[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                 ______

 
           RESTORING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IN THE INDO-PACIFIC

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             APRIL 6, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-116

                               __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
        
        
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
        
        
        


       Available:  http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
                            docs.house.gov, 
                       or http://www.govinfo.gov
                       
                       
                       
                        ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 47-348PDF          WASHINGTON : 2024
                   
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                  GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York, Chairman

BRAD SHERMAN, California             MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking 
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey                  Member
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia         CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
KAREN BASS, California               JOE WILSON, South Carolina
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts       SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island        DARRELL ISSA, California
AMI BERA, California                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas                LEE ZELDIN, New York
DINA TITUS, Nevada                   ANN WAGNER, Missouri
TED LIEU, California                 BRIAN MAST, Florida
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania             BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota             KEN BUCK, Colorado
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota                TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
COLIN ALLRED, Texas                  MARK GREEN, Tennessee
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan                 ANDY BARR, Kentucky
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia         GREG STEUBE, Florida
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania       DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey           CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York
ANDY KIM, New Jersey                 AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
SARA JACOBS, California              PETER MEIJER, Michigan
KATHY MANNING, North Carolina        NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
JIM COSTA, California                RONNY JACKSON, Texas
JUAN VARGAS, California              YOUNG KIM, California
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas              MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida
BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois

                                              
                                     
                                     
                                     
                       Sophia Lafargue, Staff Director
                       Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                                WITNESS

Sherman, Ms. Wendy, Deputy Secretary of State, U.S. Department of 
  State..........................................................     8

                                APPENDIX

Hearing Notice...................................................    54
Hearing Minutes..................................................    55
Hearing Attendance...............................................    56

         STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY

Statement for the record from Representative Connolly............    57

            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Responses to questions submitted for the record..................    59


                  RESTORING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IN THE



                              INDO-PACIFIC

                        Wednesday, April 6, 2022

                          House of Representatives,
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:11 a.m., in 
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gregory Meeks 
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Chairman Meeks. The Committee on Foreign Affairs will come 
to order.
    And without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the committee at any point. And all members will have 
5 days to submit statements, extraneous material, and questions 
for the record, subject to the length limitations in the rules.
    To insert something into the record, please have your staff 
email previously mentioned address or contact full committee 
staff. As a reminder to Members, please keep your video 
function on at all times, even when you are not recognized by 
the chair. Members are responsible for muting and umuting 
themselves.
    And consistent with House rules, staff will only mute 
members as appropriate where they are not under recognition to 
eliminate background noise.
    I see that we have a quorum. I now recognize myself for 
opening remarks.
    Pursuant to notice, we meet today to examine the Biden 
Administration's Indo-Pacific strategy, the blueprint unveiled 
on February 11 to ensure a free and open Indo-Pacific and 
advance broader U.S. policy and strategic interests in the 
region.
    As a Pacific power, United States has enjoyed a long 
history of deep ties to the broader Indo-Pacific. And the Indo-
Pacific is home to more than half of the world's population. It 
is home to two-thirds of the world's economic output and 7 of 
the 15 largest economies.
    The region boasts 7 of the world's largest armed forces and 
6 of our key allies. It is the source of half of the world's 
greenhouse gas emissions. Indo-Pacific is becoming the center 
of gravity for international relations and will have the 
disproportionate ability to shake the trajectory of global 
affairs.
    It is essential that not only we pursue a strategy that 
acknowledges the centrality of the Indo-Pacific to core U.S. 
interests but also reflects the growing importance of the 
region to global affairs. And throughout history in the Indo-
Pacific, though our history in the Indo-Pacific goes back 
centuries, the shifting geopolitical and strategic environment 
as well as emerging challenges emanating from the region makes 
it critical that the United States continues to upgrade and 
expand our engagement in the region.
    The United States is far from the only player vying for 
influence. Revisionist autocratic actors seek to disrupt and 
displace the current system and set the rules of the road where 
they become the sole beneficiaries. Russia's premeditated an 
unprovoked invasion of the Ukraine demonstrates its disdain for 
the rules-based international order.
    And China has woefully abdicated its self-proclaimed role 
as a responsible stakeholder by failing to condemn Russia's 
illegal war. And in the Indo-Pacific, China routinely coerces 
our friends and allies, uses military aggression to gain the 
upper hand in broader maritime and territorial disputes. It 
steals technology, bends the rules to protect its domestic 
industry, and commits human rights abuses on a grand scale, 
whether through its genocide in Xinjiang, its destruction of 
Hong Kong's autonomy, or its surveillance and repression of its 
citizens throughout the mainland.
    As we witness this ongoing assault on democratic norms and 
the rules-based international order, America must work with our 
partners and allies to counter the PRC's problematic policies 
and preserve a free and open Indo-Pacific. An effective 
approach to the region will allow us to tackle 21st challenges, 
including the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, the rise in 
disinformation, and supply chain disruptions, none of which can 
tackle effectively alone.
    The previous Administration's America Alone policies set 
high level and consistent engagement back. And it is critical 
that we put diplomacy back at the center of our foreign policy 
to address complex and urgent challenges emanating for the 
region. This is particularly important given North Korea's 
nuclear and missile provocations and China's increased economic 
coercion and aggression and the ongoing crisis in Burma. We 
must also ensure that we bring our partners in ASEAN and those 
in the Pacific Islands with us and help them to recover from 
and build resiliency to deal with the transnational challenges 
such as climate change and the ongoing pandemic.
    The Biden Administration Indo-Pacific strategy demonstrates 
that the United States' commitment to build in the capacity of 
our allies and our partners for a more stable and inclusive 
region and invokes tangible resources to the region to restore 
or global leadership.
    America must commit deeper. America must be more expansive 
diplomatically and expand our diplomatic ties and engagement in 
the region. And that is exactly I see that this strategy and 
plan does.
    I now yield back the balance of my time and I now recognize 
the ranking member of this committee, Mr. McCaul of Texas, for 
his opening remarks.
    Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Madam 
Secretary. I know you have probably been working day and night 
and dealing with Congress. I appreciate all your efforts, 
though. I know it is not an easy job right now.
    Republican and Democrat Administrations are in agreement 
that this region is America's top foreign policy and national 
security priority. This region has been a battleground between 
democracy and tyranny for decades. Today, the Chinese Communist 
Party is trying to dominate the region and push the U.S. 
military out through military expansion and debt trap 
diplomacy.
    Mr. Chairman, you tell this hearing of restoring American 
leadership in Indo-Pacific. And so I would like to make two 
points on American leadership in the Indo-Pacific because the 
Americans watching might be under the mistaken impression that 
we may have left. But first, we have been in Indo-Pacific for 
over 120 years since the end of the Spanish-American war.
    Second, American's legacy in the Indo-Pacific is freedom 
and prosperity. In the Second World War, my dad's war, and 
other conflicts, Americans sacrificed their lives to keep this 
region free. And the results speak for themselves, an 
independent Philippines, thriving democracies in Japan, Korea, 
and Taiwan, and a strong ASEAN.
    But the CCP is undermining this hard-won freedom and 
prosperity. Chairman Xi and Mr. Putin have formed this as we 
saw at the Beijing Olympics this unholy alliance of two 
dictators obsessed with rebuilding their empires. Their recent 
no-limits partnership endorsed each other's territorial 
aggression.
    Putin has made his move. The question is will Chairman Xi 
make his. Taiwan is the front line, on the front line to 
maintain a free Indo-Pacific. A CCP controlled Taiwan would be 
an unprecedented blow to our economic and national security.
    It would threaten the homeland, weaken our alliances, allow 
the CCP to hold the world's economy hostage by controlling 
supply chains, including semiconductors. I believe they control 
about 90 percent of the semiconductors in Taiwan.
    So I'm glad you are here today. I know you're busy and you 
have got a lot of other things on your plate and to answer our 
questions.
    Just before and during Putin's invasion, the President, the 
national security advisor, and Administration officials at all 
levels including yourself, Madam Secretary, went above and 
beyond to engage the CCP. But instead of joining the 
international community, I believe they double down on their 
loyalty to Vladimir Putin instead. And rather than condemn 
Russia, they helped spread Russia's disinformation. Rather than 
sanction Russia, they helped Russian banks avoid U.S. 
sanctions.
    Mr. Chairman, our response to the CCP threat needs less 
talk and more action. Soon I will be introducing the Taiwan 
Deterrence Act to stand up a security assistance program for 
Taiwan. Putin's invasion of the Ukraine has shown us how 
critical it is to get our allies the weapons they need before 
an invasion and not after.
    The invasion of Ukraine is also a reminder that we have the 
power to lead our allies in punishing and deterring our 
enemies. We can cripple our adversary's economy. We can use 
export controls to cutoff technology they use to build their 
military and that they use to murder innocent people.
    We can restrict the outbound flows of American investments 
into their brutal regime. Quite frankly, we have had crippling 
effects on Russia. I think we need to look at China and their 
quest for aggression.
    If we truly want the United States to lead in the Indo-
Pacific, we need to deal with the CCP from a position of 
strength. And I would be remiss if I did not mention the Iran 
nuclear deal and in particular the possibility of lifting the 
foreign terrorist organization designation on the IRGC. This is 
a terrorist entity that has blood of over 600 Americans on its 
hands, and it continues to plan and launch attacks around the 
world.
    Delisting this organization is part of a political deal 
with Iran would undermine our sanctions around the world and it 
would give a free pass to terrorism. I know this is one of the 
options on the table, Madam Secretary. But I would urge you to 
resist that temptation. I think that would be a terrible 
mistake.
    So I look forward to our discussion. And with that, I yield 
back.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back. And I would like 
to turn to our distinguished chair of the subcommittee of Asia 
and the Pacific. I yield 1 minute to Chairman Bera.
    Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been a busy year, 
year and a half in the region, starting with the ongoing 
pandemic to the coup in Myanmar to the collapse of the Afghan 
government to now the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. And more 
recently, we are paying close attention to what's happening in 
Pakistan and Sri Lanka, real issues there.
    That said, I think the Administration has done a lot that 
we can be proud of, restoring multilateral coalitions, 
elevating the Quad to a leader's level, AUKUS, which will 
really help us with maritime security in the region. And we 
look forward to building off of all of that without mentioning 
China as we deal with what we see as an autocratic regime. But 
I'm optimistic about the region.
    I think we're putting a lot in place foundationally that 
will help us address many of those crisis but also will lay a 
framework for a thriving, peaceful, prosperous 21st century. 
But it really will take American leadership, American 
engagement. And I think in a bipartisan way, I have enjoyed 
working with my ranking member, Mr. Chabot.
    And we have got to have a long term American strategy for 
the region. So thank you and I'll yield back.
    Chairman Meeks. Gentleman yields back. And now I recognize 
the subcommittee ranking member who I have the pleasure of 
working with very closely. And I would like to acknowledge how 
closely both the chair and the subcommittee and the ranking 
member works together in the spirit of this community.
    So I yield to Ranking Member Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We do enjoy 
working together in a bipartisan manner for the most part in 
this committee. And we appreciate that.
    It's hard to overState the significance of the Indo-
Pacific. Not only is it home to over half the world's 
population, but it also produces more than a third of the 
globe's economic activity.
    Over the upcoming decades, the region will steadily grow in 
importance, making it absolutely critical that we get our 
strategy toward it right. While most of the countries in Indo-
Pacific are focused on peaceful development, the Chinese 
Communist Party is seeking regional hegemony, dominance over 
the rest of us. Bewilderingly, however, powerful voices in this 
Administration seem to think that the CCP is just one 
conversation away from being a responsible stakeholder or the 
solution of the crisis in Ukraine.
    Let me be clear. The CCP is not a potential friend, not a 
responsible stakeholder, not a misunderstood partner. The 
Chinese Communist Party is a strategic and ideological 
adversary. They are our primary challenge in the Indo-Pacific.
    So I look forward to discussing whether or policy toward 
the region recognizes that fact. I yield back.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back. It is now my 
distinct pleasure and honor to introduce our witness. And I 
want to say first to our witness, thank you. Thank you for your 
service to our country.
    Thank you for being available to this committee anytime 
that we call. You always rise to the occasion. And the House, 
you've been able to testify a number of our classified 
briefings and keeping us informed on what has taken place 
around the world. So I want thank you for your service.
    The Honorable Wendy Sherman was confirmed by the Senate on 
April 13, 2021 and sworn in as the twenty-first and first 
female Deputy Secretary of State on April 14, 2021. Prior to 
assuming this position, Deputy Secretary Sherman was professor 
of the Practice of Public Leadership and director of the Center 
for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School. From 2011 
to 2015, Deputy Secretary Sherman served as Under Secretary of 
State for Political Affairs.
    Among her many diplomatic accomplishments, she was awarded 
the National Security Medal by President Barack Obama. She 
previously served at the State Department as counselor and 
special advisor to President Clinton and policy coordinator on 
North Korea and as Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs 
under Secretary Warren Christopher.
    So without objection, all the witness' prepared testimony 
will be made part of the record. And I will now recognize the 
Honorable Deputy Secretary Sherman to make her testimony. And 
she will recognized for 5 minutes to summarize her testimony.
    Let me just say this early on to Members afterwards because 
when we get to questions, I know the Deputy Secretary has a 
hard 1 p.m. stop. So I am going to be strict with the gavel 
when we get to the questions and answers to allow as many 
members as possible to ask questions.
    Madam Deputy Secretary.

