Mr. Risch (00:00):
Those days are over. China remains the most significant long-term risk to the United States. The Chinese government steals American intellectual property, floods our streets with fentanyl and exploits our free markets for its own gain while aggressively undermining American national security. China is no longer satisfied to undermine the United States on its own, now it helps Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Chinese support has enabled Russia to carry on its illegal war against Ukraine, and China's massive purchases of Iranian oil are a lifeline to that murderous regime's proxy wars. The outgoing administration's failure to push back on China's aggression means that China is challenging America everywhere, from Africa to our hemisphere in Latin America. Senator Rubio has been a strong advocate of tougher policies to counter China's aggression, and particularly in Latin America. In the Middle East, Israel fights a multi-front war against Iran after the brutal attack on October 7th.
(01:02)
Yet the outgoing administration has undermined support to Israel. This has only prolonged the terrible situation in Israel and Gaza. In spite of the outgoing administration's policy, Israel's fortitude has brought Tehran to its weakest point in decades. President Trump and Marco both know that we need to support our ally and return to a maximum pressure campaign against Iran. At the same time, Putin with the support of the CCP continues his violent assault on Ukraine. Putin has escalated this war over and over again most recently by importing thousands of North Korean soldiers. I've said repeatedly since the beginning of 2022 full scale invasion, we need to help Ukraine end this war quickly and permanently. I'm confident that if anyone can end this war, it's President Trump. And Marco is the right man to help ensure it is done in a way that guarantees security and stability for Ukraine, the US and our allies, and prevents Russia from launching another war.
(02:01)
Unfortunately, the threats to American interests don't end there. A genocide in Sudan, a much needed but still uncertain regime change in Syria, human rights abuses, human trafficking, the list of challenges facing America is long. And because of that, we must rein in and enforce accountability at the United Nations whose agenda and wasteful practices frequently do not align with those of the United States. In Asia, it will be important to work with our allies in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines to boost their military spending and bolster their ability to deter China. We should work with Australia and the United Kingdom as part of the AUKUS agreement to develop an advance military capabilities to counter Chinese coercion in the Indo-Pacific. And I hope the State Department will acknowledge the nuclear arms race our adversaries are pursuing and make the changes needed to confront this new reality.
(02:59)
Further, US foreign assistance is not charity. American taxpayer dollars should only be spent to advance US interests and every penny should be scrutinized to ensure its necessity and effectiveness in advancing our America's interests. Often enormous amounts of money are spread thinly around the world and never really accomplish goals. This also needs to stop. A final word on the operations of the State Department itself. The department must refocus itself on the core mission of effective diplomacy. Every program, office and policy at state must effectively advance US foreign policy goals not advance progressive ideology. The outgoing administration often undercut effective foreign policy by inserting ideological and political requirements into the fabric of personnel decisions and policy execution. Rather than making hires or promotions based on merit and effectiveness, the department created a new diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility requirements that distracted from this mission, undermined morale and created an unfair and opaque process for promotions and performance evaluations. Fealty to progressive politics became the benchmark for success.
(04:15)
As we look around the United States, that view is diminishing very quickly amongst even large corporations, amongst even large progressive leaning corporations. Adherence to these goals was assured at the State Department to a rigid enforcement structure that included senior advisors for DEIA in nearly every bureau and Soviet-style anonymous reporting portals, where employees were encouraged to denounce colleagues who would not toe the company line. This must end on day one. We need to return to merit, and I know Marco will ride that ship. Senator Rubio, this is a long laundry list of crises. You've earned yourself one of the hardest jobs in America, but after serving with you for so many years, I'm confident you are the right person we need to take on these threats. Thank you very much. And to my good friend, Senator Shaheen, I yield the floor.
Senator Shaheen (05:12):
Well, thank you very much, Chairman Risch. Congratulations on your new role. As you point out, while this may be our first foreign relations committee hearing together in these new roles, it's certainly not our first time working together. We came in as governors, so we'd like to get things done. We've also had the same role in 2017 on the Small Business Committee, so I look forward to working with you and to our opportunity for this committee to get a lot of work done. I want to also congratulate the new members of the committee, Republicans, McCormick, Daines, Scott, Lee, Curtis and Cornyn, and on the Democratic side, Jacky Rosen. Nice to have you all on the committee.
(06:04)
One point that we've always agreed on, the chairman and I, is the need to work together so this committee can function more effectively. That means holding hearings, it means advancing bipartisan legislation, it means confirming career foreign service officers quickly. I believe it's in our national security interest to have our embassies fully staffed and to confirm career ambassadors with the requisite expertise. Which is why it was important to both of us to have Senator Rubio's hearing as soon as possible. And Senator Rubio welcome. You and I have also had a good working relationship for many years. I believe you have the skills and are well-qualified to serve as Secretary of State. But today I want to find out a little more about what this administration is thinking about American foreign policy and the State Department in particular. As I said, I believe this committee has a responsibility to get your team out in the field and we hope you'll send us qualified, experienced, and well vetted nominees.
(07:07)
I know you already have an expert group of career foreign service nominees before you that was not considered under the last Congress. I hope we'll see many of those nominees resubmitted to this committee soon. On policy, I want to start by hearing from you on Ukraine and NATO. There is strong bipartisan support as you know, in the Senate for Ukraine. There's a clear understanding that we can't trust Putin, and I'm concerned that if Vladimir Putin wins in Ukraine, he's not going to stop.
(07:38)
President Trump has repeatedly said that he plans to end the Ukraine war. Within 24 hours of his inauguration, it's been reported that his proposals would give away Ukrainian territory to Vladimir Putin. Now, I can't speak on behalf of Ukraine and President Zelenskyy has said that he's open to a peace agreement. But I am concerned both for the Ukrainian people who have sacrificed so much, about the message that abandoning Ukraine would send not just to our allies, but also to our adversaries, and not just Russia, but to China, North Korea and Iran. Our allies, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, our partnerships and alliances like AUKUS and NATO are all looking very closely and watching what we're going to do.
(08:28)
I believe these alliances are one of the United States' greatest assets, and what happens in Ukraine also affects emerging democratic nations, civil society movements, from Belarus to the Balkans to the Black Sea to Georgia, it impacts us here at home as well. And I know that for so many Americans, this might seem like a distant war, but as we know, what happens in Ukraine doesn't stay in Ukraine. The war has caused food and gas prices to go up, it's affected day-to-day lives of Americans. So Senator Rubio, I know that in the past you've supported Ukraine, you introduced legislation that would ban US recognition of territory annexed by Russia. We were both co-sponsors of Chairman Risch's resolution recognizing Russian genocide in Ukraine. But the path forward is uncertain, and I hope today you will lay out some of the administration's plans for Ukraine. I'd also like to hear from you on the Middle East and Syria in particular.
(09:28)
In recent months, we've seen the dismantling of much of Iran's axis of resistance, including the fall of Assad, one of Iran's most brutal proxies. One of our goals should be to get humanitarian assistance immediately to the Syrian people who have suffered for so many years, and to capitalize on this historic opportunity to sideline not only Iran but Russia as we help rebuild Syria. I also want to underline that whether it's food insecurity or sexual violence that accompanies war, and whether we're talking about Sudan or Haiti or Afghanistan, Ukraine or Gaza, that it is women who often bear the brunt of these conflicts. They should have a seat at the table when it comes to resolving them. And that's not just a sentiment, it's also backed up by data.
(10:21)
Because we know that when women participate in conflict negotiations, peace is 35% more likely to last at least 15 years. That's why we passed the Women, Peace and Security Act in 2017. It was signed into law by President Trump during his first term, and I hope that in his second term we can build on this effort. It's one of the reasons I'm pleased that we now have three women on the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Duckworth and Senator Rosen. It's the first time since I've been here that there's been three women on this committee, and I'm interested to hear your vision for the State Department's Office of Global Women's Issues and more broadly how the administration will work to empower women and girls on the global stage. As Chairman Risch has said, the list of challenges facing America is very long, and so Senator Rubio, if you're confirmed, I hope we can work together to continue to promote American interests that we have seen around the world, the importance of America's role in the world. Thank you.
Mr. Risch (11:31):
Thank you, Senator Shaheen. Good remarks. Senator Rubio, the floor is going to be yours and I hope you'll introduce your beautiful family to start with and we'll take it from there.
Senator Marco Rubio (11:42):
Well, thank you Chairman Risch, and I want to thank the ranking member as well, Senator Shaheen and thank you Senator Scott for your introduction. And let me just say it's a bit surreal to be on this side of the room, but you all look very distinguished. And I wanted you to know that.
Mr. Risch (12:00):
Yeah, we know.
Senator Marco Rubio (12:05):
[inaudible 00:12:02]. In the 249 year history of our republic, there's only been 71 other Americans who have served in the role and the position that President Trump has now nominated me to occupy. And I want to thank him for his confidence and it's an incredible honor. It is also, as many of you have already pointed out, an extraordinary responsibility. Three of my children, Amanda, Anthony, and Dominick, could not be here with us today or join us here in person, but I am happy that my wife, Jeanette is here and that my daughter Daniella is here with me as well because I think as each of you know, well, it really isn't possible to do our job in the Senate, not to mention the job I've been nominated for without the love and the support of our families. I'm also very pleased that my sisters Barbara and Veronica, my nephew Orlando, are joining me here today.
(12:55)
And to me, it's a reminder that the path that brings me to this moment was paved by those who are not here with us today. By two parents who arrived here on May 27th of 1956 from Cuba, and they had nothing but the dreams of a better life. And because of them, I had the privilege to be born a citizen of the greatest nation in the history of mankind, and to be raised in a safe and stable home by parents who made their children's future the very purpose of their lives. I also want to acknowledge all the blessings that God has bestowed upon me in my life. My faith is critical and something I will lean and rely on heavily in the months that are ahead in a tumultuous world where in my faith we are called to promote the cause of peace and the common good. And that task has gotten harder than it's ever been, and I will rely heavily on my faith and pray for God's blessings that he'll provide me the strength, the wisdom, and the courage to do what is right in these tenuous moments.
(14:08)
At the end of the Second World War, the United States was and the words of the then Secretary of State, tasked with creating an order, a world order, "A free half," in his quote, "Out of chaos without blowing to pieces, without blowing the whole of the world into pieces in the process." And in the decades that followed, that global order served us quite well. Americans incomes rose and communities flourished. Alliances emerged in the Indo-Pacific and Europe that led to the emergence of stability and democracy and prosperity in these regions.
Protesters (14:42):
And you've had forever war ever since. Little [inaudible 00:14:45].
Mr. Risch (15:03):
Back to order.
Senator Marco Rubio (15:04):
All right. Alliances emerged in the Indo-Pacific and in Europe that led to the emergence of stability, democracy, and prosperity, but it also prevented a cataclysmic world war. And ultimately a wall in Berlin came down, and with it an evil empire. Out of the triumphalism of the end of the long Cold War emerged a bipartisan consensus. And this consensus was that we had reached the end of history, that all of the nations of the world would now become members of the Democratic Western-led community, that a foreign policy that served the national interest could now be replaced by one that served the liberal world order, and that all mankind was now destined to abandon national sovereignty and national identity and would instead become one human family and citizens of the world.
(15:50)
This wasn't just a fantasy. We now know it was a dangerous delusion. Here in America and in many of the advanced economies across the world, an almost religious commitment to free and unfettered trade at the expense of our national economy shrunk the middle class, left the working class in crisis, collapsed our industrial capacity and has pushed critical supply chains into the hands of adversaries and of rivals. An irrational zeal for maximum freedom of movement of people has resulted in a historic mass migration crisis here in America, but also around the world. It's one that threatens the stability of societies and of governments. Across the West, governments now censor and even prosecute domestic political opponents. Meanwhile, radical jihadists openly march in the streets and sadly drive vehicles into our people. While America far too often continue to prioritize the global order above our core national interests, other nations continue to act the way countries always have.
Protesters (16:54):
[foreign language 00:16:54]
Mr. Risch (16:54):
Pause
Protesters (16:54):
[foreign language 00:16:59].
Mr. Risch (17:07):
Back to order [inaudible 00:17:08].
Senator Marco Rubio (17:09):
I get bilingual protest, which I think is an entry cool [inaudible 00:17:13]
Mr. Risch (17:13):
As you know, that's a first here for us, at least in recent times.
Senator Marco Rubio (17:17):
All right.
Protesters (17:23):
[inaudible 00:17:19] is a human right. Education is a human right. Sanctions against [inaudible 00:17:26].
Mr. Risch (17:23):
Back to order.
Senator Marco Rubio (17:29):
All right. So while America too often prioritized the global order above our core national interests, other nations continue to act the way nations have always acted and always will, in what they perceive to be their best interest. And instead of folding into the post-Cold War global order, they have manipulated it to serve their interests at the expense of ours. We welcomed the Chinese Communist Party into the global order and they took advantage of all of its benefits, and they ignored all of its obligations and responsibilities. Instead, they have repressed and lied and cheated and hacked and stolen their way into global superpower status. And they have done so at our expense and at the expense of the people of their own country.
(18:17)
In our very own hemisphere, narco-terrorists and dictators and despots take advantage of open borders to drive mass migration, to traffic in women and children, and to flood our communities with deadly fentanyl and violent criminals. In Moscow, in Tehran and Pyongyang dictators, rogue states now sow chaos and instability and align with, and they fund radical terror groups, and then they hide behind their veto power at the United Nations Security Council or the threats of nuclear war. The post-war global order is not just obsolete, it is now a weapon being used against us.
(18:59)
And all this has led to a moment in which we must now confront the single greatest risk of geopolitical instability and of generational global crisis in the lifetime of anyone alive and in this room today. Eight decades later, we are once again called to create a free world out of the chaos. And this will not be easy, and it will be impossible without a strong and a confident America that engages in the world putting our core national interests once again above all else. Just four years ago, I believe we began to see the outlines in the beginnings of what that would look like during President Trump's first term.
(19:40)
American strength was a deterrent to our adversaries, and it gave us leverage in diplomacy. There were no new wars, ISIS was eviscerated, Soleimani was dead. The historic Abraham Accords were born and Americans were safer as a result. Now President Trump returns to office with an unmistakable mandate from the voters. They want a strong America, a strong America engaged in the world, but guided by a clear objective to promote peace abroad and security and prosperity here at home. That is the promise that President Trump was elected to keep. And if I am confirmed, keeping that promise will be the core mission of the United States Department of State. Now tragically, horrifying atrocities and unimaginable human suffering can be found on virtually every continent. And I am certain that today I will be asked about the array of programs and the activities the Department of State carries out to address them.
(20:42)
We are a nation who was founded on the revolutionary truth that all men are created equal, and that our rights come not from man or from government, but from God. And so we will never be indifferent to the suffering of our fellow man. But ultimately, under President Trump, the top priority of the United States Department of State will be the United States. The direction he has given for the conduct of our foreign policy is clear. Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, every policy we pursue must be justified by the answer to one of three questions. Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger, or does it make America more prosperous? Under President Trump the dollars of hard-working American taxpayers will always be spent wisely, and our power will always be yielded prudently and towards what is best for America and Americans before anything and everything else.
(21:43)
Prudence in the conduct of foreign policy is not an abandonment of our values. It's the common sense understanding that while we remain the wealthiest and the most powerful nation on the earth, our wealth has never been unlimited and our power has never been infinite. And placing our core national interest above all else is not isolationism. It is the common sense realization that a foreign policy centered in our national interest is not some outdated relic. Since the emergence of the modern nation state over two centuries ago, countries acting based on what they perceive to be their core national interests, that has been the norm, not the exception.
(22:28)
And for our country, placing the interest of America and Americans above all else has never been more relevant or more necessary than it is right now. For in the end, how can America promote the cause of peace on earth if it is not first safe at home? What good is America to our allies if it is not strong? And how can America help end the suffering of God's children across the world if it is not first prosperous here at home? I thank you and I hope I can earn your support, whether it's because you believe I would do a good job or because you want to get rid of me. Thank you.
Mr. Risch (23:09):
Either way, the result's the same. Thank you, Senator Rubio. I've always been impressed with your view, particularly on a 50,000 foot level of the kind of problems that we face in our lane and national security Lane, foreign relations and intelligence. So appreciate those remarks. We're now going to start around. I'm going to allow 10 minute questions since this is a cabinet level position. That doesn't mean you have to use all 10 minutes, but the 10 minutes are there. And what I'm going to do in this hearing and what I'm going to do in future hearings is, I will call people based on seniority on the committee at the time the gavel goes down. And if you come after that, you'll be put in line after that and we'll go down the list like that. In any event, with that, Senator Rubio, could you talk for a minute about the Russian energy reliance?
(24:07)
I think all of us were impressed when the war started, that the Europeans knew the necessity of cutting the cord with Russia on their reliance on Russian energy, which had developed since the Iron Curtain came down, all of us believing that Russia would behave itself, which turned out to be a very misplaced view. And now with the war carrying on, it's going to end obviously at some point in time. There are voices in Europe saying, "Well, we can go back to using Russian energy." My view is that that's not reasonable and it's not appropriate. And indeed, I think that the fallout from this war is going to go on for generations. Your thoughts on the energy relationship between Europe and Russia in the future?
Senator Marco Rubio (25:02):
Well, I'm reminded, I believe back in 2018 then President Trump on two occasions, once at the United Nations, and I think another time at a NATO conference pointed for example, to Germany's reliance on Russian energy as a real vulnerability. And he was snickered at, I remember he was snickered at by the representatives of Germany at the United Nations. He turned out to be 100% correct. In fact, that that reliance on Russian energy was a major loss of deterrence. Vladimir Putin, among his many calculations, one of the calculations he took in going into Ukraine, was that the Europeans would complain, maybe they'd hit them with a couple of sanctions, they'd write some strongly worded nasty letters about him, but ultimately would not be able to do anything effectively because of how much they depended on Russia. And in some cases continue to depend. I believe France is the third leading payer into Russian energy in the world, and I think a couple of other countries in Europe follow right behind.
(25:57)
So there's still a significant amount of dependence in that regard, and that dependence on Russian energy is a tremendous amount of leverage of Vladimir Putin holds on his neighbors in Europe. Now, there is some good news, I think, for example, I watched with great interest, the German engineering marvel, or they've been able to, I think by the end of this year, after they waive permitting requirements and within nine months we're able to open what is literally a floating LNG terminal to allow and receive exports including from the United States and other places.
(26:31)
So I do think you're seeing movement in Europe now to try to detangle itself from that level of dependence. But it remains a real vulnerability and a tremendous piece of leverage for Putin against his neighbors in the broader world. It's also a reminder, by the way, and I used to be guilty of saying this quite a bit, that the Russian GDP was the size of Italy's, not very large. I think one of the things we learned from this endeavor is that it's not just the size of the GDP, but what it's composed of. And the Russian GDP, while smaller than some other countries, is largely reliant on the production of raw materials, on the energy, on food production, fertilizer, and the like. And these are critical components of national strength and a reminder of how important they are for us here domestically as well.
Mr. Risch (27:19):
Thank you. I appreciate that. I do think too, we ought to acknowledge that the Europeans did a job that was well beyond their expectations, the first winter, as they struggled through, they did really well as far as cutting the cord with Russia being as how hard they were tied to that. Let's talk about AUKUS for a minute. There hasn't been much discussion about AUKUS, well, there hasn't been much discussion about AUKUS really since the thing started. A lot of us have been pressing the administration to gear that up. It has not been forthcoming. I'd like to hear your thoughts on AUKUS, the importance thereof and getting this thing moving as it was intended.
Senator Marco Rubio (28:04):
Well, one of the things we'll have to endeavor to see, obviously there's a tremendous amount of this that relies on the Department of Defense and other entities and government to the extent the Secretary of State and the Department of State is engaged. It's something that I think you're going to find very strong support for in this administration, because it's one of, I think it's almost a blueprint in many ways of how we can create consortium-like partnership with nation states that are allied to us to confront some of these global challenges, be it in the defense realm and the technology realm, in the critical minerals realm, in the sensitive technologies and critical technologies on, for example, artificial intelligence and advances in even quantum computing. This obviously is more defense-related, but it's one example of how we can leverage the power of these partnerships with allies. Two, three countries in some cases broader and others to reach outcomes and objectives such as creating a geopolitical and strategic balance in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond.
(29:00)
So we'll have to look at that and to see what components of whatever impediments exist can be removed by the action of the Department of State. But it also reminds us that in many of these, very few of these global issues are entirely reliant on the Department of State, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense. We have a host of other government agencies, commerce in many cases, who also play a critical role in expediting and going through, for example, some of the lists of technologies that perhaps are not being transferred because they've been deemed as sensitive. But in the case of our strong and close allies, that's the point is, that you want to be able to find yourself in a situation where you can accelerate partnership by making available to key allies, these sensitive technologies that we wouldn't want to see in the hands or developed by an adversary or unaligned country.
Mr. Risch (29:51):
Thank you. I appreciate that. And our view is aligned particularly on the excluded technology list. These are our closest and most trusted allies, and unfortunately, the current administration has really been difficult to work with as far as getting through that excluded technology list. And I hope you'll help expedite that. Let me talk for a minute about the International Criminal Court. Look, as you know, we've got real problems there. The court originally was intended, at least from our point of view, to be a court that focused on international crimes that were committed by people from countries who did not have a robust democracy, nor a robust judicial system that held its own people accountable for crimes.
(30:41)
The court's gone beyond that, obviously. They're not only focusing on people who aren't accountable elsewhere, but they're also focusing on people who come from countries that solve their own problems like the United States of America and like Israel. The most recent obvious thing that flowed from that was the indictment on the same day of Netanyahu plus a Hamas character. Any court that is a court of law has to be able to recognize good from bad. And when you try to indict two people and show some type of moral equivalency in that regard, they're just barking up the wrong tree. And I think unfortunately, we're going to have to rein them up. Your thoughts on that?
Senator Marco Rubio (31:33):
Well, I think the ICC's done tremendous damage to its global credibility. First of all, it is going after a non-member state on the claims that I believe, in fact, I think just in the last 24 hours, the Israeli High Court filed an appeal before the ICC, even though it's not a member state. And I saw some of the filings from the prosecutor, Mr. Khan is involved in that process. And he argues that they have the right to go after non-members for their activities within the confines of member states in this case.
Senator Marco Rubio (32:00):
And I think, first of all, the whole premise of his prosecution goes far beyond the process of it and the precedent that it sets, which is a very dangerous precedent for the United States of America, by the way, because this is a test run. This is a trial run to see, "Can we go after a head of state from a nation that's not a member?" If we can go after them and we can get it done with regards to Israel, they will apply that to the United States at some point. And, in fact, there have been threats to do so in the past, but the premise of the prosecution itself is completely and utterly flawed.
(32:28)
As you said, they went ahead. I think they also went after Sinwar. Well, number one, Sinwar didn't travel around the world. He's not with us any longer. But he didn't travel around. He was at no risk of being apprehended. Second of all, the moral equivalency piece of it was offensive. Let me explain, and I think I don't need to explain to this committee. Hamas carried out an atrocious operation. They sent a bunch of savages into Israel with the express and explicit purpose of targeting civilians. They went into concerts. They went into these music festivals. They knew that there were no soldiers at the music festival. They knew that these were teenagers and young families, but they went into those, into different communities and the kibbutzes and the like, and they deliberately targeted civilians. Deliberately. In fact, they kidnapped the ones they didn't murder, the families who they didn't eviscerate, the people whose skulls they didn't crack open. They kidnapped and, to this day, continue to hold people, the innocents that they took a deliberate operation.
(33:24)
In the case of Israel, responding to that attack has had to go after Hamas. How can you coexist? How can any nation state on the planet coexist side by side with a group of savages like Hamas? They have to defend their national security and their national interest, as I pointed out in my opening statement. And so there is no more… And they didn't target civilians. Now, sadly and unfortunately, and I'm sure we'll discuss it further some of the other questions that'll come up here today, one of the horrible things about war, it's a terrible thing about war and that's why we should try to prevent it at almost every, any cost is that innocent people are caught up in it.
(33:57)
And that's true of every conflict on the planet, but there is a difference between those who in the conduct of armed action deliberately target civilians and those who do as much as they can to avoid civilians being caught up against an enemy that doesn't wear a uniform, against an enemy that hides in tunnels, against an enemy that hides behind women and children and puts them at the forefront and uses them as human shields.
(34:19)
That's who Hamas is. There is no moral equivalency. And I think the ICC, if they don't drop this, will find its credibility globally, badly damaged. And I think the United States should be very concerned because I believe this is a test run for applying it to American service member and American leaders in the future.
Mr. Risch (34:35):
Well said. I couldn't agree with you more. And, certainly, the court has badly damaged its reputation, and it's going to have a long ways to go to recover from that. So, with that, Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen (34:48):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
(34:50)
Senator Rubio, as I said in my opening statement, I hope that this committee can better collaborate to swiftly confirm career foreign service officers. These are patriotic Americans who have served under both Democratic and Republican administrations, and they work to advance US national security interests. Delays in vacant posts hurt America's interest. I know you agree with that because we've had that conversation, but will you commit to working with Chairman Risch and me to prioritize the advancement and confirmation of career State Department officials?
Senator Marco Rubio (35:23):
Well, the answer to that is yes, but I would also point to this fact that I think we're going to begin by prioritizing. We're going to look at what are the key issues in the world. Obviously, every post in the world is important or it shouldn't exist. And then the question is which are the ones we bring to you first? And those are the ones that I think are most critical. So, obviously, I think you'll see our nominees for the deputy posts, which are critically important, all the undersecretaries as well. And what I've endeavored to do as we interview and identify people, and I believe I've met with and interviewed most of the candidates for those top posts, is I want to bring you people that are three things, number one, are aligned to the mission.
(35:55)
I think that's critically important, whether they be foreign service officers. I'm not talking about political alignment. I'm talking about alignment with the mission that we've outlined for American foreign policy, which is one of the things that I think has hurt the State Department under numerous administrations as, sometimes, the mission or what is the core mission of the department has not been well-defined. That's on us, and it's our obligation to define that, so, number one, aligned to the mission. Number two, the capability to do the job.
