UN Accountability and Reform: America First Strategic Diplomacy, Burden Sharing

I would ask everybody to rise, 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. Good morning everybody. The purpose of today's hearing is to eval evaluate reforms and challenges that the United Nations, to increase transparency, reduce waste, and politicization, counter malign foreign influence, and ensure that the US taxpayer contributions, advance principled and measurable outcomes aligned with American

Excited to wanna find me, huh? Well, I'm gonna thank Chairman Mase for calling this hearing and welcome Ambassador Walz and Ambassador Bartos. You know, it's, we're in the eighth decade, it's been eight decades since the United Nations formation The United States have benefited greatly from the multilateral world order it helped create and lead. Of course, the United Nations has never been perfect. It is a complex institution, often slow-moving and imperfect. Congress has often demanded that it pursue reforms so that the UN can better deliver on its mandate to promote international peace, security, and human rights. And that's because leaders from both parties have understood a fundamental truth. American security and prosperity are strongest when we shape the international system, not when we abandon it. The UN is not simply a forum for speeches, it is where sanctions are negotiated, peacekeeping missions are authorized, and pandemic responses are coordinated. It's where refugees can help international law, where help refugees get help, and international law is made. And coalitions are built to meet the shared challenges of our time. No nation, not even the United States of America, can solve these problems alone. American leadership at the UN has always been about ensuring those debates and decisions serve the American people. And that is why I'm deeply concerned by this administration's burn-it-down approach. Rather than strengthening America's leadership within the UN system, this administration has surrendered it. Since January twenty twenty five, The Trump administration has withdrawn the US from sixty-nine different entities and and UN and uh agencies. Including the very UN body responsible for protecting children from sexual violence in war. It has pulled the United States out of UNESCO, withdrawn from the Human Rights Council, and abandoned the World Health Organization, even doing an active Ebola outbreak. Then and then it refused to let Americans exposed to the virus come home. This is not a reform, this is not reform, this is retreat. And it has failed to pay our UN dues, funds Congress already appropriated, forcing severe budget cuts across UN entities, even ones the administration claims to champion. We hear the argument that this is tough love, unnecessary to drive UN reforms. But you cannot reform an institution by starving it. You can only weaken it and hand the advantage to those who wish to harm. The administration's approach is also confounding our allies and accelerating our decline on the world stage. Ambassador Walts, you now are the face in leading this American retreat. Under your tenure, China is now paying to keep the lights on at the UN headquarters in New York, using our own austerity to cast itself as the responsible steward of the very system we built. The PRC has even offered to host UN bodies in Beijing and Hong Kong. Also under your ambassadorship, the US is siding with Russia and other adversaries on key votes, opposing UN resolutions on human rights, women and children and referees and ref- refugees, not on principle, but over culture war objections to a single word, gender. And Ambassador Walz, you have called Trump's the peace president. Yet this administration has gutted UN peacekeeping and replaced experienced negotiations with real estate developers. You have been a defender of President Trump's war of choice in Iran. And the war has cost the lives of eighteen US service members and achieved and achieved none of the core objectives. This includes one of my constituents, Sergeant Andrew Ramabashad. from ozone park New York, who was killed just this past Friday. You've done so with indifference to the cost this war has imposed on American families and its upending of the global economy and our bilateral relationships. So I cannot imagine a worse time to see the United States' influence at the UN than during a war Trump started with Iran, and still cannot end. The threats Iran poses can only be addressed diplomatically, multilaterally, with our allies and partners. Instead, this administration treats our friends like enemies. Absurd new tariffs against Canada being the latest example. Countries around the world are asking if this is how the United States acts toward its closest friends, how will it treat us? That doesn't make them yield to our demands, it drives them to look elsewhere for leadership. and China is happy to provide it. The administration casts its foreign policies as putting America first. In reality, it's America alone, a foreign policy of chaos, corruption, that puts American last. And finally, let me be frank, Ambassador Walts. You moved into this job at the UN after a a debacle in which you and other senior administration officials text classified war plans to journalists. Sixteen months later, nothing has changed, the incompetence continues, And it's Americans who keep paying the price. So I'm welcome to hear the witnesses' testimony and have the questions that we will ask. And I yield back the balance of my time.

Gentlemen yield back, recognize myself for an opening statement. I'd just start by kicking off on one of the comments you made. Certainly one of the things President Trump accomplished with Iran was accomplishing what you directed him to do which was use any and all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, something you and most of your colleagues on this side of the aisle used to vote for. I wanna thank you for coming here today, Ambassador Walz, uh, Ambassador Bartos, thank you for being here today. I would argue that you two have what is arguably one of the most difficult go- jobs in government. I know it was brought up in your uh confirmation hearings in the Senate, just how difficult the job is that you have to do. The United Nations of today, and these are the reasons why uh it has been gutted, uh, and I agree with the gutting that you're working to do there, has become a corrupt entrenched den of snakes. That's what I would characterize it as. You two men have been asked to show up every day, represent American values, restore sanity in organ- to an organization that has grifted off of the American taxpayer, and has become a soapbox, literally, for terrorists and America's adversaries. Today's hearing is about giving the United States ambassadors to the United Nations the tools needed to implement policies of accountability at the UN, policies of reform at the UN. I believe that you have been doing everything in your power to do just that, conduct reform at the United Nations, a nearly impossible task. President Trump has been abundantly clear, we will not tolerate what has been the status quo. It is hard to imagine that when the fifty-one founding members signed the UN charter in nineteen forty five, they would have foreseen the utterly useless and corrupt intis institution that it would become. Today the United Nations is a sprawling bureaucracy of one hundred and ninety-three member states, over one hundred thousand personnel, and twenty twenty four the UN system received over sixty eight billion dollars in revenue across its various agencies, funds and programs. And I don't think any of that bloat made it more effective. In fact, quite the opposite. The United Nations has grown increasingly bureaucratic, and grown increasingly ineffective. Take a look at just one example. Many have heard me speak about this before. the UN-backed multinational security support mission in Haiti, United States of America paid over one billion dollars for one thousand Kenyan peacekeepers to go into Haiti and take out the gangs. That's what we purchased. They did none of that. They abysmally failed, while we literally paid over one million dollars per Kenyan to do that job. In fact, things have gotten so bad that the Haitian government has taken matters into their own hands and hired an American to go in and do the work that the UN had failed to do at a fraction of the manpower, at a fraction of the cost, and with great success. We simply cannot ask American taxpayers to continue funding failed missions. We can no longer fund programs in the UN that support abortion, radical gender ideology, LGBTQ education, and other leftist projects that do nothing for the American people. We can no longer give America's enemies a seat at the table. When Iran is nominated to the UN committee responsible for shaping UN priorities on human rights and counterterrorism, clearly the United Nations has a credibility problem. When Iran is selected as the vice president for the United Nations nuclear, proliferation treaty. Again, the United Nations has a serious credibility problem. You can't make that up, that that took place. It is like a movie. When UNRWA, the UN's relief organization in the Middle East, puts Hamas operatives on its payroll, the United Nations has a serious credibility problem. When the United Nations institutionalizes anti-semitism, and disproportionate condemnation of Israel after it suffered the worst terrorist attack and genocide in history, it should be abundantly clear that the UN is rotting from the inside. The UN is in severe need of reform. We have to leverage the opportunity we have under President Trump to put America first foreign policy in action at the UN. We have an opportunity to demand that the UN deliver results that align with American foreign policy interests, not Iranian nuclear interests, not Chinese COVID interests, not Russian political obstruction, which is where they have moved to. These reasons and countless others are why I've become the first House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman in history to vote against funding for the United Nations. If there were a vote today in the House to create or join a new organization where the United States of America would be on equal footing with Russia and the People's Republic of China, that perhaps had some good features like the World Food Programme, but also had programs like UNRWA and Haiti boondoggles and climate radicalism and UN lobbying campaigns for abortion, we would vote against it. We would not recreate it. We would not fund it. We wouldn't give them fourteen dollars. We wouldn't give them fourteen billion dollars. Ambassador Walts, Ambassador Bartos, you have been doing everything that you can to tear out the rot, to tear out the grift. I give you every credit for that. I admire the steps that you're taking for United Nations reform, and I appreciate your leadership in that den of snakes. While I continue to doubt the and the value of the United Nations as an organization, I look forward to hearing your testimony, hearing about the successes that you have had in rooting out that rot, the obstacles that you continue to face, and learning about those UN institutions and cultures where the rot is so deep, you and your leadership team have yet to been able to affect it. Now recognize, uh, I would actually remind other members of the committee that opening statements may be submitted for the record. Again, we are pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us today on this topic. The Honorable Mike Waltz, Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations for the US Department of State. And the Honorable Jeff Bartos, Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations for UN Management and Reform for US Department of State. We're honored to have you both. Ambassador Waltz was honored to have you as a colleague here. This committee recognizes the importance of the issues before us and is grateful to have you here to speak with us. Your full statements will be made a part of the record. I'll ask each of you to keep your remarks as short as you can. I recognize you, Ambassador Walts, for any opening statement that you would like to make.

Well, thank you, uh, Chairman Mast and Ranking Member Meeks and members of the committee. It's good to see you again. It's good to be back. A little different to be on this side of the of the dais, I have to admit. Uh, Mister Chairman, colleagues, it should surprise no one. uh, that I share the view that the UN has drifted badly from its core mission. We've all seen it. And that's from my former constituents in Florida to my UN colleagues who say the same thing every day, to m- I think most of you this morning. My charge from President Trump is to help the UN realize its potential. We are getting the United Nations back to basics, back to maintaining the peace and maintaining security around the world. Unfortunately, the UN has tried to become all things to all people, and has literally done nothing but grow for its eighty year history. Its budget just in the last twenty-five years has tripled in size, and I don't think we've seen a tripling of peace break out around the world. Uh, we, as part of our reform effort, have worked with the UN, which they have to do by consensus, to cut its budget for the first time in its existence. Ever. We cut it by a billion dollars over the last six months alone. And by the way again, that requires consensus of all one hundred and ninety countries to agree on every line of the budget. Imagine if this body had to get all five but this Congress had to get five hundred and thirty-five members uh, to agree on a budget. But this gentleman, Ambassador Bartos and his team had all one hundred and ninety countries to agree and they should be I think, appreciated for that. We've also eliminated four thousand headquarters bureaucrats, cut peacekeepers by twenty five percent around the world, and importantly we've ended peacekeeping missions that have not lived up to their mandate, that have failed, those like UNIFIL and Lebanon. Uh, we have made it clear that UNIFIL needs to stand down, and negotiations are underway with back to basics. A healthier UN is a more useful UN, one that President Trump, who I do believe is a peace president, can use to help the United States deliver peace, share the burden, and advance an America first policy. And under President Trump, we drove a number of things and a number of successes the American people should be proud of. We drove a landmark Security Council resolution condemning Iran's attacks on its neighbors and the weaponization of the Straits of Hormuz. I hear all the time, we don't have countries that agree with us, that we don't have allies that agree with us, yet In this instance, we set a UN record, a hundred and thirty-six countries agreed with us that Iran's behavior is an absolute violation of international law. When President Trump proposed his twenty-point Gaza peace plan, we secured a Security Council endorsement without opposition of that plan. It now anchors an international stabilization force, local Palestinian government governance, a World Bank managed reconstruction fund, funded largely by regional partners, not American taxpayers, I say again, not American taxpayers, and for the first time in a decade, there are zero hostages in Gaza, something that just six, seven months ago, everyone thought was impossible. In Haiti, Mister Chairman, where you mentioned under the last administration, we had a billion dollars of US taxpayer dollars going to fund just a thousand Kenyan policemen. where drugs, guns, thugs threaten the United States, our southern border, uh Europe, West Africa, and the Caribbean. We now have a gang suppression force with an offensive mandate, with international troops, Francophone troops, not US troops, and UN logistics have now cut our costs by seventy five percent. In Western Sahara, we're pushing peace for the first time in fifty years, and our friends and adversaries are seeing what the UN can accomplish. when it gets refocused, when it does fewer things, better. Uh, look, uh, colleagues, there's still more to do. We certainly realize that. There is more in our crosshairs for reform, slashing these ridiculous benefits programs. I think that would be quite hard to explain to your constituents why UN bureaucrats have private schools paid for yet our own constituents are struggling to go to their schools. a seventeen percent pension contribution, seventeen percent more than anywhere else in the United States and the world that we're aware of and we're fighting this year for a reform-minded Secretary General. Like at the end of the day, we need more Americans serving in UN agencies, for our businesses and standard setting bodies, and for ultimately a UN that again does less better for the American people. Our charge is to make the UN great again. Thank you.

Thank you, Ambassador Walts. Ambassador Bartos, anything you'd like to add?

Yes, uh, just briefly. First, Chairman Mass, thank you for your hospitality. Thank you for being, allowing us to be here. It's an honor to be with you, uh, Ranking Member Meeks. Uh, and to your staff, we've had a wonderful working relationship both with the majority staff and the ranking member staff the minority staff. Uh, throughout my time we've been at the post for about ten months and worked very, very closely with uh with the staff here and really appreciate the professionalism and the diligence of everyone we get a chance to work with. If I could just set the table, last July when Ambassador Walz, Ambassador Lissetta and I sat for our confirmation hearings, uh just across the way in the Senate in the Foreign Relations Committee, we were told things like, very fairly told by the way, UNN reform is an oxymoron, it's impossible. Uh some senators even said, good luck with that. Uh my wife even asked me, wh why are you doing this job? Uh it seems impossible. Uh, but we hit the ground running in September. First day at work was the President's speech on the floor of the General Assembly. And we have not come up for air. We have not stopped running hard since minute one of, of putting our right hands up and taking the oath of office that we are all so honored to do. And this work is amazing, the work we get to do. Ambassador Walts and I wrote an op-ed in January, uh, just a couple months ago. And it was entitled, "Reforming the UN was impossible until President Trump came along." And that is the spirit in which we've taken all of our work here. And what we've achieved in six months with the President's vision and leadership, with the Secretary's support vision and leadership, and with the remarkable team we get to work with at the State Department, and of course with Ambassador Walts's leadership as our Chief of Mission, as he said, we have achieved one point one billion dollars in budget cuts across the regular budget and the peacekeeping budget. Not only is this historic reform, it has first budget cut in the history of the eighty year, eighty year history of the organization. And we did that in the last six months. Four thousand civilian posts cut. Um, repatriating twenty-five percent of peacekeepers who were underperforming. That's diplomatic, nice wee- speak of saying these were, these were sexual abusers. These were, these were troops, uh, who were engaging in sexual exploitation and abuse. And because the US drove these reforms, forced commanders had the political cover. Those, their words, not mine. They had the political cover to send home uh these abusers. First time really in a long time that they've been able to do that. Um, culture at the UN. What have we done to address culture? Our team for for years has worked on, before you c- as a troop contributing country, you could send equipment into theater, park it, and get reimbursed just for having it sit there. Our team, and I have a remarkable management and reform team that I get to work with at the mission, they've been working on this for years, but we drove it through uh this spring. Uh, in the contingent owned equipment working group, there is such a thing at the UN, who knew? Uh, we changed the way the culture of the UN, now to get reimbursed you have to put the equipment into use. It has to be used, it has to be working, it has to be effective, it has to go out on patrol. Saving thirty million a year when it's fully up and running, but more importantly the culture of the UN, no longer are you getting paid for not doing anything. And these are such important foundational changes. And Chairman, as you said, as Ambassador Walz said, we have what we have reached for uh thus far far exceeds our grasp, we have to go way further uh over the next two plus years to achieve real, meaningful, durable, consequential reform. That's our charge from the President, but that's what we're doing every day. And so we bring, as you and I have discussed, there's so much work left to do. If I could just say also, and the Ambassador touched on this, the UN in standard setting bodies like the ITU, uh like WIPO, like IMO, we are bringing US leadership to make sure that our interests are not only preserved, but also our interests lead. Because if we're not leading, our adversaries are waiting in the wings to do that. And so we are bringing that American leadership, that American innovation, that American focus to do just that. Um, I look forward to your questions, as I said, it's an honor to be here and thank you for having us.

Thank you, Ambassador Bartos. Ranking member Meeks.

Do you wanna forgo your questions? Forgo? Yeah. Never. Not you, OK. Just checking. You're up. Uh, let me start this, and I wanna because this committee we have not had any real oversight on this uh war of choice of uh President Trump uh and and I know that uh Ambassador Walts you've been the face of that uh at the UN uh and so I just have a few questions I wanna ask you in that regards. You know uh the White House declared on June nineteenth President Trump's cease-fire agreement with Iran quote " ensures Iran will never obtain a nuclear weapon" unquote. But the International Atomic Energy Agency, an organization in the UN system, has reported that its inspectors have been unable to access uh Iran's highly enriched Ukrainian stockpile or previously declared nuclear facilities for nearly a year. So, I'm gonna ask you a simple question because I'm trying to figure this out since we have not had uh any oversight in this regards and and any hearings on it. Um I'm gonna take advantage of this. Can the IAEA account today for all of Iran's enriched uranium and verify that Iran has not moved nuclear material or equipment to undeclared locations? Do you know? Yes, yes or no?

Uh uh Thank you, ranking members. In terms of oversight, I'll note that Secretary Rubio has testified before this committee this year. Um, but in terms of the IAEA, you're you're absolutely right. Uh, Iran is not allowing uh the inspectors access to the sites uh in um contravention of its obligation to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Unfortunately, that's one of the things uh that our technical negotiators are negotiating now. We are in constant contact with uh the Director General, Rafael Grossi. Iran has to let those inspectors back in. By contrast, you have the United Arab Emirates just over the Gulf with a, uh, civilian nuclear program that does allow the inspectors full access.

So, what what confuses me, what

So, the Iran kicked the inspectors out.

What

They have to let them back in.

