0 are you negotiating with that taliban on the issue of legitimizing them as a real government? >> not only us but virtually the entire international community has made clear what we expect and insist on from the taliban. if they want to seek any legitimacy or support. it starts with freedom of travel. we've been intensely engaged with turkey and qatar to get the airport in kabul up and running again, which is now the case. we started to get flights out last week with american citizens on board. with regard to masari shareef. there's been charter flights there for some time that have not been allowed to leave. we want to see the flights leave. we need to so a process put in place to allow the flights to start to move. we're working on that every day. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. secretary, we requested sets of classified briefings not long ago. welcome your assurance to schedule this briefing sometime in the immediate future. >> yes. absolutely. >> i now recognize respect brad sherman from california for five minutes. >> secretary blinken, thanks for reminding us that americans were not required to registered if they were in afghanistan. i hope my colleagues will support my legislation to require americans to register if they go to a war zone. the ranking member says that 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 1 of 2021, force the release of 5,000 of the taliban's 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's those that say we should get out all of our afghan allies and all those that face oppression or death from the taliban. i would point out the afghan army together with all of its veterans over 20 years together with all of their families, you're talking about millions of people. while the taliban may be harsh to the girls that are music students, orphans, imagine how harsh they'll be to a girl whose father was in the afghan army trying to kill the taliban. the administration took over. the american people made it clear. we had to get out in 2021. the afghan government some thought had some chance to fight to a stalemate. by spring those closest to us, those most in the know, were demanding visas to get out, to flee as quickly as possible. they weren't asking for guns to build trenches to fight the taliban. they were asking for visas, demanding visas. making videos how they will be killed. when they started to flee, that standed a stampede and there's no way the administration could have an orderly our successful stampede. seems absurd to think the average afghan grunt would fight while seeing those 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, may 1. did the trump administration leave 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 a 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 1 withdrawal? >> thank you, congressman. we inherited a deadline. we did not inherit a plan. >> so no plan at all. it's amazing it wasn't much worse. it was controversial when we gave up five taliban for bergdahl. not the most meritorious of american fighting men. 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 by may 1 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. 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 1 when we were supposed to pull out our forces as well as not to go up to major cities and take steps to ensure that afghanistan would not be used by al-qaeda or any other -- >> one more question. you're criticized for not getting our weapons out. they were all over the country. was there a way to disarm the afghan government without being seen by the world as betraying the afghan government and was there a way without casualtying to go all over afghanistan to get the trucks and the tanks and et cetera? >> simply put, no. a lot of excess equipment was handed over to the afghan security and defense forces, partners that we worked with for 20 years, supported and equipped for 20 years to take on the equipment. when those forces collapsed in 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 controlled before we left afghanistan. what we see now is much of the equipment that was left behind incluing in the hands of the afghan forces that fell to the taliban according to my colleagues at dod will be inoperable or will soon be maintained inoperable. it's not good of strategic value to threaten us or their neighbors or given the taliban uniforms and guns and some other equipment that is now in their hands. >> i now recognize representative chris smith of new jersey, the ranking member of the subcommittee of african global ball health and alliance for five minutes. >> mr. secretary, you testified that you had encouraged americans to leave the country. simultaneous with that is statements being made by president biden that afghan's military capability was 300,000 man strong and that they had the best training imaginable. so at best, i would say they were misled. you don't mention withdrawal conditions that were placed by president trump on any exodus from afghanistan. i do have a couple of questions i'd like to ask. did you concur and support president biden's july 23 phone call telling president ghani to be untruthful about the taliban success? according to reuters, which reviewed the transcript and the audio. president biden said "and 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 was biden or was that live scripted into the phone call and if it was scripted, by who? secondly, have any americans been arrested, beaten or killed by the taliban or isis-k since we left and do we have the capability to know that? third, were there any gaps or weaknesses in the vetting process of afghan evacuees especially in light of the fact that reliable information on some or perhaps many that got parole wasn't available to conduct a meaningful background check. are you concerned that the taliban may have embedded its members as evacuees? i visited our base at fort dix recently. i asked a number of questions. i was very concerned