0 legitimizing them as a real government? >> not only us but virtually the sp entire international community has made clear what we expect and will insist on from the taliban if they want to see any support and that include, it starts with freedom of travel. we have been intensely engaged with turkey and qatar to get the airport in kabul up and running again which is now the case. we're working on that every day. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. secretary we requested such a classified briefing not too long ago. we welcome your assurance to schedule this briefing some time in the immediate future. >> yes, absolutely. >> i recognize representative brad sherman from california for five minutes. >> thank you for reminding us that americans were not required to register if they were in afghanistan. i hope my colleagues will support my legislation to require americans to register if they go to war zone. the ranking member says he never thought he would see an unconditional surrender of the united states to the taliban. he saw it in 2020 when president donald trump announced that we would be out by may 1st of 2021, force the release of 5,000 of the taliban best fighters and most importantly, created a circumstance where there was not even a credible possibility that we would engage in force to support the afghan government. there are those who say we should get out all of our afghan allies and all those who face oppression or death from the taliban. i would point out that the afghan army together with all of the veterans over 20 years, together with all their families, you're talking about millions of people. while the taliban may be harsh to the girls, music students who are orphans, imagine how hard they would be to a girl whose father was in the afghan army trying to kill the taliban. the administration took it over and the american people made et clear we had to get out in 2021 . the afghan government had some chance to a stalemate. they weren't asking for guns to build trenches around kabul to fight the taliban. they were asking for visas and maybing videos about how they were goingkilled. when they started the flee, that started a stampede and there's no way the administration could have an orderly or successful stampede. it seems absurd to think the average afghan run fight in the trenches while seeing those who are best connected desperate to flee in a matter of days. secretary blinken, when you came into office on january 20th, we were committed to pulling every one out of afghanistan within three months, by may 1st. did the trump administration leave on your desk a pile of notebooks as to exactly how to carry out that plan? did we have a list of which afghans we were going to evacuate? did we have plan to get americans from all over afghanistan to kabul and out in an orderly way? how meticulous was the planning for the trump administration declared may 1st withdrawal? >> thank you. we inherited a deadline. we did not inherit plan. >> no plan at all. it's amazing that it wasn't much, much worse. we -- it was controversial when we gave up five taliban. the trump administration gave 5,000 of the taliban's top fighters back to the taliban. what did we get for that other than empty promises that were broken? >> congressman, the deal that the previous administration struck involved, as you rightly said, committing to remove all u.s. forces from afghanistan by may 1st of this year and in addition, as that deal was being negotiated and put into effect, pressing the afghan government to release these 5,000 prisoners. many of whom went back to the battlefield and at the same time, in return, getting from the taliban few commitments. one, not to attack our forces or allied and partner forces during the time of the agreement from the time it was reached until may 1st when we were suppose d o pull out our forces as well as not go with the major cities and take steps to ensure that afghanistan would not be used by al qaeda. >> mr. secretary, one more question. you're criticized for not getting our weapons out. our weapons were given to the afghan military. they were all over the country. was there way to disarm the afghan government without being seen by the world as betraying the afghan government and was there way without casualties to go all over afghanistan and grab the trucks and the tanks, et cetera? >> simply put, no. a lot of excess equipment was handed over to the afghan security and defense forces. partners we worked with for 20 years, supported, financed and equipped for 20 years to take on some of that equipment. when those forces collapsed in the space of about 11 days, some of that equipment wound up in the hands of the successor forces, the taliban. our folks worked very hard to disable or dismantle equipment that we still wcontrol before w left afghanistan. what we see now is much of the equipment that was left behind, including in the hands of the afghan forces that then fell to the taliban. . much of it based on what i understand is inoperable or soon will be because it maz to be maintained. it's not of any great strategic value of threatening us or afghan's neighbors but it does give the taliban uniforms and guns and some other equipment that is now in their hands. >> gentleman's time has expired. i represent chris smith from new jersey. >> you testified you encouraged americans to leave the country. simultaneously with that was statement being made, including by president biden that afghan, military