0 legitimizing them as a real government? >> not only us, but virtually the entire international community has made clear what we expect and will insist on from the taliban. if they want to seek any legitimacy or any support. and that includes, it starts with freedom of travel. so we have been intensely engaged with turkey in qatar to get the airport in kabul up and running again which is now the case. we started to get flights out last week. and with regard to sharif, you're correct. there are flights that have been there for some time that have not been allowed to leave. we want to see the flights leave. we want to allow the flights to start to move. and we're working on that every day. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. secretary. we requested such a classified briefing not too long ago. we welcome your assurance to schedule this briefing sometime in the immediate future. >> yes. absolutely. >> and i now recognize representative brad sherman from california for five minutes. >> secretary blinken, thank you for reminding us that americans were not required to register if they were in afghanistan and i hope must colleagues will support my legislation to require americans to register if they go to war zone. the ranking member says that he never thought he'd see an unconditionable surrender of the united states to the taliban. he saw it in 2020. when president donald trump announced that we would be out by may 1st of 2021. force the release of 5,000 of the taliban's best fighters, and most importantly, created a circumstance where there was not even a credible possibility that we would engage in force to support the afghan government. there are those who say we should get out all of our afghan allies and all those who face oppression or death from the taliban. i would point out that the afghan army together with all of us veterans over 20 years together with all of their families, you're talking about millions of people. the taliban may be harsh to the girls who are music students, who are orphans, imagine how harsh they throb a girl's whose father was in the afghan army trying to kill the taliban. the administration took over. the american people made it clear. we had to get out in 2021. the afghan government, some thought had a -- some chance to fight to a stalemate. but by spring, those closest to us, those most in the know were demanding visas to get out to flee. they were not asking for guns to build trenches around kabul to fight the taliban, they were asking for visas. they were demanding visas. they were making videos about how they were going to be killed. when they start flee, that started a stampede. there is no way the administration can have an orderly or successful stampede. and it seems absurd in retrospect to think that average afghan grunt would fight in the trenches while some of those who were best connected desperate to flee in a matter of days. secretary blinken, when you came into office on january 20th, we were committed to pulling everyone out of afghanistan within thee months, by may 1st. did the trump administration leave on your desk a pile of note books as to exactly how to carry out that plan? did we have a list of which afghans we were going to evacuate? did we have a plan to get americans from all over afghanistan to kabul and out in an orderly way? how meticulous was the planning for the trump administration declared may 1st withdraw? >> thank you, congressman. we inherited a deadline. we did not inherit a plan. so no plan. no plan at all it's amazing it wasn't much, much worse. but the trump administration gave 5,000 of the taliban's top fighters back to the taliban. what did we get for that? other than empty promises that were broken? >> congressman, the deal that the previous administration struck involved as you rightly said, committing to remove all u.s. forces from afghanistan by may 1st of this year and in addition, as that deal was being negotiated then put into effect, pressing the afghan government to release these 5,000 prisoners. many of whom went back to the battlefield. and at the same time, in return, getting from the taliban to two commitments, one, not to attack our forces or allied and partner forces during the time of the agreement from the time it was reached until may 1st when we were supposed to pull out all of our forces. and as well as no the to go up the major cities. and to take steps to ensure that afghanistan would not be used by al qaeda or any other group. >> one more question. you're criticizing for not getting our weapons out. our weapons were given to the afghan military. they were all over the country. was there a way to disarm the afghan government without being seen by the world as betraying the afghan government? and was there a way without casualties to go over all over afghanistan and grant the trucks and the tanks, et cetera? simply put, no. a lot of excessive equipment was handed over to the afghan security and defense forces partners that we worked with for 20 years, supported, financed, and equipped for 20 years to take on some of that equipment. when those forces collapsed in the space of about 11 days, some of that equipment ended up in the hands of the successor forces, the taliban. our folks worked very hard to disable or dismantle equipment that we still control before we left afghanistan. and what we see now is much of the equipment that was left behind including in the hands of the afghan forces that then fell to the taliban, much of it based on what i understand from my colleagues at the dod is an operable or soon will be inoperable because it has to be maintained. it's not of any strategic value but it does give the taliban, as we've seen in pictures, uniforms and guns and some other equipment that is in their hands. >> i now recognize representative chris smith of new jersey who is the rafrmging member of the committee on africa, global health and global human rights for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, mr. secretary, you testified that you encouraged americans to leave the country. you know simultaneous with that was statements being made including by president biden that afghans military capability was 300,000 man strong. and that they had the best training imaginable. at best, i would say they were misled. you don't mention withdraw conditions that were placed by president trump on any exodus from afghanistan. i do have a couple questions:did you concur and support president bud en's july 23rd phone call telling president begany to be untruthful about the taliban's success? according to reuters which reviewed the transcript and the