it's swell, a protestor shouts. it's swell, a second interruption _ protestor shouts. it's swell, a second interruption and, - protestor shouts. it's swell, a second interruption and, just - second interruption and, just like the last, security moving on quickly, the doors opened, the person i checked it and now closed. —— the person objected and now closed. while america too often privatised the global order above our core national interests, other nations continued to act the way that nations have always acted and always will, in what they perceived to be their best interest and, instead of folding into the post—cold war global order, they have manipulated it to serve their interests at the expense of ours. we welcomed the chinese communist party into the global order and they took advantage of all its benefits and ignored all of its obligations and

responsibilities. instead, they have repressed and lied and cheated and hacked and stolen their way into global superpower status, and they have done so at our expense and at the expense of the people of their own country. in our very own hemisphere, narco terrorists, dictators, desperate to take advantage of open borders to drive mass migration, to traffic in women and children and flood our communities with deadly fentanyl and violent criminals, in moscow and tehran and pyongyang, dictators, world states now sow chaos and stability and align with and fund radical terror groups and hide behind the veto power of the un security council or the threats of nuclear war. the post—war global order is not just obsolete, it is not a weapon being used against us, and all this has led to a

moment in which we must now confront the single greatest risk of geopolitical instability and generational global crisis in the lifetime of anyone alive and in this room today. eight decades later, we are once again called to create a free world out of the chaos, and this will not be easy, and it will be impossible without a strong and confident america that engages in the world, putting our core national interest again above all else. just four years ago, i believe we began to see the outlines and beginnings of what that would look like, during president trump's first term that american strength as a deterrent to adversaries. there were new wars, isis was eviscerated, solar money was dead, the historic abraham accords were born, americans were safer as a result. now president trump returns to office with an unmistakable mandate from the voters. they

want a strong america, a strong america engaged in the world, but guided by a clear objective, to promote peace abroad and security and prosperity here at home to stop thatis prosperity here at home to stop that is the promise that president trump was elected to keep and that i am confirmed keeping that promise will be the core mission of the united states department of state. tragically, horrifying atrocities and unimaginable human suffering can be found on virtually every continent, and i am certain that today i will be asked about the array of programmes and activities department of state carried out to address them. when our nation was founded on the revolutionary truth that all men are critical in that our rights come not from man or government but from god, so we will never be indifferent to the suffering of our fellow man. but ultimately, under president trump, a top priority of the united states department

of the united states department of state will be the united states. the direction he has given for the conduct of our foreign policy is clear. every dollar we spend, every programme we fund, every policy we pursue must bejustified by the answer to one of three questions, does it make america safer, does it make america stronger, or does it make america more prosperous? under president trump, the dollars of hard—working american taxpayers ha rd—working american taxpayers will always hard—working american taxpayers will always be spent wisely and our power will always be wilted appropriately and towards what is best for america and americans before anything and everything else. prudence in the conduct of foreign policy is not an abandonment of our values. it is the common—sense understanding that, while we remain the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth, our wealth has never been unlimited at our power has never been infant. placing our core

national interest above all else is not isolation. it is the common—sense realisation that a foreign policy centred on our national interest is not some outdated relic. since the emergence of the modern nation state over two centuries ago, countries acting based on what they believe to be their core national interest has been the norm, not the exception and for our country, placing the interest of america and americans above all else has never been more relevant or more necessary than it is right now. in the end, how can america mode the cause of peace on earth if it is not first safe at home? what good is america and our allies it is not strong and how can america help end the suffering of gods children across the world if it is not first prosperous at home? i thank you and i hope i

can earn your support, whether it's because you believe i would do a good job or because you want to get rid of me. either way, the result is the same. thank you. i have voice been impressed with your view, particularly of the kind of problems that we face in our lane, relations and intelligence. we are now going to start a round of ten minute questions, since this is a cabinet level position. you don't have to use or ten minutes, but the ten minutes are there. what i am going to do in this hearing and future hearings is call upon people based on seniority on the committee at the time the gavel goes down. if you come after that, you will be put in line after that and we will go down the list like that. in any

event, could you talk for a minute about the russian energy reliance? i think all of us were impressed when the war started that the europeans knew the necessity of cutting the cord, reducing their reliance on russian energy, which had developed since the iron curtain came down, all of us believing that russia would behave itself, which turned out to be a merry misplaced view. and now, with the war carrying on, it's going to end at some point in time, obviously, there are voice in europe saying, we can go back to using russian energy. my view is that that is not reasonable and appropriate and, indeed, ithink not reasonable and appropriate and, indeed, i think the fallout from this war will go on for generations. your thoughts on the energy relationship between europe and russia in the future. i