about the vetting or lack thereof and the fact that about 70% strong at our base and going to 13,000, they could leave if they would like. they're free to leave. it's not clear whether or not they would return but free to leave. finally, one of the profoundly negative consequences outside of afghanistan has been china and taiwan. the state-controlled chinese communist party are saturating the taiwanese with messages to give up and surrender to beijing because the united states will just as it did in afghanistan abandon them too. that's what the global times is saying. start off with the first question, i would appreciate it. >> thanks. let me see if i can address those questions. first, with regard to the phone call you said and i'm not going to comment on leaked transcripts or phone calls. what the president said in that conversation with then president ghani is exactly what he was saying in public. that the issue is not the capacity at that point of the afghan government and the after again security forces to hold the country and to hold kabul. it was their will and whether they had a plan to do so. we were concerned they weren't demonstrating that will or that plan. he pressed president ghani on the need to consolidate his forces on the military advice from our leaders to make sure that he could defend the places that needed defending and not overstretch the forces and -- >> i understand. my question is -- >> that's what he said -- >> i have two minutes. was it a real -- is the transcript untrue? >> i'm not commenting on any purportedly leaked transcripts. i telling you what the president said and what he said is in public. second, with regard to american citizens remaining behind. the ones we're in contact with were -- we have 500 people on a task force. teams dedicated to them to be in regular contact with them. i have not heard from those people. i can't say whether there are any american citizens that are not in contact with or may have been mistreated in some fashion in afghanistan. third, with regard to the background checks. this is very important. you're right to focus on it. you know, as you know, before afghan -- afghans were evacuated, they go to a transit country. that's where checks are done. we have surged our border patrol and surged our law enforcement capacity to do the initial checks. 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 that we can make sure that we're not letting anyway in to the country that could pose a threat or a risk. it's exactly that balance that is so important as well in the sie program. we all want to bring avenue agains at risk in the united states. we also have an obligation that you point out to the security of fellow citizens. finally on china and taiwan. whatever they're making in newspapers or propaganda, there's nothing that china would have liked more than for us to reuped the war in afghanistan and remain bogged down another five, ten years. that would have been against our strategic interests and in china's strategic exists. >> gentleman's time has expired. i recognize the civilian, security and economic policy chair for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. secretary, 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. so my hats off to those people that worked so hard. the question that i have is the taliban seems to be having a complete hold of the country. i understand there's 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 their piece down the line. this country is made up of pieces, people that control certain pieces of the country. >> it's -- thank you. it's a very good question and an important one. it's very hard to predict with with any certainty. the country is in so many ways as you pointed out fractured among different groups. different ethnic groups. north, south, east and west and different outside actors that support one group or another. so for the taliban to consolidate control, that is -- that remains an open question. it's also why ironically it would be profoundly in taliban's interest to put forward a genuine and representative government. because to the extent it doesn't, to the extent that everybody is left out, that is likely -- at some period of time, whether it's tomorrow, next week, next year or thereafter cause those left out to try to assert one way or another their rights and needs. so all of that i think is an open question at this point. one last thing i mention. the country itself is desperate straits. the u.n. estimated half the population is in need of humanitarian assistance. we have severe malnutrition, health problems, covid-19, droughts, et cetera. so there too, the taliban has a big problem on its hands and of course it's generating very, very little revenue in order to deal with that. all of, which i might add, gives the international community very significant leverage and influence going forward. >> i also read where they're running out of food in the next few months. >> yep, that's correct. we've seen a terrible drought. growing nutrition problems. it's one of the reasons that we think it's so important to make sure that regardless of anything else, we and other countries find ways to continue humanitarian assistance to the people of afghanistan. we've committed additional funds to do that. a pledging conference called by the united nations ongoing and we can and will do that consistent with the sanctions and laws by directing assistance through the ngos, not through the government. we need to do everything we can to make sure the people of afghanistan don't suffer any more than is already the case. >> i would like to see us help with food, aid, extract certain commitments from them before we just give them food. last thing i want to say, i want to commend the country of columbia. i think they have taken thousands of afghanistans and vetting them before they get here is. that accurate? >> there's a number of countries around the world that have made the commitments