    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      ARMS CONTROL, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, AND
                       U.S. ASSISTANCE TO EUROPE: REVIEW AND
                       REFORMS FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT

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

                                    HEARING

                                    OF THE

                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AAFAIRS
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 March 11, 2025

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 119-5

                                   __________

            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
    60-320 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                         BRIAN MAST, Florida, Chairman

    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             GREGORY MEEKS, New York, Ranking
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey         Member
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           BRAD SHERMAN, California
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    DARRELL ISSA, California             WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
    TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              AMI BERA, California
    MARK GREEN, Tennessee                JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    ANDY BARR, Kentucky                  DINA TITUS, Nevada
    RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 TED LIEU, California
    YOUNG KIM, California                SARA JACOBS, California
    MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida        SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
    BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan                  Florida
    AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       GREG STANTON, Arizona
        American Samoa                   JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
    JIM BAIRD, Indiana                   SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    THOMAS KEAN, JR, New Jersey          JIM COSTA, California
    MICHAEL LAWLER, New York             GABE AMO, Rhode Island
    CORY MILLS, Florida                  KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
    KEITH SELF, Texas                    PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
    RYAN ZINKE, Montana                  GEORGE LATIMER, New York
    JAMES MOYLAN, Guam                   JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI, Maryland
    ANNA PAULINA LUNA, Florida           JULIE JOHNSON, Texas
    JEFFERSON SHREVE, Indiana            SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware
    SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina          BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington      MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
    RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania

                  James Langenderfer, Majority Staff Director
                     Sajit Gandhi, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE

                          KEITH SELF, Texas, Chairman

    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts,
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina               Ranking Member
    MARK GREEN, Tennessee                DINA TITUS, Nevada
    YOUNG KIM, California                JIM COSTA, California
    WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                GABE AMO, Rhode Island
    ANNA PAULINA LUNA, Florida           JULIE JOHNSON, Texas
                                         SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware

                   MIKE CALLESEN, Subcommittee Staff Director

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------

                                REPRESENTATIVES

                                                                       Page
    Opening Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Keith Self............     1
    Opening Statement of Subcommittee Ranking Member William Keating.     2
    .................................................................

                                   WITNESSES

    Statement of Hon. Yleem Poblete, Ph.D., Former Assistant
      Secretary, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and
      Compliance, U.S. Department of State...........................     4
      Prepared Statement.............................................     7
    Statement of Daniel Kochis, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute......    15
      Prepared Statement.............................................    17
    Statement of Hon. James O'brien, Former Assistant Secretary,
      Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Department of
      State..........................................................    25
      Prepared Statement.............................................    27

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................    44
    Hearing Minutes..................................................    46
    Hearing Attendance...............................................    47

                            Material for the Record

    Arms Control Policy at the Department of State, submitted by
      Keating........................................................    48

                            Questions for the Record

    Questions submitted to Mr. Daniel Kochis, from Rep. Wilson.......    49
    Questions submitted to James O'Brien, from Rep. McBride..........    51
    Questions submitted to James O'Brien, from Rep. Wilson...........    55
    Questions submitted to Yleem Poblete, from Rep. Wilson...........    58

     ARMS CONTROL, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, AND U.S. ASSISTANCE TO EUROPE:
                  REVIEW AND REFORMS FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT

                                  ----------

                            Tuesday, March 11, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
                                 Subcommittee on Europe
                                  Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
    room 2200 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Keith Self
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Self. The Subcommittee on Europe will come to order.
    The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the subcommittee's
    areas of jurisdiction for State Department reauthorization,
    which includes the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, the
    Bureau of Arms Control, Deterrence, and Stability, and the
    Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation. I now
    recognize myself for an opening statement.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN KEITH SELF

        I want to begin by welcoming both members and witnesses to
    the Subcommittee on Europe's first hearing on State Department
    reauthorization. Under the leadership of Chairman Mast each
    subcommittee has been assigned different bureaus from across
    the State Department in order to conduct oversight, explore
    potential reforms, and to ultimate authorize the bureaus into
    law.
        It has been a while since reauthorization was accomplished
    and I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of
    the aisle as we move through this important process. It is
    essential that Congress takes up its responsibility to
    authorize a State Department that is fully able to execute the
    mission of making the United States a safer, stronger, and more
    prosperous country.
        As this is our first hearing on this subject I am going to
    provide a brief introduction to the State Department bureaus
    this subcommittee will be overseeing in the 119th Congress.
        The Bureau of Arms Control, Deterrence, and Stability, also
    known as ADS, is responsible for diplomatic efforts to increase
    stability, reduce the risk of unintentional escalation, and
    prevent conflict. This includes promoting the stability and
    control of emerging military technologies, including AI and
    quantum computing, and upholding bans on chemical and
    biological weapons. ADS also leads negotiations on nuclear arms
    control and represents the United States' multilateral forums
    addressing WMD challenges. Originally created as the Bureau of
    Verification and Compliance in 1999, the bureau's position of
    assistant secretary of State is authorized in statute and only
    that one position.
        Next, we have the Bureau of International Security and
    Nonproliferation, or INS--ISN, excuse me, which is the mission
    of preventing the spread of WMD delivery systems and advanced
    conventional weapons capability. Additionally, ISN works to
    protect U.S. critical and emerging technology and promotes the
    peaceful uses of nuclear energy, science, and technology. The
    bureau was formed in 2005 by then Secretary of State
    Condoleezza Rice through an agency reorganization effort that
    combined the Bureau of Nonproliferation and the Bureau of Arms
    Control. The Bureau of International Security and
    Nonproliferation is currently not authorized in statute by
    Congress.
        The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, or EUR for
    short, is responsible for developing and implementing U.S.
    foreign policy in Europe and Eurasia. The bureau promotes U.S.
    interests in the region on issues such as international
    security, NATO, cooperation with the European Union and other
    regional organizations, support for democracy, human rights,
    civil society, economic prosperity, nonproliferation, and
    counterterrorism. One of the key missions of the bureau is the
    planning, coordination, and delivery of assistance to the
    region. As Members of Congress it is our duty to ensure that
    every tax dollar spent abroad is achieving U.S. strategic
    objectives. Like ISN, the Bureau for European and Eurasian
    Affairs is not authorized in statute.
        Finally, I want to note that this subcommittee also has
    jurisdiction over the Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy
    as well as the Export Import Bank, but these will not be the
    subject of today's hearing.
        Out of the three bureaus we are discussing today, only one
    is explicitly authorized; and that only partially, without
    clear and concise instruction from Congress to a State
    Department reauthorization. The legislative branch of
    Government invites the Executive to have broad powers to shape
    the structures, personnel, and mission of agencies. It is my
    belief that a stronger State Department requires clear
    legislative guidance from the Congress.
        As the committee moves through this reauthorization process
    the experience and insights from our witnesses today will help
    guide us in working to build a more efficient and effective
    State Department. I look forward to hearing your testimony and
    recommendations.
        The chair now recognizes the ranking member, the gentleman
    from Massachusetts, Mr. Keating, for any statement he may have.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER WILLIAM KEATING

