Chairman Mast (03:20):
Committee on Foreign Affairs will come to order. I would ask everybody to rise and join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the State Department's fiscal year 2027 budget requests and identify where we are achieving the greatest returns on our investment on behalf of the American taxpayers and how the department is realigning programs and bureaucracy to support the president's America first policy agenda. I will now recognize myself for a very brief opening statement.
(04:37)
Mr. Secretary, I appreciate you being here today. I know that members are eager to get to their questions, so I'll be very brief. We appreciate your attendance. I can give you a foreshadowing of what you're about to experience. My Democrat colleagues are going to sit up here and say that they haven't heard from the administration. I'm going to thank you for the 30 times just in this Congress that the State Department has briefed the full committee, the subcommittee, roundtables, other times that you all have been here to brief us on a myriad of issues.
(05:10)
I want to thank you for the over 20 briefings that you've given to Congress by yourself, with General Kane, Director Ratcliffe, Secretary Hegseth, and others since the start of Operation Epic Fury. Some of my colleagues in here will say that we are in a war of choice with no real threat to the US. I want to say to you, thank you for choosing to kill those who have been attacking and killing us for over 47 years, specifically attacking us over 350 times in the 30 months prior to Operation Epic Fury. Under senile Joe Biden, my colleagues over here voted to say use any and all means to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. So I want to thank you for bringing the heat to Iran, even though most of my colleagues on the left now say that Iran poses no threat. They pretend as though they have never been attacking us.
(06:06)
I also want to thank you for the work that you've done to reset the Western hemisphere. While you've been focused on bettering our relationships in places like Panama, Cuba, Venezuela, throughout the Gulf of America, the Biden and Blinken administration focused on funding drag shows in Ecuador and transgender operas in Columbia. I would say your work is significantly better. So I want to thank you for the substantial change in putting America first in our foreign policy. And with that, I will recognize Ranking Member Meeks for whatever he has to say.
Ranking Member Meeks (06:42):
Thank you, Secretary Rubio, for being here today. 18 months ago, you inherited the most powerful diplomatic institution in the world, built on three pillars that have defined American leadership since World War II. I call them the 3Ds, diplomacy, dialogue, and development. And in just 18 months, the Trump administration has taken a wrecking ball to all three.
(07:10)
This administration has involved and have invoked a worldview from years past that has left the United States isolated and struggling economically. What you see is a greatest hits album of failed ideas from the last century. Tariffs, spheres of influence, attacks on civil rights and immigration, ignoring science and hoping for the best. Mr. Secretary, America cannot win the future by trying to relive the past and your department is Exhibit A.
(08:02)
We've seen the systematic dismantling of America's diplomatic core. Over 100 ambassador posts sit vacant around the world. 1,300 career professionals, people with decades of expertise in energy, counterterrorism, and nuclear non-proliferation, have been fired. Efforts to ensure US diplomats represent the diversity of America have been squandered. While China increases its diplomatic presence globally, we have cut ours to the bone. America cannot win the future by retreating and ceding the field.
(08:45)
On trade, this administration revived Smoot-Hawley, and we all know how that ended. Trump's tariffs raised costs for American people, harmed small businesses, and alienated our allies. We cannot build a 21st century economy on 20th century failures.
(09:09)
Mr. Secretary, after decades of forever war in the Middle East, President Trump promised the American people no new wars, only to send a new generation of troops back to the Middle East. We've traded dialogue for bombs yet again. And where does that leave us today? The Iranian regime still has its missiles, its drones, its proxies, and its nuclear material. There is an Ayatollah still in power, only he's younger, with the IRGC more entrenched and more hard line. The Strait of Hormuz is closed.
(09:51)
It wasn't before you started this war. It wasn't before we lost 14 American troops. Before American bombs killed 168 Iranian school girls, before Americans were forced to spend over $100 billion on this war. You helped spin the perfect pretext for this war and then failed to prepare American embassies and citizens when the bombs started falling. Those who have defended and enabled this war share direct responsibility for the economic pain American families are bearing as a result. Our allies knew this war was ill-advised and that's why they are sitting on the sidelines while Gulf energy infrastructure and American bases take incoming. Trump said America first. Now America's alone.
(10:43)
In our hemisphere, talk of reasserting dominance has meant illegally abducting foreign leaders, installing one autocrat in place of another, bombing boats without due process, and blockading civilian populations. That is not American leadership. Those are not American values. That is behavior we built the rules-based order to prevent.
(11:07)
The Trump administration's attack on foreign aid and development efforts remain equally destructive and regressive. This administration's policies have directly contributed to famine in South Sudan and have undermined our ability to respond to the latest Ebola outbreak in real time. HIV rates are rising. Mr. Secretary, these cuts have resulted in the avoidable death of hundreds of thousands of children around the world, and we cannot protect Americans by ignoring science or forgetting what ignoring it cost us before. So Mr. Secretary, on climate and energy, the story is the same.
Chairman Mast (11:48):
Ranking Member's time has expired. Other members of the committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record. We're pleased to have Secretary of State Marco Rubio before us today. Your full statements will be made a part of the record. I'll ask you to keep your spoken remarks to five minutes in order to allow time for member questions. I now recognize Secretary Rubio for your opening statement.
Secretary Rubio (12:06):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mr. Ranking Member, and all the members of the committee for having me. I have a written opening statement. I'll submit it. I'll try to cut the five minutes in half if I can. Let's just get right to the point.
(12:17)
I think that I would characterize the last 16, 17 months at the State Department as two things, a history of tremendous successes combined with ongoing and difficult challenges. And we will always have ongoing and difficult challenges in the world. Let me walk through them one by one.
(12:32)
India and Pakistan were on the verge of an all-out war. The State Department and I personally were involved in deescalating that conflict and bringing it to an end, a war between two nuclear powers.
(12:41)
Thailand and Cambodia were involved in a war. Cambodia, a country we haven't normally had close relations with in a very long time. The US, the president personally played a pivotal role, not once, but twice restoring ceasefires and ending that conflict.
(12:54)
Obviously the war in Gaza was brought to an end. Not only that, but all the hostages that remained were released, both the bodies and those who were alive.
(13:04)
Armenia and Azerbaijan, that conflict ended. Not only did it end, but it ended with an agreement that I signed the MOU on yesterday, creating a new prosperity route, the trip route, which will provide extraordinary opportunities for both countries, especially for Armenia, while respecting their sovereignty to really benefit from that.
(13:21)
The Shield of the Americas was stood up. That means over 14 countries in the hemisphere, 14 countries in the hemisphere have signed up to partner with us on counterterrorism, counter-narcotics, and security matters. And we believe that that number will grow over the next few months as elections change leaderships in various countries.
(13:39)
We held the Rare Earth's Ministerial that was attended by over 30-some odd countries from around the world, all who were signing up for an American-led effort to ensure that critical supplies of rare earth minerals around the world are available for our emerging economies and we don't remain overly dependent on China.
(13:55)
We also announced the Pax Silica proposal, which is growing, but it's at 14 members now. These are 14 countries that are cooperating with one another to protect the supply chains critical to AI and AI development in the future.
(14:08)
In Venezuela, we now have a functioning and open embassy. We have people traveling there for the first time. It's not where it needs to be, but it is a long ways from where it was five months ago and poses not nearly the threat it once posed to America's national security. We're not satisfied with where it is, but we've come a long way. We are certainly better off than we were five months ago.
(14:29)
On Nigeria, many were very concerned about violence against Christians. We are now actively in counterterrorism cooperation with the Nigerian government and Nigerian security forces, including a joint operation a couple weeks ago that took out the number two leader of global ISIS operating from inside of the country, and that continues.
(14:48)
The Pacific Islands, small Pacific Islands under constant pressure and threat from China, have received more attention from this administration than they received in the last 10 years combined, and deliverables are coming along the way.
(14:59)
The Quad, an important alliance in the Indo-Pacific between India, Japan, Australia, we've had multiple meetings of that group, including a meeting just last week in India and a follow-up that's going to occur later this year, including a leaders meeting before the end of the year.
(15:14)
As I speak to you now, for the second consecutive day and for the first time in many, many years, the leaders of the legitimate government of Lebanon and leaders from the government of Israel are seated at the State Department for the second day in a row and hopefully today will produce a joint statement and an action plan on a track for security in that country independent from Hezbollah, independent from nefarious influence. They had similar meetings last week at the Pentagon at the military level.
(15:40)
We have signed 32 health compacts. 32 countries have signed health compacts with the United States where our aid to those countries will not just be dollars distributed to an NGO who then will go into the country and impose programs. Instead, we are partnering with 32 countries, many of them in the African continent, in which we will empower their native and domestic health industries and national health systems so that they can ... Not only are we treating the acute situations on the ground of people that are sick, we are helping them build the capacity and the capability to do this for themselves. This is what these countries want. They do not want to be perpetual aid recipients. They want to be able to be able to take care of their people one day, and we are helping them as part of our aid to build that infrastructure.
(16:23)
I could go on, but let me just say another point. We are better today than we have ever been at disaster relief. Today, the United States can respond to disasters around the world on a humanitarian basis faster and more effectively than they ever have because of our reorganization. And the proof is our response in Jamaica, our response to two typhoons in the Pacific. Our ability to quickly deploy within 24 hours and bring aid directly, coordinating with the governments, to people is better than it has ever been because we cut out bureaucracy, we cut out the middleman, and we went right to the point.
(16:53)
We still have challenges. On Sudan, remains a very frustrating situation. We remain deeply engaged with the Quad in these negotiations. As many of you are aware, unfortunately, Sudan has turned into a proxy war between multiple countries and the divisions between the UAE and Saudi Arabia have truly complicated our ability to bring that to an end. What we're focused on there now is identifying two cities or four cities, two on each side, that will serve as points of distribution for humanitarian aid.
(17:25)
The real frustrating thing about Sudan is that one side or the other will agree to something but then they will not comply. But we remain focused on that and we have people that work on that full-time. We even had a donor conference just about a month and a half ago where we hundreds of millions of dollars in pledges for not just humanitarian aid but reconstruction. We're focused on that. It's an ongoing challenge.
(17:44)
On DRC and Rwanda, they signed a peace agreement. Unfortunately, compliance has not been good. We've had to impose a few sanctions on the Rwandan side. We are starting to see some compliance. It's moving, not moving fast enough, but we're hoping to see compliance at some point in the middle part of next month in withdrawing the Rwandan troops from there. Of course, we still have the M23 problem that has to be addressed.
(18:06)
So this is a host of issues. We could go on. Obviously, the ongoing challenges of Iran remain, as I'm sure we'll speak about extensively in your questions today. So I apologize, that took four minutes and 55 seconds, but I tried to talk as fast as I could. Thank you.
Chairman Mast (18:21):
Thank you, Secretary Rubio. I now recognize Ranking Member Meeks for five minutes of questions.
Ranking Member Meeks (18:28):
I'm going to ask you to answer my questions quickly because clearly the chairman wants to protect you. That's why he's cutting folks, cutting me off my opening statement. But Secretary-
Chairman Mast (18:36):
You had five minutes.
Ranking Member Meeks (18:39):
Secretary, you have the honor of serving both as acting National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. In these roles, you've played a central role in advising the president as commander-in-chief to launch a war against Iran, and the impacts of this choice have been significant on our allies and partners we immediately have targeted by retaliatory strikes, as well as for Americans here at home.
(19:01)
Three months into this war, gas and food prices are up. Inflation is rising. American business owners and farmers are struggling from higher shipping and commodity costs. And yet the president said two weeks ago, and I quote, "I don't think about Americans' financial situation." That's a quote that should alarm every American. Americans are also rightfully concerned that while they struggle with affordability due to the war in Iran, the President of the United States is busy day trading on it. He disclosed purchases of stocks in energy and defense companies in the first quarter of this year that were made just as those companies' profits were soaring from the war in Iran.
(19:42)
On March 23rd, the same day he reversed his threat to strike Iranian energy, infrastructure and energy stocks rose. He bought stocks then in Phillips 66, Exxon, and Chevron. Secretary, I have a few questions, and again, given the amount of time that I have, I will ask you to give me yes and no answers. Did you warn President Trump before the war in Iran began that this conflict would drive up cost on gas, food, travel, and shipment?
Secretary Rubio (20:18):
I'll warn you, I don't do yes or no answers.
Ranking Member Meeks (20:21):
I only have five minutes. I know when you were the Senator, you know-
Secretary Rubio (20:23):
I never did yes or no answers before.
Ranking Member Meeks (20:25):
And I know you're trying to go out so that you can run out my five minutes. That's a simple question.
Secretary Rubio (20:30):
[inaudible 00:20:30] run out your five minutes. You're running out your five minutes.
Ranking Member Meeks (20:32):
Did you-
Secretary Rubio (20:32):
I don't do yes or no questions. You want to ask me a question, I'll answer your question.
Ranking Member Meeks (20:35):
You're answering my question, my wish, my time. Did you?
Secretary Rubio (20:38):
Did I what?
Ranking Member Meeks (20:40):
Yes or no. Did you warn President Trump before the Iran war began that this conflict would drive up cost on gas, food, travel, and shipments?
Secretary Rubio (20:50):
The president-
Ranking Member Meeks (20:50):
Yes or no.
Secretary Rubio (20:51):
The president and the full administration was aware that there would be consequences to action, but the consequences of Iran having a nuclear weapon were worse.
Ranking Member Meeks (20:59):
Did you warn him that launching a war in Iran could result in the regime placing a chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz?
Secretary Rubio (21:07):
All the risk factors were understood, but the most important risk factor was Iran cannot-
Ranking Member Meeks (21:13):
Did you [inaudible 00:21:14]?
Secretary Rubio (21:13):
... have a nuclear weapon.
Ranking Member Meeks (21:13):
Did you warn him? If you did warn him, say yes. It's simple.
Secretary Rubio (21:16):
Everyone was aware of what Iran was-
Ranking Member Meeks (21:17):
Did you warn him? I'm asking you a second-
Secretary Rubio (21:19):
Everyone was aware-
Ranking Member Meeks (21:20):
Don't want to answer that.
Secretary Rubio (21:21):
... what Iran was going to do.
Ranking Member Meeks (21:21):
Let me ask you the next question.
Secretary Rubio (21:22):
But the worst part that I can-
Ranking Member Meeks (21:23):
Did you warn the president that launching US strikes against Iran would result in retaliatory attacks on US allies, partners, and Americans living or working in the Middle East?
Secretary Rubio (21:35):
Everyone understood what-
Ranking Member Meeks (21:35):
Yes or no.
Secretary Rubio (21:36):
... Iran would do in response.
Ranking Member Meeks (21:37):
Did you warn him?
Secretary Rubio (21:37):
We were prepared for any response that they came out with. We knew it-
Ranking Member Meeks (21:37):
Just want to make sure.
Secretary Rubio (21:37):
But they can't have a nuclear weapon.
Ranking Member Meeks (21:37):
So you're saying you warned him. Did you warn the president that the personal stock purchases and companies profiting from the war that he launched could present a conflict of interest?
Secretary Rubio (21:53):
I'm not aware of the president's stock purchases. I don't deal with that and I don't even know if what you're saying is true.
Ranking Member Meeks (21:58):
Well, we know because it is made public what his stock purchases were.
Secretary Rubio (22:03):
If you say so. I don't read the president's financial disclosure, but I don't believe that to be true.
Ranking Member Meeks (22:07):
Well, I think then the president should be more transparent. Secretary, because these are basic questions that I'm asking you, and to be transparent with the American people, this is what this is all about, the transparency. So for example, when you go and look at some of your statements that you made in regards to Cuba ... I only have 58 seconds left and I'd love [inaudible 00:22:35] but you talked about GAESA was controlling the military and what's taking place there and that they had the opportunity to benefit while the Cuban people are suffering.
(22:49)
So what we're seeing here now, the one person that's benefited from this war, by his purchase of stocks, him and his friends. They have made billions of dollars while the American people are suffering. You've accused, and I agree, with reference to some folks what they're doing in Cuba and how they're making money while people suffer, that's what's taking place in the United States of America. The Trump administration and his friends are making billions of dollars while the American people suffer and they continue to suffer.
Chairman Mast (23:29):
Breaks my heart, but Ranking Member's time has expired. Representative McCall is recognized.
Representative McCall (23:34):
Thanks, Chairman. [inaudible 00:23:35], thank you for your service. Secretary, I know you're wearing a lot of hats, a lot of responsibilities. I think you're doing an outstanding job.
(23:43)
Let me just say, since 1979, a dark veil of terror descended upon the Middle East and we've had it ever since. And every president since that time has said that a nuclear Iran is not acceptable and every Congress has said that. In fact, last Congress when I was chairman of this committee, I passed a resolution that said that a nuclear Iran was unacceptable and that the US must use any means necessary to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The vast majority of Democrats voted for this, almost all Republicans. It passed the House floor, a resolution stating that that is not acceptable. We've had a lot of talk in these Congresses and prior administrations, a lot of talk, but we haven't had a whole lot of action. Your administration, you, sir, and the president have taken action on this very dire, dangerous situation we find ourselves in with Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.
(24:51)
I also want to applaud you for your efforts in this Western hemisphere, a free Venezuela, a free people, possibly one day a free Cuba. And people don't realize Iran is in this hemisphere, and Russia is in this hemisphere, and China is in this hemisphere. This is all kind of tied together in a coherent foreign policy strategy that I see. So I want to give you the time, sir, to respond to that, because again, all talk and no action, but you, sir, have put this into action.
Secretary Rubio (25:26):
Thank you. Well, let me just, before I address that, the Ranking Member made accusations against the president which I've never heard before, but number one, are completely false. Not once, just to be clear, not a single time, not even for a millisecond has the president ever discussed his personal economics in relations to war or any public policy that he's made for that matter. And I've been in every one of his foreign policy meetings for the most part.
(25:47)
As to your point, what we need to understand is exactly what you just said. It's not just that we say they can't have a nuclear weapon. Everyone says they can't have a nuclear weapon. The Chinese say they can't have a nuclear weapon. The Russians agree they couldn't have a nuclear weapon. But at a point, you have to do something about it. What Iran was trying to do was build a conventional shield of drones and missiles and a Navy and capabilities. At some point, they would say to the world, "Now we're going to get a nuclear weapon and you can't do anything about it because we have so many weapons and so many drones and so many naval vessels that the price we will inflict on you for trying to do something about it makes us untouchable, makes us immune." And the president was not going to allow them to build a conventional shield behind which they can develop their nuclear program.
(26:28)
Today, the Iranian Navy sits at the bottom of the sea. They do not have a Navy. It no longer exists. They have no Air Force either. Their missile launchers have been significantly degraded. Their defense industrial base has suffered upwards of 80 to 90% of attrition. It will take years for them to rebuild it. Those are facts. That is the reality. That was the purpose of Epic Fury. It achieved its purpose in degrading that conventional shield and it has brought them to the negotiation table that hopefully will lead to the point where Iran will give up its enrichment ambitions, will turn over the highly enriched uranium, will stop sponsoring terrorism around the world.
Representative McCall (27:02):
I think the goal should be the fulfillment of the Abraham Accords. We know why October 7th happened, because Israel and Saudi were getting very, very close, in Iran's perspective dangerously close, to a normalization agreement. And what did Iran do? They lit up their proxies. They lit up their proxies to stop that from happening.
(27:24)
I do foresee a free Iran. I do foresee a free Venezuela and a free Cuba, but you have to start somewhere. And I think we are taking the steps so that future generations will thank us for these actions.
Secretary Rubio (27:41):
Look, and on the point of we would love to see a change in Iran and that they'd be governed by people, but that was not the goal of our mission. The goal of our mission was to take away their ability to threaten the region with an overwhelming number of missiles and drones that would basically make them immune to any sort of external pressure and then they could break out to a nuclear weapon. That was the goal. It achieved that from a military perspective.
(28:02)
The reality of it remains that it's not just us. The entire world says they can't have a nuclear weapon, but no one wanted to do anything about it. And I can tell you this, they are not going to have a nuclear weapons program at least as long as President Trump is in the White House. That's been made clear to everyone in the administration from the very top down. It was the motivation behind these actions and it's the reason why we engaged the way we did.
Representative McCall (28:21):
I want to thank you again in the last 10 seconds for your service. I would hope we could unify as a nation behind this. I would hope our allies would unify behind us on this because they've all said it, as we have said it in the past, and yet it was all talk and no action.
Chairman Mast (28:35):
Representative's time has expired. Representative Keating is recognized.
Representative Keating (28:39):
Chairman, for the record, I ask unanimous consent to submit the president's financial disclosure form, which will detail those dealings that were referred to by the Ranking Member.
Chairman Mast (28:49):
Without objection.
Representative Keating (28:51):
Secretary, thank you for being here. In conjunction with your job, you're also the national security advisor with access to the most sensitive intelligence secrets our countries and other countries have in the world. But before this, you had these two positions, you had a distinguished career as a member and a chair for five years of the Senate Intelligence Committee, up to last year. And you and Senator Warner are some of the most respected and knowledgeable people at that time and voices in the entire intelligence community, earning the trust of Democrats and Republicans alike, Senate and House members, and other countries.
(29:31)
So with all your intelligence committee experience and now as Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, in all those years of experience, have you ever specifically in the context of the intelligence community heard the name Bill Pulte?
Secretary Rubio (29:47):
In the context of intelligence?
Representative Keating (29:49):
That's what I said.
Secretary Rubio (29:50):
No. I have-
Representative Keating (29:51):
Never heard his name. Okay. Thank you for answering that. Never even heard his name. Given all your years of experience and your position now, never heard the name. For the record, Bill Pulte is the person Donald Trump has chosen for the acting director of national intelligence, with no experience in the intelligence field, whose misuse, widely reported, of confidential information led to the prosecution of the president's political enemies and is now the person in charge of the nation's most closely guarded intelligence when he couldn't even conduct himself appropriately as a federal housing finance director.
(30:28)
Now, Secretary, have you ever heard of the name Irizarry?
Secretary Rubio (30:35):
Who's that?
Representative Keating (30:36):
You've never heard the name Irizarry?
Secretary Rubio (30:39):
I mean, it doesn't ring a bell off the top.
Representative Keating (30:41):
In the context of security? Well, let me tell you. Mr. Irizarry pleaded guilty for breaking into the Capitol on January 6th through a broken window, wielding a metal rod as a weapon. Donald Trump appointed him to a team at the Pentagon focused on irregular warfare, and of all things, counterterrorism. That's ironic, given that he participated in one of the most significant incidents of domestic terror in our country's history. I think it's shameful, the people that are being appointed, and I think it's also shameful some of the people that have been fired.
(31:19)
Now, I want to move to Iran, because given your nuclear and intelligence background, which is extensive and appreciated and respected, I'm sure you're aware that Ukraine, the country at the time with the third largest nuclear arsenal, peacefully turned over their nuclear weapons in conjunction with the Budapest Memorandum and in exchange for the US commitment to defend Ukraine if it ever came under threat. The US gave their word to Ukraine they would defend them.
(31:50)
And I found this amazing. In your opening remarks, as you took us all over the world and you mentioned 15 different incidents where you have interceded, 15, the top 15, not once did you mention Ukraine, when you were prioritizing the achievement that's there. Now let me go on.
Secretary Rubio (32:10):
Tried to stay under five minutes.
Representative Keating (32:10):
Let me go on. Oh, you tried to stay. Yeah, please. It's not funny, Secretary. It's not funny. In Iran now-
Secretary Rubio (32:18):
Well, you know-
Representative Keating (32:18):
In Iran now-
Secretary Rubio (32:19):
You can't even answer questions here.
Representative Keating (32:21):
I reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Rubio (32:22):
You guys make these statements and no one's responding.
Representative Keating (32:24):
He's interrupting me.
Chairman Mast (32:26):
Do something about it.
Representative Keating (32:27):
I'm doing it. I'm asking you to reclaim those seconds back.
(32:33)
Now in Iran ... What goes around comes around, Mr. Chairman. Now in Iran, the Trump administration issues a general license to Russia providing billions in oil profits every month, several billion every month, fueling Putin's war machine. You didn't mention that in your opening remarks. And then this is a war of aggression, of Russia attacking Ukraine. We gave our agreement, and this is to a country that's assisting us in Iran, Ukraine, and helping a country with a war machine that are aiding Iran against us and putting our service members in jeopardy.
(33:14)
Look it. We have an opportunity as members just today to vote on the Ukraine Support Act. I hope we do it and I am confident that we have bipartisan support, but I hope this administration will act on its own. They could do things themselves that you didn't mention, like rescind these general licenses, complete a bilateral drone agreement with Ukraine, provide direct military assistance that has access to the Ukraine, implement comprehensive sanctions packages-
Chairman Mast (33:40):
The representative's time has expired. Representative Smith of New Jersey is recognized.
Representative Keating (33:45):
[inaudible 00:33:45] taking up my time and squandering it, that's not how a chairman should act.
Chairman Mast (33:49):
Representative Smith, you're recognized.
Representative Smith (33:50):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, if you need a moment to respond to it.
Secretary Rubio (33:53):
Well, I also didn't mention Cuba because I literally hand wrote what I was going to say to you guys and I told you I was going to submit written for the record and I think everybody understands Cuba's a priority for me. Just on the Ukraine front, I'll address it now, if it's okay with your time that I could do so.
(34:06)
I think it's well documented that we've been very involved in trying to get the two sides to the table. We've invested a lot of time in it. Unfortunately, so to this point, neither side has been willing to make concessions, particularly on the Russian side, necessary in order to bring peace about. We remain ready to play any role we can in that context of bringing a peace about, because we think the war in Ukraine, devastating war, has no military solution. It can only be solved through a diplomatic route and it's been unfruitful. I would characterize it as the ongoing challenges.
(34:35)
That said, let's be clear, to be fair and to be frank, we are not impartial mediators in that war. We don't provide weapons to Russia. We only provided weapons to Ukraine. We don't impose sanctions on Ukraine. We only impose sanctions on Russia. So we have clearly taken a side. We continue to sell weapons to Ukraine, by the way, through the PURL program, unimpeded by what's happened in the Middle East or anywhere else. And look, we'd love to see that come to a negotiated settlement. As of right now, the prospects don't look great that either side is prepared to make the concession...
Secretary Rubio (35:00):
As of right now, the prospects don't look great that either side is prepared to make the concessions necessary in order to reach an agreement, but we stand ready and we've engaged and invested a tremendous amount of high level time on that conflict over the last year. I think it's a source of frustration for the world. Hopefully this year will bring better news. I don't have any news for you on that front today, but we are ready. As I've expressed to both sides repeatedly, we're ready to step in and play whatever positive role we can to bring that devastating and escalating war to an end.
Rep. Smith (35:29):
Secretary, thank you very much. Just let me say Claire and Sebastian Ly and all of us are deeply grateful to you and the president for everything you tried to do to get Jimmy Lai out. Obviously it's an ongoing concern and I know you will continue to push for that, but I know you did everything. The ball was in Xi Jinping's court and he unfortunately erred on the side of continued incarceration of that great human rights defender, but thank you for that.
(35:55)
Let me say on the Iran deal, I remember sitting right here and on the floor of the house talking about how egregiously flawed the deal was 10 years ago when the Ayatollah was able to get the language dealing with ballistic missiles out of it, because he said it would be stupid, his words. And then they built ballistic missiles like never before.