What confuses me is that the president will then tell the American people on June nineteenth that his cease-fire agreement has eliminated Iran's path to a nuclear weapon. So Why would he say that if in fact what you just said that the IAEA cannot verify and there's no one else verified so that it has not been eliminated. But at one time the president said, because of this agreement that he made, that the uh that Alon's uh uh path to a nuclear weapon had been uh uh uh eliminated. In fact, he also said that they was completely annihilated uh you know on June nineteenth, et cetera. But it seems as though he was not telling the truth then. uh now we hear something else differently then so that's what i'm concerned about is uh you know what what the president is talking about because it is the president that tore up the jcpoa in his first turn uh and uh and i believe that

hmm

uh you told fox news on june twenty second that quote uh that what we never saw with obama or the biden administration trying to do the cpo the jcpoa two point o was a credible military option Now, we've spent, the DOD budget has uh almost tripled. And I don't see more peace that's happening there. The American people is uh is paying for that. So I I um uh look. There was a pursuit, you pursued the milit- the military action. It has cost at least thirty seven point five billion dollars, according to Pete Hexaff. And others say up to one hundred billion. So, what I'm trying to find out and what I'm asking you before I move to the UN real quick. What has this war achieved on the nuclear threat that diplomacy, sanctions, inspections, and allied coordination did not?

Well, number one, going to the UN, we have snapback sanctions that are back in place. The U the international community has joined the United States in that maximum pressure that is in place.

It was snagged back in place with the, with the JCPOA also.

Uh, well, the the actual the sanctions, no, I'm sorry.

And we were not at war.

Uh, Reiki member, the the the sanctions were lifted, they were snapped back under this administration, number one. Number two, you're right. The Iranians cheated under JCPOA. That was exposed. The IAA verified that there were sites that they hid, that were not discovered under that agreement, and that they were growing their nuclear program. President Trump did obliterate the nuclear program last June, but now,

But we still

but it is very clear the Iranians still intend to reconstitute it. They still intend to ar- enrich. and they still have highly enriched,

The the the the the straight of almost was open,

and they still have highly enriched uranium that we have to deal with in negotiations.

gas prices wasn't over four dollars, food prices were not going up, we were not spending nearly a billion dollars uh almost a day. The ma- he's coming back now asking the Senate and we'll be asking the House about three hun- for three hundred billion dollars more. There's not been, he's not come to Congress. Uh, he has not talked about and talked with us on how we end this war.

I can remember the Secretary Rubio has been before Congress,

So And he has not answered the questions also,

Secretary Meeks was there yesterday.

so I'm taking advantage of everybody that is coming here because unfortunately,

It was just yesterday.

there's been no oversight in this committee, and you have been the face of this war at the UN, sir.

I'm here today, ranking member, and proud to be here.

I hear back.

Thank you, ranking member Meeks. You may not recall the oversight of Secretary Rubio just about a month ago, because you left halfway through and never came back. So maybe you forgot about it. That might make sense. I don't

I don't get any.

You must have.

I did not.

He did not. He has not. Have we had an uh He came here mandatory.

You you probably don't remember because you missed half of it.

No, I didn't miss half of it. I could see it in my office.

You missed half of it.

So you don't know what I missed.

So I know what you missed.

You don't know what I missed.

I I know you weren't I know you weren't sitting here next to the rest of us.

You don't know what I missed.

I know you weren't sitting here next to the rest of us.

I know that.

Hey Mike, nothing ever changes.

So Yeah.

Well, this was him when he was here.

But Also, I I would thank you for attending Monday's classified briefing. I think it might have been the first one you attended. So thank you for attending that. But Representative McCall, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ambassador Walz, great to see you again. It's great to see a friend and a former colleague in this position. Uh, and let me just say, I think you're doing an outstanding job. Uh, reforming the United Nations is quite a daunting task as uh, uh, Ambassador Bartos, you mentioned uh, your wife questioning your sanity in taking on the job, but I commend you for it. Uh, let me just, I wanna follow up with Iran. You know, since nineteen seventy nine, a dark veil of terror has reigned over the Middle East. This, in my judgment, was a reckoning that was eventually going to happen. It was unavoidable with this regime, as long as the regime is in power. I commend this president for being the first president to take on this regime and Iran on its path to a nuclear bomb. Negotiating in the past hasn't worked. Uh, I have to be honest with you, Ambassador. I'm not sanguine about the current negotiations. I understand we have to give that a chance and give peace a chance. We have to try to negotiate. But I do think that as, um, Reagan said, peace through strength, as Cole and Powell talked about, uh, the the Powell doctrine, either you go all in to win or you get the hell out of there. Um, I right now they're reconstituting their centrifuges, uh, in underground storage facilities. Um, then their their launch pads are still striking. It is my sincere hope, and it's not your responsibility, but this, that the president unleashes our department of war on Iran. I know that's what is happening now, to take out the launch pads, to take out the IRGC. to let Mossad and Israel do its job because I think as long as this regime's in power, we're gonna continue to have this problem. And Russia providing targeting information is absolutely unacceptable uh from my point of view and I think from the United States' point of view. I'm really pleased to see the White House join with Lindsey Graham as I went to Ukraine. His last wishes were his Russian sanctions bill to pass. I will be introducing that in the Congress here today. Uh, and I wanna thank the White House for its work there because nothing will end that war sooner than passing that sanctions bill. It's a path to peace, not a path to war. My question to you is the Straits of Hormuz, we're a ne- net game producer. We don't really even have to rely on this. We are doing this to the benefit of our European allies. uh the UN Security Council I I you know I wanna ask you where where is the UN Security Council I applaud the president as well for getting the Gulf States involved to help finance this operation because it's in their best interest to open up these straits. I think it's a very doable thing if we unleash our military and allow them to do what they do best. Sir, and you know the military better than I do They're fully capable of accomplishing uh this mission. I know that's not the hat you wear today, but I'd like for you to comment on the overall status of the Straits and what role, if any, are our, you know, the Gulf States, but, and I think the Gulf States are stepping up, what role i- any is the United Nations and Security Council playing in this?

Well, thank you, and just to set the table for for the answer, and I wanna answer that very specifically. You're absolutely right, Iran has been at war with the United States since nineteen seventy nine, has killed thousands of my fellow servicemen in Iraq, in Lebanon, in the Gulf, uh uh uh uh literally all over the world, in addition to its plots here in the United States and to kill the President of the United States and members uh of his cabinet. Yet, Iran is in the worst place, is in the weakest place, it has been through a combination of both military and diplomacy, uh in in its war against the United States. In Lebanon, uh you have the Lebanese government, you had the president here yesterday and today. You have Lebanon negotiating with Israel for the first time. You have the Assad regime is gone, uh and probably the most hope in Syria that we've seen in a generation. You just had the Iraqi president here in Texas, signing deals with American oil uh and gas companies. Uh, and the Iranian regime is literally cratering economically, militarily, uh, and and at war frankly with its own people in addition to the region. To your point on the Straits of Hormuz, Secretary Besant just said yesterday, China, the main buyer of Iranian, illegal Iranian oil, has cut its purchases by half and nobody else wants to buy it. The blockade is absolutely working. And then on the UN, uh, look, we've had uh Iran absolutely diplomatically isolated. We may not pay a a lot of attention to what happens in the UN Security Council here in our media but I can tell you around the rest of the world they are glued to every word it's the only forum Iran really has on the global stage and a hundred and forty countries have sided with us and condemned their attacks on civilian shippings the mines that they're putting in international waterways uh and their um and their violations of international law across the board. Keeping them

Thank you, sir. Representative Sherman.

Representative Sherman. Uh, I thank Mister McCaul for pointing out that America is self-sufficient in oil. Our oil does not go through the Strait of Hormuz. If we prohibited the export of American oil except for refine and return, then we would be paying American prices for American oil. Instead, the president has decided that we need to pay that world price to the great enrichment of American oil producers that have done nothing, except sell us the same oil at the same gas stations, now for a much higher price. The ranking member was correct to point out that this committee has not provided oversight for this horrendous war in Iran. but even more timely, is that we need hearings in this committee about the uh, uh proposed nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia. Now there are those who think that the Saudi uh, that the Saudi possession of nuclear technology is totally benign. But I've been involved in this for a long time. And I remember when the most powerful monarch in the Middle East was a good friend of America. And the Shah got his hands on important US military technology. Thank God, nothing nuclear. And everything the Shah had in nineteen seventy eight was in the Mullah's hands in nineteen seventy nine. We have no idea who is going to be running Saudi Arabia ten years from now. Um, Mister Walz, uh, the administration has decided to share certain elements of the nuclear cooperation agreement, uh, with the press. And so I'll have his press reports. Have you read the agreement?

Uh, Mr. Sharman, I have seen the agreement.

Uh, any chance we'll get to see the agreement? Uh, could you provide it to us perhaps today? Perhaps uh,

I've

e- e- either in a classified session or an open session?

I would happily take that for the record, and that's obviously to the secretary and the president, what he shares between the two bodies.

Well, as to the secretary, let me point out that Senator Rubio and I, in twenty introduced the No Nuclear Weapons for Saudi Arabia Act, which mandated that any agreement with Saudi Arabia would have to have the affirmative approval of the United States Congress. And I miss Senator Rubio. The Secretary Rubio takes a completely different position. Now, the press reports indicate

Representative Sherman, could I just be clear for the record, I I understood you to mean the MOU, that with Iran. I have not seen any proposed agreement with Saudi Arabia.

I'm talking about Saudi Arabia. Ha, uh, see, you have not, OK, so the, the, the,

So, here's my confusion. No, I have not.

oh, so you've not read, OK, well, then he won't share it with you or us, uh, until some later date. He'll have to share it with us at a later date. Um, but the press reports indicate that there'll be no, uh, that, uh, Saudi Arabia is not agreeing to the additional protocol. The United Arab Arab Emirates did agree to the additional protocol. Is there any reason we should be bombing Iran because they won't agree to limit their nuclear program, while telling Saudi Arabia we give them the green light and they don't even have to agree to these additional year inspections?

Yes, absolutely. There's been half a dozen uh UN resolutions saying Iran cannot and should not have a nuclear weapon.

And do and and do they uh reclaiming my time,

And they're the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world.

reclaiming my time, reclaiming

So yes, there's a reason we should be bombing Iran.

Mr. Chairman, can you keep order?

And not Saudi Arabia. It's kind of a ridiculous question, frankly.

Mr. Chairman, can you keep order?

You asked him a question. He's trying to answer.

I reclaimed my time. Who owns the time?

Not a r- that's not a real thing.

It's,

You asked him a question.

it's not a real thing for members of this committee to control their five minutes of time?

You asked a question. That's you controlling your time.

I did, and I got a filibuster, and I stopped the filibuster.

It's also rich to, to hear uh this side of the aisle celebrating oil after they were at war with

I, I look forward to this committee being run in accordance with committee rules,

the industry.

and only the departure from committee rules prevents us from exposing the great hypocrisy here. Saudi Arabia is not agreeing to the additional inspections that could make sure that their program is not used for nuclear uh uh uh to develop a nuclear weapon. We have no idea who will be running Saudi Arabia ten years from now. We are bombing Iran because they insist upon enriching and reprocessing. We are uh uh entering into an agreement with Saudi Arabia, giving them the green light. to reprocess and to enrich. We are uh a a and and the only difference I see here is that Westinghouse stands to make an awful lot of money on this deal, whereas the Iranians were not enriching American companies. Uh, I look forward to uh having a uh a process with Congress, where you'll tell us what you're doing, and I uh hope that Senator Rubio will return to us and insist that Congress approve any agreement, I know that someone will introduce uh, or I predict someone will introduce a resolution of disapproval. And I invite members of this committee who have worked with us to prevent nuclear weapons in the Middle East from non-democratic countries to join in that effort. I yield back.

Representative yields back. Just so everybody knows, I shouldn't have to tell people this, but if you ask the witnesses a question, I'm not going to prevent them from answering you. I would think that's common sense. Representative Smith, your recogniz-

Uh, no, the ruling, the mu- the time belongs to the member.

No, the ruling

Time is not recognized.

Time is not recognized.

And the member utilizes their time.

You're not recogni- recogni- member meeks, but

Well, I'm gonna make sure that we have the regular order in this hearing.

Mister Smith, this, Mister Smith, this There, there's order. He asked a question. The witness was trying to answer. You don't want us to answer.

The witness was trying to filibuster.

This is your answer.

And it's his determine- it's his determination to make sure that he controls his power.

You guys ask questions and then you don't want answers. You ask him on Rubio's shoes and you don't want answers about his shoes. So, Mister, Mister, he asked a question.

Mister, Mister, he, as you seem unfamiliar with the rules of this committee,

Mister, Members control the time.

Members control the time, not a witness.

Don't ask questions if you, don't ask questions if you don't want the answers.

Witnesses do not control. Well, the witnesses can't answer yes or no, or so.

They can answer. You gotta give them a chance to do so.

They don't answer.

You

They try to filibuster.

They don't if you talk over them.

They try to filibuster.

Consider yourself warned. You ask them a question, they're gonna have the opportunity to answer.

No, we gotta apply by the rules of this committee. The members control the time. You are not gonna control the time of the members of, uh, on least this side of the aisle. The members control their own time. They determine whether or not their question is being answered or not. They determine because they only have five minutes, whether they wanna move on to another question. We're not gonna have a situation where witnesses can filibuster and members can't ask the questions they wanna answer.

Let me just be clear again.

That's not the rule in this committee.

You will have a situation, I want you to be, you know, make sure you understand, cuz sometimes you leave and you don't come back. I want you to understand that if your members ask a question, the witness are gonna have the opportunity to answer. Um, whether you leave and come back, it'll be the same rule. So just so you know.

This is not high school trying to be personal with the may recognized.

Representative Smith.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and uh first of all let me just say a very special thanks to Ambassadors Wallace and Bartos for your extraordinary leadership, your tenacity, your vision. I am so glad we have the A team at the United Nations and you are indeed that. You know in two thousand eleven, I would note parenthetically, even President Obama cut off funding to UNESCO, I remember it well, uh because of their rampant anti-semitism. Uh so withholding funding to an egregiously flawed institution or agency is in the best interest of not only the United Nations but of course the United States of America. So thank you for that. I do wanna thank you for working and pushing so hard uh to to reform a system that is so egregiously flawed and broken. So many of the agencies it is in disrepair, uh including peacekeeping. Uh you know I went to Darfur and I went to Sudan several times. But in Darfur I met with the peacekeepers when they first were deployed. Found out they were getting a dollar a day. Came back, talked to Condoleezza Rice, our secretary of state, she said, " This is outrageous." And of course she worked to reform that and to fix that. Um, in two thousand five, I became aware that UN peacekeepers in DR Congo were raping little children. Ambassador Swain was in charge of that mission. Uh, when I raised these issues, I was dismissed. and then dissed. So I went there and I met with the people. I ran into an OIOS Mountie who was in charge of investigating. He was a font of information, came back here, had four hearings on it and said how dare they, they go in there to protect and they're raping little children ten, twelve years old and for a meal these kids were being exploited by UN peacekeepers. Kofi announced to his credit, tried to reform it. and then what did he do he turned around um it was he had a zero tolerance policy and he repatriated people who were you know committing these crimes and then i had another hearing cause we soon found out and the hearing was called zero compliance with the zero tolerance uh towards human trafficking i say that as the author of the trafficking victims protection act of two thousand and four other anti-human trafficking laws i take this seriously and un has to be on the side absolutely of protection so thank you for what you're doing there as well. On Nigeria, uh Mike, uh Secretary Walz, thank you for your leadership on Nigeria. You are the, one of the few people I know who was deployed there to try to help protect those who are being slaughtered including the Christians. Yes, Muslims get killed too, uh if they speak out. Christians get targeted because of the infidels and the radical Islamic belief is you deserve to die. And whether it be Boko Haram, ISIS West Africa, or the Fulani, Uh, we need to do more and you have taken the lead on that and I, and you might wanna speak to that if you would, because I think Nigeria is one of those cases where if the government gets serious, and I mean really serious, they can come off the CPC designation, but do so by murdering it, a yield.

Well, uh, thank you Representative Smith and thank you for your long history of taking these issues on and actually getting out there on the ground to see them uh firsthand rather than opining from DC. And and I will say, I have to give credit where credit's due. Secretary Guterres has taken on the issue in a meaningful way of not just peacekeepers, but it's often local vendors being paid by the UN who are conducting this type of abuse. On uh Nigeria, yes, we are taking the persecution of Christians very seriously. Um, I have to say, I did not have Nicki Minaj on my dance card, but to have her with her global following, at the UN to put a spotlight on this issue was a real honor and I think it's one of the things uh the UN can do well in terms of having that global platform and having the entire world right there in New York and we've seen uh the Nigerian government move as a response to the President's attention, our attention, her attention and others on the issue. They're cooperating with us more than they were on counterterrorism, they're cooperating in terms of their security force capacity. They still have some work to do frankly. in terms of the Sharia law that is in place in many of these local provinces. And make no mistake, churches are being burned, pastors are being executed, uh, people are being arrested literally for just wearing a cross around their neck. Uh, and the Christian religion is the most persecuted religion in the world right now. And this administration and I as its representative at the UN are taking it incredibly seriously in every action that we can.

i do thank you so much for that you know on anti-semitism almost at the time but um the un has been accused credibly in many of its agencies of being profoundly anti-semitic including unruh uh which is a child soldier factory where you teach a kid uh a palestinian youth from his earliest days to hate jews and to hate america and i've read their documents i've had hearings on the textbooks so i i'm out of time so um thank you for the work that you're doing in that room as well Representative Keating.

Mister Mister Chairman, may I just a quick quick response to the on the work we're doing on combating anti-semitism? Yeah, ver- very briefly, uh Representative Smith, thank you for the point. Uh, the UN's really at a crossroads. Since the day we landed, but really even before that, the president came into office with a focus on this, and his leadership and vision, the secretary and and everyone we work with at state has been focused on this issue. Uh, the UN's at a crossroads. It does a lot of good work in the field in the humanitarian really important work. And at the same time it employs a lunatic like Francesca Albanese, a absolute lunatic, a v- a a virulent anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-West, anti-Judeo-Christian, anti-Jew, anti-Israel bigot. She puts on that UN uniform. And she, it's such a disservice to the brave humanitarians who are out in the field, risking their lives for total strangers. And it does such a disservice to the brand of the UN. It is the greatest self-sabotage Representative Keating. Representative Keating.