(36:22)
And I can tell you now that my entire service on this committee, which spans 14 years, we always had fellows from the Department of State, I believe all of whom are still in the service of our country, and I intend, because I know them and I've worked with them, to utilize their skill sets in the department. And, in fact, there are couple who we hope will be returning home soon from foreign postings to work with us at the State Department, closer to my office. But the point is that we want to have people that are highly capable, both those who we bring from what they call political appointees, but also those that are promoted from within the foreign service, and then, the third, are people that we can get through the committee because time is of the essence.
(37:03)
Now, you may not agree with all their views, whether they be foreign service officers or whether they be political, but I think it's important. And we're not going to exclude someone just because we think that maybe they're going to have a rougher confirmation process than someone else, but I do think it's important that we have people in these positions as quickly as possible. And, having served for 14 years on that side of this room, I understand that one of the things we can do to help expedite that is to bring you people that will do a good job, who are qualified for the job or mission aligned, but also that can move through this process quickly enough so that they can be at post and begin to fulfill their duties. If I have to wait a year to get them in place, well, I'm not sure on some of these issues we face today, we have a year to wait.
Senator Shaheen (37:45):
I certainly agree with that, and I appreciate your focus on mission and qualifications because I think the committee will be looking closely at that. I want to go now to NATO because, in 2023, Congress overwhelmingly passed the bipartisan Kaine-Rubio Provision prohibiting any president from withdrawing the United States from NATO without Senate approval or an act of Congress. Will you commit to adhering to Senate approval or an act of Congress as required under that law that you authored if President Trump attempts to withdraw the US from NATO?
Senator Marco Rubio (38:20):
Well, first, let me say that President Trump has appointed an ambassador nominee for NATO, which clearly indicates his role to engage in that. Second is the law is what it is. Obviously, as you've mentioned, I was a co-sponsor of the law, and so it's tough to say I'm not in support of a law that I hope to pass, and that I think it's an important role for Congress to play because, frankly, it's not just about the withdrawal piece of it, it's the contributions we make towards the power of the purse still resides with the Congress. Now, maybe as, if confirmed, moving towards the executive branch, I'll forget that lesson a little bit. I hope not. But, ultimately, I still recognize and understand that the power of the purse is with Congress, and it's an incredibly important power. Let me point on NATO one thing. I think there's a misunderstanding about it. The NATO alliance is a very important alliance. I believe that. I believe alliances can be and has been very useful. Without the NATO alliance, there is no end to the Cold War. In fact, without the NATO alliance, it's quite possible that much of what today or at the time we know as Europe would have fallen victim to aggression.
(39:22)
But what's important for the United States is not just to have defense allies. It's to have capable defense allies, allies who are capable of defending their region. And I think there is a question to be asked. I'm not stating a public policy position. I'm stating a question to be asked, and that is, "Should the role of the United States and NATO in the 21st century be the primary defense role or as a backstop to aggression, with countries in the region assuming more of that responsibility by contributing more?"
(39:48)
Now, look, in fairness, and I think the further east you move in Europe, the more money you see spent on the military as a percentage of GDP, but I think there's been broad acknowledgement across Europe and across multiple administrations, both Republican and Democrat, that our NATO partners, these are rich, advanced economies, need to contribute more to their own defense and ultimately to the NATO partnership as well. And that's a demand that's been made by multiple presidents across the years. And the fact that that is true has been revealed by what's happened with Ukraine.
(40:19)
Look at the ramp up in defense spending and the industrial capacity of multiple countries in Europe as a result of an armed conflict. Imagine if that capacity had been there before, it quite possibly might have had a deterrent effect as well. So I think it's important that we have alliances, but we have to have alliances with strong and capable partners and not those who have viewed the US and the NATO defense agreement as an excuse to spend less on defense and more on some domestic needs. We have domestic needs, too. These advanced rich countries in Western Europe have enormous safety net programs that they fund. We have domestic needs as well. But they've been able to divert or grow those programs because they don't have to spend as much on defense as we do as a percentage of our overall economy. And that dynamic needs to change. And I expect that President Trump will continue to forcefully make that point.
Senator Shaheen (41:08):
And, as you know, this committee and the Senate NATO Observer Group, which I co-chair, has made that point repeatedly. And we are now up to 23 of the 32 NATO nations who are meeting their 2% of GDP. And we have a number of them who are going beyond that, and it's appropriate. And I think the sentiment on this committee would be to agree with what you're saying. But to ensure that we continue to have a strong NATO I think will be important not only to European security, but, most important, to our own security.
(41:41)
I appreciate… We talked about Ukraine, and I appreciate your past leadership and support in Ukraine's fight for sovereignty. More recently, you voted against supplemental funding for Ukraine and against forgiving loans for Ukraine in November, loans that would be critical to Ukraine's economic stability. So can you talk about how your views on Ukraine have developed and where you are now and what you think is important for us to do in order to ensure that there is the strongest possible negotiating position if Ukraine and Russia do get to the negotiating table?
Senator Marco Rubio (42:16):
Sure. First, let me point out, and although I'll still speak to my view of the process, that I voted against that bill because I said I would not vote for a bill unless it addressed the crisis at our southern border as part of the overall arrangement. That was not done, and so I voted against it. That said, here's my view of a situation. Once this war became what we now know it is, and that is a war of attrition, a stalemate, a protracted conflict, the dynamic on that situation has changed. It has. And I believe, and I think that this echoes with the president… Let me first echo the president's words and what he said in an interview about a year ago. He was asked about the war in Ukraine. He said, "I want the dying to stop. I want people to stop dying. I want the killing to stop." And, frankly, I don't know how anyone could say they don't.
(42:59)
The destruction that Ukraine is undergoing is extraordinary. It's going to take a generation to rebuild it. Millions of Ukrainians no longer live in Ukraine. And the disruption… That means how many of them are going to come back, and what are they going to come back to? Even as I speak to you now, the Ukrainian infrastructure and their energy infrastructure is being decimated in ways that are going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild over the next decades. So this is an important conflict. And I think it should be the official position of the United States, that this war should be brought to an end. And the question becomes, " What role can we play?" And I think the first is by making that abundantly clear.
(43:33)
And my differences with the Biden administration throughout this process is that they never clearly delineated what the end goal of the conflict was. What exactly were we funding? What exactly were we putting money towards? And, in many occasions, it sounded like however much it takes for however long it takes. That is not a realistic or prudent position. The truth of the matter is that, in this conflict, there's no way Russia takes all of Ukraine. The Ukrainians are too brave and fight too hard, and the country is too big. That's not going to happen. It's also unrealistic to believe that somehow a nation the size of Ukraine, no matter how incompetent and no matter how much damage the Russian Federation has suffered as a result of this invasion, there's no way Ukraine is also going to push these people all the way back to where they were on the eve of the invasion just given the size dynamic.
(44:20)
I saw a quote recently, and I wish I could attribute to who it was, but the quote was, and I think it was very wise where they said, "The problem that Ukraine is facing is not that they're running out of money. It's that they're running out of Ukrainians." There's a size differential here that's important. Now, what Vladimir Putin has done is unacceptable. There's no doubt about it, but this war has to end. And I think it should be the official policy of the United States that we want to see it end.
(44:41)
Now, what that master plan looks like is going to… It's going to be hard work. This is not going to be an easy endeavor, but it's going to require bold diplomacy. And my hope is that it could begin with some ceasefire. In order to achieve objectives like the one that needs to occur in Ukraine, it is important for everyone to be realistic. There will have to be concessions made by the Russian Federation, but also by the Ukrainians, and the United States lends itself there. It's also important that there be some balance on both sides. In essence, it will be difficult to achieve this objective of a ceasefire and ultimately a peace settlement unless both sides have leverage.
(45:18)
Putin's goal now is to have maximum leverage so that he can basically impose neutrality on Ukraine, retrofit and come back and do this again in four or five years. And that's not an outcome I think any of us would favor. By the same token, I think it's important that the Ukrainians have leverage, but they also will have to make concessions to reach this agreement. It's going to be very difficult. This will not be easy. Conflicts of this nature that have historical underpinnings to it are going to require a lot of hard diplomacy and tough work, but that's something that needs to happen. This conflict needs to end.
Senator Shaheen (45:49):
Well, I'm out of time, but I appreciate your last comment about the importance of leverage, and it's important for the United States to do what we can to help provide that leverage to Ukraine so that they can be in the best negotiating position possible with Russia. Thank you very much.
Mr. Risch (46:06):
Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
(46:07)
Senator Ricketts?
Mr. Ricketts (46:08):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
(46:10)
Well, Senator Rubio, congratulations on your nomination to this very, very difficult job. I want to thank you for your previous service in the US Senate and your willingness to take on this job should you be confirmed. And I also want to thank your family as well for their support for you to be able to be a US senator and to apply for this job as Secretary of State. And I want also to express my gratitude to all the members of the State Department. We have a lot of people who choose to serve our country overseas, spend time away from their friends and family, and I can't think of a more noble calling. You're taking over a department that's very, very important to us.
(46:50)
On Sunday, Jake Sullivan, President Biden's national security advisor, said, quote, the American people are safer, and the country is better off than we were four years ago. Let me repeat, "The American people are safer, and the country is better off than four years ago."
(47:08)
I don't know who believes that? I don't believe that. I think the election results demonstrate that the vast majority of Americans don't believe that. We don't believe it at home. Inflation has hurt average Americans' pocketbooks. Open-border policies have put Americans at risk. And I don't believe we see it overseas. In fact, Senator Rubio, should you be confirmed, you're being handed a job at a time when this country is in the most danger we've been in since World War II. It's a very dangerous time in the world, and your opening remarks demonstrate that you know that. We're not better off and we're not safer. President Biden started this with a disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. That projected weakness and an incomprehension of what it means to have a policy of deterrence. Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine and started the largest war in Europe since World War II after that withdrawal. I believe it was because he saw weakness in this Biden administration. It's been the president's fear of helping Ukraine that has contributed to putting them in the untenable position they are today, by slow rolling the weapons that Ukraine needs to be able to defend themselves. His incomprehensible and incoherent policy has caused him to handcuff American liquid natural gas exports while delaying tough sanctions on the Russian oil-and-gas industry which, as you know, is the lifeblood of the Russian war machine. The Middle East is equally disastrous. Instead of enforcing sanctions on Iran, Biden naively tried to resurrect the Iran nuclear deal, enabling the regime to generate a hundred billion dollars in oil revenue. And I want to point out that, during the Trump administration, because of sanctions, Iran's foreign reserves fell from $122 billion to less than $14 billion. That hampered their ability to be able to fund terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis.
(49:33)
What the Biden administration has done has allowed the Iranian regime to enrich enough weapons-grade uranium to be a week or two away from having a nuclear weapon. And, since October 7th, President Biden has not supported Israel in the way he's needed. And because of the, as previously mentioned, money that he's allowed the Iranians to have that has funded the terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, our allies like Israel have been attacked, and we've been attacked directly. Thankfully, Israel's had the courage to stand up to these terrorists and take matters into its own hand, and it's led to the decimation of Hamas and Hezbollah. But no amount of revisionist history can change the fact that this was despite the lack of support from the Biden administration, not because of the support from the Biden administration.
(50:25)
And, of course, let's not forget North Korea and how dangerous they have become and the fact that we are now seeing North Korean troops in Europe, a thought four years ago that was unthought by anybody. And, of course, one of the most concerning things is Biden's weakness has emboldened the greatest adversary we have on the face of the earth right now, which is the People's Republic of China. The People's Republic of China is the head of the stake of this axis of dictators that are challenging the United States today. They're challenging our freedom, our security and the very way of life we have. Beijing has had a direct hand in each of the problems I just mentioned. That's why addressing any one of them cannot be done without making sure that we are thinking about how we are deterring the People's Republic of China.
(51:21)
When everything is a priority, nothing's a priority. And, Senator Rubio, your top priority must be the People's Republic of China. Since the election in November, so this is all within the last two months, the PRC has hacked our Treasury Department, including CFIUS, continuing what has been described as the worst telecom hack in US history, sabotaged important undersea communication cables in Asia and Europe, deployed ships to the South China Sea to harass our allies like the Philippines in their own territorial waters, simulated naval-backed blockade of the Japanese islands for the first time, conducted the largest naval drills in decades targeting Taiwan and the broader Western Pacific, revealed new mobile piers suitable for a Taiwan invasion, unveiled advanced aircraft and launched the world's largest amphibious warship. And they've allowed Iran to draw down and ship nearly 3 million barrels of oil from a storage site in China.
(52:19)
It's obvious that Xi Jinping is positioning his chess pieces in preparation for war. He's directed his military to be prepared to take Taiwan by 2027. And, folks, that's only two years away. Now, it's true that that does not mean that he will invade in 2027. And it's also true that it's not predetermined, but it should be very concerning to all of us that he's given his military that direction because, time and time again, dictators tell people what they're going to do and then they go out and try and do it. The only thing that dictators respond to is force, strength, peace through strength. This was something Ronald Reagan understood a long time ago. And it's what we have to get back to in the United States. Xi Jinping is bound to be the world-dominating power by 2049. We should take him at his word. That's what he believes he is going to try and do. It's time for us to go on the offensive and abandon illusions about what kind of adversary we're face.
(53:15)
This is not a managed competition. This is a competition. We must win. It will take more than an all-of-government approach. It will take an all-of-society approach to be able to win this. As our lead diplomat, Senator Rubio, you are in a position to set the tone, and that's why I can't think of a better pick to be the Secretary of State than you. So, first of all, do you agree that the PRC is the biggest threat that we face as the United States?
Senator Marco Rubio (53:50):
The Communist Party of China leads the PRC, is the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted. They have elements that the Soviet Union never possessed. They are a technological adversary and competitor, an industrial competitor, an economic competitor, a geopolitical competitor, a scientific competitor now in every realm. It's an extraordinary challenge. It's one that I believe will define the 21st century. When they write the book about the 21st century, there's going to be some chapters in there about Putin, there's going to be some chapters in there about some of these other places, but the bulk of that book about the 21st century will be not just about China, but about the relationship between China and the United States and what direction it went.
(54:33)
And I think you're alluding to it in your statement. I know you may have another question. I don't want to eat up all your time, but I do want to say this. The Chinese believe that the United States are a great power in an inevitable decline and that they are in an inevitable rise. Now, they going to be. They're already are. They're going to be a rich and powerful country, and we're going to have to deal with them.
(54:49)
The danger is that, because of our own actions in many cases, a dangerous imbalance is built up in that relationship. We allowed them for years to pretend that there were some developing countries, so we should allow them to continue to cheat on trade and commerce, we should allow them to continue to expand. They lied about not militarizing and populating island chains in the South China Sea and the like, that we allowed them for years before we got serious about it to conduct grotesque human rights violations against Uyghur Muslims as an example, one of the most horrifying things happening on the planet. And, for years, no one talked about it which, by the way, not just has a human rights component to it, it allows them to use slave labor to produce goods at the expense of the rest of the world. Talk about not just a horrific humanitarian crisis, but an unfair trade practice as well.
(55:36)
We've allowed them to get away with things. And, frankly, the Chinese did what any country in the world would do given these opportunities. They took advantage of it. And so I think now we're dealing with the ramifications of it. I agree a hundred percent what you said, but I remind you, and I remind everyone, I guess, I want to make this point, that much of what we need to do to confront China is here at home. It's not just abroad. It's also here at home. We have to rebuild our domestic industrial capacity, and we have to make sure that the United States is not reliant on any single other nation for any of our critical supply chains.
Mr. Ricketts (56:06):
And, with four seconds left, how are you going to explain that to your average American that we need this all-society approach and, to your point exactly, that it needs to begin here at home so that people from my State of Nebraska will understand and get on board?
Senator Marco Rubio (56:21):
If we stay on the road we're on right now, in less than 10 years, virtually everything that matters to us in life will depend on whether China will allow us to have it or not. Everything from the blood pressure medicine we take to what movies we get to watch and everything in between, we will depend on China for it. They have come to dominate the critical mineral industry supplies throughout the world. Everywhere in the world, they've now established critical mineral rights. Even those who want to see more electric cars, no matter where you make them, those batteries are almost entirely dependent on the ability of the Chinese and the willingness of the Chinese Communist Party to produce it and export it to you. So, if we don't change course, we are going to live in a world where much of what matters to us on a daily basis, from our security to our health, will be dependent on whether the Chinese allow us to have it or not. That's an unacceptable outcome.
Mr. Ricketts (57:09):
Thank you, Senator Rubio.
Mr. Risch (57:14):
Next up is Senator Merkley.
Mr. Merkley (57:17):
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Senator Rubio. And I've enjoyed working with you on the Congressional Executive Commission on China which engages in many issues related to their treatment of folks, from the Tibetans to the Uyghurs, to their position regarding Hong Kong and Taiwan.
(57:36)
But let's talk about Taiwan. I had the chance to go to Taiwan in, well, the year 2000. It was the second presidential election there, and it was the first one where people were becoming convinced that they actually might be able to hold a democracy. I believe they've earned the right to have a voice in international affairs, and I also believe that they're at a great risk right now with mainland China Xi's plan to be aggressive militarily towards them as my colleague, Senator Ricketts, just noted. Will you support, in your role as Secretary of State, Taiwan's, right to have a voice in international affairs, participate in international forums? And will you support the porcupine strategy providing that we will supply them with defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability?
(58:32)
By the way, that phrase is from the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. It's in our current law.
Senator Marco Rubio (58:38):
Yeah. Let me just point out that, on the Taiwan Relation Act, and I believe that, the year 2016, I was the lead Republican sponsor in reauthorizing and reinvigorating it. I think that the multiple or consecutive presidential administrations of both parties have made clear that the policy of the United States with Taiwan is encapsulated not just in the Taiwan Relations Act, but in the Six Assurances that multiple administrations, including the Trump administration and, now, the Biden administration, have made clear are our policies.
(59:05)
With regards to your second point about international forums, ASEAN is a great example of one in which that's being tested. Last year, at their conference, the Chinese were able to prevent participation by the Taiwan… any mention of Taiwan in the memorandum. And then, this year, they're working very hard to make sure that no one associated with Taiwan is anywhere near it. So this just one more example of how they're being excluded.
(59:33)
I would also point to the Western Hemisphere. I know that sounds like half a world away, but you understand this issue. The majority of nations on earth that continue to recognize and have relations with Taiwan, the vast bulk of them or the plurality, are within the Western Hemisphere. They have undertaken a very aggressive action in just the last seven, eight years to get these countries to flip. They got Panama to flip, and they got Panama to convince the Dominican Republic to flip. They've targeted multiple other nations, and Nicaragua most recently, to flip. So I think that's an important thing for us to keep in mind and make a priority. And I also think it's important to recognize allies in the region like Paraguay that have not flipped and others who have stayed strong in that regard.
(01:00:11)
On the porcupine strategy, because I know it may sound weird to people, if anyone's watching this, I know what the ratings are, but hopefully not high. But let me just say that, the porcupine strategy, what it really means is you want to make the cost of invading Taiwan higher than the benefit. We want to discourage that by the Chinese believing that, yes, could they ultimately win an invasion of Taiwan, but the price would be too high to pay. It's basically deterrence. And I think that's critical not just to defending Taiwan, to preventing a cataclysmic military intervention in the Indo-Pacific. And that's what it would be.
(01:00:49)
And I would make one more point. And, again, I don't mean to want to be alarmist about it, but if you listen to Xi Jinping, and it's important when you listen to him, and I say, listen, read, don't read the English translation that they put out because the English translation is never right. You have to read the real translation on what they actually said in their native tongue. What they're basically saying is that this is a foundational and definitional issue for Xi Jinping personally. And, as a result, I think we need to wrap our head around the fact that, unless something dramatic changes like an equilibrium where they conclude that the costs of intervening in Taiwan are too high, we're going to have to deal with this before the end of this decade.
Mr. Merkley (01:01:30):
And so strongly support for the porcupine strategy. Thank you. And I know people in Taiwan-
Senator Marco Rubio (01:01:37):
I just don't like saying porcupine, but yes.
Mr. Merkley (01:01:40):
When I went to Taiwan in November and met with the president and other leaders, they are extremely nervous right now. And part of the reason they're nervous is they're concerned about how things play out in Ukraine as possibly creating an incentive for China. And I take your point about the current stalemate and the fact that there is a range of objectives that are out of reach for other side, but I do feel like our partnership with NATO and our continued supply of war material that enable Ukrainians to keep fighting, until that resolution is done, is extremely important because, if Ukraine collapses, it will say a lot to China about whether we will stay the course in assisting Taiwan, not to mention it will be a catastrophe for democracy and a catastrophe for the Ukrainians. I don't know if you share that view.
Senator Marco Rubio (01:02:39):
Well, I think, first of all, our goal, as President Trump has stated, is he wants the dying to stop. He wants the killing to stop. So it's very difficult to reach an accord or an agreement that begins with the ceasefire and ends with a peace agreement unless both sides have some leverage. Now, there is some leverage that exists beyond military capabilities as well. We have a significant number of sanctions on the Russian Federation, and they continue to grow and expand. And other nations do as well, and that will have to be part of this conversation in terms of bringing about a peaceful resolution. And then there's the question of the long-term security and stability of Ukraine beyond the… Even if the conflict were to end, there needs to be the capability of Ukraine to defend itself. And it's a point that I made back as far as 2014 when the United States under the Obama administration chose not to provide weapon capabilities. And I think we lost the turn during that period.
Mr. Merkley (01:03:33):
Thank you. I'm going to keep rolling here for a few other questions. One of the things China is doing is deeply engaged in transnational repression, which means threatening people here in the United States that they will disappear or kill or harm their family members back in China if they exercise their free rights here in our country. And, also, they're seeking to repatriate Uyghur who have escaped China. And right now there are 40 Uyghur that are in
Mr. Merkley (01:04:00):
In Thailand, and Thailand is on the verge of repatriating them back to China. Will you lobby for Thailand to not send these Uighurs back to the horror they will face if they returned?
Senator Marco Rubio (01:04:17):
Yes, and the good news is that Thailand is actually a very strong US partner, strong historical ally as well. And so that is an area where I think diplomacy could really achieve results because of how important that relationship and how close it is. I think it's also one more opportunity for us to remind the world of what exactly we're talking about here. This is not some obscure issue. These are people who are basically being rounded up because of their ethnicity and religion, and they're being put into camps. They're being put into what they call reeducation centers. They're being stripped of their identity, their children's names are being changed. It's one of the most horrifying things that's ever happened and they're being put into forced labor, literally slave labor.
Mr. Merkley (01:04:56):
And we'll say our work together on the Forced Labor Prevention Act. Uighur Forced Labor was tremendous. Thank you for championing that. I'm encouraging other nations, including Canada, Mexico, and Europe to follow the rebuttable presumption strategy we put into that bill. Because right now if our slave labor products or China's slave labor products are rejected here, they're shipped to Canada and we need to expand on that.
(01:05:22)
I want to turn to another point. Our companies face in China often the requirement for partnerships or location or what products they can produce or the theft of their intellectual property. Meanwhile, we're helping their economy by being a major supplier of fossil gas, LNG to China. Should we be strengthening the Chinese economy by sending them LNG?
Senator Marco Rubio (01:05:49):
I think that is a good point to raise in that regard because I will tell you that is one of the things that's going to have to be discussed in the broader relationship with China. And that is it is one of the things we actually export to China. They import a lot this way. One of the few things that we export is in great capacity is these long-term contracts that are tied up either directly to China or through third countries. Because some of this obviously is exported to a third country who in turn sends it to China either as a direct sale or as a byproduct.
(01:06:17)
So I think that has to be on the table as a number of other measures that we have in leverage as we engage the Chinese in this geopolitical perspective. I would go further and point out that the Chinese also have, I believe, the world's largest surplus refining capacity. They've invested very heavily in that as well, and that's one more area where I think our energy policy will be critical and bringing some geopolitical stability to our relationship with them. I know you sponsored a bill to cut off the export but-
Mr. Merkley (01:06:42):
Thank you. I have one minute left. I've focused on China, but I want to turn to humanitarian issues. I, by the way, fully supported Israel's ability to respond to Hamas, but I am very concerned about how it has played out in terms of the massive humanitarian conditions in Gaza. Will you help lead the world in responding to those humanitarian conditions? And there is a proposal for a broad regional agreement that would provide security to Israel peace with all their Arab neighbors building on the Abraham Accords, that in return would create a framework to have a concrete steps towards a Palestinian state. I believe that's our best bet to break the cycle of hate and war that we've been trapped in my entire lifetime. How will you pursue breaking this cycle of hate and war? And will you support humanitarian support to Gaza?
Senator Marco Rubio (01:07:40):
So my first point is I'm hopeful. And again, I've been here so I don't know of any news has emerged in our time during this hearing, but I am hopeful that there is an agreement in place that will bring hostages back immediately and in exchange and in a three-phase plan that Secretary Blinken sort of has outlined over the last 24 hours. And that credit to both the Biden administration and the Trump transition work side-by-side on helping this become about, and I hope that comes about. And part of that phrase, part of that deal, as I understand it is it, has this very tenuous but important six-week transitional period where it's going to require international cooperation to bring some level of stability and administration. And assuming it works, that could serve as a foundation to build upon. I would also point to one more thing. And that is we don't know yet for sure, but there are opportunities available now in the Middle East that did not exist 90 days ago.
(01:08:34)
Whether it's what's happened in Lebanon, whether it's what's happened in Syria, whether it's what hopefully will happen with the ceasefire and the release of hostages after horrifying detention and unjustifiable actions by Hamas, whether it's any of these few things are all in combination. There are now factors at play in the Middle East that I think we can build upon and may open the door to extraordinary and historic opportunities, not just to provide for Israel's security but ultimately begin to confront some of these other factors. But these things again are going to be hard work and they'll require us to take advantage of those opportunities that they exist.
