Summary
- Michael Waltz (Representative of the United States to the United Nations, United States Mission to the United Nations) announced historic $570 million UN budget cut.
- Jeffrey Bartos (U.S. Representative to the United Nations for U.N. Management and Reform, United States Mission to the United Nations) praised pooled humanitarian funding and burden-sharing reforms.
- Sen. Murphy pressed Waltz on President Trump's threat to end Iran's civilization and whether it violated international laws of war.
- Republicans praised UN spending cuts and accountability while Democrats condemned United States votes with Russia and China and allied isolation.
- Waltz said the United States will use Security Council leverage to ensure the next secretary-general advances reform and American values.
Morning digest
Get hearings like this in your inbox
Transcript
Everyone's cooperation, we have a very brief business meeting to move some uh nominees and thank you uh to the uh uh to the minority for their cooperation. We'll start with uh uh Miss uh Kate Dillon of Maryland to be an Assistant Secretary of State Education and Cultural Affairs. So a motion to center the floor with a uh recommended should be confirmed.
So moved.
Second. moved and seconded as her debate, Senator Sheehan.
Yes, I I would like to express my reservations about Miss Dillon. Um, her responses to the questions at the hearing left me concerned over her willingness to work with this committee. She did not outline a plan to protect the ECA Bureau against unprecedented efforts by the Office of OMB to undermine important programs and she was completely unresponsive when I followed up with her to understand who in each regional bureau is responsible
Thank you, Senator. Is there further debate on the nomination?
Senator.
Uh, yep.
If I might, I did not have a chance to meet with her individually, but my staff did and um conveyed their uh alarm at the lack of relevant uh experience um and qualifications. This is a critical bureau uh for the State Department, uh a critical assistant secretary position. Uh, and I will also oppose um and hope that we will see a nominee who has the the skills and relevant ability to lead at a critical moment in our world and for this department.
Thank you, Senator Coons. No further debate. There being no further debate, the clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Ricketts.
Aye.
Mr. McCormick.
Aye.
Mr. Daines.
Aye.
Mr. Haggerty.
Aye.
Mr. Barrasso.
Aye.
Mr. Lee.
Aye.
Mr. Paul. Mr. Cruz.
Aye.
Mr. Scott.
Aye.
Mr. Curtis.
Aye.
Mr. Cornyn.
Aye.
Mr. Shaheen.
No.
Mr. Coons.
No.
Mr. Murphy.
No.
Mr. Kane. Mr. Merkley.
No.
Mr. Booker.
No, by proxy.
Mr. Schatz.
No, by proxy.
Mr. Van Hollen.
No, by proxy.
Ms. Duckworth.
No, by proxy.
Ms. Rosen.
No, by proxy.
Mr. Chairman.
Aye. Click a report.
Mr. Chairman, the As are eleven and those are ten.
Her uh nomination be sent to the floor with a do pass recommendation. We now have before us the uh proposed nomination of mister uh adiwale sadiq of new york to be the united states director of the african development bank for a term of five years, is there a motion to send him the floor?
moved.
it's been moved. and seconded uh that we send the nomination to the floor with a uh do pass confirmation recommendation. is there debate? sir sheeheen
mister chairman i i'm i intend to vote. for this nominee and I'm glad the administration has nominated somebody to be the executive director of the African Development Bank but I just want to point out that the administration has also proposed zeroing out funding for the African Development Bank which I think is inconsistent with not only um the nomination but the policy that we should be pursuing so I hope that the nominee, Mister Adwali Sadiq, will address the administration's concerns with the fund and not just walk away.
Thank you, Senator Shaheen. Mr. further debate. Burn, being a further debate, clerk.
Mr. Ricketts.
Aye.
Mr. McCormick. Mr. Daines.
Aye.
Mr. Haggerty.
Aye.
Mr. Barrasso. Mr. Lee.
Aye.
Mr. Paul. Mr. Cruz. Mr. Scott.
Aye. Aye.
Mr. Cornyn.
Aye.
Mr. Shaheen.
Aye.
Mr. Coons.
Aye.
Mr. Murphy.
No.
Mr. Kane.
Aye.
Mr. Merkley, aye. Mr. Booker.
No, by proxy.
Mr. Schatz.
No, by proxy.
Mr. Van Hollen.
No, by proxy.
Miss Duckworth.
No, by proxy.
Miss Rosen.
Aye, by proxy.
Mr. Chairman.
Aye. Clerk, a report.
Mr. Chairman, the a's are sixteen, the no's are five.
And as motion is passed, uh, the nominee will be referred to the floor where to do pass recommendation. We'll have uh before us, Mister Kevin Kim of Texas, to be representative of the United States. America to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations with the rank and status of Ambassador. Uh, is there a motion?
So moved.
Then moved and seconded that we sit under the floor with a do pass recommendation and is there debate? There be no debate. Click or call the roll.
Mr. Ricketts.
Aye.
Mr. Kormat.
Aye.
Mr. Daines.
Aye.
Mr. Hagerty.
Hagerty's aye.
Aye.
Mr. Barrasso. Mr. Lee. Mr. Paul. Mr. Cruz. Mr. Scott. Aye. Mr. Curtis. Aye. Mr. Cornyn. Aye. Miss Shaheen.
Aye.
Mr. Coons. Aye. Mr. Murphy.
No.
Mr. Kane. Aye. Mr. Merkley. Aye. Mr. Booker.
No, by proxy.
Mr. Shatz.
Aye, by proxy.
Mr. Van Hollen.
No, by proxy.
Miss Duckworth.
Aye, by proxy.
Miss Rosen.
Aye, by proxy.
Mr. Chairman.
Aye, clerk, a report.
Mr. Chairman. The As are eighteen,
Four.
the No's are three.
Um, one is about sixty, one is about three, so we're at sixty.
Thank you very much. The uh motion is passed. The uh nomination will be sent to the floor with a do pass recommendation. Now, the uh uh ranking member and I have negotiated on three lists. Uh, and they are FSO lists, uh number eight nine three, PN eight nine three, PN eight nine four, PN eight nine five consisting of a couple hundred or so people. And uh we've gone through these uh we believe these are we we need we really wanna get these people move their uh their important positions they be uh they'd be uh sent to so with that is there a motion uh to uh send the three lists to the floor uh with the recommendation that these people be confirmed to their positions.
So moved. Second.
it has been moved and seconded uh that uh these uh three lists be sent to the floor, as indicated is there debate? Senator Shaheen.
Um, Mister Chairman, I think it's very positive progress that we are finally getting these foreign service officer lists, but it has taken way too long. We are a year and a half into this administration. We still have ambassadors in places around the world. Um who we don't even have nominees for. And I think it is well past time this committee receive and approve the Foreign Service Officer promotion lists. And I hope we will send a very strong message to the State Department that we expect to see these lists move much more expeditiously in the future.
Thank you very much, Senator Shaheen. On the bright side, uh, it isn't often we get to move
That is a bright side.
we don't get We don't often get to move a couple hundred like this, so uh that is very significant progress. So uh with that, is there further debate? There being no uh further debate, the clerk will color roll.
Mr. Ricketts.
Aye.
Mr. McCormick.
Aye.
Mr. Daines.
Aye.
Mr. Haggerty. Mr. Barrasso.
Aye.
Mr. Weed. Mr. Paul. Mr. Cruz. Mr. Scott.
Aye.
Mr. Curtis.
Aye.
Recording.
Aye.
Machine.
Aye.
Mr. Coons.
Aye.
Mr. Murphrey.
Aye.
Mr. Kane. Aye. Mr. Merkley. Aye. Mr. Booker.
Aye by proxy.
Mr. Schatz.
Aye by proxy.
Mr. Balagalan.
Aye by proxy.
Ms. Duckworth.
Aye by proxy.
Ms. Rosen.
Aye by proxy.
Mr. Chairman.
Aye, clerk, a report.
Mr. Chairman, the votes are twenty one, the noes are zero.
Please note uh we had a unanimous vote to send two hundred of these to the floor. Uh great uh cooperation and progress, thank you very much, the uh nominations will be sent to the floor uh to move uh forward with the recommendation that they do pass. Thank you very much, thank you everyone. Senator Cruz, I know you've got uh other uh things you've gotta get to and others do too, but nonetheless we have an important uh hearing this morning and we wanna welcome uh uh two witnesses uh this morning to uh uh help us out on uh an issue that all of us, every member of this committee is interested in, and that is reforming the United Nations. and uh assessing United States efforts and priorities. And we welcome uh Mike Waltz and Jeff Bartos uh to the committee. And the way we're uh we're gonna go through this is I'm gonna make a uh uh few remarks, I'm gonna turn it over to uh the ranking member to make uh a few remarks. We'll then turn it over to you gentlemen and uh we I know you have uh some uh good information for us. We will then uh go back and forth on questions between the majority and the minority and uh hopefully make some progress here. This is an incredibly uh important uh subject that all of us talk about from time to time. And uh none of us seem to have much ability to do much about it, but on the other hand you do have uh uh a lot to do with it. So uh uh both of you, thank you uh for being here today um and it's almost uh seven months to the day. uh that you were both confirmed by the Senate. Uh you've accomplished remarkable and and unprecedented reforms across the UN and I know you plan to do even more this coming year. Uh you have a target rich environment in front of you. Uh as you know the United States has historically been the most generous donor to the United Nations. That is an understatement. We have consistently paid twenty five percent at minimum of of the UN UN peacekeeping budget and twenty two percent of the UN regular budget. This doesn't even include our voluntary contributions, which easily reach into the billions over the last uh few decades. Uh, that is a staggering amount of money. Uh, yet this massive uh very generous contribution has given American people very little return on their investment. The UN has become an inefficient and bloated bureaucracy that has departed from its original mandate of maintaining international peace and security to instead focusing on politicized mandates and woke ideology. I'd like to say that was breaking news, but it is not. It has been happening for some time. Uh worse, many UN agencies have deep-rooted anti-American and anti-Israeli biases, and even provide preferential treatment to our adversaries. This is not what the American people signed up for, and it's certainly not what they wanna pay for. I'm glad that President Trump stood up for the American people and withdrew the United States from organizations that do not serve our interest. like UNESCO and the ill-fated UN Human Rights Council. In both of your hearings last year, I told you that I believe you had two of the hardest jobs in trying to reform the UN. I'm I'm pleased to see uh that you've taken that challenge in hand and are demanding radical transparency real accountability and enacting actual reforms that will hopefully transform a broken body into one that actually works for the American people. In today's hearing I hope uh the committee can discuss the unprecedented reforms you've achieved over the last seven months, and how you will capitalize on this momentum to further align the UN with the administration's priorities. With that, Senator Shaheen.