Ambassador Walz, uh, i- in your opening statement you took great pride in pointing out, uh, the hundreds of countries that sided with the US, uh, on given resolutions. And, uh, I just wanna note, uh, a a point of shame to the brought to this country when the US sided with, uh, three countries, Russia, Belarus, and North Korea, in refusing to condemn Russia's actions, uh, illegal actions, illegal aggression against Ukraine, and denied supporting their territorial integrity. Prior to uh being in Congress, uh I was a district attorney, I had my own sexual assault unit, uh my own sexual assault investigatory unit, prosecutorial unit. I started a a child advocacy to to treat children that were victims of sexual assault. And I worked with regional and federal-based task force dealing with human trafficking particularly trafficking of children. And in Congress I had the opportunity to travel and to uh hold a hearing uh with Ukrainian, mostly uh women, on the ground risking their lives in a hot war zone uh trying to bring rescue, recovery and treatment to children that were sexually assaulted by Russian soldiers. The stories they told me were horrific. Serial rapes occurring to young children with Russian soldiers starting in the morning, continuing through the day and all night, with their parents and grandparents being forced to witness this. Terrible, terrible examples of sexual assault, uh time and time again, and war crimes with Ukraine. Now I wanna ask you, given all that, and given my experience knowing that we're gonna combat this, we have to do this, uh on uh, on international basis and a regional basis to be successful, the way I was with those task force. Uh, why did the US withdraw from the UN on key offices, the offices for children in armed conflict, the office of sexual violence in conflict, the office of violence against children. Why would the US ever withdraw, given what I just laid out, given what Russia's doing, but given what's happening all over the world? Why would they ever withdraw for that?

Congressman, I would not conflate the our evaluation of the effectiveness of a particular office of an organization versus caring about the issue I just last week hosted with Tim Thibault and the Thibault Foundation.

All right, all right. Um, to your point, to your point, sir. I know about Thibault.

Can I answer your question?

Thank you for Thibault.

Is five seconds filibustering?

No, you answered that. Now I'm taking your answer that you gave me and I'm asking you another question.

Okay. Sure.

And I wasted time doing it. Don't filibuster me. Listen.

Is ten seconds a filibuster, mister Chairman?

Listen, you just said, you just said you were talking about having agencies that you didn't have control over,

OK.

that were ineffective. OK, let's talk about one that the Trump administration does have control over, that does have the ability to shape, and that's the State Department. If that's the case, why did the Trump administration, when it has control with the State Department, why did they fire seventy percent of the departments trafficking in person's office uh and that office as you know uh closes legal gaps and deals with online exploitation sexual exploitation of children. The office develops protection and partnerships with foreign countries with the goal of strengthening that capacity preventing and effectively prosecuting and convicting child traffickers. So, alright, you don't want you just want to dismiss the meager probably monies that it takes to de-

And you had control over it.

President Trump just signed this year an executive order getting after in a very serious way sexual exploitation of children. I just hosted a major event at the UN around the sexual exploitation of children,

Oh, why is that a fact?

with INL,

Why is that so effective?

with T with the International College of Law Enforcement,

When when countries as a whole, when that's ineffective.

with the UN Office of Drug Control,

You're subjectively choosing what's effective,

with the Thibault Foundation.

what is in

No, I'm giving you an answer. The president takes this very seriously.

No, I'm giving you my state result, this is a great way to have a hearing,

because it cuts against your narrative.

isn't it? I wonder how you would have reacted when you were on the other side of this.

It I'm sorry if the facts run headlong into your narrative.

Listen,

Ms. Sherry, will you allow the witness to answer the question?

I am just telling you that the Trump administration has control over its

I take this very seriously.

State Department and cut seventy percent of the people in there and they're

The First Lady has expatriated Ukrainian children from Russian camps.

sitting there trying to say that they're through an executive order and we

The First Lady herself is going after this issue.

know how they're working out the executive order dealing with it.

It's a force of l- it has the force of law, as you know.

You are you are your administration is sitting there withdrawing from having a place at the table on these critical issues, and you're sitting there putting your own spin on the religious aspect of that

I just gave you three examples of how we're taking this, you want.

being the most important thing and you're hurting children.

We are saving children around the world while this body

US should be a leader in this. They shouldn't be withdrawing from this. They shouldn't be cutting personnel from this,

works hot air. I don't know what it's do.

I yield back.

Mister Keating, would you like an extra five seconds where he was answering you earlier?

Sir, I was answering the in part question that was there, he kept trying to filibuster, let's not have this hearing be about filibustering,

Wanted to make sure.

what goes around comes around.

Just wanted to make sure you didn't want an extra five seconds when he tried to answer. Uh, Representative Wilson.

Thank you very much, uh, Chairman, uh, uh, Brian Mast. And indeed, thank both of you for being here today and I particularly appreciate, uh, Secretary Walz, your last your lifelong achievements, uh, as a graduate of Virginia Military Institute, uh, and, uh, for the people of the United States. military service, public service, thank you. Uh, and Mister Bartos, we appreciate UVA Law School too. Uh, with that in mind, I wanna congratulate you on your success implementing a streamlined US mission to the United Nations. For far too long, America has helped foot the bill for programs that are undermining American national security. Your success has amplified the reform so appreciated by former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Friends of freedom and democracy are doing recognize in totalitarian dictatorships. promoting to terrorism are exposed by you and former uh Ambassador Haley. Additionally, uh I'm really concerned uh that uh to assist you, I've addressed a letter uh to you and Secretary Rubio uh requesting a review of certain UN officials who are promoting extremist and anti-semitic ideologies. These bureaucrats who called for the arrest of President Donald Trump and Secretary Hegseth. They have called to minimize, they have minimized Hamas atrocities, dismissing murderous rapes that, claiming they didn't occur. Additionally, they have questioned democracy while visiting Tehran and praising Havana, Cuba. With that in mind, I'd like to uh submit uh the letter for the record.

Not objection.

Additionally, uh mister

On the record.

uh ambassador, under your leadership, I appreciate your efforts to address the version of

Well, I'll just tell you from a from a broader sense that we have uh worked at the aid diversion program by pooling uh our funding by downsizing the number of agencies uh that receive some of the funding. Again, that doesn't mean we don't care about the issue, it means we're trying to make it much more effective. I can tell you, representative, how many times across Africa and the Middle East that I pulled up to a a ministry in a small country, it has maybe six people in it, and there's eighteen UN cars outside from eighteen different agencies, all well-meaning, but highly, highly uh inefficient. So we've pulled that funding. forced a number of these agencies to use shared warehousing, aviation fleets, vehicle fleets, shipping uh mechanisms so that more cents on the dollar actually gets to people in need. And they now have uh the UN organization called OCHA now has data up on a dashboard, publicly available. We are auditing that data. We are uh providing that kind of oversight. But the entire world can see now where that money is going. That level of transparency was not there just a year ago.

And and indeed to get the aid to the people rather than divert it to dictatorships to maintain their power. With that in mind too, President Trump has acted courageously to destroy the Iranian nuclear capability. Uh, it was envoy Steve Witkoff who identified that uh Iran was bragging that they could provide eleven bombs uh with the capabilities they had. Uh, and it should be uh reminded to the American people simultaneously they're chanting Death to Israel, death to America. And so it's not a hypothetical of what they might be doing. With that in mind, Mister St- uh uh uh uh uh Ambassador Walz, you've said our relationship with the Gulf allies has never been stronger, which I agree with. Additionally, they've all thanked uh the United States and President Trump for uh acting before Iran could destroy the region with nuclear weapons. With that in mind, uh the only country that has not uh adjacent to uh, Iran that has been helpful as the, uh, republic of, uh, Georgia. Uh, the rigged elections in Georgia, uh, by the Georgian Dream Party has resulted in a, a political party which is anti-American, pro-Iranian. Uh, what's being done to strengthen our allies and then, uh, uh, try to reform, uh, enemies?

Well, I would just add, uh, importantly to the countries that don't necessarily neighbor Iran but that have been incredibly helpful, uh, Jordan, uh as well um which as you know was just struck uh and has been struck repeatedly, not just uh as a result of this conflict was struck um where a law serviceman uh in women under the last administration as well. I'll have to take that for the for uh the record Representative Wilson in terms of our specific actions in Georgia there's not a large UN presence uh there and I don't know if Ambassador Bartos you wanted to comment.

Uh Representative Wilson, I just wanna say thank you for your leadership. on the issue of the special rapporteurs. I made reference to one lunatic, uh Fran Francesca Albanese, unfortunately she's first among equals amongst the crazies, but she's not the only crazy. And your letter is really important. And just to give a quick example, uh there's a special rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures that we happen to know, has received over one million dollars in foreign funding from countries like China and rest rest assured, sir, uh that our administration is taking action and that every option, sir, is on the table.

Well, we have faith in both of you. Thank you for your service.

Representative Barra.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Yeah, when the UN was founded in nineteen forty five, core mission was maintain international peace and security, protect human rights, deliver humanitarian aid, promote sustainable development, and uphold international law. Um, what we accomplished as the United States of America, creating an architecture of relative peace, stability, prosperity. And I think the UN was a component of of that um i'm not one here who is gonna deny that the un doesn't need to be modernized you know the um the p five was a reflection of the world what the world looked like in nineteen um forty five in the post world war multiple proposals um to either expand the permanent membership include the g four you know bringing in brazil germany india japan if we were designing a united nations that was reflective of today's world, we would design it very differently. The politics of the UN are worse than congressional politics. Obviously, you have to get to consensus, and it becomes difficult, but it's what we have. And we've gotta reform it to be a reflection of the twenty-first century world, if we want our kids and grandkids to have the same peace, stability, and prosperity that I think we've benefited from. Um, you know, an example of where I think the UN is breaking down is, you know, I'll look at the South China Sea. You know, in twenty sixteen, um, you know, a a tribunal under unclass rules essentially, um, delivered a unanimous legally binding decision in the case brought by the Philippines against, um, China's nine dash line. And they said there's no legal basis for what China is claiming here. Um, and they are encroaching on the Philippines' EEZ. Obviously that's been ignored. not been enforced and so forth um and it does create a real flash point that i worry about um i'd like you guys to give us an update internally uh the un is looking at un eighty reforms if that's working and then also strategically i do wanna modernize the un i do wanna make it a effective organization that's reflective of its original core mission um and reflective of the twenty first century um world what would need to happen for us to make those reforms take place, to change the P five membership?

Well, thank you. Just I'll give a a very broad answer. And we have our ambassador here who has the an enviable mission of actually leading uh that reform. Um, there there's a number of reforms underway. Uh, under this secretary general, one of the questions we're asking the candidates of the next secretary general is, what would they keep, what would they discard, and what do they uh, what do they propose themselves? For example, sit aside the the the debate on climate. I don't think we need seven agencies that list as its primary, with its own headquarters, own executive bodies, right, that are that are focused on that issue. Let's get it down to one, do less, uh better.

So

We have four. These are the Secretary General's proposals, not mine.

That's the b- that's the bureaucracy. I do worry about the P five um not reflecting today's world though. And again, I don't

So there, eh, I'll just tell you very candidly, uh, Representative Barra, there is very little consensus. Uh, whether it's on Russia, China, UK, France. On the P five, there has been proposals to have more elected members. There has been more, there have been proposals to give some, make them permanent, but not have a veto. Uh, it's really kind of all over the map in terms of security council reform. And the secretary general is part of UN eighty, that's not part of it.

OK.

Um, so there's just a lot of discussion and not a lot of consensus.

And if we were to try to put some muscle into it, I mean, and what's the best? Uh, cuz again, I'd, I think the UN's gonna be very hard to reform in its current structure, with the permanent membership of the,

I,

the security council.

I think we could make the most, personally the most gains by what happens in the general assembly. Um, where you just have literally eighty years of accumulated mandates that then the UN bureaucracy has to try to fulfill. There's no end date, there's no cost associated, there's no de-confliction. And we actually just worked with New Zealand, who led this reform effort, to try to put some brackets and some ga- some guidelines around what happens in the General Assembly. That also drives cost, uh, uh, on to the UN Secretariat that they, that they struggle to, to fulfill. And it's one of the reasons they've done nothing but grow for eighty years. Uh, if you wanna add.

Congressman, if I just may jump in. The, an example of US leadership working with the Secretariat, the Secretary General, uh, has for ten years tried to reform the credit system at the UN. And it's crazy. Basically the system was, whatever the assessments were what was unspent, there'd be a refund based on the assessments, not based on what people contributed. And the UN, regardless of who was paying what, the UN was on a pathway to insolvency regardless of anything else, because these credits were just growing. We took the mantle of leadership, working with lots of other countries at the most recent second resumed session of the fifth committee, and after a decade of the secretary general lead, you know, pushing on this issue, we ultimately, with US leadership, reformed the credit system. It's for a four year trial period. We all wanna see how it works out. But that's the type of thing, to Ambassador Walz's point. This is happening in the GA and I'll say proudly in the fifth committee, which is completely consensus driven. It's the most professionally challenging thing I've ever worked on in my life. It's actually crazy when you say a hundred and ninety-three countries have to agree. But somehow it works. It's uh, three different bites at the budget. We'll have uh, Sarah, when we come back and see you next, we'll see how the regular budget goes this fall, and then into the next secretary general. But Those types of reforms, that type of working together to common sense, but sometimes it takes, a lot of times it takes a lot of leadership just to get there, and we're providing that leadership. But thank you for the question.

Representative Perry.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you ambassadors for being here. I'm gonna start with Ambassador Bartos since colleague on the other side of the aisle, essentially accused the United States and this administration of not caring about children. So I just wanna highlight the the case of or the fact that seven hundred and forty-seven, there are seven hundred and forty-seven open cases, including minors among the victims of sex used as currency for food and shelter by the organization itself. And just Ambassador Bartosz, if you wanna take a moment to briefly address America's views on that circumstance.

S- first of all, uh, General, it's great to see you. Fellow Pennsylvanian, so great to see you. Um, and uh, thank you for the question. I would say I've had a lot of proud moments in in my ten months at Post. Uh, perhaps one of the most proud moments was was watching our Chief of Mission last week, sitting up with uh with Tim Thibault, with representatives from the Uni United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, our own colleagues at the State Department and the INL Bureau, lead in a panel discussion on real efforts to to combat transnational sex trafficking of children. Now, the statistics, the work that's being done, the Thibault Foundation, Tim and his wife, remarkable people. Uh, they devoted their p now post-professional football lives to this issue. And to sit there and listen to the devotion they have to fighting this issue, to Ambassador Walts for convening all of us, it was one of the most proud moments I've had at post. Uh, and any assertion that the Trump administration, that the State Department, or at USUN were not laser-focused on combating this issue, not only in the UN, but there's a lot of And and Ambassador Walts could go into greater detail. A lot of just shockingly making nauseous statistics about what's happening, the flow of of minors from Africa to Europe, um is, I didn't know about it. Um and uh it redoubles and retriples our our efforts to to combat this scourge.

Yeah, American taxpayers don't want their dollars to be spent on trafficking of children on some official capacity. Ambassador Walts, I wanted to ask you about uh the UN's uh, Peace and Development Trust Fund. The Secretary General himself said that the twenty nineteen Belt and Road Forum, BRI, and the twenty thirty agenda are inextrably linked. The report catalogs, programming between Belt and Road Initiative, UNDP, UNEP, UNICEF, UNCTAD, UNESCO, spanning Ethiopia, Serbia, Kapskastan, and dozens of other countries. The UN didn't just stumble into this. There's a partnership by design. And it is not foreign aid, it's debt statecraft. Um, you know, from leveraging ports, telecom, backbones, critical infrastructure. For instance, Sri Lanka handed over its port on a ninety-nine year lease after it couldn't pay. And that's, of course, it's by design. The pattern repeats itself. And of course, the Belt and Road Initiative countries shift their UN generally uh general assembly voting patterns to align more closely with Beijing after the money arrives. Now this is a voting block, uh, that's bought and paid for over time with these loans. And then it, uh, it involves military basing, surveillance infrastructure, all that follows the money. Uh, with that pattern in mind, what do you assess, uh, the risk to UN agencies, uh, using taxpayer dollars to pimp out developing nations to our greatest adversary? And, um, what do you think the administration is willing to demand regarding our funding uh for UN entities formally serving the the co-programming and the co-publication activities tied to the Belt Road Initiative.

No, thank you for the question. It's a very good question. I think it gets to the broader issue when we get asked, why do we even participate in this thing at all? Like why are we even there? And you know, one of my answers is unfortunately, if we didn't invent it, somebody else would. Uh, and I don't wanna see UN Beijing or UN Brussels or or what have you. My second answer uh is there's these global standard setting bodies, these little baby UN agencies uh that many people have never heard of that set the rules of the road for our industries around the world. There's the World Intellectual Property Organization, China was running to head that. Imagine China heading global IP for how we treat our patents. We supported a pro-business Singaporean that's now the head of that agency, the International Telecommunication Union, cables. spectrum, radio, uh, yeah, things that truly matter, uh, to our economy. We're running now an American, uh, for re-election to set those rules of the road. I want pilots around the world speaking English, air traffic controllers set, trained to a certain standard. So these, these bodies matter. Uh, we can't just walk away, because then that would be a hundred and ninety-two countries without us. Uh, we just need to get in there and fight and win. To answer your question, Representative Perry, more directly, we've demanded the UN Secretariat stop using that slush fund. And, uh, as part of our pooled funding model, uh, we have much greater transparency and visibility on those aid dollars as they go out. But make no mistake, uh, whether it is the EU and their version of safety standards or censorship on AI, or whether it's the Chinese trying to set the rules of the road that's not in line with our interests, We have to get in there and fight and win. We have an example of that when the International Maritime Organization was within a week of putting a global carbon tax a billion dollars a month on global shipping. It was absurd. They thought it was a done deal. We got in there and fought and won to the point where our representative on the ground said the EU ambassador just called us diplomatic gangsters. Um, so uh we're we're gonna get in there and fight and win for the American people and for American industry and put America first.

Appreciate your service yield back. Representative Jacobs.

Chairman, um, Ambassador Walts, it's great to see you back here. Um

Good to see you and appreciate you coming up to New York last year.

