[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
GREAT POWER COMPETITION IN THE INDO-
PACIFIC
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
September 18, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-131
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,
or http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
63-340 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey GREGORY MEEKS, New York, Ranking
JOE WILSON, South Carolina Member
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania BRAD SHERMAN, California
DARRELL ISSA, California GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
ANN WAGNER, Missouri WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
BRIAN MAST, Florida AMI BERA, California
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee DINA TITUS, Nevada
ANDY BARR, Kentucky TED LIEU, California
RONNY JACKSON, Texas SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
YOUNG KIM, California DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida COLIN ALLRED, Texas
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan ANDY KIM, New Jersey
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, SARA JACOBS, California
American Samoa KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio Florida
JIM BAIRD, Indiana GREG STANTON, Arizona
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
THOMAS KEAN, JR., New Jersey JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
CORY MILLS, Florida SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia JIM COSTA, California
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas JASON CROW, Colorado
JOHN JAMES, Michigan KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
KEITH SELF, Texas BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam
Brendan Shields, Majority Staff Director
Sophia Lafargue, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
REPRESENTATIVES
Page
Opening Statement of Chairman Michael McCaul..................... 1
Opening Statement of Ranking Member Gregory Meeks................ 3
WITNESSES
Statement of Kurt Campbell, Deputy Secretary, Department of State 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 56
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 57
Hearing Attendance............................................... 58
Materials for the Record
Statement for the record submitted by Gerald Connolly............ 59
Questions for the Record
Questions submitted to Kurt Campbell from Rep. Castro............ 62
GREAT POWER COMPETITION IN THE INDO-PACIFIC
----------
Wednesday, September 18, 2024
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:21 a.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael McCaul
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman McCaul. The Committee on Foreign Affairs will come
to order.
The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the United States
competition with China and learn how the administration is
working to maintain a strong U.S. presence in the Indo-Pacific.
I recognize myself for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL McCAUL
We stand at a pivotal moment in history where the dynamics
of global power are shifting rapidly. The great power
competition with China is not just a contest of military might
or economic dominance.
It is a struggle over the rules which will shape the 21st
century and the global balance of power. This is not a future
threat or an isolated problem on the other side of the world.
The CCP poses an immediate danger to the security interests
of the United States and our allies. China is working every day
to undermine our safety, prosperity, and values. Just look at
the recent news of an embedded spy in the New York Governor's
office.
They've escalated their military activities, conducted
aggressive drills around Taiwan that I've seen firsthand, and
increased their belligerence in the South China Sea,
particularly against our allies in the Philippines that our
delegation on a recent trip also witnessed firsthand.
They are ramming their ships, cutting off sailors' fingers,
and using high-powered lasers to blind the Philippine Coast
Guard. I saw the CCP's Coast Guard and maritime militia
presence again, when we flew over the South China Sea during a
CODEL, which I led.
Following my visit, China continued to ratchet up their
actions against our partners in the Philippines. The CCP's
actions are not isolated incidents, but part of a broader
strategy to assert dominance in the region, challenging
international norms and threatening the sovereignty of
neighboring countries.
Look no further than the oppression of the CCP's own
citizens. The Uyghurs, the Tibetans, we recently visited the
Dalai Lama, and Christians live in fear practicing their
religions.
In fact, a genocide is still taking place in the Xinjiang
Province. For Tibetans, the CCP is attempting to insert
themselves into the succession of the Dalai Lama. And Chairman
Xi's commitment to unify with Taiwan is no longer an idle
threat.
This is why partnerships such as the Quad, AUKUS, and the
trilateral partnership with Japan and South Korea are critical
to countering China. Specifically with regards to the Quad, we
must strengthen ties with India to ensure the two largest
democracies in the world are working together to advocate for
and safeguard democracy.
While these partnerships are critical to countering China,
I must say, I've been disappointed that they have not gone
further. The congressionally mandated AUKUS defense trade
exemption was delivered 4 months late. The administration still
maintains a lengthy excluded technology list that limits its
effectiveness. I believe it guts the bill and undermines
Congress' intent.
These are our closest allies, our Five Eye partners, with
whom we share our most sensitive intelligence. The failure to
advance and strengthen these partnerships directly correlates
to emboldening the CCP. There is no NATO in the Indo-Pacific,
which is why it is imperative that we strengthen our
partnerships with democracies in the region.
However, China's influence extends beyond the Indo-Pacific.
The tentacles of the CCP reach every corner of the globe. Their
Belt and Road Initiative is a tool for expanding their
geopolitical influence, often at the expense of the sovereignty
and economic stability of other nations.
They have fueled conflicts, such as the war in the Ukraine,
by supporting Russia's defense industrial base. And Russia, in
return, as part of their no limits partnership, has shared
sensitive technology with China.
Just the other week, you said Russia is providing China
with, quote, submarine operations, activities of aeronautical
design, including stealth that also involves capacities on
missile capabilities.
I don't understand why we don't have sanctions on China to
stop them from revitalizing Russia's military. To me, that is
absolutely essential.
We passed in the supplemental sanctions on Iran on missiles
and drones that are still being shipped to Russia to kill the
Ukrainians. So, as Mr. Meeks and I work on the supplemental to
get the funding, to get the weapons, the very instruments of
war being shipped from Iran to Russia are not being sanctioned
as required by law.
I want to thank you, Deputy Secretary, I know we've had a
lot of good visits together, sometimes in other countries. I
couldn't agree with you more that countering the CCP must be
our top priority. We had a great trip to the Indo-Pacific. And
I thought the embassy was fantastic in our trip. And on this
one we are not political parties. Mr. Meeks and I want to work
with you and this administration on what is in the best
interest of the American people.
And so, with that, I now recognize the gentleman from New
York, Mr. Meeks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER GREGORY MEEKS
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, too,
Deputy Secretary Campbell, for appearing before us today. Being
a New Yorker myself, I just--any time we talk about China, and
talk about the government of the PRC, that is one thing. But I
just always want to caution, because of the climate we are in
in our country, that when we are talking about the PRC, we want
to also be cautious about what we are saying about all Chinese,
particularly the Chinese individuals in the United States of
America, and so that we are not causing violence and hate
crimes against them.
Because that is not what we are talking about when we are
talking about the malign interests of the PRC. Those are two
different things. And to stereotype is difficult. And when I've
seen individuals in my district who have often mentioned that
to me, so I thought it was important for me to mention it
opening this hearing today.
But to you, Secretary Campbell, you've played a pivotal
role in advancing the administration's Indo-Pacific strategy.
First, as Deputy Assistant to the President, where you served
as a coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs. And now, of course,
as the Deputy Secretary. And the Biden-Harris administration
has renewed U.S. leadership and engagement and revitalized our
alliances and partnership and nowhere exemplifies this more
than in the Indo-Pacific region.
In fact, when I went out, the Shangri-La Dialogue, it was
very apparent there of us and bringing them together. Because,
you know, this kind of effort strengthens the geopolitical
guardrails on China. It creates resilience against its coercive
policies and strengthens a collective deterrence.
And, after three and a half years in office, I can
confidentially say that the Biden-Harris administration has
made Americans safer and advanced our interests in the Indo-
Pacific region. Today our alliances with Japan, South Korea,
Australia, and the Philippines are stronger than ever.
But we are not just working with our partners bilaterally.
They are increasingly working with one another and collectively
with the United States in several diplomatic arrangements.
First, after elevating the Quad to the leader's level upon
taking office, this weekend, President Biden will be holding
the fourth in-person Quad Leaders' Summit, with leaders of
Japan, Australia, and India, to continue delivering tangible
benefits for the region.
Second, the Biden-Harris administration facilitated a
trilateral summit with Japan and Korea. An achievement that
would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. And this
bolsters cooperation among these key American allies.
And, third, the administration's transformative AUKUS
security partnership with Australia and the United Kingdom,
will bolster deterrence, strengthen our defense industrial
base, and advance high tech security cooperation with two of
our most trusted allies.
Not done yet. Fourth, the Biden-Harris administration has
revitalized our ties with the Pacific islands through the first
ever U.S.-Pacific partnership strategy and the U.S.-Pacific
Islands Country Summit, as well as by extending the Compact of
Free Association for Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall
Islands.
We still have a long way to go, but this web of
partnerships is building resilience to the PRC's coercion and
creating a coalition to uphold the region that is free, that is
open, and that is governed by rules. It means that America is
not in this strategic competition alone.
Moreover, the administration's diplomacy has opened
critical lines of military to military communication with
Beijing to make conflict in the Indo-Pacific region less
likely. Something that I know that Secretary Austin has been
pushing very, very much.
President Biden's decision to engage Beijing from a
position of strength, has also led Beijing to restart
counternarcotics cooperation, which has the potential to save
American lives in the midst of a deadly Fentanyl crisis.
And, just this weekend, we welcomed reports that David Lin,
an American citizen who was wrongfully detailed in China for
nearly two decades, is finally home safe and sound with his
family. This is diplomacy at its best.
And I am grateful to the many individuals across our
government and including those at the State Department, in the
Biden-Harris White House, who continue to work tirelessly to
bring every American, wrongfully detained overseas, home.
So, Mr. Secretary, I give the administration immense credit
for getting our strategic competition right, and understanding
that we need to invest at home and in the Indo-Pacific too, and
have that strategy to outcompete China.
The last thing I'll say is, I would hope that my colleagues
here, we will not continue to allow China to outbid us. Cutting
the diplomatic budget by 12 percent, does not help us in our
competition with China. That is not competing, and so, I hope
we will do so.
So, I look forward to our discussion today. And I hope we
can talk seriously about how we compete effectively with China
instead of just talking in a bluster tone that the stakes are
too awful.
I agree with the Chairman, this is something that we
focused on in a bipartisan manner. And, with that, I yield
back.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you. The gentleman yields. The
members are reminded that opening statements may be submitted
for the record.
We are pleased to have today the 22d Deputy Secretary of
State, Kurt Campbell, before us. Your opening statement will be
put in the record and your remarks are 5 minutes.
I now recognize the Deputy Secretary.
STATEMENT OF KURT CAMPBELL, DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
STATE
Mr. Campbell. Great. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, first of
all, let me just say, it is an honor and privilege to be before
you today.
I want to associate myself actually with each of your
statements. I appreciate the comments were bipartisan, they are
helpful. And frankly, they reflect the partnership that at
least I, myself, have experienced with members of this
Committee over the course of the last 4 years.
And I want to just say, I deeply appreciate the engagements
that you have had in the region. When Chairman McCaul took the
team down to Australia and Southeast Asia, we saw immediate
movement on areas that matter to us, to fulfill our commitments
in the Indo-Pacific.
And I do want to just underscore, I believe that this is an
area of unique bipartisanship, and I'd like to continue it
forward. And I will just simply say that some of the most
important contributions that we've received, have come from
this Committee. And I want to thank you for that.
In particular, what I appreciate, is the encouragement, the
prodding on AUKUS. It is one of the most important achievements
that holds the promise of the United States, Australia, and
Great Britain, three great nations working together to preserve
peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific.
As the Chairman indicates, this is a complex hard thing.
We've not done something like this in 70 years. It needs
encouragement and help from you all. I am going to take that
message back.
So, I am going to submit my full testimony for the record.
And you guys can take a look at it.
This, I think, becomes an important point as we are heading
into an election. It's an inflection point. I want to give you
at least my perspective.
So, I am now at the State Department. But, as the Ranking
Member indicated, I started off at the White House. My job
primarily was to ensure that we took the appropriate steps to
sustain and to build on our engagement in the Indo-Pacific.
And one of the challenges that we've often faced is that we
are focused on that issue and then other things draw us away,
either domestic issues or challenges in another region.
And we see that now with Ukraine and Gaza. But I will say,
I think, we are mindful of the need to sustain and step up our
engagement in the Indo-Pacific.
So, I am just going to say a couple of things. I appreciate
the review of the record. I am proud of a lot of the bilateral
engagements, multilateral engagements.
I am going to give you a sense of what, I think, needs to
come next. I'll do that quickly. And then, I am prepared to
answer or engage on any issue.
Probably the most important thing that we are going to need
to do in terms of the national strategy in the Indo-Pacific, is
to sustain bipartisanship. And I do believe we are on the road
to that now.
I think, there is a recognition that this is the most
significant challenge in our history. Frankly, the cold war
pales in comparison to the multifaceted challenges that China
presents.
It's not just the military challenge. It's across the
board. It is in the global south. It is in technology. We need
to step our game across the board.
So, what we also need to do, is build much more capacity,
both in Congress and inside the U.S. Government. I see it every
day. And, remember, for the last 20 years, we've been intensely
focused on the Middle East and South Asia.
So, a lot of capacity there. The Army, the land forces,
people who understand the Middle East and South Asia, that is
still critical. But we need much more capacity in our
government in a couple of areas, language, understanding of the
complex politics of the Indo-Pacific.
But, as importantly, recognizing that the dominant area of
competition is in technology. So, we need more people in
government that know what AI is.
That know what quantum computing is. That know how to
create incentives for our own industries, but also block some
of the critical capabilities from finding their way into the
countries that are competing intensively with us.
We need to invest more in technology domestically. I want
to commend this group and others to understand investing in
chips, working with other partners who have technology.
That's going to be a critical arena of our national power
going forward. We have to continue everywhere with engaging
allies and partners.
As the Chairman indicates, its go time for AUKUS. I
believe, we've made remarkable progress with the encouragement
of Congress and the Senate as well. We need to be able to take
a few more steps going forward.
I appreciate the Ranking Member making clear that the Quad
is meeting next week. We're meeting on Saturday, all the
leaders are converging.
They have a lot of questions about Delaware. We're trying
to give them as much as we can. And the President is very much
looking forward to showing them, you know, where he's from, all
those issues going forward.
Really quickly to conclude. We're going to need more
shipbuilding. We're going to need to invest more in our naval
capabilities.
If you think of the last 25 years, its ground forces,
special forces. Increasingly, we now need to focus more on our
naval expeditionary capabilities.