  STATEMENT OF WENDY SHERMAN, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S. 
                      DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Ms. Sherman. Thank you very much, Chairman Meeks, Ranking 
Member McCaul, Subcommittee Chair Bera, and Ranking Mr. Chabot, 
distinguished members of the committee all. Thank you for 
inviting me to testify today about the Biden-Harris 
Administration's Indo-Pacific Strategy.
    Even as we work every day, in lockstep with our Allies and 
partners, to support Ukraine and the Ukrainian people and to 
impose severe, coordinated costs and consequences on Russian 
President Vladimir Putin and his enablers, we are also 
continuing to advance our foreign policy priorities in every 
region of the world through sustained diplomatic engagement.
    The United States is a proud Indo-Pacific nation. Our 
future is entwined more closely with the Indo-Pacific than with 
any other part of the world. The Indo-Pacific, as the chairman 
said, is the fastest-growing region on Earth. And it will be 
decisive to addressing virtually every priority issue--from 
promoting strong economic growth, to combating the climate 
crisis, to strengthening global health security, to upholding 
the rules-based international order.
    Our vision--a vision we share with our Allies and partners 
across the region--is to ensure the Indo-Pacific remains free 
and open, and becomes more interconnected, prosperous, secure, 
and resilient.
    These priorities are all reflected in the five pillars of 
the Indo-Pacific Strategy released by the White House in 
February.
    First, advancing a free and open Indo-Pacific. We have seen 
increasing challenges to democracy, the rule of law, and human 
rights in the Indo-Pacific--all of which threaten stability, 
transparency, and prosperity. To combat these trends, we are 
working to build the capacity of Indo-Pacific nations and 
regional institutions to build strong civil societies, combat 
corruption, and promote good governance, strengthen democratic 
systems, and promote human rights and a free and independent 
press.
    We are also working to uphold and strengthen the rules-
based international order, so that nations in the Indo-Pacific 
and elsewhere can make decisions free from coercion; ideas and 
people can flow freely; problems are dealt with openly and 
according to a transparent set of rules; and the seas and skies 
are governed according to international law.
    Second, building connections in the Indo-Pacific and 
beyond. America's network of alliances and partnerships is one 
of our greatest strengths. That is why we are prioritizing 
strengthening our collaboration in a variety of forums--
including with ASEAN, at the Pacific Islands Forum, and through 
the Mekong-U.S. Partnership. We elevated the Quad, created 
AUKUS, appointed a Special Presidential Envoy to lead our 
Compacts of Free Association, COFA, negotiations with the 
Freely Associated States, and reinvigorated trilateral 
diplomacy with Japan and the Republic of Korea.
    Third, driving Indo-Pacific prosperity. The Indo-Pacific is 
home to more than half the global population and 60 percent of 
the global economy--which means the prosperity of the American 
people is linked to the Indo-Pacific. We are proud the United 
States was selected to host APEC in 2023. As President Biden 
announced last year, we are working to develop an Indo-Pacific 
Economic Framework with our Allies and partners. We look 
forward to continuing to consult with Congress as we refine our 
economic approach to the region.
    Fourth, bolstering Indo-Pacific security. Threats to our 
security are evolving. Members have spoken to that this 
morning. And our security approach must evolve with them. We 
are strengthening and deepening our five treaty alliances and 
other vital partnerships across the Indo-Pacific and working to 
enhance our capabilities--as well as those of our Allies and 
partners--to keep the peace, defend our interests, deter 
aggression and other threats, including in the maritime domain.
    Fifth, building regional resilience. America's security 
depends on working with our Allies and partners to address 
shared challenges--like the COVID-19 pandemic and the climate 
crisis. In partnership with COVAX, we have donated more than 
180 million doses of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines 
across the region. We are investing in clean energy and climate 
resilience across the Indo-Pacific--creating good jobs in the 
region and supporting jobs at home, as well.
    We look forward to working with Congress to ensure our work 
advancing the Indo-Pacific Strategy continues to be 
appropriately and fully resourced. I know there are many issues 
that members already have addressed today, including the PRC. 
And I will be glad to address your questions and our approach 
in our questions and answers. Obviously, it is core to what we 
are doing here.
    I want to end, though, where I began, which is with 
Ukraine. What happens in Ukraine will have a bearing on the 
Indo-Pacific. Indeed, it already is, as countries battered by 2 
years of the COVID-19 pandemic now must contend with rising 
prices for grain, energy, and fertilizer, all as a direct 
result of Putin's war of choice. These trends underscore the 
urgency of our work to build shared prosperity and resilience, 
including by accelerating the transition to clean energy.
    We are also deeply concerned about the growing strategic 
alignment between Russia and the People's Republic of China, as 
represented in their February 4 joint statement. We have 
expressed those concerns directly to the PRC, as have our 
Allies and partners.
    The strong and coordinated response from the international 
community--including nations in Indo-Pacific--to Russia's 
flagrant violations of international law and principles like 
sovereignty and territorial integrity sends a strong signal 
that such actions will not go ignored.
    Thank you again for having me. I have been briefed here to 
ensure time for questions. I look forward to answering those 
questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Sherman follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    
    Chairman Meeks. Thank you for your testimony, Madam 
Secretary.
    I am now going to recognize members for 5 minutes each. And 
pursuant to House rules, all time yielded is for the purpose of 
questioning our witnesses. I'll recognize members by committee, 
seniority, alternating between Democrats and Republicans.
    If you miss your turn, please let our staff know and we'll 
come back to you. If you seek recognition, you must unmute your 
microphone and address the chair verbally and identify yourself 
to let me know who is speaking. I'll start by recognizing 
myself for 5 minutes.
    Madam Secretary, ahead of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, 
Putin and Xi released a joint statement announcing closer 
strategic cooperation. And while China has maintained publicly 
that it did not know about the invasion, it has tried to 
distance itself from Putin's war, it has refused to condemn 
Russia and has engaged in disinformation that supports Russia's 
justifications.
    So my question, Madam Secretary, is, what is the 
Administration's assessment on whether China actively supported 
Russia and its invasion of Ukraine? And the President's call 
with Xi Jinping, he told the PRC that there would be 
consequences if China is found to be materially supporting 
Russia's war efforts. Could you tell us what such consequences 
would entail?
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think 
when we all saw the manifesto before the Beijing Olympics, we 
were quite concerned. We were already concerned, but that 
increased the concern about what this partnership was really 
about.
    It's interesting that the PRC has said publicly that this 
is a partnership, not an alliance as part of Xi Jinping trying 
to distance himself somewhat from what President Putin has done 
with his premeditated, unjust, and unprovoked invasion of 
Ukraine.
    President Biden has been very direct with President Xi, as 
has Jake Sullivan with Yang Jiechi, as has Secretary Blinken 
with Wang Yi, as have I been with the Ambassador here in 
Washington in quite long meetings, that if China in any way, 
shape, or form provides material support to Putin in this 
premeditated unjust and unprovoked invasion, there will be 
consequences.
    I think one only has to look at the range of sanctions, 
more to be announced today, against Putin, against the economy, 
against individuals who are enablers, against elites, against 
oligarchs. Export controls, designations, sanctions that are 
not only from the United States but in unprecedented fashion, 
coordinated with our allies and partners, not just in Europe 
but throughout the world, gives President Xi, I think, a pretty 
good understanding of what might come his way should he, in 
fact, support Putin in any material fashion. This is a very 
serious matter that we take quite seriously.
    Chairman Meeks. Thank you. And I concur. One of the things 
that the Administration should be absolutely praised upon is 
unity between not only as you said our European allies but our 
allies all over the world.
    But a key component of our Indo-Pacific strategy in South 
Asia hinges on developing a more purposeful relationship with 
India. There are clearly obstacles to overcome and questions on 
both sides that must be adequately addressed for the promise of 
this partnership to be fulfilled.
    But the potential of consequential U.S.-India relationship 
to me is worth the effort, although I have concerns when I 
looked at what took place in the abstention that India made in 
the U.N. So strategy says India is an engine for regional 
growth and development. And aside from its role in the Quad, 
how does the Administration view India's role within and 
outside of South Asia, and how are you working through some of 
the immediate term obstacles like one that I just mentioned?
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I quite 
agree with you that our having a strong relationship with India 
is critical to our goals and objectives in the Indo-Pacific for 
our own prosperity, security, and to address all of the 
challenges in front of us, including local health and the 
climate crisis.
    India by 2030 is going to be the largest everything--the 
largest democracy in the world, the largest middle class, the 
largest wealthy class, the largest poor, the most elderly, the 
most young people, the largest everything. And they are a 
democracy, not perfect but neither are we, quite frankly.
    Our relationship is complex. I think it's been quite 
important as many of you have mentioned that India now engages 
with us, Australia, and Japan, in the Quad, to try to move 
forward a set of objectives, particularly around things like 
global health and climate and ensuring prosperity for the 
region and economic prosperity. These things are quite 
important and we have an important defense relationship with 
India.
    India has been in a tough place, and I agree with you. I 
would prefer them to have voted yes on the resolution at the 
United Nations, and we have said as much to them quite 
directly. Secretary Blinken talks to External Affairs Secretary 
Jaishankar on quite a regular basis. I talk with my 
counterpart, Shringla, who is about to be replaced with a 
terrific diplomat who will succeed him.
    So we've been very direct about our concerns. But India has 
a history of a relationship with Russia. Most of its defense 
equipment originally was from Russia. They rely on Russia for 
fertilizer which is critical to their agricultural development.
    That's not to say we're happy with the choice they've made. 
And we have pointed out to them that given the sanctions, 
they're not going to be able to get Russian equipment. They're 
not going to get to be able to repair their equipment or their 
weapons.
    And indeed, we have built a very strong defense 
relationship with Russia, very important to our defense 
community and our defense sales, our joint cooperation with 
India. So they are a strategic partner for us and quite 
critical that we continue to develop this relationship. And 
they are a critical member of the Quad.
    Chairman Meeks. Thank you. My time has expired. Now I'll 
recognize Mr. McCaul for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Madam Chair, thanks 
so much for taking the time.
    First of all, this committee marked up yesterday a war 
crimes bill to hold Putin accountable, defining it for what it 
is. I want to thank the chairman for working with me. And we'll 
be on the floor today, and it will pass to send a message to 
Putin and the world that these are horrific war crimes.
    And after Bucha, my God, the images that came out of there, 
horrific. And I'm quoting President Zelensky after he gave his 
tour of Bucha. And he says, quote, if we had already got what 
we needed, all these planes, tanks, artillery, anti-missile, 
anti-ship weapons, we could've saved thousands of people. I do 
not blame you. I blame only the Russian military. But you could 
have helped, Zelensky said in his speech.
    I agree with him. I think we waited too long to get these 
weapons in. I know you cannot discuss the S-300 in this open 
environment and the anti-aircraft, anti-missile capability and 
systems. But I hope we are making progress because that is what 
they really need right now.
    Shifting to Taiwan, I had breakfast with the Taiwanese 
Ambassador this morning. And just like Ukraine, we're worried 
that Chairman Xi, after the chairman of this committee 
mentioned, this unholy alliance at the Beijing Olympics 
standing hand in hand together denouncing aggression from the 
West.
    The same issue arises. Is Taiwan able to defend herself? I 
think the answer is no right now, and I am worried about that. 
I do not want to make the same mistake of waiting till after 
invasion because that's going to be too late.
    And so I would like to just very quickly go through all the 
foreign military sales that the chairman and I have signed off 
on and the dates of notification going back to July 2019 all 
the way to August 2021. This includes Stinger missiles, 
aircraft. It includes torpedoes, Patriot systems, these high 
mobility artillery rocket systems, these Standoff Land Attack 
Missile-Expanded Response missiles, the harpoons which are very 
effective against anti-ship, field information communication 
systems, and the self-propelled howitzer system.
    Her biggest complaint to us is that while we have notified 
and signed off on these systems, they have yet to be delivered 
to Taiwan. Can you provide some clarity to this and what is the 
cause of the backlog? Because if Chairman Xi is on the same 
timetable here, I'm concerned about what could happen.
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you very much. First of all, kudos to 
the committee, to you and the chairman on your not just 
acknowledgment but condemnation of the war crimes that have 
been committed.
    Second, I want to share with this committee that the White 
House has just announced the following sanctions in addition to 
everything else we've done: full blocking sanctions on 
Sberbank, Russia's largest financial institution, and Alfa-
Bank, Russia's largest private bank, prohibition of new 
investment in the Russian Federation, full blocking sanctions 
on critical major Russian State owned enterprises, full 
blocking sanctions on Putin's adult children, Lavrov's wife and 
daughter, and members of Russia's security council and many 
more.
    So we have taken very decisive and very tough action today 
as you all did yesterday in your mark up. The acts in Bucha are 
so horrifying. And I think we all appreciate that there is 
probably more horror to come. So thank you very much for what 
you did in the committee.
    And I also want to add, Congressman McCaul, that between 
the United States and allies and partners, for every Russian 
tank in Ukraine, there are or soon will be in Ukraine more than 
ten anti-tank systems for every Russian tank. So we have heard 
what President Zelensky has called for. And we are working day 
and night to offer whatever we possibly can along with our 
partners and allies. And if I were him, I would want everything 
and I would want it yesterday. So I certainly understand.
    On Taiwan, terribly important as you point out. The United 
States sold more than 30 billion dollars' worth of arms to 
Taiwan since 2009. And thank you for outlining the authority of 
this committee.
    We have more than 400 foreign military sale cases in 
implementation in Taiwan. We are looking at the entire defense 
trade enterprise to see where efficiencies can be made and how 
delivery timelines of defense articles can be improved. We are 
outlining defense trade priorities to Taiwan and to industry to 
increase transparency and predictability, expediting third 
party transfers, reviewing possibilities for arm sale exports 
from other countries, pushing for the conclusion of defense 
agreements related to defense trade, and looking at 
opportunities to improve Taiwan's indigenous industrial defense 
capability.
    So since 2017, the U.S. has authorized with your actions 
over 18 billion dollars in foreign military sales for Taiwan. 
In addition, direct commercial sales authorizations for end use 
by the Taiwan authority during this period has totaled 2.3 
billion dollars.
    So I certainly understand that President Tsai wants to see 
everything delivered as quickly as possible. And we are doing 
that. We are also urging Taiwan to focus on capabilities that 
would deter the PRC from taking Taiwan by force. This means a 
focus on capabilities that are cost efficient, mobile, lethal, 
resilient, and capable of operating and surviving in a 
contested environment.
    Mr. McCaul. Just these asymmetrical weapons are vitally 
important. This is a backlog, and it's real. I would urge you 
to get those out.
    In closing, RIMPAC, she also requested the Rim of Pacific 
Exercises. I would hope the Administration would maybe consider 
Taiwan being a part of that.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired. And at 
that point, I allowed myself to go a little over, allowed Mr. 
McCaul go a little bit over. But I'm not going to allow anyone 
else to go a little bit over.
    (Simultaneous speaking.)
    Chairman Meeks. And so make sure I'd ask my members and the 
witness to be mindful of the time. I now recognized 
Representative Ami Bera of California who's the chair of the 
subcommittee of the Asian Pacific for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll watch the clock. 
I'm going to focus on other parts of the Indo-Pacific. But by 
no means is that to express that I do not wake up every morning 
with sadness about the tragedy that we're seeing take place in 
Ukraine and with concern of the lessons that China and others 
may take out of this or the concerns of the security of the 
people of Taiwan.
    But a lot happening in the region. And Madam Deputy 
Secretary, we've had a chance to talk about what's unfolding in 
Myanmar. And I try to look for a path forward and how we can 
get to a cease-fire. And I just do not see a clear direction.
    If you could give us an update on what you're seeing there, 
it seems like the junta is really digging in as well as the 
resistance. And I've talked to Ambassadors in the region and 
others and appreciate ASEAN's leadership here. But what would 
you like to see out of Congress and what can we do working with 
our ASEAN colleagues?
    Ms. Sherman. [Audio malfunction]--horrifying tragedy. 
Indeed, Secretary Blinken recently looking back all the way to 
2017 named what has happened to the Rohingya in Burma as 
genocide. So we did that because we believe that accountability 
of the past is critical for accountability for the present. And 
shining a light on the crimes of Burma's military in the past 
also speaks to what they're doing in the present.
    The work with ASEAN and the travels that you all have made 
to countries in Southeast Asia who were part of ASEAN to urge 
them to follow through on the five-point consensus in a way 
that is real and inclusive. There have been forays to the 
capitol, but often to meet with junta leadership, not to meet 
with democratic opposition.
    And so I would urge you to continue to press countries in 
ASEAN to move forward in a very pressing kind of way. Cambodia 
is the current chair. They have mixed ambitions here, and they 
need to be encouraged to say the least by other members of 
ASEAN to take the action that is necessary.
    Both myself and Counselor Derek Chollet have tried to put a 
special focus on this. Derek has traveled maybe three times to 
the region. I have gone twice myself because we want to make 
sure that this does not last forever and that the world does 
not forget what is happening here.
    Mr. Bera. Let me touch on another subject that does not get 
as much coverage but is no less important. You touched on it in 
your open, the second island chain, the Pacific Islands, and 
the importance of getting COFA completed. I'm glad to hear 
