 The subcommittee to order, Senator Young, is on his way back from votes. I doubt he is pining to hear all of my opening remarks, so I will put them into the record, turn the days over to him, and then we'll hear from our witnesses. We are convening the subcommittee today to discuss an incredibly important topic, developments in Yemen and on the Red Sea. For the better part of the last decade, Gulf nations, often assisted by the United States, have been at war in Yemen against toothy forces that control sizable parts of the country. I have argued that it was a catastrophic mistake for the United States and our error partners to be part of this conflict. My belief was that the war would simply strengthen the Houthis and strengthen Iran's influence in Yemen. During the last several months, we have seen tragic evidence of this reality. Armed with sophisticated technology from Iran and coordinated with the Iranian military, the Houthis have launched a dizzying barrage of attacks, missiles, underwater drones, aerial drones against ships transiting through the Red Sea. The Red Sea is one of the most important geostrategic locations in the world. 15 percent of international maritime commerce passes through its waters, and now 90 percent of Red Sea traffic has been forced to choose longer and costlier alternatives. The cost increases to global shipping of this diversion will be significant. The Houthis will bear the brunt of that, but the impact isn't just economic. Due to the Houthis' actions in the Red Sea, bulk container ships with food supplies for starving people in Yemen haven't been able to make their deliveries. In Sudan, where 95 percent of the population can't afford, more than one meal per day aid deliveries of food and medicine are crucially delayed and come at significantly higher costs. I oppose the U.S. involvement in the Yemen War. I regret that Houthis are now strong enough to attack our interests in the region. But this is where we are, and now that we are in the crosshairs, we must respond. That's why I have supported the President's leadership to launch Operation Prosperity Guardian to restore maritime security in the Red Sea. I've also supported the President's decision to gather with our partners in the U.K. to target Houthi infrastructure in Yemen to prevent imminent attacks. That kinetic response has been paired with the targeted sanctions strategy to squeeze the Houthis' ability to finance their operations and increased interdiction efforts to intercept weapons coming from Iran to the Houthis. But this response has occurred without congressional authorization. And to my knowledge, there is no existing law that would permit military action against the Houthis. The Constitution requires Congress to authorize acts of war, period stop. We swore an oath to follow the Constitution. If we believe this is a just military action, and I do, then we should authorize it. But we also need to acknowledge that there is a real risk of escalation in the Red Sea, especially since Iran is unquestionably aiding the actions of the Houthis. Thus, an authorization is important to legalize the existing operations, but also guard against an unauthorized mission creep. Now, I want the focus of today's hearing to be on the on the ground reality in the Red Sea, the scope of the threat to the United States, the merits of our existing response plan, and the options going forward. I don't intend for this hearing to turn into a form on congressional authorization. But for the military campaign against the Houthis to continue, I believe that a tailored, time-bound congressional authorization is not just nice to have, it is required to both authorize and limit the current military operation. And I will be in discussions with my colleagues in the coming days to introduce such an authorization. This debate, if we could have it, would importantly help us understand both the power and the limits of American military might in and around the Red Sea. The broader crisis in Yemen and the lingering war is not over. It is a crisis that Senator Young and I have been focused on together for years. The war that has ravaged Yemen for nearly a decade and created the world's worst humanitarian crisis in Yemen has quieted, but the country is still in dire straits. The United States, through Special Envoy Lenderking, who will testify before us today, regional allies and the UN, have all been working together with Yemeni leaders and citizens to find a political solution to permanently end the war and resolve Yemen's internal conflicts. Peace will only come through political reconciliation. Our airstrikes can protect US assets in the region and in the Red Sea, but they cannot bring peace to Yemen. This is an incredibly important hearing today. I look forward to our discussion with our witnesses to help us chart that path forward. Now, now, turn it over to Senator Young. Well, thank you, Chairman, for convening this important hearing on a critical foreign policy challenge. I think our witness is for appearing today. The actions of Iran's proxies in Yemen and the surrounding waters threaten the lives of innocent mariners and sailors as well as significant global commerce, and they risk destabilizing a fragile pathway toward peace in Yemen. Nine nations bordered the Red Sea and connecting Gulfs, none of them are Iran. And yet the bloodstained fingerprints of the world's leading state sponsor of terror are all over the Red Sea. Whether it be material support to the Houthis in Yemen or whether it be other means of direct support using its intelligence and command and control apparatus to enable the actions of the Houthis, these actions are having a cascading, destabilizing effect on food security in Africa, global energy prices, and the dreams of millions of Yemeni people to rebuild their society and lives. It's imperative that the administration respond to these actions while demonstrating it is both a strategy for deterring aggression and appropriate legal doctrine for maintaining these global comments. To date, I have not seen such a strategy put forward. I'm encouraged that the Foreign Relations Committee will be holding two hearings this week on Iran's destabilizing activities across the region, but I must also point out the lack of public committee action on these and other questions since Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7th. I have no doubt about the sincerity of today's witnesses when they will tell us that they're committed to addressing the security challenges across the Red Sea and particularly in Yemen. I do have doubts, however, that the administration has an actionable plan, an actionable plan to bring an end to Houthi aggression, Iranian terrorism, and a curtailment of Russian and Chinese meddling in this vital region. Our military actions to date, carried out by incredibly brave U.S. service members, have yet to stop the Houthis. The questions we're thus presented with are, what do we do now? What actions by the United States are we willing to countenance? How do we push back on the Iranian-perided rhetoric tying the Houthis' actions to Israel's fight against Hamas? How do we continue to push for a stable peace process in Yemen? I hope that we'll be able to get at these topics today, and I hope that we'll hear from our witnesses today what we hear. We'll help us all better understand how the administration plans to ramp up its response to finally take seriously the need to respond adequately to the threats facing the Red Sea. Finally, I'd like to mention the names of Navy Special Warfare Operator 1st Class, Chris Chambers, and Navy Special Warfare Operator 2nd Class, Nathan Gage Ingram. And I'd like to acknowledge and offer my sincerest sympathies to their families. These men came from families of veterans, all of whom understand sacrifice, but they're nonetheless in our hearts. These two brave men gave their lives to preserving America's security and the Red Sea, and we would be remiss if we didn't remember the continued danger our men and women in uniform face even this very hour on the land and sea and in the air around Yemen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Young. Let me add my words and sentiments of sympathy. Thank you for that recognition. The Chairman is joining us today, and I turn it over to him for some opening remarks. Senator Murphy, first, I want to welcome Ambassador Vendor King and Secretary Shapiro to our committee and thank them for their service. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Young for conducting this hearing. I think it's extremely important. I just want to add my support for your opening comments on the responsibility of Congress in regards to the AUMF authorization for use in military force. I agree with you that the administration should be seeking that authority and it's our responsibility to respond to it. And I also want to acknowledge your leadership and Senator Kane's leadership in regards to that issue. One or two points I'd just like to make. I'm very interested in learning where Iran's command and control was involved in regards to the Houdi's campaign. I think as much information as we can get as to the responsibilities for the proxy activities by Iran would be helpful to us. And then the point that you raised earlier, and that is how is the campaign in regards to the Red Sea with the Houdi's affecting the prospects for peace within Yemen from the warring parties. I think these are all issues that are going to be very important for us to learn today and I thank you very much for conducting this hearing. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me introduce our two witnesses and then I'll turn it over to both of you for five minute remarks. It's my pleasure to introduce Tim Lenderking, U.S. Special Envoy for Yemen. Mr. Lenderking is familiar to many of us on this committee, previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Arabian Peninsula Affairs in the Near East Bureau at the Department of State and held other key positions at the State Department in the region. Dan Shapiro is here with us today. Again, well known to this committee. He is currently the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East. Ambassador Shapiro is best known to us as a former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and previously served in a number of important roles here in the United States Senate. I'll turn it over to you first, Mr. Lenderking, and then to Ambassador Shapiro. Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member Young, Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this invitation to speak with you about the situation in Yemen and the administration's response to ongoing Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Yemen is at a crucial moment. Reckless Houthi attacks are jeopardizing the very real accomplishments of multilateral diplomacy over the past three years. When President Biden appointed me Special Envoy for Yemen in 2021, he made clear that achieving a diplomatic, durable peace in Yemen was a top administration priority. That has not changed and there is tangible progress to point to. In 2020-21, Yemen was a hot war with more than 400 cross-border attacks per year and tremendous destruction of infrastructure, countless deaths inside the country. Now, both the cross-border attacks and that destruction have ceased. And after more than 50 trips to the region over the past three years, I remain convinced that peace in Yemen is not only possible but serves U.S. interests, those of our regional partners and of course the Yemeni people themselves, people of Yemen deserve to live in peace. Despite the Houthi's 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 Houthi's escalation, average Yemenis were beginning to see a way back to stability. We should not lose sight of these milestones even as we'd necessarily degrade and destroy Houthi military capabilities and condemn their attacks on civilian shipping. In December, UN Special Envoy for Yemen Hans Grunberg announced that the parties to the conflict had reached an understanding on a roadmap for peace, including a durable ceasefire and an inclusive Yemeni-Yemeni political process. We have strived for and supported these goals. And the UN roadmap remains Yemen's best hope to end the conflict. Yet as we have all seen since October, the Houthis are throwing this progress away. Iran is equipping and facilitating Houthi attacks in the Red Sea. Credible public reports suggest a significant number of Iranian and Lebanese Hezbollah operatives are supporting Houthi attacks from inside Yemen. I can't imagine the Yemeni people want these Iranians in their country. This must stop. The Houthis risk killing mariners from many nations every time they launch an attack which now they have done on more than 45 occasions by attacking oil tankers and other ships carrying hazardous materials. They are accountable for environmental catastrophe in the Red Sea. By making maritime traffic through the Red Sea costly and dangerous, the Houthis are exacerbating economic and humanitarian conditions at Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia and elsewhere. These attacks on commercial vessels are acts of terrorism. The Houthis are not even adhering to their stated goals. They are mostly striking ships with no connection whatsoever to Israel and driving up the difficulty and cost of delivering humanitarian aid to people around the world, including, of course, to Yemenis themselves. Since they hijacked the galaxy leader on November 19th, they've held hostage 25 innocent sailors from five countries. The Houthis should release them immediately and unconditionally and not behave in this reckless manner. What they're 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 in hate. They are blockading the city of Taiz, Yemen's third largest city, and they routinely 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 multi-pronged military, economic, and diplomatic strategy to raise the cost of continued attacks and shift the Houthi calculus. The U.S. military has acted quickly and decisively to thwart the Houthi military threat. In addition, on February 16th, our designation of the Houthis as a specially designated global terrorist went into effect. The designation is a powerful means to hold the Houthis accountable. In parallel to targeted military strikes and the terrorism designation, we are also working every diplomatic channel to speak with one global voice to condemn Houthi attacks. Building on strong and unanimous statements from the UN Security Council and the G7, the United States mobilized a group of 44 states to call out Houthi provocations in the strongest possible terms. On January 10th, we secured passage of UN Security Council Resolution 2722, which demands a halt to these reckless attacks. These efforts are one component of a broader diplomatic strategy. Even as we degrade and disrupt Houthi capabilities, squeeze their finance, their terrorist financing, and shame them on the world stage, we must also seek diplomatic off-ramps. We're working multiple channels to make clear to the Houthis that they must cease their attacks immediately. Let me be clear, we do not seek this confrontation, but we will respond to the attacks. I remain hopeful, as the envoy for Yemen, that we can preserve a diplomatic path forward, but the Houthis are harming their own people by putting off the peace process. Ultimately, peace in Yemen serves the interests of all Yemenis, just as it does those of the United States and our regional partners. The United States stands ready to support. Thank you again for your invitation today. I look forward to the discussion in your questions. Thank you, Ambassador Shapiro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Young, members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the invitation to speak with you today about the Houthis' terrorist and piratical threats in the Red Sea and the Department of Defense's work to protect civilians and restore safe and free navigation for all legitimate maritime traffic in one of the world's most critical waterways. I'll summarize the Houthi threat and our guiding principles for addressing this critical issue. Since November 19th, the Houthis have conducted at least 48 attacks against commercial shipping and naval vessels in and around the Red Sea, through which 15% of all global trade flows. They've used anti-ship ballistic missiles, anti-ship cruise missiles, unmanned aerial systems, uncrewed surface vessels, and in one instance, a helicopter-borne seizure. Despite the Houthis' claims, these attacks are almost entirely unrelated to Israel and Israeli-affiliated shipping. And to be clear, any such attacks would be entirely illegitimate anyway. These are indiscriminate attacks that are as much in affront to maritime commerce as is piracy. And they've affected the interests of more than 55 nations and threatened the free flow of commerce through the Red Sea, a bedrock of the global economy. These attacks have prompted more than a dozen major shipping operators to suspend transits of the Red Sea, causing a spike in insurance rates for vessels in the region, and most importantly, putting the lives of innocent mariners and our service members at risk. The Houthis' attacks are also driving up prices and causing delivery delays in critical humanitarian items, such as food and medicine in places where they're needed most. This is adversely affecting those in need of assistance around the world, including in Sudan, Ethiopia, and indeed in Yemen itself. And to cite one regional country suffering significantly from Houthi terrorism, Egypt has seen Suez Canal transit fees declined by some $100 million per month, depriving it of a critical source of foreign currency. Most recently, the Houthis launched a series of anti-ship ballistic missile attacks and UAS attacks against commercial ships in the Red Sea, including one that impacted the MV Islander on February 22nd, wounding a member of its crew, and one on February 18th against the MV Ruby Mar. They severely damaged that vessel, putting it at risk of sinking, forcing the crew to abandon ship and causing an 18-mile oil slick in the Red Sea. The Houthis have also launched weapons toward our warships, including an anti-ship cruise missile that the USS Laboon intercepted. The Houthis have also fired medium-range ballistic missiles against Israel that have threatened or caused damage, not to Egypt, to Jordan, and Saudi Arabia as well. It's clear that these Houthi attacks represent an international problem that affects all nations committed to the exercise of navigational freedoms and the free flow of commerce. These attacks, which affect the entire region and nations across the globe, cannot go unchallenged. And this problem demands a broad-based and collective response. So our guiding principles are to internationalize the response to the Houthis attacks in coordination with our allies and partners, and to nest military, diplomatic, and economic... Witness can continue. We seek to internationalize the response to the Houthis attacks in coordination with our allies and partners, and to nest military, diplomatic, and economic actions within a whole-of-government approach to impose costs on the Houthi leadership and degrade their ability to conduct attacks on commercial shipping. Special Envoy Lenderking has discussed the State Department's intensive partner-based diplomacy and the specially designated global terrorist designation. I'll