Department of State FY 2027 Budget Request: A Commitment to America First Foreign Policy

Committee on Foreign Affairs will come to order. I would ask everybody to rise and join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America And to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Welcome. The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the State Department's fiscal year, twenty twenty seven, budget requests and identify where we are achieving the greatest returns on our investment on behalf of the American taxpayers, and how the department is realigning programs and bureaucracy to support the President's America first Policy Agenda. I will now recognize myself for a very brief opening statement. Mister Secretary, I appreciate you being here today. I know that members are eager to get to their questions, so I'll be very brief. We appreciate your attendance. I can give you a foreshadowing of what you're about to experience. My Democrat colleagues are going to sit up here and say that they haven't heard from the administration I'm gonna thank you for the thirty times, just in this Congress, uh that the State Department has briefed the full committee, the subcommittee, round tables, other times that you all have been here to brief us on a myriad of issues. I wanna thank you for the only, the over twenty briefings that you've given to Congress by yourself, with General Kane, Director Radcliffe, Secretary Hegseth, and others since the start of Operation Epic Fury. Some of my colleagues in here will say that we are in a war of choice with no real threat to the US. I wanna say to you, thank you for choosing to kill those who have been attacking and killing us for over forty-seven years, specifically attacking us over three hundred and fifty times in the thirty months prior to Operation Epic Fury. Under senile Joe Biden, they voted to, my colleagues over here voted to say, use any and all means to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. So I wanna thank you for bringing the heat to Iran, even though most of my colleagues on the left now say uh that Iran poses no threat, they pretend as though they have never been attacking us. I also wanna thank you for the work that you've done to reset the Western hemisphere. While you've been focused on bettering our relationships in places like Panama, Cuba, Venezuela, throughout the Gulf of America, the Biden and Blinken administration focused on funding drag shows in Ecuador and transgender operas in Colombia, I would say your work is significantly better. So I wanna thank you for the substantial change in putting America first in our foreign policy. And with that, I will recognize Ranking Member Meeks for whatever he has to say.

Thank you, Secretary Rubio, for being here today. You know, eighteen months ago You inherited the most powerful diplomatic institution in the world, built on three pillars that have defined American leadership since World War Two. I call them the three Ds, diplomacy, dialogue, and development. And in just eighteen months, the Trump administration has taken a wrecking ball to all three. This administration has involved and have invoked a worldview from years past that has left the United States isolated and struggling economically. What you see is a greatest hits album of failed ideas from the last century. Terrorists, spears of influence, attacks on civil rights, and immigration. Ignoring science and hoping for the best. Mister Secretary, America cannot win the future by trying to relive the past. And your department is exhibit A. We've seen the s- systematic dismantling of America's diplomatic core. Over one hundred ambassador posts sit vacant around the world. One thousand three hundred career professionals, people with decades of expertise in energy, counterterrorism, and nuclear nonproliferation have been fired. Efforts to ensure US diplomats represent the diversity of America have been squandered. While China increases its diplomatic presence globally, we have cut ours to the bone. America cannot win the future by retreating and seeding the field. On trade, this administration revived Smoot-Hawley, and we all know how that ended. Trump's tariffs raised costs for American people, harmed small businesses, and alienated our allies. We cannot build a twenty-first century economy on twentieth century failures. Mister Secretary, after decades of forever war in the Middle East, President Trump promised the American people no new wars, only to send a new generation of troops back to the Middle East. We've traded dialogue for bombs yet again. And where does that leave us today? The Iranian regime still has its missiles, its drones, its proxies, and its nuclear material. There is an Ayatollah still in power, only he's younger, with the IRGC more entrenched and more hard-line. The Strait of Hamos is closed. It wasn't before you started this war. It wasn't before we lost fourteen American troops, before American bombs killed a hundred and sixty-eight Iranian schoolgirls, before Americans were forced to spend over one hundred billion dollars. on this war. You helped spin the perfect pretext for this war and then failed to prepare American embassies and citizens when the bombs started falling. Those who have defended and enabled this war share direct responsibility for the economic pain American families are bearing as a result. Our allies knew this war was ill-advised, and that's why they are sitting on the sidelines while Gulf energy infrastructure and American bases take incoming. Trump said America first. Now America's alone. And our hemisphere talk of reasserting dominance has meant illegally abducting foreign leaders, installing one autocrat in place of another, bombing boats without due process, and blockading civilian populations. That is not American leadership. Those are not American values. That is the behavior we built the rules-based order to prevent. The Trump administration's attacks on foreign aid and development efforts remain equally destructive and regressive. This administration's policies have directly contributed to famine in South Sudan and have undermined our ability to respond to the lat latest Ebola outbreak in real time. HIV rates are rising. Mister Secretary, These cuts have resulted in the avoidable death of hundreds of thousands of children around the world. And we cannot protect Americans by ignoring science or forgetting what ignoring it cost us before. So, Mister Secretary, on climate and energy, the story is the same.

Ranking members' time has expired, other members of the committee are reminding that opening statements may be submitted for the record. We're pleased to have Secretary of State Marco Rubio before us today. Your full statements will be made a part of the record. I'll ask you to keep your spoken remarks to five minutes in order to allow time for member questions. I now recognize Secretary Rubio for your opening statement.

Thank you, uh, Mister Chairman, thank you, Mister Ranking Member, and all the members of the committee for having me. I have a written opening statement. I'll submit it. I'll try to cut the five minutes in half if I can. Let's just get right to the point. I think that you, I would characterize the last sixteen, seventeen months at the State Department as two things. A history of tremendous successes combined with uh ongoing and difficult challenges and we will always have ongoing and difficult challenges in the world. Let me walk through them one by one. India and Pakistan were on the verge of an all-out war. The State Department and I personally were involved in de-escalating that conflict and bringing it to an end a war between two nuclear powers. Thailand and Cambodia were involved in a war. Cambodia, a country we haven't normally had close relations with in a very long time. The US, the President personally played a pivotal role, not once but twice, restoring cease-fires and ending that conflict. Um, obviously the the the uh the the war in Gaza was brought to an end. Not only that, but all the hostages that remained were released, both the bodies and those who were alive. Armenia and Azerbaijan, that conflict ended. Not only did it end, but it ended with an agreement that I signed the MOU on yesterday, creating a new prosperity route, the trip route, which will provide extraordinary opportunities for both countries, especially for Armenia, while respecting their sovereignty to really benefit from that. The shield of the Americas was stood up. That means over fourteen countries in the hemisphere, fourteen countries in the hemisphere have signed up to partner with us on counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics and security matters and we believe that that number will grow over the next few months as elect elections change leaderships in various countries. We held a rare earths ministerial that was attended by over thirty some odd countries from around the world all who were signing up for an American-led effort to ensure that critical supplies of rare earth minerals around the world are available for our emerging economies. and we don't remain overly dependent on China. We also announced the Paxilica uh uh proposal, which is growing, but it's at fourteen members now. These are fourteen countries that are cooperating with one another to protect the supply chains critical to AI and AI development in the future.

Uh-huh.

In Venezuela, we now have a functioning and open embassy. We have people traveling there for the first time. It's not where it needs to be, but it is a long ways from where it was five months ago, and h poses nearly, not nearly, the threat it once posed to America's national security. We're not satisfied with where it is, but we've come a long way. We're certainly better off than we were five years, uh five months ago. Uh on the on the on Nigeria, uh where we were all, many were very concerned about violence against Christians. We are now actively in counter-terrorism cooperation with the Nigerian government and Nigerian security forces including a joint operation a couple weeks ago that took out the number two leader of global ISIS operating from inside of the country and that continues. The Pacific islands, small Pacific islands under constant pressure and threat from China have received more attention from this administration than they've received in the last ten years combined and deliverables are coming along the way. The Quad, an important alliance in the Indo-Pacific between India, Japan, Australia, we've had multiple meetings of those of that group, including a meeting just last week in India and a follow-up that's gonna occur later this year including a leaders' meeting before the end of the year. As I speak to you now for the second consecutive day and for the first time in many, many years, The leaders of the legitimate government of Lebanon and leaders from the government of Israel are seated at the State Department for the second day in a row, and hopefully today will uh produce a joint statement and an action plan on a track for security in that country independent from Hezbollah, independent from their nefarious influence. Uh, they had similar meetings last week at the Pentagon at the military level. Um, we have signed thirty-two health compacts. Thirty-two countries have signed health compacts with the United States, where our aid to those countries will not just be dollars distributed to an NGO who then will go into the country and impose programs. Instead, we are partnering with thirty-two countries, many of them in the African continent, in which we will empower their native and domestic health industries and and national health systems, so that they can not not only are we treating the the the acute situations on the ground of people that are sick, we are helping them be uh build the capacity and the capability to do this for themselves. This is what these countries want. They do not wanna be perpetual aid recipients. They wanna be able to be able to take care of their people one day, and we are helping them as part of our aid to build that infrastructure. I could go on, but let me just say another point.

Mm.

We are better today than we have ever been at disaster relief. Today, the United States can respond to disasters around the world on a humanitarian basis faster and more effectively than they ever have, because of our reorganization. And the proof is our response in Jamaica, our response to two typhoons in the Pacific, Our ability to quickly deploy within twenty-four hours and bring aid directly coordinating with the governments to people is better than it has ever been because we cut out bureaucracy we cut out the middleman, and we went right to the point. We still have challenges. On Sudan, remains a very frustrating situation. We remain deeply engaged with the Quad in these negotiations. As many of you are aware, unfortunately Sudan has turned into a proxy war uh between multiple countries uh and and the divisions between the UAE and Saudi Arabia truly complicated, our ability to bring that to an end. What we're focused on there now is identifying two cities, or four cities, two on each side uh that will be serve as points of distribution for humanitarian aid. Uh but the inability not the real frustrating thing about Sudan is that one side or the other will agree to something but then they will not comply. But we remain focused on that and we have people that work on that full time. We even had a donor conference just about a month and a half ago where we hundreds of millions of dollars in pledges for not just humanitarian aid, but reconstruction. We're focused on that. It's an ongoing challenge. On DRC in Rwanda, they signed a peace agreement. Unfortunately, compliance has not been good. We've had to impose a few sanctions on the Rwandan side. We are starting to see some compliance. It's moving, not moving fast enough, but we're hoping to see compliance at some point in the middle part of next month, in withdrawing the Rwandan troops from there. Of course, we still have the M-twenty-three problem that has to be addressed. Um. So this is a host of of of issues we could go on. Obviously the ongoing challenges of Iran remain, uh as uh we we I'm sure we'll speak about extensively in your questions today. So I apologize that took four minutes and fifty-five seconds, but I tried to talk as fast as I could. Thank you.

Thank you, Secretary Rubio, I now recognize ranking member Meeks for five minutes of questions.

I'm gonna ask you to ask my questions quickly because clearly the chairman wants to protect you that's why he's cutting folks cutting me off my opening statement but Secretary

You had five minutes.

Yeah. Secretary, you have the honor of serving both the acting as acting uh National Sec- Security Advisor and Secretary of State. In these roles you've played a central role in advising the President as Commander-in-Chief to launch a war against Iran. And the impacts of this choice have been significant on our allies and partners, who immediately have targeted by retaliatory strikes, as well as for Americans here at home. Three months into this war, gas and food prices are up. Inflation is rising, American business owners and farmers are struggling from higher shipping and commodity costs. And yet the president said two weeks ago, and I quote, "I don't think about American's financial situation." That's a quote that should alarm every American. Americans are also rightfully concerned that while they struggled with affordability due to the war in Iran the president of the United States is busy day trading on it. He disclosed purchases of stocks in energy and defense companies in the first quarter of this year that were made just as those companies' profits were soaring from the war in Iran. On March twenty-third, the same day he reversed his threat to strike Iranian energy, infrastructure and energy stocks rose. He bought stocks then in Phillips sixty-six, Exxon and Chevron. Secretary, I have a few questions, and again, given the amount of time that I have, I will ask you to give me yes and no answers. Did you warn President Trump before the war in Iran began that this conflict would drive up cost on gas, food, travel, and shipment?

Yeah, I'll warn you right now.

Yes or no?

I don't do yes or no answers.

Yeah, well, I only have five minutes.

So have you, well, these are complex questions.

I know when you were the senator,

Oh, so do I.

you know about this business,

I never did yes or no answers to people.

and I know you're trying to go out so that you can run out my five minutes. That's a simple question.

I'm not gonna run out your five minutes, you're running out your five minutes.

Did you

I don't do yes or no que- you wanna answer me a question, I'll answer your question.

I'm answering you're answering my question my way, it's my time. Did you?

Did I warn

Yes or no? Did you warn President Trump before the Iran war began that this

The president was fully okay.

conflict would drive up cost on gas food travel and ship?

The the president the president and the full administration was

Yes or no?

aware that there would be consequences to action but the consequences

Let me warn you.

of Iran having a nuclear weapon were worse.

Did you warn the Did you warn him? Did you warn him that launching a war on Iran could result in the regime placing a chokehold on the state of Hormuz?

All the risk factors were understood, but the most important risk factor was Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.

Did you, I just wanna know if you did your job. Did you warn him? Say, if you didn't warn him, say yes.

Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.

It's simple.

Ev- the everyone was aware of what Iran might do in retaliation.

Did you warn him? I'm asking you second.

Everyone was aware of what Iran would do.

Did you warn him? Don't wanna answer that. Let me ask you the next question.

But the worst part is that they can't have any.

Did you warn the president that launching US strikes against Iran would result in retaliatory attacks on US allies, partners, and Americans living or working in the Middle East.

Everyone understood what Iran would do in response.

Yes or no? Did you warn them?

We were prepared for any response that they came out with.

You warn- OK.

We knew it, but they can't have a nuclear weapon.

Just wanna make sure. So you said you warned them. Did you warn the president that the personal stock purchases and companies profiting from the war that he launched could present a conflict of interest?

I'm not aware of the president's stock purchases. I d- I don't deal that, and I don't even know if what you're saying is true.

Well, we know that what he's, because it is made public what his stock purchases were.

You say so. I don't read the President's,

All right, so

the financial disclosure, but I don't believe that to be true.

I I well, I think then the President should be more transparent. Secretary, yo, yo, yo, cuz these are basic questions that I'm asking you. And to be transparent with the American people. This is what this is all about. The transparency. So for example, when you go and look at some of your statements that you made in regards to Cuba, I only have fifty eight seconds left, and I'd love to give it but you talked about uh, Gaissa who's controlling the military and what's taking place there, and that they had the opportunity to benefit while the Cuban people are suffering. So what we're seeing here now, the one person that's benefited from this war by his purchase of stocks, him and his friends. They have made billions of dollars while the American people are suffering. You've accused And I agree with reference to some folks, what they're doing in Cuba and how they're making money while people suffer. That's what's taking place in the United States of America. The Trump administration and his friends are making billions of dollars while the American people suffer. And they continue to suffer as gas prices go up.

Ranks by heart, but ranking members' times has expired, Representative McCall is recognized.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me thank you for your service. Secretary, yeah, I know you're wearing a lot of hats, a lot of responsibilities. I think you're doing an outstanding job. Um, let me just say, since nineteen seventy nine, a dark veil of terror descended upon the Middle East, and we've had it ever since. And every president since that time has said that a nuclear run is not acceptable. And every Congress has said that. In fact, last Congress, when I was chairman of this committee, I passed a resolution that said that a nuclear run was unacceptable and that the US must use any means necessary to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The vast majority of Democrats voted for this. Most almost all Republicans, it passed the House for a resolution stating that that is not acceptable. We've had a lot of talk in these congresses. And in prior administrations, a lot of talk. But we haven't had a whole lot of action. Your administration, you, sir, and the president have taken action on this very dire, dangerous situation we find ourselves in. with Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. I also wanna applaud you for your efforts in this Western hemisphere, a free Venezuela, a free people, possibly one day a free Cuba. When people don't realize Iran is in this hemisphere, and Russia is in this hemisphere, and China is in this hemisphere, but they're, this is all kinda tied together in a coherent foreign policy strategy that, that I see. So I wanted to give you the time sir, to respond to that because, again, all talk and no action. But you, sir, have put this into action.

Thank you. Well, let me just, before I address that, I wanna. The ranking member made accusations against the president which I've never heard before but number one, are completely false. Not once, just to be clear, not a single time, not even for a millisecond, has the president ever discussed his personal economics and relations to war or any public policy that he's made for that matter. And I've been in every one of his foreign policy meetings for the most part. As to your point, The the um, what we need to understand is exactly what you just said. It's not just that we say they can't have a nuclear weapon. Everyone says they can't have a nuclear weapon. The Chinese say they can't have a nuclear weapon. The Russians agree they couldn't have a nuclear weapon. But you have to do something about it. What Iran was trying to do was build a conventional shield of drones and missiles, and a navy, and the capabilities. At some point they would say to the world, now we're gonna get a nuclear weapon, and you can't do anything about it because we have so many weapons, and so many drones, and so many naval vessels. that the price we will inflict on you for trying to do something about it makes us untouchable, makes us immune. And the president was not gonna allow them to build a conventional shield behind which they can develop their nuclear program. Today, the Iranian navy sits at the bottom of the sea. They do not have a navy, it no longer exists. They have no air force either. Their missile launchers have been significantly degraded. Their defense industrial base has suffered upwards of eighty to ninety percent of attrition it will take years for them to rebuild it. Those are facts. That is the reality. That was the purpose of Epic Fury. It achieved its purpose in degrading that conventional shield. And it has brought them to the negotiation table that hopefully will will lead to the point where Iran will give up its enrichment ambitions will turn over the highly enriched uranium will stop stop sponsoring terrorism around the world.

You know, and I think, I think the goal should be the fulfillment of the Abraham Accords. We know why October seventh happened, because Israel and Saudi were getting very, very close And in Iran's perspective, dangerously close to a normalization agreement. And what did Iran do? They lit up their proxies. They lit up their proxies to stop that from happening. I d- I do foresee a free Iran. I do foresee a free Venezuela and a free Cuba. But you have to start somewhere. And I think we've, we're taking the steps so that future generations will thank us for these actions.

Look, and and on the point of we would love to see a change in Iran and that they'd be governed by people but that was not the goal of our mission the goal of our mission was to take away their ability to threaten the region with an overwhelming number of missiles and drones that would basically make them immune to any sort of external pressure and then they could break out to a nuclear weapon. That was the goal, it achieved that from a military perspective, the reality of it remains that it's not just us, the entire world says they can't have a nuclear weapon but no one wanted to do anything about it. And I can tell you this, they are not going to have a nuclear weapons program, at least as long as President Trump is in the White House. That's been made clear to everyone in the administration from the very top down. It was the motivation behind these actions, and it's the region, reason why we engaged the way we did.

I wanna thank you again in the last ten seconds for your service. I would hope we could unify as a nation behind this. I would hope our allies would unify behind us on this because they've all said it, as we have said it in the past, and yet it was all talk and no action.

Representative, time is expired.

Are you alright?

Representative Keating is recognized.

Chairman, for the record, I ask your men's unanimous consent to submit the President's financial disclosure form, which will detail those dealings that were referred to by the ranking member.

Not objection.

Secretary, uh, thank you for being here, uh, and in in conjunction with your job, you're also the National Security Advisor, uh, uh, with access to the most sensitive intelligence secrets, uh, our countries and other countries have in the world. Uh but before this uh you had uh these two positions. You had uh a distinguished career as a member and a chair for five years of the Senate Intelligence Committee, uh up to last year, and you and uh Senator Warner are some of the most respected and knowledgeable people at that time, uh and voices in the entire intelligence community, earning the trust of Democrats and Republicans alike, the Senator and House members, and uh other countries. So with all your intelligence committee experience, and now as secretary of state and national security advisor, and all those years of experience, have you ever specifically in the context of the intelligence community heard the name Bill Pulte?

In the context of intelligence?

That's what I said.

No. No, I mean

Never heard his name. Okay, thank you for answering that.

Well, to be

Never even heard his name. Given all your years of experience and your position now, never heard the name, for the record, Bill Pulte is a person Donald Trump uh has chosen for the acting director of national intelligence, with no experience in in the intelligence field, whose misuse, uh widely reported, of confidential information led to the prosecution of the president's political enemies, is now the person in charge of the nation's most closely guarded intelligence, when he couldn't even conduct themselves appropriately as the federal housing finance director. Now, Secretary, have you ever heard of the name uh Ira Zahari?

Who's that?

You've never heard the name Ira Zahari?

I mean it doesn't ring a bell off the top.

In the context of uh security, well let me tell you. Uh, Mister Zahari pleaded guilty for breaking into the Capitol on January sixth, through a broken windi- window, wielding a metal rod as a weapon. And Donald Trump appointed him to a team at the Pentagon focused on irregular warfare and of all things, counterterrorism. That's ironic, given that he participated in one of the most significant incidents of domestic terror in our country's history. I think it's shameful, the people that are being appointed, and I think it's also shameful, some of the people that have been retire, have been fired. Now, I wanna move to Iran um because uh given your nuclear uh and intelligence background which is extensive and appreciated and respected. I'm sure you're aware that Ukraine, the country at the time with the third largest nuclear arsenal, peacefully turned over their nuclear weapons in conjunction with the Budapest Memorandum and in exchange for the US commitment to defend Ukraine if it ever came under threat. The US gave their word to Ukraine, they would defend them. And I found this amazing. In your opening remarks, that you took us all over the world and you mentioned fifteen different incidents where you've interceded. Fifteen. The top fifteen. Not once did you mention Ukraine when you were prioritizing the achievement that's there. Now let me go on. Let me go on. Oh you tried to stay,

You tried to stay under five minutes.

yeah, please,

Oh I can answer that.

it's not funny, it's not funny, Secretary. Now,

What's not funny is that

in Iran now,

well you don't really,

in Iran now,

definitely you can't even answer questions here.

I reclaim my time, I'm not an, I reclaim my time,

You guys make these statements and no one can respond.

He is interrupting me. He is interrupting me.

You still put it back.

I'm doing it. I'm asking you to reclaim those seconds back.

No.

Now in Ir- Now in Iran, what goes around comes around, Mister Chairman, now in Iran, the Trump administration issues a general license to Russia,

Why?

providing billions in oil profits every month, several billion every month, fueling Putin's war machine. You didn't mention that in your opening remarks. And then this is an a war of aggression of Russia attacking Ukra- Ukraine, which we gave our agreement. And this is to a country that's assisting us in Iran, Ukraine, and helping a country with a war machine, where, that are aiding Iran against us and putting our service members in jeopardy. Look it, we have an opportunity as members just today to vote on the Ukraine Support Act. I hope we do it, and I am confident that we'll have bipartisan support. But I hope this administration would act on its own. They could do things themselves that you didn't mention, like rescind these general licenses, complete a bi bilateral drone agreement with Ukraine, provide direct military assistance that has access to the Ukraine, implement comprehensive sanctions packages,

Representative Sands,

and condemn the arresting.

expired, Representative Smith of New Jersey is recognized.

And and thank you, Mister Chairman, for taking up my time in squandering it. That's not how a chairman should act.

Representative Smith, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Mr. Secretary, if you need a moment to respond to any of this.

Well, I also didn't mention Cuba, cuz I wrote, I literally hand wrote what I was gonna say to you guys, and I told you I was to submit the written for the record, and I think everybody understands Cuba's a priority for me. Just on the Ukraine front, I'll address it now, if it's OK with your time that I could do so. We've I think it's well documented that we've been very involved in trying to get the two sides to the table. We've invested a lot of time in it. Unfortunately, so to this point, neither side has been willing to make concessions, particularly on the Russian side, necessary in order to bring peace about. We remain ready to play any role we can in that context of bringing a peace about, because we think the war in Ukraine, devastating war, has no military solution. It can only be solved through a diplomatic route, and it's been unfruitful. It's p- uh I would characterize it as the ongoing challenges. That said, let's be clear. We are not, to be fair and to be frank, we are not impartial mediators in that war, OK? We don't provide weapons to Russia, we only provide weapons to Ukraine. We don't impose sanctions on Ukraine, we only impose sanctions on Russia. So we have clearly taken a side. We continue to sell weapons to Ukraine, by the way, through the Pearl program, unimpeded by the, by what's happened in the Middle East or anywhere else. And look, we'd love to see that come to a negotiated settlement. As of right now, the prospects don't look great, that either side is prepared to make the concessions necessary in order to reach an agreement but we stand ready and we've engaged and invested a tremendous amount of high level time on on that conflict over the last year. I think it's a source of frustration for the world. Hopefully this year will bring better news. I don't have any news for you on that front today, but we are ready. As I've expressed to both sides repeatedly, we're ready uh to step in and play whatever positive role we can to bring that devastating and escalating war to an end.

