FY 2027 Department of State Budget Estimates and Justification

Welcome uh to the subcommittee, which you're an alumni of. Um I want to welcome our new member, Senator Husted from Ohio. I'm glad to have him on board. Uh we lost uh Senator Mullen who's at DHS and I promised uh Mark Wayne we would stay focused on Haiti one of his great passions uh Senator Schatz is on the way, so I thought I'd just Go ahead. There he is. Great timing. Uh, there will be seven minute rounds. Senator Collins, Amaria will go first, uh, then myself and Senator Schatz, and based on seniority, order of appearance, uh, parents will go down to subcommittee. And, uh, again, seven minute rounds. Again, Mister Secretary, welcome. And I'll just start. Anything you'd like to say, okay, do opening statement now.

Uh, have you done an open?

Nope. It's gonna be real quick though.

Okay.

Okay. Uh, this account is important to me. I've been involved with this account since I've been pretty much in the Senate. Why? I'm fairly hawkish guy, but the State Foreign Ops account, the one fifty account, Miss Secretary, uh, is the lifeblood for the State Department. The men and women in the State Department under your charge and direction, um, are real heroes. They're serving in some very dangerous places. very much like a military diplomacy, uh, can be a dangerous calling. And to all the men and women of the foreign service, thank you, thank you very much for what you do, for showing up, uh, and representing our country and our values in some of the most difficult places. So to those who serve in the State Department, you have my gratitude and admiration. As to the budget proposal, we'll see what number we come out with. Uh, this soft power to me is still power. Uh, there are limits to hard power, and soft power to me has the potential to make us safer, uh, in very troubled parts of the world, and I've learned one thing. If you can help feed a starving child, you probably are gonna have a good relationship with the mother and the father. And, um, there are programs in this account that have been wasteful and missed the mark, and a lot of them have been cleaned up, and I wanna thank you. Miss Secretary, for looking at this account anew and making it more businesslike. But there are some core functions of this account, global health and humanitarian aid that are, again, national security in another form. And I look forward to working with Senator Schatz, Coons, the whole crowd here. We work together well and, uh, we have a common view that soft power is important. With that, Senator Schatz.

Thank you, Chairman. Thanks, uh, Secretary, for being here. A y- a year ago at our fiscal twenty-six hearing, I told you I was willing to make hard trade-offs on funding in order to do a couple of things. First, we had to enact a bill reaffirming bipartisan support for foreign assistance following the evisceration of the enterprise under this administration. Second, it was essential that we strengthen this committee's ability to oversee the implementation of that funding. And that's how we ensure that it's used to protect Americans from infectious diseases to help American businesses better compete abroad. and lower costs at home and to deter threats that make us less safe here at home. But the narrow goal of enacting a bill earlier this year was to begin to turn the page and work together to restore some of the vital work that has been abandoned. Unfortunately, there are concerning signs that the administration is still not properly executing foreign assistance. Mister Secretary, in your opening statement you said foreign assistance is, quote, " being brought under the strategic direction of the State Department, where it belongs. This was a policy choice that some of us were willing to uh undergo and some of us were brought into kicking and screaming to be blunt, but my request to you, Mister Secretary, now that we're a year into this, is we're going to have to walk the list. There are a bunch of things that we fought hard for in the bipartisan negotiations um to enact um legislation in this account. And it makes it a little difficult to do it again if we feel that the statutory language that we passed on a bipartisan basis, reflecting bipartisan priorities, GAVI, PEPFAR, among them, um are still not being implemented. And so my purpose here is to continue the conversation we had yesterday and continue the conversation we had two or three weeks ago to get serious about, neither of us are trying to generate a clip here. We're trying to make sure that the law that we enacted is implemented. And now that foreign assistance really has been brought under your purview, I want you to assert that authority and actually execute on the law and execute on what I know is your basic belief that foreign assistance when done right really projects American power across the globe. But I am not interested in what HHS thinks, I'm not interested in what someone at OMB thinks. You're the secretary, you've been granted extraordinary authority, not just as the secretary of state, but as the national security advisor and one of the closest uh uh uh uh members of the cabinet to the president of the United States. And so I want you to assert your authority and to start implementing the law that we've already passed because that's really the only way we're going to be able to pass a new SFOPs bill. It is very hard for me to have swallowed a thirteen percent cut. And then argue for another bill if the bill we already passed is not being followed. And so I look forward to a constructive conversation, not necessarily lacking any difficulty, but a constructive conversation about those areas in which I think your leadership is needed to actually implement the bill that we've already passed. Thank you very much.

