0 legitimizing them as a real government? >> not only us, but virtually the entire international community has made clear what we expect and will insist on from the taliban. if they want to seek any legitimacy or any support. and that includes, it starts with freedom of travel. so we have been intensely engaged with turkey in qatar to get the airport in kabul up and running again which is now the case. we started to get flights out last week. and with regard to sharif, you're correct. there are flights that have been there for some time that have not been allowed to leave. we want to see the flights leave. we want to allow the flights to start to move. and we're working on that every day. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. secretary. we requested such a classified briefing not too long ago. we welcome your assurance to schedule this briefing sometime in the immediate future. >> yes. absolutely. >> and i now recognize representative brad sherman from california for five minutes. >> secretary blinken, thank you for reminding us that americans were not required to register if they were in afghanistan and i hope must colleagues will support my legislation to require americans to register if they go to war zone. the ranking member says that he never thought he'd see an unconditionable surrender of the united states to the taliban. he saw it in 2020. when president donald trump announced that we would be out by may 1st of 2021. force the release of 5,000 of the taliban'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 are those who say we should get out all of our afghan allies and all those who face oppression or death from the taliban. i would point out that the afghan army together with all of us veterans over 20 years together with all of their families, you're talking about millions of people. the taliban may be harsh to the girls who are music students, who are orphans, imagine how harsh they throb a girl's 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 a -- some chance to fight to a stalemate. but by spring, those closest to us, those most in the know were demanding visas to get out to flee. they were not asking for guns to build trenches around kabul to fight the taliban, they were asking for visas. they were demanding visas. they were making videos about how they were going to be killed. when they start flee, that started a stampede. there is no way the administration can have an orderly or successful stampede. and it seems absurd in retrospect to think that average afghan grunt would fight in the trenches while some of those who were 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 everyone out of afghanistan within thee months, by may 1st. did the trump administration leave on your desk a pile of note books 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 1st withdraw? >> thank you, congressman. we inherited a deadline. we did not inherit a plan. so no plan. no plan at all it's amazing it wasn't much, much worse. but the trump administration gave 5,000 of the taliban's top fighters back to the taliban. what did we get for that? other than empty promises that were broken? >> congressman, the deal that the previous administration struck involved as you rightly said, committing to remove all u.s. forces from afghanistan by may 1st of this year and in addition, as that deal was being negotiated then put into effect, pressing the afghan government to release these 5,000 prisoners. many of whom went back to the battlefield. and at the same time, in return, getting from the taliban to two commitments, one, not to attack our forces or allied and partner forces during the time of the agreement from the time it was reached until may 1st when we were supposed to pull out all of our forces. and as well as no the to go up the major cities. and to take steps to ensure that afghanistan would not be used by al qaeda or any other group. >> one more question. you're criticizing for not getting our weapons out. our weapons were given to the afghan military. 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 casualties to go over all over afghanistan and grant the trucks and the tanks, et cetera? simply put, no. a lot of excessive equipment was handed over to the afghan security and defense forces partners that we worked with for 20 years, supported, financed, and equipped for 20 years to take on some of that equipment. when those forces collapsed in the space of about 11 days, some of that equipment ended up in the hands of the successor forces, the taliban. our folks worked very hard to disable or dismantle equipment that we still control before we left afghanistan. and what we see now is much of the equipment that was left behind including in the hands of the afghan forces that then fell to the taliban, much of it based on what i understand from my colleagues at the dod is an operable or soon will be inoperable because it has to be maintained. it's not of any strategic value but it does give the taliban, as we've seen in pictures, uniforms and guns and some other equipment that is in their hands. >> i now recognize representative chris smith of new jersey who is the rafrmging member of the committee on africa, global health and global human rights for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, mr. secretary, you testified that you encouraged americans to leave the country. you know simultaneous with that was statements being made including by president biden that afghans military capability was 300,000 man strong. and that they had the best training imaginable. at best, i would say they were misled. you don't mention withdraw conditions that were placed by president trump on any exodus from afghanistan. i do have a couple questions:did you concur and support president bud en's july 23rd phone call telling president begany to be untruthful about the taliban's 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 say need to project a different picture." was that an ad lib by president biden or was that scripted into the phone call? if it was scripted, by who? secondly, have any americans been arrested, beaten, abducted or killed by the taliban or isis-k and do we have the capacity and 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 