Yeah, absolutely. Um, I wanna ask you about the war in Iran. Um, as you know, I represent San Diego, the largest military community in the country, so this is personal for my constituents, for me, as I know it is for you. Right now we've got about twenty-five hundred San Diego service members deployed off the coast of Iran. Thousands more have received forty-eight hour deployment notices. I know you served multiple combat tours in Afghanistan, so you know firsthand what these service members and their families are going through. And while they willingly make the sacrifices for our country, it's our job on both sides of this dais to make sure that those sacrifices are worth it. So I I wanted to ask you a simple question. Are we better off now than we were before we launched the war in Iran?

the world and the American people are safer.

OK. L- let me get, let's get into some more specifics. Before the war, the Strait of Hormuz was open. Now, the Strait of Hormuz is closed. Are Americans better off when the Strait of Hormuz is open or when the Strait of Hormuz is closed?

The American economy is largely unaffected uh by the Straits of Hormuz. Uh, we fortunately, I find it a little bit rich, to hear this kind of clamoring for oil and gas when frankly your side of the aisle has been at war against the American fossil fuel industry for quite some time. In fact, we had an LNG export ban, uh, just under the last administration. But fortunately, because of drill, baby, drill, because of fracking, uh, we are largely self-sufficient in the energy space.

Well, uh, my constituents who are paying on average thousands of dollars more a month, and costs because of this war would beg to differ that our economy is not impacted by the state of Hormuz being closed.

But California imports much of its oil and gas, unfortunately, because of its own regulations.

Yeah, I wanna talk about the national average of gas actually. Um, the national average of gas before the war started was three dollars a gallon. It is now once again over four dollars a gallon. Um, you said actually, um, in saying that the war was getting better on June twenty first on face the nation that it is now below four dollars and falling to show that we are making progress, but it's back up at four dollars a gallon now. So are Americans better off when they're paying three dollars a gallon nationally for gas or four dollars a gallon nationally for gas?

I think Americans are better off than not paying the highs of over five dollars under the last administration, because of this administration's energy policy.

Yeah, that happened for two weeks during the uh Ukraine war, it's been over four dollars for more than three months just this year. Um, let's turn to the nuke.

I would also, Americans are better off with Iran not having a nuclear weapon in the rest of the region exploding in a nuclear arms race.

Well, good.

Saudi Arabia has said they will get a nuclear weapon if Iran tests theirs.

Yeah. I I wanted to ask about the nuclear threat actually, so so thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Before the war began, Iran had four hundred and forty kilograms of near weapons grade uranium. We can all agree on that.

Illegally.

Yes. Enough according to nuclear experts for up to ten bombs. The president says Iran's nuclear program has been completely obliterated, but ambassador you testified today that every single kilogram of that enriched uranium is still in Iran and we know that because the president is currently negotiating what to do with it and you don't negotiate the disposal of uranium, you've destroyed. So the uranium is still there, but we currently have no inspectors to see the uranium or know anything about it. So are Americans better off when we knew where the uranium was and had inspectors? Or are they better off now where when we don't?

Well, I think the premise of your question, um, respectfully is flawed. Uh, Iran had kicked out the inspectors, was not allowing it to those sites, developing its program. Um, and so when the president says he obliterated the program, uh, he was talking about its enrichment capability. That was a year ago, and they are working to reconstitute, uh, that capability.

Mister Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article from Bloomberg, Iran, atomic risk seen higher than before Trump attacks began.

Without objection.

Thank you. Um, mister Ambassador, we are obviously not better off. This administration has just asked Congress for eighty seven billion more dollars to pay for this war. We've lost at least eighteen American service members with at least four hundred and twenty-seven wounded before the war the Strait was opened. Now it's closed. Before the war, the national average of gas was under three dollars a gallon. Now it's four. The nuclear risk from Iran is higher now than it was before. And Americans have already paid thirty seven point five billion dollars for this war according to Secretary Hegseth's testimony yesterday. Last year, you personally added a reporter to the signal chain where this administration was texting about war plans. And at the time, many of us were concerned that your administration's incompetence would get people killed. Well, now we've lost at least eighteen US service members because of your administration's incompetence. And you should all be ashamed. It's very clear that Americans are not better off. Potentially the only people better off are the Ayatollah and his cronies. Mister Chairman, I yield back.

Representative Birch. Thank you, Mister.

Chairman, may I respond to uh may I respond to that uh uh we have a lot of talk of filibuster here, and it's quite the filibuster. Uh, in in in response, uh, Lebanon is in a better place in end-peace negotiations, the Saad regime is gone, Sa- uh, the Syria is on the best path we've had in my lifetime. Iraq is now visiting the United States and in the best path in, in my lifetime. The, uh, I- Iran is absolutely trying to hold the world's economy hostage in violation of international law. And thankfully, the president, we finally have a president that is doing something about Iran killing Americans for forty seven years.

Mister Ambassador, I can concede

This did not start this year. Last year it started in nineteen seventy nine,

Point of order, who's time is this on?

and we finally have somebody to do something about it.

Mister, mister ambassador, I can, I can concede

This one's on point of order. And

I

mister Burchett.

I can concede that that some things are better off,

You also, mister Burchett.

but none of them are because we bombed Iran at the behest of bibinat Yahoo.

Miss Jacobs. Mister Burchett, you're recognized.

Thank you, mister Chairman. Mister Ambassador, you graduated from BMI, you're special forces, you're decorated, you love your mama, you got some beautiful babies. We got show ponies up here and we got work horses, brother. You are a work horse, and I'm proud to know you and I consider you a friend. And um, we came to Congress together. So, uh, I really appreciate you and your incredible service to our great nation. So, to Burchett household, you're a pretty big deal. Um, and now I'm not even gonna go for the juggler. I'm gonna say all those nice things and then we'll come after you. I just wanna ask you some simple questions. What does the United Nations provide that America could not achieve, Um, through direct, does diplomacy or alliances or other international organizations.

Uh, two things just to answer you very uh, well three to answer you very directly. We need one place in the world, especially where the president who puts peace and diplomacy first, backed by military strength, but puts diplomacy first. I want one place in the world where everyone can come and talk. We don't always agree, but I can tell you as a soldier, as a veteran, Uh, if we're using words and not bullets, that's a good thing. I don't wanna see UN Beijing, UN Brussels, or UN anywhere else. I wanna write here in the United States of America. The second thing, burden sharing is a key part of an America first foreign policy. I don't wanna see US troops in places like Gaza or Haiti. We now have UN troops there, but in order, for all their flaws, but better than American troops in my book. Uh, and in order for them to do that, they need a stamp of international law. which by treaty is agreed upon by the UN. And then finally, I talked about the standard setting. Uh, we have to get in there and fight and win for our industries. We have these global regulatory bodies that set the rules of the road for everything that crosses a border. Uh, and it's been astounding to me how absent we've been in those fights. Uh, but no more. We're in there fighting and winning for the American people.

I'm sure the Latin folks had a saying for it, but East Tennessee, they say, either at the table or on the menu. So I suspect you're a, you're an at the table kind of guy. I'm still not a fan of the UN. Um, but they consistently, they've been promoting these crazy liberal policies like abortion and gender identity. How do those things uh align with promoting global peace and security?

Uh, they don't. That's why we regularly vote against them, case in point, we just had a commission on the status of women. Uh, and eleven thousand delegates showed up. Uh, and rather than dealing with countries who still have rape laws, where you have to have multiple witnesses for a woman uh, to bring a case, instead of dealing with countries that have abusive and ridiculous domestic violence laws instead of dealing with countries that have genital mutilation laws, still on the books, or those types of things. Instead, they're they're, you know, going on about this, you know, gender and other kinds of nonsense. It's not only a waste of time and money, it's a huge missed opportunity. for women who are struggling uh under these types of oppressive circumstances around the world and as a veteran of Afghanistan I've seen the worst of the worst.

Why do we continue providing funding the United Nations peacekeeping initiatives when they're almost always a colossal failure?

Well I'll I'll hand the mike over to our Reform Ambassador, but I'll tell you we're trying two different things at least in our time under President Trump's leadership the gang suppression force, has an offensive mandate, unlike everything that's been tried before, so they can go after the likes of Barbecue and ESO and others that are recruiting child soldiers and terrorizing uh the Haitian people. We now have the International Stability Force under the board of peace with a heavy American hand on that rather than surrendering that force over to the Euro- UN bureaucracy and I'll, I'll defer to Ambassador Bartos for additional reforms.

Thank you Congressman. Very briefly, the Well, we've managed, we just finished the peacekeeping negotiations for the budget for the twenty-six, twenty-seven year, and through Ambassador Lissetta, our colleague, and her great team in the political section, they negotiated a major streamlining of the mission in South Sudan, which led to a almost ninety million dollar reduction in that budget on a going forward basis. We've sunset with Ambassador Walz's leadership, uh, and the secretary's leadership we've sunset, uh, UNIFIL. And so on December thirty-first of twenty-twenty-six, UNIFIL will sunset, and then it will be wound down, uh, in the first part So we are taking a real hard look at every single budget, at the level of, sorry, the granularity of what we're looking at. We're even looking now going forward at the calories per day per troop, to try to get the UN's metrics to align with US Army and and Navy, Air Force, Marines metrics. That simple change, that simple change will save, we estimate almost forty million dollars a year, just getting it in line with US standards. So we're taking a look at every single part of peacekeeping. Um, last thing I'll say is there is a mission in the Central African Republic that I visited earlier this year, that is on the pathway to stabilizing that country. And they had successful elections. So keep an eye on that one. But you're right, sir. Too often, failures.

Thank you, sir. You're credit, both of you are credit to what you do, and that still scares the hell out of me when I see those blue helmets show up in in newsreels. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Representative Titus.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, you know, I am astounded that at a time when our soldiers are dying in the field, and our bases are being bombed throughout the region, as we fight a a war of choice, that you have called the president a peace president. I I I can't even believe that. I Apparently the Nobel Committee didn't agree with that assessment. Either, but anyway. Uh, that gives us some idea of where you're coming from, apparently. I I I wanna ask you just about the cuts and how they're affecting our relations with our allies. Now, some of our partners and allies agree that they need reforms at the UN for operational efficiencies but they don't support this kind of doge-like approach to just blanket cuts and withholding of funds to the regular budget or the peacekeeping budgets. In fact, they've communicated this to the administration and said that the impact of these cuts are undermining i- is undermining their own contributions to the UN, and it's it's struggling now, as we've heard, just to keep the lights on. And in doing that, the US is isolating itself from our once like-minded allies and partners. We've taken extreme positions on several uh issues recently, I'd just name a couple of them. On February the twenty fourth, twenty twenty five, which was the third anniversary of Russia's invasion, the US voted against a Ukraine-sponsored general assembly resolution, just said advancing a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine. It reaffirmed Ukraine's territorial integrity and called for Russian withdrawal. We we didn't we voted against that. We broke with Ukraine and our NATO allies.

That's incorrect, Representative, your staff has given you bad information. We abstained from that resolution.

Well, I'll I'll double check that, but the people we uh were in line with there were Russia, North Korea and Belarus. I don't think that's incorrect. Uh, how about this one? March twenty twenty six, the US was one of just three nations to vote against a resolution that uh was against the trans-Atlantic slave trade, saying that uh slavery did not violate contemporary international law. Is that correct?

We uh a key provision of an international slavery reparations fund,

At another abstention.

I would not put a single dollar of your taxpayer money uh from your constituents into that fund.

Uh, well this didn't create a fund, it was just a a

It it proposes international an international reparations fund and even for uh African Americans um who are fighting for reparations should it pay for the entire world how far does slavery go back who has participated in slavery,

That resolution, that res- that resolution did not set a calling for a page.

it was a wide open money grab on behalf of a number of these countries.

I'm not gonna argue reparation with you. I take uh T- taking my time back. All right, how about this, when you vote, we voted against thirty-eight resolutions in the General Assembly Human Rights committee along in twenty twenty five that included, and we've heard some reference to this, uh combating exploitation and discrimination against children, a resolution on children's access to nutritious food, a second world summit for social development that we oppose a hundred and eighty to three with just Argentina and Israel on our side do you consider that, us working with our allies? And tell me, since you're so strong on some of these issues and feel so uh determined that they are a good idea, how how is this helpful? How is this incompetent and extremist foreign policy that you support, you carry out, you're championing, isn't that driving a wedge between us and our allies? And doesn't that fracture the foundations of US diplomatic partnerships? And is that a good thing for our national security?

Uh, Congresswoman, just on the point about the General Assembly and the resolutions you're referencing. It costs twenty eight thousand dollars per hour to run the GA. They run the same resolutions year in, year out. They're performative, almost all of them. And it is a colossal waste of the time and resources of the UN. The s- the Security Council costs fifteen thousand dollars per hour. That is how these things cost. We are looking at all that and pushing the UN to get back to basics. So it is actually promoting international peace and security. and all of its core missions and not doing this performative year-in-year-out.

Well, I I appreciate, I appreciate that, Ambassador.

And so it's a key, it's a

Thank you. I'll take my time back. I I appreciate your assessment. I I as I understand it, you had no prior government service, no diplomatic experience, and nothing really to recommend you to serve in this role,

That's a good thing.

uh, because you're a real estate lawyer. So I I thank you for that assessment,

Well, in fairness,

but I'm not sure how accurate it is.

Congressman, I, uh, the US,

I I'll take my time back and yield, I yield.

uh, I have led the efforts of the United States to build consensus on all of these budget resolutions which is helping the UN. I led the efforts, my team and I led the efforts to help the UN save itself, save itself from itself on the credit system.

Port of order?

So that you can say that all you want,

Port of order?

Port of order, the witness is responding.

but but yeah, the

Hold on, whose time is the, whose time is he using?

Whose time?

uh but the but

The gentlelady yielded back.

uh we I provided the leadership

So whose time is he using?

He's responding to a question. Uh if, again it seems like you don't want questions answered by a sermon.

Oh, I just wanna port of order that the gentlelady have yielded back her time, and so I wanna know whose time he's now using.

Clock was still going as you saw,

The t- the the the the time,

or maybe you didn't see, but the clock was still going.

the time does not belong to the witnesses, the time belongs to members of Congress, if I need to be clear.

Clock was still going and uh, again, if you don't want answers to the questions,

Mr. Chairman, it is an answer to the questions,

The general lady yielded back her time.

then

you made that abundant

You made it abundantly clear you don't want answers to questions.

But when the general lady yielded back her time,

So

I just wanted the, my question was whose time was being utilized.

Thank you for

One time when you were the chairman,

Hmm.

thank you, Carmen.

you took my time away cuz you didn't like my questioning.

That is

The chairman, respectfully.

Other chairman, yeah, yeah, the ranking member, yeah, respectfully.

Yeah. Yeah, respectfully.

Right, Representative Kim, you are recognized. That Focus on today, please. I've always gave you leave way. Focus on today, please. Always. Representative Kim, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. And ambassadors, um, Walts and Baltus, I wanna thank you for joining us today and testifying, answering questions. I do wanna start by commending, uh, the administration and your efforts to deliver more than one billion dollars in UN budget savings in just six months, recently. I call that real progress on behalf of the American taxpayers. That demonstrates what strong principal leadership can achieve at the UN. So with that, I wanna ask Ambassador Bartos, can you walk us through the strategy that you used to build that coalition and support from other member states, for those savings? And what was the most effective ways that you were able to overcome opposition? Was it Targeted engagement? Was it burden sharing arguments? Or something else? I wanna hear from you how you did it.

Um, thank you for the question. It it turns out that applying common sense business principles to an organization that is failing in its fundamental purposes and is hurtling every year closer and closer to insolvency through its own ineffectiveness not through who pays or doesn't pay, but it's its own failure to meet its mission. Applying common sense business principles and good old fashioned roll up your sleeves go meet with other representatives, go meet with other ambassadors, go meet with the experts who do this work in day out. Like I'm blessed to have an um outstanding team of professionals who work spent their whole careers on UN reform but what wasn't there before we got to post was the leadership the Trump administration has brought the leadership that so many reform advocates have been yearning for, for their entire careers. And I hear this from across the UN, the president's vision and leadership, the secretary's support vision and leadership, Ambassador Walts is

Bringing that common sense leadership into UN, and we need more of those here on the Hill as well, if I may say so.

Yeah.

It's no secret that US adversaries like Iran, Russia and China, they seek to advance their interests through the UN, and we saw how Iran's terrorist proxy Hamas infiltrated UNRWA. This is a fatally flawed organization. Investigations uncover that over a hundred UNRWA staffers participated in the October seven massacre, and Hamas terrorists were disguised as UNRWA's school principals and teachers. Ambassador Walz Can you talk to us what steps you are pursuing within the UN system to permanently dismantle UNRWA and ensure that humanitarian assistance to Palestinians across the Middle East is delivered through alternative mechanisms that are not tied to refugee status?

Well, tha- thank you for the question, and as you know, Secretary Rubio has labeled UNRWA a virtual arm of Hamas, the USAID, uh, Inspector General. uh has identified over a hundred uh employees that actively participated in the October seventh uh massacre we have ended uh US funding to UNRWA as effective uh last year. We've also, just as an aside in the broader fight against anti-semitism, withdrawn from the so-called Human Rights Council that has the likes of Francesca Albanese who is now under sanction and UNESCO which I will remind everyone the Obama administration also withheld uh funding from. In terms of additional actions, I wanna make it clear that we're focused on UNRWA Gaza. UNRWA also has activities in Jordan that the um that our Jordanian partners and allies find incredibly useful uh activities in Syria and Lebanon. But we are focused on UNRWA, about seventy percent of what they do is education. Sadly, it is shown again and again to be radicalizing the next generation of Palestinian, talking about eliminating the state of Israel completely. There's no s- two-state solution coming out of Hamas and coming out of these schools. They're talking one state, which is eliminating Israel. We're looking, the bottom line is we are looking to transfer that function to the newly established uh National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, which was established under the Board of Peace by UN resolution. Uh, we've got a lot of help from Morocco, a lot of help from UAE. curriculum and then the other pieces the humanitarian pieces need to be handled by other organizations that have not been compromised and radicalized

I wanna quickly touch on I wanna quickly touch on your role in your leadership because uh in regards to dealing with China because they are significantly expending its uh pressure there both uh financial contributions and and uh institutional influence at the UN. So can you talk to us about the how administration is working with like-minded countries uh to expend Taiwan's meaningful participation in the international organizations.

