host colin jost. our coverage begins at 6:00 p.m. eastern as journalist and celebrities walked the red carpet into the event and then at 8:00 p.m. eastern, sights and sounds from inside of you for the festivities before. watch the white house correspondents dinner live april 27th on the c-span networks.

>> we call this meeting of the subcommittee to order. the senator is on his way back from votes. i doubt he is planning to hear all of my opening remarks so i will put them into the

>> we call this meeting of the subcommittee to order, senator young is on his way back. i doubt he's pining to hear my opening remarks, i will put them into the record and turn it over to him, we will hear from witnesses. we are convening to discuss an incredibly important topic, developments in yemen and on the red sea, gulf nations often assisted by the united states have been at war in yemen against gentle forces that control sizable parts of the country, i argued was a catastrophic mistake for the united states and our arab partners to be part of this conflict, my belief was the war would strengthen the houthi and strengthen iran's influence in yemen, we have seen tragic evidence of this reality armed with sophisticated technology from tran10" donated with the iranian military, the houthi have barraged a dizzying

barrage of attacks, aerial drones against ships transiting through the red sea, the red sea is one of the most important strategic locations in the world, 50% of international marriage -- commerce and now 90% has been forced to choose longer and costlier alternatives, the cost of this diversion will be significant, consumers will bear the brunt, the impact is not just economic due to the houthi actions in the red sea, bulk containers for food supplies have not been able to make their deliveries in sudan, where 95% of the population cannot afford more than one meal per day, deliveries of food and medicine are crucially delayed and, significantly higher costs. i oppose the u.s. involvement in the yemen war and regret the trend over now strong enough to attack interest in the reason -- region. this is where we are, now that we are in the crosshairs, we

must respond, that's why i have a sport in the president's leadership to launch project prosperity guardian, i have supported the president's decision together with our partners in the uk to target infrastructure. that kinetic response has been paired with the targeted sanctions strategy to squeeze the houthi ability to finance operations and increase the intercept of weapons to the iran to houthi, this response has returned without congressional authorization, there is no existing law that would permit military action against the houthis. they authorize act of war, we swore the oath to follow the constitution if we believe this is a just military action, i do. we also need to acknowledge there is a real risk of escalation especially sinceis 80 the actions of houthis to

legalize the existing operations and guard against unauthorized mission creep, i want the focus of today's hearing to be on the ground reality, the merits of our existing response plan. you do not intend for this to turn on a form of congressional authorization before the military campaign to continue, i believe the tailored, time- out congressional authorization is not just nice to have, it is required to both authorize a limit the current military operation, i will be in discussions with my colleagues in the coming days to introduce such authorization. this debate would help us understand both the power and limits of american military might in and around the reds see, the broader crisis and the lingering war, this is what senator young and i have been

focused on for years, the war that has the average -- ravaged yemen and created the worst humanitarian crisis has quieted but the country is still in dire straits. the united states to -- will testify before us today, inc. -- permanent solution to end the war and resolve yemen's internal conflicts, peace will only come from political reconciliation. in the region, bringing peace to yemen. this is an incredibly clear hearing to chart the path forward, i turn over to senator young. >> thank you for convening this hearing, i think our witnesses are appearing today,

threatening the lives of innocent mariners and sailors, as well as significant global commerce and the risk of destabilizing a fragile pathway towards peace in yemen, nine nations order the reds see and connecting gulfs, none of them are iran. it all over the red sea, whether it be material support to houthis in yemen or other means using its intelligence and command a control apparatus to enable actions of the houthis. this is having a destabilizing effect on the food in africa, global crisis, and the dreams of millions of people in yemen to rebuild their society and lives. it the administration should respond to these actions while demonstrating it as a strategy for deterring aggression and

appropriate legal doctrine for maintaining these global comments. to date, i have not seen such a strategy but forward. -- put forward. come encourage the foreign relations committee will hold two hearings on iran's destabilizing activities across the region. i must also point out that the lack of public committee action on these and other questions since hamas attack on israel on october 7th, i have no doubt about the sincerity of today's witnesses when they tell us they are committed to addressing the security challenges across the red sea. an actionable plan to bring to houthi aggression, iranian terrorism, and the curtailing of russian and chinese meddling. carried out by incredibly u.s. service members have yet to stop

the houthis. the questions are thus presented, what do we knew now? what actions are willing to engage in countenance, how far do we push back tying the houthis connections to israel's fight against hamas, how do we continue to push for stable peace process in yemen? i hope we will be able to get at these topics today, what we hear will help us all better understand how the administration plans to ramp up and finally take seriously. they need to respond adequately to the flats -- threats facing the red sea. i would like to mention the name of chris chambers, and navy special warfare operator second-class nathan gage ingram.

i would like to acknowledge and offer my sincere sympathies to their families, these men came from families of veterans all of whom understood sacrifice. they are nonetheless in our hearts, these two brave men gave their lives to preserving america's security in the red sea and we would be remiss if we did not remember -- men and women in uniform phase, on the land, sea, and air around yemen. >> let me add my sentiments, the chairman is joining us today and i turn over to him for opening remarks. >> i'd like to welcome secretary shapiro, thank you for our service. thank you, mr. chairman. we are conducting this hearing,

it is extremely important. i want to add my support for your opening comments they have authorization for use of literary force, i agree that the administration should be seeking that authority, it's not our responsibility to respond. i want to knowledge your leadership in regards to that issue. one of two points i'd like to make. come interested in learning where iran's command and control has evolved . i think as much information as we can get to the responsibility and the proxy activities by iran would be helpful, the point you raised earlier , that is how the campaign in regards the red sea, the houthis affecting the prospects for peace within yemen . i think these are all issues that will be very important for us to learn today

