`[Senate Hearing 118-509]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






                                 ______



                                                        S. Hrg. 118-509
 
                     AMERICAN DIPLOMACY AND GLOBAL
  LEADERSHIP: REVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2025 STATE DEPARTMENT BUDGET 
                                REQUEST

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 21, 2024

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
       
       
      GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT  
       


                  Available via http://www.govinfo.gov
                  
                  
                     _______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 57-701PDF        WASHINGTON : 2024
                 
                  
                  
                  
                  


                 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS        

             BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman        
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey            JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire          MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware         MITT ROMNEY, Utah
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut        PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
TIM KAINE, Virginia                    RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                   TODD YOUNG, Indiana
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey             JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                   TED CRUZ, Texas
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland             BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois              TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
                Damian Murphy, Staff Director          
       Christopher M. Socha, Republican Staff Director          
                   John Dutton, Chief Clerk          

                              (ii)        

  


                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator From Maryland.............     1

Risch, Hon. James E., U.S. Senator From Idaho....................     3

Blinken, Hon. Antony, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of 
  State, Washington, DC..........................................     5

    Prepared Statement...........................................     8

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

Responses of Mr. Antony Blinken to Questions Submitted by:

    Senator Jeanne Shaheen.......................................    56

    Senator James E. Risch.......................................    58

    Senator Marco Rubio..........................................    67

    Senator Bill Hagerty.........................................    75

                                 (iii)

  


  AMERICAN DIPLOMACY AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP: REVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 
                  2025 STATE DEPARTMENT BUDGET REQUEST

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2024

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., in 
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L. 
Cardin presiding.
    Present: Senators Cardin [presiding], Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
Merkley, Booker, Van Hollen, Risch, Romney, Paul, Young, 
Barrasso, Cruz, Ricketts, and Scott.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND

    The Chairman. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will 
to come to order.
    Secretary Blinken, welcome. We very much appreciate your 
being with us today and back in the committee room that you are 
very familiar with, and we thank you for your extraordinary 
effort on behalf of the United States.
    We know that you have been doing a lot of traveling, a lot 
of talking, promoting American diplomacy based on our values, 
and we thank you very much for all of your service and we look 
forward to this hearing every year as we go over particularly 
the fiscal year 2025 budget.
    I often speak about the importance of adhering to our 
values and our foreign policy. That is because I believe our 
values are at the core of American power and key to achieving 
our foreign policy goals.
    This country was founded on a unique basis in the words of 
our Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, 
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 
rights, and for two and a half centuries we have sought to live 
up to these ideals at home and abroad.
    I think there would be bipartisan agreement that we do not 
always succeed, but our aspirations matter. Knowing where our 
North Star is matters. I think we often find a common ground on 
how values and principles add strength to hard security 
decisions.
    But there are others that view the world strictly based on 
a survival of the fittest worldview. They say rules are for 
suckers and ask the question, what are we getting from this, or 
worse, what do I get from this.
    This approach not only sees foreign policy as 
transactional, it also says nations only get what they want by 
military force or corrupt dealings. But to not adhere to 
American values in foreign policy decisions is making a major 
strategic mistake.
    To be true to our founding principles we need to support 
those people trying to defend human rights, those rights 
endowed to us by our Creator.
    Sticking to our values leads to policies that encourage 
people to stand up to corruption, that champion the rule of law 
and fair play, that support democracies, that saves lives, 
policies that advance America's national security interests.
    These issues should inform the way the United States 
engages with the other countries of the world. That is why the 
Leahy Law advocated by our former colleague from Vermont is so 
important to security cooperation in our foreign policies--is 
why I am proud that Congress has enacted and the executive 
branch has implemented the Global Magnitsky Human Rights 
Accountability Act as well as the recent enactment of the 
Combating Global Corruption.
    The department has at times opposed values driven human 
rights proposals when they surface in Congress. We recognize 
there is a little competition between the executive branch and 
the legislative branch.
    But I think we all agree that we are stronger when we work 
together, and when we coordinate our activities and work in 
unity it is a lot better for our nation, and I think your 
training here as the staff director of this committee has 
served you very well because I applaud your efforts to try to 
coordinate as strong as we can the actions of the legislative 
and executive branch in the best interests of our nation.
    Secretary Blinken, right now we face many serious world 
crises. Some of these conflicts are in the headlines: The war 
in Ukraine, the Hamas attack on Israel, the humanitarian 
situation in Gaza.
    Others get only passing mention like Haiti or Venezuela, 
Burma, or Sudan. But whether they attract widespread attention 
or not, all of these crises are important, from reducing the 
spread of malicious disinformation to reducing the threat of 
nuclear war, from modernizing our diplomatic corps to 
responsibly harnessing the power of AI, from fighting Putin in 
Ukraine to fighting the effects of climate change.
    The Department of State and the work of our diplomats do 
every day has never been more important. This committee 
understands the need for a healthy and thriving American 
diplomatic presence around the world.
    I want to thank Senator Risch for working with me on this 
year's State Department authorization bill. This will be our 
fourth authorization bill in 4 years after a long hiatus.
    I am glad that we had an opportunity to discuss that during 
last week's hearing with Secretary Verma. We need to 
incentivize diversity initiatives and modernize the training 
and professional developments for our diplomats to deal with 
the 21st century challenges.
    This bill really underscores the importance we put on 
supporting the work of our State Department.
    Secretary Blinken, I want to thank you personally for all 
you have done and the hard work you have done to promote the 
strength of our diplomacy in the State Department and its 
mission around the world.
    I know that you have traveled many miles and met with many 
world leaders, especially in the context of Putin's war in 
Ukraine, in the wake of Hamas's attack in Israel.
    I would like to hear you articulate how this Administration 
plans to confront the challenges we face today, because despite 
everything that is happening and the best efforts of our 
colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, our foreign aid 
budgets have been shrinking.
    What effect do you think this has had on your ability to 
advance American priorities, defend American interests, and 
project American values? What kind of trade offs have you had 
to make at the State Department because of the shrinking 
budgets?
    That is the purpose of this hearing to discuss the 
President's fiscal year 2025 budget, and I look forward to that 
discussion.
    And with that, let me first recognize our very 
distinguished ranking member, Senator Risch.

               STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for those 
remarks. Let me say that it appears we are at the start of a 
new era in global affairs, one marked by growing instability, 
increasing competition, and fraying economic relationships.
    This is a time for U.S. leadership and resolve. The 
President's annual budget, which is what we are talking about 
here today, shows his priorities, and there are a couple of 
areas in his budget request where we agree. But the request 
lacks seriousness, I believe, and shows an inability to make 
tough choices.
    First, the budget's biggest focus is on climate change. 
That focus does not help Ukraine or Israel or help our allies 
compete against China.
    In fact, by rejecting low carbon energy options like 
natural gas and pushing a green only approach the 
Administration is doing more to enable China than out compete 
it.
    If the Administration wants to outcompete China, then it 
should focus on China's growing advantages in ports, airports, 
digital check technologies, and other critical sectors rather 
than advancing ideological pet projects.
    Indeed, this proposed budget does contain a poison pill 
which I suspect you probably already know, Secretary Blinken, 
in the form of a, quote, ``Green Climate Fund'' which proposes 
to transfer U.S. taxpayer money to China through the United 
Nations, about a billion dollars of it.
    The budget's so called outcompete China initiatives might 
enjoy my support if the department actually worked with this 
committee.
    But the request of the programs to be mandatory spending is 
inappropriate. Mandatory programs are not subject to 
congressional oversight, and that is why these requests have 
failed in the last 3 years.
    In fact, I would argue the department has perfected the art 
of hiding information from Congress, which you and I talked 
about yesterday to some degree.
    On Israel, Ukraine and China and Congo, it is impossible to 
get honest and clear information from the department.
    Instead, the President prioritizes funds for nontransparent 
initiatives like the Partnership for Global Infrastructure, 
which focuses on climate and gender infrastructure, and the 
department's funds are steered not by the department but by the 
White House, which is accountable to no one.
    On Iran, the Administration's policy is fatally flawed. 
Outreach and accommodation have failed, and the lack of any 
serious strategy has come home to roost.
    Iran has doubled down on its support for terrorists and 
flooded Russia with drones and missiles. The Red Sea remains 
contested and dangerous, and the U.S. Navy has spent a billion 
dollars on missiles to defend vessels from Houthi attacks.
    Iran's unprecedented attack against Israel shows Iran 
doubts this Administration's resolve to punish its behavior. I 
am proud this committee passed the most significant Iran 
sanctions legislation we have seen in years--the End It Act, 
the SHIP Act, MAHSA Act, and legislation targeting Iranian 
drones are all law. Is the Administration actually going to 
enforce them?
    Recent history suggests it will not. Rather than imposing 
costs on Iran, the Administration is imposing costs on Israel. 
We must stop blaming Israel and let Israel remove Hamas from 
Gaza. That is the only way to move forward.
    In Europe, instability is growing and your budget request 
is tone deaf. Congress has asked for a Ukraine strategy, which 
I suspect will never be delivered.
    If you were serious, funds for Ukraine would be in the base 
budget. Instead, the urging to continue support through long 
term policy with short term emergency packages is not 
appropriate.
    In Haiti, I remain concerned--you and I talked about it 
yesterday again--in Haiti I remain concerned about the 
logistics, feasibility, and cost of the proposed multinational 
security support mission.
    Prior international interventions over a long, long period 
of time in Haiti have been dismal failures, leaving the Haitian 
people worse off than before.
    We cannot use U.S. taxpayer dollars to support an open 
ended, poorly conceived mission in a country plagued by extreme 
gang violence and political instability without some kind of 
assurances that things are going to be different this time.
    In Africa, we have had coups in seven countries in the last 
3 years. Our people continue to get kicked out of countries 
there. In the worst instance we are witnessing a devastating 
conflict in Sudan. Humanitarian needs are overwhelming, and 
severe food and medicine shortages are causing near famine 
conditions.
    Yet, it took 10 months to appoint a special envoy. Even 
then, the appointment is for 180 days, and support for the 
office remains insufficient, and our partners have highlighted 
a lack of U.S. engagement and leadership at meetings on Sudan.
    Mr. Secretary, during our first conversation after your 
confirmation we discussed the need for a coordination and 
assistance framework to help the United States get ahead of the 
next pandemic, so I introduced legislation that you and the 
White House supported, for which I am appreciative.
    Despite that, this budget undermines effective coordination 
of U.S. global health security. I also did not and will never 
agree to negotiations at the World Health Assembly that would 
trade away U.S. intellectual property rights and give a deeply 
flawed World Health Organization enhanced authority and 
resources.
    These are challenging times for the United States and the 
world, but our policies across the board are not helping us. We 
need to do better.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch. I appreciate your 
comments.
    Our witness today is Antony Blinken, the seventy-first U.S. 
Secretary of State. He was nominated by President Biden and 
confirmed by the U.S. Senate and has been our Secretary of 
State since January 27, 2021.
    Over three decades and three presidential administrations 
Mr. Blinken has helped shape U.S. foreign policy to ensure it 
protects U.S. interest and delivers results for the American 
people.
    He served as Deputy Secretary of State for President Obama 
from 2015 to 2017 and before that as President Obama's 
principal deputy national security adviser.
    In that role Mr. Blinken chaired the interagency deputies 
committee, the main forum for hammering out the 
Administration's foreign policy. During the first term of the 
Obama administration Mr. Blinken was national security adviser 
to then Vice President Joe Biden.
    But perhaps the most impressive part of his background by 
far is the fact that he served a 6 year stint as the Democratic 
staff director to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
    Then Senator Biden was chair of that committee from 2001 to 
2003 and again from 2007 to 2009. 2007 was my first year in the 
U.S. Senate, and I was appointed to this committee in which 
then staff director Blinken was extremely helpful to this 
freshman member of the U.S. Senate, and I am forever grateful 
for his help during the transition years.
    Secretary Blinken, your entire statement will be made part 
of our record. Without objection, you may proceed as you wish 
and we look forward to a robust discussion.

  STATEMENT OF HON. ANTONY BLINKEN, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S. 
              DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Blinken. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    To you, Ranking Member Risch, all the members of the 
committee, it is always good to be back before this committee, 
and as you said I was on the other side of the dais behind 
where you are for 6 years. So I always appreciate the 
opportunity to be back here among colleagues.
    And thank you for the opportunity to testify today. More 
importantly, thank you for the partnership that I think we have 
been able to manifest together to advance American leadership 
in the world that is so essential for delivering on the 
priorities that matter to the people we represent.
    The need for U.S. global leadership and for cooperation 
with allies and partners has never been greater. The People's 
Republic of China----
    [Disturbance in the hearing room.]
    The Chairman. Will the officer please remove the person who 
is making these comments? Anyone who is speaking will please be 
removed.
    [Disturbance in the hearing room.]
    The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, you may proceed.
    Mr. Blinken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As I was saying, the People's Republic of China----
    [Disturbance in the hearing room.]
    The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, you may continue.
    Mr. Blinken. The People's Republic of China is pursuing 
military, economic, and geopolitical preeminence, challenging 
our vision for a free, open, secure, and prosperous 
international order.
    Russia is committing aggression not only against Ukraine 
but against the principles at the heart of the United Nations 
Charter--sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence--that 
are the building blocks for global peace and security.
    In the Middle East, we are standing with Israel and its 
efforts to ensure that what happened on October 7 never happens 
again as we do everything we can to bring an end to the 
terrible human suffering in Gaza and prevent the conflict from 
spreading.
    U.S. leadership is needed to address humanitarian crises 
elsewhere around the world including in Sudan and Haiti, where 
millions have been displaced and many killed, and to address 
global issues that no country can solve alone, including food 
security, a changing climate, transnational corruption, the 
fentanyl crisis.
    But with the support of Congress, we can and we are 
approaching these challenges from a position of strength. 
Because of the actions we have taken the United States is 
stronger economically, diplomatically, and militarily than we 
were 3 years ago.
    We have made historic investments at home in our own 
competitiveness, innovation, infrastructure. We have renewed 
our alliances. We built new ones. We have secured unprecedented 
alignment with key partners in Europe, Asia, and beyond.
    We have delivered essential American aid to Ukraine, and we 
have rallied the international community to share the burden 
with us. For every dollar that we have sent in economic and 
development assistance, others collectively have invested three 
more.
    Now, many doubted whether bipartisan support for Ukraine 
and other urgent national security priorities could endure. 
Last month Congress demonstrated to the world that we will not 
pull back, when you passed President Biden's supplemental 
funding bill by an overwhelming margin.
    Our investment abroad does not come at the expense of our 
strength at home. Far from it. Most of the supplemental is 
being spent here in the United States building up our defense 
industrial base, creating and supporting thousands of American 
jobs.
    We need to keep up this momentum. That requires a State 
Department budget that we fully resource in order to meet the 
challenges of our time. The President's fiscal year 2025 
budget----
    [Disturbance in the hearing room.]
    The Chairman. You may continue.
    Mr. Blinken. Thank you.
    The President's fiscal year 2025 budget requesting $58.8 
billion for the State Department and USAID does this in two key 
ways.
    First, it funds the essential missions of our department 
and USAID. The budget will ensure that the United States 
continues to be the partner of choice that countries turn to 
when they need to solve big problems.
    In an era of renewed great power competition we must 
present the strongest possible offer, one that is relevant and 
responsive to countries' needs and that advances our security 
and economic interests.
    That is why we are requesting $2 billion for a new fund to 
build high quality sustainable infrastructure around the world. 
Crucially, investments like these create jobs for Americans, 
they expand markets for our businesses. We are requesting 
resources for the World Bank. With $1 billion in U.S. funding 
we can unlock another $36 billion in development fund capacity 
to direct to the top priorities of emerging economies.
    That is an enormous return on our investment and essential 
for competing with China around the world. The budget also 
includes $1.7 billion for international organizations including 
the United Nations, APEC, the Inter-American Development Bank, 
to help shape them in ways that reflect our interests and our 
values.
    We are asking for $500 million to give more people around 
the world access to secure internet and digital technologies.
    Doing so will support our economy through the export of our 
technology products, and it will help ensure that we and our 
fellow democracies remain the leaders and standard setters in 
key technologies like artificial intelligence.
    Our budget also includes funding to address global issues 
that affect the lives, the livelihoods of the American people 
as well as people around the world, especially the synthetic 
drug crisis.
    It also funds our response to irregular migration, global 
food insecurity, public health, climate, and energy security. 
We are also asking Congress to fully fund the State 
Department's educational and cultural exchanges. These are one 
of the best, most cost effective tools we have for advancing 
our values and our interests around the world.
    They support students, researchers, young professionals 
from our communities, who study and work abroad. To out compete 
our strategic rivals, we also need to invest in the foundations 
of our strength abroad, our diplomatic corps, and that is the 
second pillar of our budget.
    Our budget makes a strong investment in expanding our 
overseas presence, opening posts in the Pacific Islands and the 
eastern Caribbean. It will also continue our modernization of 
our diplomacy.
    We are organizing the department in new ways to meet these 
new challenges, working to attract and retain the best talent 
needed to take them on; investing in our people in Washington 
and in our posts overseas with training, with technology; 
promoting more agility, more innovation, more efficiency in our 
processes.
    Last year's enacted budget level represented a 5 percent 
cut from the year before. That challenges our efforts to 
deliver results that Congress and the American people want to 
see.
    So I urge you to support this budget which helps us address 
the most pressing foreign policy priorities in the coming year 
and lays the foundation for strong leadership in the years 
ahead.
    In conclusion, I would like to thank this committee for 
your recent confirmations of ambassadors and other senior 
officials. Any undue delays in such confrontations undermine 
our national security and weaken our ability to deliver for the 
American people.
    I am grateful for the partnership of this committee and for 
your time. I look forward to answering any questions.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, members.
    [The prepared statement of Secretary Blinken follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Mr. Antony Blinken

    Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Risch, distinguished members of the 
Committee: thank you for the opportunity to testify before you.
    And thank you for your partnership to advance American leadership 
in the world that is so essential for delivering on the priorities that 
matter to our people at home.
    The need for U.S. global leadership--and cooperation with allies 
and partners--has never been greater.
    The People's Republic of China is pursuing military, economic, and 
geopolitical preeminence, challenging our vision for a free, open, 
secure, and prosperous international order.
    Russia is committing aggression not only against Ukraine, but 
against the principles at the heart of the U.N. Charter--sovereignty, 
territorial integrity, independence--that are the building blocks of 
global peace and security.
    In the Middle East, we're standing with Israel in its efforts to 
ensure what happened on October 7th never happens again, as we do 
everything we can to bring an end to the terrible human suffering in 
Gaza and prevent the conflict from spreading.
    U.S. leadership is needed to address humanitarian crises elsewhere 
around the world, including in Sudan and Haiti, where millions have 
been displaced and many killed . . . and to address global issues that 
no country can solve alone, including food security, the changing 
climate, transnational corruption, and the fentanyl crisis.
    But, with support from Congress, we can and we are approaching 
these challenges from a position of strength. Because of the actions 
we've taken, the U.S. is stronger economically, diplomatically, and 
militarily than we were 3 years ago.
    We've made historic investments at home in our competitiveness, 
innovation, and infrastructure. We've renewed our alliances, built new 
ones, and secured unprecedented alignment with key partners in Europe, 
Asia, and beyond.
    We've delivered essential American aid to Ukraine . . . and we've 
rallied the international community to share the burden. For every 
dollar we've sent in economic and development assistance, others have 
collectively invested three more.
    Many doubted whether bipartisan support for Ukraine and other 
urgent national security priorities could endure. But last month, 
Congress demonstrated to the world that we will not pull back, when you 
passed President Biden's supplemental funding bill by an overwhelming 
margin.
    Our investment abroad does not come at the expense of our strength 
at home--far from it. Most of the supplemental is being spent here in 
the United States, building up our defense industrial base and creating 
and supporting thousands of American jobs.
    We need to keep up this momentum. That requires a State Department 
budget that will fully resource our response to the challenges of our 
time.
    The President's fiscal year 2025 budget--requesting $58.8 billion 
for the State Department and USAID--does that in two key ways.
    First, it funds the essential missions of our Department and USAID. 
The budget will ensure the United States continues to be the partner of 
choice that countries turn to when they need to solve big problems. In 
an era of renewed great power competition, we must present the 
strongest possible offer: one that is relevant and responsive to 
countries' needs, and that advances our security and economic 
interests.
    That's why we're requesting $2 billion for a new fund to build 
high-quality, sustainable infrastructure around the world. Crucially, 
investments like these create jobs for Americans and expand markets for 
our businesses.
    We're requesting resources for the World Bank. With $1 billion in 
U.S. funding, we can unlock another $36 billion in development fund 
capacity to direct to the top priorities of emerging economies. That's 
an enormous return on our investment--and essential for competing with 
China around the world.
    The budget also includes $1.7 billion for international 
organizations, including the United Nations, APEC, and the Inter-
American Development Bank, to help shape them in ways that reflect our 
interests and values.
    We're asking for $500 million to give more people around the world 
access to secure Internet and digital technologies. Doing so will 
support the U.S. economy through the export of our technology products 
. . . and it will help ensure we, and our fellow democracies, remain 
the leaders and standard-setters in key technologies like artificial 
intelligence.
    Our budget includes funding to address global issues that affect 
the lives and livelihoods of the American people, as well as people 
around the world--especially the synthetic drugs crisis. It also funds 
our response to irregular migration, global food insecurity, public 
health, and climate and energy security.
    We're also asking Congress to fully fund the State Department's 
educational and cultural exchanges. They are one of our best and most 
cost-effective tools for advancing U.S. values and interests around the 
world--and they support the students, researchers, and young 
professionals from our communities who study and work abroad.
    To outcompete our strategic rivals, we need to invest in the 
foundation of our strength abroad: America's diplomatic corps. That's 
the second pillar of this budget.
    Our budget makes a strong investment in expanding our overseas 
presence, opening posts in the Pacific Islands and Eastern Caribbean.
    It will also continue our modernization of American diplomacy. We 
are organizing the department and attracting and retaining the talent 
needed to take on 21st century challenges . . . investing in our people 
in Washington and at our posts overseas with training and technology . 
. . and promoting agility, innovation, and efficiency in our processes.
    Last year's enacted budget level represented a 5 percent cut from 
the year before. That challenges our efforts to deliver the results 
Congress and the American people deserve.
    I urge you to support this budget, which helps us address the most 
pressing foreign policy priorities of the coming year . . . and lays 
the foundation for strong U.S. leadership in the years ahead.
    Before I conclude, I'd like to thank the Committee for your recent 
confirmations of Ambassadors and other senior officials. Any undue 
delays in such confirmations undermine our national security and weaken 
our ability to deliver for the American people.
    I'm grateful for this committee's partnership and your time. And I 
look forward to answering your questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I regret the 
interruptions during your testimony.
    I believe it was the New York Times editorial page that 
pointed out it takes as much courage to listen as to speak out 
and I think you are going to hear during the course of our 
discussion here today that we will have different views, and I 
think it is critically important that we all have an 
opportunity to hear those views, and I regret the disruptions 
that took place.
    We will not tolerate disruption in this committee as I have 
made it very clear.
    We will now have a round of 7 minutes on questioning from 
our members.
    I would ask that they respect the 7 minutes so every member 
can get a chance to ask questions before we run out of 
opportunity and time.
    Let me start with the budget restrictions that you have. 
Senator Coons was just here. I know he will be back. He does 
his best to get you the most robust budget we can.
    We all believe that the funds that we make available for 
diplomacy are great investments. Our soft power is critically 
important to USAID, and the list goes on and on and on.
    But you got to make tough decisions. So I appreciate your 
help and the fact that we were able to enact the Combating 
Global Corruption Act that you helped make sure we got to the 
finish line. It does put additional responsibilities on your 
missions around the world to have the capacity to identify 
areas of corruption that need attention.
    Tell me how this budget will be adequate to implement that 
policy and how you intend to implement that policy.
    Mr. Blinken. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    We are determined to implement it and to support it with 
the necessary resources. We see, I think this committee sees, 
corruption as being one of the most poisonous things that 
undermines democracies, or countries that are attempting to 
become democracies, around the world. It saps people's faith in 
their governments, in their institutions.
    It takes resources away from the actual development of the 
country to line the pockets of people who are engaged in 
corruption, and around the world we have seen time and again 
that as people come out to protest often the instigating factor 
is a revulsion of corruption.
    So our ability to be able, with other countries, to help 
identify it, to root it out, but also to help countries develop 
the institutions and the processes necessary to guard against 
corruption in their institutions and their governance we think 
is a critical aspect of defending and promoting and 
strengthening democracy.
    So we are determined to implement what has been given to us 
through the authorities in the act. I think the budget reflects 
the dedication of resources to do that.
    But of course, everything we are doing, given the budget 
environment we are in comes with trade offs and decisions that 
we have to make to balance the responsibilities we have, the 
needs we have, with the resources that are made available. I do 
not want to see it come at the expense of the effort to engage 
in this vital work.
    The Chairman. So let me talk about one of your requests for 
funds for Haiti--800 miles away, an area that is certainly not 
stable today.
    We have the president of Kenya, President Ruto, who is here 
this week, so it is an appropriate week for us to get more 
information about it. You have requested funds for the U.S. to 
support that mission.
    Tell us how important those funds are, and what are the 
expectations? There have been concerns raised as to whether 
this is an investment that can lead to a positive result. 
Please help us understand that.
    Mr. Blinken. Haiti has been teetering on the precipice of 
all out crisis and becoming a failed state.
    The Chairman. Is your mic on?
    Mr. Blinken. I am sorry. Thank you.
    Haiti is on the precipice of becoming an all out failed 
state now, and I take very seriously what the ranking member 
said.
    We have discussed this on a number of occasions. There have 
been in years past numerous interventions in Haiti.
    Some have had some near term effect in stabilizing things, 
but it is certainly true that we have not seen a long term 
stabilizing effect that has allowed the country to genuinely 
move forward.
    So I understand some of the skepticism that exists about 
another mission in Haiti. But I think what we have going for us 
is this.
    First, a general revulsion of the people at the direction 
that the country has taken including gangs that are dominating 
Port-au-Prince and trying to undermine governance, a democratic 
trajectory that has been disrupted by failing to have a 
government that actually has a clear mandate, and all of that 
has also had the effect of interrupting development assistance, 
other forms of assistance, that people so desperately need.
    There is an opportunity now to do a few things. First, we 
have managed to move to a better trajectory politically to get 
back to a clearly mandated democratic government.
    We have a transitional presidential council that has been 
established. All of its members are in Haiti working. They have 
a mandate now to name an interim prime minister, an interim 
president, an electoral council, and a national security 
council, all of which will be in place to try to establish a 
clear pathway to elections to get Haiti back on its feet 
democratically.
    Second, the power of the gangs needs to be ended once and 
for all, and in particular the Haitian National Police who are 
outmanned and outgunned need to be given the resources and 
support they need to regain control.
    In the last few weeks they have actually done a better job 
of that. They have taken back control of the airport and other 
critical infrastructure. In fact, today commercial flights 
resumed in Haiti, and we anticipate that American carriers will 
begin flying again in the days ahead.
    But absent a clear support structure for some period of 
time, it is going to be very hard for the police to really 
fully establish that control.
    So the United Nations has mandated, and other countries 
have stepped up to fulfill the functions of a multinational 
security support mission for Haiti, the purpose of which is to 
bolster the police. The purpose of which is to engage in 
operational and static support for the police to reestablish 
security, to create confidence in the conditions for elections, 
mostly police, and Kenya in particular has stepped up to 
provide these forces with a number of other countries.
    The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I will give you a chance to 
expand on that probably a little later.
    I want to focus my last minute on the--give you a chance to 
give us a status of the Middle East, what is happening in 
regards to the conversations with Israel and Hamas in order to 
get an opportunity for the release of the hostages and a 
pathway toward a way forward for both the Palestinians and 
Israelis without the terrorists.
    The ICC ruling yesterday--I would like to get your view on 
it--I see it as a step in the wrong direction that is going to 
make it more challenging for us to get the parties together.
    There has always been an understanding the ICC is there to 
deal with countries that do not have an independent judiciary. 
Israel has an independent judiciary. They did not give the 
Israelis an opportunity. We thought there was that opportunity 
going to take place this week.
    I wanted to get your assessment as to how you see the 
current situations in light of what just happened at the ICC as 
to whether we are on track to continue to negotiate in regards 
to the hostages and a pause in the hostilities.
    Mr. Blinken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Look, we see the effort to get a ceasefire and the release 
of hostages as the best, most effective way forward both in 
getting hostages home in--creating an environment in which the 
people of Gaza can get more of the assistance they so 
desperately need and a platform for which to build a more 
enduring solution that provides genuine security for Israel and 
meets the needs of the Palestinian people.
    There has been an extensive effort made in recent months to 
get that agreement. I think we have come very, very close on a 
couple of occasions, Qatar, Egypt, others participating in the 
efforts to do this. We remain at it every single day.
    I think that there is still a possibility but it is 
challenged by a number of events, and I have to say, yes, the 
extremely wrongheaded decision by the ICC prosecutor yesterday. 
The shameful equivalence implied between Hamas and the 
leadership of Israel, I think that only complicates the 
prospects for getting such an agreement.
    We will continue to forge ahead to do that, but that 
decision, as you said, on so many levels is totally 
wrongheaded, and we will be happy to work with Congress, with 
this committee, on an appropriate response.
    The Chairman. Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me start there. Sometimes we do not agree on stuff but 
I got to tell you on the ICC you got it exactly right. Your 
characterization of it being shameful equivalence that they 
have engaged in yesterday is actually stunning.
    As you know, in the last administration the Trump people 
did an executive order to do sanctions on certain members of 
the ICC who were investigating us for things that happened in 
Afghanistan.
    President Biden's administration came in and dissolved that 
executive order, as you know. For your information, you 
probably know about this, but there is a number of us up here 
that are working on a legislative approach to this that 
includes not only the Afghanistan question but also includes 
the question of the ICC sticking its nose in the business of 
countries that have an independent, legitimate, democratic 
judicial system, and obviously, they finally did that 
yesterday.
    Can you support this? Obviously, you want to--the devil is 
in the details, obviously, in the legislation, but do you think 
you can support a legislative approach to this?
    Mr. Blinken. Senator Risch, in short, we want to--let us 
look at it. We want to work with you on a bipartisan basis to 
find an appropriate response. I am committed to doing that.
    As you say, the devil is in the details, so let us see what 
you got, and we can take it from there. But I think, from our 
perspective, going back and lifting sanctions that were 
previously implemented the intent, the purpose, was to find the 
best way to protect our service members who served in 
Afghanistan, and we believe that we did that.
    But given the events of yesterday, I think we have to look 
at the appropriate steps to take to deal with, again, what is a 
profoundly wrongheaded decision.
    Senator Risch. Well, thank you.
    As I said, your coinage of that as a shameful equivalence, 
I think, is a good starting point for all of us, and it really, 
really deserves our attention. So we are going to spend some 
time on that, and I hope we can work together on that.
    Let us shift to China for a minute--obviously, the biggest 
problem we have. In April you said China was the primary 
contributor to Russia's military complex, and the U.S. has 
strong evidence China is providing drone and missile 
technology, satellite imagery, machine tools, and other items 
that aid Moscow's defense build up.
    Are you still of that frame of mind?
    Mr. Blinken. Yes.
    Senator Risch. In that regard, what plans do you have for 
this? Help me out here. Where are we headed with this? I think 
you got it right. What do we do about it?
    Mr. Blinken. So two things. First, just to be very clear 
what we are talking about, we have not seen China provide 
actual weapons to Russia for use in Ukraine.
    North Korea is doing that. Iran is doing that. China is 
not. What we are seeing is China provide overwhelming support 
to Russia's defense industrial base. Seventy percent of the 
machine tools that Russia is importing are coming from China.
    Ninety percent of the micro electronics that Russia is 
importing coming from China, and a lot of that goes to building 
up the defense industrial base, and we have seen as a result 
Russia churning out tanks, artillery, ammunition, at a record 
pace.
    So two things. We have, first of all, identified this and 
called this out, called this out directly with China when I was 
there a few weeks ago with President Xi as well as with the 
foreign minister, Wang Yi.
    We have called it out publicly. We brought the information 
to allies and partners, and it is very clear that, particularly 
for the Europeans who see in Russia's aggression against 
Ukraine a larger threat to their own security, because if it 
does not stop at Ukraine it is very much likely to continue 
elsewhere in Europe. You cannot have China on the one hand 
professing to seek better relations with countries in Europe 
while on the other hand fueling the greatest security threat to 
Europe since the end of the cold war.
    And in my conversations with European leaders as we shared 
this information with them it is clear that that is exactly the 
way they see it, and I am confident they are engaging China on 
that basis.
    What we have done and what we need to continue to do, one 
is we have already sanctioned more than a hundred Chinese 
entities that we have identified that were engaged in providing 
dual use products, other things that are on sanctions lists.
    We will continue to do that, and we are working to 
coordinate our efforts with European and other partners who are 
also aggrieved--in fact, in many ways even more aggrieved by 
this practice because it is a direct threat to them.
    Senator Risch. Well, thank you.
    When you are sitting across the table from the Chinese, and 
you call them out on this, what do they say, mind your own 
business? What is their position on this?
    Mr. Blinken. Oh, their position is that they are engaged in 
perfectly normal, legal trade.
    Senator Risch. Well, then that brings me to something else 
that we know that they are lusting over in a perfectly legal 
manner, and that is they want to be involved in the peace 
process for Ukraine, and we all know why.
    They are going to descend like locusts and a plague on 
Ukraine when this is over with, and it is going to be over 
with, and Ukraine is going to need a tremendous amount of 
rebuilding. They want to participate in that. Your thoughts on 
that?
    Mr. Blinken. Well, if that is their intent I do not think 
they are doing themselves any favor by helping to feed the 
Russian war machine, and I do not think that will be looked 
kindly upon by Ukrainians when the day comes when there is 
peace and a strong, sovereign Ukraine is fully engaged in 
rebuilding from what Russia has done to it.
    Senator Risch. Have the Europeans expressed to you as they 
have to a number of us their concerns about Chinese involvement 
in rebuilding Ukraine?
    Mr. Blinken. I have to say that it is not something that I 
think has come up that I recall in discussions, but I am pretty 
confident that given the support that China is providing to 
Russia it is not something that will be looked kindly upon by 
the Ukrainians themselves.
    Senator Risch. In the few minutes I got left I want to talk 
about my REPO Act. You know, we got a lot of pushback on that 
when it started, but amazingly, most everyone has come around.
    Even our friends in Germany who originally said absolutely 
not are now--at least got one foot on board. The Belgians, of 
course, who have most of the assets really have come up with 
some innovative ways to do this.
    What are you hearing on that?
    Mr. Blinken. Well, first of all, I applaud you for what you 
did with that, for the leadership on that. It has made a big 
difference.
    Two things. Just today the European Union has gone ahead 
and approved the use of the interest, profits from the 
sovereign assets that are in Europe, for Ukraine.
    Now, that is a step, but it is an important step----
    Senator Risch. And I do not disagree with that. When I met 
with them they talked about the difference between the 
principal and interest, and I guess--I am not a banker, but 
once the interest is earned, in my judgment, it becomes part of 
the principal.
    So I do not understand if they use the principal, or the 
interest, rather, they cannot use the principal. But aside from 
that, their view when I talked to them was they can use the 
interest for a long, long time. It is fine. It sits there 
forever. Fine.
    Mr. Blinken. And now they----
    Senator Risch. Whatever the solution, I am all in.
    Mr. Blinken. So the EU has done that. But to your point, 
Senator, I think there are other possibilities that we are 
driving toward including looking at ways to collateralize the 
principal and to use that as the basis for a loan, for a bond, 
that would generate a lot more resources for Ukraine up front.
    Senator Risch. Very good.
    My time is up.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Senator Murphy.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here before this 
committee. Thank you for your continued willingness to be in an 
open dialogue with the Senate and Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee on these important matters.
    Press reports suggest that the United States and Saudi 
Arabia are close to finalizing the bilateral elements of a 
regional security deal. The Saudis themselves called the 
existing draft semi-final.
    So I wanted to ask you a couple questions about the status 
of these talks to the extent that you can tell us. The first is 
this. It seems as if the Administration has really put their 
foot on the accelerator to try to get the U.S.-Saudi elements 
of this agreement wrapped up.
    But our committee's understanding has always been that this 
would be in the context of an agreement that included Israel, 
and critically, would include real commitments for a 
Palestinian state.
    Unfortunately, and regrettably, right now there does not 
seem to be the willingness or the room inside the Israeli 
politic to make those commitments. And so my first question is 
why the rush to get a deal done with Saudi Arabia when we do 
not even know the shape of the commitments that Israel may ever 
be willing to make, and two, why do we have confidence that 
Saudi Arabia would ever live up to the commitments that it is 
making?
    In the national security world a mutual defense or a 
security treaty is a sacred trust. This is a country that 4 
years ago chopped to pieces an American resident journalist.
    This is a country that 2 years ago turned its back on us 
when we asked them to side with us at OPEC+ and instead chose 
Russia.
    And so I would ask you to answer those two questions. Why 
the rush, given that we do not really understand the potential 
for the full agreement to come into effect, and what gives you 
confidence that Saudi Arabia will live up to any of the 
commitments it is making?
    Mr. Blinken. Thank you, Senator.
    A few things here. First, yes, we have sought to move 
forward in negotiating the bilateral U.S.-Saudi aspects of a 
normalization agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel.
    But even if we were to conclude those agreements, and I 
believe we actually can conclude them relatively quickly given 
all the work that has been done, they could not go forward, and 
the overall package could not go forward absent other things 
that have to happen for normalization to proceed, and in 
particular, the Saudis have been very clear that would require 
calm in Gaza, and it would require a credible pathway to a 
Palestinian state.
    And it may well be, as you said, that in this moment Israel 
is not able or willing to proceed down that pathway. But to the 
extent that the agreements are finalized in principle between 
the United States and Saudi Arabia, that in effect calls the 
question, and Israel will have to decide whether it wants to 
proceed and take advantage of the opportunity to achieve 
something that it has sought from its founding, which is normal 
relations with the countries in its region.
    And we see the possibilities for the future in that 
agreement. We saw them starkly, powerfully, on April 13 and 
April 14 when Iran engaged in an unprecedented attack and a 
direct attack by Iran in Israel, and countries come together 
led by the United States to defend Israel from that attack and 
defend it very successfully.
    There is an opportunity for Israel to become integrated in 
the region, to get the security--fundamental security--it needs 
and wants to have the relationships that it has sought going 
back to its founding.
    But in order for that to actually go forward, there has to 
be an end to Gaza. There has to be a credible pathway to a 
Palestinian state.
    So I think one advantage of completing the work, at least 
in principle, with the Saudis is that the question then becomes 
one that is no longer theoretical or hypothetical but one that 
needs to be answered, and we will see what the answer is.
    Look, these agreements, like any agreements, whether it is 
with Saudi Arabia or anyone else, you count on the other party 
to live up to the agreement, and if they do not there are 
consequences, including the agreements being in effect 
abrogated.
    So I think it is profoundly in Saudi Arabia's interests to 
fulfill the commitments that they would make in the context of 
these agreements, and by the way, none of this will go forward 
before Congress has its say.
    Senator Murphy. Let me just express worry at the phrase 
``credible pathway to a Palestinian state,'' right. A credible 
pathway to a Palestinian state is very different than a 
Palestinian state.
    We have had numerous credible pathways to Palestinian 
states that neither side has made real upon. This is a unique, 
and perhaps, final opportunity to actually cement a Palestinian 
state, which many of us believe is the necessary predicate to 
peace in the region and the long term survival of a Jewish 
state in the Middle East.
    But I look forward to continued conversations about this 
really important topic.
    I wanted to touch one other subject with you.
    You have got $169 million in this request to counter 
fentanyl and other synthetic drug production around the world. 
Thank you for that commitment.
    Later this week the Senate is going to vote on a bipartisan 
border security measure negotiated with Republicans that would 
dedicate $20 billion to border security including substantial 
unprecedented new resources to stop fentanyl from coming into 
the country.
    This amount that you have requested--the underlying 
budget--stands on top of the commitments that you secured at 
the recent summit in San Francisco from the Chinese to do some 
really important, dramatic things to stop the movement of 
precursor into Mexico and into the United States.
    Just in the remaining 30 seconds to a minute, the 
importance of the achievement at the summit and how that 
dovetails with the requests that you are making. You have made 
substantial progress on stopping the flow of fentanyl into the 
United States. You are to be commended for that. But this money 
seems critical.
    Mr. Blinken. First of all, I commend the efforts being made 
here to dedicate these resources to what is, arguably, the 
number one challenge we face in terms of public health and in 
terms of the security of the American people.
    Number one killer of Americans aged 18 to 49 not heart 
attacks, not car accidents, not guns--fentanyl, synthetic 
opioid.
    So this has to be, and it is for us, a number one priority. 
It requires a lot of work at home. It also requires a lot of 
work around the world, given the global nature of the threat.
    With regard to China, President Biden achieved important 
agreements with President Xi when they met at the end of last 
year outside of San Francisco, and China moved ahead in 
publishing new regulations and cracking down on some of the 
companies that were engaged in producing and then transferring 
the precursors--the ingredients that go into making fentanyl--
as well as to establishing a working group with us so that we 
could track this.
    Now, when I was just there a few weeks ago I made the case 
that while this was a good start and important, more needs to 
happen in order for it to be truly effective in reducing the 
flows that are coming to Mexico of the precursors and then 
synthesized into fentanyl and coming into the United States, 
including very public enforcements of the law with prosecutions 
and convictions, including scheduling some precursors that 
China has agreed to schedule but has not yet done to make their 
use more restrictive, and also going at the financial networks 
where we have seen connections between some Chinese entities 
and criminal cartels in our own hemisphere and working from 
their end to sever those.
    So we will be watching to see what--whether that happens. 
It is a start, but a lot more needs to happen.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Romney.
    Senator Romney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you, and appreciate the 
extraordinary commitment that you have made over the last years 
to continue to foster American interests around the world.
    I am sure we do not agree on all the topics, but your 
devotion to American interests is noteworthy and certainly 
something that I applaud.
    You know I am going to want to talk about China. China is a 
disappointment for those of us who followed the Second World 
War and then followed the collapse of the Soviet Union.
    We were hoping that China would align with us in some way 
and see more modernization and liberalization and democracy. 
Unfortunately, it has taken a different turn. Its ambition is 
to lead the world, dominate the world militarily, economically, 
geopolitically.
    I just--on a piece of paper while we were here I just wrote 
down some of the tactics that I see that they are employing in 
their grand strategy.
    In no particular order, monopolizing key industries, with 
TikTok being able to gather information about Americans, 
Confucius Institutes to be able to promote their policies in 
our campuses, inserting themselves through cyber systems and 
our critical infrastructure, buying ports around the world so 
that they can foster their naval commitments or naval ambition, 
putting in place graduate students in our universities 
particularly in STEM subjects to be able to steal technology, 
the Thousand Scholars program to do the same, inserting 
themselves into leadership positions in international 
organizations, purchasing farmland around our military 
installations, selling drones--Chinese drones to our police 
forces--spy cranes in the seaport we heard about more recently, 
monopolizing key raw materials around the world, stealing 
technology from our companies, spreading dissension in the U.S. 
and through the West.
    I mean, it is an extraordinary list, and it goes on and on 
and on. That is why the former chairman and I of this committee 
proposed and actually got signed into law a commitment to put 
together a group of people, Republican, Democrat, inside 
government, outside government, to develop a comprehensive 
strategy to deal with China's ambition.
    Part of this legislation said that by last July the 
Administration would be required to submit to Congress in a 
classified form and with an unclassified summary the results of 
this strategic development.
    Now, I have been offered the chance to review in camera 
what has been prepared. I have tried to schedule that, and that 
has not been responded to by the department. But does the State 
Department intend to submit to the law as signed by the 
President to actually put in place and to submit to Congress 
the strategy in a classified forum?
    Mr. Blinken. Senator, first of all, I agree wholeheartedly 
with the short litany of items that you listed in terms of what 
China is doing to try to pursue its military, economic, 
diplomatic, preeminence or dominance in the world and across 
the board.
    We have worked in new and effective ways to deal with that, 
to push back against that, and I would just say very quickly 
before coming to your question two fundamental things have 
changed in our approach to China that allows us to approach it 
from a position of strength.
    One, what has happened here at home, the investments that 
we have made in ourselves with the leadership of Congress, 
particularly when it comes to infrastructure, when it comes to 
the CHIPS and Science Act, when it comes to the Inflation 
Reduction Act.
    In each of these ways we have put ourselves in a position 
to make sure that we are leading when it comes to the 
industries of the future and what I see around the world is 
people taking note of those investments and wanting to partner 
with us.
    Second, we have aligned in ways that we have not before 
with key partners in Europe, in Asia, and beyond in the 
approach to China, and you see that now in convergence of the 
approach, the tools that we are using both individually and 
collectively, whether it is investment screening mechanisms, 
whether it is controls on outbound investment to make sure that 
it is not going to help industries in China that could come 
back and hurt us, export controls that we are doing in a much 
more coordinated way, working across the board to deal with 
some of the economic nonmarket practices that China engages in 
that unfairly penalize not only our workers and companies but 
workers and companies around the world.
    I can go on down the list. But we see that convergence in 
very powerful ways. Now, on the strategy advisory board, first, 
we applaud everything that you have done and your leadership on 
this for many years.
    We announced the public strategy back in the spring of 
2022, and you were very gracious in actually being there when I 
put that out.
    But yes, the NSC, I know, and this is with the White House, 
has made available the classified strategy for in camera 
review. I am going to make sure if there is some problem in 
scheduling that that happens, and I will also go back to them 
about what more we can do.
    I know we have provided classified briefings to members and 
to staff on the approach that is in the strategy. But let me 
come back to you on making sure that you can see and other 
members can see the full strategy in the classified setting.
    Senator Romney. Well, the law that was passed called not 
just for a classified setting, which is certainly appropriate, 
but also to submit to Congress in a public setting what the 