expand upon the Department of Defense's efforts in the Red Sea. Our main defensive effort in the Red Sea is called Operation Prosperity Guardian. Since Secretary Austin announced this coalition in December, more than 20 countries have joined to increase maritime patrols in the Red Sea and safeguard commercial shipping. The coalition is led by Task Force 153, which is charged with providing leadership and command and control of international maritime security activities in the Red Sea, Boba Mondab Strait, and the Gulf of Odin. Operation Prosperity Guardian is designed to reassure the maritime shipping industry, deter illegal activity, and promote safe navigation while protecting the free flow of international commerce. Meanwhile, the Department has been engaged in efforts to destroy and degrade the capabilities that the Houthis use to conduct maritime attacks, such as the anti-ship ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, unmanned aerial systems, and facilities known to house such weapons. On January 11th, January 22nd, February 3rd, and February 24th, at the President's direction, we executed deliberate, carefully planned, multi-national strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen, alongside the United Kingdom, and with the support of a growing number of partners that now includes Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. In our most recent deliberate strike this past Saturday, we struck 18 targets across eight locations in Houthi-controlled Yemen, including Houthi underground weapon storage facilities, missile storage facilities, one-way attack, unmanned aerial systems, air defense systems, radars, and a helicopter. Beyond coalition strikes, U.S. forces have also conducted self-defense strikes against Houthi targets, including missiles and UAS on launchers, posing an imminent threat nearly three dozen times over the past few weeks. In total, we've struck over 230 targets in Houthi-controlled Yemen through both deliberate and self-defense strikes, likely destroying hundreds of Houthi weapons. That's not including the dozens of Houthi missiles and UAS that U.S. and partner naval vessels have intercepted and shot down over the Red Sea. In December, U.S. forces also disrupted the Houthi's attempts to board and seize the MV Merse Khangzhou, sinking three Houthi fastboats in the process after they fired on U.S. helicopters. The Houthis have not attempted another seizure since that incident. However, they do appear committed to sustaining standoff maritime attacks with the remaining inventory of weapons. Complimentary to our efforts to degrade and destroy Houthi capabilities, I'd like to mention the department's efforts to stem the flow of Iranian origin lethal aid to Yemen that enables these attacks and to publicly expose Iran's support to the Houthis. On January 11th and January 28th, U.S. naval forces interdicted dowes carrying Iranian origin lethal aid to the Houthis in clear violation of international law. And Senator Young, I want to thank you for recognizing our two Navy SEALs who perished in the January 11th interdiction. In these interdictions, U.S. forces discovered over 200 packages that contain components of unmanned underwater and surface vehicles, propulsion guidance and warheads for Houthi medium range ballistic missiles and anti-ship cruise missiles, air defense associated components, military grade communication and network equipment, anti-tank guided missile launcher assemblies explosive in other military components. These are the very same weapons that have been employed by the Houthis to threaten and attack U.S. Navy vessels but also innocent mariners on international merchant ships. In support of our efforts to publicly expose Iran's support to the Houthis, the Defense Intelligence Agency published this unclassified report providing clear and compelling evidence that the Houthis have employed Iranian origin missiles and unmanned aerial attack vehicles in these attacks. Iran doesn't control the Houthis in the way it does. Iran aligned militia groups in Iraq and Syria but it certainly has the choice to provide or withhold support to the Houthis without which the Houthis would struggle to effectively track and strike vehicles in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. We've made it very clear to Iran that we hold it accountable for attacks by its partners and proxies and believe Iranian leaders are aware of the consequences should these attacks result in U.S. casualties. Our actions in Iraq and Syria have demonstrated the administration's willingness to directly hold Iran responsible for militia attacks and to underscore in response to a continuing pattern of Iranian and Iran backed attacks against U.S. personnel and facilities and the continuing threat of future such attacks the United States has taken and as necessary will continue to take military action against the IRGC and its affiliates. In conclusion, while the Department of Defense supports the overall aim of de-escalating tensions and restoring stability in the Red Sea we will not hesitate to defend civilians and protect the free flow of commerce in one of the world's most critical waterways. I look forward to your questions. Thank you both for your testimony. We'll start a round of five minute questions. Envoy Lenderking, you have spent the better part of the last three years both speaking to and trying to understand Houthis and their rationale for their engagement in a variety of conflicts. Their rationale for these strikes is ridiculous on its face. They say this is connected to Israel's response in Gaza and yet they are attacking ships indiscriminate of the ship's flag. This seems to have nothing to do with what is happening in Gaza but it's really important that we understand what the reasons are for this engagement, what the Houthis goals are because it will help us shape a response and help us try to rebuild deterrence. So I appreciate you talking to the committee for a moment about why you think the Houthis have chosen to engage the United States and our allies in this way by attacking the shipping lanes in the Red Sea and what you think the goals are of that engagement. Well thank you very much Senator and thanks for all of your support over the years for this effort that we've engaged on to bring a peace deal in Yemen. Very grateful for that. I think there are two factors that are driving the Houthis at least. One is Gaza in a sense presented an opportunity for them that they felt they wanted to take advantage of and I think they were, as we've both clearly said, goaded, encouraged, instructed, aided, abetted, assisted by the Iranians to take the fight to the Red Sea and I think they have had an opportunity to put some of the weapons that they've been able to accumulate over the years on display both through the attacks on civilian infrastructure in Israel at the beginning of this conflict and now on the Red Sea testing all of these items that they have been able to either receive from the Iranians in violation of UN Security Council resolutions or to construct in their own country with the parts that are smuggled in on these dows. And I think they have sought, as you note Senator, to link this to the Gaza situation. It is entirely an illegitimate linkage and you rightly point out they're attacking ships in a reckless manner, including those that have- Witness will suspend, committee will be in order. Including those destined, they even attacked one ship that was loaded with corn for Iran. They've attacked Russian ships, Chinese ships. They've engendered a huge amount of international enmity as a result of that. And I see, I think you see that reflected in the number of countries who are speaking out in various ways about the problem. But I think the fact that they continue this and have said publicly that they will not stop until there's a ceasefire in Gaza is an indication that we're not yet at the point, unfortunately, where they do intend to dial back. Ambassador Shapiro, the administration has largely pointed to general article two authorities as their justification for this military campaign. I know that you don't serve in the DoD's 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. We have taken casualties. We have prisoners. I'm having a hard time understanding why this does not require a traditional congressional war authorization. So maybe you can speak for a moment about the administration's legal basis for these ongoing strikes. US forces maintain the ability to defend themselves when they're operating lawfully on the world's oceans. And they have the right, indeed they have the obligation to defend and protect US shipping that comes under attack from various sources, including piracy, when they're transiting international wateries. The president did direct the deliberate strikes consistent with his article two authority as commander in chief to protect and defend US personnel and certain partners. The strikes are also necessary and proportionate actions in the exercise of the United States inherent right of self-defense reflected in article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Beyond that, I'd certainly defer to colleagues in the office of the general council on appropriate occasions. The president has forwarded to the Congress a report consistent with the war powers resolution, but I'll defer to my colleagues to go further. Senator Young. Thank you, chairman. The chairman has referenced the importance of an AUMF in this context. I know the chairman of the committee, Senator Cardin also articulated that and I would just emphasize historically it's been important to me that Congress takes its prerogatives as a relates to authorizing force seriously in part because I feel like this this