(36:16)
Then Iran never having a nuclear weapon. Let's not forget that the agreement was in effect until October of this past year. Other nations were still a part of it and yet they were building a capacity to create nuclear weapons and to use them, and the MAD theory does not apply to them as we all know. Unlike Russia, Soviet Union in the past, even China, they don't want to be destroyed. With the Iranians, there's a sense of martyrdom that I think is perverse, and so they are not guided by a Mutual Assured Destruction theory that holds both sides in check.
(36:51)
Let me just say too on the Nigeria, thank you for what you've done there with not just CPC, but the most recent taking out of some of the worst of the worst terrorists who are slaughtering Christians and the numbers continue, but I know you're engaging very, very aggressively there. On the DRC Rwanda conflict, thank you for sanctioning some of the top people who are committing atrocities and that's just happened a couple of days ago, yesterday for sure. That shows that commitment there.
(37:21)
And on even the Armenia Azerbaijan, I've been working on Nagorno-Karabakh, or Azerbaijan and Armenia for 30 years. They often call it the Nagorno-Karabakh, The Frozen Conflict because nothing would ever happen. You guys stepped in. You stepped in and the President stepped in and got a peace treaty. I've met with Aliyev in Baku on two occasions. He was totally unwilling to admit to the human rights abuses that he was engaging in, especially as it relates to the Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenians. You come up with a solution. Thank you for that.
(37:51)
And anything you wanted to speak to on the DRC, Rwandan or any of these issues, appreciate everything you're doing for this country. There's a full plate of horrible things happening and we're so grateful you're at the helm.
Chairman Mast (38:07):
Please.
Secretary Rubio (38:08):
Oh, well, just on DRC Rwanda, I would say, because just to elaborate on that a little further, as you know, we had an agreement signed and the compliance was not good in that regard. To be fair and I know that some other people disagree with this assessment, but we believe it's pretty accurate on the Rwandan side. And so, we initiated some sanctions, targeted sanctions on Rwanda. They've come to the table, they've made some commitments. They are complying with the commitments, maybe not at the rate or speed that we'd like them to, but there's been some compliance on pulling backup troops. What we'll watch very closely, of course, is we don't want to see Rwandan troops change uniform into M23 uniforms and claim that they've pulled out. We got to watch that very carefully. And we also have to deal with the M23 issue there.
(38:49)
But those are both DRC, Rwanda and Sudan are two areas we remain very engaged in trying to find a solution to.
Chairman Mast (38:55):
Representative's time has expired. Representative Castro, you are recognized.
Rep. Castro (38:59):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming in today and for your testimony. I want to start with Iran. I'm hopeful that the president and the administration are able to reach an agreement that ends the war and also reopens the Strait of Hormuz. If there's a deal subject to congressional review under INARA, I'll approach it with a fair mind and I hope that all of us will as well. I just ask that you keep the committee briefed on the details of that agreement and I believe that it's an America's interest that this war end, and I sincerely mean that.
(39:32)
We are at war alongside Israel against Iran. Iran has struck Israeli nuclear facilities at Dimona and American service members are deployed throughout the region, as you know. Congress needs to understand the full risks of the conflict, including the nuclear risks. On May 4th, I wrote to you with 29 colleagues asking for details about these risks and Israeli nuclear weapons. On June 1st, your Bureau of Legislative Affairs responded and said, quote, "We refer you to the government of Israel for your questions about Israel's capabilities." I have to say, Mr. Secretary, that's a very bizarre response.
(40:13)
30 of us wrote to you and to the State Department asking our government for an answer and assessment about a foreign nation's nuclear capabilities. In your opening statement, you referred to India and Pakistan as nuclear nations. We've also spoken in different sessions, both in closed and open sessions, you know as a former US Senator about the nuclear capabilities of other nations Iran, China, Russia, France, the UK, both adversaries and allies. And so, I wanted to ask you the question today, will you tell us, the Congress and the American people whether Israel in fact possesses nuclear weapons?
Secretary Rubio (40:51):
You know that that's a question that they've never acknowledged to have a nuclear program. People can have, as you know, in open source and other reporting, suspicions about what they possess. If we're speaking, frankly, I think most of the world assesses that they do, but they've never acknowledged that publicly and as a feature of our foreign policy for a variety of reasons, we don't discuss it in that way either.
Rep. Castro (41:11):
Well, I guess a few things. This is the first time, especially for an extended period that we are at war with an ally Israel against Iran and we have service members deployed, and if they in fact possess nuclear weapons, and you're right in open source reporting that has come across, we don't know what their red lines are for using those nuclear weapons. And so, I guess I'm shocked that our government wouldn't make an effort to know, to understand, and then to give our oversight body the information that we need to make decisions about the war as well.
Secretary Rubio (41:44):
That's a fair observation and I would answer that if perhaps you make that request and you're open to it being answered in a different setting other than a public-
Rep. Castro (41:53):
Classified setting? A classified setting?
Secretary Rubio (41:55):
Yes, both classified and sensitive. I think you would get a better response to your question if the context in which it was answered were framed differently than a public letter, for a variety of reasons. If we're being mature and grown up here, foreign policy, and I know that you are and from the tone of your question, it's clear that it's a serious question, these things require delicate balancing acts between different equities. But I think you can get probably a more fulsome answer if we were to be able to respond to that inquiry in a different context, if that makes sense.
Rep. Castro (42:28):
Mr. Secretary, I'll certainly take you up on that and I appreciate your answer, thank you for that.
(42:32)
I have another question on Lebanon. The president and you are working to end this war with Iran, and according to reporting at least, one of the main sticking points is Israel's continuing military campaign in Lebanon against Hezbollah, which the president has called on Israel to stop. The president confirmed last night in fact that he in fact told Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to stop the war in Lebanon. My worry is that Israel's insistence on continuing this war against Hezbollah will jeopardize the president's efforts and the American government's efforts to reach an agreement with Iran. And so my question is, do you agree that Israel should stop its military campaign in Lebanon and support the president's negotiations for a peace agreement with Iran?
Secretary Rubio (43:16):
I'd love to answer that question. It's going to take more than the 42 seconds and I know I've seen already that people get pretty pissed off here when their time gets eaten up, but if I can answer that question, maybe the next person will let me continue because that's a really important question. So let me just start by saying this, let me walk you through this. We had an agreement. Hezbollah reached out two weeks ago and basically said ... About 10 days ago and basically said, "We will not launch missiles into Israeli territory if they stop attacking into Beirut." That was the agreement, I think 5:00 PM two Saturdays ago. At 6:00 PM, they launched missiles and then they came back and said, "Well, we made a mistake. We thought it started tomorrow, not Saturday." Then they went again and violated it again on Sunday.
Rep. Castro (43:54):
But also Israel has been bombing and launching throughout. Is that correct?
Secretary Rubio (43:57):
Well, there's two separate things. Actually, Israel has not conducted massive operations in Beirut for some time. What you see them operating is in the South. And what we've always said, and it's part of the joint statement, we've always said is Israel has a right to act in its defense, so as an example-
Rep. Castro (44:12):
So then why did the president have to tell Israel to stop [inaudible 00:44:15].
Chairman Mast (44:14):
Time has expired. Representative Wilson is recognized.
Rep. Wilson (44:18):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you and recognize that we appreciate the US-Israel Alliance and we appreciate very much the response that's being done against 1,100 missile attacks that have come out of Lebanon as you've just identified correctly, and they need to know that and how they don't know that, I don't know. But any attacks that are done by Israel are in response, not initiated.
(44:43)
With that in mind, you are serving at a historic time with success of dictators on the run. Dictator Assad of Syria has fled to Moscow. Dictator Maduro of Venezuela is incarcerated in Manhattan. Dictator Khomeini of Iran has been eliminated, joining the 40,000 Iranians he murdered this year. As chairman myself of the Helsinki Commission Commission for Security Corporation in Europe, you have achieved unprecedented unity in Latin America, supporting the liberation of Venezuela and soon Cuba. You have achieved historic unity across the Middle East of all countries supporting American efforts, except for the Republic of Georgia, to oppose Iran and its nuclear capabilities.
(45:26)
And in Europe, NATO and the EU are united as never before, promoting defense increases for peace through strength to indeed promote Ukraine victory over war criminal Putin. With that in mind, another region is the South Caucuses, which is critical of the opportunity for the Trump route that you've achieved with the Prime Minister Pashinyan of Armenia and President Aliyev of Azerbaijan. What a great achievement that is. With that in mind though, the pro-Iranian regime and the Chinese Communist Party supported Georgian Dream government, which is illegitimate, threatens American access. There was a rigged election in Georgia. With that in mind, they're facilitating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard and evading sanctions to Tehran. What do you believe should be done to address the rapidly expanding radicalization promoted by the Georgian Dream government and the Republic of Georgia?
Secretary Rubio (46:27):
If I may, I want to answer the Georgia question [inaudible 00:46:30].
Rep. Wilson (46:30):
[inaudible 00:46:30] all of the above.
Secretary Rubio (46:30):
Can I steal 30 seconds of your time to finish the answer to Representative Castro. [inaudible 00:46:34] So on Georgia, you're right, everything you just outlined is our preexisting concern. Since that time, they have made some steps indicating to us that they want to improve their relations with the United States. We've outlined to them what that would take and what that would require. We've received some positive responses, and so our hope is that we can see a change of trajectory in the case of Georgia from where it is today. We obviously understand all the things you've just laid out as being preexisting problems for us.
(46:59)
They've asked us what will it take to have a better relationship with the United States? We've responded and hopefully we can build on that basis and perhaps change the trajectory, not just of our relationship with Georgia, but of their behavior.
(47:12)
Is it okay if I just take 30 seconds of your time? I apologize. So on the strikes that you're referring to, here's what happens in the south. I'm just going to speak colloquially as best I can. The Israelis see Hezbollah moving around, maybe even launching a missile from the south and they action it in defense. They go after it in the southern portion. And that's what we're seeing in many cases is the defensive strikes. What they're increasingly doing is taking more territory in the south to deny them launching space because understand these rockets are being launched into northern villages and cities in Israel and populations can't even return to their homes as a result of it.
(47:46)
In the case of what happened the other day, the following was happening. We had indications, multiple indications, that Israel may be considering conducting anti-Hezbollah strikes inside of Beirut. And at that moment, we had reach out from the Lebanese authorities saying that Hezbollah had contacted them and said if Israel doesn't strike Beirut-
Rep. Castro (48:06):
As we're doing.
Secretary Rubio (48:07):
... that they would stop launching missiles into Israeli territory. That's the message we got and that's what the president pursued and said, "Okay, I had this outreach. If you won't do these strikes in Beirut, they'll stop launching against you in Northern Israel." Unfortunately, within an hour or two of that conversation they launched two waves of rockets from Hezbollah against Israel and Israeli territory. So it's an ongoing challenge. I think one of the reasons why we're engaged in these talks between Lebanon and Israel is understanding that Hezbollah is not just an enemy of Israel. Hezbollah is an enemy of Lebanon. They are an enemy of the Lebanese government. They have called for the overthrow of the Lebanese government. When Lebanon expelled the Iranian ambassador, he refused to leave. He said, "I'm not leaving. You can't expel me. Hezbollah is protecting me."
(48:51)
So Hezbollah is not just a challenge to Israel, it's a challenge to Lebanon, to the Lebanese state and the Lebanese people. And we are hopeful that we can create a paradigm in which Lebanon's government and Israel can work together to disarm Hezbollah and allow the people of Lebanon to reclaim its country, but it's complex. This has been going on since OJ had Isotoners in those commercials.
Rep. Wilson (49:13):
And Mr. Secretary, you're correct. I was with President Aoun in Beirut last year and that what you're doing should address it. I do want to point out, give Syria a chance. And that's been your success, Tom Barrack, the president, by giving Syria a chance. We need to delist Syria from the state sponsor of terrorism and I urge that to be done.
Chairman Mast (49:31):
Thank you for being so generous for Representative Castro's question. Representative Titus is recognized.
Rep. Titus (49:38):
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I just want to talk about some of the conflicting comments that we've been hearing about the status of Iran's military. The president just made some comments on Fox News where he said Iran's military, "We sort of left it alone because we think that their military is somewhat moderate. We've taken different forms of leadership out, but we've actually left their military alone. People would be surprised to hear that."
(50:12)
Well, I'm very surprised to hear it because we've had Secretary Hegseth say repeatedly that Epic Fury decimated Iran's military and rendered it combat ineffective for years to come. You've said the Iranian Navy is at the bottom of the Sea and they have no Air Force either. Well, which is it? You're the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor. If you can't tell us if the military's decimated or not, is it at the bottom of the sea? Was it left alone? This is a major point I think Congress needs clarity on.
Secretary Rubio (50:48):
Okay. Thank you. Fair question. Let me address both of them. The first is on the military. I think there's a difference between the military's hardware and capabilities and the individuals involved in the military. As you know, the Iranians suffered tremendous losses in personnel, and that includes top leadership of the IRGC and other elements of their government.
(51:05)
What the president is alluding to is that there are certain individuals in the Iranian regime who have indicated both directly and indirectly a willingness to approach the future, perhaps a little different. Not ideal. I'm not telling you ... Look, everybody talks about moderates in Iran. There are no moderates. There are radicals and super radicals. Okay? That's been our view of it. But there are some of them that believe that they actually need to do a deal because their economy is in shambles. And so, I think what the president is alluding to is that there are some individuals involved in the negotiations and in elements of their government, including some in elements of their military that are more open to a deal than other.
(51:40)
As far as the Navy is concerned, yeah, they have no Navy. What they have remaining is a bunch of small crafts, I would call them Boston whalers with machine guns. And these things are harassing ships, and these are the ones that go after in some cases they drop mines off the back of them or they try to harass shipping with swarms. They are unable to form swarms the way they once did. They are primarily now threatening shipping through the use of one-way attack drones. But their Navy, which you would consider a Navy with naval vessels that can actually conduct naval operations is non-existent at this point.
Rep. Titus (52:09):
So is the war still on or is the war off, or-
Secretary Rubio (52:13):
Well, Epic Fury has concluded. What you're seeing reports of, including last night, is the following. A ship will go through the route, particularly both the northern and southern route of Hormuz. Those ships will come under attack. The US will respond to that attack by shooting down those drones that are trying to sink a commercial civilian vessel illegally and unlawfully. At that point, the Iranians will respond to that by targeting some facility in the region in retribution.
(52:38)
On occasion, in order to protect our own forces, we don't just strike the drones. We strike the people who launch those drones. These are completely defensive in nature, but they are happening in response to an Iranian action. If they don't shoot at those ships, we don't shoot, but we have to respond. You have a civilian commercial vessel transiting the straits and they're being targeted by drones, and these drones are not highly precise. They could hit any part of that ship and they could create, including an ecological disaster.
Rep. Titus (53:05):
Well, apparently some kind of military exists that's shooting these drones off. The military obviously isn't decimated. They attack these ships with these drones.
Secretary Rubio (53:17):
Yeah. They still retain a drone-
Rep. Titus (53:19):
And we say that what the president was alluding to, the president's not a person who's known for allusions. He just shouts it right out whatever he's thinking. So I don't think he was alluding to anything as you suggest.
Secretary Rubio (53:31):
Well, drones are, as you know, a challenge in multiple battlefields around the world. It's going to be a tremendous challenge for war fighting in the future because they're cheap.
Rep. Titus (53:39):
No, I know what drones are.
Secretary Rubio (53:40):
I know you know what they are, but I'm saying that they're cheap and they're easy to-
Rep. Titus (53:42):
Yes, I know, and we're using things that are very expensive to shoot them down.
Secretary Rubio (53:42):
And that needs to change. That said, yes, they still have the capability to ... They can't launch as many as they used to and they can't launch them in the swarms they used to launch them in, but they still retain that capability.
Rep. Titus (53:56):
Okay. Okay. Well, let me just ask you a quick question about something that Ambassador Barrack said, changing the subject a little bit. He compared Israel to Hezbollah for one thing, that was a pretty concerning comparison, but also he said Turkey should join the F-35 program. These comments are inconsistent with law and longstanding policy, and I'm just wondering what your position is as Secretary of State. Can Turkey get F-35s or not?
Secretary Rubio (54:30):
Yeah.
Rep. Titus (54:30):
We seem to be helping the bad guys and not the good guys.
Secretary Rubio (54:34):
Well, as I'm sure you're aware, Turkey actually was in the F-35 program. The reason why they can't get them is because they purchased the S-400 system from the Russians.
Rep. Titus (54:46):
That's right. They still have those and they're still under mandatory sanctions because of it.
Secretary Rubio (54:46):
Correct. So as you know, that's governed by statute.
Rep. Titus (54:47):
A or not.
Secretary Rubio (54:48):
Well, right now we don't have that choice because it's governed by statute, both provisions of the NBA [inaudible 00:54:53]-
Rep. Titus (54:52):
Well, why is there [inaudible 00:54:55] out there saying that [inaudible 00:54:56].
Chairman Mast (54:55):
Representatives time has expired. Representative Perry is recognized.
Rep. Perry (54:59):
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I would give you an opportunity to answer the ranking member, even though he didn't pose it as a question. But as an individual, like many on the dais who have served in uniform, thank you for your actions regarding Iran and this administration's action. And if you want to answer it yes or no, you're welcome to. Who started the war between Iran and America 47 years ago?
Secretary Rubio (55:23):
Yeah. These yes or no things I don't like, but I could just tell you, Iran has been at war against the United States since the minute the Islamic regime took over.
Rep. Perry (55:30):
Yeah, and I feel the same way. And again, thank you on behalf and to honor the thousands and 10 thousands of Americans who have been murdered or maimed by Iran. Thank you for honoring them. Just moving on to questions. Did Pakistan's foreign minister personally deliver a message to you that Iran is prepared to demonstrate a nuclear weapon should the current escalation continue? That's been reported and I just want to see if I can ferret that out a little.
Secretary Rubio (55:57):
I've not seen that reporting and I'm not aware of any such message.
Rep. Perry (55:59):
Okay. And if there were such a message, would that change anything in America's posture, or not only the message but the action, would that change anything regarding our goals regarding Iran?
Secretary Rubio (56:10):
The hypothetical question is if Iran threatened that they're going to test a nuclear device if talks fail, I think it would confirm everything we believe about them anyways. And I think the president then would have to pursue, or at least have to consider various other options that are available to him in that context. But again, I've not heard that message relayed. I don't know the reporting you're referring to. You're talking about a press report?
Rep. Perry (56:31):
Yeah, I am talking about a press report.
Secretary Rubio (56:33):
I would be surprised if that message had been relayed. I would be aware of it if it was.
Rep. Perry (56:36):
I would think so. That's why I'm asking, so that's enough on that. I know that the president, look, he's an America First guy. He's concerned about every single American citizen, regardless of the party affiliation or their ideology and affordability. The president is concerned about those things and I shudder to think what Iran would do, if they could, armed with nuclear capability and ballistic missile capability coupled with that, seeing what they're doing right now, extorting the world economy without those things.
(57:09)
So with that in mind, it's been reported that the UAE is building a pipeline to the Gulf of Oman, which would bypass the Strait of Hormuz, essentially doubling their capacity, which would of course lower the price and the risk of global fuel transport or oil transport. Do you understand or do you recognize and know what the proposed timeline for completion of that pipeline is?
Secretary Rubio (57:33):
Yeah, I'm aware of those efforts. They actually preexist the conflict in terms of a desire to do so. These things, I can't tell you specifically. I'm not a pipeline building expert, but I can tell you it certainly is going to take more than a week or a year. These are complex. I think the broader point, which your question touches on is I do think you're going to see a reshifting of where the world gets its energy from in the aftermath of this conflict. You're already beginning to see some of it now.
(57:56)
I think you're going to see the United States be a bigger energy provider to the Indo- Pacific. We have the capability to do so, but it's going to take some time to build that capability. So I think you're going to see more of that. And I think you're going to see the establishment of more of these alternative routes as a result of this. Remember, only about 20% of global oil goes through the Straits of Hormuz, but it is about 80 to 85% of the oil that goes to the Indo-Pacific. So in those particular countries, I think you're going to most definitely see them buying more from other places, including the United States.
Rep. Perry (58:26):
And that's going to lower the cost for everybody, which is great. Secretary, just moving on, you're of Cuban descent, I'm of Colombian descent. And Cuba has been a sore-
Secretary Rubio (58:36):
Are you really Colombian? I didn't know that.
Rep. Perry (58:38):
Yes.
Secretary Rubio (58:38):
Oh, wow.
Rep. Perry (58:38):
Indeed. So but Cuba has been sowing the seeds of discord in our hemisphere, inviting China, Russia, North Korea, all manner of communist, oligarch, bad actors into the hemisphere. If you could describe generally speaking what the policy headed ... Where we're headed with Cuba as the United States of America, where are we headed and what do you envision being success and how do we measure that?
Secretary Rubio (59:04):
In 56 seconds, I will tell you what we want for the people of Cubas to be able to live in a normal country.
Rep. Perry (59:09):
Here here.
Secretary Rubio (59:09):
I want them to live in a country that looks like the Dominican Republic, like Jamaica, like the Bahamas, like any of these other places where people can own their own business, people can vote for their own leaders. By the way, that's not my desire. That's the policy of the United States, that's enshrined in statute.
(59:24)
Here's the problem and we're willing to do this through a diplomatic means. The problem we have is that country's not controlled by a government. That country's controlled by a military conglomerate that basically controls 70% of the nation's GDP and none of the profits of that conglomerate goes into the public treasury. None of that money goes to build bridges and roads or to reinvest into their energy infrastructure. All of it goes to build more hotels for tourists that aren't coming and to line the pockets of the people that are involved. So that has to change.
(59:52)
My question, I think we all can envision what we want Cuba to look like and it doesn't have to happen overnight. Okay? We understand they're not going to go from being what they are now to turning into Belgium or Switzerland in one day to the next. It takes time in these processes. I just don't believe, frankly, at this point, given everything we've seen, that the people in charge of that conglomerate and of that government are capable of making these reforms, at least not yet. Their mindset isn't there, their incentives aren't there. They have spent 60-something years waiting us out and holding on, and I think they can still get away with it and they can't and they won't be able to.
Chairman Mast (01:00:24):
Time has expired. Representative Lieu is recognized.
Rep. Lieu (01:00:28):
Thank you, Secretary Rubio, for being here today. You have been at multiple meetings with President Trump. In a moment, I'm going to show you a video of one of these meetings. It is from last December. It's a cabinet meeting. I'm going to ask you to focus on President Trump and you will see that he is sleeping while you are talking.
Secretary Rubio (01:00:46):
Oh my God.
Rep. Lieu (01:00:47):
Please show the video.
Video (01:00:49):
Marco Rubio: Products they make and what American farmers grow and produce has a fair shot to be sold around the world. On issue after issue that's been the case. You talk about foreign aid reforms. This is not our money. This is taxpayer money.
Rep. Lieu (01:01:06):
Sector Rubio, have you been at more than one meeting where President Trump has fallen asleep?
Secretary Rubio (01:01:13):
That's false. That's false. I've never seen him fall asleep. On the contrary, the guy doesn't sleep, which is a big problem because he calls me at 2:00 in the morning, he calls me at 5:00 in the morning and I like to sleep a little bit, maybe not 12 hours or but at least six. The other day he was at the Oval Office until-
Rep. Lieu (01:01:29):
Secretary Rubio-
Secretary Rubio (01:01:29):
... 12: 30 AM. I don't know what you're talking about.
Rep. Lieu (01:01:33):
Secretary Rubio, I'm going to show you in a moment a video that shows you just lied to Congress.
Secretary Rubio (01:01:38):
Oh, okay.
Rep. Lieu (01:01:39):
So this is a video of a cabinet meeting literally from last month where Donald Trump is sleeping while you are talking. Please show this video.
Video (01:01:50):
Marco Rubio: Coalition of countries that line up behind the peace deal, behind the board of peace, every day is a challenge, but it's been driven personally by the president. It's the reason why we're involved in this whole Ukraine-Russia conflict. That's not our war. It's not the president's war. This war started, it never would've happened if you've been president, but this war is going on and the president is trying to end it.
Rep. Lieu (01:02:10):
You are literally talking about issues of war and peace and Donald Trump is sleeping right next to you.
Secretary Rubio (01:02:16):
No, he's not.
Rep. Lieu (01:02:17):
If Donald Trump cannot stay awake at these important meetings where the cameras are rolling, imagine what he's like when the cameras are not there. So I'm going to ask you, have you been at classified meetings where Donald Trump has fallen asleep or had trouble staying awake?
Secretary Rubio (01:02:33):
I've never been at any meeting where ... And the things you're showing me now, he was not falling asleep.
Rep. Lieu (01:02:38):
So you're lying again, you're lying consistently to Congress-
Secretary Rubio (01:02:44):
I think [inaudible 01:02:44] I'm before the Foreign Affairs Committee of the United States House of Representatives asking questions about sleep.
Rep. Lieu (01:02:44):
You're lying to Congress, Secretary Rubio. So I'm going to show you another video in a moment.
Secretary Rubio (01:02:49):
Show me all the videos you want.
Rep. Lieu (01:02:50):
The president's inability to stay awake on the job has caused other countries to perceive him differently. They mock him. They see he is weak and he is feeble. This is a video of a French news channel talking about Donald Trump falling asleep at a Memorial Day ceremony. Please show this video.
Video (01:03:13):
Vedika Bahl: Well, Mark a video that appears to show Donald Trump falling asleep at a Memorial Day ceremony this Monday has been circulating heavily online. And internet users have a lot to say about it. It's also reignited rumors about the state of the US president's health.
(01:03:28)
Now in the video, social media users say that Trump is fighting sleep whilst he listens to the speech given by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and that his eyes appear to be closed for a large portion of the ceremony. Now we need to remember here that this is a ceremony to honor and remember those US military personnel who have died while serving in the armed forces. And the idea that Trump was asleep at a somber ceremony like this, well, that has triggered outrage online.
Rep. Lieu (01:03:56):
Donald Trump's inability to stay awake on the job shows that there's something very wrong with his health or cognitive abilities. And in fact, on a number of occasions, Donald Trump will contradict himself in literally the same meeting or interview. In this video I'm about to show, it shows that Donald Trump says the Iranian military is both destroyed and not destroyed at the same time, something that Dina Titus alluded to. Please show this video.
Video (01:04:23):
Donald Trump: In terms of leadership [inaudible 01:04:27] we've actually left their military alone. People would be surprised to hear that. Because mistakes have been made in wars where you wipe out everybody and then you have a country that's for 40 years you can never rebuild. You look at what happened with Iraq, we did so.
(01:04:41)
Iran is in a very bad position. They have no military. All they have is good talk and they have a fake press.
Rep. Lieu (01:04:48):
So Secretary Rubio, instead of holding North Korean style cabinet meetings where everyone goes around the room kissing Donald Trump's ass, I'm going to ask you to come clean with American people and the White House as well, there's something wrong with Donald Trump's health or cognitive abilities. There's a reason he keeps going to the hospital and they keep giving him cognitive tests. We have not seen the president in eight days. American people deserve the truth. I yield back.
Secretary Rubio (01:05:17):
I don't even know how to respond to that, other than to tell you that it's absurd and ridiculous. And I can't believe we're in a Foreign Affairs Committee meeting in front of the House in an important time in American foreign policy answering questions on the so-called-
Rep. Lieu (01:05:27):
Just keep lying, Secretary Rubio, just keep lying.