We need to understand that this is not just a competition
in the Indo-Pacific, an arena where we are doing better. It's
in the global south as well. And, everywhere I go in the global
south, I see challenges that we are facing.
I will say, I am pleased to tell you that our DFC, you have
funded that and support that, is now competing toe-to-toe with
the Chinese programs for investment through the Belt and Road.
Last, we can talk about the partnerships, all the things
that we need to do. As much as anything else, we need to
educate the American people about the nature of the challenge
ahead.
It's not going to ease. It's going to continue. We need
more resiliency in our own national institutions and a sense of
national resolve for what it takes.
I will say, sitting before you, Chairman, I think, we are
in a better place than we were several years ago. I will just
remind you, 4 years ago, the general view globally was that
China had eaten our lunch.
That they were going to surpass us economically and
commercially. That we were in the midst of some sort of
hurdling decline. I do not think that is what the general
belief is today.
And that is largely due to the partnership that, I think,
we've had with folks on this Committee. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. Thank you, Deputy Secretary Campbell. I
now recognize myself for question.
You know, one of my big takeaways from the region was how
much progress we have made. The alliance between Japan and
South Korea and the Philippines, is extraordinary. Who would
think that those countries would be aligned together.
It is a counter to China's maligned influence. And, in many
respects, China could be its own worst enemy with its
belligerence against the Philippines.
I think President Marcos has gotten even stronger in his
rhetoric. And we certainly felt that the Island nations, as
they feel more threatened by China, their perception of China
changes.
And I think Australia is in that category as well, which is
why AUKUS is so important. As you mentioned, this is--you know,
if you polled someone on the street, they wouldn't know what we
are talking about. But I think it is one of the most important
alliances that we've seen in recent history. The idea that the
U.K. and Australia and the United States could come together
and counter the threat in the Pacific from China, is really
extraordinary.
And it was bipartisan. And, you know, the intent of
Congress, as I've stated in my op-ed in the Wall Street
Journal, was that the exemption should apply to all defense
articles except those explicitly prevented by statute or
treaty.
Now, this excluded technology list came out. So, you have
ITAR that basically says, look, these international regulations
are not going to apply to this partnership.
However, the exceptions and the excluded technology list
really does not get the intent of Congress and the bill itself.
The current ETL does not reflect, in my view, the intent.
We, Craig Meeks and I, had dinner with some high-level DoD
officials, the Ambassador to China, and others, they too shared
the concern about the State Department's interpretation of
Pillar 2.
Pillar 1, the nuclear submarines, seems to be well on its
way. Pillar 2 though, I see in some respects as even more
important. Because, as you said, this is a great competition
for technology and AI.
So, when I look at the list of excepted or excluded
technologies, when it talks about precision weapons, this one,
unmanned underwater vehicles, well, we got a presentation in
Australia of one of the most cutting-edge AI underwater
vehicles that could really make a difference.
That would be excluded by this technology list that came
forward. The communication networks, naval acoustics, and then
jet engines, that just being a few.
I think, those broad categories of excluded technologies
send a, I think, a really bad message to Australia that we
don't trust them. Even though we share the crown jewel, nuclear
submarines. And they are part of the Five Eyes we share with
them the most sensitive, you know, intelligence.
But we are not going to trust them with co-production. And
I think co-production could actually help us with the defense
industrial base problem that we have, you know, also.
So, I kind of get a sense where you are, sir, on this. And
I think I have a good understanding where the Secretary is. I
happen to think that these decisions were made at a lower
level, and they were done in a very proprietary, protective way
that will damage, again, the intent of Congress.
So, my takeaway to you, sir, as you take this back to the
Secretary, is raise this to the higher level, the policy level
of people that know the right thing to do. That know what
Congress intended to do.
Because it is not what came out on this list that, by the
way, was 4 months delayed. I think we can get there. We've got
about 60 days. I would challenge you and the Secretary to work
with us, Mr. Meeks and myself and with the Department of
Defense to get to a better place, because in Australia, it is a
2050 year commitment.
And they see that. And, you know, that is a strong
commitment to Australia and to the U.K. in a common defense
against China. If we fail at this one, we've poorly executed
the plan that we had.
And I can tell you based on intelligence I've seen, without
getting into classified, AUKUS is probably one of those issues
that Chairman Xi is most concerned about. And probably is one
that keeps him up at night.
And so, I want to give you a chance to respond.
Mr. Campbell. So, first of all Chairman, sincerely, I
appreciate these comments. And I am going to take those views
back. And it is something I've worked on AUKUS since its
inception. I think, it is very strategically significant. I
will just underscore a couple of things.
The natural instincts of our government, rightly at DoD, at
the State Department, is to restrict technologies that have
been central to our national security.
But you are absolutely right. If we've made the decision to
work in the strongest possible partnership with our two closest
allies in many respects, Great Britain and Australia, we are
going to have to make those adjustments. It will be
challenging. But we are going to have to make those
adjustments.
Now, what I will tell you, just by way of, just a quick
explanation, those areas that you mentioned, acoustics and
stuff, it is not that the folks at lower levels are saying, the
answer is no. They're saying, we have to review each case as it
comes to us.
It doesn't mean that they'll reject it. But I think what
our Australian friends are primarily concerned with, Chairman,
is that that could lead to a very cumbersome process.
Long reviews, you know, overruns in terms of times and
delivery. And so, we need to make this usable for defense
planners and others that are making billion-dollar investments.
And so, I think, the point that you're underscoring, is
critically important. Your op-ed, your letters, what you have
done in conjunction with the Ranking Member, have actually
helped us to be able to make sure that we are doing the right
thing in our government to acknowledge this partnership.
Just one last thing I would say. So, Pillar 1 is the part
that is about the submarines. And Pillar 2 doesn't get enough
attention. And that is really about not just, we have three
countries engaged in that now.
But, looking at advanced technologies, capabilities that
are innovative, perhaps not as expensive. And you're exactly
right, if you look behind the scenes, both Great Britain and
Australia have made investments in innovative capabilities that
would be very good for us.
So, we need to break through and work on those issues
together. Sorry to go over.
Chairman McCaul. Yes. And I think AI, you know, land, air,
and sea will be critically important. I would then--I would ask
that you engage with us on the Committee on this.
We don't want to see some product come out of the, you
know, lower levels of the State Department that we've been
secluded from in darkness. Or, that we have no idea what's
going on, when it is going to come out, what's going to be in
it.
And I think you're the perfect person to engage with this
Committee in the next 60 days, on how we can work together to
carry out the intent of Congress in passing this important
legislation.
Mr. Campbell. I completely wholeheartedly accept that
challenge. And I will make it so. Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you. I recognize the Ranking Member.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, let me
just, there are certain things that are really, you know,
important to me.
We don't have a NATO in the Indo-Pacific. But, seeing how
we are bringing people together, even to see when I was at the
Shangri-La Dialogue, how Europeans were also impressive working
together.
So, that became tremendously important to me, to show that
we are bringing it together. Because once upon a time, you
know, when I was at the European, they said oh, you don't care
about us, because you're pivoting to the East.
And when I went to the Indo-Pacific, they said, oh, you
don't care about us, because all you care about is the West. I
now find and see where they are talking and understand how it
is important to both that we figure out how to work together.
So, to that, what does concern me, is the PRC's continued
support for Russia's war. It seems as though that, you know,
and I'd like you to tell us whether, you know, China is
contributing lethal, non-dual use materials to Russia's war
effort.
Is that correct, something you see? And so, what are we
doing?
What is the State Department doing to deter Beijing from
providing these lethal supports to Russia, to hold, and how do
you see us holding Beijing accountable for doing so?
Mr. Campbell. Ranking Member, thank you for the question.
First, let me just underscore, I do believe that helping
construct this latticework of alliances and partnerships, which
include not just our formal treaty allies, but others, I would
underscore, this is a point that the Chairman mentioned.
We need to make sure that partnership with India is
significant. Maybe our most important going into the 21st
century. We're committed, I think, in a bipartisan sense to do
that.
You're also exactly right. One of the most interesting
things that is occurring, is European partners are working with
us in the Indo-Pacific. And, as you note, Indo-Pacific partners
are supporting Ukraine substantially in their efforts to resist
the brutal invasion and illegal invasion of Russia.
So, you mentioned a point that I am deeply concerned by.
And that is China's support to Russia's defense industrial
base. But it is not just China that is doing it. It is also
support from North Korea to Russia, in terms of artillery
rounds and missiles, and more recent reports of Iran supporting
Russia.
So, now you have these other countries that are engaging
and supporting Russia in an effort that frankly poses not just
a challenge to Ukraine, but long-term peace and stability in
Europe going forward.
I would simply say, I think, the most important thing, the
reason that I am spending so much time in Europe, we frankly
have taken a lot of sanctions against Chinese firms. We've sent
signals about our concern about the financing of these deals
between Chinese, you know, secondary technology firms and their
Russian partners.
The challenge is, we've got to get more support from Europe
on this. And there is a growing recognition of what China is
doing in Russia.
But you'd need to understand, for many of these countries,
they've faced a huge shock with the energy being shut off from
Russia. And most of these countries made a bad bet on sort of
that Russia would be a reliable provider of energy.
And, for many of these countries, doing business with China
has been a big deal for 15 or 20 years. And so, the idea to be
kind of a one-two punch, you can understand leaders in Europe
have some anxieties.
However, I will simply say, what we are seeing between
China and Russia, has the potential to destabilize Europe over
the medium term and long term. And we have to be resolute about
this.
And I will say, this is a relationship guys, China and
Russia, that we, the United States, has always had problems
with. We did not understand the Sino-Soviet split in the 1960's
and 1970's.
We were late to understand it. And, frankly, I think, we
have been slow to recognize the absolute intensity of
engagement between President Putin and President XI.
So, I want to associate myself with the sense of the
Committee that this is something that we need to do more on. In
truth, it is affecting the battlefield in Ukraine.
But, as importantly, it will affect the longer-term
relationship between Russia and the other countries in Europe
as well.
Mr. Meeks. Sure. And that is what I am thinking about also.
Because, when I think about, you know, the Indo-Pacific and
what we are doing here in the United States, could you just
tell us, do you think it is important?
Or, how important is it for our resolve here in the United
States, to support Ukraine for bolstering? Does that have a
way, it helps bolstering deterrence in the Indo-Pacific?
And whether or not if we fail the Ukraine, will there be
any lessons that Beijing will take away as a result of that, or
the lack of our resolve in Ukraine?
Mr. Campbell. So, it is a great question. I would just have
the Committee note in the last couple of days, what we've seen
is one of the largest exercises between Russia and China in the
Indo-Pacific.
We're continuing to see them working closely together in a
variety of areas. Not just in Ukraine, but increasingly across
the Taiwan Strait.
And so, look, there are academics and think tankers who
tell, who say, oh, no, no, we've got to, we've got to not focus
as much on Ukraine. We've got to focus more on what's going on
in the cross strait.
I would, my counsel to you is that you cannot separate
these things. How we fair on the battlefield in Ukraine, how
the Ukrainians do, has incredible implications for how others
think about potential areas of conflict in the Indo-Pacific.
And I will say what's happening in Ukraine on the
battlefield is leading militaries around the globe, but
particularly in the Indo-Pacific, to think about their own
procurement and their own strategies.
I am pleased to say I know that the Chairman and you had
dinner last night with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. They
are deeply focused on learning the lessons ourselves so we can
apply it to new potential avenues of deterrence in the Indo-
Pacific.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. The chair
recognizes Mrs. Wagner.
Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Deputy Secretary
Campbell, thank you for being here today. Last week, during the
House's, I'll call it China week, we passed numerous Foreign
Affairs Committee bills to position the United States to better
compete with China and win. I am happy to say that the House
unanimously passed my legislation, the Export Control
Enforcement and Enhancement Act, to ensure that State, Defense,
Energy, and other national security agencies can play a
stronger role in curating the entity list while also setting a
30-day clock to make sure that proposals to change the entity
list do not languish in red tape.
Deputy Secretary Campbell, can you tell us how Chinese
companies exploit loopholes in our export control system to
maintain access to cutting-edge U.S. tech and how is the
administration taking action to stop this behavior?
Mr. Campbell. First of all, that is a great question. It is
an important question. You know, the recognition is this:
five--seven years ago, there were probably no two countries
more intertwined, interconnected than the United States and
China. Now we are in a situation where I think we recognize
exactly, as your bill suggests, that there are areas, in
technology in particular, where we want to be much more
restrictive and we want to be careful because those engagements
in, you know, AI chips, in a variety of capacity
semiconductors----
Mrs. Wagner. It is our technology and the loopholes, you
can, you know, drive trucks through them. And I hope that this
bill that puts a 30-day clock will become law, but, in the
meantime, we have got to act to stop them from stealing our
technology.
Mr. Campbell. So, look, I would simply say I completely
agree that technology is our high ground. The biggest challenge
that we faced over the last 25 years is not Chinese espionage.
It is very significant. We have not had a very good technology
strategy. We have exported a lot of things. We have not
understood that these are national capabilities that we need to
invest in.
Mrs. Wagner. It is. Now, switching tracks, sir, during the
Biden administration, Taiwan has lost four diplomatic allies:
the People's Liberation, Army violations of Taiwan's Air
Defense Identification Zones have increased over 1,000 percent,
and the Chinese military is conducting military exercises in
new areas around Taiwan. Chinese coercion of Taiwan is clearly
ramping up, and it will only escalate from here unless the U.S.
and its allies stand up to China. China's coercion techniques
may fall short of a full-scale attack on Taiwan, sir, but they
are exceptionally dangerous.
If China can bring Taiwan's to its knees using a sustained
coercion campaign instead of costly invasion, it will. And it
seems to me that the U.S. has no plan to deter such a campaign.
What is the Biden administration's strategy to deter Chinese
coercion against Taiwan, and what metrics are you using to
measure success?