that are serving as transit countries or resettlement countries. taking in afghans as refugees and we deeply appreciate the countries that have stood up to do that. >> i don't have anymore questions. >> gentleman yields back. i now recognize representative joe wilson of south carolina who is a ranking member of the subcommittee in the middle east, north africa for five minutes. >> thank you very much. glad to join with our dear colleague and thanking our great ally of columbia of helping the afghan refugees. sir, in my service of the foreign affairs committee, the armed services committee, the ney though parliamentary assembly and the helsinki commission, i've always been impressed by american foreign service diplomats worldwide. their dedication to service is inspiring. that is why i'm shocked that your actions superseding military advice leading to the sur representedner afghanistan to be a safe haven for murderous terrorists. biden-harris have also opened the southern border stopping the wall of president trump. this allows identified terrorists of the terror watch list to enter american neighborhoods as suicide bombers to murdering a many americans as possible. american families have never been in a greater risk of attack at home than today. as the global war on terrorism is not over, it's been moved from aboard to american homes. as a grateful father of an afghanistan veteran, i especially see your actions as indefensible. with 12 visits by me across afghanistan to thank the army national guard troops, the 218th brigade commanded by joe livingston, i know first and they appreciated serving with their afghan brothers. i saw the success in building schools, agricultural projects, bridges and roads and hospitals. my beliefs have been expressed by the "new york post" editorial board september 1. that is "six lies joe biden told about afghanistan." how can any american believe what biden says after he lied? if there's any american citizens left, we're going to stay until we get them out. biden admitted americans remain stranded in afghanistan. a senior state department official confessed to nbc nbc that the majority of afghans didn't make it out of kabul. lie. the united states stands by its commitment that we made to vulnerable afghans like women leaders and journalists. true. team biden didn't ensure american journalistses made it to safety. lie. ask by a reporter of what you've seen happened in vietnam. none whatsoever. zero. true. not even a month later, pictures came from kabul of a helicopter flying over the american embassy. lie. biden vowed to continue to provide air support. true. then he pulled the air support and contractors. the after again military couldn't operate. lie. july 8, biden added that the likelihood there's going to be a taliban overrunning everything is highly unlikely. true. in fact, biden knew the taliban were overtaking the afghan government and asked president ghani to lie about it. whether is it true or not. sadly the advanced military and equipment left to the terrorists -- i end the quote of that article. sadly, the advanced military left to the equipment is comparable to all of the equipment that we provided to israel since 1948. the countries that suffered most from islamic extremist tearist attacks are in danger. they chant death to israel, death to america. we must never forget the may 8 bombing in kabul where islamic extremist terrorists slaughters over 80 innocent young girls. you should have changed course then. because of this grew some revealing fact. the murders of that attack now will have a safe haven to attack american families at home. your bizarre abandons of bagram 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. so your response, i know you will not be able to answer many of the questions that were put forward by representative wilson, but if you choose, you have 43 seconds of which to respond for whichever questions were asked of you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me simply 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 connelly of virginia, the president of the nato particle men -- parliamentary assembly for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i guess i would say to my friend from south carolina, if i were the member of congress that committed one of those acts in the stayed of the union address, when mr. obama was our guest to show out "you lie", i might take more care about enumerating other alleged lies in a hearing with the secretary of state. mr. secretary, what were listening to on the other side of the aisle sadly is sort of a solid mix of selective fact thats and a lot of amnesia in the salad dressing. the history of instability in afghanistan didn't begin on august 14 of this year, did it? >> i'd did it not. >> am i correct in remembering that in fact you could trace direct routes to 1977, 1978 when there was a communist coup and the president of afghanistan was assassinated in the presidential palace. is that correct? >> it is. >> one year later, the soviet union because of that instability decided to invade afghanistan. is that correct? >> yes. >> ten years later, the soviets left afghanistan because they had mounting and maybe really unsustainable military casualties and felt that 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 disengage from afghanistan, groups like the taliban had 12 years in which to create political power. is that correct? >> it is. >> and in 2001, we reentered afghanistan in response to the tragedy that we just remembered, 20-year remembrance this week, and we rolled up the tall been by mixing with groups in the north and moved south until they lost control of the country in that year. is that correct? >> yes, it is. >> the purpose of our involvement was to defeat al-quaida because the taliban were harboring this virulent tear list group that had attacked american. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> would it be fair to say that we achieved that objective? >> it would. >> would it be fair to say ten years later the leader of that group who masterminded the attacks of 9-11 was in fact killed by a united states specially trained military you it? >> that's correct. >> so what happened ultimately on august 14 has lots of history. i know it's convenient to pretend that didn't happen. i know we want to give ourselves sort of the pleasure of attacking a political leader of the other party and so let me engage in that, too. i'm going to assert that the events of august 14 had the direct antecedent with a bad decision by president trump and secretary pompeo in 2018 to elevate and legitimize the taliban in doha qatar by agreeing that face to face negotiations. that tragedy was compounded by an unbelievable decision to exclude the government of afghanistan that we were defending from those very negotiations. is that an accurate statement, mr. secretary? >> certainly that's what we inherited. >> but the afghan government was in fact excluded from the negotiating table in doha by the trump administration. is that not correct? >> that's correct, yes. >> when the 5,000 people were released from prison since the ranking members were so concerned about two haqqani members in the cabinet of afghanistan, were there any terrorists of the 5,000 released with the consent and negotiated agreement of the trump administration? >> almost certainly, yes. >> i guess our concern about terrorists is pretty selective. limited to partisanship. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back his time. i now represent -- recognize representative steve shabbot of ohio for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on august 16, mr. secretary president biden said that 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? that's what happened. >> we put -- through the course of the spring and summer did as the president said look at every contingency for dealing with our draw down. >> you relied -- we relied on the taliban to be our security. in essence, we got 13 of our military personnel and over 150 afghan civilians killed by relying upon the taliban. they didn't provide very good security. we never should have relied upon them. let -- >> we were not relying on the taliban. what happened was, the afghan security forces and the government collapsed in the space of 11 days. we executed the plans we had in place to safely draw down our embassy, move it to the airport. military came in, took over the airport and got evacuation flights out within 72 hours. >> we certainly relied upon it at the airport. didn't work out too well. mr. secretary, president biden has laid the blame for the evacuation debacle in afghanistan on others rather than on himself where it really be longs. he blamed president trump as we've 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 at the southern border, the keystone pipeline, the paris climate accord, the iran deal, mexico city policy and on and on. this is the one trump modelsy that he had to follow. do you understand why this is hard to fathom for a lot of people? >> what people don't understand is that the agreement reached by the previous administration required all u.s. forces to be out of afghanistan by may 1. in return, the taliban stopped attacking our forces and didn't commence an onslaught of the afghanistan cities. had the president not followed through, the attacks would have resume and we would have reuped the war and had to send more forces back in. i recognize a lot of people don't understand that, don't know the agreement that was reached and the choice that president biden faced from may 1. >> let me ask you this. when he wasn't blaming trump, he was blaming the afghan military forces for allegedly not being willing to fight. whereas we had suffered a single u.s. military death in 1 1/2 years. that's a wonderful thing. the afghan military forces had lost about 3,000 of their military personnel during that same time. so wasn't the president being a little unfair to those 3,000 afghans that lost their lives fighting the taliban during that time? >> congressman, many afghan soldiers fought with incredible bravery and gave their lives. you're right. but as an institution, after 20 years of investment by the united states, the international committee, hundreds of billions of equipment as an institution, it collapsed in 11 days. >> mr. secretary, we went into afghanistan in the first place because the taliban had harbored al-quaida, correct? they attacked us on september 11th. now 20 years later, we have the taliban back in charge there. they have billions and billions of dollars of our equipment and our weaponry. once again, they're a haven for terrorists. how is this not a debacle of monumental proportions? >> congressman, as we discussed earlier, the al-qaeda, the group that attacked us on 9-11 long ago was vastly degreated to the point that it's not capable in the assessment of our intelligence agencies of conducts an attack against us or against others. the taliban should remember as well what happened the last time it did as you said harbor al-quaida and engaged in an outwardly directed attack against us. it knows the consequences of continuing to do that. and it has made commitments not to allow that to happen. of course, we're not relying on those commitments that we discussed earlier. we're putting in place what we do in countries around the world where we don't have boots on the ground, which is an over-the-horizon capacity to detect the reemergence of a threat from al-quaida and the means to do something about it. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i now recognize representative thad deutsche of florida who is on the subcommittee of global counter terrorism for five minutes. >> thank you for being here today, mr. secretary. we need to look back but we also need to look forward. the reality is, we have a taliban government, terrorists groups surging, potential threats to u.s. interests remain. it's true we're not the world's policeman. we know a strengthens isis-k or al-quaida pose a threat not only to the u.s. homeland but to americans abroad, our interests abroad and the region. the middle east and north africa were fundamentally changed in the aftermath of 9-11. we clearly can't trust the taliban to keep terrorists at bay. so mr. secretary, you traveled to doha to get depp pillowmatic talks with our allies on the counter terrorism role. what do you assess to be the operational capacities of al-quaida in afghanistan and how is the administration planning to hold the taliban to its commitment to ensure this al-quaida 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. first as we discussed earlier, as you know, from your focus on this, the terrorist force has metastasized from 9-11 and much more acute now in terms of threats to the homeland and threats beyond the countries in question from somalia, from yemen, libya, iraq, syria and a number of other countries in africa as well. so we have to be able to make sure that we were focused everywhere. that is a possibility and resourced appropriately. we are. in a number of those places as you know, we don't have boots on the ground. we have 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 hypervigilant about any reemergence of that threat. we will be working closely with partners to do that. the chairman referenced earlier that we hope and expect in the near future to do classified briefings on this because there's a number of things that would not be appropriate to discuss in this setting. >> thank you, mr. secretary. we appreciate your commitment to ensuring that those classified briefings occur. secretary blinken, the war in afghanistan the first mission in nato a rising out of article 5. there's 50 nato members partners that sent troops, 36 have been reported had troops there at the time of the draw down. they invested political capitol -- our allies invested political funds and troops. afternoon those troops gave their lives as well. the criticism that we've heard from some of our allies is that there was not adequate consultation and coordinate with our nato allies. we heard secretary general of the nato say that there was. others doubted that. i'd like you to speak to this. we had an administration, mr. secretary that wanted to go it alone, a president who failed to appreciate and often criticized the importance of nato allies while embracing xi and putin. if you could speak to at a time when democratic values are at -- being threatened and at risk in so many places around the world, if you could speak to the importance of the trans atlantic relationship and assure those allies of ours that have raised concerns about how we went about pulling out of afghanistan and failing to coordinate with them as we did. >> thank you. couple of things. you're so right to point to our allies and partners that stood with us on 9-11 and the days and time thereafter. you're right. article 5 of nato, an attack of one is an attack of all. that was invoked in our defense by our allies and partners. something that 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, we would go out together. that's what we did. we engaged, i engaged with the secretary of defense in intense consultations with our nato partners well before the president made his decision going to brussels for a special session of the north atlantic council and listening intently to every partner, relaying what we heard directly to president biden to factor that into our thinking and into our planning. i spent more time in brussels than any other place since i've been on the job working with these allies and partners. on the day the president's decision was announced, i was back in brussels with the secretary of defense. nato immediately and unanimously endorsed that decision. in the discussions and conversations that we had throughout this time, including individual conversations, people brought various perspectives to the table. each recognized that given the deadline that existed, that is that our forces had to depart afghanistan by may one 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 allies and partners than to engage in this countrywide offensive to retake the major cities and reup the water. all unanimously endorsed the proposition that we would leave together and that's what we worked on doing, what we've been doing. i know from talking to many allies and partners the solidarity that we saw at the kabul airport, working to help each other to make sure we could get out our fally nationals, afghans that had helped each of us. our embassy personnel. i heard a lot of gratitude from allies and partners about the work that hour folks did in making sure that we could deliver on that compliment to them. so from my perspective at least, there was tremendous and genuine consultation with allies and partners throughout this process and going forward right now, we're deeply engaged with them at nato and other organizations on working together on the way forward to collectively hold the taliban to the commitment that's it has made. >> thank you. the gentleman's time has expired. i recognize scott perry from pennsylvania. >> assuming it's not classified, with you tell us where you are today? >> yes. i'm at the state department. >> couldn't be bothered to come down here and see congress. that's great. my understanding -- >> excuse me, sir. my understand is that the house is not in session and that's why the session -- >> i'm here, secretary. so is the chairman. so is the ranking member. we're here. mr. chairman, i'm reclaiming my time. did state at any point block american citizens from leaving afghanistan? >> no, we did not. >> none. your testimony is that state didn't block any american citizens leaving afghanistan. >> to the contrary. my officers, men and women ran into the building -- >> it's a yes or no. i heard you do it with mr. conley. you can