charter communications supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. former secretary of state mike pompeo, and former defense secretary leon panetta testified on china's relations with iran and russia before the house select committee on the chinese communist party. they also discussed how global threats and u.s. relations with china can impact every day americans, and the importance of strengthening global partnerships and building energy and supply chain security. this is just over two hours. c.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> select committee will come to order. we will play a video.

>> the largest temptation of an vaping country in europe since world war ii. >> hamas launches surprise attacks within israel borders overnight. >> $100 $100 million a year . >> xi jinping's says that one will be reunified with china during his new year's address. >> so 2024 must mark an inflection point. >> we stand at this crossroads. >> whether it's a sea of troubles, we will do everything we can. >> a growing number of world conflicts. to shape a new world order. ..

>> led by the united states and its allies, china is by far the most serious challenge to u.s. national security with >> both sides say they are opposed to a world order led by the united states and its allies. >> china is, the most serious challenge to national security, with the power to tree shape the national order. >> the people's republic of china and russia have an interest in protecting their way of life. >> china is a near peer to peer adversary to us now, and of course, their goal is to rebuild the empire. they are buying up farmland in states here in the u.s., and even in some of these localities. we have chinese and ccp owned companies that are coming and opening shop on main street. >> it's being replaced by a period of hardheaded realism.

all enemies are reanimated. battle lines are being redrawn. >> beijing is gathering its forces across the eastern region. russia is also receiving support from iran. ukrainian officials say that moscow has used hundreds of ukrainian drones to hit military targets, and then, there is china. the records show that chinese state owned companies provided russian government owned defense firms as navigational clinic, jamming technology. intelligence sharing. >> actively deepened cooperation with new member iran. >> iran across, and connects and the >> deepening -- a land bridge

across the middle east, and connecting to an alliance with tehran, causing an excess of resistance. >> relics from previous wars, that made their way into the hands of hamas. >> the foundation of the world order is being shaken to their core. to guarantee our freedoms, we must be prepared. >> as we work in concert, to meet the authentic problems of our time, we will generate a vision and an energy, which would demonstrate a new to the world, as a period of vitality and strength of a free society. >> thank you, first, a point of order. we have a hard stop at 11:00, so i'm going to be ruthless in enforcing time limits. i had a fancy, prepared speech, but instead i would like to tell a story, which is, when i was a freshman member of

congress, with the secretary son, jimmy, we had a meeting and we were listening to his wisdom, and i piped up and said, mr. secretary, what is the best job you have ever had in washington, d.c.? and, in a response that would simultaneously inspire and depress me, he said, the best job i ever had was being a member of congress. here is a man who had every great job in washington, d.c., and he said the best job he ever had was as a member of congress, because, and i quote, "there was a feeling you could get stuff done." i would like to think that at a time when congress is struggling to get much done, this committee has been an oasis of bipartisanship, in an attempt to reinvigorate that spirit that secretary panetta was talking about. we have two incredible public servants with us today, secretary pompeo as well, to provide perspective on how we meet the moment, we are in a decisive moment for u.s.

national security, for global security more broadly. famously, churchill called it the period of german rearmament, the gathering storm. today, the storm gathers once more, and as we watched china undertake the largest peacetime military buildup, since at least world war ii, and it finds eager friends in koran, moscow, and pyongyang, we should reflect on the lessons of history's. this is true in your personal life, as much as geopolitics, problems do not age well. we ignore them at our peril. overreliance on polite diplomacy cannot save us. we must act decisively to enhance military strength, support our allies, and deter this authoritarian alignment. only strength will be able to withstand the storm. i now recognize ranking member russia chris murphy for his opening comments. >> thank you, the distinguished secretaries that are with us today. until the last few years, a lot of americans thought that

freedom and democracy were finally spreading around the world. after the cold war, democracy spread from east asia, to sub- saharan africa. in the 1990s, some pundits theorized that in addition to the spread of democracy, growing economic ties between countries would also make warmest -- war less likely. there was even a theory that it would be impossible for two countries that both had mcdonald's to go to war with each other. this was called, and i'm not kidding, this was called "the golden arches theory of conflict prevention." and it would look something like this, as you can see in this picture. you can see the golden arches, and there is ronald mcdonald conquering the battlefield, instead of swords being beaten into plowshares, tanks are traded in for, yes, happy meals. i like this theory a lot. one reason is that mcdonald's is based in my home state of illinois, and the other reason is that mcdonald's was my first real job in life, flipping

burgers, so i have a sentimental attachment to this theory, but there is only one thing wrong with this theory. and that is, it's false. it doesn't work. because, while the chinese communist party invited mcdonald's into china, the ccp did not trade in its tanks for happy meals. instead, in 1989, they sent those tanks into tiananmen square, just a few blocks from what would be the largest mcdonald's in the world. vladimir putin did not trade in his tanks either, and sent them into ukraine two years ago. when mcdonald's stopped operating in russia in protest, putin forced the sale of mcdonald's property and renamed their brand. you can't go to mcdonald's in moscow anymore, but you can go to this place. it is russian for, tasty, and that's it. economic ties with the ccp in

russia did not lead them to become democracies, or to become more peaceful. in fact, the opposite happened. after coming to power, xi jinping issued document number nine, which tells the ccp to stamp out false ideological trends, like democracy, universal values, media independence, and civil society. the ccp now jails, disappears and murders journalists and dissidents, and is carrying out an ongoing genocide, a genocide against the weaker people. beyond its borders, the ccp militarized the south china sea, and it's increasing its military threat in taiwan. xi jinping declared a no limits partnership with vladimir putin and now stands by the putin regime during its brutal invasion in ukraine. last october, president biden sent congress a request for additional funding to support ukraine and others defending freedom and democracy against

those who wish to tear down these ideals. in november, every single democrat on this committee signed a letter to congressional leadership, urging this body to take action to pass that supplemental funding request. it is now january. the time to pass president biden supplemental funding request is now. it's now. the spread of freedom and democracy around the world has been one of recent history's most extraordinary developments. the power of these ideals has been proven by how fiercely those who enjoy them will fight to protect them. rather than turning their swords into plowshares, as they have integrated with the world economy, the ccp and vladimir putin's russia have lot more swords, and consequently, we must acquire more shields. and, we must help our friends shield their democracies from attack as well. our mutual security depends on it. thank you, and i yelled back.

>> i know for the record that your chart and propagating gets better every time we do a hearing. very impressive. again, we are privileged to have two public servants, two former secretaries, secretary pompeo was secretary of state and cia director during the trump administration. he also served the four district of kansas in congress. secretary pompeo was the director of the cia, as well as the secretary of defense under president barack obama. he previously served as chief of staff for bill clinton, and in what was his best job, apparently, as a member of congress from california from 1977 to 1993. we think both of you for making time out of your busy schedules to be here. if you could please stand and said -- raise your right hand, i will swear you in. >> do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give his true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you god?

director, show that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. you may be seated. secretary pompeo, you are recognized for your opening remarks. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you ranking member, krishnamoorthi. i started my career at canon 107, so it feels like home. it's a real privilege to be in front of this particular committee. you all are doing important, remarkable, bipartisan work, and i want to personally, on behalf of the pompeo family, thank each of you for doing that. it matters to my family. it matters to each american, and bless you for that. you all have in front of you, much like i did in my time in congress, important decisions. we have wars raging in europe, in the middle east. there is risk of one in south america, much closer to home, and the topic we are here to talk about today, the challenges in the pacific and asia are in front of us as well. i know that you will endeavor to get these decisions right. to start, i always get to the facts.

i will try to do this in just three minutes. we've got deterrence lost in europe. we have deterrence lost in the middle east, and we are on the cusp of losing that very deterrent model in asia as well. one could argue that elements of that have already been lost. chairman kim, who i spent way too much time with, chairman kim has now talked about the absence of any desire for peaceful reunification with the republic of korea. that is a change that is important. i was in guyana two weeks ago. they are frightened by maduro and his efforts to retake, in his words, retake what is rightfully theirs. this is a challenge that is linked -- it's not just about one of these theaters, one of the zones, regions, but these are deeply linked to whether america will have the resolve and capacity to deter and maintain the order that we have benefited, that americans have benefited from since the post

cold war order was established. we know that this conflict largely begins with economics. the chinese communist party has been at war with the united states economy for, at least, 20 years. one could argue 40. it might well it made sense for the esteemed dr. kissinger to go and travel and open up relationships with the chinese communist party back in 1972. it might have made sense in 1982. it made no sense by 2002, 2012, and certainly, today makes no sense. it's dangerous for the united states to allow the chinese communist party to have engaged here at home in ways that undermine the very foundations of our republic, and i know i will get asked about this today, but i think it's important that when we think about the challenge from the chinese, his party, we think not only about taiwan, not only about the south pacific and the first island chain, but about

los angeles and denver and washington, d.c., and chicago, and my home state of kansas. the chinese communist party is working diligently inside the gates to undermine everything it is we stand for. when he talks about american decline, he is not doing so passively. he is an advocate. he is working to achieve that very american decline here at home. the last thought, secretary panetta, it's great to be here with you today, and i think it's important for america to see that this challenge is not remotely about politics. it is not remotely partisan. it is so much more fundamental than that. i have been critical of many of president biden's foreign policy actions, but i must say, the work that they continue to do to confront the challenge of china, i have approved and appreciated. i always knew that we could do more, they could do more as well, and i'm counting on this committee to help us get to that place. when we put sanctions in place,

