answer. If confirmed, I will use all the authorities of my office
to advocate for this outcome.
Humanitarian principles--neutrality, independence, and
impartiality underpinned by a `do no harm' approach--seeks to
ensure that aid is not used as a political tool, and that
vulnerable populations in conflict zones can trust and access
the humanitarian assistance they require to survive. Breaches
of these principles increase risks for aid workers and program
participants, hinder the timeliness and efficacy of a
humanitarian response and can--as seen in Sudan--exacerbate
famine conditions. The United States has a history of
championing humanitarian principles and sustained diplomatic
engagement is crucial to maintaining their application in the
most dangerous and complex humanitarian operational
environments in the world.
Question. How will you ensure that U.S. foreign policies, including
sanctions, do not inadvertently politicize or obstruct lifesaving aid,
if confirmed?
Answer. If confirmed, I will oversee a review of U.S. sanctions
policy and administration to ensure that it is achieving its intended
goals and that administrators understand that inadvertent harm not only
does not result, but also that it be remedied in situations in which
such harms are found to occur.
Risks to aid workers in conflict zones are escalating.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure that the United States
leads in advocating for their safety and holding perpetrators of such
violence accountable for their actions?
Answer. If confirmed, I will consult with experts in the Office of
the Legal Adviser and the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor,
among other bureaus, to identify more effective ways to bring
accountability to perpetrators of such violence.
After more than 20 months of unrelenting conflict and grave
violations of international humanitarian law, Sudan's
catastrophic hunger is deepening, violence is continuing
unabated, humanitarian access remains constrained by the
warring parties, the spillover effects on regional countries
dealing with their own internal humanitarian crises are
growing, and external actors are fueling the war with limited
and delayed attempts at accountability. As international
diplomacy continues to fail and the conflict fragments further,
there is no end in sight for the humanitarian catastrophe; 30
million people will need humanitarian assistance in Sudan in
2025--five million more than in 2024 and the largest figure in
recorded history.
Question. As Secretary of State, what level of priority will your
department assign to ending the war in Sudan?
Answer. The ongoing Sudan conflict and its associated humanitarian
crisis pose a threat to our allies and partners in Africa and the Red
Sea region. If confirmed, stopping the genocide and the conflict as a
whole as well as alleviating the looming humanitarian crisis in Sudan
will be an important priority.
Question. Can you commit to work with the Senate to nominate and
confirm a new Special Envoy for Sudan in the first 60 days of the
Administration?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review our diplomatic activities and
organization concerning Sudan to ensure U.S. diplomacy is optimally
postured to work with all relevant actors to alleviate the humanitarian
crisis and bring the conflict to an end, this includes ensuring we have
qualified personnel working and leading efforts on Sudan.
Question. Can you commit to retain a U.S. leadership role in the
Aligned for Advancing Lifesaving Peace in Sudan (ALPS) Group?
Answer. If confirmed, I will commit to ensuring that the U.S. has a
leadership role in all constructive efforts to end the violence,
address the humanitarian challenges, and restore stability.
Question. In the absence of a national level ceasefire, which is
increasingly unlikely in the short- or medium-term, what strategies
will the United States employ to improve the humanitarian response and
protect civilians, in consultation with civil society and local
Sudanese responders?
Answer. As I have noted, if confirmed, I will review our diplomatic
activities and organization concerning Sudan to ensure U.S. diplomacy
is optimally postured to work with our allies to bring the conflict to
an end, including by assessing prospects for a national ceasefire. I
commit to working with experts throughout the interagency to quickly
get humanitarian aid to Sudan to protect civilians and save lives,
engaging responsible stakeholders in Sudan and the region as
appropriate.
Ministers in the Israeli Knesset, such as National Security
Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich,
have repeatedly stated their desire for Israel to annex
territory in the West Bank. This directly contradicts decades
of bipartisan U.S. policy supporting a two-state solution.
Question. Do you oppose Israeli annexation of West Bank territory?
Question. How would you address such actions if pursued?
Answer. The starting point for promoting peace between Israelis and
Palestinians should be denying terrorist organizations and terrorist
regimes, especially the Iranian regime and its militant proxies, the
ability to reach into Israel or the Palestinian territories to
destabilize those communities and act as a spoiler to peace. I do not
support imposing sanctions on our allies while they are under
existential threat from terrorist adversaries.
