and i want to thank senator durbin in absentia for his very kind introduction. it is truly the honor of a lifetime to appear before this committee as president-elect biden said nominee to be secretary of state. and it's an honor that carry special significance for me for two reasons. first, as you noted, i had the privilege of serving as the democratic staff director of this committee for six years, working alongside distinguished group of senators, including several still on the committee today, to advance american diplomacy and safeguard the interests of the american people. that experience gave me an abiding respect for this committee, for its finest bipartisan traditions, for the caliber of its members and staff , for the essential work it does to strengthen u.s. leadership around the world. if i have the honor of being a confirmed, those lessons that i learned in my years with this committee will guide my approach to our work together. the second point of significance for me is a little bit more personal. in addition to my own confirmation, as deputy secretary of state, this committee confirmed my wife, evan ryan, who is here with me today, as assistant secretary of state for cultural affairs. confirmed my uncle alan blanck and as ambassador to belgium, and confirmed my father, donald lincoln, as ambassador to hungary. i hope i don't break the streak today. my family, especially my wife and our children, john and lila, is my greatest blessing. our tradition of public service is the source of tremendous pride. i view that tradition something of a sacred duty. payment on the debt that our family owes to the nation that gave so many of my relatives refuge, and extraordinary opportunities across the generations. my grandfather, maurice, found refuge in america after playing -- after fleeing russian pilgrims. my father found refuge in america after fleeing the communist regime in hungary. and my late stepfather, samuel , found refuge in america after enduring the horrors of the holocaust. sam was the only survivor among his immediate family, and school of 900 children in poland after four years in the concentration camps. at the end of the war, he made a break from the death march into the bavarian woods. and from his hideout, he heard the rumbling sound of a tank, and as he looked out, instead of seeing the dreaded iron cross, he saw a five pointed white star. and so he ran to the tank and got to it. the hatch opened. an african american g.i. looked down at him. he fell to his knees and said the only three words that he knew in the english language that his mother had taught them before the war. god bless america. the g.i. lifted him into the tank, into freedom, into america. that's who we are. that's what we represent to the world, however imperfectly, and what we can still be when we're at our best. if i have the honor of serving as secretary of state, that is the vision that i will pursue, a vision articulated often by president-elect biden, doubtlessly informed by his time on this committee when he said that the united states is a nation that leads not only by the example of our power but by the power of our example. if confirmed, three priorities would guide my time as secretary of state. first, i will work with you to reinvigorate the department of state, investing in its greatest asset, the foreign service officers, the civil servants, the locally employed staff who animate american diplomacy. i know from first-hand experience their passion, their energy, their courage, often far from home, away from loved ones, sometimes in dangerous conditions exacerbated now by the pandemic. they deserve our full support. if i'm confirmed as secretary,, , they will have it. i am committed to advancing our security and prosperity by building a diplomatic corps that fully represents american in all its talent and in all its diversity. recruiting, retaining, promoting officers with the skills to contend with 21st century challenges, and to look like the country we represent, sparing no effort to assure their safety and well-being, demanding accountability, starting with the secretary of state, for building a more diverse, inclusive, and nonpartisan workforce. second, working across government, and with partners around the world, we will revitalize american diplomacy to deal with and take on the most pressing challenges of our time. we'll show up again, day in and day out, whenever and wherever americans prosperity and security is at stake. and we will engage the world, not as it was, but as it is, a world of rising nationalism, receiving democracy, growing rivalry from china and russia and other authoritarian states, mounting threats to a stable and open international system, and a technological revolution that is reshaping every aspect of our lives, especially in cyberspace. but for all that has changed, i believe some things remain constant. american leadership still matters. the reality is the world simply does not organize itself. when we're not engaged, when we're not leading, then one of two things is likely to happen. either some other country tries to take our place, but not in a way that's likely to advance our interests and values, or maybe just as bad, no one does and then you have chaos. either way, that does not serve the american people. i believe that humility and confidence should be the flip sides of america's leadership coin. humility, because we have a great deal of work to do at home to enhance our standing abroad. and humility because most of the world's problems are not about us in the first instance, even as they affect us. and no single country acting alone, even one as powerful as the united states, can fully and effectively address these problems. but we'll also act with confidence, with the confidence that america, at its best, still has a greater ability than any country on earth to mobilize others for the common good. guided by these principles, i believe we can and we will overcome the covid crisis, the greatest shared challenge since world war ii. we can outcompete china and remind the world that a government of the people, for the people, can deliver for its people. we can take on the existential threat posed by climate change. we can revitalize our core of -- our core alliances, forced multipliers of her influence around the world. together, we're far better position to counter threats from russia, iran, north korea, and to stand up for democracy and human rights. and in everything we do around the world, i believe that we can and we must ensure that our foreign policies is actually working to deliver for american working families here at home. let me conclude, if i may, mr. chairman, with the word about this institution whose resilience and determination run full display in the aftermath of the senseless and searing violence in these halls. both the president-elect and i believe that we have to resort -- resort congress's traditional -- restore congress's traditional role as a partner in our foreign policy making. in recent years, across administrations of both parties, congresses voice in foreign policy has been diluted and diminished. that doesn't make our executive branch stronger. it makes our country weaker. president-elect biden believes, and i share his conviction, that no foreign policy can be sustained without the informed consent of the american people. you are the representatives of the american people. you provide that advice and consent. we can only tackle the most urgent challenges we have if we work together, and i'm dedicated to doing just that. and so if i'm confirmed, my commitment is to work with each and every one of you on behalf of all americans. thank you for the time. thank you for the consideration. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, mr. blinken and, of course, it was about working with us is music to our ears. be happy to be a partner with you in that regard. with that, we'll proceed to a round of questions, ten minutes -- 10 minutes per senator. i'm going to reserve my time and a going to use senator menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. blinken, thank you for your statement. during our meeting yesterday, we discussed the department's will need to repair and rebuild its relationship with this committee. i think it's after 28 years of doing public foreign policy in the house and the senate, i've never seen a moment like this in terms of our relationship with the state department. so, and having heard your opening statement, i'm confident you understand the importance of a constructive relationship between the department and congress. so, i just have a few quick questions. i've always asked this of every secretary of state nominee. i'd like to ask you if you can answer yes or no, i would appreciate it. you grieve the state department is accountable to congress in the american people? >> yes. >> do you commit the department will keep this committee fully and currently informed of activity? >> i do. >> do understand is great if the relationship between the department this committee requires meaningful engagement in consultation with the committee while policies are being developed, not after the fact, and can you commit to assuring that type of meaningful engagement? >> yes, i do and i can. >> let me turn to iran. this would be one of those difficult challenges early on because iran has accelerated the maximum pressure campaign, did not stop it from its acceleration. we were broken away from our allies. we could not even get from our traditional allies a vote at the united nations on continuing the arms embargo. and that is not a good recipe to counter iran. so, i think there is a will to work together in a series diplomatic engagement with iran, but some of our concerns about the jcpoa, obviously time has elapsed. the sunset is closer. some of the other issues are now have come to the fore in terms of the jcpoa, if any of all of iran's other destabilizing activities. so, some of us have worked, senator graham, member of the committee and i, have worked along with others in thinking about how something along the lines of returning to the jcpoa but with a commitment, a process by which the iranians would have to deal with some of the challenges left by the jcpoa and other issues, looking at the possibility of a regional fuel bank so that not only the iranians, but to those in the gulf, would be able to participate to receive