believe, in 2010, then president trump on two occasions, once at the un and another— occasions, once at the un and another at _ occasions, once at the un and another at a nato conference, appointed for example to german reliance _ appointed for example to german reliance on russian energy is a real vulnerability, and he was snickered _ real vulnerability, and he was snickered at by the representatives of germany at the un — representatives of germany at the un. he turned out to be 100% — the un. he turned out to be 100% correct. that reliance on russian — 100% correct. that reliance on russian energy was a major loss of deterrence. vladimir putin, among — of deterrence. vladimir putin, among his _ of deterrence. vladimir putin, among his calculations, one compilation he took going to ukraine _ compilation he took going to ukraine was that the europeans would _ ukraine was that the europeans would complain, perhaps hit him with sanctions and write some strongly— with sanctions and write some strongly worded letters but ultimately would not be able to do anything effectively because of how— do anything effectively because of how much they depended on russia — of how much they depended on russia and in some cases continue _ russia and in some cases continue to depend. i believe france — continue to depend. i believe france is _ continue to depend. i believe france is the third leading player— france is the third leading player into russian energy in the world and i think a couple of other— the world and i think a couple of other european countries followed behind, so there is still— followed behind, so there is still significant dependence, and that dependence is a

tremendous amount of leverage that vladimir putin holds on his neighbours in europe. there is some — his neighbours in europe. there is some good news. i watched with— is some good news. i watched with great interest the german engineering model, where they have _ engineering model, where they have been able to, by the end of this— have been able to, by the end of this year, they waved permit inquiries — of this year, they waved permit inquiries and were able to open within— inquiries and were able to open within nine months a floating lng — within nine months a floating lng terminal to allow and receive _ lng terminal to allow and receive experts, including from the us— receive experts, including from the us and other places, so i think— the us and other places, so i think you _ the us and other places, so i think you are seeing movement in europe — think you are seeing movement in europe now is to try and did tangle — in europe now is to try and did tangle itself from that level of dependence, but it remains a real vulnerability and a tremendous piece of lethbridge for putin— tremendous piece of lethbridge for putin against his neighbours. it's also a reminder, and i used to be guilty— reminder, and i used to be guilty of— reminder, and i used to be guilty of saying this, that the russian _ guilty of saying this, that the russian gdp was the site of italy's. _ russian gdp was the site of italy's, not very large, i think— italy's, not very large, i think one of the things we have learnt _ think one of the things we have learnt from this endeavour is it's not— learnt from this endeavour is it's notjust the size of gdp but what _ it's notjust the size of gdp but what it is composed of, and

the russian gdp, while smaller than _ the russian gdp, while smaller than some other countries, is largely— than some other countries, is largely reliant on the production of raw materials, or energy. — production of raw materials, or energy, food production, fertiliser and the like, and these _ fertiliser and the like, and these are critical components of national strength and a reminder of how important they are for— reminder of how important they are for us— reminder of how important they are for us domestically. | are for us domestically. i appreciate that. we ought to acknowledge that the europeans did a job that was well beyond our expectations the first winter, as they struggled, and they did it pretty well, as far as cutting the cord with russia being as how hard they were tied to that. there hasn't been much discussion about orkut since that thing started. a lot of us have been pressing the administration to give that up. it has not been forthcoming. i'd like to hear your thoughts on orcus, the important thereof and getting this thing moving

as it was intended. ah, as it was intended. a commencement of this relies on the dupont of defence and other entities — the dupont of defence and other entities in government, to the extent— entities in government, to the extent the department of state is engaged, i think you'll find strong — is engaged, i think you'll find strong support it in this administration. because i think it is a _ administration. because i think it is a blueprint of how we can create — it is a blueprint of how we can create partnerships with nation states, — create partnerships with nation states, to _ create partnerships with nation states, to confront global challenges, be it in the defence wrong, the technology reatnr, — defence wrong, the technology realm, critical minerals, sensitive _ realm, critical minerals, sensitive technologies, criticat _ sensitive technologies, critical technologies on, for example, ai critical technologies on, for example, aland advances in quantum _ example, aland advances in quantum computing. this is more but it's— quantum computing. this is more but it's an — quantum computing. this is more but it's an example of how we can leveraged the power of partnerships with allies, two or three _ partnerships with allies, two or three countries in some cases. _ or three countries in some cases, brought in others, to reach — cases, brought in others, to reach outcomes and objectives like creating geopolitical and strategic balances in the indo—pacific and beyond. we