Over the past decade, the PRC has sought more leadership
roles and policy influence in U.N. bodies. Recently, Chinese
diplomats have held leadership roles in the Food and
Agriculture Organization, Interpol, the International Civil
Aviation Organization, the U.N. Industrial Development
Organization, and the U.N. Department of Economic and Social
Affairs. The PRC engages heavily in the agency's work, is a
significant donor, and Chinese experts have held leadership
roles in the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) as
China seeks to obtain support for China's internet protocols,
5G technology, and other digital standards.
Question. How can the United States roll back the PRC's
increasingly dominant role in U.N. international rulemaking bodies,
especially those that govern technology policy, law enforcement, and
human rights?
Answer. As I mentioned during my testimony before the Committee,
the PRC has weaponized U.S. built institutions against our national
interest. While the State Department will play a leading role in
pushing back on PRC's increasingly dominant role in U.N. international
rulemaking bodies, we must also seek out new alliances and arrangements
to protect our national interest.
For decades, the United States has exerted economic and
military pressure on Iran in response to its hostile policies.
Despite the immense pressure of the first Trump Administration
and continued pressure under the Biden Administration, Iran
continued to develop its nuclear program. Over the past year,
as dangerous escalation occurred between Israel and Iran,
senior Iranian officials stated that such escalation could lead
to it acquiring a nuclear weapon, which would be unacceptable.
At the same time, Iran has shown a willingness to come to the
table to discuss a new agreement with the United States, and
Persian Gulf Arab states similarly want to see U.S. policy
toward Iran change to promote regional stability. The People's
Republic of China has already shown its interest in
facilitating Saudi-Iran rapprochement and could continue
additional diplomatic overtures.
Question. How will you seize on the current momentum to avoid
further conflict and escalation with Iran?
Question. How will you advise President Trump if the Iranian regime
continues to signal interest in finding a deal to end its nuclear
program in exchange for sanctions relief?
Answer. As a result of Israel's defensive actions against Iranian-
led attack, the Iranian regime is militarily weaker and more vulnerable
than at any point in several decades. Tehran's weakness has opened an
unprecedented window of opportunity to compel the regime to cease
permanently its destabilizing behavior, sponsorship of terrorism, and
nuclear program.That said, we must remain clear-eyed that any
concessions made to the Iranian regime could enable Tehran to rebuild
their military capabilities and restart their sponsorship of Hezbollah
and other related entities.
Various forms of sanctions on Iran have remained in place
since the founding of the Islamic Republic. The United States
and its partners have sought to cut Iran off from critical
military technology, oil sale proceeds, and other goods and
funds that could benefit Iran's regime. However, in many cases,
Iran and its allies have found ways to deflect the damage of
those sanctions away from the elites. The result of these
sanctions have not seen Iran change its behavior, but continue
to fund its destabilizing extraterritorial activities and
enrich an elite tied to the survival of the regime. Sanctions
have however had a devastating effect on the general population
of Iran, cutting them off from vital technologies that could
enrich civil society orgs, skyrocketing the cost of food and
medicine, and plunging the average Iranian's wages
significantly.
Question. How can U.S. sanctions be better targeted to change the
regime's threatening and problematic behavior?
Answer. The first step in making U.S. sanctions more effective in
changing the Iranian regime's behavior will be to enforce them fully.
Question. What is your assessment of how sanctions have negatively
affected average Iranians?
Answer. U.S. sanctions on the Iranian regime and its terrorist
proxies are intended to deny the regime the means with which to
threaten international security and attack the United States and our
allies. The Iranian people are not the intended target of these
sanctions.
Question. Would you support internal U.S. Government studies to
provide to members of this committee the data available to the
Department of State, in conjunction with data available to the
Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), on
the impacts of these sanctions on limiting the growth of illicit
markets run by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and impacts
on the standard of living on the people of Iran?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure the State Department, in
cooperation with the Treasury Department, keeps Congress fully apprised
of the status and results of our sanctions program concerning the
Iranian regime.
Authoritarian governments use internet shutdowns,
misinformation campaigns, and censorship to choke off access to
vital information and technologies, sway elections, and
undermine voters' ability to make informed decisions. According
to Freedom House, global internet freedom declined for the 14th
consecutive year.