Mr. Merkley (01:09:08):
Thank you.
Mr. Risch (01:09:11):
Senator McCormick.
Speaker 1 (01:09:14):
Great. Senator Rubio, good to see you again. I'm looking forward to working with you closely on many of the issues we're going to discuss today. As a senator, you've been a strong voice for American leadership and I'm really confident you'll be a strong Secretary of State on behalf of President Trump and the American people for advancing America's interest. I believe you're the right man for the job.
(01:09:32)
When we met privately, we talked about a range of topics from China to Israel to the fate of the hostages in Gaza to energy policy. We also talked about something that hits home here in Pennsylvania for my constituents, which is the fate of Marc Fogel. As you and I discussed, Marc has been imprisoned by the Russians since 2021. I've had a chance to meet with his mom. 95 year old, Malphine. She was at the Butler rally with myself and President Trump in the front row when he was shot. We need to bring him home.
(01:10:04)
It took far too long for the State Department to designate Marc as wrongfully detained by the Russian government, and was really a gut punch to many of us in Pennsylvania that Marc wasn't included in the swap last year. So Senator, will you commit to working with me and others in our delegation to make Marc's return home a high priority?
Senator Marco Rubio (01:10:25):
Absolutely. And in fact I've been involved already. I've met with those families as well. We've had conversations about this. And there are two things I'd point to. Number one, this is a ridiculous case. I mean this is an American that clearly there was an order given at some level that if you see an American and you have anything you can charge them with, let's charge them and let's collect these because we can trade them in the future for something. There's a global market for this now. And it's one of the challenges of the 21st century. There is now an active global market for detaining Americans wrongfully in Venezuela, in Russia, in China or somewhere else, Iran and then using to trade for something they want in the future. And so I think there needs to be greater awareness put out about that reality.
(01:11:03)
Although people are still going to travel and Americans are still free, people that have the ability to travel, this is a real risk. In this particular case, this has nothing to do with politics. No one can claim nor do they that he's a spy or that he's involved in a national security threat. And so this is a case that has to be elevated and hopefully one that can be done through strong private diplomacy at a minimum is a goodwill gesture. Because if they're not willing to do this, then not to mention the broader challenges posed to us by what Putin is doing in Ukraine, then I think the chances of improvement in U.S.-Russian relations are impossible. But not that this would solve that problem, but it is at a minimum the kind of thing you would hope to see if anyone is serious about improving relations, especially if we can get the situation in Ukraine to a peaceful standing and I hope that this case will be one that we can reach a good result on.
Speaker 1 (01:11:58):
Good. Thank you. On the sad topic of hostages, as you know Dean and I, my wife live in Squirrel Hill, in Pittsburgh. We've been part of a meeting with hostages in Israel and in the United States as recently as last week, Noa Argamani and Ronan and on and Nutra who lost their son. Sadly Omar recently came to visit. And President Trump said recently all hell will be to pay if the hostages aren't released. If confirmed, what emphasis would you put on releasing those hostages in Gaza? Do you agree that a permanent ceasefire in Gaza absolutely must include the release of those hostages?
Senator Marco Rubio (01:12:40):
Well, it must include it because if it doesn't, there won't be a ceasefire for long. I mean the Israeli commitment to bringing back their civilians. That's what these are. These are civilians, these are people, these are innocent people who were targeted and have been held in horrifying conditions. The health and well-being, of which many of them we still don't know, but we believe there's substantial number that are going to be released as part of this first tranche. And that's an important point as well in regards to this agreement that has now been publicly reported on.
(01:13:09)
It's not everyone. I think there's a first tranche of women, children and people over a certain age and then a second tranche of releases of males that are of military age who they claim are all combatants even though they are not, they just happen to be of a certain age. But without the hostage situation resolved, the situation will not be resolved. It is the linchpin of what's happened now. Hamas has been severely degraded, but these people, that include a number of American citizens, need to be home as soon as possible. And that will remain a priority in any engagement that we're involved in with regards to not just a ceasefire but some permanent peace process moving forward.
Speaker 1 (01:13:46):
Very good, thank you. Since October 7th, there's been a disturbing rise in anti-Semitism pro-terrorist violence in our cities on college campuses. You and I had the opportunity to write an op-ed together. And in that op-ed we called on foreign nationals who support Hamas or other terrorist organizations to lose their visas and to be sent back to their home countries. As Secretary of State, of course you'll be responsible for overseeing the issuance of visas. How will you enforce our laws to ensure that we remove supporters of terrorist groups from our country?
Senator Marco Rubio (01:14:23):
Listen, my view, and this is one of common sense. If you apply for a visa to come into the United States and in the process of being looked at, it comes to light that you're a supporter of Hamas, we wouldn't let you in. If we knew you were a supporter of Hamas, we would not give you a visa. So now that you got the visa and you're inside the US and now we realize you're a supporter of Hamas, we should remove your visa. If you could not come in because you're a supporter of Hamas, you should not be able to stay on a visa if you're a supporter of Hamas. That's how I view it. And I think that's just an issue of common sense. And we intend to be very forceful about that.
Speaker 1 (01:14:58):
Good. Thank you. Fentanyl is killing 4,000 Pennsylvanians each year. Over 200 Americans a day. President Trump campaigned on this throughout the country and in Pennsylvania, as did I, on "We have to stop that flow of fentanyl." And of course, violent criminal groups in Mexico, including the Jalisco and Sinaloa cartels terrors are communities here at home with this deadly fentanyl and the Mexican people with endless violence. As secretary, will you initiate the process to designate these groups, these cartels as foreign terrorist organizations? And if so, can you describe for the American people, the national security tools that that unlocks, that designation unlocks to grade the cartels?
Senator Marco Rubio (01:15:44):
Well, first of all, the designation of a designated terrorist, foreign terrorist organization brings with it a host of things. It makes it illegal to cooperate or work with them in any way or to be supportive of their endeavors. It cuts off access to all sorts of banking opportunities and the like around the world where it's important to move money around. Now, that said, it's probably an imperfect tool when it comes to these groups that you're discussing. Because these are sophisticated criminal enterprises. They are terrorizing the United States, but they're sophisticated criminal enterprises and they operate in the trafficking of people, drugs and migrants, to horrifying effect.
(01:16:20)
Sadly, they also have basically operational control over huge swaths of the border regions between Mexico and the United States. That's just an unfortunate fact, and it's one we're going to have to confront with our partners in Mexico. Is that these sophisticated transnational terroristic organizations have operational and functional control over huge swaths of areas that border the United States of America. And so whether that is the tool that we use, which is maybe the appropriate one or some new one that we come up with, it is important for us not just to go after these groups, but to identify them and call them for what they are. And that is terroristic in their nature. Because they are terrorizing America with mass migration and with the flow of drugs.
Speaker 1 (01:17:00):
What about military force?
Senator Marco Rubio (01:17:02):
Well, that's an option the president has at his disposal. Obviously it's not one that is in the purview of the Department of State. I think President Trump is someone that never publicly discusses his options and leaves himself the flexibility to act. I think there's a lot we can and we'll continue to do in close partnership with our allies in Mexico. I think there's more they can do as well to confront this challenge. And from the Department of State's perspective, my preference would be that we can work with the Mexicans on this issue cooperatively. Because it is impacting their nation as much as ours.
(01:17:35)
These sophisticated groups, these criminal organizations don't simply threaten America. They threaten the Mexican political process. In the last election, you had multiple presidential candidates and other candidates to other offices assassinated. You've had journalists targeted and assassinated for speaking out against these groups. So these groups don't simply terrorize the United States. They're terrorizing, and in some ways, undermining the Mexican government and Mexican sovereignty and the health and well-being of the Mexican people. And so my hope in a perfect world is that we could work in close collaboration with Mexican authorities to take these groups out.
Speaker 1 (01:18:11):
Very good. Thank you. Final question. The Chinese Communist Party, as you said in your testimony, has waged a deliberate campaign of economic warfare against the United States and our allies. We need to restore, as President Trump has said, reciprocity in that economic relationship and impose cost on Beijing for hurting American workers. How can the United States counter that campaign? How do you think about the economic tools that the administration can apply to cut off the flow of American capital and technology that supports China's geopolitical ambitions?
Senator Marco Rubio (01:18:46):
Well, and again, much of what it comes to trade and so forth in this administration will be handled through the Department of Commerce. But we'll certainly have an economic undersecretary and a whole entire bureaus that will be dedicated to what we can contribute to that endeavor. So I'll just share my views broadly on it. Number one, I think it would make common sense to everybody that if by and large a relationship in which their companies can do whatever they want here, but we can't do it there, it's a pretty unfair relationship. And it's something we've allowed in the past for allied countries who were small, poor and developing. That cannot continue in my view, and I think that's the president's view.
(01:19:18)
The second is there's much that needs to be done with regards here domestically. I think we once again as a nation, this is not a department of state issue, but once again as a nation need to prioritize the importance of our industrial capacity and our access to supply chains domestically, especially in key and critical industries. Maybe not every industry but some key industries. We should either have a domestic capacity or an allied capacity that's reliable and can't be used against us in a moment of conflict as leverage.
(01:19:45)
The third point I would make is we need to be actively engaged in the world. As an example, the Chinese own significant mineral rights and mining rights in Argentina, in Chile, throughout Africa. It's one of the reasons why the polar region and the Arctic region has become so critical as well in that regard. Is because they are scooping up all over the world, these mineral rights, port rights, et cetera, that place us at an enormous disadvantage in the long term. And it's what I said in that short answer, is if this trend continues, we are going to wind up living in a world where much of what we depend on for our security, our health, our safety, and our economic prosperity, will largely dependent on whether the Chinese allow us to have it or not. And that cannot be a world that we leave for our children.
Speaker 1 (01:20:27):
Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Risch (01:20:30):
Senator Coons.
Speaker 2 (01:20:31):
Sarah. Thank you Senator Rubio, I look forward to this hearing and to our service together. Welcome to the other side of the dais, and welcome to your wife Jeanette, your children, your family. Thank you for your service. I have three questions broadly of nominees. Do they have the qualifications to appropriately serve? Do they have a policy alignment with our core national interests? And do they have the integrity and character to serve? We may have policy disagreements, but we've had multiple areas of convergence. Over the time we've served here in the Senate together, I had my folks go back and look, we've cosponsored nearly 60 bills together, so I hope we can continue to find constructive ways to partner.
(01:21:10)
I have a number of questions to get through, so I'll try to move briskly. With regards to special envoys, President-elect Trump has appointed a series of special envoys focused on a wide range of areas, and some of these I think can genuinely complement, not undermine or distract from State Department's core efforts.
(01:21:29)
The special Envoy for Hostage Affairs, for example, Adam Bowler, I look forward to working with. As Senator McCormick asked about, there's a number of key issues around hostage-taking of Americans. There's a bipartisan bill Senator Risch and I have on this that we hope to work with you on. Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia, I think will be central to achieving an outcome in Ukraine that is a lasting and secure piece and prevents further Russian aggression.
(01:21:58)
But others like Rick Grinnell for special missions and Massad Boulos for the Arab world concern me in terms of the potential for mission conflict or conflict of interest. How will you work to ensure that state maintains its authority and encourage the administration to conduct a full vetting of any potential conflicts of interest and to ensure there's clarity of alignment with special envoys?
Senator Marco Rubio (01:22:19):
Sure, and thank you for the question because I think it's a valid one. With the exception of Mr. Boulos who I don't know. May have met once but don't know. Every one of the envoys that have been named so far is someone that I've worked with in the past and expect to work well with in the future. To me, the expression of a special envoy is critically important. Where it's most successful, it sits on a complex issue with a defined goal and an expression of presidential priority. So Sudan is an example of a special envoy and Mr. Perriello and the job he's done there. And this is in addition to the fact that we have an ambassador and we have other diplomatic presence there, that can be very complimentary.
(01:22:55)
So the way this will work and how I anticipate it will work is these envoys work for the president and coordination with us. These are all people, with the exception of one who I'm not disparaging, I just don't know him, but I've worked with everyone else that you've mentioned, are people that are going to be focused on this full like a laser. And they will need to do so not simply in coordination with the Department of State because of subject matter expertise. Let's say you reach an agreement or you reach an outcome, you're still going to need the technical support necessary to pull this off. And we have a array of experts in the Department of State that will help achieve that.
(01:23:29)
And also it'll involve other elements of the US government. So as an example, if you're going to reach an agreement on migration, say in the Western Hemisphere, that also could entail the necessity to have a conversation about trade policy and tariffs that will involve commerce and others. That's the only way this will work, and that's how I anticipate it working.
Speaker 2 (01:23:49):
I've agreed to co-chair with Senator Haggerty, a commission on reform and modernization of the State Department that Senator Cardin created with him. We cannot, in my view, do more with less given the challenges of the global moment. I think we need more investment in US diplomacy and development as instruments of national power. But we also need to address efficiencies and make sure that we are streamlining and focusing the department and supporting its workforce, the foreign service. How will you work to make sure that the Trump administration's efficiency mandate will strengthen and not deplete core state functions?
Senator Marco Rubio (01:24:26):
Well, first of all, I think the work of this new committee that's being set up as a result of the legislation that passed will be critical. My understanding is the impediment was that not all the appointments have been made. Maybe that's now changed, and we eagerly await that. Because I do think that there are two things that are very important. The first is when we talk about efficiency, the efficiency isn't simply just saving money. The efficiency is improving performance.
(01:24:48)
A key part of the state department is customer service. We provide consular affairs, passports, visas, all kinds of work around the world for Americans who are stranded or in trouble or need to get somewhere, improving that experience for the consumer is one of the top priorities we need to have. How can we leverage, and I think Secretary Blinken has begun this work. We need to build on this. How can we infuse technology, AI, and the like, not simply to improve the customer service aspects of the State Department, but improve the productivity. If somehow through the leveraging technology appropriately, we can get people at the State Department to achieve three times the amount of work than they do now because it takes less time to do these tasks or freeze them up to do other tasks. That'll be an enormous win. And I hope that the commission will look at those aspects of this as well. I think on-
Speaker 2 (01:25:37):
I understand, Senator, if I might move to another question, that multilateral organizations concern and frustrate many of us. Some of their actions have been counter to American interest. But when we've withdrawn from multilateral organizations and in particular some UN entities, it's also given an opening to our adversaries. The previous Trump administration withdrew from UNESCO, the Human Rights Council, the World Health Organization. And I'm concerned that if we do so without thinking through the consequences, we may abandon our chance to implement our agenda around human rights, around 5G standards, around technical standards that matter for the 21st century. Do you support sustained US participation in multilateral organizations? And how will you work to strengthen our leadership in those institutions in ways that prevent our adversaries from advancing their competing agendas?
Senator Marco Rubio (01:26:32):
Well, I want to point back to what I said at the opening, and that is our engagement in any international agreement or any international arrangement or any international organization has to be driven by the answer to one of three questions. Will our involvement in this organization make us safer, make us more prosperous, make us more secure? It has to be justified by an American interest. It just does. I mean, we're in an era where we need to really… It should have always been that way, but now more than ever. And so each of these will have different components to it.
(01:27:00)
I think there's a second component of funding. And that is should the United States be funding organizations who in many cases are pursuing and or achieving outcomes that are contrary to the national interest of the United States. Each of these will require a serious examination as we work through them in a justification to Congress about why we're no longer funding it or we're no longer participating. I think you do point to one that I can tell you right now is one that'll be critical for us to be engaged in, and that is the setting of standards.
(01:27:25)
But the setting of standards, for people to understand, is not simply from these organizations. It's also becomes practical. So throughout Africa, we are now seeing the deployment of these safe city programs by Huawei. Now, this isn't just a commercial deal for Huawei, this is the ability to ingrain itself in telecommunication of these countries and establish itself as the leader in 5G, And now all of the other technologies that depend on the 5G, additive manufacturing, the 3D printing and so forth, autonomous vehicles, they will all have to be drawn to the standard set by Huawei. That's not because an international organization set it up, it's because they've established market dominance. And it's a concern we have in multiple parts of the global south and the developing world. We need to be engaged that way as well.
Speaker 2 (01:28:06):
I very much look forward to working with you on deploying the full tool set that allows us to compete in the global south, including the development finance corporation. Something Senator Corker and I led on this committee in which I know you see the potential for. As I come to the end of my time, I've worked hard with Senator Graham to get signed into law two different bills. I wanted to mention the Global Fragility Act, which presses the Department of Defense, department of State, AID, to have a common strategy in fragile states [inaudible 01:28:38] and to effectively [inaudible 01:28:46] something that Meeks and I worked on [inaudible 01:28:54] security and governed and insecure in the global south, in South America and Africa and Southeast Asia. Both of these bills address the root causes of instability and facilitate cost-effective uses of American dollars by encouraging engagement of the private sector and philanthropy. Can I count on your support to work as the secretary have confirmed in the state department to implement these two laws more effectively in the coming years?
Senator Marco Rubio (01:29:20):
Well, in the conservation one, I believe just past, right? Most recently.
Speaker 2 (01:29:23):
Just signed into law.
Senator Marco Rubio (01:29:24):
We're getting there just in time to help you with it. And it's had strong bipartisan support. On the global fragility, this has been ongoing for quite a bit of time and we'll have to go back and check on the progress. I don't entirely. I know there's a 10-year plan and there's the five countries that we've identified. And by the way, no country likes to be identified as fragile, so we have to be sensitive about how we do it, but I think that's a component. We got to go back and see where we are on that 10-year planning because that's an important way of leveraging both economic security and development efforts in the whole of government. And I think key to this is going to be not simply the Department of State, but it's that steering committee that's supposed to meet every three months at the National Security Council, that core work is happening.
(01:30:04)
Look, [inaudible 01:30:06]outcomes are great, but if someone's not measuring at the end, whether it's reaching a [inaudible 01:30:14] we're going to have a huge problem. But the goal of that legislation, as I recall, is and believe still, is we want to get ahead of this. This is about preventing crisis, which frankly is a lot cheaper and a lot better than actually dealing with crisis after the fact. And so identifying places around the world that are in danger of becoming chaotic, of uncertain, insecure, and getting ahead of it in variety of means prevent that happening and preventing those crisis from happening is going to save us a lot of headaches, a lot of danger, and a lot of money.
Speaker 2 (01:30:49):
In closing, I'll just repeat something I've heard from several of my colleagues. I think that our global network of alliances and partners rooted in our shared values, a commitment to democracy and human rights, is essential to our national security and how the war in Ukraine ends. And whether a peace agreement there lasts and secures Ukraine from ongoing Russian aggression is critical to our credibility and security and to sustaining that network of allies and partners. I hope that's something you strongly agree with. I look forward to working with you towards that end.
Mr. Risch (01:31:21):
Thank you, Senator Coons. Next up is going to be Senator Daines, and after that will be Senator Murphy. And about that time, it's going to be noon. We're going to take a short five-minute break at noon. Not a Senate five minutes, but a for real five minute break at noon. And those of you who have a seat here, I'd suggest you don't leave because it's going to be difficult to claim your seat back if you're here as an observer. So with that, Senator Daines, welcome to the committee. Glad to have you.
Mr. Daines (01:31:48):
Chairman, thank you. Marco, it's good to have you here. I've got a great view here from the dice, seeing your family behind you, seeing Jeanette, Daniella, the rest of the Rubio family. What a moment of great honor celebration for the Rubio is culminated on Monday when your family will celebrate the one-month anniversary of Anthony Rubio's touchdown as a Florida Gator. So congratulations on every front. Proud Dad.
(01:32:14)
Look, you were charged with one of the most important tasks I think the administration will have, and that is advancing President Trump's agenda and representing the interest of the United States around the world. I can't think of a better nominee for Secretary of State to serve under President Trump than Marco Rubio. You'll have a lot of active convos we're working together on as we think of what's going on in Ukraine, Israel, Sudan, ongoing nuclear weapons program in Iran, the tyranny in Venezuela, the New Start Treaty that's been completely disregarded by Russia. And not to mention what we have as we think about strategies relates to China.
(01:32:56)
I could continue to list the results that we saw from the Trump administration with the Abraham Accords and really moving forward here with significant substantive advancements of American interests abroad. But look, this next administration and the leadership of President Trump and your service will be extremely consequential. This posting could not be more important.
(01:33:17)
Marco, as you know, Iran's the world's leading sponsor of terror. In 2024. Iran exported roughly 587 million barrels of oil, an increase of over 10% over the prior year. These illegal oil sales fund Hamas, the Hezbollah terrorism, the Houthis, the nuclear arms programs, drone technology that's being used right now by the Russians against Ukraine. These oil sales are directly resulting in global unrest and they're costing innocent lives. Senator, if confirmed, what would be your goals and strategies to think about addressing Iran as an adversary?
Senator Marco Rubio (01:33:58):
You asked that question at a very interesting moment. Two points I want to make about Iran, and it's really important when we talk about Iran, I'm talking about the radical Shia clerics and not the people. The people of Iran are people of an ancient civilization, an ancient culture with tremendous pride and advances, and I don't know who take great pride in their Persian heritage and identity. And I don't know of any nation on earth in which there is a bigger difference between the people and those who govern them than what exists in Iran. And that's a fact that needs to be made repeatedly.
(01:34:28)
In no way is the clerics who run that country, representative of the people of that country, and of its history and of contributions it's made to humanity. And it's a point I wish we would continue to make.
(01:34:40)
Iran and that regime is at its weakest point in recent memory, maybe ever. Their air defenses have been badly damaged. Their Shia crescent that they were trying to create has been badly damaged in Lebanon and Syria where they've been basically forced and driven out. Their economy is in shambles. They now are on some days having 6, 8, 12, 9-hour blackouts. They are on the verge of potentially, if not having done so already, having to pull back on the energy subsidies that they provide people in that country that are incredibly popular and it would be unpopular to reverse. So they're in a lot of trouble. And now what we need to be wise about is the following. I imagine that within that regime, and I'm just saying this because of common sense, there are two schools of thought.
(01:35:27)
There's one group that's saying now is the time where we need to find ourselves an off-ramp. Not that we're going to turn into really nice guys, but we're really in trouble here. We need to find an off-ramp and buy ourselves some time. And then there's another group that's probably saying, now is the time to prove that we are a nuclear power or nuclear capable power enriched from 60 to 90 and press go. And that's how we're going to buy ourselves immunity from foreign action. And this is a tenuous moment in that regard, but it's one we need to acknowledge. My view of it is that we should be open to any arrangement that allows us to have safety and stability in the region,
Senator Marco Rubio (01:36:00):
… region, but one in which we're clear-eyed. Any concessions we make to the Iranian regime, we should anticipate that they will use as they have used in the past to build their weapons systems and to try to restart their sponsorship of Hezbollah and other related entities around the region because they seek to become the dominant regional power. That's their stated goal, and it's been clear by the actions that they've taken.
(01:36:21)
I think it is interesting that in a year in which, I think by October of this year, the Europeans and the E3 countries of the UK, France, and Germany have to confront whether they're going to do the snapback provisions are not, because Iran is clearly in violation of the agreement that we're no longer a part of. In fact, IAEA inspectors have not even been in the country since 2021, if I'm correct.
(01:36:46)
So, I think early this week on Monday, they engaged the Europeans in talking about nuclear arrangements. So, whether that's indicative of the direction they're going or not, we're going to find out. What cannot be allowed under any circumstances is a nuclear-armed Iran. What cannot be allowed under any circumstances is an Iran and an Iranian regime that has the resources and the capability to restart and continue their sponsorship of terrorism. And what cannot be allowed under any circumstances is an Iran with the military capability of threatening and destabilizing its neighbors and potentially reaching the homeland as well, both kinetically and directly and also through their surrogate groups who have long planned contingencies for attacks.
(01:37:26)
And let us not forget that this is a group, these are individuals that have spent the last five years actively and openly plotting the assassination of the president-elect and of multiple members of previous administrations. Think about this for a moment. When is the last time you heard that a foreign government is actively, openly and admittedly seeking to assassinate the former Secretary of State, the former and soon-to-be once again President of the United States and others? And that people have been arrested for plotting that.
(01:37:56)
This is who we're dealing with and anything that we do with Iran needs to be clear-eyed about who that regime is, but also who those people of Iran really are because they're not their leaders.
Mr. Daines (01:38:08):
Marco, thank you. Shortly after the election and prior to Thanksgiving, I took a quick trip over to Central Asia, as I discussed that with you. I've been to Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. In fact, in the last 12 months, I visited all five of the Central Asian countries. In fact, I was bedded down, speaking of Iran, 20 miles from the Iranian border in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan. They have the fourth-largest reserves of natural gas in the world.
(01:38:29)
But this is a part of the world that is often neglected, but of such strategic importance is you've got Iran, you've got Afghanistan, Russia, and certainly China, as they talk about living in a submarine as they look into multi-vector diplomacy, wanting to engage with the United States as the Russians and Chinese are competing for their favor.
(01:38:49)
One of the first trips that I made after the election, the reason of Central Asia, there had not been a US senator there in 13 years, 13 years to Turkmenistan or Tajikistan. Very important strategically. One of the first goals, the caucus that Senator Gary Peters and I created of Central Asia, is to repeal the Jackson-Vanik label on the region and extend permanent normal trade relations with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
(01:39:13)
I realize you have a lot of priorities on your plate when you will be confirmed as our secretary, but I would say rescinding it would be a good faith indication, the Jackson-Vanik requirements, that Central Asia needs right now to grow. My question is would you work with me in Senator Peters to have your team work with us to remove this designation?
Senator Marco Rubio (01:39:33):
Yeah, and I believe the permanent removal will require legislative action. I don't think Senator Murphy has a bill on that as well. Yours is the three countries. Look, I think this is a relic of an era that's passed. There are some that argue that we should use it as leverage for human rights concessions or leverage to get them to go stronger in our way as opposed to Russia and the like.