Mr. Campbell. Thanks for your question. I worked on the
maintenance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait for
most of my career, almost 35 years. I do want to say it is a
great achievement of American foreign policy bipartisan
commitment. For 50 years, we have seen democracy thrive----
Mrs. Wagner. I don't have much time, sir, and I want to try
to stick to the clock, unlike others. So what are you doing
about the--to deter coercion against Taiwan and the metrics
that you are using to measure successful?
Mr. Campbell. So I would simply say we believe that the
guiding document of our engagement is the Taiwan Relations Act
passed in 1979. It mandates us to have the capabilities in the
Western Pacific, which we do, to resist aggression. We have
provided enormous amount of capacity to allies and partners in
the Indo-Pacific. A huge amount of deterrence is not just what
the United States does alone but with other countries----
Mrs. Wagner. You recognize that there is a sustained
coercion campaign----
Mr. Campbell. Oh, of course.
Mrs. Wagner [continuing]. And what they are doing?
Mr. Campbell. Of course.
Mrs. Wagner. It will bring Taiwan to their knees without an
invasion. We must do something.
Mr. Campbell. Yes. So, first of all, I believe Taiwan is
highly resilient. They just had one of the most successful
elections in their history. By the way, much more successful
than ours more recently. I do believe, I do believe they
recognize that many countries stand with them.
Ten years ago when something would go wrong, it would only
be the United States that speaks out----
Mrs. Wagner. Thank you very much. My time is expired. I
will submit the rest of my questions for the record, and, you
know, I think we need more answers than we need word salad.
Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady's time is expired. The
chair recognizes Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. China gives incentives to its
people to invest in Chinese stocks, but they don't give those
incentives to invest in American stocks. That makes perfect
sense. The United States incentivizes investment through the
capital gains allowance. We provide that at a cost of billions
of dollars to our Treasury to those who invest in Chinese
stocks. So I would point out to my colleagues that, if you
think we should stop subsidizing investments in Chinese stock,
you will want to join me on the bill that I have had on that
issue.
But I will ask our witness would it be disastrous for
American foreign policy if we stop spending billions of dollars
to encourage American billionaires to invest in Chinese stocks?
That is a yes/no question, I think.
Mr. Campbell. So, Congressman, I would simply say the
investment law----
Mr. Sherman. But from the foreign policy standpoint, it
would be a disaster if we stopped subsidizing these
investments?
Mr. Campbell. I would answer it this way: I do believe a
huge part of our national strategy should be the restrictions
of certain kinds of investments or technologies in areas----
Mr. Sherman. I will reclaim my time. I will reclaim my
time. The State Department won't give a visa to a Taiwanese
high-government official to come here to the Washington, DC.
area. But during COVID, we learned that we can have hearings
with our witnesses appearing virtually. And, of course, foreign
officials, we don't have hearings, we have briefings. Would the
State Department object if this committee had a briefing by
Zoom with the foreign minister of Taiwan?
Mr. Campbell. First of all, I can't make decisions for the
committee----
Mr. Sherman. I am asking whether you would advise against
it.
Mr. Campbell. We have deep, substantial engagements,
unofficial and other engagements with the Taiwanese government.
I believe that you do, as well.
Mr. Sherman. And I am hoping that the chair would have a
briefing of this committee by the foreign minister. Our policy
toward North Korea for this whole century has been a manifest
failure in that they keep making more fissile materials and we
keep telling them they don't have nuclear weapons or they
shouldn't. I think we should be changing our bargaining
position. We changed our style radically with Trump but not our
position.
But I want to focus on a much smaller issue, and that is a
bill that I have with substantial support in Congress urging
you to do something you should do anyway that has majority
support in the South Korean parliament and that is to announce
a willingness to negotiate a peace treaty with North Korea to
replace the armistice that Eisenhower signed. This is not a
concession to them anymore than Eisenhower's policy. Is the
United States willing to negotiate a peace treaty and formally
end the war of 1953?
Mr. Campbell. So, first of all, I will just say,
diplomatically, we are prepared to sit down and engage with the
North Koreans. We do have some conditions. We will not accept
North Korea as a nuclear----
Mr. Sherman. Are we willing to negotiate on this one issue
only after they give up their nuclear weapons, or are we
willing to negotiate to solve the problems of 1953?
Mr. Campbell. I will tell you all of our engagements are
attempts. We wanted to help to assist during COVID, we wanted
to open the door for certain--just one thing: For the last 6
years, we have had virtually no communication with North Korea.
They have chosen not to engage with us directly on any
subject----
Mr. Sherman. I would hope that we would announce that we
are willing to negotiate on this one subject. Dr. Afridi
remains in prison in Pakistan. We should have agreed to a
Siddiqui-Afridi trade. We didn't. I don't know if that is still
on the table, but let us not regard the killing of Osama bin
Laden as a complete success when the man who was critical to
that remains in jail.
As to Pakistan, they banned the batsman. Imran Khan is in
jail. They are proposing changes to their constitution that
would make Victor Orban blush in the sense of changing the
independence of the judiciary and perhaps bringing Imran Khan
before a military court.
I would urge you to instruct the U.S. Ambassador in
Islamabad to simply visit Imran Khan in prison and demonstrate
that we meet with various Pakistani leaders at all times and we
are willing to meet with him.
Mr. Campbell. I have got both those issues. Thank you. I
will take those both back. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. The chair recognizes
Mr. Mast.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman. I want to stick with China's
support for Russia's industrial base, something that you spoke
a little bit about, but I think you spoke about it from 30,000
feet and I would like to drill down on it a little bit more and
move into something that you said, as well, which is that we
are sending signals about this.
So let's start with, more specifically, what is the most
worrying, the most problematic support, of Russia's industrial
base that you are seeing out of China?
Mr. Campbell. I would say, for me, Congressman, the most
worrisome thing is that it comes from the very top, and it
appears that the Russians are prepared to provide a broad range
of support for their military industrial capacity in Russia. I
think, right now, we see the role of UAVs and other capacities
that are penetrating the Ukrainian airspace. Much of that has
been supported surreptitiously by China, and it raises real
concerns.
Mr. Mast. Give me more specifics ordinance related,
electronics related, technology related.
Mr. Campbell. Chips, some design features, some capacities
associated with the making of explosives. I think, in this
session, I can't go very much further. In a private session,
which I would be happy to have anytime, I will give you. But I
would just say, Congressman, it is substantial and it is
affecting Russian capabilities on the battlefield.
Mr. Mast. What are the signals that we are sending that
are, by the way you said it, I take them as inadequate?
Signals. You mentioned in your comments we are sending signals.
Mr. Campbell. So we have done dozens and dozens of
sanctions against particular Chinese firms. We have put some of
their financial institutions on watch. We have worked closely
with international financial institutions to signal our
concerns about the financing of the deals. These are hard to
get at it. Sometimes, that financing is below swift sanctions
that major financial institutions are----
Mr. Mast. The way you said signals, when you first said it,
and I would take it the way you said it just now, as well, to
me, it seemed as though you were indicating it was inadequate.
Where would you like to see those signals move from and to?
Mr. Campbell. So, look, our assistant secretary is going to
brief later today in classified session. I am going to ask him
to go through this. I will say it features in every diplomatic
engagement we have.
So I got back from Europe last week, met with NATO. We are
working closely with partners to share as much information as
possible with them. Every meeting we have with the Chinese,
this is our number-one issue.
Mr. Mast. So we will continue that portion of the
conversation, we will continue that portion of it in the
classified briefing. Happy to do that at that point.
Let me move to a different entity, same conversation. What,
if anything, can you point to as far as effective posturing or
policy out of the WTO to help deal with this?
Mr. Campbell. I don't think this would be consider----
Mr. Mast. Or are they an affected entity----
Mr. Campbell. The WTO, Congressman, is affected in things
like overcapacity, so we are deeply engaged with the WTO about
China's attempts to dump electric vehicles in the United
States. The specific technologies and things that are taking
place, sort of the dual use and other directed capabilities,
frankly, have to be undertaken more in channels with allies and
partners like NATO.
Mr. Mast. So when you are in a situation of all-hands on
deck, it is exactly what that sounds like. Do you think there
is a role that WTO could play more subsequently to be a better
ally and be of better assistance as the entity that they are?
Mr. Campbell. I mean, I hear you. I think we have briefed
the WTO. My own sense, Congressman, is that it will prove
unwieldy and that there are a number of states in the WTO that
would not share with this assessment. It might be hard to move
them. They are a majority action----
Mr. Mast. What states would you be most concerned about?
Mr. Campbell. There are a few states in Europe, I think we
both know what they are, that probably associate more with
Russia and China, like Hungary, that would be of concern. I
will say I believe this is an arena where we are best suited to
work with our strong allies and partners. That is why we are
working with Japan and Australia, Ukraine, all of our countries
in Europe who are also taking like-minded steps to send, I
think, probably the clearest possible signals that these steps
by China and Russia have the potential not just to upset the
battlefield--that is happening--but longer-term security in
Europe.
Mr. Mast. Thank you. And my time is expired.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. The chair recognizes
Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome Deputy
Secretary. Would you say that Kim Jong and Xi Jinping are
malign influences with respect to U.S. foreign policy and our
interest in the Indo-Pacific region?
Mr. Campbell. So I would say, clearly, Kim Jong Un is
undertaking deeply malign steps against American strategic
interests, against our closest partners in Japan and South
Korea, and I do not believe there are any redeeming features
about their role on the global stage. I think you know that our
relationship with China is much more complicated----
Mr. Connolly. Well, let me stick with that Korea one. So do
you know who President Trump was talking about in 2019 when he
said, quote: He has a great and beautiful vision for his
country and only the United States, with me as president, can
make that vision come true. Do you know who President Trump was
talking about?
Mr. Campbell. I think it was Kim Jong Un but I----
Mr. Connolly. Kim Jong Un, you just said no redeeming
quality. Okay. Well, who was President Trump--because,
certainly Xi Jinping, it is complex, I will grant you. But,
certainly, his activities in the South China Sea and in the
region more broadly have been aggressive and, at times,
kinetic, provoking our allies and forcing us to respond. Is
that not true?
Mr. Campbell. It is true.
Mr. Connolly. So who was President Trump talking about when
he said, and I quote, and this is just last year: Think of him.
Central casting, brilliant guy. You know, when I say he is
brilliant, everyone says, oh, that is terrible, but, well, he
runs with an iron fist. He is smart, brilliant, and everything
perfect.
Who was he talking about; do you know?
Mr. Campbell. I think that is President Xi Jinping.
Mr. Connolly. See? You are winning. Xi Jinping. Some of my
friends on the other side of the aisle love to bash the Biden
administration for somehow being asleep at the wheel in this
region, so let me just walk through a few things. Did President
Biden in this administration bring together two long, if not
adversaries, certainly suspicious of one another for historical
reasons and getting cooperation really tough, and forge a
bilateral cooperation agreement between Japan and Korea? Did
that happen on our watch?
Mr. Campbell. Trilateral, yes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Mr. Campbell. And I will say I saw personally President
Biden's engagement with both leaders, pushing them to do things
that were, frankly, a little bit out of their comfort zone and
difficult for them politically. Ultimately, the leadership of
President Yoon and Prime Minister Kishida, but President Biden
very much helped.
Mr. Connolly. Right. Big deal because they don't really
trust one another. But a common foe and a common interest led
by the Biden administration brought them together in the
trilateral--and, by the way, we passed the resolution on the
floor of the House unanimously praising that agreement just
last week.
Australia and United Kingdom. Did the Biden administration
pull together something called AUKUS to co-develop modern
technology and increase the capacity of our partners in the
Indo-Pacific region?
Mr. Campbell. I thought we did, but I heard maybe that it
had come about earlier, but I don't think so. I think this was
the Biden administration.
Mr. Connolly. Did the Biden administration revive the
relationship with the Philippines such that we, actually, now
have been invited back to open four military bases, as I am
counting, in the Philippines, again, designed to counter
Chinese aggression and hopefully serve as a deterrent?
Mr. Campbell. Yes. Very proud----
Mr. Connolly. And how long did we go without military bases
in the Philippines before the Biden administration reached that
agreement?
Mr. Campbell. Since, I mean, it has been decades since we--
--
Mr. Connolly. Decades. So, again, reviving a relationship.
We also have a quadrilateral security dialog called the Quad,
which is working with Japan, India, and Australia to promote
rules-based order. Is that true?
Mr. Campbell. It is true.
Mr. Connolly. And have we kind of revivified that and
poured new energy into that, especially given the concern about
Chinese aggression in the region?
Mr. Campbell. Yes. We have taken it to the leader level in
unprecedented ways, yes.
Mr. Connolly. And did the Biden administration bolster an
unlikely partnership with a country with which we were at war
not that long ago, Vietnam?
Mr. Campbell. Indeed, yes.
Mr. Connolly. And, again, was that fostered by concern
about the aggressive posture of Xi Jinping in China?
Mr. Campbell. Yes, but also the fact that Vietnam deeply
wants a better, more constructive relationship with the United
States, as well.
Mr. Connolly. And is it true that the Biden administration
led the first-ever U.S. Pacific Islands country summit and
renewed the compacts of free association for the Pacific
Islands?
Mr. Campbell. Yes. This is like the greatest hits; I like
this. But these are the things----
Mr. Connolly. Yes, I thought you would enjoy it.
Mr. Campbell. It does feel better than I thought, yes.
Mr. Connolly. I just think, you know, it is easy to sit
back and throw, you know, potshots at an administration. This
administration has not been asleep at the wheel. This
administration has actually been very aggressive in countering
Chinese aggression in the South China Sea and in the Indo-
Pacific region and has sought out and turned around
relationships in the region to partner with to meet that
threat. And I hope China has taken notice, and that is my last
question because my time is up. And by the way, Mr. Chairman, I
just want to go on the record as disagreeing with Ambassador
Wagner. I think your extra time enlightened us all, and I thank
you.
But what do you think? Has China taken note of all of this
action and has it made a difference? And then I will yield
back.
Mr. Campbell. They have. I would also just underscore that
I believe many of these issues, frankly, are bipartisan, as
well, and they have benefited from the support of Republicans
and democrats.