capability was 300,000 men strong and they had the best training imaginable. at best, i could say they were misled. you don't mention withdrawal conditions that were placed by president trump on any exodus from afghanistan. i have a couple of questions i'd like to ask. did you concur and support president biden's july 23rd phone call telling the president to be untruthful about the taliban success? according to reuters that reviewed the transcript and audio, president biden said, quote, there's a need whether it be true or not, there's a need to project a different picture. was that an ad lib by president biden and was scripted by who? any americans being abducted or killed by isis-k and do we have the capability of knowing that? were there any gaps in the evacuation process ? i was concerned about the vetting or the lack thereof. they could leave if they would like. they are free to leave. it's not clear whether or not they returned but they are free to leave. finally, one of the profoundly negative consequences outside of afghanistan has been china and taiwan. the state controlled communityist party media and i read it every day. messages to give up and surrender to paybeijing becausee united states will abandon them to. >> thanks. let me see if i can address all those questions. the regard to phone call and i'm not going to comment on leaked, purportedly leaked transcripts of phone calls. what the president said in that conversation is exactly what he was saying in public, and it's this. the issue is not the capacity at that point of the afghan government and the aftghan security forces the hold the country. it was their will and whether they had plan to do so. we were concerned they were not demonstrating that will or that plan. he pressed on the need for the forces with our military leaders to make sure he could defend the places that need to defend and not over stretch the forces and needed to prbring people togeth. that's what he said. >> i only got a few minutes. >> is the transcript untrue? >> i'm not commenting on any purportedly leaked transcripts. i'm telling you my knowledge of the conversation and what he said is exactly what he said in public. second with regard to american citizens remaining behind. the ones we're in contact with, we have 500 people on the task force and teams dedicated to them to be in regular contact with them and i've not heard from those people that concern. i can't say whether there are any american citizens who are not in contact with or don't know of who may have been mistreated in some fashion in afghanistan. before afghans evacuated, they go to a transit country and that's where the initial checks are done. when they get to the united states, first at a military base, those checks are continued using all of law enforcement intelligence, security agencies to do that so we can make sure that we are not letting anyone into the country who could pose a threat or risk. it's that plbalance that's so important. there's nothing that china would have liked more for us to agree and remain bogged for another 5, 10 or 20 years. that would have been profoundly against our strategic interest. thank you. >> gentleman's time has expired. i recognize representative of new jersey who is chair of the subcommittee on the western hem hemisphere. >> thank you for being with us for the third time. i want to also say thank you to the work that the state department has done in getting people, including 11 members of one family that were all united and here now in this country. i hat is tipped off to those people who work so hard. the question that i have is, the taliban seem to be having a complete hold on the country. what i understand there are other groups in afghanistan. how fragile or how strong, firm is the taliban's hold on this country and do you see that breaking apart? everybody wants thaeir piece don the line . >> thank you. it's very hard to predict with any certainty. it's fractured with different ethnic groups. different outside actors that may be supporting one group or another. for the taliban to fully consolidate control, i think that remains an open question. to the extent it doesn't, to the extent every one other than the taliban is left out, that's only likely to over at some period of time whether it's tomorrow, next week, next year or there after cause those who are left out to try to assert one way or another their rights and needs. all of that i think is an open question at this point. one last thing i'd mention. the country itself is in desperate straits. we have severe malnutrition, health problems, covid-19. droughts, et cetera. the taliban has a big problem on its hands and it is generating very, very little revenue in order to deal with that. all of which, i might add, gives the interginternational communiy significant leverage going forward. >> i also read they running out of food in next few months. >> that's correct. it's one of the reasons we think it's important to make sure regardless of anything else, we and other countries find way to continue humanitarian assistance to the people of afghanistan. we have committed additional funds to do that. there's a pledging conference called by the united nations ongoing. we can do with the consistent with the sanctions and our laws by directi ing assistance throu ngos. we need to do everything we can to make sure the people of afghanistan don't suffer anymore than is already the case. >> i would like to see us helping afghanistan