        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Chairman Self, and thank you for
    our witnesses being here today.
        The arms control, the nonproliferation, the U.S. foreign
    assistance to Europe has been at the heart of U.S.-led world
    order since the end of the Second World War beginning with
    President Truman in 1948. The Marshall Plan brought more than
    $13 billion in investments to European economies, provided the
    U.S. with significant influence in Europe, and solidified the
    Transatlantic Alliance that we all benefit from today.
        Also borne out of the triumph of the Second World War, a
    modern day arms control and nonproliferation regimen that has
    enabled the United States and its adversaries such as the then
    Soviet Union to work together and reduce the risk posed by
    nuclear weapons. I remember a time where every American feared
    for their lives during the cold war and literally when I had a
    neighbor a couple of streets over who built a bomb shelter in
    his yard. The Bureau of International Security and
    Nonproliferation as well as the Bureau of Arms Control,
    Deterrence, and Stability are critical to ensuring Americans
    never again live with this fear.
        But we didn't come here today to discuss history; we came
    here today to talk about the future, the future of arms
    control, international security, and foreign assistance to
    Europe. The Trump Administration said it is pursuing a foreign
    assistance agenda to make America stronger, safer, and more
    prosperous. Ostensibly this includes covering the malign
    influence of Russia and China. Foreign assistance to Europe
    does that.
        In Europe countries like Moldova, Georgia, Kosovo, and
    Armenia are seeking greater U.S. economic cooperation and
    assistance and boostering democratic efforts in those areas. In
    Ukraine the United States has rebuilt Ukraine's energy grid
    following the Russian attacks allowing Ukraine to repel them on
    the battlefield. Sadly, some of those efforts cut with the cuts
    to USAID. Yet, while the Trump Administration claims to be
    putting America first, it is actually ceding territory and
    influence literally in Ukraine and figuratively throughout the
    European Continent to Russia and increasingly to China.
        If the Trump Administration was serious about pursuing its
    stated goals of making America stronger, safer, and more
    prosperous, restoring all congressionally appropriated foreign
    assistance funding to our allies in Europe would be the first
    step in that direction. On arms control and nonproliferation
    the ISN and ADS bureaus employ subject matter experts with
    specialized backgrounds who both verify compliance of our arms
    control efforts and engage with multilateral institutions to
    ensure the United States is shaping global norms on these
    topics and not Russia, not China, not Iran, not North Korea.
        Yet the Trump Administration has initiated a reduction in
    force at the State Department which could target the critical
    work of the ISN and ADS bureaus and the numerous career civil
    servants whose expertise is not replaceable.
        On each of these issues: arms control, nonproliferation,
    and U.S. assistance to Europe the Trump Administration must do
    something it has failed to do thus far. It has to show up. To
    counter Russian and Chinese malign influence the Trump
    Administration must show up and provide necessary funding for
    countries like Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine who are striving to
    maintain and expand their democracies.
        If the Trump Administration is serious about arms control
    and nonproliferation efforts the administration must show up to
    multilateral institutions and our bilateral partners and engage
    proactively. Unfortunately, its effort to fire hundreds of
    civil and foreign service officers with deep expertise in these
    issues runs counter to these goals. If the Trump Administration
    wants to pursue such drastic changes in U.S. policy, it must
    show up to Congress.
        While I appreciate our witnesses' presence here today, the
    lack of administrative engagement with this committee and the
    ceding of Article 1 power by this committee and this Republican
    majority not only undermines the role of the legislative
    branch, but it harms U.S. national security at this critical
    time in history.
        I will end with this: In 1994 the Budapest Agreement
    Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for a
    security guarantee from the United States, Russia, and Britain.
    Russia obviously abandoned that promise long ago. Over the last
    few weeks Donald Trump has also broken our promise and won't
    even acknowledge Russia's aggression. Of course agreements mean
    nothing if not enforced and Trump's actions undercut the
    credibility of our country.
        Moments ago, after this hearing started, Ukraine and
    President Zelenskyy agreed to a 30-day cease-fire. I hope that
    cease-fire is backed up with security guarantees as well, or
    again they will mean nothing.
        Now Ukraine has likely come to regret their decision to
    give up those weapons. President Zelenskyy is now asking allies
    for strong security guarantees such as those guaranteed by a
    nuclear umbrella to deter Russia in its horrific aggression and
    war crimes. Abandoning our allies in Europe will undermine our
    allies' belief that the United States is a strong dependable
    ally. This only emboldens China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran.
        If we want to remain a global leader in arms control,
    nonproliferation, and transatlantic relationships, the United
    States must show up and we must lead. I look forward to your
    witnesses' testimony and I yield the balance of my time.
        Mr. Self. Other members of the committee are reminded that
    opening statements may be submitted for the record.
        We are pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses
    before us today on this very important topic. We have Hon.
    Yleem Poblete, Ph.D., Dr. Poblete, Former Assistant Secretary,
    Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance, U.S.
    State Department; Mr. Daniel Kochis, Senior Fellow, Hudson
    Institute; and Ambassador James O'Brien, Former Assistant
    Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Department
    of State.
        This chair recognizes the importance of the issues before
    us and is grateful to have your presence here to speak with us.
    Your full statements will be made part of the record and I will
    ask each of you to keep your spoken remarks to 5 minutes in
    order to allow time for our members to have questions.
        I now recognize Dr. Poblete for her opening statement.