will have _ indo—pacific and beyond. we will have to look at that and see what _ will have to look at that and see what components of whatever impediments exist can be removed by the action of the department of state, but it also — department of state, but it also reminds us that very few global— also reminds us that very few global issues are entirely reliant— global issues are entirely reliant on that part of state we have _ reliant on that part of state we have a host of other government agencies who also play a — government agencies who also play a critical role in expediting and going through some — expediting and going through some of the lists of technologies that perhaps are now being transferred because they have been deemed sensitive but, they have been deemed sensitive but. in _ they have been deemed sensitive but. in the — they have been deemed sensitive but, in the case of our strong and _ but, in the case of our strong and close _ but, in the case of our strong and close allies, that's the point, _ and close allies, that's the point, you want to be able to find — point, you want to be able to find yourself in a situation where _ find yourself in a situation where you can accelerate partnerships by making available to key allies these sensitive technologies that we wouldn't want to sit in the hands _ wouldn't want to sit in the hands of— wouldn't want to sit in the hands of adversaries. | hands of adversaries. i appreciate that. our views align, particularly on the excluded technology list. these are our closest and most trusted allies and unfortunately the current

administration has really been difficult to work with as far as getting to that excluded technology list, and i hope you will help expedite that let me talk for a minute about the initial criminal court. we have real problems there. the court was originally intended, at least from our point of view, to be a court that focused on international crimes that were committed by people from countries who did not have a robust democracy, nor a robust judicial system that held its own people accountable. the court has gone beyond that, obviously. they are not only focusing on people who are not accountable elsewhere but they also on people who come from countries that solve their own problems, like the usa and israel. the most recent obvious

thing that flowed from that was the indictment on the same dates of netanyahu plus the hamas character. any court that is a court of law is to be able to recognise good from bad and, when you try to indict two people and shows some type of moral equivalency in that regard, they are barking up the wrong tree and unfortunately i think we are going to have to rein them up. i think we are going to have to rein them up.— rein them up. i think the icc has done — rein them up. i think the icc has done tremendous - rein them up. i think the icc. has done tremendous damage rein them up. i think the icc- has done tremendous damage to its global— has done tremendous damage to its global credibility of strip it's going after a namib estate on claims _ it's going after a namib estate on claims that i think, in the last— on claims that i think, in the last 24— on claims that i think, in the last 24 hours, the israeli high court — last 24 hours, the israeli high court filed an appeal, even though— court filed an appeal, even though it's not a member state, and i_ though it's not a member state, and i saw— though it's not a member state, and i saw some of the filings from — and i saw some of the filings from the _ and i saw some of the filings from the persecutor involved in the process. he argues they have — the process. he argues they have the _ the process. he argues they have the right to go after nonmembers for their activities within— nonmembers for their activities within the — nonmembers for their activities within the confines of member states, — within the confines of member states, in— within the confines of member states, in this case. i think

first— states, in this case. i think first of— states, in this case. i think first of all— states, in this case. i think first of all the hot promise of this prosecution is far beyond the president, which is dangerous for the usa, because this is— dangerous for the usa, because this is a — dangerous for the usa, because this is a test run that this is a trial— this is a test run that this is a trial run— this is a test run that this is a trial run to see, can we go after— a trial run to see, can we go after head _ a trial run to see, can we go after head of state domination nation — after head of state domination nation that's a nonmember? if we can— nation that's a nonmember? if we can get— nation that's a nonmember? if we can get it done with regards to israet. — we can get it done with regards to israel, they will apply that the usa _ to israel, they will apply that the usa at some point, and there — the usa at some point, and there have been threats to do that in— there have been threats to do that in the past, but premise of the — that in the past, but premise of the prosecution is completely and utterly flawed. they _ completely and utterly flawed. they went ahead and i think they— they went ahead and i think they also went after docker he is not — they also went after docker he is not with us any longer but he doesn't travel around the world — he doesn't travel around the world and is at no risk of being _ world and is at no risk of being apprehended the new moral equivalency piece was offensive. i don't thing i need to offensive. idon't thing i need to explain— offensive. i don't thing i need to explain to stop hamas carried _ to explain to stop hamas carried out an atrocious operation, sending a bunch of savages— operation, sending a bunch of savages into israel's with the express— savages into israel's with the express and explicit purpose of targeting civilians. they went to concerts and music festivals. they knew there were no soldiers at the music festivat~ _