Well, we have uh repeatedly pushed back on um the PRC's interpretation of its role and Taiwan's role uh at the UN. So part of that is just constantly level setting of what the UN resolution that established the seat for China actually did. Uh and we are, I know we're out of time, but we are fighting for Taiwan's meaningful participation in UN bodies across the board as a matter of US policy.

Representative Liu. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you for the witnesses for being here today. My questions will be for Ambassador Walz. American service members are in the Middle East, risking their lives in the war with Iran. How many US troops have been wounded in the Iran war?

My understanding from the Defense Department's latest numbers is uh over a hundred, but about seventy percent or ninety percent of those have immediately returned to duty.

Okay. That number is wrong. According to defense casualty analysis system, four hundred and eighty-two American troops have been wounded. Now, it's not surprising to me that you did not know the answer to that. The reason you are here today and in your position is because you are fired by the president from your former position as National Security Advisor. You disclosed,

The president has never said a negative word about me.

you disquiet, you disclosed classified information that harmed American pilots and put them at risk.

I just saw two. A single negative about me. That's your spin, uh, I guess, for your next campaign commercial. I don't know.

How many American troops have been killed in the Iran war?

In these ongoing operations, eighteen.

OK. Now, President Trump has repeatedly stated that Iran's military was obliterated. On March sixteenth, President Trump stated that Iran's military was quote "literally obliterated", end quote. How is it possible that four hundred eighty-two American troops have been wounded and eighteen service members killed by a Iranian military that's been purportedly obliterated?

The Iranian Navy, Air Force, Air Defense system and industrial capacity have been massively damaged, if not completely ineffective. But this is a state that is trying to reconstitute. This is a state, a regime that is obsessed with a nuclear weapon, and it's a regime that still maintains some missile and drone capability that it's firing on all of its neighbors, including our bases. I think that's a pretty common sense. evaluation, but if I need to explain it to you further, I can.

You need to explain to American people how an Iranian military that's been purportedly obliterated killed eighteen US service members and wounded four hundred eighty-two service members well let me finish my let me,

As you know, seven of those service members died in a plane crash.

let me finish my question and has struck multiple US facilities in the Middle East repeatedly. So I'm gonna show you a video from Jordan, and this is an Iranian strike, and if uh we could play the video, that would be great. Thank you. I would hope uh the Republican controlled foreign affairs committee would know how to audio next time but we did see the video and it showed multiple missiles hitting this base in Jordan let me tell you uh what happened it was disclosed later that two US troops died in that strike from a purportedly obliterated Iranian military and this is what Donald Trump said he said that the Iranians quote " did slip something through in Jordan" And if we had other operators, it would not have happened. He then went on to say, when you let other people do your job, with United States we let other people do job, and sometimes it doesn't work out so well. So, let me ask you this question. Do we still have American troops stationed in Jordan right now?

Doesn't uh surprise me that you're referring to Al Jazeera. Um, uh in terms in terms of your video, uh

I'm here as the UN ambassador, but I'm happy to refer you to Pete Hegseth, Secretary Hegseth's testimony yesterday. Of course we still have In your o- in your opening statement, you brag, you said " of course we still have troops in Iran". you brag about doing a security council resolution on Iran. So yes, Iran is in your job responsibility. Focus on it and focus on the troops that have been wounded and killed. Do not be so callous with the safety and lives of American troops. I'm gonna ask you again, Dead troops, I've buried troops, I was are US troops, are US troops currently stationed, Last night, are US troops

Oralize to me.

Are US troops currently stationed in Jordan?

Go back to your distance. Try to get re-elected. I will. You should try.

November is coming for you and this administration. Are US troops stationed in Jordan? It's not even a trick question. Are they?

Of course they are.

Okay.

With a great ally they're gonna crash the human history within a week.

And if and if Donald Trump doesn't trust the Jordanians to protect US troops,

Excuse me?

do you trust them? Who are we gonna have protect US troops? They are exposed right now in the Middle East. repeatedly being exposed to Iranian missiles and missile strikes and drones. I didn't hear this from you in the last when they died under the Biden administration. You don't even know how many US troops were wounded in this Iran war. And did nothing about it. Shame on you for not even know basic facts. Died under the Biden administration, You are the US ambassador and you don't even know you were the Iran and you didn't how many US troops were wounded in Iran war. silence. You got that wrong. That last administration and not even You should be shameful. You don't know basic facts. Because it's Donald Trump, your Trump derangement center. You should resign. You don't even care about the number of US troops that were wounded. Someone who has never served, You did not know how many US troops were wounded. never married troops. I've got the word You gave false information to Congress. here of troops I've there. You should be ashamed of yourself for not even This is ridiculous. knowing how many US troops are wielded in the Iranian war.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's words should be taken down. You should not use such derogatory language for, for the distinguished uh ambassador. Seriously, I know you're upset, but uh uh you you you you bring dishonor unto yourself.

Nothing in the last administration. Zero. Politics, and the worst of it. Uh, and He lied to Congress.

Like, " plant the border", Mr. Chairman.

He gave a flat-out false number, minimizing the number of US troops.

Mister Chairman.

That's what he did in his first answer to my question.

It should be recognized that the Ambassador is a twenty seven year veteran in the military.

Do you have a point of order?

Thank you.

Mister Smith, do you have a point of order?

I would ask you know, disagree all you want, but do it civilly, and that was not civilly.

Do you have a point of order? No point of order.

No point to.

Representative Self is recognized.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. Mister Ambassador, I yield my time to you as you may consume for any

Yeah, I'll just, I would just uh thank you for your time, Representative. The Iranian regime has been killing Americans for administration after administration after administration. We finally have a president that has said enough is enough. I don't think that nonsense merits additional uh response.

OK, very good. Uh, first of all, I wanna uh just uh verify one thing with you. Should we decide uh that we do not want to meet what uh dues, assessments, whatever, we would keep the most important thing in this, in the UN for us, which is our seat on the secur our permanent seat on the Security Council. Is that correct?

I'm I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? I don't mean to use your time.

Uh, if we choose not to meet our dues or assessments, for the UN. We would lose our our voice in the General Assembly, but we would keep the most important thing,

That is correct.

which is the seat on the secure, permanent veto

That is correct, and importantly the UN Security Council, the resolutions that come out of there are binding in international law, what comes out of the General Assembly is not binding.

Correct. Uh, I wanna turn to uh peacekeepers, you mentioned in your testimony there were ninety thousand at the h uh height of peacekeeping uh you mentioned the sexual abuse which happens often with the those forces. Uh, I wanted to talk about measures of success. And my example is UNIFIL in Lebanon, uh, was a total failure. So what measures of success are you trying to get the UN to use in their peacekeeping forces?

To your point on on UNIFIL, and it's an important one. Its mandate was to prevent non-armed actors from arming and operating south of the Litani River in southern Lebanon I think we've seen the exact opposite for the last twenty years from Hezbollah at the cost of half a billion dollars a year for that peacekeeping force of eleven thousand international troops. And the administration has put a policy in place that UNIFIL will not continue. What we have tried to do with uh every year typically these peacekeeping forces are renewed. And we have made it very clear to the rest of the security council that they cannot just continue. For example, DRC Congo That force at the cost of a billion dollars a year has been there for thirty years. And I don't think we've seen it um uh result in peace. So we are tying the renewal of these peacekeeping forces to an actual peace process to a political process. And whether that's in DRC Congo or Western Sahara or uh Libya or other locations, they need to work themselves out of a job. Uh and not become a cash cow for the troop contributing nations and become an excuse for the actors on the ground to not have to make the compromises they need to make to achieve peace.

Yeah, Mister Ambassador, I would just recommend you come up with measures of success for each of them. I mean, concrete measures of success.

Thank you. We just had a report for the gang suppression force, uh, in Haiti with actual measures of success.

Great.

It is as we're a few months into the job. Um, we're trying to, uh, you know, undo eighty years of not always, uh, great performance and behavior.

Yeah, one of the most e egregious examples of institutional bias in the UN was a special committee to investigate Israeli human rights practices, Sherp. Uh, and I will tell you they failed to mention uh not a single word about the atrocities in their ten thousand plus word report, uh twenty one pages. I believe that you have had some successes in turning uh the vote in the Sherp vote. Can you share that with us?

Um, Congressman, we'll we'll take that one for the record in terms of looking at that vote. On the more broadly, uh, with respect to UN, uh, the Commission of Inquiry, the Special Rapporteurs, the Human Rights Council, which of course we've withdrawn from, and other measures, as I mentioned before, the UN is at that decision point. And it has to decide whether it wants to get back to basics and foundational peace and security or whether it wants to just be a uh a machine to have general assembly resolutions a hundred and eighty-three against Israel over the last uh so many years, versus seventy against the rest of the world. It's a it's a shocking and it's a it's a hotbed, or as uh the chairman said, a snake pit of anti-Americanism, anti-West, anti-Judeo-Christian values, anti-Israel, anti-Jew. It is they have to decide. And we have an l selection coming up that's gonna decide the future of this organization with the next secretary general.

OK, well I I know you've got plenty of examples, but that uh uh which was literally weeks after the october seventh attack and in which their report did not mention a single atrocity might be a good one to use in in your, uh working on uh Sherp. Mister Chairman, I yield back.

Representative Jackson.

Thank you Mister Chairman, thank you ranking member Meeks, um Ambassador Walts, on March twenty fifth, twenty twenty six, the United States was one of one of only three nations to vote against, the United Nations um General Assembly resolution declaring the Sl- the trans-Atlantic slave trade and racialized chattel enslavement of Africans the gravest crime against humanity. The resolution passed by the world, one hundred and twenty-three to three, with fifty-two abstentions, for many Americans and for people of African ancestry and descent around the world, that vote raised serious questions about our nation's moral leadership. I would ask you, um, Mr. Walt, why did the United States vote no As did um our few and so few allies with us.

I think there were there were two issues that we had uh with the resolution. And of course, the issue of slavery both here in the United States and ar- and around the world was abhorrent and should be condemned. But the issue with the language of that resolution was that it advocated for international reparations fund,

OK, w- let me follow up on the second question,

We tried.

We we tried.

if you don't mind.

Um, but despite uh our efforts, they could not put a real bracket around it.

OK, I received that.

What was slavery in world history?

Let me ask you a second question. Do you personally recognize the trans-Atlantic slave trade as a crime against humanity? And if so, what specific language in the resolution uh would you per- prefer to have in the proposal for you to join?

I'll have to go, I can go back and we're happy to come talk to you about the language that we proposed. I'll have to take that. uh, for the record, but I do know broadly,

And the United States, for the record, has paid reparations in the past.

more broadly, we tried to put some brackets around what was slavery.

We have, we have paid reparations to those that have been enslavers,

Does it go back to the times of Egyptians? Does it

as well as those that have come over here from other countries.

Is it, was it, does it affect, uh, African nations that participated in the trans-

But thank you.

slave trade?

Look,

We couldn't get a good definition around it.

I have to see, let me finish my question, and thank you so much, Ambassador. Um, many African leaders have raised questions about the restrictions during the World Cup. It was a great time and a time that we should have been very joyous. It was um the forty-eight nations that participated. But something came to light during that period is that there were twelve African nations that have total bans on travel to the United States. Also embarrassingly so, I would say for the m- grandmother Cape Verdean Goli, country of five hundred thousand people, he couldn't get his grandmother in here. I don't know what threat she meant to the United States or to a person that works in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Uh, but fans were denied the opportunity to be here. There are fourteen other countries that have partial bans, such as Zambia, having to pay five, ten, fifteen thousand dollars for a visa. So effectively, there's twenty-six nations that are banned in the African continent from coming to the United States. Almost half of Africans are banned from entering the United States of America, roughly seven hundred million people. Uh, do you agree with this policy? Or would you like to see it changed?

The only um uh restrictions that that I dealt with from the UN context are uh uh around the Ebola issue. Uh, and which did affect DRC. I just spoke to the DRC foreign minister uh this week about those. In terms of the visa bond issue, if that's what you're referring to, uh, I would have to refer you to to DHS in terms of those restrictions. I mean, I I thought the World Cup was a fantastic success.

OK, well then, let me m- Well, I would just highlight that half of our continent has been excluded.

To the Moroccans, to the DRC.

This came to light during that period.

To others.

And as we look to our growth and future and relationships with the African nations, that they can't come here. I've heard of major foundations and other people that cannot bring employees over here, and countries uh, companies that have investments in Africa that want to do uh job retreats, cannot get their employees to come over here. So it's excluding us from a nation. Um, let me ask you with Cuba. Would you say we are at war with Cuba in your definition?

I would not say that we are uh

And I only highlight that because we have a naval blockade around an island nation.

We do not have a naval blockade. That is Cuban propaganda.

And so, guy, so goods and fuel can get to the island nation?

That is absolute propaganda.

Can fuel get to the United Can the fuel get

We've we contributed over half a billion dollars in goods

can fuel go to the Cuban people?

and goods from the United States to the Cuban regime.

Are we blocking fuel to get to the Cuban country?

A blockade would be a ring of navy ships that are stopping anything from going in.

Can we, are we now denying fuel to get to the Cuban people?

That is that is literally Cuban propaganda. There is no blockade on Cuba.

So Cubans can receive fuel from anywhere around the world.

There are humanitarian waivers that the administration has put in place.

So the answer is no. I would appreciate if you just simply were to answer the question. And last question regarding the Middle East.

Cuba is failing because of communism and the corruption of its regime.

Who is your primary point of contact? Do you deal, do you deal specifically with Secretary Rubio, or do you take advice from Mister Jared Kushner and Mister Whitkoff? Who's your primary point of contact for Middle East negotiations?

I deal with all three on a regular basis.

Are they on the same par?

I'm not sure you're.

I mean, are they equal in statue? Some one person is in the administration, two people are super volunteers. I just want to know for a point of structure and process.

Well, I think our secretary of state has been senate confirmed in accordance with our constitution and senate rules.

OK. Thank you very much. I yield back.

Representative Baird.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and uh welcome to our um witnesses, and it's appreciative to have a colleague that's doing the job you're doing. Mr. Walts. Uh, you know, the UN is filled with inadequacies in its personnel management and its implementation of programs and oversight uh or accountability of UN agencies. While originally established to maintain peace and security as we develop a friendly relations worldwide cooperation in economic and humanitarian issues, the organization has now forged its own policy that frequently contradicts the policies of the United States. And one example of this is Anwar employing proven Hamas terrorists in the Gaza in the Gaza Strip. As least ten employees of the agency were identified to also have partaken in the heinous acts of October the seventh. Another example of this is when the UN interim forces in Lebanon personnel shot down an Israel surveillance drone that was conducting a mission against Hezbollah terrorists. So President Trump and the United Nations Ambassador Mike Walz have taken a step in the right direction to ensure that the UN acts in the interest of our member countries, instead of formulating its own policies that serve well its contributions and its balance sheet. So how can the US effectively conduct oversight within UN agencies to ensure terrorists and human rights violators aren't retained for employment?

That's a very um kindly stated question, Representative Baird. I appreciate your service as well, but not an easy answer. We are trying um we are trying to get oversight and effectiveness and frankly better leadership for many of these UN missions uh across the board. In the case of UNRWA, uh as Secretary Rubio has said, it has served as a virtual arm It is radicalizing the next generation of Palestinians. It is literally, um, uh, aiding and abetting a terrorist organization as it brutalizes the, um, Palestinian people of Gaza. In fact, many of them just tried to rise up against Hamas. Uh, and, uh, according to the UN's own report, Hamas went on a knee-capping campaign to prevent those protests. Uh, so I'll just turn it over to Ambassador Bartos in terms of additional actions.

Thank you, representative. Great question, important question. Uh, broaden out just for a second. In the aftermath of the atrocities of October seventh, many UN organizations, as one of your colleagues just referenced before, were silent, silent. UN women could not speak. UN, the organization UN Women refused for months to even acknowledge the sexual violence, the rape, the mutilations against Israeli women on that awful day. So for the UN to to lecture about these things is is offensive, should be offensive to every American. UNRWA, as the secretary has boldly and very clearly said, uh and it's a it's an honor to serve uh under his leadership, he's boldly and clearly said, UNRWA will have no future in Gaza, no future. I had the honor to deliver remarks on behalf of the United States a couple weeks ago at a pledging conference for UNRWA and I said on behalf of the United States, doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. And I looked around that room and said, you all keep contributing, expecting a different result. And every year, same speeches against Israel, same failure to condemn Hamas, same sort of platitudes that you you give you. In fact, I said you give the same speeches every year, you don't you just change the date. What was interesting about this year, and again, credit to President Trump, Secretary Rubio, Ambassador Walz, what was different this year is that the acting director of UNRWA actually agreed with a couple of the points we raised. I almost fell over in my chair. He agreed with some of the points, didn't agree with everything. Are we making progress glacially? We're making progress against this important issue, but we are making progress. I think stay tuned, sir, and be happy to come down here and brief your team, uh, or anyone here who's interested on on some of the work we're doing, not only to reform these UN agencies and organizations, but also to take a different look a different look at how we serve the humanitarian needs in Gaza without uh the UN uh continuing to employ terrorists.

Well, I appreciate your comments, and you know the fact that you made any kind of progress I think is admirable for for the work you're doing and the ambassadors are doing and so I think I'm out of time, but I appreciate appreciate your comments. Uh, you're back.

Represent, Representative Vochesky.

Thank you, Chairman Mast, Ranking Member Meeks, and to our witnesses for being here today. Uh, Ambassador Walz, I wanna start by thanking you for your years of public service as the father of a ten year old daughter and a former public school teacher. I appreciate your work in Congress, uh, especially supporting children and especially women and girls. But I have to start with a topic that I've discussed with many of your colleagues across the administration during these hearings, and I do so because it is so foundational to the work that we do here. And that is my very serious concern with the clear conflicts of interest and the massive corruption coming out of this administration. So, I wanna ask you from your personal perspective, your own values. Do you think it's wrong for elected officials and their families to profit from positions of power?

Do I think it's wrong? Just generally speaking?