nuclear fuel for domestic, peaceful consumption, but not enrichment. we could defuse a tinderbox in the region for all these countries are looking now to enrich. those are some ideas, not the totality of it. can you give us a sense of where you're looking at it, with reference to iran? and as part of that, are you going to proactively reach out to congress an order to forge such a consensus that can move us together with one voice to wards meeting iran as a child? >> thank you very much, senator. let me answer the last question first, in terms of reaching out, and the answer is yes, absolutely, especially on a policy of challenge is one we have to deal with when it comes to iran. we are much better off if we can try to work through and think through these issues together, and you have my commitment that we intend and will do that. and i look forward to the consultations and conversations that we have. when it comes to iran, a couple of things. first, president-elect biden is committed to the proposition that iran will not acquire a nuclear weapon. and we share, i know, that goal across this committee. on iran with a nuclear weapon or on the threshold of having one, with the capacity to build one on short order, would be an iran that is even more dangerous than it already is when it comes all -- comes to all of the other malicious activities it's engaged in, whether it's support for terrorism, whether it is fueling and feeding its proxies, whether it is destabilizing the region. iran with a nuclear weapon with the threshold capacity to build what is an iran that would act potentially with even greater impunity than it already is. so, i think we have an urgent responsibility to do whatever we can not to prevent from acquiring or getting close to the capacity to having that this homage to break out on short notice. in my judgment, the jcpoa, for whatever its limitations, was succeeding on its own terms in blocking iran's pathways for producing a nuclear weapon on short order. it also featured a feature that continues the most intrusive inspections in modern regime and history of arms control. the challenge we face now is that we pulled out of the agreement. iran is now taking steps to undo the various constraints that were imposed on it by the agreement. and so, it has increased its stockpile of low enriched uranium. it is now enriching at a higher level. it is deploying centrifuges in ways that were prohibited under the agreement. the result is based on public reporting, the breakout time, the time it would take iran to produce enough fissile material for one weapon has gone from beyond a year, as it was under the jcpoa, to about three or four months, based at least on public reporting. and that potentially brings us right back to the crisis point that we were reaching before the deal was negotiated. and so, the president-elect to -- president-elect believes that if iran comes back into compliance, we would, too. but we would use that as a platform, with our allies and partners, who would once again be on the same side with us, to seek a longer and stronger agreement, and also, as you and the chairman have rightly pointed out, to capture these other issues, particularly with regard to missiles and iran's destabilizing activities. that would be the objective. having said that, i think we are a long way from there. we would have to see, once the president-elect is an office -- is in office, what steps iran actually takes and is prepared to take. we would then have to evaluate whether they were making good if they say they coming back into compliance with the obligations , and then we would take it from there. but in the first instance, the last thing i will say on this is yes, we absolutely will consult with you, and not only with you, i think, as the chairman suggested, it's also vitally important that we engage on the takeoff, not the landing with our allies and with our partners in the region to include israel and to include the gulf countries. thank you. -- gulf countries. >> thank you. now, i'm all for stronger and longer, and very much glad to hear that these other issues also will, the administration will look forward to engage and challenge iran on. i think those are important. let me turn to china. many of us, certainly, senator romney, since my first meeting with him has made china one of the focal points, and he's right about the challenge that china poses or the chairman talked about his initiative. we, meaning democrats, introduced a couple of months ago the america leads act, which brought all of the relevant committees, commerce, trade, technology, armed services, just about everybody, in a comprehensive national strategy to deal with china, which deals with both investments here at home, because some of us believe we must not only confront china, we must compete with china to be successful. diplomacy, alliances, security, values, and trade to create a truly competitive approach. and i believe this is one of the most significant national security challenges we will have , as well as economic challenges. can you speak a little bit about how do you see that? >> first of all, i've read and applaud that act and i also read the very good report that the chairman did on china, and applaud virtually everything that's in it. i think there's a very strong foundation there upon which to build a bipartisan policy with regard to china. as we look at china, there is no doubt that it poses the most significant challenge of any nationstate to the united states, in terms of our interest , the interest of the american people. there are, as i see it, rising adversarial aspects to the relationship, certainly competitive ones, and still some cooperative ones when it is in our mutual interest. i think as we're thinking about how to deal with china, and i think this is reflected in the work the committee has done, we have to start by approaching china from a position of strength, not weakness. and the good news is our ability to do that is largely within our control. position of strength when we are working with, not denigrating, our allies. that's a source of strength for us in dealing with china. a position of strength when we are engaged and leading an -- leading in international institutions, not pulling back and seeding the terrain to china to write the rules and norms that animate those institutions. a position of strength when we stand up for our values when human rights are being abused in beijing, or when the market is being trampled in hong kong. our ability to make the investment in ourselves, as you pointed out, that is a point of strength. investment is necessary in our military to make sure we can deter any aggression. all of these things are fully within our control. and if we come together and do them, i think we can then deal with the specific challenges from the position of strength, not a position of weakness. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator menendez. senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. blinken, welcome. let me start off by saying i got a phone call from a former contact of the obama-biden administration. i don't want to name that individual because i don't want to get that person in trouble. but it's a very welcome phone call. i think to summarize it, it started out saying that we really and in as a stable position in this country. we're so grossly divided. and particularly in areas of foreign policy. the standard saying is politics ought to and at the water's edge. i hope that can be true. i don't think it ever has been completely true but i think there are some really good areas of agreement. so, it was a very sincere attempt to reach out and say let's try to have agreement. and by the way, as chairman, ranking member on the european subcommittee with nord stream ii, the european energy security, center murphy, we found the areas of agreement. so, i really want to focus on that because i think that's one of the areas, one of the ways we can try to narrow that divide , which i think is just complete unsustainable in this nation. i think one of the areas i think we can all agree on is the world is a very dangerous and complicated place, and there's just no doubt about it. there's not a whole lot of black and white. there is black and white, but there's a lot of great areas, and how you address whether it's iran or north korea or china or russia, these are difficult situations. so, i have no doubt that you have just a wealth of knowledge, as do secretary kerry. i think there's a difference between knowledge, though, and judgment. so, in all sincerity, i just really want to talk to you about judgment. and again, i know if you look at the top administration is like all bad. i don't think that's true, so let me start out what i think our foreign policy accomplishments and what you see whether or you agree. first of all we did get our nato partners to invest more in nato. that's a good thing, right? any in your reservations about that? >> i do not. >> i think the peace agreements between israel and bahrain and uae and sedan and morocco, those are all good things. you going to want to build on that, correct? >> i very much agree. >> just a quick aside, again knowledge versus judgment. something secretary kerry thought was not possible whatsoever. at the judgment call i i understand but it's been proven wrong and i guess i'm kind of looking for an acknowledgment that may be passed judgment had been overtaken by new knowledge and as times of moved on. one thing very near and dear in my heart is the agreement the economic agreement between kosovo and serbia. i was sent to serbia kosovo a number of times. i don't want to take blame for this but the situation was not improving until rick cornell got involved and came up with the idea, ok, a lot of these things we are not going to agree on a whitney kent grandest economic advancement. we got an agreement. that's a good thing, correct? >> i agree. >> what kind of troubles me about the past record of the obama-biden administration, again, dealing with difficult situations. but i want to give you the opportunity to discuss whether you that any second thoughts on, for example, what happened in libya. that's where you talked about american leadership combat for president obama able to say we're going to lead from behind. you know, the world community kind of blue libya. didn't turn out so well. we got benghazi. do you want to