summary of those strategic moves would be, and as I went 
through that long list of Chinese steps, those are the kinds of 
things I am looking for.
    To say--look, our strategy is invest and align and compete. 
Sounds great. That may be an objective but the tactical steps 
of what we are going to do country by country, industry by 
industry, port by port, spyware by spyware, et cetera, that is 
the kind of detail that really creates a comprehensive strategy 
that can be effective.
    And I guess I am concerned that as we go potentially from 
one Administration to the next, whether that is in, you know, 1 
year or in 5 years, that we have a strategy that lasts.
    Following the Second World War, George Kennan and others 
came to together to develop a strategy that was very successful 
in confronting the Soviet Union.
    We are looking to do the same thing here but we have not 
seen anything of that nature yet, and in the law required that 
that be submitted to Congress in a public setting but also in a 
classified setting, and I would ask that you honor that 
commitment made in law and provide that information both to 
Congress and to those of us that would want to attend a 
classified setting.
    Mr. Blinken. Thank you, and I will come back to you on 
that.
    Senator Romney. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Merkley.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Mr. Secretary.
    I applaud your and the President's efforts to condemn 
Hamas' invasion on October 7, to secure a ceasefire, and to 
secure the release of hostages.
    President Biden has also recognized, however, that the 
campaign carried out by the Netanyahu government in Gaza has 
included what the President has called indiscriminate bombing, 
resulted in a massive number of civilian casualties.
    The NSM-20 report concluded, and I quote, ``given Israel's 
significant reliance on U.S.-made defense articles it is 
reasonable to assess that Israel has used U.S. provided weapons 
in instances inconsistent with international humanitarian 
law.''
    Given this assessment, why did the State Department 
conclude that Israel's assurances that it was not using weapons 
in a manner inconsistent with international law are in fact 
credible and reliable?
    Mr. Blinken. Thank you, Senator.
    We have said two things from day one since October 7. One, 
that Israel not only has the right, it has the obligation to 
defend itself and to try to make sure that October 7 never 
happens again. The United States is committed to doing 
everything we can to support it in those efforts.
    We have also said that the way Israel does it matters, 
particularly with regard to civilian protection in Gaza and the 
provision of humanitarian assistance to Gazans who need it, and 
we have been working every single day since then not only to 
provide Israel with what it needs, but also to do our best to 
help see that Palestinians get what they need in Gaza, and we 
see the horrific suffering of children, women, and men who have 
been caught in a crossfire of Hamas's making for 8 months now, 
and we are working every day to try to alleviate that.
    When it comes to the NSM and the use of our weapons, here 
is what the report said. It said exactly as you quoted. Given 
the totality of the damage that has been done, and given the 
fact that we are a major provider of weapons to Israel, it is 
reasonable to assess that in some instances Israel has acted in 
ways that are not consistent with international humanitarian 
law. And indeed, we are investigating a number of instances, 
some of which are alluded to in the report, others that are 
not, to make those determinations.
    Israel itself is investigating hundreds of incidents to 
make its own determinations, and indeed, there are criminal 
investigations underway in Israel in this area. It is very 
difficult to make final determinations in the midst of a war 
when we do not have access on the ground and when you have a 
almost totally unique battlefield where an enemy--a terrorist 
organization, Hamas--is hiding behind and underneath civilians 
and apartment buildings, in mosques, in schools, and firing at 
the Israeli forces.
    So we are determined to make every appropriate 
determination. We are determined that there be no double 
standard. We have processes at the State Department including 
our conventional arms transfer policy, including our process 
that we are engaged in.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you for your explanation. I know 
that it is so complicated that you could go on for a while, but 
I think you have pointed out the challenge and the fact that 
assessments are ongoing, and I do feel it is important that we 
approach these questions in NSM-20 with as much integrity as 
possible.
    On May 7 President Biden announced his decision to pause 
the shipment of the five hundred 2,000 pound bombs, and the 
following day he drew a red line stating that, quote, ``If 
Israel goes into Rafah, I am not supplying the weapons that 
have been used historically to deal with Rafah--to deal with 
the cities,'' and you, Mr. Secretary, reinforced this point 
when you said, ``If Israel launches a major military operation 
into Rafah then there are systems we are not going to be 
supporting and supplying for that operation.''
    We are already seeing significant action in Rafah. About a 
million people have fled the city, and is the President going 
to stand by his red line?
    Mr. Blinken. First, the President stands behind the 
proposition that we will always make sure that Israel has what 
it needs to defend itself. No one has done more not only 
throughout his career but over the last 8 or so months to make 
sure that that is the case, and that will continue.
    At the same time, when it comes to Rafah, we have been very 
clear in many conversations with Israeli leadership over the 
past months about our deep concerns about a major military 
operation in Rafah and the impact that that would have on 
civilians in Gaza.
    We insisted that if anything is to go forward, we see a 
clear, credible plan to get civilians out of harm's way--not 
only to get them out of harm's way, to make sure that they are 
provided for when they are out of harm's way.
    Now, you mentioned we have seen a very large exodus of 
people from Rafah, but they are now in places where they do not 
have the support that they need and that we believe is critical 
to provide.
    We also remain very concerned about any major military 
operation and the impact it would have on the remaining 
population, given the dense urban environment in Rafah and what 
we have seen in other places.
    And so the President has been clear about this with Israel, 
in public as well as in conversations with others about the 
fact that we will not support a major military operation.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you, and that is helpful to 
understand.
    I wanted to turn to the issue of providing aid in the 
situation of the challenge of food and water and medical 
supplies and so forth.
    The NSM-20 report noted that action and inaction by Israel 
contributed significantly to a lack of sustained and 
predictable delivery of needed assistance at scale, and that 
the level reaching Palestinian civilians remains insufficient.
    Insufficient is a very polite way, given that we now have 
what Cindy McCain has described as full blown famine in the 
north, and we are all very aware of the highly stressed 
conditions in the south as well.
    As a result of the restrictions that Israel has had in 
place, we have been urging them--you all have been urging them, 
and I applaud that--to open more gates, to have a more 
systematic inspection process so far more trucks per day can 
get in, to make sure that once the trucks are through the gate 
that they can actually get to the warehouses without being 
attacked or so forth.
    You have also supported air deliveries by ourselves and by 
other nations. You have also built a dock--all these things in 
response to the restriction of aid, and thus I was somewhat 
puzzled that the report concludes, ``We do not assess that the 
Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the 
transport and delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance'' 
because it seems like all those actions we are taking, the 
urging of Israel to do more and all the other air delivery and 
docks and so forth are all in response to the restrictions 
preventing sufficient aid to get in and creating famine 
conditions affecting a couple million people.
    The Chairman. If you could respond briefly.
    Mr. Blinken. Yes.
    First, Senator, there is no doubt that the people of Gaza--
children, women, men--are experiencing an acute humanitarian 
crisis, and food, water, medicine, shelter, all of these things 
are in severe short supply, and we have been working every 
single day as well since October 7 to try to make sure that 
they could get what they need.
    And we have impressed upon Israel time and again the 
imperative of really bringing a determined focus to this, not 
making it an afterthought in the conduct of the war against 
Hamas, but an absolute priority.
    They have taken steps over these many months to open access 
points, going back to October, to have aid go in, but it has 
not been sufficient by far to meet the need.
    We saw much more significant progress over the last month 
or 6 weeks, particularly in the wake of the phone call between 
President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu in early April 
where we saw more access points opening.
    We saw a land route from Jordan being activated. We saw 
openings in the north which was critical because aid to north 
Gaza was particularly deficient.
    That has improved, but now we have seen, unfortunately, the 
reverse because of the actions in and around Rafah. We see the 
critical transit points in the south, Rafah gate itself as well 
as Kerem Shalom, until recently being stopped or disrupted so 
that the situation the south now risks being even more 
egregious.
    But the restrictions that have been in place in some cases 
it is because of concerns about dual use items and making sure 
that Israel could see and verify what was going in, given the 
history of dual use.
    In some instances, it is because of the war conditions that 
make it incredibly difficult, but there are also things that 
Israel can, should, and must do to further facilitate the 
distribution of aid, including much more effective 
deconfliction with those who are providing it so convoys that 
are bringing the aid in can go about their work safely and 
securely. That remains insufficient.
    The Chairman. Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul. Secretary Blinken, on your recent trip to 
China, news reports came back and said that you reserved your 
strongest language for China and its dealings with Russia, 
castigating Beijing for allowing the war to continue in 
Ukraine.
    The report went on to describe the exchange as such a 
blatant dressing down in the Chinese capital. Do you think 
publicly scolding China will make it more or less likely that 
they continue selling dual use parts to Russia?
    Mr. Blinken. Senator, we have tried it both ways. We have 
had these conversations with China for some time in private 
hoping to see a change. We have not seen that, and it is 
important----
    Senator Paul. I would argue that we have only tried it one 
way. We have got the stick and almost the majority of people 
who work for you--everybody wants to use a stick.
    Nobody is really considering that there is a carrot. So, 
really, for the last, let us say, 5 years or more your 
Administration and the previous Administration--not a lot 
different really--that you put impediments to trade, you add 
sanctions, and then you scold them.
    And I mean, there is a school of philosophy or school of 
diplomacy that believes that public scolding, particularly in 
another country, can have the opposite effects--that actually 
you have either completely given up on this, nothing is working 
so why do we not just read them the riot act, and that is kind 
of what it looked like.
    Yellen was also there recently, and she described and told 
the Chinese government how it should run its economy, what 
sectors of its economy that they should or should not 
subsidize, and told them as well who they can do business with, 
and then she threatened to impose sanctions.
    You know, more or less likely to actually get them to do 
it? I mean, I think it is a misunderstanding of diplomacy in 
general to think that you going and scolding the Chinese, 
Yellen going and scolding the Chinese, that somehow they are 
going, like, go, oh, my goodness, we have been wrong all along, 
and because they have yelled at us and treated us like school 
children, we are now going to change.
    I would think that the opposite might be true, that there 
might be a certain amount of child psychology to criticizing 
people, and then like a rebellious teenager they actually might 
end up doing more.
    In addition to threat of sanctions, in addition to the 
scolding, we now have the Administration talking about more 
tariffs. So in June 2019 then presidential candidate Joe Biden 
tweeted, ``Trump does not get the basics. He thinks his tariffs 
are being paid for by China. Any freshman econ student would 
tell you that the American people are paying these tariffs.''
    Remarkably accurate, and true at that time, but now he has 
become jumping on the Trump train. But the thing about tariffs 
regardless of who pays them, the American consumers will pay 
for these. Tariffs are not good for the economic well being of 
all Americans in general.
    But the question would become when you add tariffs, are you 
going to threaten sanctions? You are going to scold them. Now 
you are going to add tariffs.
    More or less likely that they will do what you want? I 
think less likely. Everything we are doing, everything the 
previous Administration did as well as this Administration is 
heading toward less trade, disengagement from China.
    Part of diplomacy might be offering, I tell you what, what 
if you quit selling the dual use parts to Russia. Maybe we 
could consider removing some sanctions on trade and actually 
trade more with you.
    So the threat of sanctions, the threat of tariffs, actually 
have some effects if you are willing to remove them. The 
history of sanctions is more, more, more, and then, you are not 
doing enough, and people on the right here will say you got to 
do even more.
    We are going to pass legislative sanctions. Nobody talks 
about removing them but that is the only way you get behavior 
to change.
    And so I really think that it is a fundamental 
misunderstanding sort of of what is going on.
    The final point I would like to make, and I will let you 
respond to this, is the Ukrainians still claim that victory 
includes the reclamation of all of its territory.
    Many NATO allies are beginning to question this. Czech 
President Petr Pavel, who once served as the chairman of NATO's 
military committee, recently stated that he believes it is 
naive to think that Ukraine will be able to regain the occupied 
territories from Russia. The commander and general of the 
Ukrainian army, until he was fired by Zelensky, had the same 
sort of comments.
    I think that it is not an unreasonable thing to believe 
that this war may well end in stalemate with people in place, 
some say similar to the way Korea was.
    Nobody likes it. Nobody wanted it. Nobody agrees the 
Russians should be there, but they are there, and they have a 
bigger army and more might than their neighbor.
    So if President Pavel is correct in his assessment that 
Ukraine's war aims are naive one of the few negotiating items 
Ukraine possesses is a promise to remain a neutral country, not 
aligned militarily.
    Yet, you have repeatedly ruled out Ukraine remaining 
outside of NATO. If you take this off the table, you are taking 
off one of the things that actually is a negotiating item.
    My question to you is are there any circumstances under 
which neutrality of Ukraine would be a negotiating item?
    Mr. Blinken. Thank you, Senator. Let me try to respond to 
both questions.
    First, if you want to look at hectoring or haranguing, I 
would invite you to look at the website of the Chinese foreign 
ministry on a daily basis in terms of what they say about us.
    Second, I am not going to apologize to anyone for standing 
up for American workers and American companies because here is 
what we are dealing with.
    And by the way, of course, you are right, we always try, 
and as a diplomat I always try, to engage our partners or 
adversaries diplomatically, quietly, to see if we can get the 
result. If we do not, then we have to use every means at our 
disposal, including calling them out.
    Senator Paul. And yet, everything that we have done is to 
add more sanctions.
    Mr. Blinken. Let me--if I may, please, the rest of the 
question.
    So on this what we have seen and what we are seeing now, 
and this goes to the tariff question, is China very 
deliberately using overcapacity in critical sectors to export 
its way out of its current economic troubles and to do that in 
a way that undercuts, and indeed, could gut our own workers and 
industries.
    Senator Paul. All of that is true but my question to you is 
is there an offer ever that you would undo things in exchange 
for behavior?
    Mr. Blinken. Of course. Of course, and that goes with--of 
course.
    Senator Paul. So you want to argue tariffs are good and 
sanctions are good. The offer would have to be to say to the 
government quietly or otherwise that we would be willing to go 
in the opposite direction.
    Mr. Blinken. Of course.
    Senator Paul. There is no public--I hear no public 
discussion, not from Congress and not from anyone in the 
Administration----
    Mr. Blinken. Senator, the----
    Senator Paul [continuing]. We would undo this if this. So--
--
    Mr. Blinken. On their own terms. It is clear that if the 
conduct that we object to and that risks terrible damage to our 
workers, to our communities, to our companies, if they change 
that conduct, of course, no more tariffs.
    Senator Paul. Did you specifically discuss not having 
tariffs or undoing sanctions in exchange for the Chinese to 
quit selling dual use parts to Russia?
    Mr. Blinken. In the--sure, if they--if their companies do 
not engage in that practice, we are not going to sanction them.
    Senator Paul. I did not hear any public statements of that. 
Did you make private statements to President Xi that you would 
undo trade sanctions and not put on tariffs in exchange for 
better behavior against Russia?
    Mr. Blinken. By definition if they do not engage in the 
conduct that we object to, then we are not going to be using 
those tariffs or using those sanctions. But unfortunately----
    Senator Paul. But this sounds like me drawing this out of 
you. It does not sound to me like this is the kind of diplomacy 
that is occurring. If you want it to occur, you have to have a 
little different conception of you have got the stick.
    The whole problem with diplomacy in this country, not just 
your Administration but the previous, is all you see is the 
stick, all you see is more sanctions, and if I ask you to tell 
me what has China done to change its behavior based on your 
sanctions, to change their behavior for the better, I would say 
you cannot come up with anything China is doing. Everything 
seems to be the wrong direction. That is your interpretation. 
Everything is the wrong direction.
    Mr. Blinken. We have actually seen----
    Senator Paul. The sanctions really are not having a value 
unless you want to negotiate removing sanctions to get better 
behavior.
    The Chairman. Senator Van Hollen.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Welcome, Mr. Secretary, and I want to start by applauding 
you and the President for your overall approach to foreign 
policy and national security.
    You have helped strengthen our alliances, stood up to 
Putin's aggression, and confronted the challenges posed by 
China. And the President was right, absolutely right, to travel 
to Israel in the immediate aftermath of the horrific Hamas 
terror attacks of October 7 to express our solidarity in word 
and in deed.
    But like you, I have been very concerned with the way the 
Netanyahu government has conducted the war in Gaza. We 
understand the despicable tactics of Hamas. But we also 
understand that there is a responsibility to make sure that a 
just war is fought justly, and I have been especially concerned 
about the restrictions placed on the delivery of humanitarian 
assistance to 2 million Palestinians who have nothing to do 
with Hamas.
    It only leads to unnecessary human suffering, and as you 
and Secretary Austin have pointed out, it also undermines our 
overall strategic objectives and those of Israel. And it also 
means that on top of everything else Americans have spent over 
$300 million to build a temporary pier in Gaza to try to 
prevent more people from starving.
    That is the right thing to do. But we had to do it because 
we could not get the Netanyahu government to get more food and 
other aid through the many land crossings, and get it delivered 
to people safely without over 200 aid workers getting killed 
including those killed in the attack on the World Central 
Kitchen.
    That is why virtually every international aid organization 
that has operated worldwide for decades says they have never 
experienced a worse manmade humanitarian disaster than that in 
Gaza.
    That is why the President said at one point no excuses. And 
yet, in the recent National Security Memorandum-20 report the 
Administration cannot even bring itself to conclude what is 
painfully obvious to anybody paying attention, that for long 
periods of time between October 7 and today, the Netanyahu 
government has failed to comply with the international norms 
that require it to facilitate and not arbitrarily restrict or 
deny the delivery of humanitarian assistance to people in 
desperate need.
    Mr. Secretary, that hurts our credibility around the world, 
and it sets a dangerously low bar for what is acceptable going 
forward. I listened to your exchange with Senator Merkley 
regarding the use of U.S. weapons. This issue does not require 
additional investigation.
    We have seen this play out in real time, and while you 
concluded in a snapshot that Israel had improved and was doing 
better, the report required a backward look, and the 
Administration decided to duck that.
    You and I have known each other for a long time. I have 
tremendous respect for you. But I thought that was important to 
say.
    I know you and the President are trying 24/7 to bring an 
end to this conflict. I know you are working 24/7 to bring back 
all the hostages and make sure that there are no more October 
7s.
    But as the President and you and others have pointed out, 
in order to achieve a durable end to the conflict we need to 
build a future that has security and dignity and hope for 
Israelis and Palestinians alike.
    That is why the President has tried to create some light at 
the end of this very dark tunnel by calling for recognition of 
Israel by Saudi Arabia and others, paired with a clear time 
line for the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.
    I listened to your discussion with Senator Murphy. I have 
lost count, Mr. Secretary, of exactly how many times you have 
actually traveled to Israel and the region. My staff tells me 
it is about seven. Is that right?
    So you, the national security adviser, Secretary of 
Defense, two aircraft carrier deployments, billions of dollars 
in military assistance, hundreds of millions to build a pier, 
our work--our very important work--to intercept the Iranian 
missiles launched at Israel.
    So would you agree that it is in our national security 
interests to have a plan in place to achieve a two state 
solution within a clearly defined period of time paired with 
normalization of relations with countries like Saudi Arabia?
    Mr. Blinken. Yes, I would.
    Senator Van Hollen. And I want to raise this because for a 
long time the U.S. policy has been in favor of a two state 
solution. I mean, formally announced during George W. Bush's 
administration, so over two decades--and despite the fact that 
we say those words, we have never addressed our policy to use 
our influence to make it happen.
    You would agree, would you not, that the continued 
expansion of illegal settlements and outposts in the West Bank 
makes it harder to achieve a two state solution?
    Mr. Blinken. I would.
    Senator Van Hollen. And yet, if you look at Prime Minister 
Netanyahu's extremist government that, as you know, includes 
people like Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, since they came into power, 
and while the war in Gaza has been raging, we have witnessed 
the largest land seizures in the West Bank in decades.
    In fact, during your visit in March, Finance Minister 
Smotrich, who also has a West Bank portfolio under the minister 
of defense, announced the single largest West Bank land grab, 
and the question is what are we going to do if it conflicts 
with our national security interests to try to achieve a two 
state solution?
    I applaud the actions taken with respect to individual 
extremist settlers. But they are just part of a movement 
largely empowered by this current government.
    I do not know if you had a chance, Mr. Secretary, to read 
the New York Times Magazine this weekend, ``Israel's Extremist 
Takeover'' by two veteran journalists, including an Israeli 
investigative reporter. I urge you to look at it.
    So my question is, if we agree about our national security 
interests, what are we going to do to make sure that we achieve 
the goal not only of normalization--I heard the conversation--
but that, as you said, has to be paired with a Palestinian 
state and a time line. What is the plan to get there with a 
time line that is meaningful?
    Mr. Blinken. Well, thank you, Senator.
    And look, I agree with the assessment, and it is not only 
in our national security interest, which is my responsibility.
    It is also, in our judgment as Israel's closest friend, in 
Israel's profound interest because there really is a choice, 
and it is very hard to see it in the midst of this conflict, 
and certainly, in the wake of October 7.
    But the choice that is increasingly clear is a choice 
between a path that leads to Israel normalizing its relations 
with virtually all of its neighbors, something it has sought 
from its founding, to have countries that actually have its 
back when it comes to security and the primary threat that it 
faces and many of us face, which is from Iran, and to be, 
again, genuinely integrated into the region, versus a 
continuation of the course that we are on and it is on, which 
is endless cycles of violence, disruption, death, and 
insecurity.
    But to move down that first path it requires not only the 
willingness of the countries in question to normalize 
relations, but it also requires that there be finally a 
resolution to the Palestinian question, the realization of a 
state.
    That is clearly what these countries need to see and want 
to see in order for this to happen, and that is one of the 
things that we have been working on.
    The bottom line is this. You have got 5 million 
Palestinians between the West Bank and Gaza. You have got about 
7 million Israeli Jews. Neither is going anywhere. The 
Palestinians are not going anywhere. The Jews are not going 
anywhere.
    There has to be an accommodation, and there has to be an 
accommodation that respects and fulfills the rights of everyone 
concerned. It has to be done in a way that has the necessary 
guarantees for Israel's security, and we are and will be 
adamant about that.
    The Chairman. Senator Ricketts.
    Mr. Blinken. That is the only path forward to sustainable 
security.
    The Chairman. Senator Ricketts.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today.
    Last Sunday the British Foreign Secretary, Lord David 
Cameron, was asked if the U.K. would follow President Biden's 
lead on withholding weapons to Israel.
    He responded that when he last came under pressure to 
announce an arms embargo, quote, ``a few days later there was a 
massive Iranian attack on Israel. So I do not think it would 
have been a wise path.''
    He continued, ``If I announce today might help me get 
through this television interview, but actually it would 
strengthen Hamas, it would weaken Israel, and I think it 
probably makes a hostage deal less likely,'' end quote.
    Hamas has not released a hostage since the end of November, 
and shockingly, this Administration starting in December has 
been ratcheting up the pressure against Israel.
    Now, according to Arab mediators dealing with Hamas Gaza 
chief, Yahya Sinwar believes that he has already won the war, 
whether or not he survives it.
    He has indicated to mediators that time is on his side and 
that the longer he waits the more international pressure builds 
on Israel and the more damage is done to the relationship 
between the United States and Israel.
    Secretary Blinken, please explain why a bunch of 20 
somethings on liberal college campuses are right, and the 
Administration thinks they are right by pursuing this policy, 
and Lord Cameron, who is the foreign minister of one of our 
closest allies, is wrong when he says that blocking weapons to 
Israel would strengthen Hamas's hand.
    Mr. Blinken. Thank you, Senator.
    Let me be clear about two things. First, no one has, no one 
will do more to defend Israel than President Biden. He was 
there days after October 7. We deployed significant assets to 
the region to make sure that we could deter any further 
aggression and a widening of the war against Israel.
    When Iran unleashed an unprecedented attack on Israel, the 
first attack, as you know, from Iran directly onto Israel, for 
the first time the United States actively participated in 
Israel's defense.
    We brought together a coalition of countries to do the same 
thing, and what could have been a devastating attack by Iran 
was thwarted and thwarted very effectively.
    In terms of what we provided to Israel, again, no one has 
done more than Joe Biden, going back to when he was vice 
president, including getting the MOU that led to a 10 year 
agreement to provide Israel with the assistance that it needs 
to defend itself.
    We have one weapon system that we have been holding back 
pending discussions with Israel about how and where it would be 
used because of the concerns that we have clearly expressed 
over many months about the possibility of a full on military 
assault on Rafah, a dense urban environment where using 
something like a 2,000 pound bomb could have terrible 
consequences for the civilians.
    This is something that needed to be discussed. It is deeply 
unfortunate that that discussion leaked to the press, when it 
was a private discussion between us and Israel. It did, and 
when the President was asked about it he responded 
forthrightly.
    But there is no final decision, and it remains subject to a 
discussion. But when it comes to making sure that Israel has 
everything it needs to defend itself, no one has, no one will 
do more than President Biden.
    Senator Ricketts. So you agree with Lord Cameron's 
assessment, though, that you are strengthening Hamas's hand by 
having this leak get out?
    Mr. Blinken. No. Again, leaks are an unfortunate part of 
the business that we are all engaged in. It is really 
regrettable, but it happens.
    But something that is not a leak is the fact that we have 
been both public and private about the fact that we have deep 
concerns about a major military operation in Rafah, and by the 
way, we have been working closely with the Israelis on other 
ways to achieve what we agree needs to be the result which is 
ending Hamas's government over----
    Senator Ricketts. How is putting more pressure on Israel 
helping? How is that helping them win this conflict against 
what you describe yourself as a terrorist organization and an 
enemy?
    Mr. Blinken. Not a question of putting pressure on them. It 
is a question--when your close friend is going down a path that 
you think may be counter to its interests and potentially our 
own as well, then of course, we have conversations with them.
    That is what we are supposed to do. That is the nature of 
the relationship. We have a better way of dealing with the 
ongoing problem that Hamas represents in Gaza and in Rafah 
specifically----
    Senator Ricketts. So what kind of pressure are you putting 
on Hamas?
    Mr. Blinken. What kind of pressure we are putting on Hamas?
    Senator Ricketts. When is the last time you called Hamas's 
surrender?
    Mr. Blinken. Virtually every day.
    Senator Ricketts. Virtually every day you called Hamas----
    Mr. Blinken. Yes, virtually every day I have said, Senator, 
that the single quickest way to end this is for Hamas to 
surrender, to give up its weapons, to release the hostages, to 
stop hiding behind civilians.
    I have said that from day one, and I continue to say it, 
and I agree with you, one of the things that is deeply 
regrettable is--not by us but just across the board--the extent 
to which Hamas has, you know, disappeared from the conversation 
as if they have nothing to do with anything when they could--
and I think you are 100 percent right--they could end this 
tomorrow, by yes, giving up, surrendering. We have called for 
that repeatedly. I wish more countries around the world were 
doing that.
    Senator Ricketts. Well, I agree with you 100 percent on 
what you just said there because you are absolutely right. This 
all ends tomorrow if Hamas surrenders, and then the civilians 
would be able to get the aid. There would not be any war.
    I mean, Hamas is using the civilians as human shields. You 
mentioned--you told yourself about how they are hiding in 
hospitals and schools and stuff to fight the Israelis. Hamas is 
the problem here.
    Hamas is the one who started this on October 7 when they 
broke the ceasefire and committed the atrocities. They have to 
be rooted out. They have to be destroyed. We have to have 
Israel be successful. What do you think of Sinwar's words when 
he said that he has already won by this delay? I mean----
    Mr. Blinken. Well, first of all, I have not seen those 
words. Second, I would take with more than a grain of salt 
anything that Mr. Sinwar says about anything. So the fact of 
the matter is he is under and Hamas is under unrelenting 
pressure.
    When you are a nihilist as Sinwar is, it is not entirely 
clear what effectively will move you. If he believes that there 
is victory in death, that is a different thing. We cannot 
necessarily deal with that in the same terms.
    Senator Ricketts. Right. Well, here is the deal. We need to 
make sure Israel is successful. Hamas started this war. Wars 
are horrible. This is why you do not start them. But now that 
it has started, Israel has to be successful.
    During World War II we had to go into urban areas to be 
able to root out the Nazis. Israel must be allowed to be able 
to root out Hamas certainly after October 7.
    Hamas said they would continue to commit these atrocities, 
continue to attack Israel. They cannot be allowed to survive.
    That is why we need to continue to support Israel, and my 
concern here is that when you start putting conditions on our 
allies on how they have to win these conflicts such as you are 
also doing in Ukraine with saying, hey, you cannot go after 
long range Russian stuff, blah, blah, blah, when we start doing 
that, our allies around the world wonder if the so called 
ironclad commitments are going to be ironclad in the future.
    We have got to support our allies to win and when we send 
mixed messages then our allies start questioning our commitment 
and that leads to a more dangerous world, Mr. Secretary.
    So we have got to continue to support Israel. Please make 
sure you are doing that, and stop strengthening Hamas's hand by 
somehow signaling that somehow we are showing any weakness.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Senator Kaine [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Ricketts.
    Secretary Blinken, thanks for your superb service and for 
being here today. I have three quick items. Then I want to get 
back to Israel and Gaza on the humanitarian dimension.
    First, I really believe that Congress should lift its hold 
on the support to the multinational security force in Haiti, 
and I worry that the refusal to do that is really complicating 
our maybe small ability to push this in the right direction.
    If Congress does not release the hold on appropriated funds 
to fund this security force, what is going to happen?
    Mr. Blinken. Well, if we do not have those funds available 
then it is going to be very hard to move forward with the 
security force, and--look, again, I understand and respect 