and i thank you for conducting this hearing. >> let me introduce our two witnesses that i will turn it over to both of you, it's my pleasure to introduce tim lynn drinking, he's familiar with many of us, he's at the bureau of department of state and held other key petitions at the -- positions. dan shapiro is with us, well known to this committee, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the middle east. ambassador shapiro's best known as as former u.s. ambassador to israel and previously served, and certain roles in the united states senate. i will turn it over to you, tim lenderking and then to ambassador shapiro. >> distinguish members of the subcommittee, thank you for this invitation to speak with you about the situation in yemen and the administration's response to ongoing houthi attacks in the red sea. yemen is at a crucial moment,

rep was houthi attacks are jeopardizing the very real compliments of not more -- multilateral diplomacy. 2021, they made it clear that achieving diplomatic, durable peace was a top administration priority, that has not changed and there is tangible progress to point you to. into the 21, yemen was a hot war with more than 400 cross- border attacks per year and -- a couple in the country. both cross-border attacks in that destruction have ceased and after more than 50 trips to the region, i remain convinced peace in yemen is not only possible but serves u.s. interests, those of our reasonable partners and they yemen people themselves. they deserve to live in peace, despite the houthis illegal

maritime attacks , the april 2022 truce between yemen's warring parties continues to hold. violence inside yemen remains at the lowest level since 2015 and yemen's humanitarian crisis while still acute is less severe than at its peak until the houthis escalation, we begin to see a way back to stability. we should not lose sight of these milestones even as we necessarily denigrated and destroy houthi capabilities. in december, u.n. special forces announce the parties of the conflict had reached an understanding on a road map for peace including a durable cease- fire and inclusive yemen political process. we strive for and support these goals, the u.n. road map, end the conflict.

facilitating -- houthi attacks in the red sea, suggesting a significant number of iranian and lebanese hezbollah operatives supporting from inside yemen. i cannot imagine these people want the iranians in their country, this has to stop. they are killing foreigners from many nations anytime they want an attack which now they have done a the five occasions by attacking other ships. they are accountable for environmental catastrophe in the red sea by making maritime traffic to the red three -- red sea dangerous they are exacerbating economic and humanitarian conditions in egypt, sudan, ethiopia and elsewhere. the attacks on commercial vessels or acts of terrorism, they are not adhering to their stated goals, striking ship

with no connection to israel and revving up the difficulty and cost of delivering humanitarian aid to people including -- they hijacked the galaxy leader on november 19th and held hostage 25 is an -- innocent sailors from five countries. the houthis should release them and not behave in this reckless matter, what they are doing is piracy. houthi hypocrisy becomes even clearer as we look at their continued abuse of the human rights of the yemeni people . their detention facilities are filling up with political detainees, they are recruiting child soldiers and indoctrinating them into hate. they are blocking the city of yemen's third-largest city, they restrict humanitarian access. don't take it from me, ask the yemeni people. in response to the red sea threat, the united states and our partners are employing a multipronged diplomatic strategy to raise the cost of

continued attacks and shift the houthi calculus, the u.s. military has acted quickly and decisively to care -- the wart the houthi military threat in addition on february 16th, a designation of the houthis is a specially designated global terrorists went into effect. the designation is a powerful means to hold the houthis accountable. in parallel, the targeted military strikes we are also working every diplomatic channel to speak with one global voice to condemn houthi attacks building on strong and unanimous statements, the united states mobilized a group of 44 states to callout rental provocations in the strongest possible terms on january 10th, we secured passage of u.n. security council resolution 22 which demands a halt to these attacks, these efforts are one component of a broader

diplomatic strategy even as we degrade and disrupt their capabilities, squeeze finance, terrorist financing and shame them on the world stage, we must seek diplomatic offramp supporting multiple channels to clear the houthis that they may cease their attacks immediately we do not seek confrontation but will respond to the attacks, i remain hopeful as the envoy for yemen that we preserve a diplomatic path forward but the houthis are harming their own people by putting off the peace process, peace in yemen serves the interest of all yemenis just as it does the united states and our regional partners, the united states stands ready to support, thank you again for your invitation today, thank you. ambassador shapiro? >> thank you, chairman, members of the subcommittee. i appreciate the invitation to speak about the houthis threats in the red sea and the

departments work to protect civilians and maritime traffic in one the world's most critical waterways. i will summarize the houthi thread and our guiding principles . since november 19th, the houthis have conducted at least 48 attacks against commercial shipping and naval vessels through which 50% of all global trade flows, they have used anti-ship ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, surface vessels and in one instance, a helicopter borne seizure. these are entirely unrelated to israel and israeli affiliated shipping, to be clear any such attacks would be entirely illegitimate anyway. these are indiscriminate attacks that are much an affront to maritime commerce as piracy, they have affected the interests of 55 nations and threaten the free flow of commerce to the bedrock of the global economy. these have prompted dozens of shipping operators to suspend transits to cause spikes for

insurance rates, most importantly putting the lives of innocent mariners and our service members at risk, the houthis attacks are driving up prices and causing delivery delays in critical humanitarian items at such as food and medicine. those in need of assistance around the world, to cite one regional countries citing significantly from houthi terrorism, they've seen transit fees declined by $100 million per month to driving it over critical source of foreign currency. most recently, the houthis launched ballistic missile attacks against commercial ships in the red sea including one that impacted the islander, including a member of its crew, against the nv ruby mark, they manage that -- damage that vessel putting it at risk of sinking and causing an 18 mile