Uh, Mr. Secretary, thank yous very much, and just let me say Claire and Sebastian Lye and all of us are deeply grateful to you and the president for everything you tried to do to get Jimmy Lye out. Obviously it's an ongoing concern and I know you will continue to push for that. Uh but I know you did, everything was, the ball was in Xi Jinping's court. Uh and he unfortunately erred on the side of continued incarceration of that great human rights defender. But thank you for that. Let me say on the Iran deal, I remember sitting right here and on the floor of the house talking about how egregiously flawed the deal was ten years ago, when the At- Ayatollah was able to get the language dealing with ballistic missiles out of it cuz he said it would be stupid, his words. Uh and then they built ballistic missiles uh like never before. Um them never having, uh Iran never having a nuclear weapon, um let's not forget that the agreement was in effect until October of this past year. Other nations were still a part of it, and yet they were building a capacity uh to create nuclear weapons and to use them, and the mad theory does not apply to them, as we all know. Uh unlike Russia, Soviet Union in the past, even China, uh they don't wanna be destroyed. With the Iranians there's a sense of martyrdom that I think is perverse, uh and so they don't are not guided by a mutual assured destruction theory that holds both sides in check. Let me just say too on on the um Nigeria, thank you for what you've done um there with not just CPC, but the most recent taking out of some of the worst of the worst terrorists who are slaughtering Christians and the numbers continue, but I know you're engaging very very aggressively there. On the DRC Rwanda, conflict. Thank you for sanctioning uh some of the top people um who are committing atrocities. And that just happened a couple of days ago, yesterday, uh for sure. Uh that shows that commitment there. And on even the Armenian Azerbaijan, I've been working on Nagorno-Karabakh and uh Azerbaijan and Armenia for thirty years. They often called Nagorno-Karabakh the frozen conflict, cuz nothing would ever happen. You guys stepped in, you stepped in, and the president stepped in and got a peace treaty. I mean, I've met with with on two occasions. he was totally unwilling to admit to the human rights abuses that he was engaging in, especially as it relates to Nagorno-Karabakh and our and the Armenians, you've you've come up with a solution. Thank you for that. Uh and anything you want to speak to on the DRC of Rwanda or any of these issues, uh appreciate everything you're doing uh for this country. There are, there's a full plate of horrible things happening, and we're so grateful you're at the helm.

Mm-hmm.

Please.

Oh, well, I I just on DRC Rwanda I would say, cuz just to elaborate on that a little further, as you know we had an agreement signed and the compliance was not good in that regard,

Yes.

but to be fair, pr and I know that some other people disagree with this assessment, but it's I we believe it's pretty accurate on the Rwandan side. And so we initiated some sanctions, targeted sanctions on Rwanda. They've come to the table, they've made some commitments. They are complying with the commitments, maybe not at this rate.

Representative Symes expired. Representative Castro, you are recognized.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, Uh, thank you, thank you, Mister Secretary, Mister secretary, for coming in today and for your testimony. for coming in today and for your testimony. I want to start with Iran. I'm hopeful that the president and the administration are able to reach an agreement that ends the war and also re- reopens the state of Hormuz. If there's a deal subject to congressional review under INARA, I'll approach it with a fair mind, and I hope that all of us will as well. Uh, I just ask that you keep the committee briefed on the details of that agreement, and I believe that it's in America's interest that this war end, and I sincerely mean that. We are at war alongside Israel against Iran. Iran has struck Israeli nuclear facilities at Damona, and American service members are deployed throughout the region, as you know. Congress needs to understand the full risks of the conflict, including the nuclear risks. On May fourth, I wrote to you with twenty-nine colleagues asking for details about these risks and Israeli nuclear weapons. On June first, your Bur- Bureau of Legislative Affairs responded and said, quote, "We refer you to the government of Israel." for your questions about Israel's capabilities. I have to say, Mister Secretary, that's a very bizarre response. Thirty of us wrote to - to you and to the State Department, asking our government for an answer, an assessment about a foreign nation's nuclear capabilities. In your opening statement, you referred to India and Pakistan as nuclear nations. We've also spoken in different sessions, both in close and open sessions, you know as a US Senator, former US Senator, about the nuclear capabilities of other nations, Iran, China, Russia, France, the UK, both adversaries and allies. And so I wanted to ask you the question today, will you tell us, the Congress and the American people, whether Israel in fact possesses nuclear weapons?

Uh, you know that that's a question that we don't, they've never acknowledged they have a nuclear program. People can have, as you know, an open source and other reporting. suspicions about what they possess. If we're speaking frankly, I think most of the world assesses that they do. But we've never, they've never acknowledged that publicly, and as a as a feature of our foreign policy of a variety of reasons, we don't discuss it in that way either.

Well, I guess a few things. Um, this is the first time, especially for an extended period, that we are at war with an ally, Israel, against Iran. And we have service members deployed. And we don't, if they in fact possess nuclear weapons, and you're right, in open source,

That's a fair observation, and I would answer that, if perhaps you make that request and you're open to it being answered in a different setting, other than a public letter.

Mm. A classified setting?

Yes. Uh and both classified and sensitive, and if we could I think we would you would get a better response to your question, if the context in which it was answered were framed differently than a public letter for a variety of reasons. If we're being mature and grown up here, I mean foreign policy and I know that you are and you from the tone of your question, it's clear that it's a serious question. Um these things require delicate balancing acts between different equities, but I think you can get probably a more fulsome answer if we were to be able to to that inquiry in a different context. If that makes sense.

Mr. Secretary, I certainly take you up on that and I appreciate your answer. Thank you for that. Uh, I have another question on on Lebanon. Uh, the President and you were working to end this war with Iran, and according to reporting at least, one of the main sticking points is Israel's continuing military campaign in Lebanon against Hezbollah, which the President has called on Israel to stop. Uh, the President confirmed last night, in fact, that he in fact told Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to stop the war in Lebanon. Uh, my worry is that Israel's insistence on continuing this war against Hezbollah will jeopardize the president's efforts and the American government's efforts to reach an agreement with Iran. And so, uh, my question is, do you agree that Israel should stop its military campaign in Lebanon and support the president's negotiations for a peace agreement with Iran?

I'd love to answer that question. I, it is gonna take more than the forty-two seconds, and I know I've seen already that people get pretty pissed off here when their time gets eaten up. But if I can answer that question, maybe the next person will let me continue, cuz that's a really important question. So let me just start by saying this. Um, let me walk you through this. We had an agreement. Hezbollah reached out two weeks ago and basically, so about ten days ago, and basically said, we will not launch missiles into Israeli territory if they stop attacking into Beirut. That was the agreement, I think five PM two Saturdays ago. At six PM, they launched missiles. Then they came back and said, " Well, we made a mistake, we thought it started tomorrow, not Saturday." then they went again and violated again on Sun Sunday.

But, uh, but also Israel has been bombing and launching throughout. Is that correct?

Well, there's two separate things. Actually, Israel has not conducted massive operations in Beirut for some time. What what you see them operating is in the south. And what they are respon- that what we've always said, and it's part of the joint statement, we've always said is Israel has a right to act in its defense. So as an example, if

Well, but so then why did why did the president have to tell Israel to stop anything?

Time has expired. Representative Wilson is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and indeed, uh, Mr., uh, Secretary. Uh, I wanna thank you and uh recognize that we appreciate the US Israel alliance, and we appreciate very much the uh response uh that's being done against eleven hundred missile attacks that have come out of Lebanon as you've just identified, correctly, and they need to know that, and how they don't know that, I don't know. But uh any attacks that are done by Israel are in response, not initiated. With that in mind, uh you are serving at a historic time uh with successive dictators on the run. Dictator Assad of Syria has fled to Moscow, Dictator Maduro of Venezuela is incarcerated in Ma- Manhattan, Dictator Khomeini of Iran has been eliminated, joining the forty thousand Iranians he murdered this year. As Chairman myself of the Helsinki Commission, Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe, you have achieved unprecedented Euro- unity in Latin America, supporting the liberation of Venezuela and soon Cuba. You have achieved historic unity across the Middle East of all countries, supporting American efforts, except for the Republic of Georgia, to oppose Iran and its nuclear capabilities. And in Europe, NATO and the EU are united as never before, promoting defense increases for peace through strength, to indeed promote Ukraine victory over war criminal Putin. With that in mind, another region is the South Caucasus, which is critical of the opportunity for the Trump route that you've achieved. with uh Prime Minister Prashant of Armenia and President Azerbaijan, President Alayef of Azerbaijan. What a great achievement that is. With that in mind though, the pro-Iranian regime of the and the Chinese Communist Party supported Georgian dream government which is illegitimate, uh threatens American access. There was a rigged election in Georgia. With that in mind, uh they're facilitating uh the uh Islamic Revolutionary Guard, uh, in evading sanctions to Tehran, uh, what do you believe should be done to address the rapidly expanding radicalization promoted by the Georgian Dream government in the Republic of Georgia?

Let me, if I may, uh, I wanna answer the Georgia question,

To you, all of the above.

and can I steal thirty seconds of your time to finish the answer to Rafael Castro?

Oh, hey, all of the above.

So on on Georgia, you're right, everything you just outlined is our pre-existing concerns. Since that time, they have made some steps, indicating to us that they wanna improve their relations with the United States. We've outlined to them what that would take, what that would require. We've received some positive responses. And so our hope is that we can see a change of dr- of trajectory within the case of Georgia from where it is today. We obviously understand all the things you've just laid out as being pre-existing problems for us. They've asked us what will it take to have a better relationship with the United States? We've responded, and hopefully we can build on, on that basis and and perhaps change the trajectory, not just of our uh relationship with Georgia, but of their behavior. Uh, is it okay if I just take thirty seconds of your time? Wait, yeah. I apologize. So on the the the strikes that you're referring to, here's what happens in the south. I'm just gonna speak colloquially as best I can. The Israelis see Hezbollah moving around, maybe even launching a missile from the south, and they action it in defense. They go after it in the southern portion. Um, and that's what we're seeing in many cases is these defensive strikes. What they're increasingly doing is taking more territory in the south to the lo- to deny them launching space. Cuz understand, these rockets are being launched into northern villages and cities in Israel, and populations can't even return to their homes as a result of it. In the case of what happened the other day, the, that was, the following was happening. We had indications, multiple indications, that Israel may be considering conducting anti-Hezbollah strikes inside of Beirut. And at that moment we had reached out from the Lebanese authorities, saying that Hezbollah had contacted them and said, if Israel doesn't strike Beirut

That's what I'm doing.

that they would stop launching missiles into Israeli territory. That's the message we got, and that's what the president pursued and said, OK, I had this outreach, if you won't do these strikes in Beirut, they'll stop launching against you in in northern Israel. Unfortunately, within an hour or two of that conversation, they launched two waves of rockets from Hezbollah against Israel and Israeli territory. So it's an ongoing challenge. I think one of the reasons why we're engaged in these talks between Lebanon and Israel is understanding that Hezbollah is not just an enemy of Israel, Hezbollah is an enemy of Lebanon. They are an enemy of the Lebanese government. They have called for the overthrow of the Lebanese government. When Lebanon expelled the Iranian ambassador, he refused to leave. He said, " I'm not leaving, you can't expel me, Hezbollah is protecting me." So Hezbollah is not just a challenge to Israel, it's a challenge to Lebanon, to the Lebanese state, and the Lebanese people. And we are hopeful that we can create a paradigm in which Lebanon's government and Israel can work together to disarm Hezbollah, and allow the people of Lebanon to reclaim its country. But it's complex. This has been going on since uh, you know, since OJ had isotoners and those commercials. So

And uh, Mr. Secretary, you're correct, I was with President Ayalon in Beirut last year and that what you're doing is to address it. I do wanna point out give Syria a chance, and that's been your success, Tom Barak, the President. Uh, giving Syria a chance, we need to de-list Syria from the state sponsor of terrorism, Yeah, we have a lot of and I urge that to be done. I'm sorry, I'm past this.

Thank you for being so generous for Representative Castro's question. Representative Titus is recognized.

Thank you very much. Thank you, uh, Mr. Secretary. I just wanna talk about some of the conflicting comments that we've been hearing about the status of uh Iran's military. The president just made some comments on Fox News where he said Iran's military, we sort of because we think that their military is somewhat somewhat moderate. We've taken different forms of leadership out, but we've actually left their military alone. People would be surprised to hear that. Well, I'm very surprised to hear it because we've had Secretary Hez uh Hegseth say repeatedly that epic fury decimated Iran's military and rendered it combat ineffective, for years to come. You've said the Iranian Navy's at the bottom of the sea and they have no air force either. Well, which is it? You're the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor. You can't tell us if the military is decimated or not. Is it at the bottom of the sea? Was it left alone? That's a major point I think Congress needs clarity on.

OK, thank you. Fair question. Let me address both of them. The first is on the military, I think there's a difference between the military's hardware and the individuals involved in the military. As you know, the Iranians suffered tremendous losses in personnel, and that includes top leadership of the IRGC and other elements of their government. What the president is alluding to is that there are certain individuals in the Iranian regime uh who have indicated both directly and indirectly a a willingness to approach the future perhaps a little different not ideal, not telling you, look everybody talks about moderates in Iran. There are no moderates. There are radicals and super radicals. OK, that's been our view of it. But there are some of them that believe that they actually need to do a deal, because their economy is in shambles. And so I think what the President is alluding to is that there are some individuals involved in the negotiations and in elements of their government, including some in elements of of their military that are more open to a deal than other. As far as the Navy is concerned, yeah, they have no Navy. What they have remaining is a bunch of small crafts, I would call them Boston whalers with machine guns. And these things are harassing ships, and these are the ones that go

So, is the war still on, or is the war off, or?

Well, Epic Theory has concluded, what you're seeing reports of, including last night, is the following. A ship will go through the route, particularly, both the northern and southern route of Hormuz, those ships will come under attack. The US will respond to that attack by shooting down those drones that are trying to sink a commercial civilian vessel illegally and unlawfully. At that point, the Iranians will respond to that by targeting some facility in the region in retribution. On occasion, in order to protect our own forces, we don't just strike the drones, we strike the people who launch those drones. These are completely defensive in nature. And uh, but they are happening in response to an Iranian action. If they don't shoot at those ships, we don't shoot. But we have to respond. You have a civilian commercial vessel transiting the Straits and they're being targeted by drones, and these aren't, these drones are not like highly precise. Uh, they could hit any part of that ship and they could create, including an ecological disaster.

Well, apparently some kind of military exists that's shooting these drones off. I mean, the military obviously isn't decimated if it can attack these ships with these drones.

Well, they're they're they're they're Yeah, they still retain a drone.

And when you say the p- the president was alluding to, the president's not a person who's known for illusions. He's, well, he'll just shouts it right out, whatever he's thinking. So, I don't think he was alluding to anything, as you suggest.

Yeah. Well, drones are, as you know, a challenge in multiple battlefields around the world. It's gonna be a tremendous challenge for warfighting in the future because they're, they're, they're cheap.

Yeah, I know what drones are.

I know you know what they are,

I I

but I'm saying that they're cheap and they're easy to,

Yes, I know.

and

And we're using things that are very

And that needs to change. That said, yes, they still have the capability to, they can't launch as many as they used to, and they can't launch them in the swarms they used to launch them in, uh but but they still retain that capability.

Well let me just uh, okay, okay. Well let me just ask you a quick question about something that Ambassador Barak said, changing the subject a little bit. He, uh he compared Israel to Hezbollah for one thing that was a pretty concerning comparison. But also he said Turkey should join the F-thirty-five program. Uh These comments are inconsistent with law and long-standing policy. And I'm just wondering what your position is as secretary of state. Can Turkey get F uh fifteens and, I mean, F thirty-fives or can or not?

Well

What if we seem to be helping the bad guys and not the good guys.

yeah.

Well, as you I'm sure you're aware, Turkey actually was in the F thirty-five program. The reason why they can't get them is because they purchased

That's right, they still have those and they're still under mandatory sanctions because of it.

And and Correct. So as you know, that's governed by statute.

OK, or not.

Well, the right now we don't have that choice because it's governed by statute, both provision provisions of the NDA and the statute.

Well, then why is our ambassador out there saying that, that just to show the chaos in the

Well, I

Representative's time has expired. Representative Perry is recognized.

Thank you, Mister Secretary, I would give you an opportunity to answer the ranking member, even though he didn't pose it as a question. Um, but I, as a as a individual like many on the dais who have served in

Yeah, I mean, I don't these yes or no things I don't like, but I could just tell you Iran has been at war against the United States since the minute the Islamic regime took over.

And I feel the same way and again thank you on behalf and and to honor the thousands and ten thousands of Americans who have been murdered or maimed by Iran. Thank you for honoring them. Um, just moving on to questions. Did Pakistan's foreign minister personally deliver a message to you that Iran is prepared to demonstrate a nuclear weapon should the current escalation continue? That's been reported and I just wanna see if I can ferret that out a little.

I've not seen that reporting and I'm not aware of any such message.

OK. And if there were such a message, would that change anything in America's posture? Or not only the message, but the action. Would that change anything regarding our goals?

Well, I think you're a- the hypothetical question is if Iran threatened that they're gonna test a nuclear device if talks fail, I think it would confirm everything we believe about them anyways. And I think the president then would have to uh pursue uh or at least have to consider various other options that are available to him, in that context. But again, I've not heard that message relayed, I don't know the reporting you're referring to. You're talking about a m- press report?

Yeah, I am talking about a press report.

I I would be surprised if that message had been relayed. I would be aware of it if it was, and I don't

I would think so. That's why I'm asking. So that's enough on that. Uh, I know that the president, look, he's an America first guy. Uh, he's concerned about every single American citizen, regardless of the party affiliation or their ideology and and affordability. The president is concerned about those things. And and it Yeah, I shudder to think what Iran would do if they could, armed with nuclear capability and ballistic missile capability, coupled with that, seeing what they're doing right now, extorting the world economy without those things. So with that in mind, it's been reported that the UAE is building a pipeline to the Gulf of Oman, which would bypass the Strait of Hormuz, essentially doubling their capacity, which would of course lower the price and the risk of global fuel transport or oil transport. Do you understand or do you recognize and know what the timeline and for a proposed timeline for completion of that pipeline is?

Yeah, I'm aware of those efforts. They actually pre-exist a conflict in terms of a desire to do so. These thing, I I can't tell you specifically, I'm not a pipeline building expert,

Right.

but I can tell you certainly it's gonna take more than a week or a year. I mean, these are complex. I think the broader point, which your question touches on is, I do think you're going to see a re-shifting of where the world gets its energy from in the aftermath of this conflict. You're already beginning to see some of it now. I think you're gonna see the United States be a bigger energy provider to the Indo-Pacific. Uh, we have the capability to do so, and uh, but it's gonna take some time to build that capability, so I think you're gonna see more of that. And I think you're gonna see the establishment of more of these alternative routes as a result of this. Remember, only about twenty percent of global oil goes through the Straits of Hormuz, but it is about eighty to s- eighty to eighty-five percent of the oil that goes to the Indo-Pacific. So in those particular countries, I think you're gonna most definitely see them buying more from other places including the United States.

And that's gonna lower the cost for everybody, which is great. Secretary, just moving on, you're of Cuban descent, I'm of Colombian descent. Can you describe, and Cuba has been a sore

You, are you really Colombian? I didn't know that.

Yes, indeed.

Oh wow.

I have connections too.

Um, so uh Cuba has been sowing the seeds of discord in our hemisphere, inviting China, Russia, North Korea, all manner of communist, oligarch, bad actors into the hemisphere. What do you, if you can describe generally speaking what the policy um headed, where we're headed with Cuba as the United States of America,

Yeah.

where are we headed and what what is what is you, what do you envision being success and how do we measure that?

In fifty-six seconds I will tell you what we want for the people of Cuba to be able to live in a normal country.

You're here.

I want them to live in a country that looks like the Dominican Republic, like Jamaica, like the Bahamas, like any of these other places where people can own their own business, people can sort of s- people can vote for their own leaders. By the way, that's not my desire. That's the policy of the United States. That's enshrined in statute. Here's the problem. We, and we're willing to do this through a diplomatic means. The problem we have is that country is not controlled by a government. That country is controlled by a military conglomerate. that basically control seventy percent of the nation's GDP, and none of the profits of that conglomerate goes into the public treasury. None of that money goes to real build bridges and roads, or to reinvest into their energy infrastructure. All of it goes to build more hotels for tourists that aren't coming and to line the pockets of the people that are involved. So that has to change. My question, I think we all can envision what we want Cuba to look like, and it doesn't have to happen from one, you know, overnight, OK? We understand they're not gonna go from being what they are now to turning into Belgium,

Time has expired. Representative Liu is recognized.

Uh, thank you Secretary Rubio for being here today. you have been at multiple meetings with president trump in a moment i'm gonna show you a video of one of these meetings it is from last december it's a cabinet meeting i'm gonna ask you to focus on president trump and you will see that he is sleeping while you are talking

oh my god

please show the video

products they make and and what american farmers grow and produce has a fair shot to be sold around the world on issue after issue

Secretary Rubio, have you been at more than one meeting

Not sleeping.

where President Trump has fallen asleep?

That's false. That's false. I've never seen him fall asleep. On the contrary, the guy doesn't sleep, which is a big problem, cuz he calls me at two in the morning, he calls me at five in the morning. And you know, I like to sleep a little bit, maybe not twelve hours or s- but at least six. So he works, the other day he was at the Oval Office until twelve thirty PM.

Secretary Rubio

I- at twelve thirty AM,

Secretary

I don't know what you're talking about.

Secretary Rubio, I'm gonna show you in a moment a video that shows you just lied to Congress.

Oh, OK.

So this is a video of a cabinet meeting, literally from last month, where Donald Trump is sleeping while you are talking. Please show this video.

Coalition of countries to line up behind the peace deal, behind the board of peace, and it's still an, uh, every day is a challenge. But it's been driven personally by the president. It's the reason why we're involved in this.

You are literally talking about issues of war and peace, and Donald Trump is sleeping right next to you.

No, he's not.

If Donald Trump cannot stay awake at these important meetings where the cameras are rolling, imagine what he's like when the cameras are not there. So I'm gonna ask you, have you been at classified meetings? where Donald Trump has fallen asleep or had trouble staying awake.

I've never been in any meeting, I've never been in any meeting where fi- and the w- things you're showing me now, he was not falling asleep. And and I think it's outrageous that I'm before the foreign affairs committee

Uh, so, so you're lying again, you're lying consistently to Congress.

of the United States House of Representatives asking questions about sleep.

You're lying to Congress Secretary Rubio.

This is a joke.

So I'm gonna show you another video in a moment. The president's inability,

Show me all the videos you want.

the president's inability to stay awake on the job has caused other countries to perceive him differently. They mock him. they see he is weak and he is feeble. This is a video of a French news channel talking about Donald Trump falling asleep at a Memorial Day ceremony. Please show this video.

Well, mark a video that appears to show Donald Trump falling asleep at a, uh, Memorial Day ceremony this Monday has been circulating heavily online. And internet users have a lot to say about it. It's also reignited rumors about the state of the US president. Health. Now in the video, in social media users say that Trump is fighting sleep whilst he The message that the person preaching the name of the Lord of the Rings, listens to the speech given by Defense Secretary Pete Haggsett, is more and that his eyes appear to be closed for a large portion of the ceremony. his words are more than enough to convince people to believe him. Now we need to remember here that this is a ceremony to honor and remember those, He is his word. His word. uh, those US military personnel who have died while serving in the armed forces, His word. The command of the Lord of the Rings. and the idea that Trump was asleep at a somber ceremony like this, well that has triggered outrage, uh, on-line.

Donald Trump's inability to stay awake on the job shows that there's something very wrong with his health or cognitive abilities. And in fact, on a number of occasions, Donald Trump will contradict himself in literally the same meeting or interview. In this video I'm about to show, it shows that Donald Trump says the Iranian military is both destroyed and not destroyed at the same time, something that Dina Titus alluded to. Please show this video.

we've actually left the military alone. People would be surprised to hear that. Because uh mistakes have been made in wars where you wipe out everybody and then you have a country that's you know for forty years can never rebuild. You look at what happened with Iraq, we did so. Uh Iran is in a very bad position. They have no military, they all they have is good talk, and they have a fake press.