those who express concerns about the success given the history, 
but I think we have a very clearly defined and achievable 
mission for the security force, which is to bolster the police 
and put them in a position where they can reassert effective 
control.
    Senator Kaine. It was hard work for you guys to get Kenya 
to agree to lead this. If we do not come through on our 
financial commitment, is it not pretty likely that they will 
back off?
    Mr. Blinken. They will--they certainly will, and of course, 
and then President----
    Senator Kaine. And then who would take up the mantle if the 
U.S. is not providing support?
    Mr. Blinken. No, I think that is exactly right. The Kenya 
president will be in Washington this week for a State visit. It 
would be good if we could fully deliver on our commitment.
    But second, I would just say too here is an instance where 
I know some people have concerns about the United States being 
the quote/unquote, ``policemen of the world.''
    Well, here is a situation where Kenya and a number of other 
countries have stepped up and are willing to take this on. But 
they need support and that is----
    Senator Kaine. Absolutely.
    Let me ask you a second one. This is very parochial.
    The State Department requested medical providers in 
Northern Virginia to snap together to provide medical services 
to Afghans coming into Dulles Airport.
    When Afghans came in in the summer of 2021, they, largely, 
came in to Dulles. Three of the eight resettlement sites were 
in Virginia, and we now have more Afghans than any other State 
from that initial wave.
    And we are proud of it. Our Afghans are doing great work. 
Some are--I have met some training to be shipbuilders. They 
worked with us in Kabul, and now they are training to be 
shipbuilders and help our industrial base.
    But the health care providers that responded to the State 
Department have not been paid. They did all this medical 
service. It was about $630,000. It is not that big an amount.
    We have been asking over and over and over again that they 
be paid. We sent a letter to the State Department--it was 
bicameral--in January. Have not gotten a response back. Will 
you work with me to make sure that these folks who jumped to 
attention when the State Department asked are treated fairly so 
that if you ask they may do it again?
    Mr. Blinken. Happy to work with you on this. We have looked 
into this, and we have some further information that we can 
share with you. But the initial bottom line is that we had our 
procurement executive investigate this.
    We learned that the company in question acted apparently on 
its own. Maybe they had a very good motivation, but without any 
contractual agreement with the Department of State or with the 
Cherokee Nation in this case. We need to----
    Senator Kaine. Well, I want to follow up because the ones 
that I am talking about are folks who are directly requesting--
--
    Mr. Blinken. I am happy to follow up with you on that.
    Senator Kaine. And then, third--this is really for Senator 
Hagerty and me--we have a company, Vulcan, that is a U.S. based 
firm that has got presence in Virginia, Tennessee, and other 
U.S. States. They own a port and land in Mexico.
    AMLO has tried to appropriate that land twice even with 
police and military invasions of the property. I would rather 
not get into that now, but I would love your commitment to work 
with me to make clear to the Mexican government that 
appropriating the private property of American companies would 
be very bad for this important relationship that we have with 
Mexico.
    Mr. Blinken. Yes, I believe that is subject to a proceeding 
and arbitration right now. But we certainly made the generic 
point to the government of Mexico including to the president 
that, yes, seizure of private companies is not a good way to 
attract investment.
    Senator Kaine. On Israel/Gaza I think my colleagues Senator 
Merkley and Senator Van Hollen have dug into this, but I want 
to particularly focus on what I call pillar two of NSM-20, 
which is a certification that a nation receiving U.S. military 
assistance is cooperating with U.S. supported humanitarian 
efforts.
    I think the pillar one, making a determination about 
whether Israel is or is not using these weapons in accord with 
international law, is more complex, but on the humanitarian 
side, look, World Central Kitchen Aid workers killed, other 
U.N. aid workers killed.
    Settlers attacking humanitarian aid convoys on the West 
Bank, throwing stuff off the truck, setting the aid on fire, 
setting the trucks on fire. The U.S. having to spend hundreds 
of million dollars to build a pier in Gaza. Virginians from 
Fort Eustis are building that pier and deployed to do it.
    All of that to me says you would not have--none of that 
would be happening if Israel was fully cooperating. It took too 
long to open Kerem Shalom. It took way too long to open Erez.
    My editorial opinion, you have already answered questions 
about this--certifying that on that record the humanitarian 
efforts of Israel to help Gazans who are noncombatants, who are 
not part of Hamas, is sufficient. I think that is grading on a 
curve that--if that is sufficient, then anything is sufficient.
    I do not think it is anywhere near sufficient. I do not 
think it is in the time zone of sufficient. I agree it is more 
than was started.
    I mean, at the beginning members of the Israeli cabinet 
said it was going to be a complete siege against Gaza. I know 
that President Biden was able to get an agreement finally to 
open up the Erez crossing.
    But I think calling this state of affairs sufficient 
cooperation with U.S. humanitarian effort I just think that 
demeans the credibility of the Administration, and I think you 
should have said you are not getting a passing grade on this 
and then laid out what more needs to be done--the number of 
trucks going in.
    When Cindy McCain, the widow of a former member of this 
committee, talks about the famine that is resulting, I mean, I 
just do not see how the U.S. can say that is enough.
    I mean, I credit--my colleagues are saying let Israel 
defeat Hamas. Let Israel with our help knock down Iranian 
drones and missiles.
    I am all for that. But the punishment of noncombatant 
civilians, the killing of aid workers, the ransacking of 
humanitarian aid convoys with the idea of doing very little to 
stop it, how can that be sufficient?
    Mr. Blinken. Well, we have, as you know, Senator, from day 
one in working on this every single day and that includes going 
back to October, getting the initial crossings open including 
in October Rafah, then later Kerem Shalom----
    Senator Kaine. In December 2 months later----
    Mr. Blinken. In December, yes. So this is----
    Senator Kaine [continuing]. In Erez in March or April.
    Mr. Blinken. Erez, Crossing 96, the Jordanian route, et 
cetera.
    At the time of the report the NSM, which, by the way, I 
applaud as I think--an effective and helpful vehicle, in terms 
of concentrating minds and focusing minds on this.
    I think we have seen that the assurances that we received 
in March the question was from the time we received those 
assurances to the time that the report was issued, did we judge 
them to be credible and reliable when it came to humanitarian 
assistance, and we saw during that period Israel take overdue 
but important steps to actually expand significantly the 
provision of humanitarian assistance. On the last----
    Senator Kaine. And on that statement--I do not disagree. 
They took steps between March and May but I think the steps 
were still woefully inadequate.
    Mr. Blinken. And I think the report itself--if you read the 
report, as I know you did carefully, I think the report lays 
that out very clearly.
    Senator Kaine. Well, I am going to call on Senator Scott 
because he is next.
    But I just think on the factual record improvement since 
March, yes. I still think it falls so far below the hurdle that 
I do not think that warranted a passing grade.
    With that, I am going to go to Senator Scott.
    Senator Scott. Thank you.
    Thank you for being with us this morning.
    I will take a very different tack than Senator Kaine, on 
our support of our allies. I mean, one of the challenges I see 
around the world right now is that it seems like the world is 
on fire in part because of the weakness of our Administration--
the Biden administration.
    You think about the fact that China stares across the 
Taiwan Straits, or the Kremlin sets its sights further west, or 
Iran comes out of the shadows and starts attacking our 
strongest ally in the Middle East, Israel.
    You think about the fact that in the Sahel terrorism seems 
to be spreading faster than ever before, and to me it just 
seems very clear that without question the weakness of this 
Administration emboldens our adversaries, and frankly, if there 
should be no daylight between Israel and America, it seems like 
there is a lot of daylight.
    The more decisions that are made from the Administration to 
withhold shipments of weapons, the more challenges that we 
have, and frankly, if we are concerned about saving innocent 
lives it seems like to me we would provide the resources that 
make dumb bombs smart by having the precision technology that 
has been held up on tarmacs, and frankly, in shipping the 
weapons.
    So I would like to hear your thoughts on how it is in 
Israel's best interest and our relationship with Israel and 
that best interest that we hold back not just the shipments of 
the weapons but the very precision technology that is necessary 
to turn these bombs into, clearly, better weapons and reduces 
casualties.
    Mr. Blinken. Well, Senator, first and very quickly, it will 
not surprise you that I disagree with your overall judgment.
    Senator Scott. It does not surprise me at all. You are 
right.
    Mr. Blinken. When it comes to China and Taiwan, we have 
brought countries around the world together to stand up for 
maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, to 
make sure that China does not engage in any unilateral actions 
to change the status quo, and China is hearing that from 
country after country in no small measure because of our own 
engagement, our own diplomacy.
    When it comes to Russia and Ukraine, we rallied----
    Senator Scott. One second. Let us have a little--just a 
dialogue on that. Here is one of the things I would say in 
response to that.
    When you show weakness anywhere it affects strength 
everywhere. When you have a botched Afghanistan challenge, when 
the President says that a small incursion in Ukraine might be 
acceptable, when he says to Putin that here is a list of areas 
not to cyber attack, the weakness in posture, I think, 
emboldens our adversaries.
    And so while you may be able to name some specific things 
that have been done, hopefully, to reduce the impact, from my 
perspective most of the world really respects strength, and 
that is about all they respect.
    Mr. Blinken. They respect strength and they respect wisdom, 
and what I am seeing and hearing around the world is that we 
are demonstrating both.
    We have made major investments in ourselves that have put 
us in very good standing around the world, particularly in the 
competition with China as well as with Russia in different 
ways.
    We have managed to rally 50 countries in Ukraine's defense, 
prevented Russia from erasing Ukraine from the map, making sure 
that it has what it needs to defend itself, to stand up, and 
even push back the Russian aggression.
    When it comes to Iran, as you mentioned as well, and I 
mentioned this I think maybe, Senator, before you were in the 
room, when Iran engaged in an unprecedented attack on Israel--
the first time that Iran had directly attacked Israel, for the 
very first time the United States actively participated with 
our military in the defense of Israel. That had never happened 
before.
    We rallied other countries to Israel's defense. We thwarted 
what could have been a devastating attack, and I think the 
message was very clearly received in Iran, throughout the 
region, and around the world.
    Senator Scott. Let me ask you this question.
    Mr. Blinken. Please.
    Senator Scott. Part of the challenge that I see there is 
there is no doubt that the coalition that was available for the 
response was a strong one. I think part of that was because of 
the Abraham Accords.
    Normalizing relationships in the Middle East was actually 
impactful. So I thought to myself, this is strong to see the 
countries coming together in a coalition in defense.
    However, part of the challenge, of course, is that on 
October 7 the first thoughts that come out of the 
Administration before they deleted it was to tell Israel to 
pause is a challenge.
    The second thing is that you do not have to have a 
coalition defending Israel if there are no attacks from Iran, 
and so the fact of the matter is that the more we strengthen 
and embolden Iran by eliminating any of the hurdles, the 
hurdles being the sanctions, being--allowing their oil to flow 
easier, the November decision to provide $10 billion, the 
August decision to provide $6 billion--the fact of the matter 
is that the--35 percent of the Iranian economy is driven by 
sale of energy.
    So the fact is that when we opened that up, we are actually 
strengthening our adversary, not making them weaker.
    Mr. Blinken. In fact, Senator, not a single sanction has 
been lifted on Iran, and in fact, we have imposed sanctions----
    Senator Scott. So relaxing the sanctions are the things 
that we say, right?
    Mr. Blinken [continuing]. Sanctions on more than 500 
Iranian individuals and entities. No, we have not lifted a 
single sanction.
    Senator Scott. Well, I would say talk to Secretary Yellen 
about the conversation that we have had and that continues to 
be had. But the fact that we are making it easier for Iran to 
sell their oil, which only increases their revenue, which then 
is used, 90 percent of it, to attack our allies.
    Mr. Blinken. Well, in the case of the $6 billion that you 
referenced----
    Senator Scott. Yes.
    Mr. Blinken [continuing]. Iran has not accessed any of 
that. That was a channel that was established by the previous 
Administration to find a way to be able to----
    Senator Scott. You are really an intelligent guy. You are a 
really intelligent guy.
    The fact of the matter is that we all know that money is 
fungible. Let us not pretend that we do not know that.
    So you put a credit on a balance sheet. The bottom line is 
you should expect that credit to be used in any form or fashion 
that they decide to do so. So do you think our not having the 
IAEA Board of Governors censure Iran was a good thing or not?
    Mr. Blinken. It depends entirely on what we are trying to 
achieve and the best way to achieve it. More than unfortunately 
one of the worst decisions made was to get out of the Iran 
nuclear agreement, which would put Iran's nuclear program in a 
box.
    Now we are dealing with a situation where the restraints 
that were imposed on Iran by that agreement have gone away, and 
Iran has been proceeding whole hog toward developing the 
fissile material that it needs to produce nuclear weapons in 
very short order.
    We had the breakout time pushed back beyond a year. 
Breakout time is now 2 to 3 weeks. So one of the critical 
things is--and we have lost access that we have had--one of the 
critical things is to make sure that the IAEA has the access it 
needs----
    Senator Scott. If the chairman will allow a response to 
that.
    Senator Kaine. Absolutely.
    Senator Scott. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Blinken. And whether--and what the most effective way 
that the IAEA is to get the access it has, and also to ensure 
that Iran is moving back on the steps that it has taken to 
enrich its material.
    Senator Scott. I will just say this. Anyone who thinks that 
having a nuclear Iran is going to make them more peace filled 
is ridiculous, number one.
    Number two, to suggest that somehow the JCPOA was the 
contract that stopped Iran from doing anything--in the midst of 
the JCPOA they were already testing ballistic missiles. They 
had breached the JCPOA so many times that it was remarkable 
that we would even have a conversation about bringing that back 
into the----
    Mr. Blinken. But if you do not have the fissile material, 
you cannot make a nuclear weapon.
    Senator Scott. For us to have a conversation about the 
JCPOA and how bad it was, sure. To have a conversation about 
its effectiveness I think is remarkable.
    Mr. Blinken. Let us look at where we were and where we are 
as a result of getting out of the JCPOA.
    The Chairman [presiding.] With that, Senator Coons.
    Senator Scott. Here is the very core. You were not there.
    Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate the chance.
    Mr. Secretary, welcome. I look forward to our hearing later 
today on the budget for the State Department, and I just was 
going to speak to one thing first before I move to some 
substantive questions.
    It has been posited that the world is on fire because of 
weakness, and I am simply going to assert that the greatest 
strength that you and our President have shown is in building 
our alliances in the Indo-Pacific--the Quad, AUKUS--a 
strengthened and renewed partnership between Japan, Korea, and 
the United States. Really remarkable successes in stabilizing 
and strengthening the Indo-Pacific through alliances.
    In the response to Russia's aggression in Ukraine, an 
incredible global alliance of 50 different countries coming to 
Ukraine's defense, providing financing, imposing and enforcing 
sanctions, really remarkable.
    And in the defense of Israel against 300 missiles and 
drones fired by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the U.K., France 
would not have joined us in the defense of Israel but for 
President Biden's leadership.
    So I am just simply going to assert that. Can I ask you 
whether it in any way weakens us to have country after country 
year after year have no ambassador confirmed by the Senate? Is 
it important that we confirm nominees to serve as ambassadors?
    Mr. Blinken. Thank you, Senator.
    It does hurt us and it is imperative that we get 
ambassadors confirmed and here is why. We are in, as we have 
talked about already today, in a global competition, notably, 
with China.
    When we do not have an ambassador in place, a Senate 
confirmed ambassador, but the Chinese have a fully accredited 
ambassador in place in a given country their ambassador may get 
in to see the president and the prime minister on a given 
issue.
    Ours, no matter how good our charge may be, may not, and 
that puts us right there just in that one example at a 
competitive disadvantage.
    Senator Coons. As you know well, economic competition with 
China and with other actors is a key priority for this 
Administration and for many of us. I recently had a chance to 
go to Angola and to see the impact of the Lobito Corridor.
    I will soon be traveling to the Philippines and get a 
chance to see the Luzon Corridor. How important is it that we 
utilize new tools like the Development Finance Corporation and 
leverage multilateral resources to give our partners the 
opportunity to have more transparent, more sustainable, higher 
quality investment opportunities for key infrastructure?
    Mr. Blinken. Look, it is vital that we provide a better 
choice, and we do that by doing a few things. Using all the 
tools of government to be able to leverage private sector 
investment, because our comparative advantage is bringing the 
private sector to these projects.
    We are never going to out compete China or anyone else on 
state dollars, dollar to dollar. That is not how we do things.
    But we can use these instruments to facilitate the private 
sector playing the role, and yes, it is to marshal the 
resources of other countries in a coordinated way so that 
together we can have a greater impact and have a better offer.
    Senator Coons. Exactly.
    Mr. Blinken. And we do it in a way that becomes a race to 
the top, whether it is dealing with corruption, environmental 
standards, worker rights, making sure countries do not get 
loaded down with debt.
    All of those things are part of the offer that we bring to 
this, and I know that when we are able to make that offer, 
there is no question that countries around the world prefer to 
work with us.
    Senator Coons. This week President Ruto of Kenya is here 
for an important state visit. He will have a chance to meet 
with some congressional leaders, too; obviously, meet with our 
president. You are hosting him at the State Department. The 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce is having, I think, a very positive 
meeting with the Secretary of Commerce.
    We have a very talented ambassador there who comes out of 
the private sector and has applied a lot of her insights and 
talents. This is just another reminder that we need to show up. 
We need to have confirmed ambassadors. We need to have robust 
and innovative financing tools.
    Kenya has really suffered through massive floods, record 
drought, and locusts, and one of the things I am concerned 
about is food security and how food insecurity leads to 
instability, because hungry people move, and hungry people 
engage in conflict, and hungry people, more than anything, 
suffer. And as Cindy McCain at the World Food Programme and 
others have recently said publicly, 330 million people globally 
are food insecure and something like 800 million people will go 
to bed tonight.
    Senator Graham and I have introduced a bill to create the 
Foundation for Food Security that would use blended finance 
tools, risk insurance, first loss guarantees, to help catalyze 
programs that many of us work together for many years like Feed 
the Future to have more of a transformational impact on 
national agricultural systems. Do you think this is a wise and 
appropriate investment?
    Mr. Blinken. I do, and obviously, I would need to look more 
at the specifics of the bill. But the basic idea, the basic 
approach, I think, is a very good one because it is exactly as 
you just said. It is having that transformational impact.
    Look, we are the lead provider of emergency food assistance 
to people around the world. We are overwhelmingly the number 
one funder of the World Food Programme.
    We provide about one-third of its budget. I hear tremendous 
gratitude around the world for the work the United States does 
on an emergency basis, but what I hear even more than that is a 
desire for the investments to be made that have a 
transformational impact so that countries have the productive 
capacity to effectively feed themselves and feed others.
    And so I think doing that, bringing public-private together 
in a focused way can make a big difference. I will add one very 
quick thing.
    Feed the Future that USAID runs is one of the most 
important programs that we have in the government. It is making 
a difference in lives around the world.
    We have added to it something called the Vision for Adopted 
Crops and Soil because one thing that we have understood, if 
you have nutritious and resilient seeds that can resist the 
ravages of climate change, extreme weather, et cetera, and we 
have them--we know what they are, we know how to make them--and 
you have the abilities we now do to actually monitor the 
quality of soil anywhere and to remediate where necessary, you 
put those two things together, and that is the foundation for 
sustainable productive capacity.
    So part of our budget is to make sure that that program 
starting in Africa but now also in our own hemisphere, 
including in Guatemala, is appropriately resourced.
    Senator Coons. I look forward to talking with you further 
this afternoon about how we could sustain Cary Fowler's work 
and how we can continue to fund innovation and sustain the work 
of our diplomats and development professionals around the 
world.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Barrasso.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, welcome. You know, yesterday the State 
Department issued a statement mourning the death of the Iranian 
president. I assume as Secretary you share that sentiment?
    Mr. Blinken. We expressed official condolences as we have 
done when countries, adversaries, enemies or not, have lost 
leaders.
    It changes nothing about the fact that Mr. Raisi was 
engaged in reprehensible conduct including repressing his own 
people for many years as a judge, and that as president and it 
changes not a whit about our policy.
    But it is something that we have done many times in the 
past going back many Administrations and many decades and we do 
as a normal course of business.
    Senator Barrasso. Well, I do not think it should be a 
normal course of business. I think it is shocking that this 
Administration would mourn the death of the Butcher of Tehran.
    I do not. He is responsible for death, rape, torture, a 
sworn enemy of the free world. So I think it is a terrible 
mistake, Mr. Secretary.
    I want to move on to another issue in terms of some of the 
evacuations and retreats that are happening around the world. 
Since the deadly withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, 
the Administration has urgently evacuated Americans at several 
embassies across the globe.
    I had not expected to hear about this in Wyoming, but I 
heard about it again in Wyoming just this past weekend. Whether 
it is in Burma, Belarus, Sudan, Haiti, there seems to be a 
dangerous, growing trend of the U.S. in retreat.
    The United States has been forced to draw down, evacuate, 
and close numerous diplomatic posts. It used to be rare to see 
images of U.S. troops flying to the rescue to evacuate our 
embassies, but it is becoming a more common sight under this 
Administration.
    2023, U.S. troops in three helicopters airlifted 70 
American employees from Sudan. 2024, in Haiti U.S. military 
airlifted over 30 stranded Americans.
    It appears the Administration has become the Administration 
of evacuations. During your leadership as Secretary of State 
how many embassies have we had to close or evacuate?
    Mr. Blinken. Senator, we are operating and living in a very 
dangerous world. We have Americans all over the world. We have 
embassies all over the world. It is important that wherever we 
can, we be represented and our diplomacy is able to move 
forward.
    As has been the case many times in the past, whether it was 
in Venezuela in 2019, whether it was in Yemen in 2015, in Libya 
in 2014, in Syria in 2012, in Libya again in 2011, in Lebanon 
in 2006--I could go down the list--sometimes you run into 
crises where either an embassy has to shut down for some period 
of time, or you have Americans who are in harm's way.
    And in the past we have as a country not often engaged in 
the evacuation of Americans, but we see it as our 
responsibility when Americans are in harm's way to try to do 
that.
    In the instances that you have cited that is exactly what 
we did. You have a crisis. You have some kind of situation that 
runs the risk of putting at harm either our own embassy 
employees or Americans who may be there, we are going to make 
sure that job number one is protecting our people.
    Senator Barrasso. Do you see a unifying underlying factor 
for this terrible trend, and then how are you addressing that?
    Mr. Blinken. I do not. I think each of these situations is 
distinct, and what I do see is a country that over the last 3 
years has renewed its alliances, has revitalized its alliances, 
has created new ones so that whether it is with our core allies 
in Europe, in Asia or beyond, we do not have to face these 
situations alone.
    And I see American leadership that has brought these 
alliances and partnerships together in ways that were not the 
case in recent history, and that is a great source of strength 
for us as we have to deal with a very challenging world.
    Senator Barrasso. So the Administration is following the 
withdrawal from Afghanistan, left behind weapons, ammunition, 
and equipment that ultimately armed the Taliban. Now that we 
have announced withdrawal from Niger. State Department efforts 
to reestablish relations and engage in diplomacy there have 
failed.
    The government there is demanding that we leave. Our nation 
is withdrawing a thousand troops from two air bases where we 
conducted important counterterrorism missions for decades.
    Media reports already indicate that Russian troops have 
already been deployed to these air bases where American 
soldiers are located.
    Do you know how much American taxpayer money has the United 
States spent on building these bases and training the military 
there?
    Mr. Blinken. We have seen, as you know, Senator, in the 
case of Niger a coup that took place. We sought to find a 
mutually acceptable way to keep our forces there so that they 
could pursue the counterterrorism mission that they were 
engaged in.
    We could not reach such an agreement with the current 
government in Niger, and so we are, pursuant to conversations 
with them, pulling back our forces. If they are not wanted 
there, then they will not be there.
    We will make, as we have, other arrangements in other 
places to make sure that we can conduct the necessary missions 
to ensure our security.
    Senator Barrasso. Do you not see risk, though, the American 
taxpayer funded bases ultimately ending up in the hands of the 
Russians, and now we are seeing the Russia's Wagner mercenary 
group providing military training and support--Burkina Faso, 
Mali, in addition to where you mentioned?
    How are we countering Russia's newly created foothold in 
Africa?
    Mr. Blinken. Well, there is two things. One, of course, is 
the military element to this, and of course, I defer to the 
Pentagon on the specifics of that, including what they pull out 
as any forces leave.
    But second, I think we know that unless you have a 
comprehensive approach that works to try to shore up these 
countries economically, democratically, socially, the military 
peace is necessary, but it is insufficient, and we have, thanks 
to the work of Congress, in countries adjacent to the Sahel the 
Global Fragility Act, which gives us 10 year plans to help 
countries get on their feet in a sustainable way and that 
creates partnerships that allow us to sustain as necessary a 
military presence.
    But you have very fragile countries in the Sahe,l and yes, 
there have been a series of nondemocratic transitions or coups 
in these countries, and that is simply a fact of life.
    Now, I believe that we can bring much more to the table 
than the Russians can, for example, and when countries 
experience what the Russians bring to the table in terms of the 
exploitation of their resources, the brutalization of their 
people, actually more violence and more extremism, more 
terrorism, they tend to change their minds and have a different 
perspective on this.
    It is unfortunate that some countries have to find out the 
hard way that is not the recipe to their security or their 
success.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you. I would add that once they 
find out the hard way it may be very difficult for them to 
extract themselves from the domination of the Russians and come 
back to us.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Booker.
    Senator Booker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being with us today. 
I have appreciated your commentary on everything from the 
situation in Gaza to the situation in Haiti. I want to pick up 
where Senator Barrasso did on issues regarding Africa.
    You know, I have been traveling across the continent, and 
the thing that always affects me is the enormity of its 
potential, and I know we are dealing with the crises of today.
    The truth of the matter is by 2050, as you know, one out of 
every four human beings on the planet will be on the African 
continent. One out of every three working age humans will be on 
the African continent.
    It is a continent with vast resources, vast human 
potential, and it is in many ways, the investments we make 
today will be the ones to help deal with a lot of the 
challenges when it comes to democracy, and unfortunately, the 
global competition with countries like China and Russia that do 
not share the world order's rules, clearly.
    And I appreciated what you said to the Senator about how we 
are trying to deal with democratic threats.
    Obviously, the backsliding in Burkina Faso, in Niger, in 
Mali, all in the Sahel region has me very, very concerned, and 
seeing the challenges that are now in Togo, Benin, Ghana, in 
the north of those countries including Nigeria--it is very 
sobering to me when it comes to the challenges of democracy.
    I was very affirmed by your fiscal year 2025 budget request 
that includes $411 million for democracy, rights, and 
governance programs in Africa. That is a sizable increase from 
the $284 million allocated in fiscal year 2023.
    Could you just talk a little bit to how the Administration 
is adjusting regional assistance programs and priorities in 
response to the democratic backsliding that I have discussed, 
and clearly, others?
    Mr. Blinken. Thank you very much.
    Look, exactly as you have said, Senator, and as I know you 
have been deeply engaged on, we see the extraordinary positive 
potential in Africa, not just the challenges of the moment, and 
for us when we have a continent that is going to have one out 
of every four people on Earth on that continent, when we see 
the fastest growing populations on Earth--before COVID actually 
the fastest growing economies as you know--we want to make sure 
that we are supporting that, and particularly making sure that 
young people with growing populations have positive outlets and 
positive opportunities.
    But you are right, we also see this democratic backsliding 
particularly in the Sahel, and that is where we have had these 
recent coups.
    So we have to be, and our budget reflects this, committed 
to longer term stability, opportunity, human development, 
making the investments in health and education, in economic 
empowerment and democratic governance in these countries.
    We are working to do that. Obviously, in the countries that 
have been on the receiving end of coups, there are some limits 
that we have to abide by when it comes to the assistance we can 
continue to provide. But we are trying to make sure that when 
it comes to what is vital, we are providing it.
    But then on democracy more broadly, we just came from our 
third summit for democracy that Korea hosted, and this was not 
exclusive to Africa, but I think there is a very positive 
affirmative agenda for the kinds of things that we can do and 
are doing to try to shore up democratic governance, to try to 
shore up the institutions, to try to combat corruption, which 
saps at----
    Senator Booker. Absolutely, and I am encouraged by that, 
the focus on corruption. A lot of people are focusing just on 
elections.
    It seems that the Administration is making such a 
significant investment in anti-corruption efforts as well as 
other things that make for a vibrant democracy, and I am 
grateful for that.
    I just want to, obviously, as you can imagine talk about 
Sudan. It was perhaps one of the most--the enormity of what I 
saw when I was at the Chad-Sudan border is like nothing I have 
seen before, and I have traveled to refugee camps from the 
Syrian-Jordanian border and to even the camps at the border in 
Mexico right now, but I have just never seen a scale of human 
suffering like that.
    I am grateful for Tom Perriello and the President's 
appointment of a Special Envoy. But is the department providing 
that Special Envoy's office the kind of budget they need or the 
authority over any Sudan program funds to support his work?
    Mr. Blinken. The short answer is I believe we are, and Tom 
Perriello has done an extraordinary job getting out of the gate 
fast and moving to do what we can to tackle this crisis.
    I agree with you. I think, unfortunately, it is something 
that has not gotten the visibility that it deserves, given the 
amount of suffering that is going on.
    You have got 8\1/2\ million displaced people. You have 18 
million people in desperate need of food aid, and of course, 
you have the violence and atrocities that are being committed 
by both sides against innocent civilians.
    So Senior Envoy Perriello is fully authorized, and by the 
way, reports directly to me and works in close collaboration 
with our assistant secretary for Africa to work to press for an 
end to the war, to make sure that we have unhindered access for 
humanitarian assistance, to stop the violence, to try to get a 
return to the democratic transition, to get a unified civilian 
approach to this.
    We think the best vehicle for trying to move forward on 
that is through the Jeddah process or Jeddah negotiations.
    Senator Booker. And getting all the players--all the 
players.