with food and aid and we extract certain commitments from them before we just give them -- i want to commend the country of colombia. they are vetting them before they get here. is that accurate? >> there's a number of countries that have made the commitments that are serving as transit countries. we deeply appreciate the countries that have stood up and agreed to do that. >> thank you. i don't have anymore questions. >> the gentleman yields back. i recognize representative from south carolina who is ranking member of the subcommittee on the middle east and africa for five minutes. >> thank you very much. i'm dpglad to join with our colleague. sir, in my service on the foreign affairs committee, the global terrorism subcommittee, the arms services committee and the helsinki commission, i've been impressed by foreign diplomats world wide. that's why i'm shocked that your action super seeding military advice leading to the surrender in afghanistan to be a safe haven for murderous terrorists. biden/harris has opened the southern border. this allows identified terrorists of the terror watch list to enter american neighborhoods as lone wolf suicide bombers to murder as many americans as possible. american families have never been at a greater risk of attack at home than today. as the global war on terrorism is not over. it's been moved from abroad to american homes. as the grateful father of an afghanistan veteran, i see your actions as indefensible. with 12 visits by me across afghanistan to thank the army national guard troops, i know first hand they appreciated serving with their afghan brothers. i saw the united states agency for international development success in building schools, agriculture projects, hospitals and bridges and roads. my beliefs have been expressed by the new york editorial board. that is six lies joe biden told by afghanistan. how can americans believe anything joe biden says after he's lied so blatantly. biden himself admits americans remain stranded in afghanistan. we're making the same commitment biden said to afghanistan who is assisted america. true. a senior state department official confessed to nbc news that the majority of afghans didn't make it out of kabul. lie. united states stands by its commitment we made to vulnerable afghans such as women leaders and afghans. true, biden didn't see that made it to safety. lie, parallels to what happened in vietnam. none, zero. true. not even a month later, pictures came from kabul of a helicopter flying over the american embassy. true, in the wake of biden's withdrawal decision, he pulled the air support intelligence and contractors. the afghan military couldn't operate. lie, july 8th, biden added that the likelihood is going to be a taliban over running everything is highly unlikely. true, in fact, biden knew the taliban were over taking the afghan government and asked the president to lie about it. whether it's true or not . they chant death to israel to america. we must never forget the may 8th bombing in kabul where islamic extremist terrorists slaughtered over 80 girls. you should have changed course then. murders will have a safe haven to attack american families at home. your bizarre abandoning of the airfield led to 13 marines murdered in kabul. you should resign. i yield back. >> mr. secretary, we only had 43 seconds left of the five minutes. i know you will not be able to answer many of the questions that were put forward by representative wilson. if you choose, you have 43 seconds of which to respond for which ever questions were asked to you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank the member for his support for the men and women of the state department. i appreciated that part of the statement. thank you. >> i now recognize representative jerry connally of virginia . >> mr. chairman, thank you. i guess i would say to my friend from south carolina, if i were the member of congress who committed one of the most grievous acts when mr. obama was our guest to shout ou you lie, i might take more care of enumerating other lies in hearing with the secretary of state. mr. secretary, what we're listening to on the other side of the aisle, sadly, is a salad mix of selective facts and a lot of amnesia in the salad dressing. the history of instability in afghanistan didn't begin on august 14th of this year, did it? >> it did not. >> am i correct in remembering that in fact, it could trace direct routes to 1977, 1978 when there was a communist coup and the president of afghanistan was assassinated in the presidential pa palace, is that correct? >> it is. >> one year later the soviet union because of that instability decided to invade afghanistan, is that correct? >> it is. >> and ten years later, the soviets left afghanistan because they had mounting and maybe really unsustainable military casualties and felt they were engaged in a process that could not be won, is that correct? >> it is. >> meanwhile, because the united states decided once that happened it would disengraj from afghanistan groups like the taliban had 12 years in which to create political power, is that correct? >> it is. >> in 2001, we re-entered afghanistan in response to the tragedy we just remembered, 20 year remebrance this week and we rolled up the taliban by making alliances with various malitia groups in the north until they lost control of the country in that year, is that correct? >> it is. >> the purpose of our involvement was to defeat al qaeda because the taliban were