perhaps many who 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 in ft. dixon recently with some of the other members of congress and our governor. and that's a number of questions. i was very concerned about the vetting or lack thereof and the fact that parolees about 70% strong at our base at least , and we're going to go to 13,000, they could leave if they like. they're free to leave. it's not clear whether or not they can return. but they're free to leave. finally, one of the profoundly negative consequences outside of afghanistan has been china. and taiwan. the communist party media including ccb global times and i read it every day are saturating the to you juan he's with message that's give up and surrender to beijing because the united states will just as it did in afghanistan band on them too. that's what the global times is saying. if you can start off with the first question, i would appreciate it. >> thank you very much. first, with regard to the phone call you cited, i'm not going to comment on leaked purportedly leaked transcripts and phone calls. what the president said in that conversation with the president is exactly what he was saying in public. and it's this. the issue is not the capacity at that point of the afghan government and the afghan security forces. to hold the country and to hold kabul it was their will. and we were concerned that they were not demonstrating that will or that plan. he pressed president on the need to consolidate the forces. military advice from our military leaders to make sure he can defend the place that's need defending and not overstretch the forces. and he needed to bring people together. >> i understand. >> the question is -- >> with all due respect. i only have two minutes. is the transcript untrue? >> again, i'm not commenting on any purported leaked transcripts. i'm telling what you based on my knowledge of the conversation the president said. and what he said is exactly what he said in public. second, with regard to american citizens remaining behind, the ones we're in contact with, we have 500 people on the task force and teams dedicated to them to be in regular contact with them. you've not heard from those people. i can't say where there are any american citizens who are not in contact with or don't know of who may have been mistreated in some fashion. third, with regard to the background checks, and this is very important and you're right to focus on it, you know, as you know, before afghans evacuated from afghanistan reached the united states, they go to a transit country. that's where the initial checks are done. we surged customs and border control to do the initial checks. and then 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 are not letting anyone into the country who could pose a threat or a risk. that's ball thans is so important in the program. we all want to bring afghans at risk in the united states. we also have an obligation that you point out to the security of fellow citizens. finally, taiwan. as i said earlier, what of they may be making in newspapers or propaganda, there issing in that china would have liked more than to reup the war in afghanistan and to remain bogged down for another five, ten, or 20 years. that would have been against our strategic interests. >> gentleman's time has expired. i now recognize the chair of new jersey. he is security migration and international and economic policy for fuf minutes. >> thank you, mr. secretary for being with us for the third time. and i also want to 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 are here now in this country. so i tip my hat to those people who work so hard. the question i have is the taliban seems to be having a complete hold in the country. i understand there are other groups in afghanistan. how fragile or how strong, firm is the taliban's hold on this country? is and do you see that breaking apart as everybody wants their peace down the line? this country is made up of pieces. >> it's -- thank you. it's a very good question. important bun. and it is very hard to predict. the country is in so many ways you pointed out fractured among different groups, different ethnic groups. different outside actors that may be supporting one group or another. for the taliban to fully consolidate control that, is -- that remains an open question. it's also why ironically it would be profoundly in the taliban's interest to actually put forward a genuinely inclusive and representative government. to the extent it doesn't, to the extent that everyone in the taliban is left out that, is only likely to over -- at some period in time, whether it's tomorrow, next week, next year or thereafter, cause those who are left out to try to assert one way or anothe their rights and needs. i think all of that is an open question. at this point. one last thing i'd mention. the country itself is in desperate straits. the u.s. estimate that's half the population is in need of humanitarian assistance. we have severe malnutrition. health problems. covid-19, droughts, et cetera. and so there too the taliban has a bug problem on its hands. and, of course, it is generating very, very little revenue. 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 onest 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. there is a pledging conference called by the united nation that's is on going. that's through ngos and the unitedations. we need to do everything we can to make sure that people of afghanistan don't suffer any more than is already the case. >> are we going to help afghanistan with food and aid? we extract certain commitmentes from them before we just give them. >> food. >> done. >> i want to comment the country of colombia. i think they have taken thousands of afghanistans and they're vetting them before they get there. is that accurate? >> there are a number of countries around the world that have made those commitment that's are either serving as transit countries or serving as resettlement countries. >> the gentleman yields back. i now recognize representative joe wilson of south carolina who is a rarpging member of the committee on middle east, north africa and global counter-terrorism