[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EMERGING GLOBAL THREATS: PUTTING
AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY FIRST
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY
AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 25, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-6
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Available on: govinfo.gov
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
58-997 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia,
Mike Turner, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Gary Palmer, Alabama Ro Khanna, California
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Pete Sessions, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Andy Biggs, Arizona Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Robert Garcia, California
Pat Fallon, Texas Maxwell Frost, Florida
Byron Donalds, Florida Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Greg Casar, Texas
William Timmons, South Carolina Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Emily Randall, Washington
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Wesley Bell, Missouri
Nick Langworthy, New York Lateefah Simon, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Dave Min, California
Eli Crane, Arizona Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Brian Jack, Georgia Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
John McGuire, Virginia
Brandon Gill, Texas
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
James Rust, Deputy Staff Director
Mitch Benzine, General Counsel
Kaity Wolfe, Deputy Director for Oversight
Grayson Westmoreland, Senior Professional Staff Member
Ashlii Dyer, Counsel
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Jamie Smith, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Military and Foreign Affairs
William Timmons, South Carolina, Chairman
Michael Turner, Ohio Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia,
Michael Cloud, Texas Ranking Member
Andy Biggs, Arizona Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts
Byron Donalds, Florida Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Robert Garcia, California
Eli Crane, Arizona Greg Casar, Texas
John McGuire, Virginia Vacancy
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 25, 2025................................ 1
Witnesses
----------
Mr. Brent Sadler, Senior Research Fellow, Naval Warfare and
Advanced Technology, The Heritage Foundation
Oral Statement................................................... 5
Dr. Meaghan Mobbs, Director, Center for American Safety and
Security, Independent Women's Forum
Oral Statement................................................... 7
Dr. Jacob Olidort, Senior Policy Advisor, Center for American
Security, America First Policy Institute
Oral Statement................................................... 9
Dr. Charles Kupchan (Minority Witness), Senior Fellow, Council on
Foreign Relations
Oral Statement................................................... 11
Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S.
House of Representatives Document Repository at:
docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
* Article, NextGov, ``Chinese telecom espionage began with
`much broader' aims''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Article, NBC, ``U.S. officials urge Americans to use
encrypted apps amidst cyber attack''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Letter from Wyden and Biggs to DNI, re: UK Backdoors;
submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Article, Washington Post, ``U.S. votes against U.N.
resolution condemning Russia''; submitted by Rep. Subramanyam.
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
EMERGING GLOBAL THREATS: PUTTING
AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY FIRST
----------
Tuesday, February 25, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Subcommittee on Military and Foreign Affairs
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William Timmons
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Timmons, Cloud, Biggs, Crane,
McGuire, Subramanyam, Lynch, and Mfume.
Mr. Timmons. Good morning. This hearing of the Subcommittee
on Military and Foreign Affairs will come to order. I want to
welcome everyone here today.
Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any
time.
I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
Good morning and welcome to the first hearing of the
Subcommittee on Military and Foreign Affairs. I look forward to
working with Ranking Member Subramanyam and all the Members of
the Subcommittee throughout this Congress.
Today, we are here to get a better understanding of the
challenges facing our national security and the urgent need to
restore America's strength on the world stage.
Over the past 4 years, we have seen a series of policy
failures that weakened our global standing, undermined national
security, and emboldened our adversaries.
While the previous Administration spoke of prioritizing
Americans' safety and leadership, its actions certainly told a
different story--one of strategic drift, reactive policymaking,
and diminished deterrence.
We see this in the Indo-Pacific where U.S. allies question
our resolve and adversaries probe our vulnerabilities.
The previous Administration's failure to respond decisively
to challenges, whether in the South China Sea, the Taiwan
Strait, or securing critical supply chains, has dissolved
confidence in America's leadership.
Similar, in Europe, President Biden's relentless demand
that Ukraine become a part of NATO only exacerbated Russia's
aggression.
The Biden Administration failed to communicate a clear end
game after Russia further invaded Ukraine, allowing the war to
drag on at great cost to global stability and the American
taxpayer.
In nearly 3 years, the U.S. allocated $124.9 billion in
security assistance to Ukraine. To put this in perspective, the
U.S. spent nearly $89 billion in security assistance in
Afghanistan over 20 years.
I cannot help but be concerned about the speed at which
funds are being allocated and whether they are being used
effectively.
Even though we support Ukraine against invasion by Russian
forces, it is critical that we ensure accountability and
strategic oversight of our financial support to reach
objectives that benefit the U.S. national interest.
Unconventional threats in the digital domain continue to
reveal our vulnerabilities. Nation-states and criminal
organizations engage in cyber espionage and attacks against
critical infrastructure.
The GAO has consistently named cybersecurity as a threat
year after year on its High-Risk List. Despite decades of
warnings, the failure to prioritize this vulnerability
continues to jeopardize our national security.
The lack of urgency with which the prior Administration
approached these vulnerabilities put American businesses and
citizens at risk. We must act to defend our cyber frontiers,
invest in resilient infrastructure, and strengthen public-
private cooperation to remain a global leader.
Finally, while the Biden Administration was preoccupied
with other priorities, the global terrorist threat grew. The
botched withdrawal from Afghanistan was more than just a
failure to execute. It signaled to the world that the United
States was willing to abandon allies and leave security vacuums
that enemies could exploit.
Iran-backed terrorist organizations, such as Hamas,
Hezbollah, and the Houthis, have escalated their attacks with
alarming frequency. The October 7, 2023, terrorist attack on
Israel was a direct consequence of failing to maintain strong
deterrence in the Middle East. The ongoing hostage crisis, in
which several Americans remain captive, underscores the price
of the Biden Administration's inaction.
The Trump Administration has already demonstrated decisive
action in securing the release of American hostages, leveraging
strong diplomatic pressure and strategic negotiations.
In contrast, the Biden Administration's approach was slow
and reactive, leaving U.S. citizens in Gaza and elsewhere in
prolonged danger, with little tangible progress.
At home, we cannot ignore the security risks posed by an
unsecured southern border. Since 2021, nearly 400 known or
suspected terrorists have been apprehended crossing into the
country illegally--and those are only the ones who we caught.
Luckily, President Trump has made a priority to restore
border security. After rapid action on day one, we are already
seeing results. In just the first 20 days of the Trump
Administration, illegal border crossings decreased by over 90
percent, according to the U.S. Border Patrol.
President Trump's strong leadership--reinstating the
``Remain in Mexico'' policy, canceling unlawful parole
programs, resuming border wall construction, and deploying
10,000 U.S. troops to enhance border security--have all helped
to reduce the threat at the border.
President Trump is undoing the crippling policies of the
Biden Administration and returning the globe to peace through
American strength.
Congress must support President Trump's efforts to restore
deterrence, modernize defenses, and reaffirm our commitment to
an America First national security posture.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.
I now recognize Ranking Member Subramanyam for the purpose
of making an opening statement.
Mr. Subramanyam. Thank you, Chairman Timmons, and thank you
for holding this hearing. I look forward to working together on
the Subcommittee and doing everything we can to ensure the
safety and security of all Americans.
I also want to make sure that this Committee will support
our military and foreign affairs personnel here and around the
globe, and from our conversations it sounds like that will be a
priority for this Subcommittee. So, I am grateful for that.
They and their families make so many sacrifices for our
country and we thank them for their service.
I want to thank today's witnesses for appearing before the
Subcommittee to share their expertise as well.
Protecting the American people against emerging global
threats, ensuring America's national security, these are
bipartisan issues.
We can agree that there are global threats to the safety
and security of the United States and its allies.
We can agree that we need a foreign policy that strengthens
America's standing in the world, combats our adversaries, and
counters extremism.
And we agree that we need to be prepared for those threats,
and preparation means having the tools, having the technology,
and most importantly, having the very best and most qualified
personnel to keep us safe and represent us on the world stage.
But what I, and I think many others across the political
spectrum, really are concerned about is this: Does this
Administration know who our adversaries really are or who our
allies really are?
Two, does it understand what it takes and all the things we
need to do to protect us from emerging threats and strengthen
our standing in the world?
And three, does it know who it takes to be prepared for
these threats, the personnel, the seasoned diplomats, the
military experts, the technology experts.
I have some doubts, honestly, even these first few weeks of
the Administration, and so do many others.
Let us start with really defining who our allies and
adversaries really are, because I think there is some
confusion. I cannot believe we have to do this, but here we go.
Russia is not our friend. Vladimir Putin is not a
trustworthy partner. They do not want integration and
cooperation with us. They want an independent sphere and
influence that destabilizes Europe.
China is not our friend. The CCP is also not a trusted
partner, not to mention their abhorrent record on human rights.
Europe is not our enemy. We have similar goals, shared
values, and most importantly, many decades of mutual trust and
cooperation with the goal of global peace and stability.