give us second thoughts in terms of what happened with libya? >> i do. before addressing that, i would like to say i believe that no one, no party has a monopoly on good ideas. and i hope that working together we can pool all the good ideas from both sides of the aisle to try to advance the security and well-being of the american people abroad. i welcome that. second, and very quickly, i think there are a number of things from where i sat that the trump administration did beyond our borders that i would applaud . to mention a couple of them, the abraham accords absolutely. there are certain commitments that may have been made in the context of getting those countries to normalize relations with israel i think we should take a hard look at and i imagine the committee feels the same way. but the work that was done to push forward on normalization with israel i applaud. it makes israel safer, makes the region safer. it's a good thing and just i would hope we could build on that, as well. you mentioned the work on kosovo and serbia. i applaud that as well. the president elect as you know, spent a lot of time on those countries in the past and i think he shares your conviction that there are things we can do to help move kosovo forward and also hopefully move serbia forward. and certainly getting our nato allies to invest more is a good thing. i think that's shared across administration and across parties. and finally, let me just say that i also believe that president trump was right in taking a tougher approach to china. i disagree very much with the way that he went about it. but the basic principle was right when and i think that's actually helpful to our foreign policy. >> i think president trump opens everybody's eyes in terms of china's flight attendant. i want to quickly -- not providing lethal defensive weaponry to ukraine, are those things shipped given second thoughts to pgh? >> yes. with regard to libya, he was a situation we face. we had moammar gadhafi saying that he is going to slaughter like rats those opposing him , including all of the inhabitants of benghazi, and we faced what looked like the potential for a mass atrocity that was heading our way. and what was unique about the moment was the united nations supported doing something about it, security council. the partners and allies in the region did, and her allies in europe did, too. having said that, so i think the good news from where i sat and i supported that effort. in fact, i think it's been written about, i was the president elects national security adviser at the time and he did not agree with that course of action, and so, but we have the kind of relationship where i was able to say what i thought. and as he's noted, we intervened. here's where i think we misjudged. first, we didn't fully appreciate the fact that one of the things gadhafi had done over the years was to make sure that there was no possible rival to his power. and as a result, there was no ineffective bureaucracy, no ineffective administration in libya with which to work when he was gone. that made things much more challenging than i think we understood. >> i want to -- basically there was no plan afterwards. that's something you learn. a plan that ran into, ran into some reality, that unfortunately the result has been that there's been more space in libya for extremist groups to fill some of the vacuum left by gadhafi. >> one of the things that congress did unanimously as we put $300 million lethal defensive weaponry to ukraine, the obama administration never admitted. the trump administration did. you still disagree with providing that lethal defensive weaponry, or do you think over time now, that's been proven to be the correct decision by congress and the company station? >> i support providing that assistant to ukraine. in fact, i the opportunity to write exactly that in the "new york times" about three years ago. >> one of the comments, and this, prepare for this hearing, and the not going to enter this into the record, but my staff did provide me senator mccain's 2014 floor speech, which i'm sure you've read. >> i know it well. >> one of the recent i thought i would give you an opportunity to make a response, but the chairman also provided a list of questions and one of the questions he asked about soleimani. is it a good thing soleimani's off the battlefield? i i was surprised because you remain adamant it did not improve our national security. i mean, i would think the opposite side of that viewpoint. you want to try to explain that one? i think, because he was the mastermind, because he was so effective, as he was responsible for hundreds of american's lives lost, i don't see how you can't agree that enhances our national security? >> no one is shedding a tear for the demise of qasem soleimani. and certainly when i was last in office, i saw firsthand the blood he had on his hands. so, no one regrets the fact he is no longer there. i think from where i sat, senator, the question is not whether taking them out was the right thing to do. it was gaming at what might be the consequences and asking ourselves whether, on balance, would we be left safer or not in taking that action? previous administrations, including the bush administration and the obama administration concluded that we wouldn't be. and i think what we saw after his death, including attacks on our position and iraq the left dozens, if not hundreds of americans with brain injuries, the fact that our forward post in iraq that were there to prevent the reemergence of isil had to pull back because of concerns that iranian backed militia after soleimani's death, would attack them. the fact that we're talking about apparently closing our embassy in baghdad taken for fear of the actions of these militia, and the fact we've seen iran acting out and hold for a variety of ways because we're not the only actor in this drama, i think on balance that that action actually left us must less safe, not more safe. >> he was in baghdad for a reason so we don't know when you might divide appreciate your answer. -- what he might've done. but i appreciate your answer. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. let's move to senator cardin i i -- senator cardin. i believe is joining us online. senator cardin, are you there? >> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> senator, first of all, it's good to see you. and the short answer is yes, absolutely. the president-elect has been very clear that our charge would be to put democracy and human rights back at the center of american foreign policy. and we intend to do just that. that is a question of resources. it's a question of focus. it's a question of commitment. of course, a lot of this begins at home. our ability to be a strong leader for, and defender of democracy and human rights also depends, to a large extent, on the strength of her own -- of our own democracy here at home. and as we've already discussed, we have some work to do on that account. you're absolutely right when you cite the backsliding we've seen. freedom house has been tracking this as many of you know for decades, and of the 40 or so countries that were ranked insistently ranked fully free in the 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's, fully half of them have been backsliding undemocratic metrics, and so this poses a real challenge. one of the goals is to convene a summit within the first year of his administration to bring democratic countries together, to think together, both in the challenges we face at home that are common to democracies, including rising populace, but also to think about a common agenda as we're dealing with the work of defending and advancing democracy around the world to include battling corruption, to include standing up for human rights, to include having a united voice in calling out abuses of democracy or abuses of human rights. this is something i hope to put together by the end of this year , and something we very much welcome the participation of the members of congress and it -- and particularly members of this committee. >> [inaudible] -- the budget director at the resources being devoted to democracy, but it's been a small point, budget and division support [inaudible] [indiscernible] >> yes, i am. and i should just add that i think this has been a great achievement. senator, of yours and this committee. we've gone from magnitski, to global, and others have their own laws and recently the european union. so, i think this has been a tremendous success story in actually bringing the democratic countries of the world together and giving them an effective tool to actually push back against democracy and human rights. >> [inaudible] -- to the sunset provided in the statute currently to remove that, but also to strengthen some areas. there are ways that we can strengthen global through the state department getting more countries to adopt the statutes to make sure they're comprehensive and clear of corruption and make sure you have adequate staffing so that you can implement the lawfully. i'd also recommend that you follow the leads given to us by ngos, that in many cases have information that otherwise would not be made available to us and these are all suggestions that could help strengthen the statute in our messages against international human rights violators. and one other area where i think you can make tremendous progress during your tenure. and that is an impact on corruption. we've all acknowledged that corruption is a national security threat. corruption exists in every country. but unless you have a plan to deal with corruption, it becomes very corrosive to underlining to any democratic society. i could introduce legislation to senator young, where we evaluate every country in the world, including the united states, as to how well they're dealing with ridding trafficking of humans. we set up a similar regime for corruption, where we identify problems we have in countries with corruption and put them in a tier rating of consequences. i've talked to the biden team about this. this is legislation that did pass our committee. [inaudible] will you work with that so we can have a very strong position in making it clear that every country can do better with fighting corruption, but there are certain standards that need to be met? >> yes, absolutely. i'd welcome that, if confirmed, and beyond that, we want to he -- elevate and something i'd love to talk to you about. >> thank you. your strategies in regards to u.s.