there will be a special envoy focused on this.
    If you can give us an update, and then obviously we're 
watching the Solomon Islands very closely. And again, the South 
China Sea is much more complicated today than maybe had we 
resolved some of this back in 2014. But we do not want to see 
that happen in the Pacific Ocean. If you could give us update 
on COFA.
    Ms. Sherman. Right. The Pacific Islands are incredibly 
important. The Secretary even after the start of Putin's 
premeditated, unjust, and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, went 
to Australia and to Fiji and went to Fiji for a meeting of 
Pacific Island nations.
    All of these islands are under tremendous stress, not only 
economically and in terms of COVID, but they are barely above 
sea level. And so when we look at the climate crisis, these 
islands are quite, quite at risk.
    We were very glad to just name as a Special Presidential 
Envoy a very seasoned foreign service officer, Ambassador Joe 
Yun, to be the Special Presidential Envoy for the COFA 
negotiations, and he will go forward. It's not that the folks 
who were doing this before weren't capable. They were. But we 
felt that we needed to raise the level of attention and our 
concern about this. In addition, we have an Our Ocean 
Conference coming up just in a few days to focus, co-hosted by 
the United States in Palau to bring attention to these global 
issues.
    Mindful I have 5 seconds left. Let me say on the Solomon 
Islands that we are very concerned about the relationship with 
the PRC. We will be taking some action shortly to remind the 
Solomon Islands how important----
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired. And I 
will recognize Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey who is 
the ranking member on the subcommittee of Africa, Global 
Health, and Global Human Rights for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much. Deputy Secretary Sherman, 
thank you for testifying and for your work at the State 
Department.
    Let me just ask you if I could. I just left a major 
conference of the OSCE. I'm the Special Representative for 
Human Trafficking. And so I gave speech. That's why I was late.
    But the UNHCR representative made a very powerful statement 
about the fact that we're not doing enough. He says it's not 
big enough and it's not effective enough to help the many, 
maybe millions, but certainly tens of thousands of 
unaccompanied minors and women who are vulnerable to the 
traffickers. And it's getting worse by the day.
    And I hoping you can take back the importance of scaling up 
the efforts among governments and NGO's because it is a crisis 
with few precedents. And we're going to find out later all 
those women and children who are trafficked. People are holding 
up signs, this way if you want to get to a hotel. Next thing 
you know, they disappear.
    So please scale that up. That was the message from the 
UNHCR. And my message was similar, but he had some very 
actionable information about that.
    Second, if I could, on March 8, I chaired a hearing of the 
Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission on war crimes against Putin 
to bring an action against him. And David Crane, as you know, 
the special prosecutor for Sierra Leone, he talked about four 
options that are available to us.
    One is the ICC, but he notes that using this takes the 
United States pretty much out of the picture because we are not 
signatories to that. We signed it originally but not ratified 
it.
    But he had a second possibility that he stressed very, very 
hard and that is that the U.N. General Assembly has the 
authority where there's no veto power by the Security Council, 
by Russia and China or China. And he said these hybrid 
tribunals like he headed up, they put Charles Taylor behind 
bars for 50 years, could also be done. And the key is to indict 
Putin now, right now.
    So people around him will know that they too could still be 
indicted. But every time we have done tribunals, the 
indictments come long after the hostilities have largely 
ceased. So it is accountability, but it has no chilling effect 
on the ongoing commission of those crimes.
    And finally, if you could, I am concerned by reports that 
our embassy in Guatemala, the apparent intervention and the 
selection of the country's Prosecutor General and the continued 
heavy had by Ambassador, now Assistant Secretary Todd Robinson 
in violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. 
The current Prosecutor General Consuelo Porras has been very 
cooperative with regards to our anti-narcotics efforts. Last 
year, she extradited 63 Guatemalans to the U.S., including 54 
drug dealers. DEA, Drug Enforcement Agency, has praised her for 
that.
    And yet the apparent reason for the animosity against the 
current Prosecutor General is that she fired a political ally 
of Todd Robinson, Juan Francisco Sandoval. Ms. Porras has twice 
offered through official channels to provide the State 
Department with evidence as to why she fired him, yet the State 
Department is reportedly refused to receive it.
    Why has that been the case, and will you accept it now? And 
hopefully, even if it's in a confidential way, share that 
information with us about that.
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you very much, Congressman. And thank 
you for your many years of advocacy on human rights. You have 
long been a leader in this arena and very grateful for it.
    On the human trafficking, I could not agree with you more. 
It is a terrible, terrible problem and a growing one. We 
actually had a meeting on this yesterday to see what else we 
can do.
    Uzra Zeye, the Under Secretary for this arena is very much 
focused on it as Julieta Noyes, our new Assistant Secretary for 
PRM. So please note that we completely join you in this concern 
and are upping our game and all of our partners and allies in 
doing so as well.
    In terms of war crimes, yes, the ICC is one vehicle. 
Although we are not a signatory, we can provide information. 
But there are other venues as you point out. The U.N. General 
Assembly is certainly one, but there are other accountability 
mechanisms, including the Human Rights Council. So there are 
many ways that we can increase accountability.
    And I think the fundamental thing which Secretary Blinken 
has said again and again is we will hold Putin and his enablers 
accountable for these actions. We all believe that Bucha is 
just the beginning of what we are going to see. And even before 
Bucha, this Administration had said that war crimes had been 
committed in Ukraine. So I know this will be a high priority.
    On the issue regarding Guatemala, I do not know the 
details, Congressman. But we'll get back to you on it.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired. And I'll 
recognize Representative Andy Levin of Michigan who's the vice 
chair of the subcommittee on Asia, Pacific, and Central Asia 
Non-Proliferation for 5 minutes. And I'll ask Mr. Malinowski to 
chair for a few minutes till I can return.
    Mr. Levin. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
important hearing today. It's great to see the committee 
continuing to focus on Indo-Pacific as a critical region for 
U.S. interests. Deputy Secretary Sherman, thank you so much for 
being here today.
    I want to focus on the Biden Administration's goals for the 
Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and which countries the 
Administration intends to include to meet the goals involved 
for us. My understanding of the IPEF is that we would like to 
bring countries together to counter China's influence in the 
region, rebuild more robust and reliable supply chains, and 
promote universal values such as labor rights and environmental 
protections.
    Yet countries that might be aligned with the U.S. human 
rights like Australia and New Zealand previously express 
consternation about past trade agreements like TPP being framed 
as countering China and countries that might be more willing to 
embrace a counter China posture like Vietnam, Malaysia, 
Indonesia, or India would seem to be improbable partners for an 
agreement based on strong human rights and climate provisions 
according to the State Department's annual human rights reports 
for those countries.
    So how does the Administration plan to reconcile these 
competing interests and how you prioritize adherence to strong 
human rights standards, particularly labor rights, and climate 
protections, when considering participants in the IPEF?
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you very much, Congressman. There are 
four pillars to the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework: fair and 
resilient trade, including labor, environmental, and digital 
provisions; resilient supply chains; infrastructure, clean 
energy, and decarbonization; and tax and anti-corruption. We 
have no made final decisions on membership. The framework will 
be open and inclusive to those partners that share our 
ambitions and commitments to high standards.
    So I think, Congressman, the bottom line here is we are 
interested in things that will advantage and support American 
workers in everything that we do and the values of the United 
States of America. And so the concerns that you have raised are 
certainly ones that are on our minds as we proceed to fill out 
this Indo-Pacific Economic Framework.
    Mr. Levin. All right. Well, thanks. So let's drill down a 
little on the human rights standards and how they will work in 
practice in the framework.
    I feel too often we think of human rights protections as in 
competition or conflict with our security or economic interests 
when in reality strong human rights protections can be an 
essential enabling factor for sustainable security and 
equitable economic growth, the kind of American values you were 
talking about. And strong labor protections for workers in each 
country can ensure that all workers within the framework won't 
be exploited for cheaper wages or harsher working environments, 
thus preventing a race to the bottom in helping economic 
security grow for everyone.
    So how will the Administration's framework build in strong 
rights protections at the foundation of the agreement? And what 
will happen if participating countries are found to be in 
violation of those standards, particularly standards for 
workers?
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you very much, Congressman. All of the 
details of how we are going to fill out the IPEF are not fully 
resolved yet. But I can assure you that ensuring that this is 
high standard agreements, understandings, projects, work 
together will be at the foundation of everything that we do.
    We are about making sure that there is a free and open and 
interconnected Indo-Pacific with high standards that ensure the 
prosperity, security, and stability of the United States of 
America and our interests in them. And certainly, workers' 
rights, labor rights, human rights are at the core of that. 
President Biden said at the beginning Administration that human 
rights would be at the center of our foreign policy, and indeed 
they are.
    Mr. Levin. All right. Well, so in the little bit of time I 
have left, I just want to--I assume that the framework is going 
to be non-binding. So I think we really have to figure out ways 
to have mechanisms to enforce labor standards. I'd certainly 
encourage us to look to what we did with USMCA as kind of a 
floor in this regard so that we can really make sure that we 
are raising the votes for all people and certainly the workers 
of this country.
    Thanks. Mr. Chairman, I think my time has expired, so I 
yield back.
    Mr. Malinowski [presiding]. Thank you. I will now recognize 
Representative Chabot of Ohio, ranking member of our Asia-
Pacific subcommittee. Thank you.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, and thanks for being here 
today. As you may know, I'm one of the co-chairs of the 
congressional Taiwan Caucus and one of the founders of that 
caucus about 20 years ago. And as we all know, Taiwan faces a 
very serious threat from the Chinese Communist Party and has 
for some time now.
    And as the ranking member already talked about, there are 
currently substantial delays in the delivery of key weapons 
systems to Taiwan, many of which were approved by Congress and 
which the United States encouraged Taiwan to buy in the first 
place. And I do not want to go through all that again. But I 
know in communicating in various ways with the Taiwanese 
officials that it is very frustrating, and we need to do 
something about that.
    It's very serious. Congress and the Administration have to 
work together on that. We've seen in Ukraine how critical it is 
that we get the weapons to who has threatened Ukraine--in the 
case of Russia and Taiwan, in the case of the PRC--ahead of 
time, way ahead of time. Hopefully, that will deter the 
military action from ever happening, just as nuclear weapons 
have prevented nuclear wars from happening over time.
    You need to have these things ahead of time. And I'm not 
promoting nuclear weapons. But we've got them and the Russians 
have got them, the Chinese, and others. But we need to make 
sure that we stop whatever the log jam and whatever the delays 
have been. We've got to get the weaponry to Taiwan. But I'm not 
going to ask you to respond to that. Let me get to something 
else.
    One of the many reasons that the world has condemned 
Russia's invasion of the Ukraine and almost universally is 
because it's a clear violation of a State's sovereignty, in 
violation of the U.N. charter. Now it might be more difficult 
potentially to build a similar coalition around Taiwan if China 
would invade because the Chinese Communist Party and the PRC 
has spent years promoting the lie that Taiwan is part of the 
PRC which it is absolutely not part of China nor has it ever 
been.
    What actions is the Administration taking now to build a 
coalition in support of Taiwan's freedom?
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you very much, Congressman. For over 
four decades, for over 40 years, the U.S. One China policy has 
been guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the Three Joint 
Communiques, and the Six Assurances. President Biden himself 
voted for the Taiwan Relations Act.
    And I mention it because it has some critical principles to 
the points you are making. The United States will continue to 
assist Taiwan in maintaining a sufficient self-defense 
capability. And I take your opening points about making sure 
that we get weapons to them to be able to do that.
    The United States would regard any effort to determine the 
future of Taiwan both other than peaceful means a threat to the 
peace and security of the Western Pacific and of grave concern 
to the United States and that the United States will maintain 
the capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of 
coercions that would jeopardize the security or the social or 
economic system of the people on Taiwan.
    That's what the Taiwan Relations Act is all about. Our 
commitment as you know is rock solid and it is bipartisan. We 
encourage all U.N. member States to join us in supporting 
Taiwan's robust and meaningful participation throughout the 
U.N. system and in the international community.
    Taiwan's exclusion undermines the important work of the 
United Nations and specialized agencies and related 
organizations. When, in fact, countries like Lithuania and 
Australia are coerced to not recognize Taiwan, not to engage 
with that economy, with that region, jurisdiction, they, in 
fact, are really trying to stand with those countries----
    (Simultaneous speaking.)
    Mr. Chabot. Let me cut you off there for a second. I'm 
almost out of time. I wanted to get in one more----
    Ms. Sherman. Yes.
    Mr. Chabot [continuing]. Question here. When the U.S.--both 
candidates for both parties were opposed to TPP, the 
Administration is now working on the Indo-Pacific Economic 
Framework. Taiwan is such a strong ally of ours and an 
important country, and I do not say that by accident, in the 
region, absolutely should be part of that framework.
    Will Taiwan be invited to join the Biden Administration's 
Indo-Pacific Economic Framework?
    (Simultaneous speaking.)
    Mr. Chabot. If not, why not?
    Ms. Sherman. As I said, we just haven't made final 
decisions on membership, and the framework will be open and 
inclusive to those partners that share our ambitions and 
commitment to high standards.
    Mr. Chabot. You absolutely should invite Taiwan.
    Ms. Sherman. I hear you. I'll take that back.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you.
    Mr. Malinowski [presiding]. Thank you. The chair now 
recognizes Representative Susan Wild of Pennsylvania for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Deputy 
Secretary Sherman, good morning.
    In 2021, the International Trade Union Confederation, the 
ITUC, once again named the Philippines as one of the ten worst 
countries in the world for working people. According to the 
ITUC report, workers and their representatives in the 
Philippines remained particularly vulnerable to violent 
attacks, intimidation, and arbitrary arrests. Twenty-eight 
union representatives were illegally arrested and detained in 
March and December, and seven union leaders were killed between 
March 2020 and April 2021.
    And to be clear, these attacks are sanctioned by President 
Duterte's government which both targets the labor movement 
directly and allows attacks against labor organizers to occur 
with impunity. Given the Biden Administration's very strong 
support for the labor movement here at home, does the 
Administration agree that the systemic attacks on the 
Philippines labor movement are completely unacceptable?
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. Counselor 
Derek Chollet was just in the Philippines and covered a wide 
range of issues, including our concerns about such actions. And 
that will always be something of concern to us, absolutely.
    Ms. Wild. Well, thank you. My next question was going to be 
whether the Administration had taken any explicit steps to 
raise these concerns at the highest levels of the Philippines 
government. I assume from that answer that your answer would be 
yes?
    Ms. Sherman. Yes.
    Ms. Wild. And what was the response, if you know, of the 
Philippines government to raise these concerns?
    Ms. Sherman. I think as you probably well know, 
Congresswoman, this is an ongoing conversation with the 
Philippines which is about to see an election and not sure how 
it will go. But I think some of these challenges are likely to 
continue no matter how it goes.
    And look, Philippines is a very important treaty ally of 
the United States. And we need to build a strong relationship 
given what they do, their strategic position in the world. They 
are part of the Indo-Pacific, the basing and their key 
importance to us in terms of our defense.
    And so this is a complex relationship and one that we have 
to work at very hard. And it's why Secretary Blinken asked 
Counselor Chollet to make sure that we actually had sent a 7th 
Fleet principle there. And I suspect before many months are 
over I will be going there myself.
    Ms. Wild. Well, I appreciate that. I will say that this is 
an ongoing source of concern for me. I recognize the great 
importance that the Philippines has to us in all of the areas 
that you just described. But I also think that if we are going 
to be a leader in human rights, we cannot ignore human rights 
violations occurring in our Allied countries around the world.
    I would like to propose that the Administration consider 
hosting an international summit on labor rights that would 
feature representatives of the labor movement from the 
Philippines and other countries around the world where labor 
organizations are most at risk in order to highlight the U.S. 
commitment to the right to organize. And I do not expect you to 
respond to that on the spot until you're willing to do so. But 
I would respectfully request a written response to that 
proposal.
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you for that idea, Congresswoman. We 
will give you a response. And I should also mention that we all 
support Maria Ressa, a really extraordinary journalist who has 
not only gotten a Nobel Peace Prize but has met with Secretary 
Blinken and continues to be a tremendous person to bring 
transparency to the system in the Philippines.
    Ms. Wild. And I commend the Administration on that. I just 
do not ever want us to lose sight of the fact that there are 
still grave human rights violations occurring. And I maintain 
that the best way for us to be a leader on human rights issues 
is to demand that our allies exhibit a recognition of human 
rights and that they abstain from infringing--infringing is a 
mild word--systemic attacks on labor and journalists and so 
forth.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you very much, 