Mexico is not our enemy. They are not only a trusted ally,
but their cooperation is integral when it comes to border
security and fighting cartels.
Canada is not our enemy, at least not outside the hockey
rink. They are a trusted ally. So, why are we threatening to
annex them right now?
So, let us ask the question of what it takes to be prepared
for emerging global threats and how the U.S. can be a reliable
partner in the world.
The answer is not erratic and unpredictable foreign policy.
The answer is not making and breaking promises to our allies.
The answer is not betraying our allies, signaling to them that
we are an unreliable partner.
If our allies believe that they cannot rely on us, they
will stop sharing critical intelligence. That is a threat to
our country. Intelligence sharing with our allies is a critical
part of protecting America's national security.
And how do we expect to strengthen our ties and build trust
if we are actively declaring trade wars on our allies or if we
are supporting fringe extremist groups in their elections or if
we are baselessly calling our democratically elected allies
dictators?
And finally, is this Administration ensuring that we have
the personnel, the institutional knowledge, and the expertise
to quickly and effectively respond to emerging threats? What is
happening right now is a brain drain in the Federal Government.
The shuttering of agencies and the disdain for our civil
servants is a huge threat to our national security and actively
goes against the goal of preparing the country for emerging
threats.
How do we respond to emerging global threats when our
President does not even seem to understand who our threats are
or how we stop them? Instead of protecting our national
security, he is mimicking the propaganda of our authoritarian
adversaries in some cases, sending mixed signals to the world
of what we stand for, and firing the best people who are
positioning us to keep us safe.
So, I hope that Members of this Committee share my desire
to conduct true oversight to further our shared goals of
keeping our country safe and prosperous, because this
Administration's foreign policy, even to date, is essentially a
surrendering to our emerging threats, not addressing them head
on. It is making us weaker, less prepared, and it threatens our
future and makes Americans less safe.
So, I yield back.
Mr. Timmons. I am pleased to welcome a distinguished panel
of witnesses who bring both experience and expertise that will
be valuable to today's discussion.
I would first like to welcome Brent Sadler, who is a
retired captain of the U.S. Navy and led many initiatives in
the Indo-Pacific during his tenure. Mr. Sadler is currently
serving as a Senior Research Fellow of Naval Warfare and
Advanced Technology at the Heritage Foundation.
Next, we have Meaghan Mobbs, who is a former Army officer,
paratrooper, and combat veteran with an extensive background on
defense, national security, and public safety, and currently
serves as Director of the Center for American Safety and
Security at the Independent Women's Forum.
Next, we have Jacob Olidort, who is a preeminent scholar on
issues related to the Middle East and is currently the Director
of the Center for American Security at the America First Policy
Institute.
Last, we have Charles Kupchan, who is a Senior Fellow at
the Council on Foreign Relations and Professor of International
Affairs in the Walsh School of Foreign Service and Department
of Government at Georgetown University.
I thank each of the witnesses for being here today and I
look forward to your testimony.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please
stand and raise their right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Timmons. Thank you.
Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
You may take your seat.
We appreciate you being here today and look forward to your
testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your
written statement, and it will appear in full in the hearing
record. Please limit your oral statements to 5 minutes.
As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in
front of you so that it is on, and the Members can hear you.
When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn
green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the
red light comes on, your 5 minutes has expired and we would ask
for you to please wrap it up.
I now recognize Mr. Sadler for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF BRENT SADLER
SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW
THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Mr. Sadler. Good morning, Chairman Timmons and Ranking
Member Subramanyam, and thank you for the opportunity to share
my insights with the distinguished Members of this Committee
and the American public.
It has been nearly 4 years since Admiral Philip Davidson,
the then-Commander of the Indo-Pacific Command, warned that
China was preparing for a war over the fate of Taiwan by 2027.
In the time since, American statecraft has not risen to the
times as recent world events make clear.
Russia has invaded Ukraine and waged the largest war of
aggression in Europe since World War II--an avoidable war.
But missed opportunities to posture military forces,
confusing diplomatic messages, like the President's ``minor
incursion'' remark in late January '22, together with the
persistent reluctance to arm Ukraine with the weapons and with
authorities to use them as needed, signaled a green light for
invasion and a predictable years-long war of attrition.
With Western allies providing munitions and weapons to
Ukraine in a prolific and unsustainable rate, Iran, through its
proxies, attacked.
On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a barbaric assault on
erstwhile ally Israel, which grew to include proxies in Iraq,
Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen.
The attacks in the Red Sea against our warships have
further depleted American munitions critical in a war against
China--120 SM-2, 80 SM-6, 20 Standard Missile-3, and Advanced
Sea Sparrows--that will take many months to replenish.
This followed the former Administration's sanctions relief
releasing more than $16 billion to Iran and nonresponse to Iran
proxy attacks, 83 of which against U.S. forces occurred between
January 2021 and March 2023, only four of which of those
occasions were responded to.
This made clear to the mullahs in Tehran the time to attack
was then.
China has also been very active, testing a fractional
orbital bombardment system that greatly complicates our
strategic attack detection and defenses, quadrupled its ICBM
forces from 100 to 400 missiles, while rapidly expanding its
modern navy to over 370 warships, far in excess of our 295
warships this morning.
This has fueled a confidence and increased aggressiveness
by its military. Violent and dangerous confrontations like that
at Second Thomas Shoal last summer that saw several Filipino
sailors injured, one of which losing a thumb, are,
unfortunately, becoming the norm.
In each of these cases, it is important to note that our
allies play a role. America First does not mean America alone.
And a key lesson of the Ukraine war, many of our Asian allies
have noted, is that an ally unable to defend itself or delay
adequately an aggressor is a liability to our collective
defense and very likely to suffer defeat.
America must heed this lesson as well and tend to its
defenses, better to include securing our economy, while our
allies work with us to bolster our common defense that has been
neglected for too long.
Case in point, Taiwan. Over $20 billion in arm sales
critical to deterring a Chinese invasion has languished for far
too long. This backlog must be cleared.
The reason for this is diversion of munitions like Stingers
and Javelins to the war in Ukraine, of course, but also a
lackluster and inadequate defense industry here at home.
This was made unavoidably evident as our domestic artillery
and munition production, only 14,000 rounds a month at the
beginning of that war, could not keep up with the rate of
expenditure on the battlefield. Ukraine was needing to use and
expend 20,000 rounds a day.
Taiwan is stepping up, too, with increased defense
spending, over 2 percent of GDP they have spent since 2022. And
the island's new President, elected last year, is moving
forward to reach a 3 percent of GDP goal.
Finally, if we cannot secure our own supply chains and
sustain a wartime economy, we are vulnerable to coercion by a
China that effectively controls the terms of trade via its
network of ports and maritime dominance.
To be a good ally, the U.S. must strengthen its defenses
and harden its economy by restoring a vibrant competitive
maritime industry. The lessons of the last 4 years make clear:
Sustained peace is only possible with a strengthening of our
defenses.
Thank you.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you.
I now recognize Dr. Mobbs for her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MEAGHAN MOBBS
DIRECTOR
CENTER FOR AMERICAN SAFETY AND SECURITY
INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM
Dr. Mobbs. Chairman Timmons, Ranking Member Subraman-
yam, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on emerging global threats. For
me, this means having a timely discussion on the future of U.S.
foreign aid and the indispensable role of soft power in
securing American interests.
The world is rapidly changing and authoritarian regimes are
waging a relentless campaign to expand their influence,
undermine Western institutions, and reshape the global order.
They understand that power is not only measured in tanks,
ships, and missiles, but also in influence and perception.
If we are to prevail in this competition, the United States
must effectively deploy both hard power and soft power.
Hard power, our military capabilities, requires political
will and material strength.
But soft power, the power of our ideals, our culture, and
our global partnerships, requires equal critical will and a
disciplined strategic approach to the exportation of American
values.
Yet, the American people have lost faith in soft power or
foreign aid by another name. And who can blame them? For
decades they were told their hard-earned tax dollars are being
used to advance U.S. interests, build alliances, and project
American leadership abroad.
Instead, the last few weeks have demonstrated that millions
vanished into a bloated bureaucracy, enriching contractors and
NGOs with deep pockets and deeper ties to Washington, while the
world grew more dangerous.
The American people do not forget when their generosity is
exploited, their security is put at risk, and their trust is
betrayed. This is what the managed decline of American soft
power looks like.
Let us be clear, USAID became a racket. The real money was
not in results, but in relationships. Accountability was an
afterthought; success was measured by dollars obligated and not
outcomes achieved.
Worse, USAID drifted from its original mission. It became a
platform for social experiments disconnected from strategic
interests and the needs of the local populations it purported
to serve.