oil slick in the region. they have large weapons towards our warships including anti- ship cruise missile that the u.s. has intercepted. they fire medium-range ballistic missiles against israel. to jordan and saudi arabia as well, it's clear these attacks represent an international problem that of fact all nations committed to the exercise of navigational freedoms, these attacks which affect the entire region cannot go unchallenged, our guiding principles are to internationalize the response incoordination with our partners. >> you know exactly how to stop -- stop support for the genocide of gaza. it what you need to do is stop this call for an immediate cease-fire, you say you care about servicemembers. you said nothing about aaron

best now. -- [ indiscernible ] >> we will just continue. we seek internationalizing response to houthis attacks and coronation for military diplomatic, and economic actions between a government approach to oppose houthi leadership in their attacks on commercial shipping, special envoy lenderking has expanded on this, i will expand on department of defense efforts in the red sea called operation prosperity guardian. since secretary austen announces coalition, more than 20 countries have joined to increase maritime controls and safeguard shipping. the coalition is led by task force 53 which is charged with providing leadership for command and control of international security and the red sea, and the gulf of --.

while protecting the flea fro -- free flow of commerce. the houthis used to conduct attacks such as the ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, unmanned aerial systems and facilities known to how such weapons on january 11th, against houthi targets across the united kingdom with support of a growing number of partners that now includes australia , bahrain, canada, denmark, the netherlands and -- new zealand. across eight locations, including who the -- tran told storage facilities, missile facilities, unmanned air

defense systems and the helicopter. beyond coalition strikes, u.s. forces have conducted self- defense strikes against traxel targets including missiles and u.s. launchers posing an imminent threat nearly three dozen times over the past few weeks. the naval vessels have intercepted and shot down over the red sea. they disrupt the houthis attempts to board and sees maritime sinking three fast boats in the process of fire on u.s. helicopters. complementary to our efforts to degrade and destroy transoft capabilities, i'd like to mention the department's efforts to stem the flow of

iranian origin aid to yemen and to publicly expose iran support on january 11 and january 20th him u.s. naval horses intercepted iranian legal aid in clear violation of international law and i want to thank you for recommending hour two navy s.e.a.l.s who perished, but not aaron bushnell who perished. u.s. forces discovered 200 packages that contain components of unmanned underwater and surface vehicles, propulsion guidance and warheads for ballistic missiles and anti-ship cruise missiles, air defense coordinated components, network equipment, antitank launcher assemblies explosive, and other components. these are the same weapons that have been employed by houthis to attack navy vessels. in support of our efforts to publicly expose iran support, the defense agency published

this unclassified report providing evidence of that houthis have employed iranian missiles in these attacks. iran does not control houthi the way it does militia groups, it has the choice to provide or withhold support without which the houthis would struggle to track and strike vehicles in the red sea and golf , we made it clear we hold it accountable for tax by its partners and proxies and believe leaders are aware of consequences should these result in casualties, we demonstrate the willingness to directly hold iran responsible for attacks to underscore response to attacks by u.s. personnel and facilities and the continuing threat of future attacks, the united states is taken as necessary will continue to take military action against the irg c and its affiliates while the department of defense supports the aim of de-escalating and

restoring stability, we will not hesitate to defend civilians and protect the free flow of commerce one of the world's most critical waterways, i look forward to your questions. >> thank you for your testimony, we will start a round of questions, you have spent the better part of three years both speaking to and trying to understand the houthis and their rationale, for their engagement in a variety of conflicts, their rationale is ridiculous on its face, they say this is connected to israel's response in gaza yet they are attacking ships indiscriminate of the ship's flag, they have nothing to do with what is happening in gaza but it is important we understand what the reasons are, what the houthis goals are because it helps us shape the response and try to rebuild insurance . i appreciate you talking with me for a moment about why you think the houthis

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

beginning of this conflict and now on the red sea, testing all of these items they have been able to receive from the iranians in violation of human. the council resolutions or to construct in their own country with the parts that are smuggled in. >> i think that they have sought as you know, senator to link this to the gaza situation. it is entirely an illegitimate linkage, you rightly point out that there are attacking ships in a reckless manner. >> [ indiscernible ] >> witnesses will suspend, committee will be in order. >> including those destined, they attacked one ship loaded with corn for iran, the attack russian ships, chinese ships, they have a huge amount of international enmity as a result

. i think you see that reflect that then the number of countries speaking out in various ways about the problem. i think the fact they continue this and have said publicly they will not stop and tell there is a cease-fire in gaza is an indication that we are not yet at the point unfortunately where they do intend to dial back. >> ambassador schapiro, the administration is pointed to general article two authorities as the justification for this military campaign. i know that you do not serve in the dod general counsel office but this looks to me like war in every bit of the constitutional sense. we have engaged in multiple rounds of strikes, we have a limited number of boots on the ground and have taken casualties, we have prisoners.

i'm having a hard time understanding why this does not require a traditional congressional war authorization. many of you can speak about the legal basis for these ongoing strikes. >> u.s. forces maintain building and defend themselves. it u.s. forces maintain the ability to defend themselves operating unlawfully, they have the obligation to defend to protect u.s. shipping under attack from various sources including piracy when they are transiting national waters, the president to direct the deliberate strikes to protect and defend u.s. personnel and certain partners. the strikes are also necessary and proportionate actions exercised inherent right of self-defense.

beyond that, i would defer to colleagues in the office of the general counsel on appropriate occasions, the president has forwarded to congress a report consistent with the war powers resolution but i will defer to the -- my colleagues to go for there. >> senator young? >> thank you, chairman, the chairman has referenced the importance of aa1 mf in the context, i know the senator also articulated that. i would emphasize historically, it's been important to me that congress bases its prerogatives as a relates to authorizing force seriously in part because i feel like this strengthens the hand of our commander-in- chief and war fighters and re- establish deterrence. so as this conversation moves forward , the details will matter but i

