[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






                                 ______




 
                         DEFENDING AMERICA FROM


                     THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY'S


                           POLITICAL WARFARE


                                PART II

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             JUNE 26, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-117

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
  
  
  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

  
  


                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                             
                              ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 56-065               WASHINGTON : 2024
                          
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Ro Khanna, California
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Shontel Brown, Ohio
Byron Donalds, Florida               Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Robert Garcia, California
William Timmons, South Carolina      Maxwell Frost, Florida
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Greg Casar, Texas
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Dan Goldman, New York
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York            Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mike Waltz, Florida

                                 ------                                
                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
        Margaret Harker, Deputy Chief Counsel for Investigations
                      Mary Woodard, Senior Counsel
                          Abby Salter, Counsel
                        Kelsey Donohue, Counsel
                          Kyle Martin, Counsel
                          Ashlii Dyer, Counsel
              Ace Burch, Senior Professional Staff Member
                 Alex Craner, Professional Staff Member
                  Ellie McGowan, Administrative Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051

                                 ------                                
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                                                                   Page

Hearing held on June 26, 2024....................................     1

                               WITNESSES

                              ----------                              

Ms. Mary Kissel, Former Senior Advisor to the U.S. Secretary of 
  State, Department of State
    Oral Statement...............................................     5

James E. Fanell, CAPT USN (Ret.), Former Director of Intelligence 
  and Information Operations for the U.S. Pacific Fleet, 
  Government Fellow Former U.S. Executive Director, Geneva Centre 
  for Security Policy
    Oral Statement...............................................     7

The Honorable Erik Bethel, Former U.S. Executive Director, World 
  Bank
    Oral Statement...............................................     9

The Honorable Tom Malinowski, Former Assistant Secretary of State 
  for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
    Oral Statement...............................................    10

 Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses 
  are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository 
  at: docs.house.gov.

                           INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

                              ----------                              

  * Article, The Diplomat, ``Hong Kong Unrecognizable Under 
  National Security Law''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Report, CECC, 2023 Annual Report; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Article, Reuters, ``Biden calls Xi a dictator,'' submitted by 
  Rep. Crockett.

  * Questions for the Record: to Ms. Kissel; submitted by Rep. 
  Gosar.

The documents listed are available at: docs.house.gov.


                         DEFENDING AMERICA FROM



                     THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY'S



                           POLITICAL WARFARE



                                PART II

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, June 26, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

                                           Washington, D.C.

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Comer 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Comer, Gosar, Foxx, Grothman, 
Cloud, Palmer, Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Mace, Fallon, Perry, 
Timmons, Burchett, McClain, Fry, Langworthy, Burlison, Raskin, 
Norton, Lynch, Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Porter, Brown, Garcia, 
Frost, Lee, and Crockett.
    Chairman Comer. This hearing of the Committee on Oversight 
and Accountability will come to order. I want to welcome 
everyone here today.
    Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any 
time.
    I now recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening 
statement.
    This hearing is the second in the Oversight Committee's 
investigation into the Federal Government's inadequate 
acknowledgement of and response to the Chinese Communist 
Party's campaign to infiltrate and influence America through a 
strategy known as political warfare. Americans outside of 
Washington have no difficulty identifying the CCP for what it 
is: an authoritarian, communist regime enslaving its own people 
and seeking to destroy America, which the CCP calls its ``chief 
enemy.''
    The American people know that the CCP represents the 
greatest foreign threat to the American way of life. According 
to the latest Pew Research poll, 81 percent of U.S. adults see 
China unfavorably. This spring, Gallup reported that Americans 
see China as our country's top foe, yet too few Federal 
agencies have recognized that. For decades, the CCP has waged 
an aggressive campaign of political warfare, a strategy to 
weaken our Nation without ever firing a shot. The end goal is 
clear: to weaken and defeat America.
    The Committee's government-wide investigation has brought 
Federal agencies in to answer for their insufficient responses. 
We have found that too much of Washington bureaucracy is 
incapable of or unwilling to address the CCP threat. Today, our 
witnesses will testify about how the CCP is seeking to subvert 
our open system of government and society. These witnesses have 
great insight into CCP influence within Federal agencies, the 
intelligence community, international institutions, and 
business circles. To be clear, it is the Chinese Communist 
Party who is to blame here, not people of Chinese descent, who 
themselves are often singled out by the CCP using these exact 
influence tactics.
    Despite the fact that CCP political warfare targets and 
threatens all Americans, why do many Federal agencies fail to 
speak honestly to the American people about the CCP? Too many 
Federal officials do not realize that they have fallen for CCP 
influence tactics in ways that cause some officials to 
reflexively dismiss the truth about this communist regime. 
Worse, some Federal officials go so far to actually excuse the 
CCP's action. Some agencies do so despite abundant evidence 
that the CCP is spying on Americans, fueling the fentanyl 
crisis that is killing tens of thousands of Americans each 
year, stealing trade secrets to stifle American innovation, 
harassing Chinese students who dare speak out against the 
regime, threatening our energy grid and critical 
infrastructure, infiltrating our food supply, and much, much 
more. To say that it is somehow racist or inappropriate for 
Federal agencies to aggressively combat the CCP threat plays 
directly into the Party's hands.
    The CCP uses many tools and people to wage political 
warfare against America. Through what is known as the united 
front, the CCP manipulates networks to carry out relationship-
focused influence campaigns through a multitude of proxies. The 
united front has long used proxies found in the business 
community, amongst cultural and political leaders, in 
international organizations, and in other influential circles 
to advance the regime's destructive ambitions.
    The CCP prioritizes seeking to influence key players in 
prominent business circles to carry good favor for the Party, 
shape U.S. decision-making, and exploit U.S. businesses. 
Through deceptive but enticing business deals, the CCP has 
lured many American businesses into the lion's den that is 
China. Once reliant on China, too many U.S. companies fall prey 
to ``elite capture.'' They may find that they feel they have 
little choice but to support CCP interests to the detriment of 
their own business and our Nation. CCP elite capture tactics 
have also seeped into Federal agencies, influencing their 
approach to China. Many Federal officials, especially in the 
military and intelligence community, fell for the false CCP 
narrative of the so-called ``peaceful rise'' of China and have 
yet to acknowledge their dereliction of duty.
    For too long, the courageous few who spoke out about the 
CCP threat were ignored and some were silenced. Much of the 
American Government seems to have forgotten that its purpose is 
to promote the interests of Americans. When Federal officials 
transparently message to the public about the CCP threat, they 
should also help inspire and equip Americans to strengthen 
their communities, innovate, and create, which will secure a 
strong and prosperous future for our Nation. A strong America 
can resist even the most aggressive communist political 
warfare.
    I thank the witnesses for appearing today and look forward 
to your testimony. I now yield to Ranking Member Raskin for his 
opening statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to our 
witnesses. The Majority has convened a hearing on ``Defending 
America from the Chinese Communist Party's Political Warfare.'' 
This is paradoxical because our colleagues have spent the last 
18 months spreading disinformation from Alexander Smirnoff that 
Moscow and Beijing have clearly used as political warfare 
against America as part of their collapsed impeachment inquiry 
against President Biden.
    All over the world, from the autocrats in Moscow to the 
communist bureaucrats in Mainland China to the theocrats in 
Saudi Arabia, the enemies of constitutional democracy and 
freedom seek to destabilize the American government. The 
tyrants of the world are targeting Joe Biden and promoting 
Donald Trump, who has fawningly described President Xi as a 
brilliant man, who has called Vladimir Putin a genius, and who 
has said he fell in love with Kim Jong Un. While Donald Trump 
has described President Xi as a very good man, China is, in 
fact, an authoritarian police state and violator of the human 
rights and civil liberties of hundred millions of people.
    President Xi has persecuted, incarcerated, and oppressed 
the Tibetans, the Uyghurs, and the people of Hong Kong and 
Taiwan. Xi has made common cause with his fellow tyrants, 
forming a no limits alliance with Putin's Russia just a few 
weeks before Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine in 2022. 
Beijing maintains a defense treaty with Pyongyang and is a key 
ally to Kim Jong Un, a third-generation dictator and communist 
monarch who presides over a totalitarian dungeon for his 
people.
    At our last hearing on the CCP's political warfare, 
Professor Tim Snyder explained how Chinese propaganda ploys 
have succeeded because certain American officials, including, 
sadly, some members of this Committee, have parroted Russian 
and Chinese state disinformation. In The Atlantic, Anne 
Applebaum describes how the CCP's political propaganda against 
the U.S. both undermines American faith in our own political 
institutions and helps to consolidate domestic repression in 
China. As she puts it: ``If people are naturally drawn to the 
image of human rights, to the language of democracy, to the 
dream of freedom, then those concepts have to be poisoned. That 
requires more than surveillance, more than close observation of 
the population, more than a political system that defends 
against liberal ideas. It also requires an offensive plan: a 
narrative that damages both the idea of democracy everywhere in 
the world and the tools to deliver it.''
    Far from opposing these autocrats, Donald Trump has joined 
them in attacking our democracy by promoting utterly debunked 
claims of election fraud and orchestrating a lawless and 
violent campaign to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 
Presidential election. He has openly stated his desire to 
pardon criminal insurrectionists and to rule as a dictator, 
using government not for the common good, but to pursue his 
political enemies and to enrich himself and his family.
    As President, Donald Trump received millions of dollars 
from the Chinese Government and state-owned companies, to say 
nothing of the valuable trademarks Chinese authorities rushed 
to grant him and his family. In exchange, he opposed sanctions 
against Chinese telecom companies and banks even when they 
threatened our national security. He assured President Xi that 
sending Uyghurs to forced labor camps was ``exactly the right 
thing to do'' and that violently cracking down on pro-democracy 
protests in Hong Kong was acting very responsibly. He even 
tried to cancel military exercises with Japan and South Korea 
because China complained about it.
    While Donald Trump has proclaimed that he and Xi love each 
other, the Biden-Harris Administration has responded forcefully 
to the political, security, and economic challenges posed by 
the CCP. As Secretary Blinken put it, the U.S. relationship 
with China is the biggest geopolitical test of this century. 
The Biden Administration has shored up our democratic 
institutions to withstand attacks from autocrats and strengthen 
our alliances with democracies both in Europe and Indo-Pacific. 
While Trump has said he would encourage Russia to ``do whatever 
the hell they want'' to any NATO member country that does not 
meet spending guidelines on defense, President Biden has 
established AUKUS, a security pact with Australia, the U.K., 
and the U.S. to help sustain peace in the Indo-Pacific.
    Domestically, bills championed by congressional Democrats 
and signed into law by President Biden, including the Inflation 
Reduction Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the CHIPS 
and Science Act, are investing in American workers and 
innovation, creating hundreds of thousands of manufacturing 
jobs here and establishing domestic supply chains in strategic 
industries. These are big wins not just for our economy, but 
for our national security. President Trump has idolized and 
emulated dictators like Xi and Putin and worked to move our 
country toward authoritarianism and away from democracy and the 
rule of law. In stark contrast, the Biden-Harris Administration 
recognizes that the key to out-competing the People's Republic 
of China lies in defending the extraordinary journey of 
American democracy, the enduring strength of our international 
relationships, and the revitalization of our economic 
competitiveness.
    I look forward to exploring these themes with our expert 
witnesses, including our distinguished former colleague Tom 
Malinowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. I am pleased to introduce our witnesses 
today. All witnesses are testifying in their personal 
capacities. Mary Kissel--did I pronounce it right? Kissel, OK--
is the Executive Vice President and Senior Policy Advisor at a 
financial services firm, where she provides advice on 
macroeconomic trends and geopolitical risks. Prior to this 
role, she served as the Senior Advisor to the U.S. Secretary of 
State, Mike Pompeo. Before joining the State Department, Ms. 
Kissel spent 14 years on the Wall Street Journal Editorial 
Board as Chief Foreign Policy Commentator in New York and 
Editorial Page Editor for Asia-Pacific based in Hong Kong.
    Captain James Fanell is a retired U.S. Navy captain. He 
worked as a naval intelligence officer, specializing in Indo-
Pacific affairs for almost 30 years. Most recently, he served 
as the Director of Intelligence and Information Operations for 
the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Throughout his career in the Navy, he 
served in an unprecedented series of afloat and ashore 
assignments focused on China. He was also a founding member of 
the Committee on Present Danger China. He is currently a 
Government Fellow with the Geneva Center for Security Policy.
    Erik Bethel is a former U.S. Executive Director at the 
World Bank, where he participated in the analysis and 
development of over $100 billion of capital in the developing 
world. He is currently a partner at a venture capital fund 
focused on maritime sustainability. Prior to these roles, Mr. 
Bethel worked as an investment banker and private equity 
professional focused on developing markets and served as 
managing partner of SinoLatin Capital and managing director of 
ChinaVest in Shanghai, China.
    Former Congressman Malinowski served two terms in the U.S. 
House of Representatives on behalf of New Jersey's 7th 
congressional District. While in Congress, he was Vice Chairman 
of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a member of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure and Homeland Security 
Committees. Since leaving Congress, he has been a Senior Fellow 
at the John McCain Institute and serves on the boards of Radio 
Free Europe and Refugees International. Prior to Congress, he 
served as President Obama's Assistant Secretary of State for 
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, among other roles.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please 
stand and raise their right hand.
    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you 
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Chairman Comer. Let the record show that the witnesses 
answered in the affirmative. Thank you, and you all may take a 
seat. We appreciate you being here today and look forward to 
your testimony.
    Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written 
statement and they will appear in full in the hearing record. 
Please limit your oral statement to 5 minutes. As a reminder, 
please press the button on the microphone in front of you so 
that it is on and the members can hear you. When you begin to 
speak, the light in front of you will turn green. After 4 
minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the red light comes 
on, your 5 minutes have expired. We would ask that you please 
wrap up.
    I now want to recognize Ms. Kissel for her opening 
statement.

                        STATEMENT OF MARY KISSEL

                      FORMER SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE

                        U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Ms. Kissel. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, distinguished 
members, I am honored to testify today on the Chinese Communist 
Party's influence operations and their impact on the Department 
of State. As former Senior Advisor to the Secretary, I was one 
of the few officials who worked across all bureaus and with 
many of our missions abroad. I saw firsthand China's vast 
influence operations and why they are a threat to our national 
security.
    Xi Jinping has accelerated China's influence operations by 
expansion and empowerment of the United Front Work Department 
and other Party state apparatuses. Often these operations seem 
innocuous, and even friendly exchanges, sister city agreements, 
business chamber meetings, think tank conferences, and 
interviews with Chinese propaganda outlets, to name a few, are 
all opportunities for gray zone influence operations. Many of 
these activities are legal under current U.S. law. The Chinese 
Party state targets our diplomats most obviously by attempting 
to soften their views of its totalitarian regime through formal 
state-to-state engagement, giving the impression of productive 
work.
    Unfortunately, talking to Party officials is not the same 
as talking to our democratic allies. Beijing uses these 
exchanges to give itself breathing room to further China's 
foreign policy priorities and to distract us from the regime's 
economic coercion, gross human rights violations against the 
Chinese people, the People's Liberation Army's accelerating 
militarization, and many other transgressions. This is why our 
diplomats must always prioritize tracking what China does 
rather than what its officials say.
    The Xi regime regularly conducts influence operations 
within our own borders because we as a democratic society allow 
Party officials freedom of movement and speech that no ordinary 
Chinese citizen enjoys at home. In contrast, our diplomats must 
apply for advanced permission to travel or meet with Chinese 
officials, permission that is regularly refused without 
explanation or recourse, and are closely surveilled and even 
harassed while doing normal diplomatic work. Additionally, 
Beijing maintains an unofficial presence in our country, often 
cloaked as civil society organizations or community-based 
organizations that ultimately report to and receive money from 
the Party and, in some cases, instructions from China's 
Ministry of Public Security.
    We worked to correct these imbalances during the Trump 
Administration, using the tools available to the Department, 
such as shuttering China's Houston consulate for its malign 
activities and reinvigorating longstanding but long ignored 
restrictions on Chinese diplomats' travel. Yet we are far from 
achieving parity in the treatment of our diplomats. More 
perniciously, China has proved adept at using state's 
bureaucratic structure to its advantage. Our diplomats are 
incentivized to smooth disputes and reticent to issue frank 
statements that might upset their diplomatic counterparts. 
Different bureaus also pursue different priorities. As a 
result, state may provide conflicting messaging to Americans. 
For example, the Department recently encouraged American 
students to study in China, but at the same time counsels 
Americans to ``reconsider travel to the country because of the 
risk of wrongful detentions.''
    Educating Americans on gray zone Chinese influence 
operations is also deeply important for our business community. 
I serve as a director of two publicly traded companies. Few 
American executives and directors are aware that they, like our 
diplomats, are prime targets of Chinese influence operations, 
which aim to identify prominent Americans who may now or in the 
future be convinced to aid Beijing in some form or fashion.
    The State Department should be at the forefront of 
America's efforts to combat CCP influence operations. Our 
political officers can work with allies to document and curb 
China's malign activities. The Consular Affairs Bureau can 
issue clear and complete travel warnings, while using new 
technologies to ensure visa applicants from China are 
thoroughly vetted for links to China's military, intelligence, 
or security services. Our public diplomacy teams can 
proactively refute Chinese Party propaganda while promoting our 
superior free political system. The IO Bureau can track and 
expose Chinese influence ops at the U.N. and other 
multinational bodies that receive substantial U.S. financial 
contributions.
    Here at home, the Department can educate and inform some 
national units of our Federal system that are heavily targeted 
by influence operations but lack foreign policy expertise. The 
Economic and Business Affairs Bureau can issue regular guidance 
on the risks of operating in China and the benefit of 
diversifying supply chains. These are just a few ways State 
should be engaging in this fight. These efforts do not require 
new resources, but, rather, a more strategic allocation of our 
existing assets.
    In conclusion, I believe this Committee's work is vital to 
the national interests of the United States. I am grateful for 
your attention, and I look forward to your questions. Thank 
you.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you very much. I now recognize 
Captain Fanell for his opening statement.

