>> we call this meeting of the

subcommittee to order. the senator is on his way back from votes. i doubt he is planning to hear all of my opening remarks so i will put them into the record, turn it over to him, and then hear from our witnesses. we are convening to discuss an incredibly important topic, developments in yemen and on the red sea. for the better part of the last decade, gulf nations, often assisted by the united states, have been at war in yemen against hoopty forces -- houthi forces. i argue it was a mistake. my belief is that the war would simply strengthen the houthis. -- and coordinated with the iranian military, the houthis

have launched a barrage of attacks, missiles, aerial drones, against ships transiting through the red sea. the red sea is one of the most important geostrategic locations in the world. 15% of international maritime commerce passes through its waters and now 90% of red sea traffic has been forced to choose longer and costlier alternatives. the cost increases to global shipping will be significant. consumers will bear the brunt of that at the impact is not just economic due to the houthis actions in the red sea, they have not been able to make their deliveries. in sudan, where 95% of the population cannot afford more than one meal per day, aid deliveries are crucially delayed and, at significantly higher costs. i oppose the u.s. involvement in the yemen war. i regret that the houthis are now strong enough to attack our interests in the region but this is where we are. now that we are in the crosshairs, we must respond.

that is why i have supported the president's leadership to launch the operation to restore maritime security and the red sea and i supported president -- his decision together with our partners in the u.k. to target houthi infrastructure in yemen. that connecticut's bonds has been pared with a targeted sanctions strategy to squeeze the houthis ability to finance their operations, increase efforts to intercept weapons coming from iran to the houthis. but this response has occurred without congressional authorization. and to my knowledge, there is no existing law that would permit military action against the houthis. the constitution requires congress to authorize acts of war. we swore an oath to follow the constitution. if we believe this is a just military action, and i do, then we should authorize it but we also need to acknowledge that there is a real risk of escalation in the red sea especially since iran is unquestionably aiding the actions of the houthis.

thus an authorization is important to legalize the existing operations but also guard against an unauthorized mission creep. now i want the focus of today's hearing to be on the ground reality in the red sea, the scope of the threat to the united states, the merits of our existing response plan, and the options going forward. i don't intend for this hearing to turn into a forum on congressional authorization. the military campaign against the houthis to continue, i believe an authorization is required. to authorize and limit the current military operation and i will be in discussions with my colleagues in the coming days to introduce such an authorization. this debate, if we could have it, would help us understand both the power and the limits of american military might in and around the red sea. the broader crisis in yemen and the lingering war is not over. it is a crisis that senator young and i have been in together for years. the war that has ravaged yemen

for nearly a decade and created the world's worst humanitarian crisis in yemen has quieted but the country is still in dire straits. the united states, through special envoy, will testify before us today. regional allies in the u.n. have all been working together with you many leaders and citizens -- you men -- yemeni leaders to resolve conflicts. peace will only come through political reconciliation. our airstrikes can protect u.s. assets in the region and in the red sea but they cannot bring peace to yemen. this is an incredibly important hearing today and i look forward to our discussion with our witnesses to help us chart that path forward and i will now turn it over to senator young. >> thank you, chairman, for convening this important hearing on a foreign policy challenge. i thank our witnesses for appearing today.

the actions and the surrounding waters threaten the lives of innocent mariners and sailors as well as significant global commerce and they risk destabilizing the fragile pathway towards peace in yemen. nine nations border the red sea. none of them are iran. and yet the bloodstained fingerprints of the world's leading state sponsor of terror are all over the red sea. whether it be material support to the houthis in yemen or whether it be other means of certain -- no direct support to enable the actions of the houthis, these actions are having a cascading, destabilizing effect on food security in africa, global energy prices, and the dreams of millions of you many -- yemeni people. it is imperative the administration response to these actions while demonstrating it is both a strategy for deterring aggression and appropriate legal

doctrine for maintaining these global comments. to date, i have not seen such a strategy put forward. i am encouraged that the foreign relations committee will be holding two hearings this week on iran's destabilizing activities across the region but i must also point out the lack of public committee action on these and other questions since hamas attacks on israel on october 7. i have no doubt about the sincerity of today's witnesses when they will tell us that they are committed to addressing the security challenges across the red sea and particularly in yemen. i do have doubts however that the administration has an actionable plan, actionable plan to bring an end to houthi aggression, iranian terrorism, and the curtailment of russian and chinese meddling in this vital region. our military actions to date carried out by incredibly brave

u.s. service members have yet to stop the houthis. the questions were that -- we are thus presented with our what do we do now, what actions by the united states are we willing to countenance? how do we push back on the iranian rhetoric tying the houthis actions to israel's fight against hamas? how do we continue to push for a stable peace process in yemen? i hope that we will be able to get at these topics today and i hope that we will hear from our witnesses today and what we hear will help us better understand how the administration plans to ramp up its response to finally take seriously the need to respond adequately to the threats facing the red sea. finally, i would like to mention the names of navy special warfare operator first class chris chambers and navy special warfare operator second-class nathan gage ingram.

and i would like to acknowledge and offer my sincerest sympathies to their families. these men came from families of veterans, all of whom understand sacrifice, but they are nonetheless in our hearts. these two brave men gave their lives to preserving america's security in the red sea and we would be remiss if we did not remember the continued danger our men and women in uniform face even this very hour on the land and sea and in the air around yemen. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you very much. thank you for that recognition. the chairman is joining us today and i turn it over to him for some opening remarks. >> senator murphy, i want to welcome the secretary to our committee and thank them for their service. i want to thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member young, for conducting this hearing. i think it is extremely important. i just want to add my support for your opening comments. on the responsibility of congress in regards to the authorization for use of military force. i agree with you. yet meditation should be seeking that authority and it is our responsibility to respond to it and i also want to acknowledge your leadership. i think these are all if -- >> let me introduce our two

guests. tim, u.s. special envoy for yemen. he is familiar to many of us on this committee and previously served as deputy assistant secretary of state for affairs at the department of state and held other key positions in the state department in the region. dan schapiro is here with us today. again, well known to this committee, the deputy assistant secretary of defense defense for the middle east. ambassador schapiro is best known to us as a u.s. ambassador to israel and previously served in a number of important roles here in the united states senate. i will turn it over to you first. and then to ambassador schapiro. >> chairman murphy, ranking member young, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for this invitation to speak with you about the situation in yemen and the administration's response to ongoing houthi attacks in the red sea. yemen is at a crucial moment. reckless houthi attacks are