we can't immediately turn around and put in loopholes. when we put in place economic orders that suggest how america ought to proceed, we cannot let our adversaries, whether they be from russia, we have to make sure that our friends comply with them as well. this will require temerity from each of us. the chinese communist party is not about to give in because of some great speech that someone gives, some set of remarks, or meetings held in san francisco or beijing, or washington, d.c. they are determined. they will push back against our actions, we need to make sure that we hold the chinese communist party at risk in the same way they seek to put america at risk each day. if we get that piece right, the tactics, the operational pieces, we will get those. a strong united states military, a diplomatic corps, and a robust american economy, we can deliver those outcomes in a way

that will give us the chance that 250 years from now, the 76 or 79th secretary of state can sit here with his democrat counterpart from a previous administration, and still have the opportunity to defend what we hold most sacred. thanks for giving me the chance to be with you today. i look forward to your questions. >> secretary panetta, you are now recognized for your opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify. on the increasing threat posed by the people's republic of china, and its ongoing efforts to undermine the united states and allied interests around the world. thank you for having me join with my good friend, mike pompeo. who, we work together when he was in my job as director of

the cia, and continued to be in touch during the time he was secretary of state. mike and i are good friends, and i'm glad that we are here, to be able to present our views. i also want to thank this committee. the fact that you are a bipartisan committee working on this issue is incredibly important to our foreign policy. i want to commend you for the work that you have done, and particularly, the report you issued on economic competition. look, we live in a dangerous world, in which tyrants and autocrats and terrorists are challenging and attacking democracies. and so, they are threatening our values. they are threatening our interests and our national security. when putin brutally invaded ukraine, it was for no other reason but that he did not believe the people of ukraine had the right to decide how to

govern themselves. i believe ukraine is fighting, not just to protect their democracy, but to protect the concept of democracy in the 21st century. when hamas attacked, brutally killed innocent men, women and children in israel, they, like al qaeda on 9/11 made clear that they had no regard for the dignity of life, and hamas's leadership does need to be destroyed, just as we targeted and destroyed al qaeda leadership. we are facing an aligning group of dictators and autocrats from around the world, united in their determination to undermine our democracy. china is exploiting these conflicts, to advance its own narrative of western decline. xi explicitly said the east is rising in the west is declining, and that china will replace the united states as a world power.

i've met with xi multiple times during the time i was in office, here and in beijing. he is smart. he can be very diplomatic. he is committed to an aggressive china. but, it is important that we never underestimate xi jinping , because he will use every opportunity to undermine the stability of the united states and the west. he will steal intellectual property, conduct economic espionage, have extensive intelligence. i believe they have planted malware within our own computer networks. he will use artificial intelligence for disinformation campaigns. he will militarize and continue to militarize the south china sea. he will modernize the people's liberation army. they have the largest navy. they are producing large

numbers of manned and unmanned aircraft. they are expanding their nuclear arsenal. they have 500 warheads and they hope to double that by the end of the decade. as a result, they are not simply developing what could be called a general-purpose military. they are developing a military that can employ the threat and the use of force. xi jinping recently said the reunification of the motherland is a historical necessity, and so there is no question they threaten taiwan. the president was correct to say that we will defend taiwan militarily, if it comes to that. i have always believed strongly, when the u.s. gives its word, it must stand by its word. that is the essence of deterrence. the bottom line is, we are facing an increasingly aligned group of autocrats around the world, and the fact is that,

they are now having dual use technologies that are being spread with russia, iran, china, and north korea. while this alignment of autocrats is troubling, the good news is that it does not even come close to approaching the strength and depth and breadth of the united states' global network of allies and partners. look, some have suggested that our relationship with china is improving, and there is no question. we have had increased military and economic dialogue, but make no mistake. the only way to try to avoid war with china, the only way to deal with china, is from strength. from strength. both china and russia became more aggressive when they sensed weakness on the part of the u.s., and for that reason, we must take strong action to arm and train taiwan to defend itself, to

strengthen our force posture, to invest in the next generation of military technology, to bolster our alliances. and, to maintain strong export controls on critical technologies. and, i must say, we must demonstrate that our democracy is strong, and that we can govern. for that reason, it's incredibly important that this congress passed the supplemental request, and provide necessary military aid to ukraine, israel, and taiwan. to fail would send a terrible message of weakness to adversaries and allies alike. we will be playing china's game, and let me make clear, that those who believe the united states could simply back away from our commitment in ukraine, you cannot be weak on ukraine and be tough on china.

in conclusion, let me just say, i tell the students at the panetta institute that in our democracy, we govern either by leadership or by crisis. if we fail to provide leadership, then we will govern by crisis. and, the price of that is the loss of the trust of the american people and our democracy. this committee provides hope that we can govern and work together in a real sense. our democracy and national security depend on each of you for your leadership, necessary to govern and protect our country. thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary. we have released three major policy reports that were the culmination of a years worth of work, investigations, hearings, and member input. we are now trying to turn those into a legislative reality, but perhaps, the most important function of the committee is to explain to our colleagues and the american people, why?

why does any of this matter? for those in the d.c. beltway, those who work at think tanks, it may seem obvious why the defense of taiwan or the genocide matters, but i'm not sure it's obvious to americans, who are trying to live their lives. for example, i had 600 people come to a town hall in my district to talk about the lake sturgeon being endangered. it's a huge issue for wisconsin but i'm not sure i can get 20 people to come for a discussion on china, so i would like to give both of you the opportunity to answer for that everyday american that you have represented in your past jobs. why does this matter? why should they care about the threat posed by the ccp? i will start with you, secretary pompeo. >> chairman gallagher, it doesn't surprise me that you think it might not be of interest to your constituents. i would describe this differently. i don't think these are two separate things. this is domestic policy, and this is foreign policy. today, they are so deeply

interconnected. what happens in gaza does not stay there. these threats are real. you can see it on the southern border as well. there are bad actors trying to infiltrate our nation across that border as well, and then for the folks back in kansas, so many american jobs depend on the fact that we will confront the chinese communist party's efforts to destroy our manufacturing base, to steal intellectual property. there are real economic outcomes for ordinary families all across america, that depend on a united states that is prepared to defend its own economy, to create the rule of law, to have trade lanes open, all of these things that somehow seemed distant, they are right on top of us. last piece, i talked about china inside the gates. we closed in the trump administration, the chinese consulate in houston, texas. we didn't close it because we dislike them. he closed it because they were conducting but i believe was one of the largest espionage operations ever against the american people from that very

facility. they are in our universities today operating to steal our finest high-end research. these things matter to american economic growth for years in front of us, and if we get it wrong, our children and grandchildren will live in america that looks fundamentally different. it's not about something 6000 miles away. it's about something just down the street for you, your family, and your neighbors. >> thank you, serpent secretary panetta, why does it matter in monterey? >> it matters because, it really is about the fundamental security of our country. and, i think one of the things that marks the american people is, not just their common sense and their spirit, and their resilience, but it's also their

willingness to secure, not just their family, but their country. the secretary of defense -- i had the opportunity to look into the eyes of our women and women in uniform. at that time, going to both iraq and afghanistan. and, what i saw was a willingness on the part of these young men and women to put their lives on the line in order to fight and die for this country. to fight and die for this country. and so, there are men and women from across this country, who have assumed the responsibility of providing security, and putting their lives on the line in order to defend this country.

it is incredibly important to what i call the american dream. i am the son of italian immigrants. i used to ask my parents, why did you come to this country? they came in the early 1930s, from a poor area in italy, and i never forgot my father's response but he said, your mother and i believe we could give our children a better life in this country. i think that is the american dream. giving our children a better life. and, that's what this is all about. if we don't provide security for this country, if you don't deal with the threats we are facing abroad, then we are not providing security. we are not providing the american dream for our children. >> thank you, sir. the ranking member is recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. chair, secretary panetta, you eloquently stated your strong support for the white house's supplemental request for ukraine assistance. secretary pompeo, you are also very eloquent and strong supporter of aid to ukraine, and as you laid out in a recent op-ed, it appears that part of your reasoning is that putin winning in ukraine would embolden the ccp, and make a war over taiwan more likely, isn't that right? >> yes, that's correct, and secretary panetta spoke to that as well. >> let's just be very clear, if we do not further fund ukraine now, war is more likely over taiwan, which none of us, none of us want war over taiwan or with china, and that is, certainly, what the american people do not want. let me turn to my next topic. this is a picture of the cia memorial wall honoring those who died in the line of duty. last year, the ccp's secret

police launched a recruitment campaign. they posted this picture with an article about the first cia officer killed in the line of duty, whom the ccp claims they killed in tibet in 1950. now, here is the rub. if you look at this article, the headline reads, "the first black star the cia hung on the stonewall is related to china!" secretary panetta, i find this very disturbing. no one to glorify the killing of america, do you agree? chairman xi came to san francisco recently and told us that he wants to make friends with us. secretary panetta, this might be obvious, but friends don't glorify or log the killing of each other's people, right? >> absolutely. >> i think this is yet another example of the need to always