Question. Given assessments of the declining state of digital
freedom, what organizational and policy changes does the State
Department need to address the rising challenge of digital freedom
restrictions around the world?
Answer. In its early stages, the internet was envisioned as a
boundless forum, crossing geographical divides, offering hope to
dissidents and amplifying the voices of the marginalized. However, with
technological progress, governments worldwide have gained the ability
to curtail this freedom of expression. Regrettably, this trend has been
observed in the United States as well. To maintain credibility in
advocating for these rights internationally, we must first safeguard
freedom of speech and expression domestically.
Question. What additional efforts would increase the effectiveness
of State Department advocacy for the freedom of people around the world
to access information as part of U.S. foreign policy?
Answer. The U.S. State Department possesses significant potential
to advocate for the values of freedom of expression globally.
Nevertheless, as previously discussed, for the U.S. to maintain
credibility on this front internationally, it must fervently uphold and
champion freedom of speech and expression domestically.
Question. In which ways should the State Department better
coordinate with the other U.S. Government departments and agencies that
are active in addressing digital freedom globally, including USAID and
USAGM, to make the U.S. Government more efficient and effective?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to championing digital freedom
at home and abroad, and commit to working toward great efficiencies
within the Department's activities, including the alignment of purpose
between USAID and USAGM.
The Department of Defense now estimates that the People's
Republic of China (PRC) will have over 1,000 operational
nuclear warheads by 2030. At the same time, it is resisting
U.S. calls for transparency and nuclear risk reduction.
Question. How should the United States lower risk with China, given
this rapid and opaque nuclear weapons buildup?
Answer. China is required under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty to pursue negotiations in good faith. If
confirmed, I will work to pursue vigorous compliance with this
provision of the NPT.
Question. What additional risks does this nuclear buildup present
for Taiwan, especially given the potential for miscalculation and
escalation?
Answer. The Chinese nuclear breakout includes significant
investments in dual capable theatre ranged weapons that raise the risk
of nuclear coercion against Taiwan in the event of a conflict.
Question. What steps should the State Department take to reduce the
likelihood the PRC will seek to use nuclear coercion, or even nuclear
use, against Taiwan?
Answer. The U.S. State Department must work along with its partners
and allies to restore deterrence in the region. It must also provide
assurance to its partners and allies of U.S. extended deterrence
commitments.
Opportunities might exist to expand the number of countries
that officially recognize the state of Israel as part of the
Abraham Accords.
Question. How might the potential normalization of relations
between Israel and Saudi Arabia affect U.S. interests, Israel's
security, the potential for a Palestinian state, and broader Middle
East stability?
Question. How will normalization of Saudi-Israeli relations rank in
the priority of issues for you at the State Department?
Answer. Achieving normalization of relations between Israel and its
regional neighbors, including Saudi Arabia, was a major strategic
objective of the first Trump administration and will continue to be a
major priority in the second Trump administration. Achieving normal
relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia in particular would set the
conditions for regional peace and prosperity, which in turn would
reduce the threat of terrorism to the U.S. homeland and to our and our
allies' interests worldwide.
Question. How would the U.S. seek to balance a pathway to
Palestinian statehood as part of any normalization process?
Answer. As I have noted, the most important immediate-term
contribution the United States can make to promote peace between
Israelis and Palestinians is to deny terrorist organizations and
terrorist regimes, especially the Iranian regime and its militant
proxies, the ability to reach into Israel or the Palestinian
territories to destabilize those communities and act as a spoiler to
peace. Beyond these immediate steps, the United States has an interest
in supporting any initiative that can help Israelis and Palestinians
reach an agreement on the terms under which they will live side by side
in peace.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Senator Marco Rubio by Senator Chris Van Hollen
Annexation of the West Bank
Shortly after President-Elect Trump's victory in November
2024, Israel's Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, who is also
in charge of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, said that he
ordered his department to prepare for the annexation of
settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including to
``prepare the necessary infrastructure for applying
sovereignty.'' He added in his comments to the Israeli Knesset
that the ``only way to remove'' the ``threat'' of a Palestinian
state was to ``apply Israeli sovereignty over the entire
settlements in Judea and Samaria.'' Since October 7th, over 9
square miles of the West Bank have been declared as ``state
land,'' amounting to the largest land grab since the Oslo
Agreement to date. In addition, at least 43 new illegal Israeli
outposts have been established throughout the West Bank on
Palestinian land.