Secretary Sherman.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady yields back. And now I 
recognize Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina who's the 
ranking member of the subcommittee on the Middle East, North 
Africa, and Global Counterterrorism for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Chairman Greg Meeks, for 
your bipartisanship. And this is truly a time we all need to be 
working together. And Madam Secretary, thank you for your 
service.
    I'm so grateful that we now have the Indo-Pacific, not just 
the Pacific. It was a recognition by President Donald Trump of 
the significance of India, the world's largest democracy. And 
today, I had the extraordinary opportunity to host a breakfast 
delegation of the new transition government of South Korea, Dr. 
Jin Park and Tae-yong Cho.
    How fortunate we are. What an example of the difference 
between democracy in South Korea and the failure of Communist, 
Socialist, Totalitarianism of North Korea. And I'm the only 
Member of Congress and I want to give credit to former 
Congressman Curt Weldon. He had me on a delegation. I've been 
to Pyongyang and Seoul. Gosh, what a contrast. And working with 
them, I'm very happy for you.
    Now at the same time, it's so inspiring to see the people 
of Ukraine defending themselves and their families against the 
mass murdering Putin regime. And then Volodymyr Zelensky, what 
an incredibly courageous person and the Winston Churchill of 
our time who deserves a bust, I believe, in the Capitol just 
like Winston Churchill has a bust in the U.S. Capitol.
    And the allies are working together. But a problem has been 
that our allies want to be back-filled for whatever Soviet 
equipment that they have. And we have extraordinary allies--
Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Slovenia--that want to provide. But of 
course, they have to have a back-fill. And what is the effort 
made to facilitate back-fill for their protection?
    Ms. Sherman. So thank you very much, Congressman. And I met 
with that transition team as well. And I think that President-
elect Yoon of South Korea will be a terrific partner, an ally 
of the United States. And I too have been to Pyongyang and to 
Seoul.
    And so I understand exactly the point that you are making 
about the difference. And let's remember, at one point, the 
Republic of Korea had authoritarian leadership. And they, 
instead built a democracy that is just getting stronger and 
stronger every year.
    In terms of back-filling, we are talking with our partners 
and allies of each of these requests and seeing what is 
possible. We understand that countries want to support Ukraine 
but do not want to leave themselves vulnerable. So we are 
taking this on a case-by-case basis and seeing what is doable.
    Mr. Wilson. Well, thank you, and please facilitate that. 
It's so mutually beneficial for the people of Ukraine and the 
world. And additionally, as you indicated that South Korea went 
from an authoritarian regime to the democracy that it is today, 
I actually have faith in Russia and the Russian people.
    And that's why I've introduced bipartisan legislation that 
would provide for immediate refugee status for any person in 
the Russian military or diplomatic corps or Russian Duma that 
would defect that they would be given immediate refugee status 
to the United States. And if they brought over military 
equipment and delivered it to Ukraine, they could get up to 
100,000 dollars. And so we should not give up on the people of 
Russia.
    But sadly--and I cannot believe it, and I appreciate 
Chairman Meeks bringing this up. India, the world's largest 
democracy, should be standing firm with the other democracies. 
We're in a conflict that has been identified by President Biden 
of totalitarianism against democracies.
    So either we stand for democracy's rule of law, or we'll be 
facing around the world destabilization by governments' rule of 
gun. And so how can we make an effort to replace the oil that 
India depends on and the military equipment that they've 
depended on from Putin? This is just so illogical for the 
extraordinary country of India, the wonderful people of India 
to be overlooking, abstaining. That's incredible. That's such 
an insult to the people of India.
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you, Congressman Wilson. I addressed 
this a little bit earlier to say that our relationship with 
India as you point out, the world's largest democracy is 
critical in so many areas. We've had very direct conversations 
with them about how we can address their very legitimate needs 
for their country.
    And I think that there's progress being made to see what we 
can do to be supportive to them while at the same time urging 
them to be more forthright regarding what's happening in 
Ukraine. I did note that they made comments, not surprising, 
about the horrors that have taken place in Bucha.
    And so I think we just have to keep working at this 
relationship and understanding the complexity of it and helping 
to support India to really understand what is in their national 
security interest.
    Mr. Wilson. With three million Indian Americans, the most 
successful immigrant group in the United States----
    (Simultaneous speaking.)
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired. I now 
recognize Representative Dina Titus of Nevada for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, thank 
you for being here. I often meet with Ambassadors from some of 
these other countries. And they tell me when they're working to 
develop infrastructure projects or defense investments that 
they often turn to China instead of the United States. We saw 
this with the recent agreement with the Solomon Islands in 
China.
    They always say, well, if we had an alternative with the 
U.S., we would do that. Could you talk a little bit about maybe 
the Development Finance Corporation and the Millennium 
Challenge and what maybe Congress can do to make those programs 
more flexible and more attractive to some of these places as an 
alternative to China?
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you, Congresswoman. It's a really good 
and important question about why countries turn to the PRC when 
we really would like them to turn to us. And I want to say that 
although I expect that the Solomon Islands has been very 
straightforward that it's going to sign this agreement, they 
have not done so yet.
    And we certainly want the Solomon Islands to know their 
importance to us. And we have done investment in the Solomon 
Islands. So we hope this is an ongoing conversation.
    On the DFC, I think we've done some very important things. 
We were just talking about India, half a billion dollars for 
solar farms project, other investments in India, terrific DFC 
investments in other places in the world. MCC just got a 
compact signed in Nepal, even after a very aggressive effort by 
the PRC to stop the Nepalese from signing that MCC compact. So 
these vehicles are terribly important.
    The DFC has a lot of steps that countries have to step 
through. And I think we all should look at whether in fact all 
of the steps in each of these arenas are what they ought to be 
to make sure we are agile and flexible. It is why we've 
introduced the B3W effort which is bringing private investment 
to the area of high standard, climate-aligned, transparently 
financed infrastructure to Indo-Pacific economics, mobilizing 
private capital, why the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework is 
important to, again, raise up understandings and work together 
with countries.
    I think too that countries are finding that the PRC comes 
with some strings that end up not being in their interest where 
they take out a loan, default on it, and then the PRC seizes 
the assets. And it turns out to be a liability for a country, 
not an asset. That certainly has been experienced in Africa 
where the PRC brought in its own people, did not transfer 
technology, did not transfer capabilities.
    And so African countries ended up with large debt without 
the infrastructure they needed or infrastructure that was 
regulated in a way that it did not crumble 5 years later. So 
we've got work to do to become more agile, to become more 
flexible, to be able to move faster in the ways that you 
suggest. But we do have tools. We do have vehicles. And we have 
diplomats all over the world in all of our missions working 
very hard.
    And the last point I'll make which I make in the Senate 
more than I make here which is please, please, please get our 
Ambassadors confirmed. Because when we have a Senate-confirmed 
Ambassador, they are seen differently by countries. They are 
more aggressive. They advance our interests. They push the 
envelope.
    We need all of our Ambassadors in place. And so urge your 
Senate colleagues to get the job done. Thank you.
    Ms. Titus. Well, thank you. If as you look at these 
different programs and you see that they need some flexibility 
or some changes in all these steps and red tape that are 
required, please come to us if there's something that Congress 
can do that you cannot do internally. Maybe we can work 
together to be sure that they are used to their maximum 
potential and that countries do not have to choose China as an 
alternative.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll yield back. And I look 
forward to working on this with the Department.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady yields back. I'll recognize 
Representative Darrell Issa of California for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Secretary, a couple 
of quick observations and a number of questions. As you know, 
as the JCPOA as we exited it, it did not change the fact that 
Iran was bound by the JCPOA and continued with our European 
partners.
    So if that's the case, then the fact that just a few months 
or just about the time President Biden was being sworn in when 
Iran announced that it had achieved 20 percent refinement or 
continued on past the 3.67 that it contractually bound to. 
They, by definition, are not trustworthy to keep the JCPOA 
which they were bound by with our European partners. Clearly, 
they continued terrorist attacks. They continue even till today 
with the recent attacks, both in Iraq and of course the attacks 
on Saudi Arabia using their proxies.
    Having said that that's who we're dealing with, can you 
assure us as a representative of the State Department that you 
will, one, become transparent as to the details of the 
agreement? Because at this time based on both classified and 
open briefings, as far as I can tell, the deal will be 
identical to the original deal, recognizing that that's Iran's 
stated position and that appears to be where we're negotiating 
is from a position of weakness where we cannot get any 
improvements or further assurances.
    But can you commit that you will not lift sanctions on the 
Uranium Revolutionary Guard Corps? Can you commit that you'll 
work with Secretary Blinken and the President not to waive 
weapon sales from Russia to Iran? Can you commit to advising 
Secretary Blinken and the President not to waive oil sales 
transferred between Russia and Iran?
    Could you commit as part of this process that you would not 
allow transfers of nuclear materials between Russia and Iran as 
part of this deal? And could you commit that you would at least 
use your efforts not to have reactor plans, schematics, or 
blueprints moved between Iran and Russia? Last, could you 
commit that the JCPOA, if it's reentered, would not allow for a 
continued activity such as the enrichment of uranium which now 
exceeds 20 percent?
    I know I gave you a lot. But I would prefer to give you all 
of them and then you can just say yes to all of them that you 
would commit to.
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you, Congressman.
    Mr. Issa. And Chairman, I'm glad that was funny for you 
because, on one hand, I know the answer is probably no. But I 
do sincerely believe that these are the areas that Congress 
should insist that some aspect of this, particularly relative 
to Russia as a partner, be included since we are currently 
effectively defending a country at war which means we 
effectively are involved in a war with an actor that our own 
President has called a war criminal.
    Ms. Sherman. Congressman, you raise very serious concerns, 
and I take them very seriously. And I will say this about the 
JCPOA. President Biden said that his interest is to return to 
compliance for compliance if Iran would be compliant with the 
JCPOA.
    And those negotiations are not over. And when I was a 
negotiator for the original JCPOA leading a phenomenal team and 
working with then Secretary Kerry and with my European 
colleagues and the PRC and Russia at the time, it was very 
critical for people to understand that nothing is agreed until 
everything is agreed, that it's about are you 20 percent there 
or 90 percent there. It's binary. You either get there or you 
do not.
    And so I do not think we know the outcome yet of whether in 
fact we will get a return to compliance for compliance. I 
absolutely believe that we should be transparent with Congress. 
And I know that Rob Malley who now is the lead negotiator with 
the team and Bret McGurk from the White House. I've done 
briefings up on the Hill, and I'm sure they will do many more 
and share those details as this comes together.
    And I want to make one--I agree that the situation with 
Russia is now very complicated. I would note that at the time 
we were negotiating the original JCPOA, Russia took Crimea. And 
so it was a very bizarre situation where we were negotiating 
with the Russians at the same time they were doing things that 
were horrible and certainly not as unspeakable as what they are 
doing now.
    So yes, it's complicated. But we will be transparent with 
you. We will take the concerns you've raised with great 
seriousness.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time----
    (Simultaneous speaking.)
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Meeks. I now recognize Representative Dean 
Phillips of Minnesota for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Greetings, Madam 
Secretary. I want to associate myself with the remarks of my 
colleague, Mr. Issa, relative to the JCPOA. None of us what to 
see a nuclear armed Iran for obvious reasons. I think that's a 
comprehensive statement for Congress and I know for the 
Administration.
    But we already have a nuclear armed tyrant in the Indo-
Pacific and that's North Korea, of course. What is our strategy 
relative to containment? They just tested their first ICBM 
since 2017. Saber-rattling continues, and I'd like to hear from 
you about what our strategy for containment is vis-a-vis North 
Korea but a little bit more broader proliferation.
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you, Congressman. There's no question we 
share your deep concern about the DPRK. There have been 13 
launches. The last one as you noted, all believe was an 
intercontinental missile, ballistic missile.
    We expect that there are likely to be more. And as one of 
your colleagues mentioned earlier, the transition team for 
President-elect Yoon of South Korea is here. And this is very 
much been part of their discussions with everyone with whom 
they have met which is to ensure that we take some strong 
action to let the north know that they cannot just keep doing 
this without any consequences, that we take actions that shows 
we have a credible deterrence against any attack by North 
Korea.
    At the same time, we, the South Koreans and the Japanese, 
all believe that we should make it clear we also have an open 
channel for dialog without preconditions to end the specter of 
what the North Koreans are doing. So it's practical. It's 
calibrated.
    We are moving on all of those vectors simultaneously and 
critically in a trilateral fashion with Japan and the Republic 
of Korea because strength comes from partnerships and 
alliances. It's true where Ukraine is concerned. It's true 
where the DPRK is concerned.
    Mr. Phillips. And in your estimation, these strong actions 
that might still be in the toolkit, are any of them actionable 
or achievable without Chinese support?
    Ms. Sherman. I think they are. But I also believe that the 
PRC believes above all else that stability is critical. And so 
we have said to them and will continue to press on them and 
have our allies and partners press on them, that this is not 
taking action that will lead to a stable and prosperous Indo-
Pacific.
    This is not good for the PRC anymore than it's good for all 
the rest of us. And having a nuclear armed North Korea is not 
in China's self interest. So I cannot tell you, Congressman 
Phillips, that we have an answer today because it's evident 
that the North Koreans right now are intent on spending what 
little money they have while their people starve, probably 
facing another famine, probably having a horrendous COVID 
outbreak that none of us really know about because they've kept 
it so quiet.
    So I cannot tell you today we have solved this problem or 
will tomorrow. But we're working at it quite hard. Ambassador 
Sung Kim is here for consultations. We'll be consulting with 
his Japanese and South Korean colleagues in Seoul shortly and 
their ongoing consultations as well to see what else we can be 
doing.
    Mr. Phillips. And can you share any specific examples of 
other, quote-unquote, strong actions that remain in the toolkit 
that had not been employed yet vis-a-vis North Korea?
    Ms. Sherman. Well, I think they're a whole range, 
everything from sanctions, some of which we have imposed 
already, to actions like the South Koreans took after the most 
recent launch to do their own missile launches to say we have a 
deterrent, the exercises that we do, the trilateral 
relationship statement and actions at the U.N. Security Council 
to hold the North Koreans accountable in the committee that 
looks at non-proliferation, to make sure that we stop any 
material going into North Korea that can be used for the 
development of missile technology or nuclear technology.
    We have done a good job as I must say Steve Biegun who was 
my predecessor. Good professional, worked very hard to ensure 
that North Korean workers who went abroad and sent remittances 
back that we got to countries and told them to send those North 
Koreans home. Don't allow them to have that chain of financial 
support for North Korea. So we try to work this in every 
domain.
    Mr. Phillips. I just got 10 seconds. Any carrots that you 
contemplate relative to changing behavior?
    Ms. Sherman. Any what?
    Mr. Phillips. Carrots instead of sticks----
    Ms. Sherman. Well, I think we have----
    Mr. Phillips [continuing]. To change behavior?
    Ms. Sherman [continuing]. Said to them that we are open to 
diplomacy. We have let them know in appropriate ways things 
that might come their way if we can get to a different place.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired. I now 
recognize Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary, 
for being here. Is the Biden State Department policy regarding 
China a failure?
    Ms. Sherman. No.
    Mr. Perry. It's not? OK. I want to go through a timeline 
with you. Last July, you were on a trip and you were handed a 
list of 16, as alleged, erroneous U.S. policies toward China, 
10 cases of concern to be rectified before ties could improve. 
So that's July 2021.
    The in October, China and Russia for the first time ever 
conducted joint naval drills in the western Pacific around 
Japan. And then in November--no. Well, November 15, the 
President and Xi had a virtual summit where the President tried 
to wind support for our position vis-a-vis Ukraine. Then in 
November or later in November, China and Russia sent bombers 
into Japanese and South Korean ADIZ.
    Vladimir Putin and Xi have met more than 30 times since 
2013. And I suspect you're aware that Xi calls Putin his best 
friend. Subsequent to that, the Department of State held a one 
and a half hour meeting with China's Ambassador, Qin Gang, 
where he was given U.S. intelligence regarding Russian armored 
unit placement.
    And then December 2021, there was more information 
exchanged throughout December regarding U.S. intelligence which 
was given by China to Russia. There were four of these meetings 
including one where you, Madam Secretary, were present. 
February 4, Putin arrived in Beijing for the winter Olympics.
    And then on February 7, Xi and Putin announced that the two 
nation's friendship has no limits and issued a joint statement 
pledging what is described as unprecedented cooperation. And 
then on the 24 of February, Russia invaded Ukraine.
    Whose idea was it to give China the intelligence we had on 
Russia?
    Ms. Sherman. Congressman, I do not think this is probably 
the appropriate forum to talk about intelligence matters.
    Mr. Perry. I'm not talking about the intelligence itself. I 
want to know who made the decision.
    Ms. Sherman. I understand. But you are presuming that we 