judge the ccp by their actions, not necessarily their words. let me turn to this other very interesting picture, and secretary panetta, you might recognize this. secretary panetta, this is you in the prc in 2012, and it looks like you are receiving a very memorable gift from china's then minister of national defense. do you remember this? >> i remember it very well. >> is this hung in your dining room, by the way? >> i don't know if i've ever brought that photograph with me. >> interestingly, not only is that plate very memorable, but this gentleman here was actually the last defense minister in china to not be prosecuted for corruption. the next three individuals to hold this position as minister of defense were all prosecuted for corruption and/or purged,

and many other -- others in the people's liberation army have been purged. secretary panetta, there have been numerous reports of xi jinping purging leaders, not because of corruption, but because they disagree with xi's leadership. here's my question. can you rule out that xi jinping is purging people from the pla because they disagree with his leadership? >> that defense minister that i met with, actually, we established a pretty good relationship in our ability to talk to one another, and as a matter of fact, we began to do military exercises together, and continued to have a dialogue, and i was hopeful at that time that we could continue that relationship. unfortunately, that has not been the case. and, you just indicated the amount of corruption, and those

that are being dismissed because xi doesn't particularly like the way they conduct business. what that does is it undermines stability in china, and it undermines stability in the military. the fact that we broke down our communication with china is of concern, because we need to be able to stay in touch with china when we have differences of one kind or another. i think the answer to your question is that xi, by virtue of the way he's dealing with his military leadership, i think, is undermining their ability to respond effectively to what they need to do. >> let me turn to my last topic. this is a picture of joshua wong, secretary pompeo, joshua wong is a prisoner because he led pro-democracy protests in hong kong. he came to the hong kong consulate and requested refuge in 2020 when you were

secretary. were you personally in favor of him receiving refuge? >> i don't want to talk about the discussions we had inside. i think the united states can always do more, whether it's for him, nathan long, the united states can do more and do better to protect these people in their capacity to do the basic things that every human being is entitled to, to speak their mind peacefully. >> i call upon the ccp to release joshua wong, and i wish that we had provided him refuge at the time. thank you, i your back. >> thank you secretary pompeo and secretary panetta for your service to our country. we appreciate it. secretary pompeo, in your written testimony today, you talked about a couple different things. they deal with the difficulties that the chinese economy is having right now, demographically, their struggling. their stock market is a

disaster for their stealing money from offshore accounts. it says, make no mistake, a weekend china is an ever- growing danger to the united states and the world. just to elaborate on this, are you saying that the weaker their economy is, the more volatile their government can be and the more danger they are to the rest of the world? >> it's good to see you again. it's not a direct line, but it's not a direct one for one as they present more risk. i think they present real risk, no matter the economy is thriving in a given year or not. it is the case that the decision-making apparatus, and secretary panetta spoke to this, as there is more turmoil, as their economy struggles more, as they see the demographic handwriting on the wall, that the decision-making process inside of the chinese communist party's leadership becomes more fractured, and as xi jinping sees the end of his time in

leadership approaching as each day goes on, he is more likely to try to achieve the end game that he has described. he has been unambiguous about his objectives, that he is determined to do it during his time. i think that as these challenges present themselves, there is always a risk that xi jinping will see the clock has run, and if america is not prepared to deter him, he will be more likely to take action that is adverse to u.s. economic and military interests in the region. >> secretary panetta, you talked about dealing from strength. i'm assuming it also means economic strength, because as secretary pompeo indicated here, even if they are weakened, they are still dangerous. some of the testimony we've had from witnesses that have been refugees from china, they talk about the fact that they spend about $300 billion to surveil, and build and detain -- detention camps. they have a fear of their own people, the government does. therefore, if you stress them

or their economy, there are some difficulties, and we ourselves would be able to offset that. would you agree with that? would you like to speak to that or elaborate more? >> look, i think the whole thrust of our efforts with china is deterrence. that deterrence has to be both military and economic. and, i think the reality is that right now, because china has a very unpredictable economy -- you just read today where the real estate industry is being challenged. they are in trouble because of loans that were issued, and the real estate area is a huge

investment area for china, so they're going to suffer another hit as a result of that. add to that the other unpredictability of the chinese economy right now, and the low growth taking place. i think what that is doing, in some ways, is drawing xi's attention to what he was primarily concerned about, which was developing china as an economic power for the future. in some ways, their problems represent good news for the united states. >> thank you. secretary pompeo, we are decoupling ourselves from china and all the trade we have. it has always been discussed on this committee, should we do it at all? should we do some? should we do not? how should we approach that?

i think we've had discussions, and i sit on the financial services committee, along with mr. barr, and the subcommittee on finance. it all fits in together here. decoupling, i only have half a minute left, decoupling ourselves from china, what would your opinion be on doing that? to do it, halfway, not at all? >> it's difficult to get to it in 15 seconds, but let me give it a run. we should never for a moment think that we are going to get a decision on this. it could be the chinese communist party makes decisions about the extent of that decoupling as well. that is, if xi jinping gets a role in deciding how much trade there will be, and on what terms. we can protect a high-end dual use materials. this should be the place we focus intensely in the near term, and we should shut not just part of it down, but all of it down. as for the beach balls and blankets and the like, and more complicated problems, it's a

continuum, but the effort today has to be to protect the crown jewels of the american economy and make sure we have the resources that we need to continue to deliver american manufacturing across the world. >> thank you. >> good morning, secretary panetta, in 2022 after vladimir putin and russia invaded ukraine, the united states, president biden, and our nato allies help to rally freedom loving people across the globe to support ukraine. what do you surmise xi jinping and the prc took from that? what lesson did they take from the swiftness of that coalition? >> as i mentioned in my testimony, i really do think that russia and china grew more aggressive because they sensed a weakness on the part of the united states, that the united states was withdrawing from leadership in the world, was withdrawing from our alliances,

and was not drawing a line on aggression. and, i'm thankful that president biden and our nato allies drew a line on putin. i don't think putin expected that, quite frankly. so, it was really important for the united states and our allies to be able to say, if you cross that line, we will take steps to go after russia. we will undermine your economy. we will provide military aid, and we will strengthen nato. that was a clear message. most importantly, the message was, the ukrainians, because they were brave fighters, stopped the russian invasion. that got the attention of xi jinping. and, the fact that that invasion was stopped, the fact that the united states and our allies came together to help ukraine has been a major

signal, i think, to xi to think twice about taiwan. >> around that time, putin and xi said there were no limits to the steepening relationship. they wanted to convey that publicly, to send a message to the rest of the world, and i think that is correct. the swiftness of the coalition, the robustness of it sent a message to china and xi, but now it seems like they are waiting for the next election this year. they are kind of hedging that there's going to be a change in policy, and they see that the congress has not been able to pass a supplemental to bolster the ukrainian people. what is xi jinping and the prc taking from the fact that the congress is not yet united in continuing to repel this foreign aggression from putin? >> look, as mike mullen has

said, dysfunction in washington is a threat to national security. because, our ability to govern, our ability to work together, our ability to deal with the problems in this country, that's what democracy is all about. that is the strength of democracy, the ability of republicans and democrats to sit down, and to get things done. to provide the supplemental request, to deal with defense issues, to deal with foreign policy issues. when see that breaks down, it sends a i signal to the world that the united states is not strong in our democracy, and that because of the dysfunction that we see in washington, it is undermining our credibility in the world, so i can't tell you how important it is for the united states, for republicans and democrats, to work together

as this committee is, to, basically, send a signal, that we are unified when it comes to defending our interests. >> for xi jinping in particular, what do you surmise that they are considering right now as the u.s. does not follow through with the help to democracies and the ukrainian people, in particular? >> xi is very aware of what's happening with regards to our country, just as putin is, and when they see dysfunction, when they see that we can't get our act together to be able to do what's right, and they sensed that weakness, it gives them the incentive to think that given the opportunity, they can take advantage of that. what we are doing, by failing to pass the supplemental, as i said, we are playing xi jinping's game, and we are playing putin's game, which is

that our strength is being undermined, not from abroad, but from within. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. barr. >> thank you mr. chairman, and to secretary panetta and secretary pompeo, thank you for your extraordinary public service. it's great to see both of you again. secretary pompeo, i enjoyed visiting you in monterey with your son jimmy, and playing a little golf. thank you for tolerating my bad golf. great to see you again. secretary pompeo, thank you for , as secretary of state, elevating this issue of the threat from china, and establishing the deterrents that we need to continue to be vigilant about. i want to ask you about the recent apex summit and your impressions of that following that summit. the biden administration remove the chinese ministries

institute of foreign science from the list in exchange for greater cooperation on stopping the flow of fentanyl being produced in the prc. last year, i question assistant secretary of state on states role in pressuring other agencies to delay implementation of sanctions and export controls. secretary pompeo, what kind of message does it send to our adversaries if the state department intervenes to prevent the listing of prc entities, who should be sanctioned or subject to export controls? >> i think that is an enormous policy mistake. i think it not only sends the wrong message, but i think the likelihood of xi jinping delaying precursors for fentanyl moving into this country is precisely 0 as a result of that action. he has been determined to continue to poison children here at home, and i don't think any action taken by the united states department of state to relieve them of any penalties,