In your confirmation hearing on January 15th, I asked you if
you agree that ``annexation [of the West Bank] would be
contrary to security in the Middle East?'' Your response did
not answer the question directly.
Question. Do you agree that Israeli annexation of some or all of
the West Bank, as called for by some members of the Netanyahu
government, would undermine President-elect Trump's goal of achieving
peace and security in the Middle East?
Answer. The most significant factor that undermines our goal of
achieving peace and security in the Middle East is the Iranian regime's
longstanding policy of seeking to destabilize Israel and the
Palestinian territories and to employ terrorist organizations as
spoilers to peace. The most important and urgent contribution the
United States can make to promote peace between Israelis and
Palestinians is to deny the Iranian regime the means and ability to
continue this policy.
Question. Do you agree that the unilateral expansion of Israeli
settlements in the West Bank undermines the prospect for the two-state
solution?
Answer. As I have noted, I believe the most important and urgent
contribution the United States can make to promote peace between
Israelis and Palestinians is to deny terrorist organizations and
terrorist regimes, especially the Iranian regime and its militant
proxies, the ability to reach into Israel or the Palestinian
territories to destabilize those communities and act as a spoiler to
peace.
American Citizens Killed in the West Bank
I have made it a point to ensure that American citizens
traveling or living overseas are treated fairly and justly
regardless of national origin. That means that the United
States must seek the release of American citizens who have been
wrongfully detained and American citizens who have been
wrongfully killed. There are a number of very troubling cases
where American citizens have been wrongfully killed on the West
Bank by either members of the IDF or extremist settlers, where
the United States has yet to see any accountability. In May
2022, Palestinian-American journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh, was
killed while reporting on an IDF raid in the Jenin refugee
camp. Since October 7, 2023 three other America citizens have
been killed in the West Bank, including two Palestinian
American teenagers and a Turkish American woman. As Secretary
of State, you will be responsible for the safety and security
of all Americans abroad, including dual-nationals residing in,
visiting, or working in the West Bank and Gaza.
Question. Do you commit to holding accountable those who have
killed or mistreated American citizens in the West Bank and Gaza?
Answer. The first task of the State Department and all other U.S.
Government agencies is to keep the American people safe. If confirmed,
I commit to taking all steps possible to hold accountable anyone who
targets Americans, anywhere in the world, beginning in the immediate
term with holding terrorists such as Hamas and its Iranian regime
sponsors accountable for ongoing kidnapping, torture, and murder of
Americans.
Question. Do you commit to supporting an independent and credible
investigation into the killings of Shireen Abu Akleh and the killings
of Aysenur Eygi, Tawfic Jabbar, and Mohammad Alkhdour?
Answer. Americans are rightly devastated by every loss of our
fellow Americans in the ongoing conflict in Israel and the Palestinian
territories. The vast majority of these tragic deaths, such as the
deaths of dozens of Americans on October 7, 2023, are the consequence
of the brutal Iranian regime-sponsored terrorist campaign against
Israel. In each such case, the Trump Administration will urge and
support a transparent investigation to establish culpability and
accountability for the loss of American lives.
Question. Do you commit to treating cases involving Palestinian-
Americans as you would cases involving any other American citizen and
dual national?
Answer. The Trump Administration will always seek justice and
accountability for harm that wrongfully befalls any American citizen,
worldwide, regardless of that citizen's background or identity.
Iran Diplomacy
As Secretary of State, Iran is likely to be one of the top
national security challenges facing you and the incoming Trump
administration. Most recently, Iran has moved to greatly
accelerate its enrichment of uranium at the 60 percent
threshold at the Fordow facility, which is buried deeply
underground. While President Trump pulled out of the 2015
nuclear agreement with Iran, the president-elect has, at times,
suggested he is willing to pursue new negotiations with Iran.
On the campaign trail in September 2024, he stated on Iran that
``We have to make a deal, because the consequences are
impossible. We have to make a deal.'' Iran has made efforts
over the years to undermine regional stability and has
supported various militias and proxies in the region, but its
nuclear program is of paramount concern.