So Secretary Rubio, instead of holding North Korean style cabinet meetings where everyone goes around the room kissing Donald Trump's ass. I'm gonna ask you to come clean with the American people and the White House as well. There's something wrong with Donald Trump's health or cognitive abilities. There's a reason he keeps going to the hospital and they keep giving him cognitive tests. We have not seen the president in eight days. The American people deserve the truth. I yield back.

OK. Um, I don't even know how to respond to that, uh, other than to tell you that it's absurd and ridiculous, and I can't believe we're in a foreign affairs committee meeting in front of the House,

Just keep lying, Secretary Rubio.

answering questions from a so-called uh uh uh supposedly

Just keep lying.

someone who thinks he's a medical expert when he's not. The truth of the matter is we had a cognitively impaired president in office a few years ago that's a cognitively impaired president but I don't like to talk about that because it weakens America this president we have, this is a guy that literally doesn't sleep. He works day and night, long hours, every single day. I don't know if you haven't seen him in eight days. I saw him yesterday. I didn't see him today but yesterday cuz I was in Congress the day before. I talk to him at all hours of the day and night. He works inhumane hours. K, I've been on, I've been on foreign trips with the president, that he doesn't sleep in the whole flight. And everyone else is sleeping on the plane and he's, you know, wandering the hallways looking for someone to wake up and talk to, the people are, so I don't know what you're referring to, but he has an incredible amount of energy. I'm just telling you, you may not like his policies. You may not like his policies, you may not like the decisions he's made, but I assure you, this is not a president that sleeps or is cognitively impaired in any way, shape or form. and in fact is is incredibly active, much more so in many cases than much younger people that are around him. Those are facts, I see it every day. You're not gonna agree, cuz you have another narrative that you wanna push, but those are the facts.

I just showed you three videos of him sleeping Saturday night.

Representative Weiss is recognized. Representative Weiss is recognized.

Thanks for waking me up, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, if you went, if you'd gone to sleep during those videos, I would not have blamed you. Uh, I too have received those calls at all hours of the day and night. Uh, I'm like you, aware that the president works harder than any other person in here in Washington. But moving moving along, a number of things have been said that I find just incredible. Uh, first of all the the the whole question on on whether or not we support Lebanon, and whether or not we support Israel. Is there any real contradiction between what Israel is trying to accomplish and what your aid to the Lebanese armed forces o- over decades is trying to accomplish.

Contradiction?

Is there any d- light between those two efforts?

No. No, no, no. They're aligned. What we would like to see is a Lebanese armed forces with the strength and the capability to disarm Hezbollah and reclaim the entirety of the country on beha- th- you know, every, the country should only have one armed forces. It shouldn't have an armed political party, which is what Hezbollah is, and then uh the left, the Lebanese armed forces. So that that and and the Lebanese want that too. And that's what we work very closely with them on, and that's what our engagement with the Lebanese is about.

And, Mr. Secretary, just for the record, in one of the last times I was in Israel, I asked Prime Minister Netanyahu if we should cut off aid, as some have said, to Lebanon. He said, to Lebanese armed forces, he said, no, give them more. Give them what they need to take back their country. So I do believe that, uh, we couldn't be more aligned with the efforts of Israel and uh the present government of Lebanon.

Yeah, definitely.

Um moving uh along, you did a great job of going around the world and outlining the mess that was left to you as you pick each of them up. One that you didn't touch on, that I'm concerned about, i- is actually a a democratic one, which is the uh democracy of South Korea has taken a strong bent to the left, uh opening up more avenues toward China, and in fact uh beginning to oppress many of our our companies, including Meta, uh Coupon and others. Can you tell us uh what what can be done and what this committee should do with countries who

Yeah.

through democratic means are beginning to become anti-US?

Right. So there are couple points I would make. The first is that, and this is the the unique aspect of dealing with democracies, and we see it in our hemisphere quite often. Sometimes in a democratic country, they will elect leaders that are friendlier to US national interests, such as what we have now in Japan. And sometimes they will elect leaders that have a different perspective. We respect the sovereign choice of the people of that country. That's a legitimate election. That's who they chose. In those instances in which a democracy and their elected leaders are taking positions that run contrary to the national interest of the United States, it doesn't mean we wanna overthrow the government or get rid of the government, cuz it's democratic government. It simply means we have to engage them in the fact that they are doing things that are irritants. to our national interests. You point to some of our companies, our companies aren't just facing challenges and, you know, I would say targeting in South Korea, they're facing it throughout Europe. And the European Union is an example, it's targeting our technology uh companies and and and conducting what we believe is unfair.

Uh

So I think this becomes a feature of our engagement with South Korea, even as we have things that we're strategically aligned on, these are areas we've expressed and I think have frankly impacted our ability to conclude a trade agreement with them because of some of their behavior towards American companies.

Iran obviously was gonna dominate a part of today, and I'd like to close my questioning with a question for you. Uh, in nineteen seventy nine, if my math is correct, you were eight years old when they uh they took uh our embassy and then lied about it, claimed it was students doing it. That's forty seven years ago, has has been said many times. Is it fair to say that President Trump no matter what the people on the other side of the aisle wanna say, is not in the sixtieth or seventieth day of action, but in fact in the forty-seventh year of an ongoing war with Iran that has spread to Yemen, to uh Lebanon, and even to South and Central America.

I think I would start, well absolutely, first of all with Hezbollah. Hezbollah is an agent of the Iranians and they've carried out terrorist operations around the world including the recent anniversary they did in Argentina, the Jewish center. But let's not forget those IEDs that were used to maim and kill our troops in Iraq. Were all innovated by Soleimani and the IRGC, which strongly supported that. Let's not forget that we have these Iranian proxy militias operating inside of of of Iraq that as recently as two months ago kidnapped an American journalist. This is and let's not forget that there are people that are both charged and convicted in the United States for participating in Iranian assassination plots. against the president and against other former and current government leaders. So we have been for, we've been facing this from Iran for forty-seven years in a variety of ways, um, some more open than others.

Represented.

Thank, thank you, and, Mister Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal article entitled South Korea Takes a Hard Left Turn Against America be placed in the record.

So ordered.

Thank you. I yield back.

Not objection.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Mister Secretary, good to see you. Um, I'd like to talk about the war in Iran. Yesterday in your Senate testimony, you told Senator Booker that the war in Iran is over. This is news to me. It's also news to my twenty five hundred constituents, Marines, uh, San Diego Marines in the Middle East off the coast of Iran, the other, uh, of my constituents who are deployed there, and the thousands more of my constituents who have forty-eight hour deployment notices whose families are still very concerned. Um, but, OK, I will take you at your word. If the war is over, I have a simple question. Who won?

First of all, epic fury is over, which is what you would consider the war. Uh, that that operation is concluded.

So you agree it's a war then?

No, I could, those are hostilities. They called it a war. I'm just responding to the center of the question.

OK. Mister Secretary, you can you can change the name of the operation. It doesn't change the fact that the street is still closed and my service members,

Yeah, but that's not

and all of our service members are still in hard harm's way.

No, no, but that's not what you're asking me.

The war is not over. But I'm I'm agreeing with you. OK, fine. We're taking you at your word. The war is over. Who won?

But first of all, you're not taking me at my word. It's a fact. We're no longer conducting sustained strikes inside of Iran to degrade their military because Epic Fury is over. The second point is on the question of who won, I can tell you this, uh, we defined victory, we defined victory as destroying their defense industrial base, significantly reducing the number of missile launchers that they possess, significantly reducing their stockpile of drones, and we achieved all of those in addition to destroying what they had left of an air force and wiping out their entire conventional navy. Those are all gone. So I consider that victory and we did too, and that was the purpose of Epic Fury.

OK, well, uh, good. Based on the metrics that you just said, OK, there's actually our intelligence community has said that Iran is reconstituting its military industrial base faster than we had predicted, and analysts assess it still holds roughly seventy percent of its missile stockpile and seventy percent of its mobile launchers. The Strait of Hormuz was opened before the war. It is now closed. We have lost fourteen brave American service members, four hundred are injured and the Iranian regime remains largely intact, but now with a more hard-line leader who has more incentive to try and get a nuclear weapon. So I guess I have to ask you again, Mister Secretary, does this actually look like winning or losing to you?

Well, first of all, I don't know what intelligence assessments you're referring to. We wouldn't discuss intelligence assessments if they were real. You must be refer

These have been publicly reported.

Well, they're publicly reported someone committed a crime, and by the way, is also lying. And this happens all the time. People manipulate intelligence and analysis

Fractured but still intact.

Well intact in the sense they can't even reach agreements that they can get back to us, so that's, I don't know how intact that is. Uh what they have is people that are afraid to go into the streets, their repressive operations have helped people back, in addition to the fact they've cut off the internet, but this is a country right now and this regime that is facing hyperinflation, a completely devalued currency, hundreds of billions of dollars in damage to their military infrastructure. And frankly, they they all of the pre-existing problems that Iran had in their economy, which is why people are protesting, are worse, not better.

Sure, but

And they have to deal with that too.

Mister Secretary, so you're saying we're winning because the Iranian economy has inflation, it's cost them millions of dollars a day in lost revenue, and because it's gonna cost them billions of dollars to rebuild.

And

Well, we are having inflation. It's already cost us an estimated a hundred billion dollars. Gas prices are up with no end in sight. The average family is paying an extra four hundred and fifty dollars on gas, and could pay an extra two thousand dollars by the end of the year. The American people are not stupid, Mister Secretary. We all know that this war is not over. Just last night, the US and Iran exchanged fire again, this time over Karg Island. We still have rea- not reached a deal, despite the President's promise that a deal is right around the corner. The President even said today the blockade could last until Labor Day. It's now day ninety seven of the war that the president said he wanted to end quickly. So I have one last question for you. Mister Secretary, who won the twenty twenty presidential election?

I'm not here to answer a question. We're talking about twenty twenty. This is a foreign affairs committee.

OK, great. You can't answer the question,

The Pinellas political matter. No, I don't answer the,

even though we all know that President Biden won.

no, I don't answer the question because as secretary of state, I do not participate in domestic political issues.

This is not about domestic political issues.

Oh, certainly is.

This is about our democracy.

You're asking me to p- uh, uh, Pine, just like I don't do campaign rallies,

It seems like you it's

I don't do because as secretary of state we're not supposed

Mister Secretary, it seems like you have an issue admitting facts.

Questions.

You can't say that the President lost the twenty twenty election, just like you won't admit President Trump is losing this reckless war of choice, and just like you couldn't admit that the shoes the President bought you were too big. You clearly don't know what winning means, and not because the facts are unclear to you, it's because telling your tru- the truth would cost you your job, and the American people are entitled to a secretary of state who tells them the truth even when the president doesn't wanna hear it. And my constituents, our service members deserve better. Mister Chairman, I yield back.

The, what, I don't know what shoes she's talking about. What is she talking about?

I don't know. Representative Burchett, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. If you'd like to answer any of that, I'll give you a minute.

Yeah, I don't know about the shoes. I mean, he gave me some Floor Chime shoes. They're actually pretty good. They fit fine. I don't know where, I don't know what she's talking about, and maybe that's what she's referring to. Um

Your shoes look very nice today, Mister Secretary.

How can you see them? They're way down here. We're talking about shoes? Are you guys kidding me? I mean, is this the Foreign Affairs Committee or is this like a circus? What is this?

Think it's a circus,

Let's go.

and I, but I appreciate you being here, Mr. Secretary. Um, United States is NATO's largest financial contributor. Why does NATO consistently ignore our call to share more the defense burden in Europe? And is it our national interest to continue participating in NATO?

Well, I can give you the why. OK, and the why is pretty and and and is the following. Especially in Western Europe, for the better part of twenty or thirty years, they have not had to spend on defense, because the US security shield has allowed them to instead spend their money on building up a very vast and uh robust social safety network. In my time as a senator and before that as a state representative, you would hear often from constituents about how come they have this and that in Europe, and we don't have it here. Well one of the reasons why is because these very rich countries were spending their money on social programs instead of defense because we were covering their defense. Um, that paradigm has to shift. It has to shift for two reasons. The first is these are very wealthy countries that should have the ability to spend more to build up their defenses and need to. And this is not unique to President Trump. Multiple American presidents in both parties have complained about NATO share uh burden sharing. Uh, this is just the first president that actually is doing something about it. The second uh uh point is the United States has global obligations. Just as we c- I can leave a meeting with Europeans that wanna talk about NATO, and the next meeting will be with someone from the Indo-Pacific that would like to see a greater US military presence in the Indo-Pacific. And then you can talk to Gulf partners that wanna make sure we're still committed to defending and being involved there. And then you can go to Africa and talk to countries that wanna see our cooperation on counter-terrorism. And then you can go to the Western hemisphere where they want us to do more with them as well and pay more attention. So the US has global obligations, and while we have vast resources, we do not have unlimited resources. We have to allocate them, and that will include constantly re-examining what our forced posture looks like in Europe, in comparison to other theatres and potential contingencies around the world.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I also wanted to thank you in the White House for supporting the bill that I've been pushing to defund the Taliban. You're very kind to me to meet with me, and I appreciate that very much, and the President's support as well. Um, as you know, we're the, the UN's largest financial contributor, but it consistently pushes liberal policies like abortion and gender ideology, in spite of our opposition. And Every time there's a a new council or whatever, and it's always our enemies that seem to be on there. Why is the US still a member of the United Nations?

Of the United Nations?

Yes, sir.

Well, two-fold, I would say. The first is, United Nations of course is a very frustrating thing for us, primarily because it's been unable to intervene or or play a constructive role in most of the major crises around the world. It's lost its purpose, it's lost its mission. I think our UN mission is doing a very good job of driving substantial reforms at at the UN. and using our fees as leverage to achieve those reforms. Last year actually we had some pretty substantial successes, some real reductions in the size, in the bloated uh budget of the UN. And by the way, this is not just a UN, US position. Multiple countries agree with us that the UN had grown too large and it lost its core mission. Uh on the other hand, there have been instances, and we tried to use the UN where possible as as a as a as a um as a viable form in which to solve problems there it was helpful as a form in the security council, for example in standing up the new mission in Haiti, in which the US contribution is dramatically reduced, and partner nations around the world, because of the UN approval, are now able to step forward and provide not just money, but actual troops for the gay and suppression force. Likewise, we have a hundred and, I don't know, I don't wanna lose count, but a hundred and thirty some odd co-sponsors of a resolution, the largest number of co-sponsors ever, for a resolution in the Security Council, condemning what's happening in the Straits of Hormuz, and authorizing countries to potentially do something about it. Unfortunately, it's facing a veto threat from China and Russia, so no vote has been scheduled on that yet. So there are, and there are organizations in the UN that we've partnered with. We've been able to partner with them on making contributions to humanitarian relief around the world, and we actually have struck a pretty good deal with them, in which we can ensure that that money's gonna be spent in a way that furthers our national interest not go to fund the NGO industrial complex. Uh, but also provide aid, critical aid to areas that badly need it. So there's been some utility with some of it, but the UN is in need of continued dramatic reform. And we intend to continue to use our fees that we owe, that they claim we owe, as leverage for that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, one last thing. Is there any mutual, um, anything UN and NATO could do that would be mutually beneficial? Any reforms?

But I'm sorry?

any reforms that the UN and NATO could do that would be mutually beneficial.

What with NATO is a much deeper conversation that involves uh basing rights that have been denied to us by a handful of countries. And I think this is just a, it's gonna feature prominently in the meeting in Turkey uh as it did last week in the meeting with the foreign ministers. On the UN I can provide you the list of the reforms we we are asking for. They've imposed last year more reforms than ever before, but there are a few more that need to happen. And I can share that list with you and with the whole committee.

Representative Stanton is recognizing.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I do wanna talk to you about the blurring of lines between public service and private enrichment at the highest levels of this administration's foreign policy leadership. President Trump has placed Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner in charge of addressing some of the world's most intractable conflicts, including the war between Russia and Ukraine, and cleaning up the president's self-made mess of war of choice in Iran. Let me start with Mister Witkoff, Trump's special envoy to the Middle East. He co-founded the cryptocurrency venture firm, World Liberty Financial, alongside President Trump and President Trump's children. Days before President Trump's inauguration, a firm controlled by a member of the royal family of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Taknoon, bought a forty seven, forty nine percent stake in the company. That was a five hundred million dollar investment. Thirty-one million of that went straight to the Whitcoff family. Whitcoff was still a financial stakeholder in World Liberty as he was simultaneously leading high-level US government negotiations in his role as special envoy one of those negotiations was over the export of America's most advanced AI chips to the UAE negotiations personally attended by Sheik Tognon. In the spring, another company chaired by Sheik Tognon, MGX, deposited two billion dollars in World Liberty Financial's stable coin, the single largest investment in the crypto company ever. Weeks later, the chip deal was announced, despite national security concerns. Secretary Rubio, do you believe that Mister Woodcough has an unacceptable conflict of interest?

I have never seen any evidence that he's made any decisions or advocated for any position that's to his personal benefit on the contrary. Um, and again I can't speak to all the things you're saying now, cuz I that's not he he uh Mister Woodcough is an Yeah. Yeah.

Are you concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest with Mister Woodcoff?

I've never seen anything that leads me to have that concern. You know, again, you've cited a bunch of things. I'm just not aware of those cuz, and, but I'm just telling you my personal interactions with Mister

Yeah.

Woodcoff are of a person who just thinks he's serving the country, and is happy to do so, not out of any personal gain, but because he wants to serve the country.

As Secretary of State, who's in charge of the foreign affairs of the United States, have you spoken to President Trump about any concerns about conflict of interest with Mister Woodcoff?

I haven't had to. I've not seen any.

Let's talk about Jared Kushner. His private equity firm, Affinity Partners, has raised more than six billion dollars since it was founded in twenty twenty one, including one point two billion just over the last year, Mr. Secretary. Are you aware of how much of that six billion has been raised from foreign nationals?

I I don't know anything about these assets.

Yeah, I mean, the answer is ninety nine percent. These include sovereign wealth funds operated by Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar. The Saudi sovereign wealth fund is the largest investor in affinity. partners. In fact, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman personally recommended that Saudi Arabia invest in affinity partners. The Crown Prince has also personally urged President Trump in multiple phone calls to continue the ongoing war of choice in Iran. Let's put it another way. The man who bankrolled Kushner's business venture is the same man who was lobbying for the war Kushner is tasked with ending. Mr. Secretary, same question, are you concerned about any conflict of interest by Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law.

Again, in Jared's case, Jared is a private citizen who's been advising and participating in this voluntarily. He's not compensated for it or in any way. But I've never seen either from either Steve or Jared any, on the contrary, all I've ever seen them do is put tremendous amount of time and energy into trying to solve problems like the amount of time they put into Gaza and the Board of Peace, and all of that process. I I I think I I've seen I believe they've done it out of the kindness and goodness,

Secretary, let me repay my time.

of their heart. They think they're serving the country.

Yeah. The goodness of their heart. Uh, Miss. Secretary, what Jared Kushner said on sixty minutes on this very issue,

Impression.

when asked about it, he says what people call conflicts of interest, Steve and I call experience and trusted relationships that they have throughout the world reclaiming my time let's recap the two men tasked with resolving this country's most sensitive national security issues, including meeting with Iranian negotiators, are profiting off the same countries that they are engaging with. One thing we know for sure, while the Ukraine peace talks are going nowhere and the war with Iran has no end in sight, Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman.

And uh thank you Secretary Rubio for for being here today. Uh thank you for your work to execute an America first foreign policy that is making America safer stronger and more prosperous. Uh from confronting the corruption of the Maduro regime, to negotiations with Iran to stabilize the Middle East, you have played a critical crucial part in spearheading the administration's peace through strength initiative. Secretary Rubio, I want to reiterate what you wrote in your opening statement, that American leadership should always be on behalf of American interest. Thanks to President Trump's historic foreign policy initiatives, the USA has longer, has has no longer sit idly by as other nations take advantage of American funds and military support. My question. Global commerce and diplomacy rely on coordinated strategies with allies to com- to combat illicit trade and support US exporters. To support the Trump administration's efforts to enhance US national security while advancing strategic American investments, I recently induced, introduced the Strategic Export Controls and Border Security Enhancement Act. This, this bill would codify the State Department's Office of Export Controls and Border Security, to strengthen the operational capabilities of allied countries to better protect US critical technologies from diversion and misuse by our foreign adversaries. Secretary Rubio, how is this office being utilized to prevent the illicit trafficking of sensitive and dual-use technologies? And how do you see this office being used to advance America first diplomacy moving forward?

Yeah, I think at the core of what you're trying to get to with your bill, and we're trying to get through with our sources, with our resources is as follows, and that is that you will, you will say you can't sell a certain product, or a certain product can't be exported because it, it provides a, it, it, it would be the detriment of the national interest of the United States. But there, but it's prohibited for one country, but it's not prohibited for some other country. They will then set up a company in a third country and use that to evade the sanctions. In essence, you know, you will find a company, let's say it was a sanction against a, transfer of technology to a Chinese company that's linked to their military. But they will se- but they will then figure out a way to set up a company in a third country, in a country that's not barred for export. And they will use that vehicle and that route in order to be able to export a valuable technology. And so what we're trying to get at through our efforts is identifying those countries where that is happening and those country- those companies that are being used for that purpose. And I think your bill, though I haven't read it, sounds like what it would do is it would codify this effort so that it exists beyond this administration.

Well thank you, I appreciate that, and I'm I'm anxious to partner with you uh from a legislative standpoint on that, so if there's anything in the bill when you when you do see it that uh you would recommend, please let me know. Um under this administration the foreign service has refocused its diplomatic core on merit and performance. The State Department has eliminated internal DEIA programs, slashed woke investments, and neutered NGOs that were working against US national interest. We finally have Got it, we finally have got away from trying to force other governments to adopt the crazy woke social agenda of the failed Biden administration. The same agenda still being promoted by many of the progressive Democrats on this committee unfortunately. And we are now ushering in a new era of American efficiency and strategic diplomacy. Mr. Secretary, how can this committee continue to provide the State Department with the tools in the upcoming For- Foreign Service Act reauthorization to advance President Trump's

Yeah. I mean I think codifying these policies are important so that they exist in, uh, for the long term. And I wanted to say one thing when it comes to the issues that people use the term diversity or whatever the foreign service will always be diverse in comparison to maybe some other agencies simply because foreign service and international diplomacy often attract people that are first generation or maybe even immigrants themselves they have language skills they have uh you know cultural skills or what have you that sort of attract them to diplomacy to begin with. I think you see it ambassadorial posts around the world as well, the ones the president is nominated and so forth. I would also add something that's very unique to the State Department, which other agencies don't have. The majority of our employees, over forty-seven thousand of our total employees, about seventy thousand, forty-seven thousand, are locally employed. These are nationals of other countries that work for us, and they're a key part of our missions. We couldn't carry out our mission function in many of these countries without these locally employed individuals that are not even American citizens. But they're valuable resources. They've been there for fifteen or twenty years. They and and and uh so in and of itself I would say the State Department, we d- but but ultimately we wanna hire the best people for the job. And that's what we should always want. We wanna hire the best people for the job, the ones who are most capable of doing the job. And I think we can do that and still have a very diverse workforce, but not because of the diversity, but because of their skill, their merit, and their abilities.

Thank you, I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, now you go back.

Representative Jackson. is recognized. The other one.