                      STATEMENT OF JAMES E. FANELL

                            FORMER DIRECTOR

                INTELLIGENCE AND INFORMATION OPERATIONS

                  U.S. PACIFIC FLEET GOVERNMENT FELLOW

                   GENEVA CENTRE FOR SECURITY POLICY

    Mr. Fanell. Chair Comer, Ranking Member Raskin, and 
distinguished members of this Committee, thank you for inviting 
me to testify.
    China's political warfare poses an existential threat to 
America, a threat that we have ignored for far too long. My 
focus today will be on how our government was so easily co-
opted and deceived, as well as how senior officials ignored 
valid indications and warning and failed to forcefully alert 
decision-makers. Their failure over decades undermined 
America's ability to build a national security strategy to 
defend against the PRC's ongoing political warfare. Through 
such tactics as elite capture, psychological warfare, 
deception, disinformation and propaganda, the Chinese Communist 
Party misled and enculturated our government as well as other 
American elites. Out of fear of provoking Beijing, these elites 
blindly promoted the engagement strategy, which was in an 
effect, an appeasement strategy. The result is a matter of 
national policy, the U.S. chose both to ignore and abet the 
PRC's unrestricted warfare against America.
    In particular, the intelligence community and the 
Department of Defense were deceived into buying the lie of 
China's peaceful rise and, thereby, failed to fulfill their 
most basic function in our government. As a result, senior U.S. 
leaders unilaterally disarmed psychologically, intellectually, 
militarily, despite clear evidence that the PRC's rise was 
anything but peaceful. These leaders failed to understand that 
since its inception, the Chinese Communist Party has classified 
America as its main enemy. They chose to ignore Beijing's 
clearly stated intent to defeat America, first through 
political warfare that is through a protracted Maoist political 
struggle, as well as through the very real threat of kinetic 
warfare.
    While there were some in the government who did their job 
and gave warning, in general, those officers were silenced. In 
a world of dangerous group-think, these officers were 
ridiculed, smeared, threatened, and censored. For them, their 
integrity and accuracy became a career death sentence. Thus, 
the question to be answered by this Committee should be why did 
the U.S. national security community, specifically the IC and 
DOD, fail to recognize this dangerous strategic trend line? Why 
did they fail to give adequate warning so our government could 
adopt policies to stop the PRC's malignant rise? Just as has 
been done before, Congress must compel the IC and DOD to 
explain this failure.
    The most important steps must be to understand how it 
happened, and as such, Congress must demand accountability. 
Questions that must be answered also include, how did the PRC's 
political warfare organizations influence and deceive the IC 
and the DOD, what multiple failures occurred, why were these 
failures not corrected internally, what assumptions and biases 
existed that colored IC and DOD reporting on China, as well as 
who understood the threat but was ignored or punished for their 
accurate assessments.
    My written testimony provides seven recommendations for you 
to use to address this clear and present danger. Today I will 
focus on just one, that the executive branch and Congress must 
admit that the U.S. national security community failed. These 
officials inherited a post-World War II Pax Americana, a 
position of overwhelming military and political dominance, and 
they squandered it. Admission of failure is the most important 
first step in establishing accountability and, more 
importantly, fixing the problem.
    Finally, I remain extremely concerned that our national 
defense today continues to be degraded by those who favor 
unconstrained and unaccountable engagement with the Chinese 
Communist Party despite the overwhelming evidence of the PRC's 
malicious intentions and their lethal capabilities. Just as 
America must rapidly build the platforms and weapons necessary 
to deter and defeat the PLA, the U.S. Government must also 
fight the PRC's political warfare operations, which have so 
badly subverted America's defenses. This must be done 
immediately.
    I strongly support this Committee's work and will do 
whatever is possible to assist you to help America acknowledge 
our past failures and to fight against the Chinese Communist 
Party's political warfare. If the Republic is to survive these 
attacks, we must vigorously preserve our system of individual 
liberty, democracy, and rule of law. If we fail, America will 
surely fall under the boot of an expansionist, genocidal, and 
totalitarian Chinese Communist Party.
    I thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify, and I 
look forward to answering your questions.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you very much. I now recognize Mr. 
Bethel for his opening statement.

                 STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ERIK BETHEL

                     FORMER U.S. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

                               WORLD BANK

    Mr. Bethel. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, esteemed members 
of the Oversight Committee, I am honored to address you today. 
This is a matter of critical importance, and that is China's 
expanding influence within multilateral institutions and the 
imperative that we have to address this development.
    Drawing from my own experience at the World Bank as the 
U.S. Director, I have witnessed firsthand the nuanced and 
strategic efforts that China has employed to enhance its 
presence within key international bodies. These efforts 
significantly impact global governance and regulations. China's 
concerted plans to augment its influence are evident across 
several pivotal organizations. For instance, China holds 
significant sway with the International Telecommunications 
Union, the ITU. This is an organization that actively helped 
shape the global telecommunications standards. In 2014, Zhao 
Houlin was elected Secretary-General, and he remained at the 
organization until 2022. During his tenure, China leveraged its 
influence at this organization to support companies such as 
Huawei and ZTE.
    Meanwhile, at the United Nations Industrial Development 
Organization, UNIDO, they exemplify China's strategic alignment 
of multilateral initiatives with their domestic agenda. UNIDO 
was initially established to promote the industrialization of 
the developing world. In 2013, Chinese Communist Party member, 
Li Yong, became Executive Director, and during his 8-year term, 
China seamlessly integrated UNIDO with the Belt and Road 
Initiative, otherwise known as the BRI. The UNIDO endorsement 
not only enhanced China's credibility, but it also extended 
their economic and strategic reach globally, leveraging other 
multilateral platforms to further their national interests.
    The CCP's involvement in the International Civil Aviation 
Organization has also been concerning, particularly regarding 
the establishment of air navigation and safety standards. Liu 
Fang led the organization from 2015 to 2021. During her tenure, 
the ICAO came under fire for denying Taiwan access to 
participation in crisis coordination efforts during COVID, and 
then attempting to silence criticism on Twitter.
    China's ascendancy extends far beyond these examples. I do 
not have enough time to go through them. Its influence 
permeates other critical multilateral bodies, including the 15 
principal agencies of the United Nations, where Chinese 
deputies hold influential positions. The implications of 
China's influence within these institutions are profound. They 
extend beyond mere representation to shaping global engagement, 
rules, regulations, and standards. China's involvement in the 
ITU, for instance, impacts global telecommunication standards 
with significant ramifications for technology and innovation 
worldwide. Similarly, its influence at UNIDO and other 
international bodies reflects its efforts to align multilateral 
initiatives with China's foreign policy agendas, such as the 
Belt and Road.
    As China continues to assert its influence in multilateral 
institutions, it is imperative for the international community, 
including the United States, to respond effectively. Failure to 
address this issue could result in a significant shift in 
global governance dynamics, and this is going to have far-
reaching effects for international cooperation, the rules-based 
order, and the promotion of democratic values.
    During my tenure at the World Bank, I observed firsthand 
the critical importance of maintaining the integrity and 
impartiality of multilateral institutions. Ensuring that these 
organizations serve the collective interests of the 
international community is paramount. We should develop a 
comprehensive strategy to safeguard these institutions from 
undue influence and ensure that they remain effective in 
promoting global development and stability.
    In conclusion, I urge the Committee to recognize the 
urgency of addressing China's expanding influence within 
multilateral institutions. It is essential to develop a 
comprehensive strategy to safeguard the integrity, the 
impartiality, and the effectiveness of these organizations so 
that we can ensure that they serve the collective interests of 
the international community. Thank you for your attention to 
this pressing matter.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you very much. I now recognize 
Congressman Malinowski for his opening statement.

               STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM MALINOWSKI

           FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEMOCRACY

                         HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR

    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Raskin. It is 
great to be back with you.
    As we focus on America's vulnerabilities today, I would 
like us to remember our strengths. America has the strongest 
economy in the world. China is struggling. We have allies. 
China has none. We are a democracy with ideas that people 
everywhere find attractive. China is the opposite. Everyone 
wants to come to America. No one wants to emigrate to China. In 
fact, they are losing their best and brightest people to us.
    All that said, a CCP-led China does pose a growing 
political, military, and economic threat to the United States, 
and CCP political warfare in America is part of that picture. 
But it is essential to remember what China is trying to 
accomplish, the ends as well as the means, which are to amplify 
our divisions and to create political paralysis so that we 
squander our strengths so that our government cannot act to 
meet our challenges.
    So, how do we beat that? First, I believe that the Trump 
Administration deserves credit for beginning to change the old 
paradigm of U.S.-China relations. The Biden Administration 
rightly continued what its predecessor started, including its 
trade measures, but Biden added far more effective restrictions 
to deny China access to critical technologies, and, unlike 
Trump, he got our European allies to join us. This kind of 
unity is precisely what we need to win and what CCP political 
warfare aims to prevent. If we want to win, we need to invest 
in our own industrial base, bring high-tech manufacturing back 
to America, and make sure that we, not China, dominate the 
clean energy technologies of the future, again, exactly what 
the Biden Administration is doing thanks to the Infrastructure 
Bill, the CHIPS Act, and the clean energy and science 
investments in the Inflation Reduction Act. Please remember 
this: the Chinese Government explicitly opposed the CHIPS Act. 
It is currently suing the United States and the World Trade 
Organization to stop the IRA's electrical vehicle subsidies. 
That is how they are trying to weaken America, and it tells us 
all we need to know about how to strengthen America.
    If we want to win, we have to strengthen our security 
alliances, and here again, Biden has succeeded through the 
AUKUS partnership, by defending the Philippines in the South 
China Sea, by bringing Japan and South Korea closer together. 
Remember that President Trump threatened to pull our troops out 
of Japan and South Korea, which would have realized the wildest 
fantasies of CCP strategists seeking to displace U.S. power in 
Asia.
    And President Biden has also been right to heed the advice 
of our friends in Taiwan by helping Ukraine. The CCP wants 
Putin to win in Ukraine. It was obviously happy to see the 
national security supplemental with its funding for both Taiwan 
and Ukraine held up for so many months. Passing that bill was 
another defeat for CCP political warfare.
    And finally, if we want to win, we have to stand up 
consistently for our values and for American institutions. I 
believe the Biden Administration has done that, too, and while 
the Trump Administration sometimes tried and deserves credit 
for it, it was repeatedly undercut by Trump personally. You do 
not win a contest of ideas with the CCP under a leader who 
says, as President Trump did, that Xi Jinping is ``smart, 
brilliant, everything perfect,'' because he ``runs 1.4 billion 
people with an iron fist.''
    And finally, please remember this. One of the goals of CCP 
political warfare is to discredit the United States and our 
democracy. I went up against them many times as a diplomat. 
They tried to probe every single internal weakness we had in 
that way. We are not going to rebut CCP propaganda about us if 
we have leaders in our own country who say that America's 
elections are rigged, that our free press is the enemy of the 
people, that our independent judiciary is corrupt, that we have 
political prisoners in America, that it is America's fault that 
Russia invaded Ukraine, and so on and so on. If you are a CCP 
propagandist trying to disparage America and you hear stuff 
like that, you do not have to invent your own material anymore. 
All you have to do is retweet the Americans who say it.
    Now, there is a lot that Democrats and Republicans can do 
together to combat CCP political warfare inside our country. I 
agree with much of the picture that you painted, Mr. Chairman. 
There is bipartisan legislation in this Congress and previous 
Congresses that should be taken up that I hope we have a chance 
to talk about today to deal with some of those specific 
concerns. But above all, I hope we will keep in mind what China 
wants us to do to ourselves--to stop believing and investing in 
our country and to stop leading the world--and then we should 
do the exact opposite. Thank you, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you. Votes have just been called. 
There are just two votes, and the Speaker's Office has sent out 
a notice that they are not going to hold these votes open as 
long as they have been. So, we are going to recess until 
approximately 10 minutes after the conclusion of the last vote 
in the series.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Comer. The Committee will now reconvene.
    I now recognize Mr. Gosar from Arizona for 5 minutes for 
questions.
    Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The corporate left is 
quick to cancel and adhere to openness and political 
correctness, but only in this country. In NFL stadiums, the end 
zone is covered with the word ``End Racism'' in enormous 
letters, but as the NFL expands to viewers in China, the racism 
occurring in China is not such a big deal anymore. Who cares 
that the Uyghurs are enslaved or if the racial and religious 
minorities, like the Uyghurs and the members of the Falun Gong, 
have their organs forcibly removed? It is all about profits 
over people while pretending to be as clean as wind-driven 
snow, as Rush Limbaugh used to put it.
    The list of corporate hypocrites who cozy up to human 
rights abusers goes on and on, but I will not bore you with 
that right now. If you are going to rely on the goodwill of the 
corporate left to forego all the greed in China, you are going 
to be waiting a long, long time, but there is a very simple 
solution: ending the fiat currency system. It is simply too 
enticing for these companies to not do business in a country 
whose currency is a pittance compared to the dollar. Arthur 
Lewis Lederman called being the country with the reserve 
currency ``a curse'' because that is exactly what it is. 
Consumers in foreign countries simply cannot afford goods 
priced in the American dollar, so bye-bye manufacturing and say 
hello to America's biggest new import: debt. And if you wonder 
why Big Banks like the fiat system, a non-fiat monetary system 
would level the playing field between all countries and restore 
manufacturing to the United States.
    I appreciate the Committee's desire to keep us safe from 
China. However, in all honesty, I am much more afraid of the 
United States' Government. Just look at January 6. Over 1,450 
mostly peaceful protesters have been charged with crimes. The 
FBI cannot help but brag. The government wanted to put Julian 
Assange behind bars for 175 years for daring to expose 
government misconduct and the true nature of the United States 
military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, which was not 
pretty, to say the least. The DOJ is attempting to send a 
number of peaceful pro-life protesters to jail for years simply 
for voicing their beliefs that abortion is murder. Steve 
Bannon, Mark Meadows, John Eastman, and Jeff Clark are just 
four of the names targeted by the DOJ due to the crime of 
supporting Trump. The list of people and entities prosecuted by 
the DOJ, including, obviously, the former President, is also 
one that goes on and on, but I will not bore you again.
    I am happy that the House leadership decided to investigate 
these atrocities on behalf of the American population who 
supported Donald Trump by setting up the Weaponization 
Subcommittee run out of the Judiciary Committee. And, while not 
dismissing China as a threat, I reiterate I am much more 
concerned about our own government's desire to imprison those 
who disagree with them and their actions to render the First 
Amendment a meaningless paper memento than I am with a country 
suffering from a self-imposed demagogic catastrophe caused by 
forced abortions and a one-child policy. All this leads me to a 
simple question: how are we supposed to fight China when we are 
becoming China?
    I have a question for all of you. In the Twitter files, we 
learned the FBI pressurized Twitter to remove posts from the 
Hunter Biden laptop, information on election fraud and COVID-
19, and suspend Donald Trump's Twitter account. Has the CCP 
engaged in similar censoring activities, Ms. Kissel?
    Ms. Kissel. Thank you for your question, sir. I do not 
think that it is accurate to compare the United States, the 
world's most vigorous democracy, to a totalitarian Marxist-
Leninist regime that is committing crimes against humanity and 
genocide. I am here today to talk about what I believe to be a 
nonpartisan issue, which is the extraordinarily serious threat 
that the United States and American citizens here and abroad 
face from the Chinese Communist Party. And I strongly believe 
that this threat is differentiated from the threat that we 
faced during the cold war where they were over there, and we 
were over here. This is a far more dangerous and complex 
threat.
    Our economies are intertwined, as my witnesses to my left 
have also articulated. This is unlike anything else we have 
ever faced. I spoke in my testimony about the gray zone 
activities that I believe are not adequately recognized and 
combated by the Federal Government, and I am here in particular 
to talk about CCP influence on the State Department. I also 
work in the business community, and I am telling you directors, 
CEOs are not aware of these threats.
    Now part of the problem is that the Trump Administration 
woke up America and the world to the threat of the CCP. We 
would not be having this hearing today were it not for the work 
that we did. The Biden Administration has essentially adopted 
our framework and continued it. I am grateful for that, but 
there is far more to do, and we do not have a lot of time. 
Thank you very much.
    Mr. Gosar. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. 
Lynch from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to 
thank the witnesses for your willingness to help the Committee 
with its work. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Malinowski, one of the most common weapons that 
authoritarian regimes employ when attacking democratic 
governments around the world is to undermine the very electoral 
process, the democratic electoral process, by claiming that 
elections were either rigged or stolen. And that is in order to 
discourage democratic participation, No. 1, but also to 
undermine the government that is elected through that process. 
And that is happening around the world and largely being 
conducted by both China and Russia.
    In this country, back in 2022 after the election, former 
President Trump and his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, 
Kenneth Chesebro, Mr. Eastman, and others challenged the 
results of the 2020 Presidential election in this country. They 
did so in 62 cases in, 9 states. They lost all of them. Every 
single case was either dismissed because there were no facts to 
support the claim, or they were dismissed after the merits were 
heard. All those attorneys have been disciplined in some 
fashion, either that or indicted or disbarred, and are 
currently appealing their convictions.
    Now meanwhile, Candidate Trump, despite losing those 62 
cases, continues to say that the elections in the United States 
were stolen and seeks to undermine--and some of the members on 
this Committee do the same thing--seek to undermine the 
democratic process in this country. Does this not have the same 
effect, is this not in harmony with the Chinese program and the 
Russian program to undermine the credibility and integrity of 
our elections in this country?
    Mr. Malinowski. It is definitely in harmony. One of the 
central goals of CCP propaganda, and it is true of the Russians 
and the Iranians and most of our adversaries, is to convince 
people around the world that the United States is not, in fact, 
the democracy that we claim it is or even to convince people 
that democracy itself, the idea of democracy is a spent force. 
When I was an Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and 
Democracy arguing with the Chinese Government, this is the 
argument that they tried to make, not very successfully, and 
certainly, it is a major feature of their propaganda around the 
world.
    As I noted in my testimony, it does not help us when 
American leaders echo exactly the same argument when they say 
that America has political prisoners, American elections are 
rigged, American institutions are corrupt. Now, Republicans and 
Democrats, we have always disagreed about policy, and that is 
fine. That is good. But at least in most of my life, we were 
united in defending America, in saying that our country has the 
best institutions, the finest system of government in the 
world. I think blaming America first is no way to win an 
argument with the Chinese Communist Party.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you. I just want to add that U.S. former 
President Donald Trump praised Chinese President Xi Jinping 
after the ruling Communist Party announced that it was 
eliminating the two-term limit for the presidency, paving the 
way for Xi to serve indefinitely, according to audio aired by 
CNN. And this is a quote from former President Trump: ``He is 
now president for life, President for life, and he is great, 
and look, he was able to do that. I think it is great. Maybe we 
will have to try to give that a shot someday,'' meaning 
electing a leader for life rather than subject to periodic 
election. Trump went on to praise Xi as a great gentleman, and 
added he is the most powerful Chinese President in 100 years 
and said Xi had treated him tremendously well during his visit 
in November. What does this do about our ability to hold Xi 
responsible for his oppression and conducting full spectrum 
surveillance over the Chinese people?
    Mr. Malinowski. Right. So look, at the time former 
President Trump said those things, other members of his 
Administration, including Secretary Pompeo, were trying to do 
the right thing. They were standing up to Chinese human rights 
abuses, but the President of the country is the boss, and when 
the President says things like that to Xi or about Xi, it 
undercuts everybody else who is working for him to try to 
advance American values of freedom and democracy. And besides, 
it is just kind of bizarre and embarrassing. It sounded like he 
was envious of Xi Jinping, and that is no place for an American 
leader to be.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Palmer from 
Alabama for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a point of 
clarification before I begin. Is this a hearing about China or 
is it about Donald Trump?
    Chairman Comer. It is a hearing about China, and we have 
passed along a number for Trump derangement syndrome to our 
colleagues. So, apparently, they have not started taking 
classes yet, but it is about China, a very important issue, and 
the government's failure to respond to the CCP threat.
    Mr. Palmer. Well, reclaiming my time. I think that China is 
a serious enough threat that we need to focus on China, and I 
will encourage my colleagues to do that.
    I have watched as China has become the dominant influence, 
at least economically, and through their debt diplomacy in our 
own backyard in the Western Hemisphere, and we have done little 
to nothing to address it. I think we have put ourselves in a 
very bad position, Ms. Kissel, in that we have allowed China to 
become the dominant economic force. I think in November, Xi 
Jinping will be in Peru to cut the ribbon on a major seaport 
that is built and designed to compete with our West Coast 
seaports. They are planning to build a major railroad. How 
would you respond to the fact that we have been rather absent 
in our own region?
    Ms. Kissel. Thank you for your question, Congressman, and 
thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree this is a serious threat, and I 
would like to focus on it. It also, I do not believe, should be 
a partisan issue at all, as the former Congressman intimated. 
This is a threat to all Americans--Republican, Democrat, or 
otherwise.
    The good news is that the Trump Administration, as I said 
previously, woke up America and the world to the threat, and we 
started to take actions across a number of fronts. President 
Trump, of course, was the first one to identify the fact that 
China was cheating on trade, that they were violating our 
intellectual property, and we took action on that. Under 
Secretary Pompeo, who I worked for at the State Department, we 
declared crimes against humanity and genocide, that China was 
committing these actions against the Uyghurs, the Hui, and 
other people.
    We did a number of other important initiatives. We went 
around the world and we convinced many, many nations to get rid 
of Huawei from their telecommunications networks. We worked to 
probe what was going on at the WHO and what happened with 
COVID, which we now know came from a lab in Wuhan----
    Mr. Palmer. And if I may interrupt.
    Ms. Kissel. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Palmer. When the Trump Administration took action 
against China in regard to the spread of COVID, I think my 
colleagues across the aisle referred to him as a xenophobe.
    Ms. Kissel. Well, again, I would rather this not be a 
partisan hearing because I believe the threat is too grave to 
engage in that today.
    Mr. Palmer. I want to continue this dialog, but I only have 
a couple of minutes left, and I want to talk about China's debt 
diplomacy. We know Pakistan, Kenya, Zambia, and Sri Lanka, 
Laos, Mongolia are all under tremendous pressure. We just saw 
what happened a couple of days ago in Kenya when the government 
there was trying to raise taxes just to pay their debt. I think 
Zambia and Sri Lanka defaulted on their debt, and we are seeing 
this happen all over the world. It is not just Sub-Saharan 
Africa. It is happening in South America as well.
    Ms. Kissel. Well, again, the good news is that at least 
U.S. investors, U.S. businesses are waking up. Look at the 
numbers of foreign direct investment into China. It is falling 
off a cliff.
    Mr. Palmer. Right.
    Ms. Kissel. And if you go and you talk to our Latin-
American partners, our African partners, they want to do 
business with American companies. And I believe that the State 
Department could play a very constructive role in reaching out 
to these partners partnering with U.S. business and saying, OK, 
where can we come in and compete and win because these nations 
do not want Chinese workers coming in and taking their jobs. 
They do not want dirty money floating around their economy and 
their system further corrupted. They want to do business with 
us. So, there is a lot of room here for the U.S. State 
Department to play a positive role.
    My fear, Congressman, is that we do not have the time that 
we had during the cold war. We had decades to argue amongst 
ourselves, Republicans and Democrats, about the best way, 
right, to combat the Soviet threat. I do not believe that we 
have that time with Communist China today, and that is, again, 
why I am so glad that Congress is taking this threat seriously 
and having these hearings. We need to talk about it. We need to 
talk about their military buildup, in particular. There are 
experts on this panel----
    Mr. Palmer. I have only got a few seconds. I think we also 
need to talk about how complicit we have been in helping build 
out their navy and other military assets, how we have been 
lackadaisical in protecting our intellectual property, and just 
have not taken seriously the China threat. And again, Mr. 
Chairman, I think we need to take a long hard look at what is 
happening in our own hemisphere. And that is something that I 
am working on as a Western Hemisphere Alliance because, 
contrary to what some of my colleagues think about other 
issues, China is the existential threat and I think businesses 
are waking up to that.
    We also need to wake up to the fact that other countries 
around the world need us to engage and engage intelligently in 
this, and I appreciate every member of the panel here. I am 
sorry I did not get a chance to address the rest of you, and, 
Tom, good to see you. But this is the existential threat facing 
our country, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Very good. The Chair now recognizes Ms. 
Brown from Ohio.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a member of the 
Select Committee on the Strategic Competition between the 
United States and the Chinese Communist Party, I have spent 
much of this Congress analyzing and evaluating the threat posed 
by the Chinese Communist Party's rising influence. Democrats 
and Republicans are clear eyed about the critical ways in which 
we need to advance our national interests, politically, 
economically, and from a security standpoint to be able to 
compete with the People's Republic of China on the world stage.
    The policies passed by House Democrats last Congress and 
implemented by the Biden-Harris Administration are already 
working to do just that, bringing tens of thousands of good-
paying manufacturing and technology sector jobs back to the 
United States. This is in part due to the legislation passed 
under Democratic leadership, like the CHIPS and Science Act. 
CHIPS and Science is an investment in American labor, the 
American work force, and our economy, and ultimately, our 
national security.
    In just one specific instance, American semiconductor jobs 
are growing rapidly following decades of decline. This is 
because the CHIPS Act makes a $50 billion investment in the 
American semiconductor industry and creates an unprecedented 
tax credit for investments, and that is only the start. As a 
result of this Federal kick-start, the American private sector 
is matching and surpassing government funding, announcing more 
than $160 billion in their own investment in semiconductor and 
other electronics manufacturing.
    Welcome back, Mr. Malinowski. I have a couple of questions 
for you. How is the CHIPS and Science Act working to bring jobs 
back to American communities which have seen a decline in 
manufacturing opportunities in the past?
    Mr. Malinowski. Well, thank you, Ms. Brown. I think you put 
it very, very well. I mean, we are reinvesting in America. We 
were reinvesting in American manufacturing. When I was first 
running for Congress, most people thought we would never become 
the manufacturing country that we used to be and we are 
becoming that country again. This is obviously good for 
American workers. It is good for our economy. But in the 
context of this hearing, we have to consider how much it helps 
us in the strategic competition with China.
    And keep in mind, in addition to the CHIPS Act, which is 
investing in semiconductor manufacturing in the United States, 
the Biden Administration has imposed devastatingly tough 
restrictions on the export of microchip technology to China not 
just from the United States, but enlisting countries like Japan 
and the Netherlands, which are the main manufacturers of the 
machines that make high-end microchips, semiconductors. And 
between the positive investments and the sanctions, if you 
will, the United States is racing ahead and China is falling 
behind.
    As I mentioned in my opening testimony, the Chinese 
Government explicitly opposed passage of the CHIPS Act by the 
U.S. Congress for all of those reasons. They understand what 
their national interests are, and I think there are lessons for 
us in that about how we should invest in our country in the 
future. Thank you.
    Ms. Brown. No, thank you. So, it is like you were in my 
mind. In addition to the investments in semiconductors that 
President Biden has also made and directing that increase on 
tariffs, which you kind of touched on, on semiconductors and 
certain imports like EVs, electric vehicles, steel and 
aluminum, and medical supplies, can you elaborate a little bit 
more on how these tariffs benefit American manufacturers, our 
economy, and strengthen our national security?
    Mr. Malinowski. Yes. So, like on EVs, for example, I always 
think about this. Sure, it is an environmental issue, but it is 
an economic security issue. This is the industry of the future. 
People around the world are going to want to electrify 
transportation, and the question is, does America dominate that 
industry or does China dominate that industry? Again, we are 
not only investing in domestic manufacturing, in clean energy 
industries through the Inflation Reduction Act, we are also 
imposing tariffs on Chinese made EVs. And just a few days ago, 
at our urging, the European Union imposed its own tariffs on 
Chinese-made electric vehicles.
    And, if anybody wonders where China stands on the Inflation 