jeopardizing the very real accomplishments of multilateral diplomacy over the past three years. when president biden appointed the special envoy in 2021, he made clear that achieving a diplomatic, durable peace in yemen was a top administration priority. that has not changed and there is tangible progress to point to. in 2021, yemen was a hot war with more than 400 cross-border attacks per year and tremendous destruction of infrastructure, countless deaths inside the country. now, both cross-border attacks and that destruction have ceased. and after more than 50 trips to the region over the past three years, i remain convinced that peace in yemen is not only possible but serves u.s. interests. those of our regional partners and of course the you many -- yemeni people themselves. they deserve to live in peace. despite the houthis illegal

maritime attacks, the april 2022 troops between yemen's warring parties continues to hold. violence inside yemen remains at the lowest levels since 2015 and yemen's humanitarian crisis, while still acute, is less severe than at its peak. until the houthis escalation, average yemenis were beginning to see a way back to stability. we should not lose sight of these milestones even as we necessarily degrade and destroy houthi military capabilities and condemn their attacks on civilian shipping. in december, u.n. special envoy for yemen, hans, announced that the parties for the conflict had reached an understanding on a roadmap for peace including a durable cease-fire and an inclusive yemeni-yemeni political process. we have strived for and supported these goals. and the u.n. roadmap remains yemen's best hope to end the conflict. yet as we have all seen since october, the houthis are

throwing this progress away. iran is equipping and facilitating houthi attacks in the red sea. credible public reports suggest a significant number of iranian and lebanese hezbollah operatives are supporting houthi attacks from inside yemen. i can't imagine the yemen people, the yemeni people want these iranians in their country. this must stop. the houthis risk killing mariners for many nations every time they launch an attack which they have now done on more than 45 occasions. i attacking oil tankers and other ships carrying hazardous materials, they are accountable for environmental catastrophe in the red sea. by making maritime traffic through the red sea costly and dangerous, the houthis are exacerbating economic and humanitarian conditions in egypt, sudan, ethiopia, and elsewhere. these attacks on commercial vessels are acts of terrorism. the houthis are not even adhering to their stated goals. they are mostly striking ships

with no connection whatsoever to israel and driving up the difficulty and cost of delivering humanitarian aid to people around the world including of course through yemenis themselves. since they hijacked the galaxy leader on november 19, they have held hostage 25 innocent sailors from five countries. the houthis should release them unconditionally and not behave in this reckless manner. what they are doing is piracy. houthis hypocrisy becomes even clearer as we look at their continued abuse of the human rights of the yemeni people. their detention facilities are filling up with political detainees. they are recruiting child soldiers and indoctrinating them in hate, blockading the city, immense third-largest city, and they routinely restrict humanitarian access. don't take it from me. ask the yemeni. in response to the red sea threat, the united states and our partners are employing a multi prong to military, economic, and diplomatic

strategy to raise the cost of continued attacks and shift the houthi calculus. the u.s. military has acted quickly and decisively to support the houthi military threat. in addition, on february 16, our designation of the houthi as a specially designated global terrorists went into effect. the designation is a powerful means to hold the houthis accountable. in parallel to targeted military strikes and the terrors of designation, we are also working every diplomatic channel to with one global voice to condemn houthi attacks, building on strong and unanimous statements from the un security council in the g7, the united states mobilize a group of 44 states to call out houthi provocations in the strongest possible terms. on january 10, we secured passage of un security council resolution 27 22 which demands a halt to these reckless attacks. these efforts are one component of a broader diplomatic strategy. even as we degrade and disrupt

houthi capabilities, squeeze their finance -- terrorist financing, and shame them on the world stage, we must also seek diplomatic off ramps. we are working multiple channels to make clear to the houthis that they must cease their attacks immediately. that may be clear, we do not seek this confrontation but we will respond to the attacks. i remain hopeful, as the envoy for yemen, that we can preserve a diplomatic path forward, but the houthis are harming their own people by putting off the peace process. ultimately, peace in yemen serves the interest of all yemeni, just as it does all -- yemenis, just as it does the united states and our regional partners. thank you for your invitation today. i look forward to the discussion and your questions. >> thank you. ambassador schapiro. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member young, members of the subcommittee. i appreciate the invitation to speak to you today about the houthis radical threats in the red sea and the department of

defense's work to restore safe and free navigation for all legitimate maritime traffic in one of the world's most critical waterways. i will summarize the houthi threat and our guiding principles for addressing this prickle issue. since november 19, the houthis have connected at least 48 attacks in and around the red sea through which 15% of all global trade flows. they have used antiship ballistic missiles, anti-ship crews muscles, unmanned -- cruise missiles, and a helicopter born seizure. despite the houthis claims, these attacks are almost entirely unrelated to israel and israeli affiliated shipping and to be clear, any such attacks would be entirely illegitimate anyway. these are indiscriminate attacks that are as much an affront to maritime commerce as is piracy and they have attracted the interest of more than 55 nations and threatened the free flow of commerce the red, a bedrock of the global economy. these attacks have prompted more than a dozen major shipping

operators to suspend transit k red sea, causing a spike in insurance rates for vessels in the region and most importantly, putting the lives of innocent mariners and our service members at risk. the houthis attacks are causing delivery delays in critical humanitarian items in places where they are needed most and this is adversely affecting those in need of assistance around the world including in sudan, ethiopia, and indeed in yemen itself. one regional country suffering is egypt who has seen transit fees declined by some $100 million per month, depriving it of a critical source of foreign currency. most recently, the houthis launched a series of antiship ballistic missile attacks against commercial ships in the red sea including one that impacted -- wounding a member of his crew, and one on february 18 against ruby mar. they severely damaged that vessel, putting it at risk of sinking, forcing the crew to abandon ship, and causing an 18

mile oil slick in the red sea. the houthis launched weapons towards our worship including an antiship crews missile -- cruise missile. they fired medium-range ballistic missiles against israel that have threatened or caused damage to egypt, jordan, and saudi arabia as well. it is clear that these houthi attacks represent an international problem that affects all nations committed to the exercise of navigational freedoms and the free flow of commerce. these attacks cannot go unchallenged and this problem demands a broad-based and collective response that collective response. our guiding principles are to internationalize the response to the houthi attacks in coordination with allies and partners and -- >> you know exactly how to stop it! -- in gaza! what you need to do is call for an immediate cease-fire in gaza!