Secretary Rubio (01:05:29):
Supposedly someone who thinks he's a medical expert, when he's not. The truth of the matter is we had a cognitively impaired president in office a few years ago. That's a cognitively impaired president, but I don't like to talk about that because it weakens America. This president we have, this is a guy that literally doesn't sleep. He works day and night, long hours every single day. I don't know if you haven't seen him in eight days, I saw him yesterday. I didn't see him yesterday because I was in Congress the day before. I talk to him at all hours of the day and night. He works inhumane hours.
(01:05:57)
I've been on foreign trips with the president that he doesn't sleep in the whole flight, and everyone else is sleeping on the plane and he's wandering the hallways looking for someone to wake up and talk to that people are ... So I don't know what you're referring to, but he has an incredible amount of energy. I'm just telling you, you may not like his policies. You may not like his policies, you may not like the decisions he's made, but I assure you this is not a president that sleeps or is cognitively impaired in any way, shape or form. And in fact is incredibly active, much more so in many cases than much younger people that are around him. Those are facts. I see it every day. You're not going to agree because you have another narrative that you want to push, but those are the facts.
Rep. Lieu (01:06:33):
I just showed you three videos of him sleeping separately.
Chairman Mast (01:06:35):
[inaudible 01:06:35], Representative Issa is recognized.
Rep. Issa (01:06:37):
Thanks for waking me up, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, if you'd gone to sleep during those videos, I would not have blamed you. I too have received those calls at all hours of the day and night. I'm, like you, aware that the president works harder than any other person here in Washington. But moving along, a number of things have been said that I find just incredible.
(01:07:04)
First of all, the whole question on whether or not we support Lebanon and whether or not we support Israel, is there any real contradiction between what Israel is trying to accomplish and what your aid to the Lebanese armed forces over decades is trying to accomplish?
Secretary Rubio (01:07:23):
Contradiction?
Rep. Issa (01:07:24):
Is there any light between those two efforts?
Secretary Rubio (01:07:27):
No. No, no, no. They're aligned. What we would like to see is a Lebanese armed forces with the strength and the capability to disarm Hezbollah and reclaim the entirety of the country on ... The country should only have one armed forces. It shouldn't have an armed political party, which is what Hezbollah is, and then the LAF, the Lebanese Armed Forces. And the Lebanese want that too. And that's what we work very closely with them on, and that's what our engagement with the Lebanese is about.
Rep. Issa (01:07:53):
And Mr. Secretary, just for the record, in one of the last times I was in Israel, I asked Prime Minister Netanyahu if we should cut off aid as some have said to Lebanese Armed Force, he said, "No, give them more. Give them what they need to take back their country." So I do believe that we couldn't be more aligned with the efforts of Israel and the present government of Lebanon.
(01:08:19)
Moving along, you did a great job of going around the world and outlining the mess that was left to you as you pick each of them up. One that you didn't touch on that I'm concerned about is actually a democratic one, which is the democracy of South Korea has taken a strong bent to the left, opening up more avenues toward China and in fact beginning to oppress many of our companies, including Meta, Coupon, and others. Can you tell us what can be done and what this committee should do with countries who, through Democratic means, are beginning to become anti-US?
Secretary Rubio (01:09:02):
Right. So there are a couple points I would make. The first is that ... And this is the unique aspect of dealing with democracies, and we see it in our hemisphere quite often. Sometimes in a democratic country, they will elect leaders that are friendlier to US national interests such as what we have now in Japan, and sometimes they will elect leaders that have a different perspective. We respect the sovereign choice of the people of that country. That's a legitimate election. That's who they chose. In those instances in which a democracy and their elected leaders are taking positions that run contrary to the national interests of the United States, it doesn't mean we're going to overthrow the government or get rid of the government because it's democratic government. It simply means we have to engage them in the fact that they are doing things that are irritants to our national interests.
(01:09:42)
You point to some of our companies. Our companies aren't just facing challenges and I would say targeting in South Korea, they're facing it throughout Europe. And the European Union, as an example, is targeting our technology companies and conducting what we believe is unfair. So, I think this becomes the feature of our engagement with South Korea, even as we have things that we're strategically aligned on, these are areas we've expressed and I-
Secretary Rubio (01:10:00):
Even as we have things that we're strategically aligned on, these are areas we've expressed and I think have frankly impacted our ability to conclude a trade agreement with them because of some of their behavior towards American companies.
Rep. Issa (01:10:13):
Iran obviously was going to dominate a part of today and I'd like to close my questioning with a question for you. In 1979, if my math is correct, you were eight years old when they took our embassy and then lied about it, claimed it was students doing it. That's 47 years ago as has been said many times. Is it fair to say that President Trump, no matter what the people on the other side of the aisle want to say, is not in the 60th or 70th day of action, but in fact, in the 47th year of an ongoing war with Iran that has spread to Yemen, to Lebanon, and even to South and Central America.
Secretary Rubio (01:10:59):
I think I would start, well, absolutely, first of all, with Hezbollah. Hezbollah is an agent of the Iranians and they've carried out terrorist operations around the world, including the recent anniversary of what they did in Argentina, the Jewish Center. But let's not forget those IEDs that were used to maim and kill our troops in Iraq were all innovated by Soleimani and the IRGC, which strongly supported that. Let's not forget that we have these Iranian proxy militias operating inside of Iraq that as recently as two months ago kidnapped an American journalist. And let's not forget that there are people that are both charged and convicted in the United States for participating in Iranian assassination plots against the president and against other former and current government leaders. So we've been facing this from Iran for 47 years in a variety of ways, some more open than others.
Chairman Mast (01:11:49):
Representative-
Rep. Issa (01:11:50):
Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal article entitled South Korea Takes a Hard Left Turn Against America to be placed in the record.
Chairman Mast (01:11:59):
So ordered without objection.
Rep. Issa (01:12:00):
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Mast (01:12:01):
Representative Jacobs is recognized.
Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (01:12:02):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, good to see you. I'd like to talk about the war in Iran. Yesterday in your Senate testimony, you told Senator Booker that the war in Iran is over. This is news to me. It's also news to my 2,500 constituents, Marines, San Diego Marines in the Middle East off the coast of Iran. The other of my constituents who are deployed there and the thousands more of my constituents who have 48-hour deployment notices whose families are still very concerned. But okay, I will take you at your word. If the war is over, I have a simple question. Who won?
Secretary Rubio (01:12:38):
First of all, Epic Fury is over, which is what you would consider the war. That operation has concluded.
Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (01:12:42):
So you agree it's a war then?
Secretary Rubio (01:12:44):
No, those are hostilities. They called it a war. I'm just responding to the Senator Booker's question.
Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (01:12:49):
Mr. Secretary, you can change the name of the operation. It doesn't change the fact that the strait is still closed and my service members and all of our service members are still in harm's way.
Secretary Rubio (01:12:57):
I know, but that's not what you asked me.
Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (01:12:57):
The war is not over, but I'm agreeing with you. Okay, fine. We're taking you at your word. The war is over. Who won?
Secretary Rubio (01:13:04):
Well, first of all, you're not taking me at my word. It's a fact. We're no longer conducting sustained strikes inside of Iran to degrade their military because Epic Fury is over. The second point is on the question of who won, I can tell you this. We defined victory, we defined victory as destroying their defense industrial base, significantly reducing the number of missile launchers that they possess, significantly reducing their stockpile of drones. And we achieved all of those in addition to destroying what they had left of an air force and wiping out their entire conventional navy. Those are all gone. So I consider that victory and we did too. And that was the purpose of Epic Fury.
Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (01:13:36):
Okay. Well, good. Based on the metrics that you just said, okay, there's actually our intelligence community has said that Iran is reconstituting its military industrial base faster than we had predicted and analysts assess it still holds roughly 70% of its missile stockpile and 70% of its mobile launchers. The Strait of Hormuz was open before the war. It is now closed. We have lost 14 brave American service members. Over 400 are injured and the Iranian regime remains largely intact, but now with a more hardline leader who has more incentive to try and get a nuclear weapon. So I guess I have to ask you again, Mr. Secretary, does this actually look like winning or losing to you?
Secretary Rubio (01:14:20):
Well, first of all, I don't know what intelligence assessments you're referring to. We wouldn't discuss intelligence assessments if they were real. You must have [inaudible 01:14:25]-
Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (01:14:25):
These have been publicly reported.
Secretary Rubio (01:14:26):
Well, they're publicly reported. Someone committed a crime and by the way, is also lying. And this happens all the time. People manipulate intelligence and analysis for purposes of furthering a narrative. On your point about the regime, the regime is actually deeply fractured, which is why it takes 7 to 10 days to get an answer from them for anything. Meanwhile, the-
Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (01:14:42):
Fractured, but still intact.
Secretary Rubio (01:14:43):
Well, intact in the sense they can't even reach agreements that they can get back to us. I don't know how intact that is. What they have is people that are afraid to go into the streets. Their repressive operations have helped people back in addition to the fact they've cut off the internet. But this is a country right now in this regime that is facing hyperinflation, a completely devalued currency, hundreds of billions of dollars in damage to their military infrastructure. And frankly, all of the preexisting problems that Iran had in their economy, which is why people are protesting, are worse, not better.
Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (01:15:14):
Sure.
Secretary Rubio (01:15:14):
And they have to deal with that too.
Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (01:15:15):
But Mr. Secretary, so you're saying we're winning because the Iranian economy has inflation. It's cost them millions of dollars a day in lost revenue and because it's going to cost them billions of dollars to rebuild. Well, we are having inflation. It's already cost us an estimated $100 billion. Gas prices are up with no end in sight. The average family is paying an extra $450 on gas and could pay an extra $2,000 by the end of the year. The American people are not stupid, Mr. Secretary. We all know that this war is not over. Just last night, the U.S. and Iran exchanged fire again this time over at Kharg Island.
(01:15:51)
We still have not reached a deal despite the president's promise that a deal is right around the corner. The president even said today the blockade could last until Labor Day. It's now day 97 of the war that the president said he wanted to end quickly. So I have one last question for you. Mr. Secretary, who won the 2020 presidential election?
Secretary Rubio (01:16:08):
I'm not here to answer [inaudible 01:16:09] about 2020. This is a Foreign Affairs Committee.
Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (01:16:11):
Okay, great. You can't answer the question.
Secretary Rubio (01:16:12):
Opine on political matters.
Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (01:16:12):
Even though we all know that President Biden won.
Secretary Rubio (01:16:13):
No, I don't answer the question because as Secretary of State, I do not participate in domestic political issues.
Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (01:16:21):
This is not about domestic political issues.
Secretary Rubio (01:16:21):
Oh, certainly is.
Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (01:16:22):
This is about our democracy.
Secretary Rubio (01:16:23):
You're asking me to opine, just like I don't do campaign rallies.
Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (01:16:26):
It seems like you-
Secretary Rubio (01:16:28):
I don't do because as Secretary of State, we're not supposed to. That's been the long tradition of the department. And you should know that if you've been on this committee for any period of time. And you're asking questions-
Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (01:16:34):
Mr. Secretary, it seems like you have an issue admitting facts. You can't say that the president lost the 2020 election just like you won't admit President Trump is losing this reckless war of choice. And just like you couldn't admit that the shoes the president bought you were too big. You clearly don't know what winning means and not because the facts are unclear to you, it's because telling the truth would cost you your job and the American people are entitled to a Secretary of State who tells them the truth even when the President doesn't want to hear it. And my constituents, our service members deserve better. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Secretary Rubio (01:17:06):
I don't know what shoes she's talking about. What is she talking about? I don't know.
Chairman Mast (01:17:10):
Representative Burchett, you are recognized.
Congressman Tim Burchett (01:17:12):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you'd like to answer any of that.
Secretary Rubio (01:17:14):
Yeah. I don't know about the shoes.
Congressman Tim Burchett (01:17:14):
I'll give you a minute.
Secretary Rubio (01:17:16):
I mean, he gave me some Florsheim shoes. They're actually pretty good. They fit fine. I don't know what she's talking about. And maybe that's what she's referring to.
Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (01:17:22):
Your shoes look very nice today, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Rubio (01:17:24):
How can you see them? They're way down here. We're talking about shoes. Are you guys kidding me? I mean, is this the Foreign Affairs Committee or is this like a circus? What is this? Let's go.
Congressman Tim Burchett (01:17:33):
I think it's a circus. But I appreciate you being here, Mr. Secretary. United States is NATO's largest financial contributor. Why does NATO consistently ignore our call to share more of the defense burden in Europe? And is it our national interest to continue participating in NATO?
Secretary Rubio (01:17:52):
Well, I can give you the why and the why is pretty and is the following. Especially in Western Europe for the better part of 20 or 30 years, they have not had to spend on defense because the U.S. security shield has allowed them to spend their money on building up a very vast and robust social safety network. And my time as a senator and before that as a state representative, you would hear often from constituents about how come they have this and that in Europe and we don't have it here. Well, one of the reasons why is because these very rich countries were spending their money on social programs instead of defense because we were covering their defense.
(01:18:26)
That paradigm has to shift. It has to shift for two reasons. The first is these are very wealthy countries that should have the ability to spend more to build up their defenses and need to. And this is not unique to President Trump. Multiple American presidents in both parties have complained about NATO burden sharing. This is just the first president that actually is doing something about it. The second point is the United States has global obligations. I can leave a meeting with Europeans that want to talk about NATO and the next meeting will be with someone from the Indo-Pacific that would like to see a greater U.S. military presence in the Indo-Pacific.
(01:18:58)
And then you can talk to Gulf partners that want to make sure we're still committed to defending and being involved there. Then you can go to Africa and talk to countries that want to see our cooperation on counter-terrorism. And then you can go to the Western Hemisphere where they want us to do more with them as well and pay more attention. So the U.S. has global obligations. And while we have vast resources, we do not have unlimited resources. We have to allocate them and that will include constantly reexamining what our force posture looks like in Europe in comparison to other theaters and potential contingencies around the world.
Congressman Tim Burchett (01:19:30):
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I also wanted to thank you and the White House for supporting the bill that I've been pushing to defund the Taliban. You're very kind to me to meet with me and I appreciate that very much and the president's support as well. As you know, we're the UN's largest financial contributor, but it consistently pushes liberal policies like abortion and gender
ideology in spite of our opposition. And every time there's a new council or whatever, it's always our enemies that seem to be on there. Why is the U.S. still a member of the United Nations?
Secretary Rubio (01:20:02):
Of the United Nations?
Congressman Tim Burchett (01:20:03):
Yes, sir.
Secretary Rubio (01:20:04):
Well, twofold. I would say the first is United Nations, of course, is a very frustrating thing for us primarily because it's been unable to intervene or play a constructive role in most of the major crisises around the world. It's lost its purpose, it's lost its mission. I think our UN mission is doing a very good job of driving substantial reforms at the UN and using our fees as leverage to achieve those reforms. Last year, actually, we had some pretty substantial successes, some real reductions in the size, in the bloated budget of the UN. And by the way, this is not just a U.S. position. Multiple countries agree with us that the UN had grown too large and it lost its core mission.
(01:20:39)
On the other hand, there have been instances, and we try to use the UN where possible as a viable forum in which to solve problems. It was helpful as a forum in the Security Council, for example, in standing up the new mission in Haiti in which the U.S. contribution is dramatically reduced and partner nations around the world because of the UN approval are now able to step forward and provide not just money but actual troops for the Gang Suppression Force. Likewise, we have 100 and, I don't know, I don't want to lose count, but 130 some odd co-sponsors of a resolution. The largest number of co-sponsors ever for a resolution in the security council condemning what's happening in the Straits of Hormuz and authorizing countries to potentially do something about it.
(01:21:21)
Unfortunately, it's facing a veto threat from China and Russia, so no vote has been scheduled on that yet. And there are organizations in the UN that we've partnered with. We've been able to partner with them on making contributions to humanitarian relief around the world and we actually struck a pretty good deal with them in which we can ensure that that money's going to be spent in a way that furthers our national interest, not go to fund the NGO industrial complex, but also provide critical aid to areas that badly need it. So there's been some utility with some of it, but the UN is in need of continued dramatic reform and we intend to continue to use our fees that they claim we owe as leverage for that.
Congressman Tim Burchett (01:22:01):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One last thing. Is there anything UN and NATO could do that would be mutually beneficial? Any reforms?
Secretary Rubio (01:22:11):
I'm sorry?
Congressman Tim Burchett (01:22:12):
Any reforms that the UN and NATO could do that would be mutually beneficial?
Secretary Rubio (01:22:17):
Well, with NATO, it's a much deeper conversation that involves basing rights that have been denied to us by a handful of countries. And I think it's going to feature prominently in the meeting in Turkey as it did last week in the meeting with the foreign ministers. On the UN, I can provide you the list of the reforms we are asking for. They've imposed last year more reforms than ever before, but there are a few more that need to happen and I can share that list with you and with the whole committee.
Chairman Mast (01:22:39):
Representative Stanton is recognized.
Congressman Tim Burchett (01:22:40):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congressman Greg Stanton (01:22:42):
Thank you much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I do want to talk to you about the blurring of lines between public service and private enrichment at the highest levels of this administration's foreign policy leadership. President Trump has placed Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner in charge of addressing some of the world's most intractable conflicts, including the war between Russia and Ukraine and cleaning up the president's self-made mess of war of choice in Iran. Let me start with Mr. Witkoff, Trump's special envoy to the Middle East. He co-founded the cryptocurrency venture firm World Liberty Financial alongside President Trump and President Trump's children. Days before President Trump's inauguration, a firm controlled by a member of the royal family of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Tahnoon bought a 49% stake in the company.
(01:23:35)
That was a $500 million investment. 31 million of that went straight to the Witkoff family. Witkoff was still a financial stakeholder in World Liberty as he was simultaneously leading high level U.S. government negotiations in his role as special envoy. One of those negotiations was over the export of America's most advanced AI chips to the UAE, negotiations personally attended by Sheikh Tahnoon. In the spring, another company chaired by Sheikh Tahnoon, MGX deposited $2 billion in World Liberty Financial's stablecoin, the single largest investment in the crypto company ever. Weeks later, the chip deal was announced despite national security concerns. Secretary Rubio, do you believe that Mr. Witkoff has an unacceptable conflict of interest?
Secretary Rubio (01:24:26):
I have never seen any evidence that he's made any decisions or advocated for any position that's to his personal benefit. On the contrary, and again, I can't speak to all the things you're saying now because that's not ... Mr. Witkoff is an employee of the White House and he undergoes the ethics vetting and the procedures for disclosure that are appropriate to them, not to the State Department. But I would just add, I want to be fair, okay? I've never seen the guy ever say anything to me that makes me think this is personal rather than ... The only thing he's ever done is spend his own money. I know he has spent his own money at great personal expense to fly around the world on his own airplane, not on the government bill. He has done it, but everything out of his own pocket.
Congressman Greg Stanton (01:25:05):
Are you concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest in Mr. Witkoff?
Secretary Rubio (01:25:08):
I've never seen anything that leads me to have that concern. Again, you've cited a bunch of things. I'm just not aware of those, but I'm just telling you my personal interactions with Mr. Witkoff of a person who just thinks he's serving the country and is happy to do so, not out of any personal gain, but because he wants to serve the country.
Congressman Greg Stanton (01:25:23):
As Secretary of State who's in charge of the foreign affairs of the United States, have you spoken to President Trump about any concerns about conflict of interest with Mr. Witkoff?
Secretary Rubio (01:25:33):
I haven't had to. I've not seen any.
Congressman Greg Stanton (01:25:35):
Let's talk about Jared Kushner. His private equity firm, Affinity Partners, has raised more than $6 billion since it was founded in 2021, including 1.2 billion just over the last year. Mr. Secretary, are you aware of how much of that six billion has been raised from foreign nationals?
Secretary Rubio (01:25:49):
I don't know anything about that.
Congressman Greg Stanton (01:25:50):
And the answer is 99%. These include sovereign wealth funds operated by Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar. The Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund is the largest investor in Affinity Partners. In fact, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman personally recommended that Saudi Arabia invest in Affinity Partners. The crown prince has also personally urged President Trump in multiple phone calls to continue the ongoing war of choice in Iran. Let's put it another way. The man who bankrolled Kushner's business venture is the same man who was lobbying for the war Kushner is tasked with ending. Mr. Secretary, same question. Are you concerned about any conflict of interest by Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law?
Secretary Rubio (01:26:31):
Again, in Jared's case, Jared is a private citizen who's been advising and participating in this voluntarily. He's not compensated for it or in any way, but I've never seen either from either Steve or Jared ... On the contrary, all I've ever seen them do is put tremendous amount of time and energy into trying to solve problems like the amount of time they put into Gaza and the Board of Peace and all of that process. I think-
Congressman Greg Stanton (01:26:52):
Secretary, let me reclaim my time.
Secretary Rubio (01:26:54):
I believe they've done it out of the kindness and goodness of their heart. They think they're serving the country.
Congressman Greg Stanton (01:26:57):
The goodness of their heart. Secretary, what Jared Kusher said on 60 Minutes on this very issue when asked about it, he says, "What people call conflict of interest, Steve and I call experience and trusted relationships that they have throughout the world." Reclaiming my time. Let's recap. The two men tasked with resolving this country's most sensitive national security issues, including meeting with Iranian negotiators are profiting off the same countries that they are engaging with. One thing we know for sure.
(01:27:24)
While the Ukraine peace talks are going nowhere and the war Iran has no end insight, Witkoff and Kushner are making out like bandits. Meanwhile, a gallon of gas is still hovering about $4.67 in Phoenix, Arizona that I represent, up nearly 40% from just 18 months ago. The American people are paying more for gas, for groceries, for everything. They're footing the bill while representatives of our government are cashing in. I yield back.
Chairman Mast (01:27:50):
Representative Jackson is recognized.
Congressman Ronny Jackson (01:27:53):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Secretary Rubio for being here today. Thank you for your work to execute an America first foreign policy that is making America safer, stronger and more prosperous. From confronting the corruption of the Maduro regime to negotiations with Iran to stabilize the Middle East, you have played a critical and crucial part in spearheading the administration's peace through strength initiative. Secretary Rubio, I want to reiterate what you wrote in your opening statement that American leadership should always be on behalf of American interest. Thanks to President Trump's historic foreign policy initiatives, the USA has no longer sit idly by as other nations take advantage of American funds and military support.
(01:28:34)
My question, global commerce and diplomacy rely on coordinated strategies with allies to combat illicit trade and support U.S. exporters. To support the Trump administration's efforts to enhance U.S. national security while advancing strategic American investments, I recently introduced the Strategic Export Controls and Border Security Enhancement Act. This bill would codify the State Department's Office of Export Controls and Border Security to strengthen the operational capabilities of allied countries to better protect U.S. critical technologies from diversion and misuse by our foreign adversaries. Secretary Rubio, how is this office being utilized to prevent the illicit trafficking of sensitive and dual use technologies and how do you see this office being used to advance America first diplomacy moving forward?
Secretary Rubio (01:29:21):
Yeah. I think at the core of what you're trying to get to with your bill and we're trying to get through with our resources is as follows, and that is that you will say you can't sell a certain product or a certain product can't be exported because it would be the detriment of the national interest of the United States, but it's prohibited for one country, but it's not prohibited for some other country. They will then set up a company in a third country and use that to evade the sanctions. In essence, you will find a company, let's say it was a sanction against a transfer of technology to a Chinese company that's linked to their military, but they will then figure out a way to set up a company in a third country and a country that's not barred for export.
(01:30:01)
And they will use that vehicle and that route in order to be able to export a valuable technology. And so what we're trying to get at through our efforts is identifying those countries where that is happening and those companies that are being used for that purpose. I think your bill, though I haven't read it, sounds like what it would do is it would codify this effort so that it exists beyond this administration.
Congressman Ronny Jackson (01:30:21):
Well, thank you. I appreciate that. And I'm anxious to partner with you from a legislative standpoint on that. So if there's anything in the bill when you do see it that you would recommend, please let me know. Under this administration, the Foreign Service has refocused its diplomatic core on merit and performance. The State Department has eliminated internal DEI programs, slashed woke investments and neutered NGOs that were working against U.S. national interest. We finally have got away from trying to force other governments to adopt the crazy woke social agenda of the failed Biden administration, the same agenda still being promoted by many of the progressive Democrats on this committee, unfortunately.
(01:30:59)
And we are now ushering in a new era of American efficiency and strategic diplomacy. Mr. Secretary, how can this committee continue to provide the State Department with the tools in the upcoming Foreign Service Act reauthorization to advance President Trump's American first agenda and continue this progress?
Secretary Rubio (01:31:17):
I mean, I think codifying these policies are important so that they exist for the long term. I want to just say one thing when it comes to the issues that people use the term diversity. The Foreign Service will always be diverse in comparison to maybe some other agencies, simply because foreign service and international diplomacy often attract people that are first generation or maybe even immigrants themselves, they have language skills, they have cultural skills or what have you that sort of attract them to diplomacy to begin with. I think you see it reflected in ambassadorial posts around the world as well, the ones the president has nominated and so forth.
(01:31:49)
I would also add something that's very unique to the State Department, which other agencies don't have. The majority of our employees, over 47,00 of our total employees, about 70,000, 47,000 are locally employed. These are nationals of other countries that work for us and they're a key part of our missions. We couldn't carry out our mission function in many of these countries without these locally employed individuals that are not even American citizens, but they're valuable resources. They've been there for 15 or 20 years.
(01:32:16)
And so in and of itself, I would say the State Department, but ultimately we want to hire the best people for the job and that's what we should always want. We want to hire the best people for the job, the ones who are most capable of doing the job. And I think we can do that and still have a very diverse workforce, but not because of the diversity, but because of their skill, their merit and their abilities.
Congressman Ronny Jackson (01:32:36):
Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Mast (01:32:39):
Representative Jackson is recognized. The other one.
Congressman Jonathan Jackson (01:32:43):
Thank you very much. Thank you, Secretary Rubio. Great to see you again. Thank you for your forceful words in support of diversity, although there is some conflicting claims to what it means. Secretary Rubio, I stand before you not simply as a legislator, but as a witness to a moment in our nation's history and we are threatening to sever the sacred connection between our national interest and our moral obligation. This is a budget hearing, of course, but more than numbers on a page, we have to wrestle with the meaning of what those numbers mean to the lives of real people and real places whose very existence is bound in no small way to the decisions that we make in this room.
(01:33:19)
I want to start by showing the American people what the dismantling of the diversity, equity and inclusion means. Under your leadership, we are abandoning the continent of Africa. Would you put this up please? The question is not what can we afford, but what we are willing to become. Under your leadership, the U.S. effectively has closed 31 councilor operations across Africa and has 34 ambassadorships vacant. Under your leadership, we froze student, refugee and valid visa processing to 26 African nations. Under your leadership, we have raised the tariffs on 30 emerging economies. Under your leadership, we are pulled out of the pandemic and healthcare aid for over 40 countries. Our diplomats used to operate in every region, culture, and society on earth, a workforce that reflects the diversity of our country is not a political objective.
(01:34:18)
It is indeed, as well as you know, a strategic advantage as you articulated. Africa and other developing nations are fast growing and young populations represent one of humanity's greatest opportunities for shared prosperity, climate resilience and democratic transformation. On global health last year, the Trump administration cut off all funding to the World Health Organization. However, to prevent diseases from reaching our shores, the U.S. still needs the global outbreak and disease surveillance functions that the World Health Organization offers. Diseases, as you know, do not need passports or thesis. In March, the Washington Post reported that the administration is proposing to spend more than $2 billion a year to recreate a system that you dismantled such as laboratories, data sharing networks, and rapid response systems that you abandoned when you withdrew from this program. This is more than three times what we had contributed to the World Health Organization. That's waste, fraud and abuse. How is reinventing the wheel at a significantly higher cost efficient for the American people? You know that, let me just answer that.
