[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                 THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S FOREIGN POLICY
             PRIORITIES AND THE FISCAL YEAR BUDGET REQUEST

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                             APRIL 28, 2022
                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-144
                               __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
        
        
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]        


       Available:  http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
                            docs.house.gov, 
                       or http://www.govinfo.gov

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
47-347PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2024   

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                  GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York, Chairman

BRAD SHERMAN, California             MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking 
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey                  Member
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia	     CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida	     STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
KAREN BASS, California		     JOE WILSON, South Carolina
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts	     SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island	     DARRELL ISSA, California
AMI BERA, California		     ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas		     LEE ZELDIN, New York
DINA TITUS, Nevada		     ANN WAGNER, Missouri
TED LIEU, California		     BRIAN MAST, Florida
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania	     BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota	     KEN BUCK, Colorado
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota		     TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
COLIN ALLRED, Texas		     MARK GREEN, Tennessee
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan		     ANDY BARR, Kentucky
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia	     GREG STEUBE, Florida
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania	     DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey	     CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York
ANDY KIM, New Jersey		     AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
SARA JACOBS, California		     PETER MEIJER, Michigan
KATHY MANNING, North Carolina	     NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
JIM COSTA, California		     RONNY JACKSON, Texas
JUAN VARGAS, California		     YOUNG KIM, California
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas		     MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida
BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
                                                                          
                    Sophia Lafargue, Staff Director

               Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                                WITNESS

BLINKEN, HON. ANTONY, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
  STATE..........................................................     8

                                APPENDIX

Hearing Notice...................................................    77
Hearing Minutes..................................................    78
Hearing Attendance...............................................    79

         STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY

Statement for the record from Representative Connolly............    80

            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Responses to questions submitted for the record..................    82

 
            THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S FOREIGN POLICY PRIORITIES
                   AND THE FISCAL YEAR BUDGET REQUEST

                        Thursday, April 28, 2022

                          House of Representatives,
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:04 p.m., in 
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gregory Meeks 
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Chairman Meeks [presiding]. The Committee on Foreign 
Affairs will come to order.
    And without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the committee at any point.
    And all members will have 5 days to submit statements, 
extraneous material, and questions for the record, subject to 
the length limitations that are within the rules.
    To insert something into the record, please have your staff 
email the previously mentioned address or contact full 
committee staff.
    As a reminder to members, please keep your video function 
on at all times, even if you are not recognized by the chair.
    And members are responsible for muting and unmuting 
themselves. Consistent with House rules, staff will only mute 
members, as appropriate, when they are not under recognition, 
to eliminate background noise.
    And I see that we now have a quorum, and I now recognize 
myself for opening remarks.
    Let me start by thanking Secretary Blinken for appearing 
before the committee today to represent the Administration's 
Fiscal Year 2023 budget request and priorities for U.S. foreign 
policy.
    This budget request makes clear the Administration is 
putting diplomacy and development first, leveraging the United 
States' unparalleled soft power, network of alliances, and 
unmatched influence at international organizations and 
institutions to protect the American people and advance the 
United States national interests.
    And, Mr. Secretary, since your last appearance before this 
committee, we have seen, unfortunately, Russia launch an 
unjustifiable and renewed full-scale war of choice against 
Ukraine. And I want to take the opportunity to commend you and 
President Biden and the Administration for leading the global 
effort to support Ukraine as it repels this act of Russian 
aggression. The Biden-Harris Administration, through its 
handling of the Ukraine crisis, has demonstrated what can be 
achieved when the United States leadership is marshaled to push 
back against brazen aggression and attacks on sovereignty, 
democracy, and human rights.
    And while Russia and Ukraine are, understandably, on the 
top of everyone's mind, we also cannot take our eyes off other 
threats and challenges that we must face in partnership with 
other allies and the global community, whether they be the 
expansionists of China; preventing a nuclear-armed Iran; 
drought and political instability in the Horn of Africa; the 
ongoing effects of COVID-19, or the existential threat of 
climate change, and armed conflict around the world.
    Indeed, Russia's war on Ukraine has only intensified some 
of these challenges. In Africa, the home of the largest 
concentration of internally displaced and refugee populations 
on the planet, these vulnerable populations are bearing the 
brunt of rising food insecurity, which has been exacerbated by 
Putin's war in Ukraine and threatens hunger around the world.
    We should celebrate where we are seeing successes; for 
example, in Yemen, a fragile truce brokered with the assistance 
of the U.N. and the United States Special Envoy, which offers a 
vital opportunity for warring parties to commit to a lasting 
cease-fire.
    But many daunting challenges remain. Following our 
withdrawal from Afghanistan, the end of that war raises 
important questions about how we move forward after a 20-year 
conflict and how to best help the Afghan people, especially the 
women and girls of the country, and address a humanitarian 
crisis.
    And it is vital that the United States also remain focused 
on our regional neighbors in Central and South America and the 
Caribbean. And over the past several years, we have seen a 
deterioration of democracy globally, including in several 
Western countries in the Western Hemisphere, which have also 
been marked by weakened democratic institutions, politicized 
judicial systems, corruption scandals, and blatant lack of 
respect for the rule of law.
    Despite these challenges, there are some reasons, also, 
though, to celebrate and be hopeful. I never like to be just 
negative. We have to also point out some of the hopeful things. 
Barbados became a republic and swore in its first President 
since it became independent 55 years ago. We are also seeing 
positive changes with recently inaugurated Presidents in both 
Honduras and Chile, ushering in new perspectives on fighting 
corruption and strengthening democracy.
    And for the first time since 1994, the United States is 
hosting the Summit of the Americas, this time in Los Angeles, 
with a focus on a sustainable, resilient, and equitable future, 
and recommitment to upholding democracy in the region.
    Of course, we cannot meet global challenges without 
providing our diplomatic and development professionals the 
tools that they need to succeed. So, I welcome the 
Administration's recent steps to build a more agile, diverse, 
and equitable work force. I would be remiss if I did not 
implore the Department to do more, particularly to address 
inequities at the mid and senior ranks, and address notable 
disparities in career progressions.
    The Department's establishment of paid internship positions 
is an important development, key to opening the door for 
historically excluded groups. And I hope the Department will 
take further steps to convert its internships entirely to a 
paid status.
    I also appreciate the steps the Department has taken to 
support more expeditionary diplomacy and face-to-face 
engagement in support of America's interests around the world, 
as well as to modernize visa and passport processes that 
further facilitate such engagement.
    In addition, I am encouraged to see the Department 
prioritize meetings its obligations at the United Nations, 
where the United States remains the largest contributor to 
global peacekeeping operations and other important multilateral 
efforts.
    So, Secretary Blinken, let me again thank you. Thank you 
for being here. Thank you for being the face to American 
diplomacy and working around the world. There are so many 
things that are happening at this time in our history, but I do 
believe that, in the end, the camera of history will record us 
as taking us into a better place, once we get out of this tough 
place that we are in right now, primarily led by Putin's 
vicious and unilateral war against democracy that I think, 
really, not just in Ukraine, but around the world.
    And I look forward to hearing your testimony and answers to 
what I know will be very thoughtful questions from our members.
    And I now yield to Mr. McCaul for his opening remarks.
    Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. I also 
want to thank you for meeting with us when we were in Poland 
recently. We have a very good discussion. In fact, I have been 
there twice in the last month.
    But I will say our delegation, bipartisan, came back 
resolved more than ever that we need to help Ukraine win this 
war. And it was very bipartisan.
    And I also want to thank you, sir, and the State Department 
for your efforts to bring Trevor Reed home to his family. I 
have met with his parents many times. I want to thank the 
Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, Roger Carstens, 
and U.S. Ambassador John Sullivan, a good friend of mine, who 
were really critical to bringing him home, securing his 
freedom. His parents are very grateful, sir. And we thank you 
and your team for that.
    We are currently witnessing the largest invasion in Europe 
since World War II, my father's war. And as you know, the 
brutality is shocking. We just passed a war crimes bill, the 
chairman and I, on the floor, bipartisan, calling these out for 
what they are and holding Mr. Putin accountable as a war 
criminal.
    But the images of corpses littering the streets after 
Bucha, hands tied behind their backs, bullets in their heads; 
reports of mobile crematoriums being brought in to cover up the 
mounting body counts and cover up the evidence; the pregnant 
woman covered in blood being carried out of a recently bombed 
maternity hospital, for God's sakes. Tragically, both she and 
her baby, as you know, did not survive. But these are Putin's 
war crimes, and he must be held accountable. He fancies himself 
as reclaiming the glory of the Russian Empire. Yet, his legacy 
will be that of a war criminal.
    And yet, in the face of these horrors, President Zelensky, 
I think, and the people of Ukraine, have really inspired the 
world with their bravery and their determination. And I 
appreciate the fact, sir, that you when to Kyiv with the 
Secretary of Defense to meet with him. I think that was very, 
very important, and I would love to hear more about that visit.
    But, you know, they are standing in front of these tanks, 
risking their lives to fight for their freedom, and against all 
odds, they are holding off the invading force. We were told in 
4 days this would be over. We are now into the third month. Mr. 
Putin has underestimated the Ukrainian people, I think to his 
own peril.
    And that is why it is critical, as you know, to get Ukraine 
the weapons they need to completely defeat Putin's invasion 
now. I appreciate the efforts made to get these desperately 
needed weapons into the hands of Ukrainians, once the war 
started. I wish more of these weapons had gone in before the 
invasion and not after. I know there was concern about 
provocation, provoking Putin. The President, in my view, sat on 
critical weapons packages in the spring of 2021 and again in 
November 2021--all the while Russia amassed its massive troops 
on the border.
    And as the battle for the Donbass heats up, the United 
States and her allies are only just now training Ukrainians on 
vital heavy weapons, including MLRS artillery, air defenses, 
armed drones, and tanks.
    As President Zelensky put it, he said, you know, ``It's 
unfair that Ukraine is still forced to ask for what its 
partners have been storing somewhere for years. If they have 
the weapons that Ukraine needs here, we need them now. If they 
have the ammunition that we need here and now, it is their 
moral duty, first of all, to help protect freedom.'' And then, 
he said this would help save the lives of thousands of 
Ukrainians.
    As I have often said, the world is watching. This is an 
historic time. And history will judge us by how we respond and 
whether we learn from our mistakes.
    I will say the narrative has gone from it will be over in 4 
days to we need to help Ukraine defend themselves, to I was 
very pleased to hear you and Secretary Austin say, ``Ukraine 
can win.'' And I think the narrative has changed with the 
American people as well, as they see the horrific images coming 
out of these atrocities. And I know, with Mariupol, once the 
dust settles, we are going to hear--I think we have just 
scratched the surface, unfortunately.
    This unprovoked aggression on Ukraine has opened the 
world's eyes to the threat, though, of other malign actors, 
primarily China, and to our partner Taiwan. At the Winter 
Olympics, as you know, Putin and the Chinese Communist Party 
General, Secretary Xi, announced their unholy alliance, ``no 
limits,'' they call it, compact against the United States and 
NATO.
    I think it was not a question of if, but when, and I think 
Putin made the calculation, based on what he saw, that this was 
the time. And we are very worried that President Xi may make 
the same calculation. I hope with Putin's miscalculation, 
however, and his lack of success, if you will, he will change 
that paradigm.
    But they just reached a secret military agreement between 
the Solomon Islands, China did, which took us all by surprise. 
These are the very islands that my father's generation fought 
and died for to liberate during World War II. And now, it is 
under the thumb of the CCP.
    It is clear that they are preparing for some sort of 
conflict, whether it is by military or otherwise. And I think 
the United States must act now to prevent such an invasion. We 
must also make sure our Defense Industrial Base is embracing 
innovation to make weapons more quickly using 21st century 
technology.
    In short, our arsenal of democracy needs rejuvenation. And 
that may be for a longer discussion, sir, that we could have. 
But the slow pace of these weapons that the chairman and I sign 
off on, not going out, raises concerns.
    Turning to Afghanistan, Republicans and Democrats alike 
expressed alarm over the Administration's failure to prepare 
for the fallout of the withdrawal. We were promised that this 
would be planned for all contingencies. But, in the end, 13 
soldiers died during the evacuation; hundreds of American 
citizens and tens of thousands of Afghan partners were left 
behind. I will be releasing an interim report very soon 
outlining what our investigation has discovered so far. And I 
look forward to discussing that report with you, sir.
    But, at the end of the day, we are in this together. And it 
is in the interest of the free world to defeat the evils of Mr. 
Putin and all of our foreign nation adversary countries.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Chairman Meeks. It is now my honor to introduce the 
Honorable Antony J. Blinken, who currently serves as the 
Nation's 71st Secretary of State.
    There are a lot of questions that want to be asked. So, in 
the interest of time, I will skip your biography, Mr. 
Secretary. I think everyone knows it well, you know, on this 
committee, and we have introduced you in the past.
    So, basically, you will have 5 minutes to deliver your 
opening remarks, and I will gently tap my gavel at the 
appropriate time. I may be a little more liberal with you 
because I think it is significant and important to hear from 
you and the reports back, as we deal with the government's 
budgetary concerns, with the requests, with reference to the 
State authorization and the State Department.
    You are now recognized for 5 minutes.