-israel relations. we've learned that there have been strong support for the special relationships between israel and the united states. we know that we need to maintain america's leadership in regards to that relationship because [indiscernible] some of these places and some of the organizations around the world. we already mentioned the abraham accords. how do you intend to try to get back on track? the israel-palestinian negotiations and the only way to lasting peace is two states side by side in peace, a jewish state and a palestinian state. >> thank you, senator. first, let me start with this very basic proposition, which is that our commitment to israel's security is sacrosanct, and this is something the president-elect feels very strongly. his very first trip, when he was a member of this committee as a senator, his first foreign trip was in israel. he met with a prime minister by the name of golda mayer. she had a young aide by the name of itza rabin. the best way and only way to assure israel's future as a jewish democratic state and to give the palestinians the state to which they're entitled is through the so-called two-state solution. obviously a solution that is very challenge. realistically it is hard to see near-term prospects for moving forward on that. in the first instance what would be important is to make sure that neither party takes steps that make the already difficult proposition even more challenging. and certainly avoids unilateral actions that makes that more challenging. and hopefully to start working to slowly build some confidence on both sides to create an environment in which we might once again be able to advance a solution to the israel and palestinian relationship. >> thank you. [indiscernible] i do think congress working with the administration we should be able to advance the process. i remember dealing with central america -- senator biden, vice president biden to try to -- to deal with corruption in central america and a way that -- the opportunities against the migration of people - etc. is there -- a plan for central america? mr. blinken: there is. i think as you rightly point out at the end of the obama-biden administration then vice president biden worked closely with this committee to develop a plan to deal with the challenges posed by the systemic and endemic problems in the northern triangle countries, honduras, guatemala and also better. these drivers were the primary drivers of the migration crisis that continues to challenge us to this very day. so, getting at some of the root causes that are causing people to make that incredibly difficult decision to pick up one day, leave everything they know behind, leave their families, their culture, their culture, their language behind because life is not tolerable in its present circumstance. if we don't help these countries address those causes it is going to be very hard to get at the root of the problem. so, there was a bipartisan plan, that passed congress with $800 million to help countries in the northern triangle, but not simply throwing money at them but tying the assistance we were providing them to concrete reforms they would take in the criminal justice system, in combating corruption and creating greater economic opportunity and we began to see some i think progress in each of those countries as a result of this coordination. unfortunately that plan went into -- into abeyance in the last few years. we will come forward to talk to you about a renewed effort at a bigger scale that involves assistance for the northern triangle, tied to concrete, demonstrable reforms. >> thank you for your service. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator romney? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to be associate with the comments he made at the opening of the session. also the comments the ranking member menendez as well as the questions which he asked and i would like to indicate my concurrence also with the comments made by mr. blinken. a number of things stood out. one was his conviction which i share that we be involved in the world, because the world is a safer place if we are involved in the world. something we sometimes lose in our discussion is that does not mean necessarily military engagement in the world. it means promoting our economic interests and so forth and we are involved in the world because it is good for america. not just good for the world but it is good for us and for the people of america. and i applaud that recognition. i want to begin with some thoughts about china. i think for the committee as well as the american public that is watching this, if you perhaps describe what china has described as their ambition over this century, what they intend to achieve, and how the world would be different if they were successful in doing so. mr. blinken: thank you very much, senator. china had a policy for decades of, as they described it, hiding their hand and biding their time in terms of asserting their interest beyond china's borders leaving aside with they were doing within their borders. i think what we have seen in recent years particularly since the rise of seating paying as the leader -- rise of seating paying as the leader -- xi ping as the leader. and making clear they seek to become the country of the world. the country that sets the norms and set the standards and to put forward a model that they hope other countries and people will ascribe to. and senator my own conviction is that there are many, many very apparent weaknesses that china -- when it comes to projecting its model but in the absence of an alternative, they may do better than we think. and so i think our obligation is to demonstrate that the vision that we have, the policies we pursue and the way we do it is much more effective and actually delivering for our people as well as for people around the world to make sure our model is the one that carries the day. if we are pulling back from the world, if we are pulling back from these institutions, if we are pulling back from playing the lead role in shaping the rules on the norms that gives them a free field to redefine this century. more on their terms than on ours. one of the ways, this is one example. one of the ways we see acutely is there's an increasing divide between what you might call techno-democracies, technological sophisticated countries that are also democracies and techno-autocracies like china. and whether the techno-autocracies or democracies that get to define how democracy is used, the technology that dominates all of our lives i think is going to go a long way towards shaping the next, the next decades. we have a very strong interest in making sure that the techno-democracies come together more effectively so that we are the ones who are doing the shaping of those norms and rules. to the extent technology can be infused with values that these are more our values than theirs. but there is no doubt that i think china would like to recapture its extraordinary past, but to do so in a way that is potentially and very practically as we are seeing already an amicable to our own values and interests. >> my own view is their ambition is to become the geopolitical and economic leader of the world. the military leader of the world and ultimately to impose their authoritarian views in such a way that would put at great risk the freedom and liberty of people here and around the world. how does, taiwan and our commitments to taiwan figure in in your thinking with regards to our interests in the region? mr. blinken: there has been a strong and long bipartisan commitment to taiwan. taiwan relations act. also the communiqués with china and part of that commitment is making sure that taiwan has the ability to defend itself against aggression. and that is a commitment that will absolutely endure in a biden administration. we will make sure taiwan has the ability to do that. i would also like to see taiwan playing a greater role around the world including in international organizations. when those organizations don't require the status of the country to be a member, they should become members. when it does there are other ways they can participate. and i think our own engagement with taiwan should be looked at and, indeed, that is being done as you know, some regulations were promulgated by the outgoing secretary of state. we're going to take a hard look at those pursuant to the taiwan assurance act. and we will look at that. i had the opportunity, senator, when president si was running for office to receive her at the state department when i was last there. i spoke to her when she became president i was deputy secretary of state. but the commitment to taiwan is something that we hold to very strongly. senator romney: india has perhaps begun to see china in the new light, not only because of the border dispute that led to the death of many indian military individuals. they have indicated an openness to work with us, with actually military preparations as well and wargames. how can we strengthen our ties with india and strengthen their resolve to defend democratic interests in the region? mr. blinken: i think indian has been a bipartisan success story. it started toward the end of the clinton administration after the nuclear test when relations were put back on a better footing. under president bush, we secured a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement with india. then senator biden led the efforts at this committee to get that through congress. and then i think during the obama administration we deepened cooperation with india particularly in the defense procurement area, also an information sharing. and i think the trump administration has carry that forward including with the concept of an indo pacific. to make sure we were working with india so that no country in the region, including china, could challenge its sovereignty. and also working with it on concerns that we share about -- so i think there are many ways that we can deepen that cooperation to pursue the path that successive administrations put us on. one area that i think have a lot of promise and maybe even necessity is actually climate. at the current rate things are going, india is poised over the next two or three decades to catch up with china and terms of the emissions it produces. at the same time, as