restrictions, prohibitions, is likely to change his direction on that. >> just for context, this ministry that was removed, this is an instrument of the ccp that has engaged in horrendous genetic testing of uighurs and human rights violations. secretary panetta, you noted in her testimony that our adversaries routinely but denies tools of market access and trade dependencies, such as fossil fuels from russia, and critical minerals from china. last week, it was announced that in an effort to combat climate change, the biden administration would be halting capital lng exports. this was extended eight times, a treasury general license, allowing for transactions involving russian energy experts, -- exports, to be exempt from u.s. sanctions. do either of these actions, the

action to block capital lng exports to our allies in eastern europe, or the action to provide a general license to our sanctioned regime against putin, do either of those actions help us cut off funds from moscow? >> i don't know, and i hope they haven't -- the administration has made a final decision with regards to lng. the president has postponed that issue and is looking at some of the issues related to regulations, but i think it is very important to be able to provide that kind of fuel to our allies, for goodness sakes. because they have joined with the united states, they have lost the ability to have to

rely on russian energy. that's a good thing, and we ought to be providing the support necessary, in order to give them the ability to be independent of that source of energy. i hope that the administration moves forward with the lng, and allows that fuel from the united states to be able to go to our allies. >> thank you. i agree with that. i think exporting energy, producing energy is a geopolitical tool, and a grave mistake to not recognize that. but, in addition, i want to talk a little bit about, as a member of the financial services committee with oversight over treasury, the treasury department's inexplicable decision to provide a license to russian banks to allow them to process energy transactions, and i have spoken with secretary yellin about this. these are great

public servants, who are trying to do right ce cap regime, but the problem is, the price cap is not working. russian crude is trading above the cap, and it's not enforceable. to me, what would make more sense is to sanction dirty, polluting russian energy, and produce more american energy to help our allies. can either of you speak to that? >> i think you made a very good point, and that's what we should be doing. >> i think the gentlemen for their testimony and their service, and once again, secretary pompeo, -- or secretary panetta, thank you, especially, for your incredible work with the intelligence committee. that was some great, patriotic work, and this country is indebted to your leadership. >> at some point, someone will play you in a movie, secretary panetta. >> i fear that is true.

>> thank you, mr. chair. thank you to the two of you for coming on out and talking to us here. secretary panetta, i would like to start with you. i have been listening to your responses to some of these questions. you've had a couple of really great points i would love to flesh out. you talked about deterrence. and, the critical nature of two components there in terms of our military and economic strength, but also, in response to one of my colleagues, you talked about the importance of sending a signal to the world that we are strong, and the credibility that is there, and so i want to try to merge these together, because when i had a conversation once with a leader from the indo pacific region, they were talking about the american military strength is here, the united states is asking us to join that component, we are having these talks about economic strength, and yes, that is part of it, but what they pointed out was one thing. they said the number one

question that they talk about amongst themselves about what to do with the united states and china, and that other countries are talking about, is the singular question which is, is america a reliable partner? and, they said it to me in a way that said, we know the answer to that right now. all of the challenges, the domestic turmoil, things like that. i want to ask you, when you talk about deterrence with military and economic strength as these two pillars, would you be amenable to the idea of adding a third pillar of political strength too? showing that if you have a strong military, a strong economy, without that component of being able to have a government that can make decisions decisively, quickly, that it weakens the components of the other elements of deterrence. is that something that makes sense to you? >> it makes a great deal of sense. look.

what represents the power of the united states, obviously, our military capability, our diplomatic capability, our economic strength, those are the strengths of the united states, but most important is the word of the united states. and, whether we stand by our word, whether we are credible, and so, when it appears that we are weak in the sense of, delivering what we promised we would do, it hurts our credibility. i mean, i have been abroad, just like you have. i've talked to foreign leaders, and the question that they inevitably ask is, what's happening in the united states? can we trust the president? can we trust the congress? can we trust an ally? those are the questions i get,

and i'm sure others have gotten the same question. and, the important thing is, that we have to show that what we say we will do, we do. and, if we back away from that, it sends the wrong message to the world. >> thank you, secretary. secretary pompeo, i would love to bring you into this. the challenges you have seen before, the fact that the two of you have served in congress, you've seen the challenges we are facing, this constant threat of a government shutdown that we just keep struggling with, issues with the supplemental, i guess i want to ask your thoughts on what secretary panetta just said. what is the importance of our ability to fix our own system, and get our own house in order? show the bipartisanship that we have here is something we can extend to 435 in the house, and 100 in the senate. i'm interested in your thoughts. >> yes, i lived the dream as

well, past a handful of continuing resolutions on my watch too. we could not redirect our resources. the same was true during my time in the executive branch. i watched congress unable to move resources to the current day challenges. as time moves on, one needs to prevent that. that's why i was a big advocate for working through the appropriations process to get that done, but i'm also mindful that these are serious matters, and there are differences in judgment and opinion. i don't mind the two and fro, the angst that people somehow describe, i'm unbothered by a rambunctious american democracy. that never troubles me. in the end, we have to deliver the policy prescriptions that get it right. i heard, and maybe this is the first place we will disagree, but i heard secretary panetta speak about deterrence. i think xi jinping saw what happened with the invasion of vladimir putin in ukraine, and he is not suggesting we should pat ourselves on the back in

america. the one free bite at the apple killing tens of thousands of ukrainians is not something that we should be proud of. we lost deterrence in ukraine. we should not applaud ourselves for rallying nato. i'm glad the europeans stood up, but we should remember that we did not cut -- conduct american diplomacy and actually convince putin not to invade ukraine. we have to win these things. it's insufficient to catch incoming missiles. you have to hold your adversary at risk, and as we think about the ccp, this was my central theory. my effort as secretary of state was to remind the world that if we don't hold the ccp at risk, if we simply play defense economically, diplomatically, we allow a spy balloon to travel over the country for five days, and then hold a press conference announcing that we shut it down of her south carolina, xi jinping gets

that he is on offense, we are on defense, and that is not a good place for the united states to be. >> mr. neuhaus. >> thank you, mr. chairman. well,, this morning. it's an honor to have you both here. mr. panetta, just so you know, your son is honorably carrying on the tradition of public service. i guess the jury is out. >> i appreciate that. >> should we take a poll? >> peace through strength, that is something that we have lived with and tried to exercise for many decades, and i agree with both of your comments in that regard. we as a committee went through a tabletop exercise, some people call it a wargame, to see what scenarios and outcomes would look like in the event china moved on taiwan. i heard someone say that it was to prevent wargames, because at the conclusion of that, no

outcome was anything that anybody would like to see, i think, on either side. the cost would be very high. one of the rules is to have president xi wake up every day and think, today is not the day. there are so many deterrence staring him in the face that he would come to that conclusion, and i think i have heard from secretary robert gates that no one in the chinese military has experience on any kind of major war. no general has any work experience. there are a lot of reasons why an invasion would not be their first course of action, which leads me to a more probable course of action. i just returned from japan recently, and the number of incursions in taiwanese and japanese airspace by aircraft from china is in the hundreds every year.

the naval ships, the presence of the chinese navy on the eastern coast of taiwan is constant, so if an invasion, an all-out invasion, the cost is too high, too difficult. what can we do as a country to prevent or stop or deter china from taking an easier route, perhaps, of a blockade, and simply strangling taiwan from outside, any travel or anything coming into the country? >> there is no question that the most important thing we can do with regards to taiwan is to strengthen their deterrence, and to not only provide the arms, but provide the training necessary for them to be able to defend themselves, and to show that the united states

will maintain a presence in that area with our navy, and with our other capabilities. it is important to make clear to china that they aren't going to have a free ride if they decide to make trouble for taiwan. but, it is very important that if we say we will defend them militarily, that we defend them militarily, and that means providing whatever support they need, if they are, in fact, a victim of aggression by china. this, the thing that xi is going to be constantly looking at is whether or not we are

taking action. this is not about words. this is about actions. and, what we do to support taiwan and to maintain a strong presence in the south china sea , those are the kinds of actions that xi will watch very closely and be deterred by. >> thank you. mr. pompeo? >> just two thoughts. i agree with secretary panetta. two thoughts. a blockade gets ugly billy quickly. the difference between an invasion and a blockade is a continuum, for sure. once product ceases to flow out of taiwan to the rest of the world, a country upon taiwan is a country upon which the entire world is dependent upon daily, for deliveries across the world. it gets difficult very quickly, and it gets difficult for the japanese, the philippines, even more quickly than it does here in the united states, so my

urging is not to think about the blockade as a more peaceful or genteel solution to xi jinping's desire to bring taiwan under his political control, but an act of war very much in the same way and invasion would be. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chair, and thank you to both of our witnesses. it is quite significant to have both of you here testifying before our committee, and we thank you for your time. mr. pompeo, in your testimony, you talk about the economic war, and the war that we have been in, and sometimes pretending we aren't in. do you see economics as the primary motivation for the ccp to align itself with american adversaries, and in many respects, taunt us on the global stage, or are there other motivations?