    Mr. Blinken. And getting everyone around the table.
    Senator Booker. Same table.
    Mr. Blinken. Exactly.
    Senator Booker. I want to just jump in with my final 
minute. First of all, thank you for your comments on the ICC 
recent actions. I think you called it wrongheaded.
    I would completely agree with the Administration's comments 
on it. It seems to violate common sense that you have a 
negotiation going on that could really undermine the resolution 
of this, when you have a terrorist leader like Sinwar being put 
in--sort of equating him to a leader of--a duly elected leader 
in a country that actually has regular elections.
    But more importantly, we know that Sinwar is doing 
everything he can to isolate Israel to put themselves on the 
same footing.
    The jurisdictional issues, the challenges we have right now 
with trying to bring this conflict to a resolution, it seems 
stunning to me that they would take this action.
    I want to just, though, ask you is how is the Biden 
administration working with Israeli, Egyptian, and humanitarian 
counterparts to implement a deconfliction mechanism to protect 
humanitarian workers and civilians? Even when a ceasefire is 
reached, we will need a mechanism for this--or the suffering is 
going to continue.
    We need a humanitarian assistance at a large scale. One of 
the biggest concerns any caring American should have right now 
is the scale of the humanitarian crisis going on in Gaza.
    This is not counter to dealing with Hamas, but it is urgent 
right now. The levels that have been mentioned by some of my 
colleagues are just--the scale of the human suffering there is 
stunning--the lack of medical provisions, the lack of food.
    And so there has to be a more coordinated effort amongst 
the Administration to work with Israel, Egypt, and other 
humanitarian counterparts to make sure that, ceasefire or not, 
we have the mechanisms to get aid there.
    The Chairman. I would ask that you give a brief response.
    Mr. Blinken. Simply put, there is an intensely coordinated 
effort to work to do just that, and the envoy--it had been 
Ambassador David Satterfield. Now it is Lise Grande, deeply 
experienced in these matters, working this every single day to 
do three things: To make sure that we have the aid that is 
getting in and the appropriate crossings--land, sea, air--to 
get it in; second, to make sure that once it gets in, it is 
effectively distributed to the places and people who need it; 
and third and related to that, having effective deconfliction 
so that the humanitarians who have to move things around are 
not endangered as we have seen.
    And there I think there--progress has been made on having 
this deconfliction and coordination at a sort of 10,000 foot 
level. But where we continue to have problems is at the 
tactical or unit level--that is, individual military units that 
have not adequately gotten the instructions that they need to 
have a convoy go through.
    So we are working intensely to get clear, protected 
corridors, clear times where there is no doubt and no ambiguity 
about people moving humanitarian assistance to the people who 
need it, among other things, as well as better real time 
communications between those who are providing assistance and 
those who are on the ground engaged in combat.
    The Chairman. Senator Young.
    Senator Young. Mr. Secretary, it is great to have you 
before the committee. I recognize that there are many pressing 
concerns that require your attention and your time these days.
    At the same time, I believe that we have the wherewithal, 
we have the resources, to pursue our national interests 
globally including in Burma, and that is what I would like to 
ask you about.
    It has been concerning to read and hear reports of 
bureaucratic delays to American support to opponents of the 
junta in Burma, support authorized and in fact required by 
Congress in the Burma Act.
    Secretary Blinken, you have broad authority and sufficient 
funds, by my reckoning, to distribute nonlethal aid to armed 
groups and to Burmese society--items like drones and 
communications equipment, for example, that could save 
countless innocent lives.
    Why has this aid not been fully allocated and disbursed?
    Mr. Blinken. Senator, I would welcome sort of coming back 
to you on that in detail because I am not aware of particular 
delays.
    Certainly, our intent and my intent is to make sure that we 
are taking advantage of the act, and taking advantage of it in 
a way that allows us to robustly support both the democratic 
opposition and ethnic groups, to bring them together in a 
unified program, to provide them the assistance that they need 
and the support that they need even as we are putting pressure 
on the regime through sanctions.
    So if there are specific things, I welcome learning them 
and working with you on that.
    Senator Young. OK. And I am grateful for that. I will take 
you up on that myself, my team, and we will stay in touch with 
the committee more broadly.
    One concern I have is that the department has, perhaps, 
made a legal determination that because some nonlethal 
assistance could conceivably be considered dual use it could 
not be provided.
    So I would want to know if that were, indeed, the case how 
we would square that with the enormous military assistance that 
Russia and China have been giving the junta.
    Why do I not move on to some AI discussions that have made 
news recently? Last week, U.S. officials, including State's 
acting special envoy for critical and emerging technology, met 
with Chinese officials to discuss artificial intelligence 
governance.
    Where do you see China's goals for AI governance differing 
from our own, and how are we confronting the difference in our 
diplomacy?
    Mr. Blinken. So when it comes to AI and when it comes to 
China a couple of things worth citing.
    First, as you may have noted, we got the first resolution 
through the U.N. General Assembly with wide support including 
even China on questions of AI governance and in particular the 
importance of trying to use AI to advance sustainable 
development goals to meet the needs of people around the world, 
and in that certain basic principles about how AI should be 
used that very much reflect our views.
    And to the extent that we can get other countries signed on 
to those principles to maximize benefits, minimize any of the 
potential harms of AI, that is a good thing.
    We have also gotten strong support around the world on how 
to think about the use of AI in autonomous weapons. I think 
those are very important guidelines that, hopefully, countries 
will be bound by including China.
    And then more specifically, Senator, on China we thought it 
is important irrespective our profound differences across the 
board to at least be talking about how we each respectively see 
AI particularly when it comes to questions of safety and 
security, because we know the extent to which this can be used 
for grievous ill, not just for benefit.
    And so this is a good way of at least getting a better 
understanding of how China is looking at this and sees this, 
sharing the way that we see it and seeing if as, you know, in 
the past we have had--when it came, for example, to arms 
control during the cold war, maybe there are avenues for 
getting agreements on use and not misuse of artificial 
intelligence.
    But right now this is just a very broad conversation about 
how we respectively see AI and its development.
    Senator Young. I will just state and then move on with an 
additional question or two. I think it is fine to talk and 
engage in these sorts of broad discussions, and we may, indeed, 
come to terms on something we did not expect to come to.
    I think it is equally as important to work with our closest 
allies and partners to see how we can harmonize our existing 
standards or evolving standards, and then since we share 
certain core values that will give us leverage at the 
negotiating table.
    Mr. Blinken. You are a hundred percent right and that is 
what we have done. We have been working through the G-7 in 
particular to try to move out on basic principles, and 
hopefully, build out from there.
    Senator Young. Yes. Relatedly, today South Korea hosts the 
second AI safety summit after last year's summit at Bletchley 
Park. What role do you see the safety summit playing in the 
overall AI governance debate?
    Mr. Blinken. I think these summits can help establish 
norms, rules, understandings when it comes to safety that could 
prove invaluable.
    The more we can develop a consensus around what these norms 
and standards and rules should be, the more we or like minded 
countries are in the driver's seat, the more effective we are 
going to be in making sure that AI is used for good and we 
minimize its use for bad.
    Senator Young. And for those who are watching trying to get 
clarity on the division of labor within our own Government on 
this topic, what is the diplomatic role that you see the 
department taking in consultation with Commerce following 
Secretary Raimondo's announcement of an international network 
of AI safety institutes?
    Mr. Blinken. We are working in very close coordination with 
Commerce on this, and we both have leadership roles to play, 
and we have organized our department accordingly, and as you 
know and I appreciate, supported--we established for the first 
time a bureau in the department for cyber and digital policy as 
well as having an envoy for emerging technology, and we have 
got the talent at the department to make sure that we have the 
necessary expertise so that we can play the necessary 
diplomatic role around the world in trying to align other 
countries with our vision for the way forward on AI.
    But of course, Commerce has an absolutely vital role to 
play--a lead role to play, particularly when it comes to 
engaging the private sector and we are fully partnered on that.
    Senator Young. Well, I anticipate a lot of future 
conversation and focus from this committee as it relates to the 
harmonization of standards, standards development, and ensuring 
that the standards that prevail and predominate around the 
world are standards that embed our values on privacy and 
openness and transparency and human rights and so forth.
    So thank you for your work in the early stages of what 
might be characterized as a revolution in AI technology.
    Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Blinken. Can I just add one quick thing to this, 
Senator?
    Senator Young. Yes.
    Mr. Blinken. I just want to really applaud your leadership 
broadly in this area, because the work that you have done, the 
leadership that you showed particularly on the CHIPS and 
Science Act, has given us a much stronger hand to play around 
the world as the United States, make sure that we continue to 
have the leading technology, the leading industries, and thus 
are in a stronger position to actually shape those norms, 
rules, and understandings. A lot of that does go to CHIPS and 
Science.
    Senator Young. Thank you.
    The Chairman. We all thank Senator Young for his 
leadership. He has educated all of us on AI.
    Senator Duckworth.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Blinken, before I start I just want to 
acknowledge the medical and humanitarian workers who need the 
secure safe access to provide badly needed care, Israeli-
Americans including Hersh Goldberg-Polin who remains hostages 
of Hamas, the over 100 other hostages who remain unaccounted 
for or trapped by terrorists in Gaza, and the tens of thousands 
of lives of Palestinians, Israeli, American, Jordanian, Thai--
the list is long and overwhelming--already lost to the latest 
tragic conflict in the Middle East.
    My staff and I have relied heavily on the department's 
close support and collaboration to advocate for Illinoisans and 
others in Gaza, and I expect we will need to continue to work 
closely together to provide assistance and ensure oversight and 
accountability of the situation.
    So I want to express my appreciation for all of the 
department staff for working around the clock with me and my 
team.
    My first question has to do with ASEAN. It goes to 
something we have discussed here last year, the need for 
sustained strong investments in our relationships with allies 
and partners in Southeast Asia, and I applaud the elevation of 
the U.S.-ASEAN relationship to a comprehensive strategic 
partnership last year and the increases in resources for the 
U.S. mission to ASEAN.
    But as I said at the opening of the new U.S.-ASEAN center 
in December, China continues to increase its engagement and 
gain in popularity in the region, and there is so much more 
that we can do, and that includes showing up. High level 
participation at ASEAN summits and ministerial meetings is no 
longer a nice to have option. It is a must do.
    I am still hearing about Indonesia's deep disappointment 
over last year's ASEAN summit, and I am sure you are as well.
    In this chair year for Laos are we doing enough to support 
Embassy Vientiane and through them the host government in 
carrying out successful ASEAN meetings, and can you commit to 
high level participation in the upcoming ministerial and ASEAN 
summit?
    Mr. Blinken. Thank you very much, Senator.
    And I, look, fully agree with you, and I believe the 
answers to both questions are yes and yes. We are determined to 
build on what has already been a deeply strengthened 
partnership and relationship between the United States and 
ASEAN including the President hosting, as you know, a special 
summit with ASEAN here in Washington, my own engagement with 
ASEAN, and going forward, our support both for Laos as it is in 
the chair to do what we can to help it succeed in its 
chairmanship and also, yes, be present.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    I also want to touch on internal reforms you have led at 
State every year and especially in an election year. The 
strength of our republic depends on resilient institutions.
    So I want to commend the critical work of modernizing and 
strengthening the State Department itself. Important progress 
has been made, but when it comes to physical accessibility at 
department facilities, it has been my experience that there is 
still a lot of work to do.
    The lack of basic accommodations like ramps and working 
buttons to open heavy security doors are still serious 
obstacles to the full participation of persons with 
disabilities, whether they are employees who need 
accommodations for themselves or for family members who would 
join them abroad or our counterparts and guests.
    So in last year's State authorization I included a 
requirement for the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations to 
report on accessibility at overseas diplomatic missions and 
estimate the costs of making our facilities usable by persons 
with disabilities.
    Will that report be delivered on time next month, and do 
you have any insight into what has been learned through the 
assessments so far?
    And can you speak more broadly to what the department is 
doing to ensure employees receive the accommodations they need 
when they need them through a streamlined and common sense 
process?
    Mr. Blinken. In short, Senator, I am committed to that. We 
are committed to that. I want to come back to you on the timing 
of the report to make sure that it is on time, or if it is not 
why not. So I will come back to you on that.
    We have a request for an additional $11.5 million in the 
budget for bolstering accessibility in the department and in 
our facilities. It is something that I take very seriously, and 
of course, there is physical accessibility, which is critical.
    We are also doubling down on efforts with technology to 
make sure that we have the right technology in the right hands. 
I think we have made real progress on that. But as always more 
can and should be done.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    Mr. Secretary, staffing and retention continue to be 
challenges, so I would like to use the rest of my time to speak 
in more detail about that, including what you have done to 
address the perennial challenge of employment for Foreign 
Service employees.
    Late last year I helped introduce the Readiness Act to 
support Federal employees who are relocating to join their 
spouse on an official assignment. It would require Federal 
Government agencies to make the maximum effort to retain them 
by simply allowing telework or transfer, or as a last resort, a 
period of leave without pay status.
    Would you say that current policies at State support this 
type of common sense flexibility so that a civil servant is not 
needlessly faced with a choice of either stay with their family 
on a overseas deployment when the spouse is being sent to 
represent our Nation overseas or keep the job and continue 
their public service career?
    Mr. Blinken. We are very much working in that direction, 
and I think we have made progress. Again, still more to do.
    We also have the family service--the Foreign Service 
Families Act, excuse me, that we are working to implement to 
create greater flexibilities, greater opportunities for family 
members.
    We have more and more people who are now serving as 
eligible family members. We have greater flexibilities for 
people to make sure that they are able to continue their 
employment as a spouse or partner when they are overseas, and I 
think that is part of an ongoing effort to improve those 
opportunities and to support families, because we know that if 
we want to not only attract but retain the best people in the 
department, we have to make sure that we are also providing the 
support they need for their families. Otherwise, they will do 
something else--go somewhere else.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    Can you speak to the importance of being able to pay 
competitive rates to local nationals who work at embassies?
    I have heard this at many of our embassies as I have 
traveled, and it is not limited to a particular region. I mean, 
I heard it in Europe. I have heard it in Asia where it is often 
very hard to maintain quality local staff because they cannot 
be paid at a rate that is competitive, and even though they 
want to stay with us and they are very loyal. Can you speak to 
the challenges in your budget?
    Mr. Blinken. Yes, that is correct, and I think it is 
important to start with this. Literally, the heart of our 
enterprise, the State Department, are locally employed staff.
    About two-thirds of the State Department employees are 
locally engaged staff. Our embassies cannot function without 
them, and not only do they fill vital functions in the 
embassies, they are also the most extraordinary connectivity 
between our embassies and the countries in which we are 
engaged.
    In so many countries the local staff has borne the brunt of 
global inflation, and trying to keep pace with that in 
countries around the world that are not doing as well as the 
United States has been a challenge. And you are right, it is in 
many regions; it is not in any one place.
    We have taken steps to address this, first, for a number of 
people to try to deal with the impact of that and then just 
coming out of COVID, which was so devastating for so many, one 
time increases in their compensation.
    Second, we have looked at the way we assess compensation, 
and we have tried to bring in more criteria so that we better 
take into account what the actual cost of living is in a given 
country, not simply a sort of equation to someone in a 
similarly situated job.
    So that is now coming into effect. We have worked to budget 
in including in this budget a guaranteed 2 percent increase 
every year so people can see that they will have sustained 
support, and of course, there are other one time measures that 
we are looking at to help people.
    But the bottom line is we have to do this. We need to do 
this if we are going to sustain our missions, and the budget 
reflects that.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, you have presided over the worst foreign 
policy disaster of modern times. When Joe Biden became 
President he inherited peace and prosperity in the world.
    We now have two simultaneous wars waging, the worst war in 
Europe since World War II, and the worst war in the Middle East 
in 50 years.
    Both, I believe, were caused by this Administration's 
consistent weakness, and indeed, your foreign policy is 
precisely backward from what a rational American foreign policy 
should be.
    To our friends and allies, this Administration has 
consistently undermined, weakened, and attacked them. And to 
our enemies this Administration has shown constant appeasement, 
and indeed, has flowed billions of dollars to the enemies of 
America who want to kill us.
    Senator Barrasso asked you about Abraham Raisi. Your State 
Department put out a statement sending condolences for his 
death.
    Mr. Secretary, is the world better today now that Raisi is 
dead?
    Mr. Blinken. Given the horrible acts that he engaged in 
both as a judge and as president, to the extent he can no 
longer engage in them, yes, the Iranian people are probably 
better off.
    Senator Cruz. You did not say that in your statement, did 
you?
    Mr. Blinken. I believe that we did, and certainly, our 
spokesperson----
    Senator Cruz. Today the United Nations is flying their flag 
at half-staff to mourn the death. Would you agree that it is 
utterly disgraceful for the United Nations to be mourning the 
death of the Butcher of Tehran?
    Mr. Blinken. We are, certainly, not mourning his death. As 
I said, we expressly----
    Senator Cruz. Would you agree it is disgraceful for the 
U.N. to be?
    Mr. Blinken. I will look at what they have done. We, 
certainly, would not do that.
    Senator Cruz. What they have done is flown the flag at 
half-staff. Is that disgraceful?
    Mr. Blinken. We would not do that. We would certainly find 
that----
    Senator Cruz. And I would note that is the absence of 
American leadership.
    All right. Let us shift. The Washington Post on May 11 
wrote an article.
    I am going to read the opening paragraph. ``The Biden 
administration working urgently to stave off a full scale 
Israeli invasion of Rafah is offering Israel valuable 
assistance in an effort to persuade it to hold back, including 
sensitive intelligence to help the Israeli military pinpoint 
the location of Hamas leaders and find the group's hidden 
tunnels, according to four people familiar with the U.S. 
offers.''
    Is that paragraph accurate?
    Mr. Blinken. Exactly the opposite. First of all, no one has 
done more to defend Israel than Joe Biden.
    Senator Cruz. Is that paragraph accurate?
    Mr. Blinken. Let me finish if I may, please.
    He was there right after.
    Senator Cruz. I am not interested in a campaign speech. I 
have limited time. Is the paragraph in the Washington Post 
accurate?
    Mr. Blinken. As you read it, no. To the contrary, we are 
providing everything we possibly can to Israel to help them 
find----
    Senator Cruz. So the four sources that briefed the Post, 
and by the way, briefed multiple other media outlets, they were 
lying?
    Mr. Blinken. Absolutely.
    Senator Cruz. So--all right. So that--does the 
Administration--did the Administration offer to provide the 
locations of senior Hamas leaders to Israel if they did not 
invade Rafah?
    Mr. Blinken. That is, again, totally misleading and wrong. 
Here is what we have said and here is what we are doing. We 
have said that there is a better way to deal with the challenge 
that----
    Senator Cruz. I am not interested in a speech.
    Mr. Blinken. If you do not want to hear my answer----
    Senator Cruz. Did you offer the location of senior Hamas 
officials if they did not invade Rafah? That is a yes or no.
    Mr. Blinken. If we--no. If we had the locations, of course, 
we would provide them irrespective.
    Senator Cruz. So this statement--you are saying the Post 
got it totally wrong, it is utterly false, and anyone who said 
to the contrary was lying and perjuring themselves----
    Mr. Blinken. That statement is incorrect. We have done and 
we will continue to do everything we can to, if we can do it, 
develop the information and share the information. I wish we 
had it.
    Senator Cruz. Does the Administration have intelligence on 
the locations of Hamas officials that you have not shared with 
Israel?
    Mr. Blinken. No.
    Senator Cruz. Does the Administration have the locations of 
Hamas terror tunnels that you have not shared with Israel?
    Mr. Blinken. No.
    Senator Cruz. OK. So then your position is that this story 
is an utter and complete lie----
    Mr. Blinken. As you have read it to me, Senator, it is 
not--it is not accurate. It does not reflect the facts.
    Senator Cruz. And we are not interested in playing word 
games. I have asked you very directly. You are saying there is 
not a single Hamas leader that you know about that you or the 
Administration has offered, we will tell you where they are if 
you do not invade Rafah?
    Mr. Blinken. That is correct.
    Senator Cruz. What have you offered them not to invade 
Rafah?
    Mr. Blinken. We have offered them nothing not to invade 
Rafah except a plan to deal more effectively with Rafah----
    Senator Cruz. OK. So your testimony under oath is you have 
offered them nothing not to invade Rafah. I find that very hard 
to believe, but I just want to understand what your testimony 
is.
    Mr. Blinken. I will be very clear. We have told them, we 
have been engaged in a long conversation with them about the 
most effective way to deal with the problem we agree must be 
dealt with at the crossing at Rafah.
    Senator Cruz. They are quite aware you disagree with their 
plan to kill the Hamas terrorists----
    Mr. Blinken. That is absolutely----
    Senator Cruz [continuing]. Because you and the President 
have vocally said it.
    Mr. Blinken. That is absolutely----
    Senator Cruz. To be clear, your State Department on the 
morning of October 7 sent out a tweet telling Israel not to 
engage in military retaliation. I called you out at 3 o'clock 
in the morning and you deleted that tweet.
    The next day you personally on October 8 sent a tweet 
saying you had spoken with the Turkish foreign minister, and 
Israel should not retaliate. From the very beginning the Biden 
administration has consistently at every stage told Israel--and 
by the way, when I called your tweet out you deleted it again. 
At every stage you have been telling Israel do not kill the 
terrorists, and that has been from day one.
    Mr. Blinken. Senator, I was in Israel 5 days after October 
7. I have been there seven times since. No one, starting with 
President Biden, has done more to make sure they have what they 
need to defend themselves from Hamas to deal with the threat 
that Hamas poses to make sure----
    Senator Cruz. With all due respect that that is----
    Mr. Blinken. No. That is simply wrong.
    Senator Cruz. That is ludicrous. That is ludicrous. Why 
did--why have you cut off weapons to Israel then?
    Mr. Blinken. We have not cut off weapons to Israel. In 
fact, as you know well, starting many years ago President Biden 
was at the heart of the MOU that led to Israel having a 10 year 
guaranteed supply of assistance when it--which is very 
important----
    Senator Cruz. When you became Secretary--when you became 
Secretary of State how much oil was Iran selling a day?
    Mr. Blinken. I will have to come back to you on any 
numbers. I do not have the numbers.
    Senator Cruz. You do not know. That does not surprise me 
you do not know. It was about 300,000. How much oil is Iran 
selling today?
    Mr. Blinken. We have applied sanctions against more than 
200 entities that are engaged in petro chemicals.
    Senator Cruz. How much oil is Iran selling today? How much 
oil----
    Mr. Blinken. You can tell me. I am sure you know.
    Senator Cruz. Do not filibuster.
    Mr. Blinken. I am not filibustering.
    Senator Cruz. How much oil are they selling today? Do you 
know?
    Mr. Blinken. You tell me. You tell me.
    Senator Cruz. Apparently you do not know. So you do not 
know how much they were selling. It was 300,000. Today they are 
selling about 2 million barrels a day.
    Let me ask you----
    Mr. Blinken. And given the sanctions, given the export 
controls, given the other controls we have put on, the cost of 
doing that, the evasion that they have to engage in which we 
are trying to----
    Senator Cruz. They made about $80 billion. Let me ask you 
another question. I am running out of time.
    So I am not interested in speeches. Let me ask you this. 
How many ghost fleet ships did Iran have in November 2020?
    Mr. Blinken. We have sanctioned more than 200 of those----
    Senator Cruz. It is a question. I am not--how many did they 
have?
    Mr. Blinken. The total number? I cannot tell you what it 
had in 2021. I will come back to you with that. But we----
    Senator Cruz. The number was about 70. How many do they 
have today?
    Mr. Blinken. Yes. We have blocked about--we have blocked 
about 50 of them.
    Senator Cruz. OK. Let us see how effective you are. How 
many do they have today?
    Mr. Blinken. As I said, we have blocked about 50.
    Senator Cruz. How many do they have today?
    Mr. Blinken. You tell me. I am sure you----
    Senator Cruz. They have about over 400. Look, this 
Administration desperately wants a new Iran deal. You have been 
showering cash on Iran from day one, and understand the $6 
billion you were asked about is the tip of the iceberg.
    By refusing to enforce oil sanctions we have seen Iran's 
oil sales go from 300,000 barrels a day when you got into 
office to over 2 million barrels a day today. That is $80 
billion.
    Ninety percent of Hamas's funding comes from Iran in a very 
real sense. This Administration, you and President Biden, 
funded the October 7 attacks by flowing $100 billion to a 
homicidal, genocidal regime that funded those attacks.
    Mr. Blinken. That statement is profoundly wrong.
    Senator Cruz. Why?
    Mr. Blinken. I am not even going to humor it. I think it is 
a disgraceful statement.
    Senator Cruz. Why?
    Mr. Blinken. We have gone at Iran repeatedly with more than 
600 sanctions applied against different----
    Senator Cruz. Then why are they selling 2 million barrels a 
day as compared to 300,000?
    Mr. Blinken. They are working hard to do what they can to 
get around the sanctions. The cost--the cost of doing that 
business had gone up dramatically.
    Senator Cruz. So just the prior administration was--had 
tools you did not have? They were more effective? Or maybe they 
just were not desperate to cut a deal with Iran.
    Mr. Blinken. And we continue every single day to go at 
them.
    Senator Cruz. You are refusing to address the facts.
    Mr. Blinken. I am not.
    Senator Cruz. Then why are they selling 2 million barrels a 
day?
    Mr. Blinken. Because they are determined to try to do that. 
We are determined to cut them off.
    Senator Cruz. They were not determined when Trump was 
President?
    Mr. Blinken. They were determined, and of course, 
unfortunately, we also had their nuclear program in a box. No 
fissile material being produced.
    Senator Cruz. OK. You are not answering the question. You 
are filibustering another topic.
    Mr. Blinken. I am not filibustering.
    The Chairman. You get the last word. You get the last word.
    Senator Cruz. You funded our enemies, and you undermine our 
friends, and the world is much, much more dangerous as a 
result, and Americans are at greater jeopardy because of it.
    Mr. Blinken. In fact, we have brought more countries 
together. We have stronger allies----
    The Chairman. Let me----
    Mr. Blinken [continuing]. Stronger partnerships and 
stronger engagement from countries around the world to deal 
with a very dangerous world than we had. We were alone. We are 
not anymore, and America is leading those efforts.
    Senator Cruz. Remember the Abraham Accords?
    Mr. Blinken. I do.
    The Chairman. Let me just break you two apart for a second, 
if I might.
    Secretary Blinken, thank you very much for your patience 
with our committee.
    I want to complete this hearing where I started, and that 
is a thank you to you for restoring America's global 
leadership, and President Biden.
    What you have done to strengthen the transatlantic 
partnership is incredible. I saw that first hand at the Munich 
Security Conference as our allies recognized the importance of 
the Biden administration and our Secretary of State, and 
restoring confidence that America's word meant something where 
it was unclear 4 years prior to that.
    That was indispensable in our campaign to help Ukraine 
defend its sovereignty. That transatlantic partnership that was 
restored by the Biden administration was absolutely essential.
    The leadership globally goes well beyond just the 
transatlantic partnership. I was pleased to represent the 
United States at COP-28, saw what happened when I was in Bonn, 
Germany, when President Trump withdrew America's participation 
in the climate summits and talks.
    America's leadership made a huge difference in a very 
positive commitment to deal with the threat against our globe 
on climate, and I applaud the Biden administration and the 
State Department for the work that it did in making that 
conference so successful.
    And let me just talk a moment about Iran. Iran's threat is 
real. But the way that the Biden administration and you have 
answered that, by after the attack on October 7 showing 
America's strength in the region to prevent an escalation of 
the conflict that I think we all thought was going to happen 
any day, that was extraordinary leadership.
    And as you pointed out in this hearing, and I just really 
want to underscore that, your challenges to contain Iran were 
made so much more difficult by the withdrawal from the nuclear 
agreement where we lost our eyes on the ground to see what was 
going on in Iran and limits on Iranian enrichment so--while 
Iran was in compliance with the agreement.
    All that made the challenges so much more severe. But I 
think you are on the right path for Israel that recognizes 
that, yes, there is no future for Israel or the Palestinians 
with Hamas, and we have facilitated working with Israel to make 
sure that threat is eliminated.
    But the security for Israel will not be solved on the 
battlefield. The only way there is going to be lasting peace in 
the Middle East is if there is a genuine path forward for the 
Palestinians and Israelis to live side by side in peace, 
recognizing each other's security, and that means moving 
forward with normalization so that we can get the normalization 
of the countries in the region.
    And by the way, you showed, as you pointed out in April, 
that the security against the Iranian threat can be much more 
effective with the partnerships in the region working with 
Israel than just the military response to Iranian terrorist 
supported actions.
    So I just really want to go on record to thank you for your 
extraordinary service to our country and to applaud the Biden 
administration for restoring America's leadership.
    That certainly worked in our national security interests 
and has made such a valuable contribution to so many countries 
that need America's support in order to defend against attacks 
to their own democratic institutions, and your service has made 
a huge difference in that regard.
    Mr. Blinken. Mr. Chairman, can I just say, first of all, I 
am grateful for those words, but as might be said, right back 
at you.
    I am not sure if I will have the opportunity to appear 
before this committee for the pendency of this Congress, but I 
just want to say that your chairmanship of the committee, your 
leadership of the committee, but even beyond that your 
leadership in Congress and as a Senator has been both exemplary 
and exceptional, exemplary in making sure that our values to 
the best of our ability remain at the heart of our foreign 
policy and our engagement around the world, but also in helping 
to provide some of the most critical tools that we have to 
actually ensure that that can happen.
    And I deeply appreciate the collaboration we have had as 
you have been chairman and I have been in this role. You have 
been--you are an immense credit not only to this institution 
but to the country that we both love, and I thank you.
    The Chairman. Well, thank you. I started my career in the 
Senate being helped by you, and we will continue to work 
together through my last year in the U.S. Senate. So thank you 
very much.
    The record of the committee will remain open until the 
close of business on Thursday. For questions that may be 
submitted we would ask that you would try to get those 
responses back as quickly as possible.
    And with that, the hearing will be adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:14 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                              ----------                              


