i wish general austin were here. secretary austin could answer many of the questions that were proposed. but this was not a choice between either a dangerous escalation of the war, which has just been laid out, or a precipitous chaotic withdrawal that embarrassed us around the globe. to say that it was not a sign of weakness the way we left. i mean, i don't know who you're talking to. but if you're talking to our allies in nato, they would say it was a sign of weakness. if you're talking honestly to our adversaries, they will certainly say it is a sign of weakness, as will terrorist groups around the world. so i hope the lesson we learned here isn't that this was the right way to leave. hopefully, the lesson we learned

here is there was a better way to leave. if the decision was made to pull out, it should not have been a precipitous chaotic and, unfortunately, deadly departure. this afternoon i will be speaking on the floor about max scobiak. he was one of 13 american soldiers, sailors and marines killed on the wall trying to help others escape from the tyranny of the taliban. he should never have been put in that position. it was an impossible position for our troops, for your diplomats, and the impossibility that they faced was due to our policy decisions. there was an alternative. baghram air base, which we shut down in the middle of the night. it was a surprise. i talk to more people who know about the military side of this

that tell me, yes, the afghan troops were a disappointment because that's partly because they were used to americans provide that close air support. they had that and could have pushed back against the taliban. i think you will hear that. if general austin were here, we would hear this. but we just left, like just pulled out all the military under pinnings to without the cover of close air support, without military support, yeah. it became extremely dangerous and chaotic. and we left a lot of people behind. senator romney is asking to give him numbers and you said you're still working on that. these are the numbers that i have, as the ranking member on the homeland security committee. 18,000 applicants. we got 705 out. you said earlier the overwhelming number of people who were at risk got out.

i don't think that's true. >> if i could -- >> let me give you the numbers that i have. we think about 30,000 at risk afghans were evacuated out of an estimated 60,000. we can't get good numbers from the administration. that's the best estimate. so that's true, that we left people behind who had stood with us and helped us. obviously american citizens were left behind. green card holders were left behind. but thousands of people who stood with us and helped us. then you were asked about who came. earlier there was discussion about what kind of vetting had taken place. the best numbers we have is 3/4 of the people who were evacuated were not green card holders, were not american citizens, were not siv applicants, were not not p1 or p2 visa holders. so about three-quarters of these

individuals may not have qualified, in a sense. now, you say they're being vetted. good. they should be. you know, nobody knows because we can't get this information from the department of homeland security, from the state department and others. but, you know, from the start many of you said what we do there needs to be based on conditions on the ground. quite frankly the president's decision was not based on conditions on the ground. that's why it was a disastrous withdrawal. that's why it put so many people at risk. it should have been an ordinarily withdrawal under the cover of superior u.s. and nato military force. we did have 2500 troops there. we had 7500 nato troops with us, too. again, many of their commanders were shocked at what happened. they were surprised because there was not good coordination. there was a lack of coordination with people who had stuck with us. we talked about baghram.

there was also lack of interagency planning. we've seen this, in terms of how the chaotic withdrawal occurred. these were preventible problems and they put our military and your diplomats in this impossible situation. they did the best they could. i commend them for that. in an impossible situation, it's amazing that they were able to perform. but it was so rushed and so chaotic that, again, we didn't get the right people out and many who we did get out seem not to fall in any of the categories that we were concerned about. so now what do we do? let's look forward, as was suggested. i agree with that. you said that you don't believe there will be a platform for terrorism going forward. that the current government, taliban government, said they will fight back against terrorists. you believe the new secretary of

the interior, who is a wanted terrorist, based on your administration's assessment. do you believe that that is an indication that they are going to fight back against terrorists? the question, senator, for our perspective and our partners' perspective is whether the taliban will make good on commitments to make sure afghanistan is not used as a place for outwardly directed terrorist attacks. and they've made commitments, but we're not relying on those commitments. we want to make sure we have in place the ability to detect any re-emergence of that threat and to be able to do something about it. if it does re-emerge, something we can talk about it another day. >> is that network considered a terrorist group? >> it is. >> and that is the leader of the terrorist network? >> that is accurate. >> i think, sadly, we have shaken our alliances. we have work to do. we have demonstrated weakness.