Thank you, thank you very much. Thank you, Secretary Rubio. Great to see you again. Thank you for your forceful words in support of diversity, although there is some conflicting uh claims to what it means. Secretary Rubio, I stand before you not simply as a legislator but as a witness to a moment in our nation's history when we are threatening to sever the sacred connection between our national interest and our moral obligation. This is a budget hearing of course, but more than numbers on a page, we have to wrestle with the meaning of what those numbers mean to the lives of real people in real places whose very existence is bound in no small way to the decisions that we make in this room. I wanna start by showing the American people what the dismantling of the diversity equity and inclusion means. Uh, under your leadership we are abandoning the continent of Africa. Would you put this up please? The question is not what can we afford, but what we are willing to become. Under your leadership, The US effectively has closed thirty-one counselor operations across Africa and has thirty-four ambassadorships vacant. Under your leadership, we froze student, refugee, and valid visa processing to twenty-six African nations. Under your leadership, we have raised the tariffs on thirty emerging economies. Under your leadership, we have pulled out of the pandemic and healthcare aid for over forty countries. Our diplomats used to operate in every region, culture, and society on Earth, a workforce that reflects the diversity of our country is not a political objective, it is indeed, as well as you know, a strategic advantage, as you articulate it. Africa and other developing nations are fast growing and young populations, represent one of humanity's greatest opportunities for shared prosperity, climate resilience, and democratic transformation. On global health, last year the Trump administration cut off all funding to the World Health Organization. However, to prevent diseases from reaching our shores, the US still needs the global outbreak and disease surveillance functions that the World Health Organization offers. Diseases, as you know, do not need passports or visas. In March, the Washington Post reported that the administration is proposing to spend more than two billion dollars a year to recreate a system that you dismantle such as laboratories data sharing networks and rapid response systems that you abandoned when you withdrew from these program. This is more than three times where we had contributed to the world health organization. That's waste, fraud, and abuse. How is reinventing the wheel at a significantly higher cost efficient for the American people? You know that, let me just answer that, since eastern Congo and Uganda are currently experiencing the third largest outbreak since it was discovered half a century ago. And your response was to criticize the World Health Organization that you had retreated from. Your statement in the administration's action reveal a retreat from our responsibility, a shrinking of the vision of America, and a devastating abandonment of those who have long looked to the US, not as a savior, but as a partner. and the difficult work of survival and dignity. Moving forward, we would have questions on how the Trump administration plans to address global health crisis if that is something the United States still wishes to have leadership in. Prior to two thousand and twenty six, US global health was a model for the world. Its initiatives helped contain more than two hundred and fifty diseases across more than forty countries. But Doge and this administration have not told the truth. They told the American people these cuts were necessary. Because I can assure you there is nothing necessary about denying medicine when people are suffering. There's nothing justified in weakening initiatives like PEPFAR and the Global Fund. I'll give you some time. Which have stood as shining examples of what this country can achieve when it chooses compassion over indifference. As we look at the HIV crisis, and specifically in Zambia, according to a draft memo that was shared with you, prepared for you by the State Department and African Bureau staff, something that you care about, you considered withholding lifesaving assistance to one point three million people with HIV in Zambia to force the government to sign a deal giving the US more access to critical minerals. You considered acceptable to use lifesaving HIV AIDS treatment as leverage for economic advantage. And in closing, over the Easter weekend, I was in Cuba doing an oversight to see if your state department refused to meet with members of Congress while they were out gallivanting and partying. In closing, I would like to ask you, will you invade Cuba? I yield back.

Well, I have one second to answer. What do I do? I mean, you guys tell me your rules. I I tried to write down all the stuff you said, but

Will you invade Cuba?

Well, that's not the only thing you said. What else?

Mr. Secretary, I'm gonna Take my time to ask questions at this time and I'll give you some time to answer.

OK, cuz I do wanna answer a lot of the points you raised.

So, my questions are gonna bear on this. I think there is a significant difference in the State Department today, and since you've taken the reins, versus the State Department under Secretary Blinken and under President Joe Biden. I'd like you to expand upon the changes that have been conducted. I think it's also incumbent for us to speak about things that just not everybody follows these things alwa- all day. spoke about these things a little bit in my opener. Uh, the amount of attacks that have come against the United States of America by the hand of Iran, not in forty-seven years, just in the last thirty months prior to epic fury beginning. I referenced over three hundred and fifty attacks, two hundred wounded, multiple Americans dead to include uh, Specialist Moffitt, S- Specialist Sanders, Specialist Rivers. We have been ongoingly attacked by Iran just recently. And the United States has largely done nothing about it. I think one of the things that's changed about us is that we are not going to be an America that gets attacked and pretends it never happened, ignores it, does nothing. That was a way of the past. So, Secretary Rubio, I'd love for you to discuss this and discuss uh the questions that were asked previously and you have three minutes and forty-five seconds to do so.

Okay, good, and I actually think they dovetail because there's a couple points. First of all I it's just absolutely false that we've abandoned the continent of Africa. As I've highlighted multiple times here on the diplomacy front, we are deeply engaged in the DRC and Rwanda peace negotiations. In fact, if it wasn't for us, there wouldn't be any negotiations. We are deeply involved in the Quad effort with Sudan that involves the UAE on one side, Saudi Arabia on the other, and it's deeply complicated that we actually have helped host donor conferences. So we are very involved in all of those issues. As I pointed out earlier, we've been working very cooperatively with the government in Nigeria. to go after a common threat, terrorists that wanna aim at us but are threatening the nation state there now. As far, and, and by the way, we're opening new areas of relationship like Equatorial Guinea, which is a country we really hadn't had much interaction with for many years, and now that's begun to flourish and hopefully we can build upon that. In the case of uh, of, of the consular services, we've consolidated consular operations all over the world. And one of the reasons why is, you can do it more efficiently. There are areas where literally the number of either visas that are not accepted or even applicants do not justify having a full-time station. We've done this repeatedly, not just under this administration, but previous administrations have done that. And so consolidation of consular services is not unique to the African continent. We've seen it in Mexico, where we're gonna close one con one consulate because the cost-benefit analysis doesn't add up. On the World Health Organization, they basically covered for China during the COVID pandemic, openly covered for China, refused to disclose the reality of what was happening soon enough and didn't the blame quickly enough on where it belonged, but not just to blame, it didn't allow researchers to be able to begin the work of uh st- it took uh longer than it should have to develop a vaccine and other things because of, their attitude towards that, and we have deep problems with the way the World Health Organization seems to play politics with on behalf of some countries and we pointed that out. Now, let me talk about a couple other things you raised, the Global Fund. The Global Fund is very happy, you should call them. They're very happy with us, they put out multiple statements about the work we're doing with that.

Can I challenge initials assertions, Chairman?

We are fully compliant.

My time.

No, but I'm just telling you, talk, we, the the Global Fund, we are, for example, there's a thirty-three percent cap on what we give the rest of us to come from other donors. We are at that level right now. And if donors give more, we'll give more. We're commi- we're committed to that. They're very happy with what we have worked out with the Global Fund. I think the other thing you didn't point out is we are not abandoning these countries or these programs. We're entering into compacts. Thirty-two compacts, the majority of them in Africa, in which we go to a country and say, look, rather than force a bunch of NGOs from Northern Virginia on you, we are gonna work with you. We are gonna give the money government to government, and we're gonna work in cooperation with your government to build up your national health system. So not only can you care for the patients you have now, but ultimately you won't have this problem for five or ten years.

I

And they want that. They welcome that. They do not want the ongoing dependency of aid.

Mister Secretary,

These countries clearly want to establish their own systems.

you know these people even come over here because of these services.

Representative Jackson, you're not recognized.

The gang.

I know, but on Zambia, look, we're not threatening them with anything. They just don't wanna sign a compact. But you do raise an interesting point, not specific to Zambia but broadly, okay, there are a lot of countries we give a bunch of money to. You sit there and you say, okay, we donate fifty, eighty million dollars a year to this country. We do all the aid for that country. But all of the contracts, all of the rare earth minerals, all of the financial benefits, all of the commercial deals are with China. So explain to me how is that good for the American people, that we are in a country that we take care of all of their problems, but then all the economic benefits flow to China or some other country. That that has to be, that has to be talked about. How can I justify to the American people that we flood a country with American aid, but all of the commercial benefits in that country go to China or someone else over us? That is a legitimate thing to discuss with every country in the world that we give a lot of aid to that that is the reason why aid should not be separated from policy, because it has to reflect our national interest.

Thank you, Secretary Rubio, Representative Kamala Gurdiaff.

So, Mister Secretary, uh, five months ago you essentially became the new overlord of Venezuela, taking control of the country's oil revenues and giving foreign companies access to its oil and minerals. But you have provided no real transparency about where the money is going, and who is benefiting from this arrangement. I want to now talk a little bit about Mauricio. Claver Caron. So, Mister Secretary, you've known Mister Claver Caron for many years, correct?

I don't know how many years, but sure.

OK. We know that he was special envoy to Latin America. He's also a former lobbyist who supported your presidential campaign, I think in twenty sixteen. And now he runs a private equity firm that is seeking one billion dollars in investments in Latin America. Apparently, he is seen as your right-hand man on Venezuela. But he's not a federal employee, and he's not bound by rules about financial disclosures or conflict of interest. According to the Washington Post, he acts like a kingmaker in Venezuela, helping to determine which private companies get contracts in excess. And that's concerning because in January, you gave confidential licenses for Venezuelan oil to a company that had been charged with bribery by the Department of Justice and employs a trader who gave six million dollars to Trump's campaign. Some have said that Mauricio is the Jared Kushner of Latin America, but Mauricio has said that Jared Kushner is the Mauricio of the Middle East. So who is Mauricio and why is he riding on private jets to Caracas with executives from firms trying to get contracts and why is he texting Delce Rodriguez on the regular? Who is he working for?

Well for, OK, like when

I I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna allow you to respond,

Oh.

I just I'm setting this up because it looks unseemly. That essentially you are taking Venezuelan oil money and sending it through a network of campaign donors, corrupt politicians and lobbyists,

That's false.

and we can't get any documentation on that, we don't have any receipts. So the question is, is anyone from the administration directly or indirectly benefiting from the contracts being doled out in Venezuela?

Is this where I get the answer?

Yes.

OK, perfect. Number one is, the number of people, Mauricio is one of many people that are involved in what's happening in Venezuela. It's not a day that goes by that we don't have someone who's interested in what's happening in Venezuela for a variety of reasons. Nor is he the only person in the United States that directly contacts Dulce Rodriguez and others there is a stampede of people that wanna be involved in Venezuela. Mauricio is one of many,

And

but by the way, not. I am not knowledgeable or know of any financial links he has to anybody in Venezuela.

So I'm gonna reclaim my time,

But

Mr. Secretary,

Well, but

but I'm glad that you, I'm glad that you said that. Because you have, you have said these things. You have shared these talking points before.

They're not talking points, you're the truth.

But it is hard to take your word for it when this is the most corrupt administration in American history.

Well, that's your opinion.

We're talking pardons for sale, we're talking about no-bid contracts to those on Trump's family and friends plan, we're talking about a one point eight billion dollar And I think that's corruption. The American people think that's corruption. They wanna know if you think that's corruption.

OK. Number two on the, this goes right to the point of transparency, you're absolutely wrong about the way the money flows. It's pretty so straight forward and I'll share

So I'm gonna have to reclaim my time again because the the question about corruption,

So when Well then so what kind of process is this? They get to ans- ask questions and you don't get to answer?

the question about, it's my time, the question about corruption is really important.

I don't know about you, when is it my time? So why am I here if I don't get to answer your questions or your defamatory statements?

Because if you can't call out, I'm retaining Reclaiming my time, Mister Chair.

Reclaim, I want you to rec- but I wanna reclaim, would I get time?

This is my time, Mister Chair.

Cuz you make these defamatory statements and no one can talk here.

If you can't call out corruption in this country,

This is crazy.

then how can you call it out in another country?

Well, I can't say anything cuz you won't let me speak.

That is the question. It is about credibility, and your credibility, and your credibility meter is on empty right now. This oil.

See, this is, these guys just get to talk and I don't get to answer?

Who determines, who determines the barrels of oil that get sold?

What?

How many of them?

But you won't let me answer your question.

At what price does it get sold?

I have an answer for your question.

Where is it going?

Oh, I get it.

I will let you.

They have to leave their time for me to answer your questions.

The onus is on you to prove that there is no corruption happening.

Well, how do I prove it if you don't let me talk?

That is your responsibility as the Secretary of State. And you know what? Normally we would have access to that data. That's the transparency.

You do. You just don't know where to look.

But you're not showing us any recei- Well then show us.

But, but you all

Do you commit? Do you commit to coming back here with whoever the person is who is monitoring the sales of the oil? Bring them before this committee.

Can I reclaim my time?

Show the receipts. Have the documentation. You don't have this time yet. I'm talking about your credibility and evidence, not your talking points, because talking points are never a replacement for transparency and documentation.

I agree, but that's what you're saying. You're saying talking points are not an answer.

And we have not, we are five months into this and no audits. Zero visibility into the contracts that are awarded.

A hundred percent false. One hundred percent false.

Zero transparency about where the money is going.

Unfortunately, Representative Times, expired Representative Salazar's recommendation.

Yes, exactly.

And giving contracts with no transparency

Can I borrow your time to answer?

is exactly the reason why you shut down USAID. So practice what you preach.

I deal, nice.

Oh, she gets to scream now too? Scream and shout.

Chairman, can we take down her words?

Chairman, can we take down her words?

Yeah. OK. But God, what kind of thing is this? What is this? You don't you get to ask questions for five minutes and you don't get time to answer. It's not a hearing.

Think you said clown show before.

It's like a dunk tank.

I don't I don't have to tell you.

What is this?

I don't I I'll give you time.

I've even used their ti- how can I answer the questions? They don't even give me time. I've had to use their time to answer your questions.

Yes. OK,

Alright, whatever.

alright, so I don't need to tell you that uh in my community that the city that I represent, the city of Miami, you're one of the most illustrious uh representatives, and that we're very proud of you, not only the Cuban Americans but the Hispanic Americans in in my community,

Why is she leaving?

so

I'm gonna answer her questions.

I I will

I can hear you remember, I remember. Oh, she's go- OK, I got it. I can hear you remember. Well, thank you for coming.

Yes, I remember. Alright, so we're gonna talk about, I just want to um give you time to answer and then talk about Venezuela and talk about Cuba. So let's go back to Venezuela. Let's start with that. Um I you said that stabilization, recovery and transition. Those are the three steps that that the State Department was going to implement in Venezuela. I believe that transition is the free and fair elections. Uh the Venezuelan has a very robust opposition forces. We have Maria Corina Machado. Big question here is that in order to avoid any type of uh misunderstandings like the one that we were hearing from uh my illustrious colleague, is that we should have free and fair elections that will bring rule of law, and the rule of law will then be able to bring in a lot of investments from the United States uh with transparency. Why can we not start right now the process of sending the message that we are going to establish, let's say, next year, the end of next year, a free and free election sponsored with the United States, or by the United States.

Yeah, thank you. Well, it all ties together, so I'm gonna try to use the

It all ties together, correct.

OK. So let me first say about the oil stuff, which is a bunch, I I don't even remember half the stuff that was being screamed at me, because most of it and not entirely is false. Here's what happens. When there are sales of oil from Venezuela, they used to have, you know, sell it at a discount because of of sanctions and they had to do all kinds of evasive matters. Now they're able to sell it at market price, to great benefit to the Venezuelan people. That money and those proceeds are are deposited in a treasury blocked account at Citibank. That account by the way is audited by KPMG. KPMG has been hired and paid for, paid by the Venezuelan government out of those funds to audit every single expenditure. There is a list that's been agreed to by both sides, the Venezuelan side and the US side, on what the allowable expenditures are for. So for example, they've used two hundred and fifty

I need to go to three other countries, so I'm not sure. chairman wants to do but I need to I understand that you're answering her questions but

OK. Oh but this is a but it's tied to your point that because

hurry

I they'll be able to do the other ones quickly thereafter. Again I know this is outrageous cuz I have to use your time to answer questions and

that's correct but I need to serve the community I need to ask you about other countries

then she leaves OK well bottom line is the money that's spent in Venezuela is audited by KPMG it only goes to certain determined uh points and it doesn't go to the in individual benefit of anybody those are just false outrageous statements.

so when can we pivot to free and fair elections

So the second point is on the transition phase which is the third

Correct.

second is sta- stabilization and recovery. Part of the recovery phase is creating the conditions for a free and independent press. You need to have an imprent independent press in order to have free and fair elections. We've seen an uptick in that activity. It's not a hundred percent there, but it needs to continue to grow. You need to give space for the political parties to organize and to mobilize, because you can't participate in an election if you haven't had the time to do so. And you need a new electoral commission. Eh, we we've said that repeatedly.

And when are we start starting?

That needs to happen. Well, we'd like to see it as soon as possible, but the reality Just remember, it's been five months. Not five years, not fifty months.

Correct.

Five months. Five months is not a long time for a country that had gone through what that country went through. But clearly, we need to have a new electoral committee, and ultimately, Venezuela's future is free and fair multi-party elections.

Correct. Let's go to Cuba. We know that your office is talking to the Castro family and you're sending the message that the game is over that they need to open up the democratic game. We know that. Alright, so the prob- the question is what's delaying that process.

Well, it's not that it's delaying the process, we've had conversations, we're having diplomatic engagements with the Cubans consistently over time, over multiple reasons, and for many reasons over the years. In fact, the CENTCOM was just down at the fence line in Guantanamo, not CENTCOM, SOUTHCOM over the weekend as well. Our message to them is very clear, if they want a path in which they can recover their country and save it

But we understand that they are not understanding that.

Well that, uh,

So then what's next?

correct.

So what can we do in order to make them understand that the game is over.

Well, we're not going to allow them to benefit from the game that they've been playing, in which they're stealing money from the Cuban people to the benefit of this conglomerate at the expense of the people of Cuba. What we are offering to do is distribute a hundred million dollars in humanitarian aid to a nongovernmental organization.

But they're not accepting it.

Well, now they say they've accepted it, but they're creating impediments.

But it has to do through the Catholic Church, and they're not willing to do that here.

And others, Samaritan's Purse, we have a whole host of organizations that are prepared to do it.

Representative's time, I suppose. Representative Costa is recognized.

Thank you very much, Chairman. Mr. Secretary of State, appreciate your presence. Um, a lot of area to cover, but I'm concerned about America's precedence, uh, in the international, um, arena that we, we live in today. Uh, Ronald Reagan once described America as being the shining city upon the hill, one that other countries sought to emulate. You're familiar with that quote. I'm worried that our, our smart power that underpins our global standing gives us credibility, count and coherence, uh, is today in a democratic recession. That's my view. Uh, and I think American leadership's more important than ever before, and I think it's lacking. Uh, and, uh, do you agree that, uh, our smart power remains an important tool of our, our US state craft?

Well, absolutely, and

Well, uh, but, uh, we're vacating the field. Two thirds of our ambassadorships are, posts are empty. Uh, our alliances, we we hit our friends with tariffs, berate our partners for not supporting a war that they were not ever brought into, in Iran, and only later walk back the plans to withdraw troops from our European allies. On foreign aid, we've scrapped USIA and dismantled our global humanitarian networks. And in the vacuum, as you know, China has fulfilled, uh, uh, come into that breach. Um, I, I wanna talk, we have a, a deal, uh, this is a i think a good example uh you've not granted final approval on fourteen billion arms deal for taiwan which i want to emphasize was a sale not a gift do you think uh that protecting taiwan is still important

it is we gave them eleven we had an eleven billion dollar sale the single largest in history just in december

but it's not a gift it's a sale and why are we withholding

in december

why are we withholding the fourteen billion

we're not withholding it's just under review still it has but we just executed one in december which was more than biden did in

alright let's move on Let's move on to NATO. Um, you know, eh, the President's described as a paper tiger and he's made no, hidden about, his disparaging comments about our allies, which I think are dangerous. That undermines the longest, the strongest, uh, alliance, that we've had post-World War Two. Uh, do you think that, uh, NATO is a paper tiger?

The big what, I'm sorry?

Do you think NATO is a paper t-

Oh, I think NATO's in need of deep reform and that, uh, part of the reason

Well, but I mean, that reform's taking place. I mean, we can.

Oh.

You ought to be able to take some credit for this. Look at Poland's up to five point O, their GDP for defense.

Poland's not the problem.

Well, I'm, a lot of these are But we're working on this and we're making progress. Would you not agree?

I, I don't agree. I think we're making progress.

You don't agree that we're making progress?

Well, I'm, I, but I agree we're making progress with some countries, but others are saying their five percent or even their three point five percent includes for example pensions to veterans that's not defense spending.

Well, of course not, but I mean, I don't think that uh the the confidence and the support that used to be a part of that transatlantic partnership is still there today. And you go to Europe and I go to Europe, and we sense that in the people that we talk to. Let's move over to Ukraine. Uh, I've spent a lot of time in engagement there. I know you have. You talked about it earlier today. Um, the, four years ago it was seen about good versus evil, right? Russia's invasion of of a country that was unprovoked. Uh, and there was strong bipartisan perception that that was the case. Uh, a year ago the president indicated that uh, that Ukraine had no cards to play anymore. Um, I think that President Putin, today, modern Russia is a syndicate masquerading as a country with a mob boss called Putin. They bomb hospitals, he bombs hospitals, schools, churches, kidnaps over twenty thousand Ukrainian children. And yes, we have leverage, but we're backing out of our economic uh commitment there, our military commitment. And uh but yet um we see these brave Ukrainian people standing up for their sovereignty, and actually uh taking a whole new uh page out of uh warfare in terms of something that we could learn from. Uh when is uh the president the administration going to use the leverage that we have over Russia.

We have. Uh, and unfortunately the - the talks have not yet borne fruit, but I wanna disagree on something. So we - we continue to sell weapons through the Pearl program, which has been a great success. That - that's an ongoing program with Ukraine. Um, and we continue to have massive number of sanctions on Russia as we speak. Uh, the problem has been of course,

We've put the sanctions on and off again.

No, most of the sanctions are still on. The only one that's been waived for a limited period of time in order to provide more oil to the global market and stabilize prices, is oil. And those are time-determinant. These are sixty day waivers. These are not permanent.

Is it the intention to re-engage in the, in the uh, uh, efforts to form a cease-fire and a peace agreement?

Oh, a- we're prepared to do so. Uh, unfortunately, you know, those efforts proved less than fruitful. You know, we spent a year on it last year, but we're prepared to do it as soon as they're prepared to do it. That offer, we've made it repeatedly. We're ready to go. We're prepared to play that role.

Well, I think more to be continued, but um, thank you very much for your time.

Representative Huizenga is recognized.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Secretary Rubio. Good to be uh with you. Um, and while we're addressing all the important issues like your shoes, I just wanna formally invite you to DJ my next event. Uh, I would uh recommend uh maybe DJ Overlord uh be your uh be your new nickname. I'd s- I apologize for many of my colleagues here uh because you're right, they're not giving you the opportunity to answer extremely important questions. I'm gonna hit a number of issues very quickly. Um, El Ilil- uh, uh, Coidoe uh prison in Venezuela, uh, I believe yesterday you were quoted as saying that it had been closed down. I've got some, uh, close friends, contacts there that believe that there are still twenty-five prisoners that are still there. Uh, so I don't ask you necessarily to address it, but I'd love for you to take a look at that and, and, and get, uh,

Just to be clear,

give back to us.

the interim government said they intend to close it and we will hold them to their promise.

Please do, and make that as rapid as possible. Um, Uh, along the lines of where uh, Doctor Jackson was talking, Ronnie Jackson, uh, one way we've maintained our lead uh, regarding the AI ra- arms race is cutting off China's access to essential chip making tools made in America or and by our allies. Uh, unfortunately the Netherlands and Japan continue to sell their critical tools, uh, while here in the US we maintain stricter controls. Um, those exemptions continue to be exploited by uh, by uh the allies today. Do you agree that export controls on chip making equipment, play a critical role in constraining the c c p s a i military ambitions and that allies should not be allowed to exploit exemptions to those controls.

Correct, and that and that features prominently in all of our engagements with the countries you just mentioned.

All right. Um, shifting gears, last November President Trump hosted all five Central Asian presidents. I happened to chair the South and Central Asia subcommittee um for the C five plus one summit uh that was a historic uh uh movement uh And what I would like to know is, do you recommend that Congress send a strong signal to the U uh of the US's commitment to Central Asia by repealing the Cold War era Jackson-Vanik amendment, which only serves to chill US investment in the region?

Absolutely, we want that repea- we think it would be helpful.

And what what would be the positive steps? What are those next steps?

I think it would signal that these impediments that have existed in the past in being able to deal with these countries commercially are being removed. So we, this came up in my confirmation hearing and I don't know what the holdup has been, because every committee

Wonderful, and they will be thrilled to have that. Um, and then uh you recently, excuse me, you recently returned from visiting India, uh, India as a critical economic and security partner uh for the US across the Indo-Pacific. Could you please share with the committee the outcomes of your recent visit and how the Trump administration is strengthening the partnership while simultaneously addressing long-standing market access issues.

Well, so India's a important strategic ally of the United States. We do a lot of things together, both and there's tremendous opportunities to do more. The the two points we focused on are one, is the hopes that we can wrap up the negotiations on our trade agreement, which we think we're a few weeks away from being able to conclude. Obviously I don't negotiate those, that's a USTR function, so um I refer you to them as to the timing of it, but we think we're pretty close in getting that done and both sides wanna see it done. The other reason I was there was in addition to the bilateral meetings, we were able to host a meeting once again of the four ministers of the Quad, which is the cooperation between the United States, Australia, Japan and India. And there are a number of things we're working on, and now we have actionable items that we're beginning to focus on. There'll be uh, a new port facility in the region that we're gonna work together on for one of the small Pacific islands. I think that is an important show.