                       STATEMENT OF YLEEM POBLETE

        Ms. Poblete. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Keating, distinguished members of the committee and thank you
    for the opportunity to testify today.
        I provide specific detailed recommendations, a plethora of
    them, in my prepared remarks on potential reforms for the arms
    control and international security family at the Department of
    State, otherwise known as the T family, but I would like to
    address some overarching issues.
        First, for American leadership to endure and facilitate and
    contribute to security and peace we must be strong militarily,
    economically, and diplomatically. This means perhaps doing more
    with less. It is something that we were required to do when we
    were--when I was a staffer on this committee and it is
    something that can and will be done.
        That also begins by placing the security and well-being of
    the American people and our Nation first and aligning all of
    our efforts toward that goal. But this does not mean America
    alone. The U.S. under President Trump supports alliances.
    Alliances denote that there is an alignment of interest. It
    denotes that there is an equal stake and equal contributions
    toward the shared goals of the alliance members.
        For decades multilateralism has been viewed as an end unto
    itself without rigorous or careful examination of the mandate,
    functions, and relevance of multinational organizations in
    addressing the current political and threat environment. Such a
    view is integral to any effort to transform our policies and
    government to advance U.S. security and interests and leave the
    U.S. well-positioned for current and future challenges.
        To Ranking Member Keating's point about the U.S. showing
    up: The U.S. definitely shows up in more ways that just foreign
    aid. In my areas of jurisdiction and when I was at the State
    Department we show up via Aegis Ashore sites in Europe, via
    U.S. Navy ships with Aegis ballistic capabilities and systems.
    We show up with Patriot systems in the European theater as well
    as other support. This all through the U.S.-European phased
    adaptive approach to the defense of the European theater.
        I too firmly believe that the work of the T family where
    diplomacy, intelligence, and defense converge is an essential
    tool in the U.S. arsenal of national security instruments of
    power. It embodies peace through strength including via
    verification and compliance, strategic dialogs, deterrence,
    missile defense, policy, and assistance for nonproliferation
    efforts.
        I have shared a few of the observations included my
    prepared remarks, some unpleasant, but we are all seeking to
    improve our capabilities. As Assistant Secretary for
    Verification and Compliance I had the opportunity to indeed
    work with some brilliant, dedicated, forward-thinking
    professionals and faithful public servants and patriots in this
    space, but also observed others pining for and operating in a
    distant past or seized by nativism, losing focus of U.S.
    interests, priorities, and objectives.
        The Eurocentrism/Euro dominance stemming from cold war
    dynamics, arms treaties, and agreements has led to the
    usurpation of some T family responsibilities including those
    statutorily required, the utilization by the intelligence
    community of findings and assessments by international
    organizations instead of providing U.S. intelligence,
    manipulation of clearance processes to usurp statutory roles
    and authorities of decisionmakers and advance personal agendas.
        Examples include scope content determinations relating that
    the compliance report, specifically with respect to Iran,
    personnel in the Office of the Legal Advisor reversing
    previously clear determinations and approved language on such
    matters as violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions, and
    assistant secretary-level clearances changed before they reach
    the secretary's desk.
        Some of the recommendations: To succeed in reforming,
    realigning, streamlining, and optimizing there must be clear
    guidance and leadership on agenda priorities and scope. This
    applies to undersecretaries, bureaus' offices up the chain of
    command to the secretary. And it should also guide the
    authorization process. We need clear lines of demarcation,
    transparency and honesty in reporting. Stop over-classification
    to hide information from the Congress or the American people,
    particularly when data is in the public domain. Return to
    unclassified reports with classified TS/SCI Annexes as mandated
    by statute. No versions of intermediate classification.
    Dramatically increase the scope of a compliance report in terms
    of the subject matter covered and information used to inform
    the judgments and documents.
        Optimization: T has to be fully integrated. No
    marginalization or subordination to regional bureaus. The T
    should reflect the current landscape in scope and message as
    potentially the Undersecretary for Global Security and
    Strategic Domains. This includes outer space, undersea, AI, and
    cyber.
        Eliminate congressional and public affairs offices and
    personnel within bureaus as all these requests should go
    through the departments' respective bureaus and offices to
    ensure maximum coordination and message cohesion.
        Bring matters pertaining to the Antarctic Treaty; Arctic
    Affairs; Artemis Accords, given based on the Outer Space
    Treaty; Space Traffic Management, already handled by the ADS
    Bureau, the ESC office of that bureau, to a revamped and
    renamed ADS Bureau.
        Funds and assistance programs should be consolidated into
    one dedicated office, not an additional office, but one office
    dedicated to such funding and oversight with--similar to
    regional bureaus. Other eliminations, consolidations, and
    reductions including in structure, personnel, and functions are
    included in my prepared testimony.
        In sum, we are being called to do what is right and
    necessary, not what is easy or popular. I look forward to your
    questions and to working together to make the Department of
    State foreign policy and programs more efficient and in the
    hope of ushering in a new era of American leadership and
    greatness while advancing security and peace for the U.S., the
    American people, and worldwide.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        (Prepared statement of Ms. Poblete follows:)
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Self. Thank you, Dr. Poblete.
        I now recognize Mr. Kochis as his opening--for his opening
    statement. Thank you.