made the world more dangerous as a result. let me ask you about one specific question. >> time of the senator has expired. >> i will follow up with regard to some of the financing questions in the letter we sent to secretary yellen, senator rubio and myself, regarding foreign assets. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary. want to turn to the humanitarian situation in afghanistan. the world food program observed that half the children under 5 are acutely malnourished in the country, that 14 million individuals in afghanistan are on the brink of starvation, that 31 of 34 provinces are at risk of losing their health services entirely and 1% of the country is vaccinated. is this a fairly accurate description of the challenge for

both food and for healthcare? >> it is. the humanitarian situation is dire. >> u.s. just participated in an international conference in which $1.1 billion was pledged in humanitarian relief including additional commitment by the united states. ngo's that often are essential for providing aid, are very concerned about a legal pathway to do so because in 2002 the taliban listed as a global terrorist agency. it doesn't have a humanitarian exception. previously, where we faced this situation in yemen, the treasurey department stepped in to create a legal pathway and a number of senators have written to secretary yellen with copies to you and to samantha powers saying let's use that same

pathway here in which the office of foreign asset controls issues a general license, creating legal insulation providing humanitarian assistance. are you engaged in a conversation about how to create a legal path way to provide humanitarian assistance? >> yes, we are. we issued one license by the treasury. issued ten days ago. we're looking at what other authorities might be needed to make sure that humanitarian assistance can flow as best as possible in afghanistan. >> great. thank you. that's essential. i think we have a significant responsibility. we have the chaos of war in combination with the pandemic and general disruption in the country and it's a moral responsibility to provide assistance. i wanted to enter into the record letter from september 2nd the members of the house sent to the administration. >> without objection.

>> thank you. as capital started to fall and we have nonprovincial capitals falling. there was a consider whether afghanistan would enter into a reconsolidation of forces to consolidate protection of the territoies still held. did the government of afghanistan take key strategic military decisions to consolidate its forces? >> it did not. this is a source of tremendous frustration from the president on down as the summer went on. we saw the taliban moving across the country. we repeatedly pressed the afghan government to do just what you described which is consolidating forces and defending what could be defended. it didn't have the full capacity

to do that. unfor the -- unfortunately, that consoidation and the plan we urged on them on how to defend their major cities never took shape. >> what was the responsibility of the government or from their president about why they choose not to consolidate their forces to protect the areas they controlled? >> well, in different moments, there were different responses. at some point, i think initially, the response was, we can't be seen on giving up on any part of the country. never mind that over the last five or six years, the amount, the part of the country by population controlled by the government in afghanistan, if you go back to 2014, 2015, went from about 60% to the end of last year about 48%. so this is happening to some

extent outside the city, relenlessly. slowly, but relentlessly. then as we pressed on them they said, yes, we'll do it, but they didn't. >> we have seen over a number of years, we had the challenge of elections that were considered illegitimate by a portion of the country. we had a face-off creating paralysis, great difficulty appointing key ministers to key positions. as we analyze and try to understand the rapid collapse, did the -- was there essentially a failure to create an effective decision making capability within the afghanistan government? >> i think there are a number of factors. this is something i hope we all look at going back over the last

20 years. there was a lack of unity in the government. it's comprised of different groups, different factions. again, very significant efforts to get them to act in a unified way. they couldn't or wouldn't. one of the problems we've had that we have not been able to address is corruption. one of the consequences is that if you're being asked to fight, put your life on the line for a government, that's corrupt, that's a hard decision to make. as we saw with many afghan forces, soldiers fighting very

bravely, the military collapse in an unanticipated way. one of the things we have to look at is the impact this pervasive corruption had, as far as giving the institution, the will to fight for the country. >> absolutely. >> final days as the capitals were falling, president ghani refused to acknowledge that there was falling capitals. like a world in which he was disengaged. then the finance minister resigned and said he was leaving the country for family reasons. but taken as a symbol of the government on the verge of collapse. shortly there after, president ghani fled himself. i think it was august 15th. did we have forewarning beginning of the cabinet to essentially flee the country? how did we respond to that? >> we did not.