Well. Thank you, Mister Chairman, and welcome, um Ambassador Walz and Ambassador Bartos. We're delighted to have you before the committee. The war in Iran and the struggle over the Strait of Hormuz underscores a basic point. American power is strongest when we are exercising it with allies. From World War Two through the Cold War, our major successes have come through broad multilateral coalitions because alliances multiply American power. But unfortunately, instead of working with NATO allies like France, Germany and the United Kingdom, the administration has been criticizing them for refusing to join the US effort in the Strait of Hormuz. As a result, we're not op- we are now operating without shared burden, political cover, or international legitimacy. That's reflected in how the United States is voting at the United Nations, both in substance and who we are lining up with. Increasingly, the United States is voting with Russia, China, Belarus, and North Korea. In February, on the fourth anniversary of Russia's full-scale Invasion? The United States abstained from a General Assembly resolution reaffirming Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. That resolution passed a hundred and seven to twelve, as I'm sure you know, and we were on the side of the twelve. More concerning, the United States advanced a proposal to strip out that language, and although that effort failed, it was supported by Russia, Hungary, and Belarus. Just weeks later, the United States opposed a resolution warning that attacks on Ukraine's energy grid threaten nuclear safety. A resolution backed by our allies across Europe, as well as partners like Canada and Australia. Um, however, the United States joined Russia and China in opposing it. And sadly, it's not just limited to Ukraine. The United States is becoming increasingly isolated from our partners in multilateral forums. We're supporting resolutions, but we're not leading outcomes. We vote for UN action, but we are not leading a sustained diplomatic effort to end, for example, the war in Sudan as it enters its third year. We're not voting ag- we are now voting against resolutions on gender, human rights, development and climate that have previously passed by consensus. For example, in the recent vote on the annual conclusions of the UN's Commission on the Status of Women, a document that sets out recommendations to protect women's rights and expand economic and political opportunities for women, only the United States, I'm gonna say that one more time, only the United States voted against it. That kind of isolation has consequences. We have withdrawn from international organizations and in some cases stopped paying our dues to the United Nations. Congress has made clear on a bipartisan basis that the United States should stay engaged. And our allies are watching whether or not we do. I just returned from a bipartisan delegation to Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. What we heard consistently is that as the United States pulls back, China is stepping in more aggressively. We see that dynamic at the United Nations. China is now the second largest contributor to the UN budget and the largest troop contributor among the permanent members of the Security Council. Over the past decade, the number of Chinese personnel in the UN system has doubled, while US representation has declined. And Beijing is using this to shape outcomes and to advance its priorities. So, I'm not clear about what the strategy is here. I don't understand how alienating our allies, stepping back at the UN, aligning with adversaries on key votes, advances US interests. I know both of you understand these dynamics. I appreciate what you're doing at the UN and your efforts for reform. I think all of us believe that the UN should be more effective and efficient, but I just don't understand some of these moves and I don't see how they help the United States. Thank you, Mister Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Shaheen. Uh, we'll now turn uh to our witnesses. Uh Uh Ambassador Walz, we'll we'll start with you and we welcome Julie, always glad to have you uh join us. And uh I know you have some uh some important matters to take up with us, Ambassador, so the floor is yours.
Well, thank you, Mister Chairman, uh Ranking Member Shaheen and members of the committee. Uh, I do appreciate the opportunity to appear to you t- appear before you today. I think we've made a number of real strides in reforming this organization. And I'll just say out the gate, uh, we use uh this committee's name and and you and the ranking member quite a bit. As we are driving reform, your oversight strengthens our hand uh in New York and when we are, Ambassador Bartos and I and the team are pressing the UN to spend American dollars wisely, I remind them, the United States Senate, the American people are watching. Uh last year, senators, the American people returned President Trump to the White House with a clear band-aid. to put America first in our foreign policy. That included a hard look at the United Nations and these international organizations. And from the very beginning, Americans measured it by a simple test, that if the United States is going to be the largest funder, the biggest bill payer of their hard-earned money towards the UN, the UN must work for American interest. Now, eighty years later, Frankly, the UN has drifted. Its budget has quadrupled in terms of assessed and voluntary giving over the last twenty-five years yet we have not seen a quadrupling of of peace. Wars raged, dictatorships are honored at human rights agencies, the bureaucracy has grown, and the results have lagged. Meanwhile, the UN pushes costly ideological agendas, from its twenty-thirty agenda to the by the secretary general's old admission, failing sustainable development goals, instead of focusing on the basics, instead of focusing on peace and security. So, yes, Americans ask. I think our family members, our constituents ask. Is it worth it? Is there money being well spent? Honestly, I wondered the same thing when I first arrived uh at New York. President Trump's answer was clear. when he gave me, uh, when he nominated me for this job, uh, the UN has tremendous potential, but it needs to do its job. It needs to realize that potential. So my charge, our mission's charge, is get the UN back to basics, end conflicts, keep the peace, and deliver lifesaving assistance. And to that end, we have had some notable successes on Gaza. When we came in, war was raging. Dozens of hostages, including Americans, were in those god-awful tunnels. being forced to dig their own graves and aid was still at a standstill. President Trump changed that. He put forward a comprehensive twenty point peace plan. It was celebrated by world leaders, including the Palestinian Authority at Sharm el-Sheikh. Uh and then we brought it to the Security Council and got it endorsed without opposition, thirteen to zero. That framework now does a number of things. It anchors an international stabilization force. it put in place local Palestinian governance. Uh, and aid has been moving and exceeding the UN's own standards since that p- plan was put in place, and now you have a World Bank-managed fund focused on reconstruction funded largely by regional partners, not by American taxpayers. So I know a number of you have asked kind of what's our approach and model going forward. That is emblematic of the model. uh, American leadership, American diplomacy, but sharing the burden and getting actual results, uh, for the people that we represent. We've also applied it in Haiti, building support for a gang suppression force that now the UN's providing the logistics for cutting the cost for that effort by three-fourths. Not US troops, international troops restoring order and taking on the gangs. And Sudan, uh, we are pushing for humanitarian corridors. We do think we are close to getting um to getting that deal across the Finnish line. We are pressuring warlords and we are not handing out blank checks. On Western Sahara, a fifty year long conflict. Uh, we are finally making some progress. I've learned now as a diplomat I often question what's the point in all of these meetings, but sometimes as we just saw in Lebanon, as we saw seen in Western Sahara, just getting all sides in the room uh is a victory in and of itself. At the same time, we are closing and downsizing missions that have outlived uh their purpose from Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen and Columbia. We have cut roughly two hundred million. We've reduced boots on the ground. No more missions sitting around for thirty to forty years. Uh and an important reform in that regard, led by Ambassador Bartos uh and his team We've been paying for decades for these peacekeeping missions for ninety thousand around the world if they bring their equipment they get paid. Whether they use it or not. So the incentive was use it as little as possible, incur as little maintenance as possible, uh and collect as the most money. Believe it or not, we had to drive that reform, now they have to use uh that equipment. On the humanitarian side, we have we are using pooled funding to force these agencies to use the same warehouses, the same ships, the same back offices. On the development side, uh, we are heavily engaging the private sector. Let's lower barriers to capital, drive foreign investment, and create jobs, not dependency, and we're calling that, uh, trade over aid. We are continuing to engage in these key bodies, these international regulatory bodies that set standards, like the International Telecommunications Union, the World Intellectual Property Organization, But we're fighting things that will be bad for our industry, like the carbon tax that was almost placed upon all global shipping that would have passed on a billion dollars a month. And then, finally, senators, I'll just say, um, in terms of the UN itself, we drove, and it's through an elaborate and painful committee process that has to be done by consensus - Imagine if everything in the Senate or the Congress had to be done by consensus, all one hundred, to get anything done. That's the UN system.
You're not the Senate.
Uh
Hey, you're not.
Not sixty,
Yeah.
a hundred, uh a hundred and ninety nations joined us in in cementing the UN's first budget cut in its history, ever. Uh, that will save over half a billion dollars in the overall budget and will save our dues over a hundred million a year. That will result in nearly three thousand headquarters bureaucrats being cut, that will result in twenty five percent of peacekeepers around the world, and this is allowing these peacekeeping unit commanders to send underperforming or some that are even, uh, accused of sexual exploitation and abuse to send them home and to clean house. Uh, and, yeah, that is, that is just the beginning in terms of reform. Finally, I'll say we still have a ways to go. We know we have work ahead of us. We have eighty years of bloat and growth, uh, ahead of us. Case in point, the civil servants of the UN make a hundred and seventeen percent of what an equivalent American makes they get a sixteen percent contribution to a pension fund that's over a hundred billion dollars uh under management they get uh a private school and secondary school paid for as a former congressman I couldn't stand before, our constituents and say uh that that money is being well spent. Uh, so we are looking at pulling back a lot of those excessive benefit packages. Uh, again, we have our work, uh, cut out for us, but we have a great team here. Uh, uh, Ambassador Bartos has the very unenviable job of doing nothing but reforming, uh, uh, the, the UN, and he has a great team of civil servants and foreign service officers behind him. And with that, I'll conclude and just tell you, uh, just conclude with Yeah, the the president means it uh when he says there's so much potential. Yeah, when we look at some of these uh some of these conflicts that have sat around for thirty, forty, fifty years with peacekeeping forces that cost nearly a billion dollars a year, we have to tie them to a political process. Our special envoys in the State Department and our great team there are driving those processes and then we're hooking those peacekeeping uh uh forces and missions to those processes so they can work themselves out of a job, uh, and we can share the burden, uh, with, uh, like-minded nations, and that finally, as I say to my family members that ask about the UN all the time, we need one place in the world where everybody can come and talk. Uh, and I want that to be right here in the United States, not in Brussels or Moscow or Beijing or, or anywhere else. And with that I'll conclude, and it's an honor to be with you.
Thank you, Ambassador. Um, w- well said. Uh, Mister Bartos, I understand you don't have any prepared remarks, uh, but are ready to be grilled by the committee on reform, which we, which we are all interested in. And, uh, so I'm, I'm going to, uh, I, I'm gonna start there and I think, uh, uh, Ambassador Walts opened up, uh, uh, an area I, I think that's appropriate really to focus on, and that is, um, I, I've always been a minimalist as far as the UN is concerned. Uh, they, they started with a really, really good idea. a place where everybody could come together and debate. It's a whole lot more than that today, uh, with the thousands and thousands of people that work there and the billions of dollars that are spent. And I've, I've, uh, told the secretary general, I can't tell you how many times, to get back to basics. If you look at the charter of the UN, it was put together to stop conflicts, to stop wars, to stop countries from fighting each other. And, uh, they're not even coming close. I mean, uh, th- you, you've got, uh, two uh very major conflicts going on right now with Iran and Ukraine, and of course who knows how many of the smaller conflicts that are going on. And uh the UN is is uh really powerless uh to engage in that, it really doesn't do much about it. Uh whenever I ask the uh Secretary General about that he goes on and on and on about their programs on DEI and food and uh medical things things like that. They're just spending our money, we c- we we do that ourselves. Um, so I I guess, uh, I'm a minimalist, uh, but a minimalist approach, if you could just do that, would be a huge, huge benefit to mankind. And, um, so, Mister Bartos, why don't you talk a little bit about, uh, the view of, uh, other people that you deal with, uh, at the UN as far as their view of, uh, how, uh, engaged, uh, the UN should be and what Like we always say, wh- the what's the proper role of government as far as America is concerned? What's the proper role of the UN? So, Mister Pardos, the floor is yours.