>> thank you for the question, and for the kind words. you have 100% of the former italian american cia directors here today. >> and i joined the italian caucus? >> thank you, i appreciate. i think the primary motivation is ideological. xi jinping is driven by a marxist, leninist ideology, historical understanding of china as the middle kingdom of the central actor on the world stage, and he feels that there is, that their history has been wronged by the western order, and so economics is a tool by which he seeks to achieve the global hegemony that he so seeks, but i think the motivation is much deeper and much darker than just trying to figure out how to make a few more for his people. this is not an effort to improve life for the chinese people. this is an effort for aggregation of power for the chinese communist party. >> as we look toward

maintaining the post-world war ii order, as you described in your testimony, what does that look like in this 80 year mark we are about to hit since the end of world war ii, and some of the changing dynamics that have hit the west, particularly with bricks it as an example, as well as the west's reliance on ccp investment in their economy? how do we bring along our european allies to this deterrence strategy, given that you are a former secretary of state, and not a former head of treasury? >> goodness. in the end, the central thesis is, respecting national sovereignty. nationstates acting in their own self-interest, we marked it as america first. i always reminded others, when i was in asia, if you think bangladesh would be first, you are running that contribute sovereign nations acting in their own interest, and second,

the united states has a deep interest in protecting basic freedoms and property rights, and contractual capacity to deliver against increasing efforts to undermine market- based economies. this is one of the central theories of xi jinping. show up in africa with some stolen intellectual property from the united states, and dump it on the world in an effort. we have a model that is deeply different, we should not head down that route, and we have to make sure that an increasing number of nations benefit from property rights, contracts, the capacity to engage in relationships in a way that protect basic human dignity as well. >> and, the use of american innovation as a place of strength not to be exploited through those who do not necessarily share our goals for a free and open capital market. there is a lot to be said

around this idea of how we maintain the post-world war ii order, and redefine it for the time period we are in today. looking, not only back to a great history that defined so much economic success for individuals, but also, for the world, and we need to think very strategically about how we are working with our allies, particularly on supply chains and access to minerals. mr. panetta, with a slight remaining time, i would love to get any thoughts you have about iran, and what the ccp's motivations are, as we are facing more pressure with democracy being under attacked with our friend, israel, as well as some of the impeding terrorist demands that are coming down. >> i think you get it, and you understand where we really have

to go in order to develop the strength of the united states and our allies in economic competition with china. china engages with belt and wrote initiatives, they engage in spreading a lot of money around, they engage in building ports and doing all kinds of things that pretend to help countries, but let me tell you, it doesn't work, because countries feel like they are not the ones that are really benefiting from this, and that's why the united states needs to continue to show how we should promote economic justice. >> thank you. dr. dunn. >> i thought it was a little further down the line.

thank you, mr. chairman. i have several articles i would like to enter, and i would like to enter those now, if i may, then i can read the names. >> without objection. >> from afghanistan, ukraine, iran, israel, the by demonstration has categorically failed on foreign policy. they failed to deter war, the very first mission of diplomacy, from the disastrous withdraw in afghanistan to the lack of guidance in ukraine, delayed support for israel, and now delayed responses on this drone attack on american serviceman in jordan. it's all failure of deterrence. how much easier is it to fail when the u.s. president turns over $6 billion to iran? the iranian government is constantly working to destabilize the middle east, and they pose a danger to our allies in the region.

they are a known funder of terrorism and they pose a direct threat to national security. we can't economically support them. never before have we had a pair of experts on international policy before us, so thank you very much for being here, and secretary panetta, i want to thank you for your earlier comments about the willingness of our young men and women to defend america and the free world. one of my sons served under you, and i saw the same determination that you described , and i will add -- everyone is telling you how well jimmy is behaving. he has been outstanding. he has never had a day were so many people said nice things about him. secretary pompeo, thank you very much for being here today, and for your continued public

service on foreign affairs and diplomatic policy, even in the face of iranian death threats and bounties on your life. with all of the attacks we are seeing across the world, it can certainly look like adversaries are acting independently, but i think we know that is not the case. there is this sort of global alliance against democracy and the rules-based order of nations, and our nato allies have risen to this fact and declared their concerns in these other theaters, such as the indo pacific and middle east. i wonder if you would clarify for us this threat to the free world, for our folks back home, because they don't always think about that in a larger sense. >> it is the case, as you have described. these are all linked. these are not independent strategies. they may be separate theaters, but make no mistake about it,

there are iranian drones going to russia to kill ukrainian kids, there is russian energy flowing to china. there are chinese semiconductors flowing to the russian defense industry, iranian oil into both russia and china. these actors are working to undermine the things that matter most to us here at home. it's hard sometimes, when i represented kansas, it's hard to go about your life, raising your family, it's hard to appreciate there is evil in the world that is a staggering confrontation to our way of life as we find it. in america, we try to find the best in people, we are always optimistic, but having spent time with some of the most evil human beings that have ever walked the face of the earth during our lifetimes, these folks want bad things for us. they want to undermine the very idea of freedom here at home, and we have a responsibility to get it right, economically, diplomatic, and make sure we have a strong military to defend those two. >> i appreciate both of you

gentlemen lending your life of service and knowledge and insights to this committee. this committee has been behaving in a very bipartisan fashion. i think we all agree that we have a serious problem in front of us, and it's our job to rally our friends around us and our colleagues and support these things in the world. thank you so much for coming here and shoring up our determination. i appreciate that. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> mr. chairman, this hearing is an opportunity to highlight the dangers of authoritarianism, not just abroad, but also the threats we face at home. in your testimony, mr. pompeo, you cite a lack of respect for vital institutions in our own culture as a troubling sign for our nations future. that a nation and society intent on despising and destroying itself will not prevail. it's a worthy message undercut by the record of its messenger.

a messenger who cited the insurrection that occurred on january 6th as an example of a peaceful transition of power. january 620 21 was xi jinping's best day in office, when the united states degrades its own democracy on the world stage for people all over to witness, it undermines our ability to lead and the power of our example. what kind of example are we setting when former administrations take the side of dictators? what kind of example are we setting when your former boss, the elected residential nominee of your party, is promising to be a dictator? mr. pompeo, you write that regimes in moscow, and iran all owe their existence to the chinese communist party. prior to the invasion of ukraine, you described vladimir putin is very capable, and said that you had enormous respect for him. also missing from your remarks, these regimes have an ally in donald trump. just this month, donald trump praised kim jong-un at a rally

in new hampshire, praising him as a smart guy. while in office, he considered meeting with maduro and second- guessed his own administrations recognition of venezuela's legitimate president. he rejected his own intelligence agencies, including the cia, of which you were the director at the time, on the world stage, during his shameful helsinki summit, and denied that moscow interfered in our elections. on one thing, we do agree. our democracy is stronger when we invest in and celebrate a free society. we have the tools to outcompete autocracies at home and abroad, it is not just a strong military and a strong economy. it's also a strong democracy. secretary panetta, you make this clear in your remarks, the greatest threat to national security is if we fail to govern our democracy. i agree with you, but mr. pompeo, this cannot happen if we defy reality and rewrite history for political expediency, so now, on behalf of your call for respect for vital institutions, will you now attest under oath that joe biden was duly elected in a

free and fair election? >> so much for bipartisanship of this committee. well done, sir, you have destroyed that. >> will you attest under oath that joe biden was duly elected in a free and fair election, out of respect for the vital institutions of our democracy? >> yes, sir, i have spent my entire life in service and as a member of congress -- >> -- will you attest that president biden won a free and fair election? >> of course, president biden is the duly elected president. if you would permit that, that would be most decent and bipartisan, institution respecting, if you would do that. may i just respond to the tirade you just engaged in? if you want to protect institutions, you would call witnesses and permit them to respond, and you make assertions that are in decent, sir. >> with the witness unwilling to respond to the question, we will assert that his answer was no.

mr. panetta, if a republican were to win in november, would you recognize that individual as the duly elected president of the united states? of course, is the right answer, mr. pompeo. >> i wish secretary clinton would be clear about her election as well. >> we have one minute and 10 seconds, so i will give it to mr. pompeo to answer the question. >> we did have a peaceful transmission of power from the trump administration to the biden administration. i was present for that. i saw my state department worked diligently to deliver the information to get started on the right foot, and i have been proud to work alongside secretary blinken. >> the gentleman has yielded to me. i have given that me to secretary pompeo. >> let's see a show of hands, who here thinks it was peaceful? >> what are you doing? >> the last thought, i was happy that the state department executed that tradition with such excellence.