no soldiers at the music festival. they knew these were teenagers and young families and they wanted different communities and deliberately targeted civilians. in fact, they— targeted civilians. in fact, they kidnapped, once they didn't— they kidnapped, once they didn't murder, the families they— didn't murder, the families they didn't at this rate, the people _ they didn't at this rate, the people who scolds they didn't crack — people who scolds they didn't crack open, they kidnapped and continue — crack open, they kidnapped and continue to hold. in the case of israet— continue to hold. in the case of israel responding to that attack, _ of israel responding to that attack, it's had to go after hamas _ attack, it's had to go after hamas. how can any nation state on the — hamas. how can any nation state on the planet coexist side by side — on the planet coexist side by side with— on the planet coexist side by side with a group of savages like hamas? they have to defend their— like hamas? they have to defend their national security and national— their national security and national interest, as i pointed out _ national interest, as i pointed out and _ national interest, as i pointed out. and they didn't target civilians _ out. and they didn't target civilians. sadly and unfortunately, and i'm sure we will discuss it further, one of the horrible things about war, it's a — the horrible things about war, it's a terrible thing and it's why— it's a terrible thing and it's why we _ it's a terrible thing and it's why we should try and prevent it at _ why we should try and prevent it at almost any cost, it's that— it at almost any cost, it's that innocent people are caught up that innocent people are caught up in _ that innocent people are caught up in it. — that innocent people are caught up in it, and that's true of every— up in it, and that's true of every conflict, but there is a difference between those who in

the conduct of armed action deliberately target civilians and those who do as much as they— and those who do as much as they can _ and those who do as much as they can to avoid civilians being _ they can to avoid civilians being caught up, against an enemy— being caught up, against an enemy that doesn't wear uniforms and height internals, an enemy— uniforms and height internals, an enemy that hides behind women _ an enemy that hides behind women and children and put them at the _ women and children and put them at the forefront and uses them as human _ at the forefront and uses them as human shields. there is no moral— as human shields. there is no moral equivalency and i think the kc. — moral equivalency and i think the kc. if— moral equivalency and i think the icc, if they don't crop this, _ the icc, if they don't crop this, will— the icc, if they don't crop this, will find its credibility globally badly damaged and i think— globally badly damaged and i think this is a test run for applying _ think this is a test run for applying it to american service members _ applying it to american service members and leaders in the future _ members and leaders in the future i— members and leaders in the future. �* ., future. i couldn't agree with ou future. i couldn't agree with you more- _ future. i couldn't agree with you more. certainly - future. i couldn't agree with you more. certainly the - future. i couldn't agree with l you more. certainly the court has badly damaged its reputation and it's got a long way to go to recover from that. as i said in my opening statement, _ as i said in my opening statement, i— as i said in my opening statement, i hope - as i said in my opening statement, i hope this| statement, i hope this committee _ statement, i hope this committee can- statement, i hope this committee can betteri committee can better collaborate _ committee can better collaborate to - committee can better collaborate to swiftlyl committee can better- collaborate to swiftly confirm career — collaborate to swiftly confirm career service _ collaborate to swiftly confirm career service offices, -

career service offices, patriotic— career service offices, patriotic americans i career service offices, l patriotic americans who career service offices, - patriotic americans who work to advance — patriotic americans who work to advance us— patriotic americans who work to advance us national— patriotic americans who work to advance us national security- advance us national security interests _ advance us national security interests. delays _ advance us national security interests. delays in- advance us national security interests. delays in vacant . interests. delays in vacant posts _ interests. delays in vacant posts hurt _ interests. delays in vacant posts hurt america - interests. delays in vacant i posts hurt america interests. interests. delays in vacant - posts hurt america interests. i know _ posts hurt america interests. i know you _ posts hurt america interests. i know you agree _ posts hurt america interests. i know you agree with _ posts hurt america interests. i know you agree with that - know you agree with that because _ know you agree with that because we _ know you agree with that because we have - know you agree with that because we have had - know you agree with that| because we have had that conversation, _ because we have had that conversation, but - because we have had that conversation, but will- because we have had that conversation, but will you commit _ conversation, but will you commit to— conversation, but will you commit to working - conversation, but will you commit to working with l conversation, but will you - commit to working with chairmen rush _ commit to working with chairmen rush and — commit to working with chairmen rush and me _ commit to working with chairmen rush and me to _ commit to working with chairmen rush and me to prioritise - commit to working with chairmen rush and me to prioritise the - rush and me to prioritise the advancement _ rush and me to prioritise the advancement and _ rush and me to prioritise the. advancement and confirmation rush and me to prioritise the - advancement and confirmation of career— advancement and confirmation of career state _ advancement and confirmation of career state department - career state department officials? _ career state department officials? ? _ career state department officials? ? yes, - career state department officials? ? yes, but- career state department officials? ? yes, but i i career state department l officials? ? yes, but i also point — officials? ? yes, but i also point to— officials? ? yes, but i also point to the _ officials? ? yes, but i also point to the fact _ officials? ? yes, but i also point to the fact that - officials? ? yes, but i also point to the fact that i- officials? ? yes, but i alsoi point to the fact that i think we will— point to the fact that i think we will begin— point to the fact that i think we will begin by— point to the fact that i think we will begin by looking - point to the fact that i think we will begin by looking ati we will begin by looking at what — we will begin by looking at what the _ we will begin by looking at what the key _ we will begin by looking at what the key priorities - we will begin by looking at what the key priorities of. we will begin by looking at . what the key priorities of the which — what the key priorities of the which positions _ what the key priorities of the which positions brings- what the key priorities of the which positions brings first? | what the key priorities of the| which positions brings first? i think you will see our nominees for the deputy post, which are critically important, all the under secretaries, and as we identify people, i believe i have met with an interviewed most of the candidate for the top post, i want to bring people that are aligned to our mission, that's critically important, whether they be foreign service officers, i'm not talking about political alignment but alignment with