During your nomination hearing, you said in relation to
engaging Iran that ``my view is that we need to be open to any
arrangement that allows us to have safety and stability in the
region but one which we are clear eyed.''
Question. Do you agree with President-elect Trump's view that the
United States should engage with Iran on these matters?
Answer. As I noted in the confirmation hearing, my view is that the
United States should be open to any arrangement that will lead to
safety and stability for America's interests in the Middle East, but
one in which we remain clear-eyed about the threat the Iranian regime
poses. We should anticipate that any concessions made to the Iranian
regime could enable Tehran to rebuild their military capabilities and
restart their sponsorship of Hezbollah and other related entities.
Holding Commercial Spyware Companies Accountable
Commercial Spyware technologies allow governments to gain
access to an individual's digital devices, often without any
action on the user's part. While intended for law enforcement
purposes, high profile cases, unveiled by journalists and
groups like the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab, Amnesty
International, and Access Now, have documented the targeting of
Russian-and Belarusian-speaking civil society and media figures
residing in exile in Europe, civil society figures in Jordan,
journalists and human rights defenders in Mexico and El
Salvador, and pro-democracy activists in Thailand, just to name
a few. US government officials are not safe from cyber-attacks.
In recent years, US diplomats' devices were hacked with
commercial spyware and US elected officials' digital
communications were surveilled using similar technology.
Spyware poses a grave threat to US national security, and must
be addressed head-on.
Question. Do you commit to using the tools at your disposal to hold
commercial spyware companies accountable?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the tools at my disposal across
the Department that could be used to hold commercial spyware companies
accountable for committing illicit actions that threaten US government
officials and diplomats and undermine American national security.
Protecting US diplomats and other US government officials from
commercial spyware is an important issue for the Department.
Question. Specifically, as Secretary of State, do you plan to use
your authorities, such visa sanctions against individuals who have
abused or facilitated the abuse of commercial spyware technology, to
crack down on this out of control industry?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the authorities, such as visa
sanctions, that could be used against individuals who have abused or
facilitated the abuse of commercial spyware technology in a way that
undermines American national security. Protecting US diplomats and
other US government officials from commercial spyware is an important
issue for the Department.
Protecting the Dissent Cable
You have been nominated to lead a large organization of
77,000 dedicated public servants. Any good leader must be open
to a variety of perspectives, including dissenting
perspectives. The State Department's dissent channel is a vital
mechanism for the non-partisan experts in the Department to
send a direct message to the Secretary of State expressing
constructive dissent over U.S. foreign policy. I know you share
my appreciation for the importance of this channel, because in
February 2022 you introduced a bill to require the Department
of State to release a public, unclassified version of the July
13, 2021, internal dissent channel cable that reportedly warned
of the rapidly deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan
and the Taliban's ability to capture Kabul.
Question. Senator Rubio, if confirmed, do you commit to ensuring
that the dissent cable remains intact?
Question. Do you commit to protecting the drafters of dissent
cables from any form of retaliation or harassment for expressing their
views?
Answer. As I mentioned in my confirmation hearing, efforts to
censor or otherwise punish competing points of view--as we've seen in
this country and others across the globe--are wrong. If confirmed, I
commit to ensuring constructive dissent is not only tolerated, but
welcomed within the Department.
Independence of IG
Inspectors General in the U.S. Government are essential for
promoting accountability and transparency by independently
auditing and investigating Federal agencies to detect and
prevent fraud, waste, abuse, and misconduct. They provide
objective oversight and issue reports with recommendations to
improve agency efficiency and compliance with laws and
regulations. By holding agencies accountable, IGs help maintain
public trust in government operations and safeguard taxpayer
resources. In May 2020, President Donald Trump dismissed State
Department Inspector General Steve Linick upon Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo's recommendation, citing a loss of
confidence. At the time of his removal, Linick was reportedly
investigating Pompeo for potential misuse of government
resources and the administration's decision to bypass Congress
on arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The
firing of Inspector General Linick was a dangerous attack on
the institutional guardrails of Department as an institution.
Question. Senator Rubio, if confirmed, will you commit to
protecting the independence and integrity of the State Department's
Office of the Inspector General, including by firmly opposing
retaliation against the IG and its career staff members?
Answer. If confirmed, I will closely review the work of the Office
of the Inspector General and ensure it is appropriately resourced to
address issues of fraud, waste, and abuse.