shared intelligence in a particular manner. And I'd rather have 
that conversation----
    (Simultaneous speaking.)
    Mr. Perry. I'm happy to have that conversation with you 
behind closed doors. But it's also been reported that methods 
and sources were compromised. Did the State Department 
compromise sources and methods?
    Ms. Sherman. We never compromise sources and methods, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Perry. In determining whether the policy is correct, it 
says in the most recent release of the Indo-Pacific Strategy 
that we're competing with the PRC, competing and managing 
competition. Admiral Luo Yuan in 2019 said sinking two U.S. 
aircraft carriers would kill 10,000 American soldiers. What the 
United States fears the most is taking casualties. We'll see 
how frightened America is. And of course, you probably know 
Ambassador Qin Gang just this year said it's most likely if we 
support Taiwan independence or continue to will involve China 
and the United States, the two big countries in a military 
conflict.
    I've heard your testimony here this morning and you talked 
about climate change on numerous occasions. Do you know that 
the Chinese already claim to have success in elevating 
Presidential climate on John Kerry who's a genocide apologist 
to be in charge of the Biden overall China strategy? Is that 
true?
    Ms. Sherman. Congressman, I appreciate that you have a 
perspective on the Biden-Harris Administration policy toward 
the PRC. Let me be clear. As Secretary Blinken has said, there 
are three elements to that policy. Yes, to compete and to win, 
to invest in our country so that we can win the future vis-a-
vis the competition in a responsible manner.
    Second, that we challenge China where we must. That is in 
areas like the South China Sea. There are more aggressive 
action toward Taiwan and very many other areas. And third, to 
cooperate in those areas where it is in our self interest to do 
so to ensure that we have a planet for my grandchildren----
    (Simultaneous speaking.)
    Mr. Perry. Do I do not want you to be responsible. I agree 
with you about that. But a central demand in the list handed to 
you was that the United States no longer challenged China's 
domestic Marxist-Leninist political system. Now for my whole 
life or at least since Kissinger went to open up China 
allegedly and then their entry into the World Trade 
Organization, et cetera, et cetera, we've had a policy in the 
United States that somehow open markets and relations with the 
West would change China.
    Has the U.S. Government lied to or been wrong about that 
policy that whole time? Because it's not happening.
    Ms. Sherman. I hear you loud and clear, Congressman, and 
I'd urge you to sit down and have that conversation with 
Secretary Kissinger. I think that we all understand that life's 
a lot more complicated.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time, and I try not to 
intercede as the chair of the committee. But it's hard for me 
not to just say that President Xi gave PRC's first ever 
friendship medal to Mr. Putin in 2018. Donald Trump was 
President. Didn't hear anything about that.
    President Trump invited Mr. Putin to the White House. 
Didn't hear anything about that. The Foreign Minister Lavrov 
visited the White House in 2017 when he was President and 
allegedly gave information to him that no one else that was 
classified. No one said anything about that.
    But I will try to refrain. And I'll recognize Mr. 
Representative Gerry Connolly of Virginia for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair. And yes, there's so much 
to remember from those momentous 4 years. Hard to get it all 
in, in one hearing, like taking Clorox to cure COVID. I seem to 
recall President Trump--actually, one you left out there maybe, 
Mr. Chairman--praising Xi Jinping on his management of COVID 
and the virus coming out of Wuhan early on.
    Welcome, Ms. Sherman. So glad to have you here again. A 
couple of questions. One is what's your view about what China 
is taking away from what Russia is doing in Ukraine? I'm the 
co-chair of the Taiwan Caucus. And there's concern that China 
could take away from our point of view the wrong lessons.
    What's your view? What's the State Department's view about 
that? And presumably, we're communicating warnings to the 
Chinese Government appropriately.
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you, Congressman. Indeed, we are. The 
President in his conversation with Xi Jinping, Jake Sullivan 
with Yan Jiechi, Secretary Blinken's with Wang Yi, mine on my 
trip as well as when I met with the Ambassador here.
    We want to try to make sure that PRC takes away the right 
lessons. And I hope that what they have seen is that United 
States has partners and allies throughout the world and that we 
all believe in sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the 
right of countries to make their own foreign policy choices and 
decisions, that we believe in an international rules-based 
order that has added space, a belief in human rights and making 
sure that everybody plays by the same rules.
    That if, in fact, we have said quite clearly that we 
believe stability across the Straits is critical, that 
certainly no country should be taken by--not country, no 
entity. We see Taiwan as a jurisdiction. We have an unofficial 
relationship with them. So we do not see in our One China 
policy that the mainland taking Taiwan by force is acceptable 
and certainly does not lead to stability along the Taiwan 
Straits or stability in the Indo-Pacific.
    And so we hope that the PRC understands that any such 
action would see a response from the international community, 
not just from the United States. That most countries in the 
world--in fact, two U.N. General Assembly resolutions, one, 141 
countries, 140 countries at the time of this invasion 
premeditated, unprovoked, and unjust invasion by Putin voted in 
support of Ukraine and in support of those principles and of 
the international rules-based order and the need for President 
Putin to bear consequences. So we hope the PRC takes the right 
lessons from that.
    Mr. Connolly. We hope so. As you know, NATO is updating its 
strategic concept and the intention is to adopt revisions, new 
strategic concept in May in Madrid.
    The current strategic concept that's been in place for the 
last decade still refers to Russia as a strategic partner--
clearly, that's not true--and does not even mention China. 
Apparently, China does not exist in our orb in terms of 
anything to be concerned about. Clearly, that has to change.
    What guidance is the State Department, the U.S. Government, 
providing NATO with respect to how to formulate the 
relationship we ought to be having and how we ought to be 
looking at the Chinese challenge?
    Ms. Sherman. There's a lot of discussion going on about 
that, Congressman. And the Secretary of State is in Brussels 
today for a NATO meeting. Some of the discussion will be about 
heading toward Madrid in the strategic concept for 2030.
    I think everybody understands that we're in a different 
world, that what has happened has scrambled the geopolitics of 
this world. And we all are going to have to think about where 
we are and what that means for the future. So I think you're 
quite right that things are going to change.
    Mr. Connolly. Yes. And my final point, yesterday, the House 
of Representatives in an overwhelming bipartisan vote voted for 
a resolution calling on NATO as part of that strategic concept 
to create a center for democratic resilience within NATO 
itself. I commend it to you and I urge the State Department, 
and Julie Smith has been doing a great job in Brussels. But we 
need to get behind this, especially after what's happening in 
Ukraine. I thank the chair.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired. I now 
recognize Representative Ann Wagner who's the vice ranking 
member of the full committee for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Chairman Meeks, for hosting this 
critical hearing. And Deputy Secretary Sherman, it is good to 
see you again. And we want to thank you for your time and 
service.
    The United States and our allies are navigating an 
inflection point in world history. Russia's war on Ukraine has 
demonstrated the high stakes of the struggle between the 
democratic world and its authoritarian adversaries. But we need 
to be clear that China, Russia, Iran and their partners sowed 
the seeds of this conflict long ago.
    Authoritarian governments have made a deliberate choice to 
attack foundational practices, beliefs, and laws of the free 
world. And today we are seeing the tragic consequences of that 
decision. Our adversaries are watching our responses to 
Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
    They had hoped to see a fractured, weak West. And instead 
they learned that the U.S. and our allies are more united and 
more determined to protect the free world than we have ever 
been. But this crisis is far from other.
    And Putin and all members of his criminal regime that bear 
responsibility for his horrifying assault on an independent and 
peaceful nature and should suffer the consequences of their 
actions. We will send a message to the bullies and 
authoritarians standing alongside Putin that we will not 
tolerate aggression against a sovereign nation.
    The People's Republic of China should take note, it must be 
held accountable for its many violations of sovereignty and 
international law in the Himalayas, the South China Sea, the 
East China Sea. It cannot continue to threaten Taiwan's right 
to determine its own future. And it must immediately cease its 
egregious violations of human rights. And I include in this 
what I would call genocide.
    Department Secretary Sherman, I want to take this 
opportunity to ask you for a status update on some of the 
provisions of fighter jets, of tanks, of surface-to-air 
missiles, specifically functioning as S-300's, to Ukraine. I 
recently had the privilege of traveling to Poland and the 
Ukrainian border. And I saw firsthand what the Ukrainians are 
up against.
    And President Zelensky has repeatedly asked for tanks and 
fighter jets and surface-to-air missiles. But the Biden 
Administration has claimed that Russia could deem these systems 
escalatory. Now that the world has seen the horror of Russia, 
Russian war crimes committed in Bucha just yesterday, how can 
this Administration continue to argue that any weapon system 
for Ukraine is escalatory or provocative?
    Is the United States policy on providing these critical 
assets evolving, I'll say, in light of what we are learning 
about the horrifying situations on the ground in Ukraine, 
Secretary?
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. The United 
States has provided over two billion dollars in security 
assistance to Ukraine. And for every one Russian tank between 
the United States and our allies and partners, there are ten 
tanks that have been supplied to Ukraine.
    We can go into detail, and I did this in a classified 
briefing. And my colleagues from the Department of Defense and 
the Joint Chiefs went through it in great detail in a 
classified briefing with all members of the House about each 
weapon system, where it was coming from, what its issues were, 
a lot of discussion about those, migs and why it's been so 
difficult to get them in. This is a decision that is up to 
Poland in the end. All of this----
    (Simultaneous speaking.)
    Mrs. Wagner. What about--because of my time--the surface-
to-air missiles, the S-300's? And I'm right over here, Madam 
Secretary.
    Ms. Sherman. Yes.
    Mrs. Wagner. The S-300's--the functioning S-300's, I'm 
hearing they're 1984. They're not functioning. So what's the--
--
    (Simultaneous speaking.)
    Ms. Sherman. I think, Congresswomen, I can brief you 
further about the S-300's in a different setting. But we 
understand the importance of them.
    Mrs. Wagner. OK. Well, I would appreciate that very, very 
much.
    Ms. Sherman. Sure.
    Mrs. Wagner. I do not have much time left. I want to ask a 
question about the PRC and what they may be hoping to gain from 
the current prices in Europe. But I'm going to submit it for 
the record given the fact that I am out of time and I yield 
back to the chair.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize 
Representative Colin Allred of Texas for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Allred. Good. I thought you were going to skip me, Mr. 
Chairman. Madam Deputy Secretary, it's great to see you again. 
Thank you for coming to speak with us.
    And this is an important region in the world. I was there 
in November. We visited South Korea and Japan and also Taiwan. 
Mostly the discussion as you can imagine revolved around China.
    And I've been kind of wanting to avoid the idea that China 
is ten feet tall and that we are falling behind. We have some 
unique abilities to bring to the table, particularly our 
alliances and our economic power. And speaking with our allies, 
I think there's a lot of concern over our withdrawal from TPP 
and where we were going to go and how were we going to 
economically engage with them going forward.
    And I see it as also part of a deterrent strategy with 
China as important as it is for us to continue to shift our 
resources to the Pacific on the military side. One the economic 
side, I think this is maybe our strongest tool. And so I wanted 
to discuss the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework that the 
Administration has put forward which I think is intended to set 
a positive agenda for economic coordination in the region.
    I'm just wondering what countries you envision 
participating in that framework, what the breadth of the 
membership will be, and how its role will play in our overall 
Indo-Pacific strategy.
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you very much, Congressman. And let me 
quickly correct something I said to Congresswomen Zeldin. And I 
think I said it maybe earlier as well. It is not that we have 
ten tanks for every one tank. We have ten anti-tank weapons for 
every Russian tank. So I wanted to correct the record. I do not 
want to leave a misimpression. So sorry for taking some time, 
Congressman.
    On the Indo-Pacific framework, we haven't made final 
decisions on membership. The framework will be open, inclusive 
to those partners that share our ambitions and our high 
standards. And that's what we're doing here.
    I think it's also important for people to understand that 
this is not a traditional trade agreement approach. It is a 
much broader approach and is about really a worker-centric 
trade policy that includes novel areas such as supply chain 
resiliency that go beyond traditional trade agreements. And I 
think this quite critical to the future for all of us.
    Mr. Allred. While I understand that it is going to go 
beyond, I would like to see us have a trade agreement. And 
those countries are moving forward without us now. And I think 
there's a U.S.-sized hole there. And in many ways, China wants 
to fill that.
    Just really quickly, do we imagine that Taiwan may have 
some inclusion in that framework?
    Ms. Sherman. As I said, we haven't made any decisions. But 
I've heard both from you and from other members this morning 
your perspective on that decision.
    Mr. Allred. OK. Well, I certainly think they should be. And 
with the supply chain issues that we're talking about, they 
have an important role to play in that. And I think we need to 
continue to build kind of a wall of our democratic allies, 
partners, and the economies that we can bring to the table in 
this region. And with that, I'll give you some time back. Thank 
you.
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize 
Representative Brian Mast of Florida for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, ma'am, for 
coming today. The Administration is working on negotiating a 
nuclear deal with Iran again. We agree on that?
    Ms. Sherman. Yes.
    Mr. Mast. Yes, ma'am. I want to talk a little bit about 
what you know about negotiation. Probably easily in this room, 
you've sat with Iranians more than anybody. And so you do have 
an opinion on this that should be valued.
    You stated about the first Iran negotiations, and you said 
this passionately, we had to make sure our military was arrayed 
in such a way to say that we are serious. If we have to take 
military action because nothing else works, we will. We made 
sure that the Iranians knew that we had weapons that could 
penetrate Fordow. We helped oil producers more oil to compete 
with Iran.
    At that time, as you mentioned already, Russians were 
taking Crimea while you were negotiating the Iran deal. But now 
we have Russia aiding in part. United States of American 
negotiates the Iran deal, totally different situation.
    So I want to start with the first point. What can you say 
that this Administration--something that you said was so 
crucial for credible negotiation with them. What can you say 
that this Administration does to array our military in such a 
way that they are taken serious so that the Iranians know that 
if nothing else works that we will take military action and use 
weapons that would penetrate Fordow?
    Ms. Sherman. Congressman, I believe that diplomacy is often 
supported by a credible threat of force. And I think that 
everybody in this room would agree that the United States 
military is the finest, strongest, broadest, deepest military 
on the face of the earth.
    Mr. Mast. Agreed, ma'am. And I do not want to interrupt 
you, but I do not want to filibuster this time. There's a 
difference in Administrations. The Trump Administration, 
whether you like them or not, had an incredible military 
prowess, took out Soleimani, other things that we can talk 
about, negotiations with North Korea, you name it.
    What is this Biden Administration doing to show Iran that 
they are arrayed in such a way to say to them that we are 
serious and that if we have to take military actions because 
nothing else works, that we will and that they're well aware 
that we have weapons that can penetrate Fordow and others 
things?
    (Simultaneous speaking.)
    Mr. Mast. What is this Administration doing?
    Ms. Sherman. They know that today as they knew it then, 
Congressman. There's nothing different in that statement or the 
veracity of that statement today as it was then.
    Mr. Mast. Ma'am, you'd have to think we're all naive to 
think nothing is different today. Obviously, the world oil 
markets and what this Administration has done with what rubs up 
against their long-term climate goals is totally different, as 
was different than what you were doing to negotiate with Iran.
    What they did in Afghanistan in the withdrawal from 
Afghanistan, our intelligence throughout the region, what 
they're doing with Ukraine, what they're doing right now with 
Russia who is just like they were attacking Crimea during the 
Obama Administration is now attacking Ukraine during the Biden 
Administration. This is a totally different world.
    So you'd have to think we're naive to think that this 
Administration right now is doing something to array the United 
States military in such a way to say that we are serious, that 
if we have to take military action because nothing else works 
to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon, then we will. 
And I would love a specific example.
    Ms. Sherman. So I would say, Congressman, two things. I 
think if you take to General Milley who testified, I think, 
yesterday, he would tell you that we have the capacity to do 
exactly what I said we had the capacity to do back in 2015. 
Second, I think you will have seen in the Secretary's meeting 
in the Negev Desert with Abraham Accord partners and Israel 
that our partnerships and alliances are as important in our 
negotiations with Iran as they are in our standing up to Putin 
in Ukraine.
    Mr. Mast. So one more question on that. You're going to 
defend your point of view, rightly so. You believe that if Iran 
were to be on the cusp of a nuclear weapon right this moment 
that General Milley would launch an attack, use military action 
as you said was so important for you to be able to negotiate.
    Ms. Sherman. Congressman----
    Mr. Mast. You have to say that credibly.
    Ms. Sherman. Congressman, I'm not going to deal today in a 
hypothetical because----
    (Simultaneous speaking.)
    Mr. Mast. That's what you did previously.
    (Simultaneous speaking.)
    Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time is expired. And I'll 
recognize Representative Tom Malinowski of New Jersey who's the 
vice chair of the full committee for 5 minutes, and he can do 
that right here because I got to run. I have to run to the 
floor. I'll be back.
    Mr. Malinowski [presiding]. I want to say thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. But I'd at least temporarily be addressing myself. 
Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    So we've had a bunch of conversations and debates and votes 