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

    Secretary Blinken. Chairman Meeks, Ranking Member McCaul, 
thank you. Thank you for having me here today to speak about 
the Administration's proposed budget for the State Department. 
But thank you more broadly----
    Mr. McCaul. Secretary, could you pull the mic a little 
closer maybe?
    Secretary Blinken. Yes. Sorry. Is that better? Try that.
    But thank you as well for your partnership and, also, for 
your leadership. That CODEL that both of you led in Poland at a 
critical moment made a big difference, and it has been 
gratifying to be able to work with both of you and other 
Members on this urgent issue, but also on many others. And I 
deeply appreciate it.
    And I did recently get back from Kyiv with Secretary 
Austin, where we wanted to show, as well as deliver on, 
America's commitment to the government and to the people of 
Ukraine.
    This brutal war of aggression against Ukraine has 
underscored to me the power and the purpose of American 
diplomacy. Our diplomacy is rallying allies and partners around 
the world to join us in supporting Ukraine with security, 
economic, humanitarian assistance to impose massive costs on 
Russia for its aggression; to strengthen our collective 
security and defense, and to address the war's mounting global 
consequences, including the refugee and food crises that have 
flowed from it.
    We have to continue to drive this diplomacy forward; also, 
to seize the strategic opportunities and address some of the 
risks that are presented by Russia's overreach, as countries 
reconsider their policies, their priorities, their 
relationships.
    The budget request before you predates the crisis, but 
fully funding and the new emergency resources the President 
requested earlier today is critical to ensuring that Russia's 
war in Ukraine is a strategic failure for the Kremlin and 
serves as a powerful lesson to those who might consider 
following its path.
    The supplemental resources Congress provided in March have 
made a decisive different on the battlefield, helping 
Ukrainians defend their country and win the battle for Kyiv. 
Your support also helped meet the mounting costs caused by the 
Kremlin's brutal invasion in Ukraine itself, across Europe, 
around the world, while bolstering the security of our allies 
and partners. This assistance was provided with broad 
bipartisan support and it has sent a clear signal of the United 
States' commitment to the Ukrainian government and to its 
people.
    We ask the Congress do the same with the emergency request 
that is before you as of today, which seeks $20.5 billion for 
security assistance, $8.5 billion for economic assistance, and 
$3 billion for humanitarian aid, including to address the 
growing global food security crisis, which is a direct result 
of Russia's aggression. Approximately $14 billion of this 
request would be directed to the State Department and to USAID.
    Let me just underscore, we cannot take our progress so far 
for granted. Ukraine's enduring independence and sovereignty 
depends in no small part on ensuring that the country's brave 
defenders have what they need to keep up the fight and meet the 
urgent needs of their people.
    But, Mr. Chairman, to your point, as we focus on this 
urgent crisis, the State Department continues to carry out 
missions that are front and center to our diplomacy--like 
responsibly managing great power competition with China; 
facilitating a halt to fighting in Yemen and Ethiopia; pushing 
back against the rising tide of authoritarianism and the threat 
that it poses to democracy and human rights.
    We also have evolving challenges that require us to develop 
new capabilities--like the emergence and re-emergence of 
infectious disease, and accelerating climate crisis; a digital 
revolution that holds enormous promise, but also real peril.
    Last fall, I had a chance to set out a modernization agenda 
for the Department and for U.S. diplomacy to enable us to even 
more effectively respond to many of these complex demands. And 
in no small part, thanks to the Fiscal Year 2022 budget 
approved by Congress, we have been able to make real progress 
on this agenda, though much remains to be done.
    To give you just a few quick examples:
    We strengthened our capacity to shape the ongoing 
technological revolution, so that it actually protects our 
interests; it boosts American competitiveness; it upholds our 
values.
    With bipartisan congressional support and encouragement, we 
just launched a new Bureau for Cyberspace and Digital Policy 
with 60 team members at the start, and I am grateful for the 
support and the advice that we got along the way.
    We are also making headway on ensuring that our diplomats 
reflect America's remarkable diversity. This is a tremendous 
source of strength for our diplomacy. The Department's first-
ever Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer has spearheaded an 
effort to analyze and address the obstacles that have been 
preventing underrepresented groups from joining, but also 
advancing at the State Department.
    We expanded the Pickering and Rangel fellowship programs, 
and, Mr. Chairman, as you said, paid internships at State, 
again with strong congressional input and support.
    My first 15 months on this job have only strengthened my 
conviction that these and other reforms aren't just worthwhile, 
they are essential to delivering for the American people.
    Ensuring we can deliver on this agenda will require 
sustained funding, some new authorities, and most importantly, 
partnership from Congress. That is why I am grateful to have 
worked with Congress to reestablish a formal dialog on the 
State Department authorization.
    Last month, we sent congressional staff the first package 
of legislative authorities required to meet the challenges we 
face and we expect to send more in the coming weeks, and to 
working with you on State authorization.
    If we want to deepen our capability in areas like climate 
and multilateral diplomacy, if we want to expand on Secretary 
Powell's vision of a Foreign Service training float, if we want 
to strengthen global health security and the capacity to 
prevent, to detect, and respond to future outbreaks, we will 
need some additional resources.
    If we want to be able to swiftly stand up new missions, to 
deploy our diplomats when and where they are needed, and make 
these decisions based on risk management, not risk aversion, we 
will need to reform the Secure Embassy Construction and 
Counterterrorism Act.
    There are other things that I would point to that we need 
to do, but we look forward to working with you on that.
    So, in the issue of time, let me stop there, and, of 
course, we can address these and many other issues throughout 
the course of the testimony.
    Thank you. Very good to be with everyone.
    [The prepared statement of Secretary Blinken follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Meeks. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. 
Secretary.
    And I am now going to begin to recognize members for 5 
minutes each. Pursuant to the House rules, all time yielded is 
for the purposes of questioning our witness.
    I will recognize members by alternating between Democrats 
and Republicans. And if you miss your turn, please let our 
staff know, and we will come back to you.
    If you seek recognition, you must unmute your microphone 
and address the chair verbally, and identify yourself, so that 
we know who is speaking.
    One of the other things that may come up are votes. And we 
are going to try to continue the hearing. So, members will be 
aware, we are going to try to send some members to go vote and 
come back, so that we will be able to make sure we are 
maximizing the time that we have with the Secretary. He has a 
hard stop at 4:30. And so, we are going to try to get as many 
questions in as we can.
    Many of you are aware that, when I became chair of the 
committee, that I made a commitment to elevate the voice and 
the role of not only our senior members and our subcommittee 
chairs, but also rank-and-file members, including and 
especially our junior members, who bring valuable experience 
and perspectives to this committee.
    And as such, for budget hearings with the Secretary, I have 
committed that whenever we hold such hearings, that all members 
who were not able to ask questions previously, due to time 
constraints, that I would resume the next hearing where the 
previous one had ended.
    And as such, I believe that Ranking Member McCaul will also 
give members who did not have an opportunity on the Republican 
side, those who did have an opportunity to ask questions the 
last time, to ask questions first also.
    And that will be, of course, after Mr. McCaul and I ask our 
questions.
    [Laughter.]
    So, let me start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes for 
the purposes of asking questions.
    And just so that the members will know, the first ones on 
the members' side to ask questions on the Democratic side will 
be Mr. Malinowski, and on the Republican side, Mr. Jackson.
    Mr. Secretary, there are so many things that we could ask. 
I am going to try to focus my questions just on, since this is 
a budget hearing, on trying to focus on what is happening 
internally within the State.
    And you know what has been really important to me, looking 
at it last year. Fortunately, this committee passed the very 
first State authorization bill to be signed into law since 
2002, which included many important measures to promote 
diversity and inclusion at State, including the establishment 
of an appeals process for security clearance restrictions and 
mandatory training for hiring managers on implicit bias.
    So, the budget. How will the budget request enable State to 
carry out those new authorities and integrate them with other 
DEI activities?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And let me underscore something that you said, but also 
that you have been leading on, which is, as I said, our 
determination to make sure that we are building a Department 
that actually reflects the people that it represents. And we 
have taken steps over the last 15 months that I think put us 
dramatically in a new place, and better place, to actually make 
good on that commitment:
    The creation and appointment of a Chief Diversity and 
Inclusion Officer, and office that goes with it, reporting 
directly to me on the seventh floor of the State Department; 
senior officials in every bureau responsible for tracking and 
making sure that we are following through on this agenda.
    A 5-year strategic plan that was just put forward on 
diversity, inclusion, access--a plan that reflects input from 
more than 700 Foreign Service Officers and civil servants, as 
well as, of course, many experts.
    Work that we're doing, innovative work, to actually get 
data disaggregated, so we have a complete picture of where we 
are and where we are not.
    Programs, for example, as well to make good on one of the 
challenges we have, not only getting people through the doors 
of C Street to join the Department, but to keep them there, 
once they are there. And we have had issues with that. We have 
seen, disproportionately, Foreign Service Officers and civil 
servants from underrepresented groups in the Department leave. 
We want to understand why and we want to make the changes 
necessary. So, we have an entire program now for retention, 
including exit interviews, so we actually understand what is 
motivating people to leave, and if there is a concern that we 
can address, we address it.
    The paid internships that you referenced, these are 
critical to making sure that, socioeconomically, we have people 
who start out and open their eyes and minds to the perspective 
of having a career in foreign policy at the State Department. 
If they are at the Department, they have the ability to do 
that. That is critical.
    And for all of these programs and more, the budget lays out 
a funding request to make sure that we can actually carry them 
through. And so, we really welcome the partnership with 
Congress on this.
    My commitment is this: this is turning around, to some 
extent, an aircraft carrier. It does not happen overnight. But, 
by what we are doing, by what we are putting in place, I am 
convinced that over the next few years, if we sustain it and 
stick to it, and resource it, you are going to see manifest 
progress throughout the ranks, making sure people have career 
paths that they can aspire to and get to the highest positions 
in the Department. All of that will play out over a few years, 
but we have now put in place the building blocks to do that 
more effectively, and I hope the resources can follow.
    Chairman Meeks. Thank you for that.
    And also, I think that I have to raise this question also, 
Mr. Secretary. During the early chaotic days of Russia's 
horrific invasion of Ukraine, there were some reports and 
videos of the mistreatment of non-white residents of Ukraine 
while trying to flee the country. And during my trip that Mr. 
McCaul and I took to the Polish-Ukrainian border, I was assured 
that any mistreatment or discrimination was being addressed. 
And so, I just have to ask the question, Mr. Secretary: are you 
aware of any further such discrimination against non-white 
refugees? And did this come up at your recent travel in Poland?
    Secretary Blinken. Mr. Chairman, we took these reports very 
seriously. And not only did we take them seriously, we acted on 
them. So, when this first emerged, we were immediately in 
contact with our counterparts in Ukraine, as well as in 
neighboring countries like Poland, making sure that they saw 
what was apparently happening and that they took action to 
correct it.
    And as I have seen it--and we are happy to provide more 
information to the committee--the governments in question did 
take action to send very clear messages to folks throughout 
their system that people could not in any way be mistreated or 
treated differently, in particular, as they were trying to 
leave Ukraine in the face of the Russian onslaught.
    To the best of my knowledge, the reports of such incidents 
have decreased significantly, but it is something that we 
track. And we will be happy to be in close touch with you. 
Needless to say, if any further reports emerge, please let us 
know, so that we can followup with the governments in question.
    Chairman Meeks. And before I go to Mr. McCaul, I have just 
got one final question I need to ask, Mr. Secretary. 
Recognizing the disparities by the providence in Afghanistan 
before the fall of the Ghani government, how would you 
characterize the security situation in Afghanistan and the 
treatment, especially, of women and girls in Afghanistan, under 
the Taliban rule, as we speak right now?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Very quickly, I would say this: the overall level of 
violence in the country has decreased, but we are seeing 
terrorist attacks, including, horrifically, most recently, 
against Hazara and Shiite minorities. We are, of course, seeing 
retribution attacks by Taliban against those who are part of 
the former government. These seem to be, for the most part, not 
centrally directed; that is, they tend to be happening at a 
local level, but they are happening. And that, of course, is 
egregious.
    And then, more generally, there is no doubt that, when it 
comes to the basic rights of the Afghan people, and especially 
women and girls, that has moved backward across the board. We 
have seen, for example, when it comes to women and girls, the 
inability of girls to go to school above the sixth grade. The 
Taliban had made a commitment that they would be allowed to do 
so. It reneged on that commitment. We are pressing, and many 
other countries are pressing, very hard on the Taliban to make 
good on what it said it would do. We will see if they do that.
    So, the rights picture is challenging. The security 
picture, as I said, is mixed because, while the overall level 
of violence has gone down, terrorism attacks within Afghanistan 
against Afghans continue and some of these retribution attacks 
continue.
    Chairman Meeks. Mr. McCaul?
    Mr. McCaul. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Secretary, you know, I have been critical that more 
weapons did not go in before the invasion; seemed to be waiting 
until after the invasion. I will say I was at the Polish-
Ukraine border last week, and I was actually very pleased to 
see a lot of 18-wheelers going in. And we know what they were 
carrying.
    But Zelensky said, ``If we had access to all the weapons we 
need, which our partners have and which are comparable to the 
weapons used by the Russian Federation, we would have already 
ended this war.''
    I do not think we can afford to make the same mistakes, 
though, in Taiwan. The stakes are high. They make 90 percent of 
the advanced semiconductor chips. If the CCP controlled, if 
they take Taiwan, they could weaponize the semiconductor supply 
chain and decimate the United States economy.
    If CCP controlled Taiwan, it would give China physical base 
in the first island chain that would cut the United States off 
from our allies and put us in a strategic disadvantage to 
future aggression in the archipelago of the Solomon Islands and 
that security group.
    My question, very quickly, the chairman and I do sign off 
on foreign military weapons sales. We sent a letter, a joint 
letter, to you on December the 3d of last year. There are about 
10 weapons systems. I won't go into detail on all of them, but 
all very important. When I met the Ambassador from Taiwan, she 
said, ``I have not received any of these.''
    I think deterrence is important here. And we wrote to 
request notification of the pending shipment of these sales to 
Taiwan. Why is this being held up? Many of these were signed 
off by the chairman and myself 2 years ago.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you. Let me just very quickly 
address Ukraine, and then, come quickly to your question.
    First on Ukraine, again, with great appreciation for 
everything that you have done, that the chairman has done, and 
continue to do--and we have got to keep doing together--the 
reason that the Ukrainians were able, so effectively, to push 
back the Russians from their aggression against Kyiv and the 
surrounding areas, and push them back to the east and the 
south, is two things.
    One, starting with their remarkable courage and resilience, 
which the Russians underestimated, and probably the entire 
world did.
    But, two, because they actually had in hand in the moment 
the tools they needed to do it. And the reason that they had 
those tools in hand is because, among other things, President 
Biden engaged in a drawdown way back on Labor Day of last year; 
another one, Christmastime. And these things were not----
    Mr. McCaul. And I apologize. I have got a few minutes, and 
I have one more question for you.
    Secretary Blinken. Yes. So, I just wanted to make that 
point.
    Mr. McCaul. When will Taiwan receive these weapons?
    Secretary Blinken. So, on Taiwan, two things. I agree with 
you that it is vital that Taiwan continue to have the means to 
defend itself, because we have seen mounting aggression from--
--
    Mr. McCaul. And I agree. I think there is a problem. I do 
not know if it is State or DOD or defense contractors. But 
maybe to move on to my next question----
    Secretary Blinken. Well, the point----
    Mr. McCaul [continuing]. Maybe it would be helpful if we 
got State and DOD and the contractors in the same room together 
to find out, how can we fix this broken system? And as you 
know, these are Patriot battery systems, right? We cannot even 
give those to the eastern flank NATO countries. We have got a 
serious backlog in weapons systems, and I would like to work 
with you to fix that.
    My last question, Financial Times broke a story yesterday 
that the CCP's national champion for memory chips, a company 
called YMTC, is breaking the U.S. foreign direct product rule 
and providing critical technology to Huawei. Do you agree that 
any company that violates U.S. law to provide critical 
technology to a sanctioned CCP-controlled country poses a 
threat to our national security? And if so, would you commit 
today to getting YMTC, which is a real threat, sir, as you 
know, putting that on the Entities List?
    Secretary Blinken. First, just quickly on Taiwan, I welcome 
working with you and other Members on this to make sure that we 
can streamline the timelines, to make sure that they are 
getting what they need to defend themselves.
    Second, with regard to this specific case, I will commit 
right now to look into it as soon as we are done, to figure out 
what is going on, and if there are sanctionable activity, to 
make sure that it is sanctioned.
    Mr. McCaul. Well, we are providing the equipment that they 
buy from the United States to make these advanced semiconductor 
chips. And I think we need to work on this Entities List. I 
think the Department of Commerce and DOD, we have got to 
harmonize this, and we also need to look at outbound investment 
streaming. With all the technology and capital flows going into 
China, which you know they use--and we are the backbone--that 
were made in America, but they also made their hypersonic 
weapon.
    And I sent a letter to Secretary Raimondo about this, as 
you know as well. And I hope you would especially take a look 
at this particular company.
    And thank you, sir.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize Representative Tom Malinowski from New 
Jersey, who is the vice chair of the full committee, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for going to Kyiv. 
Thank you for everything that you have done, and that President 
Biden has done, to stand with Ukraine, and for showing the 
world once again what principled American leadership in the 
world can do. It has been absolutely extraordinary.
    I have some questions that mostly will focus on sanctions, 
the economic side of this war. Yesterday, as you know, the 
House passed legislation that I led with Representative Joe 
Wilson that was designed to encourage the use of frozen, 
blocked Russian assets ultimately in the rebuilding of Ukraine. 
And I was delighted to see today that the President, the 
Administration, embraced this basic principle, that we should 
be using the wealth that built the Putin regime to rebuild the 
country that Putin is destroying.
    Most of my questions about that have been answered just in 
the last 24 hours. I did want to ask one question that I think, 
as we work together on this, will probably be pretty crucial. 
And that is, you know, we are talking about the oligarchs and 
the yachts and the villas and bank accounts, and so forth. But 
we accept that principle, do you think it might also apply to 
State assets? For example, the much larger amount of money that 
has been frozen around the world belonging to the Russian 
Central Bank?
    Secretary Blinken. In short, yes. And this is one of the 
things that we have asked our own lawyers to look at, which is 
what authorities would be needed, potentially, to seize those 
assets, but not only to seize them, but to use them in exactly 
the ways that you and Congressman Wilson have suggested in your 
legislation.
    Mr. Malinowski. Yes, thank you.
    More broadly, it seems to me that this is a moment kind of 
like 9/11, a moment when people and countries around the world 
need to choose what side they are on. We have imposed 
extraordinary sanctions with our allies, but I am concerned 
that those sanctions may be undermined by other countries that 
may view participation as optional, may be hedging their bets. 
We have countries around the world continuing to purchase not 
just Russian oil, but diamonds, for example. We have Roman 
Abramovich's yacht sailing into a harbor in Turkey.
    I am particularly concerned about countries in the Persian 
Gulf. I am sure you have seen the reports of dozens of Russian 
officials, business people close to Putin, owning property in 
the United Arab Emirates, and in the last few weeks, 
significant potential targets of sanctions moving assets into 
the UAE, in particular. Clearly, they are doing this because 
they believe that, if they are sanctioned, they will be safe in 
these countries.
    So, I guess what I want to ask you is, are they right? Will 
they be safe?
    Secretary Blinken. We are looking around the world at where 
resources are moving, as well as where countries or 
institutions may be trying to help evade the sanctions or in 
any way undermine them.
    Thanks to the colleagues in the Senate, we now have working 
for us a sanctions coordinator who reports directly to me, Jim 
O'Brien. This is one of his responsibilities, to look at 
sanctions evasion, and to make sure that we are doing 
everything we can to cutoff any such evasion.
    We are working that as well with our G7 partners. And I 
would just say, very quickly, two things. Look, it is much 
better in the first instance if we can get any countries in 
question to voluntarily make sure that they are joining us in 
implementing the sanctions and not allowing them to be evaded. 
But, if necessary to use authorities that we have to take 
action against those that are not, that is certainly something 
we are looking at.
    The last thing is this: I mentioned this in my opening 
remarks. A number of countries around the world are rethinking 
their relationships, including their relationship with Russia, 
going forward. And some of them have had relationships with 
Russia going back decades, including at times when we couldn't 
have the same kind of relationship with them, and now we can.
    We also need to make sure that we are helping advance that 
transition, and doing it in a way that, as a strategic matter, 
moves things in the right direction. And that is something we 
are factoring in as well.
    Mr. Malinowski. Well, thank you. I hope we recognize who 
has the power in our relationship with some of these countries, 
and particularly, the Gulf countries, ask the question, are 
they America's allies in the Gulf or Russia's allies in the 
Gulf?
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Malinowski. And I yield back.
    Chairman Meeks. I now recognize Representative Ronny 
Jackson of Texas for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Member 
McCaul.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today.
    Mr. Secretary, it is hard to see any signs of success from 
the Biden Administration over the past 15 months. Our 
constituents are facing higher prices and lower supplies across 
all industries, particularly at the gas pump. The world is 
markedly less safe and many of our allies are in immediate 
danger. And the Administration seems more worried about 
catering to the socialist left and about virtue signaling than 
about actually getting things done to help everyday Americans.
    Since this Administration took office, our three main 
global adversaries have become emboldened and strengthened.
    In Europe, President Biden failed to deter Vladimir Putin 
from invading Ukraine, despite ample evidence for months of 
military buildup. And now, we all watch with horror at war 
crimes and the violence that is unfolding.
    In the Indo-Pacific, as I saw firsthand on a CODEL I 
recently was on last week to Australia, Japan, and Taiwan, 
China continues its attempts to disrupt the world order through 
threatening its neighbors like Taiwan, through vaccine 
diplomacy for a virus it both created and covered up, and 
through its malicious Belt and Road Initiative.
    And in the Middle East, according to reports from 
negotiations in Vienna, Iran stands poised to receive enormous 
gains without giving up its nuclear deployment.
    Each concession by this Administration means more of our 
servicemembers abroad and more of allies, particularly Israel, 
are at imminent risk.
    Mr. Secretary, I think many of us in this room are 
concerned about the evolving crisis faced by Taiwan, and that 
has been mentioned, and the economic and security risk of 
nations around the world if China decides to invade Taiwan.
    We have witnessed two enormous foreign policy failures, in 
my opinion, between this Administration's withdrawal from 
Afghanistan and its early concessions to Russia, as Putin 
prepared for, and then, invaded Ukraine. It is clear from these 
actions, and from what I learned during my meetings on this 
recent CODEL, that we must reestablish confidence in our 
allies.
    Mr. Secretary, what steps are you taking to ensure allies 
like Taiwan are confident in America's support, particularly 
after our mistakes in Afghanistan and Ukraine?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Look, I do not want to put words in allies' and partners' 
mouths. That wouldn't be appropriate. But I think it is fair to 
say, from what I am hearing around the world--and I would 
certainly invite the chairman and the ranking member as well 
who have been making the rounds--I would suggest to you that 
the confidence of our allies and partners in the United States 
right now is at a high point, precisely because of the 
leadership that we have exerted through these many months with 
regard to Ukraine, but also on many other issues.
    Indeed, Congressman, one of the first instructions I had on 
taking office from President Biden was to focus on re-
energizing and revitalizing these alliances and partnerships, 
and that is exactly what we did. We are now in better standing 
at NATO than we have been in as long as I can remember. We have 
revitalized partnerships throughout the Asia Pacific, where you 
were, including with Japan, with Korea, with Australia, with 
New Zealand. We have energized the Quad that brings together 
the United States, India, Australia, and Japan. As you know, 