harboring this terrorist group that had attacked america, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> would it be fair to say that we achieved that objective? >> it would. >> would it be fair that in fact ten years later, the leader of that group who master minded the attacks of 9/11 was killed by a united states specially trained military unit? >> that's correct. >> what happened, ultimately, on august 14th has lots of history. i know it's convenient to pretend that didn't happen. i know that we want to give ourselves sort of the pleasure of attacking a political leader of the other party and let me engage in that too. i'm going to assert that the events of august 14th was a bad decision by president trump and secretary pompeo in 2018 to elevate and legitimize the taliban by bringing that face-to-face negotiations. that tragedy was compoundsed by an unbelievable decision to exclude the government of afghanistan. we were defending from those very negotiations. is that an accurate statement, mr. secretary? >> certainly, that's what we inherited. >> the afghan government was excluded from the negotiating table by the trump a admini administration, is that not correct? >> that's correct. >> when the 5,000 people were released from prison since the ranking members are concerned, were there any known terrorists or declared terrorists by the united states among those 5,000 people released with the consent and negotiated agreement of the trump administration? >> almost certainly, yes. >> i guess our concern about terrorists is pretty select and limited to partisanship. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back his time. i now recognize representative from ohio. >> thank you. on august 16th, president biden said the administration had considered every contingency and was executing the evacuation according to your plan. was it part of your plan to rely on the taliban to ensure the safety of americans trying to flee the country because that's what happened? >> we through the course of the spring and summer did look at every contingency for dealing with our draw down. >> we relied upon the taliban to be our security. we got 13 of our military personnel and afghan civilians killed. they didn't provide very good security. we never should have relied on them. let me move on them. >> we were not relying upon the taliban. you know kwhawhat happened is t afghan security forces collapsed. we executed the plans we had in place and draw down our embassy, move it to the airport. military took over the airport and started getting ting evacu flights out at 72 hours. >> it didn't work out so well. president biden has laid the blame for the evacuation debacle on others rather than himself. he blamed president trump as we discussed already to some degree here. basically, claiming that he was just following trump's policy. he hasn't hesitated to disregard every other major trump policy, our southern border, the keystone pipeline, paris climate accord, iran deal, mexico city policy and on and on. this was the one trump policy that he had to follow. do you understand why this is pretty hard to fathom for a lot of people? >> i think what's perhaps hard to fathom or people don't understand is the agreement reached by the previous administration required all u.s. forces to be out of afghanistan by may 1st. in return the taliban stopped attacking forces and partners and didn't commence an onslaught of the afghanistan cities. had the president not followed through, those attacks would have resumed. we have reupped the war in afghanistan after 20 years for another 5, 10, 20 years. we would have had to send a lot of forces back in. i recognize a lot of people don't understand that and don't know the agreement that was reached and the choice that president biden faced for may 1st. >> let me ask you this. when he wasn't blaming trump, he was blaming the afghan military forces for not being willing to fight. we suffered a single u.s. military death in a year and a half and that's a wonderful thing. the afghan military forces had lost about 3,000 of their military personnel during that same time. wasn't the president being a little unfair to those 3,000 afghans who lost their lives fighting the taliban during that period of time? >> congressman, many afghan soldiers fought with incredible bravery and gave their live. you're right. as an institution, after 20 years of investment by the united states, by the international community, hundreds of billions of dollars, equipment, support, training, as an constiinstitution, it collap 11 days. >> we went into afghanistan in the first place because the taliban had harbored al qaeda, correct? t they attacked us on september 11. now 20 years later we have the taliban back in charge and they have billions of dollars worth of our equipment and our weaponary and once again they are a haven for terrorists. how is this not a debacle of monumental proportions? >> congressman, as we were discussing a bit earlier, the al qaeda, the group that attacked us on 9/11, long ago, was vastly degraded to the point where it's currently not capable and the assessment of our intelligence agencies of conducting an attack against us or against others. the taliban should remember, as where well, what happened the last time, it did harbor al qaeda and engaged in an out wardly directed attack against us. it knows the consequences of continuing to do that. it has made commitments not to allow that to happen but we're not relying on those commitments that we discussed earlier. we are putting in place what we do the countries around the world where we don't have boots on the ground to detect the reemergence from al qaeda. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i now recognize representative ted douche of florida for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i appreciate you being here today. we do need to look back. this is really important hearing but we also need to look forward. we have taliban government. we have terrorist groups surging. potential threats to u.s. interests remain. it is true that we're not the world's policeman but we know that the strength in isis-k or al qaeda pose a threat to not only the u.s. homeland but to americans abroad, our interest abroad and the region. middle east and north africa were changed in the aftermath of 9/11 with the rise of al qaeda and isis affiliates. we can't trust the taliban to keep terrorist at bay. you traveled to our diplomatic talks with partners and allies on continued counterterrorism role. what do you assess to be the operational capacity of al qaeda in afghanistan and how is the administration planning to hold the taliban to its commitment to especially sure that al qaeda and other terrorist groups are unable to use afghan soil to plan terrorist attacks on or threaten the security of the u.s. and our allies? >> thank you very much. a few things on this. the terrorist threat has mestasized significantly since 9/11. we have to be able to make sure we are focussed everywhere. that's a possibility and resourced appropriately. we are. in a number of those places, as you know well, we don't have boots on the ground but we find ways to deal with that threat, including with over the horizon capabilities. in the case of afghanistan, a couple of things. the current assessment of the intelligence community is that long ago, al qaeda was so significantly degraded that it's not in a position to conduct externally directed attacks but we will remain hyper indivigila about any emergence of that threat and we will be working closely with partner and other countries to be in a position to do that. i think the chairman referenced earlier that we hope and expect to do some classified briefings on this because there's a number of things it would not be appropriate to discuss this this setting. >> thank you. we appreciate your commitment to ensuring that those classified briefings occur. secretary blinken, the war in afghanistan was the first mission in the history of nato arising out of the indication of article 5. over 50 nato members and partner countries have troops. 36 that's been reported have troops at time of the draw down. they invested political capital. our allies invested political capitals and funds and troops and often those troops gave their lives as well. the criticism that we heard from some of our allies is that tl was not adequate consultation and coordination with our nato al alli allies. we heard it being stated there was. i'd like you to speak to that but this. we had an administration, mr. secretary, that wanted to go it alone. a president who failed to appreciate and criticized the importance of nato allies while embracing xi and putin. if you could also, in final time with me, speak to a time when democratic values are being threatened and at risk in so many places around the world. if you could speak to the importance of that transatlantic relationship and how to reassure those allies of ours who have raised concerns about how we went about pulling out of afghanistan and about failing to coordinate with them as we did. >> thank you. couple of things. first, your so right to point to our allies and partners who stood with us on 9/11 and all the days and time thereafter. you're right that article 5 with nato, an attack on one is an attack on all. it was i voinvoked for the firs time. something i will never forget and i suspect no one on this video conference today will ever forget. we determined that when it came to afghanistan, we went in together and we would go out together. that's exactly what we did. we engaged, i engaged with the secretary of defense with intense consultations with our nato partners well before the president made his decision. going to brussels for a special session and listening, intently, to every single partner. delaying what we heard directly to president biden. to factor that into our think and into our planning. i spent more time in brussels either in person or virtually than any other place since i've been on this job working very closely with these allies and partners. nato immediately and unanimously endorsed that decision. in the discusses and conversations that we had throughout this time, including individual conversations, people brought very perspectives to the table but each recognized that given the deadline that existed, that is our forces had to depart afghanistan by may 1st pursuant to the agreement negotiated by the previous administration that the alternative, should we choose to stay, was for the taliban to resume attacks not just on us but our nato partners and allies. all endorsed the proposition that we would leave together and that's what we worked on doing and what we have been doing. i know from talking to many allies and partners, tremendous solidarity we saw together at the kabul airport, working to help each other and make sure we could get out fellow nationals, afghans who helped each of us and our embassy