you know, prime minister modi has been a very strong advocate for looking at renewable energy and different technologies. i think there is a very strong potential for our countries to work together in that area. senator romney: that does raise a question of what it is like going to be served -- going to be like to serve in administration were former secretary kerry will work with you. i hope you will never give in to your administration over climate that secretary kerry would be promoting your commitment to china is hopefully the priority. let me turn to another topic that was raised by senator johnson which is the number of the accomplishments that the trump administration should not be lost in the foreign policy arena. one of those that is perhaps question will by members of this committee relates to the jcpoa with regard to iran. i like senator menendez was not support about the jcpoa, suggesting it was a mistake to enter into. my concern was that it allowed iran to eventually have a nuclear weapon or capacity to have a nuclear weapon.a in my view was an agreement should only be reached if it prevented iran forever from having a nuclear weapon. and i would only suggest that before the administration takes a posture with regard to the jcpoa that there be a very careful review of intelligence to determine just what the state is of iran now with regards to the health of its leaders, with regards to the fragility of its economy, because there may be potential to make a more progressive stance than might have been anticipated and hope that you will give due consideration to not just reversing policies of the prior administration but taking advantage of some things done by the prior administration that may prevent an opportunity -- present an opportunity we may not be able to recognize. mr. blinken: i welcome having the opportunity to plunge into the intelligence. if pertinent also to working on that with you and other members of this committee. senator romney: thank you, mr. blinken. >> thank you for being willing to consider to be nominated to do this important post at this critical time and for being here today. one of the things we have heard in the last few days is the president-elect biden's interest in resuming the united states position and a number of international alliances. from everything from the paris climate accords to the w.h.o. but clearly it is going to take more than that to rebuild our relationships around the world. so, what else do we need to do and what are you thinking about if you are confirmed that you think will be important to restoring those relationships? mr. blinken: senator, i think we have, and several members of the committee alluded to this, we do have a big task ahead of us in restoring, revitalizing those relationships. i do think it starts with being present. with having our diplomats engaged. in the painstaking sometimes not very glamorous hard work of day in and day out diplomacy. and being in the room. not pulling back from it. i know sometimes that sounds trite but i think we are so much better off, even in the institutions and organizers that are clearly imperfect. and need reform. we are much better off being at the table than being outside the room. if we are going to try to influence those institutions and move them in a better direction. so i think you will see in a biden administration that kind of leadership. i think it is also fair to say that some of our allies and partners have question the sustainability of our commitments based on the experience of recent years. and that is going to be a hard hill to climb. and they are going to have to make their own calculations about that. but i think it comes down to this. one is, and maybe this is an obligation i think all of us share. in this line of work. part of our challenge is to connect what all of our's are doing to the lives of the american people. because if we want to have their support for american leadership, american engagement in the world we have to demonstrate it is actually making an improvement in their lives or preventing something bad from happening. and i think covid-19 to some extent has maybe brought that home is nothing else has in recent years, going back to 9/11. but there are so many other areas where what we are doing around the world connects directly to the lives that our fellow citizens are leading and i think we need to make those connections. that will give us a stronger foundation upon which to build and engage foreign policy. in turn, one that i think is sustainable and that our partners and allies recognize as such. last word on this. i think one of the things we all have in common with our democratic partners and allies is that most of the challenges we face as i mentioned earlier simply cannot be addressed effectively by anyone country acting alone. even the united states. whether it is a global pandemic, changing climate, whether it is the spread of bad weapons, you name it, all of these things demand international cooperation and coordination and i believe that if we are stepping up and playing the role we played in the past, but focused on the problems of today and tomorrow we will get a receptive audience to work with us. senator shaheen: i agree with the importance of robust diplomatic efforts and given the discussion about china this afternoon it seems to me we have to look at what china is doing in terms of their increase in investments and diplomacy, their opening consulates around the world, their focus on economic assistance for other countries, because right now they are eating our lunch. and we have got to do better if we will be able to compete, continue to compete. i would, when you and i had the opportunity to talk a couple of weeks ago which i appreciated but one of the things we talked about where the attacks on her diplomatic personnel in cuba and china and some other locations. i and a number of other senators have continuously asked the state department and secretary pompeo to provide information about those attacks, about what cost them, about our response to them to make sure our personnel are treated fairly. and we were able to get some language into the defense bill that passed this year to do that. we still have not seen policy information that is available. will you commit to the trans--- to being transparent about what is going on with those attacks and getting to the bottom of who is responsible and sharing that information with congress and with the public if appropriate? mr. blinken: yes, absolutely. senator, if i can say first that your leadership on this issue and that of senator rubio, i know has been deeply appreciated within the department. i had some opportunity to get briefed on a few issues during this transition and nomination period. one of the ones i asked for immediately was to get everything we knew about the so-called -- syndrome and these attacks. i read the reports. i was briefed. i would welcome an opportunity to come, if confirmed, to talk to about it. priority is making sure our diplomats are safe and secure. but also that we find out who is responsible if a state actor or others are responsible. having accountability and making sure we put the protections in place so that our folks are safe and secure. would welcome working with the committee on that. senator shaheen: good. i hope, senators, we can make that happen with this committee and the next month or so. another topic we talked about briefly was the importance of ensuring that women are part of our foreign policy agenda. i'm very proud to have worked on legislation to try and include women at the table with more -- when we're negotiating conflicts and to ensure they are part of those efforts because the data shows us when that's the case, those kinds of peace negotiations have a 35% chance of lasting 15 years or longer. 35% better chance of lasting 15 years or longer. so, it is something that makes sense. i would hope again that the state department would take more robust effort to be engaged in that. the defense department has i think been more proactive and i hope that state will join in those efforts in the coming year. but one of the areas where it is clearly an issue is in afghanistan. we have not gotten any commitment from the tablian on -- from the taliban on the role of women in any future afghan state post-peace talks. i wonder if you could talk about what we think we should be saying to the taliban. mr. blinken: i couldn't agree more with the larger point you were making and that is very much a lens we would intend to put on our foreign policy and the work of the state department. we would welcome the opportunity to work with you on that. when it comes to afghanistan, we have a real challenge there to state the obvious. first, yes, we want to end this so-called war. we want to bring our forces home. we want to retain some capacity to deal with any resurgence of terrorism which is what brought us there in the first place. and we have to look carefully at what has actually been negotiated. i have not been privy to it yet. critically with regard to the agreement between united states and the taliban. to understand fully what commitments were made or not made. by the taliban. and then to see where they get in their negotiations with the government of afghanistan. i don't believe that any outcome that they might achieve, the government of afghanistan and the taliban, is sustainable without protecting the gains that have been made by women and girls in afghanistan over the last 20 years. when it comes to access to education, to health care, to employment. and so, i think we have a strong interest if that agreement, if there is an agreement, if it is going to hold up, to do what we can to make sure those rights are preserved. but i would acknowledge do i do not think that is going to be easy but we will work on it. >> i intend to ask general austin the same question at his hearing this afternoon. can you, i know i am almost out of time, can you talk about our response to putin's taking into custody mr. navalny should be? mr. blinken: it is extraordinary how frightened vladimir putin seems to be a one-man. i think that speaks volumes. and mr. navalny is a voice i think for millions and millions and millions of russians. and their voice needs to be heard in russia. and the attempts to silence that voice by silencing mr. navalny is something that we strongly condemn. we've spoken