Binic, can you name which one?

Well, I think it's, we're talking to Fiji right now about the ability to be involved with them.

OK.

And then the second is uh I hope I didn't misspeak on that, but I believe that's the case, and on the second one, that we are working together on as a matter of

Press me, somebody in the media will hold you accountable.

Well we'll we'll get the the, but but the second one that I would tell you is that we're one of the things we've agreed to work on is is um is domain awareness working together and pooling our resources so we can have domain awareness about what's happening out in the sea. Is there someone out there trying to impede traffic? Is there someone messing with undersea cables? Is there you know sanctioned ships that are moving through? This domain awareness is critically important. If we can pull the resources of these four countries, it would be a benefit to the region writ large.

Uh, thank you. And uh, and I'll just leave one last comment. Um, it's been my observation, uh, going back to whether it's Russia, Iran, other places that have been uh, bad actors, sanctions are only as good as your willingness to enforce them. And we are finally seeing this administration, with your advocacy and others, and Treasury, to enforce those uh, uh those sanctions. Uh Anthony Blinken sat there where you are not that long ago and I had to remind him, he had a problem on his hands because I'm Vice Chair of the Financial Services Committee, there's a number of Financial Services Committee members who are on this committee. We actually write the sanctions and he basically would come in and say, don't worry you're pretty little head about all these confusing sanctiony things, we got a handle on it.

Representative Stiles, expired.

You finally do. Thank you. That a yield back.

Representative Amo.

Secretary Rubio, welcome back. Uh, I wanna start where we left off last year. You told me quote, We're going to do more food aid than any country on the planet times ten. That was your promise. Uh, but the facts tell a different story. America might still be the world's largest food aid donor, but we certainly don't provide ten times more food aid than our peers. In fact, under your watch, America's food aid contributions have been cut by more than half to roughly two billion dollars. It should be very clear that America's strength has never come solely from our might. It comes from our alliances, our credibility, and our values. You didn't just eliminate programs, created vacuums. Vacuums where violence and instability are rising, that extremist groups are filling, that competitors like China are exploiting, and vacuums that are making Americans less safe and less prosperous. And you heard Americans here at home with your policy decisions, shuttering USAID, wiped out more than twenty-three thousand American jobs while Donald Trump and his billionaire buddies got rich off of corrupt deals. Peanut farmers in Texas and sugar farmers in your home state of Florida lost market access because of your cuts. So Secretary Rubio, before slashing food aid programs, did you conduct any analysis whatsoever on how many American jobs would be lost, how many farms would be hurt, and how much damage would be done to local economies and small businesses?

Well, because we know all of those will still be part of the new programs we've created and are creating. But the second point I would make, American foreign aid programs are not a jobs program. Although they employ Americans and we want it to be helpful to Americans, and that's why we transferred

So you're OK hurting the farmers in your home state.

Well,

Food for Peace program, for example, now we've transferred it to US uh the agriculture department. They're in a better position to execute on it.

Well, you're talking about a hypothetical future where you fix past mistakes. But farmers have been struggling over the last year.

These aren't past mistakes. That's where it belonged in the first place, cuz it's helpful. The farmers have more direct input there than they would at the state department. As to your point about us cutting aid, not only are we the lar- we're the lar- we're we donate more than the next four countries combined. We do more than anybody else.

We s- but we we went down and there are consequences. Look, from where I sit, it's a fr- fr-

But why are we in charge of feeding everybody?

This is this is not about charity.

I mean we already

This is about our economy and values. I didn't say that you gotta do it all, but you can't cut when you know without analysis that bad things are gonna happen.

But we didn't, we replaced. We have new programs that are actually working better.

Well,

It's getting food to people faster.

Mister Se- Mi- Mister Secretary, if I may, uh from where I sit, you, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, you got together, you made these cuts blindly, because y- you did not say that you conducted any analysis. You just said we cut because we have a hypothetical future that we are trying to, to create, which is not a serious plan. And that's not regard for the economic damage to our farmers, to our small businesses here at home who uh are feeling that pain. And, moreover, you've had lives lost, and I I wanna get to that point. I wanna introduce you to Mary Sunday. Uh, she is behind me. And after your uh food aid cuts decimated the World Food Program's ability to feed the Kenyan refugee camp she lived in, Mary's seven month old daughter, Santina, died of malnutrition. This is the only photo Santina's parents have Before Santina died, you looked me in the eye, in this room, and you said, " No children are dying on my watch." She was a child. She had a name, a family, a future ahead. Now she's gone. She is one of over five hundred thousand children who died last year after your administration pulled the plug. Yesterday, I heard your testimony. You said you were seeking outcomes with foreign aid programs. But the outcome that I see is dead kids. So, Mr. Secretary, I want to ask you again. And with a real direct answer, please. Were you lying to Congress when you claimed no children were dying on your watch? Or did you simply never bother to calculate the human cost of your decisions?

That number you're throwing around is a false number. It's a false number. And not only that, you're equivocating that the death of an individual's responsibility to the United States to win over

There are five hundred thousand others.

No, that's not false.

So, so, uh, z- Mister Secretary, the numbers are there.

That's a false team. No, the numbers are not there.

What, here's the thing,

The numbers are opinion of experts who got their contracts cut.

uh, you, you ha- you have a narrative to share. Mister Chairman, These are people that got their hot I wanna enter into the record uh the these articles that show last year alone, an article. over a hundred and fifty-five thousand children died from malnutrition, over a hundred twenty-six thousand children died from diarrheal diseases, over a hundred and sixty-five thousand children died from pneumonia as a result of these cuts. So here's the deal. You promised more food aid and said there were cuts. You promised America first and said American workers who you said aren't a priority for you, you said it's not a jobs program. They lost their jobs. You promised strength. Instead, we have lost influence, credibility, and trust. And you promised children weren't going to die. You said that to me right here. You promised peace as well. Instead, you're a legal war of choice with Iran is driving up fuel prices and grocery costs while putting millions more at risk of hunger worldwide. This is not about charity. This is about value. So whether it's negligence or ideology, the result under your watch is the same. Weaker alliances, higher costs, dead children, and a less secure America.

The result is we spent more money than

So my, so my question, my time is expiring. So I'm gonna take these seconds to say, what are you gonna do to clean up the mess that you created?

Representative's time has expired. Representative Davidson is recognized.

Uh, thank you, Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for your faithful service to our country. Uh, your leadership as Secretary of State provides confidence at home and abroad. And I would like to highlight that your personal testimony at Charlie Kirk's memorial service and your remarks at uh, this year's Munich security conference resonate with me and with many of my constituents, so thank you. Um, I only have time for a few quick topics, so first thank you for leading one of the most thoughtful national security strategies I've seen in the post-Cold War era. I thought last year's national security strategy was well done, and the national security strategy uh poses quote, the cynical manipulation of our immigration system to build up voting blocks loyal to foreign interests within our country. The State Mo- the State Department has also made it clear that we object to the UN's efforts to advocate and facilitate replacement migration across the United States, and broader across Western countries. Immigration was a driving issue behind President Trump and Republican electoral victories and I commend your department for making this a priority. Could you please highlight your approach beginning at our own borders and extended, especially through the Western hemisphere, to addressing this as part of the national security strategy?

In terms of migration?

Yeah.

It's look, mass migration is a national security threat to any country that experiences it. It's bad for the transit countries too, by the way, because it fuels and feeds these transnational groups that traffic not just in human beings, they traffic in drugs, they traffic in weapons and anything else you can imagine. So I think one of the biggest threats, specific to the Western hemisphere but be true throughout the world, is these transnational, they call them criminal groups, they're really transnational terrorist groups, that among many of the things they do is traffic in human beings. This, so mass migration is not good for any country that has to absorb it, and Europe is now facing the consequences of that, but mass migration is also not good for the migrant, because they're abused along the way and it's destructive and disruptive to all the countries in the region that have to experience it. So today we do not have a mass migration event, and every country along that route in Central America is grateful for it, because that's less money and on, that they have to spend and less resources that are being taxed, and and and less uh of a of a burden that they're having to carry.

Thank you for that, and frankly, thank you for demonstrating that we just needed leadership to apply the laws to secure our own borders uh with this administration. I'm a I'm a former infantry officer. The oath our military swear is is similar to the oath we swear in the House, or the Senate, or for cabinet members. This is important to defend our constitution. You know, generally we say, first define the mission, second authorize the mission, and then execute the mission. Uh, so I'd like to call your attention to the two thousand one AUMF. It was, I think, the O one AUMF and the O two AUMF that I thought brought justice to Qasem Soleimani. As you highlighted previously in dialogue today, uh, you know, the IEDs and efforts of the uh coup d'etat's force uh killed many Americans in Iraq. And and he's, you know, Iran has been the biggest state sponsor of terror. Unfortunately, uh, the O one AUMF, which still survives, doesn't uh, it it calls uh, it authorizes a war on terror for Al Qaeda and their affiliates. Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, and numerous other uh proxy forces for Iran aren't affiliates of Al Qaeda. Would your administration support uh a modernization of an authorization of military force so that we could have a full authorization to provide full authority for our military to c- carry out these operations?

Yeah, two-fold. The first is we haven't asked for one. Um, obviously anything that allows a provides congressional support for the president's efforts to take on Hezbollah, Hamas, the threats they posed to the United States and ultimately Iran, it would be a positive, but we haven't asked for it because we believe every operation that's been conducted is well within the laws that exists.

Well, uh Article one gives Congress a duty to do something about authorizing force. And uh I've tried the whole ten years I've been here to modernize it, so maybe next year will be the the magic year. Uh but I think it'd be due that we actually authorize these things, because our military needs it. They need to know that the American people have their backs, and particularly when you look at people like the Seditious Six making threats to our military, I don't want them to have a second thought ever about their cover for the authority, for the things we ask them to engage in. Because frankly, the problem in the post-Nine eleven era hasn't hasn't been whether there's a a just cause, it's been whether we've given our military everything they need to achieve it. They've been tactically brilliant and operationally brilliant, and I'd say that's true even in Iran. Um, but they haven't strategically been able to succeed, and part of that's because the United States hasn't been united behind it. And I guess towards that end, you you've stated missions here, we're clearly not united as a country in Iran. Um, so briefly, you know, what authorization do you need to carry out further operations in Iran?

Well, uh, that's contemplated now, they're all within the president's powers in our view under the constitution to a- address imminent and emerging threats, against the interests of the United States. If those circumstances were to change, we would obviously engage Congress in that conversation. We would always welcome congressional support. We'd like congressional support. Uh, I d- but that's not gonna stand in the way of the president addressing an immediate threat to the United States, or an emerging threat to the United States that requires him as Commander-in-Chief to protect our people and our country.

Well, the cause is just not yield.

Representative Mfume is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary. Good afternoon. I was gonna say good morning, but it's starting to run past us. We all obviously sit here, um, in America and in what has been known as the greatest deliberative uh body in this democracy and in a nation that is the strongest, the wealthiest, the most powerful, the most influential nation that the world has ever seen. America's military might has no rival. However, America's moral obligation continues to be called into question. And I wanna talk a little differently about something that doesn't get the attention that it should get, and I wanna associate myself with the remarks from my colleague from Rhode Island. Globally, over a hundred and twenty-two million people are forcibly displaced all over the globe due to conflict, due to persecution, due to human rights violations. They are in the Sudan, they're in Syria, they're in the Ukraine, they're in Myanmar, they're in the Congo, and they are in Gaza. And so I want to take the time that I have to talk about Gaza, since no one seems to wanna talk about it anymore, um, now that there is a tentative cease-fire. But there's also a number of children, teenagers, seniors, and others that are living in wallah, they have no real medical care that is sufficient for their needs. They are displaced because of this humanitarian crisis that we see. And for months the issue was that Hamas was not allowing people in. Well, that's not the case right now. And we see what was supposed to have been tens of trucks going in each day down to a trickle, not carrying food but carrying a lot of commercial supplies. More than six months into the ceasefire, about one point seven million Gazans, Palestinians, are still living in tent camps. They're facing a surge, as you probably know, in rodent-borne disease, with reports of more than seventy thousand cases of parasite infections, related illnesses, since the beginning of this year alone. Many, if not most of them, are children, young children who are trying to find a way to survive, who are also growing up with memories of what happened to their parents, with a great deal of hatred in their heart towards America, towards Israel, toward anybody that they thought may have been a part of that. I just wanna point out two things, one that a twenty point peace plan was enacted and talked about by President Trump. It included point number seven, which doesn't get a lot of in uh attention, and that is that the mandate that a full amount of aid would be sent into Gaza and into the Gaza Strip at a quantity of six hundred trucks a day. It also included another point, point eight, that entry and distribution of this way aid would proceed without any interference from any outside or internal force. So if we are in fact the strongest, the powerful, the most wealthy, the most influential nation on the face of the earth, it would seem to me that while we are doing all these other things around the globe, Mister Secretary, that we ought to have a humane reaction and response to what we helped to create there. I mean, it is not just war-torn, it's ravaged. And people are dying every day, even as this hearing takes place, because they can't get medical attention. And so Gaza is not over with. That chapter and page is not turned. Those persons, the Palestinians that live there, really need help. And I would strongly urge the State Department in addition to what you may be doing, to have someone and to have a process to come up with ways, through UNRWA and other organizations, to meet the need. Many of the international organizations are facing a monetary crisis, and so they don't have the ability to do what they are empowered to do. But this is still the United States of America. And we still have an obligation. And we cannot let children die in mass because we think that a ceasefire has created a new reality. The reality is still the same on the ground there. So I would urgently ask that when you come back before the committee, that you try to address that, or even before then, or if you wanna share some information, please do, because time is of the essence. I yield back. Representative Lawler.

Mr. Secretary, as Chairman of this committee's Middle East and North Africa subcommittee, I've been uh monitoring closely the administration's operations in Iran and appreciate uh the many conversations uh that we have had I commend both you and President Trump for your decisive actions against the regime on that of our military. Uh last summer we significantly set back their nuclear objectives and in the past few months we have systemically decimated their military infrastructure, including their naval fleet and ballistic missiles program and drone capacity. And we eliminated the Ayatollah, the clerics, and much of the leadership of the IRGC. And now you are working to get the Strait of Hormuz reopened. And to my colleagues, I would say to you, imagine what this regime would do if it actually had a nuclear weapon and tried to extract and extort uh by shutting down the Strait. They didn't just think of this as a result of this operation. Uh, this is something that they had been planning for years. Uh, we are working to diminish their nuclear capabilities for good and to expand the Abraham Accords across the Middle East and actually ensure peace, stability, and economic prosperity. It is bold, it is innovative, and for the first time in forty-seven years somebody actually followed through on the bipartisan threat that Iran could not have a nuclear weapon. So I applaud you for the work that you have done, uh, during your tenure, uh, and wanted to ask you a few questions. Specifically, would the president sign a deal that doesn't deal with the nuclear threat and Iran's enrichment capabilities?

Well, there that would be what the deal is about. So it would be impossible to sign a deal that doesn't deal with enrichment and and the highly enriched uranium.

Right. And would you say that Iran for the first time is finally willing to at least discuss these issues?

Well, I can tell you a few months ago they refused to discuss the issues of both enrichment and the highly enriched uranium. I think now in some of the papers that have been exchanged back and forth, it's clearly addressed, but we don't still don't have final sign off from their system, as of this morning.

And there have been reports that sanctions relief and release of frozen assets are on the table. As I understand it, you shut down those rumors yesterday in your testimony. Can you confirm that's the case?

Well, first of all, th- there are sanctions that are specifically related to their nuclear program. Sanctions because they enrich, sanctions because they have highly enriched uranium. And so, none of this would be done at the front-end. There's no, there's no signing bonuses here. Uh, but ultimately it would all be conditions-based. The, the, the, the sanctions that are directly related to the nuclear program would be discussed, as if in fact they go through all the way on the things that we're asking them to do. But that would be part of the negotiation. It wouldn't be at the front-end.

Now, as you and I well know, during your time in the Senate we worked together to pass the Ship Act. And it was the Biden administration that not only released billions in frozen Iranian uh oil revenue, but it was the Biden administration that eased sanctions on the illicit oil trade between China and Iran. And that's what allowed the Iranian regime to finance terrorism. Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, that's what allowed them to finance their ballistic missiles program. And it's what allowed them to finance their nuclear capabilities. So, as you look at all of this, um, the bottom line is, from our perspective, we want the nuclear materials out. And so ultimately, no dust, no money. Correct?

That's right. And the, and to be clear about the no- we're talking about sixty percent highly enriched uranium. It has no peaceful purposes. The only reason to have sixty percent highly enriched uranium is to be one step away from turning it into ninety percent highly enriched uranium, which you would weaponize. So that has clearly been one of the things that has to be part of this agreement,

Right.

the disposition of it.

Uh, one thing I just wanna say as part of any negotiation, please keep in mind the US victims of terror compensation fund, and make sure that our nine eleven families uh continue to be compensated on the uh sanctions for Iran's terrorist activities. Um You know, a number of my democratic colleagues have pushed war powers resolutions. From your uh experience and position, does this grandstanding benefit the United States, or does it benefit the Iranian regime?

Well, you know, the Iranians have misunderstood it in the past. They think, and I've seen others, not just the Iranians, but on different war powers resolutions, they think that if this thing passes, that means the president will not be able to come after us, so he no longer has any leverage. I think you've seen, I've seen reflections of that from them in the past. Obviously, look,

Appreciate it.

Representative McBride.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, thank you, Mister Secretary, for joining us today. Like you, I attended the Munich security conference earlier this year, and in a meeting that I had with several European Prime Ministers and several of colleagues within the administration, your colleagues recognize that NATO is both bigger and better funded today than it was ten years ago and uh I am fully willing to admit that that is a by-product of several factors including Putin's aggression in previous administrations, and indeed a by-product of actions by this administration and this president's first term as well. But I wanna focus in today on statements and actions that I believe go beyond pressuring and leverage and actually fundamentally undermine the foundation of NATO. On January twenty-first of this year in the President's speech in Davos, he said we quote " never got anything from NATO". Two months later, the President said on Truth Social, speaking of NATO, " they will do nothing for us". Mister Secretary, do you share the President's assessment that we quote " never got anything from NATO"?

Well, I think what the President was speaking to at that moment and was what I'll speak to you about now is the one of the reasons why I've been such a strong NATO is because they allow us to use these bases, because it allows us in a time of contingency, like the one in Germany and others. And for the first time, I think we we see NATO countries denying us the use of our their bases, which undermines the purpose of our involvement.

Mr. Mr. Secretary, these statements, uh, including the one we never got anything from NATO, happened before the war in Iran, which falls outside of the Article five invocation. It falls outside of, uh, a war of defense. Do you share the president's assessment that we quote " never, never got anything from NATO."

I I share the President's assessment that on issues that are a priority to the United States

I'll take that as you disagree with his assessment that we got,

No.

never got anything from NATO,

You you can't take it as a that's your characterization.

because, Mr. Secretary, let me reclaim my time,

I'm telling well

Mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, I'm asking very specifically about a specific quote.

I'm trying to answer your question, but you're asking me

I'm not asking whether NATO can be better or reformed.

But how can you guys ask me questions and not let me answer?

I'm asking if we've never got anything from NATO. And I wanna specifically ask you, Mr. Secretary,

Well why are you asking me if I can't answer?

are I you're not answering the question that i'm asking you're answering a different question about whether nato can be better or more informed and so i'm gonna move on

well you're giving me the answer you want

mister mister secretary are you aware that the only time article five has ever been invoked is after nine eleven in defense of the united states

of course i'm aware of that yeah

ok and are you aware that more than a thousand europeans died in the subsequent war on terror that was invoked

they participated in the middle east correct

after and uh i assume you're aware that the nato ally that lost more service members

I well, Denmark, I thought it was um that the UK had suffered more.

More per capita.

OK, got you.

OK. And I assume you're aware that Greenland is indeed part of Denmark.

For now.

OK. Well, I wanna focus in on Greenland. I joined the bipartisan bicameral trip to Copenhagen as the administration that you're a part of sought to seize Greenland. In the president's speech at Davos, He said, referring to Greenland quote, " You need ownership to defend it." "Mr. Secretary, does the United States need to own land within NATO to defend it?"

Well, and and the truth be told, we are actually involved in conversations with Greenland and Denmark on the use of Denmark for uh on the use of Greenland for collective defense for all of us. It's a key part of missile defense, but we're involved in those talks right now, so I I I think we're in a good place on it now. Um, but I don't want to put stuff out there in the public record that would undermine the conversations we're having with them on it.

So Specifically, I'm not, I'm not asking about whether we're gonna do more within Greenland for our collective defense. I think all of us share that goal, including Denmark and Greenlandic people. Um, but do, does the United States need to own land within NATO to defend it? That's what the President said, and that was the justification for those statements and the attempt to seize Greenland several months ago.

The President's view is that it's a lot easier to defend it when you have control and complete control of it. We are obviously having conversations with both Denmark and Greenland, they're ongoing on a monthly basis now, I think we'll have pretty good news on it at some point.

So, I I I take that as you disagree with the literal words of the President of the United States, and I wanna put a finer point.

I think he's right, if we owned it it would be easier to defend it,

He, that's not what he said.

but was there gonna be another

He said you need to own it to defend it, which fundamentally undermines the central tenet of Article five of NATO, which states that the parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against all of them, and if such an armed attack occurs, each of them will assist the party your party is attacked. So sitting here with, I'm sure, many leaders across Europe within NATO and many leaders beyond, including Vladimir Putin, potentially watching the words and listening to the words that you are saying, can you reassure our NATO allies and make it clear to Vladimir Putin that if a NATO ally is attacked, and Article five is invoked, that we will defend them.

The United States is still in the NATO alliance, and will be there in Turkey to talk about all these topics. The president himself will be attending the next NATO uh a meeting of Heads of State, where all these points will be made clear. We're still in NATO, but NATO needs significant changes, and the President has made that clear.

And he is funda-

He's very disappointed in NATO.

Representative S- Representative Self is recognized.

Uh thank you Mister Chairman, thank you Mister Secretary for being here. Um I wanna continue on uh NATO, but first of all would you like thirty seconds to uh respond to the last questioning?

Uh well thank you. Um the the bottom line is the United States, look with NATO, I've been a strong supporter personally. in the Senate and otherwise of NATO, and I still see the utility in it. Um, the the problem with NATO as I wanna point out is, those bases that we have in the region is one of the rea- one of the reasons I used to argue why NATO was so important is it allowed the US to project power and have power, in case of contingencies. And um, we had a contingency, and we had countries in NATO that said, no you can't use our bases, particularly Spain. Now I wanna be fair, there were other countries that have been extraordinarily cooperative, and uh and what they've helped us to do, some publicly and some privately. But I think the president's irritation with NATO is that in a time of conflict and crisis where the United States had a need, you had members of this alliance who are constantly asking us to get to get involved in European matters, like Ukraine and things of this nature, who in our time were actually telling us, no, your tankers can't use our air base. No, you can't use it to refuel. No, you can't use it for logistical support. And he's very diss what kind of alliance is that? I think the other thing that's concerning is that apart from NATO you have this European effort to stand up some sort of a military force, some of which may trigger actions that would then lead to an Article five invocation. That's a separate topic, but one that also needs to be discussed. So I think the next meeting of NATO in Turkey, uh in July, is probably the most important meeting in NATO's history, because there are some things here that need to be cleared up and fixed.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I chair the European subcommittee on this committee. Uh, I was in, uh, Europe for eight years on active duty to include European command in NATO's shape, uh, military headquarters. I wanna uh point uh you gave us a really masterful uh review of the global uh situation early in your spoken remarks. I wanna uh ask you to comment on another part of Europe that we've not talked about that I consider very fragile, and that's the Balkans, particularly the Western Balkans. Uh I just completed a trip through I uh through Bosnia, Herzegovina, Serbia and Kosovo. I talked to uh government officials, I talked to opposition members, students, uh obviously the country teams, K four, NGOs, talk to everybody I could talk to. It's extremely fragile uh right now. Thank you for the ambassadors that were recently nominated for that region. Uh, I noticed that Kosovo did not have a ambassador nominated, and I would ask for your support there. Uh, we have four NATO allies that are also blocking Kosovo's entry into NATO. Obviously we have the intractable uh issue between Serbia and Kosovo, that Serbia considers Kosovo a province, Kosovo most of the world recognizes Kosovo as a sovereign nation. Uh, we have the change in the high rep coming in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Uh, this is a an extremely fragile uh, area of of Europe and I would ask for you to uh, support Kosovo's uh, membership in NATO uh, with those four countries at the uh, uh, meeting in Turkey that you just mentioned. I'm looking for stability and balance in the Western Balkans. Our troop presence is very, very important. Uh, in uh in that region of the world in terms of the k four particularly and i know we're looking for a high rep and i just ask for any comments you have on the western balkans i consider them fragile

well the as you know the pre-existing high rep has resigned and so there's a new candidate that we'll be supporting he's a an italian gentleman that we think would do a good job of helping provide some stability uh to that position beyond that we remain engaged uh on this topic uh as you pointed out uh and have so done privately as well the last thing we wanna see is any sort of conflict in there, any sort of partition, division, uh things of this nature and the la that that would create further conflict. I can't speak to expansion of NATO, I'll be frank with you, based on my last meetings with the foreign ministers and obviously perhaps Secretary Hexeth has additional comments on this point, but at least what I perceived is that uh you know right now generally speaking NATO is so focused on some of these other issues that have been raised here today that expansion uh uh particularly on the in the case of Kosovo, but other

Uh, yes, Mister Secretary, you you look at the Western Balkans, there's kind of a hole there in terms of EU membership and NATO membership. So there is a lack of stability. With that, I have thirty seconds left, I'd like to uh yield to my colleague.