(01:35:36)
Since Eastern Congo and Uganda are currently experiencing the third largest outbreak since it was discovered half a century ago, and your response was to criticize the World Health Organization that you had retreated from. Your statement and the administration's action reveal a retreat from our responsibility, a shrinking of the vision of America, and a devastating abandonment of those who have long looked to the U.S. not as a savior, but as a partner in the difficult work of survival and dignity. Moving forward, we would have questions on how the Trump administration plans to address global health crisis if that is something the United States still wishes to have leadership in.
(01:36:15)
Prior to 2026, U.S. global health was a model for the world. Its initiatives helped contain more than 250 diseases across more than 40 countries, but DOGE and this administration have not told the truth. They told the American people these cuts were necessary because I can assure you there is nothing necessary about denying medicine when people are suffering. There's nothing justified in weakening initiatives like PEPFAR and The Global Fund. I'll give you some time, which have stood as shining examples of what this country can achieve when it chooses compassion over indifference.
(01:36:53)
As we look at the HIV crisis and specifically in Zambia, according to a draft memo that was shared with you prepared for you by the State Department on African Bureau staff, something that you care about, you considered withholding lifesaving assistance to 1.3 million people with HIV in Zambia to force the government to sign a deal giving the U.S. more access to critical minerals. Do you consider it acceptable to use lifesaving HIV-AIDS treatment as leverage for economic advantage? And in closing, over the Easter weekend, I was in Cuba doing an oversight to see and your State Department refused to meet with members of Congress while they were out gallivanting and partying. In closing, I would like to ask you, will you invade Cuba? I yield back.
Secretary Rubio (01:37:43):
Well, I have one second to answer? What do I do? I mean, you guys tell me your rules here. I tried to write down all the stuff you said but-
Congressman Jonathan Jackson (01:37:51):
Will you invade Cuba?
Secretary Rubio (01:37:52):
Well, that's not the only thing you said.
Chairman Mast (01:37:54):
Mr. Secretary, I'm going to take my time to ask questions at this time and I'll give you some time to answer.
Secretary Rubio (01:37:58):
Okay, because I do want to answer a lot of the points he raised.
Chairman Mast (01:38:01):
So my questions are going to bear on this. I think there is a significant difference in the State Department today and since you've taken the reins versus the State Department under Secretary Blinken and under President Joe Biden. I'd like you to expand upon the changes that have been conducted. I think it's also incumbent for us to speak about things that just not everybody follows these things all day. I spoke about these things a little bit in my opener. The amount of attacks that have come against the United States of America by the hand of Iran, not in 47 years, just in the last 30 months prior to Epic Fury beginning.
(01:38:39)
I referenced over 350 attacks, 200 wounded, multiple Americans dead to include Specialist Moffett, Specialist Sanders, Specialist Rivers. We have been ongoingly attacked by Iran just recently and the United States has largely done nothing about it. I think one of the things that's changed about us is that we are not going to be an America that gets attacked and pretends it never happened, ignores it, does nothing. That was a way of the past. So Secretary Rubio, I'd love for you to discuss this and discuss the questions that were asked previously and you have three minutes and 45 seconds to do so.
Secretary Rubio (01:39:19):
Okay, good. And I actually think they dovetail because there's a couple points. First of all, it's just absolutely false that we've abandoned the continent of Africa. As I've highlighted multiple times here on the diplomacy front, we are deeply engaged in the DRC and Rwanda peace negotiations. In fact, if it wasn't for us, there wouldn't be any negotiations. We are deeply involved in the quad effort with Sudan that involves the UAE on one side, Saudi Arabia on the other, and it's deeply complicated that we actually have helped host donor conferences. So we are very involved in all of those issues. As I pointed out earlier, we've been working very cooperatively with the government in Nigeria to go after a common threat, terrorists that want to aim at us but are threatening the nation state there now.
(01:39:57)
And by the way, we're opening new areas of relationship like Equatorial Guinea, which is a country we really hadn't had much interaction with for many years and now that's begun to flourish and hopefully we can build upon that. In the case of the consular services, we've consolidated consular operations all over the world and one of the reasons why is you can do it more efficiently. There are areas where literally the number of either visas that are not accepted or even applicants do not justify having a full-time station. We've done this repeatedly, not just under this administration, but previous administrations have done that. And so consolidation of consular services is not unique to the African continent. We've seen it in Mexico where we're going to close one consulate because the cost-benefit analysis doesn't add up.
(01:40:38)
On the World Health Organization, they basically covered for China during the COVID pandemic, openly covered for China, refused to disclose the reality of what was happening soon enough and didn't put the blame quickly enough on where it belonged, but not just the blame. It didn't allow researchers to be able to begin the work of ... It took longer than it should have to develop a vaccine and other things because of their attitude towards that. We have deep problems with the way the World Health Organization seems to play politics on behalf of some countries and we pointed that out. Now, let me talk about a couple other things you raised. The Global Fund. The Global Fund is very happy. You should call them. They're very happy with us. They've put out multiple statements about the work we're doing with them. We are fully compliant-
Congressman Jonathan Jackson (01:41:19):
Can I challenge any of his assertions, Chairman?
Chairman Mast (01:41:21):
It's my time.
Secretary Rubio (01:41:22):
No, but I'm just telling you, The Global Fund we are, for example, there's a 33% cap on what we give, the rest of has to come from other donors. We are at that level right now. And if donors give more, we'll give more. We're committed to that. They're very happy with what we have worked out with The Global Fund. I think the other thing you didn't point out is we are not abandoning these countries or these programs. We're entering into compacts. 32 compacts, the majority of them in Africa in which we go to a country and say, "Look, rather than force a bunch of NGOs from Northern Virginia on you, we are going to work with you. We are going to give the money government to government and we're going to work in cooperation with your government to build up your national health system. So not only can you care for the patients you have now, but ultimately you won't have this problem for 5 or 10 years." And they want that. They welcome that. They do not want the ongoing dependency of aid.
Congressman Jonathan Jackson (01:42:10):
Mr. Secretary, [inaudible 01:42:12].
Secretary Rubio (01:42:11):
These countries clearly want to establish their own systems.
Congressman Jonathan Jackson (01:42:13):
... come over here because of visa.
Chairman Mast (01:42:14):
Representative Jackson, you're not recognized.
Secretary Rubio (01:42:16):
I know. But on Zambia, look, we're not threatening them with anything. They just don't want to sign a compact. But you do raise an interesting point, not specific to Zambia, but broadly. There are a lot of countries we give a bunch of money to. You sit there and you say, "Okay, we donate $ 50, $80 million a year to this country." We do all the aid for that country, but all of the contracts, all of the rare earth minerals, all of the financial benefits, all of the commercial deals are with China.
(01:42:41)
So explain to me how is that good for the American people, that we are in a country that would take care of all of their problems, but then all the economic benefits flow to China or some other country? That has to be talked about. How can I justify to the American people that we flood a country with American aid, but all of the commercial benefits in that country go to China or someone else over us? That is a legitimate thing to discuss with every country in the world that we give a lot of aid to. That is the reason why aid should not be separated from policy because it has to reflect our national interest.
Chairman Mast (01:43:14):
Thank you, Secretary Rubio. Representative Kamlogardove.
Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove (01:43:17):
So Mr. Secretary, five months ago, you essentially became the new overlord of Venezuela, taking control of the country's oil revenues and giving foreign companies access to its oil and minerals. But you have provided no real transparency about where the money is going and who is benefiting from this arrangement. I want to now talk a little bit about Mauricio Claver-Carone. So Mr. Secretary, you've known Mr. Claver-Carone for many years, correct?
Secretary Rubio (01:43:51):
I don't know how many years, but sure.
Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove (01:43:53):
Okay. We know that he was special envoy to Latin America. He's also a former lobbyist who supported your presidential campaign I think in 2016. And now he runs a private equity firm that is seeking $1 billion in investments in Latin America. Apparently he is seen as your right-hand man on Venezuela, but he's not a federal employee and he's not bound by rules about financial disclosures or conflict of interest. According to the Washington Post, he acts like a kingmaker in Venezuela helping to determine which private companies get contracts and access.
(01:44:32)
And that's concerning because in January you gave confidential licenses for Venezuelan oil to a company that had been charged with bribery by the Department of Justice and employs a trader who gave $6 million to Trump's campaign. Some have said that Mauricio is the Jared Kushner of Latin America, but Mauricio has said that Jared Kushner is the Mauricio of the Middle East. So who is Mauricio and why is he riding on ...
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:45:00):
So, who is Mauricio and why is he riding on private jets to Caracas with executives from firms trying to get contracts? And why is he texting Delcy Rodriguez on the regular? Who is he working for?
Secretary Rubio (01:45:14):
Well, first... Okay.
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:45:15):
I'm going to allow you to respond. I'm sending this up because it looks unseemly, that essentially you are taking Venezuelan oil money, and sending it through a network of campaign donors, corrupt politicians-
Secretary Rubio (01:45:28):
That's false.
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:45:29):
... lobbyists, and we can't get any documentation on that. We don't have any receipts. So the question is, is anyone from the administration directly or indirectly benefiting from the contracts being doled out in Venezuela?
Secretary Rubio (01:45:43):
Is this where I get to answer?
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:45:44):
Yes.
Secretary Rubio (01:45:44):
Okay, perfect. Number one is the number of people. Mauricio is one of many people that are involved in what's happening in Venezuela. There's not a day that goes by that we don't have someone who's interested in what's happening in Venezuela for a variety of reasons, nor is he the only person in the United States that directly contacts Delcy Rodriguez and others.
(01:45:59)
There is a stampede of people that want to be involved in Venezuela. Mauricio is one of many, but by the way, not involved in Venezuela... I am not knowledgeable or know of any financial links he has to anybody in Venezuela.
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:46:10):
So I'm going to reclaim my time, Mr. Secretary, but I'm glad that you said that because you have said these things. You have shared these talking points before.
Secretary Rubio (01:46:18):
They're not talking points. They're the truth.
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:46:19):
But it's hard to take your word for it when this is the most corrupt administration in American history.
Secretary Rubio (01:46:25):
Well, that's your opinion.
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:46:25):
We're talking pardons for sale. We're talking about no bid contracts to those on Trump's family and friends plan. We're talking about a $1.8 billion slush fund. And I think that's corruption. The American people think that's corruption. They want to know if you think that's corruption.
Secretary Rubio (01:46:43):
Okay. Number two, this goes right to the point of transparency. You're absolutely wrong about the way the money flows. It's pretty straightforward, and I'll show-
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:46:50):
So I'm going to have to reclaim my time again because the-
Secretary Rubio (01:46:53):
Well, then so what kind of process is this?
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:46:53):
... question about corruption-
Secretary Rubio (01:46:56):
They get to ask questions and you don't get to answer?
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:46:56):
The question about corruption... It's my time. The question about corruption-
Secretary Rubio (01:46:58):
I don't know about you. When is it my time?
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:46:58):
... is really important-
Secretary Rubio (01:47:00):
So, why am I here if-
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:47:00):
... because if you can't call out-
Secretary Rubio (01:47:01):
... I don't have to answer your questions and your defamatory statements?
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:47:03):
I'm reclaiming my time, Mr. Chair.
Secretary Rubio (01:47:06):
Reclaim? But I want to reclaim, do I get time?
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:47:07):
This is my time, Mr. Chair.
Secretary Rubio (01:47:07):
Because you make these defamatory statements and no one can talk here. This is crazy.
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:47:10):
If you can't call out corruption in this country, then how can you call it out in another-
Secretary Rubio (01:47:16):
Well, I can't say anything-
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:47:17):
... that is the question.
Secretary Rubio (01:47:17):
... because you won't let me speak.
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:47:18):
It is about credibility and your credibility, and your credibility meter is on empty right now. This oil-
Secretary Rubio (01:47:25):
See, these guys just get to talk and I don't get to answer?
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:47:28):
... who determines the barrels of oil that gets sold? How many of them-
Secretary Rubio (01:47:30):
But let me answer your question. I have an answer for your question.
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:47:37):
... at what price does it get sold? Where is it going?
Secretary Rubio (01:47:37):
Oh, I get it.
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:47:37):
I will let you.
Secretary Rubio (01:47:37):
They have to use their time for me to answer your question.
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:47:37):
The onus is on you to prove-
Secretary Rubio (01:47:37):
A joke.
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:47:37):
... that there is no corruption happening.
Secretary Rubio (01:47:41):
Well, how do I prove it if you don't let me talk?
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:47:41):
That is your responsibility as the Secretary of State. And you know what? Normally, we would have access to that data. That's the transparency.
Secretary Rubio (01:47:45):
You do. You just don't know where to look.
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:47:46):
But you're not showing us any receipts. Well, then show us. Do you commit to coming back here with whoever the person is who is monitoring the sales of the oil? Bring them before this committee.
Secretary Rubio (01:47:56):
Can I reclaim my time?
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:47:57):
Show the receipts. Have the documentation. You don't have this time yet. I am talking about your credibility and evidence, not your talking points because talking points are never a replacement for transparency-
Secretary Rubio (01:48:09):
I agree, but that's what you're saying.
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:48:09):
... and documentation.
Secretary Rubio (01:48:09):
You're saying talking points without an answer.
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:48:12):
We are five months into this and no audits. Zero visibility into the contracts that are awarded.
Secretary Rubio (01:48:18):
100% false. 100% false.
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:48:18):
Zero transparency about where the money is going.
Chair - Representative Mast (01:48:21):
Unfortunately, Representative's time has expired. Representative Salazar is recognized.
Representative Salazar (01:48:22):
Yes-
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:48:23):
And giving contracts with no transparency is exactly-
Secretary Rubio (01:48:25):
Can I borrow your time to answer?
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:48:26):
... the reason why you shut down USAID. So practice what you preach. I yield my pad.
Secretary Rubio (01:48:30):
Oh, she gets the screen now, too?
Speaker 1 (01:48:32):
Chairman, can we take down her words?
Representative Salazar (01:48:33):
I'll give you some time. I'll give you some of my time. Let me just get my...
Secretary Rubio (01:48:41):
Okay. But God, what kind of thing is this? What is this? You get asked questions for five minutes and you don't get time to answer. It's not a hearing.
Chair - Representative Mast (01:48:45):
I think you said [inaudible 01:48:46] before.
Secretary Rubio (01:48:45):
Is this like a dunk tank? What is this?
Representative Salazar (01:48:47):
I don't have to tell you.
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:48:47):
[inaudible 01:48:48].
Representative Salazar (01:48:47):
I'll give you time.
Secretary Rubio (01:48:50):
I've even used their time. How can I answer the question when they don't even give me time? I've had to use their time to answer your questions.
Representative Salazar (01:48:56):
Yes.
Secretary Rubio (01:48:57):
All right, whatever.
Representative Salazar (01:48:58):
All right. So I don't need to tell you that in my community, the city that I represent, the city of Miami, you're one of the most illustrious representatives, and that we're very proud of you, not only the Cuban Americans, but the Hispanic Americans in my community.
Secretary Rubio (01:49:11):
Why is she leaving? I'm going to answer her questions.
Representative Salazar (01:49:13):
I will-
Rep. Kamlager-Dove (01:49:14):
[inaudible 01:49:15].
Secretary Rubio (01:49:15):
Oh, she's... Okay. I got it. Well, thank you for coming.
Representative Salazar (01:49:21):
All right. So, we're going to talk about... I just want to give you time to answer, and then talk about Venezuela and talk about Cuba. So let's go back to Venezuela. Let's start with that.
(01:49:33)
You said that stabilization, recovery, and transition. Those are the three steps that the State Department was going to implement in Venezuela. I believe that transition is the free and fair elections. The Venezuelan has a very robust opposition forces. We have María Corina Machado. So the big question here is that in order to avoid any type of misunderstandings like the one that we were hearing from my illustrious colleague is that we should have free and fair elections that will bring rule of law, and the rule of law will then be able to bring in a lot of investments from the United States with transparency.
(01:50:12)
Why can we not start right now the process of sending the message that we are going to establish, let's say, next year, the end of next year, a free and free election sponsored by the United States.
Secretary Rubio (01:50:25):
Yeah. Thank you. Well, it all ties together, so I'm going to try to use the-
Representative Salazar (01:50:28):
It all ties together, correct.
Secretary Rubio (01:50:29):
So let me first say about the oil stuff, which is a bunch... I don't even remember half the stuff that was being screamed at me because most of it entirely is false. Here's what happens. When there are sales of oil from Venezuela, they used to sell it at a discount because of sanctions and they had to do all kinds of evasive matters. Now, they're able to sell it at market price to great benefits of Venezuelan people. That money and those proceeds are deposited in a treasury blocked account at Citibank.
(01:50:56)
That account, by the way, is audited by KPMG. KPMG has been hired and paid for by the Venezuelan government out of those funds to audit every single expenditure. There is a list that has been agreed to by both sides, the Venezuelan side and the US side, on what the allowable expenditures are for.
(01:51:12)
So for example, they've used 250-
Representative Salazar (01:51:15):
I need to go to three other countries. So I'm not sure what the Chairman wants to do, but I need to... I understand that you're answering her question.
Secretary Rubio (01:51:22):
Well, but it's tied to your point because I'll now be able to do the other ones quickly thereafter. Again, I know this is outrageous because I have to use your time to answer questions.
Representative Salazar (01:51:28):
That's correct. But I need to serve the community. I need to ask you about other countries, so-
Secretary Rubio (01:51:30):
Well, bottom line is the money that spent in Venezuela is audited by KPMG. It only goes to certain determined points, and it doesn't go to the individual benefit of anybody. Those are just false, outrageous things.
Representative Salazar (01:51:42):
So, when can we pivot to free and fair elections?
Secretary Rubio (01:51:45):
So the second point is on the transition phase, which is the third phase. The second is stabilization and recovery. Part of the recovery phase is creating the conditions for a free and independent press. You need to have an independent press in order to have free and fair elections. We've seen an uptick in that activity. It's not 100% there, but it needs to continue to grow. You need to give space for the political parties to organize and to mobilize because you can't participate in an election if you haven't had the time to do so.
(01:52:09)
And you need a new electoral commission. We've said that repeatedly.
Representative Salazar (01:52:12):
And when are we starting?
Secretary Rubio (01:52:14):
Well, we'd like to see it as soon as possible, but the reality... Just remember, it has been five months, not five years, not 50 months, five months. Five months is not a long time for a country that had gone through what that country went through, but clearly, we need to have a new electoral committee, and ultimately, Venezuela's future is with free and fair multi-party elections.
Representative Salazar (01:52:32):
Correct. Let's go to Cuba. We know that your office is talking to the Castro family, and you're sending the message that the game is over, that they need to open up the Democratic game. We know that. All right. So the question is what's delaying that process?
Secretary Rubio (01:52:47):
Well, it's not that it's delaying the process. We've had conversations. We're having diplomatic engagements with the Cubans consistently over time, over multiple reasons and for many reasons over the years. In fact, the CENTCOM was just down at the fence line in Guantanamo, not SENTCOM, SOUTHCOM over the weekend as well. Our message to them is very clear if they want a path in which they can recover their country and save it-
Representative Salazar (01:53:06):
But we understand that they are not understanding that.
Secretary Rubio (01:53:07):
Correct.
Representative Salazar (01:53:09):
So then what's next? So what can we do in order to make them understand that the game is over?
Secretary Rubio (01:53:14):
Well, we're not going to allow them to benefit from the game that they've been playing in which they're stealing money from the Cuban people to the benefit of this conglomerate at the expense of the people of Cuba. What we are offering to do is distribute $100 million in humanitarian aid to-
Representative Salazar (01:53:26):
But they're not accepting it.
Secretary Rubio (01:53:27):
... not governmental organization. Well, now they say they've accepted it, but they created impediments.
Representative Salazar (01:53:31):
It has to go through the Catholic Church, and they're not willing to-
Secretary Rubio (01:53:33):
I know there's Samaritan Purse. We have a whole host of-
Chair - Representative Mast (01:53:34):
Representative's time has expired.
Secretary Rubio (01:53:36):
... organizations that are prepared to do it.
Chair - Representative Mast (01:53:37):
Representative Costa is recognized.
Representative Costa (01:53:39):
Thank you very much, Chairman. Secretary of State, appreciate your presence. A lot of area to cover, but I'm concerned about America's precedence and the international arena that we live in today. Ronald Reagan once described America as being the shining city upon the hill, one that other countries sought to emulate. You're familiar with that quote.
(01:54:04)
I'm worried that our smart power that underpins our global standing gives us credibility, clout, and coherence is today in a democratic recession. That's my view. And I think American leadership's more important than ever before, and I think it's lacking. And do you agree that our smart power remains an important tool of our US statecraft?
Secretary Rubio (01:54:28):
Well, absolutely.
Representative Costa (01:54:29):
Well, but we're vacating the field. Two thirds of our ambassadorships' posts are empty. Our alliances, we hit our friends with tariffs, berate our partners for not supporting a war that they were not ever brought into in Iran, and only later, walked back the plans to withdraw troops from our European allies.
(01:54:49)
On foreign aid, we've scrapped USAID and dismantled our global humanitarian networks. And in the vacuum, as you know, China has come into that breach. I want to talk... We have a deal, this is, I think, a good example. You've not granted final approval on $14 billion arms deal for Taiwan, which I want to emphasize was a sale, not a gift.
(01:55:15)
Do you think that protecting Taiwan is still important?
Secretary Rubio (01:55:18):
It is. We had an $11 billion sale, the single largest in history just in December.
Representative Costa (01:55:23):
But it's not a gift. It's a sale and why are we withholding-
Secretary Rubio (01:55:25):
In December.
Representative Costa (01:55:26):
Why are we withholding the $14 billion?
Secretary Rubio (01:55:28):
We're not withholding. It's just under review still. But we just executed one in December, which was more than Biden did in four years.
Representative Costa (01:55:31):
All right. Let's move on. Let's move on to NATO. The president has described it as a paper tiger and he's made no hidden about his disparaging comments about our allies, which I think are dangerous. That undermines the longest, the strongest alliance that we've had post World War II. Do you think that NATO is a paper tiger?
Secretary Rubio (01:55:55):
The big what? I'm sorry.
Representative Costa (01:55:56):
Do you think NATO is a paper-
Secretary Rubio (01:55:57):
Oh, I think NATO is in need of deep reform. And part of the reason-
Representative Costa (01:56:00):
Well, but I mean, that reform is taking place. I mean, we can talk about it and you ought to be able to take some credit for this. Look at Poland is up to 5.0, their GDP for defense.
Secretary Rubio (01:56:09):
Poland is not the problem.
Representative Costa (01:56:10):
Well, a lot of these... But we're working on this and we're making progress. Would you not agree?
Secretary Rubio (01:56:16):
I don't agree. I think we're making progress.
Representative Costa (01:56:18):
You don't agree that we're making progress?
Secretary Rubio (01:56:19):
Well, I agree we're making progress with some countries, but others are saying their 5% or even their 3.5% includes, for example, pensions to veterans. That's not defense spending.
Representative Costa (01:56:28):
Well, of course not. But I mean, I don't think that the confidence and the support that used to be a part of that transatlantic partnership is still there today. And you go to Europe and I go to Europe, and we sense that in the people that we talk to.
(01:56:43)
Let's move over to Ukraine. I've spent a lot of time in engagement there. I know you have. You talked about it earlier today. Four years ago, it was seen about good versus evil, right? Russia's invasion of a country that was unprovoked, and there was strong bipartisan perception that that was the case. A year ago, the president indicated that Ukraine had no cards to play anymore. I think that President Putin today, modern Russia, is a syndicate masquerading as a country with a mob boss called Putin. He bombs hospitals, schools, churches, kidnaps over 20,000 Ukrainian children.
(01:57:32)
And yes, we have leverage, but we're backing out of our economic commitment there, our military commitment. But yet we see these brave Ukrainian people standing up for their sovereignty, and actually, taking a whole new page out of warfare in terms of something that we could learn from. When is the president and the administration going to use the leverage that we have over Russia?
Secretary Rubio (01:58:00):
We have. And unfortunately, the talks have not yet born fruit, but I want to disagree on something. So we continue to sell weapons through the Pearl Program, which has been a great success. That's an ongoing program with Ukraine, and we continue to have massive number of sanctions on Russia as we speak. The problem has been-
Representative Costa (01:58:17):
We've put the sanctions on and off again.
Secretary Rubio (01:58:19):
No, most of the sanctions are still on. The only one that has been waived for a limited period of time in order to provide more oil to the global market and stabilize prices is oil. And those are time determinant. These are 60-day waivers. These are not permanent.
Representative Costa (01:58:30):
Is it the intention to reengage in the efforts to form a ceasefire in a peace agreement?
Secretary Rubio (01:58:37):
Oh, we're prepared to do so. Unfortunately, those efforts proved less than fruitful. We spent a year on it last year, but we're prepared to do it as soon as they're prepared to do it. That offer, we've made it repeatedly. We're ready to go. We're prepared to play that role.
Representative Costa (01:58:50):
I think more to be continued, but thank you very much for your time.
Chair - Representative Mast (01:58:53):
Representative Huizenga is recognized.
Representative Huizenga (01:58:56):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Rubio, good to be with you. And while we're addressing all the important issues like your shoes, I just want to formally invite you to DJ my next event. I would recommend maybe DJ Overlord be your new nickname. I apologize for many of my colleagues here because you're right, they're not giving you the opportunity to answer extremely important questions.
(01:59:20)
I'm going to hit a number of issues very quickly. El Helicoide Prison in Venezuela. I believe yesterday you were quoted as saying that it had been closed down. I've got some close friends contacts there that believe that there are still 25 prisoners that are still there. So I don't ask you necessarily to address it, but I'd love for you to take a look at that, and get back to-
Secretary Rubio (01:59:45):
Just to be clear, the interim government has said they intend to close it, and we will hold them to their promise.
Representative Huizenga (01:59:50):
Please do, and make that as rapid as possible. Along the lines of where Dr. Jackson was talking, Ronnie Jackson, one way we've maintained our lead regarding the AI arms race is cutting off China's access to essential chip making tools made in America and by our allies.
(02:00:08)
Unfortunately, the Netherlands and Japan continue to sell their critical tools while here in the US we maintain stricter controls. Those exemptions continue to be exploited by the allies today. Do you agree that export controls on chip making equipment play a critical role in constraining the CCP's AI and military ambitions, and that ally should not be allowed to exploit exemptions to those controls?
Secretary Rubio (02:00:30):
Correct. And that features prominently in all of our engagements with the countries you just mentioned.
Representative Huizenga (02:00:35):
All right. Shifting gears. Last November, President Trump hosted all five Central Asian presidents. I happened to chair the South and Central Asia subcommittee for the C5+1 summit, that was a historic movement. And what I would like to know is do you recommend that Congress send a strong signal of the US's commitment to Central Asia by repealing the Cold War era Jackson-Vanick Amendment, which only serves to chill US investment in the region?
Secretary Rubio (02:01:02):
Absolutely. We want that repealed. We think it would be helpful.
Representative Huizenga (02:01:04):
And what would be the positive steps? What are those next steps?
Secretary Rubio (02:01:07):
I think it would signal that these impediments that have existed in the past and being able to deal with these countries commercially are being removed. So this came up in my confirmation hearing, and I don't know what the holdup has been because every committee I go to, they ask me why. Everybody seems to agree they want to get rid of it, but no one gets rid of it. So you should. And by the way, we intend to have a C5+1 meeting that I'll be attending at some point this year in the region.