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

president's authority as commander-in-chief to make those -- >> is there a precedent you are looking to give me just one, give us a legal basis for operation prosperity guardians. >> i would have to defer to colleagues for that, that's an inherent part of the presidents article two authority. >> did you not anticipate questions about the legal rationale before you came to the subcommittee? >> we did indeed, those are the answers we believe provide the president authority to conduct these operations. both defensive and indeed -- >> this is about as rigorous for the record. not for you of course, you have been tasked with being here that those are about as specific as the administration's rationale with the war power notification bequeathing more information on

ongoing basis. reporting and bloomberg stated a legal development by the administration that operations in international waters are not considered hostilities, intermission strikes don't constitute hostility and thus would not trigger war powers resolution. >> i'm not familiar with that legal theory, the strikes. i think i read about this in the new york times. i'm not familiar with that theory within the administration, the strikes against u.s. international mariners are strikes certainly that involve u.s. ships that the u.s. navy is obligated and has a right to defend against international waters and there are necessary proportionate response is under article 51 of the united nations chart. >> has united states military

entered into hostilities with houthis? >> i represent the administration. houthis targets might be the correct term, i don't know if that's the correct legal term but we struck as i said many targets in yemen were the houthis have weapons they have used and are using , sometimes in the process of using against us and our partners. >> let me change gears, what the long-term assessment of what authorities in the administration will need if it continues this prolonged exchange of fire with the houthis . >> it is hard to speculate on hypotheticals how this could evolve until now, i think we feel strongly that president has the authorities that we have articulated, there is no question this hearing as part of that, consulting congress on additional actions going

forward and the authorities under which they would be conducted. >> in queue, what the administration's anticipated endpoint at which it assesses it has restored deterrence? >> we need to see the houthis stop these attacks, we have not seen that yet. they feel that it serves some interest whether it's internal or iranian agenda, raising of their profile. whatever it is, considerable capability. until they stop, we are not done. >> just extending the not done, can you characterize for me what military activity is going to be necessary, the administration is ready to take to reach that end point. >> it's very hard to speculate, much of it depends on when they

decide they have endured enough , we are capable in exercising on an ongoing basis, we hope to restore civility and de- escalate tensions in the region soon, we don't want to assume this will take a particular amount of time, we want to use all the tools and partners, and capabilities we have to make very clear to them and of course to iran that this ank yomust e to an end. >> german? >> senator tim kaine. >> thank you german, thank you to the witnesses. the houthi your is abhorrent but i have great skepticism about what we are doing right now. have great skepticism about the legal authorities, i have great skepticism about the absence of the true shared responsibility

with nations whose ships are being attacked by the houthis. why should the usa and uk be shouldering the burden of protecting other relationships? i have serious skepticism about the effectiveness of this operation in terms of the escalating attacks in the red sea. to begin with legal authority, i think we have all conceded that there is no congressional authorization for these hostilities. the hostilities definition in the war powers resolution has clearly been met we're talking about 200 attacks on houthis. we are losing troops. they are losing civilian casualties and others. this is hostilities. there is no congressional authorization. to claim that this is covered by article 2 self-defense, this means you can defend u.s. personnel, you can defend us military assets, you probably can defend you as commercial ships. but the defense of other nations commercial ships in no way, and it's not even close, that is not self-defense under

article 2 of the constitution. a president can't make it self- defense by calling another nation a partner. if you are defending the commercial ships of other nations, it is, in my view, laughable to that self-defense. and so a narrow mission to defend you is shipping both military and commercial, that is article 2 self-defense. but broader efforts to defend commercial ships of other nations, while it may be strategically a good idea, there is no constitutional authorization to do that unilaterally. and second, taking offensive actions and striking targets within the game and to degrade houthi capacity, while again it might be strategic a smart thing, that is not self- defense. under article 2. i basically view this at the first level as a set of actions that might have a strategic value,

although we have yet to see a strategy, senator young and senator murphy and i wrote a letter to the administration asking this question january 23 and we don't have a response. but there may be strategic with i think the activities are far beyond what a president should have the power. that is number one. number two, shared responsibility. commercial shipping in the red sea involves ships for many nations and although there are partners in this operation, the military actions are being undertaken by the u.s. in the uk. why should the united states and uk be shouldering the burden of this? there needs to be, if we can get to a point where we can actually authorize you is participation, we shouldn't do without other nations participating. finally, i guess my most serious skepticism right now is the effectiveness of this. president biden himself has said, the actions we are undertaking are not likely to deter houthi escalation. i am a little disappointed that you so quickly try to pour cold

water on the idea that this is connected to the war in gaza. these attacks started, as you said, on november 19. the houthis have said this is because of the war in gaza. night you pointed out instances of ships not israel or instances of ships that had food going to nations that needed food. but i think the most natural interpretation of this is the houthis seeing some suffer in the region are saying others are going to suffer in the region until we figure out a response. i would venture to suggest that about the only time we have seen something that was a de- escalation moment was in the week plus long pause in gaza when the first hostage deal was done. and so, trying to reestablish deterrence, idle to going to do it 206 become 400 strikes, 800 strikes, 1200 strikes. i think you will reestablish deterrence when we get a

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

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

against these attacks. what does the administration effort with saudi arabia in terms of being more involved in this effort, and is there progress on that front? >> tim lenderking? >> that's an apt question to ask as well. i know that from the stateside and secretary blinking, this is a very significant issue that was raised early on and we felt, i think as ambassador schapiro said, this is an international problem and needs an international response. certainly we need to see our golf partners, we feel that is the case, there isn't a country in the gulf that approves of what the houthis are doing, but what is happening with the saudi's? >> and the other nations, uae,

is there effort in that regard? >> >> >> there is certainly engagement , i won't speak for the defense department, but secretary of state as well, if anything to expand this coalition either opg or the strike coalition. there is very strong recognition that the gulf partners , i think to get it senator kaine's question, it is a multifaceted responsibility. >> words the economic impact? who suffers as a result of this? i know shipping rates for europe and asia have gone up significantly but even in the atlantic and pacific shipping rates have gone up partly because there is less container capacity as a result of people having to around the capability. but who suffers from this? are the chinese traders suffering?