Uh, Mister Secretary.

Thank you. And uh, if you guys don't mind, I know you have a long night ahead. Instead of giving you a seven minute opening, maybe I'll give you a four minute opening?

I don't think anybody would object to that.

Okay, cuz I know you've got a long night ahead of you. Look, I uh, first of all, thank you for the first of all for this opportunity, but also for the constructive way in which we've engaged, both with the committee and and with your staff. We know we have more work to do and we look forward to making that work. I think the, you've touched upon it, and look, like I said, this is always a work in progress. progress but our goal was always to align foreign assistance generally uh with the strategic lever uh with the strategic uh interest of the United States and how we prioritize and we can go through some of that today but uh but I think we're on our way to doing it whether it's realigning so that more of our assistance is going into the Asia and um and the Western hemisphere than it has historically in the past whether it's um entering into contacts with individual countries, thirty-two of them now that we can strengthen their domestic capacities and their national health systems uh whether it's our ability to arrange new agreements with like the global fund and others uh ocha to uh be able to uh more effectively deliver the the donations you know the the taxpayer dollars of the united states uh to these entities i think all that's been very valuable obviously um there's a process by which money is appropriated in this country and that involves us like sharing with you a proposal Uh, again, this is my experience having served here for sixteen years. I did not expect that you would take up our budget and, or, and our proposal and pass it as is. I know that Congress has an important role to play in making determinations. I take the point uh that the ranking member has made about the um the role that Congress plays once it passes that bill and having compliance with those conditions we'll work through some of that with you today as well as after that uh after our meeting today but what I wanted you to understand is and I think this has been largely under misunderstood the goal of moving these programs with the exception of the Food for Peace program which has been moved over to the agriculture department because we think they're, given their links to America's agricultural sector, they're in a better position to deliver on that. I think the goals we had was to say what is our foreign policy and our national interest, and then ensure that foreign assistance is a part of that strategy, not a stand-alone strategy of its own that was not in any way coordinated or related to our broader foreign policy and national interest. In addition, I always have e- even in my time here and I was a supporter of foreign assistance, but I've always believed the best foreign assistance programs are the ones that end. They end because the country that you're helping no longer needs it. I think one of the examples I always cite is South Korea. South Korea used to be an aid recipient, a massive aid recipient. In fact, at one time, South Korea's economy was smaller than North Korea's. Today, South Korea is not only not a recipient, South Korea is the ninth largest economy in the world, and they are a donor state. Now, obviously not every nation state has the capability to achieve what they did in that regard. But I think every nation state has the ability to become more self-sufficient, and frankly, many of them asked for that. Many of them want that. Many of them welcome that. I know that in my travels and in my interactions with leaders around the world, they did express concern and frustration that in the past our foreign aid came either with massive strings attached in the sense of you had, you know, focus on this or that, or it came with

Romeo, you're a traitor to humanity. I don't understand the question. I'm eighteen and the Americans disagree with what you're doing.