For example, in regions vulnerable to Russian
disinformation, USAID directed resources toward advancing
controversial social agendas in societies where such efforts
were culturally alienating and counterproductive. This not only
undermined our credibility, but provided Russia with powerful
propaganda tools against us.
In the Middle East, as Iran extended its reach, USAID
poured money into projects that have ties to terrorist groups
and espouse anti-Israeli commentary.
Human rights matter. Freedom of expression matters. Freedom
of religion matters. But what we got instead was arrogance,
waste, and failure. And the American people saw that. They saw
their money squandered while their own communities crumbled.
Similarly, the United Nations now stands exposed as a relic
of a bygone era. Far from effective at multilateral
cooperation, the U.N. has become a stage upon which
authoritarian regimes flaunt their power and democratic nations
flounder in procedural paralysis.
The time has come for the United States to fundamentally
reassess its support and potentially defund the U.N.
altogether.
Defenders of the U.N. argue that its existence, however
flawed, is better than nothing. This is a dangerous delusion. A
system that legitimizes aggression and rewards hypocrisy breeds
more conflict, not less.
Diplomacy devoid of enforcement is an invitation to
lawlessness, and we see the consequences of that today: war in
Europe, genocide threats in the Middle East, and an
increasingly aggressive China in the Pacific.
The United States must lead in forging a new path. Clinging
to a dysfunctional institution out of fear of the unknown is
not leadership. It is surrender.
Multilateralism is not inherently virtuous, especially when
it shackles America to an institution that emboldens its
enemies.
This is why the American people now view foreign aid as a
dirty word, not because we are isolationists, not because they
lack compassion, but because they know a scam when they see
one.
But here is the danger. Their anger, though justified, is
leading us toward retreat, and retreat is exactly what China
and Russia want.
Soft power is not charity. It is a weapon, one that when
wielded correctly can shape the battlefield before a single
shot is fired. Beijing understands this. Moscow understands
this. The question is, do we understand this?
China's Belt and Road Initiative is not simply about
building roads and ports. It is about entrenching influence,
creating dependencies, and expanding Beijing's geopolitical
reach.
Russia's disinformation and destabilization campaigns are
not just about spreading lies. They are about weakening Western
alliances and exploiting societal fractures.
Soft power, when properly executed, is a force multiplier.
When we build critical infrastructure in a developing country,
we deny China. When we support independent media in Eastern
Europe, we blunt Russia.
These outcomes are not nice to have. They are core national
security imperatives. We must rebuild the credibility of
American soft power not as a vanity project for Washington
elites but as a weapon in defense of our Nation and the free
world. But it must be reformed, refocused, and reinvigorated.
Peace through strength requires both the resolve to defend
freedom and the wisdom to inspire it.
Thank you.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you.
I now recognize Dr. Olidort for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF JACOB OLIDORT
DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR AMERICAN SECURITY
AMERICA FIRST POLICY INSTITUTE
Dr. Olidort. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, esteemed
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today.
Last week we learned about an Israeli mother, Shiri Bibas,
and her two boys, Ariel and Kfir, who today would be age 5 and
2. They were murdered in cold blood by Hamas monsters. An
autopsy of the bodies of the boys, the youngest of whom at the
time was just shy of 10 months old, revealed indications of
torture with bare hands.
In a further twist of the knife, when the caskets were
returned and the expectation, reasonable one, that under these
circumstances, perhaps, these unthinkable circumstances, a
mother could be together with her children, well, Shiri's body
was not there.
This is the true face and expression of what Hamas and its
acolytes around the world truly seek. It is a wake-up call to
us about the true face of evil and our responsibility to never,
ever allow it to succeed.
The Middle East is the part of the world that I know best,
and it is there that I will focus my remarks.
Today our close partners in the region, Israel and the Arab
states, are eagerly looking to the United States to lead. I
believe that what will happen in this region will shape world
events for years to come with implications for how we deal with
the People's Republic of China and with Russia.
President Trump and his team bring the exact right focus,
innovation, and boldness to deal with this anti-American axis.
Their approach worked in 2017, yielding historic achievements,
and they will work today.
It is thanks to President Trump and to his team that we are
finally seeing American hostages returning home from around the
world, including those who have suffered unthinkable conditions
in Hamas' terror tunnels.
The world in 2025 could not be more different from the one
President Trump inherited in 2017. The Middle East has
transformed overnight in unimaginable ways due solely to the
bravery and sacrifice of the men and women of the Israeli
Defense Forces and the Israeli Air Force through the invaluable
support of the United States, making Iran its weakest in
decades. And yet, paradoxically, Iran is also its most
aggressive, all as it inches closer toward acquiring a nuclear
weapon.
Those parts of the region that were once formerly part of
its empire of terror, parts of Syria and Lebanon, thanks to the
effectiveness of Israel's military pressure, today are entering
new chapters of transition and uncertainty, presenting
challenges for us.
In the Middle East today, I believe there are three key
priorities for the United States that require urgent attention.
The first: How to deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The
second: How to effectively eliminate the threats facing Israel.
And the third: How to restart the Abraham Accords.
Earlier this month, President Trump reintroduced an
expanded version of his maximum pressure campaign scaled to
address the full gamut of threats that the Iranian regime poses
to the American people both abroad and at home.
On that very same day, President Trump unveiled a bold new
vision for the future of Gaza, one that explicitly promises and
guarantees the prosperity and security of the Gazan people just
as is it does to their neighbors to the north.
This is a subject that nobody had wanted to talk about,
much less for which anybody had previously offered a plan.
By making this announcement, President Trump immediately
catapulted this issue to the top of his priorities in the
region, compelling our regional partners to cooperate on a
plan, as they are doing today.
It is in America's interest to see the Palestinians are
free of Hamas, of Islamic Jihad, and of the Iranian regime
influence.
So, what can Congress do? There are two general things I
think Congress can do.
The first and easiest is to go visit. There is no better
education you can give yourselves and your staff than to be on
the ground, visit key sites, and hear directly from our friends
on the front lines.
There is also no greater symbol of support than for our
elected officials to appear shoulder to shoulder with our
friends in their time of need.
Second, I encourage you to look and follow the
administration's policy on Iran, augmenting it as events
develop on the ground, while looking pragmatically at places
like Syria and Lebanon and where our regional partners can help
lead and shape events on the ground to enforce our deterrent
against our adversaries.
This is not a job for the United States to do alone, and
yet it is only the United States that can point the way.
America First foreign policy is not America alone. It is
the projection of American strength abroad on behalf of the
American people, marshalling our allies and partners to build a
better world of peace and security. I encourage you to build
that world for the sake of our people and for our children.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you.
I now recognize Dr. Kupchan for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. KUPCHAN
PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE AND GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
SENIOR FELLOW, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
Dr. Kupchan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have
the opportunity to share a few thoughts with you this morning.
I think we are at a historical inflection point in the
United States and globally and that President Trump has the
potential to be the agent of change that would adapt the United
States and U.S. grand strategy to a changing world and it would
adapt a world to a changing United States.
We have been through an era that we call Pax Americana
which opened at the close of World War II. And it was based
upon U.S. primacy, it was based upon a thriving political
center in the United States, the rise of the middle class,
fired by the industrial era. And this gave rise to a certain
kind of American foreign policy and a certain kind of
international order anchored by the United States.
And I think we are now at the end of that era, and the end
of that era has been driven by the onset of the digital age and
by the erosion of the American middle class and with it the
hollowing out of the political center.
And we are also in an era in which power is shifting in the
international system from West to East and from North to South.
As a consequence, we need to go from the old to the new,
and Trump, if nothing else, is a disrupter who recognizes that
it is time to go from the old to the new.
The question that I have in my mind that I pose for the
Committee: Is President Trump going to be only a demolition man
who brings down the old order and leaves us standing in the
rubble or is he actually going to be someone who brings us from
the old to the new and builds an American grand strategy and an
international system that is better, that is more stable, and
that works better for average Americans as well as for global
peace?
There are aspects of Trump's foreign policy that give me
hope. He is more transactional and he is therefore talking to
Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. That in my mind is a good thing.
We need to talk to bad guys and not just to our friends.
No. 2, he is pushing fair trade rather than free trade. We
have lived through several decades of hyper globalization that
did not work to the benefit of many Americans. It is time to
fix that.
No. 3, less democracy promotion, less time spent solving
problems far afield, more time spent solving problems at home.
No. 4, immigration. I do not think there is any American in
this country who does not understand we have a broken
immigration system.
And No. 5, a leaner, more effective, and more efficient
American Government. Who can object to that goal?
That having been said, I see four risks, and they are very
serious risks, of where America First could run off the rails.
No. 1, that this transactionalism turn into a unilateralism
that leaves the United States isolated on the world stage,
bereft of the alliances that it has built since World War II,
and imposing tariffs on all of our partners in way that not
just disturb our geopolitical relationships but fragment the
global economy.