(01:39:51)
But I think in some cases, and it's an absurd relic of the past, I think it's Kazakhstan, who the Department of Commerce has already said is a market economy. In fact, I think they hosted the WTO Ministerial just a couple of years ago, so they've met the conditions.
Mr. Daines (01:40:09):
Yeah, it's something-
Senator Marco Rubio (01:40:09):
We will work with you on this because I think it's important.
Mr. Daines (01:40:11):
Thanks, Marco. I think it's a neglected part of the world. I look forward to working with Senator Murphy on this, that C5+1, which is Central Asian countries, plus the United States, hope we can work with President Trump actually to think about maybe hosting some kind of a summit there. Very strategic after the withdrawal from Afghanistan. We need more friends in Central Asia and look forward to working on that.
(01:40:31)
In the time I have left, when I open up my comments, talked about all these conflicts around the world, sometimes we forget some of the most important relationships are right in our backyard. Thinking about Mexico. With the near-shoring going on at the moment, a lot of production coming now into more of our time zone and hemisphere coming from China and so forth. Laredo, Texas is now the largest port in the United States. I think it's one of the under-reported facts in our country.
(01:40:57)
You talked about the cartels that have command and control, certainly on the border at the moment. My question is you think about Mexico, and you've been so active on Latin America and looking south of the United States, with President Sheinbaum now just coming into office, what are your thoughts around how do we become better engaged with Mexico to help them with their issue as it relates to the cartels, basically, which are running the country, it seems at times?
Senator Marco Rubio (01:41:20):
Well, and I wish we had more than 30 seconds to do it because it's one of those issues that I think don't get enough attention beyond the problems. Look, Mexico's economy in many ways is a very vibrant one and has made tremendous advances and continues to be a very strong regional power.
(01:41:34)
They can become frustrating at times for us because they have, enshrined even in their constitution, a sort of non-aligned, non-interventionist foreign policy with regards to some of the abuses. And so, it's been disappointing, for example, to see the position they've taken with regards to Venezuela and others.
(01:41:49)
By the same token, our economic interests are so deeply intertwined. I think there are three areas of friction. The first is on trade and violations of trade agreements and so forth that have been laid out, and some of the things that I've seen even as a senator from Florida in the agricultural sector that are going to continue to be an irritant in our relationship that we hope we can resolve.
(01:42:10)
The second is the security situation at the border. And I think there's great interest and should be on the part of the Mexicans to bring this migratory problem at the border under control. People forget in increasing number of cases, the people crossing the border are not Mexican nationals. They are people that are transiting through Mexico. And in fact, in southern Mexico, you have seen a significant uptick in resentment against migration by Mexicans who are bearing the brunt of the costs of becoming a key element of the migratory path.
(01:42:39)
And the third is the violence. And this violence at our border has to be addressed. I think they pose a threat to the United States, most certainly the flooding us with the fentanyl, the criminal activities occurring within the United States facilitated by these groups who have become vertically integrated.
(01:42:52)
These are not the Colombian cartels. These transnational groups are now vertically integrated. They are the suppliers all the way down to the street level and all the way up to the production level. They are vertically integrated criminal enterprises, but they are also threatening the sovereignty and security of the Mexican state.
(01:43:08)
And as I pointed, there are journalists and there are politicians who have been assassinated for standing up to these cartels. And it tells you the amount of leverage they have over the government as a result of it. So, it is in their interest as well as ours that we work cooperatively to take these groups apart and not allow them to continue their reign of terror, not just in the border region of Mexico, but spilling over into the United States.
Mr. Daines (01:43:29):
Thanks, Marco.
Mr. Risch (01:43:31):
Thank you very much for the edification of the committee. I've just been advised that there's been a ceasefire announced in Gaza. Before we all celebrate, though, obviously we're all going to want to see how that executes.
(01:43:42)
With that, Senator Murphy, you're up and then we're going to take that short break.
Senator Murphy (01:43:47):
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That is indeed good news. Senator Rubio, I want to talk to you about a topic that I think is going to be real trouble for you and for US national security interest, at least for the first few minutes of my time.
(01:44:02)
And that's the growing personal financial entanglement of President Trump, his family and Middle East governments. I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. For nearly eight years, the Trump organization has been pursuing a real estate deal to build a hotel complex in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. During President Trump's first term, the Trump organization actually voluntarily committed to refrain from pursuing real estate deals with foreign companies, especially those that are backed by foreign governments. And so, the deal didn't go through, and then it remained stalled for the entirety of the Biden administration.
(01:44:41)
And then magically, 30 days after the November election, Saudi Arabia's biggest construction company that's affiliated with the government, announced that the deal was going forward alongside an additional $200 million deal for a Trump property in Oman.
(01:44:59)
Now, it used to be that somebody with these big financial business interests would come into government and take actions, like setting up a blind trust or divestment in order to make sure there was no connection between their personal financial interests and the business they are conducting in government. But President Trump has just done the opposite, right? Over the last eight years while he was in office and since he's been out of office, he and his family have become more deeply dependent on revenue from governments in the Middle East.
(01:45:32)
During his last presidency, Middle East interest sent about $10 million to Trump properties. After he left office, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who was his primary Middle East envoy, was handed $2 billion in investment by the Saudis, even though a Saudi investment board said the investment was a bad business decision. That investment actually comes up for renewal in 2026, giving the Saudis massive leverage over the Trump family. And then to make matters worse, right after the election, the Trump organization said that in this term, the president-elect's second term, it would drop its previous prohibition on doing new deals in the Middle East with private foreign companies aligned with foreign governments. So, the Trump organization is going to be signing new business deals in the Middle East with private companies that have connections to foreign governments at the very moment that you are going to be conducting sensitive diplomacy in these countries.
(01:46:32)
That's just extraordinary. Never before in the history of this country has a president been literally receiving cash from foreign governments and from foreign companies that are backed by foreign governments in the middle of their term. If you or I had done this as senators, we would be in violent violation of Senate ethics rules. That's not permitted on the foreign relations committee.
(01:46:58)
And so, I guess my question to you is a pretty simple one. Do you see how this fundamentally compromises your diplomatic efforts? Do you have an issue or will you raise an issue with the president about his growing financial connection with the governments that you are going to be negotiating with?
Senator Marco Rubio (01:47:21):
Well, first of all, I am neither authorized nor in any position to give you any insights into any of these arrangements you've pointed out. You mentioned Jared Kushner, as an example. He's a private citizen, happens to be a Floridian. I don't know what if any engagement he has in the work that's going on now.
(01:47:37)
I can tell you what I know. Obviously, I'm not in the State Department yet, but I can tell you as an example, the president's envoy to that region who was charged. Steve Witkoff was charged with being an envoy towards reaching an accommodation between the Israelis and the Saudis, has been working cooperatively and together with the Biden administration.
(01:47:56)
And in fact, I dare to say that all involved deserve credit for the ceasefire that the chairman's just announced. But Steve Witkoff has been a critical component of it, and he has been involved in it from day one. I think the broader consideration about whether we want to see a Saudi-Israeli mutual recognition and relationship would be one of the most historic developments in the history of the region, for all the factors we've discussed here today. And one of the impediments to it has been this conflict and the ongoing conflict and the lack of a ceasefire.
(01:48:27)
I also think it's going to be important for the Saudis and others to be participants in post-conflict stabilization efforts in Gaza and beyond. So, all I can tell you is that what I've said from the very beginning, from the opening statement, and that is our foreign policy is going to be driven, as the president's made abundantly clear, by whether some action is in the interest of the United States and our national security. And that's what it's going to be driven by. And that's how all these policies should be judged by, and that's certainly the job that I've been tasked with executing on.
Senator Murphy (01:48:58):
Well, let me then simply ask you this question. Do you believe that the president should refrain from doing new business deals with Middle East governments during his term in office?
Senator Marco Rubio (01:49:11):
Well, my understanding, again, I'm speaking out of turn, but the president doesn't manage that company. His family members do. And they have a right to be in the business. I mean, that's the business that they're in. They're in the real estate business. They've been for a very long time, both domestically and abroad. They have properties in multiple countries.
(01:49:26)
So, at the end of the day, I don't know, his family is entitled to continue to operate their business. The fundamental question is not whether his family's involved in business. The fundamental question is whether that is in any way impacting the conduct of our foreign policy in a way that's counter to our national interest.
(01:49:41)
And the president's made abundantly clear that every decision he makes and every decision we are to make at the State Department should be driven by whether or not it serves the core national interest of the United States. And that's how I hope our policies will be judged by, not what business his family is conducting while the president is here in Washington, working not on this business, but from the Oval Office.
Senator Murphy (01:50:03):
You are correct. That is the fundamental question, whether or not a policy is being pursued in US national security interests or due to the president's personal financial interests. That is the reason why as United States senators, we are not allowed to have complicated existing financial arrangements with foreign governments because you do not want to create the impression that there is a conflict of motivation. And I just wish that this president applied to this incoming administration the same rules that we hold ourselves to as United States senators.
(01:50:36)
Senator Rubio, the time I have remaining just want to tackle two other topics, one that I know is of mutual concern to you and I, and that's the need to confront China in non-military ways as they try to exert influence around the world. Last time President Trump was in office, he was calling for pretty massive cuts to the State Department's budget.
(01:51:00)
But as you know, China uses all sorts of non-kinetic tools like misinformation, economic diplomacy around the world to exert influence. I'm hopeful that you're going to be an active voice to try to make sure that you have the tools, including when it comes to combating Russian and Chinese misinformation, to be able to confront all of the ways, many of them asymmetric, that China in particular, but Russia as well, challenges to US interests. Just wanted to get your commitment to make sure to build that full comprehensive foreign policy toolkit.
Senator Marco Rubio (01:51:38):
Yeah, and not only have I been someone concerned about foreign disinformation, I've been the target of it from multiple nation-states. And I've learned over time that the best way to confront disinformation is through a flood of free speech that allows the counterpoints of view to be heard and understood.
(01:51:57)
I think where we get ourselves into trouble, and we've learned this now, and I think multiple US companies are now admitting is, when we get ourselves into a position of determining what's true and what's not, and then using the tools of government to go after that, particularly when it implicates domestic entities.
(01:52:11)
But yes, it is one of the tools that they have in their toolbox. By the way, it's not just disinformation. It's flat out influencing nation-states views' of the United States writ large by promoting conspiracy theories internally in other countries that undermine us and that undermine our standing, whether it's in Africa and increasingly you see it in the Western Hemisphere as well.
(01:52:33)
And one of the best ways to combat that is to be present, to be there, to show what we do and to brag about what we do. One of the things that frustrates me the most is there are literally programs within the USAID where they do not allow us to label it as made in America or a gift of the American people, because it might offend someone locally. I think it's important for the world to know that what the United States is doing to help their societies. We do not do a good enough job of promoting what we have done historically and continue to do to help our fellow man around the world.
Senator Murphy (01:53:04):
Yeah, China's spending $10 billion per year on that propaganda and misinformation operation. They celebrate when budgets get sent up to The Hill that propose big increases in military spending and giant decreases in the kind of tools that are available to you. So, I do look forward to working with you to make sure that we've given you that full suite of tools necessary to confront our adversaries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Risch (01:53:32):
Thank you, Senator Murphy. We will take this break now. I appreciate everyone getting back here in five minutes because we've still got a long ways to go. And so, with that, we'll be at ease for five minutes.
Mr. Risch (02:10:35):
Committee will come to order. We will continue on with our 10-minute rounds of questions. And by my list, the next person up is Senator Barrasso.
Mr. Ricketts (02:10:48):
Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Rubio. Congratulations, I'm grateful for your willingness to serve our nation in this new role. Thank you as well for your family's commitment to continue with your service here to this country. I think President Trump made a wonderful choice in nominating you to be Secretary of State. Your extensive foreign policy experience and your deep understanding of international relations I think makes you a perfect choice for the position. While serving together in the Senate on this committee, I've seen firsthand your dedication, your knowledge, and your commitment to our nation's security. Your strategic insights, your principled approach to diplomacy. They're going to serve our nation well, and we do face many challenges. We've talked about them in the past, so you have my full and unwavering support. I wanted to start with China, because over the years we work closely together to counter the significant threat that China poses to global security and to stability.
(02:11:42)
The Chinese Communist Party's strategy extends far beyond traditional military conflict. They're conducting an aggressive campaign aimed at weakening American leadership and reshaping the global order to serve their own interests. Make no mistake, China is challenging our interest all across various domains, diplomatic, economic, technological, they're playing the long game, and I think we have to respond with equal resolve and a strategy. It's essential that we fully recognize the scope of the challenge, and develop a strategy to safeguard American interests and the values on the world stage. So could you talk a little bit about your approach in addressing an increasingly aggressive China, and how we and our international partners can hold China accountable?
Senator Marco Rubio (02:12:29):
Well, as I pointed to earlier, it's an important question, because I think it's definitional to the century. I really do. I think the 21st century will be defined by what happens between the United States and China. The Chinese have basically concluded that America is sort of a tired, great power in decline. That they are on a path over the next 20 or 30 years to naturally supplant us, irrespective of what happens. And I think their preference is to not have any trade and/or armed conflict in the interim, because I think they might interrupt what they believe is a natural progression. I don't share that view. I think they have some significant domestic challenges. Nonetheless, I do think what we can't ignore is that at the current road that we're on right now is an unbalanced relationship. And that much of their growth and their progress has come at our expense, not because they outcompeted us, but because they frankly have violated the rules that they've benefited from but have lived by none of its obligations.
(02:13:22)
So I think the first begins with the recognition that China is and will continue to be a rich and powerful country, and we will have to deal with them. It's in the interest of global peace and stability that we have to deal with them. By the same token, we cannot find ourselves in a situation in which we allow them to continue to flaunt the rules in order to undermine us economically and/or industrially, nor can we allow them to undermine our alliances and our presence in different parts of the world. For example, I think it is clear that on that path towards what they view as their rightful place as the world's preeminent power, they want to establish preeminence in the Indo-Pacific. And that has historical ramifications or historical underpinnings, because they view these smaller countries as tributary states, that basically all roads lead back to Beijing, and they view that. Unfortunately for them, their neighbors do not view themselves as tributary states.
(02:14:17)
And this is particularly true in places like South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, but also Vietnam and others, some of whom have historical disagreements with China. So at the core of our strategy has to be twofold. Number one, ensuring that there is a proper geopolitical balance between the United States and China to avoid any sort of conflict that could be deeply destabilizing and worse for the world. But at the same time, ensuring that it doesn't come at our expense. That we don't find ourselves in a world in which we are dependent on China or any foreign power for that matter, for the raw materials that we need, for the ability to make medicine, for the ability to fuel our economy, the ability to feed ourselves or our people. We cannot be a country that becomes dependent on foreign powers. And so much of that involves not simply how we engage in the world, but also what we do here domestically.
(02:15:11)
That is not the responsibility of the Department of State, but it is important for us to point to that much of what's happened with China, much of what's happening now is what we are not doing, whether it's through our own industry and the development our own industries, or access to raw minerals and raw resources that are critical to fueling and or building a modern economy.
Mr. Ricketts (02:15:31):
You talk about China playing by a different set of rules, and they do the ones that we think of as traditional rules. And I appreciated your comments to Senator Ricketts about China, and even the definition of them as a developing nation. I think it's a big problem. They can't be allowed to continue to play openly with a different set of rules in addition to the hidden rules. I oppose China exploiting its status as a developing nation within international organizations. I think it helps them gain an additional unfair advantage in what you described as this unbalanced relationship. China is not in any way a developing country. You just mentioned they're a rich and powerful country. That's not a developing country. It's the second-largest economy in the world. Clearly has the financial resources and access to capital to meet its own needs.
(02:16:17)
So I think we need to end China's preferential treatment and hold it accountable on the global stage. I mean we see it in the World Bank. We see it in other locations. Are there things that we can do and you can do as Secretary of State to try to eliminate this unfair advantage that they have, and it's an open unfair advantage?
Senator Marco Rubio (02:16:33):
Yeah, absolutely. I think we need to, first of all, and I mentioned this in my opening statement, we have to acknowledge that many of the global institutions that were created not just in the post-war era, but the post-Cold War era have been weaponized against us. And I can use a number of examples. The first is you think about the Security Council of the United Nations, which was created ostensibly for the purpose of preventing global conflict. Sadly, two of the greatest drivers of instability in the world today hold a veto vote at the Security Council. It's basically rendered the Security Council almost irrelevant. By the same token, I would say I am not against multilateral organizations so long as that or any foreign arrangement we have serves the national interest of the United States. I do not believe, and the president has made this abundantly clear, President Trump, that under no circumstances should any foreign entity or multilateral and international organization have veto power over the national security interest of the United States of America.
(02:17:29)
The second point that I would point to is that the Chinese have very aggressively played this. They have figured out, and it isn't hard to figure out, that even the smallest nation-state has a vote at the United Nations General Assembly. And they have worked hard to, not just court, but entrap a handful of votes around the world and including in our own hemisphere. If you look at the Caribbean basin in Grenada and places like that, where they go into these countries. And they don't just provide a billion dollars to build a stadium, they also give you $5 million or $6 million under the table for your family and friends. They do that in place after place. We've seen that practice as well in Africa. So we need to understand that there has to be in many of these parts of the world.
(02:18:06)
Look, we're not bribing anybody, we're not going to do that, and it's certainly illegal for American companies to do it. But it's hard to engage these countries who many cases have legitimate needs when they say, "We prefer to have your stuff. We prefer to have American investment." But you're not offering any. And so we're left with the only alternative and that is to take the Chinese investment even though it comes with strong strings attached, that include things like debt diplomacy or debt traps and expectations of diplomatic cooperation at these international forums.
Mr. Ricketts (02:18:37):
My final question has to do, because you used the phrase, "We need to be able to fuel our economy." And I'll talk a little bit about energy. Look, people who live in foreign developing nations, they want to be able to fuel their economy as well. They need a stable energy source to grow their economy, to improve lives. Many of the countries you've traveled to, and I have, we've seen what energy poverty can do to people to make it harder for them. We have an ability to help these countries develop a stable energy supply. But this current administration, the Biden administration has put restrictions in place on funding of certain energy resources such as coal, even natural gas. The United States should be working to promote an all-of-the-above energy strategy and help our friends and allies have affordable energy as opposed to what is the politically correct type of energy to be used.
(02:19:21)
So I believe we should be helping these countries with energy. And are you committed to ensuring the state department is promoting all forms of energy projects across the globe, including oil, gas, coal, affordable energy that will help people raise their standards a little bit?
Senator Marco Rubio (02:19:36):
Yes. In fact, it should be a centerpiece. One of our centerpieces is our economic diplomacy. We talked earlier, I think it was Senator Coons had mentioned the work on fragile states and the hope of preventing fragility so that states don't collapse into some of the havens that you now see where terrorism takes a hold and so forth. And one of the things you can do to help a country become more stable and then more prosperous is access to reliable and affordable energy. And that's not simply for everyday life. That is critical if you want to build a manufacturing sector. It's going to be especially critical in a world in which all these new technologies like AI are going to require a tremendous amount of power generation that's going to draw upon global energy resources to begin with. So absolutely it needs to be at the centerpiece, and we'll work very closely with the energy department in ensuring that it's a centerpiece of our foreign policy.
Mr. Ricketts (02:20:26):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Risch (02:20:29):
Thank you Senator Barrasso. And next up we have Senator Booker.
Senator Booker (02:20:34):
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Marco, the president… Excuse me, Senator Rubio, the president made a great decision in choosing you. I'm happy to see you there. You're a thought leader in foreign policy. I, however, don't think most Americans know how great of a thought leader you are in NCAA, NFL and high school football. And I'm a little disappointed that you're not going to be the head of the NCAA right now.
Senator Marco Rubio (02:20:56):
Not yet.
Senator Booker (02:21:00):
We sat in my office recently, I told you about my concerns about Africa right now. Democratic Republican administrations have not prioritized the continent. It is literally the fastest growing continent on earth. We now see the future, by 2051, one out of every four human beings on the planet will be in the continent of Africa. And because of the demographic issues we have around the globe from Europe to the United States, to even China, one out of every three working people on the planet will be in Africa. It is rich with arable land and critical minerals. It has an economic potential that could create tremendous markets for American companies and American businesses. More than this, we know, while it has incredible assets and opportunities, the lack of focus on Africa can endanger the whole planet. We know in the days of infectious diseases, for example, an outbreak of an infectious disease anywhere is a threat to public health everywhere.
(02:22:04)
More than that, we see the climate challenges, migration patterns there threaten to destabilize the Middle East and other areas. Egypt, for example, literally is hosting millions, millions of refugees in Egypt right now. Now, my frustrations in my 12 years here is that we as a nation have not really prioritized it. We do not have ambassadors in some countries where China and Russia who understand the African opportunities are investing heavily. I've gone around the world in my times in African countries, I often encounter people that saying, "Hey, the Chinese are here. Where are you?" And it's not just ambassadorial placements, other critical positions in embassies just aren't being filled. And therefore we're being outplayed by the Chinese and the Russians. African countries and leaders have told me time and time again, " We prefer you. We'd rather deal with you. We'd rather work with you."
(02:23:04)
And we can see by legal immigration patterns that their people would rather our way of life than the Chinese or the Russians. But we are simply being outplayed in ways that we can counter if we had a real focus and a real strategy for engaging Africa. And the impact of us engagement is real. And the backbone of our diplomacy is that diplomat abroad, is that Secretary of State on down people saying this is a priority. I said this to you in our office, and I want to make it plain now that we are at a point in this country that what we do in the Senate and in the White House and in the State Department are planting seeds for the future. We could reap a tremendous harvest in 10, 20 years prioritizing and emphasizing our work in Africa. Not to do so undermines the three points that you said at the beginning that I agree, our foreign policy should be guided by what makes us safe, strong and prosperous. And the future in so many ways is Africa.
(02:24:03)
Could you just talk to me a little bit about how you are prioritizing it, how you understand the critical opportunities and the dangers of not engaging at a higher level than either the Biden administration, Trump administration, Clinton administration, Bush administration have done?
Senator Marco Rubio (02:24:16):
Yeah. And I'll preface it by saying that obviously I've not been confirmed yet. The president's not in office yet. There be a national security strategy that will frame much of what we do in foreign policy. So what I'm going to share with you basically here today is as someone who will be at that table, some of the impressions that I would share with regards to our historic involvement in Africa and also some of our challenges moving forward. So the first, and you've already highlighted all the things about the growth that's going to happen, the double in population between now and 2035 or what have you. So it's extraordinary. That isn't just an interesting number. That's also markets. Those are also consumers. Those are also places that I think provide an extraordinary opportunity properly positioned for America to become more prosperous, literally more people that can afford to buy the things Americans provide both in services and goods and vice versa. So I think there's an extraordinary opportunity.
(02:25:06)
Where I think some of our situation in Africa has fallen off, it's been and rightfully so, heavily focused on counter-terrorism, and solely on counter-terrorism in some places. And that's valuable and important. It is very difficult for a country to progress or move forward if they are in fact a haven that's open. And so the freaks come out at night, and you've got terrorist groups that are operating and undermining that country. So it's not that it's unimportant. I think we're also learning from the [inaudible 02:25:34] how quickly the situation changes, despite significant counter-terrorism contributions, each of those countries have pivoted to their great mistake, grave error, towards the Africa Corps led by Russia. These people are not any good at fighting counter-terrorism, and again, unreliable. And I think the moment will come when they'll realize that and maybe there'll be a new opportunity to engage.
(02:25:54)
On the flip side of it, if you look at Littoral West Africa, there are real opportunities there. And in fact ongoing engagements, not just on counterterrorism but on economic progress. I look in the north to Morocco, another place where we have already seen substantial improvements because of the accords, but also because phase two of that relationship that continues to build. You also talk about one thing that I don't think has been talked about enough, and I think we hear the terms a 19th century term. The impact that malaria has is not simply a health crisis or a humanitarian crisis. It has deep economic crisis, deep economic implications. It pulls kids out of school for long periods of time and not end their lives. It literally sets people and communities back, humans and people are the greatest resource of any country. And the cost benefit of an investment, leveraging private partnerships to deal with things like malaria pays extraordinary dividends if appropriately done and channeled. And that is something that I think could, as part of an overall approach to Africa, be included in things that you could argue are improving our prosperity, our security.
Senator Booker (02:27:02):
Thank you Senator Rubio. You've affirmed a lot of this to me in our private talks. I just want to make an emphasis publicly here that the disinformation in Africa, and you've mentioned disinformation writ large, but for example, the Washington Post published an article in October detailing how Russian propagandists targeted US anti-malaria programs at Burkina Faso. The Africa Center for Strategic Studies published in March 2024, highlighted how Russia and China are leading sponsors of disinformation campaigns in Africa that are showing incredible success, because we aren't doing a coordinated plant campaign to counter their misinformation. And so I'm looking forward to working with you. I hope that you'll prioritize this for the sake of America's future that you could be the Secretary of State that says, "We have a vision for Africa and we're backing it up, not just from the Secretary of State's office, but all the way down to making sure key resources are invested in countering disinformation as well as making sure that we have personnel in there."
(02:28:03)
It's not a popular post, as you know for many State Department people, we've got to make it that way and let people know that they're helping to define the future of not just the United States, but humanity by focusing on Africa. I cannot let my time expire without talking about the biggest humanitarian crisis going on on the planet earth right now. What is happening in Sudan, it's been called by our country a genocide. There's a famine being declared in areas, where you're seeing unbelievable levels of systemic sexual violence going on. I traveled to the Sudan border with Chad, and saw humanitarian crises like I had never seen before, and I've been around the world looking at humanitarian crises. We have a great special envoy who you've already positively name-checked in this confirmation hearing. It is so important and vital that that work continue, and that we work for diplomatic solutions.
(02:29:00)
There are a lot of our allies who've been implicated in fueling this crisis. This is an opportunity to end this crisis by diplomacy, to bring about one of the most important peace processes there are. And I'm hoping that you and incoming President Trump will prioritize that.