Your personal values, yes sir. Uh, I'm pleased to hear that. So, I guess the question then is how do you square that circle working for a president who just last year made twenty thousand stock trades including companies who benefit from markets that he is actively manipulating whether that's through announcing cease-fires reversing course in allowing chip exports, or simply promoting these firms on his social media. How can you say it's wrong but be silent as the president's sons benefit from mining deals paid for by US taxpayers as one of America's top diplomats,

Both myself

as a former member of Congress,

Sure.

does that not conflict with your values, sir?

Well, let's not talk about Congress and the stock trading that

I supported a full ban.

that, and that hand was played right here and I I hope to see that bill,

I think it's wrong for any member to trade. Uh, that wasn't the question though, sir.

uh,

Should.

passed and passed with

I'm on the discharge petition.

Um, number one. Number two, uh, the president

And a full ban, not not the joke that my colleagues are trying to put forward.

The president, members of his cabinet have all complied with the Office of Government Ethics as have my as have myself. We have ethics rules in place. We have an agency that oversees ethics.

So you think it's ok-

We all subject ourselves to the Senate and to this office, uh, and receive that clearance before we come for confirmation.

So you're you're okay with the President's stock trades?

And then, if further further, in accordance with transparency and in accordance with the rules of the Congress, we we publicly put our finances out there every year in our financial disclosures.

So you're comfortable with the President buying stocks and companies like energy before he announces a cease-fire.

I think the president is compli- the president is

You're comfortable with

complying with the ethics rules as they said on the books.

Do you think that they should be changed?

Do I think that I'll leave that,

They should be changed?

I'll leave that to this August body.

Well

Um, I'm trying to change the United Nations, which makes this look like an appetizer.

Well, I think it makes your job harder because these conflicts of interest, the president's insistence on outsourcing high-stakes diplomacy to family members and business associates, impacts our standing in the world in a profoundly negative way, they impact your ability to effectively do your job as one of our country's top diplomats.

Can I just uh just answer your question? I have never regularly deal with Secretary Rubio, with the President, um,

Uh, you answer the question.

but it's cuz I have never seen them,

It's okay.

ever heard them mention anything at all, where they would gain personally from any of their policy decisions.

But

They have the interests of this country, uh, first and foremost in all their decisions.

Amb- Ambassador, you don't have to ask People don't often announce I am corrupt, but we can see it plainly when the president has put billions of dollars in his pockets and and the pockets of his associates of his children, of his friends, of Mr. Witkoff, of Mr. Kushner. If you can't see it, sir, that's on you. But the the truth is, whether you can look past it and you're choosing to look past it, which is fine, but the world is watching. And it is in fact, it is impacting our national interest.

I deal with them on a regular basis, you do not.

So regardless, you're in this role, Ambassador, and I

UNICEF is led by an American, it does Uh, it could always do things better. Uh, it often, both their mission at times is duplicative of others, like World Food Programme, like UNHCR, uh, and other organizations, but we are working with them through our pooled funding model to streamline their mission.

OK, there's, there's uh, the organization has yet to receive its fiscal twenty-six core resources, even though we've appropriated funds. I'll follow up there with a few written questions. Um, but I'll, I'll just end, and and say we have to, to be better. Um, any one issue of corruption this president has perpetrated would have ended prior presidencies. And I just hope that you and your colleagues can speak up, um, and find the courage to push back against what's happening here. And with that, I yield back.

Representative Biggs.

Thank you, Chairman Maas, and thank you to our witnesses for your testimonies here today. China is the largest troop contributor to the UN peacekeeping missions among the five permanent security council members and the second largest funder of the UN overall. Chin- Chinese peacekeeping deployments are concentrated in strategically sensitive regions, including areas along Belt and Road corridors, near ports, mineral resources, and existing or potential basing locations. These are long-standing concerns about whether Beijing is using its peacekeeper designation as cover to advance military and intelligent objectives, in regions where the US has strategic interest. So, Amba- Ambassador Walts, my question to you is, how would you characterize the military objectives behind China's peacekeeping deployments? And are these genuine contributions to UN missions, or are they a vehicle for broader PLA strategic positioning?

Thank you for the question, and it's a, it's frankly a very good question. Um, China does contribute uh to these peacekeeping missions. Uh, they are often uh better equipped than many of the other countries. Uh, they come with what they've they've they've promised to come with. Uh, that said, I don't think for a second that they don't serve a dual purpose as eyes and ears on the ground for uh for the Chinese Communist Party.

Do we have evidence of PLA linked intelligence collection? um, reconnaissance or military liaison building occurring under the cover of Chinese peacekeeping operations?

Uh, Representative, I'd be happy to come back and see you in a different setting and and talk about what we know and don't know.

Great. Thank you. So separate from the diplomatic or or funding-based countermeasures, what is the Trump administration doing to monitor or counter the military dimension of China's peacekeeping footprint?

Again, Congressman, I'd rather uh, Congresswoman, excuse me, I'd uh I think it would be better if we talked about that in a in a different setting. However, um, as Representative Bartos just mentioned, one of the places that they have uh a substantial presence was in South Sudan, and we just worked through the Security Council to seriously streamline and downsize uh that mission. We did not find it to be as effective as it should be. The mandate was

OK, I'm gonna try one more. So in your assessment, does China's military posture within the UN peacekeeping missions pose a direct threat to US force posture, basing access or military partnerships in the regions where Chinese peacekeepers

We are keeping a very um close eye on all of those dimensions. Um, I I will say uh in fairness to uh our colleagues, our Chinese colleagues on the Security Council, their contributions often are helpful. Um, but again, they can serve a dual purpose and we are uh very uh wide-eyed to that issue.

Well, I look forward to continuing this conversation in a different setting.

I'm happy to come back and talk to you about it. And very good questions. Thank you.

Again, thank you all for being here today.

Thank you.

I yield back, Mister Chairman.

Representative Castro.

Ah, thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ambassadors, for being here today. And welcome back, Ambassador Walz. I think we served on the Intelligence Committee together. Uh, the United Nations has been central to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since General Assembly Resolution one eighty-one in nineteen forty seven, the partition resolution that called for two states and underpinned Israel's own founding and international recognition. Security Council Resolutions two forty-two, three thirty-eight, thirteen ninety-seven, and fifteen fifteen, the latter two adopted with US support under a Republican administration, built the framework. Two states, two peoples, each with the right to self-determination within secure and recognized borders. So, there aren't just Israelis in this story and there aren't just Palestinians. There are two peoples and both have the same right to determine their own future. Uh, you drafted resolution twenty eight O three adopted last November this is the ceasefire and of course, board of peace resolution. According to reports, France, a permanent member and one of our oldest allies, asked that it reference the two-state solution and the return of a reformed Palestinian authority to Gaza. And so do the other members of the council. The final text that you negotiated, although, however, never once uses the phrase two-state solution, uh, and it, at adoption,

Uh, Representative Castro, I'll, I'll come back to you um and and sit down with you if I'm incorrect in this, but out of memory, the uh resolution twenty eight O three adopted wholesale as an annex, President Trump's twenty point peace plan, which the President of France was there at Charmel-Sheik and celebrated. And in that, for the first time ever, we had both no annexation, uh, in terms of directive to the State of Israel and a pathway to a two-state solution with ref with appropriate reforms.

OK. So, so just to be

Those are both in there now as international law.

OK. Uh, I got it. So just to be clear, just just for the record. It's the policy of the Trump administration to support a two-state solution, is that correct?

With appropriate reforms.

OK. Um, so

That was, that was a United Nations resolution that adopted the President's twenty-point peace plan.

Right, but because you had a a big hand in negotiating it, I wanna know, I'm I'm asking, what's the Trump administration's policy, right? Um, so, the Palestinian Authority has said yes to this two two-state solution. Uh, however, Prime Minister Netanyahu has told his cabinet that firmly against a Palestinian state, reformed Palestinian authority or not. So what specific pressure is the United States applying on the government of Israel to accept the outcome that our own resolution envisions?

Well, the the resolution, as you know, is very focused on Gaza, uh, and putting in place the funding, the International St- Stability Force, and the new uh Palestinian governance mechanism to pull that away from Hamas and put that back under civilian Palestinian control.

Well, I I guess in you know No, no, fair enough. And I think, but but I'm trying to

And and by the way, that organization, the Board of Peace, now has a liaison office to the Palestinian Authority, and the Palestinian Authority publicly supported twenty eight O three.

Sure. But I I guess what I'm saying that, you know, we've known that we have two sides here for a long time. And you have a Prime Minister who's a long-standing Prime Minister, may win election again. who has said very firmly, and others in his cabinet have said very firmly, that they're against a two-state solution. So what are we doing to guide them, guide Israel in this case, towards that two-state solution? Because on the other hand, on the other side, uh, we have designated groups like Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. We've sanctioned them. We've designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization. We've sanctioned Iran. Um. And so, wh- what, where is the guidance on the other side when over the years of course we have provided military support, foreign military financing, billions of dollars, uh we now may, at least in the NDAA, there's a provision to, to strengthen the relationship between the United States and Israel, uh and perhaps develop weapons together, for example. So, without, without exercising any leverage, without the US exercising any leverage on Israel,

Congressman, I think it's important to point out in the negotiations on twenty eight O three, working with the Palestinian observer mission at the UN and all of our Gulf Arab partners and friends, it was everybody came together, including the Israelis, on that twenty point peace plan,

So I, but Ambassador,

which as as the ambassador said concludes

I'm I'm running out of time.

But includes a path with appropriate reforms to what you're just saying.

OK. With if if if one side is staunchly against the two-state solution, the Israelis have said, their Prime Minister has said he's against it, what leverage is the United States gonna use to change that? Giving, to me it seems like giving them more and more and more is not gonna change their behavior. At some point this becomes, it makes the two-state solution quite honestly illusory, and it turns this whole thing into a self-delusion. So what are we doing?

I think at this point, uh, Congressman, we are very focused on those reforms and the security of the Israeli state, whether it's from Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, or Iran, to then get to a place where we can have those conversations.

OK. I'm out of time, so we'll have to follow up on it.

Representative Fein.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it's really exciting to see two friends, mentors, and and my predecessor here. And on behalf of the people of the sixth congressional district of Florida, thanks for all the work that you did six years. trying to fill very large shoes, so uh i'm doing my best. But thank you both for being here. I start with the premise that I'm not convinced that the UN is sort of fundamentally, permanently broken and, you know, should go away. I often have said from the river to the sea, let's make Manhattan UN free. So I come from that. But I know that you all are working incredibly hard to deal with the hand that we have been dealt and so I I wanna start with um with UNRWA and and and the USAID Inspector General, found that seven employees actually participated in the Hamas terrorist attack on October seventh. They found fourteen employees who are Hamas affiliated, including an UNRWA school principal who commanded a Hamas battalion on October seventh, as I'm sure that you know that. How do we make sure that there aren't terrorists that are working for the United Nations?

Well, I think when it, when it comes to UNRWA Gaza, Uh, the organization just has to go. Uh, and that's, the Secretary Rubio has made that clear, I think we've made that clear, uh, uh, uh, uh, across the board. Actually, the vast majority of what it does is education. Uh, we are working with, um, uh, many of our partners, namely Morocco, namely UAE, to reform that curriculum that radicalizes the next generation of Palestinians, that teaches them that there is no two-state solution, that there's only one state solution, and that's Hamas. Um, so, handing that over, those functions over, and we've had these conversations, whether it's the Palestinian Authority or the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, they have to take over their own educational functions. That's an inherent part of being a governing institution. And the humanitarian functions that it um uh that it conducts, we need a much better vetting process and where those conversations are ongoing with how to vet those individuals. But at the end of the day, Hamas rules at the end of an AK forty seven. Hamas will disarm. The president's made that clear it's gonna happen the easy way or the hard way. Let's pray they make a more peaceful choice and do it the easy way.

OK. So we've talked about UNRWA, but as you move up into the UN itself, I think one of the most concerning developments of the UN is rampant unabashed anti-semitism by high level employees at the UN. This isn't just UNRWA. Um, I I guess I shouldn't be surprised given they're OK with Hamas terrorists being on staff, but Nowhere has the anti-semitism in the UN been more blatant than Francesca Albanese, uh, the UN's special rapporteur on the occupied quote-unquote Palestinian territory. She used her position to advance extremist and inflammatory claims against Israel. She's falsely accused Israel of genocide and promoted false narratives under the guise of her role. Um, Ambassador Bartos, what reforms have you been putting in place to fight anti-semitism at the UN itself, and to prevent anti-semiti- anti-semitics like Albanese? from being placed in these kinds of prominent positions?

It's a great question. Thank you. Uh, it's good to see you, Congressman. The, uh, as I said, uh, as I'm never tired of saying, the UN is at a crossroads. And on the one, in one direction is this vital humanitarian work that we see out in the field, with people risking their lives to do that work. And, and the UN should be commended for that. And there are successes and failures within peacekeeping and we've talked about that today too. But right there, in the other direction, is this, um, bewildering, despicable bias that has been around for sixty plus years, that has really, if you think about it, infrastructure that has been built within the UN system, uh, and former Ambassador, former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan spoke about this brilliantly and beautifully in his nineteen seventy-five speech, calling out Zionism's racism resolution, which was of course a Soviet era, Soviet driven process. So the UN comes to this over many decades. of picking on the one Jewish state as a way to get to the West and America. But it's anti-Americanism, anti-West, anti-semitic, anti-Jewish, anti-Israel. It really is all of that. We have a whole team dedicated, uh, of course, with the secretary's push and leadership on this is on these issues, we have a whole team dedicated to rooting out antisemitism throughout the UN. So the Commission of Inquiry, UNRWA, as you mentioned, this lunatic, Albanese, who the UN allows to put on their uniform. But I think it all comes back to in the here and now, it comes back to making sure that we select the right next secretary general, who will have the leadership, the moral clarity, and the courage to tackle this. It it is a it's an existential issue for the organization about whether it wants to be a hotbed of hatred for the one Jewish state and for the West, or whether it wants to get back to basics, its core founding mission of international peace and security, humanitarian aid, um, and that's a big decision for the UN. We're trying to guide them in the right direction. It is not always easy as you know, um, but the work is really important and we we get at it every day.

And I would just add, uh, uh, uh, Representative Fein, that the administration has defunded these inherently anti-semitic organizations. We are trying to shift this culture, but meanwhile not a single dollar of taxpayer, US taxpayer dollars should go to to these organizations like UNRWA, like the so-called Human Rights Council, UNESCO and others.

Well, I'm not sure anybody can fix it, but if anyone can, I think it's the two of you. So thanks, keep up the good work, and, Mister Chairman, I yield back.

Representative McBride.

Thank you so much, Mister Chairman, and to you and the ranking member for holding this com- uh, committee hearing. Thank you bo- so much, uh, both of you ambassadors for joining us, for making it down to the bottom of the dais. We are well over four years into a war Vladimir Putin started by invading Ukraine. And during the course of the twenty twenty-four election, the president promised at least fifty-three times to end the war on or before day one. On January twentieth, twenty twenty-five, as the sun set and the president pardoned more than the more than a thousand uh January sixth insurrectionists, when the sun set, the president failed to deliver on his promise that he would end the war between Russia and Ukraine. Ambassador Walz, why did the President fail to deliver on his promise to end the war?

The President is doing everything he can to end the war. Uh, to date, uh, neither um Vladimir Putin with Russia uh or President Zelensky, um, has seen fit to enter into the final deal. However, uh, the President has put significant pressure this administration by sanctioning Luke oil, by sanctioning Rosneft, uh, and is doing everything he can to stop the killing.

So I guess we're in agreement five hundred and thirty-eight days into the administration that the president has not delivered on his promise that he made at least fifty-three times during the course of the campaign to end the war on day one.

The president has found, uh, despite incredible efforts from him and his team, it, um, to be a very frustrating effort.

Well, maybe he shouldn't have made those grandiose promises.

I'm proud that he has tried.

Speaking, speaking, of the pressure that is being brought to bear. On February twenty fourth, a month after the president failed to deliver on that promise, US representatives at the United Nations voted no on a resolution advancing a comprehensive just and lasting peace in Ukraine. Earlier today, representative Titus brought up this vote, and you incorrectly stated that the US abstained from voting on the February twenty twenty five resolution. That's not true. The US voted no alongside Russia, Belarus and North Korea, really, really great company. Would you like to correct the record that the US indeed voted no?

I understood and and um perhaps I misunderstood her to be talking about a general assembly resolution just this past summer, where the United States abstained.

My understanding, the the words that she specifically used called uh was referring to the February twenty twenty five resolution which the US did indeed vote no on. Um, then On February eighteenth, twenty twenty six, over a year after President Trump failed to deliver on his promise to end the war on day one, US representation at the UN under your leadership refused to vote on a resolution expressing support for lasting peace in Ukraine. Ambassador, I'm curious why the United States is scared to call out and stand up to Vladimir Putin at the United Nations.

The United States under this administration has put more pressure on Russia uh, to come to the table, their economy is reflective of that, and this administration sanctioned their top two oil producers and the dark fleet, not the last administration.

Well, they're now getting more money because of the straight-up removes, but that's neither here nor there. Why did the United States vote no, and refuse to vote to denounce Vladimir Putin's illegal war in Ukraine?

I'll have to come back to the record, that prior vote was um, obviously uh before my time, so I'll have to look at the wording and the resolution. Like legislation, which many of you know. There can be specific phrases that we find objectionable or who cross our red lines.

Yeah.

Um, the title says one thing and the actual legislation or resolution says another.

Apparently the only apparently the only other countries that objected to any of the specific language in the in that resolution at least in February twenty twenty five, uh, were Belarus, North Korea and Russia. So not very good company.

My um,

But while the administration, yeah.

my memory is we were shifting to a more neutral mediator position.

Right.

Um,

A strategy that

try as we try to r- as we try to end this war,

a s- a strategy

unlike the ill-defined victory,

a strategy that did not work, has not worked.

so-called of the last work.

And if

Has worked a lot better than the last administrations.

Well, I don't think that that's true.

They're at least in the room talking,

And while

which is the art of diplomacy.

while there was a photo op in Alaska that the president gave Vladimir Putin, and I think these these votes, lack thereof votes, uh, no votes, only send a message to Vladimir Putin that we are not there.