for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. and glad to join with dear colleague in thanking our great ally of colombia of helping the afghan refugees. sir, in my service of the foreign affairs committee, the global terrorism subcommittee, the arms services committee, nato parliamentary assembly and the helsinki commission, i've always been impressed bid american foreign service diplomats worldwide. their dedication to service is inspiring. that is why i am shocked at your actions superseding military advice leading to the surrender of afghanistan to be a safe haven for murderous terrorists. biden-harris have also opened this southern borders, stopping the wall of president trump. this allows identified terrorists of the watch list to enter american neighborhoods as suicide bombers to murder as many americans as possible. in american history, american families have never been greater risk of attack at home than today. as the global war on terror is not over, it's been moved from abroad to american homes. as the grateful father of an afghan veteran, i especially see your actions as indefensible. with 12 visits by me across afghanistan to thank the south carolina army national guard troops commended by general lob livingston, i know first hand they appreciated serving with their afghan brothers. i saw the united states agency for international development success in building schools. agricultural projects and hospitals and brujs and roads. my beliefs have been expressed by "the new york post" editorial board on september 1st. and that is, "six lies joe biden told about afghanistan." how can anyone american believe anything biden says after he's lied so blatantly? lied? if there are american citizens left, we're going to stay until we get them out. >> biden admits that americans remain stranded in afghanistan. lie, we're making the same commitment to afghanistan to assist in america. truth. a senior state department official confessed to nbc news that the majority of afghans didn't make it out of kabul. the united states stands by its commitment that we made to vulnerable afghans such as women leaders and journalists, truth, team biden didn't even ensure american em plowed journalists made it to safety. lie, asked by a reporter you see new parallels between what happened in vietnam? none. zero. true, not even a month later, pictures came from kabul of the helicopter flying over the american embassy. lie. biden vowed to continue to provide afghan army with air support. truth, in the wake of biden's withdraw decision, he pulled the air support and intelligence and contractors. the afghan military couldn't operate. lie, july 8th, biden added that the likelihood there is going to be a taliban overrunning everything as highly unlikely. truth in, fact, biden knew the taliban were overtaking the afghan government and asked the president to lie about it. whether it's true or not. sadly, the advanced military equipment led to the terrorists and i end the quote of that article. sadly, the advance military equipment led to the terrorist is comparable to all of the military equipment that we provided to israel since 1948. they chant israel death to america. we must never forget the may 8th bombing in kabul. islamic extremists taurists slaughtered 80 innocent young girls. you should have changed course then. because of this gruesome revealing fact. the murderers of that attack now will have a safe haven to attack american families at home. your bizarre aveiling of bagram airfield left to 13 marines murdered in kabul. you should resign. i yield back. >> mr. secretary, we only have 43 seconds left. of the five minutes. so you -- your spots, i know you'll 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. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me simply thank the member for his support for the men and wum of the state department. i appreciate that part of the statement. thank you. >> i now recognize representative jerry connolly of virginia who is president of the nato 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 who committed one of those grief as acts in the state of union address when the president the united states mr. obama was our guest to shout out you lie, i might take more care about enumerating other alleged lies. in a hearing with the secretary of state. mr. secretary, what we're listening to in the other sued of the aisle sadly is sort of a salad mix of selective facts and a lot of amnesia in the salad dressing. the history of instability in afghanistan didn't begin on august 14th of this year, did it? >> it did not. >> am i correct in remembering that nkt 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. >> and one year later, the soviet union because of that instability decided to invade afghanistan, is that correct? >> it is. and ten years later, the soviets left afghanistan because they had mounting and maybe really unsustainable casualties and felt they were engaged in a process that could not be won. is that correct? >> it is. >> and meanwhile, because of the united states decided once that happened, it would disengage primarily from afghanistan, groups like the taliban had 12 years in which to create political power. is that correct? >> it is. in 2001, we re-entered afghanistan in response to the tragedy we just remembered 20 year remembrance this week and we moved south until they lost control of the country in that year in 2001. is that correct? >> yes, it is. and the purpose of our involvement was to defeat al qaeda because the taliban were harboring this terrorist group that had attacked america s that correct? >> that's correct. >> would it be fair to say that we achieved that objective? >> it would. >> would it be fair to say that, in fact, ten years later the leader of that group who master minded the attacks of 9/11 was killed by a especially trained united states trained unit? >> that's correct. what happened ultimately on august 14th has lots of history. i know it's convenient to pretend that didn't happen. i know that we want to give ourselves sort of the pleasure of attacking a political leader of the other party. and so let me engage in that too. i'm going to assert that the events of all 14th have the direct antecede went a bad decision