                       STATEMENT OF DANIEL KOCHIS

        Mr. Kochis. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Self,
    Ranking Member Keating, and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before
    you today on this important topic.
        My name is Daniel Kochis. I am a senior fellow in the
    Center on Europe and Eurasia at the Hudson Institute and I am
    grateful for the opportunity to offer my testimony this
    afternoon. Please note that the views I express in this
    testimony are my own and should not be necessarily construed as
    those representing the Hudson Institute.
        The last comprehensive foreign relations authorization
    bill--reauthorization bill was enacted into law over 20 years
    ago. At that moment Vladimir Putin had only been in office for
    2 years. It would be three more before he gave voice to his
    belief that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest
    geopolitical catastrophe of the century. The invasion of
    Georgia and Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea and Moscow's
    systematic shadow war against the U.S. and its allies waited in
    the future.
        In 2002 Russia was in fact the fourth largest recipient of
    U.S. foreign aid, receiving nearly one-quarter of U.S. dollars
    disbursed that Fiscal Year in the Europe and Eurasia region.
        The U.S. still reeling from the 9/11 attacks had
    successfully convinced allies to deploy alongside us to
    Afghanistan. The push to focus NATO on out-of-area operations
    was underway, a decision that in retrospect has proven foolish
    and from which Europe continues to recover.
        In 2002 we retained a unipolar moment. The year following
    the Chinese navy counted 128 vessels, 100 less than the United
    States. Today China is the world's largest navy with 370 ships
    and submarines. The world was still 11 years away from the
    launch of the Belt and Road Initiative, China's plan for
    massive infrastructure investment in order to link Beijing
    economically and politically to key global regions including
    prominently in Eastern Europe.
        Today the world is a very different place. As Congress
    undertakes this reauthorization effort the watchword I believe
    should be at the forefront of your minds is competition,
    principally against our great power adversaries: China and
    Russia. Reorienting State Department resources for the current
    era of great power competition is a necessary task which will
    help steer U.S. policy toward accomplishing the most important
    outcomes. Prying one great power adversary from the other is in
    my view simply not possible. The shared Sino-Russian goal of
    insulating their illegitimate regimes and forcibly bring the
    end to the Western-led global order and by extension decreasing
    U.S. power and influence has bonded Beijing and Moscow in a way
    which U.S. diplomacy will the unable to overcome.
        Therefore, we simply need to compete. This being a
    competition the U.S. cannot afford to lose, we must leverage
    every tool in our arsenal to maximize our advantages. One of
    those more potent tools we have is foreign aid. When thinking
    through this assistance the driving factor should always be the
    question does this advance U.S. national interests? There are
    clear examples during the past few years of U.S. foreign aid
    dollars funding projects which do not advance this interest
    clearly. These, while glaring, are nonetheless minor components
    in the overall foreign aid program.
        In the 20th Century Nicholas Spykman wrote, ``Who controls
    the rimland, controls--rules Eurasia; who rules Eurasia
    controls the destinies of the world.( Today this rimland, which
    includes the majority of continental Europe, is hotly
    contested. It is more important than ever that the U.S. remain
    active in the region with the State Department focusing its
    efforts on three key areas: Those were U.S. support is crucial,
    those where the U.S. has as strong comparative advantage, and
    finally geographic areas or point of interest where they are on
    the cusp of magnified significance.
        The Balkans, for example, fulfill components of all three
    of these focus areas. It is once again on the cusp of returning
    to top geopolitical relevance, U.S. support remains crucial,
    and there are components of needed support particularly in the
    energy sphere where the U.S. has significant comparative
    advantages.
        As the committee thinks through the framework of State
    Department priorities, staffing, and oversight, I would also
    suggest a greater focus on the Arctic, one--the region which is
    clearly on the cusp of heightened significance in the decades
    ahead.
        Finally, I would note the imperative to focus our efforts
    on those nations where our adversaries are targeting their
    intention, places like Moldova and Ukraine. Residing in the
    unenviable gray zone these countries find themselves in
    critical need of our support. Continued U.S. prosperity and
    security lie in no small part upon ensuring stability in
    Europe. As such, it is advantageous to remain engaged in this
    theater.
        Foreign aid, if utilized prudently in service of a national
    interest, can help bolster positive outcomes in the region,
    block our adversaries from gaining undue influence, and provide
    an excellent return on investment for U.S. policymakers.
        Thank you. With that, I look forward to answering your
    questions and shedding any light I can on this subject matter
    at hand this afternoon.
        (Prepared statement of Mr. Kochis follows:)
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Kochis.
        I now recognize Ambassador O'Brien for his opening
    statement.

