Sherrod Brown Leads Senate Banking Committee Hearing On Advancing National Security

5 months ago

On Thursday, the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing entitled, “Advancing National Security through Export Controls, Investment Security, and the Defense Production Act.”

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript

Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00:00The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Foreign Affairs will come to order.

00:00:03Welcome to our witnesses. We face an uncertain world with many geopolitical

00:00:09challenges, from Russia's continued brutal invasion of Ukraine, to ongoing

00:00:16conflicts in the Middle East, to an increasingly aggressive and capable

00:00:19Chinese military. We know that China's built that military capability with the

00:00:25help of some of America's biggest corporations and even American tax

00:00:29dollars. For too long our government was willfully blind to the threat China

00:00:34posed. Multinational corporations, eager to move jobs wherever they could pay

00:00:39ever lower wages, lobbied this body and presidents of both parties failed us for

00:00:46permanent normal trade relations with China. When corporations move products

00:00:50overseas they outsource the technology and the trade secrets along with it. We

00:00:55did nothing to stop it and now we're paying the price. We can't make the kinds

00:00:59of mistakes we have in the past. We have to be proactive about these threats and

00:01:02take action now to protect our national and economic security. We need to be

00:01:06clear those two issues are intimately connected. You can't separate the economy

00:01:11and our national security. Today hostile governments work together more and more

00:01:17to challenge the interests and the securities and the values of the United

00:01:19States, our allies and partners around the world. Increasingly hostile

00:01:24governments use our own technology to fuel their destructive efforts. We must

00:01:29lead efforts to stop it. It's the US government's job to police the flow of

00:01:33sensitive and so-called dual-use technologies. Technologies can be used

00:01:37for both military and civil and civilian purposes and Departments of Commerce and

00:01:42Treasury along with DOD, state and other agencies try to restrict the flow of

00:01:46sensitive technologies to our adversaries. We can't allow US innovation

00:01:51investments to be used against us. Against that backdrop NATO met earlier

00:01:55this month. They issued a statement addressing these threats. Specifically

00:01:59NATO leaders called on China to quote cease all material and political support

00:02:04to Russia's war effort including quote the transfer of dual-use tech you dual

00:02:09use materials such as weapons components equipment and raw materials that serve

00:02:14as inputs for Russia's defense sector. That was the NATO statement. That followed

00:02:19last month's G7 summit in Italy where the United States and our allies

00:02:23reaffirmed our shared efforts to implement export controls to address

00:02:27risk to international security and quote to ensure the effectiveness of our

00:02:31respective foreign investment screening. The G7 leaders also noted that measures

00:02:36designed to address risks from outbound investments could be important to

00:02:40complement existing tools of targeted controls on exports and outbound

00:02:44investments. A core element of this committee's work has been to establish

00:02:48and conduct oversight over our export controls investment securities and

00:02:53Defense Production Act authorities. Treasury and Commerce have had active

00:02:57and growing caseloads since our hearing last year. They've expanded controls on

00:03:02semiconductors equipment and services that could support China's

00:03:05semiconductor ecosystem. They've taken steps to establish an outbound

00:03:10investment program that would enable us to better understand and to stop US

00:03:15investments that build up China's military. They recently issued a

00:03:19proposed rule that would significantly expand the committee on foreign

00:03:22investment in the US's ability to review foreign real estate investments near

00:03:27military bases like Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and Yars in Ohio. It's kind of

00:03:33action I and many from both parties have been pressing for here from farmers in

00:03:36Ohio near our military installations who are very concerned about this. As we use

00:03:42our export control and investment security policies to restrict China's

00:03:46ability to use US technology and investments to advance their military

00:03:51capabilities and human rights abuses we must also bolster our own domestic

00:03:55capabilities. To that end I was pleased to see Dr. Taylor Kale and her colleagues

00:04:00thank you released the Defense Department's first-ever national defense

00:04:05industrial strategy earlier this year. As a critical economic security tool this

00:04:09committee has jurisdiction over the Defense Production Act which must play

00:04:13a vital role in advancing that strategy. In Ohio we know the potential here to

00:04:18harness the talents and patriotism of America's workers to protect our country.

00:04:23For decades the Air Force Research Lab at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near

00:04:28Dayton has been the home of the DPA Title III program. Aside from the good

00:04:32work being done at AFRL the Defense Production Act gives the administration

00:04:37the authority to allocate and prioritize critical materials and to

00:04:41increase domestic productive capacity to address industrial shortfalls. In other

00:04:47words DPA allows the Defense Department and other agent students to invest in

00:04:51American manufacturing that can support US national security as well as making

00:04:55us more prepared for emergencies. This work couldn't be more urgent for decades

00:05:00corporate offshoring and consolidation and restructuring essentially just

00:05:05another elite business school term for finding new ways to screw workers to

00:05:09increase profits all weakened our domestic manufacturing sector. Let me say

00:05:13that again for decades corporate offshoring consolidation and

00:05:17restructuring all with the aid and assistance of too many members of this

00:05:21body all weakened our domestic manufacturing sector. Ohioans know well

00:05:26what it's done to cities like where I grew up Mansfield our families our

00:05:31economy increasingly people in this town finally are waking up to how it's

00:05:35weakened our national security. We know when companies outsource jobs they

00:05:39outsource technological capabilities with them. There's not been enough

00:05:44appreciation for how much innovation happens on the production floor by

00:05:48workers. Over the past few years we finally taken steps to reverse that

00:05:53course passing Chips and Science Act passing the bipartisan infrastructure

00:05:57law we've increased funding for strategic investments using the Defense

00:06:01Production Act. We can do more as Congress as Congress prepares to

00:06:05reauthorize the Defense Production Act we need to look at new ways that DPA can

00:06:09support American industrial capabilities and help us revitalize our domestic

00:06:14industrial base to meet current and future challenges. Today we'll discuss

00:06:18how we're working with our partners to coordinate our expert controls and

00:06:22investment security policies and what steps Congress can take to strengthen

00:06:26these authorities. We look forward to testimony from this panel who can update

00:06:31the committee in their important work. Senator Scott. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I

00:06:35would like to start by reminding this room and our witnesses of the important

00:06:39role they play in safeguarding our nation's economic and national security

00:06:43priorities. President Reagan once rightly noted that we are in a different world

00:06:48and our defenses must be based on recognition and awareness to combat our

00:06:52enemies of the modern day. While he was talking about the Soviets unfortunately

00:06:57many of our adversaries remain the same. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. But

00:07:04thankfully what also remains the same is the American spirit to innovate and to

00:07:09create the world's leading technologies. My home state of South Carolina is an

00:07:13excellent example. From F-16s to the world's best luxury airliners to leading

00:07:19automotive manufacturing to creating next-generation technologies I'd say

00:07:24South Carolina is simply our future. But to safeguard that future we must ensure

00:07:30that policies created here in Washington don't cut off growth and stifle future

00:07:35innovation. We must have a global economy where America is the leader. After more

00:07:44than three years of President Biden's policies we have seen soaring inflation

00:07:49that is crushing everyday Americans. Wars across our globe and our enemies

00:07:57challenging us and our allies at every single turn. We can and we must frankly do

00:08:05better. So today as we discuss and evaluate some of our economic national

00:08:10security tools, our export controls, investment security, and the Defense

00:08:15Production Act we must keep these principles in mind. At times we must be

00:08:21willing to reassess our policies and retool our positions and frankly let's

00:08:27consider our allies. One thing we certainly learned through COVID was

00:08:32depending on China is a really bad strategy. To be effective in countering

00:08:38China we must work with our allies so that China cannot easily find work

00:08:43arounds to our U.S. export controls by simply buying these same technologies

00:08:48and equipment from our friends. A failure to look holistically at our economic

00:08:54strategy can and will damage American security, competitiveness, and unfairly

00:08:59leave U.S.-led industry behind. In fact a recent study by the New York Federal

00:09:05Reserve found that the Biden administration's export control policies

00:09:09on the semiconductor industry have led to decreased profitability, job losses,

00:09:16and a hundred and thirty billion dollars in financial loss across the industry.