my second thought is this. we will have partisan disagreements on many things. i think it is a factual matter, you recounted a number of foreign policy -- is a factual matter that the world was in less conflict three years ago than it is today. secretary blinken said yesterday, not since 1973 has it been so dangerous. i agree with him on that. it was safer three years ago because we had established a deterrence model that was successful at preventing the invasion of europe, the debacle in afghanistan, the good work that we did. the trump administration was the first administration to provide defensive weapon systems to ukraine. these were things that kept the american people safe. it wasn't partisan. it was not political. it was good policy. >> mr. johnson. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretaries, thank you very much for being articulate and logical voices about the power

of deterrence, about the importance of american leadership, and about the very real risk posed by this authoritarian alignment between china, russia, north korea, iran, and others. we've talked a lot about that authoritarian alignment of external actors. i'm curious, to what extent does that alignment extend within our own borders? to what extent has the chinese communist party identified and invested in partners that seek to undermine our country from within? mr. pompeo, secretary pompeo, go ahead. >> that was one of the great concerns we saw when i was director of the cia. it was obvious that china had an extensive intelligence

network at play, and that through their technology, they were deliberately planning methods of gathering intelligence, they were using that for intelligence. they are very aggressive within the united states now, on disinformation. we know that putin used a disinformation campaign as well. china is doing exactly the same thing, using artificial intelligence, very effectively to spread disinformation and misinformation in this country, so that, i think, remains a significant concern, that at a time when they talk about

dialogue, and at a time where they talk about trying to improve relations, we cannot underestimate their efforts to, basically, undermine our democracy. >> two quick thoughts, but i agree with secretary panetta. we should never forget the information space on social media, and how the chinese communist party has communist directed entities on every one of our children's cell phones, designed for young people, to undermine their understanding of america and are for additional ideas. we have to take serious action there. it seems like a long time ago, but don't forget. this is the very xi jinping that unleashed a virus upon the world that killed over 1 million people in the united states. it gets seldom referenced. it's hard to imagine the staggering impact that covid had on the world, and yet, no one has held xi jinping accountable, not from the leak from his lab, which happened, but from the fact that once he was aware of the leak from the

lab, of a relatively lethal and contagious virus, he forced it upon the world. he made a decision to hide the data, hide the information, off the researchers come up with thousands of people on airplanes and transit them across the world, and the death and destruction and economic harm that followed from that. that is the same xi jinping working here in the united states against us. >> it's on the record of this committee that the algorithms of tiktok in america are designed to deliver trash to american youth. the algorithms in china deliver more virtuous content, and because of that another reasons, i describe tiktok is nothing more than ccp malware. is that hyperbolic, or is that accurate? >> i happen to think it's accurate. >> it has to be fixed, and it's not just tiktok. it's deeper. it's broader. it's more pervasive, so this

effort at information warfare, it's hard for democracies to defend because we have wide- open societies, and i get that and i'm happy about that, but we have to do it, and we have the tools to do it as well. >> go ahead, secretary panetta. >> by the way, i think it also raises the importance of our ability to have good intelligence on china. we need good intelligence on our adversaries. we get intelligence even on our allies, but intelligence is critical to our ability to make the right decisions, and i have to tell you, china is a very tough target. it's not easy to be able to penetrate, and get the kind of intelligence that we absolutely need, if we are going to deal with china. >> thank you, gentlemen, i fear that much of america is sleepwalking through the very real threat that every single day, china, russia and others have thousands of people and millions of dollars at work at

undermining our country in the weight you described. thank you for calling attention to that threat. >> thank you secretaries for joining us today. the united states faces an array of threats around the world, the likes of which we have not seen in decades. it is clear u.s. global leadership is critical at a time when our competitors like the chinese communist party are manufacturing strategic alliances to challenge us, however, there must be other ways to avoid a spiral of competition, in which the ccp increasingly supports states like russia, north korea and iran, forcing us to respond, and as we know, conflict on the international stage can have impact seen at the local level, including higher prices at the gas pumps and grocery stores, and longer shipping times for u.s. consumers to get the goods they need. this is a cycle of ever greater conflict, which we must break if we are to work together in the global community to solve our biggest challenges, like climate change, migration, and

nuclear proliferation, so secretary panetta, since we cannot draw any of these hostile nations into our orbit, what can we do to break the cycle and disrupt the formation of ccp led strategic alliances before they submit? >> i think we have to stand back and look at that dangerous world that is out there, and look at all of the flashpoints that are a part of that world, and the threats coming from china, from russia, from north korea, from iran, from terrorists, it is a troublesome world, and i often think, how does the united states confront that many challenges? the only way we can confront those challenges is through building alliances. that's the only way we are going to be able to deal with it. it has to be not only the united states, but it has to be our allies, and by the way, the one thing about these autocrats

is they are not very good at alliances. they are not very good at building their own alliances. that is our advantage, so we need to strengthen nato. we need to strengthen our relationship with both israel and moderate arab nations in the middle east. we need to strengthen our relationship in the pacific between japan, south korea, australia, india, the quad. we need to build those relationships. we need to do it in latin and central america, and we need to do it in africa. that, i think, is going to be the most fundamental task, is how we effectively build those alliances, so that we can confront these adversaries with our allies. >> while we aim for a more productive local community, we must continue to operate in the reality of these times. i'm clear eyed on the need for the u.s. to remain a steady,

solid, and sound defender of the international rules-based order. when democracies anywhere are threatened, it is our moral duty to step up and lend a helping hand. president biden has led the world in support for democracies under threat, like ukraine and israel, but congress needs to do more to provide the resources the president requested in his national security emergency supplemental. without these essential resources, our allies would be left in the cold. secretary panetta, what would you say are the most critical pieces of president biden's supplemental national security request, with regards to taiwan? >> look, i think that supplemental is a very important request that will benefit our foreign policy in the world. our ability to provide military aid to ukraine, we have delayed this for too long, and ukraine

has suffered as a result of that, and the last thing we want is to give putin an advantage in ukraine, so that is extremely important. aid to israel, we know how important that is in order to give them the capability they need, in order to defend themselves, and taiwan, obviously, another democracy that is under threat, so everyone -- every one of those pieces that are critical to the supplemental, i think, the president has obviously made that request, but very frankly, i think the bipartisan support in the congress is there to pass that package. we just need to get there, and i understand that we need a deal, and i understand we need to protect our border as well. all of that is critical, though , to being able to show the world that the united states

stands by our word. >> thank you, with that, i yield back. >> 11:00 a.m. is a hard stop at the math doesn't currently work out if everybody stays here, but we are going to power through and get as many done up until 11:00. ms. henson. >> good morning, gentlemen. thank you both for being here, and for your service to our country and for sharing your insights so our committee can do this very important work. it is, obviously, hugely challenging hearing about the length that the prc will go to to continue to undermine us. they are aligned against us for their agenda, which is to spread their authoritarian regime, not just through china, and suppressed the chinese people, but continue to do this around the world, so obviously, very concerning, while they care deeply about their surveillance state globally, they care about spreading that influence through the debt trap diplomacy, as i have heard you reference, the belt and wrote initiative, and the initiatives they have tried to use to

undermine and overpower these partnerships and relationships, really, as we know, are really nothing more than an attempt to spread their authoritarian regime around the world, and to undermine us in that process, so i want to focus on the relationships there. obviously, they have opened up bricks to opec countries, so when we talk about energy and the vulnerabilities that exist there, with the uae, iran, saudi arabia, how concerning is it that the block will really control the lion's share of the oil production in the world, and what does that mean for the united states? that is directed at either of you. >> thank you for the question. the united states is the swing producer for energy in the world, if we permit it to be so. secretary panetta said, i think it's an enormous mistake to even pause the production of lng, because that will cause chaos, and the capital markets

will start underwriting lng production, and we will have a gap. if we continue to produce, we will be the producer of choice, and we will be the swing producer on price. second, we are an enormous consumer of energy as well, and so those countries that think they can form goods to the u.s. industrial consumers and retail consumers, they are making a mistake because we drive price from the demand end as well. they are going to do what they are going to do. the last thing i will say about that is, remember, those alliances form more strongly when our allies don't have confidence that the united states stands with them. when you tell the leader of the kingdom of saudi arabia that he is a pariah, he is more likely to align himself with our adversaries than he is the united states. those are fundamental errors in understanding how these nations operate, and we should never take for granted what secretary panetta said, which is that we

have the capacity to build alliances out that will deliver good things for the american people, and if we get that right, america will be in a much stronger position. >> you have anything to add, secretary panetta? >> i agree with what mike said. it is -- we have, in dealing with this challenge from autocracy and the world, we have several areas that represent the strength of the united states, our military power, our diplomatic power, our economic power, and our energy power. all are critical to our ability to be able to deal with these challenges that are facing the world. on energy, it just seems to be extremely important that the alliances we build in order to make sure that we are developing

an independent source of energy , and that we are working towards the ability to undermine russia's ability in -- and iran's ability to control that area, imagine if we could get our act together on energy, how effective that would be in undermining those countries? >> we say in iowa, all of the above, and all of the below, so we are trying to do a little bit of everything. i think when you look at their strategy for brics, and belt and road, and you talked about the instability there, and potentially, the work closer to home, mr. secretary, as well as what we've seen with these unfulfilled loans and investments, and china's ability to call on that capital, what you think the united states role needs to be in countering that? i just met with dj norquist this morning to talk about the world bank and how the