on saturday, i spoke to president ghani. we were working on a plan to have a transfer of power to a taliban led but more broadly represented government to include many of the different actors in afghanistan working on that. i was calling president ghani to make sure he would support that. that was critical. hoe told me he would but said if the taliban wouldn't go ahead with it he would -- i'm paraphrasing it -- fight to the death. that was saturday. he left afghanistan the next day, on sunday. >> thank you. >> for the awareness of senators, vote going on, subsequent vote going on as well. it's my intention to try to continue through the process but i just want to keep this going. senator paul. >> i have advocated for an end to the afghan war for over a decade. i'm glad it's finally over. but never in my worst nightmares

could i have imagined that an administration would leave and leave $80 billion worth of weaponry to the taliban, dozens of planes and helicopters, thousands of armored carriers, hundreds of thousands of automatic weapons. worst of all, 13 of our brave young and women. never in my worst nightmares did anyone conceive of a colossal incompetence. abandoning bagram air force base will be remembered. holding no one accountable. having everyone circle the wagons and say, we all agree to abandoning the air force base. this will be remembered by the people holding no one accountable for letting the base go. it will be remembered. to add insult to injury this week you released $64 million in aid to afghanistan. don't we have issue with giving

aid and comfort to the enemy? the biden administration said we're giving it to charities, for the good of poor people and women. the taliban has a history of taking this. throughout their governance, they would take the money. this was a big complaint we had when they were in power the last time. they now have $80 billion worth of weapons. 350,000 automatic weapons. do we really, are we really naive enough to believe we're going to keep sending charity to afghanistan and they're not going to interrupt it? that's a foolish notion. the $64 million is the tip of the iceberg. there's still about $10 billion out there that was designated for the afghan government. can you pledge today that the biden administration will not release any of this money to the taliban? >> absent the taliban making good on the commitments and expectations of the international community that i have outlined previously, that's correct. >> maybe we can deduct a fee for the weapons they took.

>> senator, on the weapons, again, i'll defer to my colleagues at the pentagon. you're right that about $80 billion worth of weaponry has been provided over the course of the last 15 or 16 years. much of that, significant weaponry, planes, helicopters, are inoperable, will soon become inoperable because it can't be maintained. in terms of the strategic threat that weaponry poses, doesn't. >> you can't say you're not going to give them the money. why don't we subtract $80 billion. then they're minus 70 still. the fact that you're entertaining good behavior that they'll get good money is a big mistake and a naive notion that we're going to somehow change the stone age philosophy by giving them more of our money. we've sent trillions of dollars over there. let's quit sending good money after bad. the guy, the biden

administration, was he an isis operative? >> the administration is reviewing that strike and i'm sure that a full assessment will be done. >> we don't know if it was an aid worker or isis -k operative. >> i don't know. we are reviewing it. >> do you think you'd know before you off somebody with a drone whether he is an aid worker or an isis-k. the thing is, this isn't just you. it's been going on in administration to administration. the obama administration droned hundreds and hundreds of people. there is blow back to that. i have seen pictures of these beautiful children that were killed in the attack. if that's true and not propaganda, if that's true, guess what? maybe you've created hundreds or thousands of new potential terrorists from bombing the wrong people. you gotta know -- we can't have an investigation after we kill

people. we have an investigation before we kill people. we've got plenty of bombs. we can bomb them from anywhere in the world. maybe we should have bombed the helicopters and the planes we left behind. even though you said you didn't know any of this, once they took our stuff, we should have said you got 20 minutes to get out of it because we're going to blow it all up. then you would have sent a message to strength. instead we bomb somebody who we're not sure was an aid worker or an isis-k operative. that's not sending a signal of strength. in the end, there will be more blow back from it. if you killed an aid worker on accident? i mean, do you think we're better off because of that? you really could have acted in a position of strength but would have made the fundamental decision that really ruined the whole thing for you was a military decision to abandon bagram air force base before you were out. you may have a point it happened more quickly than we thought it

was going to happen. okay. that's an honest mistake. still a huge mistake. people make judgments in the military, they ought to be relieved of their post. leaving bagram air force base will be remembered in history. if you do nothing about it, you leave these people in place, we all agreed. really, it was a terrible mistake. releasing money to the taliban will add insult to injury. it will be terrible for the memory of the 13 soldiers who died in the end who were the final soldiers to die in this war if you end up giving money to the people that have been ruining the middle east and afghanistan for decades. hope you won't release the money. ily it will be a big mistake. >> thank you. i understand senator shotz is with us virtually. before senator shotz, i'll ask