00:09:23With new reports that these types of policies have directly led to thousands

00:09:28of layoffs in states ranging from Ohio to New York, we must scrutinize the

00:09:35actions leading to these results. But it doesn't stop there. In my home state of

00:09:40South Carolina, recent actions by the Commerce Department to revoke thousands

00:09:44of export license for gun manufacturers have resulted in millions of dollars in

00:09:50losses. I've sent three letters to the Commerce Department on this issue

00:09:55and now reports suggest that we will see over five hundred million dollars in

00:10:00annual losses across U.S. firearm manufacturers. Mr. Chairman, I have a

00:10:07letter here that I would like to submit for the record. Objection, sir. Thank you,

00:10:12Mr. Chairman. In my home state of South Carolina, a small minority-owned firearms

00:10:17business had more than 71 million dollars worth of export licenses revoked

00:10:22by the Biden Commerce Department. Unfortunately, this meant that the firm

00:10:27defaulted on multiple international contracts and now those same contracts

00:10:33are being backfilled by China and others. And it is my understanding that these

00:10:39licenses were revoked for foreign policy reasons such as furtherance of world

00:10:46peace. So instead of supporting American companies, we just handed over the

00:10:51marketplace to China. Export controls, investment security, and an important

00:10:57tools like the Defense Production Act should be used in a

00:11:02responsible manner that it maximizes growth here at home and economic pain

00:11:05for our adversaries. I strongly believe that when we have a better domestic

00:11:10environment, a better ability to innovate and manufacture, that means that America

00:11:16is winning. Thank you. I look forward to discussing these important issues with

00:11:20our witnesses. Thank you, Senator Scott. Witnesses today, two of them have been in

00:11:28front of our committee before, two new witnesses. Thank you for joining us.

00:11:31Taya Kendler is Assistant Secretary for Export Administration at the Commerce

00:11:35Department. Paul Rosen is Assistant Secretary for Investment Security at the

00:11:39Department of the Treasury. Grant Harris, Assistant Secretary for Industry Analysis

00:11:43at the Department of Commerce. Dr. Laura Taylor-Callay is the Assistant

00:11:48Secretary for Industrial-Based Policy at the Department of Defense. Thank you, all

00:11:52four of you, for your public service and welcome and you're recognized. Ms. Kendler.

00:11:58Thank you, Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Scott, distinguished members of this

00:12:03committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify about the Biden-Harris

00:12:07administration's ongoing efforts to administer export controls and protection

00:12:11of U.S. national security interests. I appreciate the opportunity to work

00:12:16together with you to ensure we're effectively countering China's military

00:12:20modernization and human rights abuses, degrading Russia's ability to wage war

00:12:25on Ukraine, identifying and controlling technologies that are critical to our

00:12:30national security, and collaborating with our allies and partners in these efforts.

00:12:35BIS does not take on these tasks alone. License applications and licensing

00:12:42policy are adjudicated and set together with the Departments of Commerce, Defense,

00:12:46Energy, and State. Our greatest priority is to effectively apply

00:12:53export controls to thwart China's military modernization efforts. We know

00:12:58that China is going to great lengths to obtain key U.S. advanced technologies

00:13:03with military potential and we're responding accordingly, as demonstrated

00:13:08by our October 2022 and 2023 advanced computing controls. These restrictions

00:13:14aim to impede China's ability to develop artificial intelligence systems used for

00:13:20the development of advanced weapons systems, malicious cyber activity, and

00:13:24other military and intelligence applications. With our interagency

00:13:29partners, we closely scrutinize license applications to the PRC, focusing on end

00:13:34users and end uses, as well as risk of diversion to unauthorized activities.

00:13:39We're not afraid to take the time we need to carefully analyze applications

00:13:44involving PRC parties to assess any and all risks to U.S. national security and

00:13:49foreign policy. Just this morning, we released new proposals to expand

00:13:55restrictions on exports and the provision of support to military,

00:13:59intelligence, and foreign security end users and end uses, consistent with the

00:14:04FY23 NDAA. This includes controls on U.S. person support to such activities in

00:14:10China. And last week, we took action to ensure strong U.S. leadership in the

00:14:16development of standards for critical and emerging technologies. Through an

00:14:19export controls rulemaking, we enabled increased U.S. private sector

00:14:24participation in standard-setting organizations. This undercuts any

00:14:29advantage China could establish in the absence of U.S. industry participation.

00:14:34At the same time, our commitment to working with allies and partners on

00:14:39export controls has never been stronger. Export controls are more effective when

00:14:45used in concert with our partners and allies. We're in the process of

00:14:50finalizing controls now on new critical and emerging technologies, including

00:14:54quantum, and some of our allies and partners have already taken parallel

00:14:58action. We continue to surge forward in common controls against Russia with our

00:15:0438 Global Export Control Coalition partners. Earlier this month, I was in

00:15:09Brussels meeting with counterparts from the European Commission, Japan, and the

00:15:13United Kingdom to discuss combined efforts to enhance the controls we

00:15:17imposed on Russia in response to its attacks on Ukraine. We've also

00:15:22coordinated outreach to third countries outside of our coalition to more

00:15:26forcefully combat illegal diversion. Alongside our tireless commitment to

00:15:32control the export of U.S. technologies, BIS is deeply dedicated to ensuring the

00:15:37health of our defense industrial base. Through the critical tools provided by

00:15:41the Defense Production Act, we work alongside interagency partners to ensure

00:15:46that critical Department of Defense and emergency procurement needs are met.

00:15:50Our DPA authorities also enable us to issue highly confidential and bespoke

00:15:55surveys to industry participants, informing our use of export controls and

00:16:01interagency approaches to national security issues. Reauthorization of the

00:16:05DPA is critical for BIS's support to our defense industrial base. Dual-use export

00:16:12controls have never been more necessary to our national security. We in Export

00:16:17Administration at the Commerce Department are focused on aggressively

00:16:20contending with the national security threats facing our country and using all

00:16:24the tools at our disposal to ensure we maintain U.S. technological leadership in

00:16:29furtherance of national security. Finally, while I recognize that this is not an

00:16:34Appropriations Committee, I urge you to support additional funding for BIS. We're

00:16:40facing more sophisticated threats from China, Russia, Iran, rapid advances in

00:16:45technology, increasing complexity of export license applications, and more and

00:16:50more critical and emerging technologies subject to our controls. To outpace these

00:16:55threats, we need to resource our mission appropriately. Thank you. I welcome your

00:17:00questions. Thank you, Secretary Thea. Thank you, Secretary Rosen. Chairman Brown,

00:17:06good morning. Ranking Member Scott, good morning. And members of the committee,

00:17:09thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on the work of the Department

00:17:14of the Treasury's Office of Investment Security and the Committee on Foreign

00:17:18Investment in the United States, or CFIUS. I also want to thank Congress for the

00:17:23authorities and resources you have provided since the passage of the

00:17:27Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018, or FIRMA,

00:17:32as well as the constructive and bipartisan support you have provided to

00:17:38our national security mission, which has helped make possible many of the

00:17:42enhancements I will discuss here today. Last year, I spoke to this committee

00:17:46about our work and the progress we've made to safeguard national security. And

00:17:51today, I'd like to update you on these efforts, which have been extensive and

00:17:55ongoing. Over the past 18 months, we have strengthened our analytical and

00:18:00operational capabilities by building and implementing sophisticated tools,

00:18:04platforms, and methodologies for assessing and addressing national

00:18:08security risks, employing cutting-edge information technology platforms to

00:18:13securely manage and facilitate novel aspects of CFIUS's work, and expanding

00:18:19and deepening our human capital to build a team with diverse backgrounds. These

00:18:23improvements have enabled us to be more efficient and effective, even as we

00:18:27contend with two core challenges. Transactions are becoming more complex

00:18:33and sophisticated in their structures, and CFIUS is identifying and addressing

00:18:38more national security risks than in years past. We have paid particular

00:18:42attention to the role of limited partners in investment funds, as their

00:18:46access to, influence, and control over sensitive businesses can vary

00:18:51considerably. All while tackling these challenges, Treasury has successfully

00:18:56improved the efficiency of CFIUS's operations. As noted in the latest annual

00:19:01report, in 2023, CFIUS cleared 66% of file declarations or notices within the

00:19:09first 30 or 45 days, respectively, compared to 58% in 2022. The rate at

00:19:16which parties withdrew and refiled their notices also declined from 23% to 18%,

00:19:22the first such decrease in five years. These changes are not incidental, but

00:19:28reflect improved efficiencies, which is a cornerstone of our focus. Treasury has

00:19:33also transformed the way the committee approaches compliance with mitigation

00:19:37agreements and enforcement thereof. We've expanded and devoted significant

00:19:42resources to the monitoring enforcement mission, including by nearly doubling the

00:19:46size of Treasury's team over the last several years. We have also continued to

00:19:51enforce violations of mitigation agreements where appropriate. In fact, in

00:19:552023, CFIUS imposed four civil monetary penalties for violations of material

00:20:01provisions of mitigation agreements, which was double the number of civil

00:20:05monetary penalties that CFIUS had previously imposed in nearly its 50-year

00:20:09history. CFIUS has also, for the first time, issued subpoenas pursuant to its

00:20:15authority to execute its national security mission. We have expanded our

00:20:19efforts to identify transactions that were not notified to the committee

00:20:23voluntarily and that may pose a risk to national security. The committee leverages

00:20:28multiple tools to identify and analyze such non-notified transactions, and

00:20:33Treasury's non-notified team screens thousands of potential covered

00:20:37transactions, ultimately putting forth to the committee for consideration to

00:20:42request to file those transactions that may pose a national security risk or

00:20:46issues. The Mine 1 transaction that President Biden blocked earlier this

00:20:51year came to the committee through the non-notified process in the form of a

00:20:56public tip. Treasury has also led a number of regulatory enhancements to

00:21:02CFIUS authorities over these years. Working with our partners of the

00:21:06Department of Defense, Treasury issued a proposed rule this month to

00:21:10significantly bolster CFIUS's jurisdiction over real estate

00:21:14transactions. We're also working to finalize the proposed rule to sharpen

00:21:18our investigation and enforcement tools. In many instances, our tools work best

00:21:24when we collaborate and act with our allies and partners. In 2023 and

00:21:282024, CFIUS had more than 300 engagements with allies and partners,

00:21:33and since 2019, approximately 30 countries have proposed, enacted, or

00:21:38significantly expanded their foreign investment review regimes with our

00:21:43support. And lastly, let me update you briefly on Treasury's efforts to

00:21:48implement President Biden's outbound investment security program. Treasury

00:21:52issued a proposed rule last month for this program, and my office is working

00:21:56closely with the interagency to review comments and prepare a final report.