In many respects, the emerging consensus on the Indo-
Pacific, I think, is strong, and I believe that there is a
clear path for what issues that we need to do going forward.
The things that you point out, the only one I would add to that
is the engagement with India. It has been deeply consequential,
and the fact that we have a stronger partnership with India
today than ever before is also significant. And, yes, they are
taking note in Beijing.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. I think it is very enlightening. I thank
you----
Chairman McCaul. Well, thank you for your partisan
contribution to the hearing. I actually praised the Quad,
praised the trilateral agreement, and I praised AUKUS, which I
authored myself. But thanks for turning this into a partisan
exercise. I recognize Mr. Burchett.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank
you. Sir, do you believe that the Chinese Communist Party is
fully aware of the fentanyl that is coming from China?
Mr. Campbell. I think China is an enormous country, huge
numbers of firms. I think they have a general understanding of
the fentanyl problem both in the United States but also
globally. The synthetic drugs are a bigger problem now in
China, in Southeast Asia, in the United States, Latin America--
--
Mr. Burchett. Well, are they doing anything to stop it?
Mr. Campbell. Yes. They have taken some steps, not enough,
but they have taken some steps, yes.
Mr. Burchett. What would those steps be?
Mr. Campbell. They have outlawed some firms. They have
taken a few people to court. They have issued restrictions. The
reason that they have done that largely is the engagement of
this committee and others directly with China, and so they
recognize that there is a deep bipartisan anxiety about it in
the United States.
Mr. Burchett. It would seem to me, though, if they knew
that, if they were really against it, they would stop it. I
mean, they have a totalitarian government. I appreciate saying
they are going to court, but Xi Jinping says stop it, you know,
you have these guys committing suicide by shooting themselves
12 times in the back of the head. That is generally what
happens, and I don't see that happening.
Their Navy now outnumbers our Navy in terms of total number
of warships. Do you think that makes the Chinese a more
powerful navy or a more effective navy?
Mr. Campbell. Yes. I still think we have the finest navy in
the world, but we have got to get on our horse and do much
better on shipbuilding. Yes, that is absolutely correct.
Mr. Burchett. I worry about that because, you know, my
father's war, Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and then 6 months
later we roll out across the Pacific and take the world back,
more or less. And I don't see that being the apparatus today. I
mean, it is more automated. We have long-range missiles. You
know, I realize the war machine in powerful Congressmen and
senators' districts build those ships and the components of
that, and I worry about that having too much influence.
Do you think that war in Taiwan is inevitable?
Mr. Campbell. Not if the United States and allies have a
resolute posture of deterrence.
Mr. Burchett. If Russia is unable to access components for
weapons from China, what do you think that war looks like in
Ukraine?
Mr. Campbell. I think if China starts to hesitate in
certain engagements with the military industrial capacity of
Russia, I think it will limit some of their capabilities. You
know, Congressman, it is hard to know completely exactly
impacts, but it would be significant.
Can I just go back just to one point you made? I just want
to associate myself. We spent 25 years really investing in
ground forces, a lot of capability. This is a naval time. This
is an expeditionary time. The Navy has to step up, we have to
step up with them. We have got to figure out how to be much
more capable in and faster in shipbuilding and design. It is
the most important thing that we need to do over the course of
the next 10 years.
And I will say I am grateful to this committee. AUKUS is an
important step. Our submarine force is the jewel in the crown.
We have to do more there. We have to get our submarines out of
dry dock more quickly, but we need more capital ships arriving
into the fleet much more quickly and we have to have more
global capacity in the Indo-Pacific.
Mr. Burchett. What is the detriment to that? What is
slowing that down?
Mr. Campbell. So we have got 5 minutes each question. I
can't give you all the answers which are so difficult. There
are many issues. We don't have enough skilled work people,
contracts are difficult. I could take you through it. We could
do it over a longer period. But I would say is that this just
needs to be an area of increased national purpose.
Mr. Burchett. Okay. One more question. Are there any
sanctions not being enforced that could interfere with the
weapons production and trade between China and Russia?
Mr. Campbell. I don't think I understood the question
completely. Just say it one more time----
Mr. Burchett. Are there any sanctions--I am from East
Tennessee, sir. It is the only place in America where people
don't speak with an accent. Are there any sanctions not being
enforced that could interfere with the weapons production and
trade between China and Russia?
Mr. Campbell. I believe that almost all the sanctions that
have been applied to China in this respect have been followed.
I think probably more steps are going to be necessary going
forward.
Mr. Burchett. All right. Thank you. Chairlady, I yield back
my 12 seconds.
Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you. I now recognize
Congressman Bera from California.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Connolly went through
the greatest hits, so I won't repeat that. But I would
emphasize something the ranking member raised, the marriage of
the transatlantic strategy with the Indo-Pacific strategy I
think is one that we are really seeing advancing in
conversations.
I am going to shift. I know you represented us at the
Pacific Islands Forum meeting. In the past few months, I have
traveled a lot in the Pacific Islands. I have been to Tonga,
Tuvalu, the Solomon Islands, PMG, and Fiji, and also, prior to
that, spent some time in Southeast Asia, Vietnam, Cambodia,
Laos, and Thailand kind of looking at the Mekong.
Mr. Burchett touched on some of the drug trafficking and
fentanyl issue. One item I did not expect to come up when I was
in Tonga, when I asked what is one of the biggest things that
we could help you with, was actually drug trafficking. Again,
some of what the cartels are doing in terms of fentanyl
flowing, not so much to the islands but on their path to
Australia, New Zealand, et cetera, you know, would love to get
your perspective on that. I have raised the issue with
Australians, and I think this is an area where we could all
work together.
Also, along the Mekong, I did not expect to hear about some
of these Exclusive Economic Zones that really are just Chinese
organized crime setting up casinos, indentured servant, but
also I do think a lot of drug trafficking moving through there,
as well. Again, you know, if you want to touch on that, how we
would be thinking about that as Congress working with the
administration, not a partisan issue, an issue of concern, and
then any other takeaways from the Pacific Islands Forum.
Mr. Campbell. So, first, can I just also thank you
personally for the time that you have given me, the
opportunities to sit down, and the engagement that you have
helped with, not just in the Indo-Pacific but also India and
elsewhere. So just a sincere thank you more directly.
You are exactly right. If you travel through the Pacific,
the issue that they are the most worried about right now, they
are worried about illegal fishing, they are worried about
climate change, but the increase in shipments through these
islands of precursor capabilities, not just for fentanyl but
other kinds of synthetic drugs, is a source of deep concern.
So I was there a week and a half ago. We have now
immediately, I hope, gone into action to begin law enforcement
cooperation with a variety of states with a particular focus on
drug enforcement. So I thank you for that. I would appreciate
your encouragement more.
Our challenge here, folks, is resources. Like, we are
trying to do more with less. We are going to need more help in
the Pacific. These countries vote with us. They are aligned
with us. They want more from us. I must say I am concerned that
we, frankly, neglected them for decades. Now we have got to do
more. A little bit more support in this arena will go a long,
long way.
I also want to acknowledge your commitment to the Mekong.
We do have an initiative on the lower Mekong. I will say I am
deeply concerned by some of the recent developments. I take
what you are saying about the issues about these free zones
which you see in Laos and Cambodia, which even cause concerns
in local governments. But what I am also worried about, the
Mekong is one of the great rivers of the world. The actions
that have been taken upstream with very little input from
Vietnam, from Cambodia and Laos, have caused real problems for
local communities in terms of agriculture and fishing and the
like.
And so I am proud of the work that we have done to try to
elevate and highlight the important work on the Mekong, and I
thank you, as well, for your work on this.
Mr. Bera. Well, I look forward to working with you on both
those issues. You know, earlier this Congress, the chairwoman
and I held a hearing on the Indian Ocean region. It is an area
where I don't think we pay as much attention, but we do see
what the PRC is doing and whether it is Djibouti, you know,
whether it is in the UAE, Pakistan, et cetera----
Mr. Campbell. Can I just report on one thing? Again,
through our encouragement, we haven't really announced this
yet, but I can tell you this: for the first time, the United
States and India and others are going to hold a session on the
Indian Ocean, and we are going to talk about what our mutual
concerns are, how we can work together. You are absolutely
right. There are a variety of reasons why because it kind of
falls between the cracks of all these commands, but the
secretary, Secretary Austin, has asked Admiral Paparo to help
sort of kind of fuse together our national military approach,
security approach. We are going to work with the White House,
DoD, State Department. This is the new frontier, working more
closely with a partner like India in the Indian Ocean.
Mr. Bera. Great. And I know this committee wants to work
with you.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you.
Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you. I now recognize
Representative Barr from Kentucky for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barr. Deputy Secretary Campbell, good to see you again.
Mr. Campbell. Nice to see you.
Mr. Barr. And I literally just came from a meeting with
TECRO in the Taiwan United Nations Alliance group, and Dr.
Michael Tsai, former minister of defense, says to say hello to
you and appreciated the relationship you all have had over the
years.
What was discussed in that meeting was Resolution 2758, the
U.N. General Assembly resolution from the 70's. Can you clarify
the U.S. position on China using it to claim that Taiwan is
part of China when, in fact, while it does address Chiang Kai-
shek, it is silent on Taiwan's status.
Mr. Campbell. Yes, exactly. And it is a tool that China has
used, as you rightly point out, Congressman, in its diplomacy
to make the argument that somehow Taiwan's status is
illegitimate or an interpretation of a One-China principle
leaves them at a disadvantage.
I simply want to say that we stand by our commitments to
Taiwan. We try to clarify in all of our engagements the nature
of our policy toward Taiwan, how it is influenced by the Taiwan
Relations Act, the Six Assurances, the Three Communiques. I
will say, Congressman, that framework, it is difficult and
challenging sometimes, but it has provided for an unprecedented
level of development and peace and stability across the Taiwan
Strait for 40 years. It is going to be harder going forward,
but I do think it has given us the capacity and the framework
to engage----
Mr. Barr. Well, thank you for that because I think less
ambiguity relating to that and the U.S. position the better
because, obviously, as you just pointed out, the PRC is using
that to sever diplomatic ties or disrupt diplomatic ties
between certain nations and also exclude Taiwan participation
in international organizations.
Let me ask you about sanctions really quickly in Europe. I
am leading a bipartisan congressional delegation to Europe, and
I seek your guidance here. But one of the ways to enlist
European allies and partners into this project relating to
China and making sure there is de-risking happening with
respect to China, in my view, is a better, more forceful use of
sanctions. In August, the administration, Commerce, added 30
Chinese firms to the Commerce entity list for their role in
supporting Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but were any of these
companies added to the Treasury CMIC list?
Mr. Campbell. I am going to have to take the specifics of
that back, Congressman, and I will get back to you immediately
on this. I do want to just go--I think what you describe is
what is necessary between the United States and Europe. The
first step is more engagement on the Indo-Pacific. You will
find on your trip, when you talk to them about the Indo-
Pacific, they are hungry for more information. They want to
know more about our policies, but this is not an arena where
they have a lot of deep experience, and so your ability to help
them think through the challenges--they want to know more about
cross-straits, they ask us a lot of questions about the South
China Sea. They want to know about AUKUS and our security----
Mr. Barr. Well, can I just reclaim real quick because I
think, again, getting the Europeans serious about this issue
would be if we actually not just put these Chinese entities on
a Commerce list but actually sanction them or put them on the
CMIC list because that has a multilateral effect. The Europeans
are looking at what Treasury is doing; and if these Chinese
entities are aiding Russia enough to get on the entity list at
Commerce, why are they not being put on the Treasury CMIC list
and then, furthermore, why is Treasury not putting them on the
full blocking sanctions list, the SDN list?
Mr. Campbell. I will take that back----
Mr. Barr. Yes. And I need to talk to Secretary Yellen about
this, too. We are not sending the right signals to the
Europeans. If we sanction these entities for materially
supporting Russia, then Europe will pay more attention. And I
think that is what I would--you can help us in our diplomacy in
Europe if Treasury would actually do this, as opposed to just
putting it on a Commerce list.
Final question on the Philippines. Are the resupply trips
to the Sierra Madre a long-term solution to assert the
Philippines' internationally recognized sovereignty over Second
Thomas Shoal? What is the long-term solution to Second Thomas
Shoal?
Mr. Campbell. So I think the most important things that we
can do right now, Congressman, is, as we've heard, strengthen
the bilateral partnership between the United States and the
Philippines to multilateralize. You will note in recent weeks
we have had patrols from Australia, from Japan, other
countries, to underscore our commitment to freedom of
navigation. We have to increase Philippines' capacity, and we
have to be absolutely resolute that the legal standing on which
China is using to apply illegitimate force in these areas is
antithetical to the international community.
Mr. Barr. All right. Thank you.
Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you. I now recognize the
gentlelady from California, Representative Jacobs, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Secretary, great
to see you. Thanks for being here. I first wanted to ask you
about the Global Fragility Act. I think it is an incredibly
important bipartisan piece of legislation. My colleague, John
James, and I introduced the reauthorization of it today. And
thank you for being such a steadfast champion of it within the
department.
I asked Undersecretary Bass the same question last week,
and I want to get your answer to it, which is, as you know, the
way we envision the Global Fragility Act is that it is not just
a programming authority. It is about a whole new way of doing
business, learning from the lessons of the Sahel and Iraq and
Afghanistan, including the need to have an integrated response
with the State Department in the lead because, at the end of
the day, these are not actually only security challenges, they
are political ones. And it is not only a programming thing, we
need to have it infused in all of our diplomacy.
So I wanted to ask you how are you and the department doing
diplomacy differently and pushing for political solutions
pursuant to the GFA and how are you making sure that the GFA
strategies and the idea of GFA are infused and integrated into
all policy decisions?
Mr. Campbell. Look, it has been a great policy tool. What
it has helped us with the most, to be honest, is that it has
helped forge more collaboration with key players inside the
U.S. Government. And, in truth, what we have sought to do in
addition is to bring other partners in, like I was talking
about the DFC, the Coast Guard. And so what I think it has
provided us is a way of thinking about challenges that allows
us to motivate and to engage a whole of government on some of
our issues that we are dealing with.