this is a vital institution. We have re-engaged with ASEAN.
    Across the board--and I could down the list--I think our 
standing with allies and partners is stronger than it has ever 
been. And there is a good reason for it, and you are right to 
focus on it. It is because most of the challenges we face are 
most effectively dealt with when we are working together with 
allies and partners, and that is exactly what you are seeing in 
Ukraine right now. Because of all the countries that we have 
brought together, the Ukrainians have what they need to repel 
this Russian aggression.
    And we have got to keep working on that. The Secretary of 
Defense was just in Germany with 40 other defense ministers 
from around the world to make sure that we could continue to 
get the Ukrainians exactly what they need to continue to do the 
job.
    And on Taiwan, we are resolute in making sure that Taiwan 
has what it needs to defend itself, as we have been for decades 
across eight Administrations. And we will work with you and 
work with other members of the committee to make sure that we 
are doing that as effectively as possible.
    Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I have another 
question here, sir.
    Outrageous gas prices are hurting my constituents. Yet, the 
Administration continues to attack American oil and gas.
    Chairman Meeks. Put your microphone on, Mr. Jackson.
    Mr. Jackson. Can you hear me, sir? How about that? No? OK.
    Sir, outrageous gas prices are hurting my constituents. 
Yet, the Administration continues to attack American oil and 
gas. Biden's price-hike blame game is not only falling on deaf 
ears, but it is also not believable. Gas prices have risen each 
week since Biden took office, due to this disastrous and ill-
advised posture toward American energy company.
    Beyond the failed domestic energy policies, it also seems 
that your Department's policy toward our Gulf partners is 
failing. I was disappointed to see that National Security 
Advisor Sullivan approached the meeting with the Saudi Crown 
Prince in a way that offended the Kingdom. This, in my opinion, 
is not the way to handle such relationships during a global 
energy crisis.
    My constituents ask me each day what the government is 
doing to lower their gas prices. So, I would like to turn that 
question to you, Mr. Secretary. What is your strategy to work 
with other countries, particularly our Gulf partners, to 
increase access to energy and decrease the world's reliance on 
Russian oil and gas?
    Secretary Blinken. It is very important.
    Chairman Meeks. You are going to have to do that in 
writing. I have got to be strict on the 5-minute rule because 
we have got so many folks that I want to make sure we get to.
    Secretary Blinken. I will followup in writing for you.
    Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate it.
    Thank you.
    Mr. McCaul. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to enter into the record the letter to 
Secretary Blinken, dated December 3d, 2021, from both you and 
myself on the weapon sales to Taiwan, and another to the 
Honorable Gina Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, dated July 
12th, 2021.
    Chairman Meeks. Without objection.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    ********* Information not available at press release 
**********
    Chairman Meeks. I now recognize Representative Andy Kim of 
New Jersey for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kim of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming here.
    Just the other day, you mentioned that Ukraine won the 
battle for Kyiv. And I guess I just wanted to ask you, do you 
assess that they are winning the war as a whole?
    Secretary Blinken. The Ukrainians, as things stand--well, 
first of all, let's define winning. What is important is this: 
first, on Putin's own terms, his objective going into Ukraine 
was to erase its independence and sovereignty, to deny its 
existence as an independent country.
    And on that basis, thanks to the extraordinary courage of 
the Ukrainians, he has already failed. I am very confident in 
saying that a sovereign, independent Ukraine is going to be 
around a lot longer than Vladimir Putin will be on the scene. 
So, on that basis, they are succeeding and Russia is failing.
    Now, ultimately, how this plays out and on what terms, that 
has to be up to the Ukrainians, the Ukrainian people, the 
government that represents them. We will support whatever they 
want to do going forward. There is a ferocious battle taking 
place right now across hundreds of miles in eastern and 
southern Ukraine. And the Russians bring a lot of firepower to 
that, but that is exactly why we and 40 or more countries 
around the world are making sure that the Ukrainians have what 
they need to deal with that.
    Mr. Kim of New Jersey. Yes, thank you for that, and I 
appreciate that articulation.
    The reason I ask this question is because I recently 
conducted a town hall in my district and I was asked a question 
about, how does the war in Ukraine affect us? How does it 
affect the people in Burlington County, the New Jersey 3d 
congressional District? And they asked the question just point 
blank, why should we care? And I guess I just wanted to ask 
you, if you were there at the town hall with me, what would you 
say back to them?
    Secretary Blinken. I guess I would say two things. First of 
all, I think we should care because the brutalization of the 
country and what is being done to the Ukrainian people by this 
Russian aggression are horrific, and simply as fellow human 
beings, we should care.
    But, beyond that, this aggression is not only an aggression 
against Ukraine; it is an aggression against the very basic 
principles of the international order that were put in place to 
try to keep peace and security after two world wars, both of 
which drew the United States in. And those principles, like the 
importance of sovereignty, of independence; principles like one 
country cannot simply invade another, change its borders, and 
assert that might makes right; cannot dictate to another 
country its policies, its future, its decisions. That is what 
Russia is committing aggression against.
    And if we allow that to stand with impunity, it is going to 
open a Pandora's box around the world, where other countries 
may take note and take action. And we know from history that 
draws us in.
    Second, or third, I guess I should say, we are actually 
seeing direct impacts of this aggression around the world way 
beyond Europe, including rising food prices because of Russia's 
aggression, energy prices that have gone up. They have gone up 
more than a dollar at the pump since Putin began to put this 
aggression together. So, it is having direct impacts as well.
    Mr. Kim of New Jersey. I agree with a lot of that. And I 
think, as we are considering this budget and thinking this 
through, I think it is really important--and I would like to 
work with you--on how we define success to the American people. 
Because we spend a lot of time talking about what we are trying 
to do, but we do not always do as much as we need to to 
articulate why we are doing it and what we are trying to 
achieve.
    And so, when I think through this, I very much agree with 
you that we are feeling like we are in this new paradigm-shift 
moment, where we are seeing these sacrosanct ideas and values 
of sovereignty being challenged blatantly by authoritarian 
governments around this world. And I think this is an 
opportunity for us to reassert what American leadership is, 
trying to signify what that is, and define what success can be.
    Now a question, going back to Ukraine, is, one measure of 
success, as you said, we won the battle for Kyiv. I know that 
you announced that we are going to start having our diplomats 
go back.
    Secretary Blinken. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Kim of New Jersey. I was wondering if you could commit 
to us when we are to expect the embassy to open up and have 
Americans come back into Kyiv.
    Secretary Blinken. Congressman, we are working on that 
right now. And I cannot give you a date certain because we want 
to make sure, obviously, that it is done in a way that looks 
out for their safety and their security. But we have diplomats 
back on the ground in Ukraine literally as we speak working on 
that. I would anticipate that this will play out over the next 
several weeks, but we will be back in Kyiv and the American 
flag will be flying over the embassy.
    Mr. Kim of New Jersey. And when we understand the 
challenges that we face with Russia, I think a lot of people 
also recognize--and I think the chairman mentioned it--you 
know, some of our bigger concerns in some ways are related to 
China, about what comes next. I heard that there is going to be 
a comprehensive Strategy being released sometime soon. I saw 
the President will be doing some travel, most likely, out to 
Korea and Japan.
    I want to just ask, what would be the top thing that we 
wanted to raise with the new President of Korea when the 
President will go out there?
    Secretary Blinken. The partnership that we have with Korea, 
the alliance that we have with Korea----
    Chairman Meeks. Again, unfortunately, Mr. Secretary, you 
will have to do it in writing.
    Secretary Blinken. I am happy to followup in writing.
    Chairman Meeks. We have to be strict on this 5-minute rule. 
So, I have to tell members, if you know a question, try to get 
it out, so that the Secretary will have a chance to answer it.
    I now recognize Representative August Pfluger from Texas 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am currently in San Antonio. What a momentous day this 
is, Mr. Secretary. This will, undoubtedly, be the easiest 
questioning that I offer in this session for sure. But what I 
wanted to do today was tell you thank you. It is with great 
pleasure that, just a few hours ago on the tarmac of an Air 
Force Base in San Antonio, that we welcomed Trevor Reed back 
home to the United States.
    The very first time that I questioned you, I asked if you 
would be committed to doing everything in your power to bring 
him home, and you said yes. And every single time that we have 
talked, I have mentioned his name to you, and you have kept it 
at the forefront of your mind, I believe. And there are many 
people on the committee--Colin Allred and Joaquin Castro and 
other Texans, Sheila Jackson Lee, that have helped out on the 
other side of the aisle--and I believe all 435 Representatives 
and every one of the 100 Senators know Trevor Reed and knows 
his story, understands the situation that he was in, and 
brought awareness to this.
    And I cannot thank you, the SPEHA team, and your entire 
State Department for doing the right thing, and ultimately, 
putting patriotism over politics. That is exactly what happened 
today. The reunification with his family was just tremendous--
the joy on their face to see their son. Obviously, they are 
very worried about his health, and it is going to take some 
time to heal, to get back to good health, but his spirit is 
strong. He is a fighter. He is a survivor. And I think it is an 
important day in our country.
    I am going to use this word again, patriotism over 
politics. And there are many issues that I would like to bring 
up today, but I am not going to do that. I am going to, 
instead, tell you thank you. I would ask that you tell 
President Biden thank you for putting patriotism over politics 
and doing the right thing to bring Trevor home.
    I cannot imagine the tough decision that had to be made, 
but you made it; you did it, and he is home. And I just would 
like to give you a couple of minutes to respond to that; and 
also, to ask that we do not forget Paul Whelan, and that we do 
not forget other people who are unlawfully incarcerated in 
other countries. We should leave no American behind. And it 
started with Trevor. I hope this momentum will continue.
    So, Mr. Secretary, over to you.
    Secretary Blinken. Congressman, first, let me just say, 
right back at you. You and other colleagues have been 
relentless in working on, advocating for, getting Trevor home. 
And your voice, your action, your engagement on this has been 
critical, too.
    And I am so glad that you were there to take part in the 
homecoming. And thank you for all of the engagement and effort 
that you have made over this long, long period of time.
    And it is gratifying to see that he is home. And I really, 
also, have to join you in praising the extraordinary work of 
Roger Carstens, who handles these issues for us and for the 
President; the State Department; our Ambassador in Moscow, John 
Sullivan, and many others who worked on this. But, finally, and 
most importantly, President Biden, who made the decision to do 
this.
    But every American who remains arbitrarily detained 
anywhere around the world, a hostage, remains on our minds and 
in our hearts, starting with Paul Whelan. And I want to commit 
to you, and to every member of this committee, that we will 
continue to be relentless in bringing every single one of them 
home.
    This is at the very top of my priority list. I have, in my 
judgment, a couple of almost sacred responsibilities. One is, 
of course, to look out for the men and women of my Department, 
but the other is to do everything I possibly can to bring home 
Americans who, wherever they are around the world, may be 
arbitrarily detained or held hostage. So, we will not relent in 
this.
    But, again, to you, Congressman, thank you. Thank you for 
your partnership on this, but thank you for your leadership and 
everything you have done to make sure that we could get to this 
day.
    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, both of you have been 
instrumental in this. I appreciate your leadership and your 
voice. Trevor Reed is back on American soil. I am proud to 
report that a Texan, a Marine, and a patriot has returned home.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize Representative Sara Jacobs of California, 
who is the vice chair of the Subcommittee on International 
Development, International Organizations, and Global Corporate 
Social Impact, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jacobs. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here with us today.
    I, first, want to thank you and the Biden Administration 
for your announcement of the Global Fragility Act countries. I 
am looking forward to its implementation, particularly in 
Mozambique and coastal West Africa. And I hope we can continue 
to work together on that.
    I also know that a lot of us will be asking you questions 
about Ukraine, and it is our job to do oversight, but I think 
it is, first, important to say that you and the Biden 
Administration and President Biden have been masterful in how 
you all have handled this crisis--making sure our allies are 
and remain united; making sure that our approach is strategic 
and thoughtful, and weighing all the different calculations, 
including the risk of escalation. And I just want to say that I 
go to sleep feeling better every night because I know that 
President Biden and you all are leading the way here on this.
    One of the things I know we are all concerned about--and I 
am sure you saw on your trip to Kyiv--is this question of war 
crimes and atrocities. And it is increasingly important that 
the international community comes together to hold Putin 
accountable. Thankfully, the ICC has announced an investigation 
in Ukraine, which I am very supportive of, and I understand the 
Biden Administration is currently undergoing a policy review of 
the ICC and whether to provide material support to this 
investigation.
    So, Mr. Secretary, does the Biden Administration support 
the ICC's investigation in Ukraine?
    Secretary Blinken. We do. And let me add very quickly that 
we welcome it. We are looking to see how we can support it. 
There are other critically important efforts at accountability 
for these war crimes and other atrocities that have been 
committed that we are also supporting.
    The Ukrainian Prosecutor General, she is leading a major 
effort to do this, to document; to collect the evidence; to 
prepare prosecutions. We have our own experts working directly 
with her and her team.
    Second, because we got back on the Human Rights Council at 
the United Nations, we were able to lead the effort to 
establish a commission of inquiry at the Human Rights Council 
to do the same thing. We are also supporting that.
    So, along with the ICC and the Prosecutor General, the 
Human Rights Council, and some other investigations that are 
going forward, across the board, they will have our support.
    Ms. Jacobs. That is really great to hear. And I think it is 
important that we support all of them.
    In terms of the ICC, we know that there are certain laws on 
the books that seem to prohibit material support and funding. 
Is that correct?
    Secretary Blinken. There are laws on the books, but we have 
found ways in the past--and we are not a State party to the 
ICC; we do not intend to become one--but we have found ways in 
the past to support investigations. In fact, there is a 
prosecution going on right now, the Janjaweed from Darfur, that 
is, in part, the result of information and support that we 
provided.
    Ms. Jacobs. OK. Would it be helpful for Congress to waive 
some of these prohibitions for the purpose of an ICC 
investigation for Ukraine?
    Secretary Blinken. To the extent that we find that anything 
would be blocking useful support that we could provide, that is 
something we should look at, yes.
    Ms. Jacobs. OK. Great. Well, I look forward to working with 
you on that, and I think you will find a lot of support here in 
Congress to make sure we are doing everything we can to hold 
Putin accountable.
    I want to go to another part of the world. The last 2 years 
have been particularly deadly across the Sahel with attacks 
claiming more than 3200 victims in Burkina Faso, Mali, and 
Niger, and an alarming trend of coups, many of which were 
carried out by U.S.-trained personnel. And this is despite 
United States and international investments, the vast majority 
in the form of security assistance in the region for, roughly, 
a decade.
    And that is why I, along with my colleagues, including 
Chairman Meeks, sent a letter to President Biden urging a new 
strategy for the Sahel. And as part of this letter, we 
requested an evaluation of security assistance and other 
efforts in the Sahel over the last 15 years. Does the 
Department have the adequate resources necessary to carry out 
such a review?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you for putting a flag on that, 
because I do think this is very important and I share your 
concerns. We have seen mounting instability. We have seen the 
coups that you have alluded to in Mali and Guinea and Burkina 
Faso. And I think we have strongly felt the need for what you 
have suggested, and others have suggested, is a more 
comprehensive strategy to approach this. And that is exactly 
what we have put in place.
    And so, yes, security is, obviously, a critical component. 
But, while it is necessary, it is insufficient. Getting at the 
drivers of conflict; getting at the lack of effective 
institutions, public services, the lack of inclusion for 
minorities and the marginalized; human rights abuses; other 
drivers, the strategy covers all of that. And it also makes 
sure that, as we are moving forward, we are looking hard at the 
programs that we have in place to make sure that they are 
effective; they are operating as they are designed to be. I 
believe we have the resources necessary in the budget to carry 
out that mission.
    Ms. Jacobs. That is great to hear. I know, in June 2020, 
the State OIG report on the CT Bureau was concerned that it 
would take 7 years to fully comply with the Department's 
monitoring and evaluation standards. So, I would love to work 
with you to make sure that we are giving you the resources that 
you need to be able to do this, and that we are learning the 
lessons that we need to from these investments and actually 
reform our approach, so that we are promoting values, and not 
only looking at short-term security, but our long-term 
priorities as well.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady yields back.
    I now recognize Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey, 
who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global 
Health, and Global Human Rights, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And welcome, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Secretary, as you know, the mass exodus of women and 
children from Ukraine has left many vulnerable to human 
traffickers. And we know that, even at some of the points as 
they are coming across the border, people are saying, you know, 
``I'll give you shelter. I'll give you food.'' And yet, it is 
an engraved invitation, frankly, to another hell that they are 
escaping, and that is human trafficking.
    As you may know, I am the Special Representative for OSCE 
Parliamentary Assembly for Human Trafficking. I am in almost 
daily contact with NGO's, governments, stakeholders in the 
region. There was an OSCE hearing a few weeks back, and the 
collective sense was not enough is being done. But I do thank 
you that there is efforts being made to help groups like IJM, 
the International Justice Mission. I would respectfully--and 
they haven't asked me to say this, but I will say it--
hopefully, they can get even more resources.
    A lot of the money that is going to UNHCR I do not think is 
getting into the trafficking fight. Even the representative for 
the UNHCR recently testified at the Helsinki hearing that not 
enough is being done, and that is from his lips. So, I think we 
need to take that very seriously.
    IJM, as you know, is really pushing hard for protection 
officers who can really help weed out where the threats are.
    And I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to put 
these flyers, or at least a few of these flyers, which are 
really good, into the record. And they are from Poland. They 
are from Hungary, from Romania, and they are in Romania.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    ********* Information not available at press release 
**********
    Mr. Smith. So, I would ask, if you could, to take back to 
try to step up a regional effort, similar to what IJM is doing 
in Romania. What they are doing is very efficacious, cost-
effective, and I think it just needs to be done. So, if you 
could bring that back, and perhaps comment on it, if you would 
like?
    Second, on March 8th, I chaired a hearing on the importance 
of declaring Putin, and others, war criminals, but Putin 
especially. Now I know the ICC has initiated an investigation. 
You know, I won't hold my breath, how long it will take. They 
want to be thorough, and that is all important.
    But David Crane testified at the hearing that I had, and he 
was our Special Prosecutor for Sierra Leone who put Charles 
Taylor behind bars for 50 years. And he said that there is 
another avenue, another route available to us, and that would 
be using the General Assembly, not the Security Council where 
there is veto power, as you know so well, but the General 
Assembly to stand up a tribunal and immediately indict Putin. 
People around him, including Lukashenko and others, may be 
harder-pressed to be following and doing in a subservient way 
what he tells them to do, but he is a war criminal, and he is 
an indicted one at that.
    And finally, if you could, on April 18th, Congresswoman 
Salazar and I did send you a letter expressing concern at 
reports that our Embassy in Guatemala and U.S. Department of 
State officials have been interfering in the appointment 
process for the next Prosecutor General for Guatemala, and 
whether our Embassy is complying with Article 41 of the Vienna 
Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
    I asked Deputy Secretary Sherman about this on April 6th. I 
haven't heard back.
    But I want to point out that Prosecutor General Porras has 
been extremely helpful when it comes to extraditing criminals 
from Guatemala, 63 in 2021, including 54 drug dealers. Now 
Guatemalan social media is abuzz, and there appears to be a 
memorandum circulating that is entitled, quote, ``Engagement 
Plan on the Guatemalan Attorney General Selection Process,'' 
close quote, reportedly from the U.S. Government. And I wonder 
if you could confirm whether or not that is authentic, and I 
certainly hope it is not.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you.
    Secretary Blinken. And can I just start quickly by 
applauding your long-time effective leadership on dealing with 
human trafficking. It is something that I very much appreciate 
and I also share the concerns that you have expressed about 
this. This is something that we have been looking at and that 
we have real concern about.
    And in these situations, wherever they take place, but here 
in Ukraine as well, we have, as you know, 5 million people who 
are refugees. There are another 7 million who are internally 
displaced inside Ukraine.
    I want to take the suggestion back and look at it. I think 
trying to make sure that we have a regional focus on this makes 
good sense to me. And I would love to come to you on that, if I 
could.
    Mr. Smith. Great. Thank you.
    Secretary Blinken. Second, with regard to accountability, 
let say this: we will look at anything and everything to make 
sure that we get there. Whether it is tomorrow, next month, 
next year, 10 years, it will happen. You are right, sometimes 
this takes a while. But here is the most important point: those 
who committed atrocities and those who ordered them need to be 
held to account, and we will look at ways to do that.
    I am not aware, but I will come back to you, if I can, on 
the question of Guatemala. I can say, as a general matter, we 
are very focused everywhere on making sure that there are 
independent prosecutors, judiciary, et cetera, to make sure 
that countries can deal with corruption, can deal with crime in 
an appropriate way. So, that is the direction that we always 
take. But let me, if I can, look into this and come back to 
you.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you. I appreciate it.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize Representative Kathy Manning of North 
Carolina, who is the vice chair of the Subcommittee on the 
Middle East, North Africa and Global Counterterrorism, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Chairman Meeks.
    And thank you, Secretary Blinken, for your service and for 
being with us again today.
    I appreciate the Administration's extraordinary efforts to 
help Ukraine, including intelligence-sharing and unprecedented 
coordination among our allies that have led to crippling 
sanctions, humanitarian assistance, and for providing Ukraine 
with $3.7 billion in U.S. military aid.
    However, I am very concerned by the prospect that Putin may 
try to widen the war, in light of recent events, including 
explosions in Moldova's breakaway region of Transnistria, which 
I have visited, and I recall very vividly having to go from 
Moldova through passport control, as if we were entering a 
Russian country.
    My State of North Carolina and my community in Greensboro 
have long had strong partnerships with Moldova. So, this is of 
particular concern to me.
    So, Mr. Secretary, what is your assessment of the potential 
for Russian escalation into Moldova, and what are we doing to 
prepare and protect Moldova, and to prevent a wider conflict?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you very much, and I appreciate 
your engagement on this very, very much.
    Simply put, we are watching this like a hawk. I was in 
Moldova myself some weeks ago. Another senior official from the 
Department was just there, our Assistant Secretary for 
Population Migration and Refugees. We have done a number of 
things, and we are very focused on this.
    First, because there is a tremendous strain, as you know, 
on Moldova as a result of the many refugees it has taken in, we 
want to make sure that it has the resources necessary to deal 
with that. The Moldovan people have been remarkable. When I was 
there, I saw the yellow and blue all over Moldova.
    We just joined a pledging conference that Germany led. We 
have committed $100 million in additional resources out of the 
existing funds to Moldova to help it deal with a number of 
things, but, in particular, the humanitarian challenge that it 
faces now.
    Second, we have programs, including in this budget, to do 
things like help Moldova bolster its cybersecurity, because 
this is one of the ways it is under threat; economic 
stabilization and resilience, so that it can stand up 
effectively; programs to counter disinformation, which, as you 
know, it is on the receiving end of, and also, critically, one 
of the good things that happened is there is now an opportunity 
to fully integrate Moldova's energy system with Europe's. And 
that is moving forward. We have programs in place that are also 
in the budget to work on that.
    Finally, we have been working with the U.N. and 
international agencies to make sure that they are dedicating 
the appropriate resources to help Moldova deal with the 
potential influx of even more refugees from Ukraine, as this 
goes forward.
    But the budget includes all of this and more: judicial 
reform programs; independent media support programs; energy 
security; infrastructure. In many ways, we are doing that, but, 
of course, we are also making sure that our European allies and 
partners are focused on challenges and threats to Moldova.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you. Those are all things that Moldova 