the mission we applied for american foreign policy, which is one of the things i think has hurt the state department. did numerous administration, sometimes the core mission of the department has not been well defined. that's on us and it's our obligation to define that. numbertwo, it's our obligation to define that. number two, the capability to do the job. i that. number two, the capability to do thejob. i can tell you now that my entire service on this committee, which spent 14 years, we always had fellows from the department of state and i believe all of them are still in the service of our country, and i intend, because i know them, to utilise their skill sets in the department. in fact, a couple who we hope will be returning home soon from foreign postings to work with us close to my office. but the point is we want people who are highly capable, both those who are political appointees but also those promoted from within the foreign service, and the third are people can get through the

committee, because time is of the essence. i think it's important, and we are not going to exclude someone because we could perhaps they will have a rougher confirmation process and somebody else, but i think is important we have people in these positions as quickly as possible and, having served for 14 years, i understand that one of the things we can do to help expedite that is to bring people will do a good job, who are qualified for the job, but also that can move through this process quickly and be impotent and begin to fulfil their duties. if i have to wait a year to get them in place, i'm not sure we have a year to wait. i not sure we have a year to wait. . . not sure we have a year to wait. ., ., ., , , . ., wait. i agree and i appreciate our wait. i agree and i appreciate your focus — wait. i agree and i appreciate your focus on _ wait. i agree and i appreciate your focus on mission - wait. i agree and i appreciate your focus on mission and . your focus on mission and qualifications, _ your focus on mission and qualifications, because i. your focus on mission and - qualifications, because i think the committee _ qualifications, because i think the committee will— qualifications, because i think the committee will be - qualifications, because i think the committee will be looking closely — the committee will be looking closely at _ the committee will be looking closely at that. _ the committee will be looking closely at that. now - the committee will be looking closely at that. now nato. - the committee will be looking closely at that. now nato. ini closely at that. now nato. in 2023, — closely at that. now nato. in 2023, congress _ closely at that. now nato. in 2023, congress oh _ closely at that. now nato. in 2023, congress oh formerlyl closely at that. now nato. in - 2023, congress oh formerly part the bipartisan _

2023, congress oh formerly part the bipartisan kane _ 2023, congress oh formerly part the bipartisan kane rubio- the bipartisan kane rubio provision, _ the bipartisan kane rubio provision, prohibiting- the bipartisan kane rubio provision, prohibiting anyi provision, prohibiting any president— provision, prohibiting any president from _ provision, prohibiting any. president from withdrawing provision, prohibiting any- president from withdrawing the united — president from withdrawing the united states— president from withdrawing the united states from _ president from withdrawing the united states from nato - president from withdrawing thel united states from nato without senate _ united states from nato without senate approval _ united states from nato without senate approval or— united states from nato without senate approval or an _ united states from nato without senate approval or an act - united states from nato without senate approval or an act of - senate approval or an act of congress _ senate approval or an act of congress. will— senate approval or an act of congress. will you - senate approval or an act of congress. will you commit. senate approval or an act of. congress. will you commit to adhering _ congress. will you commit to adhering to— congress. will you commit to adhering to the _ congress. will you commit to adhering to the senate - congress. will you commit to . adhering to the senate approval or an _ adhering to the senate approval or an act — adhering to the senate approval or an act of— adhering to the senate approval or an act of congress, _ adhering to the senate approval or an act of congress, as - or an act of congress, as required _ or an act of congress, as required under— or an act of congress, as required under that- or an act of congress, as required under that law, | or an act of congress, as i required under that law, if president _ required under that law, if president trump - required under that law, if president trump attemptsi required under that law, if. president trump attempts to withdraw— president trump attempts to withdraw the _ president trump attempts to withdraw the us _ president trump attempts to withdraw the us from - president trump attempts to withdraw the us from nato? | withdraw the us from nato? president _ withdraw the us from nato? president trump _ withdraw the us from nato? president trump has - withdraw the us from nato? . president trump has appointed and abutted the nominee for nato, which clearly indicates his role to engage in that. below is what it is i was a co—sponsor of the law and so it's tough to say i'm not in support of a law i hope to pass and it's important for congress. it's about the contributions we make towards the power which still rests with congress. if moving toward the executive branch, i might forget that lesson, i hope not, but ultimately i still recognise and understand the power of congress is important. let me make one point nato. the