senator kaine to preside so i can vote and come back. >> thank you before appearing before the committee. i want to sort of zoom out a little bit. defense establishment, political appointees so called think tank expert defense contractors are complaining loudly about tactics. it's their strategy that failed. they're complaining about how america's longest war ended because they didn't want it to ever end. they're mad because they think we should be an occupying force indefinitely and they know that position is untenable so they want to talk about sending forces into kabul. they won't acknowledge fundamental mistake was that because they said a country in central asia without a good understanding of its people or its culture. after 20 years, trillions of dollars spent and training

hundreds of thousands of afghan security forces, the afghan government was no more capable of being a referee in a civil war than before we invaded. that's not the fault of our service members or diplomats. it's the fault of policy makers who set unrealistic goals. so the basic question i have tore you, mr. secretary. what are the lessons of the last 20 years or more? >> well, senator i think you summed it up extremely well. i would say two things, just to put a fine point on it. we went to afghanistan for one reason. that was to deal with the people who attacked us on 9/11 to bring them to justice and to the best of our ability make sure that would not happen again in afghanistan. we largely succeeded in that effort a long time ago with al qaeda, in terms of its capacity

to conduct attacks on the homeland vastly degraded. to the point where it is currently assessed and does not have that capacity. somewhere along the way with the best of intentions, we also sought to remake the country and in fact to use military force remake another society. to your point, the point senator murphy and others have made. whatever our intention, that is probably something that is beyond our capacity. and the net of that is that we were there for 20 years. we lost 2,461 americans. 20,000 were killed, were injured, excuse me. about $2 trillion were spent in direct and indirect costs. that's the equivalent of about $300 million every single day for 20 years on average.

and to those who say, yes, but you arrived in a place where the expenditures in terms of people and resources were sustainable. welsh that's simply not the reality that we face because, as we've discussed, given the deadline established for the removal of u.s. forces by the previous administration, the choice we had was either to go through with that and withdraw our forces or to reup the war, to escalate sending more forces, more loss of life, more loss of resources indefinitely. and to what end? to what result? in terms of having something sustainable in a government or security forces that could protect the country and uphold basic rights. so i think those lessons are important. they're profound. i hope all of us together will reflect on those and other lessons that we learned both in what we've done tactically

including in this administration as well as what we've done strategically across many administrations over 20 years. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i am worried about reports that we are seeing about violence against women and girls and taliban targeting minority groups, groups who have brutal history of committing violence again them are probably going to get worse. what are we doing to ensure physical access for the ngo's that serve as the constituency? >> thank you, senator. these reports which i have also seen whether in media reporting, videos, other reports are deeply, deeply disturbing. i think whether it's us or whether it is many other countries around the world that we've been working to organize

and focus this violates the basic expectations that we have of a taliban led government in terms of its need to not abuse these rights, but to uphold them. so we are working to make sure that we are both speaking with one voice and acting together when it comes to using the influence and leverage we have with the taliban to insist that it meet these expectations. second, when it comes to humanitarian assistance and other kinds of support, besides providing that support to ngo's, to the united nations and its agency, we are doing whatever we can to help ensure that those agencies and those ngo's are able to operate, expressing directly and indirectly on the taliban led government to ensure their ability to do that and their protection.

but this is very much a moving picture and something we're very focused on right now and in the days and weeks ahead. >> one final question. i understand this is not the main thing. i understand there are people who remain in mortal danger. but from your standpoint, the department of state, you've got to be a little worried about morale for those people who have dedicated the better part of 20 years to this effort. and so what can we do -- not what can we say, but what can we do on behalf of the foreign service especially at a time when we need to be building back our diplomatic corps? >> thank you for asking that. it's very important to me and institutionally. i have spent time with all of our returning diplomats from afghanistan either personally or virtually depending on where

they were. and spent a lot of time listening to them, hearing them and trying to address the concerns that they have. and to your point, we have so many people who have invested their work, their careers, their lives in afghanistan, developed relaceships, a deep love for the country. and this is very challenging, painful, for many of them. of course, those who participate in the evacuation itself who are literally at the gates at the capital airport side by side with these extraordinary men and women in uniform doing that work including the 13 who lost their lives who were killed in the terrorist attack. i had officers who were literally serving next to them up to a couple hours before that

attack. knew them by first name. so the impact, both over 20 years and more immediately with our people who were there literally pulling people in to safety, helping to talk people in, to walk people in. officers around the department who stood up and volunteered to help in some way. many who ran into the airport to help get people out. so we're spending time talking to them, listening to them, and also providing them the support that some of them may need. including -- >> mr. secretary, we're over time and there's still eight senators who want to ask questions. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. secretary. president biden described evacuation from afghanistan as an extraordinary success.