Reduction Act, they are currently suing the United States and 
the World Trade Organization to try to take down those EV 
policies. So, whatever we make think of it, it is absolutely 
clear where China stands. They want us to stop doing this 
because it hurts them.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, again. These strategic tariffs 
directed by the President are helping to combat the unfair 
trade practices of the Chinese Communist Party. They are a win 
for American workers and manufacturers, bringing even more 
jobs, opportunities, and security back to the United States. 
President Biden knows what so many of us in Ohio and other 
manufacturing states know. Bringing jobs, opportunities, and 
technology back to the United States is the best way for us to 
compete economically with the Chinese Communist Party. In doing 
so, we are supporting manufacturers large and small, lifting 
communities out of poverty, and strengthening our national 
security. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Palmer. [Presiding.] The Chair now recognizes the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry, for 5 minutes for his 
questions.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bethel, can you 
give me a brief rundown, if you can--yes, kind of keep it brief 
because I think we could have a long conversation about it--
about how the PRC uses its power to infiltrate our financial 
systems to its advantage and to our disadvantage? And I want to 
have a broader discussion with the rest of the panel about 
that.
    Mr. Bethel. Where to begin?
    Mr. Perry. Yes.
    Mr. Bethel. First of all, let us provide context and 
understand what we are dealing with. What we are dealing with 
is we have a free and open system, and our financial managers, 
hedge fund managers, Wall Street professionals have an 
obligation, and their obligation is to provide a rate of return 
to their pensioners. They have a fiduciary and a moral 
obligation. So, the challenge that we have is to tell them you 
cannot invest in China because they will say, well, do not 
blame the player, blame the game. My job is to create a rate of 
return.
    Now, what I find very ironic about this situation is that 
those same players that are quadrupling down on ESG are also 
quadrupling down on China. Every letter in that acronym stands 
for something. ``E'' stands for the environment. Having lived 
in China 10 years, I can assure you that I may have lost years 
of my life just breathing the air, right? ``S'' stands for 
social, and clearly what is happening in Tibet, in Xinjiang, in 
other places do not reflect a positive social outcome for the 
Chinese people. And ``G'' stands for governance. You may ask 
yourself, how do there exist private companies in China when 
the government can strip you of your CEO and disappear your 
senior leadership. So, what I do not understand is how you can 
be for ESG and at the same time for China.
    I have been arguing this case for years, but we now find 
ourselves in a situation where many of these financial managers 
have lost money to the tune of $2 trillion, $3 trillion over 
the last several years. One company alone, an American company, 
Nvidia--I was going to say thank you to Ms. Brown, but she 
left--but Nvidia has a higher market capitalization than the 
entire stock market of China, and that has happened over 2 
years. So, the word of caution to our financial community is, 
be aware of what you are dealing with. And I find it also 
objectionable that Chinese companies listed in the United 
States do not file proper PCAOB accounting standards. How is 
that possible?
    Mr. Perry. So, how is that possible? And I suspect if I 
talk to each one of you, including my former colleague here, 
all with the best of intention, you know, to counteract the 
Belt and Road Initiative, we need to use things like the 
International Development Finance Corporation. We need to 
compete against China where they are competing. They cost the 
American people more money. But what you just described, the 
unequal playing field where American companies must comply, 
Chinese companies do not have to, they are advantaged. And the 
answer is the taxpayers got to pay more. Like, we are funding 
our own demise. We are funding our own demise.
    Ms. Kissel, I am sure you have plenty of examples. Captain, 
I do not know if that is your wheelhouse, no pun intended, but 
I would love to hear your thoughts on that because I feel like 
there is an answer right in front of us, which is relatively 
inexpensive from an output, right? It is going to cost 
everybody something, right, if you are not getting cheap 
Chinese goods. But, we are going to take the cheap Chinese 
goods while allowing them to abuse our system, which they 
literally finance their operation, that we are asking our 
American taxpayers to then finance the opposition, which is 
ridiculous.
    Ms. Kissel. Well, I think Erik hit on an important concept 
that could be applied across agencies, and that is the concept 
of transparency and, as you say, fair and equal treatment. We 
should not give China special advantages because communist 
China, it is a party-state. We do not use that terminology, but 
we should. It does not function like our economy----
    Mr. Perry. It is a criminal state is what it is.
    Ms. Kissel. Every economic activity accrues to the Party's 
benefit, and the Party's goal is to upend our way of life and 
to dominate and change our way of life. I believe that these 
listing standards should be changed. I believe that the State 
Department should issue very clear guidance on the risks of 
traveling and doing business with China. It is very confusing. 
I get a lot of questions from clients about this, saying, well, 
should I go? Should I continue to invest? What are the risks? 
We should explain that very clearly. I think transparency goes 
a long way. And I also think, frankly, that it is 
unconscionable that you have Federal employees' pension funds 
going to companies that uphold the party-state that is 
committed to destroy us. That is insane----
    Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I will conclude here. Who has the 
sole power to even the playing field? What I am saying is, is 
that we should be reciprocity. If it is good for them, it is 
good for us. If they allow it, we will allow it, but if they 
will not allow it, we will not allow it. Who has the sole 
authority?
    Ms. Kissel. Here is the challenge. There is not a single 
answer to your question. It is a very complex and complicated 
threat. The SEC has to deal with it. Commerce has to deal with 
it. The National Security Council, State Department, all arms 
of the Federal Government have to deal with it. But also, state 
governments have to deal with it because the CCP is conducting 
influence operations and softening up our local----
    Mr. Perry. Allowing them to not follow the rules. All those 
agencies have to change that?
    Ms. Kissel. This has to be an all-of-government effort in 
my opinion.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, ma'am.
    Mr. Higgins. [Presiding.] The gentleman's time has expired. 
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman, Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes 
for questions.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a question for 
Mr. Malinowski. The Biden-Harris Administration is investing in 
domestic technology and domestic manufacturing because they are 
key components to strengthen our economy, create good jobs, 
protect our national security, and compete with the People's 
Republic of China. These investments mean that more components 
of our computers and cars as well as critical nano and 
biotechnology are being developed and manufactured here in the 
United States. By strengthening American supply chains, we 
prevent over-reliance on China for essential goods. As we have 
learned from COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain diversification is 
crucially important, not just for our economy, but to ensure 
Americans have food, medical supplies, and other essentials 
during times of global crisis.
    Mr. Malinowski, how specifically will increasing domestic 
manufacturing of semiconductors and other technology strengthen 
national security?
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. I will repeat myself as often as 
necessary on this point, Congresswoman Norton. Bringing 
advanced manufacturing away from China to the United States and 
to our allies is absolutely essential to our national security, 
in part because these advanced technologies are critical to 
China's military development and for many, many other reasons. 
We are doing that in ways that are, I think, very surprising to 
the Chinese Communist Party. One reason why Xi Jinping 
expressed confidence when he launched on his current path 
several years ago was that he believed the United States was in 
decline, both politically and economically. He did not believe 
that we would come together, as we have, to invest in our 
infrastructure, to invest in critical technologies and advanced 
manufacturing. And so, politically, from the standpoint of our 
morale and his morale, it is also very important that we are 
doing this.
    I want to quickly also just associate myself with my 
colleagues on the panel in their answers to Mr. Perry. I enjoy 
the rare moments when I can agree with Mr. Perry. It did not 
happen often when I was here, but we both enjoyed it when it 
happened. I agree with their analysis. I agree with their 
recommendations. I think the only way in which I would part a 
little bit is that I just think the United States of America is 
doing better across the board right now on all these fronts. I 
do not think we are on the verge of somehow being defeated or 
overrun by China.
    Foreign direct investment in China, as a result of policies 
that were begun in the Trump Administration, continued under 
Biden, declined by 82 percent in just the last year. Think 
about that, 82 percent. They are reeling because we are finally 
waking up to the threat and doing things that are effective on 
a bipartisan basis, and my plea to you is do not stop doing 
those things.
    Ms. Norton. Since 2021, the Biden-Harris Administration has 
created hundreds of thousands of new manufacturing jobs in the 
United States through the CHIPS and Science Act. The Biden-
Harris Administration is making significant investments in 
domestic manufacturing of batteries and electric vehicle 
components, which simultaneously reduces dependence on the PRC 
and helps reduce dependence on fossil fuels by making electric 
vehicles more accessible to Americans when they make a choice 
about what type of car to buy. Through the Inflation Reduction 
Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, every congressional 
district in America is benefiting from Federal funding for 
sustainable battery manufacturing.
    Mr. Malinowski, how are these investments key to competing 
with the People's Republic of China?
    Mr. Malinowski. Well, I have 2 seconds, so I will just say 
that the People's Republic of China, their government opposed 
us making every single one of those investments because they 
understand that they are good for America and bad for their 
designs on America.
    Ms. Norton. China controls over 80 percent of certain 
segments of the EV battery supply chain. Investing in the 
domestic battery supply chain and building a sufficient 
domestic industrial base is a win-win. The Biden-Harris 
Administration is enhancing our resiliency, strengthening our 
national security, and creating jobs. I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Dr. Foxx from 
North Carolina.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank our witnesses 
for being here today. Nice to see you, Tom.
    We know that the Chinese Communist Party seeks to influence 
and undermine the U.S. economy in countless ways, and I 
appreciate what you all have said. This is felt in nearly all 
industries, including our domestic textile industry which is 
being flooded with fraudulent products that undercut U.S. 
manufacturers, its work force, and the legitimate players in 
the market. To stop the CCP's shameful use of forced labor in 
the Xinjiang region, Congress passed the Uyghur Forced Labor 
Prevention Act in 2021. This law is designed to prevent goods 
manufactured in the Xinjiang region from entering the U.S. 
because they are presumed to be made with forced labor since 
2021.
    Mr. Bethel, are you aware that the CCP continues to use 
forced labor to exploit its own people and undermine the U.S. 
economy, especially the textile industry?
    Mr. Bethel. Yes.
    Ms. Foxx. Yes? OK. Good.
    Mr. Bethel. I will make it easy for you.
    Ms. Foxx. Yes. Mr. Fanell?
    Mr. Fanell. Yes, ma'am. Everything that I see in the 
reporting suggests that that is still going on.
    Ms. Foxx. Ms. Kissel?
    Ms. Kissel. Yes, and we should not forget this is a 
totalitarian regime. None of the citizens, the ordinary Chinese 
people enjoy the rights and freedoms. So, while we recognize 
the crimes against humanity and genocide in Xinjiang, we should 
also recognize that the people of Hong Kong, Macau, and the 
rest of Mainland China also suffer under the jackboot of the 
Chinese Communist Party.
    Ms. Foxx. Yes. We have heard that many Chinese companies 
exploit the de minimis tariff exemption to avoid tariffs 
inspections and continue importing goods from the Xinjiang 
region that are prohibited under the Uyghur Forced Labor 
Prevention Act. Mr. Bethel, can you speak to how this exemption 
is being exploited by the CCP?
    Mr. Bethel. Sure. Before I do, let us contextualize what we 
are dealing with. China has ethnic minorities. They are called 
the Uyghurs, OK? And China has taken these ethnic minorities 
and put them in concentration camps. How are we allowing this, 
and how is the world not waking up to this? This is atrocious.
    Anyway, to answer your point, it is very easy for Chinese 
companies to circumvent the anti-dumping and forced labor bill 
by simply going to other countries. So, in other words, if 
China can export goods and materials to, say, Mexico or a CAFTA 
country, and Mexico can assemble them, they can get them into 
the U.S. through NAFTA. So, I think we should be very aware of 
not just the end destination, the ultimate origin of where the 
goods came from.
    Ms. Foxx. Well, I want to stick with this issue for just a 
moment. It is estimated that half the de minimis shipments 
entering this country are textile or apparel products. This 
severely hurts the U.S. textile and apparel industry because it 
does not abide by the established trade rules, and many of the 
de minimis shipments, as confirmed by Customs and Border 
Protection's testing and as you alluded to, contain cotton from 
that region. What can be done to close this de minimis loophole 
that harms U.S. industry and perpetuates human rights abuses? 
Mr. Bethel?
    Mr. Bethel. Well, I think galvanizing a whole-of-government 
approach is a great first step. I think one of the things that 
we are missing here is that China views warfare as a 
multidimensional attack against the United States, where we 
view warfare purely in the kinetic realm.
    So, I saw that Jim had this book here called ``Unrestricted 
Warfare,'' which is written by two PLA colonels, in which they 
claim that you can attack the United States diplomatically 
through culture and education, science and technology, data, 
space, trade, and it is all interconnected. So, I think taking 
a whole-of-government approach and understanding that this 
cannot be solved by one agency but rather by many agencies, I 
think that is probably the smart approach.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you. And, Captain Fanell, to build on what 
Mr. Bethel was saying, how can we get our military and 
intelligence community to recognize that it has underestimated 
the CCP and what is being done in these very disparate ways of 
undermining our country?
    Mr. Fanell. Well, as Erik said, we need to recognize that 
China is using comprehensive national power, as they define it, 
to attack the United States across this whole-of-government, as 
we call it, process. And in terms of the military domain and 
the IC, as I said in my opening statement, we need to have a 
recognition of past failure to truly understand the intentions 
of the Chinese Communist Party to displace the United States as 
the world's superpower. And until we do that, we are not going 
to be able to move forward.
    And so, we need to have something like we had in the 70's 
with the Church Committee or the Pike Committee. We need to 
have a committee hearing that really goes into the IC and the 
DOD to understand how it is possible, for instance, from 2005, 
the United States Navy had a 76-ship advantage over the Chinese 
Navy, and today, it is 39 ships in favor of the Chinese. That 
is 115 ships swing in a 20-year period, and yet we sat here 
dumbfounded and did not do anything about it. And while we have 
moved some manufacturing back to the United States, China today 
has 13 major naval shipyards. The United States has seven. Just 
one of China's is greater than all seven of ours. We have some 
serious problems ahead of us.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The lady yields back. The Chair recognizes 
Ms. Lee from Pennsylvania.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, this really should 
be a bipartisan hearing, but I am afraid my Republican 
colleagues are so focused on getting their fear-mongering 
soundbites that they have lost the plot a bit because there is 
a lot on this topic we could agree on--American jobs, for 
instance. We all want to see manufacturing come back to our 
communities, and we all want to see that local manufacturing to 
create good-paying union jobs. Communities like my home city of 
Pittsburgh have been hit hard by outsourcing and relocating. We 
are the steel city, but we have had to adapt and transition to 
other industries as the manufacturing has declined. Rather than 
giving up, we should be working to revitalize our manufacturing 
and expand job opportunities.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, CHIPS and Science Act, 
and the Inflation Reduction Act have created the support for 
more than $860 billion in business investments in industries 
like electric vehicles and clean energy and semiconductors. Mr. 
Malinowski, how does investing in these types of industries 
help ensure good-paying jobs in manufacturing here in the 
United States?
    Mr. Malinowski. Well, it transparently obviously does. And 
I think, as you know better than most given the district that 
you represent, not only were we losing jobs in these industries 
year after year after year, decade after decade, but we were 
losing the confidence as a country that we could ever be a 
manufacturing power again. And if you look at what Chinese 
strategists and propagandists were saying about the United 
States, they, too, were dismissive of the possibility that the 
United States would become that kind of manufacturing country 
again.
    So, the fact that we have come together and made the 
decision we are going to do it and demonstrated that it is 
possible in the way that we have in the last couple of years 
not only is great for jobs and for families getting money in 
their pocketbooks, but it is also, I think, great politically 
and from a morale standpoint for our national confidence, and 
it shows China that we are not to be trifled with.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you for that. Staying on those particular 
sectors, those types of industries, what are some of the long-
term benefits of developing these jobs in our communities aside 
from the morale boost, but for the communities themselves?
    Mr. Malinowski. They are highly skilled, better-paying jobs 
than existed before, so there is a dignity benefit that I think 
should be very important to all of us. There is a huge benefit 
to our national security because many of these industries are 
critical to our military modernization, and, therefore, for 
national security reasons, it is important that this 
manufacturing happen either in the United States or on the soil 
of our closest democratic allies. So, the benefits are 
infinite. The drawbacks are zero. And I keep coming back to, 
China explicitly did not want us to do this, and that tells us 
everything.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. Of course this is just the start, 
right? Workforce hubs and communities around the country, 
including Pittsburgh, are creating job training programs to 
ensure these investments translate into pipelines for good-
paying jobs in communities that have been left behind. Through 
this program, the administration has invested almost $450 
million to expand registered apprenticeship and pre-
apprenticeships, which supported the education and training 
needs of more than a million Americans. Already these 
investments have created nearly 800,000 manufacturing jobs here 
in the United States and doubled new factory construction. But 
to better understand the full problem, I think we also need to 
ask how did we get here and how do we keep moving forward?
    Mr. Malinowski, what are some of the challenges to 
remaining competitive against China and keeping our 
manufacturing work force in the United States?
    Mr. Malinowski. Workforce is the key. We are investing in 
manufacturing. We are investing in science. We have 8 million 
unfilled job openings in the United States right now. How do we 
solve that? We need work force training. We need to invest in 
community colleges which train young people directly for these 
jobs. And, if I can touch a third rail, we absolutely from a 
national security point of view need more legal immigration to 
the United States. One of our biggest comparative advantages 
over communist China is that no one wants to emigrate to China 
because it is a dictatorship. And the best, brightest, most 
talented people in the world want to come here. I do not want a 
single person coming illegally, I want us to control it, but we 
need more, not less, legal immigration. Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you for that. Fighting back against China's 
unfair trade practices, investing in our American workers, and 
bringing good-paying union jobs back to the communities across 
the country all seem like bipartisan goals. The American people 
deserve more than this fear mongering. They deserve solutions 
and actions, and I thank you for that. And with that, I yield 
back.
    Chairman Comer. [Presiding.] The Chair now recognizes Mr. 
Grothman from Wisconsin.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. First of all, Mr. Bethel, you 
mentioned, I think, a little bit the plight of the Uyghurs, 
which kind of shows what the CCP is capable of. I know 
particularly the NBA owned by these billionaires; it does not 
seem to bother them. Could you give us, in general, an overview 
of what the response of, the schmoozers who run America's big 
corporations, has been to what is going on with the Uyghurs?
    Mr. Bethel. I think people just do not want to talk about 
it. To give you an illustration, Volkswagen, it is not an 
American company obviously, but it is emblematic of what the 
situation is. Volkswagen has its single largest factory for 
automobile production in Xinjiang, China. If they were to speak 
out, ask yourself what happens. Furthermore, 90 percent of the 
photovoltaic material for solar panels comes from Xinjiang. So, 
we have solar panels on our roof. We have a Tesla. We are very 
concerned about the environment. I will preface that. However, 
it is all coming from China and from Xinjiang, and so I think 
there is a level of intellectual dishonesty. And furthermore, 
China's been very careful to address the seams in our 
government. Do you care more about human rights or do you care 
more about environmentalists?
    Mr. Grothman. Well, first of all, I think this institution 
has to familiarize itself where this green stuff is coming 
from, and maybe if they realize so much of it is coming from 
China, they would not be so gung-ho in pushing it more on 
people. And I do want to comment on Mr. Malinowski's comment. I 
do not believe American industry is on the ropes for 
manufacturing. Wisconsin right now is the No. 1 manufacturing 
state in the country. They got two problems. One problem is 
they need more people to work. And by the way, I really dislike 
it when people imply the non-union jobs, of which we have so 
many good ones, do not count. I think probably 
disproportionately the boom in manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin 
has come from non-union jobs, and if we try to focus on union 
jobs, we will not be as successful.
    But manufacturing is booming in Wisconsin. I wish we had 
more high-tech manufacturing. Do you think we should do 
something tax-wise on that? Mr. Malinowski, do you think that 
would help?
    Mr. Malinowski. I would be very open to anything, yes.
    Mr. Grothman. Good. We will bring you in on this.
    Mr. Malinowski. Could I comment on your NBA comment because 
I think we could agree on a bunch of things.
    Mr. Grothman. Right.
    Mr. Malinowski. So, a few years ago, the Houston Rockets, 
an NBA team, fired one of their executives for criticizing 
human rights abuses in China. I introduced a bipartisan bill--I 
am forgetting now who my co-sponsors were--to prohibit American 
companies from taking personnel actions against employees for 
exercising their free speech rights to criticize human rights 
abuses abroad. I mean, it is a non-controversial bill. We were 
not able to pass it, but it is something I would highly 
recommend you guys take up. I cannot think of any argument 