00:22:02This important program success ultimately will depend on the resources

00:22:06we receive. And to that end, I'd ask Congress to fully support Treasury's

00:22:10request in the President's 25 budget for this program at 16.7 million. Thank

00:22:16you, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Senator. Thank

00:22:19you, Secretary Rose. Secretary Harris, welcome. Chairman Brown, Ranking

00:22:23Member Scott, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting

00:22:26me to testify today. As Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Industry and

00:22:30Analysis, I lead a team of over 265 industry experts and economists. Our

00:22:36mission is to support the global competitiveness of U.S. industry. This

00:22:40unit, which sits in the International Trade Administration, is the analytical

00:22:45engine of U.S. competitiveness policy because it is the broadest industry

00:22:50expertise available in any one place in the U.S. government. We cover

00:22:54approximately 90% of the U.S. economy and work on everything from raw

00:22:59materials like critical minerals to vital components like semiconductors to

00:23:03finished goods like autos and airplanes. The unit's singular industry

00:23:07expertise, our unique commercial perspective and our advanced analytics

00:23:12capabilities are critical to advancing U.S. government work on outbound

00:23:16investments, CFIUS and supply chain resilience. With respect to outbound,

00:23:20commerce plays a special role in supporting the program. Commerce is key

00:23:25to identifying and understanding the relevant technologies to be covered and

00:23:28how the requirements should be scoped. We have the technical fluency and industry

00:23:33relationships to help anticipate the national security risks that may be

00:23:38associated with cutting-edge technologies. In addition, my team has spearheaded

00:23:42extensive industry engagement, consulting over 450 stakeholders, working

00:23:47with Treasury as the development of the program has progressed. This is important

00:23:52as we seek to craft an effective program while reducing the risks of

00:23:56unintended market effects. Commerce will also be key to successful implementation.

00:24:01Our sector-specific experts will be indispensable to interpreting and

00:24:06recommending action based on analysis of the data received through the program.

00:24:10Turning to CFIUS, the industry and analysis unit leads commerce's

00:24:14participation in the committee and analyzes issues related to the U.S.

00:24:18business and the market in which it operates, market trends and the business

00:24:23rationales for transactions, among other issues. My team works closely with

00:24:28colleagues across the department, especially in BIS. In 2022, President

00:24:33Biden directed CFIUS to consider supply chain resiliency in its national

00:24:38security reviews. Commerce analyzes issues such as the scale and types of

00:24:43supply relationships pertaining to a given U.S. company and the potential for

00:24:47supply chain disruptions or undue foreign influence over specific supply

00:24:52chains. More broadly on supply chains, the industry and analysis unit has long

00:24:57been central to U.S. supply chain work. We've had a supply chain services focused

00:25:03office for over a decade and for years before that, a dedicated team. We focus

00:25:09on applied analysis and action. For instance, the industry and analysis unit

00:25:14was the first team in the U.S. government to sound the alarm on competitiveness in

00:25:19the semiconductor supply chain and spring into action. The team mapped out

00:25:23choke points, created an early warning system and connected industry leaders

00:25:28with suppliers to encourage solutions. The team also set to work supporting

00:25:33investments to strengthen the supply chain and was recognized for securing

00:25:37investments into the United States, totaling $34 billion and supporting over

00:25:4320,000 U.S. jobs. Last year, we established what the White House called a

00:25:48first of its kind supply chain center. We're pioneering new data driven tools

00:25:54and creating playbooks to assess supply chain vulnerabilities and specific

00:25:58sectors, including for emerging technologies. Our supply chain exposure

00:26:03tool provides a common operating picture that that enables evidence based

00:26:07actions with international partners. We're also building a diagnostic tool

00:26:13to assess supply chain risk across the U.S. economy with an emphasis on risks

00:26:18to national security and economic security most relevant to the U.S.

00:26:23government. In conclusion, the industry and analysis units industry expertise is

00:26:28vital to investment security, U.S. technological leadership, supporting

00:26:33domestic manufacturing and job growth and addressing unfair trade practices by

00:26:38the People's Republic of China. The president's FY 25 budget request for the

00:26:43International Trade Administration includes $5 million in new funding to

00:26:47support the outbound investment security program and $12 million to support our

00:26:52supply chain work. In finalizing the FY 25 appropriation bills, we ask that you

00:26:58please consider how important it is for U.S. national security to support and

00:27:02fund these functions. Thank you and I look forward to answering your questions.

00:27:08Thank you, Secretary. Secretary Taylor-Culley, welcome. Thank you. Good

00:27:13morning, Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Scott and distinguished members of the

00:27:17committee. I am grateful for this opportunity to represent the Department

00:27:21of Defense today. As the first Senate-confirmed Assistant Secretary of

00:27:28Defense for industrial-based policy, issues of national security and issues

00:27:33of economic security interlink for us in the Department of Defense. Generally, I

00:27:40interact with the Armed Services Committee. However, this committee has

00:27:43oversight over key areas of economic security that are of critical importance

00:27:48to DoD. CFIUS, antitrust reviews, and the Defense Production Act in particular.

00:27:54Through DoD's role on CFIUS, we see how adversarial capital investments in the

00:28:00U.S. technological base attempt to weaken the United States by robbing us of our

00:28:04technological know-how. Our role in Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust reviews

00:28:09allows the DoD to remain vigilant to adversaries using unfair trade and

00:28:14predatory acquisition and investment strategies to weaken the U.S. defense

00:28:19industrial base. All of these remain very important priorities for the Department

00:28:25of Defense, as underscored in the National Defense Industrial Strategy, in

00:28:31support of economic deterrence and our warfighters. And while I welcome

00:28:36questions on any of these topics, today I will focus most of my comments on the

00:28:40Defense Production Act. The Defense Production Act expires in September

00:28:462025, and the Department of Defense strongly supports a five-year

00:28:50reauthorization of DPA, and believes that the reauthorization needs to happen this

00:28:56year in the NDAA or another means, rather than risk a lapse of authorities by

00:29:01waiting until 2025. Why is that? Because in addition to timely, consistent

00:29:07appropriations and multi-year procurement authority, supporting the

00:29:12Defense Production Act may be one of the most important actions that Congress can

00:29:16take to ensure that the U.S. industrial base is ready to preserve our military

00:29:21advantage and support the warfighter. I'd also like to take this opportunity to

00:29:26thank Congress for expanding the definition of domestic source in the

00:29:31Defense Production Act to include Australia and the United Kingdom. This

00:29:36allows us to, in addition to working with Canada, to support and work with our

00:29:40allies and partners to strengthen our own industrial base as well.