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

help me with this idea. who suffers the most in terms of trade? and why is china not participating? >> i couldn't agree more with you, senator. i think the burden has to be shared because the pain is being felt in multiple realms in multiple regions. if you look at where the impact is, a country like egypt where canal fees are down 50% and it's impacting the currency, the ability of their economy to function, look at the movement of humanitarian supplies in the sudan of a desperately poor situation, violence prevailing there, that is very disturbing, the ethiopian economy is also suffering and came in itself, -- yemen are being hurt by what the houthis are doing. the decrease in commercial activity going into yemen's own ports. >> it strikes me that we are there at huge risk and economic impact for ourselves in order to support the chinese economy. it's one of the economies of

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

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

the houthis meet these requirements. my question for you is is the trump administration wrong in designating them as a foreign terrorist ministration? >> thank you, senator, there was a strong movement within the trump administration to designate the houthis, it led to the fto, a new demonstration came in and saw to prioritize game and --is a foreign policy priority. i believe it is more prudent in terms of the peace process i described. >> i heard you describe the peace process but with all due respect i saw the article in foreign affairs were a national security advisor claimed the middle east was the greatest period we've ever seen and now we see what happens. my question is what do the houthis have to do to be a foreign terrorist organization? do they have to kill americans? >> certainly not. i think we have come down hard with this designation we have. the fto is a possibility. we constantly assess the impact of the campaign, both the military, the impact of the designation, the is the gt will

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

the iranian military and the palestinian terrorist groups including hamas. we are sending our tax dollars there. they started receiving them in august of last year and were supposed to receive them through september of this year. we shouldn't send a penny to an organization like this. so my question to you, i noted question to answer, but, can you guarantee that our taxpayer dollars that are going to game and -- yemen are being diverted to the houthis? >> i think that is an incredibly important point. i'm not aware of taxpayer dollars going to support this type of activity. that should not be happening. that is definitely not within the priorities nash >> can you guarantee our taxpayer money won't end up supporting the houthis doing exactly what they are doing which is putting u.s. and lives at risk, driving up inflation, not only in the region as was described but disrupting supply chains, causing cargo ships,

causing inflation here and hurting americans a home. i am scared we are funding both sides of the preposition by sending this aide. >> senator, i share the concern, i will take a look at that. >> i appreciate that. secretary blink and could not answer either when i asked about the foreign aid going into gaza and being diverted by hamas. please address this. >> thank you for your concern. >> are you ready to go, van hollen? >> i am. thank you. welcome to both of you. just to my friend, senator hagerty, i would suggest everyone look at the statements signed including a roos -- recent renewal by our ambassador that makes it absolutely clear that when it comes to aid being provided by u.n. organizations and international ngos that he has no reports of diversion, even from our israeli friends.

i'd be happy to share that with the senator. >> if i have might, i've had directly reported from israelis and that's attempting. us but they haven't reported to the coordinator and that is the statement i got from a couple days ago. happy to share it with you. >> go asked the national security divisor. >> if i could have a few more minutes. as a result of that. look, i'm going to pick up on a couple of questions raised by senator 12/tran12, and ambassador shapiro, good to see you. there's been lots of discussion about our actions about the houthis and i am fully in support of protecting waterways. but, let's also recognize that the houthi action has been in response to the war on gaza. would you not agree with that, mr. shapiro? >> thank you, senator.

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

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

that includes secretary austen's conversations with minister for defense, conversations between our military, we have made very clear that no operation should be considered or undertaken in rough without a clear and executable plan and the follow- through to implement it to ensure the safe evacuation of of civilians or safe harbor in rafah and provision for humanitarian needs as they move. >> given that you agree it would be a mistake for the u.s. to provide more offensive weapons at this time to the government without receiving assurances with respect to actions in rafah that we requested? >> as you know, senator, the president has made clear from the beginning of this conflict on october 7 that he will help ensure israel has what it needs to defend itself following those terrible terrorist attacks and ensuring the can be repeated.

that they must observe the laws of war, the loss of conflict, and ensure that they do the maximum to protect civilians and provide for humanitarian needs. as you know the president is very much in dialogue with you, senator, issued the national security memorandum 20 which will help ensure that we receive credible assurances from all of our partners who receive defense articles and certain defense services. >> i very much appreciate the president taken that action. i think it was an important step, thank you to the ministration and president on that. but let me just say, i think it would be sending very mixed signals if, prior to receiving clear assurances from the netanyahu government that they won't take actions in rafah that we are worried about, we are at the same time to expand military assistance. i would like to include in the record a statement made by

samantha power today from jordan where she is standing in front of lots of world food program shipments that need to get into gaza, saying these should be in gaza. i would just ask you, ambassador shapiro, and both of you, to take back to the present administration, 25 senators wrote the president a letter talking about five specific actions. that the netanyahu government needs to take to allow more assistance into rafah including opening more crossings. things that are common sense measures. in the view of many of us, that should be taken right now. so thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate it. >> i will added to the record. thank you. senator young and i will pose a series of second-round questions for you. i want to start with, i think it is really important a series of questions you got from senator kaine and to a certain