strengthens the hand of our commander in chief and our war fighters in re-establishing deterrence. And so as this conversation moves forward, the details will matter, but I really, I wanna emphasize that and relatedly dive into a number of follow-up questions on this war powers concern we have. So Mr. Shapiro, I'll begin with you. In this setting, can you walk through your understanding? I know you refer us to the office of legal council of the department's legal views on unilateral US action. Feel free to challenge any premises I have here, but unilateral US action to defend commercial ships of foreign nations. Thank you, Senator. The president again has directed these strikes consistent with the article two, authority as commander in chief to protect and defend US personnel and certain partners. That's an important element. We have partners in this coalition and it is fully within the president's authority as commander in chief to make those. Is there a precedent? You're looking to give me just one that gives a legal basis for operation, prosperity, guardians, multi-ilateral defensive shipping. Yeah, Senator, I'd have to defer to colleagues to find the historical precedence for that, but that is a inherent part of the president's article two authorities. I've got us. Did you not anticipate questions about the legal rationale before you came before the subcommittee? Senator, we did indeed and those are the answers that we believe provide the president the authority to conduct these operations, both the defensive operations and indeed proportional responses. This is about as rigorous as I'll say for the record, not for you of course, because you've been tasked with being here, but those are about as specific as the administration's rationale that they gave with the war powers notification. So we're gonna need more information on a going forward basis. Reporting in Bloomberg stated a legal theory is being developed by the administration that operations in international waters aren't even considered hostilities or that brief and intermittent strikes don't constitute hostilities and thus would not trigger the war powers resolution. Can you speak to that? I'm not familiar with that legal theory. The strikes. I think I read about this in the New York Times. Yeah, I'm not familiar with that legal theory from internal conversations within the administration. The strikes against US vessels, against international mariners are strikes certainly when it involves US ships that the US Navy is obligated and has the right to defend against in international waters. And there are necessary proportion responses under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Has the United States military entered into hostilities with the Houthis? Yes or no? I think- Representative of the administration. These are strikes on Houthi targets. That might be the correct term. I don't know if that's the correct legal term for what we're engaged in, but we obviously have struck, as I said, many, many targets in Yemen where the Houthis have weapons that they have used and are using and sometimes are in the process of using against us and against our partners. What is, I'll change gears a little bit. What's the long-term assessment of what authorities the administration is going to need if it continues this prolonged exchange of fire with the Houthis? It's very hard to speculate on hypotheticals about how the conflict could evolve. Until now, I think we feel very strongly the president has the authorities, the ones I've articulated. I don't think there's any question in this hearing as part of that. The administration is committed to consult with Congress on additional actions going forward and the authorities under which they'd be conducted. Thank you. What's the administration's anticipated end point at which it assesses it has restored deterrence? We need to see the Houthis stop these attacks. We clearly have not seen that yet. They clearly feel that it serves some interest, whether it's an internal one, whether it's an Iranian agenda, whether it's a regional raising of their profile, whatever it is, and we have removed and degraded considerable capability. They still have capability. Yes, sir. So until they stop, we are not done. So just extending that, not done. Can you characterize for me what level of military activity is going to be necessary? The administration is prepared to take to reach that end point so that they're not done. Senator, again, it's very hard to speculate. Much of it depends on when they decide they have endured enough of the strikes that we and degraded enough of the capability that we are capable of and exercising now on an ongoing basis. We hope to restore stability and deescalate tensions in the region very soon. So we don't want to assume this will take a particular amount of time. We want to use all the tools and the partners and the capabilities we have to make very clear to them and, of course, to Iran, their supporters and sponsors that this must end and we'll continue to take action until it comes to an end. Chairman. Senator Cain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses. Houthi behavior is abhorrent, but I've got to admit I have grave skepticism about what we are doing right now. I have grave skepticism about the legal authorities. I have grave skepticism about the absence of true shared responsibility with nations whose ships are being attacked by the Houthis. Why should the U.S. and the U.K. be shouldering the burden of protecting other nations' ships? And I have serious skepticism about the effectiveness of this operation in terms of deescalating the attacks on the Red Sea. To begin with, on legal authority, I think we've all conceded that there is no congressional authorization for these hostilities. The hostilities definition under the War Powers Resolution has clearly been met when we're talking about 200 attacks on Houthis. We're losing troops, they're losing civilian casualties and others. This is hostilities. There's no congressional authorization for them. To claim that this is covered by Article 2 self-defense, Article 2 self-defense means you can defend U.S. personnel, you can defend U.S. military assets, you probably can defend U.S. commercial ships. But the defense of other nations' commercial ships in no way, and it's not even close, that's not self-defense under Article 2 of the Constitution. And a president can't make it self-defense by calling another nation a partner. If you're defending the commercial ships of other nations, it is, in my view, laughable to call that self-defense. And so, a narrow mission to defend U.S. shipping both military and commercial, that is Article 2 self-defense. But broader efforts to defend commercial ships of other nations, while it might be strategically a good idea, there's no constitutional authorization that would allow a president to do that unilateral. And second, taking offensive actions and striking targets within Yemen to degrade Yemeni capacity, Houthi capacity, while, again, it might be strategically a smart thing to do. That's not self-defense under Article 2. And so, I basically view this at the first level as a set of actions that might have a strategic value, although we've yet to see a strategy. Senator Young and Senator Murphy and I wrote a letter to the administration asking many of these questions on January 23rd, and we don't have a response. But there may be a strategic wisdom in doing it, but I think the activities are far beyond what a president should unilateral power be. That's number one. Number two, shared responsibility. Commercial shipping in the Red Sea involves ships from many, many nations. And although there are partners in this operation, the military actions are being undertaken by the United States and 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 as participation, we shouldn't do it without other nations participating. But finally, I guess my most serious skepticism right now is at the effectiveness of this. President Biden himself has said that the actions that we are undertaking are not likely to deter Houthi escalation. And I am a little disappointed that you so quickly try to pull cold water on the idea that this is connected to the war in Gaza. These attacks started, Secretary Shapiro, as you said on November 19. The Houthis have said this is because of the war in Gaza. Now you've pointed out instances of ships that weren't going to Israel or instances of ships that had food that were going to nations that needed food. But I think the most natural interpretation of this is the Houthis seeing some suffer in the region or saying others are gonna suffer in the region until we figure out a response. And I would venture to suggest that about the only time we've 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 re-establish deterrence, I don't think you're gonna do it if the 200 strikes become 400 strikes, 800 strikes, 1200 strikes. I think you will re-establish deterrence when we get a hostage deal that leads us to a truce, that leads us to humanitarian aid in Gaza, that leads us to the ability to discuss whether whatever that truce period is can be extended. And so I hope you don't just pour cold water on the idea that oh, this isn't really related to Gaza because the timing of it was related to Gaza. They're saying it's related to Gaza and the only period of de-escalation that we've seen was during the first hostage release. I'm gonna continue to press on the legal authority questions and I think many of us have these questions and there's some difference of opinion, I think on the committee about whether this U.S. strategy is going to involve de-escalation at all or whether it's actually in a foment more regional conflict. I consider