to it. and will continue to do so. i would say more broadly this is probably a subject for ongoing conversations. we talked about the challenges posed by russia, a whole series of fronts is also one that is urgent. i have to say that i think members of this committee, particularly senator romney, have been very prescient when it comes to the challenge posed to us by russia. there is a lot to be talked about there, but this is very high on the agenda for an incoming administration. senator shaheen: thank you, mr. chairman. senator rubio. senator rubio: thanks for your willingness to step back in and serve our country. we sure appreciate that for anyone who is willing to step up and do it. everyone talks about all the different parts go -- so i'm going to focus on the western hemisphere. two specific things. first is, as you are well aware in cuba there is a very small but not real large or substantial, the bulk of the economic activity in that country is controlled by a holding company which controls -- that makes money and actually any time they say they make money they pull it into it. it's controlled by cuban military officials. in the current administration, the trump administration could not place a policy that prohibits financial transactions with any of those companies that are controlled by that holding company owned by the cuban military. theoretically the cuban government would allow it. an independent could cuban could open up a restaurant or business and have a transaction but not a company controlled by the cuban military if identified through that holding company. is that a policy that you would recommend to the biden administration that we keep or not? mr. blinken: senator, i would need to review that very quickly. in terms of the objectives you cite, that makes very good sense to me. i do not know enough to form a full judgment as to whether it is in fact achieving those objectives. and are there any other costs or consequences we might want to look at? but certainly the objective strikes me as exactly the right one. i'd welcome an opportunity to talk to you about that. and, by the way, about our approach to cuba more broadly. senator rubio: on the matter of theory, because the cuban government controls, we can open up whatever we want to them but the cuban government controls what they do and don't allow. if an individual cuban decided to borrow money from a relative in the united states and open up a business, they can do so under existing law potential and it depending on how the transaction was structured by the cuban government would not allow it. they would crackdown on that. so, i think we could agree could we not, that to the extent that it involves economic independence for cuban individuals or companies they are allowed to start, that is one thing but when it comes to these entities -- they are not state controlled. they are all darks. -- they are oligarchs. because they want to be an economic totalitarian state. that would further the natural interest -- the national interest of the united states to encourage more economic independence for the individual and less depends on the state that gives them leverage over them. i do sincerely hope that just because these were trump policies. that we do not through the whole thing out and say let's go back to the obama policy that even some of the architects of it have conceded could've been structured differently because they were unilateral -- i do think as you carefully review many of the steps that have been taken, there is a logic and a rationale behind each of them. i hope that will be taken into account. it serves our national interest to do that. on venezuela, i am sure you are well aware that maduro has repeatedly utilized negotiations as a delay tactic. it is so egregious that even the vatican says, we're not having any more negotiations. in a very strongly worded letter from the pope, i'm paraphrasing, remember the last time we met you agree to things you never did any of them. there is no purpose in meeting anymore. effort after effort to negotiate with maduro's regime have all resulted in nothing. he uses it to divide the opposition. multiple players have fallen into that trap. the reality of it is he will agree to all sorts of short-term reversible things, release of political players in her, what have you, -- release of political prisoners. he will never agree to free and fair elections because he cannot win. is it your view that we should no longer recognize juan guaido and negotiations with maduro? mr. blinken: no, it is not. i very much agree with you, senator, first of all with regard to the number of steps that were taken. toward venezuela in recent years. including recognizing mr. gua ido. recognizing the national assembly as the only democratically elected institution in venezuela. seeking to increase pressure on the regime led by a brutal dictator in maduro as well as to try to work with some of our allies and partners. the hard part is that for all of those efforts, which i support, we obviously have not gotten the results that we need. an one of the things i wouldd of that -- one of the things i would really welcome is to come and talk with you because we need an effective policy to restore venezuela to democracy starting with free and fair elections and how can we best advance that ball? i think there are some things that we can look at particularly better, stronger coordination cooperation with like-minded countries. maybe we need to look at how we more effectively target the sanctions that we have, so that regime enablers really feel the pain of those sanctions. and certainly i believe there is more we need to try to do in terms of -- assistance given the tremendous suffering of the venezuelan people as well as helping neighboring countries that have borne the brunt of refugees from venezuela. but i would welcome the opportunity if confirmed to talk to about that. senator rubio: every time we talk about issues like venezuela it is important repointed the direct national interests of the united states in the matter. we sometimes think -- we get the imagery this is about nation building or picking sides and internal dispute. the reason why we care about democracy and a lot about human rights but direct national interest. you have a resume that openly houses and give safe harbor to multiple terrorist organizations like the farq, that traffic drugs. that threatens to destabilize and even potentially topple at some point or seriously threaten the government of colombia, which would be a blow to regional stability. it is already having a migratory pressure on this country but i'm countries in the region, peru, brazil and colombia, which impacts us. they have very friendly relations military and others with the russians and increased evidence of iranian activity including the sale of oil, or gasoline and exchange for gold. that they are stealing from their reserve. i encourage you to constantly point to the fact that this is not just a do-gooder effort here. there is a direct national security interested united states. would you acknowledge, as i think a growing number of people have, that there was once here a bipartisan consensus on china that once they got rich and prosperous they would become more like us? that consensus was flawed. mr. blinken: i think we found that out. yes, i think there was a broad consensus that economic liberalization in china with the two politicalization. that has not happened. >> beyond the political liberalization it goes deeper. it goes to a dangerous imbalance that has now developed in the relationship, commercial front. and on a geopolitical front. and increasingly potentially on a military front. you seen massive expansion of military capability that have no precedent. it is now clear that they are making the argument to the world and unfortunately we domestically have helped make the argument that american-style democracy is too chaotic and what we have here, them, the communist party china is much more stable and a much better model to follow. the bottom line is do you -- i know, people like to throw around phrases like cold war. this is very different than the cold war. do you have little doubt in your mind that the goal of the chinese communist party is to be the world's predominant political, geopolitical, military and economic power, and for the united states to decline in relation? >> i do not. >> you have no doubt? >> i have no doubt. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator rubio. i am told that senator coons is with us electronically. is that true? >> that is correct, mr. chairman. >> i can hear you. i can't see you. oh, now, i can see you. there you are. welcome, senator coons, the floor is yours. thank you, mr. chairman, and ranking member menendez. it's great to be with you again and thankful to you and your family and evan and john and lila that you're willing to serve once again as deputy security state. as a staff director of this, you have excellent experience and credentials and in your opening statement you reinforced the way your life experience, your values reinforced all the ways in which you will be an excellent secretary of the state -- secretary of state for this nation. i'm sorry not to be here there in person i was here for the send-off as the president-elect left delaware and headed towards washington to begin the inauguration, but it's been exciting to me to have a chance to hear my colleagues, both democrats and republicans, raise challenging issues and you're engaged and thoughtful and forward-looking answers. we gathered today at a moment when it is a real challenge for all of us that the events of last wednesday highlighted deep divisions in our country and some of the challenges our democracy faces and i'm hopeful after a national day of service yesterday celebrating martin luther king day, after this evening's national reflection on all the american lives that have been lost during the pandemic and after tomorrow's inauguration that we can begin the work of investing in our democracy, rebuilding our bipartisan concensus around some challenges facing us in the world and to do that in a partnership review. let me just start with something that's been the topic of many questions from colleagues, the u.s.