financial situation is, and how china is trying to grow influence there, so they are trying to pull these lovers everywhere they are operating. what do you think the next step needs to be? >> when you mentioned the world bank and our role, we should never mistake our desire for the global system to work, for reliance on these international organizations. my experience as secretary of state was, the u.n. was a wreck. the world bank was largely chinese influenced, these institutions, these historic institutions, the world health organization during the time of covid, i could go on and on and on. we think, international, therefore, existing structures and frameworks. we should revisit each of those if they are not functioning in a way that delivers for america, we should evaluate america's participation in those institutions. >> thank you so much, chairman, ranking member, good to see you again. given prc's economic interests in global motivations, what

should we be doing in terms of watching china, watching china's expansion and their footprint in africa? >> look, having visited africa and seen it up close, there is no question in my mind that wherever you go, china is present. they are investing in africa. there belt and wrote initiative is being implemented in africa. they are developing ports, they are developing infrastructure, and the end result of it, and make no mistake about it, everything they are providing is not to try to help those countries develop independence and develop their own economic strength, it's to, basically, undermine it, and do it in

order for china to benefit from that. if there are minerals there, they will take advantage of the minerals. if there are other assets, they will take adntage of those assets. they are in it for their own game, and that's why think the united states and our allies need to play more critical role to show african countries that we are there to help their people, not to help us. >> i would add, it's good to see you again in person. in this sense, i think time is on our side, a bit. my observation, and that of my team when i was secretary of state, was that many of these countries were beginning to see the falling of having taken so much resource and money from the chinese communist party. it felt good in the moment, but they are now coming to appreciate what secretary panetta has said, they have lost political power, political capacity, and that has constrained them, and that hurts them in terms of being

able to represent their people and get good outcomes. it means we need to be more active. i tried to get the state department to do better so that the west could compete in those places. i think we made a little bit of progress. a lot more work to do, but as time marches on, if we continue our efforts in the way that secretary panetta described, ultimately, the norms that we have come to believe in in the west will be ones that africa will largely adopt as well. i hope i'm right about that, and i think i am. >> mr. hood. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i want to thank both of you for your tremendous service to our country, your commitment and dedication to what you have done to help make us a better country and a safer country, and i think it sends a strong message in a bipartisan way that both of you are here today, and the message you're sending, so i'm grateful for that. this committee has focused on a number of different things over the last year. one is exposing the line activities of the ccp, but i think we've done a good job in doing. the second thing is, figuring

out how we win these strategic competition against china. winning that on the economic front is key to the future in how we do that. going back over 20 years ago, when we allowed china into the world trade organization, that seem to be a pivotal moment in this country. the argument at the time, none of us were in congress and, but the argument was, bring china into the world trade organization, they will modernize, their economy will become more like us, they will be part of the world, global order. clearly, that did not work out the way many of us thought it would. they play by a different set of rules, a different set of standards, they steal intellectual property, and here we are today having to deal with that, but we also have the reality that we have the two largest economic powers in the world. i think about my own district, probably similar to yours, secretary pompeo, corn and soybeans. 40% goes to china every year. my farmers need to rely on the

market to do it. take your fortune 200 companies that are heavily invested in china. they are in bed, in many ways, with the ccp, in terms of their businesses. i am the largest concentration of caterpillar workers anywhere in the world. they have 20 manufacturing plants in china, four r&d facilities, and you can take any company and look at that. when we think about how to we were in strategic competition against china, it's tough, because it's our people in this country that are willing to take the economic hit that is required. many of us in congress want to go to a cold war mentality with china on an economic front. we hear constantly from the b.a.r.t., the business roundtable, the chamber of commerce, companies that are in china saying, maybe you should hold off, pump the brakes, be careful about what you are doing. as we think about how we win the strategic competition economically, your advice on that? >> i will give you two thoughts. first, i will not fall those

businesses for their activities there, as a historic matter. we encouraged them to go there. this was the model you described from the world trade organization, go there, be there, they will become more like us. it epically failed. it may have been reasonable at the time. what does that mean for kansas farmers and manufacturers across america? it means two things. one, don't count on the fact it will be a u.s. policy decision that drives them out of the country. we can see this already today, executives being detained, products not being permitted to move, the chinese communist party will have a say in the level of disconnection between our two economies, and i think that xi jinping is more intent on making his country more self- reliant, so i would encourage the leaders of those businesses to think about alternative markets, and how you d risk your balance sheet, and do so immediately. the second piece is, and this is the policy role. we need to be clear about those things that are legal and illegal. it's difficult for business

leaders when we tell them, you ought not do that, but it's lawful. i promise the chinese communist party is telling them what is illegal inside the party, and it's becoming more difficult, more punitive, and harder for them to operate in those environments. you, policymakers, have the responsibility to say, if you really want this disconnection, if you really want certain elements of the supply chain moved, then we need to put a legal regime in place, and i promise you, the american economy will prosper. we will prevail. the chinese, and his party is far more dependent on america that we are on them, and we ought to use that to our advantage. >> look, i agree with what mike said. there are two important areas here. mean, we know how to get it done, innovation, creativity. that goes to the strength of our economy. so i think it is very important for the united states to be able to unleash that kind of

creativity and capability, and too often we try to restrict it because of various rules, et cetera. we ought to be enhancing the freedom of our economy in order to allow people to compete and to develop the kind of products that sell in the world. secondly, dealing with china, look, i'm a believer in free trade but i'm also a believer in fair trade. and the problem with china is, we engage in trade but they don't believe in fair trade in the way they operate. and have to do is we have got to be able to put -- and you did with your recommendations on the economy. i think they are great recommendations. you have 152 recommendations that are right on point and one of those is making sure that we take the wto and make certain that the wto is strong enough to be able to say to china and it

engages in unfair trade that that's what you're doing and you are going to be penalized for. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. ms. mr. trott. >> secretary panetta you and i should believe in american leadership. we share a belief that america for all of its perfection so on balance for good and were an america place an indispensable role as leader of the free world and as the enforcement of the rules-based international order. that the alternative of world shapes and hotels are an the ccp is too terrifying to imagine. but that basically in the necessity of america's global leadership which is the risk of the china committee has been eroding that only abroad but here at home. when we are witnessing the rise of isolationism of both the left and the right. and so america is a democracy, constrained as it should be by the consent of the governed, is american global leadership lyrically sustainable in the

long run if american sentiment here at home takes a decidedly isolationist turn as it did in aftermath of world war i? >> look, we made that mistake before. before world war ii this country decided that some of it could be isolationist and not have to get involved in dealing with the challenges of the threats abroad. we learned, we learned our lesson, , i hope we learned our lesson, which is that you can't put your head in the sand. in a global world it's even more so. the united states has to be out there, has to be dealing with our allies, has to be developing relationships with those that agree with the goals that we seek. we have to be engaged with the world we cannot just simply pull back and pretend that somehow we

can escape our responsibilities in the world and just somehow focused on issues here in the united states. yes, we have to be concerned about the united states. yes, we have to be concerned about our economy will buto be concerned about our role in the world. the united states has to be a world leader count. if there's any lesson was learned from world war ii, is that the united states is a a world leader. let me tell you something. if the united states is not a world leader, nobody else will play that role. >> in your testimony, secretary panetta you said america needs to send a message that stands by our allies. congress its office said nothing but mixed messages even though the overwhelming bipartisan, bicameral support for israel and taiwan, there's been an indefinite delay in delivering aid to both countries. congress fails to accurately when democrats and republicans disagree, we fail to act even

when we agree. and if there are stand-alone bills on official at taiwan with no poison pills, both bills were passed overwhelmingly in both chambers of congress. answer given the risk that negotiations around ukraine and immigration could languish indefinitely, he believed in my be necessary at some point to decouple israel and taiwan for large negotiation or to pass immunity stand-alone bill? >> well look, as as a member, former member of congress, i said in my over 50 years of public life i've seen washington at its best advice in washington at its worse. the good news is i have seen washington work. the reason i said i had the best job in the world as a as af cards is because republicans and democrats when i was here worked together. we worked together and we got things done. we had good relationships.

and when it issue like a to a foreign country came around, we worked together. look, i understand that politics is involved. i understand that there is the give-and-take i mean that's what democracy is all about. and i understand that dynamic. but in the end it isn't about scoring political points. it's about governing. you guys are not elected to come back here and pound her shoe on the table. you are invited to come back here and govern. that's what people elect you for. and for that reason, ultimately, you know, people who of goodwill need to sit down, develop whatever deal they can develop, and get it passed. and if they can't get a deal, then there is no question that this got to move ukraine aid, visual aid, and take taiwan aid on its own.