00:29:45DOD's primary aim in the use of the Defense Production Act is to increase

00:29:49the readiness and resilience of the defense industrial base in support of

00:29:54defense critical needs and the warfighter. Since Congress enacted the

00:29:58DPA in 1950, the Executive Branch has invoked DPA authorities to manage the

00:30:04nation's defense-related production capacity, our critical supply chains, and

00:30:09to protect and strengthen the U.S. industrial base in times of war, peace,

00:30:13and national emergencies. And today it remains an essential national defense

00:30:19tool. Make no mistake, our adversaries attempt to use supply chain

00:30:24vulnerabilities to weaken the U.S. economy and our military, and the DPA remains one

00:30:31of the most effective tools to bolster our domestic industrial production. We

00:30:37use the DPA Title I to prioritize components for defense systems and

00:30:42ensure availability of components does not preclude industry from delivering

00:30:47the warfighter needs in a timely and cost-effective manner. We use

00:30:52Title III to alleviate pain points in supply chains and expand domestic

00:30:56manufacturing of critical technologies and processing and production of

00:31:01critical minerals and strategic materials. Since the last reauthorization

00:31:07in 2018, DoD appropriations for DPA Title III have increased dramatically

00:31:13from an average of $70 million a year to about $750 million a year. Last fiscal

00:31:20year, we executed over $733 million of DPA Title III awards in microelectronics,

00:31:28strategic and critical minerals, kinetic capabilities, energy storage, and

00:31:32batteries. Going forward, we need to do more, and yes, Senator Scott, we also need

00:31:40to do so responsibly. We recently announced a defense industrial base

00:31:45other transaction authorities, a consortium that will allow DoD to

00:31:50expand execution of DPA awards more timely and offer more small

00:31:56businesses and companies that are not traditionally part of the defense

00:31:59industrial base to compete for awards. We continue to want to work with allies

00:32:05and partners through security of supply arrangements, and of course, now that we

00:32:10can work with Australian and UK companies as well in

00:32:15support of AUKUS in order to secure defense critical supply

00:32:20chains. As Congress considers reauthorization, we recommend a few

00:32:27changes to the DPA law, including raising the DPA fund balance to allow that

00:32:32annual fund balance to increase so that appropriations won't be penalized, and we

00:32:37like to create more executive offices in addition to our great partnership with

00:32:42the good people of Ohio who work for AFRL. We also support increasing the

00:32:48period of availability of funds, which will allow the department to support

00:32:51advanced procurement of material for defense critical components. Again, I'm

00:32:56absolutely honored to be here today representing the Department of Defense,

00:32:59and ultimately, I hope that our joint efforts will continue to ensure the

00:33:04necessary resources for our warfighters and secure our nation's economic future.

00:33:09Thank you again. Thank you, Secretary Taylor-Clay. I'll begin the questioning

00:33:13with Senator Cortez Masto of Nevada. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the

00:33:18Ranking Member for the hearing today. Assistant Secretary Taylor-Clay, let me

00:33:21start with you, and thank you very much for your comments. I want to commend you

00:33:25for the work you've been doing to develop our national defense industrial

00:33:29strategy. It's been a really a whole-of-government effort, and I thank

00:33:33you for that. One question I have, though, is what that concerns me, and I'm seeing

00:33:38it across the board, is the decline of the defense workforce. There were

00:33:44three million people working in U.S. defense industries in 1985. Today, it's

00:33:48only about 1.1 million. As we look to strengthen the defense in the

00:33:53industrial base, that includes the workforce. Can you talk a little bit

00:33:57about what we should be considering, what DOD is doing, what are we looking

00:34:03at, and what tools and resources are we utilizing to collaborate with federal

00:34:09agencies, with the private sector, in strengthening that workforce?

00:34:13Thank you, ma'am. I'm glad you asked that question. Indeed, the decline of the

00:34:19defense workforce is a key area of risk. It is a risk for production in general,

00:34:27certainly for production in defense-critical supply chains. As part of

00:34:32the National Defense Industrial Strategy, we made workforce readiness one

00:34:36of the four strategic priorities for that very reason. The Department of

00:34:41Defense is in implementing the strategy and developing the implementation plan.

00:34:45Workforce will remain a very important issue, and I'd also like to note it's not

00:34:49just the defense industrial-based workforce, but it's also the organic

00:34:54industrial-based workforce, as well as our acquisitions workforce. We need all

00:34:59of them to be able to work in concert to be able to, again, bring the

00:35:03capabilities that our warfighters need at speed and at scale. We have a number

00:35:08of programs that we're developing. We've been focused on the submarine

00:35:11industrial-based workforce. I was just in Michigan on Monday with Secretary of the

00:35:18Navy Del Toro, so we were unveiling a new initiative in Michigan to help reskill

00:35:25and upskill workforce there, particularly automotive workers who may

00:35:30want to work in the submarine industrial-based workforce, so creating

00:35:33an additional workforce in Michigan. We continue to promote manufacturing and

00:35:40advanced trade skills as well. Again, workforce remains of a priority and will

00:35:46continue to be a priority for us as we continue to want to build out the

00:35:51resiliency of the industrial base. I appreciate that. Thank you. Let me jump

00:35:56to Assistant Secretary Rosen. I want to talk a little bit about CFIUS. I

00:36:01welcome your proposed rulemaking, which adds the Hawthorne Army Depot in

00:36:06Nevada to CFIUS. A couple questions. I guess I know you're adding 50

00:36:13additional facilities as well. What factors contributed specifically to

00:36:18adding, if you can tell me, adding the Hawthorne Army Depot to the list?

00:36:23Senator, thank you for the question and for your leadership on these issues. Of

00:36:28course, you mentioned Hawthorne, but there's a host of other facilities in

00:36:31your state that are on the list, importantly so Nellis and others.

00:36:36When Congress enacted FIRMA, it gave us this new real estate

00:36:42jurisdiction. At the time, we worked closely with our colleagues at the

00:36:46Department of Defense to develop the initial list. When we came in, when I

00:36:52came in a couple years ago, we looked at cases and we decided, working closely

00:36:57with our colleagues at DOD, to take another look. In 2023, we added eight

00:37:02additional bases. As you point out, we're in the process of adding 59 more bases.

00:37:08I would defer to my colleague, Dr. Taylor Colley, for some details on this.

00:37:15As a general matter, what we look to is the sophistication of what's going on at

00:37:19these facilities, the possibility for potential espionage, how much of it is

00:37:25core national security, how much of it is training. That goes into whether

00:37:30something should be on a list and what the range should be. I should

00:37:34note that this update is the result of a broad strategic review led by my

00:37:41colleagues at the Department of Defense, to really take a holistic view, to make

00:37:45sure we're not leaving anything on the table in terms of plugging gaps, to make

00:37:50sure the list is full and complete.

00:37:52No, I appreciate that. You mentioned FIRMA 2018 and I

00:37:55supported it and obviously was looking at that. Is it the security of our

00:38:00installations that you just mentioned in Nevada and throughout Nevada? The

00:38:04collaboration is key and it's nice to see that happening. I thank you very

00:38:08much. I only have so much time left. One final thing I just want to touch on

00:38:12and it's Assistant Secretary Kendler, you mentioned this, is more funds, more funds

00:38:18for the department. My understanding is you haven't received funding and

00:38:22increase since 2010. Based on that, I would imagine it is challenging now

00:38:31because of the increased capacity of your jurisdiction and oversight to cover

00:38:35some of the coverage that you need with less resources. Is that one of the

00:38:42reasons why you're seeking an increase? I guess talk a little bit about that if

00:38:46you would. Senator, thank you very much for the question. That's right, taking

00:38:51inflation into account, our budget has essentially been flat for quite some

00:38:57time. Basically the last decade it's barely kept up with inflation. We do

00:39:01support the president's budget for fiscal year 25, which is a down

00:39:05payment on what we need in the Bureau of Industry and Security. If I had one ask,

00:39:10it would be for funds for IT modernization. We need roughly a hundred

00:39:15million dollars to take antiquated systems and turn them into useful

00:39:20productive data and analytic support. We've had issues in providing answers to

00:39:29the Hill in a timely way because we don't have an updated modernization

00:39:33system and we're not taking advantage of the data capabilities we have to the

00:39:37best of our ability. With more funds we would we would enhance our technical

00:39:44expertise, we would work on data and analytic capabilities and certainly our

00:39:50enforcement capacity as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator

00:39:55Scott, the ranking member from South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:39:58Ms. Kindler, I'm glad you're here. My colleagues and I have written several

00:40:02letters calling for your testimony and on Commerce Department's firearm export

00:40:07licensing policies and regulations because unfortunately your policies

00:40:11appear to have all the signs of political targeting, costing the industry

00:40:15an estimated five hundred million dollars per year and generating no

00:40:20national security benefits. Case in point is the company I mentioned during my

00:40:24opening testimony, MG Super and Associates. I'm looking at some of the

00:40:29the denials on these licenses and the reason, fascinating, foreign policy

00:40:38pursuant to 22 CFR 120.18 A1 and 2 of the ITAR, the Department of State

00:40:46may deny a license or other approval when the department deems such action to

00:40:51be in furtherance of world peace, denying a company the opportunity to

00:40:59sell firearms to the Ecuadorian police. Next one, same verbiage to deems it such

00:41:08action necessary to further world peace, denying again another license to sell to

00:41:18the Ecuadorian military. This minority business owner is Ecuadorian, cares a lot

00:41:26about safety in a country where his mother born and raised. Another one,

00:41:35furtherance of world peace. It is not only frustrating and exacerbating but

00:41:43challenging to see this over and over and over and over again. Your firearm

00:41:50policy has resulted in over 71 million dollars in licenses

00:41:55canceled for this company, meaning they've lost their contracts and they've

00:42:00lost the ability to support the police and the military across the Western

00:42:04Hemisphere. That does not mean that the Ecuadorian police did not find another

00:42:07channel. Of course they went to Brazil, Czech Republic and China to get these

00:42:13orders backfilled. You haven't prevented the sale of firearms, you've merely used

00:42:20a political tactic to harm an American business. What's even worse is that it to

00:42:28me appears to be political targeting. The International Trade Association under

00:42:34your leadership has stopped this company but allowed competitors in some

00:42:42of our nation's poorest areas to not be able to effectively create jobs, not be

00:42:58able to effectively produce a world-class competitive product and

00:43:05have a market to sell it to because you're trying to further world peace.

