[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]