Um, thank you, Mister Chairman. And good morning to you and to the whole committee. Uh, before I answer your question, I did not have prepared remarks. But I do want to say it's an honor to be here today with you. Uh, this is a very important topic. And, uh, working with you and your team, your excellent team, and with the ranking member and her excellent team, we have our team here at the management reform section and throughout the mission, we've worked really hard to keep close collaboration and coordination with this committee, and it has been, I have learned a ton working with uh not only the staff from the majority staff, but also the ranking members' staff, and to your guidance, and as I shared with you uh yesterday, we use we use the committee's name and and your uh charge often in our negotiations,
Sometimes without permission, I don't know.
which Yes, sir. Yes, sir, but effectively, but effectively.
It's true.
But effectively. Um. As Ambassador Walz said, the historic reforms that we were able to achieve in the main session of the fifth committee the budget that we closed in December with a hundred and ninety-three votes, as the Ambassador said, was a remarkable achievement and it was made possible if you track it from January twentieth when the President was sworn in, his vision and leadership drove that. Our outstanding colleagues at the State Department took that reform mantle from noon on January twentieth all the way through uh to today in September, Ambassador Walz and Ambassador Lissetta uh and I joined the team uh right before UNGA, thank you for confirming us right before UNGA, uh and uh so we hit the ground quite literally running, not knowing where anything was but we we got a lot done. And in that sprint to the end, we were able to take the outstanding work of our career foreign service officers and civil servants in the management reform section, in particular, who've been chomping at the bit to drive reform for most of their careers. And we were able to take that good work, make sure it fit with what we were trying to achieve to execute president's agenda and that was why we saw the five hundred and seventy million dollar budget cut first time in history of any budget cut let alone fifteen percent, as Ambassador Walz said, almost three thousand posts cut. US leadership was indispensable in making that happen. We were at quite literally at the center of all of it, and so while the press may cover that the US is not doing this and the US is not doing that, the reform effort, president's vision and leadership, direction from secretary Ruby and ambassador Walz, working with this committee, That drove reform and it was US leadership that brought everybody together. Our team worked. It's a crazy process. Our team worked ten twenty hour days at the end of the budget process and forty-four hours straight. Calls, meetings, meetings, meetings. Ambassador Walz was the first perm rep from the United States to come down to the basement of the UN late at night, during the fifth committee negotiations, to put his mark on what what we wanted to see, what the president expected. And so that has been how we got it done. As Ambassador Waltz said, there is so much left to do. We've made a good positive start towards reform. Um, but the UN, uh, and I'll just share with you, uh, briefly. Coming back from my trip to Africa, I visited MINUSCA, MINUSCA and Kenya, uh, back in February. Talking to the UN about what they do well, which is the delivery of humanitarian aid at scale, in remote locations, with a robust supply chain. at a reasonable, predictable price day in, day out, and sadly and unfortunately year in, year out. Watching that happen on the ground is outstanding. And the message I have been trying to deliver to all UN leadership, from the secretary to the deputy secretary general, all the way through the the cabinet of of the leadership team at the UN is focus on what you're excellent at, Chairman, to your point, minimalist, you're excellent at this, do more of this, there's a lot you're really not very good at, and there's some things that are quite destructive. not only to our interest but to the interest of the West and to freedom and and to uh sovereignty. Stop doing the things that are destructive, focus on what you're excellent at. Is it getting through? We'll see. We're seeing a lot more nations use the terminology that we started using about back to basics, focus, results on the ground, that was not a phrase you heard from other nations before we got there in September. Results on the ground, delivering for the people that the UN is meant to serve. That is what we're trying to focus on every day and it's an honor to do this work. And again, thank you for having us here today.
Well, thank, thank you so much, uh, Bess. I, I, uh, i- i- we don't get good news on this committee very often. And, uh, when you hear that, uh, you guys were actually able to negotiate a five hundred and seventy million dollar cut, I mean, that is big news. You will not hear about this on the cable TV channels. That's, uh, that's not what they wanna report. And so you're to be commended for that. Uh and uh we certainly recognize it on this committee and uh and and we're very appreciative. Uh five hundred and seventy million dollars is not loose change. And uh particularly when it uh comes to the fact that a hundred million of it uh is uh US taxpayer money. Uh three thousand posts eliminated is not a small uh matter. Uh when it comes to parking in New York City you're gonna be uh highly thought of as uh things changed a little bit particularly during uh the uh general assembly. Uh, but, um, congratulations on that and, uh, and we, uh, we wanna encourage you to continue that, uh, approach of, uh, getting them to focus on what they do well and focus what their basic, uh, uh, obligation is under the UN charter. And that is, uh, uh, to promote peace, create peace, and everybody work for peace. And, uh, it just, uh, it, it's incredibly frustrating to see these, uh, votes in the, uh security council uh where you can't even condemn Russia for inv- invading a country, and crossing boundaries and trying to take land, when that is a direct violation of the very foundation of the United Nations and its charter to do business. And they can't even pass a resolution. Not not only can't they do anything about it, they can't even condemn it. And that that is that that's just incredibly frustrating. And I uh the the uh whenever the secretary general comes to see me, I'm sure he has to take his blood pressure medication before he comes in, because I I drill out with him uh pretty hard. Anyway, with that, uh to the ranking members, Senor Shahin.
Well, thank you, Mister Chairman, I I would just like to make a correction, though, to something that you said, because you said that they the General Assembly can't condemn um Russia's action in Ukraine and actually the United States voted with Russia against condemning the war in Ukraine um The vote was a hundred and seven to twelve, and we were one of the twelve. So I I I share your frustration about a lot of the votes that the UN takes, but that's one where we were on the wrong side and we continue to be on the wrong side. So I'm not gonna ask you all to respond to that because I don't Whatever you say, I'm not gonna agree with. I'll be very upfront.
No matter what they say.
With respect to that vote. against Ukraine in support of Russia.
It's compli- it's complicated.
No. Um, but I I do want to follow up, um, Ambassador Bartos on your comments about, um, what the UN does well, because I agree the humanitarian assistance is really important. And our foreign assistance funding for the world food program has fallen by half, um, since this administration took office in twenty twenty five from four billion to two billion and that included a decrease in US commodity assistance from American farmers, so corn, wheat, soybeans, other commodities, um, were backlogged by the administration's foreign assistance review. Now we know that the number of people in acute food crisis is projected to jump by forty-five million for a total of three hundred and sixty-three million people. Um, and that's really the result of the war in Iran and what it's doing to f- food, um, to fertilizer, to prices increases for fuel and for food. So, uh, I guess this is directed at both of you. Can we count on the administration to utilize the available appropriated funds to provide funding to the World Food Programme and other UN humanitarian agencies to mitigate the impact of this crisis? Ambassador Walz.
You can, Senator, and and I'll just say, um, uh, just a few things in that regard. Um. The administration has taken a a different approach, actually, that a number of our partners have asked for for quite some time and pooled funding. Uh, we, even though those funds have cut, as have all humanitarian, uh, uh, aid budgets around the world as we all wrestle with our debt. Um, in fact, I think one of the things that's getting lost in the headlines is much of the n- uh, increase from our European partners in their defense funding has come from their humanitarian and development.
Right.
assistance funding. They've moved one over the other. Uh, a lot of consternation over USAID being pulled into the State Department. The United Kingdom did that seven years ago. Australia did it five years ago in order to align and make those dollars more efficient. That's our goal as well. I can't tell you how many times I've pulled up to a little baby ministry in the middle of Africa when I was operational that maybe has ten people inside and there's eighteen UN cars. uh, outside with eighteen drivers from eighteen different agencies. Uh, they are now, uh, using pulled vehicle fleets, it's kind of UN Uber, I guess, uh, pulled aviation, pulled human resources. Uh, we are really pressing them hard and we're actually getting a good response. So while it, two of the individual agencies may have been cut, we're putting it with the office of, uh, the coordinator for humanitarian affairs. And, you know, case in point, the first tranche just went out to Sudan uh for two hundred million dollars. I don't know if you got anything you wanted to add.
Yeah, I would just add to that, uh, Senator, the When I was on the border of Sudan in the northeast port of, uh, the Central African Republic a couple months back, meeting had the the privilege but, uh, very, you know, very difficult meetings with Sudanese refugees who had recently fled the atrocities, some of them walking as far as Khartoum to to Carr, um, to a person, uh, when I met with the men, I met with the men and women separately. Uh, when I met with the men, most of whom were farmers, the, their message to me to take back to Washington, to take back to New York was, uh, " we're excellent farmers, we have fertile soil, we know how to do this, please, please help us stop this conflict so we can go home and take care of ourselves." Well, thank you for the, I mean, they were very clear. Thank you for taking care of us. Thank you for providing this, this food medicine shelter. for providing a safe a safe harbor here um but we wanna go home. And so it is the tie-in and we're very conscious of it, it's the tie-in between peace and security and this emergency response that we are we're constantly not only watching but we're constantly engaged with, not only in our mission which we have some just outstanding humanitarian coordinators within our within our mission who work in the ECOSOC and who work throughout the political section and and in MR, but um but also with our colleagues at the State Department who are constantly traveling to the region to to try to get peace and security, stability, so that we can get people back to farming. Uh, but in the meantime, when I was there, every bag of food I saw had the American flag on it, every, uh, of the RTUF as it's called, the the high calorie, uh, for children, uh, who were who were real serious caloric deficit provided by American companies. So we're highly engaged. I know our, uh, more importantly our colleagues at the State Department are highly engaged in in making this whole system work.
Um, well, I appreciate that, and I think the members of this committee share the view that any time we can end the conflicts that that's the critical thing to do but in the meantime, we hope that people are not gonna starve while they're waiting for that. Thank you.
Well said, Senator Ricketts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Leader of the State of the United Nations will select a new Secretary General, and this will mark a consequential moment for the future of the institution. For the United States as the largest financial contributor, it's an opportunity to demand real reform. We should support leadership that prioritizes accountability, transparency, and confronts anti-semitism within the UN system and pushes back against adversaries like Communist China. Concerningly, one of the candidates getting traction for this role is Doctor Michelle Bachelet. Her record raises serious doubts about whether she meets that standard. As High Commissioner for Human Rights, Doctor Bachelet was platform to investigate credible reports that Communist China was detaining over one million Uighurs in internment camps carrying out forced sterilizations and using coerced labor. Instead of clearly calling out those abuses, she conducted a tightly controlled visit, coordinated with Beijing, and stopped short of labeling these actions genocide. Now, while the report did have serious allegations of mass detention, sexual violence, uh and forced sterilizations, diplomat cited by Politico at the time claimed that sections particularly with regard to the forced sterilizations were watered down uh right within uh hours of the final report being released um she also has uh uh promoted the view that abortion is a fundamental human right these actions reflect a poor a pattern of poor judgment misplaced priorities and a failure to uphold the UN's core mission. This disqualifies her from leading the UN. In fact, I recently co-signed a letter to Secretary Rubio urging the United States to use its veto to block her nomination. And Master Walz, based on her record, do you believe Dr. Bachelet would advance meaningful reform at the UN?