Alright. And and also because I I know that every country doesn't have the capability to do that, but a lot of countries expressed concern that uh oftentimes we were doing aid in their countries through NGOs without coordinating with a with a, with a government at all. They had their own priorities, they had their own systems they wanted improved, and we were just doing what we thought they needed, not what they were asking for. So I think that's helped in that regard. So we can go through all some of these details today. I'll stop here to save you the time, I know. Do you guys have a Voterama tonight is the rumor? Oh, tomorrow. Oh, well then I can go all night. I'm kidding. See,

Uh.

that's the one part of being in the Senate I don't miss.

The one time?

Voteramas. Th- thank you.

Uh, you're welcome to attend if you like. For old time's sake, we

I will watch on C-SPAN.

We would have fun in the cloakroom. Uh, S- Senator Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Rubio, it's wonderful to see you, and I wanna thank you for your service in this new post. M- Mr. Secretary, before the military hostilities with Iran began, did the Department of State and other parts of the government, Department of Defense obviously, make an assessment on the likelihood that Iran would close or interfere uh with commercial traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, especially since twenty percent of the world's oil goes through that narrow passageway.

Yes, not only was that a known risk factor, but there were others like the launches against um neighboring countries that uh they wanted to punish. all of those factors were understood and weighed when the president made his decision about whether or not to do it he felt it was imperative that Iran not be able to establish um and I agreed that that Iran would not be able to establish a uh a conventional shield that they were building with massive number of drones and missiles and they were on their way to getting double what they had and if they reached the point where they had so many missiles and so many shield and and so many drones plus their naval capabilities that existed at the time Iran would then say to the world there's nothing you can do about our nuclear program because if you do we will overwhelm your defenses with the sheer volume of launches that we have and then they could do whatever they wanted on their nuclear program that was an unacceptable risk it was a a risk that we're running out of time to address that was weighed against the risk that you just outlined not just the straits but also the attacks against Kuwait and Bahrain and UAE and Saudi Arabia and Qatar uh it was weighed against that and and the president made a decision that Them not having a nuclear weapon above all else had to be the priority.

Is our country working with our allies in the region or with American oil producers, Canadian oil producers, to look to the future on what could be done to mitigate the consequences of such a uh dependence on this particular state in the future. It wasn't the first time that Iran has done this. During the Iran-Iraq war, uh we saw Iran try to take control of the state. So, it's it's disturbing that nothing was done in the intervening years to try to figure out are there alternative routes that could be used more pipelines other ways so that Iran does not have such an ability to control the strait.

Well, there is an existing Western pipeline. It certainly doesn't have enough sufficient capacity out of Saudi Arabia to make up for uh the the what's happening through the straits potentially, but a couple points. Yes, the answer is I and I think the indications are that in the aftermath of what's happened with the straits, supply, supply lines, supply uh where where the world is gonna be getting its energy is going to diversify away from at least the straits traffic it through a variety of means the first is you are gonna see i believe the construction of more infrastructure that goes to the west and even to the north to avoid the straits it's a bit less efficient because the straits are a quicker shot but i do think you're starting to see the alignment but those are long-term projects i i can't exactly tell you how long it takes to build these pipelines it's not my area of expertise but i certainly know it takes more than a month or even a year the second i think you're gonna see the the existing

right

global capacity is gonna shift for example there are now markets that are increasingly seeking to buy US energy which we can supply and which we can provide historically hasn't made any sense for them because they could get it faster from the straits but given what's happened you're seeing increasing interest um in and in fact in in uh I think you'll start to see some real time delivery to deliveries from US refiners and product producers to the to the Pacific region uh that's beginning to happen and the Canadians are stepping into that uh uh into that world as well

Let me switch to a different issue. Last month I led a bipartisan letter to you urging the department to release the six hundred million dollars appropriated in fiscal years twenty five and twenty six for Gavi the vaccine alliance and I would ask unanimous consent that that letter, which many members of this subcommittee signed, be entered into the record.

Without objection.

Gavi, as you well know, plays a critical role in preventing the spread of infectious diseases around the globe and helps to protect public health in our country as well, by stopping outbreaks before they reach our borders. And that's particularly important right now as the world is responding to the Ebola outbreak and the DRC. Can you update us on the status of the funding for GAVI and when we can expect to see it obligated, consistent with clear congressional intent?