myself in the camp of senators who believe the U.S. involvement in another war in the Middle East would reflect that we learned virtually nothing over the last 25 years. And we definitely 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's why Congress needs to be engaged and have a debate about whether this is a mission that's in the national interest or not. I yield back, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Romney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm, for the witness's benefit, I'm not gonna be talking about the AUMF but I think we've discussed that fully and it's an important topic and I concur with the direction of the questions that have been asked so far. I'm very concerned about the fact that this is an attack on trade in the Red Sea which I presume affects the nations along the Red Sea in a very significant way. And it only Bahrain is participating in preventing or defending against these attacks. What is the administration's effort with Saudi Arabia in terms of becoming more involved in this effort and is there progress in that front? Mr. Lendrking. Well, thank you, Senator. I think that's a very apt question to act, to ask as well. I know that from the state side and Secretary Blinken, this was a very significant issue that was raised early on and we felt, I think as Ambassador Shapiro said, the president had said that this was an international problem, it needs an international response and certainly we need to see our Gulf partners in the game much more and I think we all feel that that is the case. There isn't a country in the Gulf that approves of what the Houthis are doing. But what's happening with the Saudis? Are they getting on board? Is the administration working with them or in the other nations, UAE and so forth? Is there effort in that regard? Or is it like they're just saying, oh, thanks, you guys do it. Sorry, there is certainly engagement at my level. I won't speak for the Defense Department but Secretary of State as well to, if anything, expand this coalition, either OPG or the Strike Coalition. And there's very strong recognition that the Gulf partners, I think to get it, Senator Cain's question, this is a multifaceted responsibility, it should not be all on the US and UK. Where is the economic impact? Who suffers as a result of this? I know that shipping rates for Europe and Asia have gone up significantly but even in the Atlantic and Pacific shipping rates have gone up in part because there's less container capacity as a result of people having to go around to keep a good hope. But who really suffers from this? The Chinese traders suffering? Are the nations along, the Red Sea suffering? Who is suffering as a result of what the Houthis are doing? Where's the economic impact the biggest? I guess what I'm getting at is this. Why isn't China putting pressure on the Houthis? Why aren't they putting pressure on Iran? I mean, we're out there with our flag flying and our men and women in harm's way. China is the nation that I would presume is most impacted by closing off trade to the Red Sea and yet they're sitting on the sidelines pretending like they're everybody's friend. Why is China not being embarrassed? You mentioned your testimony that the Houthis are suffering international enmity. I don't think they could care less the Houthis about international enmity. China cares, however, and putting a spotlight on China's lack of involvement and lack of effort to stop these attacks I think would be highly effective. Help me with this idea of 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, you look at a country like Egypt where Suez Canal fees are down 50%, it's impacting the currency, it's impacting the ability of their economy to function. You look at the movement of humanitarian supplies into Sudan, a desperately poor situation, violence prevailing there. That is very disturbing. The Ethiopian economy also suffering and Yemen itself. The Yemenis themselves 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're there at huge risk and huge economic impact for ourselves in order to support the Chinese economy and to support the economies of people on the Red Sea who are all sitting back quietly supporting, in many cases, supporting Iran who is giving the support that the Houthis are relying upon. I find it, I wonder, what are the strategic options here? I mean, one is to say, hey, we're out. You guys want to close down the Red Sea, that's up to you guys, unless you want to step in and protect it. I mean, the idea that we're there suffering and these people are not defending themselves and putting pressure on Iran is something I just don't understand. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up, so I'll stop there. Thank you, Senator Romney. Senator Haggerty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Special Envoy Lyndon King, I'd like to spend some time with you. You've been dealt the tough hand. I'd like to talk with you about the designation that the Trump administration made of the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization and the fact that shortly after the Biden administration took office, they delisted the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization. We saw what's happened in the time in between. There have been attacks on our allies at UAE, attacks on our allies at Saudis. We've seen attacks on US personnel and our facilities in the Middle East. We've seen a tremendous amount of unrest since that time. And I think you know, but I'm gonna read it for my colleagues here, what the designation of a foreign terrorist organization requires. First, it requires that it's a foreign organization. Indeed, the Houthis are. The organization engages in terrorist activity or it retains the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism. Yes, they do. And finally, the terrorist activity or terrorism of the organization threatens the security of the United States nationals or the national security of the United States. The Houthis meet these requirements. My question for you was the Trump administration wrong in designating the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization? Well, thank you, Senator. At that time, as you probably know, there was a strong movement within the Trump administration to designate the Houthis. It led to the FTO. New administration came in, sought to prioritize Yemen as a foreign policy priority. And I believe that effort has borne fruit in terms of the peace process, which I described. But yes, over time. I heard you describe the peace process, but with all due respect, I also saw the article in Foreign Affairs where our national security advisor claimed that the Middle East was the greatest period of peace we've ever seen. And now we've seen what happens. My question is, what do the Houthis have to do to be declared a foreign terrorist organization? Do they have to kill Americans? Certainly not. I think we have come down hard with this designation that we have. The FTO is a possibility. I think we can constantly assess the impact of the campaign that we're doing, both the military, the impact of the designation. The SDGT senator that I described will cut off financial networks, their ability to fundraise. It will put some hurt. And if we need to adjust to the FTO, if these attacks continue, then we'll have that option. Well, they certainly continue at a rapid pace. I'd like to see more than a little hurt. I'd like to see this address, sir. Let me go to another thing that concerns me. And that has to do with the diversion of the aid that we send to Yemen. I think about what Hamas has done with the aid that we've sent to Gaza. I'm deeply concerned that the Houthis may as well divert the aid that we're sending, the U.S. taxpayer-funded humanitarian aid that we're sending into Yemen. And I've got a very disturbing example here. I'm sure there are others. But the Biden administration right now is sending over $1.1 million for the Yemen-based operations of Norwegian People's Aid. Norwegian People's Aid. This is an organization, the NPA, that settled a civil lawsuit with the Department of Justice in 2018 for previously providing training and expert advice to the Iranian military and to Palestinian terrorist groups, including Hamas. And we're sending our tax dollars there. They started receiving them in August of last year, and they're supposed to be receiving them all the way through September of this year. We shouldn't send a penny to an organization like this. So my question to you, and I know this is a tough question to answer, but can you guarantee that our taxpayer dollars that are going to Yemen aren't in some way being diverted to the Houthis to support this activity that we're talking about right now? Well, Senator, I think that's an incredibly important point. I'm not aware of any taxpayer dollar going to support this type of activity. That should not be happening. That is definitely not within the priorities of our... And you guarantee that our taxpayer money won't wind up supporting the Houthis doing exactly what they're doing, which is putting U.S. and many other lives at risk, driving up inflation not only in the region, as was described by Mr. Shapiro, but it's disrupting supply chains. It's causing cargo shipments to go up. It's causing inflation right here, hurting Americans at home. I'm concerned that we're right back funding both sides of the proposition here by sending this aid there. Senator, I share the concern. I will certainly take a look at that. I'd appreciate it. Secretary Blinken could not answer me either when I asked him about the foreign aid that's going into Gaza and that's being diverted by Hamas. Please, please address this. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Yeah. Are you ready to go? Senator Van Halenby, you're up. I am. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to both of you. It's great to see you. And just to my friend, Senator Haggerty, I would suggest everybody look at the statements, including a recent renewal of the statement by David Satterfield, our ambassador, that makes it absolutely clear that when it comes to aid being provided by UN organizations and international NGOs that there have been, he's got no reports of diversion even from our Israeli friends. And I'd be happy to share that with the senator. If I might, I've had direct reports from the Israelis. That's exactly what's happening. Well, they haven't reported it to the person on the ground, David Satterfield, who is our coordinator. And that's a statement I've got from him recently, it's a couple of days ago. Happy to share it with you. It would only require Mr. Satterfield to go and ask the National Security Advisor. All right, Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. If I could, Mr. Chairman, just have a few more minutes to resolve that look. I wanna pick up on a couple of questions raised by Senator Cain and Ambassador Shapiro, good to see you. Which is the, there's been lots of discussion here about our actions against the Houthis and I am fully in support of protecting waterways. But let's also recognize that the Houthi action has been in response to the war on Gaza. Would you not agree with that, Mr. Shapiro? Thank you, Senator. I'd certainly agree that the Houthis have made the claim that that is the original motivation for their attacks. I think they've made some other claims along the way. I would just simply say that whatever the rationale or reason or claim that the Houthis or any other organization would make for conducting these kinds of attacks, there's no legitimacy to them. There's no legitimacy to target international services. Ambassador, I agree with you. I agree there's no legitimacy. There's no disagreement there. But isn't it a fact that the Houthi attacks on shipping went down significantly during the period of the humanitarian pause in November? I believe there was a decline during that period. It was not a complete cessation. And there have been various points when there have been spikes and valleys. So I don't know to what we can attribute that. Sometimes I think the decline is in response to our strikes while they reload and prepare for their next strikes. Well, our strikes, as you know, actually came after this humanitarian pause period. And so their reduction in strikes during that pause period cannot be attributed to the actions we took in terms of strikes. I think the record's pretty clear. But if I could ask you, as you know, the Algerians had a ceasefire resolution at the UN, which we vetoed, but we at the same time said we were going to, we, the United States, were gonna 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 into Rafa would result in further harm to civilians and further displacement, including potentially into neighboring countries. Do you agree with that conclusion? A bit outside my brief to speak about the Security Council resolution. Obviously the State Department should address that. I will say that in all of our recent engagements with Israel, that includes Secretary Austin's conversations with Minister of Defense Galant, that includes conversations between our military. We've made very clear that no operation should be considered or undertaken in Rafa without a clear and executable plan and the follow-through to implement it to ensure the safety, safe evacuation of civilians who are taking safe harbor in Rafa and provision for their humanitarian needs as they move. Well, given that, would you agree that it would be a mistake for the United States to provide more offensive weapons at this time to the Net Yahu government without receiving assurances with respect to actions in Rafa that we've requested? Well, as you know, Senator, the President has made clear from the beginning of this conflict on October 7th that he will help ensure Israel has what it needs to defend itself following those terrible terrorist attacks and ensuring they can't be repeated, that they must observe the laws of war and laws of armed conflict and ensure that they do the maximum to protect civilians and provide for their humanitarian needs. As you know, the President very much in dialogue with you, Senator, issued the National Security Memorandum 20, which will help ensure that we receive credible and reliable assurances from all our partners who receive defense services and defense articles and certain defense services. And I very much appreciate the President taking that action. I think it was an important step and thank you and the administration and the President, of course, on that. But let me just say, I think it would be sending very mixed signals if prior to receiving clear assurances from the Net Yahu government that they won't take the actions in Rafa that we're worried about, we were to at the same time extend further significant military assistance. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would just 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 into Gaza. And I would just ask you, Ambassador Shapiro and both of you, to take back to the President's administration, 20 senators, 25, actually, I think, I wrote the President a letter talking about five specific actions the Net Yahu government needs to take to allow more assistance into Rafa, including opening more crossings, things that are common sense measures that in the view of many of us should be taken right now. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. Thank you, Bill. I'll enter that into the record. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen. We're gonna, Senator Young and I are gonna pose a series of second round questions for you. And I wanna start with, I think this really important series of questions that you got from Senator Cain to a certain extent, Senator Van Hollen. So listen, I support the actions that the administration has taken because I believe that the United States is the guarantor of the freedom of navigation of international waters. We have an obligation to respond when United States interests are being attacked in commercial waters. But I do worry about the efficacy of a campaign of military strikes when we have seen very little evidence that airstrikes against the Houthis have restored deterrence over the course of a seven-year war with the Saudis who conducted 23,000 airstrikes. I would note that nine of the locations targeted by the United States and the UK strikes in January of this year were previously hit by 419 airstrikes in the Saudi-led air war between 2015 and 2022. So if 23,000 airstrikes by the Saudis weren't effective 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. Look, we first of all have to understand who we're dealing with. We are dealing with an organization now especially designated global terrorist organization that simply thinks the rules don't apply to it. They are backed by the common denominator of a range of threats around the region by Iran, which provides weapons, which we've discussed, which provides intelligence, which provides targeting information, which provides financial support and training, and they too have an agenda. And that agenda includes to try to get the United States to depart the Middle East. And so these are the actors we're dealing with and what our strikes are intended to demonstrate first of all is that we will continue to degrade and remove their 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 transing the waters. And that we will be prepared to take additional actions if there are obviously additional threats against us or against our people. We have demonstrated that very clearly in our responses to the tragic attack on Tower 22 in Jordan and there was a very strong U.S. response in Iraq and Syria against IRGC affiliated targets, individuals, and facilities. And it has until now led to a quiet period since February 4th. We don't want to take that for granted. But it has demonstrated to Iran, again, one of the key enablers of the Houthis that we are prepared to respond. Right, but the extent of the military infrastructure inside Yemen, especially after seven years of developing partnership with Iran, is extensive. And they have shown over the course of seven years of significant airstrikes from the Saudis, sometimes with U.S. participation and help, the ability to very quickly rebuild their capacity. There's not a lot of evidence that during the 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. You know, we sort of have a good sense of the numerator, what we have been able to eliminate and what they've used and we don't fully know the denominator. That's obviously information we're working to develop and obviously we're working to prevent that from expanding through interdictions and working with partners to prevent other smuggling activities. I can't tell you that we know that there's a moment when they will decide that they've had enough. That is our intention to make sure that they understand that if they continue to target us and our innocent mariners that we will work with our partners to prevent, to protect them and that we will respond as appropriate to conduct these acts of self-defense. Let me ask you one last question on this question of authorization. I do agree that it is a very troubling and creative interpretation of Article 2 authority to extend protection to partners. I agree with Senator Cain that that is probably not a theory in good standing. But let me ask you if you believe that Article 2 authority gives you the ability to attack partners of those that are