[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.]