              Additional Material Submitted for the Record


             Responses of Mr. Antony Blinken to Questions 
                  Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen

    Question. I have been closely following the political situation and 
unrest in Georgia as a consequence of the foreign agents law, passed by 
the Georgian Parliament on May 14. It is clear that the Georgian Dream 
party is intent on changing Georgia's longstanding policy in advancing 
Georgia's Euro-Atlantic integration agenda. What consequences will be 
imposed on the Georgian government what groups of individuals will be 
targeted in the Georgian Parliament overrules President Zourabichvili's 
veto?

    Answer. The United States has been clear with Georgian authorities 
both publicly and privately about our concerns related to the ruling 
party's anti-democratic actions, including the reintroduction of the 
law on foreign influence, as well as false accusations against the 
United States that call into question our longstanding partnership. If 
the law moves forward out of conformity with EU norms, we are prepared 
to impose measures on those responsible for these actions.

    Question. What measures will be put in place to ensure that the 
United States can support free and fair elections in Georgia in 
October, given the evolving restrictions placed on civil society 
organizations?

    Answer. The United States strongly supports free and fair elections 
in Georgia that meet international standards. We support independent 
oversight of electoral processes to safeguard the integrity of the 2024 
parliamentary election, and to work with the Central Election 
Commission and Georgian organizations to improve electoral 
administration and promote a level-playing-field. Department officials 
are also encouraging authorities to promptly investigate any 
allegations of misuse of administrative resources, voter intimidation, 
and other election-related misconduct.

    Question. Western Balkans: I continue to remain concerned about the 
troubling political dynamics in the Western Balkans, despite increased 
efforts by the United States to support democratic reforms and hold bad 
actors to account. I am especially concerned about the situation in the 
North of Kosovo. This year, I secured language in the fiscal year 2024 
SFOPS report which would require the Secretary of State to consider 
conditioning funds to Serbia and Kosovo if no progress is made to 
implement the path to normalization. Can I receive your assurance that 
you will consider conditioning of funds toward both Kosovo and Serbia 
if a determination is made that there has been insufficient progress 
toward normalization?

    Answer. We remain committed to security, stability, and prosperity 
in the Western Balkans and to the vision of Kosovo as a sovereign, 
multiethnic democracy. Normalization of relations between Kosovo and 
Serbia, including eventual mutual recognition, is a priority policy 
goal for the United States. Our assistance supports these goals. We 
will consider all available tools in encouraging these countries to 
advance the normalization of their relations, including conditioning 
foreign assistance.

    Question. Western Balkans: The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina 
is reaching a crisis point. What contingencies are in place to account 
for a possible rapid deterioration in the security situation in Bosnia 
and Herzegovina?

    Answer. We have been working with our European partners to prevent 
further deterioration in the security situation. We will continue to 
use sanctions when the security and stability of Bosnia and Herzegovina 
(BiH) is threatened, individuals engage in anti-Dayton activities, or 
BiH's democratic institutions are undermined. We support a robust EUFOR 
presence to defend the Dayton Peace Agreement and maintain security, 
and support the use of Bonn Powers to strengthen the state of BiH; 
weaken ethnonationalist political forces; and combat corruption.

    Question. Ukraine: What more can be done to support Ukraine's 
critical infrastructure amid continued attacks from Russia?

    Answer. Russia continues its unprovoked attacks on Ukraine's energy 
and other critical infrastructure to undermine morale and economic 
activity. Air defense is crucial to protecting Ukraine's critical 
infrastructure assets from Russian attacks. Investments in the 
restoration and protection of critical infrastructure can also improve 
the resilience of Ukraine's infrastructure. We are working with allies 
and partners to provide air defense interceptors and other equipment 
that will help Ukraine protect its civilians and critical 
infrastructure, including with G7+ partners for critical energy 
infrastructure.

    Question. Ukraine: Given the challenges in passing the recent 
national security supplemental, how is the Department of State 
adjusting its stakeholder engagement strategy with Members of Congress 
to ensure that strong bipartisan support is sustained when another 
national security supplemental is needed? How long you anticipate that 
this current supplemental funding package will last?

    Answer. The Department of State is committed to engaging Congress 
in an effective manner on our shared priorities. Since October, we have 
ramped up engagement with members and staff in Washington, and Embassy 
Kyiv has hosted an increasing number of congressional visitors. We are 
committed to having a sustainable partnership by actively briefing 
Congress on the strategic importance and effectiveness of continued 
support. We anticipate the current supplemental funding package will 
last approximately six to 12 months, depending on the pace of 
developments and reforms.

    Question. Ukraine: How does the Black Sea security strategy factor 
into supporting Ukraine's economic recovery, specifically in ensuring 
that the Black Sea is open for trade and transportation which is 
critical for Ukraine's recovery?

    Answer. A Black Sea region that is secure, prosperous, 
interconnected, and free from threats of military aggression, economic 
coercion, and malign influence will pave the way for Ukraine's economic 
recovery and sustainment. In particular, freedom of movement on the 
Black Sea will ensure trade opportunities and advance Ukraine's broader 
economy. As part of the Black Sea strategy, we are working to 
strengthen regional security cooperation in support of this goal.

    Question. Ukraine: What is the Department of State's strategy for 
executing funds from the national security supplemental?

    Answer. The National Security Supplemental enables continued 
American leadership to address Russia's brutal war of aggression 
against Ukraine. Our team is targeting supplemental funding where most 
needed. We outlined strategic priorities in the spend plans submitted 
pursuant to the Ukraine Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024, 
and the strategies required by section 7046(d)(1) of the Department of 
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
2024 (Division F, Public Law 118-47) and section 504 of the fiscal year 
2024 USSAA are being finalized.

    Question. ICPD+30: This year marks the 30th anniversary of the 
landmark International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) 
that transformed the international community's focus away from concerns 
about rapid population growth toward instead enhancing the rights and 
dignity of individuals. For the first time, governments--including the 
U.S.--acknowledged that sexual and reproductive health and rights are 
essential for sustainable development and women and girls' empowerment. 
How does this budget support the State Department's efforts to ensure 
that we prevent backsliding and continue work toward making the promise 
of ICPD a reality, including by investing in local organizations 
committed to expanding access to sexual and reproductive health 
services and defending human rights?

    Answer. The President's fiscal year 2025 budget request includes 
$44,500,000 under IO&P for the U.N. Population Fund in recognition of 
its critical role in ensuring access to reproductive health and 
services globally, including lifesaving interventions in humanitarian 
responses. The United States reaffirmed its commitment to the 1994 ICPD 
Programme of Action through a year-long commemoration of its 30th 
anniversary year. The ICPD remains foundational to achieving our 
multilateral goals on sexual, reproductive, and maternal health, and to 
advancing sustainable development.

    Question. Global gag rule: For 40 years, the global gag rule has 
resulted in the disruption of U.S. global health programs. According to 
a GAO report release in 2022, the harm of the global gag rule continued 
to be felt even after the Biden-Harris administration rescinded the 
policy in an early executive action, as organizations struggle to 
rebuild lost partnerships, networks and programs and government and 
non-governmental organization stakeholders continue to experience 
confusion about what is permissible and cautious driven by the threat 
of it coming back under a future administration. This is why I lead the 
Global Health, Empowerment and Rights Act to permanently end the global 
gag rule. Can you describe for us what the State Department is doing to 
ensure that all partners and stakeholders understand that the global 
gag rule is not currently in effect? How are you working to proactively 
rebuild partnerships and communities harmed by the global gag rule?

    Answer. The Department of State continues to coordinate closely 
with USAID to ensure full implementation of the Presidential Memorandum 
on Protecting Women at Home and Abroad. Our collaboration to 
demonstrate the Administration's commitment to sexual and reproductive 
health and rights, including policy clarification related to the 
rescission of the expanded Mexico City Policy, extends to our 
partnerships with various international organizations and U.S. Missions 
around the world.

    Question. Afghan SIVs: I have called on the State Department under 
three administrations to increase the processing of Afghan Special 
Immigrant Visas. We provide these visas because Afghans who served 
alongside U.S. troops and diplomats are at risk of Taliban reprisal, so 
it is unconscionable that we would leave them in harm's way longer than 
absolutely necessary. So, I am pleased that the State Department is now 
processing SIV applications at a historic rate. The State Department 
has done its part, now Congress must too and provide the visas you need 
to get our allies to the U.S. How many visas are currently being issued 
per month? Is this rate increasing? How many visas do you anticipate 
will be issued in fiscal year 2024? What is your projection for fiscal 
year 2025? What steps are you taking to further improve the processing 
time?

    Answer. The Department has issued 17,000 Afghan Special Immigrant 
Visas (SIVs) to principal applicants and family members through March 
31. As of April 1, there were 19,000 SIV numbers remaining for 
principals, and we estimate the numbers allocated by Congress will be 
exhausted in 19 months. We continue to prioritize visa appointments and 
are using machine learning and data analytics to review Chief of 
Mission (COM) applications, enhancing efficiencies and security. We are 
on pace to complete COM processing for 35 percent more cases in fiscal 
year 2024 vs. fiscal year 2023.

                                 ______
                                 

             Responses of Mr. Antony Blinken to Questions 
                  Submitted by Senator James E. Risch

    Question. Africa: The Sahel: Over the past several months, the 
geopolitical landscape in the Sahel region has become increasingly 
complex. Several countries are now under military rule, and there is a 
heightened Russian presence, all of which complicate diplomatic, 
assistance, and counterterrorism efforts. In light of these 
developments, it is crucial to understand the Department's strategy for 
navigating these challenges. Will the Department provide the Committee 
with an updated strategy for the Sahel that responds to the current 
context?

    Answer. There is a fluid situation in the Sahel. The Department 
continues to review the 2022 Sahel Strategy, but our principles have 
not changed. We remain focused on working with our African partners to 
address challenges and support democracy and good governance, which is 
the best foundation for development, social cohesion, prosperity, 
security, and stability across the Sahel and the African continent.

    Question. Africa: The Sahel: What changes are needed to the Trans-
Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership to adapt to the current 
counterterrorism and U.S. bilateral country challenges in many parts of 
the Sahel?

    Answer. The evolving landscape in the Sahel warrants reexamining 
the scope and purpose of the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership 
(TSCTP). Developments warranting a review include the emergence of 
military regimes in several TSCTP partners, the malign role played by 
global competitors, the threat posed to littoral West Africa by Sahel-
based terrorists, and the need to ensure complementarity with other 
initiatives in the region like the Strategy to Prevent Conflict and 
Promote Stability. We welcome discussion with Congress on the way 
forward.

    Question. Africa: The Sahel: How are you ensuring that our 
diplomatic missions in the Sahel are adequately staffed to address the 
numerous challenges in countries facing serious security threats and 
military governments, many of which are increasingly aligned with 
Russia?

    Answer. Staffing in the Bureau of African Affairs has historically 
lagged other bureaus. Insufficient local infrastructure, inadequate 
schools, health care challenges, and the remote nature of many postings 
in Africa are inherent barriers to full staffing. The Department has 
monetary and non-monetary incentives to encourage service in the Sahel, 
including through the Special Incentive Post program. The Department 
also eliminated some lower priority positions in the summer 2025 
assignment cycle to focus limited staff resources on high priority 
posts, such as those in the Sahel.

    Question. Africa: Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC): My staff 
have repeatedly inquired about the Department's role in the discussions 
and decisionmaking concerning sanctions relief for corrupt Israeli 
billionaire Dan Gertler. However, your Department consistently 
redirects us to the NSC on questions concerning the Department's 
involvement in this matter. Do you believe it is your responsibility 
and that of your staff to be responsive to the Committee on important 
issues involving your Department?

    Answer. Yes, I believe it is our responsibility and that of my 
staff to be responsive to the Committee on important issues involving 
the Department.

    Question. Africa: Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC): Has the 
State Department been involved in discussions about easing sanctions 
for Gertler? If so, detail their role. If not, explain the Department's 
absence in this crucial policy area.

    Answer. The State Department has been closely involved in 
discussions about potential and bounded sanctions relief for Mr. 
Gertler, in exchange for his complete and permanent exit from corrupt 
involvements in the DRC. We would seek that to ensure any relief not 
only prioritizes long-term U.S. interests, but also advances local 
protections for civil society and the press. This is consistent with 
our partnership with the DRC government and our commitment to the 
Congolese people.

    Question. Africa: Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC): Has the 
Department engaged in direct talks with the Government of the DRC 
(GDRC) or Mr. Gertler about sanctions relief? If so, specify when. If 
not, explain the Department's lack of involvement.

    Answer. We are working to support the Government of the DRC as it 
endeavors to remove corrupt actors from its mining sector. As part of 
these efforts, we have indicated that we are open to exploring limited 
sanctions relief as a conduit to the complete removal of Mr. Gertler 
and his personal, family, and business operations from the DRC. Our 
discussions with the GDRC began in the Fall of 2022, and as of May 21, 
2024, we have not engaged directly with Mr. Gertler. My Department 
looks forward to staying engaged with you and your staff on this 
subject.

    Question. Africa: Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC): Is 
Embassy Kinshasa involved in any discussions regarding sanctions relief 
for Dan Gertler? If so, describe their role. If not, does this mean 
they are excluded from a significant aspect of our relations with the 
GDRC?

    Answer. Embassy Kinshasa is closely involved in all internal 
discussions regarding sanctions relief for Mr. Gertler.

    Question. Africa: Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC): Is it 
Department policy to not participate in vital sanctions relief 
discussions regarding corrupt businessmen under consideration for 
relief in a country and sector of strategic importance to the United 
States and its bilateral foreign policy?

    Answer. The Department of State is closely involved in vital 
sanctions relief discussions.

    Question. Africa: Liberia: Liberia and the United States have 
shared a ``special relationship'' since Liberia's founding in 1847. 
This enduring friendship has weathered numerous challenges. Despite 
this, Liberia continues to face significant challenges in development, 
democratic governance, and combating rampant corruption, including 
under newly elected President Joseph Boakai. How has the United States 
recalibrated its `special relationship' with Liberia since President 
Boakai's election to optimize U.S. influence over crucial reforms while 
avoiding excessive reliance on U.S. foreign assistance and support?

    Answer. Since President Boakai's election, we've recalibrated our 
``special relationship'' by focusing on partnerships emphasizing self-
reliance. We support key reforms through targeted assistance and 
capacity-building, while urging Liberia to take ownership of its 
development. This includes engaging new governance heads and offering 
technical assistance for tax expansion, budget transparency, and 
decentralization. We are also aligning USAID's strategy with Liberia's 
National Development Plan to ensure coordinated priorities over the 
next 5 years.

    Question. Africa: Liberia: What role should the Department and 
Embassy Monrovia play in supporting U.S.-linked companies in Liberia's 
mining sector through commercial diplomacy?

    Answer. We support U.S.-linked companies by meeting with them to 
understand challenges with the economic policies of the host government 
and engaging with Government of Liberia stakeholders to encourage 
policies to improve investment climate. Our efforts include advocacy on 
behalf of U.S.-linked companies such as Arcelor Mittal (AML) and High-
Power Exploration (HPX). Our efforts advance U.S. interests in coastal 
West Africa and the mining sector, support President Boakai's 
anticorruption priorities, and facilitate long-term economic stability 
in Liberia.

    Question. Africa: South Sudan: Do you believe that in the next 6 
months South Sudan can meet the minimal standards for democratic 
elections?

    Answer. Consistent with U.N. Secretary General Guterres' April 
assessment, I believe President Salva Kiir, First Vice President Riek 
Machar, and other South Sudanese political leaders have collectively 
failed to meet the conditions for genuine and peaceful elections in 
South Sudan. They should urgently address deficiencies, including by 
protecting civic space, deploying politically neutral security forces, 
strengthening electoral institutions, and holding leadership dialogue 
to resolve outstanding election decisions.

    Question. Africa: South Sudan: Should the United States support 
South Sudan's currently planned general elections?

    Answer. Transitional government leaders should act with urgency to 
create conditions for a genuine and peaceful electoral process, 
including by protecting civic space, standing up politically neutral 
security forces, strengthening electoral institutions, and holding 
dialogue among leaders to resolve outstanding election decisions. U.S. 
and U.N. support should focus on promoting conditions for a genuine and 
peaceful electoral process.

    Question. Africa: South Sudan: At what point should the United 
States consider no longer recognizing the legitimacy of the current 
leaders of the Revitalized Transitional Government of National Unity 
(RTGoNU) of South Sudan, particularly President Salva Kiir and Vice 
President Riek Machar?

    Answer. The United States recognized the then-newly independent 
South Sudan in 2011 and acknowledges the Revitalised Transitional 
Government of South Sudan, under the leadership of President Salva Kiir 
and First Vice President Riek Machar. The country's political 
transition is set to expire in February 2025, following elections. The 
best path to securing peace in South Sudan is through genuine and 
peaceful elections. The goal of our policy is for the United States to 
be able to acknowledge South Sudan's first democratically elected 
leader.

    Question. Central African Republic: What should be the U.S. 
strategy to counter Russian mercenaries in the Central African 
Republic?

    Answer. The U.S. strategy for countering Russian influence in the 
Central African Republic (CAR) seeks to address the root causes of 
insecurity that predatory Russian actors have exploited to undercut 
CAR's sovereignty. Our strategy, involving close coordination with 
partners, focuses on strengthening democracy and governance, 
encouraging a sustainable peace and respect for human rights, and 
countering disinformation. More flexible funding (i.e., expanding 
Countering Russia Influence Funds for Africa) will help in executing 
our strategy.

    Question. Sudan: Aside from the sanctions already issued by the 
administration, what other sanctions are you considering against 
Sudan's General Hemetti and the Rapid Support Forces?

    Answer. While we will not preview specific actions, we will 
continue to consider sanctions tools under our Sudan sanctions 
authority (Executive Order 14098), Global Magnitsky, and other tools: 
to disrupt the ability of the RSF and SAF to prolong this war; impose 
costs on those connected to human rights abuses; and target those who 
would undermine efforts to achieve an end to the conflict. We have used 
the threat of sanctions and will consider further measures against the 
RSF and its leadership, including nominating them for designation at 
the United Nations, as appropriate.

    Question. Africa: Sudan: Please provide your understanding of the 
scope and scale of assistance provided by the United Arab Emirates and 
Iran to the belligerent parties in the Sudan conflict.

    Answer. We are aware of documentation by open-source media outlets, 
research organizations, and the U.N. Darfur Panel of Experts on the 
provision or sale of arms or other support by countries, including the 
UAE and Iran, to the belligerents in Sudan. We remain greatly concerned 
about any external involvement, which will only exacerbate and prolong 
the conflict, and risks further spreading regional instability. The 
Department would be happy to provide additional information in a 
classified setting.

    Question. Africa: Sudan: How is the Department monitoring and 
updating you regarding the atrocities occurring daily in Sudan?

    Answer. My team, including Special Envoy Perriello; Assistant 
Secretary Phee and others in the Africa Bureau, including the Office of 
Sudan Affairs in Addis Ababa; the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, 
and Labor; and the Office for Global Criminal Justice, are regularly 
briefing me. This has included frequent updates on Department efforts 
to facilitate cease-fire talks, and on reports of abuses and 
atrocities.

    Question. Africa: Sudan: What more can you do as the Secretary of 
State to increase attention to the conflict in Sudan?

    Answer. My team and I are committed to raising attention and 
mobilizing coordinated international action to press for a cease-fire, 
unhindered humanitarian access, and a democratic transition in Sudan. I 
have consistently raised Sudan with key partners, regional leaders, and 
multilateral actors to ensure a coordinated international approach. I 
have also urged my team to increase media engagements and to speak 
directly to Sudanese civilians and amplify their voices.

    Question. Africa: Sudan: Do you envision the Special Envoy for 
Sudan position to be limited to the conflict in Sudan or as one that 
also includes the countries recovery if and when a lasting peace is 
reached?

    Answer. Special Envoy Perriello has a broad mandate, which would 
not conclude upon agreement on a cease-fire. This includes meeting the 
immediate and urgent humanitarian needs of the Sudanese people; 
harmonizing international efforts to end the conflict; preventing 
continued atrocities and promoting accountability; and supporting 
development of an inclusive pro-democracy civilian front.

    Question. Africa: Sudan: Do you intend to submit a nominee to the 
Senate to be Special Envoy for Sudan? If so, when? If not, why not?

    Answer. The President appointed Tom Perriello as the Special Envoy 
for Sudan consistent with section 1(j)(3) of the State Department Basic 
Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651a(j)(3)), which requires 
submission of a notification to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
and the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The appointment may be 
extended consistent with section 1(j)(4) of the State Department Basic 
Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651a(j)(4)). We have submitted a 
notification to extend his temporary assignment, consistent with 
section 1(j)(4).

    Question. Gabon: My staff recently received a classified briefing 
on U.S. efforts to support Gabon's transition to democratic civilian 
rule. The U.S. faces challenges in responding to coups in West and 
Central Africa, particularly regarding the Gabonese junta's commitments 
to the transition and reducing reliance on China. Additionally, there 
is a concern about the slow decisionmaking and action by the State 
Department and interagency, especially when resources and personnel are 
involved. Flexibility and responsiveness are crucial, especially for 
coup responses. How can you ensure the State Department and your role 
within the interagency lead to faster and more responsive policy 
decisions and actions regarding the transition in Gabon?