directing attacks at U.S. partners. I'm asking of course about Iran. Do you have existing Article 2 authority, having identified Iran as a participant in these Houthi attacks, to launch strikes against Iranian assets or Iran itself? I'd really be overstepping to speculate on authorities that would be cited for strikes that have not taken place. I will say that the President's Article 2 authority was very much relevant in the response strikes in Iraq and Syria following the attack on Tower 22 in Jordan in which three U.S. service members were killed. And I do think that has an impact. That has an impact in Iran's thinking since the targets included IRGC-affiliated facilities and it included individuals that IRGC was well known to support in their attacks on the United States. So I think they take that seriously and they should take that seriously. Senator Young. Special Envoy Leonard King. The Houthis had indicated that if they were re-listed as a specially designated global terrorist group that they would expel humanitarian workers and take other actions were just days, frankly, into this going into effect, this re-listing. Can you provide any update on where those threats stand as well as the practical implications 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, threaten to expel U.S. and U.K. aid workers in Yemen. There are a number of U.S. and U.K. nationals who do a lot of great work on the humanitarian side in Yemen. From what I understand so far, the Houthis have not made good on those threats. They issued legislation, quote, unquote. I say that in quotes because they're not a legitimate government. They're not internationally recognized. They are a militant group. And recently designated as a terrorist group. Also, they took action to designate us. And they've said that they will continue their attacks on shipping. So they've taken a few steps, which I think are mainly for their own public consumption. You've spent, over the years, you've spent countless days in the region. You may have there again soon. We're discussing before the hearing. Can you describe how the narrative has shifted since the brutal attacks on October 7th 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 Yemen conflict ended. And I think it is heartening that, as I mentioned earlier, that the truce, which was set in April of 2022, has essentially held inside Yemen. So despite the fact that there is a red tax on the Red Sea by the Houthis, by Red Sea shipping, the internal war in Yemen is not heated up. And we're very concerned that that could happen and be another effect, if you will, of a prolonged situation on the Red Sea. So we want to. And by the way, Sena, I think it's important also that the roadmap that I described is something that the parties, that is the Yemen government, and the Houthis, and the Saudis, all say they still want to see achieved. I think that's important. That's where I was headed next. Yeah, a key priority, of course, is to get the Red Sea attacks under control. Stopped. And what if there's ongoing escalation? What will be implications for your broader efforts to try and recognize that? There's no question that a broader escalation or continuation of the status quo undermines the peace effort, which we've worked very hard to achieve over the last three years, and would ultimately, I think, degrade our own interests in the region, which are solidly behind seeing a peace effort in Yemen. We do not want a return of al-Qaida in Yemen. We do not want ISIS building up its capabilities in Yemen. Yemen is a country that, unfortunately, in the past has threatened and led to the deaths of Americans. So stability in Yemen is important to our interest and to those of our partners. So we want to see this effort drive forward. The roadmap that I referred to, Senator, is the best opportunity that Yemen has had for peace since this conflict began. Before I recognize Senator Cruz, I'd be remiss if I didn't ask a question about China. It's in the last year or so. It's like to sort of 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 an economic and diplomatic crisis in the region, and China's nowhere to be found. So, Mr. Leonard King, how does this example of Chinese inaction been helpful for our diplomats, if at all, and pushing back on Chinese diplomatic and financial inroads in the region? Seems like an opportunity to remind people who's really working to affect positive change in the region. No, Senator, thank you. And it picks up on the questions that Senator Romney also posed about the Chinese role. And we do see a certain degree 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 at the most senior levels of this government with the Chinese about taking a more responsible role in the Red Sea. And we will continue that. That's positive. Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shapiro, you've worked on Iran-related issues throughout this administration. You were on the team headed by Rob Malley, and you're now at the Defense Department. Meanwhile, the Biden administration has allowed the Iranian regime to build up a ghost fleet of tankers, which are third country flagged tankers. That fleet grew from about 70 vessels at the beginning of the administration to almost 400 tankers today. The Iranian regime used that ghost fleet to ship over a billion barrels of oil and to make unaccountable tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars. When Joe Biden came into power, Iran was selling roughly 300,000 barrels of oil a day. Today, due to the Biden administration's appeasement of Iran, Iran is selling roughly 2 million barrels of oil a day. Those billions of dollars went directly to fund terrorism. They went to the Houthis. They went to Hamas. They went to Hezbollah. They pay for the Houthis' terrorism and for their weapons. They paid for the October 7th atrocities in Israel. The Biden administration refused to meaningfully enforce our sanctions, and we're seeing 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 has that worked out for the safety and security of Israel and the safety and security of America? Thank you, Senator. A number of the questions you raise about sanctions enforcement are the province of the Treasury Department, and I simply, on behalf of the Defense Department, will have to defer 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 an Iranian-sponsored and backed organization, the Houthi. Before we arrived, we also spoke a bit about the U.S. response to other Iranian proxies. I had a question. How's this working out for the safety and security of Israel and the safety and security of America? You're not answering that question. The answer I can provide is that we are making very clear to Iran through our posture in the region, through the assistance we provide to our partners, including Israel, in its need to defend itself, to our own responses when Iran and Iranian-backed organizations have targeted our personnel and tragically have killed three of our personnel, and in their sponsorship of the Houthi, military strikes against free shipping in the Red Sea that we will respond. And Iran- With all respect, that's baloney. And the Ayatollah has heard the message. Let me ask you, how many ghost fleet vessels did the Biden administration sanction before October 7th? Again, sanctions matters belong to the Treasury Department, so I don't know the answer and would have to defer to the Department of Treasury. 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. The Ayatollah is selling much of that oil to communist China. The revenue is being used to fund Hamas, to fund Hezbollah, to fund the Houthis, and the Biden administration's response is, well, we made very clear there will be consequences. Baloney, cut off the money. Why will the Biden administration not cut off the money from Iran? Senator, I really have to stay in the lane of the Department of Defense. What we have made very clear. Did you work with Rob Miley on his task force? I worked for a few months as an advisor to then special envoy Miley. And you were ambassador to Israel. You have long experience in the region. I find it impossible that you have no views on the $100 billion plus that Joe Biden has gifted to the Ayatollah that has been used to murder Americans and murder Israelis. I'm asking you, isn't it time to cut off the money? On behalf of the Defense Department, what I can say is that when we see Iran, which we do see on a daily and regular basis, supporting terrorism, providing weapons, providing intelligence, providing sponsorship and training to terrorist organizations, we make very clear to Iran that not only will we- But you don't make clear, if they continue to have the money, you're not making it clear. If you say, here's $100 billion, but you know what, we're gonna send you a stern letter. Well, that $100 billion is being used to fund weapons. Let me ask you, all right. And it's not just Iran, by the way, the Houthis. The Houthis and the Trump administration rightly designated the Houthis as a foreign 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 to designate them as a specially designated global terrorist group. How did it work out delisting the Houthis for three years? Did they behave just quietly? Did they continue to be the terrorists they've been the whole time, even while the administration was trying to appease them? Some of this is a special envoy of Len King's province. What we have done, as the Houthis have demonstrated through their actions, that they're behaving as a terrorist organization is not only that designation, but also the defensive operation of Operation Prosperity Guardian. So prior to January of this year, they weren't behaving as terrorists? They were not shooting at ships in the Red Sea until