his words. extraordinary success. this has to be the lie of the 21st century. it's dishonest and if he believes it, it's delusional. america can no longer ever say we leave no american behind because joe biden did. by your own testimony and your words this morning, there are still about 100 americans trapped behind enemy lines. we've heard a lot about the 13 u.s. service members who died a couple of weeks ago. one riley mccollum of jackson hole, wyoming. 20. signed up for the marines on his 18th birthday. wife gigi expecting a baby. baby was delivered just yesterday, a baby girl. i stood with riley's family and his then pregnant wife on friday in jackson hole, wyoming, as his remains were brought back in a

flag draped coffin from afghanistan. never made it back home alive as a result of this administration's failures. people of wyoming view this as having lost one of their sons, one of their children. it is a devastating loss. they really do believe it is the administration who should hold the blame for what has occurred. but with this withdraw, and you heard it from senators on both sides of the aisle, has been an epic failure. no planning, no strategy. it was cobbled together at the last minute, disorganized. it didn't have to be this way. i'm thinking back to your confirmation hearing. i raised a number of questions and concerns about your record or foreign policy failures. in syria, libya, iran. i said these botched decisions have serious consequence. i said i believe they embolden terrorist organization around the globe. your decisions in the past have put those who serve our nation at risk.

it would be a mistake to confirm a secretary of state who has a track record of making wrong decisions when it comes to foreign policy and national security. the actions i have seen from you over the last seven months have proven my assessment to be correct. the biden administration's missteps are numerous. failed to start evacuation operations until the fall of kabul in august despite announcing the withdrawal in april. failed to heed collapse to the afghan government security forces. failed to prepare for a rapid taliban takeover. failed to adapt politically motivated deadline for withdrawal to a situation taking place on the ground because you were so focused on the calendar and the law. failed to keep bagram air force place, u.s. military base, two runways, that could be used to evacuate civilians. we just heard failure to prevent a vast arsenal of weapons from getting into the hands of the

taliban. seems the most egregious that i hear from wyoming and across the country is abandoning american citizens, as well as abandoning our allies in afghanistan. senator portman went over the numbers. washington post called it a moral disaster. i think it's a moral disgrace. you nearly dislocated your shoulder patting yourself on the back for the great job you've done. just yesterday you stated we did the right thing by our citizens in working feverishly to get every one of them out. but you didn't get every one of them out. you've admitted again and again, talking over 100 americans. the top priority must always be getting all americans home safely. and now with no u.s. personnel in afghanistan, the americans that president biden left behind instead of going on national tv and saying we will not take the troops out until every american is out, their options for escaping are dwindling. so i'm trying to put this all

together and say, how did we end up here? in april the president made a decision to announce everyone would be out by august 31st. may 8th there was a rehearsal of concept, a dress rehearsal for withdrawal. i know that national security council was there, secretary of defense, secretary of homeland security. they were all there. my understanding is that you did not attend. is that true? >> my deputy responsible for the operation was there. >> i know where you were. i think you should have been here instead. i understand in late june state department was getting nervous because the military drawdown was moving on schedule but not the civilian drawdown. you were running behind. i understand state department was talking to the defense department to slow down the pace of military withdrawal, calling for tapping the brakes on military withdrawal. isn't that true?

>> senator, i'm not going to get into any internal deliberations or discusses that we had. we worked on this together every step of the way. >> in july you got more warnings state department, things were getting bad. when did the state department formally make the request for military assisted evacuations, noncombatant evacuation? that's a secretary or ambassador job. >> the entity, the do was being planned as necessary throughout the spring and summer. we revised the plans on a number of occasions. ultimately when the government security forces unexpectedly collapsed in the 11 days, the do went into effect. >> so middle of august. >> that's correct. >> why did you wait so long stphr. >> because we had a government, security forces in place. backed by every estimate, that would be able to protect kabul, protect the other capitals