Uh, thank you for the question, Senator, uh, and I agree with you, this is really, uh, and truly a turning point year for the UN in terms of new leadership. It is two five year terms. So we could be looking at the next secretary general over the next decade. Uh, and uh, I'm not in a position today uh to publicly uh say who we will or we will not support. But I'll tell you everything that's out there
I didn't ask you who you support. I asked you, I asked you would she would UN
more that who we will uh who we will use our veto for,
Would she would she support reform?
but I can tell you uh I share your concerns. Uh, and I am sure I am safe in speaking for the secretary. He shares your concerns. Just from a a a a broader kind of a broader perspective, the conventional wisdom in up in New York is it's never been someone from Latin America and there's never been a woman. So therefore, it must be, uh, a Latin American woman. Um, we have taken the position of we just need the best. Uh, and this institution desperately needs strong effective leadership, and I can assure you reform, reform, reform along the lines of development aid, humanitarian aid, and getting back to basics on peace and security will be at the top of our criteria. Ambassador Bartos and I are conducting those interviews and meetings right now as we speak. But I wanna under- underline I share your concerns.
Okay. Should the United States be prepared to use its leverage, including its Security Council position, to block candidates like Doctor Bachelet who fail to meet the standard?
I think the United States will absolutely be prepared uh, to ensure that the next secretary general is aligned with American values and interests.
Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on the Palestinian territory, says repeatedly used her position to advance extreme and inflammatory claims against Israel. She's accused Israel of genocide, claiming it has a license to torture, and using rhetoric that many have identified as anti-semitic, including language that distorts or trivializes the Holocaust. She has also gone beyond rhetoric. She directly targeted American companies, accusing dozens of US firms of complicity in war crimes, calling for investigations and potential prosecution. That is why the United States rightly decided to sanction her. But what is especially concerning is that since this has happened, she has continued to double down. She has continued to accuse Israel of genocide and promote false narratives on the world stage. She is doing so under the banner of the United Nations. At some point, this is about whether the UN is willing to tolerate anti-semitism and political targeting from within its own system. Ambassador Bartos, do you believe the UN has taken any meaningful steps to address Francesca d'Albany's conduct?
No, Senator, uh, the UN i- this is one of those examples, as I was sharing with the chairman, of where the UN, if you'll pardon, I'm an educated guy, but this is very simple, it, they're doing stupid things. They're poisoning their brand. It's self-sabotage. And the message I've delivered to the leadership at the UN when I talk about, and my observations about the outstanding work they do to deliver life-saving aid in these remote locations at scale with a robust supply chain, the contrast to that, and what I say to the UN leadership is how, and I'll clean my language up 'cause we're in the US Senate, how the heck do you allow someone to put on your uniform, like this lunatic, Albinese, put on your uniform and poison all the good work of the humanitarian workers that you have on the front lines risking their lives every day to help save total strangers, who are fleeing hell to just a little bit better than hell. That's what people are putting their lives on it, and it's inspiring to see how can the same organization allow this lunatic to put on the uniform and poison all that good work. And it's self-sabotage of the worst. In corporate America, Senator, where we both come from, in corporate America, this business would be out of business for behavior like this. And I've made that point. Now, where we need to get better and stronger and smarter is I'm heading to Geneva next week And I'm gonna be meeting with many of the perm reps who can decide that it's time to fire this lunatic.
Mm-hmm.
Um, am I gonna be successful? Sir, I look forward to reporting back on those conversations. But it's time to operationalize. I think the secretary's leadership, Ambassador Walz's leadership, the president's leadership and our team's leadership on sanctioning this lunatic was absolutely the right thing to do. It is now time to hold the UN accountable and make sure she's fired, along with some other special rapporteurs who are poisoning the good work and the good name and the good work of all those brave humanitarians who are out there in the field. It has to happen and it has to happen now. It's this self-sabotage has to stop.
Well, thank you. I very much I appreciate that answer and I agree with you a hundred percent. Please continue to do it because there's many of us who feel the UN is a deeply anti-semitic organization and to the extent that you can start getting rid of the bad actors who contribute to propagating that uh I think you'll do the UN a huge favor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Uh Mr. Bartas, uh, I concur with those statements and I really concur with, uh, your, uh, analysis and approach to this thing as to, uh, how when you have something, uh, that's decent, uh, you you have just this incredible poisonous, uh, thing going on. I u- I used the same, uh, analogy, uh, when it came to UNRRA. Uh, you you had this, uh, organization called UNRRA within the United Nations that was just absolutely poisoning the uh the rest of what uh what UN tries to do. So I hope you'll uh I hope you'll keep that up. Senator Koons.
Thank you, Mister Chairman, um thank you Ambassador Walz and Representative Bartos. Uh Julie, great to have you with us and appreciate your service at the United Nations. Um and I I do wanna get to a question about the war in Iran and a concern I have, um and dedicate most of my time to talking about your good work in trying to advance UN reforms.
Mm-hmm.
Uh, I am encouraged at the outset, um, Ambassador Walts and Representative Bartos to hear you say that you believe the UN is doing good and valuable work,
Yeah.
that there's entities like the WIPO and the ITU ITU where we have to participate. We have to push back on Chinese influence and competing views that would impact our role in the world, our safety and our security, and that if they get back to basics, they can really contribute to the world, to humanitarian relief, to peace and security. Uh, in hearing from you, Mister Bartos, about your recent trip to three countries in Africa to see, uh, peacekeeping, uh, refugee support, uh, humanitarian, uh, aid delivery was encouraging. Um, there's plenty we disagree about.
Mm-hmm.
Um, I want to focus on a few of the things we agree on, and then a few concise questions, if I could. Um, Ambassador, we're six weeks into a war in Iran. We haven't had the secretaries of, uh, defense or of state or any other senior representative in front of us. Um, so, You may be surprised, we we agree on a lot, um, that an unchecked Khamenei regime is is a profound threat to us and our allies and our values that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptably dangerous, um, that it's in our interest that the Strait of Hormuz be free and open, uh, and internationally controlled. Um, but, you know, this far into this war, I'm gravely concerned that we still have an Ayatollah, the son of, um, that we still haven't controlled their enriched uranium, We still haven't reopened the Strait of Hormuz. Um, and the President announced today, um, the deployment of thousands of more U. S. troops. We may be on the verge of major combat operations, um, on the ground in Iran. I hope and pray that the cease-fire holds, that negotiations resume, that the blockade is effective, and that there is a better deal than the JCPOA achieved. I suspect we both hope that. But if the tempo of this war resumes again, and we lose more American service members and we spend more of the American taxpayer dollar. Um, one of my core concerns has been the lack of any effort to consult and inform Congress or to seek our authorization. It, we share an understanding that the president has not asked for, uh, a declaration of war. Is that correct?
The president has not asked Congress for a declaration of war, no.
Um, and, um, we haven't declared war officially in decades, but we have in the previous conflict in the Persian Gulf had hearing after hearing after hearing and votes in Congress for an authorization of the use of military force. Um, we also in a number of conflicts, um, have respected the War Powers Resolution sixty day termination clock, uh, which if we were following that would have about fifteen days left. My simple question is, are you aware of any plans to seek authorization from Congress if a full scale ground war begins or if this conflict resumes, if the cease-fire stops? Um, and would you support Congress authorizing this conflict so that the war fighters who we are sending into this region know that they have the support of the American people through their elected representatives?
Well, Senator, thank you for the question, I certainly uh wouldn't and shouldn't get ahead of the President and his engagement with Congress. Uh, and I certainly wouldn't presume that we will have, as you described, full-blown ground uh combat. I think we've seen the President as we're seeing right now uh there is a whole um slew of options uh in between where we are now and some type of of ground combat and uh you know taking the leverage away from Iran uh they are trying to punish the world uh and we with the closure of the Straits of Orbu with attacking civilian shipping I can tell you uh in the UN we had a UN record a hundred thirty-five nations join Bahrain, the GCC countries in the United States condemn Iran for its attacks on hotels and ports, resorts, uh and and neighborhoods, which was incredibly notable to see that kind of unity. Um but I'm glad,
Ambassador, I'm flattered with your time.
I'm glad also that we agree that we cannot have a nuclear-armed Iran, and I'm thankful the president is taking bold decisive action now before it's a fait accompli.
Um, before I run out of time, Ambassador, I just, we were not briefed on an imminent threat. We were not presented with uh information either in a classified setting or an open setting that justified the idea that there was an imminent threat and we couldn't pursue negotiations. And the absence of either that briefing or a clear request for Congress to engage in authorizing this conflict has given me a great pause. We share a view on the dangers of the of the region and of our increasingly aligning adversaries around the world, DPRK, Iran, Russia, China. Um, I am hopeful that you will be, uh, that you'll convey the message back, that a prompt briefing on what was the imminent threat that precipitated this conflict and, uh, an urgency around requesting authorization. Uh, instead we will simply keep voting on war powers' resolutions here, um, that will send a divided message. And I don't want us to send our young men and women, uh, into harm's way with a divided message from this Congress. If I could beg thirty seconds, Mr. Chairman, I do just want to say Um, I appreciate that you're making progress in reducing the bloat and the personnel and the overreach and the expenditures at the UN. I do hope you'll also listen uh to the ranking members' comment up front which I agree with strongly. We are better off when we are with our allies, when we are voting in the UN and when we are acting in the UN, in concert and partnership with the countries that share our values, standing up to those actions and statements that don't, but also partnering with those that do. And so whether it's the conflict in Ukraine and Russia's aggression, where we should be standing much more closely and consistently with our partners and allies, the resolution of the war in Iran, or the urgency of actually deploying and using the humanitarian funding that's been appropriated, I look forward to working with you on making sure that we make the UN the effective, um, and meaningful, uh, partnership for peace that it can and should be. Thank you.
Um, thank you, Sen- Senator Coons. And it's good to hear your uh initial statements about the matters uh regarding Iran that we all agree in as far as not being able to have a nuclear weapon and that sort of thing. Uh, just so the record is uh uh totally clear, uh, it is true that the administration uh uh did not go to the five hundred and thirty-five members of Congress and indicate the uh imminent threat. But uh a number of people were well advised to the uh imminent threat, particularly those of us who work in this in the uh
I I have the highest level of classification access and have asked for it repeatedly and have gotten nothing.
Yeah. As do I and uh I uh I have that, so thank you so much.
No. The the the inequality of access to information is at the core of the point I'm trying to make. If you don't inform and brief Democrats and Republicans in the relevant senior roles,
I understand that.
I am the senior Democrat on defense appropriations. I should know, and I have not been briefed.
Thank you so much, and we'll move from there to Senator Hagerty.