Senator Marco Rubio (02:29:18):
Yeah. In an era in which the term genocide has been misappropriated to almost a global slander, an international slander, this is a real genocide. By its very definition, this is a real genocide. This is the ethnic targeting of specific groups for extermination, for elimination. By groups, by the way, that are being funded by nations that we have alliances and partnerships with in other parts of the world. And we should express that clearly. I think in part of our engagement with the UAE, and it'll have to be a pragmatic engagement, I mean, they're important players in what we hope to resolve in the Middle East. And I think as part of that engagement, we also need to raise the fact that they are openly supporting an entity that is carrying out a genocide. And I think for those who are interested in going out and actually protesting a real genocide, this to be the one, and I just don't see it. I don't see people mentioning it.
Senator Booker (02:30:07):
Well, it's morally reprehensible that this crisis gets virtually no attention in our country, especially because of the role we should be playing. And my time is over, but I want to say this, you don't need to respond. But the other place on the planet that gets no attention that we are responsible for in our hemisphere is the crisis in Haiti as well.
Senator Marco Rubio (02:30:33):
Correct.
Senator Booker (02:30:33):
I know that you know this intimately. And again, I just want to keep calling out these moral omissions of our country, often, at least in the press, of inability to focus our compassion, empathy, and understanding of our interwoven destinies with places like Africa and places like Haiti.
Mr. Risch (02:30:56):
Thank you Senator Booker for that. Those are things that needed to be said. Having said that, you have underlined probably the most difficult crises we have on the planet. And I think everybody's ready to sign up on a path forward. So far, nobody's laid out that path forward. And you're right, we have an obligation to at least try to design a path forward. And when that happens, I have no doubt that we'll pull together Republicans and Democrats as Americans to do something about this. But I'll tell you the identifying who are the people there that are the good guys that you can partner with is very, very difficult as you know. Thank you. Thank you Senator Rubio for your comments in that regard. We will move now to Senator Paul.
Senator Paul (02:31:46):
Senator Rubio, congratulations on your nomination. One of the questions that I've asked over time to Secretaries of State as well as ambassadors and others from the State Department is, "Can you name for me instances where sanctions have changed behavior for the better?" Now, I'm not going to ask you that question now. I'm going to wait till you come back to ask you. There's a preview of what I'll ask you the next time. But the reason I bring that up is that I think hopefully people think of sanctions as a way of trying to modulate behavior. You want better behavior out of a country, or a country's doing something you don't like, you'd like them to change their behavior for better through sanctions. And I think it rarely works. And I think we pile more on. Now, some would say, "Well, sanctions are just to punish them and we just want Russia invaded Ukraine. We're just punishing them."
(02:32:34)
And so as punishment, they kind of work. I don't think they're deterring a Russia's behavior or changing it. But really sanctions can have effect in a couple of ways. I think the threat of a sanction, the same way the threat of a tariff can have an effect on behavior. But once placed, I think a sanction or tariff only has effect on someone's behavior if you remove it. Now, you mentioned earlier a little bit about discussing ways to unwind some of the sanctions ultimately on Russia. People mentioned, "Well, we never want to let them sell energy again." No, you have to let people enter back into the world. That's how you're going to get behavioral changes. And it really will have to be part of the peace. If there is going to be a negotiated peace, the one aspect that makes us part of that war are the sanctions. And so it really should be offered up of removing that and going back to normalcy when we can find a resolution to the war.
(02:33:23)
I'll give you an example of where I think often the State Department loses its sight of its mission. Instead of being the Department of Diplomacy, which I think it's supposed to be, it becomes just an extension of the Department of War and muscle. And we show how strong we are through the State Department. But really when bellicose statements come from other parts of the government, I see the State Department is the one that shows up and tries to still have a conversation. In the past, I think because of remarks you had been banned from travel to China. The ambassador that's been nominated also has had statements that make us question whether or not he'll be received in China if he becomes the ambassador to China.
(02:34:05)
When Blinken and Yellen went to China recently, they decided, and I'm not arguing with the goal. The goal was to get China not to sell dual-use parts to Russia to use in the war against Ukraine. A noble goal. I share the goal. But they got to China and they shamed them in public and called them names and told them they're terrible people and they should quit doing it. I would argue that there's another way to try to get behavioral changes. I would argue that the opposite of sanctions is trade. And so we have a lot of sanctions on China. If I'd been the one going to China with a mission, I would've said to China very quietly, "We may not be able to undo everything. But perhaps we could undo one bit of sanctions that will enhance your economy by X amount if you'll agree to quit selling dual used parts to Russia."
(02:34:57)
And I think that's just, it's a different look on things, and I don't think we're getting it very often. I guess my hope is that you will think about a different way of doing business other than just saying, "Let's sanction everybody and let's call people names we don't like." Because I don't think it helps. I think it actually makes the situation worse. That doesn't mean we curl up in a ball and just say, "Do whatever you want." But there has to be some give and take. There has to be something we take back. And so I guess my general question to you would be, we know a lot about the stick. We know about sanctions and this and that. Do you see any possibility of any carrot with China to make relations better with China?
Senator Marco Rubio (02:35:34):
Well, let me first say, indeed, I've been strongly worded in my views of China. Let me just point out, they've said mean things about me too. And I'm not sure that they're fans of mine in that regard here. My role now as the Secretary of State is to lead the diplomatic wing of the country, and that will involve engaging them. The fact of the matter is in a mature and prudent conversation, and I would expect that they at the end of the day, are also mature and prudent practitioners of foreign policy. They've got a billion people and nuclear weapons in a large economy. We have 400 million people, the largest economy in the world and nuclear weapons. And it is in their interest, our interest and the interest of the world for two great powers to be able to communicate. In fact, despite everything I have said, I have consistently throughout my career said that it is that geopolitical balance between our countries, or developing imbalance that is the greatest risk to global security and prosperity.
(02:36:25)
Because that could quickly trigger not just the trade and economic conflict, but an armed one, which could be catastrophic. Never in the history of mankind have two powers like the United States and China ever faced off in a global conflict. And the outcome would be catastrophic and we should want to avoid it, and so should they. So the bottom line is this, yes, we are going to have to deal with China. They're too big and too important in the world. And they're going to have to deal with us. And my goal is that it is dealt with in a way that furthers our national interest. What cannot continue to happen is that China continues to assume all of the benefits of the international system, and none of its obligations, all the benefits of global trade and commerce, and none of its obligations. Your point on sanctions are important. I think that one of the things that's happened over time is we have adopted this view that we're going to be involved in less armed conflicts, which I think is a positive, generally speaking. Most people would agree.
(02:37:13)
The only other alternative left in the toolbox then is economic sanctions. And while I do think that you can question whether it has an impact over the changing the behavior of a country, it can achieve two things. The first is it can deny a nation state the resources they could use to fund more of that activity. Let there be no doubt if the Iranian regime had more money because of no sanctions, they would've spent more money on Hezbollah and Hamas and their missile program and the Houthis and others. So I do think there is value in that regard. And the second is, to be frank, leverage. When you sit down at a table, let's say we talk about Ukraine and the need to end that conflict. When you get and sit at the table and the United States is involved in those conversations, hopefully, to a reach of a peaceful settlement of that conflict, you're going to have to give, not just get. And sanctions and the release of sanctions could be a part of that, assuming that the conditions are appropriate.
(02:38:05)
So I do think sanctions also have a role to play in that regard. But I would not diminish the part about denying resources for governments and countries to carry out nefarious… Denying them the ability to have the resources to carry out these nefarious activities.
Senator Paul (02:38:19):
I think you're right, and the point is probably valid with regard to Iran, probably not so much with China. I don't think we've denied China resources. And I think their resources extend beyond what we can do. I think our sanctions are more prodding them, but not really damaging their economic prospects. With regard to the concept of diplomacy and how we make things better, or attempt to make things better. I think if we have absolutes, we tend to not understand really the way diplomacy has to work, because it is about engagement, it's about hearing the other side. It's not about accepting their position, but it's about at least knowing what the position of the other side is. With regard to NATO in Ukraine, to a person, the State Department under the previous administration is adamant, and so are many Republicans, that there is absolutely no way we will ever say that Ukraine could be a neutral country.
(02:39:17)
That absolutely they will be. And it is our absolute prerogative to invite anybody we want to into NATO. We can say that, and we have the ability to do that, but there are consequences to that. And one of the consequences is that at least from the Russian perspective, they see that as one of the reasons why the war has developed there. And so I think that if you are looking at peace, you have to look at, first, you have to get to a ceasefire before you even get to real discussions. But if you had a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, I think our sanctions need to be on the table as far as negotiating the removal of them. But I think also the idea of Ukraine being a neutral country as far as a military alliance, if it's not on the table, Ukraine doesn't have that much to offer. I mean, Russia now occupies
Senator Paul (02:40:00):
… are good, 15, 20% of the country. It's been a big bloody war and they've done it in a sort of World War I fashion, but I don't think they're going anywhere. It is at a stalemate, but the one thing Ukraine has to offer is they won't become part of a military alliance allied against Russia. Just not taking it off the table enhances our ability to negotiate and enhances Ukraine's ability. I think Zelenskyy's public words have been a little less firm than they had been in the past, but instead, I think we've done the opposite with our diplomacy. Every day it's blinking, beating the drums, beating the drums to absolutely be in Ukraine. Do you think that the concept of a neutral Ukraine not in NATO can be part of the negotiations to end the war?
Senator Marco Rubio (02:40:44):
Well, obviously that's something that will ultimately be part of any negotiation. I do agree with your point that if we want to be real here for a second because I think we've lost the art of reality in some of the foreign policy, these are not outcomes that rarely are they ideal. Sadly, in many cases, our choices in foreign policy are a choice between a bad outcome and an even worse outcome. And that's been true not in the modern era, but throughout the history of diplomacy and nation-state relations. In the case of conflicts such as these, they invariably require concessions. I don't think it would be wise nor appropriate before or even in office or even in any public forum such as this to discuss the parameters of what those potential concessions can be for either side.
(02:41:27)
Suffice it to say, I do think, to be honest with the committee and the full Senate, if you want to reach agreements to end armed conflict where people are dying on a daily basis and enormous destruction is occurring and a great potential for escalation exists on a daily basis, if we want to be honest about bringing that to an end, true diplomacy will require concessions from every party engaged in those conversations. That's the nature of diplomacy and it's best conducted directly and in an appropriate forum and not in public. And that can be done, by the way, without abandoning our core principles as a nation or our feelings as a people about what's happened and transpired in that conflict to date.
Speaker 3 (02:42:10):
Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen (02:42:12):
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Shaheen, Senator Rubio, good to see you. It was great to sit down with you and talk about some of these important issues yesterday. Let me just say at the outset that I appreciate your response to Senator Booker's question about what's happening in Sudan, specifically as the Biden administration just found that the RSF under Hemedti is engaged in a genocide and we need to do everything we can to stop what's happening there. You refer obliquely to some of our Gulf partners who have not done what they should be doing. One of them is the UAE and I've been very clear that the United States should not be providing military assistance to the UAE when the UAE is in turn providing military assistance to a group like the RSF that is committing a genocide in Sudan. And I'm expecting a briefing from the Biden administration by the end of this week as to whether or not their commitments to President Biden to stop doing that have been fulfilled.
(02:43:20)
I want to pick up on a couple of the issues that we discussed yesterday. One, as you know, Senator Sullivan and I are the co-chairs of the Bipartisan Foreign Service Caucus. We've passed a number of pieces of legislation through the United States Congress, most recently, the Foreign Service Families Act. As you know, and we discussed yesterday, you know the importance of supporting the men and women at the State Department, including the foreign service. And I appreciate your willingness to work with us and the caucus to continue to make sure that they have what they need to do their jobs effectively. We also discussed the ongoing war in Ukraine and the importance of supporting the Ukrainian people against Putin's aggression. And I just want to say for the record, I support and endorse everything that Senator Shaheen said on that score, so I don't have to go into great detail.
(02:44:13)
I will say that we know that what happens in Ukraine does not stay in Ukraine. And it's not just me saying that. That is what we've heard repeatedly from leaders in Japan, leaders in South Korea and other partners of ours in the Indo-Pacific region. So I hope that we will continue to focus on that because what we do know is that President Xi has one eye on what's happening in Ukraine and another eye on what's happening in Taiwan and measuring everybody's response, like you. And we've worked on a bipartisan basis to try to make sure that we meet the challenge of China, lots of important pieces of legislation that have passed, but none yet to really rise to meeting those challenges. I do support the Biden administration's ongoing efforts to restrict the flow of very high-end technologies, the highest-end chips, to China that can be used in their military. We're going to have to work successfully with our allies to do that just like the Trump administration back in the day worked on the Huawei issue. So my view is that we need to expand that effort.
(02:45:32)
We also discussed the volatile situation in the Middle East. We often talk about the importance of shifting our focus to China and Indo-Pacific, but we always seem to get dragged back into conflicts in the Middle East. I want to start with Syria. Good riddance to the murderous Assad regime. Obviously, we have a stake in what comes next in Syria given the fact that it's a very volatile part of the world. I support the very cautious engagement of the Biden administration with HTS, but we should acknowledge their very poisonous genealogy beginning with Al-Qaeda morphing into al-Nusra. The other issue of course in Syria is that when you've got a situation like we see today, there are opportunities for ISIS to get further back on its feet, to provide it more oxygen.
(02:46:36)
And as you know, the tip of the spear in our fight against ISIS has been our Syrian Kurdish partners, the SDF. But at this moment, President Erdogan of Turkey has been backing attacks of the so-called Syrian National Army, which Turkey largely controls against our partners, the Syrian Kurds, which opens the door to a revival of ISIS. Because of the actions of the United States government, Turkey has so far paused that effort. Senator Graham and I have introduced legislation to impose sanctions on Turkey should they renew those attacks in a aggressive way. We talked about this, I know that you recognize the importance of that partnership with the Syrian Kurds. But just a very straightforward question, do you agree that we should continue to support our partners, the SDF, in the fight against ISIS?
Senator Marco Rubio (02:47:40):
Yeah. Well, absolutely. Not only that, but I think we also need to recognize that there are implications to abandoning partners who have a great sacrifice and threat, actually jailed the ISIS fighters. One of the reasons why we were able to dismantle ISIS because they were willing to host them in jails, a great personal threat to them. And obviously, that situation is very tenuous. I don't want to take up a lot of your time, but I do think it's important to respond to this opportunity in Syria because it could be opportunity. Look, the new people that are in charge there are not going to pass an FBI background check. Okay? We recognize that. These are not people we know all about and their history, as you said, is not one that gives us comfort.
(02:48:15)
That said, it is in the national interest of the United States, if possible, to have a Syria that's no longer a playground for ISIS, that respects religious minorities ranging from Alawis all the way to Christians, that protects the Kurds and at the same time is not a vehicle through which Iran can spread its terrorism to Hezbollah and destabilize Lebanon, not to mention what's happened in other parts. Not only is it in the national interest of the United States, it's in the national interest of virtually every nation state in the Middle East to see that come about. That is worth exploring. There is an interesting dynamic at play and Senator Paul asked a moment ago about the impact of sanctions. I would argue that the Caesar sanctions directly contributed to the downfall of the Assad regime in many ways. We find ourselves in this interesting situation now where because I think it was reauthorized as part of NDAA, we now have these sanctions in place against the government that no longer exists.
(02:49:11)
But nonetheless, it's an opportunity for us to explore how we could use that tool, the removal of it and others if in fact the territory is fertile for these outcomes. There are impediments to this that go beyond simply the new people in charge and one of them, as you pointed out, is Erdogan and what his intentions are. Right now there's a very tenuous ceasefire with regards to the Kurds, it's important for that to be maintained. I think it's important to signal to Erdogan early, including through this hearing, that they should not view a transition in power in the US as a window in which they could take advantage of to sort of violate whatever agreements were in place.
(02:49:48)
Right now, what we want in Syria stability so that we can explore what opportunities exist to bring a different dynamic because it would have an impact on Lebanon, on Israel, on the situation in Gaza and on the broader Middle East. And to walk away from an opportunity that may not come back, by the way, the Russians have been run out of there, the Iranians have been run out of there, but they are pragmatic foreign policy operators. If we don't explore these opportunities, they will work their way back in there at some point.
Senator Van Hollen (02:50:14):
And I agree with everything you just said. I look forward to working with you on that. Let me turn to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which we also discussed yesterday. And we all witnessed the horrific October 7th Hamas terror attacks on Israel. We've also witnessed the devastation and human rights catastrophe in Gaza. Like you, I've met Israeli families who lost loved ones on October 7th, I've met with hostage families, I've also met with Palestinian families who lost kids and other innocents in this war. So I'm very pleased to see the announcement today of the ceasefire and the return of hostages, let us pray that it holds and that it is implemented. But of course, as we discussed yesterday, the question is what happens next.
(02:51:05)
And we all agree that Hamas can have no role in the governance of Gaza or any other place. We also know that for all its flaws and faults, the Palestinian authority has recognized Israel's right to exist for the last 30 years, since the Oslo Accords. Their security forces are trained by US forces. They today, are fighting Palestinian militants in certain parts of the West Bank. But at the same time, their funds have been restricted by the Netanyahu government today, these are the funds that belong to the PA. We've seen a record increase in the number of settlements in the West Bank. And so the PA is not able to deliver on what had been the hope of Oslo, which is self-determination, security and dignity for both Israelis and Palestinians.
(02:51:57)
So you have said that the ideal way forward, recognizing that we've been at this for a long time, is a two-state solution. There are members of the Netanyahu government that today want to annex all of the West Bank. So my question is do you agree that annexation would be contrary to peace and security in the Middle East and what is your vision going forward?
Senator Marco Rubio (02:52:20):
First, let me say that, yeah, the ideal would be that there not be conflict and the people could live side by side with one another without being in conflict and the ability to pursue prosperity. Sadly and unfortunately, the conditions for that to exist have not been in place for some substantial period of time. I point to you as an example, back in 2020, the Trump administration offered 58 billion, about 50 billion or 58 billion, 58 to 50 billion dollars in investment to the Palestinians. And that included I believe 28 or 29 billion specifically for Gaza and it was rejected. That offer was made back in January of 2020 and then it pivoted over as a result of that rejection to what we now know as the Abraham Accords.
(02:52:58)
Second, I would say that Israel is a small nation who at its narrowest point is nine miles wide. It has been historically surrounded by enemies that seek their destruction, Hezbollah to the north, Hamas to the west, Iran further north with nuclear weapons, constantly. In fact, I would argue that if Israel had not been firm and strong in its response in this endeavor most recently, they may very well have faced an existential threat as they continue to in many ways. Now, here's the good news, and it's not just about the ceasefire today, although that's very important. The good news is that potentially we have had a dynamic shift in the region that has an historic opportunity if appropriately structured and pursued that changes the dynamics of what might be possible. And we've discussed Syria, we've discussed the events in Lebanon quite a bit as well, the degrading of the Iranian capability, which I hope will continue and hopefully the ability to reach some agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia on normalization and being able to engage both for their mutual security and also economic prosperity.
(02:53:56)
The real open question for the Palestinians is who will govern. Who will govern in Gaza in the short term and who will ultimately govern? Will it be the Palestinian authority or some other entity? Because it has to be someone. That was the initial goal for Gaza when the Israelis withdrew from there and they turned it over and they turned it over with greenhouses and they turned it over with all kinds of economic development. Hamas won an election, they took over and they destroyed the place and built tunnels for terrorists to operate from. So the key is not simply governance, it's who will govern. You can't turn it over to people who seek your destruction. And so I do think this is a very complex issue and I think that's understating it. We all recognize it.
(02:54:36)
But I also believe that we should not underestimate the potential opportunities that now exist. And it'll take some time to fully understand what those are that perhaps open the door to things that were not open in the future. But from the Israeli perspective, which I fully understand, it begins their existence because you cannot coexist with armed elements at your border who seek your destruction and evisceration as a state. You just can't. No nation on it, we wouldn't tolerate it and they can't either. It begins with having that level of security. And if they do, then I think there are opportunities that come about as a result of it. Those opportunities historically have not existed in recent times. Perhaps we're living in an era where that will be, the likelihood of it is higher because of recent events, unexpected events in Syria and Lebanon and other places.
Senator Van Hollen (02:55:23):
Senator Scott.
Senator Scott (02:55:26):
Thank you, Chairman. So I was in Miami or [inaudible 02:55:31] on Monday and when there's a video where you were recognizing Alina Garcia and Dariel Fernandez and Tomas Regalado, everybody applauded, they're so excited about your being the Secretary of State. You're a homegrown son and so they're just all excited. The other thing they're excited about is that they have somebody that is going to care about Venezuela and Cuba and Haiti and Nicaragua, all the problems because you've been so vocal. So I guess could you just go through sort of one by one and say what are our options?
(02:56:11)
Not that you know exactly what you're going to do and a lot of these decisions we made by somebody else anyway, but right now, look at what's going on in Venezuela. The Biden administration has allowed oil to flow. He stole the election, completely violated what Biden told him he would do, Maria Corina Machado probably was only alive because of your hard work making sure that Donald Trump put a tweet out. You look at at Cuba now, they just dropped the state-sponsored terrorism, which makes no sense. We've got people like Jose Daniel Ferrer in prison, kids, he's shown us 14 in prison for peaceful protests. So give me some of your ideas of what is possible.
Senator Marco Rubio (02:56:56):
Let's take one, but let's start with Haiti because in many ways, it's globally complex and I think the Chairman sort of alluded to this a moment ago. There's a fundamental problem in Haiti in that there is no legitimacy of authority. And I say this in recognition of the fact that some of the national police forces in Haiti have been extraordinarily brave. Despite being outgunned and outmanned, these guys and gals have stuck at their post and fought back against armed gangs. When the most powerful person in any nation state is nicknamed Barbecue, that is not a good thing and this guy obviously is not named that for good reasons. He's not a cook. These are bad gang elements that are operating within Haiti and have destabilized, not just Haiti, but threatened to destabilize the Dominican Republic, not to mention the migratory pressure that it places on the United States, on The Bahamas and on other places in the region. There is no easy answer.
(02:57:47)
The Kenyans are there and I can tell you I think they deserve a lot of credit for being willing to take on that mission. In recent days, missions from various other countries have arrived, Salvador being among them, to sort of contribute to that effort. I don't think anyone can tell you they have a master plan for how you fix that overnight. I do think it does begin with stability and security. You've got to establish some baseline security and it's not going to come from a US military intervention. So to the extent that we can encourage foreign partners and I would include foreign partners in the Western hemisphere who should be contributing to this effort to provide some level of stability and security in Haiti so that you can explore the opportunities to have a transitional government that has legitimacy, that can ultimately lead to the conduct of elections and then have governing bodies in that country that can bring about a nation state that can begin to build some of the things you need in order for permanency.
(02:58:38)
But it's going to take a long time. And I say this with sadness in my heart. There have been good times and there have been bad times and worse times in Haiti, but sadly, there's not really been a golden era in Haiti's history. And your heart breaks for these people and for what they've gone through, but you also as a policymaker in the United States, recognize the implications it's had in our country. It's not just in the migratory pressures it's placed on us, but as I've pointed out earlier, the threat it poses on a daily basis to destabilizing the Dominican Republic. You mentioned Nicaragua. It's a very weird situation, for lack of a better term.
(02:59:14)
The Sandinistas earlier, one of the first things they did in the new year is they kicked out every nun in the country. They've gone to war with the Catholic Church, which was the last institution in the country capable of standing up to them. But now they've begun this process of amending their fake constitution to basically create a family dynasty so that Ortega and his wife will now be co-presidents. There's no, democracy there's been completely wiped out. They have literally put plane loads of opposition figures and exported them here to the United States and around the world. They literally arrested anyone who signed up to run for president. They arrested every single, you sign up to run for president, they put you in jail. So it's a big challenge, but our national interest is most challenged.
(02:59:59)
Number one because of migratory pressure. Number two because the Nicaraguan regime is allowing people to fly into Nicaragua visa-free from anywhere in the world and then transit to the United States. They have become the point of entry for people from all over the world because you come in without any visa, they charge you a thousand dollars or whatever the going rate is today and from there you get on the migratory route and into the United States. They have been direct contributors to the migratory crisis we face at our southern border. And the third is the Nicaraguans have basically invited the Russians to establish a military naval presence in Nicaragua in our hemisphere. That poses a threat to our national security. That needs to be addressed.
(03:00:37)
Venezuela sadly, is not governed by government. It's governed by a narco-trafficking organization that has empowered itself of a nation state. And we have seen, I believe, upwards of seven, eight, nine million Venezuelans have just left the country, more are expected to leave. I was in strong disagreement with the Biden administration because they got played the way that I knew they would get played. They entered into negotiations with Maduro. He agreed to have elections. The elections were completely fake. They leveraged migration against us to get those concessions. And now they have these general licenses where companies like Chevron are actually providing billions of dollars of money into the regime's coffers. And the regime kept none of the promises that they made. So all that needs to be re-explored. Because in Venezuela, you have the Russian presence, you have a very strong Iranian presence. The Iranians, in fact, are exploring or in fact are beginning to build drone factories for the manufacture of Iranian drones in our own hemisphere. Not to mention the long practice of the Venezuelan regime of providing real but illegitimate passports to operatives for Hezbollah in our own hemisphere.
(03:01:44)
And lastly, and I leave it lastly to Cuba because it's one that's been more enduring, the problem in Cuba basically is that despite being a communist regime and Marxism not working, is that they've decided and they thought what they would do is that they would create this holding company. It's called GAESA. It is a company that they own by the Cuban military. And that holding company owns everything that makes money in Cuba. If it makes money in Cuba, they own it and it generates revenue for them. The Miami Herald just did an expose on GAESA. And while you have electrical blackouts and you have all these other problems economically in Cuba, GAESA is sitting on billions of dollars that they've generated for their permanency.