So, Congressman Bera, just really to give you an example,
was talking about the drug issues. The drug issues can't be
solved by our Navy patrols or our diplomatic engagement, but we
have really good capacities on how to counter societies or
groups that are being afflicted with drug flows. And so it is
bringing those groups into the conversation and engaging them
directly.
So I like the tool very much. I have used it primarily in a
couple of different countries. I would like to see that
framework extended to other countries, particularly in the
Global South, where we need to step our game.
Ms. Jacobs. Yes. I couldn't agree with you more. I actually
wanted to get to one of the specific countries since we are
talking about the Indo-Pacific today. Obviously, Papua New
Guinea is one of the GFA priority countries. I visited there a
couple of years ago, and I think it is a good case study to
figure out how GFA is a way we can do things different even
amidst global competition, but I wanted to know how are you
thinking about the challenge of, like, through GFA and in
general, we are offering more technical assistance to the
judicial capacity and, you know, reducing violence, whereas,
you know, China is offering to build roads. How are you
thinking about the value proposition of the Global Fragility
Act as it relates to Papua New Guinea?
Mr. Campbell. Thanks. So I would simply say that the Global
Fragility Act is important but not the totality of what we need
to be able to do. So, in truth, you are right. You have
traveled in the Pacific, so, you know, you go to these
countries. We help with a lot of soft power issues on treatment
of disease, on education, on capacity building, and they build
a big stadium or a big head of government office. And it is
quite visible and hard to, you know, to compete with in some
respects.
I will say, in the last year or two, we have found a couple
of areas that have been a big differentiator for us and
something, again, the committee has been briefed on and
supported. Our support to these countries being linked by
undersea cable. The Pacific is the most vulnerable to storm
surges. They have the most unpredictable, frankly not very
good, internet which connects them to the larger world. These
undersea connections give them the ability to connect in a
durable way. It is going to be game changing for being able to
survive storms, to be able to be connected to the global
business community, education, and that is really American and
partner innovation at work.
And so I just want to say we are going to have to do more
with respect to building, you know, judiciaries and the like.
But nothing is going to substitute for some real work in the
infrastructure of these vulnerable nations.
Ms. Jacobs. Well, thank you. And thanks, too, for your
emphasis in making sure we are providing support and
partnership to the Global South and not just making them pawns
in this game of competition.
Mr. Campbell. I will say also, and I very much,
Congresswoman, the way you said this, when you go into these
meetings, wherever you are, in Africa or in the Indo-Pacific,
if they believe the only reason that we are engaging is to
compete with China, our partners are immediately suspicious. We
have to meet these countries where they live, address their
direct issues that matter to their people. In the Pacific,
again, it is climate change, it is illegal fishing, it is
capacity building. That is how we have got to engage, not go in
and say, look, we are going to counter China. That is not
interesting to them.
Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you. And I now recognize
myself for 5 minutes. Secretary, thank you so much for
appearing before our committee today. In the last
administration, the United States enacted financial sanctions
and export controls against 24 PRC companies that helped
Beijing advance its territorial claims in the South China Sea.
So I would like to ask you how many sanctions or export
controls has this Biden administration used against PRC
companies that are supporting either the military construction
or harassment in these waters?
Mr. Campbell. Yes. Look, all told, you know, in a variety
of arenas, the Biden administration has done somewhere between
800 and 900 sanctions against companies, against individuals,
on a very regular basis. I think we have continued the
sanctions that have been put in place and added to them
associated with some national security entities in China.
I will say, frankly, to be honest, Congresswoman--you know
this because you have traveled in the region--the most
important steps that we can take right now are capacity
building in the Philippines and linking the Philippines with a
larger----
Mrs. Kim of California. Talking about Philippines, yes.
Thank you for raising that. I was at the Shangri-la Dialogue,
and I was attending there when I listened to President Marcos
make a presentation when he was asked about the red line
question. President Marcos said the death of a Filipino citizen
is very, very close to what we define as an act of war. Do you
agree with that?
Mr. Campbell. Look, I can't speak for President Marcos, a
man that I admire greatly. I would simply say that our security
partnership between the Philippines----
Mrs. Kim of California. So we have a mutual defense treaty
with the Philippines. So if a Filipino sailor was killed by a
CCP coast guard water cannon or deliberate ship ramming, would
that invoke mutual defense----
Mr. Campbell. So we have signaled very directly, we have
reassured the Philippines and signaled to the Chinese that our
defense treaty does apply in circumstances on the high seas
involving Philippine naval assets and sailors. I am not going
to get here and say, like, on this particular hypothetical. I
would simply say you are exactly correct, Congresswoman, that
the security treaty between the United States and the
Philippines is very much active in----
Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you.
Mr. Campbell [continuing]. These complex scenarios.
Mrs. Kim of California. So let me get to that next question
about I have a legislation called the PAID Act, Protecting
American Innovation and Development Act. This is a tool to
expose foreign adversaries who steal U.S. intellectual property
related to critical national security technologies because, as
you know, CCP steals up to $600 billion worth of U.S.
intellectual property and trade secrets annually. So we need to
use every tool available to stop this obvious theft and hold
the CCP accountable.
So when Fujian Jinhua stole U.S. intellectual property that
was tied to semiconductor production, the BIS and the End User
Review Committee put that on the entity list. So do you agree
with that action and what did that do?
Mr. Campbell. So, look, I would simply say that I think the
larger effort that you described to harden American companies
or governments to intrusions and efforts to steal our
industrial, commercial, technological secrets, that is an
important order and incredibly vital to our own national
security.
Mrs. Kim of California. So do you believe that theft of
national security-related intellectual property by a foreign
adversary, like PRC, should be a basis for an entity listing?
Mr. Campbell. I do.
Mrs. Kim of California. Okay. Thank you. In my travels in
the Indo-Pacific, as you know, and also attending Shangri-la
Dialogue, having conversations with our counterparts at the
governments there, and also with the U.S. defense startups
actively participating with INDOPACOM, it is clear that the
U.S. defense industry is strained and we need to revive our
shipbuilding industry. And even INDOPACOM Admiral Paparo says
we are not ready if something happens, so we need to activate
all of our bases all around.
So a strained defense industry does not send a clear
deterrence signal to our adversaries, so can you tell me and
our committee how are you thinking through supporting our U.S.
partners and allies and our readiness in the Indo-Pacific?
Mr. Campbell. Thanks. It is a great question. In truth, you
know, we downsized our military industrial complex subsequently
in the 1990's, and we have really not taken the steps to
diversify. We need more firms, we need more capacity. But, in
addition, to be honest, Congresswoman, we need to work more
with allies and partners. We need to work toward co-production.
We have seen both co-production and co-design arrangements
between the United States and Japan, South Korea, and others. I
think those are incredibly important. They are difficult to
arrange, a lot of the procedural stuff that has already been
discussed.
Ultimately, we are going to need to step up our defense
industrial base across the board, and we are in the midst of
that. But it is not a short-term challenge. It is a longer-term
challenge.
Mrs. Kim of California. My time is up. I would like to
recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Manning, for
5 minutes.
Ms. Manning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Deputy Secretary
Campbell, as you may know, in July, the State Department
unveiled the Global Guidelines for Countering Antisemitism, a
major commitment by more than 40 countries and international
organizations to act against rising antisemitism around the
globe and to implement best practices to protect the Jewish
community. Just this week, Congressman Chris Smith and I
introduced a bipartisan resolution supporting the Global
Guidelines and calling on more countries to embrace them. I am
hopeful that the chairman and the ranking member will advance
this resolution soon. And while I am glad that Australia has
endorsed the guidelines, more countries in the Indo-Pacific
should now follow their lead in the fight against antisemitism;
and, sadly, we have learned that the existence of a large
Jewish population in a country is not a prerequisite for
antisemitism.
So can we count on you to make sure that the chiefs of
mission across the regional bureaus are working to implement
these best practices and to adopt the guidelines?
Mr. Campbell. Yes.
Ms. Manning. And let me suggest, I know Ambassador Lipstadt
recently had a discussion about interfaith tolerance and
antisemitism in Indonesia, so I would suggest that might be a
place to pay attention to. And it would be helpful if you and
other senior leaders at the department would raise this issue
in your meetings at the U.N. General Assembly.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you.
Ms. Manning. Thank you for that commitment. Moving to a
different topic, I understand how important our relationship
with India is. And, yet, last month, thousands of medical
workers in India went on strike after the rape and murder of a
young medical student, and this is reminiscent of another
horrific case, the Delhi gang rape in 2012. How is the State
Department monitoring the treatment of women in India, the most
populace democracy, and engaging with the government at the
highest levels to address this significant and recurring
problem of sexual violence toward women?
Mr. Campbell. So thank you, Congresswoman, for your initial
views about the importance of combating antisemitism. I do just
want to underscore we have very fulsome dialog with our Indian
partners on a range of issues, strategic issues, but we do not
shy away from raising issues of concerns, whether it is
domestic issues of treatment or extraterritorial activities
that have raised concerns.
I will say I find Indian partners, though, willing to have
a dialog and are attentive to issues that we raise.
Ms. Manning. Continuing focus on this horrific issue would
be much appreciated. Last year, the Biden administration
released an updated Women, Peace, and Security Strategy and
National Action Plan aimed at increasing women's participation
in peace and security efforts and protecting women and girls
from conflicts, crises, and violence. The Indo-Pacific, Japan
in particular, has been a real leader on WPS issues, so can you
share more about how the department is working to advance this
important agenda in the Indo-Pacific?
Mr. Campbell. Thank you very much. And so this relates to
the question that we heard earlier about, for instance, Papua
New Guinea. They have particular challenges there in terms of
violence against women. We have seen that in parts of the
Pacific. We are deeply engaged in programming and engagement,
not just with local communities but with legal offices about
appropriate steps to enact protections more generally.
I would simply say that this arena of discussion both on
the role of women in society writ large but also protections
has been very actively engaged across the Indo-Pacific. We see
it in Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia. Ironically, many of
these countries have made enormous strides in integrating women
into power structures that had previously been dominated almost
exclusively by men.
Ms. Manning. I appreciate your focus on this issue. I want
to turn quickly to Taiwan. We need to resolve the double
taxation issue, which is holding back to the U.S.-Taiwan
economic relationship. The House has already passed legislation
to fix this problem. How important is it that the Senate do the
same?
Mr. Campbell. I think it is extremely important that Taiwan
have more clarity on the double taxation issue. I appreciated
the legislation that the House has passed. I know that this is
something that is under very active consideration in the
executive branch. I will tell you, in my own personal view, it
is something we have got to get on top of and move forward on.
Thank you.
Ms. Manning. Thank you. Well, I hope our Senate colleagues
will move forward on this, and I encourage the administration
to continue to drive this issue forward. My time is expired. I
yield back.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you. I appreciate all your views.
Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Ms. Manning. I know
recognize the gentlelady from America Samoa, Representative
Radewagen.
Mrs. Radewagen. Hello, Secretary Campbell. It is good to
see you again.
Mr. Campbell. Nice to see you, as well, ma'am.
Mrs. Radewagen. As you know, I represent American Samoa
located thousands of miles from here in the South Pacific and,
quite frankly, it is scary how active the PRC is in the Pacific
Islands. They are developing infrastructure in the countries
that surround my home district, Independent Samoa, the Cook
Islands, and Kiribati. In fact, to get to my home district, we
have to fly through Kiribati airspace.
The PLA is showing increasing interest in the Pacific
Islands in recent years. Do you consider the Pacific Islands as
a front line of strategic competition with the PRC?
Mr. Campbell. Ma'am, I do think it is, but I will also say
my own experience is that that is not the way to express it to
Pacific Islanders. I think, when you start that way, they have
a tendency to tune out. They want to hear about direct issues
that affect their daily lives. We talked about climate change,
illegal fishing, capacity building, health of the people.
And so I think what we have tried to do is to compete in a
smart way, Congresswoman, to engage, open more embassies, do
more USAID. You know the Pacific. They love the Peace Corps.
Try to get the Peace Corps to go to more islands. So our
strategy really is to step up our game in every element of
societal engagement to show that we care about the Pacific.
That is the best way to compete.
Mrs. Radewagen. Not only do they love the Peace Corps but
the Coast Guard, as well. Those are the two things----
Mr. Campbell. I was afraid I was going to get cutoff, so I
didn't mention everyone, like the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard
is, frankly, our secret tool in the Pacific. They are
magnificent. They do an incredible job. They are appreciated
everywhere they go.
Mrs. Radewagen. How much money is the Pacific Islands
receiving from the $400 million Counter PRC Influence Fund?
Mr. Campbell. The specific amount from that $400 million?
Mrs. Radewagen. Yes.
Mr. Campbell. Congresswoman, I don't have that exact
figure. I would generally say that, as a basic matter, the
Pacific has to fight for every dollar it gets. I find that a
challenge. I would like, if I could encourage, if this
committee thinks that we need to do more for the Pacific, you
have got to direct funds more in that arena. We have to step up
our game more. I would like us to have three or four new
embassies in the next three or 4 years. I would like more
USAID, I would like more DFC, I would like more support for
anti-drug. All of those initiatives are important. They don't
fall directly in the counter, you know, PRC, even though that
is the larger impact. We are going to need more budget support
if we are going to compete effectively in the Pacific.
Mrs. Radewagen. So what progress has been made in the Indo-
Pacific partnership for maritime domain awareness in the Quad?
Mr. Campbell. Look, I don't want to get ahead of ourselves,
Congresswoman, but we have some big announcements on Saturday,
which will indicate that we have moved forward subsequently on
efforts that basically allow for the Pacific and Southeast Asia
to track largely untracked to this point illegal fishing fleets
that are the scourge of these extraordinarily important fishing
areas. The vast majority of those fishing fleets are Chinese.
We think these capacities will be indeed very helpful in
helping local governments repel illegal fishing in their home
waters.