Thank you, Mister Chairman, and I wanna thank the gentlemen here today for your willingness to serve. Uh, I'm very heartened to see such strong leadership at the United Nations, uh, and delighted to have you here today. Um, I'd like to talk with you, Ambassador Walts, uh, uh, just a bit about our allies and, and their support of our efforts, particularly our efforts in Iran. And i- if I think about it, President Trump has been, I think, rather concerned about the response of some of our allies, even allies who serve as permanent members on the UN National Sec- on the UN Security Council. Um, I just wanted to get your thoughts on the dynamics on the UN Security Council, how our allies are working well with us, and what you'd like to see more from our allies.
Well, thank you, Senator. Uh, and, you know, while there's a a lot of consternation, I would say, especially focused, uh, on our European partners, uh, and their positions, which frankly, uh, I think most Americans find outrageous. Uh, they're, we're not asking to commit ground troops, we're not asking to commit, um, other forces. I mean, simple overflight rights, uh, simple use of bases that we have contributed to for many decades. Um, I don't think are unfair asks and certainly will affect the relationship
Mm-hmm.
uh uh going forward, but here's the good news. Uh, and here's what I absolutely think will backfire, is backfiring on Iran for the foreseeable future. Our Gulf allies have never been more united. Uh, they've had real issue with each other in Yemen, in Sudan, and in other places. But right now, uh, as they get bombarded, um, Yeah, Iran could have responded in all kinds of ways. Uh, I think some people expected them to perhaps uh attack our bases in the Middle East, but to launch the hundreds and thousands of drones and missiles into resorts and hotels and civilian neighborhoods and civilian infrastructure,
Mm-hmm.
uh, is absolutely outrageous. And I was very encouraged to see a hundred and thirty-five countries align with Bahrain align with the GCC, uh and stand firm uh to condemn that in international law
Mm.
uh through the UN uh security council and going forward,
Mm.
you know, many of these gulfs, uh that's a tough neighborhood.
Yeah.
Qatar, UAE, others, you know, Qatar had a free trade zone that Iran used, they had banking services that Iran used, Qatar shares a gas field, they are solidly uh on our side uh in this conflict, they've seen Iran for what it is, And they are all thanking us profusely at the highest levels, uh, that we've taken action if before Iran could blackmail the world and the region with a nuclear weapon.
I, I think that the world has had the opportunity to see what Iran truly is, as you said. And it's been heartening to see our allies in the Middle East step up. It's also been quite disheartening, I would say, to see some of our allies, some of our long-standing allies, who I would have thought would have been standing shoulder to shoulder with us, uh, behave in a f- such a feckless manner. And I very much appreciate your leadership and, and I, I hope showing a mirror to uh, to those members that have been our allies for a long time, particularly those on the, on the UN Security Council, that um, the United States is gonna lead from a strong position and I hope they'll see the o- the op- opportunity and be inspired to do the same.
Oh, thank you. And I just, I want to be clear though, Senator. Look, we share the same values, we share the same goals. Um, we can be friends and family and have disagreements, uh, but, you know, I wouldn't call it a divorce, uh, by an- by any means, but we do need our European allies, uh, you know, regardless of their political position, there's a real lack of military capability,
Mm-hmm.
uh, in, in many ways, and that is being exposed, uh, right now as Iran tries to hold the world's economy hostage. And we cannot have a situation, whether it's the Straits of Gibraltar, uh, the Bering Straits, the Straits of Malacca, where two parties have a conflict, regardless of what you think of the conflict, that one side uses international waterways to in- to impose collective punishment on the rest of the world.
Mm. Yeah.
And so we are taking strong action in, uh, the Security Council, and there's even discussion now, finally, of, um, of the UN labeling the IRGC a terrorist organization, uh, which is exactly what it is.
I applaud that. I applaud that. Um, gentlemen, in the short time I have left, I just wanna raise one other issue, it's a, it's a concern that we all have, and that is the United States is the largest funder of the United Nations. And it's a very simple question. I, I think we all ask ourselves how effective is the UN? Are we getting our money's worth? Are we getting an adequate return on our, on our investment? And I'll start with you, um, Mister Bartos and then, and uh Ambassador Walts if you would comment as well.
Uh, Senator, I think it's a mixed bag. Uh, it's a great question. It's the question we ask ourselves every day and our team
Mm-hmm.
Care deeply about the organization and making it fit for purpose and making it work. And so I think on the humanitarian side, from what I got to see in the field, the UN is uh doing really good work. And I think the American taxpayers, if any of them, any of my my uh fellow Pennsylvanians uh and my fellow Floridians, uh I got both I guess, uh if w- if we if they were in the field in Carr or DRC or or Kenya, they'd be really proud. of seeing those American flags helping these these inspired inspiring courageous people who fled the atrocities to to get to seek refuge, and and the UN is taking good care of them. So I think we can be proud of that. And then, as uh Senator Ricketts pointed out, and he's absolutely right, and as you know we have tackled in this administration, the pervasive unconscionable bias against not only our ally Israel and against the West but blacklisting US companies through through some special and so-called Human Rights Council, it's it's unconscionable, it has to stop, and the UN has to stop doing stupid things. And so that, we are not getting our money's worth there. And so it's really, on the peace and security I think it's a mixed bag.
Mm-hmm.
Uh, the Central African Republic, the mission, this it's called uh MINUSCA, that's trending in the right direction. Some missions are not getting it done and and we'll see sunsetting of UNIFIL later this year because of US leadership because of Ambassador Walz's leadership, and because of the team's leadership and the vision and leadership that the president and the secretary have have asked us to execute on. So I think it's a mixed bag. You know, God willing, have a couple more years to to drive these reforms and uh I hope to report back to you, you know, before the end of twenty twenty eight that we've achieved a whole number of reforms. So I I think it's a mixed bag and we're we we recognize we have a long way to go.
That's encouraging.
Uh, Sen- uh, thank you, Senator Hagerty, uh, Senator Shahid, what's your
I'm I just wanted to correct my understanding is that our European partners have not denied us overflight um rights, that there was one flight that France denied over a paperwork issue, but that um they are giving us overflight um
Sen- Senator, I'm not
at use uh for the war in Iran.
Senator, I'm not uh absolutely certain of that, at the very beginning, No, they didn't, no. at the very beginning, I think there was absolute prohibition on overflights and they had domestic political issues at home to do that but i think we can yeah and i agree with that that that has softened but it was a it was a horrible mistake they made right at the beginning. But that has changed. That has changed. Particularly as uh ambassador Walz indicated uh where we uh we we'd actually paid for uh the. The the basis that uh we wanted to land in and they were saying we could but that's a argument for another day so let's move on to senator murphy who i know has some things to tell us.
Yeah.
Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're we're having a discussion about the Iran war right now because, Mr. Ambassador, you're the most senior member of the President's national security team to testify before this committee on the most significant military engagement the United States has entered into in the region in decades um uh those of us on the Democratic side do find it amazing that we still have not had an open hearing on this committee or the Armed Services Committee uh on this conflict. Um The UN has historically been um at the center of the development of the laws of war, um which have helped prevent millions of unnecessary civilian deaths in conflict. The United States has traditionally been at the center of that process. Um, but President Trump has said that if Iran does not comply with his demands, that he will end Iran's civilization with specific threats to target civilian infrastructure. This looks to a lot of us and to the world like a promise by the President of the United States to commit war crimes. I'm sure you don't, I'm sure you don't agree with that assessment, but we have never had a president before threatened to end an entire civilization and double down on that claim if that country does not accede to the demands of the United States. So what does the president mean when he says that if these negotiations don't work out, he will end Iran's civilization.
Well, Senator, I think that statement in the broader context, he also talked about attacking uh infrastructure, bridges, power plants, and we all know Iran has a long history of co-bingling both civilian and military of hiding weapons in hospitals and schools. uh and uh using what could be just pure civilian infrastructure to also power factories for drones for missiles uh and uh and the IRGC controls nearly fifty percent uh of the economy I think it looks like frankly um well look I focus on the
What does it mean to end it I guess what does it mean what does it mean to end a civilization?
but I think but I think we have to look at the fact that you have uh a regime that literally chants death to America for the last forty seven years and has acted on it, has killed thousands of Americans, has slaughtered its own people. Do you know how many, I mean how many machine gun bullets does it take over the course of a week to kill forty thousand of its own people?
Right, but does that merit,
So I
but does that merit a threat to end the civilization?
I think it's some, Senator, it was some tough talk, and what are the result,
Certain plus.
what are the results? Was we had the highest level engagement in the history of the Iranian regime with the Vice President and Speaker of the Parliament less than a week later. We had a ceasefire forty-eight hours later. They clearly got the message and they clearly came back to the table.
Yeah, I, I, yeah, and, and I guess it's an open question as to whether we should try to pursue our aims by threatening another nation with mass civilian casualty, I don't know that that's something that we should celebrate, that we are able to cow nations to our demands by threatening to kill
Well, I, as a,
civilians.
as a, but as a, as a former military member and I'm safe in speaking for our military, uh they take every precaution possible, uh to avoid civilian casualties. But this regime responded, and again if we focus on the results over the rhetoric, uh they came to the table, they got the message, they put the cease-fire in place, they have an honored it with the Straits of Hormuz, and now uh we have talks ongoing.
Um, let me ask you about the the strait because obviously that is what is impacting our constituents, um i- in in a in a significant way. Um, did the administration anticipate that Iran would close the Strait? Um, or was that a surprise?
Oh, I can tell you, having formerly, uh, worked in the Pentagon and been in the military for twenty-seven years and the committees I sat on in Congress, that has been war-gamed over and over and over again by CENTCOM. And as you know, the CENTCOM commander, uh, was the former fifth fleet commander out of out of Bahrain.
So it was it was anticipated?
Uh Well, it was anticipated uh to my knowledge, again I'm sitting, you know, up at the UN, uh absolutely, uh but at the same time, you know, the the measures they took to sink nearly two dozen mine layers, uh to go after those land-based missiles that are they are using, to go after uh the drone, not just the drones, but the manufacturing capability, was to drastically reduce that threat, which is why I think you've seen now dozens of ships moving over the last few days.
A- and and dozens of ships moving compared to hundreds of ships normally moving around the world across this.
Well, sure, I mean, Iran, in violation of international law, declared now the Straits of Hormuz its own waters.
Last
Uh, it's it's essentially punishing the entire world, and I think the president should be applauded for flipping the script because now their ships can't move.
Lastly, just one clarification on another war goal, is it a goal of the um, to enact regime change, and if so, have you accomplished that goal? The president has referred to the regime having changed and that being a successful by-product of the war.
Senator, I think the president's made his uh his goal is quite clear from a military standpoint. The vice president made it clear in Islamabad, opened the sea lanes, no nuclear program, and its decades of support uh for terrorism, and have a negotiated arrangement that's verifiable and enforceable.
So not regime change.
Well, if you if the regime ends up changing in some fashion or form, I'll tell you what, the regime's got to change its behavior. It's unacceptable and we cannot let it have a nuclear weapon.
Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Senator Lee.