by president trump and secretary pompeo in 2018 to he will vaut and legitimatize the taliban in doha, qatar by bringing that face-to-face negotiations. that tragedy was compounded by an unbelievable decision to exclude the government of afghanistan. we were defending them from those very negotiations. is that an accurate statement, mr. secretary? >> certainly that's what we inherited. >> but afghanistan -- the afghan government was in fact excluded from the negotiating table in doha by the trump administration, is that not correct? >> that is essentially correct, yes. >> when the 5,000 people were released from prison since the ranking members are concerned and correctly so about two members in the current cabinet of the taliban were there any known taurists or declared taur terrorists you about the united states released with the consent and negotiated agreement of the trump administration? >> almost certainly, yes. >> you guess our concern about terrorists is pretty selective. and limited to partisanship. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back his time. i recognize the ranking member of ohio on the subcommittee of asia, pacific, central asia and nonproliferation for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on august 16th, mr. secretary, president biden said that the administration had considered every contingency and was executing the evacuation according to your plan. was it for your plan to rely on the taliban to ensure the safety of americans trying to flee the country? because that's what happened. >> we put -- we -- through the course of the spring and summer did as the president said look at every contingency for dealing with our drawdown. and -- >> and we relied upon the taliban to be our security. we got 13 of our american personnel and 50 afghan civilians killed by relying on the taliban. they didn't provide very good security. we never should have relied upon them. >> we were not relying upon the taliban. government collapsed from the space of 11 days. we executed the plans we had in place to safely draw down our embassy, move it to the airport, the military came in and took over the airport and started getting evacuation flights out within 72 hours. >> we certainly relied upon it at the airport. it didn't work sought o well. president bud enlaud the blame for the evacuation debacle on others rather than on where it belongs. he blamed president trump as we discussed to some degree here basically claiming that he was just following trump's policy. but yet, he didn't his taught to disregard every other major trump policy, our southern border, the keystone pipeline, the paris climate accord, iran deal, mexico city policy. this is the one trump policy he had to follow. you understand why this is pretty hard to fathom for a lot of people. >> i think what's perhaps congressman hard to fathom or people just don't understand is that the agreement reached by the previous administration required all u.s. forces to be out of afghanistan by may 1st. in return, the taliban stopped attacking our forces, our partners, and it didn't commence an onslaught of the afghanistan cities. had the president not followed through on commitments, those attacks would have resumed. we would have reupped the war in afghanistan after 20 years for another five, ten, or 20 years. we would have had to send more forces in. recognize that a lot of people don't understand that. they don't understand the cho is that president biden faced from may 1st. >> when he wasn't blaming trump, he was blaming the afghan military forces for allegedly not being willing to fight. but whereas we suffered a single u.s. military death in a year and a half. and that's a wonderful thing, after the began military forces lost about 3,000 of their military personnel during this same time. wasn't the president being unfaur to the 3,000 that lost their lufz during that period of time? >> congressman, many afghan soldiers fought with bravery and gave their lives. you're right. but as an institution, after 20 years of investment by the united states, by the international community, hundreds of billions of dollars, equipment, support, training, as an institution, it collapsed in 11 days. >> though attacked us on september 11. now 20 years later we have the taliban back in charge there. and they have billions and billions of dollars worth of our equipment and our weaponry and once again they're a haven for terrorists. how is this not a debacle of monumental proportions? >> the al qaeda, the group that attacked us on 9/11 long ago was brought to where it is not capable in conducting an externally direct add tack against us or against others. the taliban should remember as well what happened the last time it did as you rightly said, harbor al qaeda and engaged in an outwardly directed attack against us. it knows consequences of continuing tow do that. and it has made commitments no to the allow that to happen. but, of course, we're not relying on the commiments that we discuss earlier. the what we're doing in our countries is detect the re-emergence of any threat including from al qaeda and the means to do something about it. >> the gentleman' time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. i now recognize representative ted deutsche of floir who the chair committee on the middle east, north africa and global counter-terrorism for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i appreciate you being here today. and we do need to look back. this is a really important hearing. we need to look forward. the reality is we have a taliban government. we have terrorist groups surging, potential threats to u.s. interests remain. it is true that we are not the world's police men. about it we know that a strengthened isis-k or al qaeda pose a threat to the u.s. homeland and to americans abroad, our interests abroad, and the region. middle east was changed in 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 diplomatic talks with partners and allies with our counter-terrorism role, what do you ates to be the operational capacity of al qaeda in afghanistan and how is the administration planning to hold the taliban to its commitment to ensure that al qaeda and other terrorist groups