Yeah, and I think a number of you are aware of the particulars, but let me share publicly as well so that people understand better. Uh, on this account we took into account at the president's directive HHS's view and it's particular about one thing, and that is a certain preservative that's used in vaccines. We don't use them in the vaccines in the United States. but they are using vaccines around the world and the ask of GAVI was that they would stop providing these vaccines without preservative. Um, but the problem GAVI has, according to them, is that they have purchased stocks of these vaccines, you know, the millions of of doses and they can't just throw those away because they have this preservative in there. And so what we're trying to do is find and and we have now re-engage more heavily,

Yeah.

and I know some of you have been personally involved in this, to try to get this thing resolved, to try to figure out an outcome in which uh perhaps there's a phased approach to it, they did make us a counter-offer, I haven't personally seen it in the last couple of days from GAVI, but it is my hope we can bring this to a resolution on the issue of these preservatives, you know they make the point, Gabi, is that in some of these countries where these are distributed, they don't have the same refrigeration systems, so they need to have this preservative in there, um perhaps there's a way to phase our way through that, so we'll consult with HHS on it as well, but ultimately we would like to see this problem solved, and we think we can, um um Uh, we're certainly gonna try, uh, because we want it to be solved.

But in the meantime, the United States needs to get that money out there. Uh, this is the first time that the United States has given up its seat on the government's board um in the partnership's history I don't think that's a good outcome. Um, so I hope we can get that money, which is desperately needed.

And that was a consequence of us missing that dues payment. So my sense, I'm pretty sure that as in any deal we strike with them, part of the deal will be we get our seat back and the money comes. But we we wanna deal with this central issue. I think you're well aware of it. And I think we can get there, but we gotta work a little bit on it.

Thank you. Mister Chairman, I know my time has expired, so I'll submit uh the rest of my questions for the record. I just wanna point out that there are proven high impact interventions for uh pregnant women. prenatal vitamins made in the United States and a food supplement, RUTF, again made in the United States that gra- dramatically improved maternal and child health outcomes. And it's something that I'll be talking further about the public-private partnership to get this kind of supplement um out to those who need it globally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Schatz.

Thank you, Chairman. Uh, Secretary, um, to follow up on Gavi. My staff are on the emails between your department, HHS, and Gavi, and all the questions have been answered. I know you're a busy guy and you've been, I don't know how many hearings you've had this week, uh, so you're probably not totally up to speed. But all those questions have been answered and Gavi committed to find a way forward. But

Mm-hmm.

either way, I I just wanna make this extremely clear. You and I have a very good relationship, even though we don't agree on a lot of things. Um the statute itself gives you this authority, not the secretary of HHS, not anybody else. And the statute itself requires, does not authorize you, does not permit you, requires you to move this money. And so I I just We've had a lot of sort of reassuring conversations and then another six weeks and another f ten weeks and another three months pass by and I understand that you're having to navigate some pretty difficult terrain internal to the administration but the statute is not unclear about whose authority it is and what you are obliged to do. And so can we get a time frame for moving this money?

Well, the best way I can answer is I wanna get I believe we will get it solved. I'll be engaged in getting it solved. I, I don't know the time, but I mean shortly. How's that? I mean, like I said, I I know that some paper came in. Maybe it was yesterday or the day before they made a, I wouldn't wanna call it a counter-offer, but a proposal on what they think they could do to solve this problem. I have not personally had an opportunity to review it, but I'm aware of it. I was informed of it again this morning. The commitment I can make to you is that this is a problem I would like us to solve. I al- I I do think that the, uh, HHS, uh, point about this preservative uh is not irrelevant and and and invalid because we don't use it in our country. Um so I want to account for that as well, but we will get this solved, we wanna get this solved.