00:43:17Thoughts? Senator, I really appreciate you bringing up this topic and I'm not sure

00:43:25you do but I think this is an important topic that reinforces this

00:43:30administration's philosophical approach to trying to shut down or cut off gun

00:43:37manufacturing in our own country. I do appreciate you bringing it up because I

00:43:43think there's a lot of misunderstanding about what we're trying to accomplish

00:43:46and and what our rules have actually done. Our focus is on protecting national

00:43:52security. Full stop. We tailored the rule. Our presumption of denial in this rule

00:43:59is tailored to ensure that US lawfully exported firearms don't end up in the

00:44:03hands of criminals, gangs, cartels, terrorists. Let me ask you a question there. Is there

00:44:12evidence that his company's firearms sold to the military and to the police

00:44:18have not been received by the military or police? Is there something

00:44:24specific about this transaction or the other three that were denied? Senator, I'm

00:44:29not in a position to speak to a specific company's situation but I certainly feel

00:44:34sorry for your constituent and I'd like to follow up with you in an environment

00:44:38where we can talk about a specific company. But let me be clear. Our

00:44:41presumption of denial, it only applies to non-government entities in the 36

00:44:48countries designated by state as high-risk. So if these transactions are

00:44:52with government entities, that is not the subject of our presumption of denial.

00:44:57Thank you. Let me just say, I think words mean things.

00:45:03Ecuadorian police. Ecuadorian police. Ecuadorian military. Colombian military.

00:45:22Thank you, Senator Scott. Secretary Taylor Calais, the current DPA

00:45:30reauthorization expires next year, as you know. Senator Scranton, Member Scott

00:45:34and I filed an NDA amendment that would extend the DPA. Describe, if you would, why

00:45:39it's a critical tool that needs to be reauthorized and how DOD uses its

00:45:44authorities. Thank you, sir. Again, as you noted, DPA reauthorization is a

00:45:55priority for the Department of Defense. We use the DPA all three titles daily.

00:46:02A lapse would ultimately impact our warfighter needs and the ability of our,

00:46:08particularly our industrial base, to address some of the long lead items,

00:46:14long lead times for critical defense components and would ultimately, again,

00:46:22impact our warfighter. Annually, we use Title I over 300,000 times to

00:46:31prioritize and allocate some of these urgent defense critical components and

00:46:36resolve supply chain issues. Without reauthorization by next year, we wouldn't

00:46:41be able to do that. We also use Title I really at no cost to the taxpayer.

00:46:50A lapse would impact our prioritizations, not just for us, but also with our

00:46:55allies and partners. We have over 20 security of supply arrangements with key

00:47:01partners and allies across the globe. Those security of supply arrangements

00:47:06have been used with Israel. They've been used for Ukraine. With Title III, it would

00:47:12also impact industry. It will impact small businesses. Forty percent of our

00:47:16Title III DPA awards go to small businesses and nontraditional defense

00:47:21suppliers. We're using the Defense Production Act Title III to expand and

00:47:26bring more nontraditional companies into the defense ecosystem. Without Title III

00:47:32awards and the reauthorization of DPA title in general, we wouldn't be able to

00:47:38do that very important work. Thank you. Secretary Rosen, 2018 Congress

00:47:46gave CFIUS the authority to require mandatory filings of foreign investments

00:47:50in critical technologies, as you know. Since then, we've seen increasing

00:47:54attempts by malign actors to target U.S. critical infrastructure. It's why I'm

00:47:58pushing to give CFIUS the ability to require mandatory filings. We need to

00:48:02know about these investments. It should not be optional. We filed an amendment to

00:48:07NDAA to do this. Would CFIUS talk through whether CFIUS would be able to

00:48:11better protect the U.S. from dangerous foreign investment if it had the ability

00:48:15to require these mandatory filings for transactions related to infrastructure?

00:48:21Senator, Chairman, thank you for that question and for your leadership on

00:48:24these issues throughout. You bring up critical infrastructure. It's a core

00:48:29component of what FIRRMA was all about. It's also a core component of what

00:48:33CFIUS reviews and looks at on a regular basis. It is true that certain filings of

00:48:39critical infrastructure investments are mandatory. I think the more, as a

00:48:45general matter, we want to make sure that we are seeing investments into places

00:48:49like critical infrastructure that raise national security risk. I think the

00:48:54challenge is figuring out how do you do that in a way that mandatorily

00:48:59requires what we need to see, what we want to see, but sort of weeds out some

00:49:04of the broader noise. I think there's ways that we can do that through

00:49:07regulations and otherwise. We're committed to working with you on that

00:49:11effort and we appreciate you spearheading that. Thank you. Secretary

00:49:16Harris, the administration's taken steps to establish a targeted program to

00:49:21ensure outbound U.S. investment doesn't strengthen China's ability to develop

00:49:26certain critical technologies described. As you know, Senator Casey and Cornyn

00:49:31have led a bipartisan effort to codify an outbound investment program.

00:49:36Talk to us if you'd describe why the administration has

00:49:41taken a sector-based approach in its outbound investment program. Thank you,

00:49:46Chairman, for that question. We're trying to take a very deliberate and narrow and

00:49:51tailored approach to address a national security risk, and that is certain

00:49:56outbound investments supporting the development of certain sensitive

00:50:00technologies in a country of concern. That is U.S. venture capital or private

00:50:05equity supporting the development of, say, sensitive semiconductor technology or AI

00:50:10related applications in a Chinese startup. We've been consulting very

00:50:15broadly with hundreds of stakeholders throughout the development of this

00:50:19program, and our belief is that with this sectoral approach as we define it, it can

00:50:24be most administrable and most impactful, but also most narrow. Our goal here is to

00:50:30address that tailored threat while minimizing broader unintended impacts.

00:50:36Thank you. Senator Van Hollen is recognized from Maryland. Are you ready?

00:50:44Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. We have a

00:50:47appropriations subcommittee hearing markup going on. Thank all of you for

00:50:52what you're doing, both to strengthen our economy but also protect our national

00:50:58security at the same time. And I do want to just pick up on a couple of the

00:51:03questions that the chairman asked, first with regard to the outbound investment

00:51:09screening. And I applaud the administration's leadership on this

00:51:13issue, working with our G7 partners and trying to design this in a way that you

00:51:20just said, Mr. Harris, was well tailored. I returned from a trip last week to a

00:51:28number of countries, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE. There's a voracious

00:51:32appetite for U.S. technology, especially in AI, but also other sectors. But if

00:51:38we're going to be successful in terms of targeted outbound investment screenings,

00:51:43starting with the notification provisions, we obviously need our allies

00:51:48who are also in strong positions to, you know, provide investment technology to

00:51:54cooperate fully, right? Otherwise we can shut the front door of the barn but

00:51:59leave the back one open. Can you talk about the progress we're making, getting

00:52:03some of our partners, whether it's the EU or others in East Asia, Japan,

00:52:08South Korea, to adopt similar measures with respect to outbound investment?

00:52:15Thank you for that question, Senator. And I'll quickly pull in Assistant Secretary

00:52:19Rosen as well, with Treasury's role in leading the program. I would say from a

00:52:23commerce perspective, though, we've been, with Treasury and the State Department,

00:52:27very focused on working with allies and partners. We're in a situation where

00:52:31we've identified a threat and we need to take action, and we're doing so. But we

00:52:36want this to be as inclusive and as broad as possible, and have as many

00:52:41partners and allies share our perspective and take their own actions.

00:52:44I appreciate that. No, I was going to ask you, Mr. Rosen, as well. I know this is

00:52:48your portfolio at Treasury. If you could just speak specifically, not to

00:52:54the goals of enlisting support from our allies, but whether we're making

00:52:57substantial progress on that front and what more needs to be done.