This looks a lot to me like the 1930's and Smoot-Hawley if
we do 25 percent on Mexico, 25 percent on Canada, and 60
percent on China.
No. 2, underreach. What is happening today with Ukraine is
on the one hand a good idea. We need to talk to the Russians.
But it has been handled very poorly. There is no strategy.
Why is Trump insulting Zelenskyy? Why is he saying that
Ukraine is to blame? Why did he just yesterday order his
diplomats to vote no on a resolution at the U.N. that said this
is Russian aggression? If this is not Russian aggression, I do
not know what aggression is.
And so, we need a government that understands who is right
and who is wrong and to stand up for a democracy that is
struggling for its survival.
No. 3, yes, let us not waste a lot of time trying to turn
Afghanistan and other countries into Ohio, but let us make sure
we protect democracy here at home.
And I have studied what happened in Hungary and in Turkey
and other countries that became illiberal democracies after
long runs of democracy. We are not far from that outcome.
And I would ask this House, this institution, to make sure
that it jealously protects its powers and that we make sure
that the rule of law and that the norms and practices of
liberal democracy are preserved.
Final point, I think the United States needs a better and
more efficient government. What I see happening is the United
States is breaking its government. President Trump is taking a
wrecking ball to the U.S. Government and the world that America
made, and it is time----
Chairman Timmons. Doctor? Doctor, your time is up.
Dr. Kupchan [continuing]. To speak up.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Sadler, the U.S. is engaged in an era of great power
competition, yet our actions have not always reflected the
urgency of this challenge.
How would you assess the United States' current strategic
posture in relation to China and Russia? And are we
sufficiently prioritizing military readiness and deterrence?
Mr. Sadler. Yes. The short answer is that we are shooting
behind the duck, to use a southerner's term here. We have
admired this problem as a Nation, bipartisan, multi-branch,
executive, Congress, for far too long.
In the early 2000s, China acknowledged, recognized as the
smoke was still rising over the September 11 attacks in 2001,
it was their strategic window of opportunity, and they have not
failed to deliver on that. They have rapidly grown across the
board their military while we have shrunk.
And we need to do better. It requires reorganizing the way
that we are doing business in government. We do need to take a
fresh perspective, like we did in 1947 with the National
Security Act, and get ready and retool for this new cold war
that we are in.
But the focus on just readiness is a failure. Focus just on
capacity is a failure. And focus just on some new capabilities
and modern weapon systems is also a failure. We are in an
``and'' world. We have to do all three of those things if we
hope to keep the peace.
Mr. Timmons. All while realizing we have $36 trillion in
debt. Sounds easy.
A critical element to this problem is that the Biden State
Department prioritized certain foreign military sales while
ignoring others, despite all being authorized by Congress.
It seems that the future--well, at least in retrospect with
Ukraine, it would have been better to arm them prior to Russia
invading. The term that I think is used most is the porcupine
method.
As of September 2024, U.S. foreign military sales
backlogged to Taiwan included 20.5 billion weapons that had yet
to be delivered.
What specific reforms are needed to ensure critical defense
equipment reaches our allies in a timely manner?
Mr. Sadler. Yes, this one is troubling, because the place
where we could see the biggest war is with China and the United
States. And so, it is imperative that we get these weapons to
Taiwan. Beijing does count bullets. They count missile tubes.
They do count all of these things in their military-to-military
balance. It is the easiest, most cost-effective way to avoid
what could be the most destructive war that we have seen since
we became a Nation.
Of course, looking back at Ukraine, thanks to President
Trump in his first time, he started moving in lethal
assistance. It was a little too little, a little too late,
unfortunately, as we know, in February 2022. But we cannot
allow that mistake to be repeated in Taiwan. The odds are too
high.
So, we need to get that moving. It is process as much as it
is money, but it is also industrial capacity. And that means
you have to sustain the demand with orders and with resources
and budget, and it is really a question of prioritization.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you for that.
Dr. Olidort, can you outline the key differences between
the Trump and Biden Administrations' approach to securing the
release of American hostages?
Dr. Olidort. Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
In my view, President Trump inherited a bad negotiating
hand with this process. It is part of why it has taken so long;
not the only reason.
But for one thing we should never have been a neutral
broker. We are a party to these negotiations. We have American
hostages there. We should have never taken this passive
approach. That is just on the framing of it.
And then also, about a dozen nations have been represented
among the hostages. In other words, there are a lot of
opportunities to reframe and reshape how those negotiations
take place.
But I think the more important issue is the withholding of
assistance to Israel, the operational and tactical direction
and management of Israeli military engagements in Gaza, which
are far and beyond any modern military in terms of preserving
human life. That all had a corrosive effect by showing a big
gap between the United States and our close partner.
So, I think those two, hand-in-hand, were problematic.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you.
I want to thank each of the witnesses again for testifying.
What I am hearing consistently from each of you is that we
need to support President Trump's work to leverage the power of
the U.S. economy, improve diplomatic relations, and modernize
our defenses.
And I realize that some of my colleagues across the aisle
are going to take issue with the manner in which the
Administration is attempting to end the war in Ukraine. But I
will point out that they were able to get Mexico and Canada to
the table in just hours to secure their side of the border
before anybody could even throw stones at the proposal.
So, yes, we are in a unique era of international relations,
but I do believe that these new approaches have potential, and
I do believe that Secretary Rubio is very incredibly talented
and has the potential to resolve a lot of these challenges
ahead of us.
Thank you. That is all my time.
I now want to recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Subramanyam, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Subramanyam. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I heard a couple interesting things, and I will get to
them.
But first I wanted to talk about military personnel and
foreign affairs personnel, because that is in the news a lot
right now and there is many of them in my district.
I, in particular, have talked to many defense contractors,
people who work for those contractors, people who work at
places like USAID and the Defense Department.
And one of the things I keep hearing is that they will go
find a job in the private sector. Certainly, this is hard on
their families to have this unpredictability or be laid off
altogether.
But what they are concerned about is the work, really. A
lot of their work sustains our importance and our influence in
countries they work in or regions they work in. A lot of our
work and the work that they do is critical to our safety.
And sometimes it is not easy to explain. It is not easy to
explain a nuclear scientist is making sure that our nuclear
arsenal is safe. But when you fire all the nuclear scientists,
one, how are you supposed to get them back? They are having
trouble getting them back and walking back that mistake, for
instance.
And two, do other future nuclear scientists want to join
our government and help be a part of the solution, help the
safety and security of the American people, and take a lesser
salary in many cases to do that?
Are we a good employer? That is going to be really critical
in attracting the best and brightest talent in our government.
And so, this is something I keep hearing over and over
again. And especially when you cutoff--when you cancel a
contract, many times the company will have spent many years
investing millions of dollars or more into trying to develop
that technology or that asset. And that research and
development ends up really going to the wayside and we go years
behind on military technology and assets as a result. And so, I
want to start there.
But I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record
this February 24, 2025, article from The Washington Post titled
``U.S. votes against U.N. resolution condemning Russia for
Ukraine war.''
Mr. Timmons. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Subramanyam. And the first line says, ``The United
States voted with Russia, North Korea, Iran, and 14 other
Moscow-friendly countries Monday against a U.N. resolution
condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine and calling for the
return of Ukraine territory.''
And I would just ask our witnesses today--Mr. Sadler, I
will start with you--do you believe Ukraine and Zelenskyy were
responsible for this war that is happening now?
Mr. Sadler. Thanks again for the chance to be here.
I would say the first thing is the metric in which you
evaluate success.
Mr. Subramanyam. It is a yes-or-no question. Do you think
that Ukraine was responsible for the--do you blame Ukraine for
the war that is happening right now?
Mr. Sadler. No, I do not.
Mr. Subramanyam. Dr. Mobbs, do you blame Ukraine for the
war that is happening?
Dr. Mobbs. No.
Mr. Subramanyam. Dr. Olidort, do you blame Ukraine for the
war that is happening?
Dr. Olidort. No, I do not.
Mr. Subramanyam. Dr. Kupchan, do you blame Ukraine for--OK.
It is interesting.
And then what about this U.N. resolution here? Do you feel
like it was appropriate for the United States to vote against
this resolution, Mr. Sadler?
Mr. Sadler. I think it is the wrong metric to evaluate.
Getting a lasting peace is the real thing, not a meaningless
U.N. vote.
Mr. Subramanyam. So, you believe that we should have voted
with Russia, North Korea, and Iran on this U.N. resolution?
Mr. Sadler. No. The end is what I am focusing in on. Do we
get a lasting meaningful peace between Russia and Ukraine that
serves American interests? This vote will be forgotten.