on the Hill in the last couple of weeks on funding our domestic 
and international vaccination and public health efforts. I 
wanted to ask you about that as it pertains to the theme of 
this hearing. We've talked a lot about the importance of the 
United States competing, leading, winning the future.
    My point of view and I assume you would agree with this is 
that the horrific catastrophe of this pandemic has also 
presented us as the country that invented these vaccines and 
has the capacity to save hundreds of millions of lives around 
the world with a strategic opportunity that is unparalleled in 
our experience, maybe not since the end of the cold war have we 
had such an opportunity. The President has said we should be 
the arsenal of vaccines. We've done a lot. But I'm not sure if 
we've done enough to be able to say we're seizing that 
opportunity.
    Indonesia, for example, 100 million Western vaccines, 35 
million that we've donated, 200 million from China, Bangladesh, 
90 million Western vaccines, 158 million from China. And other 
countries, the ratio is a little bit better. In Vietnam, 
Turkey, Sub-Saharan Africa, about 194 million doses from the 
Western brands donated compared to 28 million from China. And 
yet still, 194 million, when you think about the population of 
Africa, is a drop in the bucket.
    USAID has asked us for about five billion dollars. That 
request came in December. That was not to step up our efforts. 
That was just to maintain the current, I think, insufficient 
effort. And the Senate zeroed out that funding which if we 
allow that to stand, we're at basically no effort going forward 
this year.
    So I want to ask you about this from a strategic 
perspective. So set aside the obvious public health arguments 
for doing this. Can you talk a little bit about in terms of our 
competition with China some examples of when and how we have 
benefited from when we've been able to provide this sort of 
assistance and how you feel we as a country are constrained 
right now by the lack of resources?
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for raising 
this issue. The President, the Secretary, virtually all of you 
have been clear that nobody is safe from COVID until everybody 
is safe. We have seen that time and time again with variance 
from other countries making its way to our shores and having 
another surge.
    Without additional funding to support getting shots into 
arms around the world, we will have to cut short our efforts to 
turn vaccines into vaccinations. As you've noted, we've already 
donated over 500 million doses free of cost with no strings 
attached which is quite different from what the PRC has done. 
We have done so to more than 110 countries and economies around 
the world, sole purpose to save lives.
    But by June of this year, we estimate that we will have 
obligated the majority of funds under the Initiative for Global 
Vaccine Access, Global VAX. That means we will have to begin to 
ramp down the initiative. By August or September without 
additional funding, all of our related Global VAX efforts will 
end.
    Without additional funds, the Administration would be 
unable to extend search support to 20-plus additional under-
vaccinated countries that will need intensive support this year 
to get shots in arms. This will devaState our ability to ensure 
those countries can effectively deploy safe and effective 
vaccines. We will also be unable to provide lifesaving 
supplies, tests, therapeutics, oxygen. You go on and on.
    Laving large unvaccinated populations worldwide will 
increase the risk of new deadly variants emerging that could 
evade our current vaccines and treatments. And I think 
everybody probably saw in the morning paper the discussion 
going on among scientists and medical researchers about how to 
make sure vaccines can work for all of the variants that are 
coming our way and will be sustainable over time.
    Mr. Malinowski [presiding]. I'll stop you with a very quick 
question.
    Ms. Sherman. Yes.
    Mr. Malinowski [presiding]. Where will those countries 
turn?
    Ms. Sherman. Those countries will turn to the PRC.
    Mr. Malinowski [presiding]. Thank you. And I think that's 
the key point here. Again, the public health argument should be 
obvious enough. But how can we and all of us, I think, agree on 
this aspect? How can we voluntarily lose this competition to 
the Chinese Communist Party? I cannot imagine it.
    Very, very quickly. Very different issue. Does the 
Administration intend to fill the position of North Korea Human 
Rights Envoy?
    Ms. Sherman. Yes.
    Mr. Malinowski [presiding]. I yield back my time and 
recognize Representative Tim Burchett of Tennessee.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ma'am, thank you for 
being here. I wonder why hasn't the Biden Administration 
nominated Ambassador to Ukraine?
    Ms. Sherman. Congressman, we are very lucky that Kristina 
Kvien is our chargee d'affaires. She is doing a simply 
spectacular job under the most difficult circumstances. I 
certainly understand why it would have been great if we had 
decided on that nominee to be a permanent Ambassador.
    These things take time to make sure you have the right 
person. And right now, I'm quite glad that we have the 
sustainable commitment of Chargee D'affaires Kvien and her 
team. They're doing a great job.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. And I'm wondering will India's neutrality 
in Russia's war on Ukraine and the country's general friendship 
with Russia have any effect on our policy toward India--U.S. 
policy toward India I guess I should say.
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you, Congressman. I've addressed this a 
couple of times so far today. But it's very important, so I 
have no problem addressing it again.
    Our relationship with India is a very critical one. They're 
the largest democracy in the world. We have a strong defense 
relationship with them. They are part of the Quad with 
Australia and Japan, and we are moving forward on many 
achievements that are critical to Indo-Pacific prosperity and 
security. We obviously would prefer that India move away from 
their long-term history of nonalignment, G77, partnership with 
Russia.
    Mr. Burchett. Aren't a lot of their weapons, though, 
weaponry----
    Ms. Sherman. Yes.
    Mr. Burchett [continuing]. They're made in Russia, correct?
    Ms. Sherman. Yes, we have to told them that it'll be very 
hard for them now to get spare parts or to get them replaced. 
They have increased their defense relationship with us and 
defense sales and co-production efforts. And I think this is a 
great opportunity for that to surge in the years again.
    Mr. Burchett. Seems like it's sort of an extension of 
China's Belt-and-Road. They use their weaponry, and then 
they're stuck with them. And then they have to buy the parts 
from them.
    Are we working with any of our allies to try Putin for war 
crimes? I hear a lot of talk about it, and we talk about the 
horrors. We shouldn't be surprised at what Russia does. If you 
know anything about history, they're very brutal.
    They're brutal on their own people. They're brutal on 
people they conquest throughout history. It's just gone on and 
gone on. And personally, I think war crimes started when they 
cross the border.
    They're going to talk about all these things where they've 
lobbed missiles into this group or that group which are 
horrible and horrific and the torture. And of course, it looks 
like they've killed a lot of innocent civilians and just very 
careless kind of attitude they take about it. But I'm wondering 
if that's a possibility.
    Ms. Sherman. Congressman, Secretary Blinken named Russia as 
having perpetrated war crimes, even before the horrifying video 
that's come out of Bucha and what people have faced. And we 
expect to see much greater--even more horror as this unfolds.
    I think that there will be actions for accountability, 
whether that's at the ICC, at the U.N. Human Rights Council, 
U.N. General Assembly, our own efforts in that regard. The 
President has already said that war crimes have been committed 
here. Our lawyers and others are collecting evidence. Other 
countries around the world have offered to collect evidence to 
meet legal thresholds for that accountability. It is a very 
high priority.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. Thank you. One last question. I'm 
wondering we've seen all the horrific things the Russians have 
done. And I put those at Putin's feet 100 percent and the 
crimes committed in Bucha.
    And how can this Administration continue to argue any 
weapon system is escalatory or provocative? Those seem to be 
the words we use a lot now. And I'm sure the lawyers or the 
think tanks have come up with that. If you can answer that real 
quick, ma'am, I'd appreciate it.
    Ms. Sherman. Sure. I think it's not just about escalatory. 
The President has been very clear that he does not see American 
troops in Ukraine, and NATO does not see its troops in Ukraine, 
that we want to supply the Ukrainians with everything they need 
to defend themselves.
    And so we also look at what is needed and what, in fact, 
might drag us into that conflict. And he's made the commitment 
that we will not do that. And certainly if a convoy is taken 
out on NATO territory, we're going to defend that country to 
every inch of its soil as the President has said. But these are 
hard and touch decisions.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Chairman. I yield back none of my 
time.
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you.
    Mr. Malinowski.
    [Presiding.] You have 4 seconds, so thank you for giving 
those to us. I now recognize Representative Brad Sherman of 
California for 5 minutes----
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
    Mr. Malinowski [presiding].--plus 4 seconds.
    Mr. Sherman. I want to start with a couple observations, 
first speaking up on the gentleman from New Jersey's comments 
on the need for us to provide at least five billion dollars to 
international vaccination efforts. Obviously, this is the moral 
thing to do. Obviously, it's a thing to do to assure our role 
in world leadership.
    But if we were just exclusively selfish, we'd recognize 
that the impact on our economy of shutdowns and disease in all 
of the middle income and poor countries of the world has an 
impact on us of far more than five billion. But even more than 
that, I would hope that the U.S. Senate would be on team human 
rather than on team COVID and recognize that every time anyone 
in the world gets this disease, that means the disease is 
replicating. When it replicates, it can mutate, and the next 
variant can come back to the United States.
    I feel that so many senators just aren't able to 
contemplate the difference--Republican senators I might add--
the difference between billions and trillions. But if we have 
trillion--if you just look at the economics. We have trillions 
of dollars at stake in not having another variant. And the cost 
of vaccination is measured in the single digit billions.
    The other observation is one that I hope that China would 
observe. We have three major allies east of China: Taiwan, 
Japan, and South Korea. And we have for the better of a century 
been successful in persuading them not to develop nuclear 
weapons.
    China has one ally in that region, perhaps only ally in the 
world. They have been remarkably unsuccessful in persuading 
North Korea not to develop and expand its nuclear weapons 
program and the delivery systems. There's a lack of symmetry 
here, and the Chinese need to understand that our success in 
preventing our allies from going down the nuclear road is 
dependent on them extending some real efforts not only in the 
sense of fairness. But as North Korea flexes its nuclear 
weapons muscle, that is a reason for countries near North Korea 
to develop their own nuclear deterrent.
    My question is on the free association compacts we have 
with the Pacific Islands. This is a hearing on the Indo-
Pacific. And these small countries literally geographically 
dominate the Pacific.
    In the 1980's, we developed these compacts. We now see 
China trying to poke its nose in the area. We see the risks of 
climate change. The current compacts expire in 2023 and 2024. 
And President Biden has named Ambassador Yun as special envoy 
on the compacts of re-association.
    The Departments of State and Interior need to get their 
work done and give Congress enough time--not always an 
efficient institution I might add--to enact any provisions. 
What is the targeted conclusion date for these critical 
negotiations?
    Ms. Sherman. So thank you for raising the compact. We, as 
you noted, have named Ambassador Joseph Yun as Special 
Presidential Envoy for compact negotiations. He'll lead the 
negotiations with support of a team composed of representatives 
of all relevant agencies. And certain economic assistance 
including certain Federal programs provided under the compacts 
as amended ends in 2023 as you've noted.
    We are focused on negotiating the provisions which are 
expiring and doing it in a timely fashion which is why we named 
this Presidential envoy and consulting with Congress along that 
process.
    Mr. Sherman. You got a target date?
    Ms. Sherman. I do not have a target date for you. But I 
know when they're going to expire, so we got to get it done.
    Mr. Sherman. Don't expect us to be efficient. We need 
efficiency on your end. Second, the Rohingya, we've now 
declared this to be a genocide, yet we continue to provide 
economic development in smaller quantities to the government of 
Burma-Myanmar. Since this is a government perpetuating a 
genocide, can we turn that off. And I'm excluding from that 
food and medicine, but I'm certainly including all economic aid 
and economic development aid.
    Ms. Sherman. So Congressman, I'd have to look at the 
particular funding streams that you're referring to. We 
certainly do not as you do not want to turn off food or 
medicine or anything that really is helping the people.
    (Simultaneous speaking.)
    Mr. Sherman. All of our aid helps the people. But whatever 
aid we're providing economic development also helps the 
government.
    Ms. Sherman. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Sherman. And that's money that could be spent on so 
many other disasters happening elsewhere.
    Ms. Sherman. Yes, I'm not aware of what particular funding 
you're talking about. So I'd be glad to have a followup with 
you.
    Mr. Sherman. We'll do a QFR. But we did not provide 
economic aid to Germany in 1940.
    Mr. Malinowski [presiding]. Thank you. Chair recognized 
Representative Mark Green of Tennessee.
    Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. And 
I want to thank Deputy Secretary Sherman for her testimony 
today. The future of freedom across the globe is increasingly 
under attack. As the world is still reeling from President 
Biden's failed withdrawal from Afghanistan, our adversaries are 
on the move.
    Russia seized the opportunity to invade Ukraine. China is 
increasing its aggression toward Taiwan and Iran and North 
Korea, continue down their dangerous nuclear paths. There's no 
doubt that American influence has been greatly diminished by 
the countless blunders committed by this White House.
    Most of all, there's an erosion of the decades long 
commitment to what has brought this country prosperity and the 
world security, peace through strength. Deputy Secretary 
Sherman, you served under the Obama Administration where you 
acted as the lead negotiator of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. 
Earlier this year as the Deputy Secretary of State, you were 
sent to Europe to persuade the Russians, not to invade Ukraine. 
Unfortunately, those efforts failed.
    However, it's not too late to stop this bad deal with Iran. 
It did not work when we did it last time, and it won't work 
now. Iran is an enemy of the United States and the free world. 
And it's just crazy to rely on its oil exports as it was to 
rely on Russia's exports.
    Iran is the foremost State sponsor of terrorism. And they 
do not comply with international agreements. In fact, Iran has 
already violated the current deal with the Biden Administration 
through its ballistic missile development program and uranium 
enrichment.
    And under this new deal, we're potentially freeing up 
billions in Iranian assets, allowing them to export millions of 
barrels of oil per day, and giving them enough uranium to make 
a bomb in 3 years. All of this for what, to acquire Iranian oil 
rather than rely on American energy that President Biden has 
actively stifled since day one of his Presidency.
    It's not too late for the State Department to reject this 
horrible deal. I'm going to go off script here for just a 
second which always makes my staff a little concerned.
    Ms. Sherman. Same thing happens to me when I go off my 
talking points.
    Mr. Green. I get it. I get it. I had some friends killed in 
Iraq, a lot of friends. I was there twice, and I think of those 
improved explosive devices that were created by the Iranians 
and given to the Iranian militias and the Shia militia. And it 
just seems unconscionable to me that we would sit down at a 
negotiating table. Instead, the Administration needs to take a 
page from Ronald Reagan's playbook, peace through strength.
    And I'm reminded of President Zelensky's recent address to 
Congress and his thinly veiled cry for help from the Biden 
Administration. And I quote, I am addressing President Biden. 
You are the leader of a great nation. I wish you to be the 
leader of the world, end quote.
    The world is a lot more dangerous than it was just a year 
and a bit ago. President Biden is failing to lead. This 
Administration needs to lead the world. And right now, our 
country is in trouble. The world is in trouble.
    My first question is from a purely national security 
perspective. Is it better for the United States to produce its 
oil or to buy oil from Iran?
    Ms. Sherman. Congressman, thank you for your service, not 
only as a Member of Congress----
    Mr. Green. Thank you.
    Ms. Sherman [continuing]. But as a serviceman as well. Let 
me be clear. The negotiations for a return to compliance for 
compliance in the joint comprehensive plan of action is not 
about oil. It is about ensuring that Iran cannot obtain a 
nuclear weapon.
    That has been a bipartisan ambition over the course of 
several Administrations because as dangerous as Iran is--and I 
would agree with you on that. There's State sponsorship of 
terrorism, their maligned behavior in the region, their 
targeting by militias and proxies. All of that is horrible. But 
Iran with a nuclear weapon would be able to project even more 
power into the region and would deter some of our allies and 
partners in pushing back against Iran.
    (Simultaneous speaking.)
    Mr. Green. If I could, though, real----
    Ms. Sherman [continuing]. Is about ensuring they not have a 
nuclear weapon.
    Mr. Green. I appreciate that. But unfortunately, they 
violated it last time with their ballistic missile program, 
their uranium enrichment. Now we're talking about letting 
Russia whom we've sanctioned build a 10 billion dollar nuclear 
plant for the Iranians.
    I want to switch subjects real quick because I only have 
half a minute here. What would you guys do differently in your 
negotiations to prevent Ukraine from being invaded? Have you 
taken some notes down on lessons learned, and what would you do 
differently?
    Ms. Sherman. I think that right now we are very focused on 
helping President Zelensky and the Ukrainians ensure that they 
have a country, that they have their sovereign territory, that 
they have their future. There will be many lessons learned out 
of this, Congressman. And I hope we will learn those lessons 
together.
    Mr. Green. Thank you.
    Mr. Malinowski [presiding]. Thank you. And if I may add one 
comment, I think one of the most extraordinary things this 
Administration has done, and I've sometimes been critical of 
it, was to warn the world, including to warn the government of 
Ukraine about the near certainty of this invasion. Many people 
did not believe it.
    (Simultaneous speaking.)
    Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with you on that. We 
are in agreement there. Thank you.
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Malinowski [presiding]. I now recognize Representative 
Ted Deutch of Florida for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Deputy Secretary 
Sherman, nice to see you. Thanks for joining us today. I want 
to talk about a couple of issues, and I want to start with the 
premise that I think we all share, that human rights needs to 
be front and center in our foreign policy.
    And the President signed legislation to ban imports from 
China's Xinjiang region, punish the Chinese Government for 
genocide of the Uyghurs. This is as critical an issue today as 
it was at the end of December when the President signed that 
legislation into law. And I would just start by asking you for 