will need.
    So, I want to turn to a different aspect of this conflict. 
How is the Administration working with non-NATO countries to 
work with us to repel the Russia regression and to get them to 
agree that this destruction of another country, the resulting 
fuel and food shortages, the instability this is creating, and 
the use of force to redraw borders sets a dangerous precedent 
that creates instability and leaves the world worse off? In 
particular, how can we get China to be part of the solution?
    Secretary Blinken. This has very much been our message 
around the world. And when Russia's aggression was mounting, we 
made the case to countries around the world, well beyond 
Europe, well beyond NATO, or, for that matter, our allies in 
Asia, that this actually directly affected them because it was 
a direct challenge to the international order that they depend 
on--these principles that I talked about earlier that uphold 
peace and security; that say one country cannot simply attack 
another or try to change its borders by force; take it over; 
assert that might makes right; dictate its policies and 
approach. That is not only relevant to Ukraine; it is relevant 
to countries around the world. And if this goes forward with 
impunity, others will take note and may act on it in ways that 
will be immediately detrimental to those countries.
    Part of the reason that 141 countries stood up at the 
United Nations against the Russian aggression and for Ukraine 
is because they realized that their own interests were 
potentially at stake. And we've seen that manifest itself again 
and again.
    In the OAS recently, the Organization of American States, 
we led the effort to suspend Russia from its observer status. 
Countries there recognized the importance of standing clearly 
against Russian aggression.
    The U.N. Human Rights Council, we led the effort to suspend 
Russia from its seat, and that vote succeeded in a dramatic 
fashion--again, countries well beyond Europe and our NATO 
allies. So, I think countries are getting the message.
    The last thing that I will say very quickly--and we want to 
work on this with you--is we are seeing the effects, though, on 
other countries of Russian aggression--food security, in 
particular. And one of the things that we have to do is make 
clear that the reason that is happening is because of Russia, 
not because of our sanctions, and to address the problem.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back.
    Mr. Malinowski [presiding]. Thank you. The chair recognizes 
Representative Steve Chabot, the ranking member of the Asia 
Subcommittee.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, I am one of the co-chairs of the 
congressional Taiwan Caucus, and have been for many years. And 
I was actually in Columbus just last week, where the State 
legislature in Ohio, up in Columbus, formed their version of 
our congressional Taiwan Caucus. It is a Taiwan Friendship 
Caucus with them. They do a lot of business with Taiwan; have 
probably met with the Ambassador herself five or six times in 
the last month or 2 months, or so.
    And so, I wanted to followup with some of the questions 
that Ranking Member McCaul had relative to Taiwan defending 
itself, and specifically, the fact that the supply chain issues 
are one of the major holdups for arms deliveries to Taiwan. 
With some of the weapons systems that they need, I understand 
they may not be expected to be delivered for a decade or so, 
and, you know, that could be far beyond the time.
    We know that the PRC has been more and more active, more 
and more confrontational, more and more provocative. So, we 
really do need to get them these weapons systems, so it can 
actually, potentially, be a deterrence. We do not want war, you 
know. We want to arm them, but we do not want those weapons to 
be used. We want peace.
    That being said, what specific action--and I know that the 
ranking member asked a question--what specific actions is the 
Administration doing now, or intends to do, to deal with these 
supply chain issues which have been so frustrating?
    Secretary Blinken. Well, thank you very much, and I 
appreciate your focus on this. I think it is very important.
    We, of course, have, generically, many supply chain 
challenges that are affecting people in their daily lives. I 
will be, in the next few weeks, actually, helping to lead a 
summit with the Secretary of Conference, Gina Raimondo, on 
internationally dealing with breaking through logjams in supply 
chains, both in the near term as well as for the long term.
    And, of course, I think there is a tremendous adaptation 
that is going on now, as we realize the importance--COVID-19 
shows this to us--of building resilient and more self-reliant 
supply chains. That is going to take time, but it is something 
that we are intensely focused on.
    With regard to Taiwan, in particular, look, I think there 
are two things going on.
    First, there has been, as you know, sustained effort over 
many Administrations to make sure that we are making good on 
our commitments to help Taiwan defend itself. There has been 
about $18 billion in foreign military sales since 2017, another 
$2.5 billion of direct commercial sales that Administrations 
have approved. I approve these things on a regular basis. We 
are looking to see how, specifically, we can streamline this to 
deal with some of the problems that you pointed to, to make 
delivery timelines shorter.
    But, at the same time, there is another thing I want to 
emphasize. And I know you know this very well because you are 
so focused on it. It is also vital that Taiwan strengthen its 
asymmetric capabilities to deter potential aggression from 
Beijing: reserve force reform, cost-efficient, mobile, lethal, 
and resilient systems. And all of this would go to deterrence.
    And the reason that it is particularly interesting now is 
because I think Beijing is watching very carefully what is 
happening in Ukraine, and they have seen what Ukrainians have 
been able to do to repel the Russian aggression. They have also 
seen the dramatic response of the world in terms of sanctions 
on Russia that have resulted from this. They have seen the 
flight of hundreds of--by my count, 800--companies from Russia. 
All of this is factoring in. But, in a sense, the somewhat 
asymmetric response of Ukrainians to Russia is something that 
other countries are looking at.
    We would welcome working with you on this and making sure 
that we can do this even more effectively going forward.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. And I have a whole slew of 
other Taiwan questions to ask you, but I am already running out 
of time. So, let me shift over to an unrelated topic at this 
point.
    Mr. Secretary, I have been involved with the issue of 
international child abduction for--well, this is my 26th year 
in Congress--so, quite a few of them over the years. One, in 
particular, is a Cincinnati case. The country was Austria. And 
we had worked with the late Madeleine Albright on this one, and 
she was very, very helpful in this.
    And I was just approached this last week in Cincinnati by a 
constituent whose granddaughter--he is trying to get his 
granddaughter home to the United States. They have custody, 
but, unfortunately, the child was taken to another country. I 
do not want to go into the specifics of this.
    But I just wanted to say that my staff and I have already 
been in touch with the State Department, and I just wanted to 
commend your people for being exceedingly professional, very 
cooperative. And I want to thank you and appreciate the State 
Department's cooperation on this matter, and I look forward to 
working with them in the near future.
    Because, as you know, these cases can be heartbreaking, and 
unfortunately, you know, we have had quite a few cases where 
American children have been taken to other countries. And I 
have been to the Hague and the Hague Convention, and all that.
    I have only got a little time left. So, I will just turn it 
over to you, whatever you would like to say.
    Secretary Blinken. Just to say thank you for raising that.
    This is something that is very near and dear to my heart. 
It has been for a long time. It is being reinforced even more, 
as a relatively recent father with young children.
    I have gone directly to the leadership of countries, 
including as recently as a month ago, where we have a parental 
child abduction case, and spent time and focus on trying to get 
countries to do the right thing. In many cases, countries are 
not part of the Hague Convention. Even so, they need to do the 
right thing.
    And in the most recent case that I dealt with directly with 
a leader of that country, its own courts had actually ruled in 
favor of asserting the rights of an American parent, but the 
decision was not implemented. We pressed them to implement it.
    I welcome working with you on this. This is, again, 
something that I feel very strongly on a personal level.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Mr. Chabot. I yield back.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you.
    We will go to Representative Schneider of Illinois next for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us today. It is 
always wonderful seeing you.
    I want to thank you and your team for your outreach and 
direct engagement as we navigate complex issues around the 
world, especially the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as well as 
developments in the Middle East; in particular, the discussions 
with Iran and the advancement of the Abraham Accords.
    With respect to Ukraine, I am grateful for the leadership 
of this Administration, as well as the leadership of Congress, 
and notably, this committee. It is imperative that we continue 
to do all we can to deliver any and all necessary security, 
economic, and humanitarian assistance. And your diplomacy is 
clearly yielding results. We must demonstrate to Putin that the 
world is, and will remain, united in not just stopping Russia's 
unprovoked and illegal invasion, but reversing it and securing 
Ukraine's independence and sovereignty, and helping Ukrainians 
rebuild their country.
    Turning to Iran, as we have personally discussed many 
times, I firmly believe the only way to peacefully end Iran's 
nuclear ambitions is through diplomacy. But I also 
fundamentally believe that successful diplomacy requires a very 
real and fully appreciated commitment and capability to stop 
Iran from acquiring nuclear arms by any means necessary. And 
that clearly means that Iran and our allies must know that we 
would use our military force, if all else failed. I think 
strong deterrence enhances our likelihood of diplomatic 
success.
    I would also like to express my grave concern about the 
possible lifting of the IRGC's foreign terrorist organization 
designation and the role such a move may play in ongoing 
nuclear negotiations. The IRGC is, without a doubt, a terrorist 
organization. The IRGC's malign influence extends beyond its 
borders to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Gaza, and beyond. They 
are responsible for suffering, violence, and death, including 
the loss of many American lives. I sincerely hope you will not 
lift this designation.
    And, of course, it is not just Iran's nuclear program, but 
the entirety of Iran's malign activities in the region and 
around the world that concerns me, and threatens the United 
States and our allies. We must not forget about the Iranian 
regime's human rights abuses, ballistic missile program, and 
support for terrorist proxies outside its borders.
    Specifically, for our ally Israel, Iran may be on the one-
yard line with its nuclear enrichment program, but they are 
also knocking at the door through proxies in Lebanon, Syria, 
and Gaza. I trust that the Administration appreciates this 
reality, and as it assesses ways to thwart Iran's nuclear 
activities, we do not trade lessening one threat for 
dangerously expanding another.
    Counterbalancing the threats posed by Iran are the positive 
impacts and limited potential created by the Abraham Accords. 
Mr. Secretary, I know I do not need to tell you that American 
engagement in this region is crucial, and there is no better 
demonstration of the American leadership than the role we have 
played in supporting peace agreements between Israel and her 
neighbors--first, with Egypt and Jordan, and more recently, the 
peace and normalization agreements with UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, 
and Morocco.
    In an otherwise dark world, normalization of relations 
between Israel and these countries is a very bright spot, 
lifting the lives of the citizens of these countries and the 
region. These agreements have brought hope to everyone in the 
Middle East and North Africa and illuminate a path to peace and 
cooperation in the region. These agreements have already 
enhanced security, cooperation, economic development, religious 
tolerance, and cultural exchanges, and we must continue to 
support and buildupon this historic cooperation, as you did 
when you were at the Negev Summit.
    I am proud to have authored the Israel Relations 
Normalization Act, and I am grateful President Biden signed it 
into law. We must keep working on expanding these agreements, 
not only to create a more secure and prosperous Middle East, 
but, also, since it is an important tool in preventing Iran's 
malign endeavors.
    So, with not much time left, I would like to ask or give 
you the opportunity to expand on how the Administration is 
addressing concerns about Iran, Iran's nuclear programs, and 
Iran's nuclear other activities, but also the prospects for 
expanding the peace and prosperity of the Abraham Accords.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you very much, Congressman, and I 
appreciate your leadership on the Abraham Accords.
    Let me just say, very quickly, we strongly support them. We 
want to deepen them. We want to expand them. And that is one of 
the reasons that I was just in Israel, and as you mentioned in 
the Negev, and it was extraordinary. We had around the same 
table the foreign ministers from Israel, Bahrain, the United 
Arab Emirates, Morocco, and Egypt--Egypt, of course, the first 
to make peace with Israel, but, then, more recent countries 
that have normalized their relationships with Israel.
    And there is a strong and deep agenda to pursue cooperation 
across a whole wide variety of fronts among these countries. It 
is incredibly exciting to see. We have been working to 
accelerate that from almost day one of our Administration, 
including bringing Israel, UAE, and India together to do joint 
infrastructure projects, including working directly with Israel 
and the UAE on religious coexistence, on water and energy 
projects. All of this because these agreements have allowed 
relationships to change.
    And I am happy to come back to you on Iran because I see 
our time is up.
    Mr. Schneider. Great. Thank you. I look forward to the 
conversation.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you.
    The chair recognizes Representative Perry of Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Perry. I thank the chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, welcome. It is good to see you. Thank you.
    Do you know the value of U.S. intellectual property theft 
annually by the CCP?
    Secretary Blinken. Billions of dollars.
    Mr. Perry. OK. So, according to NBC--or correction--CNN, 
$300 to $600 billion annually.
    How about do you know how many Chinese students are 
studying in the United States versus U.S. students studying in 
China?
    Secretary Blinken. It is dramatically disproportionate.
    Mr. Perry. Three hundred and forty thousand in the United 
States, according to NBC; 2500 U.S. citizens studying in China.
    Mr. Secretary, knowing that multiple members of your firm 
WestExec were being considered by the incoming Biden 
Administration just prior to then-Mr. Biden accepting the 
nomination at the Democrat National Convention, your website at 
your company, WestExec, had this Statement: ``and continue to 
provide capability to and remain a trusted partner of the U.S. 
Government, while pursuing commercial activities in China, and 
remain a trusted partner for DOD-sponsored research grants, 
while expanding foreign research collaboration, accepting 
foreign donations, and welcoming foreign students in key STEM 
programs.''
    Mr. Secretary, this isn't meant to be, just because there 
are multiple people that worked at your firm--Avril Haines, 
Michele Flournoy, Jen Psaki--is that a potential conflict of 
interest? Because that was taken off your website literally 
just within a week or so of President Biden accepting the 
nomination. Is that potentially a conflict of interest?
    Secretary Blinken. Congressman, what I can tell you is, of 
course, like any nominee for a position in government, you go 
through intense----
    Mr. Perry. I know. I am just wondering about taking down 
that information off the website.
    Secretary Blinken. I have no recollection of what was done 
or not done with----
    Mr. Perry. You did not order that to be taken down?
    Secretary Blinken. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Perry. Somebody just did it on their own?
    Let me ask you this: would it be a conflict if Hunter Biden 
traveled to China on a taxpayer-funded plane to set up Bohai 
Harvest, as you know--I am sure you are aware of it--which, 
then, poured money into a CCP surveillance company, Megvii? And 
if you are not familiar with that, it is a company whose 
equipment is used in East Turkestan, and it was also sanctioned 
by OFAC regarding their biometric surveillance and tracking of 
ethnic and religious minorities in China.
    And furthermore, Bohai Harvest, under Hunter Biden, also 
facilitated a $3.8 billion deal that transferred 80 percent of 
the world's most lucrative cobalt mines in the Democratic 
Republic of the Congo to a Chinese firm that uses children as 
young as 4 years old to mine cobalt.
    And furthermore, under Hunter Biden, Bohai Harvest has also 
invested in the CCP-owned China General Nuclear Power Group, 
which was blacklisted in 2019 for allegedly trying to acquire 
U.S. nuclear technology for the Chinese military.
    I am wondering if you view that, traveling on that airplane 
which is funded by taxpayers, and is, of course, official 
business--would that be viewed as a conflict? Would you view 
that as a conflict of interest?
    Secretary Blinken. Congressman, I am here to address the 
State Department budget----
    Mr. Perry. I know what you are here--yes.
    Secretary Blinken [continuing]. And to address our foreign 
policy. That is a political question. You are welcome to take 
that up in any appropriate----
    Mr. Perry. So, you cannot answer whether you think it is--I 
am not saying it even happened. But if it did, would it be a 
conflict----
    Secretary Blinken. I'm not, I'm not, I'm not going to 
address--I'm not going to address a hypothetical.
    Mr. Perry. OK. Well, if it did----
    Secretary Blinken. I am here to talk about the budget. I am 
here to talk about our foreign policy. I am happy----
    Mr. Perry. Since it did happen, at least the investments, 
is it a conflict of interest?
    Secretary Blinken. Again, I am not----
    Mr. Perry. Is it morally--would it be morally wrong?
    Secretary Blinken. I am here to address the State 
Department budget. I am here to address our foreign policy. I 
am happy to----
    Mr. Perry. Would any of those things that I outlined for 
you, would any of them--would you say they enhanced U.S. 
national security or Chinese national security?
    Secretary Blinken. Again, I am not going to entertain 
hypotheticals. I am not----
    Mr. Perry. No, this isn't hypothetical. These investments 
were made.
    Secretary Blinken. I have no--I have no basis----
    Mr. Perry. So, let's take Hunter Biden and Bo Biden capital 
out of it----
    Secretary Blinken. I have no----
    Mr. Perry [continuing]. And just say, if these investments 
were made, would they enhance U.S. national security or Chinese 
national security?
    Secretary Blinken. Again, I'm here to talk about our 
budget. I'm here to talk about our foreign policy. I am happy 
to address----
    Mr. Perry. Is this not foreign policy? U.S. investors 
helping the Communist Party of China beat the United States 
industrially--you know, the Administration, the Administration 
that you work for--God bless them--they say that we should all 
be driving an electric vehicle, 80 percent of the contents of 
which are produced in China. This goes directly to that. Does 
it help China or does it help the United States of America, 
sir?
    Secretary Blinken. Again, Congressman, you are asking 
political questions. You are welcome to ask those in the 
appropriate fora for that. I am here to talk about our budget, 
and I'm here to talk about our foreign policy.
    Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Sometimes I 
wonder if anyone will ever ask the question about Members of 
Congress who are personally invested in Chinese companies 
engaged in surveillance activities.
    Let me, with that side comment, call on Representative Andy 
Levin of Michigan.
    Mr. Levin. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman.
    And Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for your tremendous 
work on Ukraine and so many other fronts. I'm going to get back 
to the talking about the actual policy of the State Department 
and the budget.
    The President's budget calls for $275 million in support 
for Haiti, which is 46 percent more than last year's request, 
including funding to strengthen the capacity of the Haitian 
National Police, combating corruption, and strengthening the 
capacity of civil society.
    But as someone who's closely observed Haiti for 40 years, 
my concern is that these investments will do little to change 
the reality on the ground for the Haitian people if we're not 
seriously invested in supporting their aspirations for a real 
democratic transition.
    The biggest obstacle to this in my view is the entrenchment 
of U.S. support for the de facto regime of Prime Minister Ariel 
Henry and the corruption and gangsterization his rule 
represents. Further, it seems to me that U.S. support is 
disincentivizing Henry from participating in good faith 
negotiations toward a transitional government.
    Do you believe the assistance I mentioned will create 
sustainable change and development in Haiti if the de facto 
Prime Minister has credible links with criminal gangs and 
corrupt actors and the Haitian National Police has been 
credibly accused of violence, such as the latest incident of 
firing at protesters who are demanding higher wages?
    And does the State Department believe its support for Henry 
is making political dialog among Haitian actors more likely 
somehow?
    Secretary Blinken. Congressman, thank you. Thank you for 
your focus on this issue and for raising it.
    Let me say first that we have deep concern about the 
security situation writ large in Haiti, the lack of political 
accord for elections, gang violence, kidnappings, homicides on 
the rise despite efforts being made by the Haitian National 
Police that we're supporting.
    We are working with a large number of allies with the 
Organization of American States to address these issues, to 
press for more resources. For example, for the police, to try 
to deal with the gang violence.
    When it comes to the political situation, we are not taking 
sides in the political dialog. We're working with the 
government that's in place on an inclusive Haitian-led process 
toward elections. That's the goal, and that's what we're 
supporting.
    Mr. Levin. Well, can I respectively submit we have taken 
sides. It was the U.S. that said that Henry should be there 
he--when there--we basically are what's--are the reason he's in 
power.
    And I just, I would love it if you would be open to having 
a dialog about supporting the unbelievably robust and broad 
agreement in Haitian civil society, something I consider 
historic, sir, I've never seen anything like it in the post-
Duvalier era. And yet we say it's one among contending views.
    And you know, I'd love to have a further dialog with you 
about this, because I really think we're--we're not on the 
right road here. If you'd be open to that.
    Secretary Blinken. I'd welcome--I'd welcome pursuing that.
    Mr. Levin. OK, thanks. Let me then turn to another 
important country, Colombia. There were reports of a--of a 
massacre of civilians in Putumayo, Colombia, by security forces 
that received U.S. security assistance. And this is very 
concerning.
    So if U.S-trained security forces are found to have been 
involved, in my view they have to be cutoff from the U.S. 
assistance and the Colombian Government has to be urged to hold 
units accountable for these violations.
    Is the State Department committed to investigating these 
allegations and cutting off units from assistance from the U.S. 
if there is credible evidence of their abuses? And how will the 
State Department adjust future U.S. security assistance to 
Colombia, given these allegations?
    As you know, there's a long history of this kind of 
problems there.
    Secretary Blinken. We take this very seriously, and of 
course we'll look into allegations. We're very serious about 
the Leahy Vetting Process that we have committed resources to 
again in our budget to make sure that we have the means to 
always carry those forward.
    And if they're credible allegations, we will look into 
them. And if we find that the allegations have substance, we'll 
take action.
    Mr. Levin. All right, well, I look forward to seeing the 
results of your investigation, and I appreciate that very, very 
much. I--and I appreciate your commitment to human rights.
    Let me turn to climate change quickly. I'm glad to see that 
the President's request prioritizes addressing the climate 
crisis and proposes an integrated approach to tackling its 
effects across our foreign assistance.
    I think the scale of the climate crisis demands a massive 
U.S. response, both to demonstrate our potential to lead in the 
region and compete with other actors like China, but also to 
signal our resolve to addressing the legacy of U.S. emissions.
    One region that seems right for U.S. investments is the 
Northern Triangle, where we're trying to deal with migration 
issues anyway and where we know the effects of climate change 
are contributing to that migration and insecurity.
    And so my question is how does proposed assistance for the 
Northern Triangle integrate climate concerns, and what are the 
State Department's priorities for that region?
    Secretary Blinken. Well, thank you. And first let me just 
say more broadly, because I very much agree with you, the 
budget in total provides $11 billion, in fact a little bit more 
than $11 billion, to help countries implement targets, but also 
to help them adapt and to build resilience.
    And this is very critical in our own hemisphere, including 
in the Northern Triangle. We've engaged with many of these 
countries at COP26 and before that and since then. And so these 
resources, if approved by Congress, will go a long way to 
helping countries do this, including the Northern Triangle 
countries.
    At the same time, as we're looking at making infrastructure 
investments and bringing others together, including using the 
Development Finance Corporation, working through the program 
that the President established at the G7 that we've been 
calling Build Back Better World, one of the focuses of that 
program is to support projects that strengthen infrastructure 
but do it in a way that also addresses climate change 
challenges. And that too can be a focus of the work that we're 
doing.
    Finally, I'd say that there are many other things that 
we're doing of course in the Northern Triangle countries, 
partly to deal with migration challenges.
    But part of dealing with migration challenges is making 
sure that we get at the root causes of what it is that is 
causing people to give up everything they know and leave their 
countries and try to come to the United States or go elsewhere 
in the hemisphere. And a big part of that of course is trying 
to create greater economic opportunity for them.
    We've been working on that and these kinds of investments 
that are made to create economic opportunity and also have a 
lens on them that looks at energy, climate infrastructure in 
ways that advance both agendas.
    Mr. Levin. Precisely. You know, excuse me, as I--as I yield 
back, I just--just imagine if we helped the Northern Triangle 
countries leapfrog straight to renewable energy generation and 
electricity for everybody. It would do so much to transform the 
root causes of migration, as you say.
    I do not know----
    Mr. Malinowski. The Chair----
    Mr. Levin. Who I'm yielding back to, but whoever it is----
    Mr. Malinowski. The Chair recognizes--the Chair recognizes 
Representative Issa of California.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary, good to see you again. I wish we were seeing 
each other at a better time. The world is clearly in chaos.
    I do not mean to be glib, but one of the series of 
questions that I'll have today, really any part of the 
questions related to JCPOA really will by definition include 
Russia.
    So trying not to be too cynical, how are the--how are those 
maneuvers in Belarus going with the Russian military? Have they 
accidentally strayed into Ukraine? In other words, how is it 
that we can accept anything that involves Russia as an 
important verifier and interlocutor at this time?
    Secretary Blinken. No, I appreciate the question. And when 
it comes, for example, to the JCPOA, this is not a--and 
Russia's participation in that, along with China, along with 