against it. I think it is something that would unite all of us 
Republicans and Democrats on this panel, and I totally agree 
with you. That is an issue that we should be concerned about.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. I think the middle class in 
America is very proud to be American and very great to be 
American. It is the multi-billionaire class that does not seem 
to recognize what we have. But, I will ask one final question 
here. We will go to Ms. Kissel. It can be any one of you. One 
of my concerns is how America is portrayed in the Chinese 
media, you know, what they are saying about America as they 
communicate with their own citizens.
    And, you know, I have heard for years, and when I talk to 
Chinese around here who are here, whatever, they are all, Oh, 
everybody in China loves America. But I hear, you know, in 
their curriculum that they are giving their own people is 
sometimes anti-American. Could one of you guys comment on how 
are they educating the Chinese to think about America?
    Ms. Kissel. First of all, I think it is important that we 
recognize that China does not have media. It has propaganda. It 
is fundamentally different from our free and open press, and so 
it is a party-state. I have used that phraseology before. I 
think it is important that we adopt it as a country and a 
Federal Government. I will give you an example from our time in 
office.
    We declared Chinese propaganda outlets like Xinhua foreign 
missions because they report to Beijing. They do not report to 
a CEO with an independent board. Their function is to promote 
the interests of the Chinese Communist Party. We received huge 
pushback from U.S. media organizations that wanted to keep 
their reporters in China, and my question to them was how are 
they going to report in China? They cannot freely walk around. 
They are surveilled. They are harassed. You would probably get 
more good reporting out of basing your people in Taipei and 
talking to the Chinese businesspeople who are traveling there. 
So, again, we face this problem of----
    Mr. Grothman. We are running out of time. Can I ask you 
what is more progressive, the Chinese media or the American 
media?
    Ms. Kissel. The Chinese do not have media. They have 
propaganda outlets. The United States has a dynamic competitive 
free media. Some of it is garbage, some of it is great, but at 
least we have a competitive free and open system.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. Very good. The Chair recognizes Mr. Frost 
from Florida.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, when we talk about the 
threats posed by the CCP, I think it is important that we make 
sure that the actions to counter those threats do not also 
undermine our own democracy in the process. Otherwise, we play 
right into the hands of our adversaries and folks who wish to 
destabilize our country. And what we need is a targeted, 
informed action, the kind that the Biden Administration has 
been taking, not the chaotic sideshow that we saw during the 
Trump Administration. For proof of Trump's China first, America 
second policy, all we have to do is look into his business 
dealings. Mr. Malinowski, are you familiar with the Industrial 
and Commercial Bank of China or the ICBC?
    Mr. Malinowski. Yes, generally.
    Mr. Frost. Is it an independent entity or is it tied to the 
Chinese Communist Party?
    Mr. Malinowski. There are no independent entities in China, 
but that one, in particular, is tied, yes.
    Mr. Frost. So, the ICBC is owned by the People's Republic 
of China and, in the first few years of his presidency, former 
President Trump took payments after payments from one of his 
Trump Tower tenants, the ICBC. Yes, the one owned by the CCP. 
This continued even after authorities started investigating 
ICBC's ties to front companies funneling money to North Korean 
nuclear programs. In other words, Trump was valuing North 
Korean nukes, the CCP, and his own bottom line over our 
national security in the interest of Americans.
    As a matter of fact, during Trump's only term as President, 
the Republican Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee 
begged the Trump Administration to target sanctions toward 
``more Chinese banks that do business with North Korea with or 
without Beijing's cooperation.'' But, that would require the 
former President to recognize America's interests in curtailing 
the PRC's influence over his own financial interests. Trump has 
enabled President Xi every step of the way. Mr. Malinowski, do 
you know what former President Trump's policy was toward the 
Uyghur people?
    Mr. Malinowski. Look, I have tried to be fair here and make 
a distinction between the Trump Administration and the former 
President. I think the Trump Administration did a lot of things 
that I agree with for China and had people who are responsible 
and working for the American people. I think his former 
National Security Advisor, John Bolton, has said the President 
himself far too often mixed his personal interests and 
obsessions with his responsibilities as commander-in-chief. 
And, of course, we know what he reportedly said to Xi Jinping 
about the concentration camps, that we all agree are horrible, 
in Xinjiang. He said that that is a perfectly fine thing to do.
    Mr. Frost. Exactly. Yes, he said exactly the right thing to 
do when talking about concentration camps to detain folks. Mr. 
Malinowski, considering that former President Trump repeatedly 
chose his pro-CCP patrons over Americans, what guardrails are 
in place to ensure that future administrations do not repeat 
this pattern?
    Mr. Malinowski. I do not know if there is any legal 
guardrail against the kinds of statements that he would make 
about Xi Jinping. We just have to exercise our good judgment as 
voters, whether we are Republicans or Democrats, to choose 
leaders who really do put American values first. On issues like 
emoluments, which the Ranking Member of this Committee has 
emphasized, I think there are also legal measures that we can 
enact, whoever may be President at any given moment, Democrat 
or Republican, to make sure that they do not have personal 
business interests that are linked up with foreign powers.
    Mr. Frost. What signal does it send to authoritarian 
regimes around the globe, including China, when we have a 
leader who repeatedly puts their own interests first and turns 
a blind eye to human rights abuses?
    Mr. Malinowski. I think the signal that it sent to China at 
the time was that they could ignore Secretary Pompeo and 
National Security Advisor Bolton and others in the Trump 
Administration who were trying to emphasize human rights 
because their boss did not care. Their boss seemed to envy the 
powers that Xi Jinping possessed rather than being disgusted by 
them.
    Mr. Frost. The threats posed by the CCP are very real, and 
our foreign policy toward them is one of the most pressing 
policy issues our country faces. But we need an administration 
and a President who can effectively counter the threats posed 
by the CCP, not leaders who put their own financial interests 
first. Thank you. I yield back to the Ranking Member.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Mace from 
South Carolina.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It would not be a China 
hearing on the CCP without the left invoking Trump, Trump, 
Trump, and I find their comments today quite ironic. And I do 
want to respond to some of the things that were said today, 
most recently, to quote my colleague, ``leaders who put their 
own financial interests above all else.'' Well, Joe Biden and 
his family have received over $8 million from Communist China, 
by the way. So, let us have an honest discussion about who is 
bought and paid for by China and who is not and the 
entitlements that I am witnessing today.
    But also, you know, the idea that Joe Biden is free and 
clear on this thing, the Biden and Harris Administration has 
responded forcefully to the political security and economic 
challenges by the CCP, and nothing could be further from the 
absolute truth. It would be wonderful if mainstream media would 
actually cover it, but here are some of the things that they 
have said that Biden has said, and the Harris Administration 
that they do not want to contain China. Biden called Xi Jinping 
a ``smart, smart guy.''
    He described his relationship with Xi Jinping as a 
``friendship.'' Joe Biden said directly that they are not bad 
folks. He said also that it is in our own self-interest that 
China continues to prosper, but is it? It is not actually. It 
is actually unsafe for the entire world, not just the United 
States. Also, Joe Biden called travel restrictions with China 
during COVID hysterical, xenophobia, and fear-mongering.
    So, I see a lot of hypocrisy from my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle today. And, even worse so, the fact 
that they want to place an attack on democracy, on Trump, or 
Republicans is actually hysterical, and it is actually a lie. 
It was just last year when the Ranking Member of this Committee 
when discussing Smirnov today called that witness, when we were 
going over the FBI 1020 form as trustworthy and credible 
because that is what the FBI told members of this Committee. I 
am just tired of the lies, I am tired the attacks on 
Republicans, and to quote my colleague earlier today that we 
want to damage the idea of democracy, that Donald Trump attacks 
democracy.
    I can think of nothing worse than an attack on democracy 
when you are literally throwing the Presidential nominee for 
our party off the ballot in multiple states whereas the Supreme 
Court ruled that was unconstitutional. Literally, the left is 
trying to dismantle freedom. They are trying to dismantle 
liberty. They are trying to dismantle the Constitution and 
everything our founding fathers and our Nation was founded on 
in this country today.
    So, I would like us to have a more honest discussion about 
what is actually happening in this country, what we are doing, 
and more importantly not doing, to combat CCP. So, I have got 
about 2 minutes left. I want to reiterate, Joe Biden and his 
family have received over $8 million from China and CCP aligned 
companies.
    So, my first question goes to Mr. Fanell. Your testimony 
today focused on the failures of the intelligence community, 
the same ``professionals'' that lied to the American public 
weeks before an election that said that Hunter Biden's laptop 
was Russian disinformation, literally an attack on democracy, 
the position that the left took. What steps, in your opinion, 
are necessary to ensure that bias and faulty assumptions do not 
poison the intelligence that our Nation and her people rely on?
    Mr. Fanell. Well, as it relates to the intelligence 
assessments on China, we have had 30 years of what my co-author 
and I have called threat deflation, where the intelligence 
community has habitually and perpetually downplayed the threat 
from the PRC.
    Ms. Mace. Are they lying to the American public? Are there 
instances of them purposely dishonestly providing false 
information?
    Mr. Fanell. In the course of my career, I do not think I 
saw anybody outright lie about and manufacture anything. What I 
see though is, how is it possible that for 30 years, you can 
continually say that this is not a threat, this is not a 
threat, and never once say, hey, we have to worry about a 
threat.
    Ms. Mace. Would you call it propaganda? Is that a better 
way? Other than a lie, is it propaganda coming from the Intel 
community?
    Mr. Fanell. I think it is what we are talking about here 
today in this hearing. It is the influence of political warfare 
from the PRC that has infected our academics, our think tanks, 
our government institutions.
    Ms. Mace. We have 20 seconds left. How are U.S. tax dollars 
funding some of this propaganda and promoting the CCP? Yes or 
no.
    Mr. Fanell. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair 
recognizes Ms. Crockett.
    Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair, you know, I always come ready and 
then I get thrown off. So, first of all, I thought that this 
was going to be somewhat bipartisan. I often tell our friends 
from Taiwan that the only thing that is bipartisan in this 
118th Congress is China. But boy, you know, it never ceases to 
amaze me how we get so partisan, and how we just start straight 
up lying. So, let me make sure that we get the record correct 
really quickly.
    At this time, I would like to enter into the record, an 
article from Reuters, ``Biden Calls Xi a Dictator After 
Carefully Planned Summit.''
    Chairman Comer. Without objection.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much. In addition to making sure 
that we can outline some of the things that it was Trump had 
said, I think my colleague from South Carolina may have gotten 
confused about who said what, but these are things that Trump 
has said about Xi: ``smart;'' ``brilliant;'' ``everything 
perfect;'' ``we love each other;'' ``President Xi, who is a 
friend of mine, who is a very, very good man;'' ``there is no 
body like that;'' ``the look, the brain, the whole thing;'' 
``my feeling toward you is an incredibly warm one.'' This does 
not sound like someone that has any intentions of being hard on 
China, in my opinion.
    So, let me go through a couple of other things that are 
disturbing. It was brought up a little bit earlier this 
question about immigration, or there was some things about 
immigration. I know that you emphasized that we should look to 
legal immigration. And because I am off script right now, I am 
curious to know if any of you are aware of what has happened in 
Japan, and the difficulties that Japan has faced based upon the 
fact that they actually have not wanted to engage in legal 
immigration and it has detrimentally affected them 
economically. Is anyone familiar with it? Just curious.
    Mr. Malinowski. Yes. No, it is absolutely true.
    Ms. Crockett. It is absolutely true. So, I do want to say 
that it does hurt us when we decide to demonize people that are 
trying to come to this country. It hurts us economically. There 
also was this insinuation that people are not working because 
they just, I guess, are lazy. I am not really sure. But, I do 
want to be clear that we have had record unemployment under 
this Administration. In fact, we hit a 54-year record low under 
this Administration, so people are working.
    Now, let me get to my actual planned remarks. I want to go 
back to something else that you brought up, which is my amazing 
Ranking Member, and the investigation that we were trying to do 
as it relates to emoluments. So, I am going to start off first 
with you, Captain. I know you are no longer serving as an 
intelligence officer on China, but I have a simple ``yes'' or 
``no'' question. Given your experience, would you trust someone 
to go head-to-head against an enemy like the Chinese Government 
if that person whose duties include ensuring national and 
international security against the PRC, if that person has 
received millions of dollars and other financial benefits from 
the Chinese Government?
    Mr. Fanell. I do not know who you are talking about, so I 
would have to wait and see who you are mentioning.
    Ms. Crockett. OK. Well, I am going to say that I would not 
trust that person, and it is the reason that I do not trust 
that Trump will protect this country. In fact, just this year, 
when asked whether the U.S. should defend Taiwan if it means 
going to war with China, Trump merely stated, ``Well, I do not 
want to say, but remember, Taiwan did take all of our chips 
business. We used to make our own chips. Now they are made in 
Taiwan. Taiwan took our business away.'' It does not sound like 
he is too friendly on Taiwan. And I do want to say that while 
that may be the case, this Administration and a Democratically 
controlled House and Senate made sure that they did something 
smart on legislation. That legislation was led by my 
predecessor, the late great Eddie Bernice Johnson, in the 
Science Committee and the CHIPS and Science Act is absolutely 
making sure that we are moving those jobs back. I know Samsung 
is doing lots of great things in Ohio, and we know that these 
plants are sprouting up everywhere to make sure that we can 
make chips here.
    But what I continue to see is that Trump seems to only care 
about his money. Democrats on this Committee publicly released 
financial documents detailing how Trump received over $5.5 
million from the Chinese Government. Not only that, these 
records also showed how President Trump and his White House 
Senior Advisor, daughter, Ivanka, received hundreds of 
trademarks by the PRC during that time, so I am going to skip 
to this timeline because I want to make sure we cover this.
    ZTE is a China telecommunications company, which has had 
extremely close ties to the Chinese Government, including 
report showing ZTE employees entering and exiting Chinese spy 
facilities. Unfortunately, what we saw when we look at this 
timeline is that in May 2018, China approved Ivanka's 
trademarks for bath mats, textiles, and baby blankets. May 7, 
2018, China approved five additional trademarks. May 13, 2018, 
President Trump tweets he has instructed the Commerce 
Department to reverse its decision to sanction ZTE. June 7, 
2018, Ivanka's company gets three more provisional Chinese 
trademark approvals. The same day, the Trump Administration 
officially announces an agreement to lift the sanctions on a 7 
year----
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady's time has expired. The 
Chair recognizes Mr. Sessions from Texas.
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I want to 
thank the panel for being here today.
    The USDA estimated that foreign investment in U.S. 
agriculture land grew to approximately 40 million acres in 
2021. That is a GAO study. We increasingly find out that China 
is not only after food, but after land that is near important 
installations. Perhaps it could be something related to the 
military. Do any of you have an expertise in speaking about 
that, that you could lend some insight to that? Captain, you?
    Mr. Fanell. Yes, sir. The threat from the Chinese in terms 
of what they are acquiring in our country, in terms of buying 
land and its close proximity to our military installations, is 
greatly concerning, as was their spy balloon reconnaissance, 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance balloon that 
flew over our country and collected over critical U.S. military 
installations. And so, we need to be very aware of where they 
are at, what they are doing. In the book that we just wrote, 
``Embracing Communist China: America's Greatest Strategic 
Failure,'' we actually call out and say that we need to move to 
the CFIUS process, which is the oversight of where certain 
acquisitions are made in our country, move it out of Treasury 
and move it over to Defense because that is how important and 
serious this threat is.
    Mr. Sessions. Interesting.
    Mr. Bethel. If I can add a little bit.
    Mr. Sessions. Oh, yes, sir. Please go ahead.
    Mr. Bethel. It is not just in the U.S., right? Not only is 
China buying hundreds of thousands of acres----
    Mr. Sessions. You can go to Uruguay and find it.
    Mr. Bethel. Well, you can go to Argentina, which is where I 
was going. China has a military base with satellites that can 
track their Polar LEO satellites that can then track hypersonic 
weapons. This is not fear-mongering. This is reality. In 
Argentina, they are building a dual-use port in Ushuaia, and 
they are going to land a fiber optic cable to Antarctica, and 
the fiber optic cable can be used as a sensor to detect our 
submarines. In Panama, China owns container terminals on both 
sides of the canal. So, I think it is not just in the United 
States, but we should be aware that China is encircling us, and 
we need to kind of wake up and get out of the matrix.
    Mr. Sessions. Ms. Kissel?
    Ms. Kissel. If I could add just a little bit more to that. 
And the purchases of land do not always have military and 
intelligence implications. It is also crime and drug running, 
which we have seen in states like Oklahoma and Maine, where 
Federal authorities have arrested Chinese individuals, likely 
associated with the triads, who are running drugs and 
committing Federal crimes within our borders.
    Mr. Sessions. Marijuana farms.
    Ms. Kissel. Correct. The marijuana farms, which is why we 
need a whole-of-government approach. As the other panelists and 
I have suggested, there is not one solution to this problem. It 
is a very comprehensive, different, serious threat than 
anything we have ever faced in the past.
    Mr. Sessions. Ms. Kissel, just so that we all understand, 
we are up here for policy. I thank the people that are serious 
about this, are in the room right now. Tom, welcome. I am glad 
to see you.
    I am interested if both of you would accept the challenge. 
I am not asking about a 20-page paper. I am asking about 
executive summary or whatever you would like to do. I am 
interested in how you, Ms. Kissel, in the Trump Administration, 
Undersecretary of State, viewed this issue and how it was 
looked at from if there was a holistic viewpoint of a plan that 
might lay itself out across government. Was it the NSA who was 
in charge, if you would do that, and, Tom, if you would do that 
for me, too? I am not trying to do anything more than compare 
and contrast.
    I think somewhere, the answer has got to lie with all of 
us, not one administration or the other. And I know that there 
are people that write about these things all the time. I am not 
doing that, but I am interested in a professional viewpoint 
that you have about serious people in the prior Administration 
and serious people in this Administration, writing me--I will 
share it with everyone on this Committee--about how it was 
looked at from a perspective of national security and following 
down. Tom, is that something that you could accept?
    Mr. Malinowski. A hundred percent. It is a legitimate 
concern, and I appreciate the way in which you are approaching 
it.
    Mr. Sessions. Because I am concerned we had a member here 
who was talking about it is all politics. No, it is not all 
politics. It is all protecting the Nation, and there are people 
who do things differently. Mr. Chairman, when I receive this, I 
will notify this Committee for distribution. I would like to 
ask that both of you provide that to me. Tom, I will give you 
my information.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. And you are speaking 
specifically of the land.
    Mr. Sessions. No, sir. I am speaking about how we should 
look at China. If it is just land, that is fine, but I am 
worried about how do we look at China. Do we have someone 
specifically related in there who can see the entire set? I 
appreciate both of you. If you want to send me some just on 
land, that is fine. What I am saying to you is, I will share it 
with the entire Committee, and we will appreciate it. And thank 
you all for being here. Captain, I am sorry, I have run out of 
time, but I gave you my information. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ms. Porter 
from California.
    Ms. Porter. Does everyone remember 2008 when the United 
States caused a global economic meltdown? We were financing our 
housing market with securitized bonds backed by shady risky 
collateral, shady risky mortgage loans that went bad, and the 
fallout was terrible. Today, China is setting the world up for 
a global economic meltdown. How? They are financing their 
infrastructure with securitized bonds that are backed by risky, 
lousy collateral. Local governments in China have major 
expenses. They build massive infrastructure, they deliver 
public services, and those investments are ballooning in size 
and price, driven in part by an effort from localities, cities, 
and provinces to out-compete each other.
    Now, in China, unlike in the United States, state and local 
governments cannot assess sales or property tax, and they 
cannot directly issue bonds. So, the Chinese localities do not 
have those ways to raise money for infrastructure services. 
Given this, the Chinese have gotten creative with how to fund 
their infrastructure. In China, local government sign over 
assets like land or stock in government companies to private 
local government financing platforms. For example, local 
government might have a 50-year lease on land under a 
residential high rise, but that lease and its revenue are 
collateral for the private financing platform. Now, these 
platforms are called private, but they are implicitly backed by 
Chinese state assets as collateral.
    With all this backing, the local government financing 
platform borrows money from a bank. The bank loans are bundled 
together into the bond market. These bonds get a high rating, 
Triple A, because they have the implicit backing of the CCP. 
This should remind us of what happened here. Our mortgage bonds 
got really high rates, even though they were loaded with 
mortgage loans, sub-prime, predatory mortgage loans because 
they were implicitly backed by our government sponsored 
entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
    Mr. Bethel, what is the greatest risk of this Chinese 
financing system?
    Mr. Bethel. First of all, let me congratulate you on doing 
a deep dive on what is happening in the Chinese economy.
    Ms. Porter. I would like to recognize my staffer for 
helping me put this together and myself for making it 
comprehensible to the American people.