-china relationship and how that in many ways will define this century. i very much look forward to working with the incoming chairman and ranking member of this committee, with you, mr. blinken and with many of my colleagues and figuring out how we craft a durable, sustainable and an effective and a bipartisan strategy with regards to china. you've made reference, tony, to the tech no-democracies and techno-autocracies in the world and the ways in which there are intersection between digital privacy, digital promotion of democracy, intellectual property and ways in which china's bad behavior on the world stage with regards to i.t. is laying the groundwork for them to successfully export their model of authoritarianism. do you think in confronting china's digital authoritarianism, and make something like d-10 like prime minister boris johnson proposed, do you think that we should pursue something with more weight, a regional structure, like a digital free trade zone of democracies aligned, like the united states, in order to help keep emerging technology free and available and open to the world? my sense is everything should be on the table. it may be something that requires multiple steps to get to the destination. in the first instance, bringing concerned countries together, the digital democracies together in an appropriate form i think is the place to start. i don't want to minimize the challenge we obviously have disagreements among democracies about a lot of profound questions about how technology is used. we have work to do to get our own collective house in order. you start there and some of the more expansive ideas you alluded to might be ideas to get to and work toward. senator menendez, several colleagues brought up iran and their aggressive pursuit of both the ballistic missile program and of restarting their more robust enrichment program and the threat it poses to the region and to our security. and i also want to renew my commitment to the u.s.-israel relationship and some two-state solution. the middle east is as unsettled as it's ever been. even though there was progress in the abraham accords, as you recognized, and they're testing iran willingness to go forward. i'm looking forward to rebuilding the framework, and taking into account the broader destabilizing actions by iran. let me ask you about two other things going in the region that haven't been addressed so far. recently, outgoing secretary pompeo designated the movement in yemen as a foreign terrorist organization. many humanitarian including the head of the food program and senators on both sides of the aisle denounced that designation that something that now may create a humanitarian crisis. the president-elect says he would end u.s. support of the war in yemen and u.s. support for humanitarian is critical: and how can the senate help and how do you see this as part of the piece of the broader regional puzzle working to push back on iran's projection of force by proxy and some of the parts that are complicated. and we need to be clear-eyed about this. they overthrough a government, they directed aggression towards saudi arabia and atrocities in human rights abuses and that's a fact. what's also a fact no is that -- though is that the saudry-led campaign in yemen pushed back against the houthi aggression, has contributed to what is, by most accounts, the worst humanitarian situation that we face anywhere in the world and one aspect of that situation is that about 80% of the yemini population right now is in areas controlled by the houthis. whether we like it or not we have to find ways to get assistance to them if we're going to do anything about addressing the situation. so my concern, deep concern about the designation that was made is that at least on its surface, it seems to achieve nothing particularly practical in advancing the efforts against the houthis and to bring them back to the negotiating table while making it even more difficult than it already is to provide humanitarian assistance to people who desperately need it. so i would think that we would propose to review at that immediately to make sure that what we are doing is not impeding the provision of humanitarian assistance, even under these difficult circumstances. i recognize that some have talked about carve-outs for american providers of humanitarian assistance. the problem is that if the carve-outs don't apply to everyone around the world it's not going to get the job done. most provided to yemen is not from the united states, it's from other countries. so i think we've got a specific and concrete problem that we need to address quickly if we're doing everything we can to alleviate suffering of people in yemen. >> thank you. and i need to move forward, given the limitations of time. i was proud to have a chance to work with a number of colleagues on this committee in 2018 to help pass the build act that developed the new planning cooperation in 2019, the global fragility act which set a new process and framework for looking at fragile states, borrowing from the lessons at play in colombia, one of the areas the president-elect has been passionate about is the northern triangle and finding ways to build a sustained long-term strategy, secure stability in a region that's long known fragility. at the end of last year we passed a bipartisan package that created the middle east partnership for peace time for partnership between palestinians and israelis, to provide for economic ventures and opportunities. are these three tools that you look forward to working with us on and that you will embrace in your leadership role as the biden administration looks for new tools to use in advancing our broader objective? >> yes. >> and the challenge of combatting fragility and putting prioritization in place between diplomacy and defense and development. >> first, senator, i think the fragility act is a terrific foundation upon which -- i've had some conversations with the president-elect about exactly this and it is very much on his mind, that is the risks that continue to be posed emnating -- emanating from praj fragile states as well as the human humanitarian one to prevent fragile states from becoming failed states and put in a foundation for thinking about that. of course, part of this is making sure that our development programs are fully and thoroughly integrated into our foreign policy. making sure that they are delivering and effective because we're conscious that we're using the taxpayer's money in advancing them, but also making sure that we put these front and center that they're not an afterthought, that they're actually the first thought, along with our diplomacy in our foreign policy. >> and i think -- corporation provides a critical new tool as long as any big development finance corporation. let me just a number of comments -- of colleagues have referenced. russia and navalny. there was just a deeply flawed election in uganda. where he's held on to power by a blatant disregard for human rights. in ethiopia the violence is there. in sudan, on the other hand there has been an encouraging transition to democracy recently. how do you plan to better support for the fragile transition in sudan while pushing back on those countries that are backsliding on their commitment to democracy like uganda or in some regards ethiopia? >> i think it starts with active engagement, not being awol. in ethiopia, i share your deep concerns. we've seen a number of deeply, deeply concerning actions taken, including atrocities directed both at people in the tigre, and at refugees in ethiopia. i think we need to see much greater access to the region. accountability. an effort to put a dialog in place so that the issues that caused the conflict can actually be discussed and litigated as opposed to dealt with through violence. we need to see a restoration of communications. we need access for humanitarian assistance in the region. and i worry, as well, that what started there has the potential to be destabilizing throughout the horn of africa. so, i would like to see american diplomacy fully engaged in trying to contend with this challenge. you said a number of other places i share your concerns about the elections in uganda and cameroon, particularly violence directed at the anglo -- anglophone population. and the united states can make a difference and that starts with being engaged. >> thank you, senator coons. >> i share your commitment to a diverse workforce and state department and to ensuring that the state department has the resources it needs to do its job well and i couldn't agree more and we have to connect foreign policy to the daily concerns of average working people across this country. you will be an excellent leader in doing so and i very much look forward to supporting your nomination and working with you. thank you for your indulgence, mr. chair. >> thank you senator coons. next up is senator graham and after that will be senator murphy. however, between the two, and after senator graham, we are going to take a humanitarian break for about 10 minutes since we've been at it for a couple of hours. so you're holding up well, mr. blinken, but we don't -- we don't want you to wither so we'll take a break after senator graham's usual poignant questions. senator graham. senator graham: thank you, i'll try to make sure that i don't violate the geneva convention here. one thing i want to say i think you're an outstamping choice by president-elect biden. i've known you a long time, you had the president, and we have different viewpoint, but to me nominate qualified people and get them in place as quick as possible, and disagree where you must. and senator coons and i are working together and have my -- on the state department appropriations account. you have my complete support that the people at the state department are incredibly patriotic, they live in dangerous places doing the dangerous things and don't get the notoriety that they deserve. i'm a big fan of foreign policy, the military has a limited ability to change things. i think you are an outstanding choice and i intend to vote for you. but we'll quickly go around the worrell world and have a view where we start this new administration. do you still consider iran the largest sponsor of state terrorism. >> i do. >> do you consider israel a racist nation? >> i do not. >> that's a good start. afghanistan, do you agree that what i agree totally with senator shaheen if we abandon the afghan women who fought so hard to affect their children that it will effect our children. do