the European Union, along with the United Kingdom, Germany and 
France, Russia----
    Mr. Issa. The other countries I'm comparatively OK with.
    Secretary Blinken. I agree with you. They do not have a 
role in verification. They--and the agreement that we pulled 
out of, had Iran been found to be in violation of the 
agreement, under the terms of the agreement, the United States, 
together with the European Union and our European partners, had 
the rights under that agreement without Russia or without China 
to hold Iran to account.
    Any agreement that we might include would have the same 
thing.
    Mr. Issa. Well, to that end, the State Department has just 
published a report that's titled Arms Control Non-
Proliferation, the Disarmament Agreements and Commitments. The 
report States that the United States has concluded that serious 
concerns remain outstanding regarding possible undeclared 
nuclear material and activities in Iran as of the end of the 
reporting period.
    I read that pretty straightforward: Iran cheated. Iran has, 
as we speak, unreported nuclear materials, correct?
    Secretary Blinken. Here's what Iran has, Congressman, as we 
speak. Iran has a nuclear program that is galloping forward as 
a result of us pulling out of the nuclear agreement. Under the 
nuclear agreement, Iran had a breakout time of about----
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Secretary, I know--I know we pulled out of 
the nuclear agreement, but Europe did not, correct?
    Secretary Blinken. Europe, did not, but Iran--Iran----
    Mr. Issa. Iran--Iran was bound by an agreement with Europe, 
and Iran had--had at that time undeclared materials, has it as 
of right now, correct?
    Secretary Blinken. The IAEA has been investigating and 
looking at any aspects of Iran's nuclear program that remain in 
question. We fully support those efforts. And they are separate 
and apart from any nuclear agreement.
    Mr. Issa. Have you, as of today, have you clarified where 
those nuclear materials are located in Iran?
    Secretary Blinken. The IAEA has identified places that it--
--
    Mr. Issa. They'd like to look at.
    Secretary Blinken. They want--they want to look at. And 
part of the--part of the result of the agreement in the first 
place was Iran taking on the additional protocol, which 
enhances inspection rights, including for the IAEA.
    And I would also note that the inspections regime under the 
agreement was the most intrusive inspections regime of any arms 
controls agreement ever adapted. It gave us great visibility 
into----
    Mr. Issa. Yes. Mr. Secretary, the last agreement was not 
brought to Congress under the treaty requirements. Will you 
commit to bring this one as a treaty?
    Secretary Blinken. Congressman, we will commit to following 
the law, including INARA.
    Mr. Issa. OK, so it's fair to say you're not going to bring 
this for ratification as a treaty.
    Secretary Blinken. Again, we'll follow the law. INARA has 
requirements, we'll meet whatever requirements INARA has. This 
is the law that the----
    Mr. Issa. No, I understand. The reason I ask is the 
American people really do not know every acronym. They do 
understand that Senate ratifies treaties and that under that 
law, there will not be a Senate-ratified treaty.
    Secretary Blinken. The vast majority of multilateral 
agreements in the arms controls non-proliferation space are not 
codified as treaties. It actually gives us much greater 
flexibility if there is any kind of cheating or reneging on 
those agreements if they're not.
    Mr. Issa. Pursuant to the renewal of the--this JCPOA, one 
of the portions of it would be that Russia would receive a $10 
billion contract to produce a nuclear facility, basically.
    Will you commit that Russia will have no part, and you will 
not lift any sanctions against Iran or Russia, until the 
Ukrainian conflict has been satisfactorily resolved? In other 
words, this agreement would give Russia $10 billion from an 
Iran that has access to the money to give them.
    Will you commit not to do that, for that not to take effect 
until after a satisfactory resolution for the people of 
Ukraine?
    Secretary Blinken. Any actions that Russia would be called 
upon to take pursuant to the agreement would not be in 
contravention of the sanctions that are being imposed on Russia 
before----
    Mr. Issa. But those particular $10 billion, I cannot say 
whether they're covered. I know, I just need a second to finish 
as the previous one did. I just want to know would this be 
under those sanctions in your opinion?
    Secretary Blinken. And we of course will make sure that 
lawyers look at everything, but the actions that Russia would 
take pursuant to the agreement, if there's a return to the 
agreement, would not be in contravention of the sanctions 
imposed on Russia for its action in Ukraine.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. The Chair now calls on 
Representative Vargas for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Vargas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being here, we 
appreciate it. I do want to congratulate you because I do think 
that our standing with our allies and our friends around the 
world is very high now, not only because of what you've done 
and what the President, but I'd also throw in Secretary Austin, 
I do not think he's been mentioned here enough. I think he's 
done an outstanding job. So I want to congratulate you.
    I have a very quick question, and then a series of 
questions. A quick question is I represent the area of San 
Diego, and we've had a number of Ukrainians that have been able 
to come through Tijuana to San Diego. And we've done everything 
we can to receive them. And I think that the Federal 
authorities have done a pretty good job.
    But now since you've changed the rules, which is good and 
we're all in favor of that, there are some people that are 
stuck now in Tijuana, Ukrainians that flew to Mexico City and 
are now in Tijuana.
    What can you do to help these poor people make sure that 
they can reunite with their families in the United States?
    Secretary Blinken. A couple things on that, Congressman. 
Thank you for flying in first. Yes, we have had a number of 
Ukrainians who've come through Latin America into the United 
States. They've been paroled in for the most part.
    The overwhelming majority of Ukrainians who've had to flee 
the country are of course in Europe. They are mostly intent on 
remaining close by because they want to go home. And as soon as 
they're able to, many of them have left sons, husbands, fathers 
there to fight. As soon as they're able to, they want to go 
home.
    For any remaining Ukrainians, the President's made a couple 
of commitments. He's committed that we will welcome 100,000 
Ukrainians into the United States. We've just, as you've noted, 
established a new program to facilitate that.
    Along with the refugee program, along with the asylum 
program, we now have a program that allows for sponsorship of 
Ukrainians by any American. They can, Ukrainians can apply for 
that from any of our embassies in Europe and around the world.
    If there are any remaining individuals in this situation of 
course we'll make sure that we're working to address that.
    Mr. Vargas. OK, those are the ones I'm concerned about.
    Now, I do not normally agree with my good friend, Mr. Issa, 
but I do agree with him on this JCPOA. I have great concerns, 
and one of the things that you just said concerns me 
significantly, and that is that Iran is now galloping toward a 
nuclear bomb or nuclear program.
    Secretary Blinken. Let me be specific.
    Mr. Vargas. Yes, please do.
    Secretary Blinken. Toward having the capacity to produce 
fissile material on short notice or a nuclear weapon. The 
agreement put that ability to--to break out, in other words to 
produce fissile material or weapon, at beyond 1 year.
    As a result of the actions that they've taken since we 
pulled out of the agreement, that breakout time, as we call it, 
is down to a matter of weeks, that's what I meant.
    Mr. Vargas. Right, and that's very concerning of course to 
all of us. Now, the JCPOA was very concerning to me, and I did 
not support it because of the timelines. They weren't permanent 
restrictions, things rolled off.
    Now that we're negotiating them again and you say that it's 
going to be stronger and better, could you give us some 
information on where this is and what means?
    Secretary Blinken. What we inherited was a failure, a 
failure to actually curb Iran's nuclear program, a failure to 
curb its malicious activities throughout the region.
    As I noted, while the agreement itself put the nuclear 
program in a box and pushed the breakout time to beyond a year, 
in the absence of that agreement, Iran has taken steps to cut 
that breakout time down to a matter of weeks.
    At the same time, despite the maximum pressure being 
exerted against Iran, which were told could cause them to curb 
their malicious activities in the region, we've seen them 
accelerate.
    To give you one example of this, during the time the 
agreement was first negotiated back in 2012 through 2018, when 
we pulled out of the agreement, attacks on Americans, our 
diplomats, our forces in the region, had gone down to virtually 
zero.
    Since we pulled out of the agreement, the IRGC was 
designated as a foreign terrorist organization, Soleimani, who 
no one is shedding a tear, was killed. Those attacks have gone 
up 400 percent. Our ability to, under the previous policy, to 
deter Iran clearly was not succeeding.
    So we're focused on how we can be most effective, both in 
dealing with the nuclear program and our commitment to ensure 
that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon. But also to dealing 
with the malicious actions of this engagement throughout the 
region, including support for terrorist groups, various proxies 
that are threatening allies and partners, etc.
    That's what we're focused on, and we want to make sure that 
unlike what we inherited, we're able to do that more 
effectively.
    Mr. Vargas. And I guess my concern is that we do have to 
refocus once again. Because I remember what happened in North 
Korea when we said that because of the deal that we had, they'd 
never have a nuclear weapon. We woke up 1 day and they had one.
    And so, again, my concern is that that's going to happen 
and Iran. So again, I think you and I hope we remain vigilant.
    I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Malinowski. We'll go to Representative Adam Kinzinger 
of Illinois next.
    Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I know it's a 
little bit going on out there, and I appreciate your time.
    Just a quick thing on the JCPOA since it's been discussed. 
I think it is worth noting there are provisions of the JCPOA 
that would be expiring now had we stayed in it. And I think 
it's important when we talk about the future, in foreign policy 
time, like 10 years actually is pretty quick.
    And so that one's--I want to pivot a little to Ukraine from 
that perspective. First off, I want to say thank you to the 
Administration for changing your tone.
    I think it's become clear over the next few weeks that the 
Administration is clear-eyed about the seriousness of this 
threat. I was concerned with some of the--some of the wording 
early on. But it does appear that we've doubled down on our 
commitment.
    I mean, it's very clear to me that Ukraine, and I think 
you've said this too, sir, Ukraine is fighting for all of us. 
They happen--we have to arm them because they are fighting for 
all of us. And I think it's important for people to remember, 
if Ukraine falls--and I think we're doing the right thing by 
stressing our commitment to NATO territory.
    And I actually really do believe that if Vladimir Putin 
moves in on NATO territory, he would be met with a devastating 
response.
    But I think it's important for people to remember, there's 
a lot of real eState still that's not in Ukraine that's not 
part of NATO. And that's why it's important right now for us to 
make sure that Vladimir Putin can go no further. I hope he 
loses some of us occupied territories.
    Just a couple of legitimate questions that I want to know 
the answer to, believe it or not. I want to ask first off, 
about a month ago it was reported that there might be have been 
a use of chemical weapons in Ukraine. I wondered if you had an 
update on that in terms of what we know.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you. And some of this may be more 
appropriate to take on in a different setting. But having said 
that, this is something we're looking at very, very carefully. 
I do not believe that we've been able to verify that use. But I 
want to come back to you.
    There are different kinds of chemical agents that could be 
in play, including riot control agents that would be 
prohibited, that kind of thing. But in terms of the use of a 
chemical weapon, I think what I can say here is that we've not 
yet verified the use, but it's something that we're very, very 
much focused on.
    Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you. Next question is the use of, you 
know, for American aid, to the extent we can answer this in 
this setting, what is the prohibition, what is the reason for 
not basically flying American aid directly into Ukraine versus 
through proxies? Is it an international law issues, is it a 
safety issue, is it infrastructure? I'm curious if you can 
answer that.
    Secretary Blinken. I think first the most important thing 
is the aid is getting in.
    Mr. Kinzinger. Right.
    Secretary Blinken. Getting in in record time. It used to 
be, for example, under Presidential draw downs, it would often 
be weeks between the time the President made a draw-down 
decision and the aid got into the hands of those who needed it.
    I was just there, as you know, including at the staging 
site for where some of this aid is getting in. And it's down to 
in some cases 72 hours. That's how rapidly it's getting in. So 
I do not think we have an issue right now with the assistance 
not only being provided, but actually getting to where it needs 
to get.
    Once it gets to the border and it's handed over to 
Ukrainians, they're the ones of course who are getting it where 
it needs to go. They know this a lot better than we do, and 
they've been extremely effective in making sure that these 
supplies could get where it needs to get.
    Mr. Kinzinger. Let me ask you about the air force side of 
things. One of the, I believe one of the programs we used to do 
through the Air National Guard, I'm a member of the Air 
National Guard, we would pair with Ukrainian Air Force. We'd do 
fake fights, train each other, we'd train them to fly.
    Has there been any consideration to restoring those 
programs, bringing Ukrainian pilots potentially to American air 
force bases to learn to fly?
    Because I mean, yes, it takes a long time to train a pilot, 
it does, because we're so good. But it takes a long time to 
train a pilot, but there's no time like now to start. So I 
wanted to ask you about that.
    Secretary Blinken. I agree with the general proposition, 
and indeed, we are moving forward on training. Because here's 
one of the challenges: the--some of the systems that Ukrainians 
would like to have that could be effective in repelling the 
Russian aggression and defending the country are systems that 
they're not trained on, and it does take some time.
    The Pentagon, and I think Secretary Austin referred to this 
the other day, is engaged in some training. So are other allies 
and partners in Europe. I cannot address that specific program, 
the Pentagon would have to address that. But generically, yes, 
we're engaged in training.
    Mr. Kinzinger. And I'll just say to wrap up, I think, you 
know, it takes a lot to change an army from Warsaw equipment 
basically to NATO equipment. I think with what we're seeing 
with our allies and donating some of the old Soviet equipment 
is actually helping to accelerate that process to switch over 
to NATO standards.
    So thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I'll yield back.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you so much. The Chair now recognizes 
Representative Jim Costa of California.
    Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And Secretary, I want to thank you. Generally I think we've 
detected a good bipartisan effort taking place in terms of 
supporting our efforts in Ukraine, and we want to see that 
continue.
    Your mission with Secretary Austin was by all accounts 
successful. And the President's announcement today in terms of 
additional funding I think really underlines that incredible 
strong commitment we're making to Ukraine and really providing 
the leadership as it relates to NATO.
    Tell me, how did your discussions, if you drill down a bit 
deeper, go with our NATO allies for the longer term commitment? 
And certainly the President's Statement today I think provides 
that leadership. But I think eyes clearly wide open, we're 
going to be in here for the long haul, and I wish you'd give a 
little more descriptive on that.
    Secretary Blinken. I appreciate that, and I agree with you 
that this is likely to be a long haul proposition. That's 
exactly why we have been relentlessly focused on working every 
single day with allies and partners on every aspect of this, 
making sure the Ukrainians have what they need to defend 
themselves, making sure that we continue to impose massive 
consequences on Russia for this aggression.
    Making sure that we're also shoring up our alliance, NATO, 
so that it is properly postured to deal with any Russian 
aggression directed at it. And this is being done, Congressman, 
literally day in, day out.
    On the specifics of security assistance to Ukraine, I think 
I may have mentioned this early. After Secretary Austin and I 
visited with the Ukrainian Government, with President Zelensky 
in Kyiv over the weekend, Secretary Austin then went on to 
Germany to chair a conference that he had convened that 
involved ministers of defense from 40 different countries to 
make sure that we are moving forward on coordinating and 
providing the security assistance that Ukraine needs.
    Mr. Costa. Well, I think that's a very important point, and 
obviously one that needs to continue. I participated in the 
past with NATO parliamentary assemblies as recently as in 
February, and frankly it's only gotten I think better. But it's 
the strongest I've seen NATO react since the cold war time 
period.
    Speaking of which, the world's changed in the last 2 months 
in ways that we could never anticipate 2 months ago. Can you 
give us a status on the update of Finland and Sweden becoming a 
part of NATO?
    Secretary Blinken. You're right, the world has changed 
pretty dramatically. And one of the ways it's changed is in the 
very strong interest in both countries to become members of 
NATO. We of course look to them to make that decision. If 
that's what they decide, we will strongly support it, and we 
will work, and including working with----
    Mr. Costa. Any idea on a timeline?
    Secretary Blinken. I cannot give you a timeline. I think 
it's under--let me put it this way: it's under very active 
consideration by both countries. There's a NATO summit, as you 
know very well coming up soon, so I would anticipate that we'll 
hear more about that by the time of the summit.
    Mr. Costa. Let me move on. It's in the neighborhood but a 
separate matter. The situation with Armenia and Azerbaijan has 
been very frustrating. And I do not believe Azerbaijan has 
lived up to their agreements.
    And certainly we've learned a lot of things in the last 2 
months, but Russia clearly is not good at keeping their word 
with the war criminal who is heading the country today.
    What can we expect for additional support for Armenia and 
trying to hold Azerbaijan to the commitments they made in the 
truce settlement?
    Secretary Blinken. Congressman, this is something that I've 
been very engaged on, including throughout the Ukraine 
situation. I've spoken repeatedly with Prime Minister Pashinyan 
from Armenia, as well as President Aliyev from Azerbaijan, 
trying first of all to make sure that no one takes any steps 
that would potentially revert to conflict.
    But also to try to advance and support a long-term 
political settlement. And by the way, we still have our status 
as the Minsk Group co-chair. We've been developing and 
promoting confidence-building measures. And again, I've spoken 
repeatedly to both leaders, as well the foreign ministers.
    Our budget has $45 million of assistance in it for Armenia. 
Two million of that is----
    Mr. Costa. Forgive me, that ain't right, and we need to do 
more.
    Secretary Blinken. And we're happy to work with you on all 
of that.
    Mr. Costa. OK, my time has just about expired, but I was 
wondering about after the last Administration hollowed out much 
of the State Department's capacity, how it's going in terms of 
rebuilding your ability to do the diplomatic missions you have 
around the world.
    Secretary Blinken. Well, thanks to the support that we've 
gotten from Congress, including in the last budget, we're 
making very good progress on that. The budget that we put 
forward now would allow us to keep doing that and to 
strengthening the Department, including by bringing in new 
personnel, including by strengthening our missions abroad in a 
variety of ways.
    So we very much hope that Members of Congress will support 
the budget, take a hard look at it. Because it does go a long 
way to enable us to modernize the Department and to make it 
stronger, more agile, more agile, more effective in advancing 
our diplomacy going forward.
    Mr. Costa. Mr. Secretary, stay with it, my friend. We're 
all in this together.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Mr. Malinowski. Mr. Secretary, the staff have informed me 
that we may need to place another microphone in front of you 
for better pickup. So we're going to take just a few seconds to 
do that, and that way you can--yes. No, you do not have to do 
anything. This way you can continue to speak softly while we 
carry a big stick, so. A great progressive and Republican.
    I will now call on Representative Zeldin of New York.
    Mr. Zeldin. Mr. Secretary, thank you for--for being here. I 
wanted to followup on some of the questions and comments 
brought up earlier related to the Iran nuclear deal and the 
JCPOA.
    When Secretary of State John Kerry was here sitting where 
you are nearly 7 years ago, he was asked about why it wasn't 
submitted to JCPOA, why the JCPOA wasn't submitted to Congress 
as a treaty. And he essentially was stating that the reason why 
it wasn't submitted was because of difficulty getting it 
passed.
    Now this is relevant again as the Biden Administration may 
be entering into a nuclear deal with Iran. Why wouldn't this be 
a treaty?
    Secretary Blinken. As I think--thank you, Congressman. I 
think, as I noted a short while ago, many in fact most, arms 
control non-proliferation agreements that are multilateral in 
nature, as this one is, are actually not submitted to--as 
treaties. If you go back through the long history of that, many 
are not. The question is----
    Mr. Zeldin. Yes, I'm asking why not. I'm asking why 
wouldn't a nuclear deal similar to the JCPOA, why would that 
not be a treaty?
    Secretary Blinken. Because in many instances, doing it in 
the way that we would do it gives us much greater flexibility 
to make sure that if, for example, there's a violation of the 
agreement by the Iranians, we can act quickly to deal with that 
and----
    Mr. Zeldin. Why wouldn't it be a treaty----
    Secretary Blinken. Again----
    Mr. Zeldin. Legally. What the--do know what a treaty is? 
What's a treaty?
    Secretary Blinken. So the legally required obligations 
undertaken by both parties to an agreement.
    Mr. Zeldin. So how would this not be a treaty? Under the 
definition you just provided--see, the thing is that you would 
then have to submit to Congress, and then it would have to 
ratified. And then it's non-binding if that does not happen.
    But the definition that you just provided, which is one 
that I would agree with, means that this is a treaty that under 
the United States Constitution would then get submitted to 
Congress for ratification.
    OK, Mr. Vargas was asking you about the sunset provisions. 
That was a good question, good point, I share his concern. Are 
you going to agree to a nuclear--is it possible you would agree 
to a nuclear agreement that does not change the sunset 
provision dates?
    Secretary Blinken. Congressman, the situation that we 
inherited is such that, as I mentioned, Iran is moving 
vigorously forward on its nuclear program to the point that its 
breakout time----
    Mr. Zeldin. I heard your answer.
    Secretary Blinken. So--so----
    Mr. Zeldin. But the question is would you agree to a 
nuclear deal that does not change the sunset provision dates?
    Secretary Blinken. We are looking at getting back into 
mutual compliance with the agreement. That includes the various 
provisions that were in the agreement from the start, including 
the sunsets.
    The most important sunsets in the agreement, that is on the 
stockpile that Iran is allowed to have of material and the 
processing speed of the centrifuges and enrichment capacity, 
those provisions remain in place for almost another decade.
    The history of arms control agreements in the past----
    Mr. Zeldin. I do not want the history of arm control 
agreements. I want to know if you would agree to a nuclear deal 
that does not change the sunset provision dates.
    Secretary Blinken. We, without getting into the 
discussion----
    Mr. Zeldin. I mean, it's a yes or no. Is the answer yes, 
you are willing to enter into a nuclear agreement that does 
change the sunset provision date?
    Secretary Blinken. The answer is quite simply that what we 
are seeking to do is to get back into mutual compliance with 
the agreement, with the agreement that was reached 7 years 
ago----
    Mr. Zeldin. We're looking for some straight answers here.
    Secretary Blinken. And including the provisions that are in 
that agreement, and those include the sunset agreements.
    Mr. Zeldin. But would be willing to enter into an agreement 
that does not change the sunset provisions? And if you're not 
able to say yes or not that, we're not going to assume that 
you're there fighting for a change to the sunset provisions 
because you're not even telling us that.
    Why would we expect that you're drawing a tougher stance on 
the Iranians than you're willing to say to Congress and to the 
American people?
    You said that you're going to follow INARA. Does that mean 
that you would submit the entire agreement?
    Secretary Blinken. The lawyers will look at that, are 
looking at that. If they make a determination that under INARA, 
there are requirements that we have, of course, we will follow 
those.
    Mr. Zeldin. So you cannot make a commitment that you would 
submit the entire agreement.
    Secretary Blinken. I can tell you again that we will follow 
the law and we will follow INARA. And whatever it--whatever it 
requires----
    Mr. Zeldin. Are you saying that--OK, whatever it--let's say 
your attorneys tell you that you do not have to submit the 
entire agreement. Would you commit to us that you would submit 
the entire agreement to Congress anyway?
    Secretary Blinken. We will follow the law.
    Mr. Zeldin. You're not willing to make a commitment that 
you'll submit the entire agreement.
    Secretary Blinken. My commitment is to follow the law.
    Mr. Zeldin. Now, under INARA, the clock starts once the 
entire agreement is submitted. So the clock for reviewing it 
then wouldn't start, correct?
    Secretary Blinken. Again, what I can tell you and what I 
can commit to, as always is we will follow the law, including 
of course INARA.
    Mr. Zeldin. OK. I do not know, and this is not the right 
setting to get into the reports of added security for your 
predecessor and other issues. We are very concerned about that. 
And especially with regards to negotiations with Iran and how 
that relates.
    Just know that there's a massive concern with negotiating 
with Iran while that may be ongoing to the extent of a 
conversation that we can have here. I yield back.
    Secretary Blinken. I appreciate that and I'm happy to 
followup in a different setting with you.
    Mr. Malinowski. Representative Gerry Connolly of Virginia.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And Mr. Secretary, welcome. Thank you for all you're doing 
for the Ukrainian people. It was a pleasure and a privilege to 
meet with you when I was in Poland and Ukraine. And I have been 
so proud of our government in its very strong response, and I 
know the Ukrainian people understand that and appreciate it as 
well.
    Since so many want to talk about the JCPOA, let me ask you, 
you were in the Obama Administration as well, is that not true, 
Mr. Secretary?
    Secretary Blinken. It is.
    Mr. Connolly. Would it be a fair Statement to say that 
between 2011 and 2015, the Obama Administration exercised 
maximum sanctions pressure on Iran that almost led to its 
economic collapse? Would that be a fair Statement?
    Secretary Blinken. I do not know if I'd go as far as to say 
economic collapse, but I can certainly say that yes, they 
exerted maximum economic pressure. And significantly----
    Mr. Connolly. And during that----
    Secretary Blinken. We had already, the United States had 
been engaged in that. We brought other countries along----
    Mr. Connolly. Right.
    Secretary Blinken. To do exactly that.
    Mr. Connolly. And during that time period, did we succeed 
in cutting Iranian oil exports by 50 percent?