audio, president biden said, "and there's a need whether it be true or not, there say need to project a different picture." was that an ad lib by president biden or was that scripted into the phone call? if it was scripted, by who? secondly, have any americans been arrested, beaten, abducted or killed by the taliban or isis-k and do we have the capacity and capability to know that? third, were there any gaps or weaknesses in the vetting process of afghan evacuees, especially in light of the fact that reliable information on some perhaps many who got parole wasn't available to conduct a meaningful background check. are you concerned that the taliban may have embedded its members as evacuees? i visited our base in ft. dixon recently with some of the other members of congress and our governor. and that's a number of questions. i was very concerned about the vetting or lack thereof and the fact that parolees about 70% strong at our base at least , and we're going to go to 13,000, they could leave if they like. they're free to leave. it's not clear whether or not they can return. but they're free to leave. finally, one of the profoundly negative consequences outside of afghanistan has been china. and taiwan. the communist party media including ccb global times and i read it every day are saturating the to you juan he's with message that's give up and surrender to beijing because the united states will just as it did in afghanistan band on them too. that's what the global times is saying. if you can start off with the first question, i would appreciate it. >> thank you very much. first, with regard to the phone call you cited, i'm not going to comment on leaked purportedly leaked transcripts and phone calls. what the president said in that conversation with the president is exactly what he was saying in public. and it's this. the issue is not the capacity at that point of the afghan government and the afghan security forces. to hold the country and to hold kabul it was their will. and we were concerned that they were not demonstrating that will or that plan. he pressed president on the need to consolidate the forces. military advice from our military leaders to make sure he can defend the place that's need defending and not overstretch the forces. and he needed to bring people together. >> i understand. >> the question is -- >> with all due respect. i only have two minutes. is the transcript untrue? >> again, i'm not commenting on any purported leaked transcripts. i'm telling what you based on my knowledge of the conversation the president said. and what he said is exactly what he said in public. second, with regard to american citizens remaining behind, the ones we're in contact with, we have 500 people on the task force and teams dedicated to them to be in regular contact with them. you've not heard from those people. i can't say where there are any american citizens who are not in contact with or don't know of who may have been mistreated in some fashion. third, with regard to the background checks, and this is very important and you're right to focus on it, you know, as you know, before afghans evacuated from afghanistan reached the united states, they go to a transit country. that's where the initial checks are done. we surged customs and border control to do the initial checks. and then when they get to the united states, first at a military base, those checks are continued using all of law enforcement intelligence, security agencies to do that. so that we can make sure that we are not letting anyone into the country who could pose a threat or a risk. that's ball thans is so important in the program. we all want to bring afghans at risk in the united states. we also have an obligation that you point out to the security of fellow citizens. finally, taiwan. as i said earlier, what of they may be making in newspapers or propaganda, there issing in that china would have liked more than to reup the war in afghanistan and to remain bogged down for another five, ten, or 20 years. that would have been against our strategic interests. >> gentleman's time has expired. i now recognize the chair of new jersey. he is security migration and international and economic policy for fuf minutes. >> thank you, mr. secretary for being with us for the third time. and i also want to say thank you to the work that the state department has done in getting people including 11 members of one family that were all united and are here now in this country. so i tip my hat to those people who work so hard. the question i have is the taliban seems to be having a complete hold in the country. i understand there are other groups in afghanistan. how fragile or how strong, firm is the taliban's hold on this country? is and do you see that breaking apart as everybody wants their peace down the line? this country is made up of pieces. >> it's -- thank you. it's a very good question. important bun. and it is very hard to predict. the country is in so many ways you pointed out fractured among different groups, different ethnic groups. different outside actors that may be supporting one group or another. for the taliban to fully consolidate control that, is -- that remains an open question. it's also why ironically it would be profoundly in the taliban's interest to actually put forward a genuinely inclusive and representative government. to the extent it doesn't, to the extent that everyone in the taliban is left out that, is only likely to over -- at some period in time, whether it's tomorrow, next week, next year or thereafter, cause those who are left out to try to assert one way or anothe their rights and needs. i think all of that is an open question. at this point. one last thing i'd mention. the country itself is in desperate straits. the u.s. estimate that's half the population is in need of humanitarian assistance. we have severe malnutrition. health problems. covid-19, droughts, et cetera. and so there too the taliban has a bug problem on its hands. and, of course, it is generating very, very little revenue. all of, which i might add, gives the international community very significant leverage and influence going forward. >> i also read where they're running out of food in the next few months. >> yep. that's correct. we've seen a terrible drought, growing nutrition problems. it's onest reasons that we think it's so important to make sure that regardless of anything else, we and other countries find ways to continue humanitarian assistance to the people of afghanistan. we've committed additional funds to do that. there is a pledging conference called by the united nation that's is on going. that's