personnel. i heard a lot of gratitude from allies and partners about the work that our folks did in making sure that we could deliver on that commitment to them. from my perspective, at least, there was tremendous and genuine consultation throughout this process and going forward, right now, we are deeply engaged with them at nato and in other organizations on working together on the way forward to collectively hold the taliban to the commitments that it's made to the international community. >> thank you. gentleman's time has expired. i now recognize representative of pennsylvania for five minutes. >> assuming it's not classified, can you tell us where you are today? >> i'm at the state department. >> couldn't be bothered to come county here and see congress. that's great. >> sir, my understanding is the house is not in session and that's why the -- >> i'm right here. so is the chairman and the ranking member. we're here. >> mr. chairman, you're claiming my time. did it state in the evacuation process blocked american citizens from leaving afghanistan? >> no, we did not. >> none. your testimony before congress is that state didn't block any american citizens leaving afghanistan in. >> my officer, men and women ran into the building from around the world to help. >> it's a simple yes or no. you can do it with mr. connely, you can do it with me. you didn't block anybody? >> no. >> how many afghans not meeting the qualifications of siv have been brought to united states? how many afghan citizens came to the united states that have not met the qualifications for special immigrant visa? >> we're in the process -- >> how many? how many did you bring? how many did you bring? >> we have by the end of the month, we will have brought a total 60,000. >> that have not met the siv process? >> some of those will have been through the siv process. all of them regardless of siv status will have gone through rigorous security checks -- >> it would be nice if that was done before they brought the people to the united states of america. mr. secretary, are afghan refugees required to be vaccinated for covid before coming to united states of america? >> they are vaccinated in the united states before they are resettled into the united states. >> there are none of these afghan citizens that are allowed to leave these resettlement communities that are allowed to leave at any time they want. none of them are leaving unless they are vaccinated for covid, is that your testimony? >> they are tested for covid and vaccinated for covid? >> vaccinated before they leave? >> that's my understanding. >> all right. thank you, mr. secretary. is it the policy of the united states of america to take hard earned tax dollars and pay terrorist organizations? >> it is not. >> it is not. your testimony earlier was we're sending taxpayer dollars to afghanistan right now for humanitarian relief. who are we spending that to? >> to ngos and united nation agency using that assistance. not the the afghan government. >> the afghan, the taliban government. how are you accounting for that? how are you making sure the taliban government is not receiving that? >> as we do around in places of conflict, working through u.n., working through ngos with long tested methods to make sure -- >> i got it. >> not to the government in question. >> is it your understanding over the past 20 years the united states taxpayers have paid pakistan who used that money to support the taliban, isis-k, et cetera, for the past 20 years. is that not true? >> there's a long history that we should all look at together of the involvement of pakistan. >> i would say we should no longer pay pakistan and pay india. let me ask you this. i have a couple more questions. little off topic but interesting. how long was your recent interview with the fbi and was it a deposition? >> i'm sorry. i don't know what you're referring to. >> are you saying you have not had a recent interview with fbi since becoming secretary of state? >> i'm not sure what you're referring to. i'm happy to take that up with you on it. >> did the state department turn over documents to fbi related to hunter biden or the blue state strategies corporation? >> you'll have to -- >> you have no knowledge of this? are you saying you have not had an interview with the fbi? >> it would not be appropriate for me to comment in a public form on any legal proceedings the department -- >> i'm not asking you to comment on the legal proceedings. i'm asking if you have been interviewed with fbi since becoming secretary of state? >> again, i'm not comment one way or the other on any legal proceedings or not that may or may not happen. >> let me remind the gentleman that the topic of this hearing afghanistan. >> i appreciate it mr. chairman. the secretary generally refuses to answer questions about afghanistan. i figure we talk about something he should be familiar with. have you sought to alter any of your testimony from last year's senate investigation regarding this topic? >> gentleman's time has expired. let me also for the record make clear that this is a hybrid hearing. as members had an option to come or to be other places, the secretary also. it's a hybrid hearing because we are not in session. >> mr. chairman, point of inquiry. >> just for me edification, was it expressed too the secretary that he had a choice of one or was he invited to come here or was he alerted to remain there? i only ask because i think we all agree that if he could have been here in