Mr. Subramanyam. Does this vote give us a lasting peace?
Mr. Sadler. I think the jury is still out on that.
Mr. Subramanyam. OK.
Dr. Kupchan, do you believe this vote on the U.N.
resolution gives us a lasting peace? Do you think this was the
right move for the United States?
Dr. Kupchan. No, I do not. I think the only way we are
going to get a lasting peace is making it very clear to
Vladimir Putin that he cannot keep taking territory from
Ukraine. That is the way to get peace. It is to stop him.
Mr. Subramanyam. I think I would agree with that.
And something else, Mr. Sadler, you said was that if our
allies cannot defend themselves, then they are almost--they are
not our ally. Is that what you said? I would love for you to
clarify that.
Mr. Sadler. Yes. Absolutely. I would love to clarify that.
What I saw firsthand in the summer of 1922 in Tokyo was for
someone that grew up in Japan a very stark change because of
what they saw in Ukraine.
The lesson they took from that--and I have heard it in
other countries throughout Asia--is that if you do not take
care of your defense adequately and you cannot sustain yourself
long enough for your allies to come in, you are a liability to
that----
Mr. Subramanyam. I would say what I took from that, what I
am taking from this Administration's foreign policy is that we
are not going to be there for our allies, and so why would our
allies want to trust us?
I yield.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you.
I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Bigs, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Mobbs, in your written testimony you open a section on
multilateral institutions by stating the U.N. is a failed
institution.
I used to represent NGOs at many multilateral institutions,
including the United Nations. And if you want to see illiberal
democracy at work, you need to just go up to the U.N. If you
want to see corruption at work, you just need to go to the U.N.
So can you elaborate on your statement that it is a failed
institution.
Dr. Mobbs. Absolutely. I mean, clearly, it is paralytic, it
is bureaucratic. There is evidence of corruption, as you said.
If you read my written statement, just a few examples of that
is the Rwanda genocide that we saw occur, Bosnia, Syria, its
inability to deter aggression in Ukraine.
Not only that, there was the oil-for-food scandal in 2004.
Oftentimes they spend more money on conferences and the
administration than they do actually on the programs.
There has been U.N. peacekeeping abuses. There has been
allegations of sexual exploitation in Haiti, Congo, all over
the place.
I am not against alliances, but I think it is clear that
this institution no longer serves American interests and is
oftentimes, in fact, contrary to American interests.
Mr. Biggs. Well, thank you for that. I will leave that.
And I will just point out that in the discussion on soft
power, economic relationships, the trade relationships, those
are also indicative of soft power as well.
And the U.S. is actually, I believe, now using this kind of
soft power. I mean, you see it in the response with Mexico and
Canada just like lickety-split to actually close the border.
So, now you have record lows. You have not seen this low number
of daily encounters in probably 30 years. More. I do not know
when. I grew up on the border. I do not know when we have seen
fewer than these.
I want to go to Dr. Sadler.
[Speaking foreign language.] Glad to have you here with us
today.
The weakness on the world stage emboldened our geopolitical
rivals. China and Russia continue to attack U.S. critical
infrastructure with few consequences. What can the Trump
Administration do to hold China and Russia accountable for
these attacks?
Mr. Sadler. Well, thanks.
This is the challenge of this new cold war that we are in.
First, we have to be willing to use all tools that are
available to us for an end state, a strategic end. And too
often we have operated in cylinders of excellence, the
economics kind of on their own, the military off on their own,
and the diplomatic kind of on their own. We need to bring that
together and bring all those forces to bear, specifically.
Just this morning, actually in the last--not this morning,
but the last 24 hours--there was a Chinese vessel yet again
caught severing undersea cables to Taiwan. That vessel is being
boarded right now.
This is the type of--I would say we are moving out of gray
zone, a comfortable gray zone that we have gotten too
comfortable in the last 20 years, into a more real and more
conventional kind of confrontation.
So, we have to be ready for these types of incidents. We
have to be able to hold those shipping companies----
Mr. Biggs. I just want to interrupt you just for a sec.
When you talk about that, that is not the first time that has
happened even in the last 6 weeks. It has happened multiple
times.
Mr. Sadler. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. I want to ask you this question.
It has been reported that Chinese-backed hacking groups
Volt Typhoon and Salt Typhoon have gained access to U.S. energy
and telecommunications infrastructure. These groups targeted
existing law enforcement and national security intercepts for
wiretap access points.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record an
article called ``Chinese telecom espionage began with `much
broader' aims,'' and another one, ``U.S. officials urge
Americans to use encrypted apps amidst unprecedented cyber
attack.''
Mr. Timmons. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
The same report suggests that these attacks were successful
in accessing communications of 150 select high-value targets,
including people affiliated with President-elect Donald Trump.
The cyber-attacks were so thoroughly embedded in telecom
infrastructure that Federal law enforcement agencies urged
Americans to use communication methods with end-to-end
encryption despite years of efforts by these same agencies to
mandate similar back doors and end-to-end encrypted
communication apps.
Mr. Sadler, what do you believe the Trump Administration
could do to fight against these cyber-attacks?
Mr. Sadler. There, of course, is the question of offensive
where you have to put more cost and accountability on those
that are launching these attacks. That is always going to
remain behind the veil of secrecy.
But continuing to resource and to continue to sharpen those
tools, which in many cases may take months if not years to get
the placement necessary so that when an actor like the Chinese
Communist Party does do another attack against us, the United
States and its citizens, that we are able to levy a cost on
them.
Mr. Biggs. Internationally you are seeing that the U.K. has
secretly demanded that Apple create a similar back door to
allow for government to spy on users' encrypted accounts.
Senator Ron Wyden and I wrote a letter to the Director of
National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, on this issue earlier
this month, and I ask that it be received into the record.
Mr. Timmons. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Biggs. Oh, how I wish I had more time. Thanks.
Mr. Timmons. I now recognize the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I just want to say thank you, to Mr. Chairman
and the Ranking Member, for putting together a great hearing,
very, very timely and important.
And I want to thank some excellent witnesses for your
testimony. It varied in some cases, but very thoughtful,
nonetheless.
As the Ranking Member pointed out earlier in his
questioning, in recent days President Trump has falsely claimed
that Ukraine started the war against Russia. This is despite
the fact that we all know that in 2022 President Putin actually
took credit for this, and I quote him. He said, ``I decided to
launch a special military operation against Ukraine.'' That is
the mere fact.
Also, many of us on this Committee and across Congress, we
sat in classified briefings for months--for months--as Russia
slowly moved mechanized armored divisions from as far away as
Vladivostok, like 4,000 miles away, to the Ukrainian border,
and then finally, as all the witnesses have pointed out,
launched the invasion.
He has also--President Trump has also accused freely
elected Ukrainian President Zelenskyy of being a dictator and
someone who just wants to keep the gravy train going in terms
of funding. And as the Ranking Member again pointed out, just
yesterday the United States had its U.N. representative join
Russia to vote against a United Nations General Assembly
resolution which condemned Russia's war against Ukraine, which
many saw as a stab in the back to NATO and a shameful reversal
of long-time U.S. foreign policy in support of Western
democracy.
The President's dangerous lies in support of Putin, who is
nothing better than a gangster, are shameful and make us look
weak and strong [sic]. We have strayed from the enduring
purpose of U.S. foreign assistance to defend human rights and
basic freedoms abroad in the interest of U.S. national
security.
That has been a policy that has been shared by Ronald
Reagan and Jack Kennedy. Ronald Reagan said our national
interests are inextricably tied to the security and development
of our friends and allies. And President Kennedy similarly
said--he said foreign aid is a very powerful source of strength
for us, for our U.S. longstanding support for global democracy
and security as defined by American exceptionalism.
Dr. Kupchan, what advantage does the U.S. get from its
support? We have supported Ukraine to the tune of over $150
billion over the past 5 years, military support. Ninety percent
of that support was spent in the United States through military
contractors providing that aid to Ukraine. What is the
advantage that we get from that?
Dr. Kupchan. The main advantage that we get from helping
Ukraine survive as an independent country is investing in the
security of Europe and Eurasia.
Going back to the early days of America's involvement
globally, we decided that we did not want to let that strategic
heartland be dominated by a hostile power. And as a
consequence, we have taken steps to block Russia from doing
that.
We are not putting boots on the ground. This is a good
investment. We are spending a rounding error in the defense
budget. And we are blocking Russia.
One other point, if I may.
Our strong suit in standing up to Putin is our solid front
with Ukraine and our allies. And it is penny wise and pound
foolish to distance ourselves from Ukraine and to end up in a
situation where the new German Chancellor, on the eve of his
election victory, says: I do not think I can count on our
alliance with the United States anymore. Something is wrong
when that is the first statement of the new German Chancellor.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield the balance of my time to
the Ranking Member.