[indiscernible] [gavel banging] >> witness can continue. >> we seek to internationalize the response to houthi attacks in coordination with allies and partners and take actions within the whole of government approach to impose costs on the houthi leadership and degrade their ability to conduct attacks on commercial shipping. especial ongoing has discussed the state department's diplomacy and specially designated global terroristic designation. i will expand upon the department of defense's efforts in the red sea. our main defensive effort is called operation prosperity guardian. since secretary austen announced this coalition in december, more than 20 countries have joined to increase maritime patrols in the red sea and safeguard commercial shipping. the coalition is led by task force 153 which is charged with providing leadership and command and control of international maritime security activities in the red sea.

operation prosperity guardian is designed to reassure the maritime shipping industry, deter illegal activity, and promote safe navigation while protecting the free flow of international commerce. meanwhile, the department has been engaged in efforts to destroy and degrade the capabilities that the houthis used to conduct maritime attacks such as the ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, unmanned aerial systems, and facilities known to how such weapons. on january 11, 20 second, federated, and february 24, the president direction, -- january 22, february 3, and to be her 24th, we have the support of a growing number of partners that now includes australia, bahrain, denmark, the netherlands, and new zealand. in our most recent delivered strike this past saturday, we struck 18 targets across eight locations in houthi controlled yemen including underground weapons storage facilities, missile storage facilities, when

we attacked unmanned aerial systems, air defense systems, radars, and helicopter. beyond coalition strikes, u.s. forces have conducted self-defense strikes against houthi targets including missiles and launchers posing an imminent threat, nearly three dozen times come over the past few weeks. in total, we have struck over 230 targets in houthi-controlled yemen to deliberate and controlled strikes. that is not including the dozens of houthi missiles that vessels have intercepted and shot down over the red sea. in december, u.s. forces also disrupted houthis attempts to board and sees -- sinking fast boats in the process. they have not attempted another seizure since that incident. however, they do appear committed to standoff maritime attacks with the remaining inventory of weapons. comp lament you to our efforts to degrade and destroy houthi capabilities, i would like to mention the departments efforts to stem the flow of iranian

legal aid to yemen that enables these attacks and to publicly expose iran's support to the houthis. on january 11 and 28th, u.s. naval forces interdicted -- in clear violation of international law. senator young, i want to thank you for recognizing our two navy seals who perished. in these introductions, u.s. forces discovered over 200 packages that contain components of unmanned, underwater, and service vehicles, propulsion guidance and warheads for ballistic missiles, antiship cruise missiles, network equipment, antitank guided missile launcher assemblies, explosive, and other military components. these are the very same weapons that have been employed by the houthis to threaten and attack u.s. navy vessels but also innocent mariners on international merchant ships. in support of our efforts to publicly expose iran's support to the houthis, the defense

intelligence agency published this unclassified report providing clear and compelling evidence that the houthis have employed iranian origin missiles in vehicles in these attacks. iran does not control the houthis in the way it does militia groups in iraq and syria but it certainly has the choice to provide or withhold support to the houthis, without which the houthis would struggle to strike vehicles in the red sea. we have made it very clear to iran that we hold it accountable for attacks by its partners and properties and believe iranian leaders are aware of the consequences should these attacks resulting u.s. casualties. our actions in iraq and syria have demonstrated the administration's willingness to directly hold iran responsible for militia attacks and to underscore in response to a continuing pattern of iranian and iran backed attacks against u.s. personnel and facilities and the continuing threat of future such attacks the united states has taken and as necessary will continue to take military action against the irgc and its affiliates.

in conclusion, while the department of defense supports the aim of the escalating tensions, we will not hesitate to defend civilians and protect the free flow of commerce in one of the world's most critical waterways. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you for your testimony. we will start a round of five-minute questions. you spent the better part of the last three years both speaking to and trying to understand the houthis and the rationale for their engagement in a variety of conflicts. the rationale for these strikes is ridiculous on its face. they say this is connected to israel's response in gaza and yet they are attacking ships indiscriminate of the ship's flag. this seems to have nothing to do with what is happening in gaza but it is important we understand what the reasons are for this engagement, what the houthis goals are because it will help us shape a response and help us try to rebuild deterrence. i appreciate you talking to the

committee for a moment about why you think the houthis have chosen to engage the united states and our allies in this way by attacking shipping lanes and the red sea and what you think the goals are of that engagement. >> thank you very much, senator, and thank you for all of your support over the years for this effort that we have engaged on to bring a peace deal in yemen. very grateful for that. i think there are two factors that are driving the houthis at least. one is gaza presented an opportunity for them that they felt they wanted to take advantage of and i think they were, as we both clearly said, goaded, encouraged, instructed, aided, abetted, assisted by the iranians to take the fight to the red sea. and i think they have had an opportunity to put some of the weapons that they have been able to accumulate over the years on display, both through the attacks on civilian infrastructure in israel at the

beginning of this conflict and now on the red sea, testing all of these items that they have been able to either receive from the iranians in violation of un security council resolutions or to construct in their own country with the parts that are smuggled in on these. and i think they have sought, as you know, senator, to link this to the gaza situation. it is entirely an illegitimate leakage -- linkage. they are attacking ships in a reckless manner. >> -- illegitimate. free gaza. >> the committee will be in order. >> including those destined -- they even attacked one ship that was loaded with corn for iran. they attacked russian ships, chinese ships. they have engendered a huge amount of international enmity as a result of that and i see --

i think you see that reflected in the number of countries who are speaking out in various ways about the problem, but i think the fact that they continue this and have said publicly that they will not stop until there is a cease-fire in gaza is an indication that we are not yet at the point, unfortunately, where they do intend to dial back. >> ambassador schapiro, the ministration has largely pointed to general article two authorities as their justification for this military campaign. i know that you do not serve in the dod's general counsel office. but this looks to me like more in every bit of the constitutional sense. we have engaged in multiple rounds of strikes. we have a limited number of boots on the ground. we have taken casualties. we have prisoners. i am having a hard time understanding why this does not

require a traditional congressional war authorization. so maybe you can speak for a moment about the administration's legal basis for these ongoing strikes? >> thank you, senator. u.n. forces have maintained the ability to defend themselves when attacked. >> u.s. forces maintain the ability to defend themselves when they are operating lawfully on the world's oceans and they have the right, the obligation, to defend and protect u.s. shipping that comes under attack from various sources including piracy when they are transiting international waters. the president to direct the deliberate strikes, consistent with his article two authority as commander-in-chief, to protect and defend u.s. personnel and certain partners. the strikes are also necessary and proportionate actions in the inherent right to self-defense

reflected in article 51 of the united nations charter. beyond that, i would certainly defer to colleagues in the office of the general counsel on appropriate occasions the president has forwarded to the congress a report, consistent with the war powers resolution, but i will defer to the -- to my colleagues to go further. >> senator young. >> thank you, chairman. the chairman has -- he reference the importance of -- in this context. the chairman of the committee also articulated that. i would just emphasize, historically, it has been important to me that congress takes its prerogatives as it relates to authorizing force seriously in part because i feel like this strengthens the hand of our commander in chief war fighters in reestablishing deterrence. so as this conversation moves