Mrs. Radewagen. PRC is a top trading partner for nearly
every country in the Indo-Pacific region, and do you believe
FTAs have a role in U.S. foreign policy in the Indo-Pacific?
And why is this administration not pursuing any free trade
agreements?
Mr. Campbell. So, look, I don't think I need to tell this
committee, like, trade is complicated on both sides. I will
simply say this: we have got to get more innovative and figure
out how to have more trade commercial-related engagement with
the Indo-Pacific. They look to us for open markets, for
engagements. We are the largest investor. We play a very active
role. Imports from these countries are all up, but more still
needs to be done.
Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you.
Mr. Moylan. The chair now recognizes Representative Amo
from Rhode Island.
Mr. Amo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Secretary
Campbell, for being here today. This week, as has been noted in
this hearing, we celebrated the third anniversary of one of the
most important security arrangements in generations, the
Australia, United Kingdom, United States security pact, also
known as AUKUS. Thanks to President Biden's work to strengthen
this trilateral relationship, AUKUS is playing a critical role
in maintaining security and stability in the Indo-Pacific.
The domestic benefits are worth noting, too. In my home
State of Rhode Island, we are proud of our role in AUKUS
defense production, ensuring mutual security and boosting our
local economy through small businesses that provide good-paying
jobs.
We need a smooth and orderly process to transfer defense
articles between our nations for AUKUS to effectively deter
threats and maintain security, and Congress has previously
created exemptions to our International Traffic in Arms
Regulations, or ITAR, to allow for easier transfer of
information and weapons. And I know that there are concerns
that the ITAR rule proposed by the State Department in August
excludes critical technologies that our allies need.
Technologies, like engineering, and capabilities of the
Virginia-class submarine, which is produced in Rhode Island and
is essential to fulfilling the promise of AUKUS.
Mr. Deputy Secretary, how is the State Department working
with our Australian and United Kingdom partners to ensure the
rules allow AUKUS to be effective while still protecting
sensitive technology?
Mr. Campbell. So, look, thanks for the question. We had
some discussion, Congressman, a little earlier. First of all, I
think we have to do everything possible to remove as many
restrictions on any kind of military engagement with Great
Britain and Australia, so that is the goal, that is the
direction that we are going to have to move toward. It will
take some time. The natural proclivity of many elements of our
national security bureaucracy are to protect those secrets.
That is understandable, but we have got to be clear that we are
going to work with the Australians and the British. They have
taken a number of steps to give us more assurance about their
ability to protect those secrets.
I will say that I think more needs to be done in terms of
certain kinds of assurances. I will say those categories you
give, it is not, just so you understand, it is not that those
activities are prohibited. It is that the contracts themselves
have to be reviewed.
And so what Australians are worried about and the British
that long reviews take a huge, long period of time, and they
can delay. So I think the idea there was not so much to say an
outright no; but certain capabilities, very sensitive
capabilities, we would need to review as part of the process.
Overall, I think we need to move more in the direction that you
indicate to expect that we are going to provide almost
everything necessary for these countries to closely ally and
partner.
Keep at it with us. We are working with you. I do think we
have moved in the right direction. I very much appreciate the
role that Chairman McCaul has in pushing us forward on this.
Mr. Amo. And, you know, the bipartisan cooperation here
alongside the State Department is essential, and we will
continue to be supportive of moving as fast as possible.
Very briefly, as I close here, I do want to note the
concerning increase in cooperation between Russia, China, and
North Korea, and your words publicly that you believe that
China is providing Russia with material to continue their
illegal invasion of Ukraine, material of support. In June,
Vladimir Putin visited North Korea to sign a comprehensive
strategic partnership that raised concerns about North Korea
supplying Russia with munitions.
Do we have any evidence that Russia is being provided
lethal assistance in their war in Ukraine by China or North
Korea? And what sorts of actions can the administration do to
deter this cooperation?
Mr. Campbell. Look, we do see lots of indications of
capabilities. Almost every weapon system that the Russians have
utilized on the battlefield in their illegal war have component
pieces of chips or other things that have come from foreign
sources, many from China. We see signs of North Korean weapon
systems, artillery rounds, longer-range missiles that are
collected on the battlefields of Ukraine. So there is clear
evidence on both cases.
North Korea is about the most heavily sanctioned country in
the world. We have still added on a few sanctions as a result,
and I have indicated in previous questions the steps that we
have taken against Chinese firms that have been directly
involved in certain capabilities that we believe are deeply
antithetical.
Ultimately, for this to be effective, we need more
Europeans to stand up and say these steps that China are taking
on the battlefield in our homeland in Europe are unacceptable
to a relationship that is positive with Beijing. They can't
have it both ways. They can't help to prosecute this war and
expect business normal as usual with Europe.
Mr. Amo. Well, thank you. And I yield back.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you.
Mr. Moylan. The chair now recognizes myself, Jim Moylan
from Guam. Deputy Secretary, thank you for your testimony and
coming before us today, and I want to put our attention to the
Philippines. Now, President Marcos said the death of a Filipino
citizen will be very, very close to what we define as an act of
war. Do you agree with that, Deputy Secretary?
Mr. Campbell. So what I do agree with is that our security
treaty with the Philippines is strong. It applies to
circumstances that we are now engaged on in the arena around
Second Thomas Shoal and elsewhere in the South China Sea. I
think we have taken, you know, direct steps to bolster our
relationship, and the elements of the security treaty speak for
themselves.
I think the Filipinos are very confident that we are
standing with them. And, frankly, I leave to the president,
President Marcos, on determinations, but I would simply say
everything we have heard from him and his government is that he
feels a great confidence working closely with us.
Mr. Moylan. All right. Well, we have House Resolution 837,
a resolution I have led with Rep. Scott of Virginia, and it
seeks to reaffirm our mutual defense treaty with the
Philippines. And if a Filipino sailor was killed by a Chinese
Coast Guard by water cannon, which we see happening, or a
deliberate ship ramming, which we see again happening, would
that invoke our mutual defense treaty?
Mr. Campbell. Look, Congressman, you will understand that
if I am stating clearly how important our security treaty is,
that matters enormously. We are normally expected in these
circumstances to avoid discussing hypotheticals when we are not
exactly sure the context. I do want to assure you and anyone
watching that our security treaty with the Philippines is
ironclad, and we will continue to build on our strong
partnership with the Philippines. There should just be no
question about that.
Mr. Moylan. I agree with the no questions about that. I
think that is very clear. But what we want to make clear is
that there is no hesitation in invoking the mutual defense
treaty and that we take action. President Marcos is very clear,
as any death of a Filipino citizen would be very, very close to
what is defined as act of war, and that is what we are prepared
to do. But, of course, diplomatically, we want to make sure it
is done properly. I just want to ensure things to happen
quickly in support.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you. I think I register that view. I
understand the strong people-to-people ties between the United
States and the Philippines. This body reflects more than any
other the sense that we need to stand resolutely with our
partners in the Philippines, and we take that onboard, we take
it seriously. It is a matter of enormous national import.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you for that. Just quickly, changing
channels a bit, in June of this year, the government of Palau
accused Beijing of launching a cyber-attack on its network. How
can the U.S. enhance cybersecurity cooperation with Indo-
Pacific allies to defend against state-sponsored cyber-attacks,
cyber-espionage, and other digital threats?
Mr. Campbell. Thank you so much for this. I would simply
say that Palau under President Whipps has been a very strong
partner to the United States. It is essential that we stand
with them in so many different ways.
Next week, there will be a formal signing of the COFA
arrangement. We do this every 20 years or so. This is a big
deal. Palau has gotten substantial new capacities through these
arrangements. We have a major set of work undergoing with Palau
on resilience of their capacities, both internet, resisting
disinformation campaigns. Almost every area imaginable, we are
working closely with Palau who is, frankly, a tremendous
partner of the United States.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you for your answers. And that concludes
my questioning. The chair now recognizes Representative Wild.
You are now recognized. All right. The chair now recognizes
Representative Stanton of Arizona.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Our
bipartisan CHIPS Act made historic investments in the
production of American-made semiconductors, investments in my
home State of Arizona is benefiting tremendously from that
bill. The CHIPS Act also took steps to address supply chain
vulnerabilities created by decades of offshoring. It was a good
start, but there is so much more work that this Congress can
and must do to diversify our semiconductor supply chain and
protect our national security.
In this effort, the U.S. Development Finance Corporation is
an essential tool. When this committee advanced a
reauthorization of the DFC earlier this summer, we made two
very important updates, expanding the range of countries where
the DFC can invest and including a sense of Congress that the
DFC should respond to the current topics of national, economic,
and foreign policy concern, including semiconductor supply
chains and critical mineral security. While the reauthorization
legislation awaits a full vote, the DFC is already making moves
that align with these principles.
The DFC and the Taiwan International Cooperation and
Development Fund recently agreed to expand their partnership in
the Indo-Pacific, particularly on projects related to
infrastructure, information technology, energy, and more. So,
Deputy Secretary Campbell, how is the State Department working
with the DFC, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, USAID, and
other agencies to maximize U.S. development and economic
investments in the Indo-Pacific region to offer credible
alternatives to China?
Mr. Campbell. So, first of all, let me just associate
myself with everything you have said.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you.
Mr. Campbell. The DFC is our most important development
tool. It should be diversified. I have to tell you I don't
think people understand, when we go up against the Belt and
Road, we have to have something in our holster. The DFC has
done remarkable work, which it has not gotten enough credit
for. And to allow it to work more in technology is, I think,
one of the most important innovations that this committee has
suggested.
I chaired the DFC board last week. I am pleased to tell you
that the total amount of deals they signed last year is greater
than what China did through Belt and Road. So that means we are
actually in the game. We just don't make enough publicity about
it, we don't underscore it enough. What you guys are seeking to
do here is exactly the right thing. It allows us to compete
directly. We have to be able to compete in more countries and
in more arenas like technology. So bless you for doing this,
and I support it completely.
Mr. Stanton. That is great. If we want to win the long-term
competition with China, we need to make sure that the U.S.
maintains our edge in critical technologies, like
semiconductors, and it is imperative that we prevent American
innovation from being used to advance the CCP's malign and
geopolitical goals.
The Biden administration has imposed extensive controls
against China in the semiconductor and the advanced computing
spheres to protect U.S. national security. In just over 3
years, the Department of Commerce has added more than 1,200
entities to the entity list, 300 of them from China. In this
effort, coordination among allies and partners is imperative.
While Japan and the Netherlands recently adopted some
complementary export controls, most of the actions have been
unilateral on the part of the United States.
What is the administration doing to ensure that any new
export controls placed on China are not done alone but in
concern with critical partners in those sectors?
Mr. Campbell. Thanks, Congressman. So I would just say that
we have deconsultations underway with key technology partners.
I will tell you that one of the things that we have learned in
this process is that many countries will join with us in an
agenda to restrict the flow of certain capabilities, but they
have to believe that we will also support them in investments
and sharing of information.
So what we have sought to do with allies in both Europe and
the Indo-Pacific is to strike that balance. None of these
countries want every bit of innovation done in the United
States. They want to know that we can work together more
collaboratively, and I think, in that context, they are then
prepared to take the necessary steps to restrict certain
technology flows, both manufacturing and ultimate use into the
PRC.
I would say, generally speaking, like, there is lots of
stuff we could point to that have been hard. This is generally
a pretty good news story, and I will tell you it has been felt
in Beijing. We just need to continue it as we go forward and
have folks understand that, yes, military issues are important,
this technology area is the high ground, which we must keep, we
must invest, we must understand and implement not just
domestically but with allies and partners.
Mr. Stanton. I appreciate that very much. You have
addressed fentanyl previously, but we are going to talk about
it again. Last year, the U.S. and China launched the U.S.-PRC
Counternarcotics Working Group to drive ongoing coordination to
tackle and stop the production, financing, and distribution of
illicit drugs. What concrete steps has Beijing taken since
November to live up to the agreements made as part of the
working group?
Mr. Campbell. Thanks. We answered a little bit of that
earlier, Congressman. I would just say they have taken a few
modest steps. They have arrested some individuals. They have
raided some premises. They have shut some companies down. I
would simply say that I think those are modest steps. Much,
much more needs to be done. Many of these groups operate kind
of nefariously behind the scenes, hard to track even for a
country like China. They appear to be committed to it. The
reason they are so focused on it, frankly, is that it is not
just the voice of the executive branch. The American people
expressed through this body and other have gotten the attention
of China, and I think they are determined to take some steps at
least.
It is also the case that drugs are not just hitting the
United States, China's own population, other parts of the
world. And so this is an issue that the Chinese have to deal
with diplomatically. They would, I think, appreciate not having
to hear about this at every encounter, which they do now.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you. The chair now recognizes
Representative Huizenga from Michigan.
Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
Deputy Secretary Campbell, we recently passed some legislation,
which happened to be my bill. In July, the committee passed
H.R. 8892, the Missile Technology Control Revision Act, which
would give the administration the flexibility to exempt certain
MT items under AUKUS while ensuring nonproliferation
commitments made to the signatories of the MTCR. Do you support
this legislation?
Mr. Campbell. I do.
Mr. Huizenga. You do. Okay. There seems to be holdups,
though, with this, and I need you to help explain this. The new
AUKUS ITAR exemption contains a lengthy Excluded Technology
List for items that are not eligible for license-free transfer.
The ETL covers 30 percent of all defense export licenses
between the U.S., UK, and Australia, and includes items crucial
for the timely delivery of AUKUS Pillar 1 and 2 technologies.
The broad ETL defies congressional intent, in my opinion, and
will constrain future collaboration on cutting-edge defense
technologies.
If we can't trust these allies, I am not sure who we can
trust. So with these overwhelming majority of the licenses
captured by the ETL relate to the missile technology, why are
we having this holdup? What is State Department's plan to
remove those MT items from the ETL?
Mr. Campbell. So, first of all, let me just say there is
hardly a word that you said that I would disagree with.
Mr. Huizenga. I am curious on the ones that you would
because that might be where the holdup is.
Mr. Campbell. No. I would agree and I would associate
myself with almost every, with everything you said actually.