    Mr. Bethel. So, I would like to go back to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, who asked about why on earth are we 
investing in China. And so, a lot of these bonds are being sold 
globally and internationally, and so I think we should be aware 
that there is a ticking time bomb. What concerns me more 
broadly than this particular issue? Well, this particular issue 
that is linked to China has a massive debt crisis and their 
economy is decelerating, and what does a Xi Jinping do when the 
relationship between the government and people is broken, 
right? There is an implicit pact between the people and the 
government. The government provides economic opportunity to the 
people, and the people, in turn choose not to create a 
revolution or----
    Ms. Porter. This is actually not different than our 
country, I just want to point out. So, when things went south 
here in 2008, we bailed out banks and homeowners. I guess what 
I am trying to get at in this specific instance is, and I want 
to get back to the consequences of all this in a minute, is the 
value of land. This works so long as the value of this land, of 
these assets, continues to go up, just like it worked when 
housing prices in America continued to go up. So, it is likely, 
it is inevitable that prices will not continue to rise. There 
is a significant property bubble, so like any bubble, the 
system is not sustainable. And once this batch of long-term 
urban leases, which began years ago, expires, which will start 
in the next 5 years, there will be a glut, and leases will not 
be as valuable. That will cripple the bond market. Mr. Bethel, 
do you know how large this bond market is?
    Mr. Bethel. I can get back to you on that.
    Ms. Porter. Ms. Kissel, do you know?
    Ms. Kissel. I do not, but again, I would also like to add 
my congratulations. It is the first time I have seen Congress 
take a deep dive like this. It is very important, but you 
touched on actually what I think could be the solution. You 
mentioned the rating agencies and the Triple A ratings. 
Congress could act to break up the duopoly of S&P and Moody's 
and force American investors to do their own due diligence and 
not outsource their due diligence to rating agency.
    Ms. Porter. The rating agencies are not perfect. We all saw 
that in 2008, and 2009, and 2010, and 2011, as the financial 
crisis continued. Go back to the size of this market. It is 
trillions of dollars. It is a multi-trillion dollar time bomb 
in the middle of the world's second largest economy.
    I just want to close by explaining to the American people 
because I know the witnesses understand this. Why should we 
care? Because I think when we hear, oh, China's economy might 
go south, well, no, maybe that is good news for us. It is not. 
If the Chinese economy collapses, it will reverberate around 
the world just like when our housing market, backed by crappy 
bonds, securitized bonds, collapsed, it reverberated around the 
world. Our economy will suffer because of these risks.
    Global companies that rely on Chinese corporations for 
manufacturing, other supplies, will all be hurt. So, this is a 
disaster waiting to happen, and we need to mitigate our risk. I 
yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. Excellent 
questions Ms. Porter. The Chair recognizes Mr. Biggs from 
Arizona.
    Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all the 
witnesses being here. Appreciate this. I apologize for having 
to step out for a portion of your testimony.
    I did hear that the Ranking Member, and I thought at first 
he was talking about former Presidential candidate Hillary 
Clinton claiming the 2016 election was stolen and with all of 
the groups on the left that asserted that for literally 6 years 
now. But then I realized, no, no, he has got TDS. That would be 
wrong. So, leaving the political side of it out now. I thank 
you for your testimony.
    And I will just say, Captain Fanell, in your book, 
``Embracing Communist China: America's Greatest Strategic 
Failure,'' which I recently read, you argue that the United 
States should employ a modern-day Truman Doctrine to counter 
the Chinese Communist Party. And there are some significant 
contextual differences between what was going on post-World War 
II with where we are today, and the ascension or the immersion 
of the cold war. I am wondering if you would discuss and tell 
me and tell us what aspects of the Truman Doctrine you think 
need to be implemented today with regard to China?
    Mr. Fanell. Well, I think that we need to look back on that 
history and understand that we were coming out of a World War, 
and that we were coming out of a time where we did not know 
what the future would lead to with a threat from the Soviet 
Union. And so, the government under Truman and this doctrine 
was designed to make sure that we were defending ourselves 
against this potential threat. And so, we used the resources 
that we had to make sure that our government and our country 
were able to defend ourselves against a threat that we did not 
know everything about it, but we knew that it had malign 
intentions for us. And I think that is the difference of what 
has not happened over the last 75 years is we have not labeled 
the PRC as that threat, which the Truman Doctrine did with the 
Soviet Union, and that we did not draw the distinctions and the 
line in the sand for a lot of reasons. And there was, you know, 
we understand why we engaged----
    Mr. Biggs. Well, for a lot of reasons, we did not perceive 
China as a threat because economically they were backward, and 
we did not view them as a capable military threat legitimately. 
And so, we then facilitated their rise and their move from 
basically a Third World economy with no technology, we allowed 
them to skip literally generations of technological development 
because we have facilitated their theft of our IP and our 
technology. And so, I appreciate what you are saying about 
that. And so, I am thinking of all the things that I know went 
on in the cold war, all the things that we did, whether it was 
imposition on corporations, what we were selling, what we would 
allow in, the exchanges of people across the borders, not just 
directly U.S. to Soviet Union, but affiliates and within the 
blocks of countries.
    So, Mr. Bethel, in your statement, you talk about a 
comprehensive strategy, and I have sensed that is what all of 
you talk about. I am trying to get specific iterated issues 
that we can look at, create legislation, and do what we are 
supposed to do, which is impose laws, to enact policy, and, 
well, impose policy to enact laws, vice versa, it does not 
matter. But, can you give me some of your strategies when you 
say a comprehensive strategy dealing with China?
    Mr. Bethel. I have to be sensitive about what I say because 
I recognize that the CCP could be listening. So, I am happy to 
take this----
    Mr. Biggs. I anticipate that they are.
    Mr. Bethel. But I think the first strategy is to know what 
you want. I do not think we know what we want as a country, and 
so if you do not know where you are going, then any road will 
take you in any direction.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes. Well, OK. So, that is an old Kotowaza, as 
we would say in Japanese. But the bottom line is we want to be 
secure from China. We want to have control of our destiny. When 
China, Zhongguo, the Middle Kingdom, they wanted to become the 
hegemon, the world hegemon. And that is the problem that we 
face is dealing with a country that is willing to emasculate 
itself in order to gain the upper hand, and so that is why I am 
asking. Maybe you feel more comfortable talking in a SCIF or 
something, but I am trying to get specific items, not generic 
items. I mean, should we be limiting student visas from China, 
for instance? Maybe we should. We probably should.
    And, Ms. Kissel, in your document, you were talking 
specifically about how we are treated by CCP on diplomacy and 
in diplomats and visitors, et cetera. Should we be doing the 
same? Should we be restricting travel of Chinese diplomats 
here, and I would like to know.
    Ms. Kissel. A hundred percent. We talked a lot about 
reciprocity in the Trump Administration, but there is a long 
way to go. We do not have freedom of movement in China. They 
should not have freedom of movement here. Our Consular Affairs 
people, as I say in my testimony, should be clearly vetting 
every person who enters from Communist China for military 
intelligence security ties. We should be limiting Chinese 
students who are coming here to study STEM. We should be 
talking to our European allies and encouraging them to forbid 
Chinese students who come from military universities in China 
for studying in European universities or Australian or Japanese 
universities, for instance. There is an enormous amount that 
the State Department can do.
    Aside from just the actions that I have outlined here, 
rhetorically, we need to issue clear, comprehensive travel 
warnings. I fought very hard when I was at State to get the 
Consular Affairs Bureau to put accurate, complete warnings out 
about the risk of travel. We now have different travel warnings 
for Mainland China than we do for Hong Kong. These are not 
functionally different places. They are one and the same. It 
should be the same level, just to give you one example.
    But I agree with Erik that it has to be a comprehensive 
strategy, and we have to stop being defensive. We need an 
offensive strategy that plays to our strengths and that also 
utilizes not just our own power economically, militarily, and 
otherwise, but the power of our friends and allies because we 
also have friends and allies that are not just democracies. 
There are places like Vietnam, for instance, not a democracy. 
They very clearly recognize the threat from Communist China. We 
need to leverage that relationship across the spectrum of 
Federal power and use it. Thank you.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will 
just say, having met with Central American leaders over the 
last couple of months, they are really concerned about the 
influence China is having in their nations. And you are right 
about them controlling, like, Panama or trying to get control 
of Panama, I think of Sri Lanka, I think what happened there. I 
will yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Very good. Very good. The Chair recognizes 
Mr. Timmons from South Carolina.
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. Captain 
Fanell, I really think that the U.S. Government has been 
getting policy as it relates to China wrong for more than my 
lifetime, decades, and the people in South Carolina, we had a 
good thing going. We had a thriving textile industry up until 
the 70's when Washington said we have to increase labor 
standards and environmental standards. And to be fair, we 
needed to do both of those, but the manner in which we did that 
legislatively caused hundreds of thousands of jobs to go 
overseas.
    And yes, we need to stop pouring chemicals into our rivers. 
Yes, we should not have people working in 100-degree 
temperatures 120 hours a week, but when we are not competitive 
in the global economy because of the regulations that we have 
here, it really impedes our ability to be prosperous. So, I 
mean, in retrospect, we should have said these are the new 
standards, and anybody that wants to engage in commerce in the 
United States has to meet these standards. And we really have 
not learned our lesson.
    And it is frustrating because, I mean, I did see one 
glimmer of hope, the way that we handled Huawei a few years 
ago, and, I mean, the Chinese were essentially giving away 
next-generation wireless technology to get a back door into all 
the privacy of developing countries and some developed 
countries. And, I mean, I think Huawei shows that China can be 
held accountable, and it is a good example of the U.S. takes a 
leadership role, but we get all of our like-minded allies on 
board to get them to not cheat and to not steal our data. I 
mean, do you think that the way that the United States handled 
Huawei is a case study for how we can try to hold them 
accountable, to be equitable partners in the global economy?
    Mr. Fanell. Well, I know you directed the question to me, 
but there is two people here that were in the Trump 
Administration that actually were responsible for that. I will 
let them answer.
    Mr. Timmons. Ms. Kissel, let us start with you.
    Ms. Kissel. Yes, that entire effort was run out of the 
State Department and our Economic Affairs Bureau, and it was 
not easy. We went, for instance, to see the U.K. Government, 
and they laughed us out of the room. And eventually we had to 
tell them, look, we cannot share sensitive intelligence with 
you if it is traveling over Huawei networks, and so, finally, 
they came around. Germany, it is taking much longer, but the 
problem is not a single country or ally. There are many, many 
different kinds of Huaweis, whether it is the equipment that is 
scanning containers, whether it is China Unicom, China Telecom, 
we took action there. But, as you have seen recently in the 
press, we have a problem now with the cloud services that they 
provide in the United States.
    So again, there is an enormous amount that the State 
Department can do by going around the world because you do not 
want backdoors built in allied or neighboring countries. Look 
at the Bahamas. Huawei is all over the Bahamas. Huawei built 
Saudi Arabia's 5G network, so it an enormous challenge not just 
here at home, but abroad.
    Mr. Timmons. To your point, I was using Huawei as example, 
but it is a cultural disparity. I mean, the Chinese Government 
views it as their job to make sure that every business has an 
advantage to compete in the global economy. It is cultural. 
And, I mean, our system of government is supposed to have the 
government staying out and allowing our businesses to produce 
the best product or service that we can provide and let 
capitalism do the rest. And, I mean, this really is a clash of 
cultures in many ways. Would you agree?
    Ms. Kissel. I believe that the United States, one of our 
greatest advantages is our capitalist, competitive, free and 
open system. And one of the challenges that we face with China 
is that we have integrated Communist China into that system, 
and we have made our companies, our investors, and others 
dependent on it. We also have China integrated into 
international institutions like the World Trade Organization. 
What do you do when the second largest participant in the WTO 
does not follow the rules? How do you fix that? It is a very 
difficult problem to fix.
    So, it is a very multifaceted issue, but I believe that 
there are steps that can be taken today. Most notably, you 
recognize the problem, you make it transparent to U.S. 
investors and companies, the risks that they face. You force 
disclosure, and then you start to set red lines and say in 
strategic industries, whether it be pharmaceuticals, 
semiconductors, military equipment, or others, you cannot go 
there.
    And we need to stop saying, we compete with China. That 
implies that they follow the rules. They do not. They are not a 
competitor. They are an enemy. And as a Nation, under both 
Republican and Democratic administrations, we simply have not 
gotten there yet. And because we have confusion of a cooperate, 
compete, and confront policy, which is confused, we get 
confused policy, and that is dangerous.
    Mr. Timmons. I agree. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. McClain from 
Michigan.
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chairman, can I----
    Chairman Comer. Oh, I am sorry.
    Mr. Biggs. I just have a couple of UCs, if I can. Sorry, 
Mrs. McClain.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Biggs.
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chairman, I request that the congressional 
Executive Commission on China annual report for 2023 be 
admitted to the record.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Biggs. And a piece entitled, ``Hong Kong is 
Unrecognizable after Two Years Under the National Security 
Law,'' which gets to the point that Ms. Kissel just made.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Biggs. And to the point that Mr. Bethel made but 
expanding on a little bit more is, ``The World Health 
Organization is Not Salvageable With Regard to its Infiltration 
with CCP.''
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. 
McClain from Michigan.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for 
being here today.
    Ms. Kissel, I think you said something very insightful that 
really caught my attention is we got to have some red lines. 
And to quote you, you said, ``We cannot go there,'' and I am 
experiencing this a little bit in my state. I mean, if you look 
at the CCP, they are not our friend. I do not think anyone 
would disagree with that, right? That is pretty bipartisan. You 
know, from the internment camps, the abrasive military posture 
in the South China Sea, and the crackdown in Hong Kong, it is 
clear they are not our friend. And I would also want to make 
sure that my letters are on the right one, and I have a good 
understanding that if you are a Chinese company, you must turn 
over all of your data to the CCP, if they ask for it. Is that 
correct? Am I miss----
    Ms. Kissel. That is correct.
    Mrs. McClain. OK. So, I just want to talk about some facts. 
We in Michigan have the Gotion plant that is very near and dear 
and it is a very sensitive topic to me. It is being built close 
to Ferris State University, which was recently given an 
accreditation for its information security and intelligence 
system program. This is an American University, right? Michigan 
also has a military facility that is actively training 
Taiwanese soldiers to combat China in the event of an invasion. 
The Gotion plant is being constructed just miles from this 
facility. I am not much for coincidences, but I would like to 
get your thoughts on do you think that is a coincidence? We 
have a Chinese-owned company, and the only spot they can figure 
out that is feasible for them to build at is next to a 
university and next to a military base. Anybody think that is a 
coincidence? I would just like to get your thoughts on that.
    Now, here is the kicker. Here is the kicker. Our 
legislator, our Governor, is going to give that company, 
Chinese-owned company, $800 million. I am with you Ms. Kissel. 
Am I saying your name correct?
    Ms. Kissel. Yes, Kissel, like ``missile.''
    Mrs. McClain. You cannot go there. Why are we allowing this 
to happen? It baffles my mind. We talk about, well, it is going 
to create jobs. Jobs for whom? I am very concerned about that, 
and I am not much for coincidences. So, what I would like to 
start is, can anyone explain to me how the Chinese companies 
are bound to the CCP because when I say that, some folks back 
home across the aisle think I am crazy. But am I correct in 
that statement, and can you explain how the Chinese--we will 
start with you, Ms. Kissel--how the Chinese companies are bound 
to the CCP?
    Ms. Kissel. So, I would refer the Committee to a speech 
that Secretary Pompeo delivered on civil military fusion in San 
Francisco, where he outlines this threat and the laws of China 
that compel any company based in China to divulge any 
information to the Party at any time, in any manner of its 
choosing. I believe that all the information that you need is 
in those remarks.
    Mrs. McClain. But, for the average American listening right 
now, you are talking to the people of the great state of 
Michigan. In layman's terms, what does that mean?
    Ms. Kissel. China is a Party state. The function of China 
is not to better the interests of the Chinese people. It is to 
promote, strengthen, and expand the power, influence, and reach 
of the Chinese Communist Party. All activity done by Chinese 
companies or within the Chinese borders is a cruise to the 
power of the Party.
    Mrs. McClain. But what happens if it is a company here 
owned by China?
    Ms. Kissel. There are no independent Chinese companies.
    Mrs. McClain. So, even if they are on our soil, if it is a 
Chinese company, everything will get divulged at any point in 
time to the Chinese Government.
    Ms. Kissel. Correct, and I would also note for the 
honorable member that many of the intellectual property theft 
suffered by American companies do not only occur in mainland 
China.
    Mrs. McClain. Right here.
    Ms. Kissel. I spoke to one Fortune 500 CEO who told me that 
the greatest Chinese IP threat that he suffered was here in the 
United States, by a Party, shall we say, directed individual, 
it was directed to----
    Mrs. McClain. And this is what I need to get our lawmakers 
in the state of Michigan to understand. China is not our 
friend. They are not our friend educationally, they are not our 
friend militarily, and they are not our friend economically. 
One last question, and if we could keep it to a ``yes'' or 
``no,'' it would be great. Do you think the Gotion plant is an 
example of China making a long-term investment in the American 
business community to advance their interests and perhaps gain 
information, private information, from American citizens?
    Ms. Kissel. Yes, but let us not give them too much credit 
as long-term thinkers. Let us remember they almost destroyed 
their country several times over the Cultural Revolution, now 
with this debt crisis, et cetera. And I really want to push 
back strongly on that notion that somehow, they are these 
magical long-term planners. They are not.
    Mrs. McClain. So, you mean we could be in danger right now 
if this plant goes----
    Ms. Kissel. I am saying that we have great advantages. As 
the former Congressman laid out, we should use them. We need to 
recognize the nature of the threat, and we need to construct 
not just a defensive strategy, but an offensive strategy.
    Mrs. McClain. But it starts with you just cannot go there, 
and with that, Mr. Chairman, I am over. I yield back. Thank 
you.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Fallon from Texas.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it, and I 
want to thank all the witnesses very much for coming in.
    We have heard some of the same common themes as far as 
China is an existential threat, they pose an existential threat 
to the United States. Do they have a freedom of religion? No. 
Press? No. Free markets? No. And a free exchange of ideas? No. 
I mean, we know these things, but they are far more dangerous 
than the Soviet Union ever was. And folks that look at this 
realize, but for the folks that are just kind of becoming 
aware, think about the fact that China has 10 times the 
population as Russia does today. And Russia is a threat, 
clearly, with their thousands of nuclear weapons, but 10 times 
the population and 9 times the GDP.
    That is what gets my attention because the communists 
before China never had that kind of economic might, and the CCP 
are nothing more than bullies, but granted, dangerous, wealthy, 
and very well-armed bullies. And it will be a dark day for 
humanity if the Chinese Communist Party ever reaches their goal 
of world hegemony, and I shudder at the thought. And we are 
truly a thin line that prevents that from becoming a reality, 
and we should never lose sight of that. And we also see with 
their increased espionage, Chinese nationals being arrested for 
trespassing at Mar-a-Lago, claiming they are tourist at our 
military installations on a recurring and repeated basis. We 
saw the Chinese spy balloon. They are probing and they are 
testing to see what kind of resolve that we have, and then we 
have got, of course, the Southern borders.
    Well, Mr. Malinowski, thank you for coming. Do you believe 
that Chinese Communist Party will exploit these porous Southern 
borders at any and every opportunity?
    Mr. Malinowski. I would not exaggerate that, though I agree 
with your fundamental assessment that they pose a threat to us. 
I think the Chinese Communist Party would be very, very happy 
if we decided to basically pull back from our global 
commitments and focus entirely on issues like our border, 
although I agree we have to focus on it.
    Mr. Fallon. We can do both.
    Mr. Malinowski. We have to do both. We have to do both.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes, their Belt and Road Initiatives is a----
    Mr. Malinowski. I think, look, there are a lot of people 
from a lot of countries exploiting our asylum system right now, 
as we all know, and----
    Mr. Fallon. Do you think this Administration has done all 
it can to secure the Southern border?
    Mr. Malinowski. I think it has done all it can, and the 
focus right now needs to be on Congress passing the legislation 
that has been put before you, bipartisan legislation.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes.
    Mr. Malinowski. We all know the politics of that and why it 
has not passed, and, yes, the China piece is a small part of 
that, but if you think that that is important, that is the----
    Mr. Fallon. Yes. Thank you. I would say that when you look 
at it because I look at data, and under the prior 
Administration, we had 11 folks that were apprehended on the 
Southern border that were on the Terrorist Watch List. Under 
this Administration, we have had 362. We have not had a month 
where we had over 200,000 illegal border encounters in 20-plus 
years, and yet under this Administration, we have had 28 of 
those. We have had 38 months in a row of over 150,000 crossing 
the border and gives that context. We never had a month of over 
300,000 illegal crossings. We had that in December 2023. We had 