forward, the details will matter, but i really -- i want to emphasize that, and relatedly, dive into a number of follow-up questions on this war powers concern we have. so mr. schapiro, i will begin with you. in this vetting, can you walk through your understanding? i know you referred us to the office of legal counsel, of the department's legal views on unilateral u.s. action. feel free to challenge any premises i have here, but unilateral u.s. action to defend commercial ships of foreign nations. >> thank you, senator. the president again has directed these strikes, consistent with the article two authorities, to protect and defend u.s. personnel and certain partners. that is an important element. we have partners in this coalition and it is fully within the president's authority as commander-in-chief to make

those. >> is a precedent you are looking to? give me just one that gives a legal basis for operation prosperity guardians multilateral defense of shipping. >> senator, i would have to defer to colleagues to find the historical precedents for that, but that is an inherent did you not anticipate questions about the legal rationale before you came before the subcommittee? >> senator, we did indeed, those are the answers that we believe provide the president the authority to conduct these operations. both the defensive operations and indeed the responses. >> this is about as rigorous as i will say for the record -- not for you, of course, because you have been tasked with being here -- those are about as specific as the administration's rationale that they gave with the war powers notification. so we are going to need more

information on a going forward basis. reporting out bloomberg stated a legal theory as being developed by the ministration that operations in international waters are not even considered hostilities. or that brief and intermittent strikes don't constitute hostilities. and thus would not trigger the war powers resolution. can you speak to that? >> i am not familiar with that legal theory. the strikes -- >> i think i read about that in the new york times. >> i am not familiar. the strikes against u.s. missiles against international mariners are strikes certainly when it involves u.s. ships that the u.s. navy is obligated and has a right to defend against in international waters and there are necessary and proportionate responses under article 51 of the united nations charter.

>> has the united states military entered into hostilities with the houthis, yes or no? >> these are strikes on houthi targets. that might be the correct term. i don't know that is the correct legal term for what we are engaged in but we obviously have struck, as i said, many, many targets in yemen where the houthis have weapons that they have used and are using and sometimes are in the process of using against us and against our partners. >> i will change gears a little bit. what is the long-term assessment of what authorities the administration is going to need if it continues this prolonged exchange of fire with the houthis? >> it is very hard to speculate on hypotheticals about how the conflict could evolve. until now, i think we feel very strongly the president has the authorities, the ones i have articulated. i don't think there is any question and his hearing is part of it. the administration is committed to consult with congress on

additional actions going forward and the authorities under which they would be conducted. >> thank you. what is the administration's anticipated endpoint at which it assesses it has restored deterrence? >> we need to see the houthis stop these attacks. we clearly have not seen that yet. they clearly feel that it serves some interest, whether it is an internal one, whether it is an iranian agenda, whether it is a regional raising of their profile, whatever it is, and we have removed and degraded considerable capability. they still have capability so until they stop, we are not done. >> so just extending that, not done, can you characterize for me what level of military activity is going to be necessary, the administration is prepared to take, to reach that endpoint so they are not done? >> senator, it is hard to speculate. much of it depends on when they

decide they have endured enough of the strikes that we -- degraded enough of the capability that we are capable of in exercising now on an ongoing basis. we hope to restore stability and de-escalate tensions in the region very soon. we don't want to assume this will take a particular amount of time. we want to use all the tools and the partners and the capabilities we have to make very clear to them and of course to iran, their supporters and sponsors, that this must end and we will continue to take action until it comes to an end. >> senator kaine. >> thank you, mr. chair, and thank you thank you to the witnesses. houthi behavior is abhorrent but i have got to admit, i have great skepticism about what we are doing right now. i have grave skepticism about the legal authorities. i have grave skepticism about the absence of true shared responsibility. with nations whose ships are

being attacked by the houthis. why should the u.s. and the u.k. be shouldering the burden of protecting other nations ships? i have serious skepticism about the effectiveness of this operation in terms of de-escalation to the attacks on the red sea. to begin with, on legal authority, i think we have all conceded that there is no congressional authorization for these hostilities. the definition of the war powers resolution has clearly been met when we are talking about 200 attacks on houthis. we are losing troops, they are losing civilian casualties and others. this is hostilities. there is no congressional authorization for them. to claim that this is covered by article two, self-defense -- it means you can defend u.s. personnel. you can defend u.s. military assets. you probably can defend u.s. commercial ships. but the defense of other nations commercial ships in no way -- it's not even close -- that's not self-defense under the

constitution, and a president cannot make it self-defense by calling another nation a partner. if you are defending the commercial ships of other nations, it is in my view laughable to call that self-defense. and so a narrow mission to defend u.s. shipping, both military and commercial, that is article two self-defense but broader efforts to defend commercial ships of other nations, while it might be strategically a good idea, there is no constitutional authorization to do that unilaterally. and second, taking offensive actions and striking targets within yemen to degrade you many capacity -- yemeni capacity, houthi capacity, while it might be strategically a smart thing to do, that is not self-defense under article two, so i basically view this at the first level as a set of actions that might have a strategic value although we have yet to see a

strategy. senator young and senator murphy and i wrote a letter to the administration asking these questions on january 23 and we don't have a response, but there may be a strategic wisdom and -- wisdom in doing it. it is far beyond what power should be. number two, shared response ability. commercial shipping in the red sea involves ships from many nations and although there are partners in this operation, the military actions are being undertaken by the united states and the u.k. why should the united states and u.k. be shouldering the burden of this? there needs to be -- if we can get to a point where we can actually authorize u.s. participation, we should not do it without other nations participating, but finally, i guess my most serious skepticism right now is that the effectiveness of this. president biden himself has said that the actions that we are undertaking are not likely to deter houthi escalation. i am a little disappointed that

you so quickly tried to pour cold water on the idea that this is connected to the war in gaza. these attacks started on november 19. the houthis has said this is because of the war in gaza. now you have pointed out instances of ships that were not going to israel or instances of ships that had food that were going to nations that needed food. but i think the most natural interpretation of this is the houthis seeing some suffer in the region are saying others are going to suffer in the region until we figure out a response and i would venture to suggest that about the only time we have seen something that was a de-escalation moment was in the week plus long pause in gaza when the first hostage deal was done so trying to reestablish deterrence, i don't think you are going to do it if the 200 tricks become 400 strikes, 800 strikes, 1200 strikes.

i think you will reestablish deterrence when we get a hostage deal that leads us to a truce that leads us to humanitarian aid into gaza that leads us to the ability to discuss whether whatever that truce period is can be extended. and so, i hope you don't just pour cold water on the idea that this isn't really related to gaza because the timing of it was related to gaza. they are saying it is related to gaza and the only period of de-escalation that we have seen was during the first hostage release. i'm going to continue to press on the legal authority questions and i think many of us have these questions and there some difference of opinion i think on the committee about whether this u.s. strategy is going to involve de-escalation at all or whether it's actually going to foment more regional conflict. i consider myself in the camp of senators who believe the u.s.