Representative Huizenga (02:01:29):
Wonderful. And they will be thrilled to have that. And then you recently returned from visiting India. India is a critical economic and security partner for the US across the Indo-Pacific. Could you please share with the committee the outcomes of your recent visit and how the Trump administration is strengthening the partnership while simultaneously addressing longstanding market access issues?
Secretary Rubio (02:01:52):
Well, so India is an important strategic ally of the United States. We do a lot of things together, and there's tremendous opportunities to do more. The two points we focused on are one, is the hopes that we can wrap up the negotiations on our trade agreement, which we think we're a few weeks away from being able to conclude. Obviously, I don't negotiate those. That's a USTR function. So I refer you to them as to the timing of it, but we think we're pretty close in getting that done, and both sides want to see it done.
(02:02:17)
The other reason I was there was in addition to the bilateral meetings. We were able to host a meeting once again of the four ministers of the quad, which is the cooperation between the United States, Australia, Japan and India. And there are a number of things we're working on, and now we have actionable items that we're beginning to focus on.
(02:02:32)
There'll be a new port facility in the region that we're going to work together on for one of the small Pacific Islands. I think that is an important show-
Representative Huizenga (02:02:39):
Can you name which one?
Secretary Rubio (02:02:40):
Well, I think it's... We're talking to Fiji right now about the ability to be involved with them. And then the second is, I hope I didn't misspeak on that, but I believe that's the case. And on the second one that we are working together on is-
Representative Huizenga (02:02:51):
Trust me, somebody in the media will hold you accountable.
Secretary Rubio (02:02:53):
Well, we'll get the... But the second one that I would tell you is that one of the things we've agreed to work on is domain awareness, working together and pooling our resources, so we can have domain awareness about what's happening out in the sea. Is there someone out there trying to impede traffic? Is there someone messing with undersea cables? Is there sanctioned ships that are moving through? This domain awareness is critically important. If we can pull the resources of these four countries, it would be a benefit to the region writ large.
Representative Huizenga (02:03:21):
Thank you. And I'll just leave one last comment. It has been my observation going back to whether it's Russia, Iran, other places that have been bad actors. Sanctions are only as good as your willingness to enforce them. And we are finally seeing this administration with your advocacy and others and Treasury to enforce those sanctions. Anthony Blinken sat there where you are not that long ago, and I had to remind him he had a problem on his hands because I'm Vice Chair of the Financial Services Committee. There's a number of Financial Services Committee members who are on this committee. We actually write the sanctions, and he basically would come in and say, " Don't worry your pretty little head about all these confusing sanction-y things. We got a handle on it." You finally-
Chair - Representative Mast (02:04:05):
Representative's time has expired.
Representative Huizenga (02:04:05):
Thank you.
Chair - Representative Mast (02:04:06):
Representative Amo.
Representative Amo (02:04:08):
Secretary Rubio, welcome back. I want to start where we left off last year. You told me, quote, "We're going to do more food aid than any country on the planet times 10." That was your promise, but the facts tell a different story. America might still be the world's largest food aid donor, but we certainly don't provide 10 times more food aid than our peers. In fact, under your watch, America's food aid contributions have been cut by more than half to roughly $2 billion. It should be very clear that America's strength has never come solely from our might. It comes from our alliances, our credibility, and our values. You didn't just eliminate programs, created vacuums. Vacuums where violence and instability are rising, that extremist groups are filling, that competitors like China are exploiting, and vacuums that are making Americans less safe and less prosperous.
(02:04:57)
And you heard Americans here at home with your policy decisions. Shuttering USA aid wiped out more than 23,00 American jobs while Donald Trump and his billionaire buddies got rich off of corrupt deals. Peanut farmers in Texas and sugar farmers in your home state of Florida lost market access because of your cuts. So Secretary Rubio, before slashing food aid programs, did you conduct any analysis whatsoever on how many American jobs would be lost, how many farms would be hurt, and how much damage would be done to local economies and small businesses?
Secretary Rubio (02:05:28):
Well, because we know all of those will still be part of the new programs we've created and are creating, but the second point I would make, American foreign aid programs are not a jobs program. Although they employ Americans and we want it to be helpful to Americans and that's why-
Representative Amo (02:05:39):
So you're okay hurting the farmers in your home state?
Secretary Rubio (02:05:41):
The World Food for Peace Program, for example, now we've transferred it to US, the agriculture department. They're in a better position-
Representative Amo (02:05:51):
Well, you're talking about a hypothetical future-
Secretary Rubio (02:05:51):
... [inaudible 02:05:52] execute on it.
Representative Amo (02:05:51):
... where you fix past mistakes, but farmers have been struggling over the last year.
Secretary Rubio (02:05:51):
These aren't past mistakes. That where it belonged in the first place because it's helpful. The farmers have more direct input there than they would at the state department. As to your point about us cutting aid, we donate more than the next four countries combined. We do more than anybody else.
Representative Amo (02:06:04):
But we went down and there are consequences. Look, from where I sit-
Secretary Rubio (02:06:07):
But why are we in charge of feeding everybody? I mean, we are-
Representative Amo (02:06:09):
This is not about charity. This is about our economy and values. I didn't say that you got to do it all, but you can't cut when you know without analysis that bad things are going to happen.
Secretary Rubio (02:06:19):
We replaced. We have new programs that are actually working better; it's getting food to people faster.
Representative Amo (02:06:25):
Well, Mr. Secretary, if I may, from where I sit you, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, you got together, you made these cuts blindly because you did not say that you conducted any analysis. You just said we cut because we have a hypothetical future that we are trying to create, which is not a serious plan. And that's not regard for the economic damage to our farmers, to our small businesses here at home, who are feeling that pain.
(02:06:46)
And moreover, you've had lives lost. And I want to get to that point. I want to introduce you to Mary Sunday. She is behind me and after your food aid cuts decimated the world food program's ability to feed the Kenyan refugee camp she lived in, Mary's seven-month old daughter, Santina died of malnutrition. This is the only photo Santina's parents have of their daughter. Before Santina died, you looked me in the eye in this room and you said, "No children are dying on my watch."
(02:07:15)
She was a child. She had a name, a family, a future ahead. Now she's gone. She is one of over 500,000 children who died last year after your administration pulled the plug. Yesterday, I heard your testimony. You said you're seeking outcomes with foreign aid programs, but the outcome that I see is dead kids.
(02:07:34)
So, Mr. Secretary, I want to ask you again and with a real direct answer, please, were you lying to Congress when you claimed no children were dying on your watch, or did you simply never bother to calculate the human cost of your decisions?
Secretary Rubio (02:07:47):
That number you're throwing around is a false number. It's a false number. And not only that, you're equivocating that the death of an individual's responsibility of the United States-
Representative Amo (02:07:56):
There are 500,000 others.
Secretary Rubio (02:07:57):
No, that's a false-
Representative Amo (02:07:59):
Mr. Secretary-
Secretary Rubio (02:07:59):
That's a false statement.
Representative Amo (02:08:00):
... the numbers are there.
Secretary Rubio (02:08:01):
No, the numbers are not there. The numbers are an opinion of experts, who got their contracts cut.
Representative Amo (02:08:02):
Here's the thing, you have a narrative to share. Mr. Chairman, I want to-
Secretary Rubio (02:08:02):
These are people that got their-
Representative Amo (02:08:06):
... enter into the record these articles that show last year alone, over 155,000 children died from malnutrition. Over 126,000 children died from diarrheal diseases. Over 165,000 children died from pneumonia as a result of these cuts. So, here's the deal. You promised more food aid, instead there were cuts. You promised America first and said American workers, who you said aren't a priority for you. You said it's not a jobs program. They lost their jobs. You promised strength. Instead, we have lost influence, credibility, and trust.
(02:08:38)
And you promised children weren't going to die. You said that to me right here. You promised peace as well. Instead, your illegal war of choice with Iran is driving up fuel prices and grocery costs while putting millions more at risk of hunger worldwide.
(02:08:53)
This is not about charity. This is about values. So whether it's negligence or ideology, the result under your watch is the same. Weaker alliances, higher costs, dead children, and a less secure America.
Secretary Rubio (02:09:03):
The result is we spend more money-
Representative Amo (02:09:04):
So my time is expiring. So I'm going to take these seconds to say, what are you going to do to clean up the mess that you've created?
Chair - Representative Mast (02:09:10):
Representative's time has expired. Representative Davidson is recognized.
Representative Davidson (02:09:13):
Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for your faithful service to our country. Your leadership as Secretary of State provides confidence at home and abroad. And I would like to highlight that your personal testimony at Charlie Kirk's Memorial Service and your remarks at this year's Munich Security Conference resonate with me and with many of my constituents. So thank you.
(02:09:36)
I only have time for a few quick topics. So first, thank you for leading one of the most thoughtful national security strategies I've seen in the post Cold War era. I thought last year's National Security Strategy was well done, and the national security strategy opposes, "The cynical manipulation of our immigration system to build up voting blocks loyal to foreign interests within our country." The State Department has also made it clear that we object to the UN's efforts to advocate and facilitate replacement migration across the United States and broader across Western countries.
(02:10:09)
Immigration was a driving issue behind President Trump and Republican electoral victories, and I commend your department for making this a priority. Could you please highlight your approach beginning at our own borders and extended, especially through the Western hemisphere, to addressing this as part of the national security strategy?
Secretary Rubio (02:10:25):
In terms of migration?
Representative Davidson (02:10:26):
Yes.
Secretary Rubio (02:10:27):
Look, mass migration is a national security threat to any country that experiences it. It's bad for the transit countries, too, by the way, because it fuels and feeds these transnational groups that traffic not just in human beings, they traffic in drugs, they traffic in weapons, and anything else you can imagine. So I think one of the biggest threats specific to the Western hemisphere, but would be true throughout the world, is these transnational... They call them criminal groups. They're really transnational terrorist groups, that among many of the things they do is trafficking human beings. So mass migration is not good for any country that has to absorb it, and Europe is now facing the consequences of that, but mass migration is also not good for the migrant because they're abused along the way, and it's destructive and disruptive to all the countries in the region that have to experience it.
(02:11:08)
So today, we do not have a mass migration event, and every country along that route in Central America is grateful for it because that's less money that they have to spend and less resources that are being taxed, and less of a burden that they're having to carry.
Representative Davidson (02:11:23):
Thank you for that. And frankly, thank you for demonstrating that we just needed leadership to apply the laws to secure our own borders with this administration. And I'm a former infantry officer. The oath our military swears is similar to the oath we swear in the House or the Senate or for cabinet members. This is important defend our constitution. Generally, we say first define the mission, second, authorize the mission, and then execute the mission.
(02:11:47)
So I'd like to call your attention to the 2001 AUMF. It was, I think, the '01 AUMF and the '02 AUMF that I thought brought justice to Qasem Soleimani. As you highlighted previously in dialogue today, the IEDs and efforts of the Quds Force killed many Americans in Iraq, and Iran has been the biggest state sponsor of terror. Unfortunately, the '01 AUMF, which still survives, it authorizes the war on terror for Al-Qaeda and their affiliates: Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, and numerous other proxy forces for Iran aren't affiliates of Al-Qaeda. Would your administration support a modernization of an authorization of military force so that we could have a full authorization to provide full authority for our military to carry out these operations?
Secretary Rubio (02:12:44):
Yeah, twofold. The first is we haven't asked for one. Obviously, anything that allows or provides congressional support for the president's efforts to take on Hezbollah, Hamas, the threats they pose to the United States, and ultimately Iran, it would be a positive, but we haven't asked for it. We believe every operation that has been conducted is well within the law as it exists.
Representative Davidson (02:13:01):
Well, Article I gives Congress a duty to do something about authorizing force, and I've tried the whole 10 years I've been here to modernize it. So maybe next year, it'll be the magic year, but I think it'd be due that we actually authorize these things because our military needs it. They need to know that the American people have their backs. And particularly, when you look at people like the Seditious Six making threats to our military, I don't want them to have a second thought ever about their cover for the authority for the things we ask them to engage in.
(02:13:31)
Because frankly, the problem in the post 9/11 era hasn't been whether there's a just cause. It has been whether we've given our military everything they need to achieve it. They've been tactically brilliant and operationally brilliant, and I'd say that's true even in Iran, but they haven't strategically been able to succeed.
(02:13:50)
And part of that's because the United States hasn't been united behind it. And I guess towards that end, you stated missions here, we're clearly not United as a country in Iran. So briefly, what authorization do you need to carry out further operations in Iran?
Secretary Rubio (02:14:04):
Well, that's contemplated now. They're all within the president's powers and our view under the Constitution to address imminent and emerging threats against the interests of the United States. If those circumstances were to change, we would obviously engage Congress in that conversation. We would always welcome congressional support. We'd like congressional support, but that's not going to stand in the way of the president addressing an immediate threat to the United States, or an emerging threat to the United States that requires him as Commander-in-Chief to protect our people in our country.
Representative Davidson (02:14:30):
Well, the cause is just that-
Chair - Representative Mast (02:14:32):
Representative Mfume is recognized.
Representative Mfume (02:14:35):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, good afternoon. I was going to say good morning, but it's starting to run past us. We all, obviously, sit here in America in what has been known as the greatest deliberative body in this democracy, and in a nation that is the strongest, the wealthiest, the most powerful, the most influential nation that the world has ever seen. Our military might has no rival. However, America's moral obligation continues to be called into question, and I want to talk a little differently about something that doesn't get the attention that it should get, and I want to associate myself with the remarks from my colleague from Rhode Island.
(02:15:27)
Globally, over 122 million people are forcibly displaced all over the globe due to conflict, due to persecution, due to human rights violations. They are in the Sudan, they're in Syria, they're in the Ukraine, they're in Myanmar, they're in the Congo, and they are in Gaza.
(02:15:50)
And so I want to take the time that I have to talk about Gaza since no one seems to want to talk about it anymore now that there is a tentative ceasefire, but there's also a number of children, teenagers, seniors, and others that are living in wallow. They have no real medical care that is sufficient for their needs. They are displaced because of this humanitarian crisis that we see, and for months the issue was that Hamas was not allowing people in. Well, that's not the case right now. And we see what was supposedly had been tens of trucks going in each day down to a trickle, not carrying food but carrying a lot of commercial supplies. More than six months into the ceasefire, about 1.7 million Gazans, Palestinians are still living in tent camps. They're facing a surge, as you probably know, in rodent-born disease with reports of more than 70,000 cases of parasite infections related illnesses since the beginning of this year alone.
(02:17:14)
Many, if not most of them are children, young children who are trying to find a way to survive, who are also growing up with memories of what happened to their parents with a great deal of hatred in their heart towards America, towards Israel, toward anybody that they thought may have been a part of that. I just want to point out two things. One, the 20-Point Peace Plan was enacted and talked about by President Trump. It included Point #7, which doesn't get a lot of attention. And that is that the mandate that a full amount of aid would be sent into Gaza and into the Gaza Strip at a quantity of 600 trucks a day.
(02:18:02)
It also included another point, Point 8, that entry and distribution of this aid would proceed without any interference from any outside or internal force. So if we are in fact the strongest, the powerful, the most wealthy, the most influential nation on the face of the earth, it would seem to me that while we are doing all these other things around the globe, Mr. Secretary, that we ought to have a humane reaction and response to what we helped to create there.
(02:18:34)
I mean, it is not just war torn, it's ravished and people are dying every day, even as this hearing takes place because they can't get medical attention. And so Gaza is not over with. That chapter and page is not turned. Those persons, the Palestinians that live there really need help, and I would strongly urge the State Department, in addition to what you may be doing, to have someone and to have a process to come up with ways through UNRWA and other organizations to meet the need. Many of the international organizations are facing a monetary crisis, and so they don't have the ability to do what they are empowered to do, but this is still the United States of America, and we still have an obligation, and we cannot let children die in mass because we think that a ceasefire has created a new reality. The reality is still the same on the ground there.
(02:19:33)
So I would urgently ask that when you come back before the committee, that you try to address that or even before then, or if you want to share some information, please do because time is of the essence. I yield back.
Chair - Representative Mast (02:19:46):
Representative Lawler.
Representative Lawler (02:19:48):
Mr. Secretary is chairman of this committee's Middle East and North Africa subcommittee. I've been monitoring closely the administration's operations in Iran, and appreciate the many conversations that we have had. I commend both you and President Trump-
Representative Lawler (02:20:00):
... that we have had. I commend both you and President Trump for your decisive actions against the regime and that of our military. Last summer, we significantly set back their nuclear objectives. And in the past few months, we have systemically decimated their military infrastructure, including their naval fleet and ballistic missiles program and drone capacity. We eliminated the Ayatollah, the clerics, and much of the leadership of the IRGC. And now, you are working to get the Strait of Hormuz reopened. And to my colleagues, I would say to you, imagine what this regime would do if it actually had a nuclear weapon and tried to extract and extort by shutting down the Strait. They didn't just think of this as a result of this operation. This is something that they had been planning for years.
(02:20:57)
We are working to diminish their nuclear capabilities for good and to expand the Abraham Accords across the Middle East and actually ensure peace, stability, and economic prosperity. It is bold, it is innovative, and for the first time in 47 years, somebody actually followed through on the bipartisan threat that Iran could not have a nuclear weapon.
(02:21:22)
So I applaud you for the work that you have done during your tenure and wanted to ask you a few questions. Specifically, would the President sign a deal that doesn't deal with the nuclear threat and Iran's enrichment capabilities?
Secretary Rubio (02:21:38):
Well, that would be what the deal is about. So it would be impossible to sign a deal that doesn't deal with enrichment and the highly enriched uranium.
Representative Lawler (02:21:46):
Right. And would you say that Iran, for the first time, is finally willing to at least discuss these issues?
Secretary Rubio (02:21:56):
Well, I can tell you a few months ago, they refused to discuss the issues of both enrichment and the highly enriched uranium. I think now in some of the papers that have been exchanged back and forth, it's clearly addressed, but we still don't have final sign off from their system as of this morning.
Representative Lawler (02:22:10):
And there have been reports that sanctions, relief and release of frozen assets are on the table. As I understand it, you shut down those rumors yesterday in your testimony. Can you confirm that's the case?
Secretary Rubio (02:22:22):
Well, first of all, there are sanctions that are specifically related to their nuclear programs. Sanctions because they enrich, sanctions because they have highly enriched uranium. And so none of this would be done at the front end. There's no signing bonuses here, but ultimately it would all be conditions based. The sanctions that are directly related to the nuclear program would be discussed as if in fact they go through all the way on the things that we're asking them to do. But that would be part of the negotiation, it wouldn't be at the front end.
Representative Lawler (02:22:48):
Now, as you and I well know, during your time in the Senate, we worked together to pass the SHIP Act, and it was the Biden administration that not only released billions in frozen Iranian oil revenue, but it was the Biden administration that eased sanctions on the illicit oil trade between China and Iran. And that's what allowed the Iranian regime to finance terrorism, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis. That's what allowed them to finance their ballistic missiles program. And it's what allowed them to finance their nuclear capabilities. So as you look at all of this, the bottom line is, from our perspective, we want the nuclear materials out and so ultimately no dust, no money, correct?
Secretary Rubio (02:23:35):
That's right. And to be clear, we're talking about 60% highly enriched uranium. It has no peaceful purposes. The only reason to have 60% highly enriched uranium is to be one step away from turning it into 90% highly enriched uranium, which you would weaponize. So that has clearly been one of the things that has to be part of this agreement, the disposition of it.
Representative Lawler (02:23:53):
One thing I just wanted to say, as part of any negotiation, please keep in mind the US victims of Terror Compensation Fund and make sure that our 9/11 families continue to be compensated on the sanctions for Iran's terrorist activities.
(02:24:12)
A number of my Democratic colleagues have pushed war powers resolutions. From your experience and position, does this grandstanding benefit the United States or does it benefit the Iranian regime?
Secretary Rubio (02:24:23):
Well, the Iranians have misunderstood it in the past. They think, and I've seen others, not just the Iranians, but on different war powers resolutions, they think that if this thing passes, that means the President will not be able to come after us so he no longer has any leverage. I think I've seen reflections of that from them in the past. Obviously, look, Congress has its prerogatives. You'll vote on what you're going to vote on. You're asking me whether it's had an impact. I think if you see how it's reported on Iranian state television and things of that nature, it makes them think that somehow our hands are going to be tied and we won't be able to do anything to them, so why make a deal?
Representative Lawler (02:24:54):
Appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (02:24:55):
Representative McBride.
Representative McBride (02:24:56):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining us today. Like you, I attended the security conference earlier this year. And in a meeting that I had with several European prime ministers and several of your colleagues within the administration, your colleagues recognize that NATO is both bigger and better funded today than it was 10 years ago. And I am fully willing to admit that that is a byproduct of several factors, including Putin's aggression, previous administrations, and indeed a byproduct of actions by this administration and this president's first term as well.
(02:25:28)
But I want to focus in today on statements and actions that I believe go beyond pressuring and leverage and actually fundamentally undermine the foundation of NATO. On January 21st of this year in the President's speech in Davos, he said we quote, "Never got anything from NATO." Two months later, the President said on Truth Social, speaking of NATO, they will do nothing for us. Mr. Secretary, do you share the President's assessment that we quote, "Never got anything from NATO"?
Secretary Rubio (02:25:57):
Well, I think what the President was speaking to at that moment is what I'll speak to you about now is one of the reasons why I've been such a strong supporter of NATO is because they allow us to use these bases, because it allows us in a time of contingency like the one in Germany and others. And for the first time, I think we see NATO countries denying us the use of their bases, which undermines the purpose of our involvement.
Representative McBride (02:26:16):
These statements, including the one we never got anything from NATO happened, before the war in Iran, which falls outside of the Article V invocation, it falls outside of a war of defense. Do you share the President's assessment that we quote, "Never, never got anything from NATO"?
Secretary Rubio (02:26:36):
I share the President's assessment that on issues that are a priority to the United States-
Representative McBride (02:26:39):
I'll take that as you disagree with his assessment that we never got anything from NATO because-
Secretary Rubio (02:26:43):
No. We can't take [inaudible 02:26:44].
Representative McBride (02:26:43):
Mr. Secretary, let me ... Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Rubio (02:26:46):
Well-
Representative McBride (02:26:47):
Mr. Secretary, I'm asking very specifically about-
Secretary Rubio (02:26:49):
I'm trying to answer your question, but you're asking-
Representative McBride (02:26:50):
... a specific quote. I'm not asking whether NATO can be better or reformed.
Secretary Rubio (02:26:52):
And how can you guys ask me questions and not let me answer.
Representative McBride (02:26:53):
I'm asking if we never got anything from NATO. And I want to specifically ask you, Mr. Secretary-
Secretary Rubio (02:26:58):
Well, why are you asking me if I can't answer?
Representative McBride (02:27:00):
You're not answering the question that I'm asking. You're answering a different question about whether NATO can be better or reformed.
Secretary Rubio (02:27:04):
[inaudible 02:27:05].
Representative McBride (02:27:05):
And so I'm going to move on, Mr. Secretary. Are you aware that the only time Article V has ever been invoked is after 9/11 in defense of the United States?
Secretary Rubio (02:27:13):
Of course I'm aware of that. Yeah.
Representative McBride (02:27:14):
Okay. And are you aware that more than 1000 Europeans died in the subsequent war on terror that was invoked after-
Secretary Rubio (02:27:23):
They participated in the Middle East, correct.
Representative McBride (02:27:24):
And I assume you're aware that the NATO ally that lost more service members per capita is Denmark?
Secretary Rubio (02:27:32):
Well, Denmark, I thought it was that the UK had suffered more.
Representative McBride (02:27:36):
More per capita.
Secretary Rubio (02:27:37):
Okay, gotcha.
Representative McBride (02:27:38):
And I assume you're aware that Greenland is indeed part of Denmark.
Secretary Rubio (02:27:43):
For now.
Representative McBride (02:27:44):
Okay. Well, I want to focus in on Greenland. I joined the bipartisan bicameral trip to Copenhagen as the administration that you're a part of sought to seize Greenland. In the President's speech at Davos, he said, referring to Greenland, quote, "You need ownership to defend it." Mr. Secretary, does the United States need to own land within NATO to defend it?
Secretary Rubio (02:28:06):
Well, the truth be told, we are actually involved in conversations with Greenland and Denmark on the use of Greenland for collective defense for all of us. It's a key part of missile defense. But we're involved in those talks right now, so I think we're in a good place on it now. But I don't want to put stuff out there in the public record that would undermine the conversations we're having with them on it.
Representative McBride (02:28:27):
So specifically, I'm not asking about whether we're going to do more within Greenland for our collective defense. I think all of us share that goal, including Denmark and Greenlandic people, but does the United States need to own land within NATO to defend it? That's what the President said and that was the justification for those statements and the attempt to seize Greenland several months ago.
Secretary Rubio (02:28:50):
The President's view is that it's a lot easier to defend it when you have control and complete control of it. We are obviously having conversations with both Denmark and Greenland. They're ongoing on a monthly basis now. I think we'll have pretty good news on it at some point.
Representative McBride (02:29:02):
So I take that as you disagree with the literal words of the President of the United States. And I want to put a finer point-
Secretary Rubio (02:29:05):
I think he's right. If we owned it, it'd easier to defend it, but [inaudible 02:29:08].
Representative McBride (02:29:08):
That's not what he said. He said you need to own it to defend it, which fundamentally undermines the central tenet of Article V of NATO, which states that, "The parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against all of them, and if such an armed attack occurs, each of them will assist the party or parties attacked." So sitting here with I'm sure many leaders across Europe within NATO and many leaders beyond, including Vladimir Putin, potentially watching the words and listening to the words that you are saying, can you reassure our NATO allies and make it clear to Vladimir Putin that if a NATO ally is attacked and Article V is invoked, that we will defend them?
Secretary Rubio (02:29:49):
The United States is still in the NATO alliance and we'll be there in Türkiye to talk about all these topics. The President himself will be attending the next NATO meeting of heads of state where all these points will be made clear. We're still in NATO, but NATO needs significant changes and the President has made that clear. He's very disappointed in NATO.
Representative McBride (02:30:05):
[inaudible 02:30:06].
Speaker 2 (02:30:06):
Representative Self is recognized.
Representative Self (02:30:09):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. I want to continue on NATO, but first of all, would you like 30 seconds to respond to the last questioning?
Secretary Rubio (02:30:21):
Well, thank you. The bottom line is the United ... Look, with the NATO, I've been a strong supporter personally in the Senate and otherwise of NATO, and I still see the utility in it. The problem with NATO, as I want to point out, is those bases that we have in the region is one of the reasons I used to argue why NATO was so important is it allowed the US to project power and have power in case of contingencies. And we had a contingency and we had countries in NATO that said, "No, you can't use our bases, particularly Spain."
(02:30:47)
Now, I want to be fair, there were other countries that have been extraordinarily cooperative in what they've helped us to do, some publicly and some privately. But I think the President's irritation with NATO is that in a time of conflict and crisis where the United States had a need, you had members of this alliance who are constantly asking us to get involved in European matters, like Ukraine and things of this nature, who in our time were actually telling us, "No, your tankers can't use our air base. No, you can't use it to refuel. No, you can't use it for logistical support." And he's very just, "What kind of alliance is that?"
(02:31:19)
I think the other thing that's concerning is that apart from NATO, you have this European effort to stand up some sort of a military force, some of which may trigger actions that would then lead to an Article V invocation. That's a separate topic, but one that also needs to be discussed.