Mr. Subramanyam. Thank you.
I want to kind of finish along those lines.
You may have seen the cutting of USAID and firing of many
of its workers. And we heard a little bit about the China Belt
and Road Initiative. How do you think this is going to
influence our sort of standing in the world?
Dr. Kupchan. Meaghan is right that there is waste, there is
corruption, but you do not throw out the baby with the
bathwater. You fix the problem.
And right now, as we speak, all around the world, people
are starving. They are being denied medicine. Fundamental
humanitarian assistance is being withheld.
Who is benefiting? Our adversaries--the Chinese, the
Russians, and others who are filling the gap.
Mr. Subramanyam. Thank you. I yield.
Mr. Timmons. I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona,
Mr. Crane, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing today on America's national security.
I want to start by asking the panel--I am going to start
with you, Mr. Sadler--if you are aware of how our Founding
Fathers felt about imperialism and empires?
Mr. Sadler. Well, we fought a revolution to go against it.
Mr. Crane. Right.
Mr. Sadler. I think that is still true to this day.
Mr. Crane. What about you, Dr. Mobbs?
Dr. Mobbs. I would argue there is no kings, just patriots.
Mr. Crane. I want to read some statements and see if you
guys know who said this.
``The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign
nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with
them as little political connections as possible.''
Does anybody know who said that?
Dr. Kupchan. George Washington.
Mr. Crane. Yep. George Washington.
How about this one?
``Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations,
entangling alliances with none.''
Dr. Kupchan. Thomas Jefferson.
Mr. Crane. Thomas Jefferson.
How about this one?
``The United States have no business in making conquests
nor in aspiring to any kind of empire. The principal object of
government is to secure the happiness of society, not to extend
the boundaries of an empire.''
Anybody know who said that? Come on.
Dr. Kupchan. Can I guess?
Mr. Crane. Yep.
Dr. Kupchan. John Quincy Adams.
Mr. Crane. Yes, sir. Exactly.
Why do you guys think that our Founding Fathers were so
concerned with imperialism and empire building? Anybody know?
Anybody?
Mr. Sadler. Well, I think the lesson of American citizens
under the British empire was a very personal one where you had
soldiers in your house. It is a lot of why we have our Bill of
Rights.
The other is, I think they were probably also students of
history that those type of entanglements would basically
bankrupt us and get us away from our core principles of
democracy.
Mr. Crane. Bingo.
Mr. Sadler. And free society.
Mr. Crane. Bingo.
Does it concern you guys that we are $36 trillion in debt,
annual deficit of $2 trillion as we sit here and we talk about
the United States' global involvement?
Any of you guys--because I know this really--economics
probably is not your core study, but any of you guys wonder
when that tipping point is going to be, whether it is $40
trillion in debt, $50 trillion? Anybody ever wonder about that?
Dr. Kupchan. I wonder about it and worry about it, because
we ran deficits around 55, 60 percent of GDP when we were a
global power. We are now at 120 percent-plus and headed higher.
We are going to go bankrupt.
Mr. Crane. I completely agree with you, which is why I
believe that the United States should be very cautious in
extending itself too far, and I believe in many ways that we
have.
And I say this, please understand, as somebody who dropped
out of college my senior year to join the Navy in the week
after 9/11 and do multiple deployments. So, I do consider
myself a patriot and somebody who loves this country, but I do
believe we have extended ourselves way too far and I think we
should harken back to some of the wisdom of our Founding
Fathers.
I want to now go into NATO.
Mr. Sadler, what percentage of GDP is the United States
paying right now for national defense?
Mr. Sadler. Around about 3.5 percent.
Mr. Crane. What about the other countries in NATO?
Mr. Sadler. You got U.K. and several others come in around
2.5 percent on a good day.
Mr. Crane. France 1.9 percent, Italy 1.5, Canada about 1.4,
Germany 1.6, Spain around 1.2.
Do you think it is fair to the United States and our
citizens that these other countries that we have an alliance
with are not spending even 2 percent or 3 percent of their GDP?
Mr. Sadler. I would say it is actually even worse than
being fair. It is extremely dangerous and reckless on their
part.
Mr. Crane. Absolutely.
What about you, Dr. Mobbs?
Dr. Mobbs. I completely agree.
Mr. Crane. I want to read you guys a list of some things
that we have recently uncovered about USAID, which I actually
tried to defund by 50 percent last year.
One-point-five million dollars to advance diversity,
equity, and inclusion in Serbia's workplaces and business
communities. Seventy thousand dollars for production of a DEI
musical in Ireland. Two-point-five million dollars for electric
vehicles in Vietnam. Forty-seven thousand dollars for a
transgender opera in Colombia. Thirty-two thousand dollars for
a transgender comic book in Peru. Two million dollars for sex
changes and LGBT activism in Guatemala. Six million dollars to
fund tourism in Egypt. And I could go on and on and on.
Do you think, Dr. Mobbs, that that helps with the security
of the United States, that type of spending?
Dr. Mobbs. Absolutely not, and, actually, it erodes our
security.
Mr. Crane. Absolutely.
Next, I want to talk about, real quick, because I have
heard some of my Democrat colleagues rail against the Trump
Administration foreign policy.
Who was the President when Russia invaded Georgia? Anybody
know?
Dr. Mobbs. Obama.
Mr. Crane. Bush.
Who was the President when Russia invaded Crimea?
Mr. Sadler. That was Obama.
Mr. Crane. That was Obama. Yes.
Who was the President when Russia invaded Ukraine?
Dr. Mobbs. First time or second time?
Mr. Crane. Second time.
Dr. Mobbs. Biden.
Mr. Crane. Yep.
I seem to be missing President Trump's name from that list.
So, I do think that peace through strength works.
Why do you think that Russia did not make any moves while
President Trump----
Mr. Timmons. Mr. Crane, your time has expired.
Mr. Crane. Can they finish answering my question?
Mr. Timmons. No. Sorry. We have got to keep the clock.
I now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Mfume, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My thanks to
you and the Ranking Member for the hearing. Obviously, my
thanks also to the witnesses who have been witnessing this
morning on a number of different things.
I just want to try to bring a little perspective, and there
is several things that I think, well, I know that I have to
kind of point out here that are interesting, if not confusing.
In 1986, I sat at the White House with President Reagan. I
was a young freshman Member of Congress. He called us all down
to talk about what it was going to be like going forward. We
laughed, joked, talked baseball.
But when he got to foreign affairs someone in our class
asked, ``Mr. President, what are we going to do about
containing the Soviets?''
And he, in his own way, said, ``I am going to tell you what
I have learned from my predecessor, that he learned from his
predecessor, and that he learned from his. And that is that all
politics stop at the water's edge. We may be Democrats,
Republicans, and Independents, but all politics stop at the
water's edge.''
And so that is how I came into this Congress believing that
that was just the rule of law. It is the way we operated. So, I
was particularly confused as a member of the Ukrainian Caucus
long before the war started when President Trump just recently
said that Russia did not invade Ukraine and that the Ukrainians
somehow or another were at fault here.
I just want to make sure we are on the record. Is it the
testimony of each of you that Russia did invade Ukraine, yes or
no?
Mr. Sadler. Yes.
Dr. Mobbs. Yes.
Dr. Olidort. Yes.
Mr. Mfume. OK. Do any of you know why the President said
otherwise?
OK. Let the record reflect we have got unanimous consent
that Russia invaded Ukraine and none of us really know why.
Somebody was asking do you remember statements or slogans.
I am going to ask all of you this.
Do you remember who said, ``Are you going to believe me or
your lying eyes?'' Well, I will tell you. It was George
Jefferson on ``The Jeffersons'' show when he could not believe
that Weezy had told him something that did not exist.
So, as we get older in life, some things change; some
remain the same.
I am concerned also about our global readiness. And I am
particularly concerned when I have seen in recent weeks now the
effort to severely tamper down the Black and Latino and Asian
efforts within the military to bring young men and women in and
to give them an opportunity and to call it DEI.
Well, you cannot diversify the military. The military is
already diversified. Thirty-five percent of the military are
racial minorities. And so, I would think that since we do not
have people beating down the door to join the military, that
when we have got bright young men and women, we ought to be
encouraging them.
So I was, again, taken aback 2 weeks ago when the President
ordered that there would be no participation in the annual and
the largest recruitment effort, that takes place over a 3-day
period, where every secretary of every armed service
participated, as did rank-and-file members and others, where
recruitment was being done for young men and young women who
were engineers, who had big backgrounds in STEM, who were
coming into our armed services and helping to deal with this
readiness issue.
Deployment is real serious. We have got troops, as all of
you know, stationed all over the globe. We do not need to find
ways to reduce our capability in that regard.