nato alliance is very important. i believe it's important. i believe it's important. without the nato alliance there is no end of the cold war. without the nato alliance, it's quite possible that much of what today we know as europe which have fallen victim to aggression. what's important for the united states is notjust have defensive allies but capable defence allies but capable defence allies who are capable of defending their region, and i think there is a question to be asked. i am stating a question to be asked, and that is, should the role of the united states and nato in the 21st century be the primary defence role or as a backstop to aggression, with countries in the region assuming more of that responsibility by contributing more? the further east you move in europe, more money you see spent on the military as a of gdp, i think there is broad acknowledgement across europe and multiple administrations, that our nato

partners, rich, advanced economies, need to contribute more to their own defence and ultimately to the nato partnership. that's a demand that's been made by multiple presidents across the years, and the fact that that is true has been revealed by what's happened with ukraine. look at the ramp up in defence spending and the industrial capacity of multiple countries in europe as a result. if you had been there before, it might have been a deterrent. we need alliances with strong and not those who have viewed the us and nato defence agreement as an excuse to spend less on defence and more domestic needs. we have domestic needs, too. countries in western europe have enormous safety net programmes they fund. we also have domestic needs, but they have been able to divert or grow those programmes because they don't have to spend as much on defence as we do as a percentage of our overall

economy, that dynamically to change, and i expect president trump will continue to forcefully make that point. this committee and the senate nato _ this committee and the senate nato observer— this committee and the senate nato observer group _ this committee and the senate nato observer group is - this committee and the senate nato observer group is made . nato observer group is made that— nato observer group is made that point— nato observer group is made that point repeatedly- nato observer group is made that point repeatedly and - nato observer group is made that point repeatedly and we| that point repeatedly and we are now _ that point repeatedly and we are now up _ that point repeatedly and we are now up to— that point repeatedly and we are now up to 23— that point repeatedly and we are now up to 23 of- that point repeatedly and we are now up to 23 of the - that point repeatedly and we are now up to 23 of the 32 i that point repeatedly and we i are now up to 23 of the 32 nato patients— are now up to 23 of the 32 nato patients who _ are now up to 23 of the 32 nato patients who are _ are now up to 23 of the 32 nato patients who are meeting - are now up to 23 of the 32 nato patients who are meeting their| patients who are meeting their 2% of— patients who are meeting their 2% of gdp, _ patients who are meeting their 2% of gdp, and— patients who are meeting their 2% of gdp, and we _ patients who are meeting their 2% of gdp, and we have - patients who are meeting their 2% of gdp, and we have a - patients who are meeting their. 2% of gdp, and we have a number you are— 2% of gdp, and we have a number you are going _ 2% of gdp, and we have a number you are going beyond _ 2% of gdp, and we have a number you are going beyond that - 2% of gdp, and we have a number you are going beyond that and - you are going beyond that and it's appropriate _ you are going beyond that and it's appropriate. i— you are going beyond that and it's appropriate. ithink- you are going beyond that and it's appropriate. i think the - it's appropriate. i think the sentiment _ it's appropriate. i think the sentiment of— it's appropriate. i think the sentiment of this - it's appropriate. i think the i sentiment of this committee would — sentiment of this committee would be _ sentiment of this committee would be to— sentiment of this committee would be to agree _ sentiment of this committee would be to agree with - sentiment of this committee would be to agree with what| sentiment of this committee - would be to agree with what you are saying. _ would be to agree with what you are saying. but _ would be to agree with what you are saying, but to _ would be to agree with what you are saying, but to ensure - would be to agree with what you are saying, but to ensure that i are saying, but to ensure that we continue _ are saying, but to ensure that we continue to _ are saying, but to ensure that we continue to have - are saying, but to ensure that we continue to have a - are saying, but to ensure that we continue to have a strongl we continue to have a strong nato — we continue to have a strong nato i — we continue to have a strong nato i think— we continue to have a strong nato i think will— we continue to have a strong nato i think will be _ we continue to have a strong. nato i think will be important, not only— nato i think will be important, not only to _ nato i think will be important, not only to european - nato i think will be important, not only to european securityl not only to european security but most _ not only to european security but most important - not only to european security but most important to - not only to european security but most important to our. not only to european security. but most important to our own security — but most important to our own security we _ but most important to our own security. we talked _ but most important to our own security. we talked about - security. we talked about ukraine _ security. we talked about ukraine that _ security. we talked about ukraine that i _ security. we talked about ukraine that i appreciatel security. we talked about - ukraine that i appreciate your past — ukraine that i appreciate your past leadership— ukraine that i appreciate your past leadership in— ukraine that i appreciate your past leadership in supportingl past leadership in supporting ukraine~ _ past leadership in supporting ukraine. recently, _ past leadership in supporting ukraine. recently, you - past leadership in supportingi ukraine. recently, you voted against — ukraine. recently, you voted against supplemental- ukraine. recently, you voted| against supplemental funding for ukraine _ against supplemental funding for ukraine and _ against supplemental funding for ukraine and giving - against supplemental funding for ukraine and giving loans l against supplemental funding i for ukraine and giving loans to ukraine— for ukraine and giving loans to ukraine in— for ukraine and giving loans to ukraine in november, - for ukraine and giving loans to ukraine in november, loans. for ukraine and giving loans to. ukraine in november, loans that would _ ukraine in november, loans that would be — ukraine in november, loans that would be critical— ukraine in november, loans that would be critical to— ukraine in november, loans that would be critical to ukraine - would be critical to ukraine this— would be critical to ukraine this macroeconomic- would be critical to ukraine . this macroeconomic stability. can you — this macroeconomic stability. can you talk _