certainly through the years. >> so yesterday you testified the taliban has been designated a terrorist organization. i want to be very clear on this. that's what you said yesterday. quote, the taliban has been designated a terrorist organization. does this administration believe taliban is a terrorist designation. >> any engagement we have will be purely for the purposes of exacting our interest. >> under one of the designations. when does this administration plan to list the taliban as u.s. terrorist organization. you testified this morning about the siv washout rate. i think about 40%. >> that's correct. >> so what percentage of the afghan population that left as part of our u.s. evacuation efforts, what percentage of those were vetted before they got on the airlines? >> certainly most of them were not. that's why we established

transit points to make sure before anyone came to the united states they would be vetted by the different law enforcement agencies. we established agreement with more than a dozen countries. >> so who were you letting on the planes? anybody that showed up? >> initially, as you know, people who managed to flood the airport. we had to do an immediate assessment of those. we had to make sure we could clear people out of the airport so flights could come in, go out. but no one came to the united states without being checked somewhere else first to make sure they don't pose a security threat. >> my time expired. thank you very much. i spent time overseas last week talking to our nato allies, security conference as well as with nato individuals. i'll tell you, our eneies are emboldened and our allies are enraged. >> mr. secretary. thank you for being here.

thank you for allotting so much time and taking every single question posed to you. i want to first maybe just pick up what my friend and colleague asked. could you characterize the americans that are still there? i know there are a lot of them that didn't necessarily want to come back. there's a whole array of different reasons. could you give us a better understanding of those that have remained and what their circumstances are. >> certainly. senator, as we've noted, starting back in march, we issued 19 separate messages to any american citizen who was registered with the embassy urging them to leave afghanistan, to avail themselves of commercial flights that were running, offering assistance if they needed it because we knew it was a very volatile security environment. when we starred the ordered

departure of our embassy on april 27th, it's also incumbent upon us to make sure we are making clear to any american citizens that they should take the opportunity to leave. by the time of the evacuation, despite these 19 separate messages, there were still somewhere around 5,000 or 6,000 american citizens left in afghanistan. as we noted earlier, we never know whether it's afghanistan or any other country around the world how many american citizens are there because no one is required, when you travel abroad, reside abroad, you're not required to register with the embassy or with anyone else. many people do. many don't. but we made a massive effort to try to determine how many people were there. so to get to your point, the reason that despite all of these

warnings. despite the environment, people remained, is because for virtually all of them, afghanistan was their home. they lived there for years, for decades, for generations. their extended family was there. it is the most wrenching of all decisions to have to decide whether or not to leave. >> i wanted to give more texture to this situation. this is not that there were people there -- many people fall into the category of not being abandoned by our country, but have made the conscious choice to stay in that country, correct? >> that's correct. >> you have been -- i have only been here eight years, but i will say to you and your staff, you have been the most responsive state department team that my office has dealt with. we have brought many people to your attention, american citizens and afghanis who wanted to get out, worked with us to many different degrees of

success. i'm grateful for that. i have now witnessed with my senior senator, we went to our joint base toured the facilities to those who have met extreme vetting and who have made it to the united states. it was going on with 13,000 expected in new jersey an 65,000 to 70,000. that's for military personnel, state department personnel, talking to me about this being some of the proudest work they have ever done. i think americans should be aware of that, what's going on. we are a great nation. this is a reflection of those words on the statue of liberty. i wanted to pick up though on the situation as it is, i think it was senator murkley who brought up the humanitarian crisis that is really boiling over there. i wanted to get you to reiterate that you issued one license.

we really need more, correct? >> yes. we want to make sure all the authorities exist to provide that humanitarian assistance including by not just our own ngo's but others as well. >> it's a strategic situation. we know we control significant resources the afghan government has been relying on to run basic services. this is a strategic leverage that we have over the taliban to continue to try to pressure them into honoring human rights, honoring the rights of women, encountering some of the terrorist concerns we have, is very important. given what we understand without those resources, there are going to be continued humanitarian suffering. as the new york times reported the world food program estimating 40% of afghanistans will be lost. there will be tremendous hunger. wheat expected to go up 25%. the food stock is expected to

run out by september. so this is tremendous suffering that will come. it's going to be exacerbated by climate change. we can literally see issues of starvation hitting the general population. i guess can you give me what ap assurances the biden administration has been able to get from the taliban. how is the state department working with international partners? it is not just our responsibility to provide near and long term assistance for those afghans who ended up in locations without the proper support mechanisms. >> first, you're exactly right. to draw the distinction between basic humanitarian assistance to respond to what is a crisis among so many afghan people. by the u.n.'s estimates well over 50% are in need of humanitarian assistance. they've had a drought. we've had horrific economic conditions.