Um, thank you. Um, you have two point five billion dollars in unspent funds we provided specifically for the global fund since uh fiscal twenty four. It is in title three of the SFOP's bill for each year. Again, on the US aid stuff we had a disagreement about the kind of programmatic implementation. But it was very hard to argue that the government itself didn't have the authority to determine who was a recipient of a grant. This is different. The Global Fund is specified in the statute. And um you have an internal um cap on US contributions. It's not statutory, but it says thirty-three percent for every one dollar. you're gonna get two non-American dollars, again not required by law, not even necessarily permitted by law, but even under that there's still six hundred and sixty one million dollars that you could move tomorrow morning. And this is not a complicated situation with a preservative and a v- vaccine and m- the inter-agency, like this is entirely your authority. And the six hundred and sixty one million dollars that is that is available to be moved, um Th- those are data that came from your department. And so I'm just wondering when we can move this money because it's so highly con consequent.

I, yeah, I, we've pledged up to the thirty-three percent cap, which as you outline is an internal cap. It's one that I believe the previous administration used some cap as well. And um but I think what you, just to be clear on your question, what you're saying is that the of the amount that's pledged, there's still six hundred million that has not moved.

Six sixty has not moved.

Okay. So I think that will move shortly, very quickly. I think you unders- you also understand OMB will not allow us to move additional funds beyond the thirty-three percent cap and the purpose for the thirty-three percent cap is to encourage more donations basically make it clear to the world that the more you give the global fund or the more the fund can raise the more we will provide it by the way the the it's my understanding as well the b- under the Biden administration they too despite additional appropriations uh did not go above the cap they had imposed but the goal of the cap is not punitive, it's to encourage more donations to match our amount. But on your point, I'll take it back on the six hundred million, that might just be an internal, you know, bookkeeping matter that needs to move the money to get us to our pledge.

And I

And we and we'll and we'll give more if they raise more.

Got it. Um, let's talk about the USA closeout. There's sixteen billion dollars in the USA account tied to awards that were terminated from prior years. Um, but then there's another three billion dollars in the bill that President Trump signed into law. And so what's happening within your department is, that sixteen billion is just sitting there. The three billion is being used to cover so-called closeout costs for USAID. And what they are saying is they're gonna assess, determine the cost of closeout, and then after that, whatever's left over could be provided, and let me give you the line items, two hundred fifty million dollars to combat malaria, three hundred and thirty million dollars to combat HIV AIDS, three hundred and twenty million for maternal and child health, one hundred and thirty five million for nutrition programs, and a hundred and fifty million to counter TB. You have sixteen million in a pile, and then you have three million that was passed and enacted by President Trump and all of us. And none of it is moving until we assess the closeout costs, and then we're saying, well whatever's left over for contract closeouts, that's available for malaria and TB and all the rest of it. Um, I I think that's inverted. You should use the sixteen billion from the canceled contracts to close out, whatever you need to close out. And the three billion that we enacted for specific purposes should be used for those specific purposes so can I get your attention on that matter?

Sure. So a couple points, as you now know the the USAID, I'm no longer the acting director, it's no longer under our purview, and not even through my personal engagements, now basically out of OMB. And they are sitting on this closeout fund. The closeout fund isn't just for contracts that the some of them are tied up in litigation. In essence, some of that money may be needed because these people have sued, they wanna get paid for the contract, they claim they were in breach, and courts are basically saying we may rule in their favor and in some cases might, and we have to have funds available. So they're still estimating what that closeout costs will be. We have been able to go and get some money for OMB. For example, I think after our conversation we talked a little about Ebola response, we we were OMB released uh I think the number is two hundred or two hundred and fifty million dollars from that.

Yes, and

And theoretically the money that's not needed for the closeout, as I said, may be given to the state for programming, as you can imagine. We want it to be given to the state for programming because we have programming we can put it towards including the i- items that you've outlined.