(02:31:33)
So I think the next meeting of NATO in Türkiye in July is probably the most important meeting in NATO's history because there are some things here that need to be cleared up and fixed.
Representative Self (02:31:42):
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I chair the European Subcommittee on this committee. I was in Europe for eight years on active duty to include European command and NATO SHAPE military headquarters.
(02:31:52)
I want to point, you gave us a really masterful review of the global situation early in your spoken remarks. I want to ask you to comment on another part of Europe that we've not talked about that I consider very fragile and that's the Balkans, particularly the Western Balkans. I just completed a trip through Bosnia, Herzegovina, Serbia, and Kosovo. I talked to government officials. I talked to opposition members, students, obviously the country teams, K4, NGOs, talked to everybody I could talk to. It's extremely fragile right now. Thank you for the ambassadors that were recently nominated for that region. I noticed that Kosovo did not have an ambassador nominated and I would ask for your support there.
(02:32:36)
We have four NATO allies that are also blocking Kosovo's entry into NATO. Obviously, we have the intractable issue between Serbia and Kosovo that Serbia considers Kosovo a province. Most of the world recognizes Kosovo as a sovereign nation. We have the change in the high rep coming in Bosnia, Herzegovina. This is an extremely fragile area of Europe, and I would ask for you to support Kosovo's membership in NATO with those four countries at the meeting in Türkiye that you just mentioned. I'm looking for stability and balance in the Western Balkans. Our troop presence is very, very important in that region of the world in terms of the K4 particularly. And I know we're looking for a high rep and I just asked for any comments you have on the Western Balkans. I consider them fragile.
Secretary Rubio (02:33:29):
Well, as you know, the preexisting high rep has resigned. And so there's a new candidate that we'll be supporting, is an Italian gentleman that we think would do a good job of helping provide some stability to that position. Beyond that, we remain engaged on this topic, as you've pointed out, and have so done privately as well. The last thing we want to see is any sort of conflict in there, any sort of partition, division, things of this nature and that would create further confidence.
(02:33:53)
I can't speak to expansion of NATO, I'll be frank with you, based on my last meetings with the foreign ministers. And obviously perhaps Secretary Hegseth has additional comments on this point, but at least what I perceived is that right now, generally speaking, NATO is so focused on some of these other issues that have been raised here today that expansion, particularly in the case of Kosovo, but other topics isn't really on the forefront of some of the agenda of these countries, but that doesn't mean it will never happen. It just means it's not really given these other sort of friction points. It has not featured prominently in recent conversations with our NATO allies.
Representative Self (02:34:29):
Yes, Mr. Secretary, you look at the Western Balkans, there's kind of a hole there in terms of EU membership and NATO membership. So there is a lack of stability.
(02:34:37)
With that, I have 30 seconds left. I'd like to yield to my colleague.
Representative Salazar (02:34:41):
Thank you very much, honorable Congressman Self. I just want to finish with what I was trying to ask you, Mr. Secretary. Let's go to Columbia. President Trump just endorsed Abelardo De La Espriella. We have information, sir, that there are forces preparing a major election fraud coming up in three weeks. My question to you is very clear. We need to send a message to the Colombians that they need to have free and fair elections. So are we prepared to say that whomever participates in that type of fraud process during the Presidential election, can we sanction them with OFAC sanctions [inaudible 02:35:19]? We need to-
Secretary Rubio (02:35:23):
I can't make that ... I would say to you that we are going to be very forceful in ensuring that there is a free and fair election in Columbia and do everything within our power to ensure that that happens.
Representative Salazar (02:35:30):
Specifically OFAC. OFAC enforcement. OFAC.
Speaker 2 (02:35:30):
Lady's time has expired. Representative Dean is recognized.
Representative Dean (02:35:35):
Thank you, Chairman, and Ranking Member Meeks. Welcome, Secretary Rubio. I want to take a moment to echo the sentiment about this administration. Under your leadership, we are going backwards. We're losing our moral standing. We're alienating our allies. Our status as the indispensable nation is in question. I had hoped that President Trump would have used you more. I had hoped he would have used diplomatic tools more instead of family deal makers.
(02:36:06)
A prime example of where we have lost ground is the destruction of USAID and the US Foreign Assistance Apparatus. Secretary Rubio, I agree with your stated intention to spend foreign aid effectively, efficiently, and aligned with American values. Your written testimony certainly paints a rosy picture of the State Department's progress in achieving those goals. I quote you when you say, " Every dollar we spend today is 100 times more effective, efficient, and aligned with the American interest than it was when President Trump took office."
(02:36:40)
We know such huckstering is not the reality. Last year, a new and untested organization called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation was set up by Israel and the United States within a few short months to take over distribution of emergency food assistance amid catastrophic food insecurity and famine in Gaza. GHF had no track record of providing humanitarian assistance and it relied on private subcontractors to transport the food, to provide food distribution sites, and then you saw the reporting. Hundreds of Palestinians, including women and children, were killed just trying to get to those sites. Secretary Rubio, can you tell us, can you tell the world how many people were killed simply trying to access those sites?
Secretary Rubio (02:37:31):
Well, since Hamas killed them, you should ask what Hamas' role was.
Representative Dean (02:37:33):
IDF soldiers shot some of them.
Secretary Rubio (02:37:35):
No, no.
Representative Dean (02:37:36):
Yes. Secretary Rubio-
Secretary Rubio (02:37:36):
Let me tell you the reason why food wasn't going in there is because the convos were being hijacked by Hamas.
Representative Dean (02:37:40):
... I reclaim my time. I reclaim my time because propaganda ain't going to work with me.
Secretary Rubio (02:37:43):
Well, it isn't going to work with me either. And what you're saying is propaganda.
Representative Dean (02:37:45):
Nearly 1,400 people were killed, and that was as of last March. Secretary Rubio, why did the State Department approve the $30 million to GHF at a time when other well tested agencies were there and able to provide distribution?
Secretary Rubio (02:38:01):
Well, because one of those were in cahoots with Hamas. And we saw an incredible amount of the aid flow into Hamas's hands.
Representative Dean (02:38:08):
Reclaiming my time. The aid was held up at the border-
Secretary Rubio (02:38:10):
Here we go with the reclaiming our time.
Representative Dean (02:38:10):
... by Israel and you know it.
Secretary Rubio (02:38:12):
You got to fix your rules here. You can't even answer a question.
Representative Dean (02:38:14):
You're not following the rules. You're very familiar with how this works.
Secretary Rubio (02:38:17):
No, I don't. I never served in the House. This is a weird rule. You asked a question and I can't answer.
Representative Dean (02:38:21):
The time is mine. Would you please add time to the clock?
Speaker X (02:38:23):
Nope.
Representative Dean (02:38:26):
A comedy show over there.
Speaker X (02:38:28):
I'd say on the left.
Representative Dean (02:38:29):
This is serious stuff.
Secretary Rubio (02:38:30):
I agree. That's why I shouldn't have to answer question about shoes.
Representative Dean (02:38:33):
Mr. Rubio, according to public reporting, nine counterterrorism and anti-fraud safeguards were waived to approve this. I wonder who specifically made the decision. I wonder, were you aware of this decision? I'm not asking you a question. And was there any written justification? I don't want an answer. You know why? Because now GHF is closed. It was abysmal. It was a legacy of disaster. Nothing about our investment, our investment, our taxpayer's investment seems to have been effective or efficient or in the interest of the American people. I would call that waste, fraud, and abuse.
(02:39:12)
Moving on. I'm a member of the appropriations committee. I'm concerned that you're flaunting Congress's constitutional power of the purse when it comes to foreign aid. For FY25, Congress appropriated and the President signed into law more than $690 million for international basic education. I don't need to tell you that investing in basic education is critical for empowering children, creating economic opportunity. It's also had a long time bipartisan support. You supported, you personally as a senator, supported authorizing legislation, the READ Act. How much of this funding has been spent so far?
Secretary Rubio (02:39:53):
I don't have that figure in front of me, but I can tell you we're not going to fund puppet shows.
Representative Dean (02:39:59):
Can you get it for us?
Secretary Rubio (02:39:59):
Yeah, I'll get it for you, but I'm going to tell you the number of puppet shows and all these other stupid things they were spending money on is going to be zero.
Representative Dean (02:40:05):
Well, you supported the legislation.
Secretary Rubio (02:40:07):
I didn't support the legislation to have puppet shows.
Representative Dean (02:40:10):
Let me end by this. Mr. Rubio, Mr. Secretary, the Trump administration will be remembered for rubble and rot. I had hoped you would have been able to distinguish yourself above that rot. I bet you hoped it too. Sadly, you have not. I yield back.
Secretary Rubio (02:40:26):
Well ...
Speaker 2 (02:40:27):
Representative Baird is recognized.
Representative Baird (02:40:32):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here and giving us an update on the Department of State. We really appreciate that.
(02:40:41)
In your testimony, you stated that the foreign assistance is a key instrument in America's ability to build partnerships and trust with developing countries. And President Trump has put forth a clear plan about America first in all aspects of our policy and his policy. Our focal point that the State Department has spearheaded, which is I am very excited about, is the American First Global Health Strategy. The US is a global leader in health innovation, particularly with pharmaceutical applications and biotechnology. African countries overwhelmingly have been the beneficiaries of American first bilateral global health agreements. 21 of the 32 signed agreements that you mentioned in your earlier presentation have been with nations in Africa, resulting in 40% of African nations being partners of the United States that have taken enough responsibility to invest in their people instead of asking for a blank check from America's taxpayers.
(02:41:40)
So I'm proud as a representative of Indiana to see that the drastic increase in domestic investments is innovative for global health problems and biotechnology. So can you walk me through the process for sending America's medical and health innovation abroad to assist with global health threats? And additionally, what plans does the State Department have to expand those global?
Secretary Rubio (02:42:06):
Yeah. And let me just say this goes right to the criticisms that I keep hearing from that side over there about us not spending the money because we got rid of a USAID program. USAID basically was a program, was a system that was completely devoid of our public policy, operated almost as an independent state department. And oftentimes, USAID was operating in contravention and contradiction of what the embassy was trying to accomplish in the host country. And one of the complaints you would get from many developing countries is that they would get flooded with NGOs that were picked for them. These NGOs would then operate in the country without even coordinating with the government, doing whatever they wanted and pursuing what they wanted. And in some cases it extended well beyond food and medicine. It extended to political interference and all sorts of other activities in these countries that were undermining the national interest and the credibility of the United States.
(02:42:51)
Now, these compacts in particular are promising and exciting because they are government to government arrangements. No longer do we put money into a bucket and says, this is for vaccines, or this is for medical care, or this is for standing up clinics globally. We are doing it individually country by country. And the reason why that makes sense is because every country has unique needs. Some country may need more help in some area than in others. But at the core of this arrangement that we're making with countries is their desire and our goal to ultimately help them build their own national health systems so that eventually they no longer are dependent on foreign aid in order to be able to conduct that. Some countries, that may take five years. Some countries, that may take 15. It depends on which country, but that's the goal of the compact. And these countries are happy with the compact because for the first time ever, their government leaders have control over how the money is spent, where it's being spent, and it's being spent in a way that builds their domestic capacity inside of the country.
(02:43:47)
That's a much better way to do it than to flood these countries with NGOs accountable to nobody, run by, in many cases, through a USAID program that those undermining our foreign policy in that country in many instances.
Representative Baird (02:44:01):
Well, I appreciate that answer very much. I was really shocked to see where some of the funds were going in Africa, for example, through those USAID and the USAID program. And I know that was not what was intended in the beginning. So thank you for taking care of that and making an effort to do that.
(02:44:20)
Let me change to one other thing. During the Biden administration, the FSOs were evaluated in the service based on a meaningless criteria, like DEI and woke politics. So this arguably drowned out the vital US interest, like beating back the Chinese encroachment and advancing new technologies abroad. I commend you for stripping the Department of DEI and other woke policies, and we should renew our focus on reinforcing our edge against China and we certainly can use tech diplomacy to do that. So we have about 42 seconds. So would you mind sharing with me how to agree with the diplomats should be trained in emerging technologies like AI and telecommunications?
Secretary Rubio (02:45:02):
Yeah. Well, I think given the dramatic transformations happening in the world today, our diplomats of the future are going to have to be trained in multiple fields that previously we didn't, not just in the role that technology broadly plays, but the rapidly evolving role that AI plays. And economics. I think economics have become a central core, have always been an important part of our diplomacy, but have become at the core of much of our diplomacy around the world now. So it's one of the areas where I think, in addition to knowing how to write non-papers and all the other normal diplomatic things, I think it's going to be really important for foreign service officers in the future to have an understanding of economic factors.
Representative Baird (02:45:37):
Thank you very much. I yield back.
Speaker 2 (02:45:38):
Representative Schneider is recognized.
Representative Schneider (02:45:40):
Thank you, Chair. And Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. I'm going to talk about areas on which we both agree, specifically addressing the threats from Iran and seeking stability, prosperity, and peace for all the peoples of the Middle East, including our Arab Muslim allies and the Jewish Democratic state of Israel. Like you, I've spent much of the past two decades working to block and ultimately permanently close any path Iran might pursue to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. And like you, I've argued that the international community must work together to eliminate Iran's conventional weapons threat, including ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and now drones. Like you have worked with Iran's support for terrorist organizations around the world, including Hezbollah and Lebanon, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and Houthis in Yemen, among others. And like you, I believe we should do all we can to empower the good people of Iran to free themselves from the evil regime that has oppressed them for more than 47 years.
(02:46:32)
And now we can add the imperative to reestablish freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. I know you and this administration are working to reopen that Strait. Mr. Secretary, assuming an arrangement is soon reached to reopen the Strait, have you or anyone in the administration calculated or even estimated the economic impact on Iran's economy through the remainder of the year versus the baseline that was expected before the war?
Secretary Rubio (02:46:55):
Yeah, I'm sorry. I want to understand your question. Are you saying if the Straits are open, how much have they lost?
Representative Schneider (02:47:00):
If an agreement is achieved, do you have an expectation of what's going to happen in Iran's economy going forward, how much money will come in with the Strait open?
Secretary Rubio (02:47:08):
Well, I can tell you, so for example, with the blockade now, their inability to get ships out is costing them hundreds of million.
Representative Schneider (02:47:12):
Post blockade.
Secretary Rubio (02:47:12):
Right. So if it's costing hundreds of million dollars a day now in not being able to get their ships out, that would be theoretically what they could gain back except that they still face sanctions. Now the sanctions haven't been enforced necessarily, but in many cases in previous administrations, but they still face sanctions. What you've seen happen now that has never happened before.
Representative Schneider (02:47:30):
Just for the sake of time, I appreciate that.
Secretary Rubio (02:47:31):
I understand.
Representative Schneider (02:47:33):
The administration is looking at, give and take, to get the Straits open. Have you estimated how much of the cash that will flow into the economy?
Secretary Rubio (02:47:40):
Oh, I got you.
Representative Schneider (02:47:40):
As you said, $100 million a day will make its way ultimately to Iran proxies like Hezbollah Hamas or Palestinian [inaudible 02:47:46].
Secretary Rubio (02:47:46):
Well, obviously we assume a lot of it, but they also have significant reconstruction costs. But let me be clear, I don't think that's what you're asking me. The Straits are not in exchange for sanctions relief. The Straits are in exchange for the blockade.
Representative Schneider (02:47:58):
No, I understand the sanctions. That's not what I'm asking.
Secretary Rubio (02:47:58):
I just wanted to be clear on that point.
Representative Schneider (02:47:59):
Yeah. But there will be economic inflows to the regime and-
Secretary Rubio (02:48:02):
Yeah, unfortunately that's the case and that continues to be the case. That will have to change as well as part of this negotiation.
Representative Schneider (02:48:07):
And just because time is so tight, my request is, can you commit to giving this committee a classified briefing to share what the administration is doing to thwart the efforts to get money to Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas?
Secretary Rubio (02:48:21):
Yes. And I think you would also benefit from hearing from Treasury on that topic as well.
Representative Schneider (02:48:25):
And I asked the chairman to do that.
(02:48:27)
Way back in May 8th, 2018, the Trump administration laid out a fact sheet making the case why it was leaving the JCPOA. I'm going to just go through some of the points and ask you to confirm that the administration's red lines are still the same. This is May 8th, 2018. There's a quote, "The JCPOA failed to deal with the threat of Iran's missile program and did not include a strong enough mechanism for inspection and verification," end quote. Can you commit to this committee that any resulting deal will include a strong mechanism for inspections, ideally anytime, anywhere inspections and verification of Iran's missile program?
Secretary Rubio (02:49:01):
Missile program?
Representative Schneider (02:49:02):
Yes.
Secretary Rubio (02:49:02):
Well, the missile program's being discussed partially because Epic Fury destroyed much of it, but it still needs to be discussed because it's a delivery system for these ... So that's been a part of the negotiations, correct.
Representative Schneider (02:49:12):
Okay. Again, quoting from the May 8th document, "The JCPOA foolishly gave the Iranian regime a windfall of cash and access to international financial system for trade and investment," end quote. Can you commit to this committee that any resulting deal will not foolishly give the Iranian regime a windfall of cash and access to the international financial system for trade and investment?
Secretary Rubio (02:49:30):
Yes, because they're not going to get any sanctions relief of any kind unless they get rid of enrichment and they get rid of the highly enriched uranium.
Representative Schneider (02:49:36):
Thank you. Third point, and I'm again quoting from the original document, "The Iranian regime must never have an ICBM, cease developing any nuclear capable missiles, and stop proliferating ballistic missiles to others," end quote. Can you commit to this committee that any resulting deal will cause Iran to cease developing its nuclear capable missiles and stop proliferating ballistic missiles to others?
Secretary Rubio (02:49:57):
We consider delivery systems to be a part of them having a nuclear which we said they'll never have.
Representative Schneider (02:50:01):
Right. Just because there are 40 seconds. Again, quote end quote, "The regime must stop his threat to freedom of navigation, especially in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. That was in 2018. Can you commit to the committee that any deal will cause Iran to stop his threats of freedom of navigation, especially in the Strait of Hormuz.
Secretary Rubio (02:50:18):
Not only can I commit to that, we won't even be able to enter negotiations until they do that.
Representative Schneider (02:50:22):
Okay. And finally, can you commit that any agreement, any agreement this administration enters into will insure Iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon?
Secretary Rubio (02:50:29):
That's the whole goal here. Absolutely.
Representative Schneider (02:50:31):
In that vain and most importantly, can you commit to this committee that any documented agreement related to Iran's nuclear program will be brought before Congress as required by INARA, which I believe you voted for.
Secretary Rubio (02:50:41):
We will comply with INARA.
Representative Schneider (02:50:43):
Thank you. I yield back.
Speaker 2 (02:50:44):
And thank you, Mr. Schneider, for letting him answer your questions. Representative Barr.
Secretary Rubio (02:50:48):
I was efficient. Thanks, guys.
Representative Barr (02:50:51):
Mr. Secretary, thanks for the great job you're doing. Some Democrats are making the laughable claim that Iran is stronger today than they were before Epic Fury started because of the disruption in the Strait of Hormuz. You've seen the Trump derangement syndrome in the hearing today. Can you set the record straight on whether or not Iran is stronger today?
Secretary Rubio (02:51:14):
Well, they have no Navy, they have no Air Force, they have no air defenses. They have massive destruction to the defense industrial base. They've lost a substantial percentage of their missile launchers and of their drone launchers as well. They're not benefiting from the Straits being closed because the blockade is keeping them from hundreds of millions of dollars a day in revenue. They've had their ships seized in the Indo-Pacific. Their leadership is fractured. They have hyperinflation. Their currency is worthless. And they're having trouble making payroll. I guess other than that, they're doing well.
Representative Barr (02:51:47):
Thank you. Do you believe that keeping the credible threat of kinetic military force on the table and the President's willingness to use such force is important to your diplomatic leverage?
Secretary Rubio (02:51:56):
Yes, because unfortunately we are dealing with a group of people that don't understand anything but that.
Representative Barr (02:52:01):
And so the resolution that's on the floor in the US House this week would do what to the US leverage?
Secretary Rubio (02:52:09):
I don't think technically it does anything. I think perceptionally, it allows the Iranians to believe that somehow they don't have to make a deal because there's no threat of something bad happening to them if they don't.
Representative Barr (02:52:19):
And just as a follow-up to my friend, Congressman Schneider's line of questioning, can you describe the key differences between the terms of the deal that you all are negotiating with Iran today versus the terms of the JCPOA?
Secretary Rubio (02:52:32):
What we're discussing now is what the negotiations will be about. And it will be about no enrichment, what they're going to do with their enrichment and what they're going to do with the highly enriched uranium being removed and being disposed of. That wasn't a part of JCPOA.
(02:52:46)
The other thing is that JCPOA was time limited. In fact, the prohibition on certain enrichment would have been expiring this very year. This very year, it would have been expiring. So JCPOA right now would be expiring and they would be able to be in a position to then ramp up and do whatever they wanted in compliance with the JCPOA.
(02:53:03)
So there are major differences even in the text of what we're discussing the negotiations are going to be about. But ultimately, any deal we do will be a good deal or won't be a deal. And it'll be better than JCPOA.
Representative Barr (02:53:15):
Absolutely. And I think that's a key point is that this idea that you could draw any analogy between what's happening now where the administration has totally obliterated the nuclear capabilities of Iran plus their conventional capabilities. You're negotiating from a position of strength that the Obama and Biden administration was not negotiating from a position of strength at all and provided upfront sanctions. We know what the result was.
(02:53:46)
I want to shift to the Indo-Pacific real quick. As you know, the Taiwan Relations Act states that it is the policy of the United States to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character. Consistent with that policy, the Trump administration announced in December of '25 an $11 billion arms package for Taiwan, the largest ever, including HIMARS, Howitzers drones, Javelin anti-tank missiles. As a result, the Taiwan legislature passed a $25 billion special defense budget that included funding for an even bigger arms deal for air and missile defense totaling 14 billion, a deal that is not final and a deal that is under review. As you know, one of the six assurances states that the US will not consult with the PRC on armed sales to Taiwan.
(02:54:32)
Now, you've heard this. Critics of the administration have alleged, the media has alleged as a result of the Beijing Summit, that President Trump's recent meetings with Chinese leader Xi in Beijing not only paused Taiwan armed sales, that's their term, "Paused arm sales," but also violated the assurance that the US will not consult with the PRC directly. Can you clear the air on this?
Secretary Rubio (02:54:58):
First of all, the 11 million in December was the single largest armed sales ever to Taiwan. It was more than-
Secretary Rubio (02:55:00):
In December, was the single largest arm sales ever to Taiwan. It was more than happened cumulatively under four years of President Biden, and in fact, I recall that for six years, President Obama offered zero to Taiwan during his presidency. It was such a big deal, by the way, that the Chinese reacted to it with really hyper-activity in terms of military exercises around Taiwan. We don't consult with the Chinese on these arms sales. We're aware of their position. They talk about it all the time, and I don't need to tell you, it wouldn't be breaking news that they're not in favor of these arms sales. They raise it, but they are not negotiated and they're not consulted. That second deal, the $14 million one, that's currently under review, and that would not be unusual, for something of that magnitude-
Rep. Barr (02:55:40):
That's not a pause. That's not a pause. That's under review and we've already done an $11 billion deal.
Secretary Rubio (02:55:45):
Just did one in December.
Rep. Barr (02:55:46):
Right, so I think the mischaracterization of this as a pause doesn't reflect the administration's commitment that they've already made on the $11 billion deal. I yield back.
Secretary Rubio (02:55:58):
Yeah. Correct.
Chairman (02:55:59):
Representative Bera is recognized.
Rep. Bera (02:56:00):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary, for being here. I'll admit that I was hesitant and skeptical and did not support the actions that took place in Venezuela. I also will admit that thus far, it's working out better than I would've expected. Long-term stability, if we can create a better life for the Venezuelan people, is a good thing. If we can reduce that threat in our hemisphere, that's a good thing as well. To the line of questioning that Ms. [inaudible 02:56:29] asked, I think it would go a long way. You mentioned that there's a KPMG audit of the Venezuelan funds, how the revenue's being used, how it's being reinvested in Venezuela. Would you publicly commit to providing that audit to this committee? Again, I think it would go a long way to-
Secretary Rubio (02:56:48):
Well, and it's an ongoing audit, so it's not a once-a-year audit. It's on every expenditure. Every single disbursement is audited by KPMG. I would also add one more point. There's a second layer of control here, and that is Citibank itself, because they hold the account. They also do the know your customer regulations on it, which, by the way, has slowed down the disbursement in ways that have been problematic, but nonetheless necessarily.
Rep. Bera (02:57:11):
Would you commit to providing all that information to the committee so we can have a look at it?
Secretary Rubio (02:57:11):
Yeah, yeah. No, absolutely, and that's why we're doing the audit. We want people to see that it's not being stolen or pilfered. We think that's part of this recovery, is so critical.
Rep. Bera (02:57:17):
Again, I think that would go a long way to assuaging some of the concerns. I'm going to follow, Mr. Barr is a co-chair with me on the Taiwan Caucus, and some of his line of questioning. I was going to ask you yes or no questions, but I'll ask a series of questions I think that go along with his line of questioning. Some of the comments that the president's made recently have created a little bit of ambiguity, but again, what you just suggested, nothing's changed in our relationship. In the Taiwan Relations Act, it states that the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services as may be necessary. The Six Assurances states that the United States does not agree to consult with the People's Republic of China regarding arms sales to Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act, the Three Joint Communiques, the Six Assurances, have guided our One China policy for decades. Again, I think in your previous statements, nothing has changed with our commitment to upholding the US One China policy. Is that correct?
Secretary Rubio (02:58:22):
Our policy on Taiwan has not changed.
Rep. Bera (02:58:24):
Oh, great. Thank you. Switching over to something that the administration's put a lot of focus on is our critical minerals, rare earths, developing our own capacity. I was a supporter of the Minimum Security Partnership, now the Forge Act, working with our allies, super important. Worked with Congresswoman Kim on the Dominance Act, which passed out of this committee, which I believe will be coming to the floor on suspension hopefully on Monday. I think this is a strong bipartisan piece of legislation that supports a lot of the goals of the administration. It does create redundancy and not a reliance on China. It does help build refining capacity. It helps reinvigorate the workforce. There's a bipartisan companion bill in the Senate. I do think this would go a long way to achieving national security goals for the United States and is a good piece of legislation, and certainly would want you to take a look at that.
Secretary Rubio (02:59:30):
I will, and to be more consistent on this topic on the critical minerals, literally every engagement we have, every country in the world is now discovering they have critical minerals and rare earths, even though they're not that rare. That's the mining part of it. The second part of it, as you know, is the processing and refining. We need to have that capability built too, and we're trying to create these global alliances to do that so that we're not overly dependent on these one source ... Particularly China.
Rep. Bera (02:59:54):
Right. Third piece of questioning, I recently was in Korea meeting with the new Korean president. Lots of conversations taking place with the Koreans. One area we did talk about was our commitment to being the nuclear deterrent for the peninsula and so forth. Has anything changed there, with the situation?
Secretary Rubio (03:00:14):
No, our posture there remains the same, and in fact, we have new partnerships that we're trying to ... Now, we're not trying to trigger a crisis there. We're not trying to trigger a war or anything problematic, but at the mill to mill level, we have very strong relations with Korea.
Rep. Bera (03:00:26):
Great. Also, have been talking to the Australians, paying close attention to AHCAs. Again, our commitments to AHCAs, to that partnership, which is critical to our geopolitical security in the region. That commitment stays firm.