i guess i've ten seconds left. do you feel china is emboldened by donald trump's america first isolationism or deterred by it? >> look, i -- i -- >> was that for me? >> we're trying to hit the deadline. >> secretary pompeo on the show the has ever experienced for the record -- secretary cardona show the world has ever experienced an american foreign policy whiplash from peace through strength to swagger of the trump pompeo approach to the weakness and appeasement that we see coming from the current administration. why did putin wait for you and president trump to leave office before he invaded ukraine? >> it's good to see you again. look, i try to take a back bench approach to the sink often get asked with these things happen if you are with the iowa and xi does. i cannot articulate that they did not. i can only articulate that putin decided that it was not a wise

time to invade ukraine while we were there and then shortly thereafter began to continue his effort to take more of ukraine. he took the fifth a ukraine under president obama, 0% during our time as and when added again. again. in the end putin didn't change. putin has been the same guy since he was young kgb officer. his desire for greater russia is deep and abetted in his dna. the only thing that stops these bad actors for moment free around the world is an america prepared to respond in a way that puts more cost on them than the benefits of action. >> so fast forward last weekend, three of our american heroes were killed by a drone operated by the houthis. what would've been this with appropriate reaction to hold those accountable for killing our american heroes? >> it's hard to know exactly, exactly the response that operational level that would have taken.

deterrence is always temporary. it's one of the things i reminded edwin and administration. when you have deterrence for a moment you can squander it so quickly and, frankly, that's what has happened. we lost that moment. by the way we had risk, too. the u.s. embassy in baghdad but no secretary of state. we armed the dancing to the teeth to protect our young men and women who with their military and diplomatic women that were in that facility. and then when we beginning to have deterrence, took a strike on general soleimani that did that for a time. i think the covid administration would've recognized long ago this would've been before october 7 that you can't negotiate with the ayatollah. you can't release sanctions allow them to go there for exchange to over $60 billion. that money will be used for terror and this is now the risk that we have an escalation that sticky price as result of united states and allies and partners

having lost that deterrent capability, and well. >> secretary pompeo you notably warned our nation's governors about not getting too entwined and tangled with the chinese communist party, as many of them did. as washington becomes more aware of the china threat, the ccp is targeted many of our states governors picked this point the "washington post" published a story about the ccp's united front efforts ramping up their engagement with our nation's mayors, including a of carmel indiana in my state, the former mayor come just left office. went on lavish trips to china and engage at a high level with chinese officials in their country. why should our nation's mayors straight away from these types of entanglements with sister cities projects and of the ccp united front efforts? >> in some ways its pellets will talk about in africa.

the chinese comes for you will always show up at peoples doors with things feel good. the remarks i made to the national guard association, i'd run through the state department roadblock to make those remarks. it just was, it was hard-core, even state department to see the threat not just at the federal level but this was twisters but governors and an elderly people at times, his party showing up at school board meetings, showing of a city council middies and county commission meetings all across america. your state in wisconsin they made it hard play for your state legislative body. they are determined to propagate their efforts. they want to make friends so that come so when they're confronted they can turn to defense and say we are not such a bad guys after all. the chinese communist party is truly evil. they will work at every level of government. it will work against her by the sect is still show up at pta meetings if that's what it takes. this is an effort at every level for the chinese communist party to any capacity to influence spitted sister cities program is the dangers. >> when the chinese, his party

shows up after school and offers a slick free swing sets that because they care about the health of their children. maybe the simplest way to articulate sister cities programs at the confucius institutes, on all all of te united front efforts inside of her country. they may show up and give you some temporary lift but in the end it is about them, not about us. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you, secretary panetta and secretary pompeo to your service to our country. as you know we hollowed out a lot of our manufacturing in this country and a lot of went to china. china has a massive trade deficit. we select a a massive trade deficit with china, and china has trade surplus with japan, south korea, india engage in unfair economic competition. would you think it is reasonable for the united states to explicitly have a goal to try to reduce the trade deficit with china by 10% every year as a

metric of the we could rebalance the relationship? >> i -- i think it is very important for the united states to be able to develop industry, manufacturing, develop those products that are important particularly to our national security. and you're right, we have hollowed out that capability over the last few years. we need to be able to make clear that we are going to develop the kind of security that we need. and yeah, i think limits make sense as part of that package of the developing our own capabilities and manufacturing and industry. >> secretary pompeo? >> yeah, i would add, larger right that i would add only this. should begin to focus on things

that really matter as opposed to trade more generally. i'm happy to think our way through that but the initial problem is of the dual use technologies, and i come all the places for the next generation of american manufacturing will actually evolve from, i ran a machine shop in wichita, kansas, probably still secretary of state with that and his background even for the next 250 years. in the end we ran missions but innuendos technology and innovation at the deluxe property against which were building those manufactured goods which are most important to the workforce in my capacity to grow my business. i think that's true today. went to make sure we protect those things that we can get that right. that's a policy matter can pretty straightforward and i watched as you try to tackle that. i hope you all can make even more progress there. >> one of the things i'm working on a by person basis is to sw we can have steel and clean still in particular return to the united states. hollowed out in johnstone pennsylvania, downriver

michigan. one of the originators of the chips and science act. i give him credit, even as we work with todd john and chairman gallagher was an earlier part of the endless frontiers. we did that for chips. can we do that first deal which is to say the next generation of steel, which is going to direct reduction and back in toledo or hydrogen comply can we do something like that and have the government partner with the cleveland on an issue like that come like we did for chips? what from the largest export of stew, now nine out of the 15 biggest steel companies are in china. one, would you support a chips like approach to new modern steel plants in the united states? and, second, if you could just add count the lucky to the rest of the time, i don't understand how we even think of line steel by u.s. steel. i mean japan would never let us

by one of their steel plants. why is this even a question? >> i guess i will income stove with this equipment in the first one. i actually encourage foreign direct investment of the trinity i think is equally important. it has created thousands and thousands just a hometown wichita can't conform come to say japanese, european companies want to, invest in america great jobs come south koreans now investing in those amounts of money in taxes to build semiconductor. think we should be in normalcy supportive of foreign direct investment when want to come on american terms and these are friends and allies. second, i did support the chips and science act it goes with a touch of reluctance in my heart that it was what our teams by the way secretary raimondo has been fantastic on this, i credit the biden administration come this is a set of technology that mattered and went none of it here at home. i think that's the quintessential model for when someone needs to use american taxpayer dollars as a form of

industrial drafting when you be very careful about how and when we do that, and i prefer competition house up the bott when the competition is unfair and capital markets will not support an important technology for soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, and if the queen do that. it's a the case if steel were so i was supportive. i wonder if those and social metals don't end up come if you put a tariff on them for a tax and if it end up costing the american industry more than it gains them. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. we have four minutes. >> congresswoman. we can do it. >> thank you. i will be very quick. appreciate your service. there is a chinese company building an electric vehicle battery plant in my district as part of the project they plan to bring 20-50 chinese nationals to michigan. what do you feel are the odds of

those nationals maintain a spin is for the ccp while they are in the united states? i know you both been involved in looking at these kinds of things. after pompeo, you were issuing workpieces the chinese nationals as part of the state department. wondered if you would both comment? >> look, i don't think there's any question that the quantitative fans of that situation at a think we have to be very vigilant about what the hell is going on. that's just the way they operate. they will establish a manufacturing unit. it will establish whatever they can and then they will use that for the own intelligence purposes. they will use that for the own economic purposes. they would use it to be able to gain the kind of advantages that they want that are counter wrinkly to the interest of the united states.

i think it is very important in those situations to make sure that we are, that the united states and that our intelligence capabilities are being used to ensure that we know what they are doing and could hurt the united states. >> i think worse than the fact to engage in espionage, i think that's just top of the list they will use this in ways that will leverage chinese advantage comp. these plans are deeply dangerous to our national security, and ought not be built. >> thank you. then one last question. one of the concerns you talked about the belt and road initiatives, china spreading money around. one of the concerns i've had in some of our light in the inflation reduction act we provide green energy tax credits. his company would actually likely be applying for green energy tax credit so we could actually be supplying american

taxpayer dollars to fund this project. you have any thoughts on that? >> yes, i'm against it. trying to be quick. >> thank you. >> by the waist up just that. you cite a good example, a marquee except one has been very public. there are dozens of these taking place and we, i promise you the chinese communist party is not subsidizing american companies that are acting in america's interest in sight of china that benefit the united states of america. >> thank you. secretary panetta? >> i, look, i think, i think we have to obviously be innovative in the way we use economic assistance but we also have to be careful in the way we do it, and i think if we're going to provide funds we better make damn sure they are not being used for purposes that undermined our national security. >> thank you both friend much. i yield back.

.. do you think today xi jinping the ccp are more likely or less likely to take decisive action to unify taiwan? briefly, please to make i mentioned in my testimony i visited with xi jinping a number of times allows both director as well as secretary of defense and at the time i remember one conversation where he was being critical over rebalancing forcing the pacific as we are power, we have every right to

oppose what you can do with us deal with north korea and the problems is greater will a free approach to our navy something about if we could work together develop piece of xi jinping i saw we could talk about the reason this happened. there's no question in my mind xi jinping has been cornered both in the way he dealt with covid as well as dealing with this economy. this one fundamental purpose, it's on china and this problem is that china is eroding from under him and i think makes them

more dangerous, not less. >> i concur, feeling with a different xi jinping overtime, he created more power and it's more likely you will continue not both secretaries came and pompeo, you came from my district, thank you for coming out today. i wish i had more time. don't have time but i want to say thank you. >> we appreciate that. thank you to both witnesses and what was almost a perfect

hearing but we are still doing pretty well and for the record only today and for that, we are adjourned. [silence] [inaudible conversations]