this macroeconomic stability. can you talk about _ this macroeconomic stability. can you talk about how - this macroeconomic stability. can you talk about how your. can you talk about how your views — can you talk about how your views on _ can you talk about how your views on ukraine _ can you talk about how your views on ukraine have - can you talk about how your- views on ukraine have developed and where — views on ukraine have developed and where you _ views on ukraine have developed and where you are _ views on ukraine have developed and where you are knelt - views on ukraine have developed and where you are knelt and - and where you are knelt and what — and where you are knelt and what you _ and where you are knelt and what you think _ and where you are knelt and what you think is _ and where you are knelt and what you think is importantl and where you are knelt and i what you think is important for us to— what you think is important for us to do— what you think is important for us to do is— what you think is important for us to do is to _ what you think is important for us to do is to ensure _ what you think is important for us to do is to ensure there - what you think is important for us to do is to ensure there is l us to do is to ensure there is the _ us to do is to ensure there is the strongest _ us to do is to ensure there is the strongest possible - the strongest possible negotiating _ the strongest possible negotiating position, i the strongest possible| negotiating position, if ukraine _ negotiating position, if ukraine and _ negotiating position, if ukraine and russia - negotiating position, if- ukraine and russia negotiate? cross— ukraine and russia negotiate? cross i— ukraine and russia negotiate? cross i voted _ ukraine and russia negotiate? cross i voted against _ ukraine and russia negotiate? cross i voted against a - ukraine and russia negotiate? cross i voted against a bill- cross i voted against a bill because i said i would not vote for a bill unless it address the crisis at our southern border as part of the overall arrangement. that was not done for the that said, here is my view. once this war became what we now know it is, a war of attrition, a stalemate, a protracted conflict, dynamic has changed. let me echo the president. he was not about what ukraine and he said, i want the dying to stop. i want the killing stop frankly, i don't know how anybody could say they don't. the destruction

ukraine is undergoing its extraordinary and it's going to take a generation to rebuild it. millions of ukrainians no longer live in ukraine and what will they come back to? even as i speak, ukrainian infrastructure is being decimated in ways that are going to cost hundreds of billions to rebuild over the next decades. i think it should be the official position of the united states that this war should be brought to an end. the question becomes, what role can we play? the first is making it abundantly clear that “p making it abundantly clear that up my differences with the burden of ministration throughout this process is they never clearly delineated the end of the conflict was, exactly where we funding or putting money towards? on many occasions, it sounded like, however much it takes, however long it takes, which is not realistic. in this conflict, there is no way russia ticks all of ukraine stop the ukrainians are too brave and fight too hard in the country