person, would have been better. if it was an option for whatever reason because i want to make sure it's clear that the secretary may have done no wrong even though many of us would prefer him to be here. >> secretary has done no wrong. it was an option as done with every member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i now recognition repr representative karen bass for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. thank you secretary blinken for attending this hearing and for your patience with putting up with the theatrics of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. i want to thank you again for spending the time and agreeing to take every one's questions for five minutes. the departure from afghanistan has provided really unprecedented insight into our foreign policy. in addition to demonstrating the bravery and professionalism of our military, diplomats and afghan partners is shown how a 20-year effort and billions of dollars have really raised questions about what the return of investment is that we desired . the assumption of power by taliban has secondary effects on the most vulnerable segments of the population especially women and children. we're concerned it will reverse in gains that were realized in the last two decades. my first question, yes or no, did the agreement from the last administration include any protections for girls and women? >> not to my knowledge. >> many people are concerned about the status of women and girls and taliban in afghanistan under the taliban. the restrictions on education, movement, health, physical safety under their regime paints a grim picture. i'd like to know how the administration will work with partners to protect women's rights and the right of ethnic and religious minority leaders? >> thank you. one of the trouly great achievements was the progress made by women and girls in particular in afghanistan and one of the things that we should be proud of is the support, the leading support that we gave to that when it comes to access of education, health care, to the work force, entrepreneurship, those gains were significant. we were the leading contributor. i was in kabul in april. i was in kabul in april. i sat with a number of women who had benefited from our assistance. women who had gone on to be members of parliament and leaders of n dgos and heard abo their concerns. just recently, when i was in ramstein talking to people who had been evacuated from afghanistan, i spoke to a lot of women and girls and heard their deep concerns about the future, as well as people who were still in afghanistan. and so, we have an ongoing commitment to use every tool at our disposal, through our diplomacy, through our economic assistance. humanitarian assistance, programmatic assistance, to do whatever we can to continue in coordination with many other countries to support women and girls and minorities in afghanistan. the assistance that we announced today will go in that direction. the assistance we'll provide going forward will do that. and with regard to women and girls in particular, given the incredible fragility of the situation that we're now in, i will be naming a senior official here at the state department to focus entirely on the ongoing everything from the united states government and in coordination with other countries to support them. >> well, thank you very much. and so will the administration expand the license to operate humanitarian programs in afghanistan? and how will that take place? and which partners do you see us continuing to work with? >> in short, yes, that's exactly what we're looking at. and we've already around a license to make sure that humanitarian assistance can go forward. we're willing at whether that needs to be expanded, consistent of course with our sanctions and consistent with our national security to allow appropriate assistance to get to those who need it. >> who approves that license? >> the treasury department is responsible for the licenses, but we do this in coordination or consultation with us and other agencies in the government, as well as, of course, the white house. >> and which partners on the ground are we continuing to work with? >> we have and we can get you the list. we have a number of ngos that remain active in afghanistan. >> are they -- [ inaudible ]? >> some are -- there are, i believe, a couple of u.s. ngos that are still active, international ngos and u.n. agencies. i met with the head of the u.n.'s humanitarian assistance program just a few days ago, when i was in doha. and we spent a lot of time talking about how this assistance could continue to go forward. and what some of the mechanisms were that could be put in place to make sure that it was getting to the right people and being used effectieffectively. >> the gentle lady's time has expired. i now recognize representative darryl issa from california for five minutes. >> mr. secretary, before we get into the tougher part of this, i want to thank you for the effort that has gone on by the men and women of both the state department and the department of defense and a lot of independent actions that occurred to try to help get people out in the aftermath of the withdrawal. i would not be doing my job, though, if i didn't ask some tough questions. one of them is up here on this board, and it's pretty straight forward. a response i received from the state department said to my staff, when we asked about continued work to get people out, they