                       STATEMENT OF JAMES O'BRIEN

        Mr. O'Brien. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member. I
    spent half my career in the private sector and half at the
    State Department. And what I have noticed are a couple things:
    One is that EUR is the gateway to most global issues. Any
    caucus or group that addresses a global issue runs through our
    relationships with our transatlantic partners. The P-3 at the
    United Nations, NATO itself, all the significant organizations
    including the informal ones like the G7 and others. So we have
    to get that right. That is why EUR ends up doing silly
    measurements, like much more than half the paper that goes to
    the Secretary of State, because it is that relationship that is
    the bedrock of all other functions in the State Department.
        The second thing is the State Department is always in a
    State of transition. Every year a third of FSOs change over.
    Politicals like us kind of come and go every couple of years.
    Experts get hired. And even the civil service is facing an
    enormous transition as Baby Boomers hit retirement age. So the
    impact of that is that it is pretty easy to get your priorities
    in place in the State Department without a lot of barking like
    an angry dog about how the workforce is wrong. And I think what
    it takes is clear leadership, a set of criteria, and an
    approach that makes sense to the American people and that
    workers can follow. And I feel, frankly, Mr. Chairman, we don't
    have that now.
        Four points: One of them is--just goes to what is the role
    of this process? So Secretary Rubio and Mr. Musk seem to have
    settled their disagreement by agreeing that now 83 percent of
    AID contracts can get canceled. And as always, the powerful
    have settled their dispute on the backs of people without
    voices. So these American farmers waiting on $2.6 billion of
    payments by AID. And those have been disrupted. I don't know if
    they will be paid.
        There are tens of millions of people depending on health
    care and food that was delivered through AID projects and now
    that they are not getting that they are either going to die or
    they are going to migrate. This is the most effective border
    security program we have got and we just took it to zero.
        Now the most significant element of this though is that
    each of these projects came up of course to this committee and
    three other committees for approval before the money went out
    the door. And the Secretary of State has now said that this
    committee was wrong on four out of five dollars in the foreign
    assistance account. That is a pretty poor batting average. And
    I think what we need to do is find some way in which the
    administration can make clear what it intends to spend money on
    so that this committee can reach agreement and then the
    President can agree that he will take care to follow the
    authorization law once it is enacted as opposed to asserting a
    unilateral prerogative to impound the money.
        As you go through that I hope you ask three questions: One
    of them is how does any restructuring advance the President's
    objectives? Just to take one example, on arms control every
    major agreement has been led by the U.S. and much of that
    expertise sits in ADS. So if we just start firing people we
    won't be able to accomplish the kind of reductions the
    President says he wants in nuclear weapons.
        Second major question: Can we get others to spend more
    money? We talk a lot about burden sharing in the military
    capacity. There are others. In Ukraine the United States
    spent--of the AID about 350 million Ukrainian agriculture. This
    contributed to tens of billions of dollars that Ukraine spent
    on its own military. It also led, that 350 million, to $2.2
    billion in private sector investment by American companies. AID
    also spent the money to help Ukraine get this grain out.
        If we want access to Ukrainian critical minerals, those
    things are going to have to transit Poland, for the most part,
    and maybe Romania, two countries we are kind of alienating
    right now. So I don't understand how what we are doing allows
    us to get others to contribute more.
        Third major question: Are we mortgaging the future? Our
    kids are going to get rich or get poor based on developments in
    artificial intelligence, biomedical sciences, and energy
    efficiency. The Chinese are trying to write the global
    standards in those areas. If we stand with our European
    partners, along with Japan, Korea, and some others, we would be
    more populous, more wealthy, and more experienced at writing
    the global standards that our companies will sell into. If we
    try to do this on our own, sending others off to do it on their
    own, we fight China at a disadvantage. That is mortgaging the
    future.
        Another area is the defense industry. The supplemental
    appropriation for Ukraine spent more than $30 billion in U.S.
    companies. Now the Europeans are about to spend tens, maybe
    hundreds of billions, two-thirds of which they would spend with
    U.S. companies, but they are going to direct it to their own
    companies. Those are jobs that will not be in your districts
    even if American companies get European contracts, mortgaging
    the future.
        So I hope you can put those questions--and I hope the
    administration shows up to provide clear answers because with
    that it is easy to address the structural issues. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.
        (Prepared statement of Mr. O'Brien follows:)
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Self. Thank you, Ambassador O'Brien.
        I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Dr. Poblete, does the current structure of the T family
    reflect the current threat environment? Are we looking at the
    future to adapt to any authority structure and programs that we
    need to change to address emerging threats?
        Ms. Poblete. Small components of the T family are dedicated
    to emerging security challenges, but its current construct is
    primarily focused on nuclear arms control and agreements and
    structures that no longer exist or are just a modicum of what
    was needed at the time.
        In sum, yes, it does advance U.S. interests. It does align
    with your America First priorities. But in order to adapt it
    needs to become leaner and only the best people need to be
    there. We need to eliminate redundancy. We need to--as I
    specified in my oral remarks and my prepared remarks, we need
    to avoid duplication. And that leads to waste of time, energy,
    and resources. So we need to have clear lines of demarcation.
        In our conversation prior to this hearing you asked if it
    would be possible to merge the International Security and
    Nonproliferation Bureau, ISN, with ADS, statutorily
    Verification and Compliance. My first instinct was we are able
    to--and I provide specifics--we are able to distill both
    bureaus down to perhaps five or six offices. We are able to
    consolidate functions that are overlapping among the offices in
    these bureaus.
        But I do caution going back to statutory mandate and the
    history of the genesis of the Verification and Compliance
    Bureau and T of the merging of negotiations, assistance, funds
    with verification and compliance. When I worked on the
    committee with the former chairman Ross Slatenen, Ranking
    Member Keating was very supportive of modifying the Atomic
    Energy Act and the pattern and the method in which we approve
    one to three agreements, nuclear cooperation agreements. I
    propose that that is valuable for ISN, but verification and
    compliance must be integrated into the verification and
    compliance of nuclear cooperation agreements as well and ensure
    that there is accountability if there is cheating even on those
    civilian nuclear cooperation agreements because they inform
    also all our efforts with respect to deterrence, defense,
    collaboration, partnerships and the like.
        Mr. Self. Okay. Thank you.
        Dr. O'Brien, USAID, what does that stand for?
        Mr. O'Brien. Agency for International Development.
        Mr. Self. Ah, thought so. Agency for International
    Development. You gave us two examples of USAID providing money
    for Americans.
        Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
        Mr. Self. I think that is one of the things that this
    committee will try to get to, although USAID is not in our
    portfolio. But I needed to address that. So, Mr.----
        Mr. O'Brien. I am sorry, I don't understand this tension,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Self. The tension is it is for international
    development. You----
        Mr. O'Brien. Right. By Americans. In this case. I mean,
    people need food. We can buy the food on the market. We can buy
    it from Americans.
        Mr. Self. No, it is international development. We need to
    correct the USAID. I think Senator--now Secretary of State
    Rubio intends to do that.
        Now, Mr. Kochis, I have less than a minute. The Balkans are
    vital to this committee. I think they are a potential flash