Thanks so much to both of you for being here, and thanks for all you do on behalf of our country. Um, uh, with respect to both of you, I just want to begin, um, by thanking you for your tireless work to improve things uh within the UN, and especially to advance American interests at the UN. I can't imagine, actually I can imagine, but I can only imagine, uh the y- y- h- how much work this has to have entailed to bring about that re- reform. Uh, there's an immense difficulty involved in trying to reform this one hundred ninety-three member state organization. uh, especially one as deeply flawed and often backwards as the UN is, organizations as large and bloated as the UN tend to resist change. Interface.
Yes.
It's almost an organic response. Interface.
Yes,
Yet through your efforts,
yes.
uh, the UN did something for the first time,
Yes.
something remarkable.
I find it interesting.
It cut outlays by five hundred and seventy million dollars. Now, both of you and President Trump should be commended for your work to reform the UN. But I wanna zoom out on that, uh, uh, for a second. I'd I don't wanna merely make
Right.
the UN more efficient, more streamlined, because if we lose sight of the ultimate goal, then reform efforts can be a little bit like putting lipstick on a pig and then just calling it a reformed pig or something other than a pig the ultimate goal in my view has to be something that involves advancing US interests the the interests of of the United States of America. Uh, and it's getting harder and harder, at least for me, to to see how the United Nations does that. The UN def uh uh uh aggressively defends and demands uh a very rigid uh orthodoxy in terms of the type of multilateralism uh uh that that the US faces at the UN. And it demands that we relinquish sovereignty, often to serve the interests of adversaries like China. But in a in an age of of great power, uh, competition like ours, multilateral institutions cannot find themselves, cannot allow themselves to become impartial to one great power over another great power. Our adversaries flourish in a system we created because of how that system was designed and how it's evolved. We see this from time to time at other multilateral institutions, but especially within the United Nations. We cannot rely on the UN and we cannot let the UN continue to be a drain on US resources and efforts especially if it's gonna be undermining us. Ambassador Walz, I'd I'd like to start with you how I I frequently hear that if you, the US were to disengage at the UN, e- either completely or to whatever degree, then China would step in and fill the gap. Some say that that's the reason that we've shoveled billions upon billions of dollars into the UN and continue to do so um uh to the tune of tens of billions of dollars a year um e e even though these are efforts that don't really help us, don't advance US interests. If i- is our main objective at the UN as you see it, is it to counterbalance adversaries like China? Or or does the US materially benefit from uh from the UN in other ways?
Senator, I think it's a it's a fundamental question and one that we wrestle with every day, but I would say both. Um, for example, uh, for our industries, uh, it it's kind of one of those things if we didn't invent it, somebody else would. For our entrepreneurs and our businesses, we have to have their IP protected uh and treated a certain way on uh when it leaves our shores and it's outside of US jurisdiction so the World Intellectual Property Organization incredibly important. I don't know about you when pilots are flying around the world, I want them speaking English. I want the air traffic controllers trai- and mechanics trained to a certain standard of the International Civil Aviation Organization uh things like spectrum, space, Telecommunications, radio, undersea cables, international seabeds, how that's treated with the new mining efforts. You know, essentially everything that's regulated here, and as painful as that is, is regulated internationally, but now you have the EU, the Russians, the Chinese, and everyone else involved. My argument is we have to get in there and fight, block and tackle and win for American industry uh and for the American people. And to your point on how else we benefit, burden sharing is a key. Uh,
Mm.
we have gangs that have taken over Haiti right off the shores of Florida that are moving drugs and thugs all over the region the United States, Europe and elsewhere. I don't want American troops there like we saw President Clinton do in the nineteen nineties now we have an international force going in and rather than paying a billion dollars a year as we were under the last administration we're gonna cut that bill by three quarters and hopefully at least arrest the problems. process uh moving forward. I could cite you other places where we are pushing uh that burden sharing, that America first approach, and that fight and block and tackle approach. Uh we just haven't done it in some of these organizations, uh and we need to be.
Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you. Thank you. Senator Kaine.
Thank you, Mister Chair, and to our our witnesses, um good work on the reform efforts and and keep pushing on them. They're very important to my constituents. to this committee. I think a challenge that you have is pretty much everybody in America would agree with America first, but most people in America would not agree with America alone. And I think the interpretation of the actions of the administration, a lot of people are wondering whether it's America first or America alone. I would like to introduce for the record a uh list of organizations and treaties that the US has withdrawn from during President Trump's first and second administrations. It's a five page list, if I might, Mister Chair.
Do you want me to list it?
Folks see that. They see the President trash-talking allies, talking about Canada as a fifty-first state or an invasion of Greenland, a c- uh, connected to a NATO ally. Um, they l- they look at a President willy-nilly imposing tariffs on allies, including allies with which we are in trade surplus, like Australia, not trade deficit. And they raised the question, is this about America first or is it about America alone? They look at the President's threats to withdraw from NATO and they ask the same question. And I think those questions have been very sharpened by the war in Iran. It's a war where the President has not sought congressional authorization as other Presidents have in the past. It's a war where the President did not consult in advance with allies whose economies are being significantly affected by the war. Um, it's a war that the administration has not yet presented, to my satisfaction, to Congress, a clear rationale or a clear plan. And the information that has been presented thus far has only been presented and classified so that we're not able to share fully with our constituents, even those who have kids deployed in the theater of war. what we know about it. We're still awaiting the first sets of public hearings and and, Mister Secretary, it is unfair for y- for you to be the f- the first, you know, kind of principal before us because these are questions that aren't completely in your remit and I and I get that. But the issue of this war has really sharpened this question of, is the administration pursuing an America first policy or an America alone policy. As you know, the war has cost thirteen service members, their lives, hundreds have been injured, innocent civilians have been killed, which is always the case, even under the best of circumstances. It's sad that you can't avoid that. And the economic consequences to the United States are sharp. My constituents are paying a dollar more for a gallon of gas than they were on February twenty seventh. Virginians buy eight million gallons of gas a day. That's eight million dollars coming out of Virginians' pockets every day and this is spread throughout the country. and throughout the world. We're reading news about allies like Australia and how they're really suffering because they import oil and what that escalating oil cost since February twenty-seven has done to them. Do we care about allies or are we pursuing an America alone strategy? Now, Mr. Emba- or or to to the Honorable Waltz, representative not ambassador, you have an ambassador's rank. You know, you you've talked about the president wanting to make sure that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. And you know this, but just in case there are folks who are watching who don't know this, the United States, over the course of two years, negotiated a deal with Iran, with with our European allies and with adversaries, China and Russia. And the first page of that agreement said as following, Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons. That was a forever promise. There were some aspects of the deal that were ten year promises or fifteen year promises. There were two forever promises. One was accession to the additional protocol requiring intrusive inspections by the IAEA, and the second one was this forever promise, that Iran would never seek to acquire or develop nuclear weapons. And Iran abided by that until the United States, under President Trump's leadership, tore up the deal unilaterally. Our allies said it was working. The International Atomic Energy Agency said it was working. President Trump's first secretaries of defense and state, Madison Tillerson, urged him to stay in the deal, that it was working. The president tore it up. And what I find tragic is we have service members now losing their lives because the United States destroyed a diplomatic deal. When you make diplomacy impossible, you make war inevitable. So I'm just gonna ask this one question. At what point should the deep public unpopularity of a war be a factor that the nation's civilian decision makers need to take into account to decide whether to continue it or not?
Senator, there's a there's a lot in that question and I'll tell you um one, uh NATO is far better because of the tough love it has received from this president and from this administration.
I don't dis- I don't disagree.
We've gone from seven to thirty to thirty to thirty.
I don't disagree with that.
In the last ten years, uh we are going to make
President Trump and Putin's invasion helped NATO get stronger,
It's it's it might be some mean tweets,
but President Trump gets credit for that.
it might be some tough love,
Mm-hmm.
but they've gotten the message and we now have every NATO ally meeting the minimum And then if you had said ten years ago they would be going to five percent,
That's good news.
you would have been laughed out, laughed out of the room. On the international organizations, yes, it's sixty-six, but it's out of four hundred. We have never taken a comprehensive review of where is all this money going, and what are we getting for it. And when we have organizations like the Pan-American Institute of Geography, or the Permanent Forum on the People of African Descent, or the International Cotton Advisory Committee, I think we ask those tough questions. And I wanna direct those dollars that we've pulled out of into those
Or commission on women, human rights, or Latin American economic development.
uh into those uh organizations that are directly affecting our businesses. And then finally on uh on Iran, uh I just looked at two polls this morning, seventy percent, and this is according to um uh this is according to a widely used pollster, seventy-four percent agree that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and they have shown their f- true colors. Rasmussen has it at fifty-four percent that says they can never have a nuclear
We had contr- we had controlled it diplomatically.
weapon.
But why do we need to risk American service lives because we tore up a diplomatic deal? It's it's madness.
That diplomatic deal, Senator, would have had Iran flush with cash, its terrorist proxies flush with cash, the BISL components already expired,
That's right.
the enrichment components expired last year.
The deal did not forbid us from going after any of those activities.
Fortunately, and the IAEA, but this is incredibly important because the IAEA went to its board of governors and for the first time in decades said Iran was absolutely not in compliance. There is no need to enrich.
A- after the US tore up the deal.
There is no need to enrich to sixty percent. No country in the world has sixty percent enriched uranium and less than it did to get a weapon.
And they wouldn't have had we not tore up the deal. They did not do that until we tore up the deal.
They
We shouldn't have torn up the diplomats.
So they were
They were cheating, but, Senator, they were cheating on the deal before the deal.
After. After.
That was exposed in twenty eighteen. You were only allowed to see certain sites with a months advance notice. And they had a whole slew of hidden military sites that not only uh are allies, but the IAEA exposed. They were absolutely in-line with the libels.
I I've read Senator Cain, I've I've been really generous with the time, and and I uh we've had this debate here a number of times uh, obviously we haven't resolved the debate, but uh uh appreciate that and we're off subject, so I'd like I'd like to stay on the reform subject, but uh thank you for uh for those uh remarks. Senator Scott.