involvement in another war in the middle east would reflect that we learned virtually nothing over the last 25 years. and we definitely should not slip or slide into a war. this is the kind of thing that can lead us to slip or slide into a war and that is why congress needs to be engaged and have a debate about whether this is a mission that is in the national interest or not. i yield back, mr. chair. >> thank you, mr. chairman. for the witness's benefit, i will not be talking about that but i think we have discussed that fully and it is an important topic and i concur with the direction of the questions that have been asked so far. i am very concerned about the fact that this is an attack on trade in the red sea which i presume affects the nations along the red sea in a very significant way and only bahrain

is participating in preventing or defending against these attacks. what is the administration suffered with saudi arabia in terms of becoming more involved in this effort? and is there progress in that front? >> thank you, senator. i think that is a very apt question to ask as well. i know that from stateside, secretary blinken, this was a very significant issue that was raised early on and we felt, i think, as ambassador shapiro said, that the president had said this is an international problem and needs an international response, and certainly, we need to see our golf partners in the game tomorrow. i think we all feel that that is the case. there is not a country in the gulf that does not -- that approves of what the houthis are doing. >> what is happening with the saudi's? are they getting on

board? is the admonition ration working with them? and the other nations, uae and so forth, is their effort in that regard? >> sorry. there is certainly engagement at my level. i will not speak for the defense department, but ticket terry of state as well, if anything, to expand this coalition, either opg or the strike coalition, there is very strong recognition that the golf partners, i think -- gulf partners, this is a multi faceted thing. >> what is the economic impact? i know shipping rates for europe and asia have gone up significantly but even in the atlantic, and pacific, shipping rates have gone up in part because there's less container capacity as a result of people having to go around the cape. but who suffers from this? chinese traders suffering? the nations along the red sea

suffering? who is suffering as a result of what they are doing? where is the economic impact? i guess what i am getting at is this. why isn't china putting pressure on them? why are they putting pressure on iran? i mean, we are out there with our flag flying and our men and women in harm's way. china is the nation that i would presume is most impacted by closing off trade to the red sea and yet they are sitting on the sidelines, pretending like everybody is friend. why is china not being embarrassed? you mentioned in your testimony that, you know, the houthis are suffering international enmity. i don't think they could care less, the houthis, about international enmity. china cares, however, and putting a spotlight on china's lack of involvement and lack of effort to stop these attacks i think would be highly effective. help me with this idea. who suffers the most in terms of

trade? and why is china not participating? >> i could not agree more with you, senator. i think the burden has to be shared because the pain is being felt in multiple realms in multiple regions. if you look at where the impact is, you look at a country like egypt where suez canal fees are down 50% and it is impacting the currency, impacting the ability of their economy to function. you look at the movement of humanitarian supplies in the sudan, and desperately poor situation. violence prevailing there. that is very disturbing. the ethiopian economy also suffering and yemen itself. the mnes themselves -- yemenis themselves are being hurt. the decrease of commercial activity going into yemen's own ports. >> it strikes me that we are there at huge risk and huge economic impact for ourselves in order to support the chinese economy. and to support the economies of people on the red sea who are all sitting back quietly

supporting iran. who is giving the support that the houthis are relying upon. i find it -- i wonder -- i mean, what are the strategic options here? one is to say we are out. you want to close down the red sea, that is up to you guys unless you want to step in and protect it. the idea that we are there, suffering, and these people are not defending themselves and putting pressure on iran is something i just don't understand. mr. chairman, my time is up so i will stop there. >> senator hagerty. >> thank you, mr. chairman. special envoy, i would like to spend some time with you. you have been dealt a tough hand. i would like to talk with you about the designation that the trump administration made of the houthis as a foreign terrorist organization and the fact that shortly after the biden administration took office, they delisted the houthis as a

foreign terrorist organization. we saw what has happened in the time in between. there have been attacks on our allies at uae, attacks on our allies, the saudi's, attacks on u.s. personnel in our facilities in the middle east. we have seen a tremendous amount of unrest since that time. and i think you know that i'm going to read for my colleagues here what the designation of foreign terrorist organization requires. first, it requires that it is a foreign organization. indeed, houthis are. it engages in terrorist activity or it retains the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism. yes, they do. and finally, the terrorism of the organization threatens the security of the united states nationals or the national security of the united states. the houthis meet these

requirements. my question for you, is the trump administration wrong as designating them a foreign terrorist organization? >> thank you, senator. as you know, there was a strong movement within the trump administration to designate the houthis that led to the fto. a new administration sought to prioritize yemen as a foreign policy priority and i believe that effort has borne fruit in terms of the peace process which i described, but yes, over time -- >> i also saw the article in foreign affairs where our national security advisor claimed the middle east was in the greatest period of peace we have ever seen and now, we have seen what happened. my question is, what do they have to do to be declared a foreign terrorist organization? do they have to kill americans? >> certainly not. we have come down hard with this designation that we have. it is a possibility. i think we constantly assess the impact of the campaign that we are doing, both the military,

the impact of the designation, and what i describe will cut off financial networks, their ability to fund raise. it will put some hurt and if we need to address to the fto, if these attacks continue, -- >> i would like to see more than a little hurt. i would like to see this address, sir. let me go to another thing that concerns me and that has to do with the diversion of the aid that we send to yemen. i think about what hamas has done with the aid that we sent to gaza. i am deeply concerned that they may as well divert the aid that we are sending. the u.s. taxpayer-funded humanitarian aid that we are sending into yemen. i have a very disturbing example here and i'm sure there are others but the biden administration right now is sending over $1.1 million for the yemen-based operations of norwegian people's aid. norwegian people's aid. this is an organization that settled a civil lawsuit with the department of justice and 2018 for previously providing training and expert advice to

the iranian military anti-palestinian terrorist groups including hamas and we are sending our tax dollars there. they started receiving them in august of last year and they are supposed to be receiving them all the way through september of this year. we should not send a penny to an organization like this. so my question to you, and i know this is a tough question to answer, but can you guarantee that our taxpayer dollars that are going to yemen are not in some way being diverted to the houthis to support this activity that we are talking about right now? >> senator, i think that is an incredibly important point. i'm not aware of any taxpayer dollar going to support this type of activity. that should not be happening. that is definitely not within the priorities of our -- >> can you guarantee our taxpayer money won't wind up supporting the houthis doing exactly what they are doing, which is putting u.s. and many other lives at risk, driving up inflation not only in the region as was described in mr. schapiro, but it is disrupting