we've had covid. everything piling on to one of the poorest countries on earth to begin with. so when it comes to food. when it comes to medicine. when it comes to the basics, we, the international community, ought to be able to provide that. provided we can do it knowing the assistance will get to the people who need it and not diverted or used in any other way. we have longstanding mechanisms and arrangements in place including leading ngo's to do just that, as well as very clear monitoring mechanisms to make sure even in an environment that we don't control that assistance gets to the people who need it. i spent time with the head of the u.n. agency responsible for that to make sure that's what's happening. we're coordinating with dozens of countries on this. they just had a donor's conference to make sure everyone

else is doing this as well. >> i want to say thank you to many of the state department personnel still in that region swell here in the united states working through this crisis. >> thank you. >> yes, mr. chairman. thank you, sir. secretary blinken, thank you for your willingness to appear to answer questions on the afghanistan withdrawal. i understand you've been there for almost three hours now. i appreciate your persistence in this. mr. secretary, my staff has been working very closely with yours on on afghan special visas. some have been initiated for over three year. i saw a letter to you last week that outlined my concerns. i spoke to the deputy secretary three weeks ago. due to the preparations of the hearing, i received updates on three of the five siv cases my

staff has been working on. i appreciate the efforts of your staff to get me the information which i provided last night to the south dakota veterans who requested my help. for that, i want to thank you. i would, however, like you to be aware of my concern pertaining to a key reason that came from my efforts to assist siv applicants. this is the department's position stated to my staff on multiple occasions that it is precluded by law from providing updates or notice any potential defects in applications. mr. secretary, if true, this would prevent members of congress from executing oversight constituent service responsibilities. specifically when they're advocating in support of an applicant. it would also violate the department's own foreign affairs manual. would you convince me today that you will review the department's

procedures and fix this unacceptable procedure? >> senator, i'm happy to review that. let me say first, thank you. thank you, thank you for the work that you and your team and staff have done to help folks in need and to make sure that we have the information that we need to try to be helpful and get people out. i'm grateful for that. grateful for the work that we've been able to do together. we will review all of these procedures. there are requirements either built into law, privacy concerns, etc, that may have to be addressed. we should look at everything. >> mr. secretary, i think this is important enough to where we will follow up and hopefully it's within a time certain, we will be able to come up with what changes need to be made, either statutorily to qualify this. it shouldn't be hard to stay in

contact with members of the united states senate. our adversaries, mr. secretary, are celebrating the departure of u.s. troops. they are certainly celebrating the creation of a power vacuum. certainly they are also prepared to take this opportunity and use it to their advantage. china has announced last week that taliban control in afghanistan. there have also been reports they are looking at bagram air force base. the russian embassy in afghanistan is open and they met with taliban. pakistan is considering the taliban government as a partner to counter india and the iranian president, openly called this in american military defeat. and is considering working with the taliban.

>> we certainly did. we factored everything into the decisions we made including the impact that it might have on the neighboring countries, regional countries and others with various interest in afghanistan. a number of the countries that you cited have a whole different number of interests in afghanistan including making sure it is not a place for terrorists directed against them, to assure it is not a source of drugs flowing from their countries, to make sure it is not a sense of potential refugees going to their countries as well. all of those things are in play. countries are looking to accept steps to protect some of their basic interests. at the same time, we've established across more than 100 countries and the u.n. through a

security council resolutions of the taliban led government. if those expectations are not met and other countries are aiding and abetting so that the taliban is able to not able to fill those expectations. there will be consequences for that, too. >> mr. secretary, if i could, what i'm curious about, do you have a strategy that you've established? did you have time before this withdrawal to actually establish a strategy knowing that there would be a void in afghanistan? >> the work that we've done to bring together across dozens of countries very active contact routes, looking as we work together across these countries with nato, the eu as well as the u.n. we have a collective strategy on the way forward.