you agree. i do. >> and having 100,000 troops over there spending trillions of dollars doesn't work well either. we're down to 2500, a residual force with a counterterrorism mission, is that responsible. >> the president-elect wants to make sure even as we pull back forces we retain the capacity to deal with any emerging threats. >> and anything would be conditions based. that's correct. do you trust the taliban to police al qaeda and isis regarding attacking-- >> trust is not a word that i-- >> that's right, i agree with you. so any agree that trusts the taliban to police al qaeda and isis without us having some say i think it would be a bad deal. appreciate that very much. on immigration, you're soon going to be secretary of state, hopefully a good bipartisan vote, i think you deserve it. what would you tell the people in the caravans coming towards america. >> i would say do not come. >> that's a good mentalssage. -- that is a good message. we're going to work on comprehensive immigration reform, just don't come, that creates more problem than it solves. when it comes to asylum. asylum seekers have been staying in mexico under the trump administration, do you find value in that program? >> i have issues with that program, senator. i think that we need to make sure that we are approaching what we do when it comes to those seeking asylum, seeking protection in this country in line with the finest traditions the country has shown from generation to generation, part of that is the ability that is both, i believe, a legal one and a moral one from where i sit to allow people to make asylum claims and to deal with those claims expeditiously. people who need protection should get it. those who do not meet the criteria should with dignity be removed. but our problem is that we're not resourced adequately to do this. and that's what we need to work on. >> if i could go further, i think it's been game, i would like to increase asylum, a lot of people come here for economic reasons and realize they get one foot in the united states and claim asylum they'll be given a hearing date in the future and most don't show up. do you think we need to make sure that that narrative does not restart? >> i agree. and we need a humane, a fair and orderly system. that's imperative and i know you've heard the president-elect talk about -- some people on the left have been saying that we should decriminalize entry into the country. do you agree with that. >> not my jurisdiction, but i disagree. >> ok, all right. china. secretary pompeo designated the chinese communist party as having engaged in genocide regarding the uyghur muslim population, do you agree with that. >> that would be my judgment as well. >> you do agree. >> yes. >> we're on a good start here. [laughter] so, this, really, just very much appreciate that. do you believe that the chinese communist party misled the world about the coronavirus? >> i do. >> what price if any should they pay? >> when it comes to china's role in the virus, i think we order -- we wanted -- there's as you know an investigation that's ongoing. we obviously want to see the results of that investigation, but some things they already know. >> if they don't cooperate what should we do. >> that we have to look at very hard because that cooperation -- this is really the point i think of where we need to go on this. what we do know already, with regard to china and the virus is that they did not provide transparency. they did not share information, they did not give access when it mattered most in the early days of this virus. had they done so, it's possible that the course of the virus would have been different and we could have dealt with it sooner and more effective. my sense, senator, going forward what we should talk about, people talk about the punitivement i would be very -- people talk about the punitive. i would be very focused on the preventative. what steps will china take going forward. like wet markets. yes, very good example. i agree with that. when it comes to taiwan, it's been the policy of the united states to basically, for lack of a better term to guarantee taiwanese democracy. what's your view of that. >> my view is we have an abiding on long-standing bipartisan commitment to taiwan. need to make sure they have the means to deter aggression, to defend themselves. i would like to see taiwan even more engaged in the world. it is a model democracy. a strong economy. in a technological powerhouse. of course the way they dealt with covid-19 has a lot of lessons t teach us -- to teach us. >> if the chinese communist party decided to use military force against a population of taiwan, that would create great upheaval throughout the world. >> that would be a grievous mistake other parts. -- on their part. >> hong kong seems to be there not really paying much attention to what congress is doing and with this administration is doing regarding hong kong. what can we do to get their attention that we are not doing? >> i wish we had taken some steps earlier. the national security law, the the crackdown on media, the crackdown on free speech, on assembly, all of that has put in tatters the notion of real freedom and autonomy in hong kong which were guarantees in the handover. one of the things, this is not going to fix the problem but i would like to see us, for example, be able to take in some of those fleeing hong kong and fleeing the repression for standing up for the democratic rights and i know there's legislation that looks at doing that but it think where to take a hard look about what our position should be on the presence of institutions and companies there. is it going to remain a hub and financial center? does beijing get both sides of the benefit? we should take a hard look at that. >> this thing we have to do is send a stronger message because they're clearly not listening to this congress and this administrations efforts which i applaud, falling short, it's very difficult. when it comes to turkey congress has been tough on turkey for continuing to purchase russian weapons and do you believe turkey needs to be sanctioned until they change of your? -- change their behavior? >> i looked at some of the so-called sanctions, it's what turkey has is done as a new ally in acquiring the s-400 is unacceptable. the idea that a strategic so-called strategic partner of ours would actually be in line with one of our biggest competitors in russia is not acceptable. i think we need to look at the impact of existing sanctions of that in the determine whether there's more that needs to be done. >> ok. i think this administration may have yesterday, i don't know, lifted the travel ban from your -- from europe and other areas with a high covid-19 infection rate. are you considering restoring that band? >> right now that -- >> i would encourage you to. >> it's above my pay grade, so -- >> i would encourage you to. the reason the caravans have multiple level of problems, it would be odd to keep a a travel ban in europe but allow people to mass on our border i hope we continue to fight the illness and prevent transmission. finally, so many people wonder where our biggest threat is. let us in with this thought. let us and -- end with this thought. china is a problem multiple layer problem. rush is up to no good. -- russia is up to no good. there's two groups that it were the most about. i think if you may need had a nuclear weapon they would use it. i think the ayatollah is a religious nazi. were you agree to release talk to me and senator menendez about an alternative to the jcpoa when it comes to iran? >> i welcome talking to both of you and members of this committee about the way forward on a rant. -- on iran. >> and finally, this is the 20th anniversary of 9/11. september this year will be 20 years. i think they are going to remind us they are still out there. do you agree with me the worst thing america could do is have a false sense of security when it comes to radical islam? do you agree with the following proposition? the only reason they haven't killed more of us is they can find a way to do it and we pretty much kept her foot on their throat? >> i share your concerns about the ongoing threat posed by what's left of al-qaeda, isis, other extremist groups to target the united states. >> finally delete if they had a nuclear or chemical weapons they could acquire one they would use it? >> i think there's a high probability that it had access to such a weapon certainly in the past they would have and going forward something to be concerned about. >> twenty years later where do we stand regarding the fight against al-qaeda and isis? >> i think we have demonstrably made significant progress in different parts of the world against them when it comes to al-qaeda and afghanistan, the original threat. they are so problem comes telepresence come still a -- they are still a presence. there is still a relationship with the taliban. it's much diminished but precisely to point if we take our eye off the ball there's a risk that comes back. isis i think actually across to make administrations we succeed in taking with its geographic caliphate in iraq and in syria, but there again we can't take our eye off the ball. of course we have seen affiliates of both groups spread to different parts of the world. we still have work cut out for it. >> thank you. i look forward to working with you/ coming up tonight on c-span, the university of california at berkeley historian of medicine on the development of the polio vaccine in the 1950's. then british prime ministers questions. afterwards a look into the pros ♪ ♪ >> an historic victory has dramatically unfolded at the university of michigan.

Related Keywords

Serbia , Honduras , Taiwan , Afghanistan , United States , United Kingdom , Hong Kong , Brazil , Delaware , Beijing , China , California , Yemen , Syria , Russia , Bahrain , Ethiopia , Ukraine , Mexico , India , Sudan , Morocco , Libya , South Korea , Poland , Iran , Geneva , , Switzerland , Cuba , Colombia , Guatemala , Kosovo , Uganda , Michigan , Iraq , Baghdad , Hungary , Israel , Belgium , Cameroon , North Korea , Bavarian , Fars , Peru , Venezuela , Turkey , Americans , America , Chinese , Iranians , Korea , Iranian , Israelis , Afghan , British , Palestinian , Russians , American , Cuban , Itza Rabin , Indo Pacific , Golda Mayer , Evan Ryan , Al Qaeda , Qasem Soleimani , Rick Cornell , Moammar Gadhafi , Boris Johnson ,