00:53:01Senator, you hit the nail on the head in terms of the sort of the backfill thing

00:53:05that we're focused on. I would say we're making progress, we're engaged, and we're

00:53:09committed to continuing that engagement. I do think that a number of allies and

00:53:16partners are studying the issue to assess whether within their own

00:53:21economies, they are similarly worried about the export of their dollars, of

00:53:27their and their know-how, in the same way we are. So I think we're getting

00:53:32different responses as a result, but I'm encouraged by some of the statements

00:53:36that you alluded to, and it's an effort we're not going to give up on. I

00:53:39appreciate it. I just think we need to really, really push here. Otherwise, we'll be,

00:53:45in some ways, putting restrictions, handcuffs on our own company's

00:53:49investment when others are free to do so. Under the jurisdiction of the

00:53:56Department of Commerce, Mr. Kendler, and specifically related to some of the

00:54:01machines that are used to manufacture very high-end chips for semiconductors,

00:54:08the United States has been very clear that we want to protect what we

00:54:15call the small garden, our crown jewels, but high walls. This also requires our

00:54:21partners' engagement. So, for example, when it comes to some of the machines to help

00:54:25manufacture high-end semiconductors, we've worked with ASML and Tokyo

00:54:30Electron, but, you know, my understanding is that there may not be the progress

00:54:35that we'd anticipated earlier. So my question to you is, when and if would

00:54:42the United States want to apply the foreign direct product rule in order to

00:54:47ensure compliance with our goals? I don't know which of the two. Okay. I'll take

00:54:54that, Senator. Thank you. Thank you. From the view of Industry and Security at

00:54:58the Commerce Department, multilateral coordination is crucial to export

00:55:02controls, full stop. We, and we're constantly building export control

00:55:09coalitions around the world on different critical and emerging technologies, like

00:55:12semiconductors. The Dutch and the Japanese, as you alluded to, they impose

00:55:17their independent controls on semiconductor manufacturing tools.

00:55:21They're comparable to ours, that what we picked up last October in our amended

00:55:27controls, and that's a critical part of our work, ensuring that our allies and

00:55:33partners writ large understand the threat, that they understand what it

00:55:37means if we don't have controls in place. That's a fundamental of the

00:55:42coalition we built to respond to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It's a

00:55:45fundamental of how we're approaching quantum and other issues, as I alluded

00:55:51to in my opening statement. It's critical to us to keep that going. If you

00:55:56could, I asked specifically when and if we would apply the foreign direct

00:56:01product rule, which is obviously an escalatory measure, but one that may help

00:56:08get people's attention to secure their cooperation. Can you speak to that? We

00:56:13have increasingly applied the foreign direct product rule, which captures

00:56:18certain foreign produced equipment under our regulations. We have

00:56:23increasingly used that as a tool. It is a heavy measure. Happy to talk to you

00:56:30about when and what circumstances might be appropriate. I would appreciate

00:56:34following up on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Kennedy of Louisiana is

00:56:38recognized. Thank you, Mr Chairman, Mr Rosen and thanks to all of you for

00:56:42being here. Mr Rosen, NVIDIA makes probably the most advanced artificial

00:56:49intelligence chips, does it not?

00:56:53NVIDIA does produce advanced chips. Yes, Senator. And those chips are highly

00:56:59coveted because they can perform the massive computations needed to train AI

00:57:07systems, don't they? I believe so, yes, Senator. And we have export controls on

00:57:14those chips, do we not? We do, and that's a process led by my colleague, Ms

00:57:18Kendler. And we prohibit those chips from being sold to China, is that

00:57:24correct? I don't know exactly what chips are prohibited. I would defer to Ms

00:57:28Kendler, but I know there are controls on the export. You don't know whether

00:57:31the advanced NVIDIA artificial intelligence chips are prohibited from

00:57:36being sold to China? So, Senator, my understanding is that they are, but that

00:57:40is export controls. It lies with my colleague at the Department of Commerce.

00:57:45Um, so how come we're selling? We're allowing them to be sold to China.

00:57:51Senator, I would respectfully defer. I don't I don't oversee export controls.

00:57:55I oversee inbound investment into the United States. Um, you, you, you, uh, you

00:58:00control investment security, don't you? I do. And and as all right, let me ask

00:58:05Miss Kendler, how come? How come we're we're allowing them to be sold to

00:58:09China? Senator, our advanced computing controls from last October in the

00:58:14October before, uh, they're absolutely targeted at the most advanced chips. As

00:58:19you noted, we are controlling them for export to China. And we look together

00:58:24with Department of Defense, Energy and State at where they're going. Yes, ma'am.

00:58:29But if you go on the Internet, you'll find 70 distributors, not 7 70

00:58:37distributors

00:58:39which will sell NVIDIA's supposedly restricted chips to China.

00:58:47And in fact, some of them will sell to China the entire servers. It cost about

00:58:56300,000 apiece. They've got eight chips in. Isn't that a fact? Senator, I'm not

00:59:02familiar with with the website that you're referring to. But what I can tell

00:59:06you, I'm referring to 70. Do you read the Wall Street Journal?

00:59:10On occasion? Yes, you should read this article. They've identified at least 70

00:59:15distributors, and they have confirmed that these chips are being sold to

00:59:19China.

00:59:22Senator. And, uh, I mean, this is very disturbing. Um,

00:59:30what one estimate not according to the Center for a New American Security.

00:59:37It estimates that the median number of a one ships chips being sold sold

00:59:43already to China 12,500. Isn't that correct?

00:59:49Senator. Any diversion of our controls would be a matter for export

00:59:53enforcement, and we're tracking that very closely. But you're not aware that

00:59:5712,500 have been sold.

01:00:00Senator, we track all sorts of data through our analytic capabilities to

01:00:04understand illicit procurement networks. That's very important to our work, but

01:00:09it's something we're cracking down on 500. I can't speak to the specific

01:00:14report that you're referring to, sir. Well, you need to read the paper.

01:00:18No disrespect. These chips have been sold, and it's been confirmed to China's

01:00:24most elite universities.

01:00:27They've been sold to the state Research Powerhouse Chinese Academy of Science,

01:00:32haven't they? You don't know. Do you know anything about that?

01:00:36Senator, we look at license applications and determine whether

01:00:40they're consistent with national security. If it's not consistent with

01:00:44national security, we do not approve. All you gotta do is go on, get your

01:00:49computer out and go on Google and search, and you'll find 70 distributors

01:00:57that are selling these restricted chips that you're not shutting down.

01:01:02And the Wall Street Journal has confirmed all of this.

01:01:07Sir, we would add entities like that to our entity list as a regulatory action.

01:01:12We would also haven't done it yet. We would also have our enforcement

01:01:17colleagues investigate. Were you aware of this before? I raised it today.

01:01:21Senator, I certainly am aware that when our laws are effective, illicit

01:01:26procurement networks stand up to violent distributors and the thousands

01:01:31and thousands that have been sold right there on the Internet in front of

01:01:36God and country bigger than Dallas. Was your agency in charge of enforcing

01:01:42this aware of that?

01:01:44Senator, I'd be happy to connect you with our enforcement team to talk

01:01:48about this in more detail. Yes, sir. I mean, who's on first? What's on second?

01:01:53We've got export controls here,

01:01:56and all you got to do is go on the Internet and China buys them.

01:02:05The expound. Are you aware? Were you aware of this before? I raised it

01:02:11today. Senator Kennedy, you've made your point clear. I share your concerns.

01:02:16I think this is one reason why B. I. B. I. S. Needs more funds. Senator Smith

01:02:21from Minnesota is recognized. Well, can I just say one more point? Certainly

01:02:26may. I don't think they need more money. I think they need people that talk to

01:02:31each other and know how to use an Internet and know how to read articles

01:02:35in The Wall Street Journal. This is not. You don't have to be an astrophysicist

01:02:40here.

01:02:44Senator Smith. Thank you, Chair Brown. Thanks to all of you for being here. I

01:02:49really appreciate it. I'd like to direct my first question to Assistant

01:02:53Secretary Taylor Colley, if I may. The recent disastrous crowd strike

01:03:00incident, I think, exposed the alarming vulnerabilities that can result when too

01:03:04many critical systems and capabilities air dependent on a single source

01:03:08component and that faulty software update crashed. It apparently crashed

01:03:14over eight million windows devices. I mean, airlines were crippled banking

01:03:18systems, hospitals. It was a mess. A lot of people paid the price for that. My

01:03:22question is, um, the D. O. D.'s industrial based strategy includes

01:03:28efforts to reduce the risks associated with over dependence on a single or

01:03:33potentially adversarial adversarial source for national critical

01:03:37capabilities. I'm wondering how is the D. O. D. Thinking about the national

01:03:41security risks that can stem from instances like the crowd source outage

01:03:45where there's vulnerability from a single sourced product that can crash

01:03:49critical systems?

01:03:51Ma'am, thank you for that question. Um, single sources of, um, in our supply

01:03:58chains and our particular defense critical supply chains, um, remains a

01:04:05huge, incredible, um, uh, risk for our industrial base and for the Department

01:04:12of Defense. Um, in general, for us being able to provide our warfighters

01:04:17with the, um, capabilities that they need at speed and at scale. Um, an

01:04:22issue like the one that you raised with CrowdStrike is one that, um,

01:04:26obviously we we all experience. I experienced it myself personally on

01:04:30Monday trying to leave Michigan. Um, but, um, in general, we address sort

01:04:36of our supply chain issues. Um, you know, looking at broadly looking across

01:04:41the board. We also through our, uh, our chief information officer look at

01:04:48cyber threats in particular, and I want to emphasize the importance of cyber

01:04:54as part of the, um, sources of risk to our industrial base, particularly to

01:05:00manufacturers as well. Um, as part of the umbrella of the National Defense

01:05:06Industrial Strategy, uh, C. I. O. Also issued the cyber of the D. O. D.