do it with me. just want to clarify. you didn't block anybody. >> no. they were there to help americans -- >> how many afghans not meeting the qualifications of siv have been brought to the united states prior to -- i want to know how many afghan citizens that came to the united states that had not met the qualifications for a siv? >> we're in -- >> how many? you were just at dulles. how many did you bring? >> we will have by the end of the month, we will have brought a total of approximately 60,000. >> that have not met the sis process. >> some of those will have been through the siv process. all of them regardless of status would have gone through rigorous security checks first at -- >> it would be nice if that was done before we brought these people to the united states of america. mr. secretary, are afghan refugees required to be vaccinationed for covid before coming to the united states of america? >> they are vaccinated in the united states before they are resettled in to the united states. >> there's none of these afghan citizens that are allowed to leave these resettlement communities, fort dix, dulles that are allowed to leave -- none of them are leaving unless they're tested for covid? >> they're tested and vaccinated for covid? >> vaccinated before they leave? >> that's my understanding. >> thank you, mr. secretary. is it the policy of the united states of america to take hard-ended tax dollars and pay terrorist organizations? >> it is not. >> it is not. so your testimony earlier was that we're sending taxpayer dollars to afghanistan right now for humanitarian relief. who are we sending that to? >> to ngos and the united agencies that are using that citizens, not to the afghan government. >> not to the afghan, the taliban government. how are you accounting for that? how are you making sure that the taliban government is not receiving that? >> as we do around the world and places of conflict, where we provide humanitarian assistance working through the u.n., working through ngos, with long tested methods to -- >> all right. i got it. let me ask you this. >> not to the government in question. >> is it your understanding the past 20 years the united states taxpayers have paid pakistan, who is then used the money to support the taliban, the haqqani network, isis-k, et cetera nor the past 20 years? is that not true? >> there's a long history that we should look at together about the involvement -- >> i would say we should no longer pay pakistan and we should pay india. let me ask you this. i have a couple more questions for you. a little off topic here. it's 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. >> are you saying you've not had an interview with the fbi since becoming secretary of state? >> i'm -- i'm not sure what you're referring to. i'm happy to take that up with you off line. >> did the state department turn over documents to the fbi related to hunter biden, burisma or the blue states strategies corporation? so you have no knowledge of this? you don't -- are you saying you have not had an interview with the fbi -- >> it would not be appropriate for me to comment in a public forum on any legal proceedings -- >> i'm not asking you to comment on the legal proceedings. i'm asking if you've been interviewed by the fbi since becoming secretary of state. >> again, i'm not going to comment one way or another open any legal proceedings or not that may or may not have happened -- >> let me remind the gentleman the topic of this hearing is afghanistan. >> i appreciate it, mr. chairman. the secretary generally refuses to answer questions about afghanistan so i figured we would talk about something that he's familiar with. have you sought to alter your testimony from last year regarding this topic? mr. secretary? >> gentleman's time has expired. let me also for the record make clear that this is a hybrid hearing. just as members had an option to come or to be other places. the secretary also is a hybrid hearing because we're not in session. >> mr. chairman, point of inquiry. if i could. there is congressman issa. was it expressed to the secretary either one or invited to come here or 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. it was an option or for whatever reason because i want to make sure that 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. i made it as an option as i did with every member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i recognize representative bass the chair of global human rights for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. thank you, secretary blinken for attending this hearing and for your patience for 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 everyone's questions for five minutes. the departure from afghanistan has provided unprecedented insight into our foreign policy in addition to demonstrating the brairy -- bravery of our partners, it has shown that a 20-year effort and billions of dollars have raise questions about the return of investment that we desired in sustaining peace and stability in afghanistan. the assumption of power by the taliban had secondary and tertiary effects on the most vulnerable segments of the population, especially women and children. we're concerned that it will reverse any gains that were realized in the last two decades. my first question, yes or no, did the agreement from the last administration include protections from girls and women? >> not to my knowledge. >> so many people are concerned about the status of women and girls in taliban -- in afghanistan on the taliban. the restrictions on education paints a grim picture. i'd like to know how the administration will work with partners to get women rights and ethnic -- >> thank you, congress woman. one of the great achievements of the last 20 years is the progress made by women and girls in particular in afghanistan. 