said, make contingency plans to leave when it is safe to do so. that -- do not rely on u.s. government assistance. how do we square the fact that in an official response that i waited weeks for, that we do not have any assurance for assistance, but that when people get out, typically, they are lauded by the state department as success stories. that includes an 80-year-old couple that was announced to have gotten out when, in fact, we saw no real assistance by the state department, had to find out that it was a non-government flight, and get these two american citizens on to that flight, and we still have a number of others. so, in a nutshell, how do i explain don't rely on the united states? do we or do we not rely on the united states of america for blue passport holder american citizen who is want to get out? >> the answer to that is, yes, absolutely. and can you tell me, because i can't see it clearly from here, you know, when and to whop that statement was made? >> we'll give it to your staff so you get it without it being fully disclosed, but it is a correspondence -- >> and congressman, i really welcome following up with you, with your team, with your staff to make sure that we are following up on that particular request. i got, here, because i really want to express deep appreciation to members of congress, this committee, i have here a very lengthy document of all of the inquiries that we've received from just from hvac, from members of hvac on people who have come to you, seeking assistance, all of which has been factored into our databases, our information, our efforts. but if someone is not getting the response they need, please, come back to us and let me know and we'd be very happy to work with you on that. thank you. >> we'll do that. thank you, mr. secretary. if i can quickly go through a few zdates and a few statements. on july 8th, president biden was asked if he listened to the intelligence assessment that the afghan government was likely to collapse. he answered, that is not true. they are not -- they did not reach that conclusion. in other words, the ic hadn't reached that conclusion. i believe that we'll find that as of july 8 with, the presiden misspoke. the president also said, the likelihood that there's going to be the taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely. two days later on july 10th, the taliban was reported to have 85% of the country. then on august 12th, "the wall street journal" reported that on july 13th, you received an urgent dissent memo from 23 u.s. embassy personnel in kabul warning that the advances of the taliban and the rapid collapse of afghanistan. your spokesman said that you read every memo sent to you from the dissent channel. so, if you do, then you knew that, in fact, a major portion of people in the embassy believed that they were going to quickly overrun. on august 18th, president biden said that the intelligence community did not say back in june or july that, in fact, this was going to collapse like it did. but the embassy told you, or at least a great many, in july, that it would. the question really is, how do we regain confidence in the state department and its spokespeople, yourself included, and the president, if, in fact, we cannot square what we have received, members of congress, both publicly and privately, that indicate some of those statements that i just read, including ones by the president, are not supported by the facts. >> thank you. as you know from tracking this as well, throughout the year, assessments were made of the resilience of the afghan government, the afghan security forces, and the possibility of the taliban taking over the country. and this was typically done in a series of different scenarios. wo worst, mid-case, best-case scenarios. in the best-case scenarios throughout the spring, the general assessment was that the government and security forces would be able to hold on to the country well into next year, 2022. at some point in july, there was an assessment that it was more likely than not that that time frame was down to the end of the year. and of course as things fully unraveled in august, that changed. to my knowledge, congressman, no one predicted the unraveling before our forces and embassy left afghanistan on august 31st. the chairman of the joint chiefs said nothing i or anyone else saw indicated a collapse of the government and the security forces in 11 days. the director of national intelligence has said in the days leading up to the taliban takeover, intelligence agencies did not say collapse was imminent. this unfolded more quickly than we anticipated, including in the intelligence community. and there are a number of other conclusive statements of that kind. with regard to the so-called dissent cable channel, it's something i'm immensely proud of. you're right, i read every such cable, respond to it, factor into it my own thinking and actions and that cable did not predict the collapse of the government or security forces after our departure. it was rightly focused on the work we were doing on trying to get afghans at risk out of the country and pressing to speed up that effort. as it happens, a number of the things that were suggested -- >> we've been watching secretary of state toeny blinken testifyig in front of the house foreign affairs committee. he's been answering questions now for about two hours, close in to on afghanistan. >> he's been right to. >> as often happens with this, the congressmen and women want