    Secretary Blinken. We did.
    Mr. Connolly. And would it be fair to say that perhaps, 
some causation, because of that 4 years' sustained effort by 
the U.S. Government under the Obama Administration, Iran might 
have been motivated to come to the negotiating table that 
ultimately led to the JCPOA?
    Secretary Blinken. That would be my judgment.
    Mr. Connolly. That would be a fair thing. So once we did a 
agree with a U.S.-led set of negotiations, and kind of an 
extraordinary thing, with China, Iran, Russia, and the 
Europeans, plus us at a table, our--we led it, and we get an 
agreement for the first time.
    Iran says yes, we'll do this, understanding that it pushes 
them further away from the development of a nuclear weapon. Is 
that correct?
    Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
    Mr. Connolly. Would it be fair to say, for example, let's 
look at the elements of the JCPOA. They were required to cover 
up--stop the functionality of the plutonium production reactor, 
is that correct?
    Secretary Blinken. That's correct.
    Mr. Connolly. And did they?
    Secretary Blinken. They did.
    Mr. Connolly. They did. And did the IAEA and the U.S. 
Government certify as such?
    Secretary Blinken. Both did.
    Mr. Connolly. Were they required to reduce the enrichment 
of uranium to 3.67 percent?
    Secretary Blinken. They were and they did.
    Mr. Connolly. And did--well, do not jump on my line.
    Secretary Blinken. Sorry.
    Mr. Connolly. They--and they did that, is that correct, Mr. 
Secretary?
    Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
    Mr. Connolly. And were they required to ship out any 
enriched or stockpiles of enriched uranium that went beyond 
that?
    Secretary Blinken. They were.
    Mr. Connolly. And did they do that?
    Secretary Blinken. They did.
    Mr. Connolly. Did they allow inspections, including 
unannounced inspections of facilities that the monitoring group 
felt they needed to inspect?
    Secretary Blinken. They did.
    Mr. Connolly. They did. Is there any metric contained in 
the JCPOA they violated?
    Secretary Blinken. To the best of my knowledge, they 
adhered to their obligations under the agreement. To the extent 
that those were called into question and the agreement had in 
it provisions when there was a concern that they were not in--
--
    Mr. Connolly. And we heard----
    Secretary Blinken [continuing]. The agreement.
    Mr. Connolly. And Mr. Secretary, we heard that this body, 
before JCPOA went into effect, all kinds of predictions about 
Iran would cheat and so forth. As a matter of fact, they did 
not. They did not, that's a fact. They met the terms of the 
agreement, and by doing so, did they push back their ability to 
develop a nuclear weapon?
    Secretary Blinken. They did.
    Mr. Connolly. By how much?
    Secretary Blinken. The breakout time, that is the time 
needed to produce enough fissile material for one nuclear 
weapon, was pushed back to beyond a year.
    Mr. Connolly. And where are they now, Mr. Secretary, that 
we walked away from that agreement that was working?
    Secretary Blinken. By public accounts, a few weeks.
    Mr. Connolly. So that's not progress.
    Secretary Blinken. It's the reverse of progress.
    Mr. Connolly. So maybe one could say people who say they do 
not want a nuclear Iran but are opposing the revival of a 
nuclear agreement based on JCPOA but with other provisions 
might actually unwitting, I'll assume unwittingly, actually be 
achieving the very opposite is what is desired.
    Secretary Blinken. I would just say this isn't a 
theoretical exercise. We've seen the world with the JCPOA, 
we've seen the world without the JCPOA. With the JCPOA, the 
nuclear program was put in a box, without it, it's escaped from 
the box.
    Mr. Connolly. And you and I would agree that, you know, 
Iran's a bad actor.
    Secretary Blinken. There is no doubt about that.
    Mr. Connolly. Do we--is it our habit when we have weapons 
agreements, including especially nuclear weapons agreements, 
that it's all-encompassing in terms of behavior? That it 
includes all malign behavior, not just nuclear. That's what we 
did with the Soviet Union, for example, isn't that what we did?
    Secretary Blinken. This agreement was focused exclusively 
on Iran's nuclear activities. And it in no way took away our 
ability or the ability of anyone else to push back hard against 
their other malicious----
    Mr. Connolly. And my only point is and that's precisely 
what we did with the Soviet Union.
    Secretary Blinken. It's what we did with the Soviet Union, 
and indeed, it's what we continued to do with Iran. Even when 
the agreement was in force, we continued to take actions in 
coordination with others to deal with the other malicious 
activities----
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, my time is up. I 
appreciate it.
    Mr. Malinowski. The Chair now recognizes Representative Ann 
Wagner of Missouri.
    Mrs. Wagner. I thank the Chair.
    And I also want to thank Secretary Blinken for his time 
today and certainly for his service. And for meeting 
extensively with our Foreign Affairs delegation, sir, when we 
were in Poland some weeks ago.
    On a different topic, Mr. Secretary, I co-chair the 
congressional Caucus on ASEAN. It's the Association of 
Southeast Asian Nations. And one of--and one fear I have heard 
time and again from Southeast Asian leaders is that the United 
States is ceding the Indo-Pacific to China.
    Our partners are desperate for the United States to 
demonstrate strength and leadership in the region. And they are 
deeply concerned that without robust U.S. engagement, Indo-
Pacific countries will grow ever more reliant on the People's 
Republic of China.
    My Southeast Asia Strategy Act, which is now law, will send 
an unmistakable message of American resolve and leadership to 
the region. In the meantime, we have an opportunity to make our 
case that we must remain the region's partner of choice.
    And I hope that the U.S.-led Indo-Pacific Economic 
Framework announced this past October will serve as a roadmap 
for the future of free and open Indo-Pacific region.
    I worry, however, that the Administration is letting this--
this moment slip away by refusing to offer our partners 
transparency, and frankly, candor regarding who and what will 
be included in the--in the framework.
    Mr. Secretary, I am particularly concerned that Taiwan is 
being shut out of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. Even 
though the Administration may try to kind of hide this by never 
formally closing the door, so to speak, to participation, 
Taiwan's offer to become a full member is not being accepted.
    When our countries' top trade negotiators met last week, 
this was Taiwan's No. 1 and top request. But the Biden 
Administration did not allow Taiwan to join the framework. This 
policy is self-defeating and dangerous, frankly. Taiwan was our 
eighth largest trading partner last year and one of our largest 
certainly in--in Asia.
    Present size--the Administration has even changed Taiwan's 
domestic law in hopes of starting free trade negotiations, 
which the Administration is also refusing.
    As a rule-of-law democracy and a top local trading partner, 
Taiwan should be certainly a top priority for the framework. 
But instead this Administration is marginalizing Taiwan and 
showing the Chinese Communist Party that the United States is 
deterred from working with a critical partner.
    Can you explain, Mr. Secretary, how the Administration 
arrived at this policy? Because it truly does not make--make 
any sense.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you. First, let me just say it was 
great to be with you in Poland, and very important that you 
were there with--with other colleagues.
    On this question of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, 
there is no such policy, in the sense that this agreement is 
going to be open, it's going to be inclusive.
    And we're just in the process of launching it, including 
beginning conversations with a number of countries as potential 
partners. And there is nothing that is closing the door on 
anyone, including--including Taiwan. We're just getting this 
off the ground.
    It has a number of important I think opportunities that 
will bring us together and assert our economic leadership in 
the region, trade facilitation, working on standards for the 
digital economy, and technology supply chain resilience, 
infrastructure investments, worker standards, etc.
    So we're just at the starting point. And again, it's going 
to be open, it's going to be inclusive. And I imagine we're 
going to be engaging virtually every country in the region.
    Mrs. Wagner. Well, I'm very glad to hear that. And I 
certainly--I hope that we can send something more reaffirming 
to our Taiwanese partners, given their trade status and our 
relationship there.
    It is certainly their top request and something that I am 
deeply involved and concerned about. And hearing from the 
leaders in the Indo-Pacific that they have real concerns about 
this. So I hope we can work together on it.
    Let me to--in my brief amount of time, I'll just say that, 
you know, I am concerned about the disastrous Iran nuclear deal 
also. Mr. Secretary, I think it is a deeply flawed agreement. 
And certainly a windfall for the world's top supporter of 
State-sponsored terrorism.
    So I hope that I can submit some of these questions, 
especially vis-a-vis Iranian oil, today and some of the 
sanctions that are--are not being enforced for--for the record, 
and see if I can get some response from you and your team. I'd 
be grateful.
    Secretary Blinken. Certainly, certainly.
    Mr. Malinowski. The Chair--the Chair recognizes 
Representative Deutch from Florida.
    Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, nice to see you. Thank you for being here, 
thank you for your service. Thank you for you and the 
Administration's leadership, especially on standing up to 
Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine.
    It's that unjust and illegal invasion that has dramatically 
shifted the international landscape with our allies and 
partners around the world. And we have coalesced in opposition 
to Russia's aggression and support of the people of Ukraine.
    We've implemented unprecedented sanctions packages against 
Russia, increased the supply of weapons to the courageous and 
resilient fighters in Ukraine.
    And while many were surprised Putin went ahead with the 
invasion, we shouldn't have been. His desire to force Ukraine 
under Russian control to spread counterfactual narratives and 
delegitimize Ukrainian history is longstanding.
    His consistent and public declaration of this desire 
resulted now--has now resulted in another land war in Europe 
with a nuclear power in Russia attempting to impose its will 
against the people of Ukraine in response to their desire for 
democracy, rule of law, alignment with the West.
    Unfortunately, Mr. Secretary, I feel that we're witnessing 
a similar pattern with Iran, and I want to explain. Iran is the 
largest State sponsor of terrorism. Regularly calls for the 
destruction of Israel. Launched attacks against U.S. military 
forces and U.S. partners in the region from Saudi Arabia to the 
UAE.
    It also takes Americans and other foreign nationals 
hostage, like my constituent Bob Levinson, as well as Emad 
Shargi, the Mazanis and others. Iran and the IRGC support 
terror groups in Syria and Lebanon and Gaza and Iraq and Yemen, 
just to name a few.
    The regime has made its intentions to destabilize the 
region and expand its empire clear since the Islamic Revolution 
of 1979. Its nuclear program now enriches to 60 percent, which 
as the IAEA Director General has said, is done only by 
countries who are developing or intend to develop nuclear 
weapons.
    Now, it sometimes seems that our policy toward Iran, and 
we've seen this here in this committee even today, that our 
policy toward Iran is entirely the JCPOA. The conversations 
we've had here have focused on the JCPOA and whether or not to 
reenter the nuclear deal. But that's not obviously a policy to 
address everything that Iran represents.
    And just as we have led our European allies in confronting 
Russia, we should lead our partners in the region, Israel, the 
Abraham Accords nations, our other partners in confronting Iran 
to address all of Iran's actions.
    So my first question to you, Mr. Secretary, is can you--can 
you tell us--and by the way, one last thing on this. Whether 
there is JCPOA or not, whether there is a deal that's struck or 
not, everything that I described will continue.
    So let's start by asking if you could just define what our 
policy is with respect to Iran, the country whose mullahs have 
taken all of these actions consistently now for decades.
    Secretary Blinken. You're exactly right. Whether or not 
there is a JCPOA, all of the actions and activities that you've 
described will continue.
    Now, one fundamental question for us is an Iran with a 
nuclear weapon or the capacity to get one on short order is 
likely to act with even greater impunity in doing all of these 
things, which is one of the reasons we want to do everything we 
can do to deny it the capability to have weapons.
    But having said that, your point is a very important one. 
Which is why, irrespective of an agreement or not, we are 
working with allies and partners, with our Arab partners, with 
Israel and others to make sure that we are putting in place the 
means necessary to deal with all of these other challenges. 
Hardening defenses, long-range bomber overflights, deepening 
cooperation to indict, sanctioning relevant Iranian actors, 
boosting the capacity of our partners.
    Again, all of these things to confront and contend with 
everything you've just described, irrespective of whether 
there's a nuclear agreement.
    Mr. Deutch. And it is our position still, as you referred 
to earlier, imagine Iran with a nuclear weapon, that JCPOA or 
no, it is our policy that Iran will not acquire a nuclear 
weapon.
    Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
    Mr. Deutch. And we heard multiple times in--during the 
negotiation of the original JCPOA that all options were--that 
all options remained on the table. I want to reconfirm that 
that continues to be true today.
    Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
    Mr. Deutch. I appreciate it, Mr. Secretary. As we go 
forward, instead of talking about plan B, if there is no JCPOA, 
I would just respectfully suggest that plan A always be and 
continue to be exactly what you described just now. And I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. I now recognize Representative 
Brian Mast of Florida for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, over here. Robust sanctions on Russia. You 
called them massive consequences. I want to speak a little bit 
about those. At minimum, would there have to be an agreed-upon 
cease-fire to lift, for the United States of America to lift 
any of those sanctions?
    Secretary Blinken. Congressman, we're not, we're certainly 
not talking about lifting sanctions. We're talking about----
    Mr. Mast. Would there have to be a cease-fire for America 
to lift our sanctions?
    Secretary Blinken. Well, at a minimum. Any movement on any 
sanctions----
    Mr. Mast. Ceasefire at minimum?
    Secretary Blinken. Would need to require something like 
that.
    Mr. Mast. Would they have to remove forces from Ukraine to 
lift any sanctions?
    Secretary Blinken. Again, all of this, first, most 
important thing is we will support whatever it is the 
democratically elected government of Ukraine wants to do.
    Mr. Mast. These are our sanctions, American sanctions----
    Secretary Blinken. They're our sanctions, but they're----
    Mr. Mast. Commerce, America's commerce with Russia, 
America's determination on who we are going to get energy from, 
everything else, decisions that affect Americans. So for 
America and our sanctions and our commerce resuming, does 
Russia have to be out of the Ukraine?
    Secretary Blinken. Congressman, the Ukrainians that we are 
supporting in every way that we can, it's vital that they 
determine the actions that would be most effective in----
    Mr. Mast. So you're saying Ukraine will determine----
    Secretary Blinken. No, I'm saying we want to hear----
    Mr. Mast. How the United States of America----
    Secretary Blinken. We want to hear from them----
    Mr. Mast. And their sanctions.
    Secretary Blinken. We want to hear from them and allies and 
partners and what would be most effective and when. So----
    Mr. Mast. We want to hear from them, they want to hear from 
us. We're the United States of America. Zelensky came to the 
United States of America, said we're the leader of freedom, we 
have to be the leader of peace. He addressed the House of 
Representatives, the Senate. So let's be America and lead. And 
as the Secretary of State----
    Secretary Blinken. It's what we've been doing.
    Mr. Mast. A great honor. Do they have to have a cease-fire, 
do they have to be out of Ukraine in order for United States of 
America to regain commerce, any type of commerce, or lift 
sanctions?
    Secretary Blinken. Again, what I'm--what I'm not going to 
do is lay out or engage or negotiate in public on something 
that we will work in close coordination with Ukrainians and 
with----
    Mr. Mast. I think what you mean is you won't answer clearly 
to the American people. This our country, these are our 
sanctions, this what we're doing. We are providing arms, we are 
doing cyber warfare, we are doing economic warfare.
    We are in situation on the global stage where nobody can 
say there's zero percent chance of nuclear war. That's a tough 
situation to be in.
    Secretary Blinken. We're doing all of this----
    Mr. Mast. So answer to the Americans.
    Secretary Blinken. No, we're doing all of this in service 
of ensuring that Ukraine remains sovereign, remains 
independent. And we are looking at what actions are required to 
make sure that we can keep doing that, as well as making sure--
--
    Mr. Mast. We're doing stuff for Americans too----
    Secretary Blinken. As well as making sure----
    Mr. Mast. We're doing it for Ukrainians, we're doing it for 
Americans as well. There's a lot that's going on that's hurting 
Americans. What's going on with energy very specifically, 
that's an easy one to talk about. Let's go back.
    Does there have to be a war tribe--a war crime tribunal for 
Putin before we will lift any sanctions or allow for any 
commerce?
    Secretary Blinken. There has to be accountability and there 
will be accountability.
    Mr. Mast. War crime tribunal?
    Secretary Blinken. But again, I'm not--I'm going to get 
into spelling out a roadmap of when or if sanctions will be 
lifted. We will determine that----
    Mr. Mast. That's sad that we won't lay out a roadmap for 
what has to happen. That's very weak negotiation.
    Secretary Blinken. Not--not----
    Mr. Mast. Negotiate from strength, not from weakness.
    Secretary Blinken. Not--not in public, not at this time.
    Mr. Mast. Will they have to repay damages for everything 
that they've destroyed in the Ukraine?
    Secretary Blinken. We want to make sure that not only is 
there accountability for war crimes that have been committed, 
but there is accountability for the fact that they committed 
these acts of destruction----
    Mr. Mast. Be reparations, reparations for everybody----
    Secretary Blinken. So we will look----
    Mr. Mast. That's been killed?
    Secretary Blinken. We will look at making sure that the 
damage that was done to Ukraine is assumed by those who 
committed it.
    Mr. Mast. I hope that these are bare minimum things that 
take place before the United States of American consider 
resuming any commerce with Russia, Putin, whatsoever, before we 
consider lifting any sanctions whatsoever. And that we begin 
starting to speak to them from these positions of strength.
    I want to yield a couple of moments to my colleague, Mr. 
Zeldin, to address some of the lies that you told us earlier.
    Mr. Zeldin. Thank you. In response to Mr. Connolly, you 
said that prior to the U.S. withdrawal, that Iran did not 
violate the letter of the JCPOA. Is that your position?
    Secretary Blinken. That prior--I'm sorry, can you repeat?
    Mr. Zeldin. Prior to the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA, 
that Iran did not violate the letter of the JCPOA, is that your 
position?
    Secretary Blinken. At various points we had concerns that 
they were in violation. We brought that to the dispute 
resolution mechanism that was built into the agreement, and 
those concerns were resolved.
    Mr. Zeldin. So twice IAEA found Iran in violation of heavy 
water. They found that they had assembled more IR-6s, that they 
had acquired more IR-8 rotor assemblies. That they attempted to 
acquire carbon fiber that they're not allowed to. All in 
violation of the letter of the JCPOA.
    Now, you all know this, but you come here anyway and you 
gaslight us so we're forced to call you out on it. Next time 
you come here, please make do not make believe like they 
haven't violated the letter of the JCPOA before----
    Mr. Malinowski. The gentleman's time has expired. And let 
me remind all members, that tough questioning, challenging 
questioning is perfectly appropriate. But accusing the 
Secretary of State of lying is in my view a violation of the 
decorum that we have, on a bipartisan basis tried to maintain--
--
    Mr. Zeldin. Don't lie and we won't make the accusation, 
it's that simple.
    Mr. Malinowski. I will now yield to Representative Brad 
Sherman of California for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sherman. There's some that will hold you to an 
impossible standard that somehow the Administration has failed 
if we do not get absolutely total justice in Ukraine and Iran 
does not change its regime and everything. We live in a real 
world, and it is not a failure of the Administration that the 
world will be imperfect, even when you lead it, lead the 
Administration.
    I want to commend you, Mr. Secretary, for talking about how 
important it is that we have an international vaccination 
program. Not only is that moral, but every infection leads to 
replication. Every replication is an opportunity for mutation.
    And if you're on team human, we've got to immunize every 
human on the planet, or another variant is coming back to the 
United States.
    In Pakistan you see the most internally contentious and 
unpredictable politics of any nuclear power. And Congress has 
directed the Voice of America to reach out to the people of 
Pakistan in the Sindhi language as well as Urdu.
    The VOA has ignored that. We even gave them money for it, 
they ignored that. I hope that they hear from you how important 
it is that we reach the people of Pakistan and southern 
Pakistan in the Sindhi language.
    In Syria we still have a huge humanitarian problem. It's 
important that our humanitarian aid not go through Assad. And 
as we have it in our interest to weaken Russia, we might want 
to take a look at those who are standing up to Assad, to 
Tehran, and to Russia in Syria.
    Some of us have been urging lethal weapons go to Ukraine 
for many, many years. We faced a lot of headwinds from the last 
Administration. Thank you for what you're doing.
    The world focuses on Ukraine, but 500,000 people have died 
in Tigray. I commend you for your visit to Ukraine. I hope that 
we pay if not equal, at least more attention to Tigray. The 
Ethiopian and Eritrean governments are using starvation as a 
weapon. And the World Food Program says that 90 percent of the 
people there need assistance.
    Your Deputy Secretary came us to very late last year and 
said that a decision had been made to refrain from making a--a 
public determination on atrocities and to whether this is 
genocide. Do you want to, I mean, you got to call them as you 
see them.
    Can I count on the State Department for making a public 
determination? Are there gross human rights abuses and is there 
genocide in Tigray?
    Secretary Blinken. First, there have clearly been 
atrocities committed by every party in Ethiopia. There is no 
doubt about that. In terms of an actual legal determination of 
what they are and their nature, we will make that 
determination.
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you. We have provided substantial 
defense systems to Israel. Forty-three thousand rockets have 
been launched by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Thank God the 
casualties have been modest, and that is because of Iron Dome. 
But keep in mind, that was 4,300 attempts to kill as many 
Israeli civilians as possible. Every one of those rockets was a 
war crime. Not a single one had any real prospect of hitting a 
strategic target.
    As you know, the Obama-Biden Administration agreed to a 
comprehensive memorandum of understanding on our minimum level 
of aid. You and President Biden have indicated opposition to 
imposing new political conditions or restrictions on this 
assistance. Do you continue to oppose new political 
restrictions on our defense assistance to Israel?
    Secretary Blinken. We do.
    Mr. Sherman. Good. And turning to the caucuses, should the 
Administration not waive Section 907, at least until the POWs 
are released and those of Armenian ethnicity are able to go 
back to their homes from which they've been cleansed.
    Secretary Blinken. First, we're working very assiduously on 
any POWs. This is something that I've engaged the most senior 
leadership in Azerbaijan. Second, 907, as it is annually, under 
review; and as soon we have the results of that review, 
obviously we'll make those known to you.
    Mr. Sherman. Hopefully, you will not waive it. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. I now yield 5 minutes to 
Representative Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for 
being here. Before I get to Ukraine, and if this question has 
already been posed, I apologize. But CNN reported yesterday 
that over $7 billion in military equipment was left behind in 
Afghanistan, to include aircraft, which is, literally, twice 
the amount of defensive equipment that we just authorized for 
Ukraine a few weeks back. I just wanted to give you an 
opportunity to comment on that.
    Secretary Blinken. I haven't seen that specific report, but 
you're correct. Over 20 years, a huge amount of military 
equipment was provided to the Afghan Security Forces, which, 
unfortunately, as we know collapsed in extremis; and much of 
that equipment, 20 years later, remained; and, in turn, much of 
that equipment was taken by the Taliban.
    So I do not know about the specific report, but that 
certainly sounds possible.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. If you could take that for the record and 
get a response----
    Secretary Blinken. Yes, I will.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick [continuing]. That would be great. Back to 
Ukraine, there's two different paradigms that I hear from all 
sorts of people whether this is Ukraine's fight between them 
and Russia versus is this the world's fight, is this democracy 
versus dictatorship? What's your view on this?
    Secretary Blinken. It is both. In the first instance, of 
course Ukraine's fight because they are under horrific assault 
by Russia. We're standing with them on that. But you're also 
correct that I believe this should be the world's fight and, 
indeed, we've worked to make it that because, as we were 
discussing a little bit earlier, the aggression that Russia is 
committing is not only against Ukraine, it's against some of 
the basic principles of the international order that should be 
important to countries around the world because, if those 
principles are violated with impunity and we let that go, then 
we open a Pandora's box for more of this to happen in other 
parts of the world. So it's both.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. Is there any Rubicon that would be 
crossed, any red line, that can or will be determined which 
will change this NATO/non-NATO distinction? Because a lot of 
people are having a hard time reconciling how we could assist 
on the periphery through sanctions, through defensive military 
equipment, but never going in, and watch tens of thousands, 
perhaps hundreds of thousands Ukrainians get slaughtered. And, 
yet, if one step is taken over the Romanian border and one 
Romanian is killed, that the full force of 30 nations' 
militaries will come to bear.
    Is a Romanian life worth that much more than Ukrainian 
life? All life is equal, and we should care about all life. Why 
the cliff effect of this NATO/non-NATO distinction? Because, 
yes, the NATO addresses the legal obligations we have under 
Article 5, but there's a second prong to this analysis: what's 
our moral obligation?
    Secretary Blinken. It is a good question and an important 
question. And as you know, we have an alliance with obligations 
and commitments with the NATO countries that includes Article 
5. That does not hold for Ukraine and a number of other 
countries in Europe; and, for that matter, it does not hold for 
other countries around the world.
    We are doing, through the security systems we're providing, 
the economic support we're giving, the humanitarian aid we're 
making available. We are going through extraordinary lengths to 
help the Ukrainian people deal with this aggression, deal with 
it effectively, and they have been. There's no doubt that, 
you're right, horrific death, destruction has happened and 
continues in Southern and Eastern Ukraine, which is exactly why 
we are doubling down on everything that we can do to make sure 
that they have the means in their own hands to deal with this 
aggression.