through ngos and the unitedations. we need to do everything we can to make sure that people of afghanistan don't suffer any more than is already the case. >> are we going to help afghanistan with food and aid? we extract certain commitmentes from them before we just give them. >> food. >> done. >> i want to comment the country of colombia. i think they have taken thousands of afghanistans and they're vetting them before they get there. is that accurate? >> there are a number of countries around the world that have made those commitment that's are either serving as transit countries or serving as resettlement countries. >> the gentleman yields back. i now recognize representative joe wilson of south carolina who is a rarpging member of the committee on middle east, north africa and global counter-terrorism for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. and glad to join with dear colleague in thanking our great ally of colombia of helping the afghan refugees. sir, in my service of the foreign affairs committee, the global terrorism subcommittee, the arms services committee, nato parliamentary assembly and the helsinki commission, i've always been impressed bid american foreign service diplomats worldwide. their dedication to service is inspiring. that is why i am shocked at your actions superseding military advice leading to the surrender of afghanistan to be a safe haven for murderous terrorists. biden-harris have also opened this southern borders, stopping the wall of president trump. this allows identified terrorists of the watch list to enter american neighborhoods as suicide bombers to murder as many americans as possible. in american history, american families have never been greater risk of attack at home than today. as the global war on terror is not over, it's been moved from abroad to american homes. as the grateful father of an afghan veteran, i especially see your actions as indefensible. with 12 visits by me across afghanistan to thank the south carolina army national guard troops commended by general lob livingston, i know first hand they appreciated serving with their afghan brothers. i saw the united states agency for international development success in building schools. agricultural projects and hospitals and brujs and roads. my beliefs have been expressed by "the new york post" editorial board on september 1st. and that is, "six lies joe biden told about afghanistan." how can anyone american believe anything biden says after he's lied so blatantly? lied? if there are american citizens left, we're going to stay until we get them out. >> biden admits that americans remain stranded in afghanistan. lie, we're making the same commitment to afghanistan to assist in america. truth. a senior state department official confessed to nbc news that the majority of afghans didn't make it out of kabul. the united states stands by its commitment that we made to vulnerable afghans such as women leaders and journalists, truth, team biden didn't even ensure american em plowed journalists made it to safety. lie, asked by a reporter you see new parallels between what happened in vietnam? none. zero. true, not even a month later, pictures came from kabul of the helicopter flying over the american embassy. lie. biden vowed to continue to provide afghan army with air support. truth, in the wake of biden's withdraw decision, he pulled the air support and intelligence and contractors. the afghan military couldn't operate. lie, july 8th, biden added that the likelihood there is going to be a taliban overrunning everything as highly unlikely. truth in, fact, biden knew the taliban were overtaking the afghan government and asked the president to lie about it. whether it's true or not. sadly, the advanced military equipment led to the terrorists and i end the quote of that article. sadly, the advance military equipment led to the terrorist is comparable to all of the military equipment that we provided to israel since 1948. they chant israel death to america. we must never forget the may 8th bombing in kabul. islamic extremists taurists slaughtered 80 innocent young girls. you should have changed course then. because of this gruesome revealing fact. the murderers of that attack now will have a safe haven to attack american families at home. your bizarre aveiling of bagram airfield left to 13 marines murdered in kabul. you should resign. i yield back. >> mr. secretary, we only have 43 seconds left. of the five minutes. so you -- your spots, i know you'll not be able to answer many of the questions that were put forward by representative wilson. but if you choose, you have 43 seconds of which to respond. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me simply thank the member for his support for the men and wum of the state department. i appreciate that part of the statement. thank you. >> i now recognize representative jerry connolly of virginia who is president of the nato parliamentary assembly for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i guess i would say to my friend from south carolina if i were the member of congress who committed one of those grief as acts in the state of union address when the president the united states mr. obama was our guest to shout out you lie, i might take more care about enumerating other alleged lies. in a hearing with the secretary of state. mr. secretary, what we're listening to in the other sued of the aisle sadly is sort of a salad mix of selective facts and a lot of amnesia in the salad dressing. the history of instability in afghanistan didn't begin on august 14th of this year, did it? >> it did not. >> am i correct in remembering that nkt you could trace direct routes to 1977, 1978 when there was a communist coup and the president of afghanistan was assassinated in the presidential palace. is that correct? >> it is. >> and one year later, the soviet union because of that instability decided to invade afghanistan, is that correct? >> it is. and ten years later, the soviets left afghanistan because they had mounting and maybe really unsustainable casualties and felt they were engaged in a process that could not be won. is that correct? >> it is. >> and meanwhile, because of the united states decided once that happened, it would disengage primarily from afghanistan, groups like the taliban had 12 years in which to create political power. is that correct? >> it is. in 2001, we re-entered afghanistan in response to the tragedy we just remembered 20 year remembrance this week and we moved south until they lost control of the country in that year in 2001. is that correct? >> yes, it is. and the purpose of