And so, I would severely--well, I would seriously, I should
say, hope that that sort of thinking does not pervade. It is
not good.
I am concerned also as the Ranking Member of the Government
Operations Committee that the Pentagon has failed seven
straight audits--seven. And I have been working with them as
the Ranking Member for the last couple of years, along with the
Chair of that committee. That is embarrassing.
So, if we are going to talk about, as we have been, USAID,
which is less than 1 percent of the budget, let us also find a
way to talk about how we are going to make sure that the
billions of dollars that are being wasted each year at the
Pentagon does not continue to happen, which affects every
aspect of our ability not only to deploy but to be ready to
fight and to do everything else, and I do not see any urgency
there.
So, I want to make sure I am on the record saying we have
got to find a way, again, to point out the fact that the
Pentagon has failed seven straight audits. There is a lot of
waste, fraud, and abuse there.
And I yield the balance of my time to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Subramanyam. I yield back to the Chair. Thank you.
Mr. Mfume. I have no more time.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you.
I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. McGuire,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. McGuire. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We live in a great country, but it seems like in government
and in politics we forget about ``We the People.'' I am a very
staunch supporter of limited Federal Government, but if we do
anything, we should keep our people safe.
And I have got to tell you, I think our biggest threat is
our national debt. If it was $1 trillion, we should be sounding
alarms everywhere.
And over the discussion today, so far, I have heard people
saying, ``We need more money for Taiwan. We need more money for
the Middle East.'' Well, if we go to war, we better win that
war quick or we will not have the money for the spare parts.
And so, No. 1, we have got to get our spending under
control. And I have a heart, but there is so much waste, fraud,
and abuse. We have only been in this new Administration 5 or 6
weeks, and I think we have just seen the tip of the iceberg.
We have competitors, China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and
we have, of course, the proxies. And I think China's philosophy
is everything can be used as a weapon and it should be used as
a weapon.
Dr. Mobbs, you talked about hard and soft power, and I
would like to ask you, the first question is, how would you
define--how would you describe the Biden Administration's
foreign policy? Did that help or hurt our hard and soft power
over the last 4 years?
Dr. Mobbs. So, I would argue that they relied overly on
soft power, but I would actually argue that it was a perversion
of soft power. It was a focus on these progressive projects
that actually did not necessarily promote the necessary
influence where we needed to. And as a result, you had
ineffective foreign policy because there was an overreliance on
soft power.
Smart power is a successful integration of both hard power
and soft power to get an effective outcome.
Mr. McGuire. So, you believe that these policies weakened
the American people?
Dr. Mobbs. I do believe that, yes.
Mr. McGuire. Thank you.
Mr. Sadler, how should China's gray-zone tactics in the
Indo-Pacific and other strategic regions concern the U.S.
leadership? Now, you talked about the convention where they
were cutting cables.
Mr. Sadler. Yes. So, this is a topic I have spent a lot of
time on, and I will try and do it justice by saying very
succinctly, in one geographic area that really is a decisive
theater that will get and keep China's attention where we can
have an advantage, and that is South China Sea in Southeast
Asia.
So, we have to wage a maritime counterinsurgency against
what they have been doing for the last several decades; that
is, bullying and coercing our partners and our allies in the
region. Top of the list that we have to do better by is the
Philippines where I was just a few weeks ago.
Mr. McGuire. I think it has become very clear, it should
always be clear that American leadership matters at home and
abroad. And by the grace of God, we got President Trump back in
the White House. And I do not think we can remind everyone
enough that he had a mandate from the American people. He got
the popular vote and he got the electoral college.
I would like to ask everybody real quick, why do you think
Russia did not invade Ukraine when he was in his first
Administration?
And hold on. I will say this. On the campaign trail, when
people asked me about Ukraine, what I said all the time is, of
all the world leaders, there is one world leader that said, ``I
just want people to stop dying,'' and that was President Trump.
And I think I will start with Dr. Kupchan.
Dr. Kupchan. Why Vladimir Putin chose to double down on his
invasion of Ukraine when he did is difficult to say. Even
Russians themselves cannot say why February 2022, he pushed the
button.
Mr. McGuire. But you notice he did not do that when Trump
was in power.
Dr. Kupchan. No, but he has not stopped when Trump is in
power. Trump is trying to negotiate a peace deal, and Putin is
bombing the hell out of Ukraine.
Mr. McGuire. I think we are making progress.
Dr. Olidort?
Dr. Olidort. Sure. In my view, there are three reasons.
The first is President Trump ordered the killing of several
hundred Russian green men in the Syrian desert.
The second, he made it clear to Putin that he would be
disinvited from the G20 meeting if he had done that.
And he gave Ukraine the Javelins it needed. And he did not
say also that they could invade.
Mr. McGuire. Dr. Mobbs?
Dr. Mobbs. I mean, I would argue you saw exactly what I
said earlier, which was smart power, the integration of hard
power and soft power in the first Trump Administration.
And then I would just further say the reason why it
happened under Biden's watch is I do think the Afghanistan
withdrawal was the first domino that then projected to the
world our inherent weakness.
Mr. Sadler. Yes. Trump does not have a ``say dude'' deficit
or deference.
The other thing is that he also understood when Putin was
doing kind of a test, and so, an intelligence pool, so to
speak. And he responded aggressively when he needed to, and
appropriately. The incident in Syria is one, but it is not the
only one.
Mr. McGuire. Smart power, peace through strength.
Dr. Mobbs, how would you define Trump's foreign policy
agenda? And we have only been started for--we have only been
here 6 weeks or so. And if you have any advice for the Trump
Administration or Congress.
Dr. Mobbs. So, I would define it as unprecedented. I think
it is important, as other witnesses have said, that he is
speaking to Vladimir Putin. That was a critical misstep by the
Biden Administration.
And I would say that we have to establish what we saw in
the first Administration, which is that soft power--or hard--
sorry--smart power, peace through strength, in order to have an
effective outcome.
Mr. McGuire. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Timmons. I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Cloud, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cloud. Hey, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate you all being here. There could not be a more
important topic than the security of our Nation and what the
security of our Nation really means to the world.
Over the last--certainly, our lifetimes here, over the last
couple of generations, we have been able to enjoy a world where
the United States is the premier influence in the world.
And what that has meant for the world has been scientific
breakthroughs. It has meant human flourishing going through the
roof. It has meant a lot of wonderful things for the world, by
and large.
And you compare what the America First agenda is, which
President Trump is bringing to the scene, compared to the
previous Administration under President Biden. Under Biden, he,
ironically, said in a speech during--while he was in the
Ukraine in 2008, he said, ``We are trying to create a
multipolar world.''
In other words, the policy of the Biden Administration, the
Obama Administration at the time when he said that, but once he
became President in the Biden Administration, was to create a
world where the United States was not the supreme influence in
the world.
I was interested, Dr. Mobbs, you spoke of the--you said the
perversion of soft power. And I would just ask you this. Who is
making those decisions?
We could talk about the DEI programs. We could talk about
all the crazy spending, the transgender operas in other seas,
and all these different kind of things. Because when I talked
to Ambassadors overseas, they would say, ``We want to align
ourselves with the United States because we appreciate the
freedom that you all stood for, we appreciate what you meant
for the world. But we talk to China, and they talk roads and
bridges. We talk to you all, and it is social engineering
against values that our country disagrees with.''
Could you speak to that?
Dr. Mobbs. I think some of it is bureaucracy unchecked. And
if you do not mind, I will tell you a quick story.
So, I have been to Ukraine many times, 22 times since the
full-scale invasion. I have spent a lot of time there. And this
is a perfect example of where USAID has failed.
One of the things they were asking for--and by ``they,'' I
mean Ukrainians--was tourniquets, and not for the military; for
civilians. Civilians were dying, and they needed tourniquets.
Our USAID, who was responsible for aid, was incapable of
delivering tourniquets because the most rapid agency within
USAID is OTI, and that was how they could get potentially
tourniquets to the people of Ukraine, but they could not do
medical equipment.
So, we were unable to meet the needs of the people we were
purporting to serve. And as a result, do you know who provided
the tourniquets? China. And they broke. They failed.
So, it is bureaucracy, bureaucracy unchecked, with zero
oversight and no accountability.
Mr. Cloud. I think it was you, Mr. Sadler, who mentioned
Afghanistan or--I forget who said it; it was one of you.
Dr. Mobbs. I did.
Mr. Cloud. Oh, it was you again.
Being the tipping point, the beginning of kind of the
domino effect that led to Ukraine.
It was interesting, during the--it was actually tragic--
during the Afghanistan withdrawal, we had a number of people on
airplanes, ready to go. We had the manifest. We had their IDs.
People who should have been evacuated. And we were calling the
State Department. Literally--I have this on my phone--I am
calling the State Department.