Secretary Rubio (03:00:43):
Correct, and not only that with Australia. It's also part of the quad that we have with Japan and India. They were at our meeting last week. We have a lot we're working on together with them, and seek to expand it.
Rep. Bera (03:00:53):
Great, and you mentioned that the quad expects to have a leaders' summit. I know that's been delayed a couple times. Do we expect the leaders to be-
Secretary Rubio (03:01:00):
We're hoping to be able to do one this year, maybe on the sidelines of another global gathering in the region, but nonetheless, a meeting. Not a standalone, but as part of ... Where they're all going to be at the same time, it would be easier. We're working on getting that scheduled.
Rep. Bera (03:01:12):
Right.
Chairman (03:01:13):
Representative Fine.
Rep. Fine (03:01:15):
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I firmly believe God puts us where he wants us to be, and I'm grateful every day he's put you where you are, so thank you for all the hard work that you're doing. I want to read you a couple statements and see if you agree with them. I suspect that you will. The first statement is, "Heaven forbid Iran were to ever obtain a nuclear weapon." Do you agree with that, I presume?
Secretary Rubio (03:01:40):
Yeah, I would use even stronger language.
Rep. Fine (03:01:41):
Okay. Second one would be, "Iran must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon." Would you agree with that?
Secretary Rubio (03:01:47):
Yeah. Baseline policy.
Rep. Fine (03:01:48):
Okay, and then the third is, "The Iranian regime must not gain nuclear weapons." Would you agree with that?
Secretary Rubio (03:01:54):
Yes.
Rep. Fine (03:01:54):
These are statements. These are actual quotes from three members on the other side of the aisle who today gave you a whole lot of grief about what you're doing and what the president is doing to make sure those statements don't come to pass, Representatives Meeks, Lieu, and Sherman. My question to you is, what changed, and why would people say they must never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, and then when we're actually doing what is necessary to make sure they don't, all of a sudden there's a very different tone as they ask you questions?
Secretary Rubio (03:02:31):
Yeah. I would say that the notion that they shouldn't have a nuclear weapon is widely held, and not just widely held by members of Congress. It's widely held by countries around the world. In fact, I don't know a single country in the world that says it would be a good idea for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I think what's changed or where the difference comes in is, okay, what are you going to do about it? You ultimately have to do something about it, and when we saw that they were building up this conventional shield behind which they were going to hide their nuclear program and hold it immune from action, we had to address it. That's what the president did with Epic Fury, so that was the difference. The difference is we actually did something about it, something that multiple administrations have held as their position.
(03:03:08)
It was the Biden administration's position. It was the Obama administration's position, but this president actually did something about it, and many countries around the world aren't willing to do anything about it except complain or sign onto some letter somewhere, but we actually did something about it, because if we had not done so in about a year, Iran would've had a conventional shield and they could have been able to threaten not just the region, but parts of Europe, and they would've said, "If you come after us and our nuclear program, we will impose costs on you you cannot bear, so now you have to let us have a nuclear weapon." We were never going to let them have that conventional shield.
Rep. Fine (03:03:39):
What happens, in your opinion, if we did what they're asking? We stand down, we stop, we go back to the strongly worded letters and lots of talking, but we don't take the action. We just go, "Well, we don't want them to have a nuclear weapon, but they're going to do what they're going to do." What would your prediction be, what happens then?
Secretary Rubio (03:03:57):
I think the long-term trajectory of Iran remains the same in that regard, as their ambition is to ultimately have a nuclear weapon. That is ultimately their ambition. They probably view it, not just as regime security the way that they do in North Korea. They view it as an ability to become the dominant power in the region. Once they possess a nuclear weapon, nothing stops them from sponsoring proxy groups all over the region to destabilize Jordan, Saudi Arabia, multiple Sunni countries, and of course wipe out Israel.
Rep. Fine (03:04:23):
It would be fair to say, then, that standing in the way of what you're trying to do over there, what we're trying to do over there, effectively is emboldening and enabling Iran to get that nuclear weapon.
Secretary Rubio (03:04:32):
Well, ultimately, anytime they don't fit ... The only reason they would not go for a nuclear weapon is because they're forced not to. They're never going to do that voluntarily, and they've never agreed to anything voluntarily. Even the small concessions they made in JCPOA were in exchange for some benefit to them, so clearly this is a regime that only understands that ... They will only do these things if they're compelled to do so, either through an incentive or through a punitive matter.
Rep. Fine (03:04:55):
Okay. Changing topics to UNRA for a minute. As you know, on October 7th, 2023, there were employees of the United Nations in the form of UNRA who actually participated in the terrorist attack that killed 1200 people. What are we going to do to make sure that the UN can never, ever again employ terrorists that are going to go and kill people?
Secretary Rubio (03:05:17):
Well, obviously we're not going to be working with UNRA any longer. As you know, we've removed ourselves from that, and we refuse to engage them or be a part of the solution now in Gaza. There are plenty of other organizations that can play that role without having the sort of cooperation that they've had with Hamas elements, including the presence of Hamas elements within their ranks, as we've seen. It's part of the thing that was being talked about earlier. In Gaza, what they don't tell you is a significant percentage of the aid, even the non-UNRA aid that was entering, was winding up in the hands of Hamas, and they were reselling it in the black market and of course keeping it for themselves. That was not the purpose of the aid. What they're also not telling you is that multiple ... One of the reasons why the World Food Program would not go in or could not go in is because their trucks were being hijacked, and their truckers would not go because they were putting their lives in danger. This was all being systemized, weaponized and manipulated by Hamas to their benefit.
Rep. Fine (03:06:07):
Well, thank you again for everything you've done. Everyone in Florida is very proud of you and we're cheering for the work that you do every day. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (03:06:14):
Representative Olszewski.
Rep. Olszewski (03:06:17):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Secretary Rubio's earlier testimony referenced the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as a private citizen, but in President Trump's own words, Kushner is an envoy of peace alongside Steve Witkoff, so I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a political article from February 19th detailing the president's announcement, which makes clear Kushner is more than a private citizen.
Chairman (03:06:38):
It's ordered.
Rep. Olszewski (03:06:39):
Thank you. Secretary Rubio, as a senator back in 2023 referencing Hunter Biden, you said, quote, "If his last name wasn't Biden, there's no way in the world that he would've made the millions of dollars he made." You also said, "We can't abandon common sense when someone profits from a family member in power." Is it fair to say that you agree that it's wrong for elected officials and their families to profit from positions of power?
Secretary Rubio (03:07:04):
To use government service to make money, yeah, of course.
Rep. Olszewski (03:07:07):
Great. I appreciate that and I share that sentiment with you, sir. I want to revisit some of the details that were brought up earlier and put into the record about the president's own stock transactions, a form which he filed that shows he completed more than 3700 stock transactions in just the first three months of this year alone. The president bought hundreds of thousands of dollars in Palantir stock shortly before he publicly praised the company on his social media site. As if the name drop itself wasn't enough, he included the company's ticker symbol for good measure, hardly subtle to me. On March 23rd, after nearly a month of war with Iran, the president said talks were, quote, very good and productive, and extended his deadline for a deal by five days. Oil prices dropped and energy stocks fell while Trump bought shares in companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and other firms positioned to benefit if the war continued, which it did, at the president's direction.
(03:08:03)
He bought a dip that he created. Then, there's Nvidia. The president bought as much as a million dollars in stock just one week before the commerce department formally approved the sale of Nvidia chips to China. One week. He bought up to $5 million more in Nvidia stock in February, right before the company announced a major chip deal with Meta. It's pretty good luck if you ask me. If that's not bad enough, the president's son struck a multi-billion dollar crypto deal with a UAE state-backed firm. After the deal, the administration reversed AI chip restrictions, approving transfers of sensitive technology to another UAE related entity chaired by the very same royal family figure involved with the deal with his son. That seems like hardly a coincidence to me, and indeed, it is self-enrichment tied directly to the president's foreign policy agenda, and it's how the president's net worth has grown by over $4 billion since he started this term. As the president gets rich, his wars and tariffs are crushing hardworking American families, and I think the American people see through the BS. This is the most corrupt administration in American history, so Secretary Rubio, earlier today you said you didn't know the facts about the president's financial dealings. I'm happy to share them if you want to see it specifically, but having run through that, now that you do know, would you agree, and do you have concerns about the fact this administration is in fact profiting from their position of power?
Secretary Rubio (03:09:30):
Well, first of all, what I said is the information you guys were putting up, including on this board, first, that's not in my purview as the Department of State, and these are things you're producing. I don't know if they're accurate or not, but let me just say this. I've been in every foreign policy and national security meeting, for the most part, this administration has had. Not once, not a single time, have I ever seen even the hint or the indication that any of the decisions being made are for the financial gain of anyone in the administration. Those are my observations. That's what I can speak to. I have not once seen a directive on our foreign policy or our national security policy that in any way indicates that it's being done to the benefit of anyone personally. That's what I've seen as a firsthand witness, and that's what I can testify to today.
Rep. Olszewski (03:10:09):
With all due respect, Mr. Secretary, I may have to get you a new pair of glasses, because the facts are right in front of you, and it seems like malpractice for the Secretary of State to not be able to see this president and his family enriching themselves by billions of dollars. The only thing I can, from my perspective-
Secretary Rubio (03:10:24):
No one has ever said in a meeting, "Let's do this because it's going to help me make money."
Rep. Olszewski (03:10:26):
Of course he's not going to say that. Of course he's not going to say that.
Secretary Rubio (03:10:29):
Not even hint at it. Not even hint at it, not even ... On the contrary.
Rep. Olszewski (03:10:32):
Don't have to hint at it. The facts speak for themselves, sir. They're in the record. They're in the forms the president put forward himself. It's in the billions of dollars he has put in his pocket. It is the timing of the deals and the announcements, and the only thing I can see is, my question to you as I conclude my time, Mr. Secretary, is, what's changed in your perspective? Is it the party affiliation of the president or is your own political ambitions?
Secretary Rubio (03:10:52):
I already told you at the outset, people don't make ... I've seen the president say this, people should not be making money off of their government service. He's said that repeatedly. I've heard him say that, but not once, I want to reiterate this. There has not been a single decision that's been made that I have witnessed or been a part of that in any way indicate to me or to any reasonable mind that this was linked to some financial agreement or arrangement.
Rep. Olszewski (03:11:13):
I think the facts clearly are differently and I hope you take a look at them, and with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (03:11:17):
Representative Kim.
Rep. Kim (03:11:19):
Thank you, Chairman Mast. Thank you, Secretary Rubio, for joining us. Right here, at the corner. Thank you for being with us today. Secretary Rubio, diversifying critical mineral supply chains away from China is a priority of both of us. I want to thank you and the department for your collaboration with my subcommittee on related legislation, which was already mentioned, Dominance Act, that we recently passed unanimously through this committee. The FY27 budget requests $5 billion for New America First Opportunity Fund, including $250 million for critical minerals. Can you expand on that request and clarify whether these funds are intended to support Forge, Pax Silica, the economic security zone in the Philippines that was announced on April 16, or other priorities?
Secretary Rubio (03:12:16):
Yeah, all of the above. We want to have the flexibility to jump on these opportunities in a very nimble and effective way. We have a couple things going on at the same time. The first is, I would say that a feature of our bilateral engagement all over the world, in every one of our embassies you travel to and many of you have traveled to, you will see that critical minerals and supply chains feature prominently in all the diplomatic work that we're doing. We're actually having countries approach us and say, "Critical minerals should be a part of our agreement and our relationship," because they want to see those resources used to the benefit of their people in a responsible way.
(03:12:46)
The second thing is, we hosted this ministerial we followed up on in which we brought together dozens of countries from around the world who are all agreeing to this compact, that we're going to cooperate with one another, not just for access to the minerals, but for access to the refining and processing capability that turns those minerals into useful parts of our supply chain.
(03:13:04)
The third on Pax Silica is very focused on the specific supply chain critical to the growth in AI, and what you'll need in order to power AI in the 21st century. When you point to the Philippines, that's a very creative opportunity in which there was this land that they control, that the government there has. It actually used to have a military presence on it by the United States, and now that's going to be turned over as an innovation zone for this entire ecosystem, and we want to be nimble enough to be able to jump on these. These opportunities sometimes present themselves outside the regular earmark process or the regular financing appropriations process of Congress. We don't want good opportunities to pass us by because our competitors around the world are much more nimble and able to move much quicker, and we've lost opportunities in the past because of that.
Rep. Kim (03:13:51):
Thank you very much. This is exactly why we appreciate working with the administration and the priorities in this, breaking that critical mineral supply chain from China, so thank you. In February, the administration released its long anticipated Maritime Action Plan that rightly focuses on re-industrializing American shipbuilding and reducing reliance on Chinese built ships. The plan notes but does not focus on the need to work with our international partners to address the short-term gaps in our shipping industry. My international counterparts have noted that absent a ministry of industry, they are unsure whom to engage on the US side for international shipbuilding matters. Mr. Secretary, do you agree that the State Department should be the primary point of entry for these discussions, and if so, which office within the State Department should lead that?
Secretary Rubio (03:14:51):
Well, I'm not prepared to claim that as belonging to us, but I certainly know that our economic bureau will play a key role in it, and maybe it's better positioned in commerce. Potentially the Department of War will have a role to play in this as well, because some of this involves shipbuilding for our Navy. I can say that in the case of Finland, we're entering into that agreement on the icebreakers, which, they'll help us, and they're very good at the construction of that. I know with South Korea, there's been ... Part of our agreement with them is the ability to not just build ships here in the United States, but they may be able to build a few in South Korea as well that would be helpful to us. We are looking to this. Unfortunately, unfortunately, what has happened in the world is that the capacity of non ... Other than China, very few countries have invested heavily in their shipbuilding for a long time. That's an industrial capacity that's been lost because they've been subsidizing their industry and producing it at such a high rate. That's one more thing that we need to re-industrialize to the broader world, and ultimately, hopefully, to the United States and our shipyards here as well.
Rep. Kim (03:15:46):
Thank you. Very quickly, on the Taiwan arms sales, it's already been addressed many times, but given the growing PRC threats against Taiwan, there is a strong bipartisan consensus here in Congress that Taiwan must receive the defensive system it has already purchased and paid for without undue delay. Can you provide an update on the current status of these deliveries and the administration's plan to expedite them?
Secretary Rubio (03:16:11):
Well, the first tranche, which was the single largest sale to Taiwan ever, was the $11 billion in December. That was approved and is moving. The second is, I think, the $14 billion one that is still under review, and it's under review for a variety of reasons that don't necessarily just include Taiwan. It includes the availability of the stocks in the short term. We have to balance that with our own procurement process, so it's normal to review a ... It's a large sale. I mean, it's not small. It would be the biggest one ever, and I just remind everybody, the 11 billion we did in December, I believe, was more than was sold to Taiwan the entirety of the Biden presidency, and that just happened five months ago.
Chairman (03:16:45):
Representative Moskowitz.
Rep. Kim (03:16:48):
Thank you.
Rep. Moskowitz (03:16:48):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary for being here today, and also, thank you for staying until the end so all members can ask questions. A lot of secretaries don't do that, so thank you for doing that.
Secretary Rubio (03:16:57):
Tell me that was an option.
Rep. Moskowitz (03:17:01):
Take that up with the Chairman. I want to talk, you went through a list of successes for the administration, one of which was the Shield of the Americas. I thank the administration for creating the Shield of Americas and sending Kristi Noem out of the country. I want to focus on Iran for a second. I think when we talk about success, success is, Iran is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons. Success is that the uranium they have is gone, and it's fulfilling 30 or 40 years of US policy. Right? That's success. Do you agree with that?
Secretary Rubio (03:17:41):
I mean, ultimately we did it for a reason. We don't want there to be a nuclear armed Iran.
Rep. Moskowitz (03:17:46):
Look, Iran can make whatever pledges they want. It's not worth the paper it's written on, but making sure the nuclear dust is out, making sure the facilities that they have underground are gone, that is success. I assume you would agree that any deal that you think the president should sign or not sign has to address those core issues.
Secretary Rubio (03:18:04):
Absolutely. The removal of highly enriched uranium is an irreversible step. You remove it or you destroy it. It's not there anymore. On enrichment, those are limits, but if you're not inspecting it, they can always violate it, and as long as they have the equipment and the know-how, they could always violate it in the future as well. That's the one that would have to be monitored, but the enrichment, you could verify immediately, because you either have it or you don't.
Rep. Moskowitz (03:18:24):
Yeah, and for me, I think you have to dismantle what's there and you have to get out what's there. I think that's the most critical piece, because Iran has survived multiple administrations. That's their whole goal. Their whole goal is just run out the clock. They've run out of clock previously, and so the idea that they'll pledge to do something in the future, I just don't think we can trust that. Once we pull away the military, once we move on to another topic, their pledge is kind of irrelevant. Getting what's there removed I think has to be the most important thing. Otherwise, it's hard to convince, I think, the American people that it was worth the success. We talked a lot about critical minerals. I think the administration's doing a really good job on critical minerals, these rare minerals that we need for our military, for technology, but I don't think the American people understand how important it really is, and what China is doing around the world. I mean, do you think the administration could do a slightly better job on educating the American people why this is so important and why they should care about that?
Secretary Rubio (03:19:23):
Yeah, I think we all need to do a better job. I mean, I started talking about this issue when I was in the US Senate, but frankly, it's not sexy. You know what I mean? You have to explain it to people, because they have to understand that you can build the greatest car in the world, you can build the greatest plane in the world, you can build the greatest weapons system in the world, and you can build the greatest technology and infrastructure in the world. If it's missing one little thing, one chip, one element that you need to build it, if it's missing that, the whole thing doesn't work. You can't do it. I think back to the magnets that are critical to the cars, and when the Chinese cut us off, and the world off, of those magnets that they were producing for cars ... I wasn't even that conversant in the issue before it happened. I think there are vulnerabilities like that. We've mapped out those vulnerabilities. I would agree. I think this is going to require a sustained public campaign to tell people, when we talk about critical minerals, what we're actually talking about and why it's important.
Rep. Moskowitz (03:20:14):
I think that's right, and I think people don't understand exactly the long game that China is playing, and I think it's important for US foreign policy around the world. Mr. Secretary, the war in Gaza is all over my algorithm, all over my feet, every day, but you know what's not on my algorithm or anyone else's algorithm here, or the kids in college? There's nothing about the Ukraine-Russia war. About the hundreds of thousands of people that are dead in that war, or the 25,000 people, kids, that were kidnapped, or all the kids that were killed in that war, the terrible images that exist in a real war. Why is it, do you think, and is it the Chinese, again, that the algorithm is full of what's going on in the Middle East, but the Ukraine-Russia war, nothing? No images, no stories about the kids, no stories about the hundreds of thousands of people that are dead.
Secretary Rubio (03:21:04):
Yeah. I can't speak to the algorithms and what those systems are doing with regards to that. I can tell you that in addition to what you've just mentioned, I do think that, this is my observation, this war's now lasted longer than the Second World War. I don't want to use the term stalemate, but clearly both sides are trading a kilometer for a kilometer, an incredible death rate. The Russians are losing 5000 soldiers a week, which is a crazy number, and the Ukrainians are losing people too, but not nearly as many are at the rate. It's sort of a stalemated, stagnated fight that now I think threatens to escalate, because we're seeing these deep strikes into Russia and deep strikes into Kiev, so-
Rep. Moskowitz (03:21:41):
I don't want to cut you off, Mr. Chairman. I mean, Mr. Secretary. I only have nine seconds left. Cuba, real quick. Thank you guys for indicting Raul Castro. I wish it would've happened years ago. The Cuban people deserve to be free. The time has come. I'd love just to give you a minute to talk about what you see for that island in the coming years.
Secretary Rubio (03:21:58):
Just to be clear, we didn't indict Raul Castro. A grand jury in South Florida indicted him, and then the-
Rep. Moskowitz (03:22:02):
Well, Americans indicted him.
Secretary Rubio (03:22:04):
Yeah, yeah, no, but I know what you meant. I'm just saying, I want to be clear, it was done through a grand jury. It wasn't, yeah. Yeah. I've spoken to this a few moments ago as well. We'd like to see a better future in Cuba, one in which the Cuban people have something that looks like the way other people, every other country in the Caribbean, lives. The impediment there, unfortunately, is this military conglomerate that controls 70% of their GDP, and none of its revenue translates to the treasury and therefore doesn't translate to the benefit of the Cuban people. We're open to an arrangement that allows that process to begin. They're the ones that have been recalcitrant. In the meantime, we're prepared to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Cuba, so long as it's distributed by non-governmental organizations that are trusted like Samaritan's Purse, Caritas through the Catholic Church, the UN, others, but it can't be stolen and wind up in the GAESA dollar stores. That can't happen.
Chairman (03:22:48):
Representative Zinke.
Rep. Zinke (03:22:54):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary, always great to see you. Just to change little topics, where it isn't Ukraine or Venezuela or Cuba or Taiwan or one of the big ones, Congress passed a US Foundation for International Conservation in the 2025 NDAA. It passed with wide bipartisan effort. I think you probably voted for it, but as you recall, what it was was really an effort to have a public-private partnership to remove anti-poaching and cut off the funds for terrorist organizations in Africa, primarily ... You know the list, but I'm concerned, obviously, on it, because per the law, it said that the State Department was going to establish the board in consultation with Congress, before, and the money's already been allotted. There's a lot of money in there, and I just recently came back from Africa, and it's happening every day that the poaching activities are, again, funding the terrorist organizations we're going out.
(03:23:56)
What I'd like is a commitment from the State Department to move forward on appointing the board, because at the end of the day, nothing can happen until the board meets to unleash the leveraged private dollars, which are, I think, two to one ratio. That can't happen. The program is at all standstill until the State Department appoints the board in consultation with Congress, but the first step is with you. Could I have your commitment that you're going to prioritize this?
Secretary Rubio (03:24:21):
Yes, and I told others, we're going to follow up with them, but I believe there's a presidential appointment role on that board, if I'm not mistaken, about the ... We'll have to check with White House and personnel as well, but I'll get you an answer. The board has been the impediment. You're right.
Rep. Zinke (03:24:33):
Yeah, and my understanding is reading the law, it's the State Department appoints. No doubt in coordination with the White House, but if you would prioritize it, because I think this program is an incredibly important and effective program, because it leverages private dollars like we haven't seen in Africa. It is a problem, and with that, Mr. Secretary, let me yield to my colleague from Florida, Ms. Salazar, who would like to ask you some questions and follow up.
Rep. Salazar (03:25:01):
Thank you very much. Honored.
Rep. Zinke (03:25:01):
Thank you again for your service.
Rep. Salazar (03:25:02):
Yes. Mr. Secretary, I just want to continue with Cuba to see if we can finish your thoughts on it. As you were saying, GAESA controls 70% of everything, their resources in Cuba, We know that the Castro family is the one in charge of that military mafia. Is there any way that we could find another Delcy number two, following the same example that we have in Venezuela, where we removed Maduro because the grand jury indicted him, and he was on the transnational criminal organizational lists? If that were to happen, could we find a Delcy number two?
Secretary Rubio (03:25:37):
Well, first of all, I think that some of the models you want to look at is the way that Czech Republic or Poland transitioned out of ... One of the things they did is they did preserve certain institutions in their society in order to provide stability and longevity to the project they were in. Even in the midst-
Rep. Salazar (03:25:55):
We understand that there are no institutions in Cuba-
Secretary Rubio (03:25:55):
Well, I think you're asking me to identify, is there specific individuals in the Cuban government? I think there are specific maybe technocrats that you could work with.
Rep. Salazar (03:26:02):
Okay, and would you be okay?
Secretary Rubio (03:26:03):
I think it's a little harder when you get higher up because of the ideological bent that some of them have.
Rep. Salazar (03:26:07):
I agree with what you're saying. People that, their hands are not full of blood. Could we consider the possibility in order to avoid civil wars and instability and chaos?
Secretary Rubio (03:26:17):
I think the United States is open to a negotiated situation that puts Cuba on a path towards democracy, prosperity, freedom, normalcy. We would be open to that, and we would work with whoever is open to doing it. Obviously, it'll be challenging in that system, is all I've said. I mean, some of these people have committed 60, 70 years to this viewpoint. It's not going to be easy for them to pivot away from it.
Rep. Salazar (03:26:38):
We know that very well in our community, but have we been able to identify someone that could fill that role?
Secretary Rubio (03:26:43):
Well, I wouldn't say that we've identified a specific individual that could play that role. I think there are clearly people within the technocratic realm of the government that could play some role in all of this, but ultimately, if you're asking me, is there a singular individual right now that we would trust and rely on to lead this transition from start to finish? I can't give you that name right now.
Rep. Salazar (03:27:01):
I understand. Now, we know that today Raul turns 95 years old. At 95 you're pretty old, and making decisions is very hard. We know that El Cangrejo is his grandson, younger, 41 years old. Don't you think that maybe we ... I mean, are you sending messages to the younger generation to convince Raul in order to make it easier for that island, like you said, to become Jamaica or Dominican Republic, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong?
Secretary Rubio (03:27:29):
Yeah. I think that there are clearly individuals within the apparatus of power in that country that understand that what they have now is not sustainable and needs to be fixed.
Rep. Salazar (03:27:36):
They don't have power, do they? There cannot be decisions.
Secretary Rubio (03:27:38):
Even if they have power, they don't know how to do it, or they don't have enough power because so much of it has to be consensus built, internally, but there are clearly people that are aware that what they have now is not sustainable.
Rep. Salazar (03:27:52):
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman (03:27:52):
Representative Johnson.
Rep. Johnson (03:27:52):
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I know that my colleagues have addressed the Iran and affordability of energy prices with you during this hearing already. Being from Texas, obviously, energy is a big issue in our state, and I've heard repeatedly on the ... I just want you to know, I've heard repeatedly, on the campaign trail and then from just my constituents in general, just how much the rise of gas prices is really hurting our economy. I just want to express my concern that the administration did not properly analyze the effect of this war on gas prices, the effect of this war on the economy, the effect of this war on affordability, and I hope that you will take that into consideration as you make your further decisions because it's very concerning. It's really hurting a lot of people at home.
(03:28:46)
I'd like to focus my time with you on Afghan allies. I don't think that topic's been really brought up much today. The Trump administration continues to treat our Afghan allies with dishonor, in my opinion. In my district, Mohammed Nazir Paktiwal, who fought alongside US special forces in Afghanistan, died in ICE custody after participating in the Afghan evac program. The United States brought him and his family here to this country. He was wrongfully detained, and as a 41-year-old man, was dead 24 hours later. I'm very concerned what's happening with our Afghan allies and what we're doing in this country. Under your leadership, US State Department dismantled the Office of Coordinator for Afghan Relocation Efforts and halted the visa processing for Afghan allies, abandoning thousands of our allies that are here. In my opinion, it's dishonorable and it's damaging. America will face fights tomorrow, and thanks to the Trump administration's treachery to this community, we may face them alone.
(03:29:53)
I don't know how this administration can expect citizens from other countries to rise up and stand with us at great personal peril to themselves based on a promise that will take-
Rep. Johnson (03:30:00):
... risk personal peril to themselves based on a promise that we'll take care of them when they see how we have failed our promises to those from Afghanistan.
(03:30:09)
Since you've forgotten what this country stands for, I'd like to remind you of your own words from your own 2016 presidential campaign. "Wherever freedom and human rights spread, partners of our nation are born. But whenever foreign policy comes unhinged from its moral purpose, it weakens global stability and forms cracks in our national resolve." I believe that this is what's happening with Afghanistan, sir. What is your plan to deal with our Afghan allies, with the brave men and women that stood alongside our military that are here in this country? Is your plan to return them to the Taliban?