extent, senator van hollen. supporting the actions the mystery is taken because i believe the u.s. is a guarantor of the freedom of navigation of international waters. we have an obligation to respond when the united states interests are being attacked in commercial waters, but i do worry about the efficacy of a campaign of military strikes when we have seen very little evidence airstrikes against the houthis have restored deterrence over the course of a seven-year war with the saudis who have conducted 23,000 airstrikes. i would note that nine of the locations targeted by the u.s. and the uk strikes in january of this year were previously 419 airstrikes in the saudi led air war between 2015 and 2022. so, if 23,000 airstrikes by the saudi's were defective in moving the needle militarily and restoring deterrence, how

can we be confident that our campaign of airstrikes is going to have a different outcome? >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, we have to understand who we are dealing with, an organization designated global terrorist organization that simply thinks the rules don't apply to it. they are backed by a common denominator of a range of threats around the region by iran which provides weapons, which we have discussed, which provides intelligence, which provides targeting information and financial support and training. they too have an agenda and that includes to try to get the united states to depart the middle east. these are the actors we are dealing with and what our

strikes are intended to demonstrate, first of all, is that we will continue to degrade and remove the capability if they continue to conduct these attacks. we will also try to interdict as much as we can and work with our partners on that. we will of course defend those who are transiting the waters and we will be prepared to take additional actions if there are obviously additional threats against us or our people. we demonstrated that clearly in our responses to the tragic attack on tower 22 in jordan. there was a very strenuous response in iraq and syria against yard gc affiliated targets individuals and facilities. and it has until now led to a quiet period, since every fourth. but has demonstrated to iran, again one of the key enablers of the houthis that we are prepared to respond. >> great, but the extent of the

military infrastructure inside , especially after seven years developing partnership with iran is extensive. they have shown over the course of seven years of significant airstrikes from the saudi's, sometimes with you is participation in help, the ability to quickly rebuild their capacity. there's not a lot of evidence that during a period of these airstrikes we have had any effective deterrent. do we actually believe there is a finite amount of infrastructure that can be hit and destroyed so as to change the reality inside the red sea through military operations alone? >> we know that they still have capability. we sort of have a good sense of the numerator, what we have been able to eliminate, and what they have used. and we don't fully know the denominator. that is obviously information we are working to develop and we are working to prevent it from expanding through introductions and working with partners to prevent other smuggling activities. i can't tell you that we know

that there is a moment when they will decide that they have had enough. that is our intention, to make sure that they understand that if they continue to target us and their innocent mariners, we will work with our partners to protect them and we will respond as appropriate to conduct these acts of self-defense. >> we ask you one less question on this question of authorization. i do agree it is very troubling, and very creative interpretation of article 2 authority to extend protection to partners. i agree with senator kaine that that is probably not a theory in good standing. but let me ask you if you believe that article to authority is you the ability to attack partners of those that are directing attacks he was

partners. i'm asking of course about iran. do you have existing article 2 authority, having identified iran as a participant in these goofy attacks to launch strikes against iranian assets or iran itself? >> i would be overstepping to speculate on authorities for strikes have not taken place. i will say as article ii authority was relevant in the response strikes to iraq and syria following the attack on tower 22 in jordan in which three us -- service members were killed. that has an impact in iran's thinking since the target includes irgc affiliated facilities. and it included individuals that the irgc was well-known to support in their attacks in the u.s. so i think they take that seriously and they should take that seriously.

>> special envoy mr. lenderking, the houthis indicated if they were relisted as especially global terrorist group they would expel humanitarian workers and take other actions, we are just days into this going into effect, can you provide any update on where those threats stand as well as a practical application of this designation on the ground? >> thank you, senator. i mean, the houthis took a few actions which honestly haven't had a great deal of impact. they did as you note, threatened to expel u.s. and uk aid workers in . there are number of u.s. and uk nationals that do a lot of great work on the humanitarian side in yemen. from what i understand so far, the houthis have not made good on those threat.

the issued legislation quote unquote, i say that in quotes because they are not a legitimate government, they are not internationally recognized, they are militant group. recently designated as a terrorist group also. they took action to designate us, and they have said they will continue their attacks on shipping. so they have taken a few steps, which i think are mainly for their own public consumption. >> you spent, over the years you've spent countless days in the region, you may have there again soon, we are discussing me for the hearing. can you describe how the narrative has shifted since the brutal attacks on october 7, in terms of bringing peace to yemen from before the war to now. >> well, i think a significant number of yemenis want to see the conflict ended.

i think it is heartening, as i mentioned earlier, that the truce that was set in april 2022 has essentially held inside yemen. despite the fact that there is attacks on the red sea by the houthis, red sea shipping, the internal war in yemen has not heated up . we are concerned that could happen, be another effect, if you will, of a prolonged situation on the red sea. and by the way, i think it's important that the roadmap i described is something that the parties, that is the yemen government, the houthis and the saudis, all say they still want to see achieved. i think that is important. >> that is where i was headed next. >> the key priorities to get the red sea attacks under control. stopped. >> and what if there's ongoing escalation? what will the implications for your broader efforts to try and reconcile?