Thank you, Chairman. Today's hearing on reforming the United Nations could not come in a more important moment. Across America, families are asking whether their tax dollars are working for them or against them. As Secretary Rubio said, with every dime we spend, we must ask, does this make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous? And we need to be able to look our constituents in the eye and say absolutely yes. Today I'm introducing two bills to do that. The first is the Stop Support for UNRRA Act of twenty twenty six. For decades, UNRWA has operated as a permanent refugee bureaucracy. But since October seventh terrorist attacks, evidence has clearly shown that UNRWA employees actively supported Hamas, have promoted anti-semitic and extremist con- content in schools, and have even participated in atrocities against Israeli s- civilians. This bill will make permanent what has rightly been U. S. policy since October seventh, an end of all funding to UNRWA as well as any entities related to it or any that may come after it. This bill will revoke the privileges and immunities that under officials currently hold under the International Organizations Immunities Act. So those who support terrorism can be held directly accountable in their courts rather than shielded by diplomatic status. More broadly, this bill ensures that US taxpayers will never again be forced to sponsor UN bodies, chaired by governments that the State Department self-identifies as repeatedly supporting terrorism. The American people should not have to hand over their hard-earned money to support organizations that funnel their resources to state sponsors of terror. The second bill I am introducing today is the IGO anti-boycott act. The nineteen seventies Congress acted to stop the Arab League's attempt to economically is isolate Israel they passed laws which made it clear American company to to American companies that they would face financial consequences if they participated in this boycott, and it worked. Today, however, the same campaign of economic pressure now works through international bodies. UN agencies and other IGOs that compile black and seek to de-legitimize Israeli economically. The primple principle is simple and vital. We in Congress can never let the whim of an international body override the security and prosperity of the American people. America's sovereignty means we will decide who we support, whom we trade with, and whom we defend. My bills affirm that our commitment to our allies will never be subordinated to the agendas of unaccountable international organizations. They say clearly that America stands for accountability, for freedom, for allies who share our belief in liberty, not those who rip us off by taking our tax dollars to defend terrorists. I want to thank Senators Hoeven, Senators Tim Scott, Senators Ricketts, Hagerty, Barrasso, Britt, Bud and Lee for their support. So, Representative Walts, I want to invite you to share any thoughts you have on these bills and on the broader question of how the United States can ensure its contributions to international organizations advance not erode our values.
Thank you, uh, Senator Scott, and I and I for one certainly appreciate your leadership on this. Obviously, I'll we'll have to look, uh, carefully at the text of it, but I certainly support it in concept. Uh, the president, one of the first things he did coming out the gate was, uh, put an executive order in place of no funding to UNRWA. Congress has voted for years, unfortunately off and on to not fund UNRWA, and I hope, uh, you know, pending a a hard look at it. that your bill moves through the Senate. As Secretary Rubio has said, UNRWA has been completely infiltrated by Hamas, uh and has to go. Uh the good news is with the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, which sits under the Board of Peace, instituted and established through the UN Security Council, they will start taking on those functions of both aid delivery, public services, and the most important education. Uh, we're working with a number of our Gulf Arab uh partners and Muslim majority nations on education reform curricular reform so we don't have that next generation of Gazans of Palestinians getting absolutely radicalized uh and pushed towards violence with uh Hamas's stated goal of eliminating Israel as a nation and the Jewish people.
So what are you most proud of that you've gotten accomplished since you've been there?
Well, I'll tell you, uh, getting the President's twenty point peace plan, uh, stamped into international law, uh, seeing the entire world, including many of our European partners stand with him, celebrate the plan, and sharm el sheikh, uh, then getting that through the council thirteen uh to zero, uh, you know, as I told the council members, you had two choices, you have Hamas continuing to rule Gaza, Uh, you had the IDF, uh, in terms of occupation of Gaza, or let's, let's work together and try this new path. Uh, and I have to tell you too, seeing those hostages come out, uh, having their families come and visit, uh, Jeff and I and hug us when they never thought, I don't think anybody thought we'd see every single living and deceased hostage come out of those tunnels. Uh, it was uh, and I think the president, his team, special envoys Witkoff, uh, Jared Kushner, the secretary deserve enormous credit from history uh for saving those lives. There is not a single hostage in those tunnels for the first time in a decade. And that's something that I would hope we could all celebrate.
Right. Thank both of you for your hard work.
Thank you, Senator.
Thank you.
Senator Van Hoog, uh, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, welcome both of you. Uh, Mr. Ambassador, uh, your response to the senator with respect to UNRWA is completely inconsistent with US intelligence community reports, so I would urge you to review those reports. Uh, I know that sometimes some in this administration don't pay attention to that, but I would urge you to do that. We can agree that the UN would benefit from reform. I hope you will also agree that we should work collectively to uphold international law, including international humanitarian law and the Geneva Convention, all of which the United States helped shape in the aftermath of World War Two. Would you agree with me on that?
Absolutely, Senator, of course. Good.
Now, we need to enforce that. And when you were a member of the House, you said that President Biden needed to make clear that, quote, Putin is an absolute war criminal, unquote. Do you stand by your statement that Putin was an absolute war criminal?
I'll tell you, uh, Senator, statements I made as a member of Congress, very different than what I make now as an ambassador to the UN, working for President Trump and representing the United States.
So are you retracting?
So I certainly, I support President Trump, uh, in everything he is doing in trying to end this awful conflict.
I I just find it very interesting, Mister Ambassador, that you
And as as you know,
Let me move on because
Senator, it's quite difficult to mediate the end of the war,
Yeah.
uh, if you take such maximus approaches. And now being a diplomat and a mediator and fulfilling his goals, working for him and his agenda is very different than when you're elected a senator or a congressman.
I- it's uh it's interesting. No, I have that to say, Mr. Ambassador.
I think you know that quite well.
I it was a simple question. I guess you or you you're not asking this president to do what you asked the last president to do. Would you agree that we should enforce and that there be consequences for war crimes? And let me ask you a different way. Would you agree it would be a violation of international law to blow up a bunch of civilian infrastructure in Iran because Iran did not agree to open the Strait of Hormuz? That would be a violation of international humanitarian law if we actually did it,
Actu- actually that's, that that is
right?
incorrect. Uh, there are, uh, we have a long history.
It is.
We could show, look at video after video of the bridges that we bombed and World War Two and Vietnam and conflict after conflict of power plants in Serbia under the Clinton administration.
Mister Ambassador, this was not my question.
And this is particularly a regime
My question was
that has dual use, that blends military with civilian uses.
Mister Amb- Well, I'm gonna have to Mister Mister Ambassador. That was not my question. President Trump threatened to hit civilian infrastructure if Iran did not open the Strait of Hormuz. We all know international law. We know there are some exceptions to the general rule that you shouldn't hit civilian infrastructure. The enemy is occupying it. But my question was different. You don't think it's a violation of international law to blow up a bunch of civilian infrastructure because the government of Iran refused to open the Strait of Hormuz you don't think that would be a violation.
I think President Trump, the American people,
Do you think that would be a violation of international law?
I think they are. every bit of leverage that he uh that he has.
I'm asking you if you
And if you have if you have military units using bridges to go down to the Straits of Hormuz to attack international shipping and launch missiles into resorts and airports and ports across the strait then that's absolutely
So so Mister Ambassador essentially what you're saying is
a valid use and I gotta tell you as a veteran who who had to pull these triggers I think the president's absolutely in the right as his agenda.
Mister Ambassador Mister Ambassador I know you all like to talk rather than answer questions, but let me ask you this. Your testimony is that if you have an authoritarian regime anywhere in the world, that because they're authoritarian regime, if they don't obey the US demands, you can wipe out their civilian infrastructure. Let me ask you this. Would it be a violation of the international law to destroy a civilization? Would that be a violation of international humanitarian law?
I think what you're talking about, Senator, is a mean tweet that got uh, uh, with a regime that's genocidal, chanced death to America, And uh you're gonna talk about some tough language that actually the result of it was diplomacy.
Well, that
The result of it was the highest meeting in the history of the United States and the Iranian regime. Uh, was a return to the cease-fire. So,
Mister Vassil, let me just say, yeah.
you know, once again we're focused on what he says,
And maybe we should return to
I'm focused on what he does.
the time when the Strait of Hormuz was opened before we started the war that closed the Strait of Hormuz and got a more radical and more extremist regime there.
One could only imagine what they would do with a nuclear weapon.
Let me just say that, let me just ask you this. I'm gonna submit some questions for the record on Sudan, but I do have one simple question. Uh, do you, did you see that Senator, Secretary Rubio had confirmed in earlier uh testimony that the RSF was committing genocide in Sudan?
Uh, I did not uh see that, but we have a number of actions in uh the UN Security Council sanctioning uh leadership the leadership of the RSF.
Do you agree that um our partner the UAE should not be sending weapons to the RSF, which the US government has concluded is committing genocide. Do you think they should stop doing that?
There are out- I - I would submit there are outside entities providing weapons and funding to both sides of that conflict. Uh, special advisor or senior advisor Boulos has led the effort to pull the quad countries together. Uh, and we are getting incredibly close to at least having humanitarian corridors for to provide lifesaving aid, which the UN will take a leading role in. If that happens, we then want to move that through the Security Council, which would be not nearly enough progress, but would certainly be a better situation than we're in now.
Are there any other parties to the conflict where the US government has concluded they're committing genocide, other than the RSF?
Not to my knowledge.
So I I would think that given those facts as established by our own government, that we should get the UAE to stop sending weapons to the RSF. Would you agree?
I would agree that we should get all sides to stop sending weapons into that conflict.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chairman.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Uh, Senator, oh, Senator Barrasso is up next.
Is there any more notes on this? Okay. So that's everything. We have time for some more. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador Walsh, great to see you again. Good to see you again, Mr. Morton. Um,
Thank you, sir.
I wanna talk about something that's going on. About a week ago, the UN's Economic and Social Council held elections. They elected uh some of the world's most notorious human rights abusers to roles on the committees that are charged with protecting human rights and civil society. The Islamic uh Republic of Iran, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, is now gonna help shape
Uh, thank you for the
Thank you.
thank you for the question, Senator, and it's one of the
Thank you.
The constant evaluations that we're having are some of these organizations just so unredeemable uh that it's not worth another dollar of hard-earned taxpayer dollars, good money after bad, like the Human Rights Council uh that opens nearly every one of its meetings condemning Israel, that has these so-called special rapporteurs, these experts that have uh a a boycott list of American companies, uh doing business there and why this is so insidious is then they take these um they take these lists to these international organizations like the ICC and the International Court of Justice and try to debank them uh they even had things like a George Floyd commission uh so you have these serial human rights abusers staffing committees to come pass judgment on our uh judicial system, so in that case the president made the determination will walk away. In other cases, we're getting in there and blocking and tackling. The situation with Iran that you just mentioned is incredibly unfortunate, especially that we had a number of European allies support the nomination, which was outrageous. Uh, but the United States stood and fought it, and we actually supported other candidates for other organizations, like the Commission on the Status of Women, uh, to ensure Iran, which serially abuses women, uh, killed the young girl, Masahamini, for daring to not
Wanted to move on to climate agreements in the United Nations. I think that President Trump did exactly the right thing. One of the first acts of the administration was to restore fiscal sanity and energy reality. And uh he officially ended our participation in the F- Paris climate agreement. Uh we stopped a dangerous Well.