And that was the whole point, I mean the whole point here was to move aid under the State Department. Whether we like that or not, that was your objective. And so now that there's this pile of money that's still in U. S. Aid, it strikes me as a little odd that you can't control those dollars. That was the purpose of enacting this kind of new model. The other thing I'd say is, first of all, thank you for releasing those Ebola dollars. It also demonstrates that you are perfectly capable of getting money released from those closeout funds, if you wish. And I would say Ebola is an urgent priority, but so is malaria, so is T uh TB and so is HIV AIDS. Thank you.

Sir McConnell.

Welcome back to your old place of work, Miss Secretary. Um. Hope you like your new job.

There are some days I like this one better, some days I like the new one better. It depends on the like tomorrow will not be one of those days.

You reported last month that the issue of arms sales to Taiwan quote did not feature prominently end quote in President Trump's meeting with President Xi. But you also acknowledged China was quote upset end quote by the approval of eleven billion dollars in sales to Taiwan. So last month, the acting secretary of the Navy testified that pausing delivery of sales to Taiwan couldn't be a result of munitions expenditures in CENTKOM because, quote, we have plenty, end quote. But if it's not about US military needs, I struggle We've pushed Taiwan to spend billions on US weapons only to balk at actually delivering them. As for yourself, you've been clear-eyed about the gravity of Chinese ambitions and the threat they pose to our interests. You know why the optics of this pause aren't great. What's the administration's calculus and what are you doing to reassure Taiwan and US treaty allies in the region they can actually count on our commitment?

Yeah, a couple points. First, we we we don't consult with the Chinese on these sales. They raise it constantly and uh but we have not we don't consult with them, and that's in keeping with our long-standing policies which have not changed. The second point I would make is we just did an eleven billion dollar sale in December. And the reason why we know the Chinese were upset is not just cuz they told us, it's because they fly all kinds of planes, they crossed the center line multiple times, very aggressive response to it. It was the single largest arms sale to Taiwan I believe in history, just concluded in December. I think the actual cumulative amount was larger than the four years of Biden combined, and certainly larger than the six years in which President Obama gave no sales, zero, to six of his eight years as president to Taiwan. That said, this current one is not on a pause, it's simply under a review it's a big amount of money, it's fourteen billion dollars. it has implications on our defense industrial base and whether, you know, what the production line will look like, we have to balance that with these other things, so it's going through the internal DOW review, but it's not, I don't think the right terminology is paused, I think the right terminology is it continues to be under review as it's being processed. But I just remind five months ago we did the single largest sale to Taiwan in history, at eleven billion, that's very substantial. So um and and that just happened under this administration not very long ago.

Another issue that's probably not real high on your radar screen, but something I've had an interest in for a long time. And never have been able to figure out how to make a difference. And that's the democracy in Burma. At last year's budget hearing. I asked you about the administration's plan to counter Chinese influence in Burma. A year later, I d still don't see a coherent strategy on that. The department repeatedly declined to obligate funds to implement the Burma Act. And it softened its policy toward Chinese-backed military junta. So, Mr. Secretary, when Hong Kong's pro-democracy advocates were under attack, you you stood by them. both on principle and because friends of democracy tend to be friends of America. So does the State Department have a preference on whether Burma is ruled by a Chinese-backed junta or by duly elected civilian leaders? Or is the policy toward Burma agnostic toward values and stable outcomes?

Yeah, I don't think our policies will ever be agnostic. anywhere in the world if we had our choice and our preference we would much prefer to deal with a democratically elected government that's friendly to the united states than one that isn't and is under the control of a foreign power the challenge in in burma has been obviously that the chinese hold a tremendous amount of leverage over that system there and we have tried to find and continue to search for creative ways in which we can at least have a relationship with elements within burma uh and but it's been a hard nut to crack obviously because both the the the regime that's place has been uh brutal in the way that it's governed and because the the the amount of leverage and influence that China has over them. So we continue to seek opportunities to change that dynamic, and maybe those in baby steps, maybe that's in leaps, you never know when history provides a unique uh opening and an opportunity. But to your fundamental question, look ideally you, and by the way dealing with democracies is not always easy because they change governments and sometimes the person who got elected is a little less friendly to us than the others but over time we have found that our ability to interact with

I've got time for one more.