(03:02:19)
We, in 2017, the Trump administration sanctioned GAESA. Unfortunately, the Biden administration lifted some of those sanctions and restrictions a couple of years ago, which increased the amount of money they were able to generate through things like manipulating remittances and the like. And then yesterday, the Biden administration announced they were exact rescinding all of the sanctions on GAESA. Which basically the sanctions were this, you can do business with an independent individual Cuban, it's the regime that doesn't allow it, you cannot do business with anything owned by that government-run entity. And yesterday they lifted the sanctions on them. Now, the new administration is not bound by that decision, but nonetheless, that's what's in place. Ultimately, the reality, the moment of truth is arriving. Cuba is literally collapsing, both generationally in terms of all the young people leaving, but it's also collapsing economically. They are now living on 20 and 21 hour rolling blackouts and some days longer because Marxism doesn't work, because they're corrupt and because they're inept. And they're going to have a choice to make those that are in charge there. Do they open up to the world? Do they allow the individual Cuban to have control over their economic and political destiny even though it threatens the security and stability of the regime? Or do they triple down and just say we'd rather be the owners and controllers of a fourth world country that's falling apart and has lost 10% of its population in the last two years? And that's a dynamic that they're facing right now.
(03:03:48)
I hope that they will choose the path of empowering the individual Cuban so then the individual Cuban has the ability to do with the peoples of virtually every other country in the hemisphere have been able to do at least once in the last 60 years and some more than once and that is elect their leaders, vote for their leaders. You think about what happened here today, the Cuban people have no idea what it's like to have an authority figure or someone in charge in power, like I am as a US senator, sitting here having to answer question from his colleagues and also having to have people on the back screaming and protesting against you. You can't do that to a Cuban official. You can't question their decisions. The Cuban people have never been able to participate in a political process for almost 70 years now. And they're entitled to that as much as the people of Colombia and Argentina and Paraguay and Peru and virtually every other country in the region has enjoyed.
Senator Scott (03:04:40):
So let's assume you have this job, you're confirmed, you have the job for four years. What would your definition of success be?
Senator Marco Rubio (03:04:47):
With regards to generally?
Senator Scott (03:04:49):
Your job.
Senator Marco Rubio (03:04:50):
The alignment of our foreign policy to our national interest has been defined the security prosperity of the American people. And by the way, I would define that as success for the country. What I would define as success for the State Department is not just that alignment, but making the State Department highly relevant again. Sadly, and I think I've shared this with you in some of our meetings with many of my colleagues, what has happened over the last 20 years under multiple administrations is the influence of the State Department has declined at the expense of other agencies and also at the expense of National Security Councils because it takes so long for the State Department to take action. And so increasingly, you stop getting invited to the meetings and they stop putting you in charge of things because it takes too long to get a result.
(03:05:33)
So we want the State Department to be relevant again. And it should be because the State Department has a plethora of talented people who are subject matter experts and who have skills in diplomacy and it's not being fully utilized because increasingly on issue after issue, we've seen the State Department marginalized because of internal inertia, because of the way the structure works. So we have to be at that table when decisions are being made and the State Department has to be a source of creative ideas and effective implementation. So I would define making the State Department relevant again in the setting of our foreign policy is critical. And I think that's something that maybe is not as perceived by the general public as it is by those of us who watch it on a daily basis.
Speaker 3 (03:06:15):
Thank you.
Senator Scott (03:06:15):
Thanks.
Speaker 3 (03:06:16):
Senator Rosen.
Senator Rosen (03:06:18):
Well, thank you, Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Shaheen for holding this hearing and for welcoming me to the committee. I'm joining this committee at a challenging time for the global community, from conflicts with Iranian proxies in the Middle East to Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine, growing tensions with China, a genocide in Sudan and so much more and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find bipartisan to these problems. And I also want to thank you, Senator Rubio, your family that's here and those that couldn't be here for working with me over the last six years and your service to our nation. And I'd like to congratulate you again on your nomination.
(03:06:58)
And I'm going to move on, I just want to make a quick statement because ensuring the United States remains a steadfast supporter of Israel I know is one of your top priorities and one of mine. And throughout your time in the Senate, you've been one of Israel's most unwavering supporters. I want to thank you for supporting Israel. I look forward to working with you to ensure that the US-Israel security partnership remains ironclad and that our friendship remains unconditional. And I want to thank you for your response to Senator McCormick's hostage question. We all hope since we've been in this hearing that there's news maybe of an imminent agreement being reached to free, I hope, all the hostages, we hope to hear that confirmation soon. But nevertheless, these issues must remain a top priority for the Committee going forward.
(03:07:46)
So I'm going to just move over to talking about Abraham Accords, speaking of going forward, because despite the immense challenges that you've addressed, post by October 7th, the Abraham Accords have ushered in new forms of cooperation between Israel and countries in the Middle East and North Africa. As one of the founders and co-chairs of the bipartisan Senate Abraham Accords Caucus, I firmly believe the US should continue building on the Accords by deepening people-to-people ties, soft diplomacy if you will, and widening the circle of partnerships with Israel to new countries. So Senator Rubio, I know you've touched on this briefly, but if confirmed, how will you support the growth of the Abraham Accords to new countries generally? And specifically, maybe try to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Senator Marco Rubio (03:08:35):
Well, thank you. I think those are important points. A couple of things that have come up here as a result of this. The first is and I point to this to him because we just don't know, it's a new development, but I think we should not underestimate or understate the potential historic opportunities that exist right now with what's happened very unexpectedly for most in Syria, what's happened in Lebanon, the weakening of Iran and of its Shia crescent of destabilization in the region. These are extraordinary opportunities that I think lend themselves to an era of diminishing insecurity, not total elimination of it, but enough security that it opens the door for agreement on other topics. Critical to that is the potential of a Saudi normalization with Israel. And I think that as part of a broader context of the Abraham Accords I think would be historic in nature and I think provide extraordinary benefits to the world and help bring a level of stability and peace to an area that frankly has not had it, one could save for thousands of years, but certainly in my lifetime.
(03:09:40)
You talk about what we could do to build on it. I think the most important part of any arrangement of countries that enter into these agreements that historically have been difficult is there has to be a benefit to it. They have to perceive that there's a benefit to it particularly among themselves. What benefits will Saudi Arabia derive from being and recognition of Israel and vice versa. And I could think of a variety of things, whether it's advances in what their investments into high-tech and how Saudi Arabia wants to diversify its own economy, the ability of cross investments and also, frankly, of security. Because for the foreseeable future, I think most anticipate that there will be a mutual threat from Tehran. It may not be openly stated as a military alliance, but it's certainly security is certainly one that I think they both have a mutual interest in and which I think the US could be a very strong partner in providing those assurances as well.
(03:10:31)
So I do think there's a real opportunity to expand it and it won't be without irritants. There's no doubt about it. There won't be without irritants that we are still going to have some issues with UAE or Saudi Arabia, but we also have to be pragmatic enough to understand what an enormous achievement it would be if in fact, not just you get a ceasefire, but that leads to the opening, the opportunity of a Saudi-Israeli partnership and joint recognition, what that would mean to the region is historic.
Senator Rosen (03:11:00):
And you've talked about potential opportunities going forward and we talk about maybe not just with other countries, but how does a private sector get involved in creating, building and sustaining the normalization in areas of water insecurity, power insecurity, healthcare, technology? We know that there are ways that we can do this, they have been doing it. How does the private sector feed into this?
Senator Marco Rubio (03:11:25):
I think from an economic and development perspective, they're the linchpin of it. I think one of the things that could come about as a result of an agreement between the Saudis and the Israelis is that companies and institutions in both countries would now be open and able to invest in and/or partner in the economies of each other. So the Israelis, as an example, have made extraordinary advances in agricultural production. Because of geographic constraints, they've had to be incredibly creative and nonetheless have been able to and I think the Saudis would benefit from that greatly. Likewise, I think that we know as a start-up nation that the technological capabilities
Senator Marco Rubio (03:12:00):
And advances that the private sector has made in Israel, and that I think would be a great interest to the Saudis in partnership. In reverse is, I think, some of the energy resources that Saudi Arabia could provide, some of the financing for projects that they work together on. The linchpin of all of these is private sector engagement, but without the governmental imprimatur or without the government creating the pathways for that to be possible because of recognition, because of diplomatic relations, because those don't exist, that hasn't been able to happen. This would open the door for that and I think be transformative.
Senator Rosen (03:12:32):
Thank you. I want to continue a little bit on this theme because of course a lot of this also has a nexus with combating anti-Semitism and of course anti-Semitism domestically and abroad. I proudly founded the Senate, the first ever Senate Bipartisan Task Force, to combating anti-Semitism. You and I have done a lot of work there. You're a member of the task force and we work closely with the special envoy's office at the State Department.
(03:12:57)
We know that global rates of anti-Semitism, they are skyrocketing, excuse me. It's critical the White House ensures the special envoy in their office is sufficiently staffed, supported, and resourced.
(03:13:09)
So, I know we've talked about this in our meeting and of course, like I said, we worked on this before. Can I have your commitment that you'll work with the White House to do two things. Quickly nominate a qualified candidate to be special envoy, quickly and qualified. We really need to get somebody on board.
Senator Marco Rubio (03:13:28):
Yes, and I think it needs to be someone that, as we've discussed, also enjoys broad support across different sectors, but the key ultimately, I don't know if it was a study or a survey or something that came out yesterday, but it showed something that was really disturbing. I think it said 60% of people on earth hold anti-Semitic views according to this poll or in 60% of the countries, but I think it's a 60%. Look, unfortunately, bigotry and hatred has been a part of human nature from the very beginning, but anti-Semitism is a unique danger. The suffering that it inflicted on the world historically but in the last century is unimaginable and can never be allowed to be repeated, and it's something that we should make sure we're constantly speaking out against and identifying for what it is.
(03:14:15)
I think the US's role as a leader in speaking out in that regard is indispensable and we need to be forceful about it at every… One of the things that's most troubling is what seemed to me that many… One of the things that's undermining the legitimacy of many of our international organisms is they become havens for anti-Semitic activity that oftentimes is disguised as anti-Israel, but I believe is frankly anti-Semitic. And, of course, we've seen incidents of that in the United States, as well. We cannot ignore what anti-Semitism has cost humanity in the past because if that lesson is forgotten, it will very quickly repeat itself and potentially in every region on the planet.
Senator Rosen (03:14:55):
Thank you. I want to just quickly, a yes or no. We know, you've talked a lot about how important deputies are in mission sets of different things. We know that if we don't have a deputy envoy in place, they keep the wheels turning, they keep the organization going, waiting for the special envoy to be confirmed. Do I have your commitment that we'll quickly put in a deputy envoy to make sure that the work can continue until-
Senator Marco Rubio (03:15:20):
Yeah, we'll work to do that as soon as possible.
Senator Rosen (03:15:22):
Thank you. I only have 56 minutes- 56 minutes, I do not have 56 minutes. I have 56 seconds. That would be a little crazy. I know that the first Trump administration created the Women's Global Development Prosperity Initiative. It was the first whole of government initiative to promote women's economic empowerment, dedicated to global resourcing for these activities. As secretary, will you commit to continuing to expand on the WGDP initiative and, if so, in what ways?
Senator Marco Rubio (03:15:54):
Yeah, and that was a high priority of Ivanka Trump, who's no longer going to be in government, but was at the time and she worked on that very much and I was a supporter of it then and look forward to being a supporter of it now, if confirmed.
Senator Rosen (03:16:06):
Thank you. And we got that 56 minutes went awfully fast. There you go. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Marco Rubio (03:16:10):
Time flies.
Speaker 4 (03:16:12):
You yield back all eight seconds?
Senator Rosen (03:16:14):
Yes.
Speaker 4 (03:16:15):
Senator Cornyn.
Mr Cornyn (03:16:17):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can barely see you down there.
Senator Rosen (03:16:20):
I know. I was there one time. I-
Mr Cornyn (03:16:22):
They had to extend the dais, so Senator Curtis and I could actually sit at the big boys' and girls' table. So, Senator Rubio, it's great to see you. I have complete confidence in your ability to lead the State Department. I think it's an inspired choice and you couldn't be better prepared for that job.
(03:16:44)
I do want to ask you a few questions, some of which, I know Senator Cruz is here as well, he and I share a concern about Mexico. You've heard some concerns particularly about the cartel activity, but I want to talk to you about water. 1944, there was a water treaty between the United States and Mexico and we have had chronic problems getting Mexico to cooperate and release the water that's been absolutely critical to the life and the livelihood of our agriculture community in the Rio Grande Valley and elsewhere. I've talked to Secretary Blinken about this. We've written letters, we've done everything we know how to do, but I would just like to get your commitment to work with us to try to just simply get Mexico to live up to its requirements under the treaty, and if they won't do it voluntarily, to look for leverage and ways we can persuade them to do what they already have a legal obligation to do, which is to release water on a timely basis.
Senator Marco Rubio (03:17:50):
Absolutely, and I think one of the reasons why we need to do that is twofold. The first is because it has real implications, not just for the state of Texas but broadly for the United States. But the second is because I think this has become part of a pattern and I would argue, part of a pattern in a number of international arrangements, but in particular, international arrangements with Mexico in which you can strike any deal you want or sign any document you want, but if you're not willing to prioritize its enforcement, you are encouraging others to get away with the same thing. And, at the same time, you're undermining the willingness of people to commit to enter into agreements in the future.
(03:18:21)
And this has become a… We've seen it with USMCA, frankly. We've seen it with a variety of other commitments that have been made by partners in other parts of the world, and we're seeing it with this treaty, where there is a treaty, they have obligations under it, and they don't seek to meet it, and it's part of the broader challenge that I alluded to in my opening statement, which is, we've entered this era where we've entered into all these international arrangements, but oftentimes, they've been weaponized against us, either through non-compliance or through creative reinterpretation, and that extends to trade all the way down to treaties such as this.
Mr Cornyn (03:18:53):
Speaking of Mexico, I know that, in different quarters, we've had people suggest that the cartels be identified as a foreign terrorist organization, and as I've looked into that, it feels like the right thing to do because, of course, the cartels are wreaking havoc and misery and death and destruction, not only here in the United States but also in Mexico. But I worry a little bit about some of the unintended consequences. For example, does that create some new category of asylum, perhaps, for people who claim that they are victims of cartel activity that otherwise wouldn't exist? What's your view about the designation?
Senator Marco Rubio (03:19:40):
Well, and I think this question was asked earlier, so I'll tell you what I said. The first is that they most certainly are terroristic in their nature. They terrorize Mexicans, they terrorize on the US side. They are involved in the trafficking of women and children, of labor, both labor and sex trafficking, deadly fentanyl and drugs are at large, as you can imagine, and I think pose a grave danger in the process of trafficking people, trafficking terrorists into the United States. So, they are terroristic in nature.
(03:20:09)
What I said was that whether it's that designation or some new designation that we create, it is important that they be identified for what they are. I also pointed to something you just alluded to in your question and that is, they pose a grave risk to Mexican sovereignty as well. We have seen multiple journalists and politicians and candidates assassinated, murdered, in Mexico by cartels because either they're not the cartel's chosen candidate or they're a journalist that's spoken out against the cartels and you find yourself murdered. And I don't think we should underestimate, and I hope the Mexicans do not, the amount of leverage that they have created over the Mexican government, and, in some parts of Mexico, they are, in fact, have operational control of territories, particularly near the US Mexican border.
(03:20:52)
So, this is something that I hope we can work with jointly and cooperatively with the Mexicans to address, because it's in their interest as well as ours. Ultimately, I do not think I speak out of turn when I say that you can expect President Trump will do whatever it takes to secure the United States of America and the American people from the threat that they pose. But it is my sincerest hope, and frankly I think the most productive outcome would be if we could do so in partnership and cooperation with the government of Mexico, who I know shares many of our concerns.
Mr Cornyn (03:21:23):
Well, that certainly should be our first choice, but I have the same confidence you have that President Trump will send a very clear message and follow that up with decisive action to persuade Mexico to do what is in its best interest. And, because it's an intolerable situation right on our southern border, we can't get a divorce. We got to make the marriage work somehow, but it's a troubled marriage, shall I, to continue the analogy.
(03:21:55)
Let me talk to you briefly about the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which is within the jurisdiction of this committee. This is something I've been concerned about for some time because we have lobbyists that work here in Washington DC that actually represent foreign nations that unbeknownst to members of Congress, they're actually advocating not on behalf of the American people and American interests, but on behalf of the interests of foreign nations. Now, there is a loophole called the Lobbyist Disclosure Act, which is frankly weak sauce when it comes to providing the kind of transparency that we need. Anytime somebody shows up in your office and is advocating for something, purporting to represent American interest, but in fact, is they are motivated by and being paid by a foreign interest to advocate their interest. Is that something that you would be willing to work with us to further reform and refine?
Senator Marco Rubio (03:23:01):
Yes. And, as you know from our time serving together on the Intelligence Committee, as well, it's something we spend a lot of time talking and thinking about as well. And, I would raise two points. The first there is, look, the straight up, some foreign government hires a lobbyist. You know that because they're registered and we're aware of it.
(03:23:17)
The second is more nefarious and that is that you hire someone through a cutout, a third party, without aware of the fact that they are in fact being paid by a foreign entity, and sometimes dressed up as an American interest when, in fact, it's furthering the interest of a foreign entity.
(03:23:34)
And then, the third, and it's one that I don't think gets talked about enough and it isn't covered by this law, but needs to be said is some of the most effective and vociferous lobbyists on behalf of Chinese interests in the United States for a long time was US corporations, who had a pretty good deal going in China with regards to manufacturing and the like and would come here and argue in favor of outcomes and policies that favored China. And, by the way, China would weaponize this openly. They would in fact bring in CEOs of corporate America and encourage them to go back and talk to your member of Congress and tell them they better not do that because, if they do, companies like yours, they're not going to do very well in China. And that was weaponized against us, too. That's not illegal, but it's most certainly troubling and something we need to have our eyes open to, as well, as we move forward.
Mr Cornyn (03:24:20):
Well, that's a perfect segue into my last question, and this has to do with outbound investment transparency. As you know, the Senate has passed legislation providing for a reporting requirement for American companies who are investing in China. It's not a prohibition, it's merely a disclosure requirement because the unique circumstances that you're well aware of that China provides, there is no division between civilians or the private sector and government under Chinese law. The private sector, so-called private sector, is required to share any and all information that might be of use to the People's Liberation Army or to the Chinese intelligence agencies. And it is not a stretch to say that, due to the tactics of people like, or strategies, really, of people like Deng Xiaoping who said, "Hide your motives and bide your time," we've seen massive US investment in China, which has not only helped them rebuild their economy, which is fine, but more ominously, rearm their military and modernize their military so that they become a threat not only to their neighbors in the region, but to world peace.
(03:25:41)
We can all imagine a nightmare in which China decides to take Taiwan, which President Xi said he's committed to do. So, I think it just makes sense for us to have more transparency so that, as policymakers, we can then figure out what is the right policy. I could care less whether American companies want to build more Burger Kings or Starbucks in China, but I do care if American companies are investing in dual purpose technology or in ways that would undermine the national security of the United States. Do you share that concern?
Senator Marco Rubio (03:26:18):
Absolutely. And, in fact, I shared it beyond just simply what you've discussed. This was a few years ago when the Thrift Savings Plan, the retirement 401k, basically, for federal workers, was investing in funds that are going directly to Chinese military use. So, you think about it, there were people serving in the armed forces of the United States whose retirement funds were being invested in companies that were building the weapons designed to one day blow the ship that they served on, even the Indo-Pacific.
(03:26:43)
And, in the case of other private sectors, you're right, every sector's not created equal in terms of the threat they pose to our country. But, at a minimum, we should have insight into whether American investment dollars, be they institutional or individual, are going through the funding of activities designed to undermine the United States of America. That's a core national security interest.
Mr Cornyn (03:27:03):
Thank you, and Godspeed.
Speaker 4 (03:27:05):
Senator Kaine.
Mr. Daines (03:27:06):
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and ranking member Shaheen. Welcome the opportunity to work with you in this Congress. Senator Rubio, congratulations on your nomination. If you're watching the hearing, you probably notice senators coming in and out and most people understand why that is, but for those who don't, we have a lot of other hearings, a lot of other responsibilities. We get in a queue and know when our questioning time is coming up. I decided that I would show up, albeit 11 minutes late, and stay because this is so important to the country and to me. But I think, for those of you who have watched this hearing that was gaveled in at 10, what you've seen is a nominee who is extremely well-prepared.
(03:27:48)
We are used to seeing nominees who know a lot about a couple of things and sometimes who know very little about virtually everything. But I think you've seen a hearing with a nominee who, agree or disagree with the points he's made, he's not talking out of a briefing book, he's not having a thumb through a binder to decide how to answer a particular question. I've always been struck in working with Senator Rubio on this committee since I came to the Senate in January of 2013, that he has a very well-developed sense of the world and a passion and interest in all corners of it.
(03:28:21)
I was particularly happy that he was nominated for two reasons. One, we have worked together significantly on legislation, touching many different areas over the years, and one was referred to by Senator Shaheen, legislation to send a clear message that NATO and the US participation in NATO is not just simply an executive priority that could come and go depending upon the Article II Commander-in-Chief, but it was also something so important that Congress would say that the membership of the United States in NATO is something that Congress would want to weigh in on should there ever be a decision by an executive that we should back out of NATO. And I think sending that message from Congress has been a very important thing that has led to a NATO that is expanding. Finland and Sweden, where the polling would've been de minimis 10 years ago for joining NATO, are now in, and I think a strong message from Congress is part of that. Obviously, the fear of Russia is a huge part of it, but a strong message of congressional support is part of it.
(03:29:27)
I'm particularly proud that the Virginia National Guard has now struck a deal under the State Partnership Program where we are partners with the military in Finland, a very capable military, and the first exercises of the Virginia Guard with the Finnish military will start next month. I'm very excited about that.
(03:29:45)
The second reason I was particularly gratified to see Senator Rubio nominated for this position is he cares about the Americas. I cast my first vote in a presidential election in 1976. I have not seen a single administration, Democratic or Republican, that has devoted enough attention to the Americas. We devote attention to it in a time of crisis, and then, move our attention elsewhere. It seems like secretaries of state have often thought that the world only has an east-west axis and not a north-south axis. And Senator Booker addressed that with his questions around the attention that should be paid by the United States to Africa. I feel that very strongly about the Americas.
(03:30:27)
I don't have to ask Senator Rubio questions to gauge his interest and attention level. Everyone who comes before the committee tells us they're really interested in the Americas, only to find that they end up spending all their time somewhere else. I don't have to ask that question of this nominee to know that he has a passion about the nations that are our nearest neighbors, a passion about the nations who are so connected to us in our cultural roots and in our family ties. And it is so important, not just because China and other nations are now getting into the area, I don't want to have a new Monroe Doctrine that we only care about it to keep Europe out of it, we only care about it to keep China out of it. We ought to be paying attention because we're connected to these nations, and things will go better for us if things go better for them.
(03:31:15)
So, to you, Senator Rubio, I'm very, very happy that you're nominated for this position. Two comments, then one particular question. One, the status of career ambassadors. I think it is a norm for every administration to ask ambassadors to tender their resignations, and it is certainly the norm for the political ambassadors to be politely let go the day that the new administration comes into place, and I think that's an expectation that everybody has. We get that.
(03:31:49)
For the career ambassadors that are in place, they have been asked to tender their resignations to the incoming administration, and that's normal, but I would hope that the administration would consider, if their career, keeping them in place until their successors are ready. Because, to swap out a career ambassador for a career chargé does not advance our ability in any way to operate in nations. There is a cachet that comes with being a confirmed ambassador that really helps you with continuity and diplomacy in these nations. So, I know that that's a decision that the President makes, but I hope as you have a conversation with the National Security and Diplomacy team, you might encourage the administration. Yes, you're going to replace the politicals with career chargé, but don't replace the career ambassadors unless you're entirely ready to put somebody in place, which we know can often take quite a while for the administration to even forward nominees, much less the time to get through the committee process. That would be a comment.
(03:32:52)
And then, second is more for colleagues really rather than for Senator Rubio. One thing I've tried to be consistent on in my service on this committee is fight against unilateral executive application of military power unless it's in pure instances of imminent self-defense, active self-defense, or self-defense against imminent hostilities. And I have been able to get this committee to pass significant war powers resolutions under three different presidents now, President Obama, a Democrat, President Biden, a Democrat, and President Trump, a Republican. And I just wanted to assure everybody that I'm going to continue to be a stickler that the nation shouldn't be at war without a vote of Congress, except in the instances of imminent self-defense. And I will do that because I have done that under presidents of both parties and I'll continue.
(03:33:48)
Senator Rubio, now to the question, and you alluded to this very briefly in one of the comments that you made about the nation of Paraguay. Not only do we not devote enough attention to the Americas, but when we do, we devote attention to the headaches and the headaches abound in the Americas and elsewhere. And so, we've talked about Haiti, a problem. We've talked about Venezuela, a problem, but so often, we don't pay attention to, lift up, elevate, provide resources to celebrate the nations in the Americas that are doing things right. And so, when I travel to the region, and I'm sure you've heard the same thing, I hear these nations that are doing things right, "Why won't you pay attention to us?" Ecuador, throughout a pro-China government, put a pro-US government, all they wanted, all they wanted was a trade deal. "We want to be closer to the United States. We're the only nation on the Pacific coast of the Americas, doesn't have a trade deal with the United States." This administration, I've been critical about the Biden administration, didn't do anything to advance that cause.
(03:34:50)
Talk to us about some of the nations in the Americas that you think are doing things right and what we ought to do to help those nations because we'll be much more likely to spread the right if there are other nations in the region that are doing better and better and better than if we're just trying to lecture people about how to improve.