    point. And you mentioned energy and the Russian influence of
    course in Serbia. Can you elaborate on your view of how we
    become an energy partner? And you have got 30 seconds.
        Mr. Kochis. Well, I completely agree. I think not just
    Russian, but also Chinese investment in energy in the Balkans
    has expanded quite significantly I think in two ways: One of
    course is U.S. natural gas, trying to help those nations in
    that region buildup their interconnections. And I think the
    other is nuclear. So helping to leverage our expertise in the
    nuclear sphere I think will improve the energy picture there
    also some of the air quality issues and the sort of life issues
    that they have in the region which are impacted by the use of--
    heavy use of coal.
        Mr. Self. Thank you. I yield.
        I now recognize Ranking Member Keating for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you. You know I think in Ukraine that--
    myself I understand Putin's rhetoric and I believe--some belief
    that what he envisions is a reconstitution of the old Soviet
    Union. But I think his real concern in Ukraine has been right
    next door to him will be a country rich with young, educated,
    technologically expert young people that will become
    entrepreneurs. I think he is worried that the bread basket of
    the world is right next door, and that economic influence.
        I know he is concerned about the potential for Ukraine's
    own military industrial development itself. And to have that
    prospering country and a democracy right next door while the
    Russian economy continues to go in the tank and he has driven
    it further with his illegal war in Ukraine serves as a contrast
    that would create a great domestic political problem for
    himself, let along cutting out the oligarchs that are a part of
    his network of self-wealth that many people say makes him the
    wealthiest person in the world. It is a mafia-like crime
    syndicate, as has been discussed. So it is that comparison.
        Ambassador O'Brien, I traveled with you to Ukraine. When I
    was there I met with the U.S.-Ukrainian--American-Ukrainian
    Chamber of Commerce. And I was just struck by the businesses,
    the U.S. businesses that are there, how they made it through
    this war, continued and how they wanted to grow beyond this.
    They realized all the things I just said about Ukraine being
    the powerhouse really of Europe down the road and how that not
    only helps our own business interests here at home, but also
    strengthens our security here at home. So investing in
    international development is indeed investing in our own
    priorities here in the United States.
        Can you talk a little bit more about how the U.S. interests
    make America safer, more prosperous? And also this idea that
    people have; and I understand if this is all they know, that,
    oh, we are giving money to other countries when we could use
    the money back here at home. It is my belief that investing
    over there is--has a multiplying effect in terms of investing
    at home. Could you talk about that?
        Ms. Poblete. You answer first and then----
        Mr. Keating. No, no. No, Ambassador, because it is about
    the----
        Mr. O'Brien. Okay.
        Mr. Keating [continuing]. because we traveled there and I
    met with those people.
        Mr. O'Brien. Yes, I was in Ukraine eight times during the
    war. I don't have an exact multiply--multiple for how much U.S.
    assistance comes back to help us, but I know for example that
    we had a large program to improve the environment for small and
    medium businesses with a real focus on American companies. They
    were already beginning to invest substantially in the Ukrainian
    defense industrial base and they were beginning to invest in EU
    countries where inputs would come from Ukraine and then be
    exported elsewhere in the world. Those are direct benefits to
    our economy.
        They also help us again--as Mr. Kochis and I both
    emphasized, the real struggle ahead is with China which hasn't
    featured much in the last 5 weeks. And I think we are a lot
    better off if we have that as our focus and we build our base
    in just the way you all do when you run. You get your base
    together. And our base sits with our European partners, Japan,
    Korea, and some others. With that we are a billion to a
    billion-and-a-half people.
        For Ukraine to inject another 35 million young, well-
    educated people with enormous resources into our base helps us
    with the real struggle that is ahead, and that is part of what
    is at stake here.
        Mr. Keating. I really appreciate the comments of our
    witnesses, too, highlighting other areas where this would be
    important, too, like the Balkans, like the Arctic. These are
    areas where it is critical. And we are in competition with
    China in those. And it is this investment in Ukraine that is
    going to strengthen that. Our moving away from that does just
    the opposite.
        So whether it is the Balkans, whether it is up north,
    whether it is these areas of influence, whether it is--our
    overall strategy with China has been one of deterrence. That is
    our strategy. This is weakened as well. So when you look at
    this front line and you look at that investment, I don't know
    how you can't help but understand. And it is up to us as
    representatives of the people to better communicate to people
    in our districts and across our country that this is indeed the
    America First policy. I yield back.
        Mr. Self. I now recognize the representative from Ohio, Mr.
    Davidson, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Davidson. I thank the gentleman and I thank your
    witnesses. I appreciate you being here today to answer
    questions.
        Mr. O'Brien, you spent some time with the Biden
    Administration. What does the phrase--are you familiar with the
    phrase as much as it takes, as long as it takes?
        Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
        Mr. Davidson. So you are familiar with it. What does that
    phrase mean? As much as it takes. We are clear on that. Just
    keep cutting the checks. As long as it takes to do what?
        Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
        Mr. Davidson. They never really defined the mission. What
    is the mission as you see it?
        Mr. O'Brien. Well, no, I think we did, and I think it goes
    to some of the difficulties I have with the decisions that
        [inaudible.]
        Mr. Davidson. No, you didn't. And the reality is between--
    --
        Mr. O'Brien. I don't think you are right there.
        Mr. Davidson. Well, let me elaborate since it is my time.
    Victoria Nuland said that it was regime change in Russia
    including war crime tribunals for Vladimir Putin?
        Mr. O'Brien. When did she say that?
        Mr. Davidson. I don't have the date. I will be glad to
    supply it for you.
        Mr. O'Brien.
        [Inaudible.]
        Mr. Davidson. This is my job to question you.
        Mr. O'Brien. Yes. Okay.
        Mr. Davidson. So what was it exactly that you believed that
    the administration committed to do in Ukraine?
        Mr. O'Brien. Yes. So one----
        Mr. Davidson. Besides spend money.
        Mr. O'Brien. Okay. Sorry. My turn. What we were working
    toward during my time as Assistant Secretary was to build a
    viable cease-fire. Much of that work was spent with the
    Ukrainians so they were prepared to do that. The Russians were
    unwilling to make a cease-fire on any terms that would be
    sustainable.
        Mr. Davidson. Okay. So the
        [inaudible]----
        Mr. O'Brien.
        [Inaudible.]
        Mr. Davidson. You wanted to secure peace. And that is good
    because then you should be euphoric that President Trump has
    come in and said the United States is America is very happy to
    help you secure peace. But----
        Mr. O'Brien. I agree
        [inaudible.]
        Mr. Davidson [continuing]. there is not a lot of happiness
    in the world from the Biden Administration. It is, oh, how dare
    you not keep cutting the checks. And that generally is the
    theme within the State Department as they will share just
    enough information to get Congress to shut up and cut the
    checks. Right?
        Mr. O'Brien. I think----
        Mr. Davidson. I am not having a discussion with you,
    please. I don't plan to----
        Mr. O'Brien. Okay.
        Mr. Davidson [continuing]. talk to you again.
        Mr. O'Brien. That was never my attitude.
        Mr. Davidson.
        [Inaudible] mic off. I am not talking to you anymore.
        Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
        Ms. Davidson. All right. So this is the reality of what has
    been going on for a long time. People come to Congress and say
    just cut the checks. And frankly, what you see out of the
    European Union, we couldn't get them to cut the checks for a
    long time. Some of the smaller countries did contribute. A lot
    of countries contributed a little more, but your big countries
    like Germany continued to not meet their obligations under
    NATO. They gave statements about meeting their obligations, but
    they didn't meet their obligations to NATO. And now that Donald
    Trump has said, all right. Fine. You will find out. You are not