The Taliban was willing to let them leave. We had countries
willing to accept them. And our own State Department was
calling ahead to other countries to tell them, ``Do not let
that plane land.'' And, therefore, they would not.
And, of course, we know the tragedy of what happened in
Afghanistan overnight, you had a semi-free--not in the context
of the United States, but overnight they went to you have the
Bible app on your phone, you are being executed.
And so, we speak about the internal threats, but a lot of
these policies are being driven by our own State Department, I
guess is what my concern is.
Dr. Mobbs. I think that is absolutely right. I think that
the Afghanistan situation is actually quite more complicated
than that because I think what you saw was an overt
politicalization of things that should not be politicized--the
intelligence community, the Pentagon, the entire national
security apparatus.
And as a result, you saw everything fail. I think that you
saw, unfortunately, hard power fail in some ways, but truly
soft power. And that is what projected to the world that we
were unprepared and unwilling to do what was necessary.
And as a result, I do think that that was a green light for
many of the worst actors in the world to do whatever, because
they felt they could do it unchecked.
Mr. Cloud. Mr. Sadler, I wanted to ask you, there was some
concern about military recruiting under President Trump's
Administration.
Could you speak to, has that gone up or down since he has
been elected?
Mr. Sadler. Oh, it has going through the roof, in a good
way.
Mr. Cloud. Yes. Record numbers of recruiting. OK. Just
wanted to make sure.
Could you also speak to the effects that DEI had when it
came to it? There was a comment that in the military we are
already diversified. I would say that is great. Therefore,
maybe we do not have to have needs for classes on critical race
theory and the like.
Mr. Sadler. Yes. DEI at its roots is a Marxist idea driven
by Marxist ideology, critical race theory. But the manner in
which the last Administration tried to implement it had an
alienating and divisive effect when we could have actually
taken a far better approach, sending out recruiters to
communities that have not seen a military recruiter, high
schools that have not allowed them in the past, but to try to
get them in there.
That is the type of diversity in geographic but also
communities that we should have done, but, instead, they
pursued an identity line that fit right in with a Marxist
approach, which was about division.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Timmons. In closing, I want to thank our witnesses once
again for their testimony today.
I now yield to Ranking Member Subramanyam for closing
remarks.
Mr. Subramanyam. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the witnesses coming today. I appreciate
everyone on the Committee and the Chairman.
I just want to reiterate--I am going to be a broken record
this Congress--how important it is to have really good people
in our military, in our civil service, and at the State
Department, all our agencies that serve us.
And, if we are prioritizing loyalty over competency, we are
not going to have the best people. If we are firing people who
do really cutting-edge, important research and technological
innovation in our military and in our civil service, we are not
going to have the best people. We are going to be less safe. We
are going to have more emerging threats.
We did not talk a lot about Iran, but I want to make sure,
I think there is bipartisan consensus that Iran is a real
threat and has destabilized the Middle East through its
actions, funding groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. And we have
to make sure that we work together to address that threat as
well.
And I heard something about empire building. Last year
during the campaigns certainly there was this sort of rhetoric
about let us be a little more isolationist perhaps, let us put
America first and not be entangled in foreign affairs.
But then I was confused that the President's first press
conference he is talking about taking over Greenland and taking
over Panama and annexing Canada, and even more recently turning
Gaza into the French Riviera.
That does not sound isolationist to me. That does not sound
like minding our own business. And that does not sound like
avoiding wars. That sounds like perpetuating wars, especially
when the President actually went out of his way to say he would
not rule out ground troops into those areas and those regions.
I think there are a lot of contradictions with this
Administration's foreign policy, and I think that it is
confusing our allies. It is confusing me, in Congress,
confusing a lot of us. And it is not helpful.
Words matter, and the words coming out of this
Administration are not helpful when it comes to addressing our
emerging threats.
We need to have more consensus around making sure that we
are with our allies, that we know who our adversaries are, and
that we work together to resolve these issues instead of
confusing and instead of the chaos.
Thank you. I yield, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you for that.
I now recognize myself for closing remarks.
I want to thank you all for being here today. It is very
helpful. You presented a lot of good ideas and things for us to
think about and work on for this Congress.
I am going to highlight just some thoughts on Ukraine and
then spending in general.
So, I just got back from the Munich Security Conference.
There were hundreds, if not thousands, of diplomats from all
over the world, and Ukraine was obviously top of mind.
And I think it is important--and I kept going back to the
history of how we got here, because I think you really have to
start there.
In 1991, few people know this, the third-largest nuclear
power in the world was Ukraine. They had 2,300 nuclear weapons.
And Bill Clinton and the Russians agreed, a trilateral
agreement, to give up all of Ukraine's nukes, give them all
back to Russia, in exchange for Russia agreeing to recognize
the sovereignty of their borders. And the U.S.--this is fun--
agreed to defend Ukraine. And that was in 1994.
So, fast forward, 2014, President Obama did nothing--or not
enough--when Russia invaded Crimea. And then fast forward to
2022, and President Biden, after his horrific withdrawal from
Afghanistan, again did nothing.
So, as we talk about--the word ``confusing'' was used--
approach that this Administration is taking to Ukraine in an
attempt to end this war, I think that President Trump deserves
the benefit of the doubt, deserves some leeway to engage in
this process to try to end this war.
And the most frustrating thing for me was that one of the
confusing things coming out of this is Zelenskyy's flip-flop on
mineral rights. Because when the Vice President and the
Secretary of Defense were there for the first day or two in
Munich, there was widespread agreement about a plan on mineral
rights. And then they left, and within 24 hours, Zelenskyy is
now criticizing the U.S., criticizing Trump, criticizing
Secretary Rubio. It actually did not make any sense to me.
And I think that President Trump's language is because of
that. And I think that Zelenskyy needs to appreciate that we
are running out of grace as it relates to this conflict. And
President Trump has the ability to, and Secretary Rubio has the
willingness to, end this conflict.
And we are going to have some whiplash over the next couple
of weeks as they do that. But let me tell you a little spoiler
alert: It is going to end, because that is what President Trump
said was going to happen.
And I believe that Zelenskyy needs to appreciate that he is
not going to become a member of NATO. That is just not going to
happen. It is a red line for Putin. And I do not know why we
keep talking about it.
It does not mean that President Trump is not going to
create a scenario in which the United States defends Ukraine in
the future. That is the purpose of the mineral rights deal.
So, we have got to give a little leeway to President Trump
and to his team. They have earned it.
As to the U.N. resolution, there were competing
resolutions. The U.S. resolution was focusing more on ending
the war, and the European resolution was focusing more on how
it started.
And I do believe that everyone agrees that Russia is
entirely and unilaterally responsible for invading Ukraine, and
I think that the most important thing is ending this.
So, those are just general thoughts on Ukraine.
I guess last is spending. So, we get a lot of--there is a
lot of consternation about President Trump's desire to cut
waste, fraud, and abuse and to get our fiscal situation under
control.
I also serve on the DOGE Subcommittee. And while he has
tasked Elon Musk with addressing this massive, huge challenge,
it is President Trump's direction that Elon Musk is taking.
So, Elon Musk is only doing whatever President Trump tells
him to do, and President Trump is the one that is responsible.
That is our democratic system of government, and that is what
77 million people voted for.
And while he has started in certain government agencies
because they were the easiest, I want to point out that
Pentagon spending is on the chopping block.
I mean, I could not be more pro-military, and I am one of
the four Members of Congress that still serves in the military.
I am still a captain in the South Carolina Air National Guard.
But Secretary Hegseth has said--and this is kind of
shocking, this is actually really shocking--that his goal is to
cut 8 percent of the Pentagon's budget each year--each year. I
have not talked to Mike Rogers about this, but he is probably
having fits.
I just want to point something out. That takes us, in year
5, down from $890 billion in annual defense spending to--again,
8 percent each year, that is compounding--$580 billion would be
our defense budget in 5 years.
So, the spending is not going to be only on Democrat
priorities, it is not only going to be on the role of foreign
aid, it is going to be across the board, because we have $36
trillion in debt and we have a $2 trillion annual deficit.
So, we are going to systematically find waste, fraud, and
abuse. We are going to systematically try to find cost savings
across the government. And that is something that we actually
just have to do. We are playing musical chairs, and we are
running out of time, and we have got to save our social safety
net programs.
And in order to do that, we have to fix them, and we have
to continue our leadership role in the world. But in order to
do that, we have to reassess every dollar we spend and make
sure that it is done wisely.
So, I look forward to this Congress and to engaging in
oversight over the military and foreign affairs and our
national security.
And with that, I will yield back.
And, without objection, all Members have 5 legislative days
within which to submit materials and additional written
questions for the witnesses, which will be forwarded to the
witnesses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
Thank you all.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]