01:05:11Defense industry cyber strategy as well. So we continue to look very

01:05:16closely at these and look at ways in which they affect particularly the

01:05:20defense industrial base and how we can intervene. Thank you. I, uh, I

01:05:24appreciate your response. I think it was just sort of impossible for most

01:05:27Americans to believe that everything could just be so screwed up because of

01:05:31one software update gone awry. And, um, I think when you think about what

01:05:38that might mean for other, you know, highly, um, important systems that we

01:05:42rely on for so many other things, it's it's really concerning. I want to ask

01:05:48you another question. This one has to do with, um, on drug on shoring. So the

01:05:53FDA tells us that nearly 70% of the ingredients that the ingredients and

01:05:59medications that Americans take are sourced overseas, mostly India and

01:06:04China. And the Finnish drug supply is also heavily reliant on overseas supply

01:06:09chains again, mostly from India and China. So, um, could you talk about

01:06:13what the risks are that are posed by this reliance on foreign manufactured

01:06:17drugs, especially medications like antibiotics? What impact that has on

01:06:22military readiness and civilian health? And what tools does the Department of

01:06:26Defense have to promote domestic manufacturing of these critical medical

01:06:30products? Ma'am, I want to underline the concerns that you raise, um,

01:06:36particularly with pharmaceuticals, um, and the fact that they have in our

01:06:40supply chains and ultimately to, um, our war fighters. I don't, in my purview,

01:06:46handle these issues within the Department of Defense. But I also want to

01:06:50note that Mr Harris also does within the Commerce Department. He may have

01:06:54something. Thank you, Mr Harris. Thank you, Senator. We absolutely share your

01:07:00concern that we need to be focused on where there are dependencies, where

01:07:03there are single sources of supply, and we have an urgent need to be more

01:07:08proactive and strategic in our approach to supply chains. We all collectively

01:07:12learned lessons in the pandemic, but it's not just about where the market

01:07:16might not function or where the supply might be too brittle of a supply chain.

01:07:20There are also national and economic security risks in these supply chains.

01:07:24You noted a perfect example. Americans expect every day that they would have

01:07:29what they need in the medicine cabinet or on the kitchen table, and the supply

01:07:33chains are what gets those products to point on my team in the Commerce

01:07:37Department and in the new supply chain center that we've created. We've been

01:07:41working with the Health and Human Services Agency and others to try to

01:07:44assess the data and identify what is of greatest concern and who do we need to

01:07:49work with to try to improve resiliency in that supply chain. Thank you. Thank

01:07:53you very much, Mr Chair. I just note that I have to, um, bipartisan bills to

01:07:58address this issue, one with Senator Cassidy, which would provide fundings

01:08:01to antibiotics manufacturers to, um, bring those factories back to the

01:08:06United States. And the second with Senator Cotton would provide incentives

01:08:10to drug manufacturers to produced finished drugs here in the United

01:08:14States by providing higher reimbursement for those products. I

01:08:18look forward to working on those proposals with any of my colleagues

01:08:21who are interested. Thanks, Senator Smith. Senator Brett from Alabama is

01:08:24recognized. Thank you, Chairman. Uh, and thank each of you for being here

01:08:28today. We appreciate it. Look, we all know the ever growing threat that is

01:08:33posed by the Chinese Communist Party and whether the C. C. P. Um, no matter

01:08:38what they're doing, undermining the American worker, stealing intellectual

01:08:42property, buying up our farmland. Uh, they have demonstrated a disregard for

01:08:48internet international rules. So when we're looking at that, it seriously

01:08:53doesn't matter if it's trade, if it's intellectual property, anything

01:08:56standing in their way, they're willing to just bulldoze straight through that.

01:09:00And American companies across every single sector of our economy are under

01:09:04pressure as a result. So I'm looking at A. I. Computing, energy, robotics,

01:09:12um, just influence or attempts to influence our institutions. The buying

01:09:16up of farmland, we could go on and on and on. The Chinese Communist Party is

01:09:21going to stop at nothing until they achieve their ultimate goal and the up

01:09:25end international order. So using the tools at our disposal, whether it's

01:09:30export controls, CFIUS or sanctions, we must pursue a strategy that strikes

01:09:36the right balance between protecting U. S. Industry and businesses and hard

01:09:41working Americans from the threats that are imposed by the Chinese Communist

01:09:45Party and other adversaries, while also allowing our economy and capital

01:09:49markets to thrive and to remain dominant. On this, a recent New York

01:09:55Fed report raised questions about the effect of unilateral export control

01:10:00policies. The report highlights the unintended consequences, like lost

01:10:04revenue to U. S. Firms, loss of start market capitalization for U. S. Companies

01:10:10and worse yet, unintentionally propelling Chinese firms to innovate

01:10:14and develop and advance technologies in house. In that end, the American

01:10:20consumer is the one that pays the price, and that is who I am concerned about.

01:10:25Mrs. Kendler, how do you think we strike the balance between cutting off

01:10:31China's access to our critical technologies while also ensuring

01:10:35American consumers don't pay the ultimate price?

01:10:41Thank you, Senator. This is this is a question that we struggle with every

01:10:44day. Our focus is on maintaining national security, that that comes

01:10:49before all good. But part of national security is U. S. Technological

01:10:53leadership. And so I think the first thing I'd point you to is the

01:10:59multilateral approach to export controls and the calibrated approach

01:11:03to export controls. So such is in our semiconductor controls where we've

01:11:07targeted the most advanced chips. We're not trying to unduly interfere with

01:11:12with business that doesn't cause a national security risk. We're trying to

01:11:16target our controls and create them in a way, together with our interagency

01:11:20partners, that attacks the most important need. The the danger of not

01:11:26using multilateral controls is that we may fail where we're damning half the

01:11:32river if it's only the United States imposing controls and not our partners

01:11:36and allies or other supply countries. We're also potentially incentivizing

01:11:42foreign companies to design out U. S. Components as they manufacture goods.

01:11:47So this is something we pay a great deal of attention to as we have. We

01:11:50don't take our eye off the national security ball. Well, and in that vein,

01:11:55unfortunately, since it was reauthorized last in 2018, the Defense

01:11:59Production Act has become increasingly used. You've seen President Biden and

01:12:03Vice President Harris again acting out of the bounds of congressional intent,

01:12:07this time using it to further the Green New Deal agenda and by boasting

01:12:12productions of things like solar panel parts using the Defense Production Act

01:12:16for partisan priorities that have little to do with national security

01:12:20undermines the critical use of that tool and the way that it was intended to

01:12:26essentially give our nation the ability to defend ourselves and our allies. We

01:12:30are considering reauthorization ahead of 2025, and we need to ensure that it's

01:12:35actually being appropriately utilized. And so, Mrs. Taylor Kell, I understand

01:12:41you recently released the first national defense industrial strategy. Can you

01:12:45share with us the status of implementation? And more broadly, what

01:12:50is the state of the industrial base and ensuring that our war fighters are

01:12:55properly equipped?

01:12:58Thank you, ma'am. I want to emphasize again that the Department of Defense

01:13:03strongly supports the reauthorization of the Defense Production Act. The

01:13:07defense, we use the Defense Production Act daily, all three titles to, um, make

01:13:13sure that our supply chains, our defense critical supply chains are

01:13:17secure. Last year, FY 23 alone, we invested $733 million in critical

01:13:25minerals, microelectronics and other areas where there are gaps in our supply

01:13:30chains. We very strongly see the importance of this is with respect to

01:13:36some of the investments that you mentioned. I can again only speak to

01:13:40Department of Defense investments that I oversee, and I refer you to other

01:13:44agencies and particularly, um, Department of Energy or HHS, right? But

01:13:49the warfighter specifically, and that is how we use the Defense Production Act

01:13:54within the Department of Defense again. It's to address long lead times of

01:13:59critical, um, materials of their, for instance, materials that go into rare

01:14:06earth elements, they go into the F-35, for instance. We use the Defense

01:14:12Production Act daily to support the warfighter. Thank you. Senator, Senator

01:14:19Warnock of Georgia is recognized. Thank you so very much, Chair Brown. I don't

01:14:26believe that giant American corporations should get richer by selling their

01:14:31technologies to authoritarian regimes or human rights abusers. And that's why

01:14:38I was glad to see the Biden Harris administration take steps in 2021 to

01:14:44further center human rights in U. S. Foreign policy through the Export

01:14:50Controls and Human Rights Initiative, an effort aimed at curbing the misuse of

01:14:56American technology by repressive governments and regimes whose human

01:15:04rights record we rightly deplore.

01:15:0925 nations have signed on to the initiative's code of conduct, leading to

01:15:14more of our allies considering human rights when reviewing their exports of

01:15:19technologies that can perpetuate human rights abuses. We don't want to make,

01:15:27uh, the trampling of human rights efficient.