any updates that you can provide on the Administration's 
efforts to address this ongoing atrocity.
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you. And indeed, an ongoing atrocity it 
is. And the Secretary early on called this a genocide and the 
Administration and the President as well.
    We have certainly called upon the PRC authorities to 
immediately release all arbitrarily detained people, abolish 
the internment camps, cease forced sterilization, end all 
torture, stop prosecuting Uyghurs and members of other ethnic 
and religious minority groups in Xinjiang. We have delivered 
this message forcefully and directly to President Xi, to Yang 
Jiechi, to Foreign Minister Wang Yi, to the Ambassador here, me 
directly in my meetings in Tianjin with Xie Feng and with 
Foreign Minister Wang Yi.
    We continue to work with our partners and allies to promote 
accountability for this in every way that we possibly can. We 
coordinated the imposition of sanctions and other actions by 
the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, European Union. It 
sends such a strong signal that the PRC then put sanctions on 
members of European Parliament. But we stayed together to make 
sure that people understand that we will take the reaction and 
the response, but we will not back away from what has occurred 
here and the accountability that must be achieved.
    Mr. Deutch. I appreciate it. I would just ask one followup 
to that. Is there movement on or is there a reason the U.S. 
hasn't accepted Uyghurs as prioritized refugees at this point?
    Ms. Sherman. I do not know the answer to that question, 
Congressman. I will get you an answer.
    Mr. Deutch. There are a lot of us who would be interested 
in that response. Appreciate that. Let me turn, Madam Deputy 
Secretary, to the fact that, as a lot of my colleagues have 
already mentioned, the war in Ukraine has pulled the world's 
attention west.
    And there are those in the region that I spent a lot of 
time focused on in the Middle East and continue to question 
U.S. commitment to the region. How has China viewed accusations 
of U.S. pullback from the Middle East particularly when we know 
that China is always more than happy to sell its weapons to our 
partners. And does China see an opening in the Middle East?
    Ms. Sherman. I think the PRC looks for an opening 
everywhere quite frankly. And one of the things I think we've 
all come to understand is they are present and aggressive on 
every continent in this world. And that's certainly true in the 
Middle East as well, though I think--and I know you know this 
quite well, Congressman--the Negev Summit that just occurred 
that Secretary Blinken attended showed the solidarity among 
many nations in the Middle East to work together, not only to 
push back threats but also to increase prosperity of the people 
in the region.
    Mr. Deutch. I do, and I appreciated that and in particular 
the Secretary's participation and leadership there. Last 
question, do you believe that the Administration's strong 
leadership and rallying support for Ukraine in standing up 
against Russia, does that strong leadership seem to our 
partners in the Indo-Pacific region to be what they should 
expect from the U.S. vis-a-vis China, or do they view it as 
limited to a Western conflict?
    Ms. Sherman. Oh, I hope they do not see it as just about a 
Western conflict. The United States has worked very hard to 
affirm ASEAN's centrality, to support APEC, to create a new 
mechanism, the Quad, Japan, Australia, the United States, and 
India, to underscore the East Asia Summit, APEC, to say that 
regional alliances, partnerships are very critical.
    We obviously have critical treaty allies in the Indo-
Pacific. So I hope people understand that what President Biden 
said when he became President that we were going to establish 
our partnerships and our alliances, once again, we thought they 
were valuable, that they mattered, that we have done so and 
we've done so in every part of the world.
    Mr. Deutch. Thank you very much. Thanks for being with us.
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you.
    Mr. Malinowski [presiding]. Thank you. The chair recognizes 
Representative Andy Barr of Kentucky.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Deputy Secretary 
Sherman, thank you for being here today. I just came from the 
Financial Services Committee where I had an opportunity to ask 
Secretary Yellen this same question about the gapping loophole 
in our sanctions regime on Ukraine related to energy-related 
transactions.
    There's a general license that OPEC has included in the 
sanctions on Russian banks and the Russian Central Bank that 
allows for energy-related transactions to continue to flow 
through to Moscow, admittedly for sensitivities with our 
European allies who are overdependent on Russian energy. But 
this is what is financing this war. These energy-related 
transactions are supplying Putin with the hard currency that he 
needs to execute this unprovoked aggression against the 
innocent people of Ukraine.
    Would the Administration, both Treasury and the State 
Department, shift approach here and consider my legislation, 
the No Energy Revenues for Russian Hostilities Act, which would 
create an escrow mechanism which is similar to what we do with 
Iran. It would allow for specific waivers where some 
transactions would be allowed to go through by Treasury to help 
our European allies. But then the proceeds of those 
transactions would go in an escrow and released to Russia only 
for humanitarian purposes if they withdraw from Ukraine, kind 
of a carrot approach, not just a stick.
    Ms. Sherman. What did Secretary Yellen who knows----
    (Simultaneous speaking.)
    Mr. Barr. She was open to it, and Adeyemo was open to it as 
well. I want to know what the State Department thinks.
    Ms. Sherman. The State Department works very closely with 
Treasury on making these kinds of judgments. I think, 
Congressman, you may not have heard yet that we, in fact, did 
full blocking sanctions on Sberbank today. So I think that 
you've also seen Germany take action regarding Gazprom and that 
financial channel yesterday. So I think that everyone is 
thinking through concepts like you've put on the table. And I 
hope we will continue----
    Mr. Barr. Thank you.
    Ms. Sherman [continuing]. To work together to see what we 
can do.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you for your open mindedness on that 
because Zelensky is asking for tougher sanctions. This is the 
way to do it. I urge your consideration.
    Security aid to Ukraine, I appreciate the announcement of 
additional 100 million dollars in security systems for Ukraine 
from last evening. That is the right direction. But there's 
still more than a billion dollars left in funds that Congress 
has appropriated for Ukraine to back-fill stocks.
    I'm talking about Javelins and Stingers. And by the way, 
this is not just for Ukraine. Representative Hsiao, Taiwan, 
there's several orders for Stingers that have not yet been 
delivered to Taiwan. We need deterrents. We need it now. What 
is the status of delivering these weapon systems to our allies 
under siege, both Ukraine and Taiwan?
    Ms. Sherman. Congressman, we were looking at each one of 
those cases in terms of Europe, case by case to see what we can 
do and what's appropriate for us to do and what's possible for 
us to do, and working with our partners and allies because it's 
not just about us. There are 30 countries involved in providing 
weapons to Ukraine.
    And where Taiwan is concerned, we are very, very focused on 
what Taiwan needs. And I'll be glad to get you an update on 
deliveries.
    Mr. Barr. They need that now. They need that now. And I'd 
encourage the State Department to move with haste on that. What 
about inclusion of Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Economic 
Framework? I think that would be a strong signal that we stand 
with Taiwan.
    Ms. Sherman. I have heard that from a number of members, 
both bipartisan today. We haven't made any final decisions yet 
about membership. And we'll certainly take advise from Congress 
under advisement.
    Mr. Barr. I think that's a very important signal to send. 
If we're moving forward with this economic framework, we cannot 
exclude Taiwan. I think that would be an invitation for 
aggression.
    The other point is--and this is out of your jurisdiction 
but more of an editorial comment to the USTR. We need a 
bilateral trade agreement with Taiwan.
    Final question on Oceania, again, kind of echoing my 
colleagues. Last month, the Solomon Islands announced the 
drafting of a security agreement with China. We know China has 
its eyes set on Oceania. And yet it was not until just 2 weeks 
ago that Ambassador Yun was appointed as the Special 
Presidential Envoy. We need action and we need action now. Your 
reaction?
    Ms. Sherman. We are very concerned about the Solomon 
Islands. We are quite engaged with them. We are very glad that 
we now have a Presidential envoy. And Ambassador Yun is raring 
to go and underway. And we shared the concerns, and he will be 
a terrific compact negotiator.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Malinowski [presiding]. The chair recognizes 
Representative Omar of Minnesota, 5 minutes.
    Ms. Omar. Thank you, Chairman. The Biden Administration's 
Indo-Pacific strategy says that the United States has for a 
long time seen Asia merely as an arena for geopolitical 
competition. I'm grateful to see that framing. I agree.
    One of the things I think was profound, moral, and 
strategic mistake in the last cold war was our support for 
brutal dictators in the name of having a common enemy. I would 
hope that most Americans look back at our long relationship 
with Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in Indonesia, Rios Montt in 
Guatemala, and feel the same determination. I do not want to 
repeat those historical injustices.
    What worries me is that this time we seem willing to let 
Modi be our new Pinochet. Some in the foreign policy world seem 
eager to let Duterte or Marcos be our new Suharto. In the whole 
Indo-Pacific strategy, there are only two references to human 
rights.
    One of those is a reference to how China is undermining 
them. Nobody doubts that. China's human rights record is 
atrocious and that is well known. But I ask, what about Modi in 
India? How are we promoting a free and open region by 
supporting Modi?
    So I ask you, why has the Biden Administration been so 
reluctant to criticize Modi's government on human rights?
    Ms. Sherman. Congresswomen, President Biden said when he 
became President that human rights would be at the center of 
our foreign policy. And I can assure you in every interaction I 
have had with any government where we have concerns about their 
human rights record, it has been part of that dialog. That is 
true for the Secretary of State. That is true for the President 
of the United States.
    I wore this pin this morning for a reason. This eagle was 
Madeleine Albright's signature pin. It has her signature on the 
back of it. She was a dear friend of mine, a business partner, 
but also my boss when I was Counselor for the State Department.
    She fought for democracy and human rights her entire life. 
She was so proud that President Biden made human rights at the 
center of his policy. So I can assure you that every single----
    Ms. Omar. So what do you think----
    Ms. Sherman [continuing]. Person at the State Department 
raises these issues and presses them.
    Ms. Omar. What do you think is the root of that reluctancy 
to call out Modi's government for the human rights violations 
there?
    Ms. Sherman. I think it is important that we talk with 
countries with whom we have multiple interests about our human 
rights concerns, that we meet with civil society, that we deal 
with these issues, that we support NGO's who are pressing, that 
we support journalists and the freedom of journalists. We 
mentioned earlier today the Secretary just met with Maria Ressa 
who has spoken out and gotten a Nobel Peace Prize for it but 
also threats against her life on a constant basis, that we 
reinforce voices for human rights in countries, even where we 
have many other agendas with the government of those countries.
    I think you will see that everywhere. When I went to India 
the last time as the Deputy Secretary of State, I met with the 
LGBTQI+ community. I have to tell you 5 years ago, no such 
meeting would exist. And it is partly because of the advocacy 
of NGO's and civil society and our affirmation of them that 
people have more freedom than that once had. And we will 
continue to pursue this agenda in every way possible.
    Ms. Omar. I really appreciate that sentiment. And I push 
because when your predecessor was here, I asked the same 
question. What will it take? How much does the Modi 
Administration have to criminalize the act of being Muslim in 
India for us to say something?
    And I ask you again, what will it take for us to outwardly 
criticize the actions that the Modi Administration is taking 
against its Muslim minorities in India? Because when we remain 
silent and the situation gets out of control in the way that it 
did with the Rohingyas, we, all of a sudden, show our interest 
in whatever genocide that's taking place. But we have an 
opportunity now to lead and make sure that there is a 
deterrence in the actions that they are taking as our partners.
    Ms. Sherman. Congresswomen, I agree. The importance that we 
stand up for every religion, every ethnicity, every race, every 
quality of diversity in this world and certainly in our own 
country. We are not perfect either. I stand up for the rights 
of minorities and difference here in this country. And we have 
to do so around the world.
    Ms. Omar. I do hope we make a practice of standing up, not 
just to our adversaries but to our allies as well.
    Ms. Sherman. Absolutely, absolutely.
    Ms. Omar. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Malinowski [presiding]. I recognize Representative 
Meuser of Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Meuser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, 
Deputy Secretary Sherman, for being with us. Deputy Secretary, 
has the Biden Administration learned from this crisis that what 
many do describe radical Green New Deal policies and basically 
an assault on domestic energy, have created dangerous 
vulnerabilities for transatlantic security.
    Ms. Sherman. I'm not sure what you're referring to, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Meuser. The weakening of our national security and our 
economy through assault basically on our domestic energy policy 
which is, in the end, causing us to purchase from Russia. You 
really do not know what I mean, Deputy Secretary?
    Ms. Sherman. I understand what you're saying. I think our 
oil importation from Russia is about one--it's a very small 
percentage of our----
    (Simultaneous speaking.)
    Ms. Sherman. But to your point, I think that the Europeans 
would say to you that one of the things they have learned is 
that their reliance on Russian oil and gas made the vulnerable. 
And I think they would say to you that it proves the point that 
we have to look at renewable sources of energy.
    It's not that oil and gas aren't going to continue to be 
important for some years to come. It is absolutely true there 
will be a transition. But it is also absolutely true that if we 
want a planet for our grandchildren----
    (Simultaneous speaking.)
    Ms. Sherman [continuing]. You have to have renewables and 
move in that direction.
    Mr. Meuser. That's fine. So the Administration will support 
U.S. fuel industries and LNG exports that will enable U.S. 
energy independence. Is that something that----
    (Simultaneous speaking.)
    Ms. Sherman. We already have.
    Mr. Meuser. We already have? OK.
    Ms. Sherman. Sure. We already have.
    Mr. Meuser. Madam Secretary, look at the price of gasoline. 
Look at the depletion. We're well over a million barrels a day 
less. That's inaccurate. No data supports the comment you just 
made. We're still purchasing oil from Russia as we speak.
    Ms. Sherman. The issues that we face in terms of the price 
of gasoline is multi-faceted. And----
    (Simultaneous speaking.)
    Mr. Meuser. Not really. If we were energy independent, it 
would've stayed very, very stable. See, if you want to 
complicate the issue, that's one thing. But if we want to 
simplify it, because it's such a catastrophe for most American 
families, we can do that too. Energy independence with a 
transition toward green new energies and renewables is a 
reasonable, economically feasible plan. But the radical 
policies that have taken place, OK, have----
    Ms. Sherman. What has been----
    Mr. Meuser [continuing]. Changed.
    Ms. Sherman. What has been radical, Congressman?
    Mr. Meuser. We have hundreds of thousands of less barrels 
being produced locally. There's an assault on the financial 
community based upon any involvement they had with the oil 
industry. There's no permits being issued.
    Pipelines are not something that's being passed. I'm not 
going to go through it all. But everything I just stated is 
completely factual.
    You know what? I did not expect that. I thought there would 
be some reasonableness to the realities of our economy and our 
national security. But I guess I'm not going to receive that.
    Can I ask you this? The Biden Administration promised--you 
know what? I'm just going to yield back. I'm going to yield the 
reminder of my time to Representative Kim. Thank you.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Mr. Meuser, for 
yielding. I'll switch gears just a little bit. And I want to 
thank you, Madam Secretary, for committing earlier to appoint a 
special envoy on North Korea human rights issues.
    However, I heard the same thing from Secretary Blinken a 
year ago in this very hearing in the seat that you are sitting. 
And since then, we have seen zero progress on an appointment 
since then. So I know you've spun this earlier, but I would 
like to hear from you. Will it be the end of this year? Could 
we get a firm commitment on this?
    Ms. Sherman. I cannot give you a time table today because 
we want to make sure we find the right person, Congresswomen. 
And we are----
    Mrs. Kim of California. I think we're hearing the same 
thing from----
    Ms. Sherman. I appreciate it. I'll try to get you a more 
specific answer.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Sure. All right. Well, I just want 
to conclude by saying that the North Korea--we understand the 
North Korean people are suffering enough. And if we are 
actually serious about addressing the human rights abuses, 
globally, we need to follow through with an action. And I hope 
that both parties in Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, 
we agree. The Administration needs to make this a priority and 
appoint someone in the immediate future, hopefully soon. Thank 
you.
    Ms. Sherman. I understand your point completely. And I 
think the horrifying situation for the people in North Korea 
deserve that.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Malinowski [presiding]. Thank you. Just a note, U.S. 
oil imports from Russia significantly increased between 2016 
and 2020. So I assume there was a radical Green New Deal attack 
on U.S. oil production during those years. I now yield to 
Representative Abigail Spanberger of Virginia for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Spanberger. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I 
want to thank you for being here today. It's just a followup to 
one of my colleagues asking a question.
    Is it correct--and I will give you the source. I'm on the 
U.S. Energy Information website that's eia.gov for anyone 
following along at home. The U.S. total annual crude oil 
exports have increased every year since 2010 and reached a 
record high in 2020.
    I know this isn't within your portfolio. But is there any 
reason to think that these statistics are incorrect?
    Ms. Sherman. No. And in fact, Congresswomen, one of my 
colleagues just reminded me. We're producing more oil 
domestically now than any other country. And as I think 
everyone knows, we now are releasing a million barrels a day 
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which is unprecedented and 
have mobilized the rest of the world to follow suit.
    Ms. Spanberger. And one more thing, again, outside of your 
normal purview, Madam Deputy Secretary. But the U.S. crude oil 
imports fell to about 5.88 million in 2020. So U.S. oil imports 
feel in the year 2020. Also, any reason to doubt the figures 
from this----
    Ms. Sherman. No.
    Ms. Spanberger [continuing]. Site? And also notably, the 
United States was a total net energy exporter in both 2019 and 
2020.
    Ms. Sherman. Sounds correct to me.
    Ms. Spanberger. Fantastic. And Mr. Chairman, I'll want to 
supply some of this documentation for the record.
    [The information offered by Ms. Spanberger follows:]