I think President Zelensky repeatedly been in the Oval Office not

But I wanna say while you're treating Vladimir Putin with

Not Putin.

You are insulting American allies, including our long-standing ally Denmark, whose soldiers fought and died alongside US soldiers. Have you gotten any positive feedback from your colleagues at the United Nations about the President's desire to seize Greenland?

Uh, as one of the soldiers who fought alongside Danish soldiers in southern Afghanistan, they're a fantastic ally. Um, at the same time, they were paying very little to zero attention to the Arctic, and they now are. and we are in meaningful negotiations, uh, to secure our northern border,

I'll take that as a no,

which is a huge charge on the president.

you haven't gotten any positive feedback. Thank you, I yield back.

They have actually given a lot of positive feedback to the ongoing negotiations,

Sure.

to answer your question.

Sure.

Representative Gallagher.

Yes, uh, thank you gentlemen for your testimony today, and uh, Mister Ambassador, uh, l- let me apologize on behalf of California, um, for the disrespect and and dumbfounding ignorance uh, of my colleagues uh the gentlelady mentioned that the ayatollah was better off uh before the war. Maybe she missed the memo that ayatollah kamini is dead. um and he is definitely not better off than before this war. uh and it maybe if if they had their way uh he would still be alive.

and good riddance to them.

if uh he would still be alive to wrecking attacks against our allies, and and also against our american soldiers. um if they had their way they would be much further along in their nuclear program instead of being decimated in their nuclear program, as is the case today. And I do think it's interesting uh to hear the other side, Democrats, especially from California, talking about high gas prices. Uh, as of today, the average gra- gas price in California is five dollars and fifty cents a gallon. On the east coast, in a state like North Carolina, it's three dollars and seventy cents. That's a function of policy. In California there's been a war on oil and gas, there's been crazy policies green green new deal mandates that have led to that highest gas price and i wanna thank you for the administration to help stop the international maritime organization from from imposing what would have been the world's first global carbon tax on shipping which would have raised all of our costs and so going on that vein you know what are you doing uh you know at the un in in your role to help stop these kind of california policies from going global and raising all of our costs of energy through the roof.

Yeah, thank you. I mean, talk about taxation without representation. This was the first attempt by an international body to levy fines, which would have amounted to a tax on all global shipping, I guess in some ill-fated effort to push these massive tankers towards EVs, I don't know. Um, and by the way, we've asked directly who would then manage the upwards of twelve to fifteen billion dollars that would have raised passed on to consumers, and then put into a a UN slush fund and the answer was unclear. It was kind of like what we heard in this body, Mister Chairman, just vote for it and you'll figure it out later. But thanks to the President, Secretary, and our intervention, we stopped that effort. It's also an argument, though, of why we need to get into these organizations in a meaningful way. We can't just walk away because if we do, uh, our adversaries and in some cases our partners who don't share, uh, industry's interest and want to advantage their industries, uh, we'll pass global regulations that massively disadvantage the American people and and our businesses. Uh, we stopped it in that case. Um, we are blocking, fighting, and tackling, for example, I just worked with Secretary of Agriculture Rollins on some regulations in the Food and Agriculture Organization that serves as a global FDA, for lack of a better term, that would have advantaged European partners and dis- farmers excuse me and disadvantaged american farmers so rest assured we have a team that's in there in all of these organizations fighting for us

thank you for that way it's much appreciated uh and uh brings me to my next question which is uh roughly twelve percent of of global trade passes through the baab el mandib straight and we you know currently the iran backhoothis are threatening to blockade this critical waterway again um force ships onto longer, more expensive routes around Africa, which would undoubtedly disrupt our global trade. Um, there has been a resolution, twenty eight twenty six, uh, that simply extends the secretary general's reporting mandate on Houthi attacks in the Red Sea. Um, is the United Nations capable of organizing a more meaningful international response to keep this vital waterway open?

I think you're, well, you're certainly speaking to a broader issue here, that No state, no terrorist organization can choke off international waterways that are vital for commerce. The Iranian regime right now is acting as the Somali pirates with drones and and and cruise missiles of of back years ago where we did gather an international coalition and took that problem on. Thankfully, the president, the defense department right now as we speak is massively destroying and degrading Iran's ability to choke off that waterway which a hundred and forty-six nations have agreed with us, is in violation of international law.

Yeah, and thank you for that. And again, I mean, I think if my colleagues had their way with their diplomacy of enablement, uh, you know, we'd be in a much worse position, you know, from that standpoint as well. So I thank you for, uh, your leadership and for coming here and testifying today, uh, despite, uh, you know, some some blatant hypocrisy, uh, from the other side. But, uh, I appreciate your efforts and appreciate the administration and what it's doing on this.

Congressman, it is incredibly rich to see one side of the aisle now suddenly in love with oil and gas. uh that they have sought to degrade our own domestic capability. But but thank you for your leadership in a very tough place. I don't know if being a member in California is tougher or easier than it is in in the United Nations, but but pretty sure

Well, I'm here to bring the voice of the forgotten Californians to this body, so thank you.

Representative Pocan.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you, Mister Ambassador, for being with us.

Thank you.

Um, without going into detail, just naming names, what three countries are the greatest adversaries to the United States?

From a broader sense, I would refer,

Just name the names, yeah.

well,

Just

I would refer actually to our our national security, national defense strategy. Uh, uh.

Three names is all I'm looking for, not the narrative, please.

That are working against us, Iran, uh, China, Russia, North Korea.

OK. Thank you. Um, have you ever been to Cuba?

I have not.

You have not, OK.

No.

Did you get a chance to read the report that came out this week from the State Department on Cuba and ninety-five pages?

I have not read the uh entire report, but as a native Floridian I'm familiar with the the the antics and adversarial

Great, thank you.

um actions of the Cuban regime.

Gotcha, but you have not read the report? Gotcha. Can you explain to me, on July seventh there was a vote in the UN to continue debate about the US blockade of Cuba, and we opposed that, and we kinda had an embarrassing defeat, a hundred and thirty-six to nine with thirty abstentions. But given what this report said, why are we afraid to have that debate if there's so much information we wanna share with the world about Cuba. Why did we not extend

That's a mischaracterization.

that debate?

What we opposed was Cubans or or others, for that matter, abusing the General Assembly to have the same debate over and over again.

I, it just seems that if we had such damning information that this report claims to have,

Cuba has an annual debate. We abused it, having a second.

that that would be a great venue to have that. I guess my question is, it's been over sixty-five years.

But it uses the UN for its propaganda. That's what we opposed.

Gotcha. Yeah, no, thank you. It's it's been over sixty five years that we have had essentially this blockade, this embargo on Cuba. Um, and have we moved closer to a democracy, steer them towards human rights? Has, as the other ambassador said, uh, you know, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. Have that sixty five years brought us to where we wanna be?

I would encourage you to read that, uh, to read that report,

I didn't, you didn't.

a blockade, a blockade.

I did and you didn't. Correct, yes.

Oh no, I've I've I have not read it word for word, but I am very familiar as a native Floridian.

But Yeah, but I did too. I read it, I've highlighted it.

Then you would know

I I felt like, you know what, I put on the kinks and the hoo, cuz everything's about the sixties and seventies in here, and then there's this giant jump to today.

Then you would know we don't have a blockade. A blockade is a ring of ships.

It's

A blockade is what we have right now in our minds.

No, this is a blockade of fuel, of medicine, of food, of supplies. Even in war we allow medical supplies to go through, we don't allow medical supplies to go through.

They have to trade with the entire world.

So, my question is,

The difference is they can't pay for it.

do you think that we've had a noticeable change

They can't pay for it because of the corruption of the communist regime.

OK, can I just ask my question, please?

Sure.

Uh, cuz I respect you were in this role, and so I'm just asking, do you think we've had a measurable difference in sixty-five years of the policy we've had?

I think we have, um, uh, what much of which is in statute, uh, have had a meaningful effect on not allowing the Cuban regime to its revolution, its communism, uh, and its anti-American, anti-left, um, uh, revolution as it calls it,

OK. So you

uh, across the Western hemisphere and acro- and, uh, into the United States.

I got you. So Secretary Rubio just a few hours ago said the goal is to have a Cuba where people of Cuba can experience prosperity, safety, security, and a better life moving forward. I, I just got back from there ten days ago. I've been there thirty years ago. I was there three and a half years ago on an official delegation. and i was there with a non-profit most recently and what i've seen is a crushing of the cuban people and it's not a

a cuban regime

uh let me finish please give me the respect i've given you please cause i the rest of this drives me crazy um

did you visit the prisoners ok

you know we're not allowing medical supplies so we've doubled the infant mortality rate because of our actions we're the ones blocking that it's not the cuban government that's us we're blocking fuel which means while i was there forty two hours of no energy we had a hour and a half surgeons literally finish surgery sometimes with their cell phone lights, right? That's because of us. Do you think that what what your goal is, we're running completely counter to that. And and I just don't understand that.

May I ask you a question?

Yeah, please. But I would like thirty seconds at the end, you know.

During during your visit, did you visit the private island from the Castro regime? Did you visit their private jet, which seems to have fuel to go back and forth?

Well, considering you've never been to Cuba,

Is it? That was four seconds, represented.

I'm not gonna take your advice on where to go.

Four seconds, but OK.

I know, but but considering I mean, you've never been there.

You've visited many other political prisoners.

I'm not gonna tell you how to groom your hair, cuz I can't give good advice on that. I don't think I need your advice at Cuba. Are we going to have a military action against Cuba? It seems like that's what this report is setting up.

I am not gonna take options off the table for the President of the United States, but I would hope that you would not allow your visits to be used for Cuban regime propaganda that has oppressed and massacred

Yeah, you know, I'll tell you. I wish,

people.

I, I understand, but I would strongly urge you, Marco Rubio, who's never been to Cuba, so many others, who have strong opinions.

Its entire family is from Cuba and and fled the regime.

They left before the revolution. That is decades ago. That's a ridiculous answer.

It's Cuban Americans who have fled the regime are gossiping

I know, but it to be fair, that is a ridiculous answer.

for being oppressed and imprisoned.

It's worth going there if you're gonna have such strong opinions. I think you'd maybe look at it a little differently. I I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ambassador Walz, and Bartos. Uh, thank you so much for being here. Appreciate that. Um, Ambassador Walts. Uh, July fifth, twenty twenty six, the UN supported the launch of the global network of centers for exchange and cooperation on AI capacity building, as the AI risk, uh, pushing the world towards even greater inequities. So what do you believe is the US role, should be the US role, closing the artificial intelligence gap to face this regarding connectivity, infrastructure, and energy access.

I think we have to be incredibly careful and I've um uh have been in touch with a number of leaders of our private sector or office of science and technology policy Secretary of Commerce Secretary of Treasury on efforts within the UN towards AI governance that are not in line with our values and that would hinder uh our entrepreneurial spirit and our innovation. Um I've also in touch with them as we kind of kind of, you know, gather the framework or understand the framework we want here federally in the United States to understand that and how we should propagate that outward, uh, to the rest of the world. I like to talk about AI freedom. Um, countries from, say, the EU and other places like to talk about AI governance, and that's a very slippery slope.

Appreciate that. I, I agree with you. Uh, another question for you, sir. On your confirmation hearing in July, uh, you stated that it was absolutely critical. for the United States to counter China at the United Nations. So, China continues to lead four out of fifteen specialized UN agencies, including organizations with mandates for facilitating cooperation on technology, agriculture, and food security, avian aviation safety and development. So, Ambassador, what do you believe the United States' response to China's position on this multilateral should lateralism should be?

Uh, thank you. Uh, I mean I can just give you a few examples. One, I gave earlier the World Intellectual Property Organization. We supported uh actively a pro-business Singaporean. Um, in the International uh Telecommunications Union, we are running, and this is from the prior administration, so it was a bipartisan effort here, to support an American to run that, that's in charge of undersea cables, spectrum, space, uh a number of uh of stan critical standard setting uh bodies. not only at the senior levels, it's important that we recruit and support Americans at every level, um uh to uh to staff these bodies. And I can come back to you with with figures, but I think it's a little bit misunderstood. The United States has the largest number of our nationals in across the UN system. It's actually followed by France, uh the UK and Germany before uh w uh we get to China. It's something actually China complains about, that it doesn't have a greater representation. So we are active in making sure that us and like-minded countries are effectively reprimand uh represented around the system.

Excellent. We're taking care. Uh, go ahead, sir.

If I may, sir, uh, we are still underrepresented though. The ambassador is absolutely right in his uh in the number of nationals that work there, but we the United States are still underrepresented relative to our contributions to the UN. And it's something that we are uh, we're very much in the ear of UN leadership often, as are as are the Chinese.

I'm glad you're world aware. Um, we would need to correct that. Thank you. Thank you. Um, uh, speaking of, uh, Ambassador, the US has historically been the leader within the convention on the international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora. So how do how do you envision maintaining the US leadership on wildlife trade while balancing uh sustainability uh and the community interest that depend on healthy marine ecosystem?

Well, I mean this is where um even though we're not a signatory, we abide by its conventions in the UN Law of the Sea that establishes standards for nautical waters, and particularly for EEZs. Um and one of the things that we're working with both the small island states and the Pacific but also in South Central America are violations of their EEZs, often by illicit fishing, most often by large Chinese uh uh fishing fleets. not only there, um but then uh the protection in terms from a conservation standpoint. We support international organizations uh that that set those standards uh around the world and a number of key non-profits.

Um I would just say, sir, that uh when when our allies have a choice of, I mean other countries have a choice in certain, you know, whether it's the Africa group or whether it's other uh nations that we work with, whether they have a choice to have US leadership or other important powers' leadership. They're yearning for US leadership, and when we can, when we do step in there and provide leadership, it's a mea- we have meaningful impacts uh across the across the system. There's a lot to fix. There's a lot to fix. But uh with Ambassador Walz's leadership and with the team's uh focus, we are we are we're present as as many places as we can be.

Appreciate the hard work you both do. Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Representative Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um Ambassador Walts, UN peacekeeping operations funding is a principal source of support for the new gang suppression force mission in Haiti, which will be critical to driving back the control of violent gangs in the country that are wreaking havoc on communities in our own hemisphere. and worr and worrying millions of Haitian Americans as they watch Haiti suffer. In fact, just the other day, you even said Haiti is only a few hundred miles from Florida, what happens there does not stay there. According to a twenty twenty four government accountability office report, approximately seventy three percent of firearms were covered in the Caribbean between twenty eighteen and twenty twenty two, originated in the United States. Additionally, the UN Security Council also adopted an arms embargo on Haiti in twenty twenty two to prevent weapons from reaching these gangs. So let me ask you this. First, what are you doing to ensure we are not violating the Security Council arms embargo? And how does the administration justify defunding the United Nations, including slashing its peacekeeping operational budget while simultaneously expecting it to take on a greater role in supporting the UN authorized gang suppression force.

We are mission by mission evaluating the effectiveness of these peacekeeping operations. Uh, as I mentioned earlier, some have been around for thirty to forty years at the cost of a billion dollars a year, uh, and have not worked themselves out of a job, have not put peace in. place. Um, as it pertains to the gang suppression force, that's actually a hybrid funding model. Uh, the UN budget is supporting basically the logistics, uh, and we have a separate trust fund, the Haiti trust fund, that a standing group of partners is contributing uh, uh, to. And we have uh, effective oversight over both of those funds and we are supporting uh, both of those funds, and again, we will evaluate as that mandate comes up for renewal. whether they are meeting the metrics, uh, and whether they are actually suppressing the gangs. I could tell you having just visited there, the gang suppression force just conducted its first clearing operation and was fairly effective, long way to go, that's coupled with training the Haitian National Police and standing up the Haitian army once again, to take these paramilitary uh gangs on. And of course we have the embargo in place. I visited the Dominican Republic. Whereas a lot of these arms are smuggled, um, and we are coordinating with their foreign ministry and their law enforcement, uh, both the foreign ministry and INL, uh, to better interdict, uh, armed, illegal arms that are flowing into the gangs.

Ambassador Wa- Ambassador Walz, when you served in Congress, you were a staunch supporter of our Kurdish allies. In fact, you frequently emphasized the importance of standing with the Kurdish forces that fought alongside the US against ISIS. Recently, President Trump has called President Erdogan a very good ally, end of quote. Uh, and a good ally to me is an interesting way of describing a leader who simultaneously placates Putin and other dictators, degrades democracy and human rights in Turkey, and harbors and supports terrorist regimes. On top of that, Erdogan has a long record of targeting Kurdish political and military groups. In the early days of this unauthorized war with Iran, reports indicated that Erdogan personally prevented Iranian Kurdish fighters from taking part in President Trump's proposed operation. Erdogan himself has publicly celebrated preventing that Kurdish operation. Do you also agree that Per- President Erdogan is a very good ally, even though he harbors Hamas, supports terrorist regimes and has actively gone against Trump and his unauthorized war.

Well, to you you mentioned uh my time in Congress, I was co-chair of the Kurdish caucus that's primarily focused on the Iraqi Kurds. And so one of my statement that they have stood with us uh was the Peshmerga, and that has been going back to um uh the early uh uh the early nineties. Obviously, Turkey, led by Erdogan, is a NATO ally, we just had the NATO summit there. Um, in fact years ago, um, Turkey shot down Russian fighters as they were uh penetrating their airspace from uh their incursion into Syria. It is sometimes a difficult relationship. We are taking action against Hamas charities, Hamas funded charities that are funneling goods uh into Gaza that are based uh in Turkey. Um, we are actively looking at working with the Turkish uh government on how to shut that funding source down. Thank you. At your back.

Representative Salazar.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you very much for putting this together. I cannot explain to you, I thank you very much for um, I mean I'm I'm delighted to be in front of you. I, we don't have words. You know, I represent the city of Miami and there are no words of gratitude that we can express on behalf of the constituents of millions of Cuban Americans, who saw your testimony the other day um at the United at the United Nations and And uh I we thank you very much because now more countries, more countries than ever are voting with the United States against the Cuban regime. And not only that, but the fact that the Trump administration has been able to convince companies like Sherin from Canada or Melilla from Spain to leave and stop being an accomplice of of making the Cuban labor force a bunch of slaves. So uh I Once again, thank you, thank you, thank you on behalf of the people that I represent. The Venezuelans, the Nicaraguans, people that just wanna see freedom and feel the freedom that we have in the United States. So thank you, Mike, for being here with us. Now, um, can you tell us what else is happening? What other countries are thinking about changing their vote and being with us? And thanks again.