    ready for peace? Go ahead. Suddenly the Europeans have found
    the resolve to spend money.
        I just want to share a quote from Irving Kristol, a
    godfather of the neo-conservative movement. He said in 1983--
    well before the end of the cold war he said, quote, ``If we
    have learned anything from the NATO experience of the last 30
    years(--that was in 1983--``it is the rediscovery of an old
    truth: dependency corrupts, and absolute dependency corrupts
    absolutely.( The culture of entitlement and dependence on
    American money has corrupted many of our allies and it is nice
    to see it changing.
        When we look at our own approach though we have had a hard
    time saying what is in it for America? Why should America serve
    as the de facto European defense force and then continue to be
    treated with contempt for it? Victoria Nuland had her own
    problems, but when we look at the acting Ambassador there, we
    should have some other concerns.
        So, Ms. Poblete, you are familiar with some of the
    challenges from your time in the Leg. Branch. Does it resonate
    with you that we are kept in the dark in a lot of things just
    so we cut the checks?
        Ms. Poblete. Absolutely. And unfortunately it became--it
    was crystallized during my time at the Department of State just
    to what great lengths some individuals go to to hide
    information from the Congress.
        But to your point, Congressman Davidson, and the discussion
    of foreign aid, foreign aid needs to have clearly defined goals
    and objectives. With respect to Ukraine that never really
    occurred. When Senator Rand Paul sought a GAO report to
    ascertain how the funding had been used, who were the end
    users, was it used for the intended purposes that the Congress
    had appropriated and authorized it for, he was called an agent
    of Putin.
        Mr. Davidson. Yes, that is----
        Ms. Poblete. He was called----
        Mr. Davidson [continuing]. the standard attack because if
    you don't----
        Ms. Poblete. Exactly.
        Mr. Davidson [continuing]. just cut the checks, you are an
    enemy of the State, the deep State maybe. And that is where we
    look at Bridget Brink. She has actually worked to get rid of
    the prosecutor that was going to look in Ukraine--into Hunter
    Biden, who was going to look into things that we should have an
    interest in, that we should have accountability. Because what
    is lacking when you are kept in the dark is accountability and
    that is exactly what the Biden Administration worked to avoid
    on every front.
        Ms. Poblete. And if I may, sir, if I could share with all
    the members of this committee----
        Mr. Self. The gentleman's time is up.
        I now recognize the representative from Rhode Island, Mr.
    Amo.
        Mr. Amo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Focusing on some things
    that matter, let's talk about President Trump and his direction
    to Elon Musk to use DOGE to take a chain saw to our government.
    This has resulted in thousands of Federal employees being
    fired. These sweeping layoffs have been willful and malicious.
    Adding to the chaos and confusion laid-off workers have had
    their terminations rescinded once Elon realized the dangerous
    consequences of his actions. So it is clear that DOGE has no
    idea how our government works, yet that hasn't stopped them
    from forging ahead on their rampage. I underscore rampage.
        Every agency has been directed to submit a report on plans
    to further reduce their workforce by this Thursday. Thankfully
    the State Department hasn't had the mass layoffs of other
    agencies like USAID, apparently a point of contention between
    Elon and Secretary Rubio. However, there is a list of about 700
    civil servants who could be fired circulating at the agency.
    And in the last 2 months alone another 700 employees have
    resigned, nearly as many as typically resign in an entire year.
    So make no mistake, these proposed layoffs and forced
    resignations of dedicated public servants threaten our national
    security.
        That brings me to two subjects of today's hearing: The
    Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation and the
    Bureau of Arms Control, Deterrence, and Stability, aka, the
    experts who work to prevent nuclear war and international arms
    trafficking. And I hope that everybody agrees that we would be
    better off by having long-serving, experienced civil servants
    working at these bureaus. They leverage their institutional
    knowledge to keep us safe.
        Look, after all, we are talking about nuclear arms control
    agreements, monitoring chemical weapons, protecting critical
    American innovation, and coordinating global cooperation to
    prevent terrorists from accessing sensitive technology. This
    doesn't sound like entry-level work to me. It sounds like it
    requires a deep understanding of these technologies and our
    international agreements built on years of experience.
        Ambassador O'Brien, briefly can you tell me a bit how
    firing or forcing the resignation of staff with these bureaus
    would harm our national security and our ability to prevent bad
    actors from accessing nuclear weapons and other advanced
    technologies?
        Mr. O'Brien. Sure. I think there are a couple of things. So
    one is the chairman asked about new technologies. So certainly
    in the ISN Bureau--I worked with them a lot on restricting
    access of bad actors to new technologies--the set of expertise
    that is available there on supply chains and the financing of
    trade in what items that can lead to dangerous weapons is
    second to none and enables us to keep ourselves secure. And I
    saw again and again how we were able to restrict Russian,
    Iranian, and North Korean access to these items because of the
    expertise in that bureau.
        A recent thing that we were just able to sort of push over
    the line in my last couple of months there was the arrival of
    this shadow fleet, a group of unregulated tankers that export
    Venezuelan, Iranian, and Russian oil, competing unfairly with
    American producers and avoiding sanctions. We were finally able
    largely because of the expertise of people in that bureau and
    in the UR to identify the kind of key nodes where those ships
    intersect with the global commerce and were able to get the key
    states that have ability to access them either in ports in
    straits to shut it done.
        More broadly here it brings other countries along. So ISN
    in particular, but also ADS work with all of the other
    countries that have an interest in the more sophisticated parts
    of the supply chains for weapons, but also implementation of
    any kind of effective cease-fire arrangement. All that
    expertise sits there.
        Now, is it all as up to date as we would want? Again, there
    is enormous turnover in these places and I think somebody needs
    to really dig in and see who works there now. ADS hired during
    the time I was assistant secretary a number of very experienced
    people in working on issues like AI, crypto, other ways in
    which bad actors try to come at our security. And I think if
    somebody takes the time to dig in you may find that you don't
    need sort of broad structural changes, but you can actually
    just give clear direction. And that is what we are lacking
    right now.
        Mr. Amo. Yes, thank you, Ambassador. Quickly before my time
    expires, President Trump isn't just weakening our national
    security by firing Federal employees. He is detonating our
    relationships around the world. By freezing foreign assistance
    we are--our credibility with countries is being jeopardized. I
    look at countries like Armenia that has been moving closely to
    strengthening ties with the United States.
        So as I wrap up here, the message that we are sending is
    one that is detrimental to our commitment to countries like
    Armenia who need us to be committed in this relationship as we
    move further. I yield back.
        Mr. Self. I now recognize the representative from
    California, Ms. Kim.
        Ms. Kim. Thank you, Chairman Self and Ranking Member
    Keating for holding today's hearing.
        I want to thank the witnesses for joining us today. Good to
    see you.
        Good to see, Dr. Poblete. It has been a while. Increasing
    stability, preventing conflict, and preserving and advancing
    effective arm control and disarmament measures are the core of
    ADS' mission. And we have repeatedly seen Russia reject U.S.
    proposals for talks concerning an arms control framework after
    the expiration of START. Additionally, I am deeply concerned
    about the PRC's accelerated nuclear weapons programs amidst its
    escalating rhetoric.
        So can you talk to us about what ways can ADS be better
    positioned to work bilaterally and multilaterally to pursue
    effective nuclear risk reduction dialog?
        Ms. Poblete. Thank you. It is great to see you. The
    Congressman has left, but if I could start by making a couple
    of points: No. 1, with respect to DOGE, how many members of
    this committee would not have loved to have had a tool similar
    to that uncovering, but the ultimate decisionmakers are the