are unable to use afghan soil to plan terrorist attacks on or threaten the security of the u.s. and our allies? >> thank you very much. first, as we were discussing a little earlier, as you know, from your focus on this, the terrorist threat grew significantly since 9/11. it is much more acute to the homeland and other countries from somalia and yemen, lib yashgs iraq, syria, a number of other countries in africa as well. and so we have to be able to make sure that we're focused everywhere. that is a possibility. and resourced appropriately. and we are. and in a number of those places as you know very well, we don't have boots on the ground. but we find ways to deal with that threat. in the case of afghanistan, a couple things. the current assessment of the intelligence community is long ago al qaeda was so significantly degraded that it's not in a position to conduct externally faced -- externally directed attacks. but we will remain hyper vigilant about any re-emerge ents of that threat. and we will be working closely with partners and other countries to be in a position to do that. i think the chairman referenced earlier that we expect to do classified briefings on this because there are a number of things that it would not be appropriate to discuss in this setting. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we appreciate your commitment to make sure the briefings occur. >> the mission in the history of nato arising out of the implication of article 5. there are over 50 nato members and partner countries sent troops, 36 has been reported had troops there at the time of the drawdown. they invested political capital, our allies invested in troops and often those troops gave their lives as well. the criticism we heard from some allies is there was not adequate consultation and coordination with our nato allies. we heard the secretary-general say there were others doubted that i'd like you to speak to. that but finally this. we had an administration, mr. secretary, that wanted to go it alone, a president who failed to appreciate often criticized the importance of nato allies and embracing xi and putin. if you can also in your final time with me, speak to at a time when democratic values are at -- are being threatened and at risk in so many places around the world, if can you also speak to the importance of that relationship and how to reassure those allies of ours would raised concerns about how we fauld to coordinate with them as we did. st. >> thank you. a couple things, first. you're so right to point to our allies and partners. they stood us with on 9/11 and all the days and time thereafter. you're right that article five is an attack on all 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 when it came into afghanistan, we went in together and 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 single partner. relaying what we heard directly to president biden. to factor that into our thinking and to into our planning. i spent more time in brussels or virtually than any other place i've been on this job. working very closely with these allies and partners. on the day that president's decision was announced. i was back in brussels with, again with, the secretary of defense. and nato immediately and unanimously endorsed that decision. people brought various perspectives to the table. but each recognized that given the deadline that existed, that is that our forces happen to depart afrg by may 1st, 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 on our naught yoe partners and allies. as well as to engage in this country wide offensive that we have seen to retake the major cities. in effect, to reup the war. and all unanimously endorsed the proposition that we would leave together. and that's exactly what we worked on doing. what we have been doing. i know from talking to manial many allies making sure we could get out our fellow nationals, afghans that help each of us and our embassy personnel. a lot of gratitude from allies and partners about the work that our folks did in making sure that we could deliver on that commitment to them. 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 in other organizations on working together on the way forward to hold the taliban to the commitments they maud to the international community. >> the gentleman's time expired. i now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> assuming it's not classified, can you tell us where you are today? >> yes. i'm at the state department. >> couldn't be barged to come down here and see congress. that's great. hey -- >> sir, my understanding is that the house is not in session and that's why -- >> i'm right here, mr. secretary. so is the ranking member. we're here. mr. chairman, you're claiming my time. did they block american citizens from leaving afghanistan? >> no, we did not. >> none. your testimony before congress is that state didn't block any american citizens leaving afghanistan? >> to the contrary, my officers men and women ran into the building from around the world to help americans. >> yes or no. can you do it with me. yes or no? >> just want to clarify. you didn't block anybody. state didn't block anybody? >> no. >> we were there to help americans get out. >> 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 came to the united states and have not met the qualifications for special immigrant visa. >> we're in the process of -- >> how many? how many? >> i don't know. >> how many did you bring? you were just at dulles, how many did you bring? by the end of the month, we will have brought totally 60,000. >> that have not met the siv process? >> some of those will have been through the siv process. all of them, regardless of siv procertification will have gone through rigorous security checks first at the transit point. >> it would be nice if it was done before we brought tomorrow this the united states of america. >> are they rurd to be vaccinated before coming to the united states of america? >> they are vaccinated in the united states before they are -- before they are resettled into the united states. >> none of these afghan citizens that are allowed to leave these resettlement communities, ft. dix, dulles, et cetera, are allowed to leave new of them, none of them are leaving unless they're vaccinated for covid-19 s that your testimony? >> they're tested forever covid-19 and vaccinated. >> vaccinated before they leave? >> that's my understanding. >> all right. thank you, mr. secretary. is it the policy of the united states of america to take hard earned tax dollars and pay terrorist organizations? >> it is not. >> it is not. 