Question. Will you commit to working with the members of this
committee on implementing the recommendations of the IG when it
identifies instances of fraud, waste, misconduct, and abuse within the
State Department?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with Members of the
Committee to ensure that IG recommendations are implemented
appropriately.
Career Workforce
The State Department's career workforce comprises over 77,000
non-partisan experts in the conduct of American foreign policy.
Their faithful service to both Democratic and Republican
administrations makes them a vital source of institutional
knowledge to any incoming Secretary of State. In light of
comments made by incoming Trump Administration officials and
actions taken by the previous Trump Administration, it is vital
to understand how you would protect the independence of the
Department's rank and file and the Department's longstanding
merit-based hiring practices.
Question. Do you support, in principle, reclassifying certain
career competitive service positions at the State Department to the
excepted service under the incoming Administration's proposed
reinstated Schedule F hiring authority?
Answer. Yes.
Question. How would you decide which positions would be
reclassified?
Question. How would you decide how many positions would be
reclassified?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the White
House and all relevant Bureaus at the Department to make those
determinations.
Question. Do you intend to nominate any career employees to serve
at the Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary level, including for
positions traditionally held by career officials, such as the Under
Secretary for Political Affairs?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the White
House to nominate the most well-qualified individuals possible for
these critical positions.
Question. At a time when a number of positions at the Department
are already vacant, especially at our Missions overseas, what is your
assessment of how a blanket hiring freeze at the State Department would
impact operations?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to reviewing current Department
staffing to ensure we are using American taxpayer dollars wisely.
Office of Palestinian Affairs
Just as it is in the national interest of the United States
to maintain a strong bilateral relationship with Israel, it is
also in our interest to maintain a strong bilateral
relationship with the Palestinians. A balanced and constructive
engagement with both parties enhances the U.S.'s ability to
serve as an effective mediator in the pursuit of a lasting
peace in the region. Strengthening ties with the Palestinians
can support efforts to promote stability, economic development,
and democratic governance, which are essential for countering
violent extremism, reducing tensions, and fostering mutual
understanding.
Question. Will you retain the position of Special Representative
for Palestinian Affairs within the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of
Near Eastern Affairs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the diplomatic activities,
organization, and resourcing of the Near East bureau and other bureaus
and offices, as appropriate, to ensure the State Department is
optimally postured to conduct its essential missions related to the
Palestinian territories.
Question. Do you support the continued existence of the Office of
Palestinian Affairs, managed by a Senior Foreign Service Officer at
Embassy Jerusalem with the rank of Deputy Chief of Mission and that
reports directly to the Special Representative for Palestinian Affairs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the diplomatic activities,
organization, and resourcing of the Near East bureau and other bureaus
and offices, as appropriate, to ensure the State Department is
optimally postured to conduct its essential missions related to the
Palestinian territories.
__________
Response to an Additional Question for the Record Submitted
to Senator Marco Rubio by Senator Tammy Duckworth
Question. Visa processing delays continue to persist at our
Embassies and Consulates around the world. Some posts have had
innovative, internally driven ways to tackle the backlog, but those
innovations have not been institutionalized or rolled out as part of a
broader strategy. As Secretary of State, what measures will you
instruct the Department of State to undertake to reduce visitor visa
wait times and address system delays worldwide?
Answer. I understand the frustration that long visa processing
times cause for both American citizens and foreign nationals. If
confirmed, my staff and I will have the opportunity to identify
innovative processes currently implemented at individual posts that not
only increase efficiency but also ensure the safety and security of
Americans.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Senator Marco Rubio by Senator Jacky Rosen
VISA PROCESSING
Nevada's economy relies on business travelers who come to our
State from across the country and around the world for
conventions, trade shows, and conferences. This year, the
business and professional events industry will employ 285,199
Nevadans and generate more than $43 billion in direct spending
statewide. We are also home to world class sports and
entertainment events that draw visitors from around the world--
from F1 races to UFC fights to the Super Bowl. Event organizers
in Nevada and nationwide rely on reasonable visa interview and
processing wait times at U.S. embassies and consulates in order
to host would-be participants and attendees. Since the return
of post-pandemic international travel, the State Department has
made significant progress in reducing visitor visa wait times,
but there is still much more to be done.