Thank you very much, honorable Congressman Self. I just wanna finish with uh what I was trying to um ask you, Mister Secretary. Uh, let's go to Colombia. President Trump just endorsed. We have information, sir, that there are forces preparing a major election fraud coming up in three weeks. My question to you is very clear. We need to send a message to the Colombians that they need to have free and fair elections. So are we prepared to say that whomever participates in that type of uh fraud uh process during the uh the presidential election, can we uh sanction them with OFAC sanctions, canceling United States visas for them or for their family members.

W- yeah,

We need to s-

we I mean look, I I can't make that, I would say to you that we are gonna be very forceful in ensuring that there is a free and fair election and Colombian do everything within our power to ensure that that happens.

Specifically OFAC, OFAC and

The way time has expired, uh Representative Deen is recognized.

OFAC.

Thank you, Chairman, uh and Ranking Member Meeks. Uh welcome, Secretary Rubio. I wanna take a moment to echo the sentiments uh expressed by the ranking member and my democratic colleagues about this administration. Under your leadership, we are going backwards. We're losing our moral standing. We're alienating our allies. Our status as the indispensable nation is in question. I had hoped that President Trump would have used you more. I had hoped he would have used diplomatic tools more. instead of family dealmakers. A prime example of where we have lost ground is the destruction of USAID and the US foreign assistance apparatus. Secretary Rubio, I agree with your stated intention to spend foreign aid effectively, efficiently, and aligned with American values. Your written testimony certainly paints a rosy picture of the State Department's progress in achieving those goals. I quote you when you say, " Every dollar we spend today is one hundred times more effective efficient, and aligned with the American interest than it was, uh, when President Trump took office. We know such huckstering is not the reality. Last year, a new and untested organization called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation was set up by Israel and the United States within a sh- few short months to take over distribution of emergency food assistance amid catastrophic food insecurity, and famine in Gaza. GHF had no track record of providing humanitarian assistance and it relied on private subcontractors to transport the food, to provide food distribution sites. And then you saw the reporting. Hundreds of Palestinians, including women and children, were were killed just trying to get to those sites. Secretary Rubio, can you tell us, can you tell the world how many people were killed simply trying to access those sites.

Well, since Hamas killed them, you should have asked uh what Hamas' plan was for.

IDF soldiers shot some of them.

No, no, no. The,

Yes,

the, let me tell you the reason why food wasn't going in there is because

Secretary Rubio, I reclaimed my time,

the condos were being hijacked by Hamas.

I reclaimed my time because propaganda ain't gonna work with me.

Well, it isn't gonna work with me either, and what you're saying is propaganda.

Barely fourteen hundred people were killed. And that was as of last March. Secretary Rubio, why did the State Department approve the thirty million dollars to GHF at a time when other well-tested uh agencies were there and able to provide distribution.

Well because th- th- one of those uh were in cahoots with Hamas, and we saw an incredible amount of the aid flow into Hamas' hands.

Again, reclaiming, reclaiming, reclaiming my time, the aid was held up at the border by Israel and you know it.

Here we go with the reclaiming our time thing. Guys gotta fix your rules here, you can't even answer a question.

You're not following the rules, you're very familiar with how this works.

No I don't,

The time is, the time is,

I never served in the house, this is a weird rule,

the time is mine.

where you ask a question and I can't answer?

Would you please add time to the clock?

Nope.

He's a comedy show over there.

I'd say on the left.

This is serious stuff.

I agree. That's why that's why I shouldn't have to answer question about shoes.

Mister Rubio, Mister Rubio, according to public reporting, nine counterterrorism and anti-fraud safeguards were waived to approve this. I wonder who specifically made the decision. I wonder were you aware of this decision? I'm not asking you a question. And was there any written justification? I don't want an answer. You know why? Because now GHF is closed. It was abysmal. It was a legacy of disaster. Nothing about our investment, our investment, our taxpayers' investment, seems to have been effective or efficient, or in the af- interest of the American people. I would call that waste, fraud, and abuse. Moving on. I'm a member of the Appropriations Committee. I'm concerned that you're flouting Congress's constitutional power of the first when it comes to foreign aid. For FY twenty-five, Congress appropriated and the President signed into law more than six hundred and ninety million dollars for international basic education. I don't need to tell you that investing in basic education is critical for empowering children creating economic opportunity it's also had a long time bipartisan support you supported you personally as a senator supported authorizing legislation the REIT Act, how much of this funding has been spent so far?

I don't have that figure in front of me, but I can tell you we're not gonna fund puppet shows.

Can you get it for us? Can you get it for us?

Yeah, I'll get it for you, but I'm just gonna tell you the number of puppet shows we're fu- and all

OK.

these other stupid things they were spending money on is gonna be zero.

Well, you've supported the legislation.

I didn't support the legislation to have puppet shows.

Let me end by this. Mister Rubio, Mister Secretary, the Trump Administration will be remembered for rubble and rot. I had hoped you would have been able to distinguish yourself above that rot. I bet you hoped it too. Sadly, you have not. I yield back.

Well, Representative Baird is recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you, Mister Secretary, for being here and giving us an update on the Department of State. We really appreciate that. You know, in your testimony you stated that the foreign assistance is a key instrument in America's building. to build partnerships and trust with developing countries. And President Trump has put forth a clear plan about America first in all aspects of our policy and his policy. Our focal point, uh, that the State Department has spearheaded, which is I am very excited about, is the American first global health strategy. The US is a global leader in health innovation, particularly with pharmaceutical applications and biotechnology. African countries overwhelmingly have been the bilateral global health agreements. Twenty-one of the thirty-two signed agreements that you mentioned in your earlier presentation have been with nations in Africa, resulting in forty percent of African nations being partners of the United States that have taken enough responsibility to invest in their people instead of asking for a blank check from America's taxpayers. So I'm proud as an Ind- a representative of Indiana to see that the drastic increase in domestic investment is innovative uh for global health problems and biotechnology. So can you uh walk me through the process uh for sending America's medical and health innovation abroad to assist with global health threats? And additionally, what plans does the State Department have to expand those global

Yeah, and and let me just say this goes right to the criticisms that I keep hearing from that side over there about, spending the money because we got rid of the USAID program. USAID basically was a program, uh was a system that was completely devoid of our public policy, operated almost as an independent state department, and often ca- times, USAID was operating in contravention and contradiction of what the embassy was trying to accomplish in the host country. And one of the complaints you would get from many developing countries, is that they would get flooded with NGOs that were picked for them. These NGOs would then operate in the country without even coordinating with the government doing whatever they wanted and pursuing what they wanted. And in some cases it extended well beyond food and medicine, it extended to political interference and all sorts of other activities in these countries that were undermining the national interest and the credibility of the United States. Now these Compacts in particular are promising and exciting because they are government to government arrangements. No longer do we put money into a bucket and says, this is for vaccines, or this is for medical care, or this is for standing up clinics globally. We are doing it individually, country by country. And the reason why that makes sense is because every country has unique needs. Some country may need more help in some area than in others. But at the core of this arrangement that we're making with countries, is their desire and our goal to ultimately help them build their own national health systems. So that eventually they no longer are dependent on foreign aid in order to be able to conduct that. Some countries it may take five years, some countries it may take fifteen, it depends on which country. But that's the goal of the compact. And these countries are happy with the compact because for the first time ever, their government leaders have control over how the money is spent, where it's being spent, and it's being spent in a way that builds their domestic capacity inside of the country. That's a much better way to do it than to flood these countries with NGOs accountable to nobody, run by in many cases uh through a USAID program that that was undermining our foreign policy in that country in many instances.

Well I appreciate that answer very much. I was really shocked to see where some of the funds were going. in Africa for example, uh through those uh the USAID and the USAID program. And I know that was not what was intended in the beginning, so thank you for taking care of that and making an effort to do that. Uh let me change to one other thing. Uh during the Biden administration, the FSOs uh were evaluated in the service based on a meaningless criteria, like DEI and woke politics. So this arguably drowned out the vital US interest. like beating back the Chinese encroachment and advancing new technologies abroad. I commend you for stripping the department of DEI and other woke policies, and we should renew our focus on reinforcing our edge against China, and we certainly can use tech diplomacy to do that. So we have about forty-two seconds, so can you, would you mind sharing with me uh how to agree with the diplomats should be trained in emerging technologies like AI and telecommunications?

Yeah, well I think given the dramatic uh transformations happening in the world today, our diplomats of the future are gonna have to be trained in multiple fields that previously we didn't. Not just in the role that technology broadly plays, but the rapidly evolving role that AI plays, and economics. I think economics have become a central core, have always been an important part of our diplomacy, but have become at the core of much of our diplomacy around the world now. So it's one of the areas where I think our, in addition to knowing how to write non-papers and all the other normal diplomatic things, I think it's gonna be really important for foreign service officers in the future to have an understanding of economic factors.

Thank you very much. Uh, you're back.

Representative Schneider is recognized.

Uh, thank you, Chair, and Mister Secretary, thank you for being here today. I'm gonna talk about areas on which we both agree, specifically addressing the threats from Iran and seeking stability, prosperity and peace for all the peoples of the Middle East, including our Arab Muslim allies and the Jewish democratic state of Israel. Like you, I've spent much of the past two decades working to block and ultimately permanently close any path Iran might pursue to uh to acquire nuclear weapons capability. And like you, I've argued that the international community must work together to eliminate Iran's conventional weapons threat including ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and now drones. Like you, I've worked to thwart Iran's support for terrorist organizations around the world, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in, and Palestina- Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen, among others. And like you, I believe we should do all we can to empower the good people of Iran, to free themselves from the evil regime that has oppressed them for more than forty-seven years. And now we can add the imperative to re-establish freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. I know you and this administration are working to reopen that Strait. Mr. Secretary, assuming the arrangement is soon reached to reopen the Strait, have you or anyone in the administration calculated or even estimated the economic impact on Iran's economy through the remainder of the year, versus the baseline that was expected before the war?

Yeah, I I'm sorry, but I wanna understand your question. Are you saying if the straits are open, how much have they lost?

Agreement, if an agreement is achieved, do you have an expectation of what's going to happen in Iran's economy going forward? How much money will come in uh with the straits open?

Well, I can tell you, so for example, with the blockade now, their inability to get ships out is costing them hundreds of million.

Post-blockade.

Right, so if it's costing them hundreds of million dollars a day now, not being able to get their ships out, that would be theoretically what they could gain back, except that they still face sanctions. Now, the sanctions haven't been enforced necessarily, but the in many cases in previous administrations, but they still face sanctions. What you've seen happen now that has never happened before.

But let me just, I, I just, for the sake of time,

Yeah, I understand.

I appreciate that. The, the administration is looking at, at give and take to get the streets open. Have you estimated how much of the cash that will flow into that economy? As you said,

Oh, I got you.

a hundred million dollars a day will make its way ultimately to ramp proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, or Palestinian,

Well,

the same as you.

obviously we'd assume a lot of it and the, but they also have significant But let me be clear, I don't I I don't think that's what you're asking me. No, what we're the straights are not in exchange for sanctions relief. The straights are in exchange for the blockade.

No, I understand it's not sanctioned. I, that's not what I'm asking.

OK, no, no, I just wanted to be clear on that point.

Yeah, but, but there will be economic inflows to the regime and, and the concert

Yeah, unfortunately that's the case and that continues to be the case.

Yeah.

That will have to change as well as part of this negotiation.

Yeah. So, and, and just because time is so tight, um. My, my request is can you commit to giving this committee a classified briefing, to share what the administration is doing to thwart the efforts to get money to Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and and Hamas.

Yes, and I think you would also benefit from hearing from Treasury on that topic as well.

We we'll ask that for and I'll ask the chairman to do that.

OK.

Uh, way back in May, May eighth, twenty eighteen, the Trump administration laid out a fact sheet uh making the case why it was leaving the JCPOA. I'm gonna just go through some of the points and ask you to confirm that the administration's red lines are still the same. Uh, quote uh from this is May eighth eighth, two thousand eighteen, there's a quote, The JCPOA failed to deal with the threat of Iran's missile program and did not include a strong enough mechanism for inspection and verification." End quote. Can you commit to this committee that any resulting deal will include a strong mechanism for inspections ideally anytime anywhere inspections and verification of Iran's missile program.

Missile program?

Yes.

Well, the missile program is being discussed partially because Epic Fury destroyed much of it but it still needs to be discussed cuz it's a delivery system for these, these uh So that, that's been a part of the negotiations, correct?

OK. Uh, again quoting from the May document, the JCPOA foolishly gave the Iranian regime a windfall of cash and access to international financial system for trade and investment. End quote. Can you commit to this committee that any resulting deal will not foolishly give the Iranian regime a windfall of cash and access to the international financial system for trade and investment?

Yes, because they're not gonna get any sanctions relief of any kind unless they get rid of enrichment and they get uh rid of the highly enriched uranium.

Thank you. Uh, third point, uh, and I'm I'm again quoting from the original document, the Iranian regime must never have an ICBM cease developing any nuclear capable missiles, and stop proliferating ballistic missiles to others." Can you commit to this committee that any resulting deal will cause Iran to cease developing its nuclear m- capable missiles and stop proliferating ballistic missiles to others?

Do- we consider delivery systems to be a part of them having a nuclear weapon, which you said they'll never have.

Right, and just because you have forty seconds. Uh, again quote unquote, the R- uh, Iran regime must stop its threat to freedom of navigation, especially in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. That was uh in two thousand eighteen. Can you commit to the committee that any deal will cause Iran to stop its threats to freedom of navigation especially in the in the Gulf uh or the Strait remotes?

No, not that I commit to that. We won't even be able to enter negotiations until they do that.

OK. And finally, can you commit that any agreement, any agreement this administration enters into will ensure Iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon?

That's the whole goal here, absolutely.

Yeah. In that vein, and most importantly, can you commit to this committee that any documented agreement related to Iran's nuclear program will be brought before Congress as required by ANARA, which I believe you voted for.

We will comply with ANARA.

Uh, thank you. I yield back.

And thank you, Mister Schneider, for letting me answer your questions. Representative Barr.

I was efficient. This guy's

Mister Secretary, thanks for the great job you're doing. Um, some Democrats are making the laughable claim that Iran is stronger today than they than they were before epic fury started um because of the disruption in the, in the Strait of Hormuz. Uh, you've seen the the trump derangement syndrome uh in the hearing today. Uh, can you set the record straight on whether or not Iran is stronger today?

Well, they have li- they have no navy, they have no air force, they have no air defenses, they have uh substantial they have they have massive destruction to the defense industrial base. They've lost a substantial percentage of their missile launchers, um and of of of their drone launchers as well. Um, they're not benefiting from the streets being closed. because the blockade is keeping them from hundreds of millions of dollars a day in revenue. They've had their sea- ships seized in the Indo-Pacific. Their leadership is fractured. They have hyperinflation. Their currency is worthless. And they're having trouble making payroll. I guess other than that, they're doing well.

Thank you. Do you believe that uh keeping the credible threat of kinetic military force on the table uh and the president's willingness to use such force is important to your diplomatic leverage?

Yes, because unfortunately we are dealing with a group of people that don't understand anything but that. Um.

And so the the resolution that's on the floor in the US House this week, uh would would do do what to the US leverage?

I don't think technically it does anything. I think perceptionally it allows the Iranians to believe that somehow they don't have to make a deal because there's no threat of something bad happening to them if they don't.

Uh, and and just uh as a follow-up uh to my my friend uh Congressman Schneider's uh line of questioning can you describe the key differences between the terms of the deal that you all are negotiating with Iran today versus

What we're discussing now is what the negotiations will be about. And it will be about zero, no enrichment, what they're gonna do with their enrichment, and what they're gonna do with the highly enriched uranium being removed and disposed being disposed of. Uh that wasn't a part of JCPOA. The other thing is the JCPOA was time-limited. In fact, the prohibition on uh certain enrichment would have been expiring this very year. This very year would have been expiring, so JCPOA right now would be

And I think absolutely, and I think that's a key point is that this this idea that you could draw any

Mm.

analogy between what's happening now where the where the administration has totally obliter obliterated uh the uh nuclear capabilities of of Iran, plus their conventional capabilities. Uh you're negotiating from a position of strength uh that the Obama and Biden administration was not negotiating uh uh f- uh from a position of strength at all, and and uh and provided up upfront sanctions. We know what what the result was. Um I wanna shift to the Indo-Pacific real quick.

Um

Uh a as you know the Taiwan Relations Act states that it is the policy of the United States to provide Taiwan with um arms of a defensive character. Consistent with that policy, the Trump administration announced in December of twenty-five an eleven billion dollar arms package for Taiwan, the largest ever, including High Mars, howitzers, drones, javelin, anti-tank missiles. As a result, the Taiwan legislature passed a twenty-five billion dollar special defense budget that included funding for an even bigger arms deal for air and defense, uh air and missile defense totaling fourteen billion, a deal that is not final and a deal that is under review. Um, as you know, one of the six assurances states that the US will not consult with the PRC on arm sales to Taiwan. Now, you've heard this, critics of the administration have alleged, the media has alleged as a result of the Beijing summit, that President Trump's recent meetings with uh um uh Chinese leader Xi in Beijing, not only paused Taiwan arm sales, that's their term, paused arm sales, but also violated the assurance that the US will not consult with the PRC directly. Can you clear the air on this?

First of all, the eleven million in December was the single largest arms sales ever to Taiwan. It was more than happened cumulatively under four years of President Biden. And in fact, I recall that for six years President Obama offered zero to Taiwan during his presidency. So, it was such a big deal by the way that the Chinese reacted to it with really hyper activity in terms of military exercises around Taiwan. We don't consult with the Chinese on these arms sales. We're aware of their position. They talk about it all the time and I don't need to tell you, it wouldn't be breaking news that they're not in favor of these arms sales. They raise it, but they are not negotiated and they're not consulted. That second deal, the fourteen million dollar one that's currently under review, uh, and that would be not a, that would not be unusual for something of that magnitude.

But that's not a pause. That's not a pause. That's under review and we've already done an eleven billion dollar deal.

Just did one in December.

Right. So I I I think the mischaracterization of this as a pause doesn't reflect the the administration's commitment that they've already made on the eleven billion dollar deal. I yield back.

Yeah, correct.

Representative Barras recognizes the problem.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary, for being here. Um I'll admit that I was hesitant and skeptical and did not support, um, the actions that took place in Venezuela. I also will admit that thus far it's working out better than I would have expected. And, you know, long-term stability, if we can create a better life for the Venezuelan people is a good thing. If we can reduce that threat in our hemisphere, that's a good thing as well. Um, to the line of questioning that, um, Ms. Komlager and I have asked, I think it would go a long way. You mentioned that there's a KPMG audit of the Venezuelan funds, how the revenue is being used, how it's being reinvested in Venezuela. Would you publicly commit to providing, um, that audit to this committee? And again, I think it would go a long way to

Well, well it's an, and it's not ongoing audit, so it's not a once a year audit, it's on every expenditure. Every single disbursement is audited by KPMG. I would also add one more point. There's a second layer of control here and that is Citibank itself, cuz they hold the account. They also do the know your customer regulations on it, which by the way has slowed down the disbursement

Right.

in ways that have been problematic but none of that's necessary.

Did you connect to providing all that information to the committee so we can take a look at it?

Yeah, yeah. No, absolutely. And that's why we're doing the audit. We want people to see that it's not being stolen or pilfered. We we think that's part of this recovery,

Again.

it's so critical.

Again, I think that that would go a long way to assuaging some of the concerns. Um, I'm gonna follow, Mister Barr is a co-chair with me on the Taiwan caucus, um, and some of his line of questioning, I was gonna ask you yes or no questions, but I'll, um, ask a series of questions I think that go along with, um, his line of questioning. Some of the comments that the president's made recently have created a little bit of ambiguity, um, but again what you just, um, suggested, nothing's changed in our relationship. Um, and the Taiwan Relations Act, you know, states that the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services as may be necessary. Um, you know, the six assurances states that the United States does not agree to consult with the People's Republic of China regarding arms sales to Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act, the three joint communiques, the six assurances have guided our um, one China policy for decades. And again, I think in your previous statements, Nothing has changed, um, with our commitment to upholding the US one China policy. Is that correct?

Our policy on Taiwan has not changed.

Oh, great. Thank you. Um, switching over to something, you know, that the administration's put a lot of focus on is our, um, critical minerals, rare earths, developing our own capacity, you know, I I was supportive of the Mineral Security Partnership, now the Forge Act, um, working with our allies, super important, you know, work with Congresswoman Kim. on the dominance act which passed out this committee, which i believe will be coming to the floor in suspension hopefully on monday. um i think this is a strong bipartisan piece of legislation that supports a lot of the goals of the administration it does um you know create redundancy and you know not a reliance on china it does help build refining capacity it helps um reinvigorate a workforce there's a bipartisan companionship companion bill um in the Senate. I do think um this would go a long way to achieving um national security goals for the United States and is a good piece of legislation and certainly would want um you to take a look at that.

I I will and um to be more consistent on this topic on the critical minerals, literally every engagement we have, every country in the world is now discovering they have critical minerals and rare earths even though they're not that rare uh that's the mining part of it. The second part of it, as you know, is the processing and refining. We need to have that capability built too. And we're trying to create these global alliances to do that so that we're not over-dependent on these one source, you know, particularly China.

Right. And, uh, third piece of questioning, I recently was in Korea meeting with the the new Korean president. Um, you know, lots of conversations taking place with the Koreans. Um, one area we did talk about was, you know, um, our commitment to being the nuclear deterrent for the peninsula and so forth. Has anything changed there, just for sure?

No, our posture there remains the same, and in fact we have new partnerships that we're trying to. Now, we're not trying to trigger a crisis there. We're not trying to trigger a war or anything, uh, problematic, but, uh, you know, at the mill-to-mill level, we have very strong relations with Korea.

Great. Um, also, um, you know, have been talking to Australians, um, you know, paying close attention to AUKUS, um, again our commitments to AUKUS to that partnership, which is critical to, to, um, our geopolitical security in the region, that commitment stays firm.

Correct. And not only that, with Australia is also part of the Quad that we have with Japan and India. They were at our meeting last week. We have a lot we're working on together with them and seek to expand it.

Great. And you mentioned that, um, the Quad expects to have a leaders' summit. I know that's been delayed a couple of times. Do we expect the leaders to be here?

We are hoping to be able to do one this year, maybe on the sidelines of another global gathering in the region, but nonetheless a meeting, not a stand-alone,

Right.

Representative Fein. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Secretary, I firmly believe God puts us where he wants us to be, and I'm grateful every day he's put you where you are. So thank you for all the hard work that you're doing. Um, I wanna read you a couple statements and see if you agree with them. Um, I suspect that you will. Uh, the first statement is, heaven forbid Iran were to ever obtain a nuclear weapon. Do you agree with that, I presume?

Yeah, I would use even stronger language.

Yeah, OK. Second one would be Iran must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. Would you agree with that?

Yeah. Baseline policy.