Senator Marco Rubio (03:35:05):
Well, just as a general matter, one of the things that's always struck me is that the region, and then, maybe this is true in other parts of the world as well, but particularly in the region, it's almost better to be America's adversary or enemy than friend because the impact of friendship or the benefits of friendship are not tangibly clear to a lot of them. And I've seen that expressed time and again over multiple years, and it's easy to pay attention to a headache, you're going to sanction some country that's not acting in anti-American ways, but the people that are doing it the right way or want to be cooperative, they're ignored and the countries that are doing it the right way are ignored.
(03:35:40)
So, I think there are a number of countries that, right now, as we speak, and I always say this with caution because I may not mention one country and they say, "Well, they left us out," but I just want to point to a few that I think are present and clear for us. You mentioned one with Ecuador. Ecuador was actually left out of CAFTA because, at the time, the people in charge didn't want to be a part of anything with us.
(03:35:58)
They're facing some real security threats that are unique to Ecuador's history and they're facing these threats because you've got violence and gangs coming over from the Colombian border and then pushing up through Ecuador as a transit country, but they bring with it the turf fights and the gangs, to the point where, last year, there was a real threat to the stability of the government where they took over television stations and things that these armed elements did. And there's a lot we can do and have done but can do. We're not talking about a lot of money. We're not even talking about money, in many cases, just equipment to help them at least to restore some sense of stability. The other thing that Ecuador… These are just off topics, but I think they're all relevant. Ecuador faces a very significant challenge with illegal fishing off their coasts by Chinese fishing fleets who violate their territorial waters on an almost daily basis in massive quantities, and it's an ecological crisis as well, on top of it. That's a country that can use our help tremendously.
(03:36:51)
I think about the Dominican Republic. People don't talk about the Dominican Republic enough and they face a real challenge because of Haiti and the instability next door. They were also one of the countries that emerged from Covid the fastest, and not just because the tourism returned quicker there and they've really been able to do some positive things.
(03:37:07)
I think Argentina. I know people, some have not met the new President of Argentina. This is a serious, well-trained economist. I would not, if you sit down and talk to him for a few minutes, he has real clear ideas about economic development and is doing some really necessary things in terms of restructuring the direction of Argentine economics in a way that I think is very positive.
Mr. Daines (03:37:29):
Can I just say to every other nation out there that thinks you're a good guy, he was about to mention you, but my time has expired. But please focus on the good guys, and let's help them do better and better and better and be good examples in the region. Thank you.
Senator Marco Rubio (03:37:41):
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (03:37:42):
Excellent point, Senator Kaine. Excellent point. Senator Curtis, welcome to the committee.
Mr Curtis (03:37:47):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, it's great to be with you today. Great to be on this committee. Senator Rubio, for the last seven years, from a distance of about 600 feet, that's what separates the House Chamber and the Senate Chamber, I've watched and admired your work from a distance, and on a few, but very fortunate, times I've had the chance to actually be wind at your back on some of your work supporting Taiwan and protecting Hong Kong dissidents as we work together on some legislation.
(03:38:17)
Now, in a twist of events, I sit not far from where you once sat, and there's another symbolic 600 feet between us, between the State Department and the Senate, and I'm excited to work with you in your new role, and I would like to continue to be wind at your back on a lot of issues, and none more important to me than China. And, if you remember really nothing else about our short interchange today, please know that that's very important to me and I hope to work with you on what I view the aggression of China, and, in many ways, their global push for military and economic supremacy, I think is a threat in many ways.
(03:38:57)
China's imposing. It's what they call China One principle on the world, which is very different than from our China policy. Can you describe how we can push back on that and how we need to make sure we're shaping that conversation?
Senator Marco Rubio (03:39:14):
Yeah. Well, the first is to understand that the One China policies and the US policy towards the issue of Taiwan has been consistent and reaffirmed by every administration since 1979, and it is the combination of the Taiwan Relations Act with the Six Assurances that make clear that the United States, we're not going to pressure Taiwan into any arrangement. We're not going to tell you when we're going to stop, or if ever. We make no commitment to not helping them in their national defense. We're not going to force any outcomes, and frankly, we are going to do everything, and we reject any effort to coerce, intimidate, and/or forcibly drive Taiwan to do whatever China wants them to do, and that's been our position and that will continue. That was the position under President Trump's first administration. I anticipate it will continue to be in the second administration.
(03:40:01)
I think, within that context, it's important for us to find every opportunity possible to allow Taiwan to engage in international forums where important issues are discussed, and they are not represented, irrespective of what China claims about One China principle, they're not represented, and so, the views there, they need to have an opportunity in these forums to be made clear, but I think stability is critically important.
(03:40:26)
Here's the one thing I would point to here with regards to stability. If the Chinese are, in fact, serious about stabilizing US-China relations and finding avenues of which we can be cooperate and avoid conflict, then they will not do anything rash or irrational when it comes to Taiwan or the Philippines for that matter. The actions they are taking now are deeply destabilizing. They are forcing us to take counter actions because we have commitments to the Philippines and we have commitments to Taiwan that we intend to keep. And so, if they want to destabilize the relationship or they want to help at least create some pathway for stabilization of our relationship with them, even as we remain engaged in global competition and, in some cases, more adversarial than others, they really need to stop messing around with Taiwan and with the Philippines, because it's forcing us to focus our attention in ways we prefer not to have to.
Mr Curtis (03:41:18):
As a matter of interest, I actually lived in Taiwan in August of 1979, 3 months after that act that you referred to, and I think you're very accurate. I think for a minute about Europe, and there's some countries it feels like in Europe because of their presence, Poland, Czech Republic, and Baltics, that are more in tune with this issue. But, as a whole, it feels like some European nations are in denial of some of the things you've just said.
(03:41:43)
You talk a little bit about how we work with our NATO friends over there and how we get them to appreciate this and actually play a part in this.
Senator Marco Rubio (03:41:50):
Well, I think, in the case of NATO, I think I would expand it to really talk about the European Union and the EU, which I think is increasingly every single day coming to the realization of the threat that China's mercantilist policies and unfair trade policies are posing to them. They are flooding the European market with their cheaper electric cars, or attempting to do so. There's a dispute now about the importation of aluminum on sector after sector. You were seeing the EU confronting the reality.
(03:42:17)
By the same token, like many countries around the world, including ours to some extent, there's a quandary involved. There is an intermeshing economic relations that you can't just walk away from, but you also recognize the long-term threat that Chinese practices are having on your economic lives. And so, I think that's an area in which the Europeans, some more than others, are increasingly aware and willing to be more forceful. Italy has been willing to lean into it more than perhaps some other countries in the region. Hopefully that will continue to change.
(03:42:49)
On the security front, look, an event in the Indo-Pacific, say… Let's leave Taiwan out of it for a moment and say it's the Philippines. Okay. In the last 48 hours, there's this massive, I don't even know how to describe it, but this massive ship that the Chinese have built that's headed towards the Philippines and the Philippines feels threatened by it, rightfully so. We've seen this on a daily basis with a harassment and so forth, but on a daily basis. If, God forbid, there is some miscommunication or some inadvertent conflict emerges there, and we have obligations to them, the impact that will have on the entire globe, the impact that it will have on the entire globe is enormous, and that includes Europe. So, they have a selfish vested interest in seeking for the Chinese to curb their behaviors.
(03:43:31)
I would also point to the Europeans that what the Russians have done with Ukraine would not have been possible without the assistance of China. Whether it's the sharing of technology or aid in evading sanctions or selling their oil in secondary markets, the Chinese have been hidden, but clear to everyone watching, partners in the Russian endeavor.
Mr Curtis (03:43:53):
Yeah.
Senator Marco Rubio (03:43:53):
And the Europeans know this, and they need to be continually reminded of it because it reveals the nature of
Senator Marco Rubio (03:44:00):
… Of what we're dealing with.
Mr Curtis (03:44:00):
That was actually my next question. So I'm going to skip that one, but thank you for addressing that. I want to turn to Hong Kong. I mentioned I lived over in that area. And I actually remember as a young man in the 1980s shopping for a camera in Hong Kong. As a businessman in the 2000s, I tried to sell my product over there in Hong Kong. I've been over there a number of times as a tourist and just enjoyed that beautiful city. And unfortunately today none of that is possible. As a matter of fact, I actually have a warrant for my arrest over there because of the work in the house that I've done over there. Can you talk a little bit about the role there and what's even worse as Hong Kong's now playing a role in facilitating sanctions evasion and money laundering, and can you address that issue?
Senator Marco Rubio (03:44:43):
Well, I think it's important to take 30 seconds down memory lane. Hong Kong was turned over by the UK with a strong set of assurances that it would remain autonomous and independent. It would be governed by the Chinese, but independent, they would have a democracy that would be free enterprise, they would be left alone. In essence, that's the promises they made. Over time, they violated every promise. They basically broke the deal. Just like they lied about all the island chains that they said they weren't going to populate and militarize and they have done so as well. And so today we cannot consider Hong Kong to truly be autonomous anymore, it is not. It now under the full control, especially on national security matters, of Chinese authorities. And it should not be surprising to us that these deeply rooted banking institutions that are in Hong Kong who'd long have served as financial capital on the global scale are now being used to the benefit of the Communist Party and to evade global sanctions.
(03:45:38)
And I think there has to be a growing recognition of that. I also think it's important to remind those sectors and finance that are still involved there, that the Chinese national security now that's now been implemented in Hong Kong allows them, if they don't like what you're doing, to basically trump up any charges they want, go into your offices, raid the boxes, see all of your files, threaten to jail you. And they've done so in some cases. So it's no longer a hospitable place for people to conduct financial activity. So I think we'd have to call it for what it is, the notion that Hong Kong is now some autonomous entity that operates within China's system but independent of it and the decisions they make is a complete work of fiction.
Mr Curtis (03:46:16):
And one more quick question, but I also want to point out before we go on. How good it could have been for Hong Kong and China had they kept that agreement. I think that'd been a whole lot better for China. Last question as we run out of time. Obviously there's a lot of conversation about Panama in the news. Can you talk about the Chinese influence in the Panama Canal, what Americans should know?
Senator Marco Rubio (03:46:35):
Well, let me tell you, I actually didn't print a lot… Things to read like verbatim here. But there's one that I thought was interesting that I wanted to share and I'm not going to put it out there for everybody, the whole thing, but maybe I'll submit it for the record. This thing with Panama Canal is not new. I visited there I think it was 2016, I think I've consistently seen people express concern about it and it's en-capsulized here in quote after quote. Let me tell you, the former US ambassador who served under President Obama said, "The Chinese see in Panama what we saw in Panama throughout the 20th century, a maritime and aviation logistics hub. Just immediate past head of US's Southern Command, General Laurel Richardson said, "I was just in Panama about a month ago. And flying along the Panama Canal and looking at the state-owned enterprises from the People's Republic of China on each side of the Panama Canal, they look like civilian companies or state-owned enterprises that could be used for dual use and could be quickly changed over to a military capability."
(03:47:40)
We see questions that were asked by the ranking member in the House China Select Committee, where they asked a witness and they agreed that in a time of conflict, China could use its presence on both ends of the canal as a choke point against the United States in a conflict situation. So the concerns about Panama have been expressed by people on both sides of the aisle for at least the entire time that I've been in the United States Senate and they've only accelerated further. And this is a very legitimate issue that we face there.
(03:48:10)
And I'm not prepared to answer this question because I haven't looked at the legal research behind it yet. But I'm compelled to suspect that an argument could be made that the terms under which that canal were turned over have been violated because while technically sovereignty over the canal has not been turned over to a foreign power. In reality, a foreign power today possesses through their companies, which we know are not independent, the ability to turn the canal into a choke point and a moment of conflict. And that is a direct threat to the national interest in security of the United States. And it's particularly galling given the fact that we paid for it and that 5,000 Americans died making it. That said, Panama's a great partner on a lot of other issues and I hope we can resolve this issue of the canal and of its security and also continue to work with them cooperatively on a host of issues we share in common, including what to do with migration.
Mr Curtis (03:49:05):
Senator, I'm out of time. Thank you so much.
Mr. Risch (03:49:08):
Thank you. Senator Rubio, I think that you're right about doing an analysis of the turnover documents. But I think even before that we ought to do an analysis of the original documents that went into place because they were very strong documents giving us control over a five-mile wide on each side of the canal path and was very specific. So I think a legal analysis beginning to end is critical. Senator Schatz.
Mr. Schatz (03:49:38):
Thank you, chair. Thank you, ranking member. Senator Rubio, nice to see you again, thanks for taking the time with me and thank you for being willing to serve. I want to start with the Pacific Islands, as you know, it's an area of focus of mine and the Indo-Pacific is… Look, we've been through several administrations and they all say the same thing, they all talk about the future being in the Indo-Pacific and that it's the most important region in the world that continues to be true.
(03:50:03)
My concern is that specifically when people talk about the Indo-Pacific, they're mostly talking about China, they may be talking about other East Asian countries. But there's very little conversation about Pacific Island nations and we've got some auspicious things happening, but we've also got some challenges in front of us. The embassy in Kiribati has stalled. The Solomon Islands, as you know, are sort of contemplating making themselves available for PRC military forces. So we passed the Compact of Free Association. It's a bit of a mixed bag. And I'd like to just hear your theory of the case here about how to have some continuity. Obviously it's a new administration, it's going to be a new state department. But I think some of the things that have happened over the last four and even eight years in terms of Pacific Island relationships have been good for the United States of America. So give me your theory of the case, not generally Indo-Asia-Pacific, but specifically these small island nations with whom we want stronger ties.
Senator Marco Rubio (03:51:06):
Sure. So I think the first obviously is the ability to engage bilaterally with each of these individual nation states. And that opportunity is already there, I think we should continue to build on it and it's important and bears great fruit. I think the second, and it's an open question, which I certainly want the State Department to look at. And I think policymakers on The Hill need to consider as well. As you know we are dialogue partners in the Pacific Island Forum. And the question is whether we are fully utilizing that ability to be at the table in that forum. Now that forum includes Australia and New Zealand, which are bigger than some of these, but nonetheless important elements of it. And look, I think our expectations of the forum is… And they've had some internal friction with some of the member states about who's going to lead it and how the succession. So we hope they can work that out. But it's an existing forum which I think could potentially as a dialogue partner provide us the ability to not just engage bilaterally with the individual nation states, but also collectively.
(03:52:04)
And we may not agree on 100 million things, but there might be some things we can do through that forum at a minimum, have a presence at it at a higher left level that shows our level of commitment and interest has been elevated even further. And then ultimately some real deliverables. Again, we keep saying they're small, but they're important both because of geographic location, their presence in international forums. And I do think that whether it's the Millennium Challenge grant, whether it's through the successor to OPEC, there are opportunities as well to leverage some private sector engagement from the American side and the US side or the broader North American side, on some of the, whether it's energy needs or resiliency needs or other development projects that they may have. So I think we have to explore that both bilaterally with individuals by ensuring that we have people there, but also explore whether we are fully utilizing the Pacific Island Forum as a dialogue partner to its full effect.
Mr. Schatz (03:53:06):
And you know that China engages in debt trap diplomacy, which it can be effective for their needs, but it's usually people get figured out eventually. And I think one of the areas where we can provide something that there's no other country that can provide is in the resilient space. In a severe weather context, we're really the only folks that really know how to prepare for, respond to and rebuild from disaster. So the United States Navy has always been helpful in this context, but that's something we should continue to focus on.
(03:53:37)
Staying in the Pacific, and I'm glad you mentioned the Philippines. My theory of the case here is that not that China has decided that it's risk appetite is higher, but rather that the things that they're doing are not so risky at all. And that's because we have not been in a position to impose consequences. And I think one of the places where we have a good and growing partnership and obviously bilateral economic and treaty obligations, is the Philippines. And in addition to the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, in addition to the Luzon Corridor Economic partnerships. I'm just wondering how you see that growing democracy, one of our best allies on the planet, how you see that as strategically important for the United States?
Senator Marco Rubio (03:54:28):
First of all, it's always been strategically important for the United States. Obviously our military presence there diminished greatly as a result of some of the decisions that were made within the Philippines, but now you see a willingness to see us return. Look, we're not looking to militarize the Philippines and I think it would be a mistake to solely view it as a security arrangement. There are long ties between the United States and Philippines that date back to 1899 in the Spanish-American war. And so I think it's important to build on that as well. I think there are real economic opportunities that we should be exploring. And so it's one that we need to show commitment. And I'll be frank, I think where this kind of fell off was, and I'm not getting involved in internal Filipino politics, but I'm telling you during Duterte was a little tougher to work with them and obviously there's some issue going on there internally as well. I'll leave that to their electorate and their politics to solve.
(03:55:21)
So I think to the extent that over the last few years you have seen a reinvigoration of American interest. It's not simply driven by the fact that the Chinese are harassing them, it's also driven by the fact that there's been a more welcoming attitude towards our posture and our position there. And that's one that when that opportunity presents itself, we should embrace, but then we need it to show results so that it becomes enduring. In essence, when your engagement with a country leads to economic development, whether it's outbound US investment in the Philippines or what have you. Then that becomes enduring, then it makes it difficult no matter who's in charge to walk away from the alliance because the alliance is more than just military and a military presence, it also involves jobs and businesses and investment and economic opportunity. We need to look for ways to emphasize that. I think it would be a mistake to simply view it as a military or defense alliance.
Mr. Schatz (03:56:10):
Absolutely. And coming from Hawaii, it's the people-to-people ties that is the foundation of the relationship, for sure. I want to talk to you a little bit about our approach on the Korean Peninsula. And I'm going to say something rather provocative. I think our North Korea policy is broken. I think it's broken on a bipartisan basis. I think C-VID is a fantasy. I think that the non-proliferation community wants to hold onto it for reasons related to other countries and non-priorities. But it's clear to me that it's not working. 10 years ago, you've been laughed out of the room for suggesting that North Korea was able to develop maneuverable, hypersonic, warheads, solid-fuel ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles. But all of that has happened, 40 launches in 2024 and more launches yesterday.
(03:57:08)
So I just like you, I know you're a hawk. I know you've been a strong supporter of sanctions, I never have opposed a sanction against North Korea in my life. But I just think that we need to look at this thing realistically and say whatever it is that we have been doing, it's not working. These guys keep getting more and more capable. And whatever sacrifices they're making internally in terms of the suffering of their people, they got the technical capacity. I remember 10 years ago being told, "Well, they can do this, but they can't do a nuclear tip." "Oh, they can range Guam, but they can't range Hawaii." "Oh, they can range Hawaii, but they can't range the continent." They keep meeting and exceeding every technical mark that we think they can't make. And we are attached to a policy that is basically, it doesn't appear to be slowing them down in the lease. So is there an appetite for rethinking of this, in my view, totally failed policy?
Senator Marco Rubio (03:58:06):
Well, I think there has to be an appetite for very serious look at broader North Korean policies. And so I think it would be difficult for me today to come here and tell you this is going to be the official United States position on it moving forward because I do think because of the factors you've just pointed to, there's some things we have to look at in a broader perspective. Now to his credit, President Trump, and look, I'll be frank, I was one of the people that was very skeptical about it, but he reached out to Kim Jong Un, walked away from negotiations twice, ultimately didn't reach something enduring. But here's what he did able to achieve in that engagement, is he stopped testing the missiles. That didn't stop the development of the program, but at least it calmed the situation quite a bit. I think what you're alluding to, and I'm not saying this is going to be the policy of the United States because that policy set by the president, and ideally set through a process that involves a bunch of stakeholders rethinking and being creative about it.
(03:58:57)
But I do think what you're pointing to is the following. You have a 40-something-year-old dictator who has to figure out how to hold down to power for the rest of his life. He views nuclear weapons as his insurance policy to stay in power. It means so much to him that no amount of sanctions has deterred him from developing that capability. And in fact has not even kept him from having the resources to develop it. Unfortunately, recent events now also have them engaged in conflicts beyond the Korean Peninsula, in fact providing troops and weaponry to the Russians in their effort in Ukraine.
(03:59:34)
And so all of this needs to be taken in conjunction and looking at the policy and seeing what can we now do that destabilizes that situation, that lowers the risk of an inadvertent war, be it between South Korea and North Korea, maybe including Japan at this point, and ultimately the United States. What can we do to prevent a crisis without encouraging other nation-states to pursue their own nuclear weapons program? That's the solution we'd like to get to. And I just didn't bring it in my folder today because we're not ready to deal, but it's important. And it's-
Mr. Schatz (04:00:10):
And you got involved in the committee, and this is certainly multi-agency, multilateral, the president has to drive some of this. But I think none of this is possible without an acknowledgement of more than a decade of bipartisan failure in this space. And so if we can at least start with the premise that whatever we're doing right now is not working, we can start to work on something else. Thank you.
Senator Marco Rubio (04:00:33):
Thank you.
Mr. Risch (04:00:36):
Thank you. Senator Cruz?
Mr. Cruz (04:00:39):
Thank you Mr. Chairman. And I got to say, boy, that sounds good, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Risch (04:00:43):
Not as good as it sounds to me. Thank you.
Mr. Cruz (04:00:46):
Well, congratulations and I'm looking forward to the next two years working together.
Mr. Risch (04:00:50):
Thank you.
Mr. Cruz (04:00:50):
And the Senator Rubio, let me say congratulations to you as well. We're going to miss you on this committee. We're going to miss you in the Senate, but you're going to do an extraordinary job at Foggy Bottom. And I will say if they capture you and tie you up in the basement, we will send a team to pull you out. As I look back over the last four years of the Biden-Harris administration, there are a lot of policies that have done a lot of damage, domestic policies, economic policies. But I think all of those pale compared to the damage that has been done to national security and foreign policy over the last four years. Over the last four years, this administration has systematically undermined and abandoned our allies and it has systematically shown weakness and appeasement to our enemies.
(04:01:40)
And the consequence has been disastrous, we've gone from four years ago peace and prosperity. To today a situation with wars across the globe and every enemy of America stronger than they were when this administration came into office. I'm confident the incoming administration is going to change that direction. I'm confident that President Trump and the White House and US Secretary of State are going to shift us back to where we should be, which is standing by our friends and allies and standing up to our enemies. Do you agree with that assessment? Is that what you intend to do as Secretary of State?
Senator Marco Rubio (04:02:19):
Well, let me say first, the foreign policy of the United States will be set by the president, and my job is to advise on it and ultimately to execute. I think the President's been abundantly clear, and that is his policy is going to be driven about making America safer, stronger, and more prosperous. As I said in my opening statement, everything the State Department does, every policy, every program, every dollar it spends, every initiative it takes, has to answer three questions. Does it make us safer, does it make us stronger or does it make us more prosperous? And if the answer is not yes to one of those three, you're going to have a hard time moving that forward because that's the priority that the president… And that's the priority that by the way, voters gave this president when they elected him.
(04:02:57)
You point to a number of things that I think are critically important. And I'll phrase it a different way, but I think we're saying the same thing. We have lost deterrence in multiple theaters around the world. So as an example, and I use this as a small-scale example, but it's really an important one. I think the year was 2020, 2019, the Wagner Group tried to get cute and came after some Americans operating in Syria. And fire from the sky rained down on them and that group was pushed back pretty hard. That's deterrence. They threatened us and they knew what the response would be. I recall the consternation here and in other places when Soleimani met his demise. But I can tell you it impacted Iranian behavior for a substantial period of time, no matter how tough they talked, it impacted their behavior.
(04:03:46)
I think it's important to reestablish deterrence and to the extent that that's been lost for a variety of reasons. The lack of deterrence is an invitation to war. The lack of deterrence is an invitation to hostility. It prevents the very thing that we hope to achieve, which is peace and stability in the world. And I do think we've lost deterrence and I think in some ways it contributed to what happened in Ukraine. An item I know is very close to you and you've worked on and we talked earlier today about, is energy dependence. I recall President Trump at both a NATO summit and at the United Nations, and I recall the United Nations one in particular. President Trump said, "Germany is entirely going to be left dependent on Russia for its energy." And they laughed at him. There were diplomats in the hall that was snickering. That's exactly what happened. It is one of the reasons why Putin believed he could invade Europe is because Europe would not push back because they depended on him so much for energy.
(04:04:42)
Now Europe is to be congratulated, they have moved very swiftly, particularly the Germans, to diversify their energy resources. But one could argue that we may never have had that invasion had that dependent not existed because maybe who would've thought the European response would've been more forceful than he anticipated. So I do think reestablishing deterrence and strength is important because it prevents war and it gives us leverage and diplomacy, which were we hope to solve 99.9% of the global disagreements we hope to solve through diplomacy, not through armed conflict.
Mr. Cruz (04:05:15):
I think that's very well said and I want to give several specific examples. Number one, you and I are the only two Cuban-American senators, you're about to leave me as a lonely soul member of the Cuban-American caucus. Thank you for that, Marco.
Senator Marco Rubio (04:05:30):
When there are three Cubans, they always call it a conspiracy, so.
Mr. Cruz (04:05:34):
Now I have no one to play dominoes with. But look, issues of Cuba, both you and I share family stories of parents who fled oppression and came here seeking freedom. As you know, as talked about earlier today, this week, the administration delisted Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism. I think it was an absolutely shameful and reckless decision, I think it was a political decision on the way out, I think it was designed to hamstring the incoming administration. I am on unequivocal that I think the Cuban and government are evil communist bastards. Given your new job, I suspect you might be slightly less forceful in saying so and slightly more diplomatic, but I know you're hard on the question. But let me ask you this, do you believe Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism?
Senator Marco Rubio (04:06:30):
Without a question, and I'll tell you why. Number one, the FARC, which is elements of the FARC and the ELN for that matter in Colombia. These are narco terrorist organizations and have been, they started out as ideological organizations and now figured out their Marxist, but they want to make money selling cocaine. So they've done that. They have had the full support of the Cuban regime throughout their entire existence. We know that Cuba has been friendly towards Hamas and Hezbollah, openly friendly towards Hamas and Hezbollah.