Question. As the US prepares to host a decade of major global
events--from the 2026 World Cup to the 2028 Summer Olympics--and as
both leisure and business travel demand continue to increase, what
steps would you as Secretary of State take to ensure reasonable wait
times for visas at all U.S. embassies and consulates around the world?
Specifically, what goals will you set for the Bureau of Consular
Affairs in 2025 for business and tourist visa interviews and
processing? And how will you work with this Committee to ensure
transparency and accountability when it comes to the efficient
processing of traveler visas systemwide?
Answer. As the US prepares to host major events like the 2026 World
Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics, we know that demand to visit the US
will be at an all time high. If confirmed, my staff and I, especially
in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, will work diligently to ensure an
efficient, smooth, and effective visa process that protects America's
security. We will aim to reduce wait times as much as reasonably
possible while maintaining a secure and effective process compliant
with US laws and work with all relevant stakeholders to ensure success,
transparency and accountability.
HOLOCAUST SURVIVIORS' RESTITUTION EFFORTS
Eighty years after the end of World War II and 15 years since
the adoption of the Terezin Declaration, Holocaust survivors
and their families--both in the United States and around the
world--as well as many European Jewish communities devasted by
the Holocaust are continuing to seek a measure of justice for
property wrongfully seized by the Nazis and their allies, or
subsequently nationalized by Communist regimes.
Question. In your new role as Secretary of State, will you continue
to champion Holocaust restitution efforts as Secretary of State,
ensuring the U.S. remains a leading advocate for survivors and their
families?
Answer. The restitution available to Holocaust survivors and their
families is of the utmost importance. If confirmed, my staff and I will
continue to champion Holocaust restitution efforts, like those codified
in the JUST Act, and ensure that the U.S. remains a leading advocate
for survivors and their families.
OFFICE OF SPECIAL ENVOY FOR HOLOCAUST ISSUES
Question. Will you also commit to ensuring that the Office of the
Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues has the necessary resources and
political support to sustain U.S. leadership in advancing international
Holocaust restitution efforts as well as supporting Holocaust
commemorations and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance?
Answer. If confirmed, my staff and I will continue to champion all
applicable roles and efforts to support Holocaust restitution efforts,
like those codified in the JUST Act, and ensure that the U.S. remains a
leading advocate for survivors and their families.
DIPLOMATIC ENGAGEMENT FOR HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS
Question. What specific diplomatic measures do you plan to pursue
to encourage other governments, especially in Eastern and Central
Europe, to return property or provide compensation to survivors and
their heirs?
Answer. If confirmed, my staff and I will continue to champion all
applicable roles and efforts to support Holocaust restitution efforts,
like those codified in the JUST Act, and ensure that the U.S. remains a
leading advocate for survivors and their families.
DIPLOMATIC STRATEGY FOR HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS
Question. Last, how do you view the need for continued U.S.
engagement on Holocaust-era restitution as part of a broader diplomatic
strategy, particularly in light of the alarming rise of antisemitism
and Holocaust distortion and the increasing challenges to democratic
norms worldwide?
Answer. The alarming rise of antisemitism is not to be taken
lightly. If confirmed, my staff and I will continue to champion all
efforts to support not only reiterating the truth about the Holocaust
but also supporting Holocaust restitution efforts, like those codified
in the JUST Act. I will work to ensure that the U.S. remains a leading
advocate for survivors and their families.
IBWC
The Colorado River is critically important to Nevada, and
many decisions over the next 2 years will determine the future
of the river and the communities that depend on it. The
International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) plays an
important role in the operation of the Colorado River and our
relationship with the Republic of Mexico, particularly during
times of unprecedented drought and water challenges. Dr. Maria
Elena Giner is the U.S. Commissioner of the IBWC and has been
integral to the progress that's been made over the last 4
years. Just last week, the Governors' representatives from the
seven basin States, including Nevada, sent a letter,
highlighting her incredible work and asking that continuity be
maintained at the IBWC with her reappointment.
Question. Will you provide full and fair consideration of this
request to maintain Dr. Maria Elena Giner as U.S. Commissioner of the
International Boundary and Water Commission?
Answer. The post of the U.S. Commissioner of the International
Boundary and Water Commission is appointed by the President of the
United States. If confirmed, my staff and I will support the selected
appointees and policies of the President.
__________
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]