And there are very few countries that we can trust as much as
Great Britain and Australia. If we are going to give them our
most coveted technology, nuclear weapons, nuclear propulsion
capability, then we should be able to work with them in these
other arenas, as well.
Mr. Huizenga. So why the holdup?
Mr. Campbell. So, look, first of all, the direction of
travel has been more and more things are being released. The
particular areas that you mention, as I have tried to respond
here, these are not areas that are absolutely excluded. It
means that they have to be reviewed by the U.S. Government
before they are transferred.
Mr. Huizenga. Whom specifically?
Mr. Campbell. It is a group of a variety of different
agencies, including the State Department, DoD, others as well.
Mr. Huizenga. But this is outside of any CFIUS review.
Mr. Campbell. I understand that. What I am simply saying is
I do believe that we should move to allow as much sharing of
technology as possible. I made that very point clear to the
chairman.
We have more work to be done on this. It takes time. The
dominant responsibility of folks at the Pentagon and the State
Department in almost every arena here is to restrict for good
reasons of those technologies.
Mr. Huizenga. Sure.
Mr. Campbell. So it is not----
Mr. Huizenga. Let me refine my question. Where do you
believe the holdup, hesitation, whatever word you want to use
that is causing the delay, where is that located? Where is that
clog in the pipe?
Mr. Campbell. So, look, I would simply say, in some parts
of our government, there is a philosophical question. Some
areas there would be people that would argue we need to
maintain and retain national advantage on certain absolutely
key technologies----
Mr. Huizenga. But that is the unique thing about our
constitution. It is not their choice. It is a legislative
choice that Congress puts forward.
Mr. Campbell. Look, I think that the chairman made is that
he believes that our implementation or the implementation to
date of the executive branch has not been consistent with what
he wants to see more of, and I made a commitment directly to
him, a direction that I believe in, by the way, that we need to
do more here. I am going to take that back.
Mr. Huizenga. And you will make that same commitment that
you will work specifically on this?
Mr. Campbell. Absolutely. But I would also just tell you,
just so you know, Congressman, I was there at the creation of
this. I believe in it deeply. I think it was the most important
step that we could possibly take with allies and partners, and
we cannot put obstacles in its path that would curtail its
success. So I am completely with you.
Mr. Huizenga. My time is running out. I am going to try to
consolidate this, and I will give you the question and then----
Mr. Campbell. Thank you.
Mr. Huizenga [continuing]. You will know where we are
headed. My question is how does the administration plan to
coordinate with the UK and Australia to remove the items from
ETL?
Mr. Campbell. So I think that, like, what actually happens
enormously are hearings like this. We have an ongoing process
with key actors in the Pentagon and the State Department. I
believe there is growing alignment. We still have more time to
be able to move in this direction.
I will just simply tell you it may seem easy, Congressman.
For many of these folks, it is an unnatural act. So they have
been----
Mr. McCormick. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Huizenga. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. McCormick. Thank you. I now recognize Representative
Kamlager-Dove from California for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you,
Secretary Campbell, for being here today. This just happened
yesterday, so I have to ask. Yesterday's operation against the
Hezbollah pagers involved a Taiwanese product. So based on your
intel, did Taiwan have any involvement in or knowledge of this
operation?
Mr. Campbell. So, first of all, this, as you said, just
happened. I can say just a couple of things quickly. Secretary
Blinken in the Middle East this morning indicated that we had
no foreknowledge of this and were not involved in this in any
way. I have seen statements from the Taiwan manufacturer that
they had no role in this. I think there are probably more
revelations to come. I am just providing you the information
that I have today.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. I just wanted to get that on
the record. So a top priority for the Pacific Island nations,
which should be a priority to us given our relationship with
them, is adapting to the adverse effects of a climate crisis
that affects national security and also people's livelihoods.
So how is the United States supporting the Pacific Islands in
ramping up their adaptation and mitigation efforts, including
greater U.S. contributions to the Pacific Resilience Facility?
Mr. Campbell. Yes. I really thank you for this question,
and it is something that I am deeply committed to. You know,
the ultimate commitments that the Pacific Islanders want are
reductions in CO2, and I think the United States has led the
way here. A number of programs are underway, and you would
think these are mostly about hardening facilities but, in fact,
the strategies are multifaceted. It turns out that, in many
places, the actual density of mangroves has a huge potential in
helping with erosion and dealing with storm surge. We have
worked with clean water technologies as more and more of the
aquifers have become, you know, more contaminated with
salinated water. We have worked on a variety of innovative
efforts at construction of critical facilities. We have
provided new means of internet connectivity with many of these
islands, as you probably know, Congresswoman. If they are hit,
they sometimes are without internet capacity for months,
leaving them cutoff. So the multifaceted trends that we are
trying to take would yield in greater resiliencies for all of
these islands.
I do want to just say, though, I think the fact of the
matter is the increase in storm intensities, the rising
seawater levels, particularly for coral islands, coral atoll
islands, is just an enormous challenge. We just have to
recognize that, and the only way forward is to work more
constructively with allies and partners. That is exactly what
we are trying to do.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. We also have to recognize
that climate change is real. So away from the headlines, North
Korea has ramped up its nuclear provocations, including
releasing images of a uranium enrichment facility and testing
ballistic missiles twice in the past week. How does DPRK
cooperation with Russia impact North Korea's calculations
regarding its ability to escalate tensions?
Mr. Campbell. Another great question. Frankly, we worry
about that partnership between the DPRK and Russia. It may
embolden them to take more provocative steps. All I can tell
you is that the best answer to that is deeper trilateral
engagement between the United States, Japan, and South Korea.
We have undertaken that.
Also, we have undertaken steps to make clear that our
extended deterrence is strong, it is durable, and evolving to
make clear that we will not accept any kind of threat to the
ROK and the people living on the peninsula. So I think the
steps of deterrence for deployment of engagement, working with
allies and partners, that message of determination is
unmistakable in Pyongyang.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Great. Thank you. And I just want to say
I applaud the Biden administration for knowing that climate
change is real. In my last few seconds, we have talked about
development being key, we have talked about defense being key.
Diplomacy is also really important and would like to know in
the remaining seconds how we are competing against China and
the soft power arena of diplomacy and educational exchange.
Mr. Campbell. Yes. So, first of all, educational exchange
is critical. Every program at least I am involved with I want a
people-to-people element to it. We have got to connect our
peoples. The Quad fellowship, we are going to do more about
that this week and thrilled that we are being able to bring
more Pacific Islanders to universities in the United States. So
I can't agree with you more.
And then on the diplomatic front, got to show up. And by
the way, if I can just say that is not just us, that is you
guys, as well. I would love to see a delegation of this
committee go to the Pacific Islands. It will matter to them
more than you realize.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. And I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McCormick. With that, we recognize Mr. Baird from
Indiana for 5 minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Deputy
Secretary, thank you for being here. My question deals with,
you know, the PRC is such a formidable trading partner in
nearly every country in the Indo-Pacific, and I just wanted to
get your perspective on the free trade agreements and do they
have a role in foreign policy in the Indo-Pacific and why is
this administration not pursuing some of those free trade
agreements?
Mr. Campbell. So, look, Congressman, it is a great point. I
think in my opening statement I said it is going to be
important in the next iteration. We have got to find a
bipartisan way to signal that we want to engage in an open and
optimistic way commercially, technology, with not only the
Pacific but particularly the dominant nations of the Indo-
Pacific. They still are disappointed on us for not moving ahead
with TPP. We are not going to revisit that. That is behind the
way. But now, going forward, we have got to do more.
I will say many of the economic and commercial indicators
are positive. Exports are up. We are the largest investor in
Asia. I think we are supporting initiatives so that American
workers get the benefit of this engagement with the Indo-
Pacific, but I would simply say that I think finding innovative
ways to connect the United States commercially and economically
with the Indo-Pacific should be at the top of the list.
Mr. Baird. I appreciate your thoughts in that vein because
my background is agriculture, and, you know, China presents
kind of a double-edged sword in a way because we export a lot
of agricultural commodity, but, at the same time, with their
trying to take over the world leadership, it is a concern to
us. So we want to make sure that we continue to be cognizant of
that situation in our relationship and how we deal with China
and the Indo-Pacific because the Indo-Pacific also represents
opportunities for other agricultural commodities or other
commodities. And so----
Mr. Campbell. Yes, totally agree. Look, ultimately, I think
it means diversifying markets. I will note that many of the
agricultural states in the United States who had only one or
two markets in Asia are not diversifying more in India, more in
Southeast Asia more generally. I support that.
But I also think unexceptional trade between the United
States and China should continue. I think it is in the best
interest to have trade links that do not compromise our
national security. I think that is stabilizing. So I support
your farmers in your district, sir, being able to sell their
stuff to China. It just makes sense.
Mr. Baird. I appreciate that. You know, I have said many
times, and, of course, my biases are probably showing through,
but, you know, our farmers and ranchers have the ability to
produce tremendous quality products, and then we have the
logistic capability to make sure we can get them anywhere in
the world. And I think that ought to be a part of our
negotiation process.
But moving on to another area here, we have got about a
minute and 30, what strategies should the U.S. employ to
counter the influence of China's tech giants, like Huawei, and,
if you have already talked about that, but Huawei in the region
5G infrastructure and ensure telecommunication networks, and do
you support the sale and transfer of any good or service to
Huawei, ZTE, or any other PRC 5G company? And, you know, it is
my concern, too, that a lot of times you can have embedded in
some of that technology avenues to get back to China. So that
is my question.
Mr. Campbell. Look, Congressman, we are worried about that
and we talk about that a lot to our allies and partners that
there are hidden back doors in some of this technology that are
antithetical to our interests. And so, in truth, we have to
compete technologically. And, in some cases, it is really
choosing which system you are going to associate yourself with.
I do want to just underscore that China's games in the
Global South and technology in the information spaces is real
and, frankly, again, this is another area where we have to step
up our game. At the core, though, it means that dominant
technologies we must maintain a cutting edge, and I think,
through the support of this committee and others, we have done
that in 5G, in semiconductors, and in particularly AI, which is
going to be very important going forward.
Mr. Baird. So thank you. And I just have to add to your
data base Purdue University has just started a program to train
undergraduates and graduate students in the manufacture of
chips, and so that is bringing that back on shore. So I want
you to know that.
Mr. Campbell. That is great. That is good on Purdue. Thank
you.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. McCormick. With that, I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
I will start on the topic you just mentioned with a colleague
from the other side of the aisle. You talked about sea levels
and islands and stuff like that. How much has the sea level
risen in the last 50 years?
Mr. Campbell. Congressman, where are you talking about?
Like where----
Mr. McCormick. You were talking about sea levels and
islands and the threat of climate change. How much has the sea
level raised in the last--approximately.
Mr. Campbell. I understand. I am not a geographical
engineer----
Mr. McCormick. Okay. But you brought it up, so I am just
asking you questions.
Mr. Campbell. So----
Mr. McCormick. If you don't know, just say I don't know.
Mr. Campbell. Well, I don't know particularly, but I----
Mr. McCormick. Okay. That's Okay.
Mr. Campbell [continuing]. Have been to those islands, and
many of the areas that were----
Mr. McCormick. Have you ever read the book ``Unsettled'' by
Koonin?
Mr. Campbell [continuing]. Before are now being----
Mr. McCormick. Excuse me. I reclaim my time. Have you ever
read the book ``Unsettled'' by Koonin?
Mr. Campbell. What book?
Mr. McCormick. ``Unsettled.''
Mr. Campbell. I don't think I have read it.
Mr. McCormick. It is a scientific book written by a
democrat physicist who was on the climate change board for
Obama. There is not too many other books written about it, so I
suggest, when you talk about climate change, that we are all
educated on the topic. I get tired of people saying we need to
recognize it. Of course we recognize there is climate change.
The question is what is the science behind that, and I want to
address it specifically because I am tired of people using it
as a weapon to justify bad spending. I want to have scientific
explanations. I want to have a real conversation, not a
religion but a scientific conversation.
Has the carbon dioxide level ever been higher in Earth than
it is right now? Has the carbon dioxide level ever been higher
in the Earth's atmosphere than it is now?
Mr. Campbell. I am sure there are periods----
Mr. McCormick. It has. Okay. Has the sea level ever been
higher than it is right now?
Mr. Campbell. Yes.
Mr. McCormick. Of it has. Way higher. Have we had climate
change in the past? Of course we have. Is it on a 100,000-or a
40,000-year cycle? Of course it is. Rapid heating with slow
cooling. Are we accelerating the process? Probably.
Do you know much, if we cut all of our carbon emissions in
America from all of our vehicles, all of our ships, all of our
planes, all of our trains tomorrow, how much would it change
the sea levels in the next 50 years, 100 years? Do you have any
idea. Of course you don't. It is unsettled because it would
make up the difference of 0.000167 percent of the atmosphere.
It is negligible. Let's have a real scientific conversation to
begin with. That's what I just want to have. I just want to
have a scientific conversation instead of this idea that we,
the United States, are the evil empire that is polluting this
Earth and making the climate change when there is other planets
in the solar system that are having exactly the same heating,
and they don't have humans.
Let's have a scientific conversation. That's a Senate
paper, by the way, based on a scientific science, and it is not
me making up stuff. It is bipartisan. Let's have a scientific
conversation, please.
With that said, Tigran Gambaryan, are you familiar with
him? The hostage in Nigeria. I am going to call him a hostage
because----
Mr. Campbell. Yes, yes.
Mr. McCormick [continuing]. He was arrested after being
lured there based on basically representing an organization,
Binance. He is a guy who used to work for the IRS, has
prosecuted a case. A super honest guy, a constituent of mine.
He is being treated totally unfairly. He hasn't been given the
rights that they guarantee him by their own constitution, by
their own laws. He has problems getting access to a lawyer,
problems getting access to his health care.
My question is this: based on the establishment of the
Levinson Act, he meets at least 7 of 11 points to determine
wrongful detainment. Why is the State Department leadership not
elevating Tigran's case to the Office of the Special Presidency
Envoy for Hostage Affairs? Now, I have asked this several times
to several people. Nobody can give me an answer when he meets
the criteria.