supply chains, causing cargo shipments to go up, causing inflation right here, hurting americans at home. i'm concerned we are funding both sides of the proposition here by sending this aid there. >> senator, i share the concern. i will certainly take a look at that. >> i would appreciate that. secretary blinken not answer me either when i asked him about the foreign aid that is going into gaza and being diverted by hamas. please address this. >> thank you for your time. >> are you ready to go, senator? >> i am. thank you. and q, mr. chairman. welcome to both of you. it's great to see you. just my friend, senator hagerty, i would suggest everybody look at the statements including a recent renewal statement by david satterfield, our ambassador, that makes it absolutely clear that when it comes to aid being provided by u.n. organizations and international ngos, that he's got no reports of diversion even from our israeli friends and i

would be happy to share that with the senator. >> if i might, i had direct reports from israelis that that is exactly what is happening. >> they have not reported it to the person on the ground, david satterfield, who is our coordinator and that is the statement i got from him a couple days ago. happy to share it with you. >> it would only require him to ask an actual security adviser. >> thank you. if i could have a few more minutes, look, i want to pick up on a couple of questions raised by senator kaine. an ambassador schapiro, good to see you. which is, you know, there's been lots of discussion here about our actions against the houthis and i am fully in support of protecting waterways. but let's also recognize that the houthi action has been in response to the war on gaza. would you not agree with that, mr. schapiro? >> thank you,

senator. i would certainly agree that the houthis have made the claim that that is the original motivation for their attacks. i think they made some other claims along the way. i would just simply say that whatever the rationale or reason or claim that the houthis or any other organization would make for conducting these kinds of attacks, there is no legitimacy to them. >> ambassador, i agree with you that there is no legitimacy. there is no disagreement there. but isn't it a fact that the houthi attacks on shipping went down significantly during the period of the humanitarian pause in november? >> i believe there was a decline during that period. it was not a complete cessation, and they have been various points when there have been spikes and valleys so i don't know to what we can attribute that. sometimes, i think the decline is in response to our strikes while they reload and prepare

for their next strikes. >> our strikes, as you know, came after this humanitarian pause. their reduction in strikes, during that pause period, cannot be attribute it to the actions we took in terms of strikes. i think the record is pretty clear. but if i could ask you, as you know, the algerians had a cease-fire resolution at the u.n. which we veto it but at the same time, we said we were going to propose a un security council resolution. i don't know if you have had a chance to look at some of the provisions that have been put out there by the united states, but one of them indicates that under current circumstances, a major ground offensive into roscoe would result in further harm to civilians and further displacement including potentially into neighboring countries. do you agree with that conclusion? >> a bit outside my brief to speak about the security council resolution. the state department should address that. i will say that in all of our recent engagements with israel,

that includes secretary austin's conversations with the minister for defense, conversations between our military, we made very clear that no-op and should be considered or undertaken in rafah without a clear and executable plan and the follow-through to implement it to ensure the safe evacuation of civilians who are seeking safe harbor in rafah and provision for their humanitarian needs as they move. >> given that, would you agree that it would be a mistake for the united states to provide more offensive weapons at this time to the netanyahu government without receiving assurances with respect to actions in rafah that we requested? >> as you know, senator, the president has made clear from the beginning of this conflict on october 7 that he will help ensure israel has what it needs to defend itself following those terrible terrorist attacks and ensuring they cannot be

repeated, that they must observe the laws of war, the laws of conflict, and ensure that they do the maximum to protect civilians and provide for their humanitarian needs. as you know, our president is very much in dialogue with you, senator, issued a national security memorandum which will help ensure that we receive a credible -- credible assurances from all of our partners who received fence articles. >> i very much appreciate the president taking that action. i think it was an important step and i think you and the administration and the president of course on that. but let me just say, i think it would be sending very mixed signals if prior to receiving clear assurances from the netanyahu government that they won't take the actions in rafah that we are worried about, we were to at the same time at thee time, extend further significant military assistance. finally, mr. chairman, i would like to include in the record a

statement made by smith the powers that aid in jordan where she is standing in front of lots of world food program shipments, saying they should be into gaza. i would ask you, ambassador shapiro, and both of you, to take back to the president's administration, 20 senators, 25, i think, actually, talks about five specific actions the netanyahu government needs to take, things that are common sense measures, that, in the view of many of us, should be taken right now. thank you, mr. chairman. chair murphy: thank you. i will add it to the record. senator, you and i will close a series of second round questions. i want to start with, i think, you know, it is a really important thing, from senator

kaine, certainly from senator van hollen. listen, i support the actions the administration has taken, because i believe the united states is the guarantor of the freedom of navigation of international waters. we have an obligation to respond when united states' interests are being attacked in waters. but i do worry about a campaign of military strikes when we have seen very little evidence that airstrikes against the who these have restored -- the houthi s have restored deterrence. i would know that nine of the locations targeted by the united states and u.k. strikes in january of this year were previously hit by 419 airstrikes in the saudi lit air war between 2015 and 2022. so if 23,000 airstrikes by the saudi's were not effective in

moving the needle militarily and restoring deterrence, how can we be confident that our campaign of airstrikes will have a different action. mr. lenderking: thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, we are dealing with an organization now designated as a terrorist organization that simply thinks the rules don't apply to it. they are backed by a common denominator of a range of threats around the region by iran, which provides weapons, intelligence, financial support, and training, and they, too, have an agenda, and that is to try to get the united states to be part of the middle east. these are the actors we are dealing with them and what our strikes are intended to demonstrate, first of all, is

that we will continue to degrade and remove their capabilities if they continue to conduct these attacks. we will also try to interdict as much as we can and work with our partners on that. we will, of course, defend those who are transiting the waters. we will be prepared to take additional actions if there are, obviously, action against us or our people. we have demonstrated that clearly in our responses to the tragic attack on tower 22 in jordan. there was a very strong u.s. response in iraq and syria against targets, individuals, and facilities. and, it has, until now, led to a quiet period, since february 4. we don't want to take that for granted. it has demonstrated to iran, again, one of the key enablers of the houthis, that we

are going to respond. chair murphy: it is extensive, and they have shown over the course of seven years of significant airstrikes of the saudis to quickly rebuild their capacity. it is not a lot of evidence that during the. period of these airstrikes we have had any effective deterrents. do we believe there is a finite amount of infrastructure that can be hit and destroyed so as to change the reality inside the red sea, through military options alone? amb. shapiro: we know that they still have capability, you know, we have a good sense of the numerator, what we've been able to eliminate. we don't fully know the denominator. that is information we are working to develop, and we are working on expanding through interdiction's and working with partners to prevent other smuggling activity. i cannot tell you that we know

there is a moment when they will decide that they've had enough. that is our intention, to make sure they understand that if they continue to target us and our innocent mariners, then we will work with our partners to protect them, and we will work, respond as appropriate. chair murphy: let me ask you one more question on the authorization. i agree it is a very troubling and creative interpretation of article two authority to extend protection to partners. i agree with senator kaine that that is probably not a theory in good standing. but let me ask you if you believe that article to authorities give you the ability to attack partners of those that are directing attacks at u.s. partners.