Secretary Rubio (03:30:44):
No. But that's not anyone's plan. I think the plan is to find a third safe country where they can go to that they're comfortable and choosing voluntarily to go there. And we're looking for more and more countries to step forward and assume it. As you know, the issues you raise are also tied into the broader migratory decisions that have been made by this administration. We're operating under an executive order right now that does not allow any Afghans into the country after the aftermath of the National Guard attack against the National Guard here in Washington D.C. a year ago. And then there are also other DHS determinations.
(03:31:12)
Our role, we continue to process the folks that are applying so that their paperwork is in order, but ultimately we don't want them stranded forever and where they are. We want them to be able to go to somewhere that's not Afghanistan, that they choose to want to go to and that are welcoming of them. And we actively are engaging countries around the world. There are three or four that have already spoken to us about their willingness to do it. Obviously, they're not going to take a thousand, but we might be able to get 300 here, 400 here, places where they feel comfortable going to and that are assuming and welcoming to them, not returning them to the Taliban. We understand that would not be the outcome we want to see.
Rep. Johnson (03:31:47):
Right. I do think that the position of the United States now by bringing these families to our country after they honorably served our country alongside our men and women and now to say, "Now get out. We don't want you anymore," based on one isolated incident is morally reprehensible. It does a disservice to them and it's wrong and it's bad policy.
(03:32:08)
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter the record on April 21st, The New York Times article Trump Is Said to Be in Talks to Send Afghans Who Aided With US Forces to the Congo. Mr. Secretary, is it the policy of this government to send these Afghan folks to the Congo?
Secretary Rubio (03:32:26):
That's just one country. The policy in the United States is to find multiple countries and they would be able to choose which one they want to go to of the options that they're presented. That was based on a leak of the internal document. That was just one country that expressed interest, but there are multiple others that have as well.
Rep. Johnson (03:32:40):
And so are they going to be forced to go to the country? What if they don't want to go to the Congo? What if they don't want to go to Afghanistan? What is their option? Can they stay here?
Secretary Rubio (03:32:47):
No, we don't want to force anybody. That why I'm saying we want to have multiple countries so they can choose, here are the five or six countries that will let you go. Which one of them do you want to go to? It's not to force them, it's to give them options about places they can relocate.
Chairman Brian Mast (03:32:58):
Representative Biggs.
Rep. Sheri Biggs (03:33:00):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
(03:33:01)
And Secretary Rubio, thank you for your service. This country finally has a Secretary of State who puts America first and I'm very proud to stand with you.
(03:33:12)
In February of 2025, the State Department eliminated nearly $60 billion from over 4,000 ongoing grants and another $54 billion in multi-year USAID awards, money that was on autopilot flying out the door every single year with zero accountability to the American people. Programs that spent $70,000 on a DEI musical in Ireland, $2.5 million on electric vehicles in Vietnam and $6 million on tourism development in Egypt. That is waste and that is fraud and that is abuse of the American taxpayer dollars, plain and simple.
(03:33:58)
I'm proud to stand with an administration that had the backbone to do what Washington has refused to do for decades. What has been eliminated is very significant. It is historic and it is just the start. The savings from USAID cuts have already sparked serious proposals to redirect billions towards something that actually matters like repairing veterans homes. I'm talking about long-term veterans' homes like those in South Carolina and throughout this country. That is what America First looks like, not Sesame Street in Iraq, not transgender opera in Colombia.
(03:34:39)
But Secretary Rubio, I would like to know what is still in that remaining portfolio that should not be there. What programs are still drawing a check that wouldn't survive 10 seconds of scrutiny in front of a working family in my district like the Third District of South Carolina? And how do we complete the mission of putting America first in every single line item of this budget? Because I can tell you the people in my district are not going to accept it. They are tired of hearing, "Well, we got most of it." What is your commitment, Mr. Secretary, to finishing the job?
Secretary Rubio (03:35:18):
Yeah. Well, it's happening already. So USAID no longer functions. There is a USAID, but it's largely now operating as a wrap up and wind down operation. So that's what's happening in USAID. We took all the programs that were worth preserving and all the programs that were worth doing and they're all under the State Department now. So you have the State Department is conducting foreign aid and foreign assistance within the context of the criteria that we've created and those are outlined in this year's budget requests.
(03:35:43)
And then there are legacy programs that we did not bring over to state that are still at USAID, some of which may not be operating any longer, but are tied up in litigation. They claim that they're owed money. They got a judge trying to get us to pay them. Or if not, there's wind down costs in unwrapping those programs. They're not active programs, but some of them are under active litigation because the NGO is suing the government and a judge is saying, "Well, you may have to pay them so make sure you preserve the money until I rule on it." So those may take years to clear out. They're not active programs, but they're involved in litigation. But those are under the USAID portfolio, not under state. And I no longer am the acting official at USAID and that's being run through the Office of Management and Budget.
Rep. Sheri Biggs (03:36:25):
Well, thank you so much. I appreciate the work and the efforts that you're doing and I know our taxpayers in my district do.
(03:36:31)
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Brian Mast (03:36:35):
Secretary Rubio, they've called our votes, but we have this last row of individuals to your left. Do you think we have time to work through them?
Secretary Rubio (03:36:42):
Yeah, we can. I have to go to the Senate in a little while, but I'll talk fast.
Chairman Brian Mast (03:36:46):
Thank you.
(03:36:46)
Representative Moylan.
Rep. James Moylan (03:36:49):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
(03:36:50)
Secretary, thank you very much. We've been talking regularly. I appreciate all your interest into the INDOPACOM. And last time we were out here at the hearing, we spoke about the importancy of establishing a passport issuance office in Guam. And as you know, residents in Guam must have their passports issued from Honolulu, which creates a huge barriers in emergency situations. So I want to thank you again, your staff for working with us on this issue. And can you briefly touch on where we're at with this process of establishing the Passport issuance office in Guam, please?
Secretary Rubio (03:37:23):
Where we are on the status of it?
Rep. James Moylan (03:37:24):
Yes.
Secretary Rubio (03:37:24):
I think we're working on trying to do it. We'd like to do it. I think we may have news for you on that in a couple weeks as we're going through our review of our visa offices around the world. And it's part of our consolidation efforts is to free up resources for other places where it may be more useful. So I think we'll have news for you in a couple of weeks if you just bear with us.
Rep. James Moylan (03:37:44):
It's quite exciting. Thank you, Secretary. And last year I introduced the Bipartisan CLEAN Pacific Act with Rep. Case, Radewagen and King-Hinds to establish Pacific Islands Counter-Narcotics Initiative to assist partner nations with counter-drug interdiction efforts. This year's budget request contains strong support for INCLE and outlines the strategic priority disrupting U.S.-inbound illicit drug flows, especially fentanyl, meth, and cocaine, and expanding US advantage and access and regions critical to the national security like INDOPACOM. Can you speak how the State Department is working with partner nations in the Pacific to combat narcotic trafficking in the region?
Secretary Rubio (03:38:26):
Absolutely. And our Department of War partners and our DHS partners are also involved in that effort and it involves two things. Number one is allowing us, in some cases to, cooperate with them, to work alongside them in this work. And the other is building their domestic capacity so they can have better awareness. Some of it is domain awareness, radar systems. In other cases, we're providing that to them, the intelligence that they need to action. The third is training and equipping, which obviously is a key part of being able to take on these groups.
(03:38:52)
The challenge with these transnational groups is that in some cases they have more money and better weapons than the actual host government. It's been a problem in place after place. But as you've seen more recently, Guatemala's now entered into agreement with us. We're cooperating very closely with Ecuador. El Salvador has been there from the beginning. We're hopeful that we can increase our cooperation under the new administration in Honduras. So I think we've made good progress in that regard.
Rep. James Moylan (03:39:14):
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And how do you believe Guam and the other territories can leverage their strategic location for promoting foreign policy interests in the Indo-Pacific?
Secretary Rubio (03:39:24):
Well, a couple points. Obviously, number one is many of these as a domain awareness, just from a geographic perspective, the ability to be there allows you from the military side to be able to station forces, but also allows you to do more activities regarding the safety of navigation, the freedom of navigation, domain awareness to support that, the safety of undersea cables that are increasingly under threat from being disrupted. And there's a whole host of areas, illegal fishing. There's a whole host of things of cooperation that we could reach and that the Pacific Islands are geographically prime located to really help us. And we've given them more attention. We've been more engaged at a bilateral level than we've ever been with Pacific islands.
Rep. James Moylan (03:40:05):
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And final question. The recent years, we've seen malign influence grow in the Indo-Pacific and threatening the stability of the region. How is the State Department responding to the increased CCP-related funding and police training across the Pacific?
Secretary Rubio (03:40:20):
Again, it's a topic that we're raising with our partners, but first on awareness. It's not just in the Pacific. We've seen extrajudicial, extraterritorial efforts on the part of the CCP in multiple places around the world. And so in all of our diplomatic engagements, we raise these issues with these countries. The opening of police stations, the sending of individuals to harass Chinese nationals that are abroad, who they view as a threat or what have you, it's become a feature of our engagement in many countries around the world.
Rep. James Moylan (03:40:49):
Mr. Secretary and Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield my last minutes to Rep Salazar, please.
Secretary Rubio (03:41:01):
She's got this thing rigged, her time. That's great.
Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (03:41:06):
It's five minutes.
Secretary Rubio (03:41:07):
I know. I understand.
Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (03:41:09):
Okay. So let's continue then with the Cuba issue and with the Venezuela. I was asking you earlier today that Venezuelans have a desire to have free and fair elections. We know that we are in the country, that we've liberated them, but the big question is... And you answered me partially. I just wanted to give you the opportunity to finish. Why can't we just establish and send the signal to the Delcy group and to all the Maduro... people that were cooperating with the Maduro regime that are still in power because of Delcy? Why can't we just send a clear message that elections will be coming, let's say, December of '27, beginning of '28? In that way, I think the rule of law will... They will have the impression that the rules of law will be established.
Secretary Rubio (03:41:57):
Yeah. I think that impression's been clear. I mean, the Venezuela that everyone wants for the future is not possible without free and fair elections. They have to understand that it's been a feature of all of our engagements with them and it continues to be. I'm not sure it would serve that purpose to announce a date certain in a public forum because the conditions have to be in place. It's not just about saying I'm going to call elections in December or January. It's about, is there a free press? Are political parties able to organize and operate? That has to happen too.
Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (03:42:23):
And we agree, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman Brian Mast (03:42:23):
Your time's expired. All right. Your time's expired.
Rep. Michael Baumgartner (03:42:26):
Mr. Chair?
Chairman Brian Mast (03:42:27):
We do want to get through multiple members and get to Mr. Miller. So if you could go as quickly as you can before votes cause us to lose... Thank you
Rep. Michael Baumgartner (03:42:33):
Yeah, we do. You spoke about the 60% enriched uranium. Iran also has significant amounts of 20% enriched uranium. The more difficult part is to go from 5% to 20%. What is your view in negotiations of the 20% uranium?
Secretary Rubio (03:42:47):
Well, I've used the term highly... 60% because that's the one that clearly has... I mean, even 20%, you could argue, not that I claim that they are, but you could argue they're being used for medical isotopes and things of this nature. But 60%, there's no reason for it. The only way you get to 60 is because you're on your way to 90. But the term we actually use in the talks and in everything is highly enriched uranium.
Rep. Michael Baumgartner (03:43:07):
So it would be correct-
Secretary Rubio (03:43:08):
So that would cover the 20, correct.
Rep. Michael Baumgartner (03:43:09):
Okay. Very good. Thank you.
(03:43:11)
Well, listen, I want to congratulate you for the impressive job you're doing for the American people. My only critique would be that we need to hear more from Marco Rubio. President Trump is obviously in a class by himself, but you're the best communicator in the administration on complex foreign policy issues. I was in the room with you in Munich, so I know you wear a lot of hats. There's a lot of memes about you, but please continue to be as vocal and upfront as you can.
(03:43:38)
A question I have about is expeditionary diplomacy. I had the privilege of serving as a State Department officer in Iraq during the Iraq surge. I had twice passed A-100 classes and had offers to be FSO, but I actually came in as a 3161 hire at the time because the State Department did not have a capability for expeditionary counterinsurgency. This is something I've been working on with former Ambassador Ryan Crocker to both develop this capability, look at something like a State Department Reserve Corps. And also as a legacy of Benghazi, because of the politics around it, there has been this mindset set in that we can't take any casualties amongst State Department officers. We need to have people in the State Department that can push out and conserve. And I wish, if you could speak to the American people and to State Department officers about what your view is about more expeditionary function.
Secretary Rubio (03:44:29):
It's a concept we're very interested in and I know you're interested in it as well and just I can put it in simple terms. It's basically the ability to deploy diplomats in a place where we may not have an embassy and we may not have all the trappings. Obviously, diplomatic security and others get concerned because in their mindset, the risk factor should be zero. They don't want anyone being harmed.
(03:44:47)
But I think the point you're raising is there are some instances in which you would take some risks. People know they're signing up for a risky proposition, but it's a high reward for the country if in fact they're successful. So we're interested in the concept. We obviously have to work through our system to make sure we can align it and create something that's functional. And I'd love to work with you on it because I see the promise and the concept for sure. And it's a concept that's existed in the past.
Rep. Michael Baumgartner (03:45:09):
And thank you. And just finally and being mindful of our time considerations, I think you guys have done an amazing job of needed reforms and bringing USAID under the province of State Department and certainly dewoke-ifying some of the nonsense that was going on. We still do have a lot of great state department officers out there that are very proud to serve our country under your leadership. I do talk to some of them from time to time and they do have some worry and some questions about the overall direction of the institution. So I'd just like to give the ability in the context of this budget request you're making to Congress to sum up your thoughts, the vision of our current State Department officers for the future.
Secretary Rubio (03:45:49):
Yeah. I think for the futures, we're trying to empower our regional... Well, we're trying to empower our embassies through our regional bureaus around the world. We want them to be the center focus of how we conduct foreign policy because they're on the ground. Too often in the past, foreign policy was mixed between... Our diplomacy was mixed between the regional bureaus and then you had these functional bureaus that had a worldwide mandate on a topic and they ended up crashing into each other. Now what we want is to truly empower our ambassadors and the people in the field in these embassies that are on the ground every single day. We want decisions to be driven from the bottom up, not from the top down. Some of our best ideas come from the cables that are coming out of the field and back to us. And we want regional bureaus that are empowered as well to be able to coordinate all this when the lines cross between different countries in the same region.
(03:46:33)
We're also encouraging greater regional integration. So for example, our Western Hemisphere ambassadors are now all about to start a monthly conference call so that they're all coordinating with each other on regional affairs. These are the kinds of things that we're trying to encourage. But ultimately what we want is a state department whose foreign policy is driven by the national interest and understands that first and foremost you have to define what's in the national interest and you have to pursue it in a pragmatic and effective way. That's what we want our diplomacy to be about. And I think some of that mission had been lost. And that's why multiple Secretaries of States before me had tried or wanted to reorganize the State Department and weren't able to do it. I'm glad we did. And I think it's going to get stronger every year under this new organizational scheme.
Rep. Michael Baumgartner (03:47:12):
Thank you very much, Ms. Chair. Yield back.
Chairman Brian Mast (03:47:14):
Representative Luna.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (03:47:15):
Secretary Rubio, thank you for being here today. I was wondering if you could let me know if you are familiar with the name of Neville Roy Singham.
Secretary Rubio (03:47:24):
Yeah. He's, I think, an American millionaire living in China who's funding all of these left wing radical looms.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (03:47:31):
Correct. When you were on Senate Intelligence, you had actually sent a letter encouraging the Department of Justice to look into him for a FARA violation. For those people who will see this clip later on the internet, can you just briefly explain what FARA is?
Secretary Rubio (03:47:44):
It's the Foreign Agent Registration Act and it means if you're operating on behalf of a foreign country, you have to register and declare yourself as such.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (03:47:52):
To provide some context for those looking at this, Mr. Singham's, in total, given 1.3 million to an organization called Code Pink, as well as over 278 million to various nonprofits since 2017. Secretary Rubio, it's in my opinion, observing what's been happening on both sides really contributing to the political divide in this country, that many countries are engaging in influencer operations to include psychological operations on the American people with the intent to undermine not just our foreign policy from the administration's perspective, but also to pit us against one another. Would you concur with that statement?
Secretary Rubio (03:48:25):
There's no doubt. Absolutely.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (03:48:27):
Are you aware of any countries in particular that are currently engaging in this?
Secretary Rubio (03:48:32):
Well, I don't think there's any doubt that we see evidence of it from the CCP. We've historically seen some of it as well from Russia historically in the past in a different way. I think you're starting to see some of it from Cuba. And I think some of these are linked with one another. In fact, that group that you just mentioned actually traveled to Cuba, stayed at a very fancy and expensive hotel that is sanctioned and I think are now being looked at by the appropriate officials to see if they violated US law in the trips that they're taking. But there's no doubt that when you have people showing up with pre-printed signs 24 hours after Nicolas Maduro was arrested and extradited to the United States, that's not an organic movement. Someone's paying for that.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (03:49:08):
I think one of those organizations would be the National Network On Cuba, which is a pro-communist anti-American organization comprised of dozens of member organizations to include Code Pink, the Communist Party USA, Democrat Socialists of America, Socialist Worker Parties and various organizations to include Armed Queers of Salt Lake City, which Tyler Robinson, the individual who murdered our friend, Charlie Kirk, has loose ties to and association with at the time of the assassination.
(03:49:35)
I just want to point out that from my perspective and in talking with you personally, I can see that you are very much of the mindset of peace through strength, but also pursuing peace first before you hit people with a big stick. So I appreciate that perspective because it is refreshing and not common in Washington DC.
(03:49:51)
But with that being said, I heard a lot of talk today on Russia specifically. I understand that peace talks are very much so alive and well and that the United States for the first time ever, at least with this administration and you as the Secretary of State, have been instrumental in those talks. I would like to though ask you for the first time in 20 years recently we had the Russian Duma come here to meet with members of Congress. What is the end result when Congress fails to open up dialogue and at least maintains communications with another superpower like Russia?
Secretary Rubio (03:50:23):
Well, I think there's two things to discuss. One is the war in Ukraine, which we'd like to see end through a negotiated settlement. And separate from that is a bilateral relationship with a country that possesses, if not the largest, the second-largest nuclear arsenal in the world. At a minimum, we have to have relations and conversations with Russians. We just do whether we like what they're doing or not, because given those factors that I just pointed to. I've had multiple conversations with the foreign minister, Lavrov, and we have to because that's mature diplomacy and it's important. It's the same with China. We have to have communication with them. And there are issues in our bilateral relations that have nothing to do with Ukraine.
(03:50:55)
So now I think our relations with them will be friendlier and easier to pursue once the war in Ukraine is wrapped up and we've made that point in this engagement. But I think what we've learned and certainly I think has been affirmed to us in the last year and a half is you're much better off having someone to talk to on the other side than not. And this is a president who's willing to meet with and talk to anybody. He doesn't view talks and engaging a foreign counterpart as a concession the way it's been treated in the past. Sometimes it leads to something, sometimes it leads to nothing. Sometimes that vehicle of communication proves incredibly valuable in a potential conflict or crisis.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (03:51:31):
I'd like to end by saying this. I completely agree with you. I think that it is our job and responsibility in Congress to maintain open dialogue and discussion, but I do think that you guys will be successful in this peace deal. And so I want to be the first to congratulate you on that because I think that sometimes in this instance, having the courage to step up and do the right thing and lead by example is a big thing.
(03:51:49)
So with that, Chairman, I yield the rest of my time.
Chairman Brian Mast (03:51:51):
Representative Miller.
Rep. Max Miller (03:51:53):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
(03:51:54)
Mr. Secretary, it's good to see you. You were the first person I worked for when I started in politics, and this is very unique for me. But first and foremost, I just want to say thank you for the job that you've been doing. People back home, they comment on your stability, your bearing, and how you represent our country on the world stage. Thank you for doing that. And look, you're sitting here today and for several hours and our colleagues on the left, for the vast majority of them, they want to get a political stunt. They don't want to hear your answers and that's why they wouldn't let you and afford you the ability to speak because they know that you would school them in every which way possible and actually tell them that two plus two equals four. And for a lot of them, that's hard to understand. So I respect your ability.
(03:52:35)
But look, you have been asked a ton of tough questions. This is your time if you would like it. I know you have spoken a lot today, but if there is anything that you would like to correct the record on by any of our colleagues on the left, or even on the right that may have misspoken, I'd like to give you this time if you would like it. And just one last thing. When you're done with all of this, if you could come to Cleveland, Ohio, I know it's not where you're from, but the Cleveland Browns could use a really good coach. And so with all the different hats you've been wearing, maybe you could take us to a Super Bowl. But at that point, I leave the rest to you, sir.
Secretary Rubio (03:53:07):
Well, I don't claim I can lead that Super Bowl, but I wish them luck in Cleveland on that.
(03:53:12)
Look, I thank you for the opportunity. I think we've covered almost everything and thank you for giving me the opportunity to do that. Unfortunately, I have to be in the Senate here in just a few minutes and they get really mad if you're late. But I just want to touch off by saying, look, every element of our foreign policy and everything we do, including aid, is now synergized and it's about the national interest. And I do think it's important to point out and continue to point out we are the most generous country in the world, by far. We give way more money than anybody else does to all of these things. Other countries who are very rich, powerful countries should step up too if they want to join in helping. There's no evidence that that's the case. We've seen a little bit of an increase among some countries, but it's not just us, the Canadians, the UK, other European countries have cut back in their expenditures as well on foreign aid. Not timed with us, it just happens to be they have those domestic considerations to take into account.
(03:53:56)
This is the most generous country in the world. This year alone, there will be millions of people around the world that will receive food and medicine and medical care and in a way that furthers our national interest, but is also good for them. And we do that more than anyone on the planet. Foreign aid and what this country does to help people around the world is something we should be proud of, but it has to be done the right way. We can't be spending money on things that don't further the national interest and we can't be spending money on things that waste the taxpayer dollars. And we can't be spending money on social experiments around the world that further the aims of an ideological movement in the United States. That's not what foreign aid is ever supposed to have been about and that's what we're going to get it back to.
(03:54:34)
On foreign policy, we're going to be pragmatic, but we're going to be principled at the same time. We have to understand that when it comes to foreign policy, oftentimes you're not given the choice between the clearly good one and the clearly bad one. Sometimes you're given two bad choices and you're trying to figure out which one of these two bad choices is the least harmful to the country. In the end, at the end of the day, foreign relations between countries is about one thing, the national interest. I expect that every time I meet with a foreign minister of another country, that foreign minister is going to push for what is in the interest of their country. I need to push for what's in the interest of ours, not what's in the interest of the world, not what's in the interest of ours. In those cases where our national interests align, that's where cooperation happens. That's where alliances are formed. In those instances where our interests don't align, that's where you hope that diplomacy and cooperation can find a way through.
(03:55:26)
But in the end, our foreign policy must always be about what is best for America before anything else. This is not a novel concept. It is a classic concept and one that was lost for a long time in American foreign policy. And I'm happy and honored to be a part of trying to restore it.
Rep. Max Miller (03:55:41):
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
(03:55:42)
Mr. Chairman, yield back.
Chairman Brian Mast (03:55:43):
Final member, Representative McKenzie. Thank you.
Rep. Ryan Mackenzie (03:55:46):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
(03:55:47)
Thank you, Secretary Rubio for joining us today. I have the pleasure of representing Allentown, Pennsylvania. It's home to one of the largest Syrian American populations in the country. And obviously there have been a number of atrocities in that country during the ongoing conflict there, some of them targeting the Christian population. On June 22nd of last year, the Mar Elias bombing happened at a church and we are coming up on that one-year anniversary. I'd like to just ask you, very briefly, if you can give us an update on what's going on in Syria, what we're doing to achieve stability in that country with the leadership that is now in place and also any updates on religious minority protections?
Secretary Rubio (03:56:29):
Well, we talked a lot today about Venezuela and other places. Syria is far more complicated. First of all, Assad deliberately divided groups in that country against each other and some of those frictions and some of those resentments exist. It wasn't always the case in Syria. It's one of the few places in the Middle East where you actually had Sunni, Shia, Christian, Druze and other communities living... and Kurds living alongside one another. But Assad, and especially during the civil war period, pitted these groups against each other. So in many cases when you're seeing these atrocities, what you're seeing is some unit of some fighting group from one side going after and seeking retribution against a group and another. And it's a real challenge. I think you've seen a diminution in this, but nonetheless, it exists and it's already happened too much.
(03:57:11)
The second is the core here and our goal is to have a nationalistic government in Damascus that seeks not to expand power or not to turn Syria into a base of operations for a foreign power, but to build a Syrian state that's inclusive of all of the elements in it. That's what we have engaged with the interim government there on. And we've given them and tried to give them every opportunity possible to succeed. We've had some successes. As an example, when we had some fighting breakout, especially in the Northeast and we had these ISIS prisons, this is an under-reported story, but we had these ISIS prisoners there. They agreed and were very cooperative in getting those prisoners transferred out of Syria and into Iraqi prisons before there would be a jailbreak that could threaten them and also threaten the region. I think we've seen significant progress in the relationship between Kurds and the central government. There's more work to be done, but some of that tension has now been downplayed.
(03:58:07)
Down in the South, there's more complexity, of course. There are different Druze elements and Bedouin elements that have been more difficult to deal with, but we're trying to give the Syrian government there that's in place every opportunity to succeed. And obviously there's a trust but verify component to this.
(03:58:23)
I will say this and I want to be... Everything we've asked them to do, they have tried to do or have done, including counterterrorism cooperation, but they have some capability gaps. They still have individuals within their "armed forces" that are members of radical groups and have certain ideologies and aren't necessarily neatly disciplined. I think they're working through that, but there's a challenge, again, because of capacity. So this is a long-term project, one I think is going to exist long after this administration. I hope the next administration will pick up the baton, but I remind everybody that just two years ago, Syria was a operating base for the Iranian regime and all of its proxies and had Syria still been on the table for them... It's interestingly enough, in the midst of Epic Fury and everything that's happening in the region, the one country that didn't see any of this, you saw it in Lebanon, you saw it in Iraq, you didn't see it in Syria. And I think that alone is a sign of why what's happening there has been good, but not good enough. We have a long ways to go.
Rep. Ryan Mackenzie (03:59:20):
Well, thank you. Appreciate that detailed answer and your continued focus on Syria and improving stability in the country. The Syrians I know and the Syrian Americans say that they don't see those differences along religious lines. That is, as you pointed out, divisions that were created by somebody else. So what we can do to heal those divisions, protect religious minorities in the country and ultimately get back to a stable and safe Syria for all those individuals is a great-
Secretary Rubio (03:59:46):
We agree 100%. The future that the government in place now claims to want is impossible unless every element of Syrian society is incorporated in power-sharing and has a voice and influence over its own future, and of course isn't being killed.
Rep. Ryan Mackenzie (04:00:00):
Thank you again and look forward to working with you as we move forward.
(04:00:04)
I yield back.
Chairman Brian Mast (04:00:05):
Mr. Secretary, I thank you for your valuable testimony today. Members may have some more questions for you. They will have five days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record subject to length limitations. And without objection, this committee stands adjourned.