Mr. Campbell. So let me say it is a subject of real
concern. I, personally, on my trip to Nigeria, raised it with
the leadership, and we very much want to get it resolved. And I
think it is a subject of real concern, so I agree with you.
As you know, their government has concerns about Binance.
So we do we. But----
Mr. McCormick. Why isn't this getting elevated? He meets
the criteria?
Mr. Campbell. Well, it has been elevated in attention in
the U.S. Government, and I think we have tried to address it
and we are going to continue until we get a resolution.
Mr. McCormick. Everybody gives me the same answer. In other
words, they don't know because he meets the criteria but he has
not been elevated to the Office of the Special Presidency Envoy
for Hostage Affairs, which would help him. I want to help him,
you want to help him. Everybody says they are concerned, but
nobody wants to do what they can do to help him, which is that
next step. I think we should be pressing for it. That is what I
am doing right now with you in front of everybody, just so we
know.
Last point, and I only have a few seconds to do this, but,
basically, Secretary Blinken and yourself reported that China's
massive trade in dual-use technologies has made machine tools
and semiconductors that reconstitutes Russia's defense
capabilities. Given this, many of these technologies are
subject to U.S. export laws if destined for Russia or Belarus.
Why has the administration not imposed significant
consequences, like sanctions on Chinese banks and firms that
are doing exactly that?
And by the way, if the president lacks insufficient
authority, I would urge you to take a look at my bill, H.R.
8361, the Economic Espionage Prevention Act, which the House
passed last week and work with me to get it signed into law, so
he has the teeth to take care of this very important strategic
issue.
Mr. Campbell. Look, I share your concerns about what we are
seeing between China and Russia. I talked extensively,
Congressman, earlier about the worries about their support for
the defense industrial base. We have targeted a large number of
their firms. We have put many of their financial institutions
on watch.
The reason I was in Europe last week, for this to be
effective, it needs to be multifaceted. We have got to have
Europeans with us. I think we are beginning to make headway,
but I must say I take back what you have just mentioned. I
think the indication from this committee is an expectation that
we do more.
Mr. McCormick. And it is not about concern, it is about
action. Let's do it. Let's stop being concerned and let's start
getting things done. That is what we are here for. Thank you. I
yield and I recognize my relief, Mr. Issa from California.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recognize myself. The
good news is I am the last. The other news is I have got a new
topic, one that apparently somehow wasn't covered. We
appreciate your being here, by the way, and we appreciate the
fact that there is sufficient interest both in the White House
and now at the State Department on China's actions. Now, you
have been given some tough questions. This one is a little more
public, and I want to make sure that it is in for the record.
Last week, the Washington Post released an article
identifying by name six PRC diplomats who literally paid for,
assisted, and provided for dissidents to be violently
assaulted. The same morning the Justice Department undersealed
charges against Linda Sun, which implicated China's consul
general in New York.
I understand that you don't have the ability to arrest
diplomats, but we have the absolute authority and
responsibility to expel diplomats. To your knowledge, is the
consul general still in the United States?
Mr. Campbell. So my understanding is the consul general was
in the process of transitioning out of the United States, and I
believe that he has left as of last week. But I don't have
final----
Mr. Issa. Social media yesterday says that is not true.
Mr. Campbell. So, again, he has been----
Mr. Issa. Here is my question, and it is a question that
goes straight to Foggy Bottom: did you, meaning the State
Department, make him persona non grata and order him out, or
are you waiting for him to happen to leave on his own?
Mr. Campbell. We have not taken those steps yet,
Congressman, no.
Mr. Issa. So when you have American citizens being beaten,
when the Washington Post has to bring out those names, when the
Department of Justice, after a prolonged period of time,
finally unseals an indictment, all of that is long after you at
the State Department knew that he was the coordinator of it;
and, yet, he is still in the country as of yesterday. Do you
see why that might frustrate those of us who want to take
seriously your ability to take unilateral steps appropriate
under international law and appropriate under international
tradition?
Mr. Campbell. I will say I, too, was concerned by some of
the reporting in the Washington Post about activities that were
undertaken against peaceful protesters in San Francisco and
elsewhere. My understanding----
Mr. Issa. But you were not surprised. The State Department
and the Department of Justice knew about it before the
Washington Post got it leaked.
Mr. Campbell. No. I would say, actually, elements of that
story I don't think were widely known, Congressman. And I think
it is fair to say that there are several of these elements that
have come to light that are under review now.
Mr. Issa. During the last days of the previous
administration, Iran was exporting about 160 to 180,000 barrels
a day. They are now approaching two million barrels a day.
Russia has been sanctioned but, similarly, has increased their
exports back to a full amount of their production. In other
words, nothing is being held back.
These are, again, areas in which China, along with India,
are purchasers. And the question I have for you is what are you
doing and what should we help you do to affect those sanctions?
Because, today, those sanctions are moot. The idea that there
are sanctions on China, on Russia, or on Iran, including the
ones that lead to direct support against the people of Ukraine
and perhaps would have a disastrous effect on Taiwan's future,
they are not in place. Effectively, during the last three and a
half years, we have undone any effective sanctions because the
most effective sanction is not swift financial transfers, it is
the oil that we sought to stop.
Mr. Campbell. Look, Congressman, I will say that there have
been very substantial sanctions, further sanctions, taken
against Iran. I think we both know that. I take very seriously
your point----
Mr. Issa. But is Iran a nation? Is Russia a nation? Or like
the late John McCain said, they are gas stations impersonating
nations. John had a way. These are countries that are
completely dependent on the export of minerals, particularly
oil and natural gas. That is the only sanction that actually
works against the ability for Russia or Iran to buy what they
need.
Mr. Campbell. Yes. Look, I think I understand this clearly.
It has been discussed extensively. I promise I will take this
back more directly. I will say I don't think there are any
questions that we view Iran is acting in almost every arena in
ways that are antithetical to our interest, and we context them
in many ways in many vehicles.
Energy policy, I think you probably know there are lots of
complexities associated with that, global markets, worries
about what impacts it has on the United States. However, I do
actually believe that the points, Congressman, that you raise
are legitimate and require further exploration, yes.
Mr. Issa. Well, in closing, although it is kind of nice to
be last--they are going to be very patient if you will be--if
the goal is to get the CCP to be a responsible stakeholder, the
questions I brought up for which the answers seem to be so far
lacking, aren't we failing to hold the CCP accountable if we
allow them to get the oil and natural gas they want and need?
As a matter of fact, over 50 million barrels of excess oil went
into those strategic petroleum reserves in the last two
quarters, so they were able to buy what they needed, plus more
than they needed, and they finally cut back now that they have
filled those reserves. And we have seen the cabal or the
coalition of Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China effectively
thwart our NATO allies' ability to maintain and to end the
Ukraine conflict.
So I am going to close by saying, if we cannot reverse
those trends, is it fair to say that we have not moved forward
to actually make the CCP have any reason to be a responsible
actor?
Mr. Campbell. So, look, I don't want to close on a negative
note, Congressman. I have really appreciated that. I would
simply say----
Mr. Issa. Well, you can close on a positive note that you
have been an amazingly candid and honest testimony, and I
appreciate that.
Mr. Campbell. I would say my own counsel would be that I
think what we are actually seeking to do is to build capacity
and partnership to sustain the operating system among a number
of states that are like-minded. I do not believe we have been
very successful in any endeavor in trying to ultimately shape
the direction, the thinking, the national identity of a country
as complex as China.
So I think we have to be careful in what we think we are
doing. I am primarily focused now on working on this combined
group of countries that believe that what we have built can and
should be sustained, so my primary focus is really working on
perfecting this grouping of nations and adding to it than
believing that you are going to have an ability to shape the
governance and the path of a country that has its own history,
its own, you know, areas of focus.
And so I think the points that you make, however, about the
energy flows are important. I am going to take those back. I
hear you very clearly. I have been in other sessions where this
has been raised. I do want to say I don't think there are any
illusions about what we are seeing, the activities of Russia
and China together, of North Korea, of Iran, occasionally
Pakistan. This growing group of countries taking steps that are
antithetical to our interests we have to be deeply vigilant
toward and adopt strategies to address. I am completely for
that. I think that is the right direction.
I do believe that there is, largely, a bipartisan
commitment to doing that and that there are more steps that
unite than divide us.
Mr. Issa. On that, you are absolutely correct that it is
bipartisan and bicameral. I want to make the record complete
with one last thing that is a little off-subject, but it is
important, I think, very important to the work you do. Over
this last year, China-backed companies have defaulted on more
than a trillion dollars' worth of real estate-related loans.
And when I say defaulted, they are, in most cases, in U.S.
Chapter 11. It has been not terribly well reported, although it
is reported. I watch CNBC every morning, and they, in passing,
mention it.
The other day, they even mentioned that what used to be
called a Hong Kong Shanghai Bank or HSBC now found themselves
with a guarantee from the Chinese government being reneged on.
So they now are in a situation where they are on the hook and
they are having to make write-downs.
Would you say, and I think we have got one more person to
be recognized now, would you say that, in fact, the fragileness
of the Chinese economy has not yet been fully understood by
people here on the dais or people around the world and that
that could be one of your leverages to changing the CCP's
direction?
Mr. Campbell. Congressman, it is a great point, and you are
right to highlight the challenges that they have had in real
eState and property more generally in the larger cities. They
are facing issues with respect to aging population. Their
financial system is showing some areas of strain.
I would simply say my own counsel is that China is a very
big country. It is difficult to say whether it is surging ahead
or showing signs of weakness or both. I am kind of in the both
camp. I think we are at risk of veering between one of two
extremes: either they are ten-feet tall or they are collapsing
before our eyes.
I think the reality is that China is going to be
formidable. It has the capacity to continue on. I think U.S.
national strategy has to take that fully into account, neither
exaggerating or diminishing the challenges that they present.
Mr. Issa. Secretary, you have been very kind, and I would
agree with you on that point that large trees, when they fall,
very large trees take down a lot of other trees with them, and
we have to be aware of that with the Chinese economy.
And, with that, I recognize Congresswoman Titus for 5
minutes.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Congressman.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was here earlier and
had to run to T&I, but I appreciate you staying one more
minute. We have heard a lot about diplomacy, and we can talk
about it from now until Christmas, but the point is, if you
don't have the funding, you can't do it. And if you look at the
House Republicans' recent funding bill that was pretty extreme
for a State foreign operations and related programs, it cut
those budgets 12 percent beyond last year, 2024, levels.
So I would ask you have these budget cuts constrained the
State Department's ability to engage in Great Power
Competition? You are the expert on this. And what will be the
impact of these cuts on our ability to compete for influence
with China in the Indo-Pacific, which is what we have been
talking about we need to do?
Mr. Campbell. So, look, I appreciate coming up. I actually
do think there is a lot of bipartisanship. I feel like folks
are good to us, then we get back and our budgets are just
destroyed. I think that there is a view somehow that the only
thing that matters are our military budgets. Just nothing could
be more wrong. We need more help in technology. We need more
focus on USAID, we need more focus on the State Department.
Look, I believe that is money well spent. I am not in the
business of procuring. I do think it puts us as a substantial
advantage. I will tell you, we were talking about the Pacific,
I landed in one of these island nations. We are driving along.
Our embassy is a ramshackle place. The Chinese, big tower, lots
of stuff that they have built. I understand that sometimes we
have got to get by with our knowhow and our capability, but I
do think we need to be able to do more as a nation
diplomatically. And I hope that one of the things coming out of
this upcoming election is a commitment to do so.
Ms. Titus. And it is not just in the Indo-Pacific. We have
seen how many embassies that do not have Ambassadors approved
in Africa, where you also see China having a great deal of
influence.
And, you know, we have announced some new embassies in some
of the Pacific Islands. I think Tonga is one. How are we going
to stand these embassies up and have them have any credibility
if we don't have the funding to give them the resources that
they need?
Mr. Campbell. I am with you on this. The effort to try to
stand up stuff in the Pacific has the feel of like scouting
around the house for loose change. I would like to have more,
but I understand that is a challenge, that it involves a lot of
challenging issues. I do worry about, like, our Ambassadors
having trouble.
I think what has been most concerning to me, I can
understand why Congress might come at, like, a political
person. We have to be prepared for this. We have to be able to
step into the arena. The vast majority of people that are being
held up now are career professionals. I don't think they really
understand it. That is not what they signed up for. And the
backlog, we are up in the many dozens of people waiting years.
It is just not the right way to do business. It makes us look
weak, and it is harder to make the case that these are areas
where there is strong bipartisan support.
So I would love it if we could get through that stuff.
There is always people who tell you reasons why. But when you
travel and when you are out in the country and you are engaging
your partners and they ask you questions about stuff like that,
it is hard to answer.
Ms. Titus. Absolutely. And you can't go into battle with
one hand tied behind your back.
Mr. Campbell. I have done it many times.
Ms. Titus. If you want to compete, you got to have the
resources to compete. And, certainly, that is what we need to
be doing, as we have heard from everybody with China. Well,
thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you.
Mr. Issa. I thank the gentlelady. And as someone who sat
for 3 years waiting to be confirmed in the Senate, I am well
aware of what that body sometimes does to perfectly good
nominations.
Mr. Campbell. Yes.
Mr. Issa. Of course, Bob Mendes is gone now, so it could be
different. And with that, Mr. Secretary, I really appreciate
your candor and your honesty and your being as forthcoming as
any witness we have. I couldn't answer some of those questions
on the environmental situation either, but I do recognize that
these are always issues that come up globally and I appreciate
your answering them as best you could.
Members will have additional questions, and I would ask
would you be able to, if you receive them within 5 days, to
respond to them in writing?
Mr. Campbell. Absolutely. I commit to do so.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. I appreciate that a great deal.
Pursuant to House rules then, members will have 5 days to
submit those questions and their statements and any other
extraneous material subject to the length limitation.
And with that, you are relieved, sir.
[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]