OK. And then the third is the Iranian regime must not gain nuclear weapons. Would you agree with that?

Yes.

These are statements, these are actual quotes from three members on the other side of the aisle who today gave you a whole lot of grief about what you're doing and what the president is doing to make sure those statements don't come to pass. Representatives Meeks, Lew, and Sherman. So my question to you is, what changed? I mean, why would people say they must never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, and then when we're actually doing what is necessary to make sure they don't, all of the sudden there's a very different tone as they ask you questions.

Yeah, I would say that the notion that they shouldn't have a nuclear is widely held, and not just widely held by members of Congress, it's widely held by countries around the world. In fact, I don't know a single country in the world that says it would be a good idea for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I think what's changed or where the difference comes in is, OK, what are you gonna do about it? You ultimately have to do something about it. And when we saw that they were building up this conventional shield, behind which they were going to hide their nuclear program and hold it immune from for- from action, we had to address it. And that's what the president did with Epic Fury. So that was the difference. The difference is we actually did something about it, something that multiple administrations have held as their position. It was the Biden administration's position, it was the Obama administration's position. But this president actually did something about it. And uh, you know, many countries around the world aren't willing to do anything about it, except complain or, you know, sign on to some letter somewhere. But we actually did something about it, because if we had not done so, in about a year, Iran would have had a conventional shield. And they could have been able to threaten not just the region, but parts of Europe. And they would have said, if you come after us in our nuclear program, we will impose costs on you you cannot bear, so now you have to let us have a nuclear weapon. We were never gonna let them have that conventional shield.

So what happens in your opinion if we did what they're asking? We stand down, we stop, we go back to the strongly worded letters and and lots of talking, but we don't take the action. We just go, well, you know, we don't want them to have a nuclear weapon, but they're gonna do what they're gonna do. What do you think, what would your prediction be what happens then?

I think the long-term trajectory of Iran remains the same in that regard, as their ambition is to ultimately have a nuclear weapon. That is ultimately their ambition.

OK.

They probably view it not just as regime security, the way that the they do in North Korea. They view it as an ability to become the dominant power in the region. Once they possess a nuclear weapon, nothing stops them from sponsoring proxy groups all over the region, to de-stabilize Jordan, Saudi Arabia, multiple Sunni countries, and of course wipe out Israel.

So it would be fair to say then that standing in the way of what you're trying to do over there what we're trying to do over there, effectively is emboldening and enabling Iran to get that nuclear weapon.

Well, ultimately, any time they don't fi- The only reason they would not go for a nuclear weapon is because they're forced not to. They're never gonna do that voluntarily, and they've never agreed to anything voluntarily. Even the small concessions they made in JCPOA were in exchange for some benefit to them. So clearly this is an a regime that only understands that they w- they will only do these things if they're compelled to do so either through an incentive or through a punitive matter.

OK. Changing topics to UNRWA for a minute. As you know, on October seventh, twenty twenty three, there were employees of the United Nations in the form of UNRWA who actually participated in the terrorist attack that killed twelve hundred people. Um, what are we going to do to make sure that the UN can never, ever again employ terrorists that are going to go and kill people?

Well, obviously we're not gonna be working with UNRWA any longer, as you know. We've removed ourselves from that and we refuse to engage them or uh you be a part of the solution now in Gaza Gaza there are plenty of other organizations that can play that role without having the sort of cooperation that they've had with Hamas elements including the presence of Hamas elements within their ranks as we've seen and it's part of the thing that was being talked about earlier in Gaza what they don't tell you is a significant percentage of the aid even the non-UNRWA aid that was entering was winding up in the hands of Hamas and they were reselling it in the black market and of course keeping it for themselves that was not the purpose of the aid, what they're also not telling you is that multiple One of the reasons why the W- World Food Program would not go in or could not go in is because their trucks were being hijacked and their truckers would not go, because they were putting their lives in danger. And this was all being systemized, weaponized, and manipulated by Hamas to their benefit.

Well thank you for, again, for everything you've done. Everyone in Florida is very proud of you and we're cheering for the work that you do every day. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Representative Ocheski.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, first, Secretary Rubio's earlier s- testimony referenced the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as a private citizen. But in President Trump's own words, Kushner is an envoy of peace alongside St- Steve Witkoff. So I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a political article from February nineteenth detailing the president's announcement which makes clear, Kushner is more than a private citizen.

It's ordered.

Thank you. Secretary Rubio, as a senator back in twenty twenty three, referencing Hunter Biden, you said, quote, if his last name wasn't Biden, there's no way in the world

To use government service to make money, yeah, of course.

Great. I I appreciate that, and I'd share that sentiment with you, sir. Uh, I wanna revisit some of the details that were brought up earlier and put into the record about the president's own, uh, stock transactions, uh a form which he filed um that shows he completed more than thirty-seven hundred stock transactions in just the first three months of this year alone the president bought hundreds of thousands of dollars in Palantir stock shortly before he publicly praised the company on his social media site. As if the name drop enough wasn't enough, as if the name drop itself wasn't enough, he included the company's ticker symbol for good measure, hardly subtle to me. On March twenty-third, after nearly a month of war with Iran, the president said talks were quote " very good and productive", and extended his deadline for a deal by five days. Oil prices dropped and energy stocks fell, while Trump bought shares in companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron and other firms' position to benefit if the war continued, which it did at the president's direction. He bought a dip that he created. Then there's NVIDIA. The president bought as much as a million dollars in stock just one week before the Commerce Department formally approved the sale of NVIDIA chips to China. one week. He bought up to five million dollars more in NVIDIA stock in February, right before the company announced a major chip deal with Meta. It's pretty good luck if you ask me. If that's not bad enough, the president's son struck a multi-billion dollar crypto deal with a UAE state-backed firm. After the deal, the administration reversed AI chip restrictions, approving transfers of sensitive technology to another UAE related entity, chaired by the very same royal family figure involved with his son. That seems like hardly a coincidence to me. And indeed, it is self enrichment tied directly to the president's foreign policy agenda, and it's how the president's net worth has grown by over four billion dollars since he started this term. As the president gets rich, his wars and tariffs are crushing hardworking American families. And I think the American people see through the BS, this is the most corrupt administration in American history. So, Secretary Rubio, earlier today you said you didn't know the facts about the President's financial dealings I'm happy to share them if you wanna see it specifically, but having run through that, now that you do know, um, would you agree? And do you have concerns about the fact this administration is in fact profiting from their position of power?

Well, first of all, what I said is the information you guys were putting up, including on this board, I don't first, that's not in my purview as in Department of State, and these are things you're producing, I don't know if they're accurate or not. But let me just say this, I've been in every foreign policy and national security meeting,

Uh, Uh, with all due respect, with all due respect, Mr. Secretary, Mr. secretary, I may have to get you a new pair of glasses. I may have to get you a new pair of glasses, because the facts are right in front of you and it seems like malpractice for the secretary of state to not be able to see this president and his family enriching themselves by billions of dollars. So the only thing I can, from my perspective

No one has ever said in a meeting, let's go do this because it's gonna help me make money.

Of course he's not gonna say that.

But not even hint at it, not even hint at it.

Of course he's not gonna say that.

Not even, uh, on the contrary.

You don't have to hint at it. The facts speak for themselves, sir. They're in the record. They're in the forms the president put forward himself. It's in the billions of dollars he has put in his pocket. It is the timing of the deals and the announcements. And the only thing I can see is, you know, my question to you as I conclude my time as your secretary is, what's changed in your perspective? Is it the party affiliation of the president or is it your own political ambitions?

I already told you at the outset, people don't make, and I've seen the president say this, people should not be making money off of their government service. He said that repeatedly. I've heard him say that, but not once. I wanna reiterate this. There has not been a single decision that's been made that I have witnessed or been a part of that in any way indicate to me or to any reasonable mind that this was linked to some financial agreement or arrangement.

I I think the facts clearly are different and I hope you take a look at them.

And I

And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Representative Kim.

Thank you, Chairman Mast. Uh, thank you, Secretary Rubio, for joining us right here at the corner. Thank you for uh being with us today. Um, Secretary Rubio, diversifying critical mineral supply chains away from China is a priority. of both of us. Um I want to thank you and the department for your collaboration with my subcommittee on related legislation, which was already mentioned, dominance act, that we recently passed unanimously through this committee. The FY twenty seven budget requests, five billion dollars for new America first opportunity fund, including two hundred fifty million dollars for critical minerals. So can you expand on that request and clarify whether these funds are intended to support FORGE, PAK-SIILICA, the economic security zone in the Philippines that was announced on April sixteenth or other priorities.

Yeah, all of the above, we wanna have the flexibility to jump on these opportunities in a very nimble and effective way. We have a couple things going on at the same time. The first is I would say that a feature of our bilateral engagement all over the world and every one of our embassies, you travel to and many of you have traveled, you will see that critical minerals and supply chains feature prominently and all the diplomatic work that we're doing. And we're actually having countries approach us and say critical minerals should be a part of our agreement and our relationship because they wanna see those uh resources used to the benefit of their people in a responsible way. The second thing is we hosted this ministerial we followed up on in which we brought together dozens of countries from around the world who all agree into this compact that we're gonna cooperate with one another not just for access to the minerals but for access to the refining and processing capability that turns those minerals into useful parts of our supply chain. The third on packed silicates is very focused on the specific supply chain critical to the to the growth in AI and what you'll need in order to power AI in the twenty first century and when you point to the Philippines that's a very creative opportunity in which there was this a land that they control that that's in the government there has actually used to have a military presence on it in the by the United States and now that's gonna be turned over as an innovation zone for this entire ecosystem and we wanna have the we wanna be nimble enough to be able to jump on these these opportunities some

Thank you very much. This is exactly why we appreciate working with the administration and the uh priorities in this uh breaking that uh critical mineral supply chain from China. So thank you. Um in February the administration released its long anticipated maritime action plan that right rightly focuses on re-industrializing American shipbuilding and reducing reliance on Chinese-built ships. The plan notes, but does not focus on the need to work with our international partners to address the short-term gaps in our shipping industry. My international counterparts have noted that absent a ministry of industry, they are unsure whom to engage on the US side for international shipbuilding matters. So, Mister Secretary, do you agree that the State Department should be the primary point of entry for these discussions? And if so, which office within the State Department should lead that?

Well, I'm not prepared to claim that as belonging to us, but I certainly know that our Economic Bureau will play a key role in it. It may be it's better positioned in commerce, potentially. the Department of War will have a role to play in this as well, because some of this involves ship building for our navy. I can say that in the case of Finland, we're entering into that agreement on the ice breakers, which will help, I'll they'll help us and they're they're very good at the construction of that. I know with South Korea there's been a part of our agreement with them is the ability to not just uh build ships here in the United States, but they may be able to build a few in South Korea as well, that would be helpful to us. So we are looking to this. Unfortunately, unfortunately, what has happened in the world is that the capacity of non O other than China, very few countries have invested heavily in their ship building for a long time. That's an industrial capacity that's been lost because they've been subsidizing their industry in producing at a high s such a high rate. So that's one more thing that we need to re-industrialize to the broader world, and ultimately hopefully to the United States and our shipyards here as well.

Thank you. Very quickly on the uh Taiwan arms sales, we it's already been addressed many times, but given the growing PRC threats against Taiwan, there is a strong bipartisan consensus here. in Congress that Taiwan must receive the defensive system it it has already purchased and paid for without uh undue delay. So can you provide an update on the current status of these deliveries and the administration's plan to expedite them?

Well, the the first tranche which was the single largest sale to Taiwan ever was the eleven billion dollars in December. That was approved and is moving. The second is I think the fourteen billion dollar one that is still under review, and it's under review for a variety of reasons that not necessarily just include Taiwan. It includes the availability of the stocks in the short term. We have to balance that with our own procurement process. Um, so it's a normal to review a fort. It's a large sale. I mean, it's not small. It's a it's it would be the biggest one ever. And I just remind everybody, the eleven billion we did in December, I believe, was more than was sold to Taiwan the entire the entirety of the Biden presidency. And that just happened five months ago.

Representative Moskowitz.

Thank you.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today, and also thank you for staying, uh, until the end so all members can ask questions. A lot of a lot of secretaries don't do that, so thank you for for doing that.

Tell me that was an option.

Uh, take that up with the chairman. Um, I wanna talk, uh, you went through a list of uh successes for the administration, one of which uh was the Shield of the Americas, and I I know uh I I thank the administration for creating the Shield of the Americas and and sending Kristi Noem out of the country. Um, I I wanna focus on Iran for a second. I I think when we talk about success, right? Success is Iran is no no no longer pursuing nuclear weapons. Success is that the uranium they have is gone. And it's fulfilling thirty or forty years of US policy. Right? That's success. Uh, do you agree with that?

I mean, ultimately we did it for a reason. We don't want there to be a nuclear-armed Iran.

So No, look, Iran can make whatever pledges they want. It's not worth the paper it's written on. But making sure the nuclear dust is out

Absolutely. So the removal of highly enriched uranium is an irreversible step. You remove it or you destroy it, it's not there anymore. On enrichment, those are limits, but if you're not inspecting it, they can always violate it. And as long as they have the equipment and the know-how, they could always violate it in the future as well. So that would have to be, you know, the one that would have to be monitored, but the enrichment you could verify immediately, cuz you either have it or you don't.

Yeah, and and for me, I think you have to dismantle what's there and you have to get out what's there. I think that's the most critical piece because, you know, Iran has survived multiple administrations. That's their whole goal. Their whole goal is just run out the clock. They've run out the clock, uh, previously, and so the idea that they'll pledge to do something in the future, uh, I I just don't think we can trust that. Once we pull away, uh, the military, once we move on to another topic, their pledge is kind of irrelevant. getting what's there removed, uh, I I think has to be the most important thing. O- o- otherwise it's hard to convince, I think, the American people, uh, that it was worth the success. We we talked a lot about critical minerals. I think the administration is doing a really good job on critical minerals, these rare minerals that we need for our military, for, you know, technology. But I don't think the American people understand how important it really is, and what China is doing around the world. I mean, do you think the administration could do a a slightly better job on it? educating the American people why this is so important, and why they should care about that.

Yeah, I think we all need to do a better job, and we start, I mean I started talking about this issue when I was in the US Senate, but frankly it's not, not sexy. You know, I mean you have to explain it to people because they have to understand that there, you can build the greatest car in the world, you can build the greatest plane in the world, you can build the greatest weapon system in the world, and you can build the greatest technology and infrastructure in the world, if it's missing one little thing, one chip, one element that you need to build it, if it's missing that, the whole thing doesn't work, you can't do it.

Yeah.

I I think back to the magnets that are critical to the cars, uh and when the Chinese cut us off and the world off of those magnets that they were producing for cars, no I wasn't even that conversant in the issue before it happened. So I think there are vulnerabilities like that, we've mapped out those vulnerabilities. I would agree, I think this is gonna require a sustained public campaign to tell people, well when we talk about critical minerals, what we're actually talking about and why it's important.

Yeah, and I I think that's right, and I think people don't understand exactly the long game that China is playing, and I think it's important uh for uh US foreign policy around the world. Mis- Mister Secretary, you know, the war in Gaza uh is all over my algorithm, all over my feed every day. But you know what's not on my algorithm or anyone else's algorithm here or the kids in college? There's nothing about the Ukraine-Russia war, about the hundreds of thousands of people that are dead in that war, or the twenty-five thousand people that are were kids that were kidnapped. or all the kids that were killed in that war, uh the the terrible images that exist in a real war. Why is it, do you think, and is it the Chinese again, that you know, the algorithm is full of what's going on in the Middle East, but the Ukraine, Russia war, nothing, no images, no stories about the kids, no stories about the hundreds of thousands of people that are dead.

Yeah, I can't speak to the algorithms and what the, you know, the the the those systems are doing with regards to it. I can tell you that in addition to what you've just mentioned, I do think that, this is my observation, this war has now lasted longer than the second world war. It's, I I don't wanna use the term stalemate, but clearly both sides are trading a kilometer for a kilometer, an incredible death rate. The Russians are losing five thousand soldiers a week, which is a crazy number. And the Ukrainians are losing people too, but not nearly as many are at the rate.

Yeah.

It's sort of a stalemated stagnated fight that now I think threatens to escalate, because we're seeing these deep strikes into Russia and deep strikes into Kiev.

And and I'm a, and I'm, and I don't wanna kill you off, Mr. Chairman.

And just to be clear, we didn't indict Raul Castro, a grand jury in South Florida indicted him, and then the

Well, Ameri- Americans indicted him.

Yeah, yeah, no, but I know I know what you mean. I'm just saying I wanna be clear what was done through a grand jury.

Yeah.

It wasn't a Yeah, I've spoken to this a few moments ago as well. We'd like to see a better future. Cuba, one in which the Cuban people have something that looks like the way other people, every other country in the Caribbean lives. Uh the the impediment there unfortunately is this military conglomerate that controls seventy percent of their GDP and none of its revenue translates to the treasury and therefore doesn't translate to the benefit of the Cuban people. So we're open to an arrangement that allows that process to begin. They're the ones that have been recalcitrant. In the meantime we're prepared to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Cuba, so long as it's distributed by nongovernmental organizations that are trusted like Samaritan's. Caritas through the Catholic Church, the UN, others, but it can't be stolen and wind up in the GAISA dollar stores. That can't happen.

Representative Zicki.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary, always great to see you. And uh, just to change little topics where it isn't Ukraine or Venezuela or Cuba or Taiwan, or one of the big ones. Uh, Congress passed a US foundation for international conservation two thousand twenty five NDA, it passed with wide bipartisan effort, I think you probably voted for it. But as you recall, what it was, was really an effort to have a public-private partnership to remove anti-poaching and cut off the funds for terrorist organizations in Africa, primarily, and you and you know the list. Uh, but I'm concerned obviously, uh, you know, on it because per the law, said that state department was going to establish the board in consultation with congress before and the money's already been been allotted there's a lot of money in there and i just recently came back from africa and it's happening everyday that the anti the poaching activities are again funding the terrorist organizations that were going out and what i'd like is a commitment uh from the state department to move forward on appointing the board because at the end of the day nothing can happen until the board meets to unleash uh the the leverage private dollars, which are I think two to one ratio, that can't happen. The program is at at all standstill until the State Department appoints the board in consultation with Congress where the first step is with you. Could I have your commitment that you're gonna prioritize this and get it done?

Yep. And I and I told others we're gonna follow up on that, but I believe there's a presidential appointment role on that board, if I'm mis- if I'm not mistaken about the uh, so we'll have to check with White House and personnel as well. But I'll get you an answer. The board has been the impediment. You're right.

Yeah, and uh, my my understanding is reading the line, it's the State Department uh, appoints, yeah, uh, no doubt w- in coordination with the White House, but if you if you would prioritize it, cuz I think this program is an incredibly important and effective program, because it leverages private dollars, like we haven't seen in Africa, and it is a problem. And with that, Mister Secretary, uh, let me yield to my colleague from Florida, Miss Salazar, who would like to ask you some questions and follow up. Thank you very much, Arnold. Thank you again for your service. Yes.

Uh uh, Mister Secretary, I just wanna continue with Cuba to see if we can finish um your thoughts on it. As you were saying, guys, that controls seventy percent of uh the uh the everything, the resources in Cuba. We know that the Castro family is the uh the one in charge of that uh military mafia. Eh how is there any way that we could find another Del C number two? Following the same example that we have in Venezuela where we removed Maduro because and Juergen died at him and he was in the transnational criminal organization lists. If that were to happen, could we find a DLC number two?

Well, first of all, I think that um some of the models you wanna look at is the way that Czech Republic or Poland transitioned out of the and one of the things they did is they did preserve certain institutions in their society in order to provide stability and longevity to the the project they were in you even in the midst well I I think you're asking

But we understand that there are no institutions in Cuba. Everything is completely

me to identify is there specific individuals in the Cuban government. I think there are specific maybe technocrats that you could work with.

OK. And would you be OK

I think it's a little harder when you get higher up because of the ideological bent that some of them have.

And I agree with what you're saying, people that that are not their their their hands are not full of blood. Could we consider the possibility in order to avoid civil wars and instability and chaos?

I think the United States is open to a negotiated situation that puts Cuba on a path towards democracy prosperity freedom norm normalcy. We would be open to that and we would work with whoever is open to doing it. Obviously it'll be challenging and that system is all I've said. I mean it's, some of these people have committed sixty seven years to this viewpoint. It isn't hor- it's not gonna be easy for them to pivot away from it.

We know, but have we identi- we know that very well in our community, but have we been able to identify someone that could fill that role?

Well, I wouldn't co- I wouldn't say that we've identified a specific individual that could play that role. I think there are clearly people within the technocratic realm of the government that could play some role in all of this. But ultimately, if you're asking me is there a singular individual right now that we would

I understand. Now, we we know that today Raul turns ninety five years old. At ninety five you're pretty old, and making decisions is very hard. We know that El Cangrejo is his grandson, he's younger, forty one years old. Don't you think then maybe we, I mean, are you sending messages to the younger generation to convince Raul in order to make it easier for that island like you said to become Jamaica or or uh, Dominican Republic, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong?

Yeah, I think that there are clearly individuals within the apparatus of power in that country that understand that what they have now is not sustainable and needs to be fixed.

But they don't have power, do they? They cannot make decisions.

Well, even if they have power, they don't know how to do it or they don't have enough power because so much of it has to be consensus built internally but there are clearly people that are aware that what they have now, is not sustainable.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Representative Johnson.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. Um, I know that my colleagues um have um addressed the Iran and affordability of energy prices with you um during this hearing already. Um, being from Texas, obviously energy is a is a big issue in our state and and I've heard repeatedly on the um I just want you to know I've heard repeatedly on the uh campaign trail and then from just my constituents in general, just how much the rise of gas prices is really hurting our economy. And I just wanna uh express my concern that the administration did not um properly analyze the effect of this war on on gas prices, the effect of this war on the economy, the effect of this war on affordability. And I hope that um you will take that into consideration as you make your further decisions, um because it's very concerning. It's really hurting a lot of people at home. I'd like to focus um my time with you on Afghan allies. Uh, I think, I don't think that topic's been really brought up much today. Um, the Trump administration continues to treat our Afghan allies, uh, in with dishonor in my in my opinion. In my district, Mohammad Nazir Paktowali was who fought alongside US special forces in Afghanistan, um, died in ice custody after participating in the Afghan evac program. The United States brought him and his family here to this country. Um, he was wrongfully detained and was, as a forty-one year old man, was dead twenty-one, I mean, twenty-four hours later. Um, I'm very concerned what we're, what's happening with our Afghan allies and what we're doing in this country. Under your leadership, US State Department dismantled the Office of Coordinator for Afghan Relocation Efforts, and halted the visa processing for Afghan allies, abandon abandoning thousands of our allies that are here. In my opinion, it's dishonorable and it's damaging. America will face fights tomorrow, and thanks to the Trump administration's treachery to this community, we may face them alone. I don't know how this administration can expect citizens from other countries to rise up and stand with us at great personal peril to themselves, uh based on a promise that will take care of them when they see how we have failed our promises to those from Afghanistan. Since you've been forgotten with this country's cancer I'd like to remind you of your own words. from your own twenty sixteen presidential campaign. Wherever freedom and human rights spread, partners of our nation are born. But whenever foreign policy comes in hitch from its moral purpose, it weakens global stability and forms cracks in our national resolve. I believe that this is what's happening with Afghanistan, sir. What is your plan to deal with our Afghan allies, with the brave men and women that stood alongside our military, that are here in this country, Is your plan to return them to the Taliban?

Well, no, uh, but that's not anyone's plan. I think the plan is to find a third safe country where they can go to, that they're comfortable and choosing voluntarily to go there. And we're looking for more and more countries to step forward and assume it. As you know, the issues you raise are also tied into the broader migratory decisions that have been made by this administration. We're operating under an executive order right now that does not allow any Afghans into the country after the aftermath of the National Guard attack against the National Guard here in Washington DC a year ago. And then there are also other DHS determinations. Our role, we continue to process the folks that are applying so that their paperwork is in order, but ultimately we don't want them stranded forever and where they are. We want them to be able to go to somewhere that's not Afghanistan, that they choose to wanna go to, and that are welcoming of them. And we actively are engaging countries around the world. There are three or four that have already spoken to us about their willingness to do it. Obviously, they're not gonna take, you know, a th- a thousand, but we might be able to get three hundred here, four hundred here, places where they feel comfortable going to. and that are assuming and welcoming to them, we're not returning them to the Taliban. We understand that would not be the outcome we wanna see.