    The information was not provided for final printing.

    Ms. Spanberger. Madam Deputy Secretary, thank you so much 
for being here. I have some questions about supply chains and 
semiconductors. Certainly the semiconductor supply chain will 
be critical to U.S. and economic global security for decades to 
come.
    We know that China is currently trying to expand and has 
been for some time, control over parts of that supply chain by 
taking control of, among other things, critical minerals. And 
we also know that some of our key partners are important nodes 
in the supply chain, be it Taiwan, South Korea, Japan.
    So are we as a country prepared if there's some 
geopolitical instability within the Indo-Pacific that could 
disrupt this supply chain, create shortages, or make other 
challenges--create challenges within these nodes? And are we 
activity developing contingency plans to prepare for such a 
potential risk?
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you for raising that. The supply chain 
is one of the critical nodes of the Indo-Pacific Economic 
Framework. And quite obviously, semiconductors which are so 
critical to so much of what we do in the world and our future 
is very much a part of that and the critical minerals that are 
the inputs for that as well.
    Our Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, Energy Affairs, 
Jose Fernandez has this as his highest priority. We are working 
very closely with Japan, South Korea, with Taiwan to look at 
this issue. And we certainly have seen American manufacturers 
rethink their own approach to semiconductors and manufacturing 
of semiconductors and making sure that we have access to the 
critical minerals as necessary.
    Ms. Spanberger. Wonderful. And totally switching gears, 
thank you for your answers on that. We have a lot of people--
and I know some of my colleagues have already touched on it--
make consistent comparisons or parallels between the Russian 
invasion of Ukraine and risks to Taiwan from the People's 
Republic of China.
    So I want to just pull us back from this discussion and say 
generally speaking, do you think these two situations are 
analogous? Making these comparisons, are there factors we 
should be considering that present differences? And are there 
any risks from potentially putting these two potential 
conflicts in the same bucket?
    Ms. Sherman. So I think each situation in national security 
and foreign policy is sui generis. Everything is different. 
Context is different. Time is different, where the world is at 
that point, what the geopolitics are.
    So they're each sui generis. At the same time, we hope--and 
I said this earlier today--that the PRC gets some lessons 
learned out of this. I think that many people in the world were 
surprised at the strength of our alliances and partnerships.
    I think that Putin fully expected that NATO would fall 
apart, that the European Union would be divided. And instead, 
what Putin has gotten is a strengthened NATO, a strengthened 
alliance, a stronger EU taking unprecedented action that they 
have never taken before. The EU set aside money to help 
countries pay for weapons to be sent to Ukraine. They've never 
done that before.
    We've had countries around the world change what they do. 
Japan has changed what it has normally done, New Zealand. 
Switzerland who has always been neutral, always, became non-
neutral in the circumstances by calling out Russia.
    So I hope there's some lessons learned that sanctions bite, 
that we will keep them coming, that there will be consequences 
for actions, that force is not the answer. Force is not the 
answer, and that the international rules-based order matters. 
And we're going to stand up for it.
    Ms. Spanberger. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Malinowski [presiding]. Thank you. So we're going to do 
two more rounds, 5 minutes. Deputy Secretary Sherman has been 
very generous with her time, not just today but in repeatedly 
coming back to us. And I want to encourage you to keep on doing 
that by keeping our commitments.
    So we're going to go to Representative Pfluger and then 
Representative Houlahan and cut it off there. And I apologize 
to members who did not get a chance to ask if there are any 
still left in the queue. So Representative Pfluger for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Deputy Secretary, 
thank you for being here. Before I start with my questions, 
please pass my sincere gratitude to President Biden for meeting 
with Paula and Joey Reed last week for 40 minutes. It's 
incredibly important that we get him home. He has tuberculosis. 
He's coughing up blood every minute. Vladimir Putin knows this. 
We need to bring him home. We will support the Administration 
in this.
    Ms. Sherman. Thank you.
    Mr. Pfluger. Last week, I introduced H.R. 7139 which is 
Removing Arms from Terrorists Through Sanctions Act. This 
legislation would codify the previous Administration's 
executive order which basically implemented sanctions designed 
to prohibit rogue States from transferring weapons to Iran.
    Defense officials have recently testified to Congress that 
China wants to sell arms to Iran. And under the sunsets of the 
2015 deal, the U.N. arms embargo has expired as of October 
2020. So in response to the executive orders, my bill would 
codify that executive order from the previous Administration to 
threaten the second sanctions on China and any firms that were 
intending to transfer arms to Iran.
    So can you assure us that executive order will be kept in 
place as part of any deal that you're working?
    Ms. Sherman. Congressman, we take a look at every piece of 
legislation. We certainly share your interest in there not be 
technology transferred and weapons transferred to Iran that in 
fact can be used against our interests. And so we'll take a 
close look at that.
    Mr. Pfluger. Can you assure us that it will be kept in 
place?
    Ms. Sherman. I cannot assure you because----
    Mr. Pfluger. You are the expert.
    Ms. Sherman [continuing]. I need to look at the exact 
language.
    Mr. Pfluger. You are the expert on the Iranian nuclear 
deal, yes?
    Ms. Sherman. I do not know. I certainly----
    Mr. Pfluger. You've been part of this for seven or 8 years.
    Ms. Sherman [continuing]. Worked on the Iran nuclear deal. 
That's correct.
    Mr. Pfluger. Right. I think everyone in the country knows 
that you orchestrated the 2015 deal and now we're part of the 
orchestration of this deal. Can you assure us that this 
executive order will remain in place?
    Ms. Sherman. Congressman, I need to look at the executive 
order. I need to look at your language.
    Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully urge this 
committee to bring this forward. I mean, if we're serious about 
deterring Iran and therefore any rogue actors like China, we 
would also consider this. I mean, it's very disappointing that 
you do not know what the language is of that.
    And I have serious questions about this deal in general. I 
think we're in glove safe land right now and extremely 
disappointing that you're not able to comment on that deal and 
on the efficacy of whether or not that executive order mean 
within the deal that you are negotiating.
    Shifting gears, the energy security and given the 
importance of the Indo-Pacific and especially knowing what our 
national security strategy says, what can you tell me about 
what the strategy is for the Administration to ensure that 
products like LNG get to our partners and allies?
    Ms. Sherman. I think it's very important that we help our 
partners and allies through this energy crisis. The President 
as I just noted a moment ago has done an unprecedented release 
from the strategic petroleum reserve and gotten countries all 
over the world to match our efforts so that we can help 
consumers everywhere and particularly in our own country, of 
course, to lower these gas prices. So I think this is something 
we all are working on collectively in a bipartisan fashion. 
It's quite critical.
    Mr. Pfluger. Do you believe that the oil and gas executives 
are price gouging Americans?
    Ms. Sherman. Congressman, I'm not knowledgeable enough to 
make that determination.
    Mr. Pfluger. Well, your comments on the SPR indicate that 
you are.
    Ms. Sherman. I am not an expert in this arena.
    Mr. Pfluger. OK. Well, that's good to know. We've had a lot 
of discussions on energy security in this hearing. And across 
the hall, there's another hearing where that's being suggested.
    Just theoretically, are we more secure today than we were 2 
years ago, this country, under the policies that have been 
implemented?
    Ms. Sherman. I obviously believe, Congressman, that 
President Biden is doing everything he possibly can and 
succeeding in ensuring the security of the United States of 
America. That's my solemn obligation. That's his solemn 
obligation as the President of the United States. And he takes 
it as a solemn obligation. You should know him well enough to 
know that when he took that oath of office to secure our 
country, he took it seriously.
    Mr. Pfluger. I hope that you will consider the text of the 
previous Administration's executive order that does deter 
China, that does deter those types of actions from transferring 
weapons into the hands of the largest State sponsor of terror, 
one who actually fired weapons onto or nearby our own 
facilities in Erbil, Iraq.
    Ms. Sherman. I share your concerns, Congressman, and I will 
look at your legislation.
    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Malinowski [presiding]. Chair recognizes Representative 
Houlahan, Pennsylvania.
    Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Madam 
Under Secretary Sherman for this conversation. I very much 
appreciate your testimony, and I appreciate that you noted in 
that testimony the impact that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is 
having and could potentially have on the Indo-Pacific region.
    We know that China violates Taiwan's airspace and 
territorial waters regularly, not to mention the repressive 
tactic in Tibet and the atrocities that they're committing 
against the Uyghurs and Xinjiang. I do not believe that 
Russia's inability to easily dominate Ukraine will necessarily 
indicate to China that continuing their destabilization efforts 
is a bad idea.
    I also do not think frankly that the United States has done 
nearly enough to help support Ukraine in their effects to repel 
the Russian incursion. And I'm afraid that if China does indeed 
invade Taiwan in the future that we will be having these exact 
same conversations and the exact same delaying discussions 
about it and when to provide aid or send weapons to the people 
of Taiwan as they suffer as well.
    Can you please speak to what actions the United States is 
currently taking or perhaps should be taking to support Taiwan 
and to make sure that an invasion is an unappealing as possible 
to China?
    Ms. Sherman. Congresswomen, we share your concerns that 
China not consider taking Taiwan by force, that there would 
be--and we have said they know that there will be consequences 
for their back-filling Russia and what is happening in Ukraine 
by giving them any kind of material support. And we have been 
quite clear publicly that we believe that it is I wrong and 
that there will be a reaction if the PRC tries to take Taiwan 
by force.
    United States sold more than 30 billion dollars' worth of 
arms to Taiwan since 2009. We have more than 400 foreign 
military cell cases in implementation. Since 2017, we've 
authorized with your support 18 billion dollars in foreign 
military sales to Taiwan.
    In addition, direct commercial sales authorizations for end 
use by the Taiwan authority during this period totaled over 2.3 
billion dollars. The Departments of State and Defense are 
looking at the entire defense trade enterprise to see where 
efficiencies can be made and get those articles to them more 
quickly. And we've talked today about ensuring those timelines 
speed up.
    We've also had very direct discussion about what kind of 
capabilities Taiwan needs. They're known as asymmetric 
approaches. The President has been very thoughtful about this. 
He sent a delegation to Taiwan of former senior U.S. security 
officials led by the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen.
    The selection of those individuals sent an important signal 
about the bipartisan U.S. commitment. It was quite a bipartisan 
delegation. And our commitment to Taiwan is democracy and 
demonstrates that our commitment to Taiwan remains rock solid. 
We'll continue to support Taiwan with training and encourage an 
innovative and asymmetric security posture to help them in 
their self defense.
    Ms. Houlahan. Thank you. I guess what I would want to 
emphasize is that we could've probably had similar 
conversations about Ukraine a while ago and felt as though we 
were doing everything we could then as well. And we clearly 
have not been--we now know that's not the case.
    And so there's just so many parallels and analogous 
situations here that we can learn from. And there are really 
strong teaching moments that we should be experiencing right 
now. And so I just really do not want to see us being here in 
this situation on the other side of the globe.
    With my remaining minute, you also mentioned in your 
testimony that you've expressed concerns to the PRC about their 
growing strategic alignment with Russia. Could you share to the 
degree that you're able to their reaction and what is the plan 
to continue to discouraging them from aligning further with 
Russia?
    Ms. Sherman. The President was very direct with Xi Jinping, 
Jake Sullivan with Yang Jiechi, the Secretary with Wang Yi, I 
with the Ambassador here that there would be consequences if 
they provided material support. We now have Ambassador Nick 
Burns out of quarantine. As our Ambassador to the PRC, he is 
delivering this message as well.
    We are very focused on making sure that they understand 
what choices they're making here. And for a country that has 
long said that they believe in sovereignty, territorial 
integrity, the right of countries to choose their political 
system and their own foreign policy, we hope they will apply 
that here as well.
    I think we've all seen indications that they are conflicted 
somewhat. That's not to say they do not see Russia as a 
partner. I'm not naive. They do.
    But they've also been public to say it is not an alliance. 
And they certainly--I think even in the meeting the other day--
were horrified by what happened in Bucha. Who could not have 
been by seeing that video?
    So I think this is an ongoing circumstance and 
relationship. And we're going to have to keep working at it. 
Thank you for your question.
    Mr. Malinowski [presiding]. Thank you so much. Thank you, 
Madam Secretary. I'll just say in conclusion, thinking about 
Mr. Pfluger's question to you, are we safer?
    And it occurs to me that this contest that we're in with 
Russia over Ukraine did not begin in 2022. You could argue it 
began in 2014. The contest between the democratic and 
authoritarian world was underway in Syria 10 years ago, in Hong 
Kong, in the South China Sea.
    We have not been safe for a very long time. But we are 
standing upright now with our allies, leading our allies, and 
demonstrating that without the United States, there would be 
very little hope for democracy in the world. So I'm very glad 
we did not listen to those who are saying we should pull out of 
NATO, we should pull our troops out of Asia, South Korea, and 
Japan, that we should pull our troops out of Europe. And that 
was a very, very close call.
    So thank you so much for your leadership, Secretary 
Blinken, and the President. Look forward to our next 
opportunity to have these discussions with you.
    And the hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:06 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                        APPENDIX
                                
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


         STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]