now. Were they terrorists last year? From the member of last year. Were the Houthis terrorists last year? They were designated as a designation that took a... I'm asking you, is it DoD's view? Were the Houthis terrorists in 2023? Yes or no? They were a designated terrorist organization as of a few days ago when it took office on February. And your delisting them was indefensible and it's proven catastrophic. Just as a quick follow-up, Mr. Shapiro to Mr. Cruz's line of questioning, forces in the region have interdicted shipping, special envoy Leonard King referenced it earlier, interdicted the shipments from Iran over to Yemen for a number of years running. Can you describe briefly, and then I'll turn it over to my colleague, Senator Barrasso, Mr. Shapiro, how's the smuggling situation evolved since October 7th and since we've surged our forces into the Red and Arabian Sea? Thank you, Senator. The smuggling continues, we know that it continues. I think to get into details, to describe exactly what we are seeing, the volume, the routes, the shipments would probably require speaking in a closed session. But because we continue to see those efforts, we have undertaken, and Nav Sant in particular has been in the lead on this, enhanced efforts to identify and then interdict those shipments when we see them. We do communicate with various partners who could also bring that capability to interdict. We, Ambassador Lender King and I have worked together on looking at opportunities to strengthen the inspection mechanism of UNVIM, which tanker shipments that are on their way into the Hodea Port of Yemen are also searched for weapons. This is a work in progress. So I believe the smuggling does continue, but because we know it continues, we are upping our efforts to interdict those shipments. Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding this meeting. Mr. Lender King, the last week I was in Djibouti. We have 140 members of the Wyoming Air National Guard there, kind of right there at the tip of activities. It's a hot spot. What we see is happening with the attack on the ships that are training to the point where they can't get through the Suez Canal, they can't get insurance, they're going around Africa. It's adding about 12 days to the transit time, concern adding to the costs, significantly the impact of foreign trade. All of these things as a result of the Houthis and what they're doing in that area, aiming at ships with drones, sometimes with missiles. It's only about 11 miles that I was there at the point of looking how close things were. So they're in a hot spot. The day I get back, the New York Times has this big expose about the fact that the administration has really fallen down on the job of trying to prevent the sale of Iranian oil to China. They reported 59 million barrels of oil they described them as shadowy tankers that left Iran and all of these ended up in China. And then the cash from all of this ended up in Iran. And they said at the lowest prices of oil it'd be $2.8 billion, but likely much more when prices fluctuate. Secretary of Treasury came to Congress, she testified this is before that report came out that all things are fine, they were doing everything we can. American people don't believe it. The soldiers that are risking their lives don't believe it because that's the money that's being used. There was 140 attacks by the Houthis funded and by Iran on American soldiers in the last four months. We know where the money's coming from. A lot of it's coming from the sale of oil that we should be blocking or other funds that go from the United States. I think the administration has failed completely. I think the president is just being outworked and outplayed and outmaneuvered by the Iranians. I think the world is seeing a diminished president who's just not up to the job. What are you doing from the standpoint of the State Department to prevent this ongoing effort to sell for Iran to be able to continue to sell to China? I mean, they're working together and Iran's also giving drones to Russia. You have North Korea being belligerent as well. It just seems that we are not where we want to be. The State Department official, what's your response to all this? Well, thank you, Senator. First of all, for visiting Djibouti. It's not necessarily everybody's first thought of where to go, but we have important interest there. I've been there three times in this particular job. So I'm aware of the details about which you speak and we do have a very important interdiction and inspection operation for Yemen ships that is based in Djibouti called the UN Verification Inspection Mission, but certainly agree with you that the Iranians are not supposed to be able to sell that kind of world to China. I think there are very, very vigorous efforts to counter that with our partners and allies and that kind of funding, I think that you are speaking about is in violation of not only U.S. interests, but also numerous UN Security Council resolutions. Yeah, and it does seem that it was the New York Times expose that actually brought it to the fore, because the administration seems to be unaware of all of this that was 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 these reports in more depth now that they've been. If they're aware of it, then they tried to mislead Congress intentionally because the Secretary of Treasury said we're doing absolutely everything possible and then all of a sudden this gets showed us to the world from a press coverage. So I don't know. Anything you wanna add on this? Not okay. Well, we can go on and on the other thing that I saw in Djibouti and I asked your comment on this and you saw 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. China is making significant investments in that area. Our base in Djibouti was an old French foreign legion base that, which is why it's named after the commander of the base at the time. China is making significant, Communist China is making significant investments right in that area where the Gulf of Aden comes down and then it goes up into the Red Sea and from a State Department standpoint, anything that you're noticing with that and we need to be concerned with. Well, certainly, Senate, I think we are very conscious and aware of Chinese expansion in the Gulf region, which is by and large and not in our interests. I think that's very much a part of the engagement that we have with the Chinese and also our partners in the region and in East Asia as well. And then to Mr. Shapiro, last month Qatar Energy decided to suspend all transits through the Red Sea. This led to the shipments being forced, as I talked about, around the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa, adding significant delays about a day, probably 12 days added and much more fuel being expended to move the product around. Same time, Russia, Iran are both building up their LNG export capacity. Europe's energy supply be helped or hurt by President Biden's decision to reduce American LNG exports, actually putting a pause on that, given that the supplies from Qatar are now forced to go around Africa. Senator, I'm certainly not an expert on energy markets or energy export policies, so I think I'll decline to answer the question. Well, it's hurting. It's hurting. I'll just tell you the answer. It's hurting. May I address your question about China, if it's all right? Please. Because China has been mentioned on a couple of occasions and I think it's actually quite noteworthy. One of your colleagues mentioned that what's quite clear is that China is playing no role to help with this multilateral international effort to defend legitimate shipping in the international waterways. And it is one of those moments when I think it has become clear to many of our partners in the region, sometimes who, when people ask questions, are they gonna remain committed to the US or they ask, will the US remain committed to the region or will they have alternative security partners? They do not have an alternative security partner in China. There is nobody other than the United States who will do what we are doing to defend freedom of navigation in this region. And so I actually think it's been a moment of clarity about US influence in this region and in this regard. And if either of you want this question, you comment. What is the administration's strategy to ensure Europe is not forced to turn to Iran and Russia for LNG now that the US is not wanting to export based on the president's new policy? I think it's a bit beyond the Defense Department's area of focus. Well, it's indefensible. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Barrasso. Let me thank both of you for being here today. In particular, Envoy Leonard King, let me thank you for all the hard work that you had done previous to the eruption of this conflict to try to bring a political settlement to the people of Yemen. I know we were close. And I think one of the reasons why we need to place an imperative and a priority on bringing to close this round of hostilities is so that you and others can get back to the work of trying to midwife that political compromise. I noticed an individual with a resemblance in the audience. And so I wanna welcome your father and stepmother to the hearing today. You should be very proud of the work that your son has done to try to bring peace to a region that has been without it for far too long. With that, thank you both for your testimony. Senator Young and I were just commenting. This has been one of the most substantive in wide-ranging hearings that we've had on this committee. We're gonna keep the record open for members to submit questions until the close of business Thursday. And with thanks to the subcommittee's hearings, now adjourned.