we're looking at it. >> in our country, do we have, do we have a strategy that is -- if this has been laid out and based upon the need to move as quickly as we did. did you have time to actually establish a strategy to take care of what will be this -- i understand you've been here three hours. simply to say you're working on it with other countries seems to me looks to me like we need our own strategy here. doesn't look like you're in a position to share with us that that strategy actually exists today. >> i'm happy, senator, to follow up with you and to share both our thinking and more of our work on that. we have organized several dozen countries that are collectively working on and implementing strategies -- [ talking at the same time ] >> what i would hope is, if you would, whether it be in a

classified setting or publicly, if you could share with us in the next week to ten days what that strategy is and if it needs to be in a classified setting, i'd ask the chairman to provide us with an opportunity. it's important that we have a strategy to combat what was a void in afghanistan which is something we should be in a better position, i believe, than what it sounds like you're able to articulate today. mr. chairman, i would accept that my time is up at this point. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you very much. mr. secretary, thank you for all of your work and all of your colleagues as well. president biden was right to end the united states longest war. if leaving afghanistan was ever going to be clean and easy, one

of the president's three predecessors would have done so. if we learned anything from our 20-year war in afghanistan, it's easier to get into a war than to get out of one. however, given the amount of second guessing, arm chair quarterbacking that i have seen over the last month, i fear that we haven't learned anything. we must encourage a policy that stops undefined military engagement before they can begin. i want to be sure americans at home understand the position president biden was placed in. president trump's deal with the taliban exchanged a halt in taliban offensive again our troops for a commitment that we would leave the country by may of this year. president trump, with the support of his national security team and many republican members of congress, negotiated this deal without the participation

or buy in of the afghan government. president biden faced a choice of having to break that deal essentially restarting the war in afghanistan and risk increased attackses against u.s. troops to get our troops home as promised. president trump did not leave an actual plan to evacuate. all of those who should have been taken out of afghanistan. and president trump's vision without a plan is and was a hallucination. so that left it then ultimately to the biden administration, which did its best in order to effectuate the agreement president trump made. president biden ultimately was right to follow through on that commitment to end our country's longest war, one that claimed so many military lives, so many

tens of thousands of afghan civilian lives and saddled u.s. taxpayers with $2 trillion worth of debt over the last two decades. and the tremendous cost of war hit home in its final chapter as our armed forces and diplomats executed one of the largest air lifts in history. we owe them a debt of gratitude. yesterday senator warren and i both attended the funeral service for u.s. marine, sergeant rosario in massachusetts one of the 13 heroes who lost her life on august 26th in that suicide bombing, as she was driving afghan women an children to safety.

the work of sergeant rosarios and others, saved thousands of innocent lives. we have to ensure our own commitment to help the afghan people endures past the takeoff of that last u.s. military transport plane two weeks ago. but we honor her. we honor all of those who gave their lives and sacrifice in afghanistan. and every member of this committee i think has to agree that we have to ensure that there is humanitarian aid that goes into afghanistan to help those who are in need. we spent $300 million every single day to conduct the war in afghanistan. roughly equivalent to what we spent this entire year in humanitarian assistance for afghanistan. mr. secretary, i sent a letter with four of my colleagues today, asking for the

administration to ensure that the money previously allocated or requested for afghan war efforts be repurposed to assist afghans in need. could you give your view as to what should happen with that funding now that the defunct afghan defense and national security forces are not there to receive this funding, in terms of ensuring that we avert further humanitarian catastrophe in afghanistan? >> thank you, senator. i got your letter. we're looking at all of that. we want to make sure, first, that we are making good on our own contributions to the humanitarian assistance that the afghan people need. we did that again yesterday at the conference organized by the united nations. we're going to look at what we

can to make sure assistance is getting to the people who need it, not diverted to the taliban led government, and making sure agencies, whether the u.n. or ngo's can operate safely and effectively in afghanistan. >> thank you. last planes left many international relief organizations stayed behind. we owe it to them not the create red tape and free them from the risk of sanctions. are you working with the treasury department to issue a general license to let these groups life saving work can continue? >> we are working on the necessary licensing authorities. the treasury issued one license a couple weeks ago. we're looking to see what additional authority may be needed to make sure humanitarian assistance can get there freely. >> i think that's important. telescoping the time frame to get that completed is very important. just about every major refugee assistance group has called for lifting the level to 200,000

people, as refugee admissions into our country. what is the administration's view on that 200,000 person goal in order to ensure that we deal with the magnitude of this humanitarian crisis? >> senator, as you know, we've and of course we're assessing whether there are additional needs. having said that, the work we're doing now to bring afghans in need were vetted and checked into this country, including support we need