Well, you know, uh thank you for that, uh and as you know, uh the Cuban regime has used the United Nations far too long for its propaganda to see other countries repeating that propaganda about a blockade as though there is a a US Navy fleet uh around uh Cuba, stopping things from coming and going. To heck, uh we just listened to Representative Poken here repeating uh that propaganda after his visit um where apparently he didn't visit the political prisoners. Uh he didn't celebrate uh July eleventh where they rose up to try to to throw off this yoke of oppression, nor did he see the Castro family private jet that apparently has enough fuel or the Castro family private island.

Mister Chairman, I know he's speaking for me,

You're not recognized.

but I'm still here.

You're not recognized.

Um, and I did.

You're not, you're not.

I have talked to folks. I just wanna,

You're not recognized.

since he's speaking for me,

I know you want to, but you're not recognized.

I just wanna mention that. No, no, no worries, Mister Chairman.

So I'll point up here instead of over uh to to the place where you were sitting. The Cuban foreign minister was so upset about having his corruption called out.

Or Iran. Yeah.

For for for that matter. Um, but I will tell you, uh, on a positive note, if the Abraham Accords were the story of Colombia.

Yeah.

that we're about to have in Colombia on August seventh, Honduras, El Salvador, uh, to be down in the Dominican Republic where they're talking about alternative space space launch sites and the ongoing economic growth there. And of course we have a horrific situation in Haiti. I hope this new hybrid model um uh will work to save the Haitian people from the from the devastation of the gangs.

And I agree with you. And

But there is a positive trajectory that's going on. And of course, I know you'll wanna talk about Venezuela uh

And Nicaragua. Let me just because of uh because of my time is running

and Nicaragua as well.

away and I would love to talk to you for the next thirty minutes. Um Daniel Ortega said yesterday that clearly and openly that he was

Well, Well, what they're what they're no longer getting is is free energy and oil from Russia. what they're what they're no longer getting is, is free energy and oil from Russia. Uh, Uh, and like Cuba, And like Cuba, they're no longer getting the they're no longer getting the

What can we do to force Ortega to change his position and feel the pressure from the United States like Cuba and Nicaragua have felt?

I would uh, I know we're running out of time. I'd hopefully c- I will come

Elites. Good. Venezuela, finally if I have two more minutes. Venezuela, we know that Good. Thirty seconds.

You can have about five seconds.

Thank you. Venezuela, Secretary Rubio said that the transition was going to start early August sometime this year. What can you share with us about that? We we want trans free and fair elections in Venezuela.

We are providing lifesaving aid, as you know, in response to the earthquake. We are clearing out the uh Cubans, Russians, Chinese, Iranians, uh out of uh uh out of Iran, they are wor- I mean, excuse me, out of Venezuela, they are working with us and taking on the gangs, and the secretary has announced the beginning of the transition. which is moving the country in the right direction compared to where we were just a few months ago uh this is a uh an immense and positive dir uh trajectory.

Colonel, thank you, and I will take you up on sitting down.

Representative

Thank you again. Thank you.

State,

Uh, you're back.

you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair, Ambassador Watts. Thank you for testifying today. Welcome back to the committee.

Good to see you.

Uh, since the start of the Trump administration's war of choice in Iran, tragically, eighteen American service members have been killed, hundreds more have been wounded, tens of billions of dollars have been spent. More is coming. The administration is asking for significantly more resources to fight this war of choice. Back in America, gas prices are on the rise again. The Iran war has cost the average American household an extra one thousand dollars out of their pocket just since the start of the conflict in February as families are paying more and more for basics like groceries. Ambassador March, you went on CNN to tell the American people that the war in Iran was quote, a dominant victory the likes of which haven't been seen in modern mili- military history. Just last month you doubled down on your claims that Iran's military was, quote, devastated, unquote, and its nuclear program was, quote, destroyed, unquote, in an interview on on June twenty first on Face the Nation. I believe the American people see it very differently. Trump's military venture has accomplished little. Iran still possesses missiles and drones necessary to hit American bases a thousand miles away. You testified earlier today that when The president said he had quote obliterated unquote Iran's nuclear program. He wasn't talking about enrichment capability. But intelligence shows that that activity continues unabated at the Pickaxe Mountain and underground complex with enough room to accommodate several nuclear related facilities. Experts have said that fully eliminating Iran's nuclear program would require, quote, much more forceful intervention, unquote, including US troops on the ground, something of course nobody in America would accept. Ambassador Watts, I think a similar question may have asked earlier in the hearing, but I would like it asked directly with you. Do you stand by those previous statements that the United States has achieved, quote, dominant victory, unquote, in this war?

Uh, the the context of those statements were from a military standpoint, which was the question asked of me, and with its Navy destroyed, Air Force destroyed, air defenses uh destroyed, with dominant air superiority uh over Iran and its leadership seriously degraded, and its industrial base seriously degraded, then yes, I stand by that statement. And from a broader standpoint, I stand by the statement that I made again today. Iran has never been in a weakest point since it started attacking the United States since nineteen seventy nine. Between Lebanon, Syria, the Houthis, Iraq, uh, its proxies are s- and Hamas for that matter, are seriously degraded. It is currency is tanking, it's foreign reserves. uh, have never been lowered. No one is buying its oil. China has cut its oil purchases in half, according to Secretary Besson. Uh, so we are negotiating from a position of strength and the president continues to try diplomacy. It, Iran has made it clear that it's not interested,

Yeah.

uh, in serious diplomacy as it attacks civilian shipping in the middle of negotiations.

Ambassador, I might suggest that that rosy outlook is uh not um agreed with by the vast, vast majority of our fellow um, Americans. I would suggest that is a significant minority opinion in the United States of America. In fact, it's very clear that the United States has not achieved a quote dominant victory in this war and the American people unquestionably are worse off, burning through taxpayer resources. Middle East is in turmoil right now. Our ally Kuwait is now rationing electricity after Iran hit its power grid. American allied troops are exposed to Iranian missiles and drones, tragically like we just saw in Jordan a few days ago. Let me turn to Taiwan. Uh, Master Watts, um, I admire the position that you took on Taiwan while you were here in Congress with us. You've been a major proponent of our relationship with Taiwan, from working to modernize US military foreign sales process, while you were in Congress, to working to advance Taiwan's standing at the UN. However, following his trip to Beijing in May, President Trump disclosed that he and Xi had, quote, "talked the whole night", unquote, about Taiwan during their meeting in Beijing and was pausing a major arms package for Taipei calling it quote, " a very good negotiating chip" unquote. Ambassador, you insisted in an interview with Fox News immediately following the president's trip that US policy on Taiwan is quote " gonna be status quo going forward". You can't possibly be suggesting that using arm sales to Taiwan as a bargaining chip with China is the status quo, are you?

What I referred to is uh there, as the president said, there's no change in policy. strategic ambiguity remains. Uh, and it is worth noting to be clear that President Trump this term has authorized more arm sales to Taiwan than the entire Biden administration just last year.

I think And you and I know there's strong bipartisan support for that, authorizing it and getting those weapons in the hands of the Tai- Taiwan so that they can defend themselves.

But you and I both know there's a multi-billion

It's a very different thing.

dollar backlog from industry to actually get those arms the production line and President Trump is working, as is Secretary Hegseth, to re-industrialize and uh pull those supply chains back home, re-industrialize America and expand our defense industrial base.

Thank you very much uh Ambassador Watts. I have further questions, but I think I'm out of time, so I will yield back and submit those in writing. Thank you.

Representative Lawler.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ambassador, good to see you. Uh, I'm sure you saw what Zoran Mamdani was up to this week. Uh, instead of working to lower costs for New Yorkers, uh, Zoran spent the week trying to figure out how to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Uh, and after days of using his taxpayer-funded lawyers, uh, to examine this nonsense, uh, he released a scripted video filled with propaganda, uh, sharing what we knew from the start, which is that he doesn't have the legal authority to arrest a Democrat- radically elected Prime Minister. Ambassador, can you confirm for all of us that Mister Mamdani does not have the authority to arrest Prime Minister Netanyahu?

Number, yes I can, Congressman, and it is, you know, as, as probably one of the only Floridians actually moving the other direction into New York now. Um, well, I'll just leave, I'll leave that commentary aside. To answer your question directly, the United States uh is not a party, uh to the Rome statue which underpins the International Criminal Court, which is a corrupt organization who had just had to fire its head prosecutor for sexual uh abuse and assault after um uh he chased uh or is chasing after the Prime Minister Netanyahu uh with prosecution. Number one, we're not a party. We don't have uh authority of the ICC. There is head of state immunity, and under the UN headquarters agreement, heads of state are allowed to come and go to the UN General Assembly. But the bigger picture is why isn't he so adamant about the thugs that come in and out from Iran uh or from North Korea or from others as he is about Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Uh, not only that, he was opposed to the arrest and capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, who was twice indicted by our own court system. The Southern District of New York twice indicted him and Zoran called for his release. Meanwhile, he wants to arrest a duly elected prime minister of an ally based on the International Criminal Court, of which we are not party to. Uh, it's truly remarkable.

Well, and his, I mean, i- it's also remarkable that one of his key cabinet officials uh, is reaching out to quote unquote like-minded governments and trying to meet with the Iran regime in the midst of an ongoing conflict.

Well, I'd expect nothing less from an anti-semit. This is the fundamental problem. Um, look. You understand full well the challenges, uh, that you deal with every day at the United Nations. Uh, but sadly, we have a mayor of New York City, uh, who believes it's his responsibility uh to uphold international law. But meanwhile this is the same person who wants to release dangerous criminals back out onto the streets in New York City, who refuses to cooperate with ICE to turn over violent criminals for deportation to federal authorities, who believes in sanctuary jurisdictions, because, well, we don't wanna hold people accountable

Which by the way, and I'll I'll defer Ambassador Bartos, which by the way has ongoing investigations against American soldiers, uh, from Afghanistan.

Yeah, Congressman, thank you for your leadership on so many issues, including UNRWA. The, on the eve of the the saddest day in the Jewish calendar, which will start at sunset tonight and go for twenty five hours and fasting and everything else. It's it's fundamentally offensive that the mayor is spending any of his time on this issue. Um, and the ambassador is absolutely right. Ambassador Walz is absolutely right. The ICC has been weaponized by globalists to seek with one mission, and that is to take down uh Western democracies like the United States and to to try to imprison our leaders and our soldiers, and it's the Trump administration. It's worth noting that the Clinton administration and every administration since did not join the Rome statute. But it's only the Trump administration, with the leadership of the president and Secretary Rubio with his tour de force remarks last week that pointed out this and said we're going to dismantle this corrupt court, if necessary, brick by brick.

Well, speaking of dismantling, we also need to dismantle UNRWA. Uh, and I have legislation with Josh Gottheimer to do that. Uh, and I would encourage the administration to support it and to push Congress to pass it.

We we've read it and it's terrific, and thank you for putting that forward, and uh look forward to working with you and your team on these important issues.

Thank you.

Last and least, I'm gonna take my own five minutes to ask questions. I wanna talk about the sexual exploitation that's alleged within the United Nations. Can you just begin By giving me an overlay of what you know about it, what silos has this been identified in? Uh, I've heard most prevalently, of course, UN peacekeepers, but can you identify other silos that this has been an allegation?

Um, ch- Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. It's uh, every one of us in our confirmation hearings were asked about this issue. Democrat, Republican, didn't matter from which side of the aisle, everybody's concerned about this issue. And it's something we talk about. uh, whenever we meet with senior officials within the United Nations. And so we, we are aware. We look at, I'm gonna, I have it right here, the trends, um, the trend lines and then broken down by, uh, whether it's industry or whether it's peacekeepers or whether it's civilians, uh.

Regurgitate it to me.

Yeah, sure. Yes, sir. Um. In twenty twenty five, a total of five hundred twenty allegations of sexual exploitation abuse were recorded across the United Nations system. It's important to note these are allegations There are, we we believe there are many more that are not reported or not alleged for all sorts of reasons fear uh from coming forward the fact that family can't feed itself uh if if someone is is using food as a as a weapon uh to to exploit.

Any charges? Is there even an entity within the UN to charge? Because it's all these different countries.

You got to the heart of the issue. Nations will protect their own. too many nations will protect their own and the process of the OIOS investigation and others working within the UN system to refer those to host country, I'm sorry, to host countries, to uh countries, you know, their their nationals have been accused, and then the process of that is abysmal.

Are you aware of any situation where it's gone beyond an allegation to somebody has been criminally prosecuted somewhere for this?

I'm not aware of any. Uh, if memory serves, it's it's less than five that I'm aware of, and and I've asked these questions since I got there.

You're saying in UN history, you're s- You're to your knowledge, it's less than five.

It's uh, it's uh, uh, going back in like the most recent past.

OK. To some history. You're not saying it's a last year's stat.

I'm not like, no, and they don't have statistics here about going it from, from investigation to charging to trial and then conviction.

One of the numbers that I read, I can't exactly attest to its authenticity. Uh, it said over one hundred sexual abuse allegations, sixty five births that were given. This was a a stat for last year. Are you familiar with that stat at all?

I'm familiar that it's a, it's a. The fact that innocent people are uh, are exploited like this and then fathers don't just run away or, or go away and are not uh responsible is, it's a stain on the organization and it's.

Your knowledge is that you haven't done any paternity tests with those allegations that resulted uh in births.

I'm aware that there's a unit that solely exists to look at paternity and and trying to fi to to make the father responsible for the child but uh to my knowledge, sir,

Or responsible for their criminal activity,

there's Yeah.

their rape, their their sexual abuse.

Yes, sir. Your point is well taken.

What do you know the name of that entity within the UN?

It's it's an acronym and I will get back to your team with that.

Please get back to me with that. The ICC, ICJ has not no jurisdiction over this.

No.

To your knowledge. Uh, do you know if the United Nations paid out any settlements, to your knowledge,

Not to my knowledge.

for sexual abuse? Do they have a fund to pay out settlements for sexual abuse?

Not to my knowledge.

Is there anything that I've asked, not asked, about the sexual abuse allegations that have gone on, uh, within the United Nations that, again, many have heard about for years? Uh, that you think, I probably should have asked this because this would be information that we should know or anybody would want to know.

Yeah, uh one, sir. Um, Mr. Chairman, why did it take so long for administrations to be shining a light on this or to to to shine a light on this issue and and to hold the UN accountable? It's I I mean, sitting in a Central African country in February with a force commander who said to me, quote, " Thank you for withholding payment." Now we don't get told that very often, thank you for withholding payment, because it allowed me to repatriate poorly performing, as I said in my opening, poorly performing, which means abuse of troops in many cases. It allowed me to repatriate those troops, send them back. I had the political cover to do it. We don't often have the cover. In fact, what he said is we never have the cover to send them back.

In the remaining time, what could you see as a a proposition, as our representatives there uh within the United Nations to actually uh create consequences and penalties uh so that this is issue that is a address so that individuals would be imprisoned or castrated or, you know, whatever would be the appropriate

Y- yes, sir. The the common sense uh solution that Ambassador Walts, I know you may wanna have something, the common sense solution would be simply you lose your ability to be a troop contributing country if you're uh not going to adequately not forget adequately, if you're not gonna make it the highest priority to try and get and and hold accountable those who commit exploitation and abuse of of of uh innocent people living in these very war-torn and tough areas.

Thank you for your testimony. Uh, we'll go to closing statements. Do you have any closing statement you wished off?

I did not, Chairman. Thank you.

For my closing statement, I'd simply offer you my five minutes of closing time to say, is there anything that you'd like to say, respond to from uh, your time here today?

Well, we've just heard um, I think a lot of of rhetoric about whether President Trump was a is a president of peace and and that whether we work or don't work well with our allies. I could tell you when we talked to Azerbaijan and Armenia, they believe he's a president of peace as they have the free flow of goods for the first time in thirty years. Uh, it is imperfect, the border situation in Thailand, Cambodia, it's imperfect. But uh, moving forward between Pakistan and India, DRC Congo, the president is putting political frameworks, peace deals in place The UN should be doing a lot of that. The next secretary general should be leading those efforts. Uh, we are trying hybrid models in terms of Board of Peace or the gang suppression force to overcome a lot of the shortcomings of uh the UN to try to bring stability in efforts around the world. But I find it laughable when uh critics talk about President Trump as not engaged uh around the world. He is truly trying to solve some of these problems, even forgotten conflicts, like the Palisario and Western Sahara, he has charged us to go out uh and and find a solution. It's not easy. Uh, the UN is a part of that, uh, and our charge isn't to walk away, but is to clean this organization up, uh, so that it can then take care of some of these issues in a much more meaningful and effective way. And I guess I would just conclude, Mister Chairman, with thank you uh for holding this. We are taking a hard look and we welcome the committee's oversight and expertise on outputs. You know, all too often government, and particularly multinational organizations, focus on dollars going in and people going in. We're looking at effectiveness going out, whether that's in the humanitarian space, the development space, or the peacekeeping uh space, because ultimately we owe that to our constituents that are paying twenty-five percent uh of this bill. I do think this is an organization that can be effective. That's where the president is. His charge to us, help make it great again. Help it realize its potential. Uh, and it's an honor to have this team, uh, working in that regard. And every time we pull up in a chair behind a placard that says United States of America on the world stage. Every time as a former soldier we are using words and not bullets. Uh, and every time we actually conclude a deal, not always easy, and not always easy to implement, that we conclude a peace agreement or a step in that direction. uh, representing the United States of America. It's an honor.

I would thank you both for your testimony. I would thank you for your service at the United Nations. Tough service there. And I would let you both know that we've also sent, uh, requests for leadership within the United Nations to come before Congress and testify as well we'd love to have them answer some of these same questions like the ones I just posed to you uh members of the committee may have some additional questions for you as witnesses we'll ask that you respond to those in writing. In pursuant to committee rules, all members may have five legislative days uh to submit statements, extraneous materials, questions for the record, subject to length limitations. And without objection, this committee stands adjourned.