>> no question the broader escalation or continuation of the status quo undermines the peace effort which we have worked very hard to achieve over the last three years. and ultimately, i think, degrade our own interest in the region which are solidly behind seeing a piece effort in yemen. we do not want a return of al qaeda in yemen. we don't want isis building up its capabilities in yemen. yemen is a country which threat has led to the deaths of americans. stability is the interest of those and our partners. the roadmap i referred to said it's the best opportunity yemen has had for peace since this conflict began. >> before i recognize senator cruz, i would be remiss if i didn't ask a question about china. in the last year or so, it likes to style itself as a power broker in the middle east. and yet, here we are.

in the midst of a real security crisis which is, for so many, and economic into poetic crisis in the region. and china is nowhere to be found. mr. lenderking, how is this example of chinese inaction helpful for our diplomats if it all and pushing back on chinese nomadic and financial inroads in the region? it seems like opportunity to remind people who is really working to affect positive change in the region. >> senator, thank you. picks up on the questions senator romney post about the chinese role. we do see a certain amount of freeloading that is absolutely unacceptable. when we talk about an international problem that needs an international solution, we need the chinese much more aggressively engaged. they are feeling the impact economically of the red sea attacks on their own shipping effort. and i would just assure you that we have a dialogue at my

level and both senior levels of the government with the chinese about taking a more responsible role in the red sea. and we will continue that. >> senator cruz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. shapiro, you've worked on iran related issues throughout the administration. you are on the team headed by rob malley and now at the defense department. meanwhile, the biden administration has allowed the uranian regime to build up a ghost fleet of tankers which are third country flag tankers. that fleet grew from about 70 vessels at the beginning of the administration to almost 400 tankers today. the uranian regime used that ghost fleet to ship over 1 billion barrels of oil and to make unaccountable tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars.

when joe biden came into power iran was selling roughly 300,000 barrels of oil per day. today due to the biden administration appeasement of iran, iran is selling roughly 2 million barrels of oil per day. those billions of dollars went directly to fund terrorism. they went to the houthis, to hamas, they pay for the houthis terrorism and their weapons. they paid for the october 7 atrocities in israel. the biden administration refused to meaningfully enforce our sanctions, and we are and the consequences with war in the middle east. in your judgment, how has the biden administration's appeasement of iran and refusal to enforce sanctions against

iran how is that worked up for the safety and security of israel and the safety and security of america? >> thank you, senator. and number of the questions you raised about sanctions enforcement are the problems of the treasury department. and i would simply, on behalf of the defense department differ to my colleagues there. i will tell you that the subject of the hearing focuses on how we are responding to this particular threat of and red impact organization, houthi. we also spoke a bit about the u.s. response to -- >> i had a question. how is this working out for the safety and security of israel and america? you're not answering the question. >> the answer i can provide is that we are making very clear to iran through posture in the

region, through the assistance we provide for partners including israel in defending itself, are other responses to iran and organizations targeting our personnel, tragically have killed three personnel, and in their sponsorship of the houthi military strikes against free shipping in the red sea, that we will respond. >> with all respect, that is baloney. the ayatollah has heard the message. let me ask you, how many ghost fleet vessels did the biden administration sanction before october 7? spoke again, sanction matters belong to the treasury department. i don't know the answer and would have to defer. >> and, is the biden administration concerned about the billions of dollars they continue to flow to the ayatollah today, right now, today, that money is flowing to the ayatollah because there are 400 ships in the ghost fleet that this administration won't sanction. ayatollah is selling much of that oil to communist china. the revenues being used to fund

hamas, the houthis, and the biden administration responses we made clear there would be consequent is. baloney., for many. why will the biden administration not cut off the money from iran? >> senator, have to stay in the lane of the department of defense. >> did you work with robin's task force? >> i worked as a advisor. >> your ambassador, you have long experience in the region. i find it impossible do you have no views on the $100 billion plus that joe biden has gifted to the ayatollah that has been used to murder americans and israelis. i'm asking you, isn't it time to cut off the money? >> on behalf of the defense department what i can say is when we see iran, which we see on a daily and regular basis, supporting terrorism, providing weapons, providing intelligence

and sponsorship and training to terrorist organizations, we make clear to iran -- >> you don't make clear. if they continue to have the money you are not making it clear. you see here is $100 million that we are going to send you a stern letter. that $100 billion is being used to fund weapons. let me ask, it's not just iran, houthis, the trumpet mystery rightly designated the houthis as a terrorist organization. within a month of taking office what did the biden administration do? delisted the houthis. now finally last month, the biden administration was forced to relist the houthis and designate them as specially designated global terrorist group. how did it work out the listing the houthis for three years? they behave just quiet or did they continue to be the

terrorist they have been the whole time, even while the administration was trying to appease them? >> some of this is mr. lenderking's province. we have done is as the houthis have demonstrated through their actions that their behavior is a terrorist organization is not only the designation, but also the defensive operation -- >> so prior to january of this year they were behaving as terrorist? >> they were not shooting at ships in the red sea. >> were the houthis terrace last year? >> they were designated, a designation dashes but i'm asking you, is the dod's view, or the houthis terrorists in 2023? >> they were designated terrorist organization as of a few days ago. >> and you delisting them was indefensible and has proven catastrophic. >> is a quick follow-up, mr. shapiro, to senator cruz's line of questioning, forces in the

region have interdicted shipping, special envoy king referenced it earlier, interdicted the shipments from iran over to yemen for number of years running. can you describe briefly, and then it will turn over to my colleague, senator barrasso. how is the smuggling situation evolved since october 7? and since we have surged our forces in the red and the arabian sea? >> thank you, senator. the smuggling continues. we know that it continues. to get into details to describe exactly what we are seeing, the volume, the roots and shipments would probably require speaking in a closed session. but because we continue to see those efforts, we have undertaken, enhanced efforts to

identify and interdict those shipments when we see them. we do communicate with various partners who could also bring that capability to interdict. mr. lenderking and i have worked together on looking at opportunities to strengthen the inspection mechanism among them which tinker shipments that are on the way into the port of yemen are also searched for weapons. this is a work in progress. i believe it does continue but because we know it continues, we are upping our efforts to interdict those shipments. >> senator barrasso. >> thank you so much. mr. lenderking, last week i was in djibouti, we have 140 members of the air national guard there, right there at the tip of activities, it's a