i'm asking, of course, about iran. you have existing article ii authority to launch strikes against iranian assets or iran itself. amb. shapiro: i would really be overstepping to speculate on authorities for targeted strikes that have not taken place. i will say that the president's article ii authority was very much relevant in the response strikes following the attack on jordan in which u.s. service members were killed. i do think that has an impact. it is impacting iran's thinking, since the target included irgc-affiliated facilities, and it included individuals that the irgc was well-known to

target in their attack on the united states, so we take it seriously. >> the houthis has indicated if they are relisted as a terrorist group, they will expel humanitarian workers or take other actions. can you provide any update on where those threats stand as well as a practical invitation as a nation on the ground? amb. shapiro: thank you, senator. but who these took a few actions which obviously have not had a great deal of impact. they did, as you note, threatened to expel u.s. and u.k. aid workers in yemen. there are a number of u.s. and u.k. nationals who do a lot of great work on the humanitarian side in yemen. from what i understand so far, the houthis have not made good on those threats.

the u.s. led -- they are a militant group, recently designated as a terrorist group, and they have taken action to designate us. they said they will continue their attacks on shipping, so they have taken a few steps which i think are mainly for their own public exemption. sen. young: over the years, you spent countless days in the region. you may head there again soon, we were discussing before the hearing. can you describe how the narrative has shifted since the brutal attacks on october 7, in terms of bringing peace to yemen from before the war to now? mr. lenderking: well, i think a significant number of yemenis want to see the yemen conflict

and a. i think it is heartening that the truth which was set in april of 2022, has essentially held inside yemen. so despite the fact that there was an attack on the red sea by the houthis, the internal war in yemen has not heated up, and we are very concerned that could happen and be another effect, if you will, of a prolonged situation on the red sea. and, by the way senator,, i think it is also important that the roadmap that i described is something that the parties that is the yemen government and that houthis and the saudis all say they want to see achieved. i think that is important. a key priority, of course, is to get the red sea attacks under control. sen. young: what if there is ongoing escalation? what are the applications for your broader efforts to try and -- mr. lenderking: there's no

question that a broader escalation or continuation of the status quo undermines the peace effort which we've worked very hard to achieve over the last three years and would come ultimately, i think, degrade our own effort in the region, which is behind seeing a peace effort. we are not want to see a return of al qaeda in yemen, we don't want to see isis buildup. stability in yemen is important to our interests and to those of our partners. we want to see this effort drive forward. the roadmap that i referred to, senator, is the best opportunity that yemen has had for peace since this conflict began. chair murphy: before i recognize senator cruz, i would be remiss if i did not ask a question about china. in the last year or so, it like to a style itself as a power in

the middle east, yet here we are, in the midst of a security crisis, for so many and diplomatic crisis in the region, and china is nowhere to be found. how is this an example of chinese in action be helpful for our diplomats, if at all, and pushing back on chinese the medic and financial inroads in the region. seems like an opportunity to remind people who is working to affect positive change in the region. mr. lenderking: senator, thank you, and i picked up on questions that senator romney posed about the chinese role, and we see a certain degree of freeloading that is absolutely unacceptable when we talk about an international problem that needs an international solution. when he the chinese much more aggressively engaged. they are feeling the impact economically of the red sea attacks on their own shipping

effort, and i would just assure you that we had a dialogue at my level and senior levels of the government with the chinese about taking a more responsible role in the red sea. and we will continue that. chair murphy: senator cruz. sen. cruz: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. shapiro, you have worked on iran-related issues throughout this administration. you are now at the defense department. meanwhile, the biden administration has allowed the iranian regime to build up a ghost fleet of tankers which are third country flagged takers. that fleet grew to about 70 vessels at the beginning of the administration to almost 400 tankers today. the iranian regime used that goes fleet to ship over one billion barrels of oil and to

make unaccountable tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars. when joe biden came into power, iran was selling roughly 300,000 barrels of oil a day. today, due to the biden administration's appeasement of iran, iran is selling roughly 2 million barrels of oil a day. those billions of dollars went directly to fund terrorism. they went to the houthis, they went to hamas, they went to hezbollah. they pay for the houthis terrorism and for the october 7 atrocities in israel. the biden administration refused to meaningfully enforce our sanctions, and we are seeing the consequences with more in the middle east. in your judgment, how has the biden administration's appeasement of iran and refusal

to enforce stations against iran, how has that worked out for the safety and security of israel and the safety and security of americans? amb. shapiro: thank you, senator. a number of the questions you raised about sanctions enforcement are problems for the treasury department, and i simply come on behalf of the defense department, will have to defer to my colleagues there. i will tell you that the subject of the hearings focuses on how we are responding to this particular threat on an arabian sponsored and -- iranian-sponsored and backed houthi invasion and responses to others -- sen. cruz: i had a question. how is this working for the safety and security is real and the safety and security of america? you are not answering. amb. shapiro: we are making clear to iran through our partners in the region and its need to defend itself or israel, to our own responses, when

iranian backed organizations have targeted our personnel and tragically have killed three of our personnel, and in their sponsorship of the houthis military strikes against free shipping and the red sea, that we will respond. sen. cruz: with all respect, that is baloney, and the ayatollah has heard the message. how many ghost fleet vessels did the biden administration section before october 7? amb. shapiro: again, sanctions belong to the treasury department. sen. cruz: you don't know the answer? is the biden administration concerned about the billions of dollars they continue to flow to the ayatollah today? right now today, that money is floating to the ayatollah today because there are 400 ships in the ghost fleet that this administration will not sanction. the ayatollah is selling much of that oil to communist china.