Mm.

I appreciate the administration's efforts to end Iran's decades-long war against America and Israel. But I worry our public diplomacy on this has been self-defeating. We had tools in place since the Cold War to reach freedom-loving people under censorship. They are hosted primarily under the US agency for global media. But even as the president has spoken directly to the Iranian people, the administration has repeatedly allowed USAGM to withhold funding from the international broadcast entities designed to help its message reach audiences who are under repression. So I'd like to hear your view on the utility of USAGM guarantee organizations like Radio Florida and the Open Technology Fund, what is the department doing to leverage them to communicate with Iranian citizens? And what role should that agency guarantee play in countering censorship and oppression from the PRC and China as well?

Well, yeah, and as you know, that that agency is in the purview of this committee in terms of funding it. It runs ancillary to state, but we don't necessarily run it or control it. It had somebody that was involved who had been appointed by the White House. That that their that appointment was over was removed by a court decision, and all of the decisions they made while they were there were also reversed. I do know in my role as National Security Advisor that we're now involved in finding a restart of how we can get this program, because I do believe it has utility and value. I think in the twenty-first century, one of the questions we will ask ourselves is not just do we wanna provide broadcasting to these places, but whether we should be getting more into the access business, meaning using part of that funding and part of that programming, not simply to have a radio station that broadcasts or something, but actually giving people in that country the tools to circumvent censorship, and be able to access news and information from around the world, and more importantly to communicate with one another. One of the things you will find pretty consistently in every totalitarian system is they wanna control the ability of their citizens to communicate with one another it's why Russia has started its own internet in it in its own internal uh uh systems it's why china does not allow american social media platforms to operate they have to control it it's the reason why iran shut down the internet as one of the first things they did when hostilities began because they don't want their people communicating with one another so i do agree it's a valuable tool in our toolbox and uh in my other role and capacity it's one that i've given emphasis to and hopefully we'll have something to bring you that both complies with the court order and i think furthers our national interest

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. It's good to see you. Um, I think you might have been at the same briefing that I attended when Putin invaded Ukraine. And we were in the skeph. And we were asking our experts, how long is this war gonna last? And some of them suggested two weeks. Valiant people, but they're up against one of the largest militaries in the world. Here we are four, four and a half years later. And the Ukrainians are still valiantly, successfully in many respects, fighting day in and day out. I've never had any doubt in my mind whose side I was on in terms of the war in Ukraine. My mother was born in Lithuania. I know the Russians through the Tsar and Soviets and the history that I've read. And I know what their ambitions are, and they're not consistent with the values of this country. I'm trying to figure out now exactly where we are as a nation when it comes to the war in Ukraine. Uh, a- a- and I think of some specifics, the four hundred million dollars that, uh, we appropriated to help the Ukrainian people fight this war has bounced back and forth. Is this finally resolved? Are we gonna send this to the Ukrainians?

The four hundred million?

Yes.

Yeah, that's going through the inter-agency process right now. In fact, I saw maybe last Friday something on it. I think you'll see news on that pretty soon.

Well, that's exactly what Secretary Hicksbeth said two weeks ago, three weeks ago, and nothing's happened. So Here they are fighting for their lives, they're facing ballistic missiles, they don't have the defense that they need, they're valiantly doing everything they can to save their people, and we are going through some bureaucratic malaise, I'm not sure what, that is the

Yeah, it it's just going through the inter-agency process and there are a couple stops along the way that unfortunately got tied up a little bit but I I've seen it not as secretary of state I've seen the inter-agency as national security advisor, and it's something that I think you'll we'll have news on fairly f- soon.