(04:07:01)
We know as well that the Cuban regime, for example, hosts not one but two countries, espionage stations within their national territory, 90 miles from the shores of the United States, and then provide valuable insights and cooperate with these elements. We know that they have strong ties to Iran as well and the terrorist elements associated with them. And we know for a fact that there are fugitives of American justice, fugitives of American justice, including cop killers and others who are actively hosted in Cuba and protected from the long arm of American justice by the Cuban regime. So there is zero doubt in my mind that they meet all the qualifications for being a state sponsor of terrorism.
Mr. Cruz (04:07:43):
Well, it is clear you're going to be confirmed to this position, you're going to be confirmed with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. I think it is likely you'll be confirmed on January 20th, on the first day the president is sworn in. When you are confirmed, I think it is also likely, I hope on that very first day you will reverse that determination. You may not feel prepared to make that commitment now, but is there anything you want to say on that?
Senator Marco Rubio (04:08:09):
Well, I would just say, again, I don't want to speak ahead of the administration of these decisions. As I said, the president sets our foreign policy and my job is to execute it, that's how our system of government works. I would just remind anyone on this recent deal with Cuba that just happened over the last 12 hours, nothing that was agreed to is irreversible or binding on the new administration. And I think people know my feelings and I think they know what the president's feelings have been about these issues when he was president previously. And nothing that the Biden administration has agreed to in the last 12 or 18 hours binds the next administration, which starts on Monday.
Mr. Cruz (04:08:46):
Good, let's turn to Israel. In the last four years, this administration has been the most anti-Israel administration we have ever seen. They have systematically undermined the government of Israel, particularly at a time of war. The Biden State Department secretly asked other parts of the administration to suspend anti-terrorism sanctions so they could pour unaccountable hundreds of millions of dollars into the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. They refused to implement mandatory congressional sanctions against Hamas terrorists for using human shields. They made incredible efforts to secretly circumvent mandatory congressional prohibitions on money going to the Palestinian authority because of the PA's support for Pay to Slay. Even after October 7th, they secretly poured millions and even cash from American taxpayers into Hamas-controlled areas. Meanwhile, they secretly implemented boycotts of Jews living in Judea and Samaria through the Development Finance Corporation and binational science and technology foundations. They secretly manufactured files used to impose crippling financial sanctions on Israeli Jews and refused to provide those files to members of Congress. Those sanctions were renewed just yesterday. I have every confidence that President Trump and you will reverse these policies broadly and specifically. But I'd like to ask you about some of them quickly. Can you commit to ending anti-terrorism sanctions waivers related to Palestinian terrorism and implementing sanctions against those terrorists?
Senator Marco Rubio (04:10:17):
Yes.
Mr. Cruz (04:10:18):
Can you commit to ending discriminatory policies including Biden administration's secret boycott policies against Jews in Judea and Samaria?
Senator Marco Rubio (04:10:27):
Yes.
Mr. Cruz (04:10:27):
And can you commit to reversing the discriminatory sanctions against Jews living in Judea and Samaria?
Senator Marco Rubio (04:10:33):
Again, yes. Again, without speaking out of turn, I'm confident in saying that President Trump's administration will continue to be perhaps the most pro-Israel administration in American history.
Mr. Cruz (04:10:45):
And the final question, you and I talked at great length about the 1944 Water Treaty with Mexico. Mexico is in violation of that treaty, it is doing enormous damage to South Texas farmers and ranchers, they're experiencing drought. As the Secretary of State, tell me what the State Department can do to encourage and incentivize Mexico to comply with the treaty and provide the water that they are obligated to provide to the people of South Texas?
Senator Marco Rubio (04:11:10):
I think raise it in every engagement. We will be engaged with Mexican partners, we have to engage with the Mexican government and it's important to elevate it and raise it at every one of those engagements. And I don't just mean like sending a letter or somebody sending an email or just mentioning it, I'm saying making it a priority. And it's priority, not just because it matters to Texas, it's a priority because these international agreements and arrangements only work if they're complied with. And if they're not complied with and it becomes habitual, other nations believe they can begin to violate them as well. It undermines this entire commitment to multilateral agreements and so forth.
(04:11:43)
And I think it's in the crevices of those agreements, whether they've been in place for a long time and no one's paying attention anymore or it just doesn't matter enough and you ignore it because you don't want to destabilize the rest of your relationship, but it encourages to happen more and more. It is not the only irritant we have in our bilateral relationship with them. And in our agreements, I imagine they have some with us as well. But it's one that needs to be prioritized and raised consistently as a priority, not just as an asterisk or a footnote.
Mr. Cruz (04:12:09):
Thank you. And you're going to do great.
Senator Marco Rubio (04:12:10):
Thank you.
Mr. Risch (04:12:11):
Thank you, Senator Cruz. Senator Duckworth?
Ms. Duckworth (04:12:14):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say Senator Rubio, I want to start off by noting for the record that when I first got to the Senate and I was in my first year and you just run for president and I didn't think you would know who I was. I was pregnant with my daughter and trying to change Senate rules so that I could bring her onto the floor so I could do my job and vote because I can't come through the normal back door to vote because there's stairs there and it's not accessible for wheelchairs.
(04:12:44)
And I remember in the middle of that battle, rolling through the Senate floor to vote and I heard, "Tammy Duckworth," from across the Senate chambers. And you came running down from the top back of the Senate chambers to tell me, "I'm with you, I will support you. You have the right to vote and I will support you being able to bring your child onto the floor when she's born. And I want to thank you for that kindness because you did speak to your leadership about it." And it was a moment of true bipartisanship, but also us parents. And as someone who was new to the Senate, I was extremely grateful to you for that kindness.
Senator Marco Rubio (04:13:17):
I think what I exactly said is, "What's the big deal? This place is already full of babies."
Ms. Duckworth (04:13:23):
Exactly, exactly. So I want to touch on a topic we discussed last month. I thank you for sitting down with me, I always appreciate the opportunity to sit down with nominees. I appreciate also your earlier response to Senator McCormick about Americans detained abroad, on your commitment to tackling this head on. As you and I also discussed last month, I appreciate your attention and commitment to addressing the case of Illinoisans in particular that we discussed as well. Thank you for that.
(04:13:54)
Another topic, you already touched on some of the issues in the Indo-Pacific, particularly around the PRC and then DPRK, but likely to dive back into the issue of ASEAN and ASEAN nations. Since coming to the Senate, I make a point of visiting Southeast Asia annually to reinforce our friends and partners there and those that we want to become our friends and partners there. That the United States, and particularly those of us in the Senate, care deeply about these long-standing historic relationships and making sure that those relationships live up to their potential. And as you know, respect for ASEAN centrality has been a core part of a foreign policy in that region. In fact, the first Trump administration's Indo-Pacific strategy correctly emphasized ASEAN centrality as an important principle. Unfortunately, not all of President Trump's nominees this time seems to grasp importance or in fact know what ASEAN is.
(04:14:48)
Yesterday I was distinctly unimpressed when questioning Secretary of Defense nominee Hegseth. Then he could not mention a single nation in ASEAN, particularly shameful when we have at least two major non-NATO allies in the bloc, one of which Thailand is the longest treaty alliance that the United States has, at over 190 years long. What can you share with us today about how you would approach ASEAN as a whole and with individual member states through capitalize on some of the key opportunities and challenges facing the region? I know you've spoken about the Philippines, but can you build on that?
Senator Marco Rubio (04:15:23):
Sure. ASEAN, first thing is the group's utility begins by the fact that through its 10 members, they've also, I believe have five or maybe it's six free trade agreements now with neighboring countries as well. Look, we have to be very pragmatic in our approach and how we prioritize it. I think the group will always struggle to coordinate unanimity on the issue of their relationship with China. If you look at the continental Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia, because of their geographic presence, because of history, they lean a little bit more in the Chinese direction and other countries do not. I think it would be a mistake
Senator Marco Rubio (04:16:00):
… for us to make it as a condition of our engagement with ASEAN to say, you must pick a side and you must pick a side. Now, are you with them or are you with us? I think what I can safely say is that the overwhelming and vast majority of the nation states in ASEAN, if not maybe all, do not want to live in a region in which China is the predominant power and they are viewed as tributary states to Beijing and welcome U.S. engagement in the region as both an economic and defense counterweight. It would be a mistake to go in with a Cold War mentality of pick a side and pick a side now. I think the broader approach is to say they have a vested interest in us being involved. We have a vested interest as an Indo-Pacific nation in involving ourselves through this forum and finding opportunities, both holistically through the 10 nations, and individually, through whatever bilateral opportunities present itself.
(04:16:52)
Earlier, you may not have been here, but I was asked a question about Thailand and there is a group of Uyghurs that are in Thailand that they're saying may be deported. And I said, this is one of our strongest, longest relationships in the region and maybe one of the longest and strongest in the world. And that's where these relationships really come to bear. Not to browbeat them in a public forum, but through strong diplomacy and using the benefit of that relationship to go to a Thailand and see if we can't get them to not deport these people into the hands of Chinese authorities knowing the atrocities that have been committed. So that's a value added to this relationship. That is a bilateral relationship we have with Thailand. It's not the one we're going to have with every country in the region, but I do think the forum serves as a useful platform for us to be able to engage the region and individually these countries.
Ms. Duckworth (04:17:41):
Thank you. So you would agree with what the first Trump administration emphasized, which is that ASEAN centrality, and I think this is something that the new ASEAN chair, Malaysia, under Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, is saying with the MANDANI concept, which is growing that cohesion within ASEAN itself. And in dealing with the organization, while we continue to pursue those bilateral relationships, but the stronger ASEAN can be cohesively as a unit allows them to better deal with countries like Myanmar, for example, and allows us to better have those relations with them and also for them cohesively to try to stand up to outside forces.
Senator Marco Rubio (04:18:17):
One of the things that I think, and I think you saw this in the first Trump term, we'll probably see again, is to the extent you see production moving from China to other countries, some of these countries stand to benefit from that, assuming they themselves are not the target of some tariff or what have you. But I think there are benefits there in that regard. I would imagine that there are also some concerns they would share with us about maybe some of our other policies, economic or otherwise, but I do think it's an opportunity that provides some real economic development benefit opportunities for a number of the countries in ASEAN. We would hope all of them, but certainly some more than others, because of alignment of interests.
(04:18:56)
What I do think is we have to be realistic, and I just want to reiterate this because I think sometimes we go into these things viewing them with the lens of NATO or something else. The key component to understand is we are probably never going to have a overwhelming majority consensus on the role China is going to play, but I do think you could argue that the vast majority of countries in this forum, if not all, do not want to live in a region in which China is the predominant overwhelming power and they all are viewed as tributary states. They are not interested in that, and they view the United States as a very logical and welcome economic and defense counterweight to that.
Ms. Duckworth (04:19:32):
Yeah, and I do think that even though the mainland ASEAN nations that in your words lean more towards China have suffered. If you look at what happens with water, we talked a lot about Mexico and water into Texas, but also with the Mekong River in ASEAN with the 10 dams that China has built up rivers, now affecting water and also arable lands further down the river. And initiatives like the Two Rivers Initiative, which marries the Mississippi River, which is two-thirds of the border of my home state, along with the Mekong River, is a way for us to build some of these relationships and bring in American expertise.
(04:20:10)
A different place where we can also provide expertise is international disability rights. We have been working with ASEAN on developing disability rights and a cohesive approach to it in ASEAN, but I think on an international scale, whether it's ASEAN or Ukraine, as they rebuild, I do think that disability awareness, rebuilding Ukraine to become more accessible, promoting disability rights around the world is something that is a way that we can engage with the rest of the world as well. I'd love to hear from you-
Senator Marco Rubio (04:20:40):
And I say this-
Ms. Duckworth (04:20:41):
… your commitment to disability rights around the world.
Senator Marco Rubio (04:20:43):
And I say this sadly. It's going to be of critical importance to nations that are emerging from conflict, where we know modern conflict, people are injured in ways that are now survivable, but leave them for the rest of their lives with permanent disabilities. From a very practical perspective, in the case of Ukraine, it's going to be valuable because there are people that have been injured in that conflict that for the rest of their lives are going to have to deal with that, and it's conducive. The other thing we've discussed is our diplomatic facilities around the world and whether they are. And understand that the number one job, the reason why we have embassies and consulates, yes, we represent U.S. interests in that country, but its number one obligation is to support Americans. If you lose your passport, if, God forbid, you go to jail, whatever it may be, that we have a presence there that can support Americans abroad.
(04:21:32)
And it was stunning for me in our conversation to learn that there are a number of these locations around the world that are not accessible to Americans with disabilities that needed to access them, so it's something that we would be interested in looking at as well, to make sure that, just from our core obligation, we're able to fulfill it.
Ms. Duckworth (04:21:49):
And also, it keeps many of your own staff members who may have disabilities from serving in some of these overseas missions. As you said, highly trained, well-qualified regional experts, subject-matter experts may not be able to serve in some of these embassies where it's not accessible for them. So I thank you for bringing that up, and I will yield back my nine seconds, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Risch (04:22:09):
Oh, thank you so much.
Ms. Duckworth (04:22:10):
You're welcome.
Mr. Risch (04:22:11):
So generous. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator Duckworth. Those are important points. Last but not least, welcome back, Senator Lee, to the committee. And I appreciate you've had your work cut out for you today in your new role as chairman of your committee, but the floor is yours.
Senator Lee (04:22:28):
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator Rubio, for your willingness to serve in this position. I'm going to make a bold prediction and say that you are likely to be confirmed. That's my prediction. I can't speak for others, but I believe that nonetheless and it's a bittersweet moment. I'm back on the committee after 12 years of being away from it. You and I came to this committee and to the Senate at the same time, both in our late thirties, the youngest members of the Senate at the time, although you had me by exactly seven days. Seven days older. Notwithstanding the fact that you were the older between us, you've got all of your hair and it's not a single gray hair in there, but I've deeply enjoyed working with you as a colleague and getting to know you as a friend. We have kids that are about the same age and I've watched yours grow and it is just been a delight getting to know you, Jeanette, and your kids, and I hope that'll continue.
(04:23:19)
But I'll miss having you here. Not only as my Spanish teacher, not only as my source of Bible insights and my source of comedic material, but also for your great insights on foreign policy, domestic policy and everything else we do here. You've just been great to work with and you will be missed in the very likely event that you are confirmed.
(04:23:37)
Let's talk first about the Western hemisphere, an issue that I know is near and dear to your heart and mine, and we'll start with the Panama Canal. President Trump has recently talked a little bit about the fact that there are some questions arising about the status of the Panama Canal. When we look to the treaty at issue, the treaty concerning the permanent neutrality and operation of the Panama Canal, we're reminded that some things maybe aren't quite as they should be there right now. Given that the Chinese now control major ports at the entry and the exit to the canal, it seems appropriate to say that there's at least an open question, there's some doubt, as to whether the canal remains neutral. Would you agree with that assessment?
Senator Marco Rubio (04:24:24):
Yes. Here's the challenge. Number one is, look, I want to be clear about something. The Panamanian government, particularly its current office holders, are very friendly to the United States and very cooperative, and we want that to continue. And I want to bifurcate that from the broader issue of the Canal. Now, President Trump is not inventing this. This is something that's existed now for at least a decade in my service here. I took a trip to Panama in 2017. On that trip to Panama in 2017, it was the central issue we discussed about the Canal, and that is that Chinese companies control port facilities at both ends of the canal, the east and the west. And the concerns among military officials and security officials, including in Panama at that point, that that could one day be used as a choke point to impede commerce in a moment of conflict.
(04:25:19)
That's going back to that, but I earlier, before you got here, and I don't want to have to dig through this folder to find it again, but basically cited how the immediate past head of Southern Command just retired, General Richardson, said she flew over the canal, looked down and saw those Chinese port facilities and said, those look like dual-use facilities that in a moment of conflict could be weaponized against us. The bipartisan China commission over in the House last year had testimony and hearings on this issue and members of both parties expressed concern. The former ambassador to Panama under President Obama has expressed those concerns. This is a legitimate issue that needs to be confronted. The second point is the one you touched upon and that is, look, could an argument be made… And I'm not prepared to answer it yet because it's something we're going to have to study very carefully, but I think I have an inkling of I know where this is going to head. Can an argument be made that the Chinese basically have effective control of the canal anytime they want? Because if they order a Chinese company that controls the ports to shut it down or impede our transit, they will have to do so. There is no independent Chinese companies. They all exist because they've been identified as national champions. They're supported by the Chinese government, and if you don't do what they want, they find a new CEO and you end up being replaced and removed, so they're under the complete control of their government. This is a legitimate question and one that Senator Risch had some insight as well. He mentioned that in passing. That needs to be looked at. This is not a joke. The Panama Canal issue is a very serious one.
Senator Lee (04:26:52):
And so the mere potentiality of that, the ability to exercise that control, even until such time as they do do it, as they do shut it down, is a concern, is it not?
Senator Marco Rubio (04:27:03):
Well, I listened 48 hours ago to FBI Director Wray in one of his exit interviews he gave to the press and he said, the Chinese are embedded in our utilities and critical infrastructure. Now, he didn't say every single day they're shutting off the power in the United States. He said that if there's a conflict, they're embedded and they could shut off the power in key places. We've all identified that as a threat. The fact that you can do it… You don't have to do it every day. No one's claiming that the Chinese are shutting down the canal every day. What the claim is, the very legitimate concern is, that if these companies control both ends of that canal in a time of conflict and the Chinese tell them, shut it down and don't let the US go through there, we got a big, big problem. A big economic problem and a big national security and defense problem. The ability to do it alone is a threat. We shouldn't ignore it. It isn't a joke. It's a legitimate issue and it needs to be solved.
Senator Lee (04:27:54):
Excellent, and that feeds right into the next thing I wanted to ask you about, which just involves areas of dual- use capabilities throughout the Western Hemisphere. Ports, infrastructure, critical minerals and so forth. We've had policies from the Biden administration involving the supercilious use of un-targeted foreign aid and cultural coercion in an effort to coerce some of these countries to adopt policies that are contrary to their established cultural norms. Abortion rights, LGBT policies and curriculum, and so forth. That probably hasn't helped in this conflict, in this still somewhat soft conflict, in which many of these countries are opening their doors to China. I can't imagine that will have helped. How will your approach to Chinese incursion in the Western Hemisphere be different from those of the current administration?
Senator Marco Rubio (04:28:59):
Well, there are a couple of points. The first is the Chinese incursion in the hemisphere involves, number one, investment of dollars. As an example, they go into some country, they say, here's $5 million or 10 million to build a stadium, but in exchange, you have to let us build out your 5G network using Huawei-safe cities and the like. And by the way, here's a couple million dollars for you and your friends as a bribe. Okay? That's the first level of engagement. They go in and then in some ways, they create deals that you can not possibly pay back, so now you've got a debt that you can't pay back and they have you trapped. And now they've got your vote at the UN and your cooperation on X, Y, and Z, And that happened in Panama, by the way. In 2016, 2017, that was well understood that part of the investments they made in Panama were conditioned upon Panama's ability to convince the Dominican Republic and other countries to flip the recognition away from Taiwan. That happened, so that's number one.
(04:29:54)
The second element of their involvement is they go into a country and a Chinese company will buy up the lithium mines or access to the rare earth minerals in these long-term contracts, and that exists in allied countries. The Argentines will tell you there are a number of business deals that the Chinese and Chinese companies have gotten ahold of in Argentina that even if they wanted to back away, they can't get out of the deals because of the way they were structured, so that's number two. And then number three is their presence. The Chinese are actively involved in military installations in the Western Hemisphere on the island of Cuba, 90 miles from our shores. Only a few hundred miles from where Space Force operates and NASA in Cape Canaveral, only a few miles from MacDill, where we have Central Command and Special Operations Command, only a few miles from Southern Command, only a few miles from Eglin Air Force Base and the test range we have out in the Gulf of Mexico. All of these things.
(04:30:47)
This is real and it's operating right off the coast of the United States. They have a presence in our region, so we have to acknowledge that this is happening and then we have to be present and have counters to each of these, and/or there has to be consequences for each of these. Fortunately, the United States has strong relationships in multiple key countries in the region, and I think we have the opportunity to build upon that in ways that can attract the sort of investment that they would rather have than the Chinese investment, but right now it's not available. It's not happening. There is no American alternative to what the Chinese are offering, so hopefully we can provide the openings for that.
Senator Lee (04:31:23):
Indeed, and I appreciate your enthusiasm and thoughtfulness in providing that answer. Now, you touch on another issue when you reference the significance of agreements made by prior administrations. Obviously, the Javier Milei administration in Argentina wouldn't have been as likely to enter into those arrangements as his predecessor was the United States. We have to keep this in mind. The Constitution, of course, allocates the treaty making and signing power. It spreads it out between two branches. The president can enter into a treaty, can sign a treaty, but that treaty isn't ratified unless two thirds of the Senate does it, so it flips the usual legislative process because it's a different type of legislation. Would you agree with me that that type of arrangement, which is submission of a treaty after the President has entered into it, after the President has signed it, the submission of that treaty to the Senate for ratification and the ultimate ratification by the Senate is a necessary precondition for an international agreement to be binding on the United States of America?
Senator Marco Rubio (04:32:23):
To be binding beyond the administration that entered into it. This was the case of the JCPOA, which was being sold to people as a treaty, but it wasn't, and the reason why it was a political agreement. It's basically a political arrangement between the current administration and the regime in Iran, and that's why President Trump had the authority to pull us out of it when he did. I think what's important to understand about treaties in general, and we talked about treaties here today with Mexico. There are a number of other treaties that people may not be aware of. Every treaty by definition is a surrender of sovereignty at some level as a nation, but you do it and you enter into it, why? Why do you enter into a treaty even though you're surrendering some sovereignty? Because you've concluded that that surrender and the benefit of it to the national interest or the national security far outweighs the surrender of sovereignty and the consequences of it.
(04:33:13)
And that is why it's so critical that the Senate be involved in that deliberation, because an individual administration may get that calculus wrong, but when you have this overwhelming majority that concludes that it too agrees that that surrender of sovereignty is exceeded by the benefit of the treaty, now you know you've increased your chances of have something that's good and makes sense. And so I agree with your view of it, and I think that's the way I would hope we would pursue arrangements in the future if we enter into any.
Senator Lee (04:33:45):
That's why it takes two-thirds. Thank you so much, Senator Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Risch (04:33:49):
Senator Rubio, we know you have an appointment at the White House at three o'clock. Senator Shaheen has one brief question for you, I have a couple of brief remarks, and then we'll get you on your way.
Senator Shaheen (04:33:59):
Yeah. Thank you, Senator Rubio. I think that was a very impressive display of your knowledge of the global situation, but the one area that you mentioned but we haven't really talked about is the Arctic. And given what's happening in the Arctic and China's designs on the Arctic, can you just speak to what you think our posture ought to be with respect to the Arctic?
Senator Marco Rubio (04:34:23):
Well, we're an Arctic power. The Russians [inaudible 04:34:27] Arctic power. The Chinese are not. Whether they're near Arctic power or I don't know what the term they came up with to give an excuse for them to be up there.
Mr. Risch (04:34:35):
Crazy.
Senator Marco Rubio (04:34:36):
I think frankly, I know you didn't ask me this question, but it's one I welcome the ability to talk about, and similar to the discussion with Greenland, putting aside all the things that are going on in the media. I think we need to understand that Greenland is strategically important to the United States and to the West for a very long time. In fact, in 1941, at the outbreak of World War II, the United States was signed up as a protector even though Denmark had been occupied. I think Harry Truman tried to buy Denmark. Harry Truman had made an effort to try to buy it for $100 million. He was rebuffed. And then the U.S. has maintained through the mutual defense agreement there the opportunity to have military bases, and it had them for a while. Why?
(04:35:19)
The reason why is because of what's located geographically. Yes, the access to the minerals on Greenland are critically important, but as more navigable space is opening up in the Arctic, particularly this northern passage that goes from Russia to Asia and could cut transit times by as much as 40%, the Arctic is going to become incredibly critical, and so we have to have a presence there. We have to have a presence there, not just saying, okay, we have a base, we have 200 people, or we have a flag flying. We have to have the ability, for example, to have the ships that can navigate on the naval level and keep those shipping lanes open if, in fact, they're being threatened. We have to have partners along the Arctic region that will join us in ensuring that the Arctic region is open for free and flow of navigation as these passages open up, because global trade is in many ways going to be infused by it.
(04:36:12)
We have positions within the State Department that I think in the past have been diminished or people just haven't paid a lot of attention to, and I just had this conversation the other day with Senator Murkowski that all of a sudden I think people are interested in serving in Arctic affairs and in Arctic posts because this issue of Greenland has opened our eyes to the broader geographic importance of the Arctic region, which for long has been a curiosity or something people have not talked about, but I think now we have the opportunity to see it for what it is. And that is, if not the most important, one of the most critical parts of the world over the next to 100 years will be whether there's going to be freedom of navigation in the Arctic and what that will mean for global trade and commerce. Thank you.
Mr. Risch (04:36:57):
Thank you. I'm going to order that Senator Rubio's written responses to the questions regarding his relationship with this committee be filed for the record. I'm also going to order that the letters in support of Senator Rubio's confirmation be entered in the record. And finally, I want to say thank you, Senator Rubio, for providing us with the benefit of your testimony, your responses, and your knowledge. It was outstanding. This committee takes oversight of U.S. foreign assistance extremely seriously. You know well that transparency and accountability are paramount. To that end, I want to flag for you my work with the Office of the Inspector General on the State Department's Bureau for Global Health Security and Diplomacy, PEPFAR, and the Biden Administration's failure to uphold long-standing United States laws protecting life in global health assistance.
(04:37:52)
In addition to my request for an investigation, I've been holding over $1 billion in U.S. foreign assistance since September of last year, and will continue to do so until I can be sure that not one single American tax dollar will be used to perform or promote abortions overseas, as that is required by U.S. law. I look forward to working with you on this in addition to the many issues that we discussed here today. Finally, I will note for the information of members of the committee that the record will remain open until tomorrow, Thursday, January 16th at 1:00 P.M. for members to submit questions for the record. Thank you. God bless you. We wish you well. Committee is adjourned.