300,000 illegal encounters in all of Fiscal Year 2017, so by 
that definition, it is 12 times worse.
    And if you look at the Obama Administration and the Trump 
Administration, at this juncture in their presidencies, about 2 
million illegal encounters. Under this Administration, we have 
had 10 million. That is not even close to being in the same 
neighborhood, not ballpark, not even on the same planet, quite 
frankly. And there were things that this Administration did 
that had nothing to do with Congress. The wait in Mexico policy 
worked, and yet they rescinded that. And then we had a border 
wall, part of it ready to go, paid for, labor there, materials 
there, and it was just stopped, the construction ceased, and 
then we also left expedited removal, just left it on the table 
for some unknown reason.
    And when you look at Chinese nationals, in 2018, there were 
991 Chinese nationals that were apprehended on the Southern 
border. In 2023, it was 37,000. Again, not in the same 
ballpark, not in the same country, not even in the same planet, 
so 3,700 percent increase. And then what is China doing 
because, yes, and, Ms. Kissel, you made a very good point about 
they know what is going on in that country. It is a police 
state. It is a totalitarian regime. So, they know what is 
happening with fentanyl, and they know who the players are, and 
they know that they are making precursors there. They are 
teaming up with the Mexican drug cartels, and they are killing 
Americans, 76,000 in 2022, which is a 270-percent increase from 
2017, and they are killing 208 Americans per day.
    If you look at World War II, we lost 405,000 Americans, and 
over the course of that nearly 4 years, that was 299 a day. 
That is a comparative number. The Chinese Communist Party, Mr. 
Chairman, is waging asymmetrical warfare on this country, and 
we need to recognize the threat and act accordingly. I yield 
back. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Cloud from Texas.
    Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chairman. Just first off, I want to 
say I want to appreciate my colleagues on this Committee and 
certainly throughout Congress for passing H.R. 90. That was the 
resolution to demand China return Mark Swidan home. He is from 
my district, and I know there are many others, too, who are 
still there who need to come home. Also, being from Texas, I do 
think it is important to bring up the border because not only 
is fentanyl coming across our border, you do not leave China 
without China's permission, and so we have a number of Chinese 
nationals coming across our border. Many of them or most of 
them are single, adult, military aged, pretty fit young men who 
are coming here. Makes you wonder why they are coming here. It 
is unconscionable to me that we continue to let that be an open 
sieve.
    Beyond that, I thought it was great that you brought up 
unrestricted warfare because unrestricted warfare talks about 
many of the ways that it goes beyond what we conventionally 
know as warfare, but it talks about financial warfare, network 
warfare, trade warfare, biochemical warfare, ecological 
warfare, but also it talks about resource warfare, economic aid 
warfare, regulatory warfare, smuggling warfare, drug warfare, 
media warfare. It goes on to say that, to suggest special funds 
be set up to exert great influence on another country's 
government by legislature, through lobbying, buying and gaining 
control of stocks to be used to turn other country's newspapers 
and television stations into tools and media warfare, and the 
like. And so, what we see happening on our border, along with 
some of the lobbying and regulatory regime, you cannot help but 
wonder if this is part of China getting us to burden our own 
economy, to burden our own aid resources that are meant to take 
care of those who are very needy in our country, and, in a 
sense, pay for the demise of our own country.
    I wanted to bring up a 2008 National Intelligence Council 
report that they put out, and it said this: ``The unprecedented 
shift in relative wealth and economic power roughly from West 
to East is now happening and will continue. The United States' 
relative strength even in the military one will decline, and 
U.S. leverage will become even more constrained.'' It basically 
said, ``This transition is a virtual certainty that will 
continue.'' It said, ``In terms of size, speed, and directional 
flow, the transfer of global wealth and economic power now 
underway from West to East is without precedent in modern 
history.''
    And again, it went on to say, ``This is unprecedented and 
very likely to continue.'' It said it is happening for two 
reasons. One, we are sending oil and gas revenues overseas, and 
we are sending manufacturing overseas. We all want to take care 
of our environment. We want to be good stewards of creation. 
You mentioned ESG, and I wanted to get your thoughts in 
relation to this in the sense of much of the legislation that 
we are passing is artificially forcing a transition that is 
distorting the marketplace. It seems to me in a sense that some 
businesses that would seek to meet a need, provide a service in 
the economy, are instead rewriting their business model to go 
after what has become uncapped business dollars.
    For example, the IRA was estimated, CBO scored around $600 
billion, I believe, and now Wall Street says, no, that is going 
to be closer to $2 trillion. And what you are seeing in that 
space as we continue to force feed a transition that is not 
actually meeting the goals, its stated dimension, but that is a 
different discussion for a different time.
    Mr. Bethel. Sure, Congressman. I will try and keep it 
simple and straightforward, and I will simply say that 
incentives drive outcomes. So, if the incentives are not 
properly thought through, the outcome is going to be terrible. 
So, I think it is incumbent upon the members of this august 
body to write an incentive policy that actually does make 
sense.
    Mr. Cloud. And could you speak to also what is happening in 
BRICS? One of the things I think that gets lost in this 
conversation as well is we have a petrodollar, and so the 
strength of our dollar is based on oil and gas trade right now. 
Meanwhile, our own government is trying to suppress that 
industry. We do not have another plan, it seems, to counter 
that, and BRICS is waning. I know we are still a strong dollar, 
relatively speaking, but what is going on there?
    Mr. Bethel. You raise a really good point, and that is 
something that most Americans should really take stock in. The 
U.S. dollar as the global medium of exchange is crucially 
important for the United States. So, to put it in perspective, 
we are 60 percent of the global central bank deposits, if you 
will, its reserves. We are 80 percent of the FX trade. So, if 
you have Colombian pesos and you want to get into euros, 
typically you have to go through the dollar, and it is 
something like 80 percent or 90 percent of the world's 
commodities are denominated in dollars.
    What China is doing very effectively is quietly and 
surreptitiously undermining the U.S. dollar. Will we ever lose 
reserve currency status? I think that is a little bit 
overblown. But if you take the U.S. dollar from an 80 percent 
to a 60 percent in terms of the denomination for commodities, 
like oil, I think that could cause very serious reverberations 
to the U.S. And if we cannot continue to print money, and we 
seem to somehow print a trillion dollars every hundred days, 
what happens? How are we going to finance anything? So, this is 
a very important issue, so thank you for bringing it up.
    Mr. Cloud. No, thank you. And I know from ports to 
universities, to everything that is going on, there is so much 
to talk about. I appreciate you all being here. Ms. Kissel, I 
just want to say I thought you summed up this probably when you 
said they are not a competitor, they are an enemy. I think that 
is probably the first thing is we have got to really, as an 
all-of-government approach, understand that, and so I 
appreciate you stating that so clearly.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Higgins from 
Louisiana.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Captain Fanell, thank 
you for your service to our country, sir. In your testimony, 
you discuss how United States businesses seek economic 
cooperation and contractual agreement with China, obviously. 
With your background, I mean, have you witnessed or observed 
exchange of data and intellectual properties that on a surface 
would be American businesses doing business with China, but in 
reality would be, in essence, American businesses providing the 
People's Republic of China and the Communist Party of China the 
technologies and data that it is using to usurp American 
dominance in that industry sector?
    Particularly, have you been concerned about the CCP or the 
PRC gaining access at any point to ship designs from our United 
States Navy shipbuilding endeavors? We use ship builders that 
have tossed, in some cases, to China, and then the next thing 
you know, the Chinese appear to be building the craft that we 
thought that the designs were top secret. What are your 
thoughts on that, sir?
    Mr. Fanell. Sir, that is a great question, and it is 
exactly the concerns that I have had over the last many years, 
and we can just look at today a couple of examples. The Chinese 
have just rolled out a number of big deck ships. We call them 
amphibious ships. Some of them are carriers. Right now, the 
Chinese third aircraft carrier, the Fujian, is at sea doing sea 
trials or may be back in port now, but she is in her sea trial 
process after being keeled, laid down 2 years ago. She is now 
out at sea doing sea trials. That ship has Electromagnetic 
Aircraft Launch System. It is a system that we are just 
experiencing on the USS Gerald Ford. And we have had a decade 
more of design and work and development now in our fleet, 
trying to get it ready to be operational in the fleet, and it 
is now. But, it has taken an exceptionally long time and cost 
us billions of dollars in cost overruns to be able to put the 
Ford to sea without a lot of problems.
    China went from having its first two carriers that were ski 
jump ramps, no catapult launch mechanism or system, just the 
wind over the deck and go up the ski jump, which what they got 
from the Russians or Soviet design on the Kuznetsov class that 
they got in their first two carriers, the Liaoning and 
Shandong. They then went from those two carriers to the Fujian 
with this Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System. They skipped 
steam catapults. That is important because I spent 20 years on 
carriers with steam catapults. The American Navy developed over 
almost 80 years steam catapults.
    Mr. Higgins. They work very, very well.
    Mr. Fanell. They stole that and they----
    Mr. Higgins. And a new technology, so please speak to the 
difference. What I am getting at here is that we should be 
concerned, as a Congress and as a Nation, with the protection 
of our intellectual properties. And when we have built-in 
pathways to exchange sensitive and even classified 
technologies, then we should vigorously protect that 
technology. So, it is one thing if China steals technology the 
old-fashioned way through espionage. It is another if we do not 
address a built-in means by which China is just absorbing our 
technological data and our intellectual properties. And in my 
remaining half a minute, would you address that, including as 
it perhaps relates to our universities and our research and 
development laboratory, sir?
    Mr. Fanell. Yes, sir. That is exactly the problem. We have 
around 400,000 Chinese students in the United States today, 
every year--400,000. And they are studying in our high-tech 
STEM arenas, in our advanced universities, learning this 
technology that is going back and feeding this new PLA across 
the board, and so we have to be on guard against that. The 
example of the carriers is just one of hundreds, if not 
thousands, of areas where we are losing and having our 
technology----
    Mr. Higgins. Exactly.
    Mr. Fanell [continuing]. Given away by us freely, and that 
is a crime.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, sir, for your insightful answer. 
Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Burchett from Tennessee.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 
being here. My buddy, Tom Malinowski, good seeing you again, 
brother.
    My question. I have a piece of legislation that I am 
curious if you all would comment on, and it deals with genetic 
material or testing actually that is being disclosed to the 
Chinese Communist Party. They are actually purchasing it from a 
lot of our businesses. This FindYourAncestor.com, you find out 
your great, great grandfather was an African king or something, 
and you go back, and most of us just found out like maybe we 
are just a bunch of mutts. I think I heard President Obama say 
that one time that he is just from all over, and that is 
probably most of America. And I am wondering what your thoughts 
are on that us limiting or excluding them from having our 
genetic material? Tom?
    Mr. Malinowski. I mean, I would love to look at your bill. 
I will tell you just personally, I have always wanted to use 
one of those surfaces because I am curious to know how you and 
I may be distant cousin somewhere, but I have not done it for 
this reason. I find it creepy how the data may be used, and 
there are other issues related to human rights in China. There 
are American companies that have helped the Chinese police 
state develop genetic data bases of their own citizens, that is 
actually much more sinister because the Chinese government 
cannot imprison me. They can imprison their own citizens.
    Mr. Burchett. What if they were to develop some kind of 
biological entity that could say, hey, I want to wipe out 
females of childbearing ages or something? I mean, just the 
mind just can wander. How they can do that?
    Mr. Malinowski. I do not want us to wander too far because 
the reality is bad enough in terms of what they are doing to 
their own people, but I do think I have never talked about 
legislation I have not read, but it is a legitimate concern.
    Mr. Burchett. All right. Ms. Kissel, that rhymes with 
``missile?''
    Ms. Kissel. Thank you.
    Mr. Burchett. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Kissel. Well, I concur with what was just said. One of 
China's weapons is the number of people that they have. They 
can use AI and Big Data to collect information and to develop 
more sophisticated technology and weapons systems to just 
suppress their own people, but also to attack us, our friends 
and our allies. So, I think there are gray areas as well, not 
just, for instance, genetic material, but let us say location 
services. Why would China, for instance, through TikTok want to 
know where Americans are going? I mean, I have had clients say 
to me, who cares, Mary, if I have TikTok on my phone? Who am I?
    Well, you may not be a target yourself, but if they have 
aggregate data on tens of millions of Americans, how they are 
all related to one another, if you are using this app, they can 
also listen to you. It is not just about dissemination of 
propaganda. It is about listening to what you say and seeing 
where you are. So, it is genetic information, it is location 
information, it is all manner of things that can feed their big 
data and their AI that should be of concern to us.
    Mr. Burchett. I had breakfast one time with your boss, and 
I remember he told me, he said, Tim, they know how many 
paperclips you all are using in the Longworth Building. I 
thought that was doubly creepy because I did not tell him I was 
in Longworth, but anyway. Mr. Bethel, I have not heard from you 
all day, brother, and so please.
    Mr. Bethel. The company I think you should spend a lot of 
time focusing on is BGI, Beijing Genomics Institute. That is 
the entity that Ancestry and 23andMe and others use to process 
the DNA. It may perhaps not shock you that in 2021, it was 
found out that BGI was working with the Wuhan Institute of 
Virology. Perhaps that is coincidental. I am not sure, but to 
Mary's point about TikTok, we should really understand what 
TikTok is. It is not about watching funny cat videos or, you 
know, twerking or whatever.
    Mr. Burchett. Right.
    Mr. Bethel. It is really an app that is looking at what you 
are looking, what you are viewing, and it is monitoring your 
facial expressions and your pupil dilation, and it is sending 
you more videos----
    Mr. Burchett. What stimulates your brain, right?
    Mr. Bethel [continuing]. That elicit the same response. So, 
after a certain period of time, they have an imprint of who you 
are, right? So, they have genetic data, the data of who you 
are, your location data. How can that be good, and yet we 
cannot conjure up a way to ban TikTok.
    Mr. Burchett. I think I am out of time.
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    Mr. Burchett. I am out of time. Sorry, Mr. Fanell. I 
apologize.
    Mr. Fanell. Can I just say one thing?
    Mr. Burchett. Yes, buddy, and like that you can. Go ahead.
    Mr. Fanell. Yes, sir. I would recommend everybody to read a 
State Department document from March 2023 by Dr. Dave Dorman 
and Dr. John Hemmings, ``Understanding Xi Jinping's Digital 
Strategy for China.'' They have done some outstanding open-
source research. We talk a lot about Xi's Belt and Road and all 
these initiatives, but also, he started in 2023, Digital China, 
which is all related to what we are talking about.
    Chairman Comer. Very good. Thank you. The gentleman yields 
back. The Chair recognizes Mr. Garcia from California.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 
witnesses that are here. Obviously, we have talked a lot about 
the Chinese threat, which we all know is real here in this 
country. I also think it is important that we are talking about 
Chinese political warfare, that one of the prime threats that 
we have, as far as I am concerned, is Donald Trump, who we know 
has a history of working with China on a variety of different, 
in my opinion, unethical and illegal matters. Now, briefly, Mr. 
Malinowski, has China funneled bribes and payments to leaders 
and heads of state as part of their foreign influence 
operation? Just briefly.
    Mr. Malinowski. Yes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you. And these are exactly the kinds of 
threats that our founders had in mind when they wrote the 
emoluments foreign interference clause of our Constitution. Is 
that not correct, Mr. Malinowski?
    Mr. Malinowski. Absolutely, yes.
    Mr. Garcia. And let us be clear about the facts. The former 
President spent his time in office collecting payments from 
China and many other countries through his businesses. He 
refused to divest from these businesses and broke decades of 
precedent. Now, we all know that the Constitution has specific 
prohibition from receiving payments from foreign governments. 
Our Committee, this Committee, actually had an investigation 
that documented cash-flowing directly from the Chinese 
Government state-owned businesses into the businesses and 
pockets of the Trump family. Here is just some of that.
    We know that the People's Republic of China, including 
state-owned enterprises, sent more than $5.5 million to the 
Trump Organization, and just to be clear, it is a minimum of 
$5.5 million because we only have data and a few of the Trump 
locations. It is likely much, much higher a number that China 
actually spent money and drove money into the Trump 
organization, of course, while Donald Trump was the President. 
This is unconstitutional and threatens our national security.
    Now, these, of course, are not the only favors that the 
Trump family got from China. Just months after he took office, 
the Chinese Government suddenly reversed longstanding policies 
and ordered Trump 38 new trademarks in China for industries 
related to restaurants and advertising, and, of course, this 
went beyond just Donald Trump himself. In April 2017, with 
Trump's White House in chaos, many people, including the 
Chinese Government, were all trying to gain influence during 
this time. Ivanka Trump was working in the White House, got 
preliminary approval for three Chinese trademarks on the same 
day that Donald Trump had dinner with Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago. 
And remember, Ivanka never divested her company while she was 
working in the White House. Now, President Trump also overruled 
our own security officials in our own government and publicly 
promised to save jobs at a Chinese Government telecom company 
which was facing sanctions, and the list goes on and on and on.
    I think we should all be very concerned that the President 
of the United States at the time, Donald Trump, decided to 
actually let corporate criminals off the hook while he was 
claiming to fight for Chinese jobs, and you also do not have to 
take my word for it. John Bolton, who was Donald Trump's right 
wing national security advisor, a strict conservative, wrote 
about Trump ``that he commingled the personal and the national, 
not just on trade questions, but across the whole field of 
national security.'' This is actually from The Washington Post. 
John Bolton even reported--John Bolton, the extreme right-wing 
former member of the Administration--that Donald Trump told 
President Xi, ``Make sure I win,'' during a dinner at the G20 
Conference in Osaka, Japan. Now, Mr. Malinowski, if John Bolton 
story is true, as reported by The Washington Post, Donald Trump 
is literally inviting Chinese political warfare. Is that not 
right?
    Mr. Malinowski. Yes, and I have no reason to believe that 
John Bolton would be making any of this up. He would have no 
reason to do that.
    Mr. Garcia. I think I completely agree with you. The fact 
that John Bolton is essentially laying out that Donald Trump 
was inviting Chinese political warfare is shameful, and that 
should be investigated here as part of this Committee, but we 
know the conflicts go on and on. Jared Kushner was paid $2 
billion by Saudi Arabia just a few months after leaving office, 
after he and Trump pursued radical pro Saudi policies during 
their time in the White House. And we know that the attacks on 
our democracy continue not just in Trump's actions around 
China, but in the numerous other payments to other foreign 
governments that happened while Trump was in office and is 
happening now to the Kushner family post White House.
    Now, we have all been working to investigate this conflict 
of interest for months, but the majority has not moved or 
joined us. This is unacceptable and we should continue to 
demand answers. And with that I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Burlison from 
Missouri.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When China first 
opened its doors and its economy in the 1980's, former Chinese 
Communist Party leader, Deng Xiaoping, was able to penetrate 
the financial interests of U.S. firms, the media, think tanks, 
and individuals, including politicians. In essence, he used 
what was called the invisible hand to get Americans to do work 
for the CCP. This practice of elite capture continues at a 
rapid rate today. Ms. Kissel, could you explain what elite 
capture is and how it is employed by the CCP today?
    Ms. Kissel. So, the topic of this hearing is defending 
America from the Chinese Communist Party's political warfare, 
meaning their influence operations, and I spoke about how they 
do that at the State Department with our diplomatic elites. 
What you are referring to is the organized activity of CCP 
directly linked and indirectly linked organizations to capture 
our elites, to convince them to work on behalf of the Party and 
the Party's interests. This is done through overt ways by, for 
instance, payments or contracts, and ways that are in, what I 
would deem, the gray zone.
    And I spoke about this in my written testimony where they 
would, for instance, invite corporate CEOs to China through 
business chambers, give them a red-carpet treatment, grant them 
audiences with Xi Jinping and other top leaders. This is a way 
both to capture them but also to circumvent any tough 
conversations that they might have with our U.S. Government 
leadership. That is something that I believe that this 
Committee should investigate, not just the influence on the 
Federal agencies, but CCP influence on our state and local 
government officials. That is also a big problem.
    Mr. Burlison. So, elaborate on the business partnerships. 
You said the word ``overt.'' Are they direct in saying we will 
do business with you if you provide information for the CCP, or 
how does that usually operate?
    Ms. Kissel. Well, again, I think context is important. For 
40 years, Republican and Democratic administrations alike 
encouraged U.S. businesses to outsource to China, and they did 
so. So, this happened over a long period of time, and we have 
only recently woken up to the threat. How does this capture 
happen? It happens through flattery, come to China and be 
lauded and have these high-level audiences. It happens through 
their own pecuniary interests. They are rewarded, as Erik, I 
think, spoke to, their fiduciary obligations to their 
shareholders to make money.
    They also prey on the fact that there is not the kind of 
patriotism in corporate America that we used to see. Look at 
what Jamie Dimon, for instance, the Head of JPMorgan, said 
recently. He said, ``I am a patriot. If the U.S. Government 
tells me to get out of China, I will get out of China.'' So, 
this is a country that is committing crimes against humanity 