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, to healthcare, to the work force, entrepreneurship. those gains were significant. we were the leading contributor i was in kabul in april. i sat with a number of women who benefitted from our assistance including woman who have become leaders in the parliament, the media, ngos and et cetera and hers their concerns about the future. in do a and ram stein talking to people that were evacuated from afghanistan, i spoke to a lot of women and girls and heard their deep concerns about the future as well as people still in afghanistan. so we have an on going commitment to use every tool at our disposal, through our diplomacy, through our economic assistance, humanitarian 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 will provide going forward will do that. with regard to women, girls in particular given the incredible of the fragility they're in, i will name someone to focus on the effort from the united states government and coordination with other countries to support them. >> thank you very much. 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? >> short, yes. that's what we're looking at. we already issued a license to make sure humanitarian assistance could go forward. we're looking whether that needs to be expanded consistent with our sanctions and consistent with our national security to allow appropriate assistance to get those that need it. >> who are we making that request to? >> the treasury department is responsible for the licenses. we do this in coordination or consultation with us and other agencies in the government and the white house. >> and which partners on the ground are we working with? >> we have a number of ngos that remain active in afghanistan -- >> ngos or -- >> there are -- i believe a couple of u.s. ngos that are still active, and u.n. agencies. i met with the head of the u.n. humanitarian assistance program when i was in doha. we talked about how this assistance could be used going forward and what could be put in place to mike sure it was getting to the right people and used effectively. >> the gentle lady's time has expired. i recognize darrell issa from california. >> 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 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 if i didn't ask some tough questions. one of them is up here on this board. it's pretty straightforward. a response i received from the state department said to my staff when we asked about continued work to get people out. it said make contingency plans when safe to do so that do not rely on u.s. government assistance. how to 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 they're lauded by the state dent 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 it was a nongovernment 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 0 do we not rely on the united states of america for blue passport holder american citizens that want to get out? >> the answer to that is yes, absolutely. could you tell me -- i'm sorry. i can't see it clearly from here when and to whom that statement was made. >> we'll give it to your staff so you get it without being fully disclosed. it's a correspondence -- >> i welcome following up with you, with your team and 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 in congress, this committee, i have here a very lengthy document of all of the inquiries that we received just from hvac, on people coming to you, seeking assistance, all of our database. if someone is not getting the response that they need, please come back to us and let me know and we'll be happy to work with you. >> we'll do that. thank you. if i can go through a few dates and a few statements. on july 8 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 i.c. hadn't reached that conclusion. i believe that we'll find as of july 8, the president misspoke. the president also said the likelihood there's going to be the taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely. two days later on july 10, the taliban was reported to have 85% of the country. then on august 12, the "wall street journal" reported that on july 13 you received an urgent dips sent memo from 23 u.s. personnel in kabul warning the rapid collapse of afghanistan. your spokesman said that you read every memo sent to you from the descent channel. so you knew a major portion of people in the embassy believed that they were going to quickly overrun. on august 18, president biden said the president community did not say back in june or july that in fact this was going to collapse like it did. the embassy told you or great many in july that it would. the question really is, how do we regain confidence in the state department and its spoke people, yourself included and the president if in fact we cannot square what we receive, 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. this was typically done in a series of different scenarios. worst case, best case scenarios. in the scenarios throughout the spring, it's ordinary to say 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. then of course as things fully unravelled in august, that changed. to my knowledge, congressman, no one predicted the unraveling before our forces and embassy left afghanistan on august 31. the chairman of the joint chiefs, general milley has 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 said, intelligence agencies did not say collapse was imminent. there's a number of other statements from that time that i can share with you. with regard to the so-called descent channel cable. it's something that i'm proud of. i read every cable. i factor it in to my own thinking and actions. and that cable did not predict the collapse of the government or security forces before our departure. it was very focused and rightly focused on the work we were doing to try 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 in that important cable were things that we were in the process of doing. the next day the cable came in july 13. the 14th we launched operation allies refuge, which had been in