    There are, of course, many places around the world; and 
Congressman Sherman just referred, for example, to Ethiopia 
where we're seeing horrific things happening. I could point to 
20 or 30 different places, and the question for us in each 
instance is what can we do and what are we responsible for 
doing to try to deal with the situation. There is not a one-
size-fits-all approach to this. And with regard to Ukraine, I 
think it's fair to say that we've taken exceptional steps in 
advance of and now during this aggression to help the 
Ukrainians defeat it.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. Sure, you'd acknowledge this is a very 
unique situation. Three-quarters of Ukrainian children have 
been displaced, having bombs dropped on their head, pediatric 
cancer hospital being bombed, maternity wards being bombed, war 
crimes unlike we've ever seen in our lifetime. So, yes, 
genocide occurs everywhere and it's wrong everywhere and we 
should help everywhere we can. This is a very unique 
circumstance, and I think it's important that Ukrainians know 
that.
    And what I think is puzzling and concerning to so many of 
us in this body is this Administration's seeming propensity to 
tell people what they are not going to do, signal to Vladimir 
Putin what we're not willing to do, taking options off the 
table. Even if that decision has been made internally, why 
telegraph that?
    Secretary Blinken. It is also important to be clear about a 
few things. And, first, I would say I think we have been 
extremely clear not only in what we have said but in what we 
have actually done to make sure that the Ukrainians have in 
their hands the means to deal with and ultimately defeat this 
Russian aggression. And when I saw President Zelensky a few 
days ago with Secretary Austin, he expressed directly to me his 
deep appreciation for the support this Congress has given to 
Ukraine and for President Biden's leadership, and he said the 
United States was its number-one supporter around the world. 
And he said something akin to that publicly after the meeting. 
But, again, I do not want to put words in his mouth.
    So it is very clear not what we're not doing but what we 
are doing, and I think that's manifesting itself in Ukraine on 
the battlefield.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. My time is expired. I yield back.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. The Chair recognizes 
Representative Bill Keating of Massachusetts.
    Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, thank you 
for your extraordinary work and thank you for the work you've 
done in bringing home Trevor Reed. I've spoken with the Reed 
family. I know and have followed that very closely, and I know 
the extraordinary effort that went into that.
    I also want to thank you for the effort you're giving with 
trying to bring home Paul Whelan, who has been illegally 
imprisoned for 1,200 days and I've pledged to do anything I 
could do, and I'm not alone in Congress saying that, to try and 
bring him home as soon as possible.
    And the other thing I want to thank you for, not from the 
perspective, not only from the perspective as a Member of 
Congress here in the U.S., but I do not think it's fully 
appreciated just the extraordinary work at putting together and 
holding together and moving forward the Transatlantic coalition 
that we have in place. We would not be talking about a Ukraine 
victory, we would not be even talking about what we could do as 
a country if we acted alone. We know that we cannot do it 
alone. But I just want to share with you the perspective which 
I have regularly with foreign leaders, European leaders in 
particular, those are their comments, those are their thoughts. 
And it is terrific to have them talk about a U.S. Government 
from State, from Defense, from so many different areas of our 
government, that are stepping up at a time of crisis the world 
has never seen.
    One of the people I spoke with recently, I spoke to the 
Ambassador from Poland and also the mayor from Warsaw recently, 
too. What they're doing there is nothing short of astounding 
either. Just the absorption of school children. Just in several 
weeks 20,000 children are now in school in Warsaw alone. Over 
180,000 students from Ukraine are now in school in Poland right 
now. These are just extraordinary achievements.
    They are strained, and I know in the supplemental budgets 
we have given some funds. But with the plans for the long-term 
funding that we released today, will there be areas of 
assistance we can continue to give countries like Poland that 
are just doing these almost Herculean things at a time of great 
humanitarian need?
    Secretary Blinken. I appreciate you pointing that out. Let 
me just say, first of all, when it comes to Paul Whelan, I am 
determined that we bring him home, as well. We are not letting 
up in that effort in the least.
    Second, with regard to Poland and other countries, we have 
seen extraordinary generosity by the Polish people, Moldovans 
we talked about earlier, others in taking in Ukrainians 
refugees and supporting them. Europe as a whole has done 
something remarkable in making sure that Ukrainians who wind up 
as refugees in Europe can be there for 2 years and get support 
that they need. But this is obviously placing a burden on other 
countries.
    So we have been ourselves working to provide appropriate 
assistance, including to alleviate some of the burden that 
these countries are facing, to help them provide humanitarian 
support to Ukrainians who need it, and that includes Poland.
    Mr. Keating. The other thing, we had a subcommittee hearing 
this morning dealing with Northern Ireland, the Good Friday 
Agreement, and the fragile nature of circumstances there. We 
had some extraordinarily young people that testified, and 
there's great hope that change will occur through that 
generation, as well.
    I spoke after that with the Minister of Foreign Affairs 
Simon Coveney, and we were discussing a letter I led, the 
bipartisan letter to the State Department calling for a special 
envoy for Northern Ireland so that we can become more involved. 
I am very concerned. And so many other things going on in the 
world, but there remains a real crisis brewing there. And the 
elections are coming just in the next few days in Northern 
Ireland, and we do not know the ramifications of what that 
might be. But could you give me an update on any progress with 
the special envoy?
    Secretary Blinken. In short, I anticipate that we'll be 
moving forward soon on naming an envoy.
    Mr. Keating. Great. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. And I would just like to briefly 
note that we have a delegation of parliamentarians from 
Ukrainians who just joined us.
    (Applause.)
    Mr. Malinowski. It is our great hope that you will soon be 
able to meet, as we do here, without any fear of violence being 
done to your beautiful capital and that your democracy will 
long endure.
    And with that, let me call on Representative Buck of 
Colorado for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Buck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you 
for being here. A little different concern. I want to move away 
from Ukraine for just a moment, if we can.
    I am concerned about the fentanyl that is coming to this 
country that is largely manufactured in China. Just a few 
statistics: Fiscal Year 2021, Border Patrol seized 11,201 
pounds of fentanyl at the southern border, which was more than 
double what they seized in Fiscal Year 2020 and five times what 
they seized in Fiscal Year 2019. To put that in perspective, 
the amount seized, the amount of fentanyl seized by Border 
Patrol in 2021 is enough to kill the entire U.S. population 
more than seven times over.
    The leading cause of death in America of adults between the 
ages of 18 and 45 is fentanyl overdose. Recently, in Colorado 
and Colorado Springs, we had three high school students die of 
fentanyl overdose, one actually collapsing in class from that 
use. It is terrible.
    I am wondering if you have had conversations with Chinese 
leadership about the production of fentanyl and what those 
conversations, whether they are productive or not.
    Secretary Blinken. In short, yes to the conversations. 
Productive remains to be seen. First of all, can I just applaud 
your leadership on trying to deal with the opioid crisis that 
we have in this country, and I very much share your concerns 
about this and, in particular, share the concerns about the 
fentanyl that is originating in China and is making its way 
into the United States, including through Mexico.
    So two things. We've been working on this in three ways. 
The President has raised this directly with President Xi 
Jinping of China. Second, we've gotten some of the fentanyl 
precursors that were not on prohibited lists added to those 
lists so that we were able to get others to police this more 
effectively. Third, we're working with the Mexican government 
on seeing about it having technology necessary to better detect 
efforts to smuggle fentanyl or precursors into the United 
States. We are working across all of those lines of effort.
    But to your point, it is very important that the Chinese 
government take action to do something effective about this, 
and it is something that we're on.
    Mr. Buck. My understanding, Mr. Secretary, is there is not 
much of a fentanyl problem in China.
    Secretary Blinken. I believe that is correct.
    Mr. Buck. And the Chinese government, I think we would all 
agree, is an authoritarian regime and knows just about 
everything its citizens are doing. And if fentanyl is coming 
into this country from China, they probably know about it.
    And I do not want to propose a conspiracy theory, but I do 
ask whether you believe that this is a long-term strategy by an 
adversary to undermine this country and the youth in this 
country? Drugs tear at the fabric of our country, particularly 
younger people. And it would not surprise me if an adversary 
like China had a strategy to introduce drugs into this country 
knowing that it would sap our strength.
    Secretary Blinken. I do not want to speculate about any 
strategies or not. All I can focus on is what's actually 
happening and what can be done about it, and there's no doubt 
in my mind that the Chinese government could act much more 
effectively in working to prevent the fentanyl from leaving 
China and getting eventually into the United States.
    Mr. Buck. And why wouldn't they?
    Secretary Blinken. Good question.
    Mr. Buck. I'm asking.
    Secretary Blinken. No, I do not--again, nothing that I can 
speculate on. There may be economic motivations, there may be 
other motivations. They may claim that this is something that 
they cannot deal with as effectively as we believe they can. 
All of those things are possible, but the bottom line is, like 
you, we want to see results and we want to see concrete actions 
taken that result in fentanyl or precursors getting into the 
country.
    Mr. Buck. A country like Colombia will allow American DEA 
agents and others in, allow our military to help train. I know 
I've been to Guatemala, I have seen our Navy Seals working with 
their marines. I am assuming that China isn't quite as open to 
our military being in their country. Is this----
    Secretary Blinken. I think that is a fair Statement.
    Mr. Buck. And, again, it just raises the issue of why not. 
I appreciate your efforts on this; and anything we can do in 
Congress to help, we would greatly like to do that.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Mr. Deutch. Will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman 
yield?
    Mr. Buck. Yes, I will.
    Mr. Deutch. Mr. Chairman, thanks. I just want to take a 
moment to both thank the gentleman from Colorado and thank the 
Secretary of State. This is--Mr. Buck is right. This is a 
crisis that affects every community in our country. And in the 
case of my nephew who died of accidental fentanyl ingestion, 
this is not a question of overdose. This is a question of 
actions taken, whether by the government, whether by drug 
dealers, the government in China or drug dealers or others, to 
murder our kids. I'm grateful to you. Thank you.
    Mr. Buck. I yield back.
    Chairman Meeks. Thank you both. I yield 5 minutes to 
Representative Cicilline of Rhode Island.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 
Secretary, for being here, and I want to really begin by 
thanking you and the President for the enormous amount of work 
that I know it took to both build and keep strong an 
international coalition, not only NATO but our European 
partners, to respond to Vladimir Putin's aggression in Ukraine. 
And it wasn't that long ago, sadly, that we had a president of 
the United States advocating for the abolition of NATO or at 
least undermining it in very significant ways. That's why I 
think we take for granted sometimes what it took for President 
Biden and you to both build and keep intact this extraordinary 
coalition that's absolutely essential for the Ukrainians to win 
this fight. So I want to begin by saying thank you for that and 
for all the work that you're doing to restore American 
leadership around the world on so many important issues.
    I think it's also important to remember that Secretary 
Kerry told us at the time we originally considered the JCPOA 
that the mission was to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear 
power, which remains the commitment of this Administration, 
because then we can, in fact, push back in a variety of 
different ways. It's much more difficult to do that when 
someone has nuclear weapons, and we are learning that as we 
think about responding to Russia's aggression. So I hope 
everyone remembers that lesson.
    I want to ask you specifically as it relates to Ukraine and 
the impact it is having on food and security globally. We just 
returned from a visit with the head of the World Food 
Programme, Governor Beasley, and with Ambassador McCain who 
runs, as you know, the U.N. Mission. And, you know, the 
disruption of the supply chain is obviously a piece of it, but 
we also learned about the efforts that the Chinese are engaging 
to kind of increase their efforts in responding to the food and 
security around the world.
    And so how is the State Department coordinating our food 
security efforts, the food security efforts of our allies, to 
help counter, be effective in responding to this crisis but 
also to think about it as a way to counter the malign influence 
of China and others. And in particular, we learned about the 
Gulf countries to play a meaningful role in responding food 
insecurity. I wonder kind of what's the status of those 
discussions.
    Secretary Blinken. I very much appreciate you putting a 
spotlight on that and the work that you are doing on that, 
including with David Beasley, with Ambassador McCain. This is 
vitally important because one of the horrific consequences of 
the Russian aggression against Ukraine is an accentuation of 
what was already a significant food security challenge around 
the world, and we probably have an additional 40 million people 
as a result of the aggression. And the inability because of 
Russia of the Ukrainians to export effectively the wheat that 
they're producing, blockades of the Black Sea ports, literally 
attacking farms and farmers. This has, of course, contributed 
to difficulty in countries getting wheat that they had 
contracted for. There's actually a huge amount that's been 
produced this year, but it cannot get out of the country 
because of the Russian blockade, among other things.
    So we're seeing the effects literally around the world, as 
you know. And we're operating on a number of lines of effort to 
address this directly. First, let me just say that next month 
we're going to chair the Security Council at the United 
Nations. I'm putting the focus on our month-long presidency on 
food security and taking concrete steps to address it.
    We have a plan before Congress for dealing with feeding the 
future that includes $11 billion over 5 years to address this 
both in the immediate but also long term. We are pressing 
countries to make contributions to the World Food Programme, to 
the Food and Agriculture Organization, which are underfunded, 
given the needs that they have now. We are urging countries 
that have stockpiles of food to release those stockpiles and 
also not to put in place export controls that restrict their 
ability to get food to where to where it is needed.
    Our President has incentivized our own producers of 
fertilizer to produce more and get more out. We've done 
emergency assistance to a number of countries that most acutely 
need it for food security: Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, about $100 
million.
    So across all of these lines, we're trying to address the 
problem in the immediate but also longer-term sustainability.
    Mr. Cicilline. Great. Thank you, and we look forward to 
being sure that we are doing our part in supporting those 
efforts in any way that we can.
    My final question, Mr. Secretary, is there is a letter that 
I led with 150 colleagues requesting an increase in funds which 
support LGBTQIA rights around the world through the Global Fund 
and the European Democracy Resilience Initiative. As you know, 
LGBTQIA around the world are facing really unprecedented 
violence and repression, and I just hope that you will commit 
to streamlining democracy and human rights funding to include 
gender equity, empowerment, and inclusive LGBTQIA people, and 
support increased funding for our community, which is really in 
tremendous need.
    Secretary Blinken. We do, and I welcome working with you on 
that.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you much, Mr. Secretary.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired. I now 
recognize Representative Mark Green of Tennessee, who is the 
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere 
Civilian Security, Migration, and International Economic 
Policy, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, and 
I want to let the Secretary know that the nearshoring bill that 
your team reviewed has finally been dropped, so thank you for 
the input from Secretary Zuniga and the others who helped with 
that. Also, thanks for being here today.
    I want to thank you, too, for, I think I understood 
correctly we're going to send some State Department people back 
in to Ukraine. I think that's a good decision. I thought taking 
everyone out was a bad decision, I'll be completely honest with 
you. I remember from my study of history the State Department 
stayed all through the bombing of London in World War II; yet 
we kind of ran away on this one, we shouldn't have, and I'm 
glad to hear that you're moving folks back in.
    I want to jump back a few months to Afghanistan. You know 
where I am on this, and you know my criticisms of both your 
department and the DoD and the Administration. What I want to 
ask today is how many American citizens are still in 
Afghanistan.
    Secretary Blinken. So let me say two things on that. First 
of all, I appreciate the other points that you mentioned.
    There are, at present, 126, as of a few days ago, American 
citizens remaining, of whom 37 seek to leave and that we are 
assisting. Since we left Afghanistan on August 31st, we 
directly assisted the departure of, again, as of a few days 
ago, 636 American citizens and many LPRs, as well.
    Mr. Green. The 37, but you all are working a plan to get 
the 37----
    Secretary Blinken. That's correct.
    Mr. Green. Very good. Mr. Secretary, I assume and I think 
it was talked about a little earlier, you're familiar with the 
company Rosatom or----
    Secretary Blinken. Yes.
    Mr. Green. So it looks like they're a State-owned 
enterprise for Russia, and it looks also that they will be the 
ones that build the $10 billion reactor for Iran; is that 
correct?
    Secretary Blinken. Under the Bushehr plan, yes, I believe 
that's correct.
    Mr. Green. And my question to you is how much sense does it 
make, when we have these sanctions on Russia, to allow a State-
owned enterprise of Russia to build a $10 billion nuclear 
reactor in Iran?
    Secretary Blinken. So the tradeoff is this: the reactor 
that they and others would take part in building would be a 
proliferation-resistant reactor, which means that whatever is 
produced by it or through it could not be effectively used to 
build a nuclear weapon or produce material for a weapon, and 
that's a very important security concern for the United States. 
I think----
    Mr. Green. Can anybody else build that reactor?
    Secretary Blinken. Well----
    Mr. Green. I mean, why give the profits to the very guys 
who we are trying to keep from funding a war in Ukraine?
    Secretary Blinken. The question is, if there's an effective 
alternative, we can certainly look at that but----
    Mr. Green. Yes, I'd ask you to that, and I think most 
Americans, if they were to apply just some common logic to 
this, that we're doing sanctions here to keep the--we stopped 
buying their oil so they wouldn't continue to fund the assault 
on Ukraine, and why would we give them $10 billion or allow 
them to get $10 billion to build a nuclear reactor?
    So what I'm hearing you say is that you guys are looking 
for an alternative; is that correct?
    Secretary Blinken. If there is an effective alternative. 
Now, of course, it would require Iran to accept that 
alternative, so that is part of the equation, as well.
    Mr. Green. OK. Mr. Secretary, the families of American 
hostages in Venezuela, such as the Marine in Tennessee and 
Matthew Heath, were told that exchanges were off the table; 
yet, the Administration did make an exchange for Trevor Reed. I 
am glad to see Trevor Reed home. I was on the phone with Mr. 
Pfluger late into the night, making sure that he could see his 
family on the tarmac.
    Can you explain the discrepancy between those two?
    Secretary Blinken. Congressman, around the world, wherever 
there is an American arbitrarily detained, including in 
Venezuela, we are looking at everything possible we can do to 
bring them home. Each situation is different. As you know, 
recently----
    Mr. Green. I do.
    Secretary Blinken [continuing]. We sent a delegation to 
Venezuela for the purpose of trying to get our Americans back 
home, and we were able to get two of them back. But as you 
know, half a dozen remain. We are working on that every single 
day.
    Mr. Green. I appreciate the efforts there. As I understood 
it, too, though, that trip was designed to find a solution for 
the $500 billion of oil we were buying from Russia as an 
alternative, potentially using Venezuela. So it was more than 
just to negotiate those guys. I mean, but I appreciate the 
fact, and I think you got two of them home.
    Secretary Blinken. We got two of them home but six remain.
    Mr. Green. Six remain. I appreciate it. Very quickly, and 
I'm going to ask this to be sent to me because I'm going to run 
out of time here very quickly, leadership in Guatemala have 
told me that your department is putting pressure on them to 
pick a certain candidate for an attorney general, and I'd like 
for someone to send a letter to me or, you know, offline call, 
I want to find out why we're putting pressure on another 
country to pick a certain attorney general and what criteria 
you are using or what is justifying that bullying, what I 
believe is bullying.
    Secretary Blinken. I am happy to followup. Thank you.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time is expired. I now 
recognize Representative Ted Lieu of California for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Chairman Meeks, for holding this 
hearing; and thank you, Secretary of State Blinken, for your 
distinguished public service. I want to first thank you for the 
action you took on assignment restrictions, announcing that you 
had left over half of them. I think that is a great first step, 
so thank you for doing that.
    I would like to now turn to Ukraine. And the U.S. hasn't 
just been helping Ukraine this year. We've been helping them 
pretty essentially since 2014; is that correct?
    Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
    Mr. Lieu. And from 2014 until January 20th of last year, we 
provided a little over a billion dollars in funding; is that 
correct?
    Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
    Mr. Lieu. But then under the Biden Administration, we 
significantly ramped up the military aid to Ukraine, and my 
understanding is that we provided up to now over $4.6 billion 
to----
    Secretary Blinken. That is correct.
    Mr. Lieu [continuing]. To Ukraine. Without that military 
assistance, Russia would have rode in and taken over Kyiv. That 
is how the world viewed it. I just want to emphasize what an 
amazing accomplishment that is that Ukraine will remain a free, 
sovereign, independent nation. That was not something that 
people thought was going to happen. It would not have happened 
but for the involvement of you and others and the President of 
the United States and NATO countries. So I just want to make 
sure we emphasize that.
    We are now in a second phase of the war, which is how do we 
help Ukraine push back against Russian forces in the south and 
in the east. That requires a different set, in my opinion, of 
weapons, more advanced weapons. And you were right in pushing 
for MiGs to go to Ukraine. And just based on public reporting, 
I commend you for trying to do that. I believe that air power 
and air dominance is a critical component of modern warfare, 
and I continue to urge you to push to do that.
    I would like to now turn to State sponsors of terrorism; 
and, under State Department policy, you get to designate 
countries as State sponsors of terrorism. If a country is so 
designated, then that gives us certain options. One of them is, 
for example, it would allow us to ban dual use exports to that 
country; is that correct?
    Another is it would allow the U.S. to take economic action 
against countries that continue to do business with that 
designated country, correct?
    Secretary Blinken. Yes.
    Mr. Lieu. It could also freeze that country's assets in the 
U.S., including real eState.
    Secretary Blinken. Yes.
    Mr. Lieu. And it would cause a U.S. to veto efforts of that 
country to secure, for example, World Bank loans or other loans 
such as that.
    Secretary Blinken. Yes.
    Mr. Lieu. In order for you to designate that, you need two 
instances, at least, of that country sponsoring terrorism. So 
when we talk about Russia, it is true, right, that Russia 
provides sanctuary to a U.S.-designated terrorist group known 
as the Russian Imperial Movement?
    Secretary Blinken. Let me say this, Congressman. I 
appreciate the question and the issue. We have the office of 
our legal advisor looking at this question about whether, under 
the law, the criteria exists to consider Russia a State sponsor 
of terrorism in the case of Ukraine. That is under review as we 
speak.
    The only other thing I would add is all of the measures 
that you rightly point out that we would be able to apply on 
the basis of that law, of course many of them we can and are 
already applying under other types of designations.
    So two things are important, I think. First, of course, is 
making sure that we are adhering to the law, meeting the law, 
meeting its requirements. The second is making sure that we are 
effective by whatever tools we have available to us to be 
effective in doing a number of things that you pointed to.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you. On April 22d, ten members of the 
Foreign Affairs Committee sent you a letter about designating 
Russia as a State sponsor of terrorism, and we laid out all the 
various examples of how Russia, in fact, was a State sponsor of 
terrorism.
    I just want to urge you to look at the standard. So the 
standard is not whether we have to prove this beyond a 
reasonable doubt. It is not whether an academic professor 
somewhere could say, hey, maybe Russia does not technically 
meet these requirements, and we believe Russia does meet these 
requirements. I think we have to supply a common sense 
standard. The American people will not understand if we do not 
designate Russia as a State sponsor of terrorism. They are 
watching horrific images on their TV day after day after day, 
so I just urge you to apply the common sense standard, go 
through your process.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize 
Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina, who is the Ranking 
Member of the Subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa, 
and Global Counterterrorism, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Secretary, 
thank you and Secretary Austin for visiting in Kyiv with 
Volodymyr Zelensky. Gosh, what an inspiration President 
Zelensky is to the world, as we are in a worldwide conflict and 
it is authoritarianism by rule of gun with democracy by rule of 
law. And with a worldwide conflict, your leadership is so 
important.
    In fact, this week, sadly, war criminal Putin is 
threatening our appreciated allies of Poland and Bulgaria by 
cutting off LNG. What is America doing to help these great 
allies?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you for your engagement and 
leadership on this, as well. Second, with regard to this 
cutoff, I'd say a few things. First, there is an element of 
Russia shooting itself in the foot by doing this because, of 
course, the revenues and resources that it would get from the 
sale, it will be denied.
    Second, we have seen other European countries already jump 
in to make sure that these countries can get the resources they 
need to make up for what they might lose from Russia.
    Third, we have directed a significant amount of LNG to 