    Secretary of State confirmed by the Senate, comes from the
    Congress. So it is just a tool. It is not conducting a rampage.
        President Trump himself has recognized the value of experts
    in the ISN and ADC Bureau, not specifically but talking about
    how there are many good people. We want to retain the best of
    the best. But that does not mean that these two bureaus require
    over 300 individuals to keep the very best, the most
    knowledgeable experts to engage in negotiations of arms
    control, nonproliferation, and disarmament agreements and
    treaties.
        Ms. Kim. So not to be redundant, but is there a certain
    line of technical or scientific expertise that would be--that
    would prove beneficial if added to ADS?
        Ms. Poblete. We have the current technical, military,
    intel, and scientific expertise. Ironically--and that is part
    of my recommendations. Ironically, these bureaus are
    overwhelmed by policy experts, by messaging experts. So if we
    were to reduce the personnel and reduce the scope to those who
    have the hands-on expertise overseen by policy and expert
    negotiators, that would go a long way to be more efficient and
    more successful in our arms control, nonproliferation, and
    disarmament negations.
        Ms. Kim. Thank you. And you also mention in your testimony
    that the--about the Eurocentrism and Euro dominance stemming
    from cold war dynamics, arms treaties, and agreements has
    undermined some T family responsibilities relating to
    verification and compliance. So what can be done to ensure this
    trend does not continue?
        Ms. Poblete. Again, the T family and the undersecretary
    needs to be treated equally to her P counterpart, for example.
    And statute must be the overarching guide, which means
    according to the congressional Report--not just a statute, but
    congressional intent made it clear that no regional bureau was
    to supersede determinations made by the Verification and
    Compliance Bureau when it came to those functions.
        And further, with respect to the reference to sanctions and
    Treasury, that intelligence is actually gathered primarily by
    the Department of Treasury. And all bureaus at the Department
    of State are engaged in those determinations to impose
    sanctions.
        But with respect to the Euro dominance and Eurocentrism, if
    we want to counter China as we did in the 4th administration
    and as we want to do again now, yes, a lot goes through Europe
    just because historically that is the case, but we cannot
    overly focus on just Europe. To counter China we must empower
    every regional bureau and every bureau of the Department of
    State using all elements of U.S. power, not just those going
    through Europe.
        Ms. Kim. Chairman, I have a few more questions, but I am
    running out of time. Do I have----
        Mr. Self. We will have a second round.
        Ms. Kim. Thank you.
        Mr. Self. I now recognize the representative from Nevada,
    Madam Titus.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well like some of my
    colleagues, I am appalled by Trump's actions to freeze all of
    U.S. foreign policy--foreign aid, rather, abandoning the USAID
    working professionals around the country and their families,
    and dismantling the Federal workforce generally.
        These steps have led to unnecessary deaths for those people
    who count on programs that we have been involved with and
    health care, the financial hardship and uncertainty for our
    foreign service officers, and diminished U.S. credibility. I
    have just met with some representatives from Europe earlier
    today and they are kind of appalled. They don't really know how
    to react to having someone who has been their friend now not
    only be a friend, but possibly be an enemy.
        I am particularly concerned about the rolling back of
    democracy programs that existed with USAID. We were there to
    support countries where there were new democracies that were
    building and establish democracies that were backsliding. We
    built vibrant civil service--I mean civil society communities,
    we backed up the free press, we not only were supporting our
    own values, but we were backing up China and Russia. And if we
    are not there, they are going to step in to fill the void.
        The Republicans love to do a list of the things that USAID
    does that they hate, so I would like to do a list of some of
    the pro-democracy programs that have been eliminated or frozen.
        Program to support Belarus Democratic leaders in exile,
    advancing Belarus democracy. Program funding election
    monitoring in Kosovo, advancing digital democracy in Serbia,
    promoting the development of independent professional media in
    Moldova, fostering more responsive governance in Armenia,
    boosting civil society engagement in Georgia, supporting
    political pluralism in Bosnia-Herzegovina. These are the kind
    of programs that are our soft power that we not only further
    the values that we have, but it also helps our national
    security. And if we don't believe that, the minute these were
    frozen you saw Bruno Rodriguez praising this, Medvedev saying,
    oh, this is great, applause around the world for us being gone
    so they could step in. So that is what I would like for us to
    address.
        I would ask you, Mr. O'Brien, looking at the Western
    Balkans, there have been a lot of programs there that have been
    terminated, and not just those that were focused on democracy
    like I mentioned, but some things like promoting energy
    security, combatting corruption, strengthening critical
    infrastructure. Could you talk a little bit about how Russia
    will see it as an advantage if we are not there with those
    programs?
        Mr. O'Brien. Yes, it already does. So Russia supplies a
    critical amount of gas, less and less to Serbia and onto Bosnia
    and elsewhere. The Serbs have announced they would like to get
    to zero, but for that to happen they need American natural gas
    to become available. That will come either through a pipeline
    that runs from basically Greece through North Macedonia, or it
    would come through a pipeline that runs through Croatia and
    across Bosnia.
        Now that pipeline is stuck because of corruption which is
    tied to two local leaders, one of whom actively presents
    himself as the local affiliate of the administration and is
    actively trying to get out from under sanctions because of his
    corruption.
        So we are now eliminating the programs that will clear the
    way for America to become a reliable energy supplier and free
    these countries from Russian influence. I have trouble seeing
    that as an America First agenda.
        Ms. Titus. I completely agree. Well how about Moldova,
    things that are happening in Moldova? Would you address that?
        Mr. O'Brien. Yes. So, Moldova, like a lot of countries from
    Central Asia all the way across to the Black Sea--these
    countries want much less Russia. They see this as their chance
    to get out from under. And in Moldova there is a small enclave
    that Russia used to run guns and money laundering operations
    out around the world. That has become incredibly weakened as a
    result of the last few years of sanctions. Russia now--facing
    elections this fall in Moldova Russia has gone on a massive
    spree of disinformation which also affects Romania because of
    the language, vote buying, and efforts to influence the
    Moldovan elections by using energy, which they used to supply.
        So we were building networks to get into Ukraine and also
    providing the ability for Moldova to generate its own power,
    but also run power in from Europe. Much of that is gone now.
    And we are going to leave Moldova at the behest of Russia,
    which will reinState its gun-running, thug-running operation
    again.
        Ms. Titus. Again, not in our best interest. Thank you. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Self. I now recognize the representative from Delaware,
    Mr. McBride.
        Ms. McBride. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ranking Member
    Keating, also wonderful----
        Mr. Keating. Mr. Chairman?
        Ms. McBride. I am sorry----
        Mr. Keating. Could you repeat your introduction again,
    please?
        Mr. Self. Yes, it is a--we have set the standard on the
    floor of the House and I am simply----
        Mr. Keating. What is that standard, Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Self. The standard----
        Ms. Keating. Will you repeat what you just said----
        Mr. Self. I----
        Mr. Keating [continuing]. when you introduced a duly
    elected representative from the United States of America,
    please?
        Mr. Self. I will. The Representative from Delaware, Mr.
    McBride.
        Mr. Keating. Mr. Chairman, you are out of order. Mr.
    Chairman, have you no decency? I mean I have come to know you a
    little bit, but this is not decent.
        Mr. Self. We will continue this hearing----
        Mr. Keating. You will not continue it with me unless you
    introduce a duly elected representative the right way.
        Mr. Self. This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]