    Answer. The United States reaffirms our commitment to support Gabon 
in conducting a timely, durable transition to a democratically elected 
civilian government and advancing shared security interests in the Gulf 
of Guinea. We are taking thoughtful steps to resume our assistance 
following concrete actions by the transitional government toward 
establishing democratic rule. I am also working within the Department 
to enhance our resourcing and enable increased responsiveness, 
utilizing data and creativity to address complex and evolving 
challenges.

    Question. Western Hemisphere: Illegal Immigration: Please describe 
the extent to which the governments of Mexico and the countries of 
northern Central America have strengthened their respective asylum 
systems and built institutional responses for forced internal 
displacement in their respective countries.

    Answer. Partner governments continue to build and sustain their 
migration management capacities, including by expanding their asylum 
systems and improving the integration of asylum seekers, refugees, and 
vulnerable migrants. Mexico remains an essential partner in providing 
access to international protection, including increasing its asylum 
processing capacity by 400 percent between 2018 and 2023, and 
integrating over 35,000 refugees into its labor market since 2016 
through a UNHCR program. U.S. humanitarian assistance significantly 
supports these efforts.

    Question. Western Hemisphere: Illegal Immigration: Please describe 
the extent to which the governments of Mexico and the countries of 
northern Central America have expanded domestic pathways for legal and 
human migration within their respective countries.

    Answer. The Mexican government allows migrant families to apply for 
legal status in Mexico if they have a Mexican spouse or child. In 
southern Mexico, border workers' cards enable people from Belize and 
Guatemala to temporarily work in Mexico, provided they have existing 
job offers. U.S. humanitarian partner, the U.N. Refugee Agency (UNHCR), 
is supporting the Mexican government's pilot program for Haitian 
migrants' integration into local labor markets. In Belize, the Amnesty 
Program offers permanent residency to qualified applicants, receiving 
over 13,000 applications in 2023.

    Question. Western Hemisphere: Illegal Immigration: The United 
States has extradition treaties with Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and 
El Salvador. These treaties cover crimes that are often committed in 
relation to human trafficking activities sustaining the illegal 
migration crisis at our southwest border. Please provide an update on 
the number of human smugglers and traffickers extradited to the United 
States under these existing extradition treaties.

    Answer. Extraditions are one tool in the U.S. Government toolkit to 
combat and prevent migrant smuggling and human trafficking. For 
example, in the March 2023, June 2023, and September 2023 extraditions 
of seven human smugglers to the United States--four from Guatemala, one 
from Honduras, and two from Mexico--extensive coordination and 
cooperation efforts between U.S. and Guatemalan, Honduran, and Mexican 
law enforcement authorities culminated in these criminals' successful 
apprehension and extraditions.

    Question. Western Hemisphere: Illegal Immigration: Please describe 
how the proposed foreign assistance budget would incentivize the 
governments of Mexico and the countries of northern Central America to 
increase their own domestic resources to improve the security of their 
respective international borders and reduce illegal immigration.

    Answer. We continue to engage with Mexico and the countries of 
northern Central America on a range of migration issues such as 
enforcement coordination, strengthening access to lawful pathways, and 
addressing root causes. The assistance we provide supports these 
partners in the region to build and sustain their migration management 
capacities, including by expanding their asylum systems and improving 
their abilities to integrate asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants 
into their countries.

    Question. The proposed budget includes a request of $4.5 million 
for public diplomacy campaigns to reduce illegal migration to the 
United States. Please elaborate on the strategies and platforms the 
administration will use to effectively reach and engage target 
audiences under this proposal. Please describe how these efforts will 
improve upon the evidently failed campaigns of the last 3 years.

    Answer. To reduce irregular migration and encourage the use of 
lawful pathways, the Department will use a cost-effective, post-
centered approach to regularize messaging and programming to reach 
target audiences. Through broadcast paid advertisement, tailored 
messaging, and message testing, the Department will educate target 
audiences on deterrent factors; emphasize the economic and social costs 
of irregular migration; and promote ties to home communities, including 
by showcasing U.S. efforts to address root causes that drive irregular 
migration.

    Question. Western Hemisphere: Illegal Immigration: Pillar I of the 
July 2021 strategy for addressing root causes of migration in Central 
America identifies economic insecurity and inequality in the region as 
a push factor for illegal migration. Please describe how the budget 
request will promote partnership with the private sector in Guatemala 
to support the creation of broad-based private sector jobs in 
Guatemala.

    Answer. Guatemala plays a key role in addressing the root causes of 
migration. Under Central America Forward, the U.S. Government has 
helped generate over $5.2 billion in private sector commitments. In 
March, the Department of State held the inaugural High-Level Economic 
Dialogue with the government of Guatemala, including extensive 
participation from the private sector, to identify opportunities to 
spur inclusive economic growth. The budget request allows the 
Department to continue engaging the private sector to generate 
sustainable economic development.

    Question. Western Hemisphere: Illegal Immigration: Please describe 
steps the State Department may be taking to engage the government of 
President Arevalo in Guatemala to prioritize reforms and other actions 
to strengthen the enabling environment for businesses to create jobs in 
the formal sector.

    Answer. Under Central America Forward, the U.S. Government works in 
partnership with the Government of Guatemala and the private sector to 
strengthen the environment for business to invest and create formal 
jobs. In Guatemala, the Department of State held the High-Level 
Economic Dialogue (HLED), which was a significant step to mobilize 
inclusive economic growth and improve the investment climate. The HLED 
included discussions with the private sector, engagement on anti-
corruption, and dialogue with Indigenous leaders. We are working to 
further advance these efforts.

    Question. Please describe what impact U.S. assistance to the 
Haitian National Police since 2021 has had on the percentage decrease 
in homicides, kidnappings, and robberies in Port-au-Prince and the 
percentage increase of individuals that see the HNP as a service 
provider in lieu of gangs.

    Answer. Since the assassination of President Moise in 2021, INL 
significantly increased funding to support the Haitian National Police 
(HNP) in building an anti-gang capacity, working with communities to 
reduce violence, and strengthening HNP size and capacity. The HNP 
reported this assistance was critical to fighting back against a surge 
in gang attacks, including to prevent the airport from falling into 
gang control. USAID's citizen security program has perception polling 
underway. Additionally, INL`s subject matter experts are working with 
the HNP on best practices for data collection.

    Question. Please provide quantitative data measuring the following 
HNP-related metrics since 2021: The total number of arrested gang 
members and successful anti-gang operations conducted by the HNP, the 
establishment of a consistent HNP recruitment schedule to increase the 
force, a transparent budget that ensures proper resourcing of HNP 
units, and on corrections the percentage reductions in both pre-trial 
detainees and overcrowding across Haiti's corrections system.

    Answer. From 2004 to May 2024, INL supported 12,994 HNP school 
graduates. Officers in the counter-gang unit has doubled to 135 since 
2021. In April 2024, the 33rd promotion was the first class to graduate 
under the curriculum that was reduced from seven to 4 months. For 2023-
24, the Government of Haiti budgeted roughly $151 million for HNP 
operations and $45 million for HNP investment. INL remains focused on 
establishing secure and humane correctional facilities and supporting 
efforts started by the previous Minister of Justice to reduce prison 
overcrowding.

    Question. The Administration has pursued an Arab Gas Pipeline, 
providing Egyptian gas through Syria and into Lebanon as a proposal to 
alleviate Lebanon's energy shortage. The gas pipeline would ostensibly 
provide the Assad regime with an 8 percent transit fee or an in-kind 
payment in violation of the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 
2019. In addition, maintenance and refurbishment of the pipeline would 
involve sanctioned Russian entities, notably Gazprom, in violation of 
Russia sanctions. In the past, you have committed to brief me on Caesar 
and Russia sanctions compliance before issuing any comfort letter, 
letter of assurance, or waiver related to the Arab Gas Pipeline. Do you 
maintain your commitment to brief me on Caesar and Russia sanctions 
compliance before issuing any comfort letter, letter of assurance, or 
waiver related to the Arab Gas Pipeline?

    Answer. Yes, my team and I remain committed to providing briefings 
to you and your staff . The Departments of the Treasury and State have 
made no final determinations to date. I understand that the parties and 
the World Bank are still discussing the project details. The 
Departments of the Treasury and State need to receive the details of 
the final financing terms and final contracts to be able to assess 
relevant sanctions implications. As I have made clear, we have not 
lifted or waived Syria-related sanctions.

    Question. Iran: The Administration has submitted successive waivers 
to Iran sanctions statutes to facilitate the unfreezing of Iranian 
assets frozen in jurisdictions abroad. I have serious concerns that 
unfreezing assets allows the regime to allocate additional resources to 
its defense sector and terrorist proxies. I have additional concerns 
that adequate safeguards, assurances, and mechanisms are in place to 
prevent unauthorized diversions? Will you commit to consulting me 
before issuing a waiver to unfreeze Iranian assets in foreign 
jurisdictions?

    Answer. We maintain a rigorous economic sanctions regime against 
Iran. It is longstanding U.S. policy across administrations that 
restricted Iranian funds, wherever they are located, can only be used 
for humanitarian or other non-sanctioned purposes, consistent with U.S. 
law. None of these restricted funds have been released to the 
Government of Iran. The humanitarian channels set up impose strict due 
diligence requirements and are only available for use by humanitarian 
goods exporters who meet certain qualifications. We can provide 
additional details in a classified setting.

    Question. Over the last 11 months, I have asked the State 
Department for information relating to Special Envoy for Iran Robert 
Malley and the conditions surrounding his security clearance 
revocation. State has repeatedly refused my formal request for 
information, citing the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act of 1974, as 
amended, provides an exception for `` . . . either House of Congress, 
or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, any committee or 
subcommittee thereof, any joint committee of Congress or subcommittee 
of any joint committee.'' Do you agree or disagree that the nature of 
Mr. Malley's infractions are excluded from Congress under the Privacy 
Act? Please provided a detailed answer.

    Answer. The Department has provided information, including certain 
Privacy Act protected information, regarding Mr. Malley to relevant 
Congressional Committees. Consistent with longstanding executive branch 
and Department of State policies and practices, the Department does not 
comment on individual personnel security matters. However, the 
Department will continue to work in good faith to be as transparent as 
possible with Congress.

    Question. Given your longstanding personal relationship with Mr. 
Malley, have you been advised to recuse yourself from his investigation 
or other personnel matters?

    Answer. Consistent with longstanding executive branch and 
Department of State policies and practices, the Department does not 
comment on individual personnel security matters.

    Question. I am concerned that Mr. Malley's lapse in judgment may 
have negatively impacted U.S.-Iran policy or improperly influenced 
proximity talks with the regime. Can you confirm that the Bureau of 
Diplomatic Security (DS) suspended Mr. Malley's clearance because he 
improperly transferred classified U.S. Government information to a 
personal email account and/or device that is not authorized to store 
such information?

    Answer. Consistent with longstanding executive branch and 
Department of State policies and practices, the Department does not 
comment on individual personnel security matters.

    Question. How many classified documents did Mr. Malley improperly 
transfer, and what were the contents? What was the highest 
classification of the transferred documents?

    Answer. Consistent with longstanding executive branch and 
Department of State policies and practices, the Department does not 
comment on individual personnel security matters.

    Question. Did Mr. Malley send or attempt to send these documents to 
anyone who lacked the proper clearance? Were any of these individuals 
affiliated with the Iranian government or the Iran Experts Initiative?

    Answer. Consistent with longstanding executive branch and 
Department of State policies and practices, the Department does not 
comment on individual personnel security matters.

    Question. When and how did DS become aware that classified 
information was compromised? When did DS notify Department leadership 
and when did Department leadership inform the White House that Mr. 
Malley was suspected for mishandling classified information?

    Answer. Consistent with longstanding executive branch and 
Department of State policies and practices, the Department does not 
comment on individual personnel security matters.

    Question. When did DS or the FBI first contact Mr. Malley about his 
potential misuse of classified information? Was he truthful and 
cooperative with law enforcement?

    Answer. Consistent with longstanding executive branch and 
Department of State policies and practices, the Department does not 
comment on individual personnel security matters.

    Question. Had Mr. Malley previously received any warnings about his 
handling of classified information before the actions that caused the 
Department to suspend his clearance?

    Answer. Consistent with longstanding executive branch and 
Department of State policies and practices, the Department does not 
comment on individual personnel security matters.

    Question. Middle East/North Africa: Robert Malley: Can you confirm 
that a malign cyber actor gained access to Mr. Malley's personal email 
and/or phone?

    Answer. Consistent with longstanding executive branch and 
Department of State policies and practices, the Department does not 
comment on individual personnel security matters.

    Question. Is the alleged cyber actor affiliated with the IRGC, 
Iranian military, or Iranian intelligence services?

    Answer. Consistent with longstanding executive branch and 
Department of State policies and practices, the Department does not 
comment on individual personnel security matters.

    Question. When and how did the cyber actor compromise Mr. Malley's 
account?

    Answer. Consistent with longstanding executive branch and 
Department of State policies and practices, the Department does not 
comment on individual personnel security matters.

    Question. Did the compromise of Mr. Malley's device enable 
subsequent compromise of other senior officials at the State 
Department, National Security Council, or other agencies? How did the 
malign actor utilize the information obtained from Mr. Malley?

    Answer. Consistent with longstanding executive branch and 
Department of State policies and practices, the Department does not 
comment on individual personnel security matters. For questions 
regarding the activities of another agency, we refer you to that 
agency.

    Question. Has the FBI or DOJ recommended any criminal charges 
against Mr. Malley? Is the FBI investigation still ongoing or has it 
been completed? What role did the Department play in supporting this 
investigation?

    Answer. I would refer you to the Department of Justice regarding 
the existence or non-existence of any criminal investigations by DOJ or 
the FBI.

    Question. Did you or any other senior administration officials at 
State, the White House, DOJ, or any other agency play any role in 
advocating for or against any criminal charges?

    Answer. I would refer you to the Department of Justice regarding 
the existence or non-existence of any criminal investigations by DOJ or 
the FBI.

    Question. Has the Department or any other Federal entity conducted 
an impact assessment of the damage to national security caused by Mr. 
Malley's mishandling of classified information?

    Answer. Consistent with longstanding executive branch and 
Department of State policies and practices, the Department does not 
comment on individual personnel security matters. For questions 
regarding the activities of another agency, we refer you to that 
agency.

    Question. Robert Malley: What has been the impact on the 
administration's Iran policy? Did it reveal sensitive details about 
these negotiations or about other U.S. diplomatic engagement with Iran?

    Answer. We remain happy to brief on our overall Iran policy and 
approach to confronting Iran's full range of destabilizing activities, 
which remains unchanged.
    With respect to Robert Malley, consistent with longstanding 
executive branch and Department of State policies and practices, the 
Department does not comment on individual personnel security matters.

    Question. Robert Malley: Did Mr. Malley's alleged infractions 
affect the conduct of Iran policy, to include nuclear discussions in 
Vienna or the public perception of those negotiations, as well as 
proximity talks in Oman that led to the release of Americans in 
exchange for loose nuclear and regional terrorism assurances?

    Answer. We remain happy to brief on our overall Iran policy and 
approach to confronting Iran's full range of destabilizing activities, 
which remains unchanged.
    With respect to Robert Malley, consistent with longstanding 
executive branch and Department of State policies and practices, the 
Department does not comment on individual personnel security matters.

    Question. Have you or any other senior State Department official 
ever sought to reinstate Mr. Malley's security clearance or access to 
State Department networks or systems? If so, when, and what was the 
justification?

    Answer. Consistent with longstanding executive branch and 
Department of State policies and practices, the Department does not 
comment on individual personnel security matters.

    Question. Middle East/North Africa: Robert Malley: If you cannot 
answer questions 35 through 50 in this setting, will you commit to 
provide a fulsome briefing in an appropriate setting?

    Answer. We remain happy to brief on our overall Iran policy and 
approach to confronting Iran's full range of destabilizing activities, 
which remains unchanged. With respect to Robert Malley, consistent with 
longstanding executive branch and Department of State policies and 
practices, the Department does not comment on individual personnel 
security matters, and certain information being requested of the 
Department regarding Rob Malley is not under the Department's 
jurisdiction. Nevertheless, after briefing you and Chair Cardin on 
January 31, 2024, the Department then delivered to your staff a 
classified letter with certain additional details, including certain 
Privacy Act protected information.

    Question. State Department Management and Oversight: Bix Aliu: As 
you know, this committee recently considered the nomination of Bix Aliu 
as Ambassador to Montenegro. At his hearing, I raised serious concerns 
about Mr. Aliu's poor leadership and the toxic workplace culture he 
fostered, concerns that the Majority now also seems to share given that 
Mr. Aliu's nomination did not advance. Remarkably, I now understand 
that Mr. Aliu has been appointed to chair the upcoming FS02-01 
promotion panels for foreign service officers, putting him a position 
to potentially retaliate against whistleblowers. Secretary Blinken has 
claimed that one of his key priorities is addressing toxic leadership 
and improving leadership accountability at the Department. How is 
appointing an individual who has engaged in exactly this type of 
behavior consistent with that priority?

    Answer. The Department is committed to maintaining a workplace free 
from harassment and retaliation. We take allegations of such behavior 
seriously and have established procedures for pursuing accountability, 
including new anti-bullying guidance. Employees selected to serve on 
promotion panels are vetted and monitored for adherence to policies and 
procedures. Foreign Service employees may submit a request for recusal 
of a board member they believe will not apply the precepts without 
bias. I have confidence in promotion board members to adhere to the 
highest standards.

    Question. State Department Management and Oversight: Bix Aliu: What 
message does it send to your workforce, particularly to those officers 
who may now be subject to illegal retaliation from Mr. Aliu?

    Answer. The Department is committed to protecting all personnel 
against retaliation and holding employees found to have engaged in 
retaliation accountable, including through disciplinary action up to 
and including separation where appropriate. Department employees and 
their managers have access to information on how to report allegations 
of retaliation. All Foreign Service employees also have the right to 
submit a request for recusal of a board member who they do not believe 
will be able to apply the precepts fairly and without bias in assessing 
their performance.

    Question. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: During the most recent 
promotion cycle, the Department used its new ``diversity, equity, 
inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA),'' promotion precept for the first 
time. Unlike the other promotion precepts, this one is not actually 
tied to how good you are at your job; it's linked to the degree to 
which you are a missionary for progressive social causes. As bad as 
that is, what's even worse is that we understand the Department is 
applying this precept retroactively. The Department's new DEIA precept 
is not just a recap of principles previously listed under other 
precepts. It establishes new goals on how employees should understand 
and promote these concepts. Can you confirm that the Department is 
retroactively evaluating candidates for promotion based on a new, 
ideological test?

    Answer. Employees are not being retroactively graded. Fostering 
diversity and inclusion within the workplace was a requirement in the 
2018-2022 core precepts, which were negotiated with the Foreign Service 
exclusive representative, the American Foreign Service Association. A 
distinct DEIA core precept emphasizing both internally focused DEIA and 
externally focused equity in foreign policy and foreign assistance 
started with the 2022-2023 Foreign Service rating cycle. All employees 
are informed of the core precepts at the start of each rating cycle.

    Question. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: How is it fair to 
retroactively grade employees based on criteria they were not aware of 
at the time?

    Answer. Employees are not being retroactively graded. Fostering 
diversity and inclusion within the workplace was a requirement in the 
2018-2022 core precepts, negotiated with the Foreign Service exclusive 
representative, the American Foreign Service Association. A distinct 
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) core precept 
emphasizing both internally focused DEIA and externally focused equity 
in foreign policy and foreign assistance started with the 2022-2023 
Foreign Service rating cycle. All employees are informed of the core 
precepts at the start of each rating cycle.

                                 ______
                                 

             Responses of Mr. Antony Blinken to Questions 
                    Submitted by Senator Marco Rubio

    Question. Given the Department of State's recent decision to remove 
Cuba from the list of countries `not fully cooperating' with U.S. 
counterterrorism efforts, despite Cuba's designation as a State Sponsor 
of Terrorism for providing safe harbor to terrorists, this action seems 
to present a troubling double standard. How do you reconcile this 
contradiction, and what message does it send to our allies, partners 
and to those who have suffered from terrorism?

    Answer. The Department makes NFCC determinations annually and 
determined the circumstances for Cuba's certification as a ``not fully 
cooperating country'' (NFCC) changed from 2022 to 2023. Certification 
as ``not cooperating fully'' with U.S. counterterrorism efforts is made 
pursuant to a separate statutory authority and criteria from State 
Sponsor of Terrorism (SST) designations. There have been countries 
certified as NFCC without being designated as SSTs (e.g., Venezuela), 
and countries that have been designated SSTs without being certified as 
NFCCs (e.g., Sudan).

    Question. In light of Cuba's ongoing hostility toward the United 
States, its documented history of espionage activities, and the well-
documented oppression of its own people (most recently seen through the 
brutal crackdown following the March 2024 protests), what specific 
actions has the Cuban regime taken to warrant such a seemingly unearned 
distinction?

    Answer. The Department determined the circumstances for Cuba's 
certification as a ``not fully cooperating country'' (NFCC) changed 
from 2022 to 2023. In August 2022, Colombia's Attorney General 
announced that arrest warrants would be suspended against 17 National 
Liberation Army (ELN) commanders, including those whose extradition 
Colombia had previously requested from Cuba. Moreover, the United 
States and Cuba resumed law enforcement cooperation in 2023, including 
on counterterrorism.

    Question. This move clearly damages U.S. credibility on this 
important issue. How does this align with the United States' commitment 
to the respect of human rights and the rule of law?

    Answer. U.S. policy toward Cuba focuses on support for the Cuban 
people, especially their human rights, fundamental freedoms, and 
political and economic well-being. The protection of human rights and 
fundamental freedoms remains a top U.S. priority in our bilateral 
relationship. The ``not fully cooperating country'' statute involves a 
yearly determination as to whether a country has cooperated fully with 
U.S. counterterrorism efforts during the preceding calendar year.

    Question. In which specific areas is the U.S. Government and the 
Cuban regime currently cooperating in the area of counterterrorism?

    Answer. The United States and Cuba entered into a Memorandum of 
Understanding on Law Enforcement Cooperation in January 2017. The MOU 
established eight technical working groups, including on 
counterterrorism. The associated Law Enforcement Dialogue (LED) met 
from 2015-2018 and resumed activity in January 2023. Counterterrorism 
issues are worked through the Law Enforcement Dialogue, which is an 
interagency led initiative.

    Question. Which agency is the lead for this counterterrorism 
cooperation?

    Answer. The Federal Bureau of Investigation leads the 
Counterterrorism technical working group.

    Question. Do you believe the Cuban regime is an honest broker and 
has the same definitions of terrorism that the U.S. does?

    Answer. We remain concerned about the Cuban government's published 
list of alleged terrorists in the United States. The Cuban government 
has a well-documented history of threatening and intimidating 
individuals who exercise their freedom of expression. We take seriously 
the misuse or attempted misuse of international law enforcement tools, 
such as INTERPOL, and we continue to increase domestic and 
international awareness of, build opposition to, and take effective 
measures against transnational repression in all its forms.

    Question. What's Cuba's definition of terrorism? What's Cuba's 
definition of human rights? What's Cuba's definition of political 
prisoners?

    Answer. While we will not represent or defend the Cuban 
government's definitions, the advancement of democracy and human rights 
remains at the core of our policy toward Cuba and a consistent topic of 
diplomatic engagement. We continue to call publicly on the Cuban 
government to respect the human rights of Cubans and release all 
unjustly detained political prisoners, including the hundreds of 
protestors from the July 11, 2021, demonstrations. We remain committed 
to promoting accountability for the Cuban government officials involved 
in such violations and abuses.

    Question. Is the U.S. Government providing sensitive information 
regarding terrorism or other intelligence details to the Cuban regime?

    Answer. The Department takes seriously the importance of 
safeguarding law enforcement information and carefully considers what 
information can be shared. Effective legal cooperation on law 
enforcement matters may on occasion include certain information 
sharing, such as information about fugitives or other wanted 
individuals, or real-time communication between the U.S. Coast Guard 
and Cuban Border Guard to detect illegal activities, such as human 
smuggling and drug trafficking.

    Question. Recently, Cuban regime officials held a formal exchange 
with the TSA at Miami International Airport. They reportedly received 
privileged access to sensitive technology and areas of the airport as 
well. I was surprised to learn that our TSA is having such exchanges 
with a formally designated State Sponsor of Terrorism (SST). So now it 
appears there have been three formal exchanges going on with an SST by 
my count, this recent engagement with TSA, a U.S. Coast Guard-aided 
survey of U.S. port security processes, and the yearly law enforcement 
cooperation meeting between Cuba with the State Department. Were you 
aware of this exchange prior to it taking place?

    Answer. Cuba is the only SST-designated country with direct flights 
to the United States. TSA routinely works with its Cuban counterparts 
to promote civil aviation security in both countries. TSA proposed this 
technical exchange, which we supported in the interest of airport 
security and U.S. national security. During the visit, Cuban officials 
did not access sensitive technology or systems.

    Question. How many official exchanges does the Department sponsor 
with Cuba and other SSOTs?

    Answer. The United States will continue to engage the Cuban 
government when those engagements advance U.S. national interests and 
protect U.S. national security and the security of U.S. citizens. This 
includes migration, civil aviation security, law enforcement 
cooperation, and other matters. We remain committed to briefing Members 
of Congress and staff on such discussions. The United States integrates 
advocacy for human rights and human rights protections into all 
interactions with the Cuban government.

    Question. What kind of visas does the Department grant for these 
regime officials?

    Answer. Visa applications are processed in accordance with the 
provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act and an applicant is 
only issued a visa if they are found eligible. Foreign government 
officials traveling to the United States to conduct inherently 
governmental business may be eligible for A-1 or A-2 visas depending 
upon their job title and duration of their visit.

    Question. Why is this administration providing information on how 
the U.S. conducts border and aviation security with a designated 
terrorist entity? How can an SST, like Cuba, use this information to 
harm Americans and other air travelers?