is too thick. it's unrealistic to believe that somehow i nation the size of ukraine, no matter how incompetent or how much damage the russian federation has suffered as a result of this invasion, there is no way ukraine is also going to push these people all the way back to where they were on the eve of the invasion. i saw a quote recently which said, the problem ukraine is facing is not that they are running out of money but they are running out of ukrainians there is a size differential. what putin has done is unacceptable but this war is to end, and i think it should be the official us policy but we want to see it and what that masterplan looks like would be hard work. this will not be an easy endeavour to stop its going to require both diplomacy, and i hope it's able to begin some ceasefire, and in order to achieve objectives like the one that needs to occur in ukraine, it's important for everyone to be realistic. there will have to

be concessions made by the russian federation and also the ukrainians and it's important that there be some balance on both sides. it will be difficult to achieve this objective of a ceasefire and peace settlement unless both sides have leveraged. the goal of putting up is maxima leveraged so he can oppose neutrality on ukraine, retrofit and do this again in four or five years. that's not an outcome any of us would favour. but i think it's important that ukrainians have leveraged but they also have to make concessions. this will not be easy. conflicts of this nation, historical underpinnings, require a lot of our diplomacy and tough work, but it needs to happen. this conflict needs to end. �* . . happen. this conflict needs to end. �* ., ., , end. i'm at a time, but i appreciate _ end. i'm at a time, but i appreciate our— end. i'm at a time, but i appreciate our last - end. i'm at a time, but i - appreciate our last comment about— appreciate our last comment about the _ appreciate our last comment about the importance - appreciate our last comment about the importance of - about the importance of leveraged _ about the importance of leveraged and _ about the importance of leveraged and it's - about the importance of - leveraged and it's important for the — leveraged and it's important for the us— leveraged and it's important for the us to _ leveraged and it's important for the us to do _ leveraged and it's important for the us to do what - leveraged and it's important for the us to do what we - leveraged and it's important| for the us to do what we can leveraged and it's important. for the us to do what we can to help— for the us to do what we can to help provide _ for the us to do what we can to help provide leveraged - for the us to do what we can to help provide leveraged to - help provide leveraged to ukraine _ help provide leveraged to ukraine so— help provide leveraged to ukraine so they _ help provide leveraged to ukraine so they can -

help provide leveraged to ukraine so they can be i help provide leveraged to ukraine so they can be in| help provide leveraged to . ukraine so they can be in the best— ukraine so they can be in the best negotiating _ ukraine so they can be in the best negotiating position - ukraine so they can be in the| best negotiating position with russia — best negotiating position with russia. ,, ., ., , ., russia. senator rubio, congratulations - russia. senator rubio, congratulations on - russia. senator rubio,| congratulations on your nomination to this very difficultjob. thank you nomination to this very difficult job. thank you for your— difficult job. thank you for your previous service in the us senate — your previous service in the us senate and your willingness to take _ senate and your willingness to take on — senate and your willingness to take on thisjob, should you be confirmed _ take on thisjob, should you be confirmed. i want to thank your family— confirmed. i want to thank your family as — confirmed. i want to thank your family as well for their support for you to be able to be a — support for you to be able to be a us— support for you to be able to be a us senator and to apply for the — be a us senator and to apply for the job of secretary of state _ for the job of secretary of state. and i want also to express— state. and i want also to express my gratitude to all members of the state department. we have a look at people — department. we have a look at people who choose to serve our country — people who choose to serve our country overseas... this is the session with marco rubio, donald trump's pick for secretary of state at his senate confirmation hearing going through a range of hugely important subject areas. talking just now about ukraine and the war with russia. he has

touched on china and the middle east. we are going to stay with it. we're also watching here of any developments around a potential between israel and root. more indications that we appear to be very close. an unnamed israeli official saying that hamas has now agreed to the draft that has been presented to both sides in qatar. that was denied by the prime minister's office there in israel, benjamin netanyahu's office, but we are watching that. we were expecting a news conference from qatar but that has slipped back. it was supposed to be half an hour ago but it hasn't happened yet. we are keeping our eyes open waiting for any developments from doha. whilst we wait we will continue to watch this session there live on capitol hill. it session there live on capitol hill. , ., , ., ., , hill. it is a very dangerous time in the _ hill. it is a very dangerous time in the world - hill. it is a very dangerous time in the world and - hill. it is a very dangerous time in the world and your opening _ time in the world and your opening remarks demonstrate that you — opening remarks demonstrate that you know that. we are not better— that you know that. we are not better off — that you know that. we are not better off and we are not safer~ _

better off and we are not safer. president biden started