01:15:32Miss Kendler, can you highlight some successes from the Export Controls and

01:15:38Human Rights Initiative and how they contribute to efforts to combat

01:15:42authoritarian regimes?

01:15:45Senator, thank you for this question. Human rights is front and center in how

01:15:49we consider export controls. The, uh, ECRI, as we know it, the Export Control

01:15:55and Human Rights Initiative has been very helpful in bringing together

01:15:59countries that that share values even when they don't have export control

01:16:04systems of their own. And it's enabled a dialogue that is desperately needed for

01:16:11our national security and foreign policy. Just today, the Commerce

01:16:15Department released a proposed rule that's connected to ECRI. We're looking

01:16:20at foreign security end users in countries of concern, authoritarian

01:16:26countries, like you note, to ensure that U.S. person activity, U.S. persons are

01:16:30not supporting jail operators, foreign police and that sort of thing. And that

01:16:38is a proposed rule. We're seeking industry comment, but it is connected to

01:16:42ECRI in the sense that it moves our human rights protections forward. We've

01:16:47also been very active at the Commerce Department in adding entities to our

01:16:52entity list, requiring specific licenses for companies and other

01:16:59organizations that may be involved in human rights abuses, contrary to U.S.

01:17:06national security and foreign policy.

01:17:09So it's important in terms of the advancing of our own values and our

01:17:15commitment to human rights, but could you say more about why it's important that

01:17:22the United States of America lead in this space? My sense and core belief is

01:17:29is that there is no replacement for American leadership in the world. It's

01:17:34indispensable. And can you say more about the geopolitical implications of

01:17:40us leading in this space? U.S. technology is the best in the world. We need to take

01:17:49a leadership role to ensure that it's not used in a way that is contrary to

01:17:55our values, and by taking that stance and working with our allies through

01:17:59multilateral regimes, plurilateral regimes, bilateral relationships, we can

01:18:04bring others into that fold. And there are many countries around the world who

01:18:09do share our values and who are looking at things like facial recognition

01:18:12systems and saying that may be appropriate in an, I don't know, an

01:18:16airport context. It is not appropriate when you're surveilling minority

01:18:20populations in Xinjiang or Tibet. So you would say that the United States is

01:18:24uniquely positioned to lead in this space, and would you also say that it has

01:18:28national security implications for us? Yes, Senator, I would. Are additional

01:18:35congressional authorities necessary to expand and improve the efficacy of these

01:18:39initiatives? Senator, there's several ways where we could bring in technical

01:18:44expertise into the Bureau of Industry and Security. One thing that comes to

01:18:48mind is a highly, excuse me, highly qualified experts program that we were,

01:18:53we are seeking authority for. We could bring in experts on a temporary basis

01:18:58into the Bureau of Industry and Security who know these technologies

01:19:01well. That's a, that's an area where, where we'd welcome an opportunity to

01:19:06obtain additional authorization and resources. We'd also look at some

01:19:12provisions in our regulations like remote access and the opportunity to

01:19:17control access to data centers and other high-end advanced technology. That's an

01:19:25area where, where expansion of authorities under ECRA would be helpful.

01:19:28Well, thank you so much. There are more questions that I could ask, but maybe we

01:19:33can follow up later. But I'm grateful that the Biden-Harris administration

01:19:39understands that export controls can be an effective tool to combat authoritarian

01:19:43regimes. This is important in this moment, especially when you look at the

01:19:49geopolitical situation, the, the effort by some to advance the kind of

01:19:54authoritarian approach, both internationally and, and I would say

01:19:59domestically. So thank you for your work. As surveillance technology continues to

01:20:04improve, we must ensure American corporations are not making money from

01:20:08authoritarian regimes and human rights abusers. All of us have a stake in that

01:20:13project. Thank you very much. Senator Warnock, Senator Warren from Massachusetts.

01:20:18Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the Committee on Foreign

01:20:24Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, reviews foreign investments in our

01:20:28country to make sure they don't pose risk to national security. Increasingly,

01:20:33foreign companies are building crypto mining facilities on U.S. soil. These

01:20:40mines are actually warehouses stuffed with computers that process crypto

01:20:47transactions and produce new crypto tokens. They're loud, they're hot, and they

01:20:53suck up a ton of electricity, which can crash the power grid. And that's why many

01:20:59countries have banned crypto mining, leading more foreign companies to set up

01:21:05shop here in the United States. According to a blockchain analytics firm, today

01:21:11one-third of crypto mining facilities in the U.S. are owned by citizens of the

01:21:18People's Republic of China, including people with direct ties to the Chinese

01:21:24government. Crypto mining is a disaster for the environment, and it can pose

01:21:29national security risks as well. In May, at CFIUS's recommendation, President

01:21:37Biden issued an order requiring the Chinese national owners of a crypto

01:21:42mining facility in Wyoming called Mine One to divest their ownership and remove

01:21:50the crypto mining equipment from the premises. Assistant Secretary Rosen,

01:21:55you're the head of CFIUS, so you oversaw the investigation into Mine One and told

01:22:02the president that the divestment was essential. The divestment order cited two

01:22:09primary factors. One, the technology inside Mine One could be used for

01:22:15surveillance, and two, Mine One was located one mile from a strategic

01:22:22missile base housing intercontinental ballistic missiles. So I want to ask you,

01:22:28could the equipment inside that crypto mine have been used to spy on our

01:22:34military operations and our nuclear weapons system? Senator, thank you for the

01:22:40question, and I think pointing out this case in particular. I'm limited in terms

01:22:44of what I can say about this particular transaction, but to answer your question,

01:22:48there is a generalized concern that sophisticated equipment in proximity to

01:22:54sensitive facilities can be used for espionage. Okay, so can be used for

01:22:59espionage. Foreign adversaries are using crypto mines to spy on U.S. military

01:23:06operations. That's an obvious national security risk, but it isn't the only risk.

01:23:12Foreign-owned crypto mines also threaten our energy grid. According to an analysis

01:23:19by the New York Times, Bitcoin mines in the U.S. owned by Chinese nationals use

01:23:26enough energy to power 1.5 million homes. National security experts have

01:23:33warned that foreign-owned crypto mining facilities' connection to our energy grid

01:23:40could leave the U.S. vulnerable to targeted blackouts and cyber attacks.

01:23:46Assistant Secretary Rosen, if China or another foreign country had the power to

01:23:54crash a significant portion of our country's power infrastructure, could

01:24:00that threaten our national security? Senator, of course an impact on our energy

01:24:07sector, our energy resources, our energy supply chain could very much have a

01:24:12national security impact. All right. There is yet another risk as well. Foreign

01:24:19nationals have been able to buy up crypto mines in the United States in

01:24:24secret. How? By paying in crypto. Crypto allows them to bypass our traditional

01:24:32banking system and the anti-money laundering rules that are supposed to

01:24:36prevent any anonymous foreign money from coming into the U.S. In fact, that is

01:24:42exactly how a Chinese investor was able to secretly buy a six million dollar

01:24:48crypto mine in Texas. It is also how U.S.-based crypto mines have been able to

01:24:55secretly send millions of dollars back to China. Assistant Secretary Rosen, do

01:25:03you agree that we need to plug the holes in our anti-money laundering rules that

01:25:09have allowed foreign nationals to secretly buy U.S. crypto mining

01:25:14facilities or make other kinds of investments in the U.S. without our

01:25:19knowing about it? Senator, I certainly share your concern about ultimate

01:25:24beneficial ownership and making sure that we know who is doing the buying. I

01:25:28can speak for the CFIUS context. When we look at a transaction or try to find a

01:25:32transaction, that's a critical component to our diligence. All right. Crypto mines

01:25:38could be used by our adversaries to spy on our military bases or to bring down

01:25:44our power grid or to move money in and out of the country in secret. Last year,

01:25:50the Treasury Department requested additional tools from Congress to

01:25:54prevent China, Iran, Russia, and other foreign countries from using crypto to

01:26:01evade sanctions and launder dirty money. It is time for us to pass the laws that

01:26:07Treasury needs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Warren. Not unrelated

01:26:11to her comments, yesterday I introduced the CAR Act to be proactive and stay

01:26:16ahead of the threat that Chinese connected vehicles pose to our

01:26:20national security and to Americans' privacy. Another

01:26:24threat that we have the chance to meet now early before there are more

01:26:29Chinese connected vehicles on our streets. Ms. Kendler, I hope you and your

01:26:34colleagues will work with me on that effort. Thank you to the witnesses today.

01:26:38For senators who wish to submit questions, for the record, those questions

01:26:41are due one week from today, Thursday, August 1st. To the witnesses, you have 40

01:26:46days to 45 days to respond to any questions. Thank you again. The committee

01:26:51is adjourned.

Sherrod Brown Leads Senate Banking Committee Hearing On Advancing National Security

Category

Transcript

Recommended