Europe over the last few months. We have doubled the amount of 
American LNG going to Europe since February to help compensate 
for any shortfalls, including those that may result from Russia 
trying to use this as a tool of blackmail.
    Mr. Wilson. And I hope, again, LNG will be promoted and, 
indeed, the floating terminals that can be provided----
    Secretary Blinken. Yes.
    Mr. Wilson [continuing]. Whatever, to deny the war criminal 
Putin his ability to conduct mass murder.
    In regard to Syria, why isn't the Administration applying 
the mandatory sanctions of the Caesar Act to the Assad regime 
and its backers?
    Secretary Blinken. Congressman, I am happy to work with you 
on that. We, of course, are working to use all the authorities 
that we have. If there are places where you believe we are not 
effectively using them, I would welcome knowing about it.
    Mr. Wilson. Well, again, the opportunity we have to help 
the people of Syria overcome the oppression they are facing, 
whatever could be done.
    Another issue to me that I'm concerned about are foreign 
military sales. It appears to me that they have been 
handicapped with unnecessary red tape. What can we do to cut 
through the red tape to help and work with our allies, such as 
Turkey and India?
    Secretary Blinken. I agree with you. I think we can and 
should do better in sales, particularly in the rapidity with 
which we are able to do things, review things. That is on, I 
think that is on us in the executive branch. It is also on 
Congress. So I think, together, we need to look at ways; and we 
are, in fact, looking at that.
    You make an important point, too, because a number of 
countries, as I said earlier, are rethinking their 
relationships, including with Russia, including countries that 
have had longstanding defense relationships with Russia. If 
we're in a position to be a partner to them in ways that maybe 
we couldn't be some decades ago, I think that is something we 
need to be able to act on. And because, of course, if we do 
not, we know who is likely to do it in our place.
    So I agree with you, and it is something we are working on 
and welcome working with Congress, as well, to look at how we 
can do this more efficiently.
    Mr. Wilson. And in line with that, I am really grateful 
that, with the leadership of Chairman Greg Meeks and Ranking 
Member Mike McCaul, that we just had a very overwhelming vote 
to provide Lend-Lease for the people of Ukraine. I particularly 
love the irony of this. In 2005, I had an opportunity to lead 
an American delegation to show our affection and appreciation 
of the people of Russia to place a wreath at the cemetery there 
in Saint Petersburg the half a million people killed in an open 
grave with the Siege of Leningrad.
    While I was there, I was so pleasantly surprised to find 
out that the reason for that success was American aid provided 
through Lend-Lease, and now we will be providing Lend-Lease 
aid, thanks to the Chairman, to the people of Kyiv, to the 
people of Ukraine, to stop an invasion by a war criminal. And 
so you had the war criminal Hitler, the war criminal Putin, and 
now we are going to be there, as we provided Lend-Lease for 30 
different countries.
    So how is this going to be expedited?
    Secretary Blinken. I very much look forward to looking at 
that. We have a number of important tools and possibly to 
include what you have now put forward. The supplemental that I 
think is before you as of this morning has a number of very 
important and immediate ways that we can get assistance and 
sustained assistance to Ukraine, including more resources for 
foreign military financing, which is vital; replenishing the 
draw-down account, which has been used so effectively in order 
to get security assistance to the Ukrainians. We've done eight 
draw-downs to date.
    But I'm happy to pursue this with you.
    Mr. Wilson. And, ironically----
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time is expired. I now 
recognize Representative Dina Titus of Nevada for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary. Last 
week, the President announced that Prime Minister Mitsotakis 
was coming. I know you do not want to step on any of his news 
or get ahead of the President, but I wonder, in kind of 
reference to your answer to Mr. Wilson's question about other 
countries stepping up and trying to help countries who have had 
oil cutoff, Greece has stepped up and said they would help 
Bulgaria.
    Secretary Blinken. Yes.
    Ms. Titus. What is the State Department doing with our 
partners along kind of the southern plank of NATO to assist 
them or increase trade or work on the pipeline, whatever?
    Secretary Blinken. Greece has stepped up, you're right, in 
a big way, not only in assisting the countries in question that 
Congressman Wilson just referenced but also, as well, in 
supporting Ukraine directly, and we deeply appreciate that. I 
just was on the phone with the prime minister and others, and 
that is, I think, a very important effort that Greece has 
really stepped up on.
    We are working in a variety of ways to support efforts to 
promote cooperation, regional stability, energy security 
throughout the Eastern Med. There are a number of projects that 
are underway or could be underway soon, particularly with 
regard to energy, where Greece would be a critical partner. We 
are looking among other things also are very, I think, 
compelling projects on electricity interconnectors in the 
region that would involve, for example, Egypt to Cyprus and 
Greece, as well as Israel, Cyprus, and Greece.
    So there are a number of ongoing things where I think we 
can strengthen both the regional security but also strengthen 
energy security and strengthen partnerships among countries in 
the region.
    Ms. Titus. Well, that is encouraging. I'm glad to hear 
that, and I am sure they will be, too.
    Just really shifting gears, I want to ask you about the 
disability rights, International Disability Rights. We passed 
as part of the NDAA guidance for establishing a permanent 
office within the State Department, and then, in the omnibus 
last year we had $750,000 set aside for a special advisor. I 
just wonder why the budget does not include funding for a 
special advisor and why the department hadn't moved forward or 
made the decision to permanently establish this Office of 
International Disability Rights?
    Secretary Blinken. I am happy to come back to you on that 
to make sure that we do have the resources that we need to 
carry out this vital mission, but we have a very strong leader 
for the team. We have the office, I believe, that the funding 
is appropriate and necessary, but I am happy to look at whether 
something else needs to be done to support that mission.
    Ms. Titus. Well, thank you. The U.S. has a good reputation 
internally, and I think we should lead around the world. And I 
think having this office with the resources it needs to do that 
will be commendable and recognized as such by our friends and 
allies.
    So thank you, and I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize 
Representative Andy Barr of Kentucky for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you and welcome back to the Committee, Mr. 
Secretary. Under the previous JCPOA, Russia was allowed to 
undertake civil nuclear projects in Iran worth billions of 
dollars. I think Mr. Green was asking you----
    Secretary Blinken. Yes, he addressed that.
    Mr. Barr [continuing]. About this, as well. Now, in the 
midst of this Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia is sitting at 
the negotiating table in Vienna seeking to revive this deal, 
setting up an escape valve through Tehran to get relief from 
international sanctions. A revived Iran deal would run directly 
counter to the sanctions that have been imposed.
    Can you commit, Mr. Secretary, to the Congress that any 
renegotiated JCPOA would not enable Russia to profit off of 
Iran?
    Secretary Blinken. What I can commit to is that any renewed 
JCPOA would not, in any way, be in contravention of the 
sanctions----
    Mr. Barr. No, I understand that, and I understand that is 
your testimony. That is not exactly the question I am asking. 
And I think the fact that you cannot answer that question is 
troubling.
    I think a renegotiated JCPOA needs to address that issue. 
We do not want to give a financial lifeline to Russia at this 
time.
    Sir, in the Russian buildup before the invasion, it was the 
Administration'/Space National Guard position that imposing 
sanctions and arming the Ukrainians before invasion would have 
been provocative. This proved to be spectacularly wrong, and we 
learned that inadequate deterrence invites aggression. Has the 
Administration learned its lesson and will it accelerate 
military assistance to Taiwan to enhance deterrence?
    Secretary Blinken. With respect to--that's not accurate. In 
fact, before the aggression, well before the aggression, we 
made sure that the Ukrainians had in their hands the weapons 
that they needed to deal with it. There was a Presidential 
draw-down of $60 million Labor Day, there was another one of 
$200 million in December before Christmas.
    Now, to your point----
    Mr. Barr. Well, let's get to Taiwan. We can have that 
debate about pre-invasion of Ukraine, but I do want to 
emphasize what Ranking Member McCaul, the point he was making, 
which is that Taiwan and Twin Oaks has asked us for these 
foreign military sales to be delivered. We haven't seen 
delivery, and these are years in the making. Some of these 
orders have come in and approved long previous to now.
    Where are we on actually delivering that to establish that 
deterrence?
    Secretary Blinken. Yes, I agree that there is a need to 
further streamline the process of actually getting this 
equipment, in many cases, made because really this goes to 
supply chain issues, as you know, as well as delivery. There 
has been about $18 billion in foreign military financing to 
Taiwan since 2017. That has continued at the same pace. Another 
$2.5 billion in direct commercial sales. But there are supply 
chain issues that we need to work on----
    Mr. Barr. Well, I would love to work with you on that. 
Let's get those resolved. Let's get more lethal military 
assistance to Taiwan as soon as possible.
    The weakness, in my view, the weakness in the sanctions 
regime against Russia right now is the general license for 
energy-related transactions. I recognize that our European 
allies' over-dependence on Russian energy has been an issue, 
but I have a bill to close this loophole. I have raised this in 
the Financial Services Committee with Secretary Yellen, with 
Wally Adeyemo. They are open to this. Now we see Germany open 
to the idea of a ban on crude oil imports. So I think our 
European allies are coming around.
    What is the Department of State's position on closing this 
energy loophole, this general license, in our sanctions?
    Secretary Blinken. We are working to do everything we can 
to help the Europeans move off of Russian energy of one kind or 
another as soon as possible, to include oil and ultimately to 
include gas. I think, as we speak, the European Union is 
looking very closely at this question of oil. I would 
anticipate that they will take action on that in the weeks 
ahead.
    Gas is a slightly longer-term challenge because, as you 
know, the reliance is built up over many decades.
    Mr. Barr. Understand. My bill would allow for special 
approval, specific waivers or licenses, special licenses but 
not a general license on the gas, and escrow that and create a 
carrot, not just a stick but a carrot for Putin that he would 
get the proceeds of those sales only when he withdrew.
    So I want you to take a look at that.
    Secretary Blinken. I am happy to do that.
    Mr. Barr. We passed the AXIS Act yesterday. That would 
require your department to report to Congress on China support 
to Russia on sanctions evasion. I ask for your commitment to 
meet those statutorily imposed reports.
    Secretary Blinken. Yes.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you. Finally, I represent a nonprofit in my 
district for the last 56 years. The International Book Project 
has shipped nearly 8 million books overseas to schools, 
libraries, and community organizations in every country on the 
globe. I will be submitting a question for the record to 
inquire how States can increase awareness of the International 
Book Project to embassies around the world----
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Secretary Blinken. Sounds like a wonderful project.
    Mr. Barr. Yes. Thank you.
    Chairman Meeks. And let me just say at this juncture, 
because of the hard stop that the Secretary has, we are going 
to just have one pair of witnesses, one Democrat and one 
Republican, and then we will be out of time. So I now will 
recognize Representative Joaquin Castro of Texas who is the 
chair of the Subcommittee on International Development and 
International Organizations and Global Corporate Impact for 5 
minutes, and then the Republican will be Representative Greg 
Steube.
    Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Secretary, for 
your testimony today. I want to start with a question about 
Mexico and our relationship with Mexico. The new U.S.-Mexico 
Bicentennial Framework offers an opportunity to revitalize 
security cooperation between our two nations with a focus on 
human rights, public health, and accountability after the 
failure of the drug war model of the Merida Initiative. In 
fact, today, Mexico is facing record-high levels of homicides, 
increased violence against women and journalists, 
disappearances which are worsening because of corruption. They 
are being done with impunity, and there seems to be negligence 
in all aspects or many aspects of these from government.
    What specific accountability mechanisms is the State 
Department implementing in the framework to ensure that 
Mexico's security forces and prosecutors' offices are 
respecting human rights, investigating corruption, and holding 
bad actors accountable?
    Secretary Blinken. So, Congressman, thank you for that. We 
have deepened our cooperation with Mexico across the board, and 
we want to make sure that our cooperation, including in the 
security sphere, is generally comprehensive and, of course, 
works in both directions. And we also have within the State 
Department but also DHS and other actors that are engaged with 
the Mexican security services clear accountability measures to 
make sure that any assistance that is provided is being 
provided in the appropriate way and is being used in the 
appropriate way. And if we see that that is not the case, we 
will take action to correct it.
    I am happy to come back to you, in the interest of time, 
with more detail on how we are doing that, as well as also 
refer you to some of the other agencies that are involved in 
supporting and working with Mexico on security.
    Mr. Castro. And I appreciate that. And one reason I think 
that it is particularly important to focus on accountability 
for security forces that we partner with in Mexico and 
elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere is the potential for our 
security assistance to end up feeding illicit arms trafficking 
if we do not have the appropriate safeguards in place. And in 
my view, this problem has worsened since the authority to 
review many exports of small arms was shifted from the State 
Department to the Commerce Department.
    I was glad to see President Biden promise to reverse that 
change during his campaign, and I just wanted to ask you that, 
as we continue our work, will you work with me to fulfill the 
President's promise to return oversight of small arms sales to 
the State Department and pursue other measures to crack down on 
arms trafficking in the Western Hemisphere?
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you. And I do not want to get 
ahead of it, but we should have an arms sales policy coming out 
shortly, and we have put, among other things, human rights very 
much front and center in that policy, as well as making sure 
that we can act efficiently to use these authorities.
    So happy to talk to you offline about this, but we should 
be coming forward with that shortly.
    Mr. Castro. I will truncate my second question, which is on 
the issue of diversity. I remain concerned by the under-
representation, for example, of Latino Americans at the State 
Department, especially at the senior ranks. State's own data 
show that only 3.8 of the Senior Executive Service and 6.8 
percent of the Senior Foreign Service identified as Hispanic in 
September. I led the effort, along with Barbara Lee, on the 
Appropriations Committee to fund interns at the State 
Department, which we now, of course, have successfully done. 
And others, of course, helped, as well. But that was meant to 
build the pipeline so that there are more people who can afford 
to take on internships at the State Department.
    So I want to ask you, that's an important piece of helping 
to diversify, how is the implementation of that program going?
    Secretary Blinken. Congressman, first of all, thank you for 
everything that you have done for a long time leading on this 
effort. The paid internship piece is critical, and we are 
grateful that we now have the authority to do that and funds to 
do that. We are starting with about 200 paid internships. I 
hope that we can build that up over the next few years. It is 
just getting off the ground, but what I can tell you is this: 
we have had thousands of applications since we have been able 
to advertise the paid internships.
    Mr. Castro. Wonderful. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I 
yield back.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back, and now I yield 
to Representative Greg Steube of Florida for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not going to 
belabor the Afghanistan issue, but I just want to make clear, 
because I came in as Representative Green was asking you the 
question, so there is 126 American citizens that are still left 
in Afghanistan, 37 of which want to return; is that correct?
    Secretary Blinken. That's correct.
    Mr. Steube. I have made my position on the disastrous 
withdrawal of the Biden Administration and the State 
Department. We are now over 6 months, and we still have 
Americans stuck behind enemy lines with the Taliban. I have 
made my positions clear on that.
    I want to go and move to the Iran Revolutionary Guard----
    Secretary Blinken. Could I just mention one thing----
    Mr. Steube. No, because I only have four and a half minutes 
and I am yielding a minute to Rep. Kim because you are only 
here until 4:30.
    You commented before the Senate on your position that the 
foreign terrorist organization designation on the Iran 
Revolutionary Guard will not be lifted unless the Revolutionary 
Guard changes its behavior and ceases support for terrorism; is 
that correct?
    Secretary Blinken. That's correct.
    Mr. Steube. Did Iran or the Revolutionary Guard stop their 
support for terrorism after the JCPOA was reached?
    Secretary Blinken. Iran's support for terrorism has 
continued----
    Mr. Steube. So that's a yes.
    Secretary Blinken [continuing]. For a long time.
    Mr. Steube. No, it continued. Did Iran detain 11 U.S. Navy 
sailors during the period of U.S. participation in the JCPOA?
    Secretary Blinken. It did for a brief period of time.
    Mr. Steube. Did Iran illegally and unjustly detail 
Americans during the period of U.S. participation in the JCPOA?
    Secretary Blinken. It did and it continues to.
    Mr. Steube. Did Iran's financial support for Hezbollah, 
Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad increase during the period 
of U.S. participation in the JCPOA?
    Secretary Blinken. I cannot tell you if it increased, but 
it was certainly sustained.
    Mr. Steube. Did Iran's support for the Assad regime 
increase during the period of U.S. participation in the JCPOA?
    Secretary Blinken. I cannot tell you if it increased, but 
it was sustained.
    Mr. Steube. It was sustained. Did Iran's support for the 
Houthis in Yemen increase during the period of remain the same 
during the period of U.S. participation in the JCPOA?
    Secretary Blinken. I would say it actually increased for 
that period.
    Mr. Steube. Recently, a group of 900 Gold Star family 
members and wounded veterans who have been victims of the 
Revolutionary Guard's terrorist activities sent President Biden 
a letter asking him not to lift the FTO designation. Are you 
familiar with that letter?
    Secretary Blinken. I am familiar with the letter.
    Mr. Steube. Do you have a copy of it?
    Secretary Blinken. Yes, I have seen it.
    Mr. Steube. So what is the Administration's response to 
those families?
    Secretary Blinken. Again, Iran knows what it would have to 
do in order to have that designation lifted. I would also say 
that, over this period, including since the designation of the 
IRGC with the FTO, it is a tax on Americans have gone up 400 
percent.
    Mr. Steube. So then there would be no anticipation then 
that in any deal with them that you would release the FTO 
designation on the Revolutionary Guard?
    Secretary Blinken. Only if Iran takes necessary actions to 
merit the lifting of the designation, and I would also note, 
Congressman, that, were such a designation to be lifted under 
whatever circumstances, it can always be reimposed if Iran 
engages in actions that merit the imposition.
    Mr. Steube. Well, I do not know why, given the litany list 
of things that I just went through, when we were in the JCPOA, 
when they were not supposed to be engaging in terrorist 
activity where you just confirmed every single one of those 
incidents where they did engage in terrorist activity, that 
this Administration would even be considering to remove the 
terrorist designation for the Revolutionary Guard. I certainly 
do not support that. Those 900 Gold Star family members do not 
support that. And with all the force that I have as a Member of 
Congress and as a servicemember who served in Iraq and saw his 
servicemember brothers and sisters attacked by Revolutionary 
Guards, 15 percent of which U.S. combat fatalities in the Iraq 
War were attributed to the Revolutionary Guard's activities, I 
think it would be abysmal for this Administration to even 
consider lifting that foreign terrorist designation. And I 
would encourage you, and I know I am a Republican and you are a 
Democrat and you are in a Democratic Administration, but 
whatever encouragement I could give you to stay strong on that 
and fight against terrorism. And if it is lifted, I will do 
everything within my power to fight against any lifting of the 
Iran Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, and I 
hope that this Administration will think very strongly about 
any attempt to do that in any deal that they would be 
negotiating with the Iranians.
    With that, I will yield the remainder of my time to Rep. 
Kim.
    Secretary Blinken. And I am happy to go a little bit over. 
I just want to say to you, Congressman, first of all, that I 
appreciate what you said and we are both, of course, Americans 
and we want the same things for our country. I am pleased to be 
able to work with you and every member of this committee to 
achieve them. Sometimes, we have differences of view on the 
best way to achieve them, but we have the same objectives. 
Certainly, when it comes to Iran, we very much, I know, share 
the objective that it never acquire a nuclear weapon and that 
it cease the egregious actions that it is undertaking, 
including targeting Americans, including supporting proxies 
that do the same thing, including going after our partners and 
allies.
    The question is really one for all of us to make with our 
best judgment as to how can we be most effective doing that? 
And, unfortunately, what we have seen over the last few years 
is that the policy we inherited is not working. It has been a 
failure. Iran's nuclear program is moving forward. Its tax, 
including, notably, against Americans have increased, not 
decreased, despite the maximum pressure.
    So what I commit to very much is working with you, working 
with every other member. And I particularly appreciate your 
patriotism, your service, the Gold Star families. It's 
extraordinary. But I commit to work with you to make sure 
whatever we are doing is effective as possible in dealing with 
the challenges that you rightfully point out.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Meeks. So put 1 minute on the clock of 
Representative Kim. That was not Mr. Steube's turn.
    Secretary Blinken. Good to see you.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you very much. Congressman 
Steube, I want to thank you for yielding.
    A point of clarification, Secretary, are you willing to 
stay a little more than just a minute that was allotted to me?
    Secretary Blinken. Please, go ahead.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Will that be OK, Chairman?
    Chairman Meeks. Well, are we going to give the Secretary a 
chance to ask a question----
    Mrs. Kim of California. I just have a couple of areas that 
I wanted to----
    Secretary Blinken. Please go ahead.
    Mrs. Kim of California [continuing]. So thank you very 
much. Mr. Secretary, first of all, on Uyghur issues, your 
budget request says that scaling up international climate 
programs is a top priority for your department. So can you 
commit to us that any international climate programs that you 
approve will completely eliminate ties to the CCP's genocide 
against Uyghurs, particularly to industries tied to Xinjiang 
Province in the CCP's nationwide scheme of Uyghur forced labor, 
such as the solar panel and lithium battery industries?
    Secretary Blinken. We want to make sure two things, 
Congresswoman. We want to make sure, first of all, that our 
companies and others are not exporting to China tools that 
could be used for the repression of Uyghurs. Similarly, we want 
to make sure that we are not importing products that are made 
with forced labor, including by Uyghurs. Sometimes, this takes 
time to put into effect, but that is our determination.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Sure.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    Secretary Blinken. And I welcome receiving any further 
questions from you. We can take them up on the record.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you.
    Secretary Blinken. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Meeks. And, Mr. Secretary, you have indicated 
previously under the question of Mr. Steube that there was a 
question you wanted to answer in regards to Afghanistan. If 
you----
    Secretary Blinken. I think we have addressed that. Thank 
you very much.
    Chairman Meeks. So in closing, I would like to again thank 
you, Mr. Secretary, for being our esteemed witness today, for 
your insightful testimony and participation today. In the past 
year, State Department has made tangible progress in helping to 
diversify the Department staff and internships, modernize our 
systems for passport processing, information technology, 
payroll, and other processes, and launched the workplace 
flexibilities, training, and other resources for our diplomats.
    While this progress has been a great step in the right 
direction, we know, of course, we always have more work to do. 
But this budget request underscores the importance of diplomacy 
and development and of the robust foreign assistance to foster 
key alliances and partnerships to confront the gravest 
challenges of our time.
    So building deeper relationships and helping other 
countries strengthen their democracies and defend themselves 
against outside aggression, much like the Department and 
broader U.S. Government is doing every day for Ukraine, it's 
not just a matter of foreign policy. It makes Americans more 
secure, it serves American's interest by ensuring a more 
prosperous, stable world in which we all live. It shows that 
unity is important. I think that the camera of history will 
show that we are where we are now because of the unity of the 
State Department and the Administration. Thirty nations of NATO 
stayed together. Before, no one would have predicted that. It 
is the work of the Administration and the State Department. 
Diplomacy at work because we had to utilize that diplomacy to 
keep those 30 nations together. We could have gone off by 
ourselves, but we did not. Diplomacy means working with others, 
not us by ourselves.
    Our allies in Asia, in Africa, others on the Western 
Hemisphere, all staying together, that is the work of 
diplomacy. That is why it is so important to have our 
Ambassadors and diplomats in various places around the world. 
We were handcuffed for a while by not having Ambassadors in 
certain key places. We have seen when they are there, diplomacy 
works. It works in one way or the other. It works in the way 
that if someone does decide to go off and be their own 
aggressive self, diplomacy will surround them. And it works 
also to prevent when we do not have someone with evil intent 
from war from taking place.
    So I want to thank you, and I am grateful for the 
Department's strong requests for funding to continue to 
modernize the Department and advance its foreign policy 
objectives. Again, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for always being 
receptive to me and Mr. McCaul in a bipartisan way in working, 
and I look forward to continue to work with you and seeing the 
result of your work to reform and lead the State in its vital 
work.
    So thank you, and this hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record 
at 4:42 p.m.]

                                APPENDIX

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]