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 to the united nations agencies using that assistance, no the to the afghan government. >> not to the afghan, taliban government. how you are accounting for that? how you are -- how you are making sure that they are not receiving that. >> as we do around the world where we provide humanitarian assistance working through u.n., working through ngos, with long tested methods to make sure the assistance goes to the people that need it, no the to the government in question. >> is it your understanding that over the past 20 years the united states taxpayers have paid pakistan who is then used that money to support the taliban, isis-k, et cetera, for the past 20 years? is that not true? >> there a long history we should all look at together. >> right. >> how the involvement of pakistan. >> so we should no longer pay pakistan and pay india. i have a couple more questions. a little off topic. i think 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. >> you are saying that you have not had a recent interview with the fbi since becoming secretary of state? >> i'm -- i'm not sure what you're referring to. >> did the state department turn over documents to the fbi rented to hunter biden and/or the blue state strategies corporation? >> you'll have to ask -- >> you have had -- you don't -- you are 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 asking you -- i'm not asking you to comment on the legal proceedings. i'm just asking if you have been interviewed you about the fbi since becoming secretary of state? >> again, i'm not going to comment one way or another on any legal proceedings or not. >> let me remind the gentleman that this is about afghanistan. >> he refuses to answer questions about afghanistan. have you sought to alter any testimony from last year's investigation regarding this topic? >> the gentleman's time expired. this is hay hybrid hearing. members had an option to be here or other places. the secretary also. this is a hybrid hearing because we are not in session. >> mr. chairman, point of inquiry if i could. >> who seeks? >> there is congressman isa. just for my understanding, was it expressed to the secretary that he had a choice of either, one or was he invited to come here or was he alerted to remain there? i only ask because i you this we all agree that if he could have been here in person it would have been better. but if 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. >> it was ab option as i made it an option with every member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i now recognize representative cameron bass of california who is the chair of the subcommittee on africa, global health and global human rights for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thank you, secretary blinken, for attending this hearing and for your patience with putting up with the theatrics of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. you want to thank you, again, for spending the time and agreeing to take everyone's questions for five minutes. the departure from afghanistan provided insight into our foreign policy. in addition to the professionalism of our military, diplomats and afghan partners, it has shown how a 20-year effort and billions of dollars have raised questions about the return of investment we desired. the assumption of power you about the taliban has secretary effects on the most vulnerable seg mment. s segments of the population. and we're concerned it will reverse any gains realized in the last two decades. so my first question, yes or no, mr. secretary, did the agreement from the last administration include any protections for girls and women? >> not to my knowledge. >> so many people are concerned about the status of women and girls and taliban in afghanistan under the taliban. reinstructions on education, movement, health care, physical safety under their regime paunt paunt a grim picture. how will they support partners for wum's rights and the rikts of ethnic and religious minorities. >> thank you. go ahead. >> thank you, congressman. one of the true will you great achievements of the last 20 years was the progress made by women and girls in afghanistan and one thing that we should be proud of is the support, the leading support that we gave to them when it comes to education, health care, the workforce, entrepreneurship, those gains were significant. we were the leading contributor. i was in kabul in april. i sat with a number of women who had benefitted from our assistance, women that became leaders in the parliament, ngos and recently when i was in doha and at ramstein talking to people who had been evacuated from afghanistan, i spoke to a lot of women and girls and heard their deep concerns about the future as well as people who were still in afghanistan. and so we have an ongoing commitment to use every tool at our disposal through our diplomacy, through our economic assistance, programmatic assistance to do whatever we can to continue in coordination with many other countries to support women and girls and minorities in afghanistan. the assistance we announced today will go in that direction. the assistance we'll provide going forward will do that. with regard to women and girls in particular given the incredible fragility of the situation they're now in i will be naming a senior official at the state department to focus entirely on the ongoing effort both from the united states government and in coordination with other countries to support them. >> well, thank you very much. and so will the administration expand the license to operate humanitarian programs in afghanistan, and how will that take place, and which partners do you see us continuing to work with? >> in short, yes, that's exactly what we're looking at. we've already issued a license to make sure humanitarian assistance could go forward. we're looking at whether that needs to be expanded, consistent, of course, with our sanctions and consistent with our national security to allow appropriate assistance to get to those who need it. >> who approves that license? who are we make that go request to? >> the treasury department is responsible for the licenses, but we do this in coordination or consultation with us and other agencies in the government as well as, of course, the white house. >> and which partners on the ground are we continuing to work with? >> we can get you the list. we have a number of ngos that remain active in afghanistan. 