hotspot we see happening with the attack on the ships that to the point they can't get through the suez canal, they're going around to africa and it's adding about 12 days to transit time. concern adding to the costs. significantly impacting foreign trade. all of these things as a result of the houthis and what they're doing in that area. i mean, sometimes with drones, missiles, it's only about 11 miles, i was there at the point looking how close things were. they are in hotspot. the day i get back the new york times has his exposi about the fact that the administration has fallen down on the job trying to prevent the sale of iranian oil to china. the reported 59 million barrels of oil, they described them as shadowy tankers, that left iran and all of these have ended up in china. and then the cash from all of

this ended up in iran, and they said the lowest prices of oil would be $2.8 billion, but likely much more, prices fluctuate. secretary of treasury came to congress, she testified, before the report came out, thing is fine and we're doing everything we can. the american people don't believe it. the soldiers there were risking their lives don't believe it. that is the money being used for the 140 attacks by houthis, funded by iran, one american soldier in the last four months, we know where the money is coming from. a lot of it is coming from the sale of oil we should be blocking. other funds go through the united states. i think the administration has failed completely. i think the president is being outworked, outplayed and outmaneuvered by the iranians. releasing a diminished president not up to the job. what are you doing from the

standpoint of the state department to prevent this ongoing effort, for iran to need you to sell to china. they are working together and iran is giving drones to russia. north korea being belligerent as well. it just seems we are not where we want to be as a state department official what is your response? >> thank you, senator. thank you for visiting djibouti. it is not everyone's first thought of were to go. but we have important interest there. i have been there three times in this particular job. i am aware of the details about what you speak and we have an important interdiction and inspection operation for yemen ships based in djibouti called the inspection mission. i certainly agree with you that the iranians are not supposed will to sell that oil to china. i think there are very vigorous efforts to counter that with our partners and allies. and, that kind of funding i think you're speaking about is in violation of not only u.s.

interest, but also numerous u.n. security council resolutions. >> it does seem it was a new york time exposi the brought it to the for. the ministration seems to be unaware of this happening out there. >> i think the administration, i'm not the iran expert senator, but i think the administration is aware of it and would certainly look into this in more depth. >> if they are aware of it than they try to mislead congress intensely because the secretary of treasury said we are doing everything possible and all of a sudden this gets shown to the world from a press coverage. anything you want to add on this? okay. we can go on and on. the other thing i saw in djibouti and asked to comment on this as well, china is building a large base there, you can see it from the air coming in, you can see it from the ground. chinese making significant investments in that area. are based in djibouti was an old french foreign legion base,

which is whites named after the commander of the base at the time, chinese making, communist chinese making significant investments in that area, or the gulf comes down goes up into the red sea, from the state department's standpoint anything you are noticing with that, anything to be concerned with? >> certainly i think we are conscious and aware of chinese expansion in the gulf region which is by and large not in our interests. i think that is very much a part of the engagement we have with the chinese and also our partners in the region. and in east asia as well. >> mr. shapiro, last month qatar energy decided to suspend all transit to the red sea. this led to shipments around the cape of good hope in south africa adding significant delays. probably 12 days added. much more fuel being expended to move the product around.

same time, russia, iran, both building up expert capacity. will europe's energy supply be helped or hurt by biden's decision to reduce exports putting a puzzle that given the supplies of qatar are now around africa? >> senator, i'm not an expert on export policies but i will decline to answer the question. >> i will tell you the answer. it is hurting. >> address your question about china? china has been mentioned a couple of occasions. i think it is noteworthy. some of your colleagues mentioned what is quite clear is that china is playing no role to help with this multilateral, international effort to defend legitimate shipping in

international waterways. it is one of those moments when i think it has become clear to many of our partners in the region, sometimes when people ask questions, are they going to remain committed to the u.s., or will they have alternative security partners? they do not have alternative security partner in china. but there is nobody other than the u.s. who will do what we are doing to defend freedom of navigation in this region. and so i actually think it has been a moment of clarity about you us influence in this region in this regard. >> i don't know if either of you want this question, what is the administration strategy to ensure europe is not forced to turn to iran and russia now that export based on the presence the policy. >> i think it is beyond the defense department's area. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator barrasso. let me think you both for being here. in particular, thank you for the hard work you've done previous to the irruption of this conflict to try to bring political settlement to the people of yemen.

i know we were close. i think one of the reasons why we need to place a priority on clay losing this round of hostilities so you and others can get to the work of trying to midwife that political compromise. i noticed an individual with a resemblance in the audience, and so i want to welcome your father and stepmother to the hearing. you should be very proud of the work your son has done to try to bring peace to a region has been without it for far too long. with that, thank you both for your testimony. senator young and i have commented, this is been one of those substantive wide-ranging hearings we have had in this committee. we are going to keep the record open for members to submit questions until the close of business thursday. this sub committee meeting is now adjourned.

[indistinct conversations]

>> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress. from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat about issues debated and decided. with no commentary. no interruptions.

and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more. including cox. >> the syndrome is extremely rare. but friends don't have to be. >> this is joe. >> when you're connected, you're not alone. >> cox, supports c-span as a public service along with his other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> if you ever miss any of c- span coverage, you can find it any time online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates and public events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-

hand side of your screen and you hit play on slick videos. this timeline tool makes it easy to get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span points of interest. >> the ambassador who negotiated the you is taliban deal to withdraw military forces from afghanistan testified before the house foreign affairs committee and kohl's the afghan leadership mostly responsible for the taliban takeover after the withdrawal. by the time trump left office in 2021 he was troops in afghanistan had reduced to 2500. president biden completed the withdrawal a month later. this hearing is about two and half hours.