Will it be timely help, will it be help that we can send them quickly, that they need?

Yeah, in particular, I mean, the one thing we always worry about is in the winter, you know, cuz winter will come again and they had a pretty brutal winter last year and it there's indications it could be just as brutal this year, uh, especially with their inability to generate energy, so there is urgency in trying to get this resolved and delivered.

Well, let me also ask you this question. I realize with the Straits of Hormuz we found ourselves buying oil from the Russians. Was that the understanding?

So, Treasury has lifted on a short-term basis the sale the sanctions on the sale of some Russian oil, primarily as a trade-off unfortunately, but designed to get um more oil into the market to try to stabilize global prices, but this is not a permanent change to our policy. It's a time little bit of one that was just recently extended by, I believe, by another thirty days.

Not that long ago we characterized Russia as one of the four hard targets in the world for the United States. Are they still?

They clearly still remains a challenge and back to your point that you made a moment ago I don't think there's any doubt at this point in the minds of most observers around the world and I would I would say in the minds of some inside of Russia that the invasion of Ukraine has been a strategic disaster for them. They they are not going to achieve the objectives they set out on day one for certain and they may not even be able to militarily ever achieve the objectives they're demanding now in negotiations I would also say that how I we have viewed it is this war has no military solution. It has to have a negotiated settlement to it. And that's the role we've tried to play and it's been a difficult role to play because frankly we're not an impartial mediator. We sanctioned Russia and we are providing and have sold weapons through the Pearl program which has remained unimpeded to the Ukrainians. Unfortunately those talks have stalled uh in in recent months for a variety of reasons the Ukrainians have actually made some battlefield gains in the last month as well uh the Russians are losing five thousand not not injured, dying, in fact it is the first conflict According to the Department of War, it is the one of the first conflicts ever in which the death rate is higher than the casualty rate for the, on the Russian side. The first time ever that you have more deaths than casualties. So you're right, not only are the Ukrainians bravely fighting, they're effectively fighting. So the role we wanna play is if there's a way to negotiate this thing to a peaceful, cuz ultimately this is going to be neg- the end of this is gonna be negotiated, but it's been difficult because the demands that both sides have in order to end it have been far apart, to this point.

I'd like to take to you, uh, take you to what happened last night, uh, just, uh, twelve hours ago or so, uh, when the Russians were attacking, uh, Ukraine, uh, and Kiev again, killing civilians, while the Ukrainians were attacking the Russians in St. Petersburg. And they have, uh, uh, destroyed some of their, uh, infrastructure and oil-producing facilities.

I am.

Why did we

Never attended, but I'm familiar with it.

Uh, well, I'm asking why the United States would send an official delegation to Vladimir Putin's Russian Davos to talk about economic development in Russia.

I who I'm not I'm not aware of the delegation that went. Um, that would I I know I'm aware of the event, I know they were hosting one, but I don't think it would have been a high level official.

I'm not sure what level it is, but to think that we had anything official, and it included Steven's Steven Seagal, the actor, is one of the people representing the United States. Are you familiar with that?

I'm familiar with who he is.

I am too.

Yeah, I'm not. Look, uh, at the end, so not a government official, l- back to your point that, cuz I think the broader point is, and you just raised it a moment ago about these attacks, what's changed, the, the, not Russia's always been capable of these long-range strikes into Kyiv. You've seen an increase in intensity as a result, you know, of what you've pointed out and the fact that the Ukrainians have been effective against them. That's been the one dynamic that's changed in the last few months is,

Uh, we have a sanctions bill here that might do that as well. I'd like to close with one personal note. You joined me when you were a member of the Senate in the Paul Simon Water for the World effort to bring clean drinking water and sanitation to some of the poorest people on earth. We've reached seventy six million people with water, fifty eight million with sanitation. That program is still on the books. Are we gonna fund it?