Right, I do think that the the position of the United States to now, uh, by bringing these families to our country, after they honorably served our country, um, alongside our men and women, and now to say now get out, we don't want you anymore, uh, based on one isolated incident is morally reprehensible. It does a disservice to them, and it's wrong, and it's bad policy. Uh, Mister Chairman, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter the record. On April twenty first, the the New York Times article, Trump is said to be in talks to send Afganis Afghans who aided with US forces to the Congo. Um, Mister Secretary, is it the policy of this government to send these Afghan uh folks to the Congo?

That's just one country. The policy of the United States is to find multiple countries and they would be able to choose which one they wanna go to of the options that they're presented. That was based on a leak of a the internal document that was just one country But there are multiple others that have as well.

And so, but are they gonna be forced to go to a country? What if they don't wanna go to the Congo?

But the goal

What if they don't wanna go to Afghanistan?

is not

What is their option? Can they stay here?

No, we don't wanna force any. That's why I'm saying we want to have multiple countries so they can choose, here are the five or six countries that will let you go, which one of them do you wanna go to? It's not to force them, it's to give them options about places they can relocate.

Representative Biggs.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and Secretary Rubio, thank you for your service. This country finally has a Secretary of State who puts America first, and I'm very proud to stand with you. In February of twenty twenty five, the State Department eliminated nearly sixty billion dollars from over four thousand ongoing grants and another fifty four thou- fifty four billion dollars in multi-year USAID awards. Money that was on autopilot, flying out the door. every single year with zero accountability to the American people. Programs that spent seventy thousand dollars on a D I musical in Ireland, two point five million dollars on electric vehicles in Vietnam, and six million dollars on tourism development in Egypt. That is waste, and that is fraud, and that is abuse of the American taxpayer dollars, plain and simple. I'm proud to stand with an administration that had the backbone to do what Washington has refused to do for decades. What has been eliminated is very significant. It is historic and it is just the start. The savings from USAID cuts have already sparked serious proposals to redirect billions towards something that actually matters like repairing veterans' homes. I'm talking about long-term veterans' homes like those in South Carolina and throughout this country. That is what America first looks like, not Sesame Street in Iraq, not transgender opera in Columbia. But Secretary Rubio, I would I would like to know what is still in that remaining portfolio that should not be there. What programs are still drawing a check that wouldn't survive ten seconds of scrutiny in front of a working family in my district like the third district of South Carolina. And how do we complete the mission of putting America first in every single line item of this budget? Because I can tell you, the people in my district are not going to accept it. They are tired of hearing, well, we got most of it. What is your commitment, Mister Secretary, to finishing the job?

Yeah, well, it's happening already. So USAID no longer functions. Oper there is a USAID, but it's largely now operating as a wrap-up and wind-down operation. So that's what's happening in USAID. We took all the programs that were worth preserving and all the programs that were worth doing and they're all under the State Department now. So you have the State Department is conducting foreign aid and foreign assistance within the context of the criteria that we've created, and those are outlined in this year's budget request. And then there are legacy programs that we did not bring over to the state, that are still at USAID, some of which may not be operating any longer but are tied up in litigation. They claim that they're owed money, they got a judge trying to get us to pay them. or if not there's wind-down costs in in unwrapping those programs. They're not active programs, but some of them are under active lit litigation because the NGO is suing the government, and a judge is saying, well you you uh you may have to pay them so make sure you preserve the money until I rule on it. So those may take years to clear out. They're not active programs, but they're involved in litigation, but those are under the USAID portfolio, not under state, and I no longer am the acting official at USAID, and and that's being run through the uh Office of Management and Budget.

Well, thank you so much. Um, I appreciate the work and the efforts that you're doing, and I know our taxpayers in my district do. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Secretary Rubio, they've called our votes, but we have this last row of individuals to your left. Do you think we have time to work through them?

Yeah, but we can't I have to go to the Senate in a little while, but I I'll I'll talk fast.

Representative. Thank you. Representative Moylan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh, Secretary, thank you very much. Uh, we've been talking regularly. I appreciate all your interest into the EndoPay comm. And last time we were out here, uh, at the hearing we spoke about the importance of establishing a passport issuance office in Guam. And as you know, residents in Guam must have their passports issued from Honolulu, which creates a huge barriers in emergency situation. So, I wanna thank you again, your staff, for working with us on this issue. And I can, can you briefly say um, uh, touch on where we're at with this process? of establishing the Passport Issuance Office in Guam. Please.

We are on the status of it?

Yes.

I think we're working on trying to do it. We'd like to do it. I think there's a, we may have news for you on that in a, in a couple weeks, uh, as we're going through our review of our VISA offices around the world. And it's part of our consolidation efforts, is to free up resources for other places where it may be more useful. So, um, I think we'll have news for you in a couple weeks if you just bear with us.

It's quite exciting, thank you, Secretary. And last year, I introduced a bipartisan Clean Pacific Act. with Rick Case, Radaragan, and King Heinz to establish Pacific Island's counter-narcotics initiative to assist partner nations with counter-drug interdiction efforts. This year's budget request cont- uh continues uh contains strong support for INCLE uh and outlines their strategic priority uh disrupting U. S. inbound illicit drug flows, especially fentanyl, meth, and cocaine, and expanding U. S. advantage in access to regions critical to the national Can you speak how the State Department is working with partner nations in the Pacific to combat narcotic trafficking in the region?

Absolutely, and our Department of War partners and our DHS partners are also involved in that effort. And it involves two things. Number one is allowing us in some cases to cooperate with them, to to work alongside them in this work. And the other is building their domestic capacity so they can have better awareness. Some of it is domain awareness, radar systems, and other cases we're providing that to them, the intelligence that they need to action. The third is training and equipping, which obviously is a key part of being able to take on these groups. The the challenge with these transnational groups is that in some cases they have more money and better weapons than the actual host government, it's been a problem in place after place. But as you've seen more recently, Guatemala's now entered into agreement with us. We're cooperating very closely with Ecuador, El Salvador's been there from the beginning. Uh, we're hopeful that we can increase our cooperation under the new administration in Honduras. So I think we've made good progress in that regard.

Thank you, Mr. and how do you believe guam and the other territories can leverage their strategic location, for promoting foreign policy interest in the indo-pacific.

Well a couple of points obviously, number one is many of these uh uh uh, as a domain awareness, just from a geographic perspective, the ability to be there allows you from the military side to be able to station forces, but also allows you to do more activities regarding the safety of navigation, the freedom of navigation, domain awareness to control, to to support that. uh the safety and under of undersea cables that are increasingly under threat from being disrupted. I mean there's a whole host of of areas uh illegal fishing. Um there's a whole host of things of cooperation that we could reach and that the Pacific islands are geographically prime located to really help us. And and we've given them more attention, we've been more engaged uh at a bilateral level than we've ever been with Pacific islands.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And final question. The recent years we've seen uh malign influence grow in the

Again,

Mm.

it's a topic that we're raising with our partners, but first on awareness. It's not just in the Pacific. I've seen, we've seen extra judicial, extra territorial efforts on the part of the CCP in multiple places around the world. And so in all of our diplomatic engagements, we raised these issues with these countries. The the opening of a police stations, the the sending of individuals to harass

Mr. Secretary, and uh, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield my last minutes to uh Rep Salazar, please.

She's got this thing rigged. Her time. That's great.

Yeah, it's it's five minutes.

I know, I know, I know, I understand.

So, uh, OK, so let's go. Let's continue then uh with the Cuba issue and with the Venezuela. I was asking you earlier today that uh Venezuelans have um a desire to have free and fair elections. We know that we are in the country, that we've liberated them, but the big question is is it, and and you a answered me partially, I just wanted to give you the opportunity to finish. Um why can't we just establish and send the signal to the Delphi group and to all the Maduro um uh uh cooperate, people that were cooperating with the Maduro regime that's are still in power, because of Delsey. Why can't we just send a a clear message that elections will be coming, let's say, December of twenty seven, beginning of twenty eight. In that way, I think the rule of law will start they will have the impression that the rule of law will be established.

Yeah, I think that impression's been clear. I mean, the the the the Venezuela that everyone wants for the future is not possible without free and fair elections. They have to understand that it's been a feature of all of our engagements with them and it continues to be. I'm not sure it would serve that purpose to announce a date certain, you know, in a public forum, uh, because the conditions have to be in place. It's not just about saying I'm gonna call elections in December or January. It's about is there a free press? I- is our political party is able to organize and operate? That has to happen too.

And we agree, Mister Secretary,

Your time's expired.

uh, the, the

Alright, your time's expired.

Mister Chair, uh

You need less time. We do wanna get through multiple members and get to Mister Miller, so if you could go as quickly as you can before votes cause a huge thank you.

Yeah, we would, yeah. Thank you. You spoke about the sixty percent enriched uranium, uh, Iran also has significant amounts of twenty percent enriched uranium. Uh, the more difficult part is to go from five percent to twenty percent. Uh, what what is your view in negotiations of the twenty percent uranium?

Well, I've I've used the term uh highly uh sixty percent because that's the one that clearly ha- I mean, even twenty percent you could argue, not that I claim that they are, but you could argue they're being used for medical isotopes and things of this nature. But sixty percent, there's no reason for it. The only way you get to sixty is cuz you're on your way to ninety. But the term we actually use in the talks and in everything we're on is highly enriched uranium.

So it would be correct.

So that that would cover the twenty, correct?

OK, very good. Thank you. Uh, well listen, I wanna congratulate you uh for the for the impressive job you're doing for the American uh people uh my only critique would be that we need to hear more from uh Marco Rubio. Uh, President Trump is obviously in a class by himself, but uh you're the best communicator in the administration on complex uh foreign policy issues I was uh in the room with you in in Munich so I know you wear a lot of hats, there's a lot of memes about you, but please continue to be uh, as, as, uh, vocal and upfront a- as you can. A question I have about is expeditionary diplomacy. Uh, I had the privilege of serving as a State Department Officer in Iraq during the Iraq surge. I had twice passed, uh, A one hundred, uh, classes and had, uh, offers to BFSO, but I actually came in as a thirty one, sixty one hire at the time because, uh, the State Department did not have, uh, a capability for, uh, expeditionary counterinsurgency. This is something I've been working on with, uh, former Ambassador Ryan Crocker to both uh, develop this capability, look at something like a State Department Reserve Corps. And also, as a legacy of Benghazi, there has been, because of the politics around it, there has been sort of this mindset set in that we can't take any casualties, uh, among State Department, uh, officers. We need to have, uh, people in the State Department that can push out and can serve. And I, I wish if you could speak, uh, to the American people and to State Department officers about what your view is, about a more externe-shaped function.

Well, it, it's a concept I'm very interested in, and, and I know you're interested in it as well, and just so I can put it in simple terms, it's basically the ability to deploy diplomats in a place where we may not have an embassy, and we may not have all the trappings. Obviously, diplomatic security and others get concerned because in their mindset, the risk factor should be zero, they don't want anyone being harmed. But I think the, I think the point you're raising is there are some instances in which you will take some risks. People know they are signing up for a risky proposition, but it's a high reward for the country if in fact they're successful. So we're interested in the concept, we obviously have to work through our system to make sure we can align it and create something that's functional. And I'd love to work with you on it, cuz I see the promise in the concept, for sure. And it's a concept that's existed in the past.

Thank you. And thank you, just finally in being mindful of our our time considerations. Uh, I think you guys have done a amazing job of needed reforms, of bringing USAID under the province of the State Department, and certainly de-wokifying uh some of the nonsense that was going on. Uh, we still do have a lot of great State Department officers out there that are very proud uh to serve our our country and under your leadership I I do talk to some of them. uh from time to time and they have uh do have some worry and some questions about uh the overall direction of the institution so i just like to uh give the ability in in the uh uh the context of this budget request you're making uh to uh congress to sort of sum up your thoughts and the vision of our current state department officers for the future.

yeah i think for the future as we're trying to empower our regional well we're trying to empower our embassies through our regional bureaus around the world we want them to be the the the the center focus of how we conduct foreign policy because they're on the ground Too often in the past, foreign policy was mixed between, uh or diplomacy was mixed between the regional bureaus and then you had these functional bureaus that had a worldwide mandate on a topic, and they ended up crashing into each other. Now what we want is to truly empower our ambassadors and the people in the field in these embassies that are on the ground every single day. We want decisions to be driven from the bottom up, not from the top down. Some of our best ideas come from the cables that are coming out of the field and back to us. And we want regional bureaus that are empowered as well. uh to be able to coordinate all this when when the lines cross between different countries in the same region. We're also encouraging greater regional integration, so for example our Western Hemisphere ambassadors are now all having a, are about to start a monthly conference call so that they're all coordinating with each other in on regional affairs. Uh these are the kinds of things that we're trying to encourage, but ultimately what we want is a state department whose foreign policy is driven by the national interest and understands that first and foremost you have to define what's in the national interest, and you have to pursue it in a pragmatic and effective way, that's what we want our diplomacy to be about. And I think some of that, some of that mission had been lost. And that's why multiple secretaries of states before me had tried or wanted to reorganize the State Department and weren't able to do it. I'm glad we did, and I think it's gonna get stronger every year under this new organizational scheme.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, you're back, Representative Luna.

Secretary Rubio, thank you for being here today. Um, I was wondering if you could let me know if you are familiar with the name of R- Neville Rosingham.

Um, yeah, he's a, I think an American millionaire living in China who's funding all of these left-wing radical loons.

Correct. Um, when you were on Senate intelligence, you had actually sent a letter, um, encouraging the Department of Justice to look into him for a fara violation. For those people who will see this clip later on the internet, can you just briefly explain what fara is?

It's the Foreign Agent Registration Act, and it means if you're operating on behalf of a foreign country, uh, you have to register and declare yourself as such.

Um, to provide some context for those looking at this, uh, Mister Singham's in total given one point three million to an organization called Code Pink Code Pink as well as over two hundred and seventy eight million to various non-profits since twenty seventeen um Secretary Rubio it's in my opinion, observing what's been happening on both sides, really contributing to the political divide in this country,

Well agreed.

that many countries are engaging in influencer operations to include psychological operations on the American people um with the intent to undermine not just our foreign policy from the administration's but also to pit us against one another. Would you concur with that statement?

Uh, there's no doubt, absolutely.

Um, are you aware of any countries in particular that are currently engaging in this?

Well, I don't think there's any doubt that we see evidence of it from the CCP. We've historically seen some of it, uh as well from Russia historically in the past in a different way. I think you're starting to see some of it from Cuba, and I think some of these are linked with one another. In fact, that group that you just mentioned actually traveled to Cuba, stayed at a very fancy and expensive hotel that is sanctioned, and uh uh I think are now being looked at by the uh uh appropriate officials to see if they violated US law in the trips that they're taking. But there's no doubt that when you have people showing up with pre-printed signs, twenty-four hours after Nicolas Maduro was arrested and extradited to the United States, uh that's not an organic movement. Someone's paying for that.

I I think one of those organizations would be the National Network on Cuba, which is a pro-communist, anti-American organization, um, comprised of dozens of member organizations, include the Communist Party USA, Democrat Socialists, of America's Socialist Worker Parties, and various organizations to include armed queers of Salt Lake City, which Tyler Robinson, the individual who murdered our friend Charlie Kirk, has loose ties to and association with at the time of the assassination. Um, I just want to point out that from my perspective and in talking with you personally, I can see that you are very much of the mind mindset of peace through strings, but also pursuing peace first before you hit people with a big stick, so I appreciate that perspective. cuz it is refreshing and not common in Washington DC. Um but with that being said, I heard a lot of talk today on Russia specifically. I understand that peace talks are very much so alive and well, and that the United States for the first time ever, at least with this administration and you heading the sec uh head of s the secret um as the secretary of state um have been instrumental in those talks. Um I would like to though ask you, for the first time in twenty years, recently, um we we had the Russian Duma come here to meet with members of Congress. What is the end result when Congress fails to open up dialogue and at least maintains communications with another superpower like Russia?

Well, I think there's two things to discuss. One is the war in Ukraine, which we'd like to see end through a negotiated settlement. And separate from that is a bilateral relationship with a country that possesses if not the largest the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world. At a minimum, we have to have relations and conversations with Russians. We just do. Whether we like what they're doing or not, because given their th those factors that I just pointed to. I've had multiple conversations with the Foreign Minister Lavrov, and we have to because that's mature diplomacy and it's important, it's the same with China. We have to have communication with them and there are issues in our bilateral relations that have nothing to do with Ukraine. So, now, I think our relations with them will be friendlier and easier to pursue, once the war in Ukraine is wrapped up, and we've made that point in this engagement. But I think what we've learned, and certainly I think it's been affirmed to us in the last year and a half, is you're much better off having someone to talk to on the other side than not. And this is a president who's willing to meet with and talk to anybody. He doesn't view talks and engaging a foreign counterpart as a concession, the way it's been tradi treated in the past. Sometimes it leads to something, sometimes it leads to nothing, and sometimes that vehicle of communication proves uh incredibly valuable in a potential conflict or crisis.

I'd like to end by saying this, I completely agree with you. I think that it is our jo- job and responsibility in Congress to maintain open dialogue and discussion. But I do think that you guys will be successful in this peace deal and so I want to be

Representative Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it's good to see you. Uh, you were the first person I worked for when I started in politics, and this is very unique for me, but first and foremost, I just wanna say thank you for the job that you've been doing. Uh, people back home, they comment on, you know, your stability, your bearing, and how you represent our country on the world stage. Uh, you know, Thank you for doing that. And look, you're sitting here today and for several hours, and our colleagues on the left, for the vast majority of them, they wanna get a political stunt. They don't want to hear your answers. And that's why they wouldn't let you and afford you the ability to speak, because they know that you would school them in every which way possible, and actually tell them that two plus two equals four. And for a lot of them that's hard to understand. So I respect your ability. Uh, but look, you have been, you know, asked a ton of tough questions. you know, this is your time, if you would like it. I know you've have spoken a lot today, but if there is anything that you would like to c- to correct the record on, by any of our colleagues on the left or even on the right that may have misspoken, I'd like to give you this time if you would like it. And just one last thing. Uh, when you're done with all of this, you know, if you could come to Cleveland, Ohio, I know it's not where you're from, but the Cleveland Browns could use a really good coach. And so, with all the different hats you've been wearing, uh, maybe you could take us to a Super Bowl. But at that point, I leave the rest to you, sir.

Well, I don't claim I can lead that, that to the Super Bowl or or the, but I wish them luck in Cleveland on that. Look, I thank you for the opportunity. I think we've covered almost everything, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to do that. Unfortunately, I have to be in the Senate here in just a few minutes, and they get really mad if you're late. But I just wanna touch off by saying, look, every element of our foreign policy, and everything we do, including aid, is now synergized, and it's about the national interest. And I do think it's important to point out and continue to point out, we are the most generous country in the world, by far. We give way more money than anybody else does to all of these things. Other countries who are very rich, powerful countries should step up too if they wanna join in helping. There's no evidence that that's the case. We've seen a little bit of an increase among some countries, but it's not just us, the Canadians, the UK, other European countries have cut back in their expenditures as well on foreign aid, uh not timed with us, it just happens to be they have those uh domestic uh considerations to take into account. This is most generous country in the world. This year alone there will be millions of people on the world that will receive food and medicine and medical care and and uh in a way that that that that furthers our national interest, but is also good for them. And we do that more than anyone on the planet. Foreign aid and what this country does to help people around the world is something we should be proud of but it has to be done the right way. We can't be spending money on things that don't further the national interest and we can't be spending money on things that waste the taxpayer dollars and we can't be spending money on social experiments around the world that further the aims of an ideological movement in the United States that's not what foreign aid is ever supposed to have been about. And that's what we're gonna get it back to. On foreign policy we're gonna be pragmatic, but we're gonna be principled at the same time. We have to understand that when it comes to foreign policy, oftentimes you're not given the choice between the clearly good one and the clearly bad one. Sometimes you're given two bad choices, and you're trying to figure out which one of these two bad choices is the least harmful to the country. In the end, at the end of the day, foreign relations between countries is about one thing, the national interest. I expect that every time I meet with a foreign minister of another country, that foreign minister is gonna push for what is in the interest of their country. I need to push for what's in the interest of ours. Not what's in the interest of the world, not so what in the interest of, what's in the interest of ours. In those cases where our foreign, uh, where where our national interests align, that's where cooperation happens, that's where alliances are formed. In those instances where our interests don't align, that's where you hope that diplomacy and cooperation can find a way through. But in the end, our foreign policy must always be about what is best for America before anything else, This is not a novel concept, it is a classic concept and one that was lost for a long time in American foreign policy, and I'm happy and honored to be a part of trying to restore it.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Chairman, you're back. Final member, Representative McKenzie. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Secretary Rubio, for joining us today. I have the pleasure of representing Allentown, Pennsylvania. It's home to one of the largest Syrian American populations in the country. And obviously there have been uh a number of atrocities in that country. during the ongoing conflict there, some of them targeting the Christian population. On June twenty second of last year, the Mar Elias bombing happened at a church, and we are coming up on that one year anniversary. I'd like to just ask you very briefly if you can give us an update on what's going on in Syria, what we're doing to achieve stability in that country, uh with the the leadership that is now in place, and also any updates on religious minority protections.

Yeah.

Well, uh we talked a lot today about Venezuela and other places, Syria is far more complicated. First of all, Assad deliberately divided groups in that country against each other. And some of those frictions and some of those resentments exist. It wasn't always the case in Syria. It's one of the few places in the Middle East where you actually had Sunni, Shia, Christian, Druze, uh and other communities living, and Kurds living alongside one another. But Assad, and especially during the civil war period, pitted these groups against each other. So in many cases when you're seeing these atrocities, what you're seeing is some unit of some fighting group from one side going after and seeking retribution against a group and another. And it's a real challenge. I think you've seen a uh a diminution in this, but nonetheless it exists and it's already happened too much. The second is uh, you know, the the core here and our goal is to have a nationalistic government in Damascus that seeks not to expand power or not to turn Syria into a base of operations for a foreign power but to build a Syrian state that's inclusive of all of the elements in it. That's what we have engaged with the interim government there on. That's what we've enga- and we've given them and tried to give them every opportunity possible to succeed. We've had some successes. As an example, when we had uh b some fighting break out, especially in the northeast, and we had these ISIS prisons. This is an under-reported story, but we had these ISIS prisoners there. They agreed and were very cooperative in getting those prisoners transferred out of Syria and into Iraqi prisons, before there would be a jailbreak that could threaten them and also threaten the region. I think we've seen significant progress in the relationship between Kurds and and uh and the central government. There's more work to be done, but some of that tension has now been downplayed. Down in the south there's more complexity of course, uh there are different Jews elements and Bedouin elements that have been more difficult to deal with. But we're trying to give the Syrian government there that's in place every opportunity to succeed and obviously there's a trust but verify component to this. I will say this and I wanna be, everything we've asked them to do They have tried to do or have done, including counterterrorism cooperation. But they have some capability gaps. They still have individuals within their armed forces quote unquote, that are members of radical groups and have certain ideologies and that don't are necessarily neatly disciplined. I think they're working through that, but there's a challenge again because of capacity. So this is a long-term project, one that I think is going to uh exist long after this administration. I hope the next administration will pick up the baton. But I remind everybody that just two years ago, Syria was a b- operating base for the Iranian uh regime and all of its proxies. And had Syria stood up on the table for them? It's interestingly enough, in the midst of epic fear and everything that's happening in the region, the one country that didn't see any of this, you saw it in Lebanon, you saw it in Iraq, you didn't see it in Syria. And I think that alone is a sign of why what's happening there has been good, but not good enough. We have a long ways to go.

Well, thank you. Appreciate that detailed answer and your continued focus on syria and improving stability in the country uh the syrians i know uh and the syrian americans say that they don't see those differences along religious lines uh that is as you pointed out divisions that were created by somebody else uh so what we can do to heal those uh divisions protect religious minorities in the country and ultimately get back to a stable and safe syria for all those individuals is a is a great point

i we agree a hundred percent the the future that the government in place now claims to want is impossible unless every element of Syrian society is incorporated in power sharing, and has a voice and influence over its own future, and of course isn't being killed.

Thank you again and look forward to working with you uh as we move forward. Uh you're back.

M- Mister Secretary, I thank you for your valuable testimony today. Members may have some more questions for you. Uh they will have five days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record, subject to length limitations. And without objection, this committee stands adjourned.