and genocide against its own people, and yet, he is not going 
to get out of China until he is told to do so.
    Now, our firm is not involved in China because we have 
owners who are patriotic Americans who would not do business 
there. There are many other Americans like that that you do not 
hear about. But this elite capture is a significant problem 
because these figures, be they diplomats, be they CEOs, 
chairmen of boards----
    Mr. Burlison. Or politicians.
    Ms. Kissel [continuing]. Or politicians, they have 
significant influence on you all. And so, it is why 
transparency and clarity and talking about this regime are so, 
so important.
    Mr. Burlison. So, what are some of the most egregious 
examples that you have seen with politicians?
    Ms. Kissel. Well, again, I do not want to make this a 
partisan discussion because I think that this, you know, 
transcends politics.
    Mr. Burlison. Right. I can do that for you. So, let me ask 
this. Would sleeping with a Chinese spy be an example of elite 
capture?
    Ms. Kissel. Yes.
    Mr. Burlison. President Biden claimed that his family never 
took money from China. Is that accurate?
    Ms. Kissel. Again, I am not here to have a partisan 
political discussion. I think that this----
    Mr. Burlison. I appreciate your----
    Ms. Kissel. We talk about many aspects of the threat from 
China. Here is something that I would----
    Mr. Burlison. So, let me ask it in a different way. If 
$40,000 flowed through different bank accounts that were 
associated with a family member, would that be an example of 
elite capture, that flowed into a personal bank account?
    Ms. Kissel. Here is what I wish we would discuss. We are 
facing an enemy with 400 nuclear weapons, a million-men army, 
the third largest air force, the world's largest navy, a 
probable chemical and biological weapons programs. They attack 
our satellites every day. They are cutting cables. We have 
threats to our infrastructure here at home, and as the topic 
today is, we have influence operations----
    Mr. Burlison. I am almost done. So, Ms. Kissel, I just want 
to say you are absolutely right. You are right.
    Ms. Kissel [continuing]. Here in the United States. To me, 
that is the issue.
    Mr. Burlison. I just want to recognize, though, that we 
have a responsibility to investigate the outcome of the 
millions of dollars that have flowed in from the Chinese energy 
company to Biden family members. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Langworthy from New York.
    Mr. Langworthy. Well, thank you very much Chairman Comer. 
China has invested in and built relationships with the highest 
levels of the American business community to advocate and 
advance the CCP interest in the United States for decades. 
However, I recently saw that the Chinese e-commerce giant, 
Alibaba, is ramping up its global expansion with new services 
aimed at attracting small businesses in the United States. 
Small businesses are the backbone of many communities across 
the United States, especially in a district like mine, New York 
23d congressional District. These are family owned operations. 
They often do not have the resources to compete with large 
corporations and could easily be persuaded to be seemingly 
receiving a helping hand, so to speak, from a Chinese partner.
    Ms. Kissel, do you see this aggressive outreach to American 
small business by Chinese conglomerates like Alibaba as 
something that we should be concerned about?
    Ms. Kissel. Yes.
    Mr. Langworthy. And beyond Alibaba, can you expand for us 
today on any efforts that you are aware of by the CCP to 
influence America's small business sector, our local chambers 
of commerce, or even local governments to gain greater access 
to communities in small town America?
    Ms. Kissel. Well, when I worked at the State Department, 
the Secretary made a concerted outreach to state government 
officials. For instance, I would refer you to the speech that 
he made, and I believe it was Wisconsin, talking about how that 
was a direct effort of the United Front organizations to 
capture and to influence policymaking on the state level.
    Now, to your question about small business, small business, 
as you suggest, is a very vulnerable target, and that is why, 
in my written testimony, I suggest that one of the things that 
the State Department could do is to educate sub-national 
grouping--so, state legislatures, chambers of commerce, and 
others--to these gray zone tactics, which, by the way, the 
Chinese do not hide. They speak very openly about their so-
called magic weapons; namely, their efforts to co-opt and 
influence a wide swath of not just our diplomatic and political 
community, but our business community as well.
    And I will also speak to my personal experience. As I said 
before, I serve on two publicly traded company boards of 
directors. Most directors of American corporations are former 
executives. They are accountants. They are operational experts. 
They are not schooled in Chinese political warfare tactics. It 
is why we have to speak openly, honestly, and often about how 
they are trying to advance their interests so that we can equip 
our diplomats, politicians, and businesspeople with the 
knowledge that they need to then act appropriately.
    Mr. Langworthy. Thank you. Where do you see a role for the 
Federal Government in helping businesses, large and small, to 
avoid political or other pressures from the CCP?
    Ms. Kissel. Well, State Department has the ability to issue 
business advisories. It is a loud megaphone that they can use 
to talk about the risks of doing business there and encourage 
the diversification of supply chains. We have other arms of our 
Federal Government that can enforce transparency, be it in 
accounting practices, for instance. We talked about rating 
agencies earlier and the role that they play with their 
protected status, allowing investors to outsource their due 
diligence to S&P and Moody's.
    I believe the more transparent we are about the threats 
that we face, the more rational decisions U.S. investors and 
U.S. companies will make. And we are starting to see this with 
the foreign direct investment numbers, which have fallen off of 
a cliff, which suggests to me that even absent clear guidance 
from the U.S. Government, that U.S. businesses are starting to 
appreciate the depth and the breadth of the risks that they 
face from doing business in China.
    Mr. Langworthy. My time is limited here today, but if you 
could briefly state what resources are currently available at 
SBA for small businesses to consult regarding China's attempts 
to infiltrate small family owned businesses? Where do you see 
the gaps?
    Ms. Kissel. I am not an expert in the SBA, but I do not 
believe that there is a single source where U.S. businesses and 
the investment community can go to fully appreciate and 
understand the risks that they face, and, again, we have talked 
a lot today about the complexity of the problem. That is why we 
need, as our other panelists have suggested, a whole-of-
government approach, but it has to begin with recognizing the 
nature of the regime. It is not a competitor. It is an 
adversary.
    Mr. Langworthy. Thank you. We would hope that the guidance 
should come from SBA soon to prevent further Chinese access to 
our communities. The threat China poses to the United States 
cannot be emphasized enough. I commend this Committee, the 
House Oversight Committee, our Chairman, James Comer, for 
continuing to dive deeper into China's efforts, and I look 
forward to working with my colleagues to bring more attention 
to this very real threat. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The 
Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member from Maryland.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 
all the witnesses for their excellent testimony today.
    Congressman Malinowski, you made an interesting point 
earlier when you distinguished between the various means that 
are used by China to assault the American democratic system and 
what the ends are, and I wonder if you would say a little bit 
more about what you think the ends are. I mean, if you are a 
Chinese political planner, where do you see all of this going 
when you look at the world situation with America and Europe, I 
think, trying to stand for political freedom, and then Russia 
and North Korea and Hungary and other illiberal democracies or 
authoritarian regimes?
    Mr. Malinowski. Yes. Thank you for asking what I think is 
the key question, and look, some of their ends are pretty 
short-term and mercenary. Of course they want to steal our 
intellectual property. If they have an opportunity to hurt us, 
to make us sicker, whatever, absolutely, but we need to ask 
ourselves, if they are trying to influence the United States, 
what is it that they would like to influence us to do? And I 
think the answer to that is fairly straightforward. They want 
us to pull back from our alliances around the world, in Asia, 
with Japan, with South Korea, with the Philippines, from NATO. 
They want us to stop supporting Ukraine. They want us to have a 
lower military budget, obviously. They want us to stop 
investing in the revival of our domestic manufacturing. Mr. 
Grothman was talking--I am glad he acknowledged it--that there 
is a massive revival of manufacturing in Wisconsin, in part 
because of policies we pursued.
    They want us to stop doing those things. They would love us 
to repeal our clean energy subsidies under the IRA. How do I 
know that? Because they are suing us in the World Trade 
Organization to get us to do that. And of course, they want us 
to hate each other and to be at war with ourselves so that we 
are incapable of countering their aggressive actions around the 
world and so that we look bad to the rest of the world. And so, 
my simple answer to the question of what we should do, and I 
agree on a lot of the little things that my former Republican 
colleagues have raised. But the big answer is we should do the 
opposite of what China wants us to do on those big strategic 
questions.
    Mr. Raskin. There are more than a million Uyghurs who have 
been incarcerated in re-education camps and subjected to mental 
and physical torture, sexual abuse, deprivation of food. 
President Biden signed the bipartisan Uyghur Forced Labor 
Prevention Act in December 2021. And this was a break from the 
prior Administration where the former President told President 
Xi to go ahead with the building of these camps and said it was 
the right thing to do. Will you just explain what difference 
that makes in terms of our willingness to confront human rights 
violations?
    Mr. Malinowski. As I have tried to do throughout the 
hearing, I want to distinguish between the Trump 
Administration, which had plenty of officials who were 
disgusted by the genocide in Xinjiang and tried to do something 
about it, and the former President. And it is a critical 
distinction because no matter how hard a State Department under 
a Republican or Democratic administration tries to stand up for 
human rights, if the leader, if the President says to a foreign 
dictator, I do not mind your concentration camps, I envy your 
power to execute people, I like you because you rule with an 
iron fist, it completely undermines what everyone else in our 
country is doing to advance human rights.
    Mr. Raskin. And is that a demonstration of what has been 
called ``elite capture'' today where the use of flattery and--
--
    Mr. Malinowski. Yes. I do not know if it was flattery or 
corruption or if he just shares Xi Jinping's values going in, 
but the effect is catastrophic to our moral authority and the 
world.
    Mr. Raskin. It seems to me that the point you have made is 
correct, which is that we need to strengthen and celebrate 
democratic institutions and democratic freedom. But it is a 
very difficult thing to do because it is that freedom which 
also creates the openness and the porousness that authoritarian 
regimes like Putin or the CCP exploit in order to come in and 
to try to create problems in our country.
    Mr. Malinowski. Yes. That makes it complicated, but we 
should have confidence that our democratic system, our open 
democratic system, is a greater threat to Chinese autocracy 
than the other way around.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back 
to you.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Fry from South Carolina.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 
witnesses for being here. Fortunately for you, I am the last 
guy.
    Chairman Comer. You are next to last, but go ahead.
    Mr. Fry. OK. Just kidding. I did not want to get your hopes 
up. Mr. Bethel, I want to start with you. It is no secret that 
China has exploited international organizations and the U.S. 
Government in order to feed its global ambitions. Our world 
stands threatened by the rise in China's authoritarian 
practices and its increasing aggression. Through China's Belt 
and Road Initiative, we have seen China creep into the 
backyards of the United States, our trade partners, and our 
allies. It is, therefore, essential that we commit ourselves, 
our efforts in Congress and across the Federal Government to 
undercut China's growing influence worldwide and refocus our 
institutions on the actual threat that Communist Party of China 
represents. From your experience, how have U.S. capital and 
taxpayer dollars contributed to China's growing influence in 
South America and other emerging markets?
    Mr. Bethel. Thank you, Congressman. Great question. Let me 
begin with my personal experience at the World Bank. U.S. 
taxpayer dollars fund the World Bank, and we, to a great 
degree, backstop the World Bank. You have to ask yourself how 
an institution with a Triple A credit rating can have that 
rating when you are loaning money to developing countries. So, 
the United States is the largest shareholder. The United States 
wields a tremendous amount of influence in an institution that 
is meant to do good in the world. It is meant to take people 
out of poverty and to promote shared sustainability.
    Now, unfortunately, what I witnessed when I was at the 
World Bank, and that may have since changed, is that China was 
the largest recipient of World Bank loans, and you ask yourself 
why. You are the No. 2 economy in the world. And if you think 
about it, what happens is when you get money from the World 
Bank, it is not the money itself, but it is what the money 
represents that is important. It represents that you are a 
developing country. And if you are a developing country, then 
you get special benefits at the World Trade Organization, 
Universal Postal Union, et cetera, and so that also allows you 
a backstop in the event that, say, a developing country cannot 
pay their loan to China, while perhaps the World Bank or the 
IMF can.
    And so, the third point I would mention is that, of the 
procurement contracts, of the tens of billions of dollars every 
year that go out the door of the World Bank to fund great 
projects--roads, hospitals, schools--around 40 percent went to 
China, Chinese contractors, and less than 1 percent went to 
American contractors. And so, I saw China----
    Mr. Fry. So, we are funding by default our adversaries, 
right, their growth?
    Mr. Bethel. That is right.
    Mr. Fry. Established a decade ago, the Asian Infrastructure 
Investment Bank now poses a potential disruption in the 
dominance of the U.S. and the World Bank. How does the PRC 
balance its engagement with the World Bank while being the 
predominant power in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank?
    Mr. Bethel. So, the AIIB was created to be a direct 
competitor to the World Bank. I will not regale you with how it 
came into existence, but it is a very interesting story. The 
World Bank actually, in many ways, assists the AIIB in its 
overseas loan portfolio. It helps source and originate deals 
for the AIIB. It provides a lot of the back office and cash 
management and custodial work for the AIIB, and, in effect, it 
is helping to subsidize it. So, the World Bank is working to 
help a competitor and a rival succeed.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you for that. That is actually very 
fascinating to hear. How concerned are you about the obvious 
ties between the World Intellectual Property Organization and 
the CCP?
    Mr. Bethel. You may recall in the latter part of the Trump 
Administration, and I think Mary can address this more 
effectively than I, there was a vote to determine who was going 
to be the head of the World Intellectual Property Organization. 
And China was fielding a very good candidate, and it looked 
like they could win, which is insane on the face of it if you 
think about intellectual property. I am not sure if you want 
to----
    Ms. Kissel. No, I think it is a great----
    Mr. Fry. No, go ahead, please.
    Mr. Bethel. Thank you. I think it is a great example of how 
the State Department could be wielded for good. We stood up, 
effectively, a political-type campaign. We did not put up an 
American. We backed an allied country's candidate, and we 
effectively ensured that the Chinese will not get a chance to 
run WIPO for, I believe, the next 50 years because the 
chairmanship cycles through different regions of the world. And 
it was the International Organizations Affairs Bureau at the 
State Department that went around the world talking to our 
allies and ensuring that we got that outcome and that win for 
the United States.
    Mr. Fry. Chairman and the Ranking Member, with your 
indulgence, I have one more question since it seems like we are 
waiting on somebody else, if that is OK. Can institutions like 
WIPO and the World Bank reverse course, or are they beyond help 
at this point?
    Mr. Bethel. It goes to a point I made earlier, and that is, 
what do we want, and let us begin on a first principles basis. 
We need to understand what is it that we want out of these 
institutions and then work backward, because if you do not know 
what you want, then we flounder.
    Mr. Malinowski. If I could just quickly jump in. We have 
got a basic choice with all these international organizations. 
We can either lead and win or leave like losers. I prefer 
staying, fighting, as you guys did, as this Administration has 
done in similar cases, and when we do that, we win most of the 
time.
    Ms. Kissel. Well, and we can set out some basic guidelines, 
as Erik and the former Congressman suggest, and under the Trump 
Administration, we asked two basic questions of all 
international institutions: is it providing and moving toward 
fulfilling its core mandate, as stated when it was created, 
this institution, and is it serving the interests of the member 
states who are members of the institution. Very simple, core 
questions. And then we would ask, OK, if the answer to those 
questions is no, then can we fix this organization? And if we 
cannot fix it, then we should exit it, and we should construct 
organizations that are effective in fulfilling their mandates 
and serving the interests of the member states that created 
them.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you. All three of you. Thank you for that. 
Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you. And I am the last questioner. 
So, Captain Fanell, you have testified about the national 
security community's failure to recognize and combat the CCP 
threat. How has the U.S. intelligence community fallen prey to 
influence by the CCP?
    Mr. Fanell. Well, Chairman Comer, in my experience in the 
IC, what we had was this, and I mentioned it before, this 
threat deflation. That is a creation of my co-author and I, but 
the message behind it is, is that we were getting information 
about China and we were seeing things happen. But, because of 
this kind of overriding engagement policy that we have had as a 
Nation toward China since the opening up to China, there was 
this idea that if we engage with them, that they would change 
their behavior at some point in time. And because of that 
mindset that permeated Washington and our institutions, the IC 
became ensnared with that, and so they were less likely to make 
the connections to see what was happening.
    And I have examples. For instance, we saw what happened in 
2012 at Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea. We could not 
believe that China was going to take sovereign territory from a 
treaty ally. In 2013 to 2015, they started dredging up sand to 
build these seven artificial islands, three of which are the 
size of Pearl Harbor. And they did that, but the IC was 
reluctant to call that out until it was so painfully obvious. 
And we did that over and over and over again, over decades, 
over various programs, not just in the naval arena, across the 
board.
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Bethel, you testified that the CCP has 
infiltrated top levels of international institutions. Could you 
explain why China's influence at the World Bank and other 
international institutions matters to American security?
    Mr. Bethel. Well, I addressed some of that earlier in my 
remarks to the Congressman. But consider that U.S. taxpayer 
money is being funded to an institution that is getting people 
out of poverty, and, at least while I was there, one of the 
preeminent recipients of money was China. And it would then 
leverage having a developing country status to gain advantage 
in other multilateral institutions, like the World Trade 
Organization and the Universal Postage Union, et cetera.
    Chairman Comer. Do you remember roughly how much American 
tax dollars we are talking about here?
    Mr. Bethel. It is a very complex question which I can take 
offline with you, but we have effectively backstopped the 
institution, or at least our share of it, to the tune of 
hundreds of billions of dollars.
    Chairman Comer. Right. Very good. Ms. Kissel, who is the 
CCP targeting when it engages in elite capture? I know you have 
mentioned that a little bit. Let us get it in perspective here.
    Ms. Kissel. It is a complex answer because they are not 
targeting a single type or class of individuals. They have a 
very, very large, united front operation and affiliated 
organizations who target everything from our political class, 
state, local, and Federal, to our top CEOs, our chairs of 
boards of directors, universities, think tanks, business 
chambers. It is a long list, sir.
    Chairman Comer. So, what role does the State Department 
play in protecting American businesses from CCP influence and 
becoming so-called corporate hostages? What role does it play, 
or should it play?
    Ms. Kissel. I think the State Department, as I outlined in 
my written testimony, has a number of tools to inform and 
educate all of those groups that I just mentioned, sir, and I 
think also even something like Consular Affairs, right, where 
they are issuing travel warnings.
    Just to give you an example, the other day, there is a Wall 
Street research firm I will not mention, who is advertising for 
U.S. investors to go with them to China. I believe that is a 
dangerous thing, and why do we allow it? Well, we cannot ban 
people from going to China, but I think it is incumbent for the 
safety and security of Americans to inform them of the risks. 
That is just one small example.
    Chairman Comer. Well, based on your testimony today and the 
many briefings we have had with Federal agencies, it really 
does not seem that there is a cohesive government-wide strategy 
to combat the CCP influence in American communities. So, do you 
believe we have an effective government-wide strategy in place?
    Ms. Kissel. Not yet. How many decades did it take us to 
have an effective strategy against the Soviets? It took us a 
long time as a democracy. My concern is that we do not have the 
luxury of time today.
    Chairman Comer. And you agree that we should have a 
strategy?
    Ms. Kissel. Yes. We must.
    Chairman Comer. What would that look like, in your opinion?
    Ms. Kissel. Well, then you would need have to have another 
hearing on that, sir.
    Chairman Comer. Well, we probably will because obviously, 
we take this very seriously. We understand the threat, and we 
sincerely want to address this issue. And my time has expired, 
but I will say this. I think this has been a very substantive 
hearing. Obviously, we have very credible witnesses here today, 
and hopefully, we will continue this issue. This is a priority 
for the House Oversight Committee, for the majority. We want to 
work with the minority. There are certain members that I think 
had very substantive questions, and there were some that 
regurgitate their usual animosity toward the former President. 
But at the end of the day, I think that we can come together in 
a bipartisan way to try to address this situation.
    It begins by making certain that our government agencies 
know and understand the CCP threat, and I do not believe they 
do. In two hearings, I do not believe we have a single 
government agency that truly understands the threat and has a 
plan to alleviate that threat. So, hopefully, we can continue 
these hearings and come together as a Congress and make 
effective change.
    So, in closing, I want to thank our witnesses again for 
your testimony today.
    And with that, without objection, all members will have 5 
legislative days within which to submit materials and 
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be 
forwarded to the witnesses.
    Chairman Comer. If there is no further business, without 
objection, the Committee stands adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 1:54 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]