if that is being used to fund hamas, hezbollah, the houthis, and the biden administration's response is "we made very clear" -- baloney. why will the biden administration not cut off the money from iran? amb. shapiro: senator, i have to stay in the lane of the department of defense. sen. cruz: did you work with robert malley and his task force? amb. shapiro: i worked with a few months with special envoy mallett, yes. sen. cruz: i find it impossible you have no views on the $100 billion plus that joe biden has gifted to the ayatollah, that has been used to murder americans and murder israelis. i'm asking you, isn't it time to cut off the money? amb. shapiro: on behalf of the defense department, what i can say is when we do see iran,

which we do see on a daily basis, supporting terrorism, providing weapons, providing intelligence, sponsorship, and training to terrorist organizations, we made very clear to iran -- sen. cruz: but you don't make clear. if they continue to have the money, you are not making it clear. here's $100 billion, but we will send you a stern letter. it's not just iran, by the way. the houthis. listen, the trumpet administration rightly designated houthis as a foreign terrorist organization, within a month of taking office. what did the biden administration do? delisted the houthis. finally last month, the biden administration was forced to relist the houthis as a specially designated terrorist group. with a quiet warded they continue to be the terrorists

they were the whole time even while the administration was trying to appease them? amb. shapiro: some of this is special envoy a lenderking's realm. it is not only the designation that they are behaving as a terrorist organization but also the defensive organization -- sen. cruz: prior to january of this year, they were not behaving as terrorists? were they terrorists last year? amb. shapiro: they were designated as -- sen. cruz: i'm asking you, is a dod's view, for they a designated terrorist organization, yes or no? and your delisting them was indefensible, it has proven catastrophic. chair murphy: just as a quick follow-up, mr. shapiro, to mr.

cruz's line of questioning, forces in the region have interdicted, shipping, special envoy lenderking referenced it earlier, interdicting shipments from iran over to yemen for a number of years running. can you describe briefly, and then i will turn it over to my colleague, senator barrasso, mr. shapiro, how did the smugly situation eve also is october 7? and since we have surged our forces in the red and the arabian sea? amb. shapiro: thank you, senator. we know it continues. details to describe exactly what we are seeing, the volume, the bricks, the shipments probably require in a closed session.

because we continue to see those efforts, we have undertaken, and that in particular has been in the read on this, enhance efforts to identify and interdict those shipments when we see them. we do communicate with various partners who could also bring that capability to interdict. ambassador lenderking and i have worked together at looking at opportunities to strengthen the inspection mechanism, which tinker shipments on the way, are also searched for weapons. this is a work in progress. i believe it does continue, but because we know it continues, we are upping our efforts to interdict those shipments. chair murphy: senator barrasso. sen. barrasso: mr. lenderking, last week, i was in djibouti. we have 140 members of the wyoming air national guard there, right there at the tip of

activities, the hotspot we see is happening with the attack on the ships on the tray coming to the point they cannot get through the suez canal, adding about 12 days to the transit time, concern adding to the cost, significantly impacting foreign trade. all of these things as a result of the houthis and what they are doing in the area, i mean, ships, drones, missiles, only about 11 miles i was there at the point, looking at how close they were. "the new york times" says there's a big exposé about how the administration is falling down on the job of trying to prevent the sale of iranian oil to china. 59 million barrels of oil, they describe them as "shadowy takers," that left iran, and all of these have ended up in

china. the cash from all of this ended up in iran, i believe the lowest prices of oil would be 2.8 billion dollars, but it will likely be much more when prices fluctuate. the secretary came and testified and said things are fine, we are doing everything we can. we don't believe it. the soldiers that are there for their lives don't believe that. that the money being used by attacks, houthis, iran come on american soldiers the last few months. we know the sale is coming from oil that we should be blocking. i think the administration has failed completely, the president is being outworked, outplayed, and outmaneuvered by the iranians, the world, the diminished president is not up to the job. what are you doing at the state

department to prevent this ongoing effort to sell, for iran to continue to be able to sell to china? they are working together, and there's also been drones to russia. north korea is belligerent as well. it seems like we are not where we want to be. as a state department official, what is your response to all of this? amb. shapiro: thank you, senator, first of all for visiting djibouti. it is not everyone's first thought of where to go, but we have important interest there. i have been there three times, so i am aware of you the details of which you speak. we do have details for the ship, and i certainly agree with you the iranians are not supposed to be able to sell that kind of will to china. i think there are very vigorous efforts to counter that with our partners and allies, and that kind of funding i think that you are speaking about is in violation of not only u.s.

interest but also numerous un security council resolutions. sen. barrasso: it does seem like it was a "new york times" expoée that brought into the fore, and the administration seems to be underwear. -- unaware. mr. lenderking: i certainly think the administration is aware of it. sen. barrasso: if they were aware of it, then they tried to mislead congress intentionally, because the secretary said we are doing everything possible, and we show this to the world in terms of press coverage. anything you want to add on this? ok. we could go on and on. the other thing that is on djibouti, and i wanted to ask you this, china is building a long base there. you can see from the air coming in, from the ground. china is making significant investments in that area.

the base was named after the commander of the base at the time, that communist china is making significant investments right in that area. aid comes down in the goes up into the red sea. from the state department's standpoint, anything you are noticing from that in me to be concerned with? mr. lenderking: certainly, senator, we are aware of the chinese expansion within the gulf region, which is, by and large, not in our interest. that is part of the engagement we have at the chinese and also our partners in the region and east asia as well. sen. barrasso: mr. shapiro, last month, qatar energy decided to suspend all transits to the red sea. this led to shipments around the cape of good hope in south africa, adding significant delays about in africa.

much more fuel being expended to move the products around. at the same time, russia, iran both building up their lng export capacity. was it helped or hurt by president biden's decision, putting a pause on that, given that the supplies of qatar are now forced to go around africa? senator, i am not an expert on energy markets or energy export policy, so i will decline to answer. sen. barrasso: i will just tell you collate is hurting. amb. shapiro: may i address china? china has been mentioned on a couple of occasions and what is quite clear is that china is playing no role to help with the multilateral international efforts to defend legitimate shipping in the international waterways. it is one of those moments when i think it has become clear to our partners in the region,

sometimes when people ask questions, are they going to remain committed to the u.s., or will be u.s. remain committed to the region, or will they have our son it if security partners? they did not have alternative security partners in china. there's no one to do what we are doing to defend this region. i think it has been a moment of clarity in this regard. sen. barrasso: what is the administration's strategy to ensure europe is not forced to to turn to iran and russia for lng? since they are not going to a export because of the administration was a new policy. that is indefensible. chair murphy: thank you very much, senator barrasso. let me thank you both for being here today, particularly mr. lenderking, thank you for all you have done to try to bring a

political settlement to the people of yemen. i know we were close, and i think one of the reasons why we need to place an imperative and a priority on bringing to close this round of hostilities is so you and others can get back to the work of trying to midwife that political compromise. i noticed an individual with the resemblance in the audience, so i want to welcome your father and stepmother to the hearing today. they should be very proud of the work you are son has done to try to bring peace to a region that has been without it for far too long. with that, thank you for your testimony. senator young and i have commented this has been one of the most substantive and wide-ranging hearings on this committee. we will keep the record open for members to submit questions until close of business on thursday. the subcommittee hearing is now adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

[indistinct conversations]