Case in point, regardless of where you are on the debate of climate on either side of the aisle, I would hope we would all agree we don't need seven UN agencies that, with their own headquarters, staff, executive boards, uh, focused on the climate issue. We were very proud in the month that the United States was president of the Security Council to have Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, there to preside over the council, uh, and and talk to the world on that stage about energy addition not transition with the demands of AI, both he has said, I have said, we can't win the AI race on wind and solar. It's just physically impossible. We can't, when we look at uh where uh Bhaskara Bhartos just visited in places in Africa, they just need to eat. Uh and in fact, because of these ridiculous policies pushed by the UN, uh these people are dependent on burning wood uh because the these renewables don't work, don't provide enough energy, and because they've been dissuaded from using things like coal and clean gas. Uh, so it is something where we have a lot of work to do. These policies in terms of ESG and these discriminatory policies emanate from these UN bodies. We were able to defeat what would have been the world's first global carbon tax, which would have levied a billion dollars a month on global shipping. That's powered by fossil fuel. It was insane. Uh, and so, a- again, some you walk away, some you fight and win. Um, but, but rest assured you have fighters here.
Right, yeah, uh, well, I would, yeah, I was gonna turn to the other fighter, Ambassador, um, B- Bardo, specifically with the status of China's n- being a developing nation. And, you know, the world's second largest economy, second largest contributor to the U N. Uh, in September they announced that they would no longer be seeking special treatment, given the developing countries in the World Trade Organization agreements, but how can the US use China China's uh World Trade Organization announcement to instigate a change of their designation from being a, developing country, cuz clearly they're not.
Thank you for the question, Senator. It's great to see you. Um, I never miss an opportunity when I engage with the UN officials to mention that the developing the large developing nation with a space program, uh, called China, and they always chuckle. Um, they they leadership understands how absurd it is and it is something that we are uh focused on,
Mm-hmm.
and the abuse that China is able to uh use by that designation in the system and to, if you will, get tax taxpayer dollars from many contributing countries,
Mm-hmm. Yeah.
uh to go to development aid in that country is is absolutely unacceptable, and it's something that as we negotiate budgets, not only the we have a budget negotiation coming up on peacekeeping but we then have uh we'll have the main session in the fall right after the general assembly and it's something that our team is focused on.
Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Senator Rosen.
Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna thank Senator Brasso before he leaves for bringing up human rights and women's rights. Uh, they're really important, uh, especially I wanna talk, I'm gonna talk about women and girls, so thank you for that lead in. Um, Ambassador Walz, I'm concerned that the administration is retreating from an even attacking efforts to support women and gir girls globally despite Secretary Rubio's commitment to the contrary. The US has withdrawn the only UN agency strictly focused on women and women's health issues, UN Women and the UN Population Fund, as well as the UN Secretary General's Office of Sexual Violence and Conflict, sexual violence against women in conflict. And the US was recently the only no vote on the annual guiding document for the UN commission on the status of women. So, Ambassador Walz, how and where is the administration carrying out support for women and girls globally as they are often, um, victimized in conflict and and through just other governmental factors in their country, and they're really suffering.
Uh, Senator, thank you for the question. Um, I would say two things. Uh, One, uh, as a as a Green Beret I've served all over the world and I have seen over and over again in societies where women thrive in business and politics and civil society, from the village level to the municipal level to the national level, that is a better society for it. Uh, and you have far less extremism because of it. Uh, the famous words of Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Malala Busefsai, " The thing the extremists fear the most is a girl with a book." So, uh, and I was a co-chair of the of the um Women's Peace and Security Caucus uh in in the house. The second point is I would not conflate um to the extent we can uh funding to an organization uh compared to importance of the issue. Uh Secretary Rubio is committed to it, I'm committed to it for the reasons that I just laid out for you, but as we look through these organizations, many of them are duplicative, many of them were symbolic, many of them weren't really delivering the results that I think American people
Oh.
would expect so despite some of the titles where we do where we are supporting is
Maybe we could
our funding that I talked about earlier in UNICEF and World Food Program and International Organization for Migration that do support women and girls in
That's
crisis situations.
really important perhaps we could meet off-line I just met with UNICEF, they have a lot of issues, they're really trying to uplift children and take care of children, some of these other programs and so maybe we could talk about some of these programs and
And I I I've met with their leadership as well and just of note we have the first lady as the first first lady ever to preside over the security council,
And and that's right but I I ha- I have limited time so let me get to my two minutes
talking about AI and education and what have you. Sure.
because I see Senator Cruz over there and I do agree with you that uh when women lead we do have less extremism and that is a good way that we fight terrorism, it really is counterterrorism to support women and children. Uh but the administration has also vastly expanded the global gag rule to include not just reproductive health, but also gender-based and LGBT policies and programs that apply to multinational corporations or organizations excuse me for the first time. And it's likely again to have a huge impact on women and girls and other vulnerable communities. So, um are you telling impacted organizations about the policy? Uh what's the status for waivers for international organizations so they can continue their work without uh with non-U. S. funds? And
I'll just say very quickly, I'm happy to uh hand it over to Ambassador Bartos.
Thank you.
We are engaging on the implementation as we speak. Our chief legal uh advisor for the State Department was just up in New York. Uh the the uh Under Secretary for Foreign Assistance is heading to Geneva to sit down with these agencies on the implementation. It is go forward, not existing awards, not existing grants, but as we implement new grants together, the lawyers are working through effective implementation. But I can tell you we are committed to getting life-saving aid to people in need, and uh and also to reform development aid so it's creating jobs and not and not dependency.
Um, uh thank you. Uh, did you wanna add something to that?
Well, it's a great question, Senator, and it's something I can just report to you and it's good to see you, that um our team in up in New York, I have personally met with the legal counselor over at the UN, and the h the Under Secretary General is in charge of the budget. working very closely with our colleagues at the State Department, we have taken a whole of mission approach and working very collaboratively with the State Department to not only address this issue, to make sure that we are a a a very effective, the word they use up in New York, an interlocutor, I never heard that word before I got to New York, but that's the word they use, effective interlocutor to make sure that these concerns are heard, and that we're finding solutions as we roll out the program.
And and I think we do have to remember as we fight terrorism around the world, so as a co-chair of the counterterrorism subcommittee here, It is important that um we look at marginalized communities, how they're being um attacked, uh how they're being used as pawns oftentimes, and how they may be subject to the will of our adversaries in order just for their survival or for their family's survival. This leads uh lets places like China and our adversaries to have maybe more influence. So protecting these vulnerable communities, protecting women, protecting children, this is a way, to your point, to stop the terror uh terrorism or China or other folks from getting into communities and uh working against America's best interest. And so there is a diplomatic mission there to protect those human rights. Thank you, Mister Chairman.
Senator Cruz.
Thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, Ambassador Walts, a few minutes ago, Senator Van Hollen was berating you uh about the military conflict in Iran and was asserting that the president's threat uh to attack civilian power plants was a war crime uh it has long been said that that you can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts and what senator van hollen said was both factually and legally incorrect uh the pentagon has a manual on the law of war here's what the pentagon's manual on the law of war says on the question senator van hollen was raising quote electric power stations are generally recognized to be of sufficient importance to a state's capacity to meet its wartime needs of communication, transport, and industry, so as usually to qualify as military objectives during armed conflicts. It further notes, quote, "economic objects associated with military operations or war uh uh uh uh or or or with war, supporting a war, sustaining industries have been regarded as military objectives. Is is that consistent with your long-standing experience both with military conflict and with the laws of war?
Of course, that is consistent, uh, both as legitimate military tactics and targets in my experience as a veteran, and also now sitting in the world's flawed but pre-bear international, um, uh, international legal body.
Let's turn to a different topic. With within the State Department, The USAID OIG has traditionally taken a leading role in tracking the terrorist diversion of American assistance. When it comes to aid flowing into Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, that task can only be described as incredibly daunting. The Biden administration poured unaccountable billions of dollars into Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. And they deliberately obfuscated where it was going and to whom it was going. We have only begun to see the outlines of that scandal. A recent report in the Washington Free Beacon revealed that numerous UN agencies had been stonewalling the OIG's efforts to track their ties to terrorism and how they spent American aid. They are even refusing to disclose whether they used American money to directly pay the salaries of Hamas terrorists. The OIG sent letters to six separate UN agencies, asking them to name all of the employees quote " who worked on U. S. government funding awards" and to provide their contact information. The agencies were unresponsive. How concerned are you about these dynamics and what should we be doing about them?
I share your concern, Senator. It's one of the reasons that UNRWA in particular uh should be defunded, I think we should put it in law, um, that it is permanently defunded and why an American-led not only Board of Peace, but the civil-military coordination center, our kind of headquarters coordination center that is, uh, is in Israel right now is is so vital and so effective and I was able to visit it in in December. It's pulling together the Israelis, the Egyptians, all the humanitarian aid agencies, uh in de-conflicting and ensuring that as we provide that aid into Gaza, and much of it is absolutely needed, that it doesn't get diverted, like we've seen for decades and decades. Just think of the hundreds of kilometers, the hundreds of miles of tunnels, concrete and steel. These things were, I mean they had factories underground, they just used those to improve the lives of their people, one could only imagine. So it's, one of the reasons amongst many Hamas has to go. Uh, and it's one of the reasons that this structure that we've set up under American leadership from the International Stabilization Force to the civil military coordination center I think is the best chance we've had perhaps ever, to finally resolve this conflict.
All right, one final topic.
Sure.
Uh, as you have said, and I believe this view is widely shared on the committee, China poses the greatest geopolitical threat to the United States. over the long term. That threat is global, it is systematic, and it includes a sustained effort by the Chinese Communist Party to shape and in many cases dominate international organizations. China's taken over international organizations, made them unaccountable, and used them to advance Chinese interest against the United States and our allies. Uh, this pattern has been repeated over and over again across dozens of international organizations. Can you speak more broadly about China's systemic effort to shape international organizations and what specific steps are we taking to counteract the Chinese Communist Party's efforts to do so.
I think the biggest, uh, near-term step we should and are doing, uh, is to make sure we have American or like-minded allies in some of those key international organizations that most Americans have never heard of but absolutely affect their everyday lives. Um. Uh, again, whether it is governing uh AI, governing intellectual property, uh, governing how we export our crops and where they go, uh, kind of the world's uh, FDA for lack of a better term. We have to have American leadership there. We are aggressively running qualified people. To the extent we can't have an American, we have uh, like-minded individuals like the Singaporean businessman that now runs uh, WIPO where We hope to focus going forward, and where China is incredibly active, is literally funding interns and junior officers into these organizations and then kind of growing them up from within. And of course with that comes then the demand that the organization uses DeepSeek or does uses Huawei. Uh, we've seen this pattern, whether it's airports in Africa or organizations, uh, that that govern our daily lives in the global economy. Um, but I can assure you, uh, we are in there. They are the second largest funder. Uh, and but but we are the largest. We established these organizations and we have to get in there and lead. Thank you.
Um Looks like we've, uh, gotten participation by everybody who's going to ask questions, so I a sincere thank you. uh to both of you for all that you do and for the benefit of your testimony today. For the information of our members, the record for this hearing will remain open until the close of business tomorrow, the sixteenth of April. We ask the witnesses to respond uh as promptly as possible. Your responses will also be made part of the record for this hearing. With the thanks of the committee and its members, the hearing now stands adjourned.
Morning digest
Start every morning briefed on yesterday’s hearings
A free weekday email covering yesterday’s hearings and transcripts newly unlocked in the archive.