    Answer. Cuba is the only country on the State Sponsor of Terrorism 
list with direct flights weekly to the United States. TSA is required 
by law to assess security measures for any country with direct flights 
to the United States. We will continue to regularly engage with TSA's 
Cuban counterparts to advance U.S. national interests, including 
promoting safe and secure civil aviation airports. The United States 
has conducted airport security assessments in Cuba since 2003, with 
Cuba sending reciprocal visits to the United States.

    Question. As you know, the Chinese Communist Party is intent on 
replacing the U.S. as the preeminent global power to re-write the 
international order based on their communist totalitarian world view. 
They employ a wide array of tools to spread their malign agenda 
unilaterally and through witting partners such as Russia, Iran, and now 
even Hamas (which they recently hosted in Beijing a day after your most 
recent visit). Beijing also does this via unwitting partners through 
predatory lending practices that force sovereign nations like Peru 
(which just lost a key strategic port close to Lima) to submit to their 
will using mechanisms such as the sham Belt and Road Initiative. How 
would you rate your performance, to date, on thwarting Beijing's clear 
agenda of global domination?

    Answer. We recognize the PRC is the only competitor with both the 
intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the 
economic, diplomatic, military, and technological capabilities to do 
so. Because of our work with Congress to invest in the sources of 
American strength, deepen cooperation with allies and partners, and 
compete vigorously, we are dealing with that threat from a position of 
strength and increasingly on our terms and making progress in support 
of U.S. national security goals.

    Question. Yes or No. Do you recognize that Beijing is waging proxy 
wars against the United States and its allies via Russia and Iran?

    Answer. We have been clear that the PRC is pursuing military, 
economic, and geopolitical preeminence in a way that challenges our 
vision for a free, open, secure, and prosperous international order, 
including through its relationships with Russia and Iran. Beijing 
cannot claim to be a neutral actor in Russia's war against Ukraine 
while providing Russia diplomatic support and rebuilding Russia's 
defense industrial base, nor is it doing enough to use its influence to 
pressure Iran and its proxies to cease destabilizing activities in the 
Middle East.

    Question. Yes or No. Do you agree that a failure to enforce Biden's 
March 2022 red line (delivered during a video call with Xi Jinping) 
against Chinese ``material support'' for Russia's war in Europe has 
invited greater aggression in that theater and other theaters?

    Answer. President Biden made clear there would be consequences if 
the PRC supported Russia's war effort in Ukraine. The United States has 
already sanctioned and listed nearly 200 PRC-based entities that have 
provided dual-use material support to Russia's defense industrial base. 
President Biden and I have made clear to the PRC that if it does not 
change course, we and our allies and partners will continue to take 
action.

    Question. Yes or No. Are you advocating for substantial 
consequences upon China for their ``material support'' to Russia? If 
so, what specific consequences?

    Answer. The United States has already sanctioned and listed nearly 
200 PRC entities for providing support to Russia's defense industrial 
base. We continue to make clear to the PRC that the United States will 
continue to take action if this support does not stop. We work closely 
with allies and partners in Europe and around the world to speak out 
against the PRC's support to Russia's war effort and build consensus to 
impose consequences for the PRC's support to Russia's war effort.

    Question. In light of the agreement to remove sanctions on the 
Chinese Ministry of Public Security's Institute of Forensic Science, 
previously involved in the Uyghur crisis, based on the PRC's pledge to 
more fully collaborate on fentanyl issue, what tangible outcomes have 
resulted from this concession?

    Answer. While the U.S. Government believes that the PRC should take 
additional actions to address the flow of precursor chemicals, as a 
result of U.S. diplomatic engagement, the PRC has taken initial steps 
to curb illicit sales of fentanyl precursor chemicals, issued a notice 
to its domestic chemical industry on applicable regulations and 
enforcement actions, scheduled more than 40 substances, including three 
fentanyl precursors, and arrested an individual based on U.S. law 
enforcement information. We continue to press the PRC to take sustained 
actions.

    Question. Beijing appears to be unimpressed with the piecemeal 
sanctions the administration has applied against obscure Chinese 
companies supplying Russia, judging by the skyrocketing Chinese support 
for Russia's war machine since General Secretary Xi's Kremlin visit in 
March 2023. What is your plan, if any, to materially impose costs on 
Beijing for its continuing disregard for Biden's redline?

    Answer. Beijing has taken note of our sanctions; we continue to be 
clear at the highest levels that the United States will continue to 
take action if the PRC does not stop its support to Russia's defense 
industrial base. The United States has already sanctioned and listed 
nearly 200 PRC entities for providing support to Russia's defense 
industrial base, and we will not hesitate to impose additional measures 
as necessary. We also work closely with allies and partners in Europe 
and around the world to build consensus to impose consequences for the 
PRC's support to Russia's war effort.

    Question. The Biden Administration's engagement strategy with China 
has not produced sufficient positive results, particularly with regard 
to the continuing threat to allies and partners such as Taiwan, the 
Philippines, and India, as well as its support for Russia, Iran, and 
their proxies. This administration has spent an inordinate amount of 
time and political capital trying to engage Beijing on a whole host of 
issues--but it's not at all clear what this strategy has gotten us. 
With regard to Taiwan specifically, there's no sign at all that Beijing 
is any less intent on using force to unify Taiwan with the mainland now 
than it was 2 years ago. If anything, it's only gotten more capable and 
more belligerent. Is it your view that this administration's strategy 
of engagement has materially reduced the risk of a Chinese invasion of 
Taiwan in the next few years?

    Answer. The United States is concerned by the pattern of ongoing 
PRC attempts to intimidate and pressure Taiwan. Beijing's actions are 
destabilizing, risk miscalculation, and undermine regional peace and 
stability. Our approach to deterrence is focused on increasing the 
military, political, and economic costs of precipitous action against 
Taiwan. Our diplomacy with the PRC clearly communicates our positions 
and seeks to prevent competition from veering into conflict; it does 
not inhibit our ability to enhance Taiwan's self-defense capabilities.

    Question. Do you think any amount of engagement by this 
administration is likely to convince Xi Jinping to not invade Taiwan, 
or to delay an invasion long enough for us to get our own house in 
order so we can reliably deter or defeat an invasion?

    Answer. An invasion is neither imminent nor inevitable. The purpose 
of our diplomacy with the PRC is to clearly communicate our positions 
and prevent competition from veering into conflict. This diplomacy does 
not inhibit our ability to: enhance Taiwan's self-defense capabilities 
commensurate with the growing PRC threat, highlight Taiwan's importance 
to the global community, and raise international awareness of the 
potential consequences of the PRC's provocative behavior toward Taiwan, 
which is destabilizing and risks miscalculation.

    Question. How do you reconcile your engagement strategy with an 
organization that seeks to be the ``gravediggers'' of capitalism by 
``liberating all of humanity''?

    Answer. We have pursued diplomacy with the PRC with confidence, 
building our sources of strength at home and abroad through our allies 
and regional partners. It is essential that we maintain open channels 
of communication to prevent misperception and miscalculation. U.S. 
allies and partners have welcomed our Indo-Pacific Strategy and our 
clear-eyed approach to the PRC. Allies and partners take reassurance in 
our message that, while we will continue to compete with the PRC, the 
United States will responsibly manage competition so the relationship 
does not veer into conflict.

    Question. How do you reconcile this engagement with the Chinese 
Communist Party that speaks openly about defeating the ``powerful enemy 
adversary'' on the ``far seas''?

    Answer. We are committed to responsibly managing the U.S.-PRC 
competition and ensuring it does not veer into conflict. When we speak 
directly to the PRC, we do so to: clearly communicate our commitment to 
safeguarding our national security, ensure there are no misperceptions 
about our commitment to our allies and partners, and deliver on key 
priorities for the American people, such as curbing the flow of 
fentanyl.

    Question. After October 7, 2023, the world finally woke up to the 
reality that Hamas, and other radical terrorist groups operating in 
Gaza and Judea and Samaria, pose an existential threat to our ally, 
Israel. Considering the United States' historical support for Israel's 
right to defend itself, how does the recent decision to pause military 
aid to Israel during its war on Hamas and other terrorist groups align 
with the U.S.' longstanding policy, and what implications might this 
have for the U.S.' role as a mediator in future conflicts in the 
region?

    Answer. The Administration's commitment to Israel's security is 
unwavering, and the President has made clear we will continue to 
provide the means necessary for Israel to defend itself. To date, we 
have paused only one shipment of munitions to Israel consisting of 
1,818 2,000 lbs. bombs. No other deliveries of weapons, munitions, 
equipment, or other services are paused at this time.

    Question. In light of the ICC's decision to seek an unjust arrest 
warrant for Israeli PM Netanyahu, what specific actions does the Biden 
Administration intend to take in response? What is the expected 
timeline?

    Answer. The Administration's position on this matter is well known. 
As we have long stated, we do not believe the ICC has jurisdiction over 
the situation in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. We will look 
for opportunities to defend U.S. and Israeli interests at the ICC and 
with other states. We will continue to engage with the ICC, as 
appropriate, on this situation and others that implicate U.S. national 
security interests, such as the situations in Ukraine and Darfur.

    Question. Furthermore, given that neither the United States nor 
Israel are members of the ICC, is there concern, within the 
administration, that this precedent could lead to the ICC targeting 
U.S. leaders or personnel in the future?

    Answer. As the President and I have stated, U.S. concerns about the 
ICC are better addressed through engagement with all stakeholders. 
Following such engagement, the Prosecutor announced in 2021 that he 
would focus the ICC's Afghanistan investigation on the Taliban and 
ISIS-K and ``deprioritize'' the aspect of the investigation that had 
been focused on U.S. personnel.

    Question. How does the administration plan to address these 
concerns, and what measures are being considered to ensure the 
protection of U.S. allies and the interests of the United States on the 
international stage?

    Answer. We plan to pursue multiple avenues, including coordination 
and constructive engagement with state parties to the Rome Statute and 
the ICC itself. Sanctions would undercut these efforts.

    Question. This crisis has presented an insidious opportunity for 
our global adversaries to incite chaos and divide the American people. 
Many of these instigators aren't even U.S. citizens. With the Biden 
Administration's disastrous open border policy, it's not unreasonable 
to presume that many of these antagonists came here illegally. But 
given that many of these anti-Israel protests have taken place on 
college and university campuses across our Nation, we know too that 
many of these agitators came here by way of visas issued by the State 
Department. What is your plan to ensure that the visas of foreign 
students, faculty, and others, who are supporting Hamas' terrorist 
views are promptly revoked?

    Answer. When the Department receives derogatory information 
indicating a potential ineligibility as outlined in the Immigration and 
Nationality Act for a visa holder, including but not limited to 
terrorism or criminal concerns, we take immediate action to 
appropriately revoke the visa. The INA does not render inadmissible 
individuals engaged in lawful conduct, including freedom of expression 
and peaceful assembly.

    Question. What specific measures is the Department taking to better 
vet these prospective students to ensure they do not espouse terrorist 
support among our communities?

    Answer. National security is the top priority of the Department of 
State in adjudicating visas. Officers ensure noncitizens are qualified 
and not subject to any visa ineligibilities under the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, before approving a U.S. visa. Every prospective 
traveler to the United States undergoes extensive security screening 
and all visa holders, including individuals in the United States on 
student visas, are continuously reviewed by law enforcement and 
intelligence agencies for new information that surfaces after visa 
issuance.

    Question. A stable Latin America contributes to the prosperity of 
the U.S. through shared borders and economic interests, such as trade 
and energy supply. It also bolsters our own national security and helps 
mitigate issues like fentanyl deaths and out-of-control crime in our 
own cities. Furthermore, stability in Latin America supports our 
efforts to counter external geopolitical influences like China, Russia, 
and Iran while fostering regional cooperation on global challenges. 
Indeed, a stable and prosperous Latin America is vital for the U.S. as 
it ensures a secure and economically vibrant neighborhood that can 
collectively address hemispheric and global issues. What is the 
Department's strategy to address the multiple crises in this vital 
region?

    Answer. We continue to work with partners to address challenges in 
the Western Hemisphere, including Venezuela and Haiti. We urge the 
Maduro regime to hold free and fair elections and stop human rights 
abuses. On Haiti, we support the Kenyan-led Multinational Security 
Support mission to improve security and work toward a return to 
democracy. We press on Nicaragua to restore democracy and respect for 
human rights, and we also work to address cross-border drug issues with 
Mexico, especially on fentanyl and migration.

    Question. In light of the ongoing political tensions in Venezuela, 
what proactive measures can be taken to address the violent suppression 
of opposition groups by Maduro's regime?

    Answer. The United States stands with the people of Venezuela, and 
we remain committed to holding Maduro and his representatives 
accountable for their actions. We take every opportunity to highlight 
abuses by Maduro. We continue to assess U.S. sanctions policy toward 
Venezuela in accordance with U.S. interests. The Department of State 
maintains a reward of up to $15 million for information leading to 
Maduro's arrest or conviction through the Narcotic Rewards Program. In 
addition, Maduro is sanctioned by the Treasury Department.

    Question. Considering the possibility of electoral interference, 
what strategies are in place to ensure the integrity of the election 
process if disruptions arise from conflicts with neighboring countries, 
such as Guyana?

    Answer. We continue to watch Guyana's Essequibo region closely. The 
Department fully supports Guyana's sovereignty and maintains the 1899 
Arbitral Award that determined the land boundary be respected. We 
continue to urge Venezuela and Guyana to seek a peaceful resolution of 
their territorial dispute, especially though the International Court of 
Justice (ICJ). We will leverage diplomatic tools and strategic 
communication plans in place to work with the international community 
on a coordinated response to possible electoral interference should 
disruptions arise.

    Question. How does the U.S. intend to address and hold accountable 
the Ortega-Murillo regime in Nicaragua for its reported violent 
repression and human rights violations?

    Answer. Promoting accountability for the Ortega-Murillo regime is a 
Department priority in Nicaragua. The United States has imposed 
financial sanctions on 51 individuals and 13 entities, taken steps to 
impose visa restrictions on over 1,400 Nicaraguans for their role in 
perpetrating abuses, and added 49 Nicaraguans to the Section 353 
``Corrupt and Undemocratic Actors'' list. We continue to promote 
accountability for the regime bilaterally and multilaterally by 
condemning abuses and pressing for respect of human rights and 
democratic principles via public and private channels.

    Question. Specifically, are there any measures under consideration 
to impede the regime's alleged exploitation of remittances, free trade 
agreements, and commercial air travel, which purportedly enrich the 
regime at the expense of the Nicaraguan people who are reliant on these 
economic systems during the ongoing crisis?

    Answer. We continue to explore all diplomatic and economic tools to 
compel the regime to change course, including blocking sources of 
regime revenue from the U.S. financial system. The Department has taken 
steps to stem irregular migration and prevent the abuse of legitimate 
modes of travel via Managua, including through utilization of a new 
visa restriction policy that covers owners, executives, and senior 
officials of charter flight, ground, maritime transportation companies 
and travel agencies, and engagement with commercial airlines, as 
advised in a May 15 policy alert.

    Question. Could you elaborate on the Department's comprehensive 
strategic plan for Haiti, particularly on how it intends to address the 
multifaceted challenges of political instability, economic development, 
and social welfare?

    Answer. The Global Fragility Act (GFA) Strategy to Prevent Conflict 
and Promote Security in Haiti comprises a 10-year plan aimed at 
enabling the Haitian people to create a conducive environment for 
lasting stability. It acknowledges that long-term stability requires 
improvements in security, political, economic, and social conditions 
for the Haitian people. The strategy adopts a sequenced approach that 
prioritizes establishing security as a pre-condition to longer-term 
efforts.

    Question. In the event that the Multinational Security Support 
(MSS) Mission is unable to mitigate the widespread gang violence and 
disorder, what contingency plans are in place to ensure stability and 
protect the interests of the Haitian people?

    Answer. Our commitment to Haiti and the Caribbean is unwavering. 
The United States stands with its Western Hemisphere partners, CARICOM 
members, donor community, and MSS mission lead nation Kenya to help 
Haiti return to the path of democratic and economic stability. It is 
our collective support to the Haitian National Police to become an 
established, modern, accountable, and professional law enforcement body 
that can uphold law and order by maintaining citizen security and 
ensure stability and protect the interests of the Haitian people.

    Question. Considering the interim government's vulnerability, what 
mechanisms has the Department put in place to guarantee the transparent 
and accountable use of U.S. taxpayer funds, and how will these measures 
prevent misappropriation or inefficiency?

    Answer. The United States government's internal financial, 
contracting, monitoring, vetting, and reporting procedures promote 
compliance and transparency in how it manages foreign assistance 
funding.

    Question. Last year, you testified that a lack of U.S. production 
capacity is the main reason we're having trouble delivering weapons to 
Taiwan in a timely manner. As you put it, ``[t]he long pole in the tent 
in providing equipment to Taiwan to defend itself is the production 
capacity here [in the United States].'' I know the State Department and 
DoD are working to expand production capacity, but it's my 
understanding that we still face a lack of production capacity. Is that 
correct?

    Answer. Several factors contribute to this issue, including supply 
chain issues, increased global demand, and manufacturing timelines that 
reflect the increasingly advanced nature of U.S. defense articles.
    Together with DoD, we will support U.S. industry as it scales up to 
decrease production times to meet growing global demand among Allies 
and partners. We recognize it is not easy to scale up production in a 
competitive economic environment. We're committed to improving our 
systems and helping partners in and out of government do the same.

    Question. Isn't it also true, though, that the United States has 
used Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA) to send large quantities of 
weapons to Ukraine that Taiwan also requires for its defense, from 
Stingers and Javelins all the way up to HIMARS and Patriot batteries 
and munitions?

    Answer. The United States has sent large quantities of weapons to 
Ukraine. While there is some needs overlap between Taiwan and Ukraine, 
Taiwan has the ability to procure the vast majority of its defense 
articles through FMS utilizing their domestic resources, while we 
provide for more of Ukraine's pressing defense needs through PDA.

    Question. In fact, it's my understanding that the Biden 
Administration has deliberately chosen to prioritize Ukraine for PDA, 
while relying more on new production to meet Taiwan's requirements. Can 
you confirm that's the case?

    Answer. This has been the case since Russia's 2022 invasion. Since 
Taiwan is able to purchase defense articles it has chosen to do so 
through the FMS system. We have exercised the authority provided by 
Congress to supplement those purchases through drawdown transfers. 
Ukraine, by contrast, faces immediate battlefield requirements, which 
we meet through PDA transfers.

    Question. You testified last year that you agreed with CIA Director 
Burns' assessment that Xi Jinping has ordered the PLA to be ready to 
seize Taiwan by 2027. So, there's clearly a need to get weapons to 
Taiwan as quickly as possible. But you just acknowledged that we're 
still unable to produce weapons quickly enough to meet Taiwan's needs. 
So, it seems like PDA is the best--if not the only--way to get many of 
these weapons to Taiwan in a timely manner. With this in mind, does the 
administration plan to prioritize Taiwan for PDA going forward? Or do 
you plan to keep relying primarily on new production to meet Taiwan's 
requirements despite the fact, as you yourself acknowledged, that we're 
nowhere near being able to produce enough weapons to meet those needs?

    Answer. We do not believe an invasion is imminent or inevitable. 
While PDA is an important tool, it is only one tool to provide for 
Taiwan's self-defense capabilities. While we are executing PDA for 
Taiwan, we are continuing to explore ways to expedite arms transfers to 
Taiwan using the range of authorities at our disposal.

    Question. How does this administration plan to get Taiwan the 
weapons it needs to defend itself in time to actually deter an 
invasion, given competing demands elsewhere?

    Answer. The Department expedites Taiwan arms sales to the greatest 
extent possible, consistent with this Administration's focus on 
urgently bolstering deterrence across the Strait. Our commitment to 
Taiwan is rock-solid, and we expect cross-Strait differences to be 
resolved by peaceful means. Our support for Taiwan's self-defense 
capabilities is coupled with robust diplomatic and economic efforts to 
strengthen cross-Strait deterrence.

    Question. Congress recently appropriated $2 billion in Foreign 
Military Financing for the Indo-Pacific. My understanding is that this 
is for the region, but officials at the Department have said Taiwan 
would be a priority. How much of this funding will go to Taiwan? Please 
be specific.

    Answer. Providing security assistance to Taiwan is a priority for 
the Department. I cannot comment on exact dollar amounts as internal 
deliberations are ongoing.

    Question. British authorities arrested an individual who was 
working at the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office (HKETO) in London on 
charges of ``agreeing to undertake information gathering, surveillance 
and acts of deception.'' Britain's foreign ministry followed that up by 
summoning the Chinese Ambassador to answer for the espionage and 
cyberattacks on British soil. This follows German authorities arresting 
an individual who worked at the Hong Kong economic office in Berlin on 
charges of espionage. We also know that bounties have been issued on 
activists in the U.S., including a U.S. citizen, for their advocacy in 
the U.S. for freedom in Hong Kong. Is the State Department 
investigating the role of the HKETO office here in Washington, DC?

    Answer. Consistent with longstanding executive branch and 
Department of State policies and practices, the Department does not 
comment on the existence of such investigations.

    Question. Have any Chinese officials working at the HKETO office in 
Washington been involved in acts of espionage or other activities that 
threaten those living in our country?

    Answer. Consistent with longstanding executive branch and 
Department of State policies and practices, the Department does not 
comment on the existence of such investigations.

    Question. Have you discussed these issues with your counterparts in 
London and Berlin? What information have they conveyed to you?

    Answer. Consistent with longstanding executive branch and 
Department of State policies and practices, the Department does not 
comment on the existence of such investigations.

    Question. Should Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices Be Allowed to 
Operate in the U.S.?

    Answer. Consistent with provisions in the Hong Kong Policy Act of 
1992, the United States has permitted Hong Kong to operate three 
Economic and Trade Offices (HKETOs) in the United States in Washington, 
DC; New York; and San Francisco. We closely monitor proposals to change 
the legal status of HKETOs and share concerns about the deteriorating 
human rights and rule of law situation in Hong Kong. When considering 
possible changes to HKETOs' status, we would need to consider various 
elements of the U.S. national interest.

    Question. The HKETO offices in the U.S. were established when Hong 
Kong had a ``high degree of autonomy'' from China. As you have 
certified in the State Department's 2024 Hong Kong Policy Act Report, 
``Hong Kong does not warrant treatment under U.S. law in the same 
manner as U.S. laws were applied to Hong Kong before July 1, 1997.'' 
There is legislation that has passed both the House and Senate 
Committees on Foreign Affairs that would rescind the privileges, 
exemptions, and immunities granted to HKETOs unless autonomy is 
restored to Hong Kong. Why should China, through Hong Kong, have 
additional diplomatic post and personnel in the U.S., especially in 
light of the espionage and spying charges emanating from these offices 
against our European allies? Is it not time for the State Department to 
revoke these privileges?

    Answer. We are closely monitoring proposals to change the legal 
status of Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices (HKETO) and share 
concerns about the deteriorating human rights and rule of law situation 
in Hong Kong. We have made clear to both Hong Kong and PRC authorities 
that attempts at transnational repression, either through HKETOs or 
otherwise, will not be tolerated. When considering possible changes to 
HKETOs' status, we would need to consider various elements of the U.S. 
national interest.

    Question. The Chinese Communist Party orchestrated the passage of 
the draconian Article 23 legislation in Hong Kong that is part of, as 
you have said, ``intensifying repression'' and could be ``applied 
outside of its borders as part of the PRC's ongoing campaign of 
transnational repression.'' Despite the State Department's 
determination, no Hong Kong officials have been sanctioned since 2021. 
It should be noted that in 2020, it took the Trump Administration only 
5 weeks after passage of Hong Kong's National Security Law to issue 
sanctions, and Article 23 is much worse by all accounts. When can we 
expect any actions by the State Department in the coming weeks to 
respond to ``intensifying repression'' in Hong Kong?

    Answer. We are deeply concerned that the broad and vague provisions 
in the Article 23 legislation will compound the damage done by the 2020 
National Security Law by further curtailing the rights and freedoms 
promised to the people in Hong Kong. We continuously evaluate the best 
approach and response to the dismantling of Hong Kong's autonomy and 
rule of law. We welcome consultations with you for potential actions as 
we consider all options to promote accountability for those involved in 
human rights abuses, transnational repression, and erosion of Hong 
Kong's autonomy.

                                 ______
                                 

             Responses of Mr. Antony Blinken to Questions 
                   Submitted by Senator Bill Hagerty

    Question. Since May 2022, U.S.-headquartered Vulcan Materials 
Company's operations in Quintana Roo, Mexico, have been harassed and 
intimidated by the Mexican government, including a March 2023 military 
occupation of the company's property. This is all part of a systematic 
effort to rob Vulcan of its legally held land and deepwater port. It 
has now been 17 months since Vulcan was last able to operate its 
business in Mexico. During that same time period, Vulcan's property has 
twice been illegally occupied by Mexican military and law enforcement 
forces. What has the Biden Administration done to deter these types of 
actions?

    Answer. We are following this dispute closely. We speak regularly 
with Mexican officials about our expectation that U.S. companies are 
treated fairly and in accordance with trade obligations, which provide 
trade and investment certainty in Mexico. In 2018, Vulcan Materials 
Company filed an arbitration claim, which is still pending. While the 
United States does not take a position on the merits of the ongoing 
investment dispute, we have underscored to Mexican officials that cases 
like these can negatively impact Mexico's efforts to attract future 
investment.

    Question. Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has 
threatened to imminently expropriate Vulcan's property by turning it 
into what he claims will be ``an environmentally protected area'' if 
the company does not accept his offer to purchase the property for a 
fraction of its fair-market value. If President Lopez Obrador follows 
through on his threat to expropriate Vulcan's assets, what will the 
Biden Administration's specific response be?

    Answer. We are always concerned about the fair treatment of our 
companies abroad, including in Mexico. In 2018, Vulcan Materials 
Company filed an arbitration claim, which is still pending. The 
Department of State does not take a position on the merits of an 
ongoing investment dispute.

    Question. If President Lopez Obrador follows through on his threat 
to expropriate Vulcan's assets, how will this impact the Biden 
Administration's review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement 
(USMCA)?

    Answer. The Administration is preparing carefully for the upcoming 
2026 review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. I refer you 
to the Office of the United States Trade Representative for more 
details on the 2026 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement review.`