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.'s humanitarian assistance program just a few days ago when i was in doha, and we spent a lot of time talking about how this assistance could continue to go forward and what some of the mechanisms were that could be put in place to make sure it was getting to the right people and being used effectively. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. i recognize congressman 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 both the state department and the department of defense and independent actions that occurred to try to help get people out in the aftermath of the withdrawal s. i would not be doing my job, though, if i didn't ask some tough questions. one of them is up here on this board and it's pretty 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 to leave when it is safe to do so that do not rely on u.s. government assistance. how do we scare in the response i waited weeks for that we do not have any assurance for assistance, but that when people get out, typically they are lauded by the state department as success stories. that includes an 80-year-old couple that was announced to have gotten out when, in fact, we saw no real assistance by the state department. had to find out there was a nongovernment flight and get these two american citizens onto that flight, and we still have a number of others. so, in a nutshell, how do i explain, don't rely on the united states? do we or do we not rely on the united states of america for blue passport holder american citizens who want to get out? >> the answer to that is, yes, absolutely. and could you tell me because, 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 it being fully disclosed but it is a correspondence -- >> i would like to follow up with you and your team to make sure we are follow up on that particular request. i got here because i really want to express deep appreciation to members of congress this committee. i have here a very lengthy document of all of the inquiries we've received from members of hvac on people who have come to you seeking assistance, all of which has been factored into our databases and our efforts. but if someone is not getting the response they need, please, come back to us and let me know and we would be very happy to work with you on that. >> we'll do that. thank you, mr. secretary. if i can go through a few dates and a few statements. on july 8th, president biden was asked if he listened to the intelligence assessment the afghan government was likely to collapse. he answered, that is not true, they are not -- they did not reach that conclusion. in other words, the ic hadn't reached that conclusion. i believe that we'll find that as of july 8th 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 10th, the taliban was reported to have 85% of the country. then on august 12th, "the wall street journal" reported that on july 13th you received an urgent dissent memo from kabul warning that the advances of the taliban and the rapid collapse of afghanistan. your spokesman said you read every memo sent to you from the dissent channel. so if you do, then you knew that, in fact, a major portion of people in the embassy believed that they were going to quickly overrun. on august 18th, president biden said the intelligence community did not say back in june or july that, in fact, this was going to collapse like it did. but the embassy told you, or at least a great many, in july that it would. the question really is how do we regain confidence in the state department and its spokespeople, yourself included, and the president if, in fact, we cannot square what we receive, members of congress both publicly and privately that indicate some of those statements i just read including ones by the president are not supported by the facts? >> thank you. as you know from tracking this as well throughout the year assessments were made of the resilience of the afghan government, the afghan security forces, and the possibility of the taliban taking over the country. and this was typically done in a series of different scenarios. worst and best case scenarios. in the worst case scenarios throughout the spring i think it's fair to say the general assessment was that the government and its 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 time frame was down to the end of the year. and then, of course, as things fully unraveled in august, that changed. to my knowledge, congressman, no one predicted the unraveling before our forces and embassy left afghanistan on august 31st. the chairman of the joint chiefs, general millie, has said nothing i or anyone else saw indicated a collapse of the government and security forces in 11 days. the director of national intelligence has said in the days leading up to the taliban takeover, intelligence agencies did not say collapse was imminent. this unfolded more quickly than we anticipated including in the intelligence community and there are a number of other statements of that kind that i can share with you. with regard to the so-called dissent channel cable is something i'm immensely proud of, a tradition we have and, you're right, i read every such cable. i respond to it. i factor it into 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 very important cable were things that we were in the process of doing. the very next day i think the cable came in on the 13th of july, the 14th we launched operation allies refuge which, of course, had been in training for some time as well as the 24/7 task force to help those in the siv program get out and even